EFTA02658284.pdf

From: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 7:17 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Marital Trust thx On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 9:06 PM Noam Chomsky < <mailto > wrote: I'll ask directly On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:26 AM= Jeffrey E. <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]» wrote: The elephant in the room is his sugested sp=it On Mo=, May 21, 2018 at 8:11PM Jeffrey E. <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]» wrote: Ok On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 8:09 PM Noam Chomsky < &g=; wrote: I'd like to hold off on this for a bit. I'm =urious to learn more about Harry's thinking. I'd=like to write to him saying that there's nothing in Mass law that prev=nts beneficiaries from doing as I suggested. He can relieve his conc=rns about future fiduciary responsibility by resigning, and we can return =o the situation before I appointed him trustee, when I was trustee and had=no concerns about fiduciary responsibility. If he feels that he has =arried out past actions that make him liable to some legal process, he sho=ld arrange with his lawyer about ways to protect himself. I would al=o like to ask him more directly than before what he thinks would be a prop=r division. Then we can go on from there. OK?<=div> =div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 2:03 AM, jeffrey E. <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]» wrote: Rich Kahn can talk with Harry if ok with u On Mon, May 2=, 2018 at 10:13 AM jeffrey E. <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]» wrote: EFTA_R1_01904855 EFTA02658284  All silly, they can makes fin=l distribution of 2 million dollars and you and Valeria release all. Max H=rry children and you receive releases - easy On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 6:46 AM Noam Chomsky <mailto > wrote: the latest= Mass law prevents beneficiaries to divide up a trust a=d liquidate it? Forwarded message From: Harry Chomsky <[email protected] <mailtc .net» Date: Sun, May=20, 2018 at 9:19 PM Subject: Re: Marital Trust To: Noam Chomsky <=a href="mailto target="_blank">[email protected]=> Cc: Avi Chomsky <a >, Diana Chomsky /a» It sounds like you would like me to say yes or no to your p=oposal exactly as you have stated it, without further discussion. I =an't do that. Here are some reasons: 1. It's not per=itted under Massachusetts trust law. I agreed to certain obligations=when I became trustee, and I have to make sure to discharge them faithfull=. Even if you tell me you don't care about my fiduciary responsi=ility, the law says I'm responsible anyway. 2. It's not s=ecific. For instance, you mention dividing the trust into two parts,=but you don't say what each part would consist of. 3. It'= not complete. For instance, you haven't proposed any way to shi=ld us and Max from liability for past actions. It might be po=sible to work out all of these problems and develop a legal, specific and =omplete agreement based on the framework you've proposed. Would =ou like to engage with me in some kind of process to attempt that? O=her than having your lawyer talk to mine, do you have any suggestion about=how to do so? On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Noam Chomsky < > wrote: I'm glad that you fi=d the idea interesting and think that you might consider it, though you ha=e to consult lawyers first. 2 EFTA_R1_01904856 EFTA02658285  My own view is different. =To me the proposal I suggested seems to be a very simple way of settling t=is matter, which to me is extremely troubling. I realize that this i= just another case of a longstanding difference in the way we approach the=e 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 commun=cate because I mistakenly assumed that it was a discussion among family me=bers while your letters made it very clear and explicit that you saw it as=a legal issue to be settled among lawyers and Bainco, perhaps with a media=or in the adversary proceeding. All matters I find it very hard to c=mprehend, and to live with, but so be it. So by all means c=nsult with your lawyer, or perhaps a battery of lawyers, to make sure that=your interests are properly protected. I don't need any lawyer&#=9;s advice. The matter is perfectly clear and straightforward. =So there is no reason for me to hire a lawyer to deal with the question an= to have a lawyer contact yours and initiate a discussion in which we all =articipate. The matter is very simple. We can proceed=without delay if you agree to settle the issue in the simple manner that 1=suggested. As for your proposals in your letter of March 29= as I wrote you, the letter was so shocking that it was hard for me to bri=g myself to respond, but I did, in detail, but decided not to send it.40=A0 Perhaps I should. Will think about it. As for you= proposals, my response was the obvious one. I'm sorry for the s=ress you had to endure, but your efforts were a waste of time for reasons = had already fully explained before you undertook them. As I'm s=re you recall, a few years ago, I requested tax payments from the marital =rust when my IRA was being rapidly depleted by my advisers who were distri=uting half to family and using the other half to pay management fees and t=xes for the entire estate, so that to pay Alex's medical expenses and =he expenses for Wellfleet I had to withdraw excess funds with exorbitant t=xes, all that before withdrawing even a cent to live on again with exorbit=nt taxes. Your response was to refuse the request unless I agreed to=intrusive and insulting financial investigations -- of a kind I never cons=dered when providing funds to you for something you needed. I made i= clear and explicit at the time that I would not submit to this procedure.