Love, Avi, Diane and Harry <mailto From: . Noam Chomsky < =; To: . Avi Chomsky < >, Diana Chomsky < », Harry Chomsky < <mailt » Date: 4> 03/02/2018 23:33 Subject: * Response to your letter Still surpr=sed that you had the financial information about the apartment and our Tucson house, which we never provided to anyone, because it's no one's business, =ust as no one knew or raised any questions about earlier cases of purchase and sale. However, wh=ever provided you with the information left a few things out, like payments to the cooperative and the costs of the sale. When these are taken into account, you'll find that what we received suffices to cover t=e costs of our purchase of the apartment, a bad mistake, as I've alre=dy explained, since we obviously couldn't afford it, not having the funds from the sale of the Lexington house, as I had expected. There is a little left over for a small mortgage on a much less expensive place that we can afford. In the cooperative there are retired professors, but they are people who have pensions and had property that they could sell to buy the apartment. I had neither, as you know. Again, I do='t know why you brought this up at all, but more generally, don't understan= why you are persisting with this correspondence. As I've written =everal times, and shouldn't have to say, I've worked hard all my l=fe, set aside ample funds to ensure that my children and their families will be well taken care of, and think I have the right to spend my last years in peace and tranquility without being concerned with accounting for financial matte=s. I don't understand, but will respond to your letter. I.=99II also send a separate letter concerning some recent interchanges with Max, which you may or may or not have heard something about. I should say that your letter is not easy for me to read, and a response won't be easy to write, for reasons I've explained in earlier lette=s. In the first place, to repeat again, I'm amazed that we are having this correspondence at all, that we've wasted 5 minutes on this. I als= continue to be perplexed about the difference of style: I write you persona= letters, and when you respond to them (usually you don't, as in the prerent case), the letters read as though they are written by lawyers in an adversa=ial proceeding. On the matter of the loan to buy the Cambridge apartment, for example, I explained that the whole idea of a loan within a family seemed to me utterly surreal, and I agreed only because I assumed, mistaken=y, that the loan was for a few weeks until the Lexington house would be sold and would cover the costs of the apartment. If I had been paying attention, I would have known that I didn't own the Lexington house.. If I had had a lawyer and financial adviser who were concerned with my situation, they would have informed me that the Lexington house was not mine, and since I had no funds to pay for a new place to live, I couldn'=t afford to buy an apartment in Cambridge near Harvard Square, surely not a coop with continual fees. That's what I 7 EFTA_R1_01667356 EFTA02526933

explained in my let=er. Your response was a statement of the legal issues as you understood them and advice to have lawyers clarify the matter. Same now.* I wrote you several long personal letters, and this is your first response.* Virtually a legal document. And I have to say I'm surprised that you have the information you include, which happens to be incorrect in crucial respects as I explained in earlier letters and will repeat. In particul=r, your account of the sale of the Lexington house and the purchase of the apartmen= is incorrect, as I have just reviewed once again. The facts are as I have already described them, entirely unlike the story you present here, which I presume you received from Max and Sam. Some of you= letter is correct. I did not consult with lawyers before we decided to marry -- I won't comment further on this. And it is true that the earli=r estate planning did not take into account that I might marry, a fact that has been causing some remarkable actions. I won't comment on this either, but will simply add below a letter I wrote to you some time ago but never sent. You state, =orrectly, that it would be wrong for Valeria to end up as your tenant. But then right below you say that the preferred solution was for the apartment we bought to be in a trust of which you are the beneficiaries, which means that she would end up as your tenant. That aside, why should the apartment have been in a trust at all? As I wrote =ou several times, we are very happy together. Valeria gave up her family, friend=, and a flourishing professional career to be with me — a very precio=s gift. I want to make sure that she is well taken care of when I die, not beholden to anyone, not anyone's tenant. About the &=uot;scam," yes, there is one, and I have described it to you several times. To repeat again: the mandatory annual withdrawal from the IRA is about $300,000, which certainly does sound like a lot of money, until we look at what was happening to it. About half went to distributions to the family. The remaining half was spent in taxes and management fees for the entire estate. Over and above this were the payments for Wellf=eet and Alex's medical expenses, all drawn from the IRA in excess of the