Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains:
From Dean to Ehrlichman RE: "Estate Plan" 3 pgs. [Subject: Personal] [Letter], no date
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26147097
label
WHSF: Contested, 53-37
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26147097
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 53-37
description
This file contains:
From Dean to Ehrlichman RE: "Estate Plan" 3 pgs. [Subject: Personal] [Letter], no date
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26147097
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
f6b42821ce75fd8b
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
53
37
Personal
Letter
From Dean to Ehrlichman RE: "Estate Plan"
3pg
Monday, June 25, 2012
Page 1 of 1
DOCUMENT WITHDRAWAL RECORD [NIXON PROJECT]
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
TYPE
SUBJECT/TITLE OR CORRESPONDENTS
DATE
RESTRICTION
N-1
Memo
From Dean, To: Ehrlichman, Re:
[Doc H93]
Estate Plan
6-13-72
C
FILE GROUP TITLE
BOX NUMBER
STAFF SECRETARY
126
FOLDER TITLE
Papers Project [VI]
RESTRICTION CODES
A. Release would violate a Federal statute or Agency Policy.
E. Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
B. National security classified information.
financial information.
C. Pending or approved claim that release would violate an individual's
F. Release would disclose investigatory information compiled for law
rights.
enforcement purposes.
D. Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy
G. Withdrawn and return private and personal material.
or a libel of a living person.
H. Withdrawn and returned non-historical material.
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
NA FORM 1421 (4-85)
Presidential Materials Review Board
Review on Contested Documents
Collection:
Staff Secretary
Box Number:
126
Folder:
Paper Project [VI]
Document
Disposition
93
Return Private/Personal
June 13, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JOHN EHRLICHMAN
FROM:
JOHN DEAN
SUBJECT:
Estate Plan
Attached is the latest draft by DeMarco of the Estate Plan. You
will note from the summary (Tab A) that it has been re-designed
to minimize the tax problems and maximize the control factors we
discussed at our last meeting with Frank, Gordon and Bob. In
fact, the DeMarco plan is now virtually indistinguishable from the
Ritzel plan. You will note from the correspondence from DeMarco
(Tab B) that copies were also forwarded to Ritzel. Gordon has
had an off-the-record conversation with his former associate in
the firm who has been working with Ritzel on the plan and apparently
they also find the latest DeMarco draft virtually in accord with their
earlier recommendations.
It seems we are at last getting close to an agreement with all outside
counsel as to what the plan should be, although we have not yet had
an "official" response from Ritzel and Alexander. You will recall
that on May 23rd John Alexander wrote you a rather blunt letter
(Tab C) asking you to put them back in the ball game. Tod forwarded
that correspondence to me to handle, but I have deferred action
because I was aware of the imminent DeMarco plan and its similarity
to the Ritzel plan.
Where do we go from here to get this sage ended and a plan for our
client? I recommend the following actions:
(1) That you send the letter at Tab D to John Alexander.
(2) That I follow up the letter with a call to Ritzel, and seek to
get their recommended changes and general blessings.
(3) That I either get Ritzel and DeMarco together or discuss any
changes with DeMarco to resolve matters of difference.
-2-
(4) That if we have a problem with Ritzel and Alexander, we ask
John Mitchell to intercede and put the matter to rest.
(5) That we plan a meeting (hopefully of the love feast variety)
with you, HRK, DeMarco, Ritzel, Cordon and myself to nail the
matter down.
(6) That we arrange for signing by the client and plan to have
Ritzel and DeMarco (possibly Alexander also) present.
Agree
Disagree
Comments
DRAFT
Dear John:
I regret that a rather hectic schedule has made it impossible for
me to focus on the development of the President's Estate Plan
during the past weeks, but hopefully matters have progressed
without me. I understand that Frank DeMarco has prepared a
revised draft and forwarded to you for review. While I have not
reviewed the DeMarco draft in detail, it appears to be consistent
with your earlier recommendations.
I know I speak for the President when I say that he feels your
concurrence in any recommendation is essential and, while much
of the mechanical phases of developing the plan have been handled
by the President's California counsel, he is relying heavily on
your counsel as well. Accordingly, I am hopeful that you will
be able to complete your review of Frank DeMarco's drafts and
that we can resolve any differences without delay.
With best regards and much appreciation, I am
Sincerely,
John Ehrlichman