role: assistant

text:
```text
**Mediation Cheat Sheet**
Karl Stiefvater | Date: 2026-03-22 | Status: Working session sheet

---

**Opening Questions**

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

2. `Shared expectation`
- Do you contest that we planned to use your inheritance for retirement security?

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

---

**Core Position 1 — Fairness First**

The point is not to ignore Missouri law. The point is that mediation should not begin and end with the narrowest Missouri floor.

Clean line:

> I want mediation to begin from fairness rather than from the narrowest Missouri floor. By that I do not mean avoiding specifics. I mean starting from the actual structure of the marriage and the long-term imbalance that structure created.

Optional spoken variant:

> I think we both understand, especially in this political moment, that legality and justice are not always the same thing. My hope is that this mediation tries to do better than the floor and reaches what is actually fair.

**If attacked**

- `Too abstract`
  Response: Fairness here is specific: long marriage, shared retirement expectations, no separate retirement build, and real present exposure.

- `Just a numbers demand in disguise`
  Response: Numbers come after the premise. Otherwise we argue outputs before agreeing on the structure that produced them.

- `One-sided`
  Response: Then make it symmetrical. My budget and work assumptions should be matched by Lisa's.

- `Ignores Missouri`
  Response: Missouri is the fallback. Mediation exists because parties can reach outcomes a court could never order.

**Best evidence**

- Lisa fairness message: `../records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:571`
- Sarah on mediation flexibility: `records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-03-17_sarah_written_analysis.md:18`
- Comparative-law note: `records/analysis/2026-03-22_missouri_vs_california_fairness_range_note.md:1`

---

**Core Position 2 — The Inheritance Was Our Retirement Backstop**

The point is not that the trust became mine. The point is that the marriage was actually structured around the inheritance and its income stream as the long-term backstop.

Clean line:

> I am not claiming that Lisa's inheritance became my property. I am saying that our marriage operated on the shared understanding that the inheritance and its income stream would provide our long-term security, and that we made real financial decisions in reliance on that.

**If attacked**

- `No explicit agreement`
  Response: Marriages run on shared financial understandings all the time. The conduct here is what matters.

- `Just Karl's assumption`
  Response: The conduct cuts the other way: no separate retirement build, BTC and other resources depleted, Snow Day wound down, and trust cash flow entered the marital system.

- `Everyone knew the trust was separate`
  Response: The 2022 reaction cuts against that. When the locked structure became clear, I treated it as a real problem to fix.

- `Household use is not retirement use`
  Response: In isolation, no. In combination with the rest of the record, yes: that is what retirement-income use looked like in practice.

**Best evidence**

- Shared-understanding note: `records/analysis/2026-03-17_trust_allowance_as_retirement_income_position.md:16`
- Reasons note: `records/analysis/2026-03-22_reasons_inheritance_intended_for_retirement.md:1`
- 2022 alarm / fix point: `records/analysis/2026-03-22_reasons_inheritance_intended_for_retirement.md:64`

---

**Behavioral Proof**

- `No separate retirement build`
  - `records/analysis/2026-03-17_trust_allowance_as_retirement_income_position.md:18`

- `Other retirement-positioned resources used up`
  - BTC / reserves: `records/analysis/2026-03-17_trust_allowance_as_retirement_income_position.md:18`

- `Snow Day wind-down after inheritance`
  - `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 entered marital banking`
  - `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`

- `Lisa's own trust baseline`
  - `$19,500/month`: `records/analysis/2026-03-22_reasons_inheritance_intended_for_retirement.md:77`

---

**When They Push For Numbers**

First answer:

> The simple answer is that I want a fair approximation of the retirement security I reasonably expected to have if the marriage had continued.

Then:

> I can translate that into concrete numbers, but I think it is important to agree on the premise first.

If they push for your budget:

> I am willing to put my budget on the table, but fairness requires that Lisa put her budget on the table too.

If they push on work:

> I am willing to discuss realistic work expectations, but that inquiry has to be symmetrical and apply to both of us.

---

**Anchor Principle**

Do not drift into:

- ownership language,
- rigid percentage claims too early,
- or fairness without symmetry.

Stay with:

- shared expectation,
- reliance,
- conduct,
- present imbalance,
- and symmetrical disclosure.

---

**Small Evidence Pack**

If you only carry a few documents, use:

1. `records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-03-17_sarah_written_analysis.md:1`
2. `../records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:503`
3. `records/analysis/2026-03-17_trust_allowance_as_retirement_income_position.md:1`
4. `records/analysis/2026-03-17_sales_trend_wind_down_note.md:1`
5. `records/analysis/2026-03-22_reasons_inheritance_intended_for_retirement.md:1`

---

*This sheet is a working prep tool for mediation discussion. It is not legal advice.*
```