ma=datory withdrawal and therefore subject to exorbitant taxes. That's befo=e one cent was used for personal expenses. If I had had a lawyer/financ=al adviser, he would have informed me that this is going to quickly deplete the IRA. But I didn't. I finally learned about it and ended it. Same with t=e demand for financial analysis. When money from my IRA was being distributed to 10 family members, no one asked them to provide a financial analysis.Q Or in any other case, like distributions from the Marital Trust. The demand arises only when I request money (which I should have access to anyway) for the purpose of paying taxes that are exorbitant for the reasons I have just described again. You say tha= my expenditures have gone up since then. Since you seem to have gotten information about my expenses, could you explain how they went up? I can give you some hints. We were, for example, paying tens of thousands of dollars to Max for things like making a will, which, when he finally sent it to us, was so outlandish that we simply trashed it -- for example, with a demand that we list all of our tangible assets, including teaspoons and pillow cases, presumably to make sure that nothing would go to Valeria. And other such conditions. So yes, those were expenses. If you know of other ones, please let me know. You clearly=trust Max and are accepting his version of events and circumstances rather than mine.4) That surprises me, but to repeat, I don't trust him at all, for go=d reasons, which I've explained repeatedly -- leaving out a fair amount.<=font> Could add m=re, but won't. To go back to the beginning, I find it difficult to un=erstand why you are persisting in these inquiries. We are a family. We care for each other. I don't understand why you are doing =his. 0 8 EFTA_R1_01667357 EFTA02526934

There are s=me other reasons why it looks simple to me, and I think it would be helpful to make them clear and open. Throughout =his whole business, thoughts have been coming to my mind that I'm sure must have occurred to you too. Namely my own experiences. When my mot=er died, in 1972, my father was 78 years old, not a good time to be alone. Knew that well enough then, but it came home like a hammer blow when Mommoy was diagnosed in 2006 with incurable brain and lung cancer, and I was priva=ely told by her physician that she had at most months to live -- never told her of course. I couldn't help realizing that if I had died befor= her, and she was alone, she would have had to be put in some facility where she would suffer and die soon in misery. Since I was there, I could take care of her at home and to the great surprise of her doctors, she had two years that were tolerable and sometimes very enjoyable even as she wasted away and reverted to infancy, and was able to pass away in peace, at home.<=font> i didn'= think of all of that when my mother died, but I did understand enough to realize -- we all did -- that my father was facing a very difficult and dangerous period. We were the=efore all delighted when, a year later, he met and married Ruth. They spent the rest of his life together, happy and secure, and he too was able to pass away at home, in peace, his wife taking care of him and his children and Judy nearby. We were, of=course, very grateful that he had found Ruth, and very grateful to her. David and I owned the house, but of course we just gave it to her for the rest of her life, and for whatever she wanted to do with it. There was n=ver a question, a problem, a concern. All entirely natural within a family, very simple. Like other =ases I know of. D Forwarded message From: Noam Chomsky < Date: Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 6:27 PM Subject: Re: Fwd: Fwd: Marital Trusts To: Diana Chomsky < Cc: Avi Chomsky < <mailto > > 1=> <mailto > > /=ont> <mailto /font> <mailtol », Harry Chomsky Received your letter, and will go through it carefully= But even on a quick reading there are things that surprise me. To mention just one example, I would be interested in knowing where you receiv=d the information about the sale of the apartment in Cambridge and the purcha=e of the house in Tucson. To clarify, Deborah is not Valeria's lawyer, she&#=9;s mine and Valeria's lawyer. Max recognized that he had a conflict of in=erests, and recommended to me that I should have a different lawyer, so we arranged for Deborah and her firm to represent both of us. I can see that there are many other important things t= discuss and clarify. 9 EFTA_R1_01667358 EFTA02526935

