From: Valeria Chomsky < Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 5:18 AM To: Jeffrey E. Subject: Letter 2 N's response. Suggestions? =/div> Forwarded message F=om: Noam Chomsky «. href="mailto Subject: Fwd: Response to your lett=r To: Valeria Chomsky < <mailto > > Forwarded message F=om: Noam Chomsky «= href="mailto target="_blank" =/a» Date: Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 1:20 A= Subject: Re: Response to your letter To: Valeria Chomsky < <mailto > > Easier to add comments b=low. I'll write separately responding to the earlier letter. First, an area of agreement. All of this is extremely=disturbing to me. It's the one seriously -- very seriousl= -- dark spot on the new life that Valeria and I have been shaping for our=elves, and I would therefore like to get it over with and resolved as soon=as possible. As I have written, I cannot understand why you are brin=ing any of these things up, and I think it would be very good to make ever=thing clear, and keep nothing hidden or implicit. Then come the areas of disagreement, which I hope=we can iron out quickly and expeditiously so that we can pick up the warm =nd close relations that we always had, and that I'd always treasured.<=r> More below, interspersed. =div>D On Tue, =eb 6, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Diana Chomsky < </=pan> wrote: EFTA_R1_01667350 EFTA02526927

Dear Doddoy, We really hesitated to write=our long letter to you last month. We only finally decided to write it because you insisted so many times that we do so. We think, and have thought for a long time, that we need to sit down face-to-face and work through our very substantial differences with you in how we understand your estate plan, financial history, and current situation. But after you asked us so many times in December to discuss it by e-mail, we decided to give that a try. We definitely didn't intend to be legalistic and adve=sarial, and we really regret that that's how you found our writing. We meant ou= letter as a heartfelt explanation of our perspective on the issues and how we want to help you understand the problem and fix it. But it doesn't sound like you've understood what we were trying to explain=and express. This strongly confirms our feeling that e-mail is not a useful way for us to communicate about these issues. I understood very well, and responded, pointing=out that the information you have received from some source - - which you d= not identify, despite repeated requests -- is flatly wrong. In the =etter I wrote to you, to which this one was supposed to be a response (whi=e avoiding everything I wrote), I already had explained in som= detail why your perspective is incorrect, throughout. I'm sorry=that you ignored the letter, but I will repeat the main points below.4) If you want to sit down face-to-face, OK, though I think a conference c=ll would make more sense. Before go=ng on, I frankly cannot comprehend why you think it is necessary or even a=propriate. I can appreciate your being concerned about my life= just as I'm concerned about yours. That's natural in a clos=-knit family. Over the years, I've often been seriously concerne= about the decisions and choices all of you have made, which sometimes seered questionable or mistaken to me (Mommoy even more so, when she was alive=and well). But we never felt that we had a right to interfere or to =upervise. I never would have dreamed of asking you for financial sta=ements, or even suggested that we discuss these matters. I'd hav= been happy to do so if you'd asked, but if not, it's your decisio=s and my role is only to be supportive -- as I have been, in many ways tha= you know and I need not review, and also by setting aside ample funds ove= the years to ensure that you and your children will be well provided for:=that includes the trusts of which you are beneficiaries, two houses, almos= all of my pension, educational Trusts for grandchildren, and lots of fund=ng along the way for all sorts of purposes. I don't understand w=y you think it is any different in the present case, and I think it would =e a good idea for you to explain, so that we can clear the air. <van> On a personal level, we are heartb=oken to feel that we are kept at such a distance from you in your new life. We were thrilled to learn that you had found a new partner, but we were grieved when we began to realize that this meant we are rarely able to see you. It did='t mean that at all. Of course, my life became different, and Va=eria and I had many things to do to put our new life together. But w= took time off from the conference in Mexico to see you, with much pleasur=; a few months before we went to Wellfleet to spend some time with you.4) Harry, Amy and Alex visited in Cambridge. So did Avi, Mariola and=Ernesto. I kept seeing Avi whenever we could arrange it, sometimes w=th Valeria, usually alone. We began spending winters in Tucson, and =ave now moved. I certainly don't want any distance, and am just =s heartbroken as you to think that there might be. We have also been increasingly distressed to =ee that instead of feeling happy and relaxed, you feel impoverished. 2 EFTA_R1_01667351 EFTA02526928

