From: jeffrey epstein <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 2:06 AM To: Eileen Alexanderson Subject: Re: follow up Nothing attached Sent from my iPad On Jul 10 2012, at 9:12 PM, Eileen Alexanderson > wrote: Sorry, don't mean to be impatient. My predicament is that we need to pay for the Munch within the next two weeks or so. We have the bank lined up for financing but need to decide who is buying the painting- Leon, one of the trusts (and the 2006 Trust is really the only one big enough to do so), or another entity. From: Jeffrey Epstein Imailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 08:48 PM To: Eileen Alexanderson Subject: Re: FW: follow up 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 fulll 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 <mailto: > 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 L