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Diana Chomsky < Please find attached a reply to your emails which we spoke with you about before Christmas. As we've said before, based on past experience we have a lot of dou=ts about how well an email exchange will work. We did attempt, a few months ago, to use email to address one small, concrete issue: the loan from the marital trust and its conditions and interest rate. We thought it would be simple to resolve our different understandings, but in the end our multi=le communications—even including an explanatory memo from the lawyer w=' set up the loan—did not manage to clarify things at all. Nonetheles=, since you've asked several times for an email exchange about the broade= issues, we're willing to try. We know that what you asked for was for us to go through your detailed emails point by point and tell you what we disagree with and why. That isn't exactly what we've done here. Instead, this is our be=t attempt to explain the history and circumstances as we understand them. Why have we done this? For a number of reasons. We think that many of your underlying assumptions are far off from reality, and that your understandin= of the past, the present and what we are saying about these financial issue= is deeply distorted. We want to start by looking at the larger, long-term issues, where we feel you have simply rewritten history. The attached narrative is our best attempt to do this. Please keep in mind that it is based only on our memory and a handful of documents we've se=n through the years. The numbers in particular are all rough approximations, since of course we don't have access to your legal and financial fi=es. You may very well feel we're mistaken about some details. But in or=er to address those issues and come to an agreement on even the basic facts, we'd really like to meet face to face, with the help of the people who actually have the documents and the information to determine whether the things each of us believe are true or not. And, with a neutral mediator, who can ensure that we all are able to listen to and understand what the other parties are trying to say. Love, Avi, Diane and Harry From: 20/12/2017 12:24 Subject: Re: Fwd: Fwd: Marital Trusts <mailto May be missing something. I don't see anything mentioned below It's a very troubling situation, as I've outlined, and I hope we ca= settle it quickly. I'd like to get back to my life and work without this constant dark cloud and continual aggravation. It's true that it looks simple to me, but I'll wait to hear from yo=. Soon I hope. 10 EFTA_R1_01667359 EFTA02526936

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Diana Chomsky <=u> > wrote: Dear Doddoy, We recognize that you see a simple way forward -- we should tell you by email what we disagree with in what you have outlined to us, and what our reasons are for disagreeing - but to us this does not seem so simple, for all the reasons we mentioned below. Thus we can't answer you right now, but we didn't want to just leave your email there without any reply. We know this isn't a real response, and we'll get back to you soon wit= something clearer. love, Avi, Diane and Harry From: 16/12/2017 23:18 Subject: Fwd: Fwd: Marital Trusts I'm sorry, but this is surreal. I have repatedly spelled out the circumstances in extensive detail. Your sole response has been that you disagree, without once saying what you disagree with or why. I have never denied anything you have tried to say, for the simple reason that you have never said anything that could either be affirmed or denied, only that you disagree with what I've spe=led out but without any indication of what or why. In this letter, for the first time, you specifically address something I have written. You write: "We can tell from your tax requests that you have been spending many hundreds of thousands of dollars every year on personal expenses, even after having successfully eliminated the extra costs that you have mentioned as a drain on your resources (the Cape house, the gifts, Anthony's salary, etc).&q=ot; What I wrote you however is quite different. To repeat: there is a mandatory withdrawal from the IRA. Half of that was distributed to children, grandchildren, and spouses. The other half was spent in taxes and management fees for the entire estate. Cape house, Alex&=39;s medical expenses and other gifts, Anthony's salary, etc., were from nec=ssary withdrawals over and above the mandatory withdrawal, hence subject to exorb=tant taxes, requiring additional withdrawal. That is before we even get to ordinary living expenses. The request had nothing at all to do with personal expenses, as you can see by just looking at my letters and running through the arithmetic. So the one case you now mention is flatly incorrect. But this tells us how to proceed: tell me explicitly what you have in mind, and then we can proceed in a reasonable fashion. There's a simple way out of this impasse -- not by setting up an advers=ry proceeding with a mediator, as you suggest, but by you telling me what you disagree with in what i have outlined to you and what your reasons are. You have not yet done that in a single letter. So, simply, why not do it right now, and then we can proceed. Again, I've repeatedly spelled out the circumstances in extensive detai=. So, simply, tell me what you disagree with and why. No mediators are necessary, just a direct response. Or if you feel that you have already done so, then re- send the letter in which you responded to my detai=ed account, telling me what you disagree with and why. 11 EFTA_R1_01667360 EFTA02526937

