From: Eileen Alexanderson •te To: 'Jeffrey Epstein' <[email protected]> Subject: FW: follow up Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 23:58:57 +0000 Attachments: img-705120530-0001.pdf Hello Jeffrey, Leon mentioned that you recommended he put the new Munch into a Delaware LLC to provide more flexibility in the future. This would otherwise be going into Narrow Holdings LLC, a New York LLC. Is the point that it's important that the painting is in an LLC by itself or that it's a Delaware LLC? Not sure at this point that we will proceed with the art partnership but just want to make sure I understand what you meant on this subject-is your thought this artwork should not go into the art partnership even if in a separate LLC? Also, I know you believe the transfer to the kids will be complete only at the time we turn off the income right but since this is the key issue, I was just wondering if you had a chance to read through the attached 2006 Trust document and whether you had any thoughts re Carlyn's defense that we'd be ok if it was the independent trustees that turned off the income right ie. out of Leon's control? Still working on the issues you raised in terms the way ownership is titled on various filings-should have a conclusion on this tomorrow. Thank you!! Eileen Original Message From: Eileen Alexanderson Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 12:09 PM To: Jeffrey Epstein (jeevacation®gmail.com) Subject: follow up Jeffrey, thinking back through dialogs with Carlyn & Elyse and looking at some of my old notes from those dialogs that relate to our conversation this morning I offer the following: Regarding the issue of why turning off the income right now works is that it would be the independent trustees turning off the income right, not Leon, and that the 2006 Trust was drafted purposely in anticipation of this. I believe this relates to the language on page 30 in the attached. Also, Ada (from US Trust) at one point had suggested to Carlyn that we conside