From: "Jeffrey E." <[email protected]> To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: attomy-client privilege Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 00:11:27 +0000 Forwarded message --------- From: Jeffrey E. [email protected]> Date: Sun, May 22, 2016 at 11:25 AM Subject: Fwd: attorny-client privilege To: Melanie Spinella for six years it was you eileen and tom. now its you brad and tom. it took me three years to convince you that Eileen was not up to the job, . Forwarded message From: Brad Wechsler -4 Date: Sun, May 22, 2016 at 11:15 AM Subject: Re: attomy-client privilege To: "[email protected]" [email protected]>, ' Guys-ive read the exchange and here's what I'd propose (w/a little commentary): 1. It seems to me question #1 is checking the applicable ownership interest of bfp by the grat and confirming that was appropriately applied to the bfp cash distributions. Remember "the chronology" we circulated to both of you showed %'s change qtr-to-qtr and were often based on a combination of empires "preliminary" valuation reports and our internal "shadow" model which reflected the empire inputs. 2. On jeffreys other question there definitely was "other cash" that went in and out of bfp, for example, cash from a TM distribution or cash from an investment. This cash was distributed to the grat at the time of an overall bfp distribution in the applicable %. 3. Rich J compiled the detailed chronology grid(s) and back-up. The first six months of grat 1 were reviewed carefully by john c and from a higher level by me. The remainder of grat 1 and grat 2 (with full bfp detail tracking money in and out including items like TM and investments) is being reviewed now. 4. I will make certain the "confirmation work" occurs quickly. Jeffrey, you, alan and I shld discuss if I'm missing your point or best way for you to "audit" accuracy. 5. Everybody shld be cognizant—and this a subtle point-- that the cash distributions by bfp were based