role: user

text:
i want to say one more thing - something like:

i want to sincerely thank you for talking to me today.  i feel substatially better about things.  if there's anything i can do for you, just let me know.


role: assistant

text:
Use this:

```text
I want to sincerely thank you for talking with me today. I feel substantially better about things. And if there’s anything I can do on my side to help, just let me know.
```


text: send this


text: Saving your exact text for preview, then I’ll send it.


text: Previewed. Sending the exact saved text now.


text: Sent exactly as saved in `outbox/messages/2026-03-27_to_lisa_thank_you_for_talking_today.txt`.


text: can you summarize what Lisa said about fairness vs MO law?


text: I’m pulling the exact fairness / court-language quotes so the summary is accurate.


text:
Short version:

- Early on, Lisa explicitly said she did not want to be “hiding behind what the law might say” and wanted to understand “what would actually be fair to everyone involved.” `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:571`
- But she also said her lawyers told her your ask was “more than what a court would typically order,” and that this made her hesitant. `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:551`
- She also resisted treating fairness as just her personal judgment, saying she needed your actual numbers and assumptions before going further. `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:593`

Where she landed today:
- She said she wants to look at “what Juno and I need, what you need, what is the norm, what is Missouri law, what the trust says, every angle,” and then “find something that works.”
- She also said that the things you have raised to define fairness, like prior plans, BTC, and Missouri law, “honestly, none of that matters to me,” and that she wants to “look forward and decide what is fair based on what we have, and what we need.”
- She later confirmed Jennifer said creative structures are fine, including retirement-style structures.

So the real summary is:
- Lisa is not saying `Missouri law alone controls`.
- She is also not saying `let’s ignore Missouri law and argue pure principle`.
- Her position now seems to be: fairness is a forward-looking needs/workability inquiry, with Missouri law as one input among several, not the sole rule.


text: is it fair to say she agreed to discuss fairness from first principles and not begin with MO law?


text:
Not quite.

Fairer version:
- she agreed that Missouri law is not the only input
- and she agreed to discuss fairness/workability more broadly than just `what a court would do`

But she did **not** clearly agree to:
- start from pure first principles
- or leave Missouri law out at the beginning

Her actual position is closer to:
- `look at everything: needs, trust, Missouri norms/law, compromises, and what works`

So the accurate statement is:

- `She did not insist that Missouri law alone controls.`
- `She also did not agree to bracket Missouri law and argue fairness from first principles only.`

If you overstate that, she could fairly push back.


text: she said: The mediation is whatever we make of it. We can do anything we want, and it doesn’t matter what Missouri law says.


text: I’m checking the thread for that exact statement so I answer from the record, not memory.


text:
That quote is much stronger.

She did say:

- `2026-03-27 14:59`
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last30d.jsonl:654` probably not exact line maybe safest use chat message refs? better from pulled json no file line. We have message_id 127654.
- text:
  - `The mediation is whatever we make of it. We can do anything we want, and it doesn’t matter what Missouri law says.`

And immediately after:

- `2026-03-27 15:04`
- `message_id 127659`
- `Jennifer said that she is only there to help us get to an agreement... if we agreed to something crazy, that’s fine. Her job is to help us be creative so that we can agree.`

So yes, those statements support this narrower claim:

- `Lisa agreed that mediation does not have to be bounded by Missouri law and can be used to reach a fairness-based agreement beyond what a court would order.`

What they do **not** fully support is:

- `Lisa agreed to ignore Missouri law entirely and argue only from first principles.`

Because later that same day she also said:

- she wants to look at `what Juno and I need, what you need, what is the norm, what is Missouri law, what the trust says, every angle`
- and decide fairness based on `what we have, and what we need`

So the accurate synthesis is:

- she **did** agree Missouri law does not control mediation
- she **did** agree creative fairness-based solutions are on the table
- she **did not** commit to excluding Missouri law from her own thinking altogether

That is still a meaningful concession.