Vincent's reply
One of the main characteristics of so-called "p=stmodern" societies is to disregard the difference between objective =nd subjective, truth and lie, reality and fiction.
This case is a striking example of the contempt of o=jective reality by a large number of people who have preferred to believe =he lie that coincides with their previous opinions. The famous "fake =ews" prevailed over reality, the belief about reason.
The attachment shows the Carol Chomsky Exempt Marita= Trust, on December 31, 2014 with a market value of $2,502,581.
And the email copied below shows that the Lexington =ouse was sold in May 2015.
Something is not right in their allegations.
Valeria Chomsky
Vincent and Jason,
First of all, thank you very much for solving this c=nstant and stressful situation in our life.
I would like to make some comments that I think are =f paramount importance.
We keep finding outrageous false information from Ma= and Harry, such as that the funds in the Marital Trust was only $1,000,00= until the Lexington house was sold and incorporated to it. This is = flat lie -- as the documents I sent you prove it (Bainco statement from December 2014 and Harry's e-mail from =ay 2015, when the Lexington house was sold).
Also outrageous to say that the Trust was providing = house to Noam, when the apartment in Cambridge was bought with half of a =ortgage with a commercial institution that we were paying monthly and with=half of the funds coming from a loan from the Marital Trust with the highest possible interest rate, when Noam =ould have bought it himself with the funds from his IRA, that was being di=tributed to them. The only reason for this loan from the Marital Tru=t was to have the apartment tied to the trust and not allow to have it as a jointly owned property with me, as=Noam requested many times. Requests very well documented in e-mails =xchanges.
There are numberless other examples of them acting i= bad faith and since it has been a pattern from them, with their father be=ng competent and productive, I have to express my concerns for the future,=if Noam and/or I become somehow limited in our cognitive capacities and they try to manipulate again or if Noam di=s before me and they contest Noam's will.
Although we preferred a settlement, if we would have=gone to court, much more would be discovered and we would have the documen=s that now we are missing to prove what had been done wrong. With th= settlement we won't have access to them anymore.
It seems to me that the moment requires that in thei= releases they acknowledge explicitly that they recognized all the gifts t=ey have received from Noam in the form of trusts for them, trusts for the =randchildren, the Lexington house, the Wellfleet house, royalties for children and grandchildren, payment of =xpenses, distributions from Noam's IRA to them, justifying the settlem=nt, and now the Marital Trust where Noam is waiving most of his rights to =t, and most important also correct through the documents that I provided (Bainco statement and the email from=Harry) that the Marital Trust in December 31, 2014 had a market value of $=,502,581, and that the Lexington house was sold in May 2015, therefore it =as not the proceeds from the house that elevated the assets of the Marital Trust from $1,000,000 to the curre=t value -- as they falsely stated.
It also should include that they recognize that the =oney that Noam was left with, it is for him to live his life with his wife= and that if some is left (hopefully Noam will live long enough to use it =11) they agree that Noam decided to leave in his will only to his wife, Valeria. Therefore with this settle=ent, they are not going to contest Noam's will or claim any additional=funds.
I think we have to address this information, or we w=ll be signing that all the false information they gave us is correct and r=sk to have more problems in the future.
We accept the agreement, but we don't have to ac=ept their false information.
I should add that the only reason I don't want t= go to Court is because I don't want to cause more stress to Noam. Oth=rwise, I would much prefer to go to Court and have all the issues clarifie=, as I see the non•clarification of them as potential future problems and accusations.
Valeria Chomsky
Good morning.
Yesterday, we discusse= at length the choice you faced. You could settle early on acceptabl= terms but to do so, it required foregoing further investigation into the =acts of the case. Or, alternatively, you could choose not to settle and embark on discovery and a further investiga=ion of the facts. You very clearly chose that further litigation was=not in Noam and your best interests because of the stress that would be in=olved in further litigation and that closure was of paramount importance. Also, the settlement is a very =ood deal for you. This is not an unusual judgment for a client to ma=e and it is also not unusual to have "seller's remorse =80 the day after a settlement. I do not think we can rescind the agreement and it doesn't sound like you want to rescind the agreem=nt. We successfully negotiated for a release of you so let's=see what we can put into the release. I do not think we will be able=to negotiate the acknowledgements you reference.
Feel free to call if y=u want to talk about this.
Vincent J. Pisegna
Krokidas & Bluestein LLP
600 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Tel:
Fax
I would like to write the following:
Vincent,
There is no "seller's remorse=the day after", and I think you and Jason achieved a very good =esult.
My point is about the information we=have available, it is not to question the amount of the settlement, but to=have the truth established about the assets of the trust on December 31, 2=14, since they provided a false information. There is no reason to accept =he false information when we have the documents proving it.
And I don't see why the acknowledgements wouldn&=39;t be possible.
Valeria
What do you think?
Valeria