From: Valeria Chomsky

From: Valeria Chomsky To: "Jeffrey E." <[email protected]> Cc: Noam Chomsky Subject: Fwd: Absurd Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 14:30:51 +0000 (fixing my English) and adding more. This is OUTRAGEOUS, a total inversion of roles, disrespectful, like they are dealing with an incompetent, incapable, senile person. A total absurd. It doesn't make any sense that Noam remains subject to these humiliating conditions. Much ado about nothing (it is his own money). And it is not worthy and healthy if he has to beg for his own money or has to be considered an incompetent person and has to follow (a), (b) and (c) conditions like a child guided by the ones who decided to be his tutors. They are talking with the most respected intellectual in the world, who is lucid, active and engaged in more intellectual activities than all of them combined in their small worlds and minds. Noam DID NOT agree in providing any financial analysis. They are using false arguments. Noam and I agreed in having a financial analysis to clarify how Bainco was listing expenses improperly, changing the criteria from previous years, adding expenses that before were in separate categories as our "personal" expenses, such as medical expenses to Noam's grandchild, that in previous years were classified as "medical" or the rent of the Wellfleet house ($50,000.00) started coming as our "personal" expenses in Bainco's reports. This was used as the one of Max's arguments in the meeting that our "personal expenses" had skyrocketed. It seems to me that Max has some homework to do and not impose conditions on Noam. Max must provide the trusts accounting and has not. After Noam's request, Max proposed two versions of the accounting: one that would cost $5,000 and another that would cost $10,000 (supposedly to be paid from the trusts). Noam waited for more than a month. and received a report with almost no information, at least no relevant ones. Max also did not consult Noam about the distributions from the trusts. It is a total inversion of roles. Max talks about Noam like Noam has lost his mind and needs surveillance and to be monitored. This is UNACCEPTABLE. Can he talk to Noam in these terms? Below what I am referring to: "2. Having previously been assured (prior to making tax payments on Noam's behalf at the end of 2015 and in early 2016) that Noam would engage in a financial planning process with Nick Nichols, and having notified you at the time that I did not intend to make any further principal distributions until that process was completed, I informed you on Tuesday that I was not prepared to make any principal distributions to Noam now. On further reflection, and mindful of Noam's distress, I've reconsidered the circumstances and am willing to make the proposed $150,000 payment to the IRS on his behalf, provided that you will (a) urge Noam to engage in a financial planning process (with Nick Nichols or another financial professional of his choosing), (b) urge Noam to cooperate in providing some information to me about his financial resources, income and expenses (to a degree mutually acceptable), and (c) impress upon Noam the fact that though I am now making another tax payment from the trust on his behalf, I do so with no intention of making further distributions of principal unless he completes the financial planning and disclosure process that was agreed upon in 2015." EFTA00921532