role: user

text: in the fairness question - can we remove the evidence that shows Lisa is sometimes against fairness?  i don't want to make their argument for them.


role: assistant

text:
Done.

I removed the anti-fairness material from `records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-03-23_strategy_note_three_opening_questions.md:14`.

Changes:
- cut the `two things that pull in opposite directions` paragraph,
- removed the `legal guidelines` Lisa quote,
- left only the evidence that supports your fairness framing.


text: ok - show me that doc again?


text:
```text
**Strategy Note — Three Opening Questions for Mediation**
Karl Stiefvater | Date: 2026-03-23 | Status: Draft for counsel

Sarah —

I am considering opening mediation with the following three questions. My goal is to establish the frame before getting pulled immediately into numbers, while still grounding each question in concrete evidence.

I would appreciate your view on whether this is strategically sound, whether the order is right, and whether any of these should be softened or sharpened.

---

**1. Fairness**

`Do we agree that we should strive for genuine fairness, not merely what protection MO law provides?`

**Why I want to ask this**

I want to make clear at the outset that I am not asking the mediator or Lisa to ignore Missouri law. I am trying to establish that mediation should aim for a genuinely fair outcome rather than simply defaulting to the narrowest litigated baseline.

This seems especially important because Lisa has said she does not want to "hide behind what the law might say" and wants to understand what would actually be fair.

So this question is meant to force clarity on whether we are actually using mediation to aim above the floor.

**Supporting evidence**

- Lisa text: `I don’t think this is about me deciding what to give you or hiding behind what the law might say. I’m trying to understand what would actually be fair...`
  `../records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:571`
- Your note to me that mediation can produce agreed outcomes a judge could never order at trial.
  `records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-03-17_sarah_written_analysis.md:18`
- Working note comparing Missouri and California as examples of different fairness baselines in family law.
  `records/analysis/2026-03-22_missouri_vs_california_fairness_range_note.md:1`

---

**2. Inheritance / Retirement Security**

`Do you contest that we planned to use your inheritance for retirement security?`

**Why I want to ask this**

This feels like the central factual premise. If Lisa does not contest it, then a large part of the fairness argument becomes much easier to ground. If she does contest it, then I know immediately that I need to prove the point through conduct, reliance, and cash-flow evidence.

I want this asked plainly and in ordinary language, not in a legalistic way. My point is not that the trust became my property. My point is that our marriage was actually organized around the expectation that her inheritance and the allowance stream from it would provide our long-term security.

**Supporting evidence**

- No separate retirement build during the marriage; no other meaningful retirement fund outside the inheritance expectation.
  `records/analysis/2026-03-17_trust_allowance_as_retirement_income_position.md:18`
- Shared-understanding formulation: major financial decisions were made against the understanding that Lisa’s inheritance would provide long-term security for both of us.
  `records/analysis/2026-03-17_trust_allowance_as_retirement_income_position.md:16`
- Other retirement-positioned resources, including the BTC position, were depleted to support the household and Snow Day.
  `records/analysis/2026-03-17_trust_allowance_as_retirement_income_position.md:18`
- Behavioral shift after 2022: Snow Day was effectively wound down after the inheritance arrived, with 2022 as the last fully active year and sharp sales contraction beginning in 2023.
  `records/analysis/2026-03-17_sales_trend_wind_down_note.md:15`
  `records/analysis/2026-03-17_sales_trend_wind_down_note.md:31`
- Trust cash-flow evidence: recurring `Deposit ACH PERSHING` deposits entered the joint SLCCU account ending in `245`, showing the allowance stream entering the marital banking system.
  `records/analysis/2026-03-17_trust_allowance_as_retirement_income_position.md:43`
  `records/analysis/2026-03-17_trust_allowance_as_retirement_income_position.md:47`
- My 2022 reaction when it became clear the trust principal could not simply be converted into marital retirement security: I treated that as a real problem to fix, which to me is evidence that I had not understood the trust as Lisa’s sealed-off financial world.
  `records/analysis/2026-03-22_reasons_inheritance_intended_for_retirement.md:64`
- Lisa’s own statements about the allowance stream as a concrete baseline, including `Gross trust disbursement: approximately $19,500 per month.`
  `records/analysis/2026-03-22_reasons_inheritance_intended_for_retirement.md:77`

**Additional factual point I want to flag**

The full allowance payments did not begin until `April 2023`. That helps explain why Snow Day still operated fully in `2022` even though the inheritance had already arrived: `2022` was the transition year, and the fully developed allowance stream was not yet in place.

This seems important because it strengthens the explanation for why `2022` was still a fully active business year while the real wind-down shows up from `2023` forward.

Relevant support / follow-up points:

- Current sales analysis already treats `2022` as the transition year and `2023` as the beginning of the sharp contraction.
  `records/analysis/2026-03-17_sales_trend_wind_down_note.md:23`
- We already identified `2022-2023` contemporaneous communications as one of the strongest categories of proof to gather next for the inheritance-changing-the-plan theory.
  `records/analysis/2026-03-17_best_proof_to_gather_next.md:91`
- The trust-distribution amount was not static over time; for example, the trustee later approved an additional `$3,000/month` beginning in `February 2026`, which at least confirms that the monthly amount could change.
  `../records/communications/email_thread_lisa_zinch_zizzerzinch_com_2025-12-25_to_now.json:367`

---

**3. San Francisco / Rebuilding**

`Do you contest that San Francisco is the most realistic place for me to rebuild my life?`

**Why I want to ask this**

I do not want the conversation to quietly assume a cheaper hypothetical location that strips out the actual place where I have community, history, and the best remaining professional footing.

This question is meant to establish that any serious discussion of my needs has to be based on a realistic rebuilding location, not an artificially minimized one.

**Supporting evidence**

- San Francisco is where Lisa and I met and married, and it is where my adult life began.
  `records/analysis/2026-03-13_retirement_budget_justification_sf.md:11`
- My professional network in computer graphics, visual effects, and AI is concentrated there, and the city remains one of the strongest hubs for any realistic work re-entry.
  `records/analysis/2026-03-13_retirement_budget_justification_sf.md:11`
- The GDC point is concrete: one of the most important conferences in my field is held in San Francisco, which underscores why the city remains professionally relevant.
  `records/analysis/2026-03-13_retirement_budget_justification_sf.md:169`
- Lisa has already engaged with San Francisco as a real planning premise by asking how long I plan to stay there for budgeting / support purposes, rather than treating it as a frivolous assumption.
  `../records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last30d.jsonl:6`
- Lisa also separately acknowledged the practical reality that finding housing there would be difficult, which again suggests she understood SF as the real location under discussion.
  `../records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last30d.jsonl:186`

---

**Why This Sequence**

My thinking is:

1. establish whether the process is truly aiming at fairness;
2. establish whether the inheritance / retirement premise is actually contested;
3. establish the real-world location assumption for evaluating my needs and rebuilding prospects.

That seems to me like the right order before we get pulled into specific numbers.

---

**Specific Question For Counsel**

Is this the right opening structure for mediation, or would you advise reframing any of these questions before I use them?

---

*Working strategy note for counsel discussion; not legal advice.*
```


text: ok - send this to pbcopy for me, please.


text: Copied to your clipboard from `records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-03-23_strategy_note_three_opening_questions.md:1`