EFTA02656461.pdf

From: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 8:14 AM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Marital Trust All silly, they can makes final distribution of 2 =illion dollars and you and Valeria release all. Max Harry children and you=receive releases -easy On =on, May 21, 2018 at 6:46 AM Noam Chomsky wrote: the latest. Mass law prevents beneficiaries to divide up a trust and liquidate it? Forwarded message From: Harry Chomsky Date: Sun, May 20, 2018 at 9:19 PM Subject Y Diana Chomsky <=iv> It sounds like you would like me t= say yes or no to your proposal exactly as you have stated it, without fur=her discussion. I can't do that. Here are some reasons: 1. It's not permitted under Massachusetts trust law. I agre=d to certain obligations when I became trustee, and I have to make sure to=discharge them faithfully. Even if you tell me you don't care ab=ut my fiduciary responsibility, the law says I'm responsible anyway. 2. It's not specific. For instance, you mention dividing =he trust into two parts, but you don't say what each part would consis= of. 3. It's not complete. For instance, you haven'= proposed any way to shield us and Max from liability for past actions. It might be possible to work out all of these problems and devel=p a legal, specific and complete agreement based on the framework you'=e proposed. Would you like to engage with me in some kind of process=to attempt that? Other than having your lawyer talk to mine, do you =ave any suggestion about how to do so? EFTA_R1_01902186 EFTA02656461  On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Noam Choms=y wrote: My own=view is different. To me the proposal I suggested seems to be a very=simple way of settling this matter, which to me is extremely troubling. =AO I realize that this is just another case of a longstanding difference i= the way we approach these problems, a difference that has been clear ever=since we were discussing the interest on the loan from the Trust and found=that we could not communicate because I mistakenly assumed that it was a d=scussion among family members while your letters made it very clear and ex=licit that you saw it as a legal issue to be settled among lawyers and Bai=co, perhaps with a mediator in the adversary proceeding. All matters=l 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 of l=wyers, to make sure that your interests are properly protected. I do='t need any lawyer's advice. The matter is perfectly clear a=d straightforward. So there is no reason for me to hire a lawyer to =eal with the question and to have a lawyer contact yours and initiate a di=cussion in which we all participate. The matter is very sim=le. We can proceed without delay if you agree to settle the issue in=the simple manner that I suggested. As for your proposals i= your letter of March 29, as I wrote you, the letter was so shocking that =t was hard for me to bring myself to respond, but I did, in detail, but de=ided not to send it. Perhaps I should. Will think about it. As for your proposals, my response was the obvious one. ='m sorry for the stress you had to endure, but your efforts were a was=e of time for reasons I had already fully explained before you undertook t=em. As I'm sure you recall, a few years ago, I requested tax pay=ents from the marital trust when my IRA was being rapidly depleted by my a=visers who were distributing half to family and using the other half to pa= management fees and taxes for the entire estate, so that to pay Alex'= medical expenses and the expenses for Wellfleet I had to withdraw excess =unds with exorbitant taxes, all that before withdrawing even a cent to liv= on again with exorbitant taxes. Your response was to refuse the req=est unless I agreed to intrusive and insulting financial investigations --=of a kind I never considered when providing funds to you for something you=needed. I made it clear and explicit at the time that I would not su=mit to this procedure. Since your efforts and proposals simply repea= the same procedure, they were a waste of time. There were=some things in your letter that were correct. You're right that =espite what has happened, I'm still a "wealthy man," with in=ome well above the median, though lacking a pension and accumulated proper=y, not at the level of my peers. Furthermore, I can supplement my in=ome by teaching large undergraduate courses, something I'd never done =nd that is not that common for people approaching 90, but something that l=enjoy. And you too are a wealthy man, for the same reasons: the reas=ns are that I've worked hard all my life, lived fairly simply (and liv= even more simply today), and was therefore able to put aside enough money=to ensure that my children and grandchildren are very well cared for, inde=initely. But I again suggest that we put all of=this aside, and deal quickly and simply with what appears to be the one ou=standing issue: dividing the Marital trust and then dissolving it, all ver= simple, needing no lawyers, at least on my part. 0 On Fri, M=y 18, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Harry Chomsk wrote: 2 EFTA_R1_01902187 EFTA02656462  This is an interesting idea. We =ould consider it further, but I would need the advice of my lawyer =94 and I assume you would want your own lawyer's advice as well =94 to ensure that any agreement we reach is consistent with Massachusetts =aw and satisfies the interests, needs, and obligations of everybody involv=d. Perhaps, as a next step, you could ask your lawyer to contact min= and begin a discussion in which we all participate. <=iv>I'm also curious to hear your thoughts about the proposals I sugges=ed in my message on March 29th. 18 at 1(1=5 AM, Noam Chomsky wrote: As I wrote a little while ago, I did write a long respons= to your last -- deeply depressing -- letter, but decided not to send it.=C2 I may return to that letter later but will keep to some factual matt=rs that ought to be cleared up. But now I'm writing=just about one point, which seems to be the core of the problem -- a probl=m, which, again, I don't understand. But let's put that asid=, though I hope we can clear it up soon. All of this is a pain=ul cloud that I never would have imagined would darken my late years. The core issue seems to be the marital trust. I&=39;ve explained how M and I actually set it up with Eric, which seemed to =s just plain common sense. I've also explained Max's differe=t interpretation. I've asked you for yours, but haven't hear= it. But let's put that aside too, and just resolve the matter, =s can be done very simply -- with no need for lawyers to explain the fiduc=ary responsibility of the trustee I appointed years ago to replace me, som=thing I never paid any attention to before. The s=mple solution is to divide the trust into two parts. One part will g= to you, to use as you wish. One part will go to me, for me to use w=thout any investigations of my financial situation and other such intrusio=s that I won't accept. Then the trust can simply be dissolved, a=d it is all over. So I suggest that we proceed th=s way, and end the whole matter -- at least, whatever it is that I underst=nd about what is of concern to you. 0 =br class="m_-3285340759147473886m_- 1160585636453940836m_225669378044474=36m_6139890302334092639m_-5954415624223101850gmail-Apple- interchange-newli=e's> please note confidential, may be=attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is i=tended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of JEE<=r>Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any =art thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have rec=ived this communication in error, please notify us 3 EFTA_R1_01902188 EFTA02656463 immediately by re=urn e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> , and destroy this communication an= all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights r=served --0000000000003ad5a8056cb2e139-- conversation-id 5434 date-last-viewed 0 date-received 1526890422 flags 8590195717 gmail-label-ids 7 6 remote-id 822752 4 EFTA_R1_01902189 EFTA02656464