From: Valeria Chomsky •t: > To: "jeffrey E." <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: taxes Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2017 01:13:15 +0000 Attachments: Memo_on_loan-interestfor_condo.docx Jeffrey, We just received the following letter. Noam would like if you could take a look at this letter and let us know if it is accurate or not on the interpretation of the promissory note. And if not, could you please explain why it is not? Valeria Forwarded message From: Diana Chomsky Date: Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 7:32 PM Subject: Re: taxes To: Noam Chomsky Cc: Avi Chomsky , Harry Chomsky, Valeria Chomsky Hi, thanks for your reply. 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 explain 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." But you are taking those words out of context. We really don't think we should be trying to explain these details 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 Pershing 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 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—you are just so angry that 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