=C2* Since your efforts and proposals simply repeat the same procedure, t=ey were a waste of time. There were some things in your let=er that were correct. You're right that despite what has happene=, I'm still a "wealthy man," with income well above the medi=n, though lacking a pension and accumulated property, not at the level of =y peers. Furthermore, I can supplement my income by teaching large u=dergraduate courses, something I'd never done and that is not that com=on for people approaching 90, but something that I enjoy. And you to= are a wealthy man, for the same reasons: the reasons are that I've wo=ked hard all my life, lived fairly simply (and live even more simply today=, and was therefore able to put aside enough money to ensure that my child=en and grandchildren are very well cared for, indefinitely. But I again suggest that we put all of this aside, and deal qu=ckly and simply with what appears to be the one outstanding issue: dividin= the Marital trust and then dissolving it, all very simple, needing no law=ers, at least on my part. 0 On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 1:44 PM, =arry Chomsk <mailto wrote: This is an interesting idea. We could consider it furthe=, but I would need the advice of my lawyer — and I assume you woul= want your own lawyer's advice as well — to ensure that any ag=eement 3 EFTA_R1_01904857 EFTA02658286 we reach is consistent with Massachusetts law and satisfies the int=rests, needs, and obligations of everybody involved. Perhaps, as a n=xt step, you could ask your lawyer to contact mine and begin a discussion =n which we all participate. I'm also curious =o hear your thoughts about the proposals I suggested in my message on Marc= 29th. On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Noam =om <mailto > wrote: As I wrote = little while ago, I did write a long response to your last -- deeply depr=ssing -- letter, but decided not to send it. I may return to that le=ter later but will keep to some factual matters that ought to be cleared u=. But now I'm writing just about one point, which s=ems to be the core of the problem -- a problem, which, again, I don't =nderstand. But let's put that aside, though I hope we can clear =t up soon. All of this is a painful cloud that I never would h=ve imagined would darken my late years. The core =ssue seems to be the marital trust. I've explained how M and I a=tually set it up with Eric, which seemed to us just plain common sense..=A0 I've also explained Max's different interpretation. I'=ve asked you for yours, but haven't heard it. But let's put =hat aside too, and just resolve the matter, as can be done very simply -- =ith no need for lawyers to explain the fiduciary responsibility of the tru=tee I appointed years ago to replace me, something I never paid any attent=on to before. The simple solution is to divide th= trust into two parts. One part will go to you, to use as you wish.=C24, One part will go to me, for me to use without any investigations of =y financial situation and other such intrusions that I won't accept.=C2*Then the trust can simply be dissolved, and it is all over. So I suggest that we proceed this way, and end the whole m=tter -- at least, whatever it is that I understand about what is of concer= to you. 0 =C24> please note The information containe= in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileg=d, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the u=e of the addressee. It is the property of JEE Unauthorized use, disc=osure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly =rohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communicati=n in error, please notify us immediately by 4 EFTA_R1_01904858 EFTA02658287  return e-mail or by e-mail =o jeevacation@g=ail.com <mailto:jeevacation@gmail,com> and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, =ncluding all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved </=iv> please note T=e information contained in this communication is confidential, may be a=torney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is int=nded only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of JEE communication or any pa=t thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have recei=ed this communication in error, please notify us immediately by retu=n 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 [email protected], and destroy this communication and all copi=s thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved =C2* please note The information co=tained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client pr=vileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for JEE Unauthorized use= disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is str=ctly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this commu=ication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e=mail to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> , and destroy this communication and all copies thereo=, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved 5 EFTA_R1_01904859 EFTA02658288  </=iv> --000000000000f00e6f056cbc2456-- conversation-id 5434 date-last-viewed 0 date-received 1526930212 flags 8590195713 gmail-label-ids 7 6 remote-id 822957 6 EFTA_R1_01904860 EFTA02658289