From: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 9:55 AM To: Valeria Chomsky Subject: Re: Fwd: taxes - 2 if noam allows , i think i can clear this up f=irly quickly, in addition he did not get the=second payment from the foundation. so that could go directly =o interest if he so chooses. . the children can be told =he name of rich kahn from the firm of HRBK. 40 my name nevr has to enter On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Valeria Chomsky <=pan dir="ltr" > wrote: This is where we stand right now (e-mails below). They didn=#39;t acknowledge his request. Until recently Noam was absolutely convinced that his children wo=ld disregard and forgive the loan completely. This and some other th=ngs have been a blow on him. He was very sad. But, fortunately= we came to Tucson and we have been enjoying our new house and somehow dis=racting ourselves from the pressure and stress. I don't want to bring the subject back now, but, when we can meet,=l would like to explain some aspects of the relationship between the famil= lawyer and our new lawyer. There were some e-mail exchanges where t=e family lawyer proposed our new lawyer that they have to work as a "=eam". Forwarded message From: Diana Chomsky Date: Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 9:51 PM Subject: =e: Fwd: taxes To: Noam Chomsky Cc: Avi Chomsky, Harry Chomsky= Valeria Chomsky Ok, hope=the trips go well, and looking forward to hearing from you when you are back. Love, Avi, Diane and Harry From: 40 Noam Chomsky =br>To: 40=M) Diana Chomsky Cc: t> Avi Chomsky, H=rry Chomsky, Valeria Chomsky Date: 08/07/2017 06:00 Subject= Re: Fwd: taxes EFTA_R1_01878986 EFTA02643584

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. On the DNI payments to me, I have nothing to ask, beca=se I never heard of it before your letter and have no idea what it is. There are no further distributions. That was arr=nged with Bainco when it became clear to them and us that distributions to the family were almost exhausting the obligatory IRA withdrawals. On the promissory note, it's up to you what intere=t you want to charge on the loan. The Trust is basically yours. If you want to leave it this way, that's your choice. We have nothin= to talk to Max about it. We tried to rouse up David, but he never answered our phone calls or other messages, so we never got back in. We'll pro=ably spend a couple of days there later in August. Now we're off to Tu=son, then Uruguay for talks and various events with Mujica, then Brazil, back at the end of the month. On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Diana Chomsk Noam Chomsky To: =iana Chomsky < Cc: =vi Chomsky ' > >_ Subject: Re: Fwd: taxes , Valeria Chomsky Harry Chomsky I don't really understand. There are two questions. One is about the DNI, I had never heard of that before your letter and have no idea what it is. The other matter has to do with the interest on the loan. But as I wrote, that's up to you. The issue co=ld easily be settled by an addendum to the promissory note that conforms to your choice. As I also explained, Max and I agreed some time ago that he would no longer be representing me, so I don't really have anything to contact him abou=.tri All seems pretty simple as far as I can see. We went over to the Cape house and found that the workers were there. They said that the power had been restored. I tried the garage light, and it's on. Problem is that the house is locked. Tri=d to contact David but haven't yet been able to reach him. D On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Diana Chomsky < > wrote: 2 EFTA_R1_01878987 EFTA02643585

Thanks for your message. I guess it's not productive to continue this c=nversation by this medium at this point. If you have questions about anything we'v= brought up we suggest that you speak directly to the people administering those affairs. It sounds like you're all having a good time at the Cape and the we=ther has been lovely. Those of us who couldn't make it this time are sorry t= have missed it! and hope to be able to catch up soon. Love, Avi, Diane and Harry From: Cc: =aleria Chomsky < Date: 06/07/2017 08:33 Subject: Fwd: taxes =font size="3" No need to find any of this painful, and no point in spending time up and back wirh Max. As I explained, none of what we're now discussing has anything to do with our decision to move or other major decisions, all being taken on entirely different grounds. And no reason for you to be concerned about our financial situation, which is well in hand..<=r> You mention other examples. If there are any, I'd of course like to know about them. All I knew about, until your last letter, had to do with the interest on the loan. You brought up another matter that I didn't know about: DNI payments to me. As I wrote, I would like to know about them, since there is no record in what has been sent by Bainco. But that I-=;5 easily cleared up without our wasting any time. The only other issue has to do with what the promissory note says about the interest on the loan, again, easily resolved. What remains is a passage that we're interpreting somewhat differently, but that too is very easily resolved without any meetings: simply have the promissory note rewritten to state explicitly what interest is to be paid when we pay back the loan. And that's basically up to you. Nothing else has to be mentioned about non-existent loans. And there's no reason f=r any of us to waste precious time simply to resolve matters that are easily settled just by mail. With regard to Max, he and I agreed some time ago that he was in a difficul= position representing both Valeria and me on the one hand, and the rest of the family on the other. There are no difficulties in that, but it's best to resolve the matter cleanly. So we agreed that he wou=d represent the rest of the family while Valeria and I have all of our affair= separately, which is how it has been working since. So there's no reason to bring Max into this apart from rewriting the promissory note to resolve any ambiguities. Again, nothing painful, no reason for concern, what is still unclear has nothing to do with any of our decisions and can easily be resolved without difficulty or delay. D Forwarded message From: Diana Chomsky Date: Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 4:17 PM Subject: Re: taxes To: Noam Chomsky 3 EFTA_R1_01878988 EFTA02643586

