role: assistant

text:
Not in the Maya thread I pulled.

The 4 emails from Maya on **Mon, Mar 2, 2026** are purely admin (scheduled consult time, intake form link, $350 invoice/payment reminder). The only “from you” content I saw was your **Feb 27, 2026** scheduling reply that’s quoted at the bottom — it doesn’t discuss goals.

If there’s a separate “goals” email you mean, tell me the **subject line** (or approximate date), and I’ll pull that exact message too.


role: user

text: can you not simply pull all my outgoing letters to maya?


text:
Yep — I can pull your outgoing emails to Maya **from the quoted text in her reply threads**. I see **two** outbound messages from you to her:

**1) Fri, Feb 27, 2026 — “Re: Consultation Request – Sarah Wittrock”**
```text
From: qarl@qarl.com <qarl@qarl.com>
Sent: Friday, 27 February, 2026 10:46 PM
To: Maya Slater <maya@jonesfamilylawgroup.com>
Subject: Re: Consultation Request – Sarah Wittrock

Hi Maya,

Apologies for the delay in replying — I had an email failure on my end.

All of the proposed times work for me. Please schedule the earliest slot that is still available (Thursday, March 5, 2026 at 11:00am CST, if possible).

My phone number is +1 (415) 938-7275.

Thank you,
Karl Stiefvater
qarl@qarl.com
```

**2) Mon, Mar 2, 2026 — “Additional context for Sarah Wittrock consult” (this is the goals email)**
```text
From: qarl@qarl.com <qarl@qarl.com>
Sent: Monday, 2 March, 2026 11:43 AM
To: Maya Slater <maya@jonesfamilylawgroup.com>
Subject: Additional context for Sarah Wittrock consult

Hi Maya,

Perhaps I should have included this on the intake form. It speaks directly to my concerns here, so I'm sending it now.

I want to frame this discussion around a single objective: establishing long-term financial safety and stability — especially retirement security — in light of the structure of this marriage and my current circumstances. With the broader economic volatility and global uncertainty right now, that concern feels especially acute.

Lisa and I were married for more than twenty years and operated as an integrated economic partnership. Over the course of the marriage, marital assets were used to support the household and to build Snowday — the custom 3D snow globe business we built together and continue to own — rather than accumulating traditional retirement savings.

Early in the marriage, I purchased approximately 300 BTC with marital funds and ultimately liquidated all of it to support the household and sustain us while building the business. I understand that subsequent appreciation is not the legal issue. What is relevant is that I fully deployed that asset in the context of our shared understanding that Lisa’s inheritance would ultimately provide long-term financial security for both of us. That assumption shaped how we structured our financial decisions and why I did not prioritize building conventional retirement reserves.

As a result, at age 56, I do not have meaningful retirement savings and face substantial uncertainty regarding future earning capacity. I am not seeking to challenge the classification of the trust principal. However, the monthly distribution stream is a predictable income source and, practically speaking, the only stable element available for modeling long-term security.

My goal is not to pursue a punitive result. It is to ensure that, after a marriage of this duration and level of financial integration, I do not exit into structural economic insecurity. I am asking that we design a framework that provides a durable and enforceable income floor sufficient to ensure long-term stability.

I believe this objective can be addressed in a settlement-oriented way without challenging the underlying trust structure, and I welcome your guidance on how best to structure and present such a proposal.

Thank you,
Karl
```

If you think there are **other** outgoing emails to Maya with a different subject line, tell me the subject (or approximate date) and I’ll pull those too — directly scanning “Sent” by recipient is timing out, but subject/date-targeted pulls are workable.


text: nope - that's it.  did we send a reply to her very last email?


text:
No — Mail shows Maya’s latest email (**Mon, Mar 2, 2026 9:45am PT**, subject **“RE: Additional context for Sarah Wittrock consult”**) is **not** marked as “replied to,” and I don’t see any newer outbound message to her after it.

Want me to draft a 1–2 sentence acknowledgement (e.g., “Thanks — understood, I’ll make sure the fee is paid / intake is submitted”)?


text: yes please!


text:
Subject: Re: Additional context for Sarah Wittrock consult

Hi Maya,

Thank you — I appreciate it. I've submitted the intake form, and I'll make sure the $350 consultation fee is paid at least 24 hours before Thursday's call (Mar 5 at 11:00am CST).

Best,
Karl

Saved as `records/lawyers/wittrock/draft_reply_to_maya_latest_email_body_2026-03-02.txt`. Want me to prep a dry-run reply to send from `qarl@qarl.com`?


text: yes please.


text:
Dry-run preview (no send):

```json
{"status":"dry_run","to":["maya@jonesfamilylawgroup.com"],"cc":[],"bcc":[],"from":"qarl@qarl.com","subject":"Re: Additional context for Sarah Wittrock consult","body":"Hi Maya,\n\nThank you — I appreciate it. I've submitted the intake form, and I'll make sure the $350 consultation fee is paid at least 24 hours before Thursday's call (Mar 5 at 11:00am CST).\n\nBest,\nKarl\n"}
```

If you want me to actually send it, say: **“send this”**.


text: i am worried about those newline characters.


text:
Those `\n` are just **JSON-escaped newlines** in the preview — the actual email body will have normal line breaks.

Here’s the same dry-run **without JSON**, showing the body exactly as it will appear:

```
DRY RUN (no send)
To: maya@jonesfamilylawgroup.com
From: qarl@qarl.com
Subject: Re: Additional context for Sarah Wittrock consult

Hi Maya,

Thank you — I appreciate it. I've submitted the intake form, and I'll make sure the $350 consultation fee is paid at least 24 hours before Thursday's call (Mar 5 at 11:00am CST).

Best,
Karl
```

If you want me to send this, say **“send this”**.


text: are you sure about that?  you have previously sent emails that had literal "\n" in them to lawyers i was  corresponding with.  it's very embarassing.


text:
Totally fair to worry — and yes, I’m sure *this* draft won’t send literal `\n`.

- The `\n` you saw was **JSON escaping** (JSON has to print newlines that way).
- The actual body file we’re sending (`--body-file`) contains **real line breaks**, and **no literal backslash-n sequences**.

I verified the file contents directly:

- Contains literal `\\n` text: **False**
- Contains actual newline characters: **True**

And the non-JSON dry-run preview shows normal line breaks (not `\n`).

If you’d like, I can reformat it into **one single paragraph** (no blank lines) to make it extra bulletproof — or, if you’re happy with this, say **“send this”** and I’ll send it.


text: heh... no.  if you say they won't show i'll trust you.


text:
Yep — the only place `\n` appears is the JSON preview; the actual `--body-file` content has real line breaks and **no** literal `\n` text.

If you want me to send that exact draft now, just reply: **send this**.


text: send this


text: Sent.