EFTA02657394.pdf

From: Noam Chomsky < > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 7:30 PM To: Harry Chomsky Cc: Avi Chomsky; Diana Chomsky Subject: Re: Marital Trust Sorry, I made the same error as before. I'm find=ng it hard to shake the illusion that we are discussing things within a fa=ily, and are not characters in Bleak House. I'll try to r=member. Below. On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Harry Chomsky < <mailto > wrote: It sounds like you would like me to say yes or no to your pro=osal exactly as you have stated it, without further discussion. I ca='t do that. Here are some reasons: 1. It's not permi=ted under Massachusetts trust law. Can=you -- or perhaps your lawyer -- refer me to the part of Mass Trust Law th=t makes it illegal for beneficiaries to agree on distributing funds from a=marital trust and then liquidate it? I can't find it. <=iv> 1. tzA0 I agreed to certain obligations when I became trustee, and I have to ma=e sure to discharge them faithfully. Even if you tell me you don'=t care about my fiduciary responsibility, the law says I'm responsible=anyway. Your solemn obligations ar= no doubt impressive, but there is an easy way to put them to rest. =imply resign (permitted under Mass law) and then you will have no further =bligations. We can then return to the situation before I appointed y=u to be a trustee, when I was a trustee and there were no problems about f=duciary responsibility -- that was before the transition from family to . 1. It's not specific. For instance, you menti=n dividing the trust into two parts, but you don't say what each part =ould consist of. Co=rect. I left that for discussion, still laboring under my illusions. =So I therefore suggest that you propose what you think would be an appropr=ate split and we can proceed from there. 1. It's not complete. For ins=ance, you haven't proposed any way to shield us and Max from liability=for past actions. I hadn't rea=ized that you are concerned that your past actions might make you legally =iable. But this too can be handled easily. I'm sure that y=ur lawyer can construct some document to protect you from whatever those p=st infractions were, and since I still labor under my old illusions, that =ill suffice. EFTA_R1_01903589 EFTA02657394 However, given y=ur assumptions, we should definitely have ironclad agreements, with batter=es of lawyers an notaries and witnesses, including an agreement that you w=ll not contest my will, something that had never crossed my mind before I =earned about your assumptions -- which, I admit, I'm still having trou=le comprehending. It might be possible to work out all of these proble=s and develop a legal, specific and complete agreement based on the framew=rk you've proposed. Would you like to engage with me in some kin= of process to attempt that? Other than having your lawyer talk to m=ne, do you have any suggestion about how to do so? <=iv> Very simple. Proceed as above On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Noam Chomsky =It <mailto >> wrote: I'm glad that you find the idea interesting and think that you migh= consider it, though you have to consult lawyers first. My =wn view is different. To me the proposal I suggested seems to be a v=ry simple way of settling this matter, which to me is extremely troubling.=C2* I realize that this is just another case of a longstanding differenc= in the way we approach these problems, a difference that has been clear e=er since we were discussing the interest on the loan from the Trust and fo=nd that we could not communicate because I mistakenly assumed that it was = discussion among family members while your letters made it very clear and=explicit that you saw it as a legal issue to be settled among lawyers and =ainco, perhaps with a mediator in the adversary proceeding. All matt=rs I find it very hard to comprehend, and to live with, but so be it. So by all means consult with your lawyer, or perhaps a battery o= lawyers, to make sure that your interests are properly protected. l=don't need any lawyer's advice. The matter is perfectly clea= and straightforward. So there is no reason for me to hire a lawyer =o deal with the question and to have a lawyer contact yours and initiate a=discussion in which we all participate. The matter is very =imple. We can proceed without delay if you agree to settle the issue=in the simple manner that I suggested. As for your proposal= in your letter of March 29, as I wrote you, the letter was so shocking th=t it was hard for me to bring myself to respond, but I did, in detail, but=decided not to send it. Perhaps I should. Will think about it.=/div> As for your proposals, my response was the obvious one..>=A0 I'm sorry for the stress you had to endure, but your efforts were a=waste of time for reasons I had already fully explained before you underto=k them. As I'm sure you recall, a few years ago, I requested tax=payments from the marital trust when my IRA was being rapidly depleted by =y advisers who were distributing half to family and using the other half t= pay management fees and taxes for the entire estate, so that to pay Alex&=39;s medical expenses and the expenses for Wellfleet I had to withdraw exc=ss funds with exorbitant taxes, all that before withdrawing even a cent to=live on again with exorbitant taxes. Your response was to refuse the=request unless I agreed to intrusive and insulting financial investigation= -- of a kind I never considered when 2 EFTA_R1_01903590 EFTA02657395 providing funds to you for something-you needed. I made it clear and explicit at the time that I would no= submit to this procedure. Since your efforts and proposals simply r=peat the same procedure, they were a waste of time. There w=re some things in your letter that were correct. You're right th=t despite what has happened, I'm still a "wealthy man," with=income well above the median, though lacking a pension and accumulated pro=erty, not at the level of my peers. Furthermore, I can supplement my=income by teaching large undergraduate courses, something I'd never do=e and that is not that common for people approaching 90, but something tha= I enjoy. And you too are a wealthy man, for the same reasons: the r=asons are that I've worked hard all my life, lived fairly simply (and =ive even more simply today), and was therefore able to put aside enough mo=ey to ensure that my children and grandchildren are very well cared for, i=definitely. But I again suggest that we put all=of this aside, and deal quickly and simply with what appears to be the one=outstanding issue: dividing the Marital trust and then dissolving it, all =ery simple, needing no lawyers, at least on my part. 0 On Fri= May 18, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Harry Chomsky <awrote: This is an =nteresting idea. We could consider it further, but I would need the =dvice of my lawyer — and I assume you would want your own lawyer&#=9;s advice as well — to ensure that any agreement we reach is cons=stent with Massachusetts law and satisfies the interests, needs, and oblig=tions of everybody involved. Perhaps, as a next step, you could ask =our lawyer to contact mine and begin a discussion in which we all particip=te. I'm also curious to hear your thoughts ab=ut the proposals I suggested in my message on March 29th. On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Noam =homsky < <mailto > wrote: As I wrote a little while ago, I .id write a long response to your last -- deeply depressing -- letter, but =ecided not to send it. I may return to that letter later but will ke=p to some factual matters that ought to be cleared up. =ut now I'm writing just about one point, which seems to be the core of=the problem -- a problem, which, again, I don't understand. But =et's put that aside, though I hope we can clear it up soon. All =f this is a painful cloud that I never would have imagined would dar=en my late years. The core issue seems to be the =arital trust. I've explained how M and I actually set it up with=Eric, which seemed to us just plain common sense. I've also expl=ined Max's different interpretation. I've asked you for your=, but haven't heard it. But let's put that aside too, and ju=t resolve the matter, as can be done very simply - - with no need for lawye=s to explain the fiduciary responsibility of the trustee I appointed years=ago to replace me, something I never paid any attention to before. The simple solution is to divide the trust into two parts= One part will go to you, to use as you wish. One part will go=to me, for me to use without any investigations of my financial situation =nd other such intrusions that I won't accept. Then the trust can=simply be dissolved, and it is all over. So I sug=est that we proceed this way, and end the whole matter -- at least, whatev=r it is that I understand about what is of concern to you. 3 EFTA_R1_01903591 EFTA02657396 <=div> 4 EFTA_R1_01903592 EFTA02657397