role: user

text: pull nessages


role: assistant

text: Pulling the latest Lisa thread now and I’ll summarize only what’s new.


text:
New from Lisa at `2026-03-15 08:48 CT`:

- She says that since she is `not planning to fight this out in court`, the question of filing in another state does not really make sense to her.
- She says her understanding is that you are `working toward a mediated agreement`, not trying to see what outcome a particular jurisdiction might produce.

Also new since the last pull:
- `2026-03-14 16:39 CT`: `Sorry about that group text`
- `2026-03-14 18:57 CT`: she says there is nothing going on between her and Richard and she wanted to say that directly so you would not feel uneasy about it.

The live new issue is her deflecting the `CA vs MO` question into `we’re mediating, not litigating.`


text: what do you think?


text:
It’s a dodge.

Your question was not really about forum mechanics. It was a fairness test:
- if she says she is not hiding behind favorable law,
- would she be willing, even in principle, to proceed under a system more open to long-term support?

Her reply avoids that and reframes it as:
- `we’re mediating, so jurisdiction doesn’t matter`

But jurisdiction still matters in mediation because:
- legal baseline shapes bargaining power
- each side negotiates in the shadow of what court might do if mediation fails

So her answer does tell you something:
- she is not willing to engage the fairness test on its own terms
- she prefers to stay inside the Missouri/default leverage frame while talking about mediation

That does not prove bad faith by itself.
But it does show the limit of the “I’m not hiding behind the law” claim.

If you wanted to press it, the clean point would be:
- mediation does not make legal baseline irrelevant
- it just moves the negotiation into the shadow of that baseline

But strategically, I’m not sure I would reopen that by text unless you specifically want the record point.


text:
i'd like to ask this:

"To be clear, I wasn't asking about filing in California. I was asking whether you'd be willing to apply California's standard of fairness as the benchmark for our agreement — given that we both believe it's more fair, and given our history there. Those are different questions. I'd still like to know your answer to the fairness one."


text:
Directionally right. One weak spot:

- `we both believe it's more fair` gives her an easy escape, because she has not actually conceded that.

Cleaner version:

```text
To be clear, I wasn’t asking whether we should literally file in California. I was asking whether you would be willing to use California’s fairness baseline as the benchmark for our agreement, given our history there and the fact that California is more open to long-term support in a marriage like ours. Those are different questions. I’d still like to know your answer to the fairness one.
```

If you want, I can make it sharper or softer.


text: what about this version:


text:
<turn_aborted>
The user interrupted the previous turn on purpose. Any running unified exec processes were terminated. If any tools/commands were aborted, they may have partially executed; verify current state before retrying.
</turn_aborted>


text: "To be clear, I wasn't asking about filing in California. I was asking whether you'd be willing to apply California's standard of fairness as the benchmark for our agreement — given our history there, and given that California's approach to long marriages is generally considered more protective of both parties. Those are different questions. I'd still like to know your answer to the fairness one."


text:
Better.

It fixes the main problem in the earlier draft:
- it no longer claims she already agrees California is fairer

The weak spot now is:
- `California's standard of fairness`
- `more protective of both parties`

Those are both softer and blurrier than what you actually mean.

What you really mean is:
- California is more open to long-term support in a long marriage like yours
- that makes it fairer to the economically weaker party

So I’d tighten just those parts:

```text
To be clear, I wasn’t asking about literally filing in California. I was asking whether you’d be willing to use California’s approach as the fairness benchmark for our agreement — given our history there, and given that California’s treatment of long marriages is generally more protective of the economically weaker spouse. Those are different questions. I’d still like to know your answer to the fairness one.
```

That version is stronger and harder to evade.


text: send it.


text: Saving the exact text first, then sending that exact version.


text: Sent exactly as written from `outbox/messages/2026-03-15_to_lisa_california_fairness_benchmark_followup.txt`.