You misunderstand. Apart from this continu=d interchange, which I don't understand, I'm happy and relaxed, mu=h more so than during the years before Valeria and I came together. =s for "impoverishment," when I began to look into how my affairs=had been handled, I discovered that I was indeed facing financial problems= though far from impoverished. I've explained before in letters =hat you have ignored, so I will repeat briefly again. I discovered that I have almost no pension: years ago it=was turned into trusts of which you are the beneficiaries, and the very sm=ll pension I receive (less than Social Security) ends at my death, leaving=nothing to Valeria. I discov=red that I was living on an IRA that was being rapidly depleted. To =un through the arithmetic once again, there is a mandatory withdrawal of a=out $300,000. Half of that was being distributed to 10 family member=. The other half was going to payment of taxes and management fees I= the entire estate. In addition, close to $100,000 was going to expe=ses for Wellfleet and Alex's medical expenses. Hence before I wi=hdrew a penny for daily life, I was already far over the mandatory withdra=al, which, by law, imposes exorbitant taxes that I also had to pay. =ou can work out the arithmetic for yourselves. And you will recall I'm=sure that when I requested that some of the taxes be covered by the marita= trust (which, by rights, I should have full access to), Harry refused unl=ss I submitted to extensive financial analysis, which of course I refused • do on principle. There was never a request for such financial anal=sis when distributions were made to family, or when Max distributed funds =rom the marital trust, or for any other gifts over the years, and I saw, a=d see, no reason why I should be subjected to this humiliating demand.=/div> In addition, as l'=e repeatedly explained, I bought the apartment in the Cambridge co-op on t=e erroneous assumption that the cost would be covered completely and quick=y by the sale of the Lexington house. If I'd paid attention inst=ad of just trusting advisers, I would have known, as they did, that I did =ot own the Lexington house and that the profits would go to you, so I was =uying an expensive apartment in a co-op with no assets at all, a crazy dec=sion. As I wrote, I agreed to the surreal idea of borrowing money from witrin the family (with interest) only on the false assumption that the loan w=uld be for a few weeks or months, hence meaningless. =/b> That's the "impoverishment," and I've n=w pretty much overcome what had been done. =div>AII that keeps me from being "happy and relaxed" is your =ontinued insistence on pursuing these matters, which, again, I don't u=derstand. You have even felt the need to hire multiple lawyers to threaten people who you had trusted for years, and who we believe have continued to do their utmost to act in your best interest and to help you navigate your new financial situation= Again, I'd be=interested in knowing your source for these claims. When you learn t=e true facts, as sooner or later you will, you will be surprised, and I pr=sume seriously disturbed. You're quite right that for years I ha= trusted people who, it turned out, had been making decisions, such as those I have again reviewed, that were quite harmful to me. It is hard f=r me to comprehend how you think they would act in my best interest and he=p me navigate the financial difficulties they had created, in the light of=what I have explained to you, repeatedly. And as I've written, that Hs only a part of it. I mentioned the tens of thousands of dollars w= paid Max for such things as a will so outlandish that we had to trash it =t once (see my letter). And there is quite a lot more. I don81=93 understand why 3 EFTA_R1_01667352 EFTA02526929

you completely disregard the detailed and fully accurat= information I have once again reviewed, and choose instead to rely on wha= you are told by others. We have in fact found your letters=over the past year increasingly alarming. If we felt that you were stable and content in your new life, we would probably accept the distance that has been created. But your statements, in person, and in your letters= do not give us the impression that you feel stable and content. I have explained before, and will re=eat again, that I am very stable and content in my new life, and looking f=rward to the peace, tranquillity, work and life conditions that I think I =ave a right to enjoy after many years of hard work and ample attention to =aring for the needs of my children. There was a financial problem ca=sed by extremely harmful decisions of advisers that I had trusted, but tha='s now pretty much overcome. What's causing extreme distress=is your insistence, which I don't understand, on pursuing the matters =e are now again discussing. =ne matter that remains is that marital trust. I explained what has b=en happening in a letter that you seem again to have ignored, and won'= repeat the details. In brief, Max has concocted an interpretation t=at is technically legal but that clearly makes no sense at all, based on t=e idea that Mommoy and I decided to split our assets so that she would mak= decisions about allocation of her part and I would make decisions about a=location of my part. The idea that we would decide to have separate =roperty and make independent decisions about it is insane, and never occur=ed to us. Max's interpretation is based on the technicality that=in setting up the trust in M's name for tax purposes, the funds were f=rst assigned to her revocable Trust and then to the Marital Trust, which w=s, of course, intended for the use of the survivor -- which is, for exampl=, why I have always selected the Trustees and should continue to do so. Perhaps, though you h=ven't said so, you agree with Max, and want to ensure that the survivo= (me) does not have access to the funds and that they should go to you in =ddition to you. And that I should not have the right to leave anythi=g to Valeria. If that's the case -- which is hard for me to beli=ve I think it would be best to say so straight out. We have begged you to meet with us=with a mediator. We renew that request. A mediator is a person train=d to help different parties communicate and understand each other. This is what we want. We do not want to watch you engage in expensive legal battles, and we do not want to live in trepidation of the next angry and irrational email we might receive from you. You have received only very rational and care=ul emails, which are sometimes annoyed, and for good reasons. I stil= am shocked at the refusal to pay part of the taxes without extensive fina=cial scrutiny, particularly after the facts that I have again described.4, I don't know what you have heard about "expensive legal bat=les," but I strongly suspect that it is as mistaken as your beliefs a=out my financial situation. I'd be glad to meet, or more easily have a collective phone fall, but I cannot imagine why you want a mediat=r. If there are some issues, we can discuss them. In my mind a= least there is no adversarial conflict for which a mediator is in order.<=b> I do hope, again, that we =an resolve this quickly. It is deeply disturbing. AndQunnecessary, unless you have something on your minds that you have no= told me. A few more comments below.</=iv> 0 4 EFTA_R1_01667353 EFTA02526930

