From: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> To: Eileen Alexanderson Subject: Re: FW: follow up Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:48:08 +0000 i would do nothing until all the issues are known„ i would definilty not add the munch to any existing entitiy, . art loan, ultimate disposiotn, estate considerations. etc. I do not have the belief regardin turning off the income„ i have concerns that many pieces are not yet known.. questions about indepnedince of the trustees„ might be problematic , if the sec filings are inconsistant. currently , there are many open questions, and i see no rush.. It might be deemed more important that the trustees are not independent.. ie f.:111 emplyess under leons control to justify the no filing, of any financiail interest, or control. sorry, i know you would like fast answers.. On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Eileen Alexanderson wrote: 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