Meanwhile, while the impasse continues, I'm compelled to face constant aggravating and painful circumstances, not to speak of humiliating demands and by now significant costs. That can end if we simply resolve these matters quickly in a straightforward and simple way. I haven't responded to the last part of your letter because it doesn1=;t relate to the matter at hand. I was referring to Max's radical sh=ft in stand, not to how affairs were managed in the past. To repeat, when distributions were made to family from the IRA, and taxes and manageme=t fees for the entire estate were drawn from the IRA -- exhausting the mandat=ry withdrawal -- Max, my lawyer, raised no question about the financial circum=tances of the beneficiaries, nor should he have done so. But when i am requesting tax payments from the marital trust that was set up for M and me and the survivor for our lifetimes, all of a sudden he is making exorbitant and humiliating demands. What you describe below has nothing to do with this simple matter. Forwarded message From: Diana Chomsky <[email protected]=uk <mailto:[email protected].=k» Date: Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 8:37 PM Subject: Re: Fwd: Marital Trusts To: Noam Chomsky < <mailto > > Cc: Avi Chomsky < /font> <mailto <mailto > > Dear Doddoy, », Harry Chomsky We've tried to talk to you about your financial situation several times over the past couple of years, in person, by phone, and by e-mail. The process has been extremely unpleasant for us, and we presume for you as well. More importantly, it has not led to any enlightenment on any of our parts. Much of what we've tried to say you have flatly denied; some of it we think you simply haven't understood. You se=m absolutely convinced that your beliefs are correct and absolutely uninteres=ed in trying to look at the situation in other ways, to the extent that you can't even remember these exchanges. Much of what you've said=to us conflicts directly with our personal knowledge of your history and with legal and financial advice from every source we've heard from. So the conversations lead only to more stress and heartache. We are not willing to continue trying to discuss this with you unless somet=ing changes. One change would be to include a professional in the convers=tion who can resolve our differences in belief about basic facts. However, you have apparently decided that because you disapprove of some of the suggestions made by your former lawyer and financial managers -- many of which were based on choices you and Mommoy had made previously -- you will now not believe anything they tell you. That leaves us with no recour=e to determine the truth about anything that happened between 2007 and 2016.<=r> We have suggested a mediator as a last resort. Perhaps with a mediato= we can at least listen to each other's beliefs and perspectives, even i= we can't come to agreement on key points. Perhaps a mediator coul= even help us find a way to investigate the questions of fact and come to some conclusions that we could all accept. <=ont size="2" face="Arial"> Short of being able to talk to you openly, it's very important to the t=ree of us to protect you from future financial catastrophe. We have been trying our best to do this, and will continue to try, regardless of what happens with our communication. We believe that Eric Menoyo designed your estate plan properly to protect the interests of all parties, and we will continue to work to ensure that the plan is administered in a faith=ul and professional way. We also wanted to say that we have a different interpretation of how we have balanced respect, privacy, and autonomy, versus questions and interfer=nce, in our family history. You tell us that you deeply resent being asked 12 EFTA_R1_01667361 EFTA02526938

quest=ons when you request financial withdrawals, and you deeply resent our questions about your financial situation. You say that you are the only one being questioned in this way. But we don't believe that's the case. Histo=ically, as a family we have been open with each other about our individual financia= situations; we have watched out for each other and stepped in if we felt it was needed; and on the most concrete level, any request to access funds from any of the trusts has always required an explanation to go along with it. In Avi's case, you and Mommoy interfered to tell her that something=was going very wrong with Sandi and that she had to get professional help; to practically force her to go meet with a lawyer Mommoy found for her when she became convinced that Avi's marriage to Ion was causing harm; and to order Avi to go see a doctor and get on medication when she confesse= that she couldn't handle things. That is: when Mommoy s=w Avi doing fine, she didn't pry or interfere. When she saw her=falling apart, she stepped in to help. In Diane's case, she discussed her financial situation with Mommoy =n a very open way on many, many occasions, leading Mommoy to offer her things like washing machines (we all know how that turned out) and more significan=ly, help with rent payments during a few years in Mexico, during a period when: Oxfam had stopped paying the rent, Gmo had stopped receiving his stipend as a grad student, and Diane was still suffering from a considerabl= salary cut imposed by Oxfam after the move to Mexico. Diane accepted her offer, which was a huge temporary help while she got herself back on her feet. Furthermore, on the occasions when Diane has asked Bainco for money from the trust that is in her name, she is always asked to explain exactly what it is for. This happens even though the amounts have never been very large. If anything looks odd, the trustees come back to her with questions. Harry once even phoned her because what she was asking for