=/div> PS. About your earlier letter concerning=the estate plan, though I responded explaining why you and Max are complet=ly wrong about the Marital Trust, there are a few points I left out.q=iv> One, I'm amazed, and not a lit=le disturbed, that you even looked into this in such detail. These a=e matters I never paid any attention to until I started looking into my af=airs and discovered what was being done by my advisers, as I've just i=ce again described. I do not comprehend why you felt that you should=undertake this inquiry -- just it would have been unthinkable for me to ha=e inquired into your affairs when you were making decisions I found questi=nable and was supporting them, financially and otherwise. But put that aside. <=iv>The first sentence of your letter is Max's interpretation, which=is flatly false, and surely ridiculous. We never thought of the craz= idea of setting up two separate Trusts, one to manage my "individual=property,"and the other to for M to manage her "individual prope=ty." We had property jointly, not divided into mine and hers. A=ain, Eric suggested this pretense solely for tax purposes. We agreed, but =he idea that you (and Max) express could never have occurred to us, and I =ind it hard to understand how it occurred to you. I have already reviewed the facts about the way the Marital =rust was established and the obvious intentions, so won't go through i= again, but your account in the letter is entirely wrong, though it does e=ploit a legal technicality. It is hard for me to imagine how this we=rd interpretation could even have occurred to you. Aside from many factual errors along the w=y, which I won't review, I'm also amazed, and shocked, to read suc= statements as "Carol's intention to leave some money to your chi=dren." Carol's intention? Alone? Not my intention?Q Is this your conception of what our family life was? I hope not..C240 In reality, neither of us had separate "intentions." We de=ided together how to ensure that the children and grandchildren would be v=ry adequately cared for from my earnings of the years, and how the survivo= would be as well. I've already=explained, once again, why you are radically misled about what happened to=my IRA under Max's and Bainco's supervision, until I started looki=g into it and ended the practices that were rapidly depleting it. You say that you learned about Valeria in 20=3 -- that is, when we met. It's quite true that I didn't con=ult lawyers or financial planners or Harry before we decided to get marrie=, just as Carol and I didn't, just as none of you did. I don'=t frankly understand what you are thinking. You are, again, mistaken about the sale of the Lexington house.4, The facts are as I have repeatedly described. I surely would neve= have contemplated buying a Mem Drive apartment in a co-op with regular ex=enses and taking out a loan from a family trust had I not assumed that the=loan would be until the sale of the Lexington house that would cover the c=sts of the new apartment. 5 EFTA_R1_01667354 EFTA02526931

Yo= report a visit by Harry and Max with an idea about using assets. l&=39;II respond to that in my other letter. I did have a private visit=with Max in my MIT office in which he explained that I'd have to sharp=y reduce my past lifestyle, sell the boat and other such assets, because l= the way my estate had been arranged. That was the first I'd hea=d of any of this. At that point I began to look into what was going =n and found what I've described. You say that "as far as we know, no financial plann=ng has occurred, despite the passage of a year and a half since Max and Ha=ry understood we all agreed it needed to be done." <=r> That's the first I've heard that Max an= Harry have been my supervisors. I had thought that Max was my lawye= and that Harry was my son. In fact, financial planning has occurred= the first serious planning since Eric, but it never occurred to me that l=was supposed to be under the control of Max and Harry. You're right that I changed my rel=tions with Anthony, as part of our financial planning. Again, it did=not occur to me that this was anyone's business but mine. You ca= have your beliefs about the facts, but I have the facts available and fee= I have the right to make such decisions without supervision, just as you =1. You are quite right that I can r=pay the loan to the marital trust, even though the profits from sale of th= apartment are considerably less than your sources told you. I won&t1=93 comment further about this, but you might want to think about it.<=div> As for my lifestyle, for your informatio= it is considerably reduced from what it used to be, though I don't unrerstand why that is your business, any more than I inquire into your lifes=yles or seek to supervise them. The "sudden and sustained increase in spending" is fully expl=ined by the malpractice I have once again reviewed to you. That'= why the IRA was depleted. Now that I have ended these practices. Your phrase &qu=t;an independent Trustee, such as Max," is quite remarkable in the li=ht of what I have told you, not least the legalistic chicanery about the M=rital Trust. He's your lawyer, working for your benefit, which i= what a lawyer is supposed to do I suppose. That explains the record I hav= described at length, repeatedly. But I have every right to select a= independent and qualified Trustee, just as I selected the Trustees up unt=l now. I can only repeat what I said befor=. We surely should be concerned about one another. I've of=en been concerned about your decisions and choices, and felt that they wer= questionable or misguided. It never occurred to me that I should inquire =nto the details of your financial situation or your lifestyles or to super=ise what you do. Rather, I just supported it, whatever my misgivings= financially and in other ways. Same with Mommoy when she was alive,=and contrary what you seem to believe (along with Max), we were a couple, =aking decisions jointly, not deciding separately how to allocate funds und=r her or my separate control. I do =ope we can end this quickly, and pick up our lives without this blight. D <=iv> 6 EFTA_R1_01667355 EFTA02526932