Dearr Dr. Meyer:

Yes, I would like your analysis and help. It is extraordinarily kind, notwithstanding any intellectual interest that may result. I will try to get the original trust documents from Mom tonight. I will also try to get the non-profit documents for Uncle Rob's foundation, if he is willing to share it. It seems to me that may be relevant.

All I have for now is a satire of legal prose, below. When I spend much time reading in a certain style, it rubs off on one; and when one reads what one does not understand, one is tempted, in retaliation, to write things one cannot understand.

It was probably inadvisable to do this for my mother.

In other news I wish to assure you I am well. I slept at least seven hours last night, possibly more, and awoke (though at 1 pm) refreshed.

I hope you are also well. I am sorry it has taken me so long to reply: much has been on my mind. I have been writing a novel in my head, an immense one taking form. But to speak of it now would be premature. Not to think of it as it is forming is not really possible. It has formed, and revision has already begun, before writing. But it has slowed down enough that I can turn my attention to necessary things.

They say that nothing is unavoidable in life except for death and taxes. This expression misstates the order of events. Taxes come first; death eventually;; and if there is time (and let there be time----even before light!), may we have art,, in the middle.

A letter to my mother sent at 10:30 pm last night. No reply. I am calling her now:

Well! Now it is my turn to not apologize (not that anyone need do so) for leaving a potential tenterhooks about my being on planet Earth.

10 pm is rather late to send my wellness assurance (I should know: I got a few of those tenterhooks sunk in on not hearing from you both by some much earlier time yesterday). What can I say? The day got away from me; but it was very productive.

I hope and trust (that was not a pun) that I have not kept you up waiting for an email. But if I were to have done so, perhaps you might share any interesting Googlings that may have passed the aforementalized subvented idle time.

(Please forgive me for using legal terms with purely aesthetic intent, and moreover, for the remainderfor, using such aforepreposterized terms, with an altogether lack of attempting to understand, attempting to suss, attempting to research, attempting to educate oneself, attempting to establish a fiduciary relationship with the truth thereinbeforebelow,, attempting to attorney-client privilentially, establish a secure nanobesecond attorney-client privileged interlink or otherwise subventional relationship,, such as would comprise, for instance, to one skilled in the art: a relational database; and in the art of love, a relational relationship;; holding hereversofarforever harmless, subventing the indemnifiers, estopping the stoppifiers;;; or so on;;;; with an altogether lack of understanding, or even utter lack of interest, one had almost merely said, what such terms as 'subventing' actually mean: but merely using them as a handy-dandy substitute or "station identifier" for a law-school education one does not have, if one may dropololal to the non-legalese,,,, for a circumscribed moment in prose,,,, a handy-dandy substitutionary instrument-in-force of no legal force, and no otherwise force except for the possibly stupid (here bearing in mind that 'stupid', which is to say, such words as referred to in the party of the first part, one before the comma which is in itself two commas before the most recent comma----meanwhile hereby holding the wropther of this pibididaddle, blameless, shapeless, unidentificationally indemnityless forever and ever, amen, amen, and amen: indemnityless, one had almost merely said, for any fenceposting errors, excepting whereverforeverwherefore so much as whereasily, hereby stating the obvious point: which one had almost merely said, in fact, once again: excepting those instances of fraud, malice, fraud, fraud, malice,, whereby aforesaidsuch fenceposting errors were not to have been adjudged in a court of Deleware or Illinois to have been in the light of such aforesaid fraud, malice, fraud, fraud, malice; but rather (and hereinbelow notnotunclaiming the lack of any further examples of suchtobesaid): which, again and again, one had almost merely said: fenceposting errors arising from the transitioniferous onerous carwheelspindlage between the jurisdiction of Deleware and Illinois, with special reference to the fenceposting conventions referenced in so-on-and-so-forth.A5.501c(Del.e.r over epsilon zero); not omitting to mention, without any intention of non-indemnifying any such reader, parser, plubarser, peanutscratcher: that the same fenceposting differing conventions may or may not arise, in a court of civil or common or uncommon or non-jurisdictional law: that one may also count from the parenthesis some time before;;;;;;;;; but one has gotten exhausted, one has forgotten where aforebabbled parenthesis was, one has forgotten how many words to count forward in order to indentify, perchance to subventingly (HPAC, CPAP, HVAC, HVIC, HIPPAA, Hippose, Hippoes, Elephants, Hippocrates, hip hip hooray; what was it? HIPAA? No UHV? No no no. Covid thing. Filters out really small things. Must confess: didn't go to law school. Not even pretending. HVAC? Submicron particles, really. Things to filter out and filter out and filter out.) try to remember what the original word was (that fenceposting attain, attain, and again!): was it, peradventure, perchance, performatively, perchloratively,, 'Spotify'?)

Ah well. All is lost and done. Did you understand that? I have forgotten what I was trying to say. When you read a lot of legalese, it grows on one. I didn't go to law school. I am too cheap for that. I can make up lots of whuh whuh whichy words (hereby not attempting to infringe on the intellectual properly property of Tom Wolfe, whereby one, for instance, makes fun of the New Yorker; or designated heirs, disinheirs, hairballs, successors, assignators, or generationally trust-busting family tree sprinkler systems: not of the New Yorker, that is, but of the aforebabbled.)

It rubs off, this legalese. Yesterday I was pretending to understand; today, in growth and newness of fullness of plenty of no time, I am growing into entertaining the notion of pretending to write it. License please? Real ID?
)

Squirrels:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFZFjoX2cGg

They are really smart. Yes, it is worth watching a twenty-minute video about squirrels. Trust me, it is worth it. They have been your sworn enemies. They have eaten awnings. They have munched on flowers that were not really theirs to munch on.

Maybe you could put some trust and estate law on the obstacle course before the bird-feeder. (Though the trustees of aforesaid birdfeeder may well even balk, balkily enough, that is, at entertaining performing distributions to non-beneficiaries of aforesaid birdseed held in trust, and verily: forsooth, for the birds: and also notwithstanding any standing distribution requirements of aforesaid walnuts, apricot shells, or remaindered Wuhan cell-phone manufacturing waste being passed off as plastic walnuts.)

But as I said: those little buggers are smart.

I really don't understand. But all well and good. I will understand tomorrow.

Much too lately,

Nikola.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 9:07 AM Ernst Meyer <ernstmeyer@earthlink.net> wrote:

    Dear Nikola,

    As I awoke in the middle of the night, perhaps from a dream, it occurred
    to me that the documents which you attached to your recent e-mail mighht
    reflect an attempt to amend, i.e. to revoke an irrevocable trust.
    Arguably this might be feasible and permissible under U.S. jurisprudence
    which is very pragmatic, if all parties affected by such revocation
    consented. That the corporate trustees, i.e., the banks should be
    expected to consent, is a remarkable reflection on U.S. corporate culture.

    Whether your consenting to the modification of an irrevocable trust to
    which you are the contingent beneficiary would be to your advantage or
    to your disadvantage depends on many circumstances of which I have no
    knowledge:
    a) the effect of your decision on family relationships
    b) the relation between the amount in issue and other assets available
    to you.
    c) the manner and the purposes for which the laws of Delaware, which are
    unique, are to be applied.
    d) who would appoint, and who would be appointed as the successor
    co-trustee to Robert.
    e) by whom and how your interests, as contingent beneficiary would be
    protected.

    You should be aware that the other parties' need for your assent gives
    you great leverage.  In what manner, if at all, you should try to use
    this leverage, I have no idea.

    EJM