seemed so strange and he was concerned that something was wrong (in case you are wondering what was indeed going on, it was a small Mexican peso loan to a friend in trouble, which Diane couldn't do by other means because she was trav=ling at the time, and it couldn't wait until she got back home). Diane has n=t found this questioning to be humiliating or prying - she assumes it is the terms of the trust and the trustees are just doing their jobs. In Harry's case, at one point in the mid-1990s he unexpectedly owed 560=000 due to the Alternative Minimum Tax as a result of receiving stock options.40 He discussed this with Mommoy and her accountant, and they decided she would lend him the money to pay the taxes and he would pay her back once he had a chance to exercise and liquidate the stock options, several months later. In the current situation, the reason we are asking you questions now (and never before) is that now we are hearing from you repeatedly that your financial situation is dire. We decided to ask you about your financi=l circumstances - not lightly, as we said in one of our many emails, but after much thought, given that we could see that your concern about it was causing you a great deal of stress and was leading to you taking import=nt and possibly unnecessarily radical decisions. We continue to feel that you are misinterpreting your financial situation, and that this is causing you considerable anguish. It pains us greatly to see this, as we've sai= before. We can tell from your tax requests that you have been spending many hundred= of thousands of dollars every year on personal expenses, even after having successfully eliminated the extra costs that you have mentioned as a drain on your resources (the Cape house, the gifts, Anthony's salary, etc). T=is is far out of alignment with what we know about your lifestyle. You and Valeria should live in comfort together -- no need to adhere to your old, fairly austere living conditions -- but your expenditures seem to go far beyond that, and seem to keep rising. This makes us worry and makes us want to intervene to try to help. It also makes the trustees worry that you are not managing your finances with attention to your possible lifelong needs. Nothing in the long and detailed letters you've s=nt us can begin to explain why your personal spending has shot up the way it has. We can see only little pieces of your situation, because of the secretive posture you've adopted in recent years, but the pieces we do see suggest a set of problems very different from the ones you've descr=bed. 13 EFTA_R1_01667362 EFTA02526939

We hope this helps to explain our position and our real concern. You are right that in our last emails (and in this one) we haven't gone point b= point through your affirmations, explaining our different understanding of the basic facts, but as we said at the beginning of this email, we tried to do that in the past and it didn't work. We truly hope we can find a way to talk openly about the situation. Love, Avi, Diane and Harry From: 14/12/2017 18:03 Subject: Re: Fwd: Marital Trusts I just don't understand this. I've explained the facts in det=il, repeatedly, with no response. You've told me that you have a diff=rent understanding of the basic facts, but haven't told me what it is, or wh=t are the questions to which you want answers other than what I have told you. That is why communication cannot proceed. So, yes, frustra=ing. Evidently you regard this as an adversarial proceeding, requiring a mediato=. I don't understand this either. I thought we were a family discus=ing matters relating to us. I have no idea what a mediator would before.* Mediating what? Another reason for my frustration. As for Bainco and Max, I have explained in part what they have been doing, causing me plenty of harm. In part. As I've told you, there is a lot more. But what I have told you is more than enough to explain that they are not reliable sources who can be trusted. If you want them to answer your questions, OK, but it would seem rather strange if I were to ask them about your financial affairs -- a matter into which I've of course never inquired, except by asking you question= if they came up. So I find all of this quite strange. If I have questions about your lives and circumstances, I would ask you, not some investment firm or lawyer, and I wouldn't request a mediator.4> I don't understand why it is different in my case, and this is somethin= else I'd like to know the explanation for. So, yes, frustrating. For these reasons. > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Diana Chomsky «= > wrote: Dear Doddoy, We have tried to discuss this with you but we have been frustrated—=nd even frightened—by the results. That's why we4,=99ve asked you if we could meet with a mediator who could facilitate the discussion and make sure that we are able to actually hear each other. We would still like to do this if you are willing. Because some of the disagreements seem to be about basic facts—which could be clarified by outside so=rces—we have also asked if these outside sources (Bainco, Max) could be part of the conversation, or could be available to give us clear answers to some of the questions. We would still like to do this, too! Love, Avi, Diane and Harry 14 EFTA_R1_01667363 EFTA02526940