<011WWWWWWIII >, Harry Chomsky Valeria Chomsky < >=br> Hi, What worries us about continuing to try to clear it all up in writing us that it isn't efficient or effective. There's lots of time-consumin=, expensive back-and-forth with Max in order for us to give you responses which are obviously not clear because they only lead to further questions. What's your objection to a meeting? Cutting out the middle- man/woman (us) would almost have to be more effective. At the very worst, it can't hurt, and it could help. We don't understand why you have repeatedly refused to c=nsider this, unless of course there's some issue there on your side that we L=;re not aware of. However, we'll give this one another try in writing anyway, since we do have more detailed information now. The paragraph you quoted from the Promissory Note specifies interest rates under two different conditions: 1) when there is a loan outstanding between the Marital Trust and Pershing; 2) when there is no such loan outstanding. At the moment there is no such loan outstanding. Therefore, the interest rate that applies is the Mid Term Applicable Federal Rate. A quick web search shows that this has hovered between about 1.5% and 2% during the past couple of years. The language you are disturbed by -- "the highest rate in effect" -- does not apply in the current circumstances. It did apply when the loan was new, because the Marital Trust borrowed money from Pershing in order to raise money to lend to you. However, that secondary loan was paid off once the Lexington house was sold. Since that time, there has been no outstanding loan between the Trust and Pershing, and your interest rate has been governed by the Mid Term Applicable Federal Rate. As we all know, legal language can be abstract and thus difficult or imposs=ble to interpret correctly without having the context. Example: Without knowing about the second loan, it is not possible to under=tand what the promissory note means. Another example: Without having the terms and conditions of the trust at hand, it is not possible to glean from the promissory note that the interests - in effect - are returned to you. These are just two examples of many, as we've said before. In general, we are finding this discussion extremely painful. We feel like you are immersed in an alternative world-view which is distorting your interpretation of what is going on. You may very well feel the same about us. Can't we try a different approach? Love, Avi, Diane and Harry From: > Harry Chomsk Cc: =aleria Chomsk Date: 01/07/2017 23:18 Subject: Re: taxes >=font size="3"> 4 EFTA_R1_01878989 EFTA02643587

I should make it clear to start with that none of this bears on our decisio= to move to Tucson. That has quite different motives. We do of course have to face our financial situation: reliance on a diminis=ing IRA (and another very small one) with no access to other funds, and the burden of paying for an apartment that I agreed to buy only on the mistaken assumption that the cost would be paid by the Lexington house. What we're discussing is something else: the nature of the loan from th= Trust. The final version of the Promissory Note that was provided to me reads as follows: "Interest on the balance out=tanding shall be payable at a rate equal to the highest rate in effect from time to time on any one or more loans outstanding <=font> between-Lender and (insert full name of Pershing entity], or if no such loans are in existence, then the rate shall be fixed at the so-called Mid Term Applicable Federal Rate in effect at the time, recalculated monthly in accordance with Section 1274(d) of the Internal Revenue Code, or an= successor thereto. Interest due on each Loan shall be calculated based on a 360-day year and the actual number of days elapsed."<=ont size="3"> There is nothing here, or elsewhe=e in the document, that restricts it to the brief period before the sale of the Lexington house. I have no information at all abou= having received any DNI. If there is such information, it should be sent to me so that I can use it for our own plans. I don't see much point in a m=eting. It seems to me that all of this can be cleared up in writing. On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 7:32 PM, Diana Chomsky « • D. Hi, thanks for your reply. > wrote: We are very, very concerned that you are not understanding and not getting help in understanding what is happening with your finances. Your responses below only increase our concern. The three of us are not able to serve as financial advisors. We urge you strongly to speak directly with Max so that he can clarify what he says in the Memo and expla=n what the Promissory Note language means. Just to give you one example of our concern: You focus on one phrase: that the interest will be "at the highest rate in effect." =ut you are taking those words out of context. We really don't think we =hould be trying to explain these details to you, but to try to summarize: t=is phrase applied to the double nature of the loan—the Marital Trust h=d to borrow money from Pershing to make the loan to you, until the Lexington house was sold. The phrase you quote applies only to that brief perio=, and has no impact on the interest accruing now or in the future. We can see why focusing on those six words would make you angry. But the six words mean nothing in and of themselves (i.e., what rate is "in=effect"?). But instead of doing the logical thing—getting the full information=E24“flou are just so angry that you refuse to find out the truth. =br> Again, this is just one example of where you are stating conclusions based on faulty or incomplete information. There are explanations for your other issues as well (how the DNI is paid to you, how the interest payments can be made, etc) but rather than us trying to summarize the information for you here, we think it would make more sense for you to discuss them with the people who set all of this up, in the context of a broader conversation= Reading your 5 EFTA_R1_01878990 EFTA02643588

response only redoubles our sense that you are simply misreadi=g important elements of your entire financial situation, and that you are making big decisions based on faulty information. We feel that you have painted yourself into a corner, in which you arrive at the worst possi=le interpretation of complex legal language, and then refuse to speak with the very people who could explain it to you, and just get angry at them based on your misinterpretations. We beg you once again to meet with us and with the people who set up the Trust, the loan, etc., to clarify these issues. Love, Avi, Diane and Harry From: 30/06/2017 19:41 Subject: Re: taxes Glad to see the memo. I compared the memo with the original document, the promissory note that is the official signed agreement. The memo is in error about the promissory note. The facts are as I already described them. A few comments interspersed into the memo you sent, attached. I don't see any point in discussions with Max and Bainco. The fac=s seem completely clear. If there are other issues, I'd of course be glad to know about them. I hope we can settle all of this quickly. D On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Diana Chomsky wrote: As promised, please find attached a memo with information about the Marital Trust, and in particular the conditions on the loan from the Trust, which are somewhat different from what you indicated to us in your previous email= We have thought for a long time that you have misunderstood key aspects of the financial situation. This is why we have been asking you to meet with us and with Max and Bainco. The issues discussed in this memo are only one part of the picture. We still think that the meetin= we have been urging is important and could clear up other issues. Love, Avi, Diane and Harry 6 EFTA_R1_01878991 EFTA02643589