Epstein Secrets

ording, if we have to descend to legalities. Not just for taxes, which is what I am requesting, but for daily life. As you know, the trusts were in Carol's name for two reasons: one, we assumed that she would be the survivor, and two, for estate tax reasons, to assure that the three children would rec

at because you disapprove of some of the suggestions made by your former lawyer and financial managers — many of which were based on choices you and Mommoy had made previously -- you will now not believe anything they tell you. That leaves us with no recourse to determine the truth about anything that h

s. There are no mixed As I have explained, the marital trust was set up many years ago on the assumption that the funds would be available both to Carol and me, and to the survivor -- which we took for granted would be Carol, which is why it is in her name. After I appointed you as trustee a few year

f there is, again, I'd like to know what it is and, crucially, what is the source. So far I haven't seen anything. To review the basic fads briefly, Mommoy and I worked out the estate planning a long time ago, with Eric Menoyo and (later) Palmer Dodge when he moved there. Our general plan at that time,

ve occurred to you. Aside from many factual errors in your letter, which I won't review, I'm also amazed, and shocked, to read such statements as "Carol's intention to leave some money to your children." Carol's intention? Alone? Not my intention? Is this your conception of what our family life was?

rief, Max has concocted an interpretation that is technically legal but that clearly makes no sense at all. It is based on the outlandish idea that Mommoy and I had decided to split our assets so that she would make decisions about allocation of her part and I would make decisions about allocation of m

galities. Not just for taxes, which is what I am requesting, but for daily life. 7 EFTA_R1_01693047 EFTA02542386 As you know, the trusts were in Carol's name for two reasons: one, we a=sumed that she would be the survivor, and two, for estate tax reasons, to assure that the three children would rec

t because you disapprove of some of the suggestions made by your former lawyer and financial managers -- many of which were based on choices you and Mommoy had made previously -- you will now not believe anything they tell you. That leaves us with no recour=e to determine the truth about anything that h

wording, if we have to descend to legalities. Not just for taxes, which is what I am requesting, but for daily life. As you know, the trusts were in Carol's name for two reasons: one, we a=sumed that she would be the survivor, and two, for estate tax reasons, to assure that the three children would rec

t because you disapprove of some of the suggestions made by your former lawyer and financial managers -- many of which were based on choices you and Mommoy had made previously -- you will now not believe anything they tell you. That leaves us with no recour=e to determine the truth about anything that h

ording, if we have to descend to legalities. Not just for taxes, which is what I am requesting, but for daily life. As you know, the trusts were in Carol's name for two reasons: one, we a=sumed that she would be the survivor, and two, for estate tax reasons, to assure that the three children would rec

t because you disapprove of some of the suggestions made by your former lawyer and financial managers -- many of which were based on choices you and Mommoy had made previously -- you will now not believe anything they tell you. That leaves us with no recour=e to determine the truth about anything that h

for the survivor. Seizing on this technicality, Max contrived a story about our dividing up our resources, with me responsible for my portion, and Carol responsible for her portion and for the children. This mad idea of course never occurred either to us, or to Eric. 2 EFTA_R1_01631179 EFTA02502742

brief, Max has concocted an interpretatio= that is technically legal but that clearly makes no sense at all. It is based on the outlandish idea that Mommoy and I had decided to split our assets so that she would make decisions about allocation of her part and I would make decisions about allocation of m

ave occurred to you. Aside from many factual errors in your letter, whic= I won't review, I'm also amazed, and shocked, to read such statemen=s as "Carol's intention to leave some money to your children." Car=l's intention? Alone? Not my intention? Is this your concepti=n of what our family life was?

brief, Max ha= concocted an interpretation that is technically legal but that clearly makes no sense at all. It is based on the outlandish idea that Mommoy and I had decided to split our assets so that she would make decisions about allocation of her part and I would make decisions about allocation of m

have occurred to you. Aside from many factual errors along the w=y, which I won't review, I'm also amazed, and shocked, to read suc= statements as "Carol's intention to leave some money to your chi=dren." Carol's intention? Alone? Not my intention?Q Is this your conception of what our family life was

the details. In brief, Max has concocted an interpretation t=at is technically legal but that clearly makes no sense at all, based on t=e idea that Mommoy and I decided to split our assets so that she would mak= decisions about allocation of her part and I would make decisions about a=location of my pa