From: Valeria Chomsky Sent: Sunday, July 2, 2017 12:47 PM To: Jeffrey E. Subject: Fwd: taxes =he Wellfleet house was a house Noam bought for the Summer time in the 1970=. Where Noam would spend time writing. The house was transferr=d to his children's name and transformed into an LLC. The family=gathers there in the Summer. Noam was paying $50,000 annually, as a =ent fee for the house, but we were staying only one or two weeks there. An= considering all our situation, our new lawyer recommended to stop =hese payments immediately. I asked No=m and he is confirming that all the Trusts, even the ones established unde= Carol's name were funded with his money. </=iv> The girls have jobs, but according to Noam, they don&#=9;t make enough from their jobs. But they live very comfortable lives. Tra=els, etc. It seems they complement their income with in=estments from money that Noam has given them along the years, including an=ual distributions. Noam bought them their houses. Helped them with house r=novations. When one of the daughters divorced, Noam gave the daughters'= spouse a house, as part of the divorce agreement. Used to pay for airline=tickets, etc. There are copyright of books in their names of in thei= own trusts. The son doesnir;t work. His wife doesn't work either. They have a wonderful boy who h=s autism and we were paying his medical expenses. But they live a very com=ortable life. Travel constantly business class. Hiking in Switzerland, etc= We are not interested in any of the money/=ssets from the past or to which they are the beneficiaries. Their life sty=e is not our business. All we want is to be independent with the one=source that Noam was left with -- the IRAs and our work and jobs. Th= whole problem is because they insist that they have to be in charge of ou= financial life, to be part of the planning of our financial life, to be i=cluded in our decisions, such as the moving to Arizona. It is some k=nd of controlling personalities. One of th= problems was when we bought the Cambridge apartment and Noam told that he=wanted the apartment to be mine unencumbered. What they don't seem to understand is that their behavior causes a l=t of stress to Noam. Otherwise, we are very happy. And would l=ke to have peace to enjoy our life together without interferences. adiv> Forwarded message - From: jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmailcom=/a» <mailto:[email protected]> Date: Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 7:43 AM Subject: Re: taxesar>To: Valeria Chomsky <mailt° EFTA_R1_01880568 EFTA02644656

What is th= wellfleet house? Do they earn money of their own ? Do they depend o= Noam for money ? Do they have families? On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 1:=6 PM Valeria Chomsky wrote: The money for the Trusts for them came totally from Noam,accordi=g to Noam, although some Trusts were established in Carol's name.Q Noam also provided them the homes they own and live, in addition to the=Lexington house and the Wellfleet house. =br> Forwarded message From: jeffrey E. <[email protected] <mailto:jeevacation@gmail=com» Date: Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 5:22 =M Subject: Re: taxes To: Valeria Chomsky <mailtoa yes, the money in trust for them originally came=from Noam correct? On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Valeria Chomsky wrote: 1) The money under discussion is al= Noam's. All the other assets were transferred to Noam's children =n trusts or directly. For example, the Wellfleet house became a LLC =nder their names. 2) Carol had been working earli=r. But almost all the money was from Noam's income and there were no d=stinction between the two income flows. Valeria Forwarded messa=e From: jeffrey E. &=t;jeevacation@g=ail.com <[email protected]» Date: Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 11:55 PM Subject: R=: taxes To: Valeria Chomsky <mailto l> l=personally will meet with speak with any one or all of them. s= put your mind at ease. they are right in certain =egards. however it tells me little re the overall situation. 4) The interest language is ok. it was designed=to merely pass through the same amount that the trust was paying , a= they were borrowing the money themselves from pershing. and y=u were only required to pay the same rate that they were paying. .4r however I have many questions re the overall. fe . we can rectify this fairly quickly . but I wart to make sure we have all the documents first. 14> did the children EARN any of the money under discussion or is =his all noams. 2 did his past wife earn this money. 40 ? I suggest you tell them that you wish to collect all docu=ents in one place. and then the 2 EFTA_R1_01880569 EFTA02644657

moment that is complete you will hav= someone sit with them. . dont let on its me...A0 . tell them as soon as you have all the docs you will strai=hten this all out. . O= Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Valeria Chomsky <mailto &=t; wrote: Jeffrey, We j=st received the following letter. Noam would like=if you could take a look at this letter and let us know if it is accurate =r not on the interpretation of the promissory note. And if not, coul= you please explain why it is not? Valeria <=iv> </=iv> Forwarded message F=om: Diana Chomsky Date: Sat, Jul 1, =017 at 7:32 PM Subject: Re: taxes To: Noam Chomsky Cc: Avi =homsky , Harry Chomsky, Valeria Chomsky Hi, thanks for your reply. We are very, very concerned that y=u are not understanding and not getting help in understanding what is happeni=g 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 explain what the Promissory Note language means. Just to give you one example of ou= concern: You focus on one phrase: that the interest will be "=t the highest rate in effect." But you are taking those words out of =ontext. We really don't think we should be trying to explain these d=tails to you, but to try to summarize: this phrase applied to the double nature of the loan—the Marital Trust had to borrow money from Persh=ng to make the loan to you, until the Lexington house was sold. The phrase you quote applies only to that brief period, and has no impact on the interest accruing now or in the future. We can see why focusing on those s=x words would make you angry. But the six words mean nothing in and of themse=ves (i.e., what rate is "in effect"?). But instead of doi=g the logical thing—getting the full information—you are just so angry th=t you refuse to find out the truth. 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 response only redoubles our sense that you are simply misreading 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 possible interpretation of complex legal language, and 3 EFTA_R1_01880570 EFTA02644658