role: user

text: ok - and you have a more detailed version for each question?


text:
Yes.

The detailed question-by-question sheets are:

- `records/analysis/2026-03-24_question1_live_responses.md:1`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-24_question2_live_responses.md:1`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-24_question3_live_responses.md:1`

Each one has:
- likely ways Lisa may answer,
- what that answer usually means,
- your short reply,
- and a stronger follow-up if needed.

If you want, I can show `question 1` first.


text: ok - let's examine question 1 first.  show me that live responses document


text:
```text
**Question 1 — Likely Live Responses and Short Replies**
Karl Stiefvater | Date: 2026-03-24 | Status: Working mediation note

---

**Question**

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

**Optional spoken variant**

> I think we both understand, especially in this political moment, that legality and justice are not always the same thing. My hope is that this mediation tries to do better than the floor and reaches what is actually fair.

---

**Purpose**

This question is meant to establish the frame of the mediation before the discussion collapses into the narrowest litigated baseline.

The danger is not that Lisa will say fairness does not matter. The more likely danger is that she will agree with fairness in principle while quietly reducing it to Missouri-floor realism in practice.

---

**1. If she says: "Yes, of course, but the law still matters."**

**What she means**

She is trying to keep the answer safe and noncommittal.

**Short reply**

> I agree the law matters. I’m only asking whether we are trying to do better than the minimum floor if fairness points there.

**If needed**

> Otherwise mediation is not doing much beyond repackaging the fallback.

---

**2. If she says: "I don’t know what genuine fairness means."**

**What she means**

She is pushing you to define the term immediately.

**Short reply**

> I mean an outcome that reflects how the marriage was actually structured, not just the narrowest result one side might get if this were reduced to a Missouri baseline.

**If needed**

> The details come after that, but I think the frame matters first.

---

**3. If she says: "Fairness has to include me and Juno too."**

**What she means**

She is trying to prevent the frame from sounding one-sided.

**Short reply**

> I agree. I’m not using fairness to mean fairness only from my side. I’m asking whether fairness is the frame for both of us.

**If needed**

> That is exactly why I think the conversation has to stay symmetrical.

---

**4. If she says: "This is too abstract — we need numbers."**

**What she means**

She is trying to skip the framing step and move directly into calculation.

**Short reply**

> We will need numbers, but I think we should first agree on what the numbers are trying to accomplish.

**If needed**

> Otherwise we risk arguing numbers without agreeing on the structure that produced the problem.

---

**5. If she says: "I’m willing to be fair, but I’m not agreeing to something above what a court would do."**

**What she means**

She is trying to preserve the Missouri ceiling while sounding reasonable.

**Short reply**

> I understand that concern. I’m not asking you to commit to any particular number here. I’m asking whether fairness can aim above the narrowest litigation floor if the facts support it.

**If needed**

> If the answer is no, then that tells us something important about what this mediation is really doing.

---

**6. If she says: "That sounds loaded."**

**What she means**

She thinks the question is morally framed in a way that pressures her.

**Short reply**

> I’m not trying to load it. I’m trying to be explicit about whether we are using mediation to pursue an actually fair result.

**If needed**

> I would rather surface that question directly than bury it.

---

**7. If she says: "We should just let the mediator guide us."**

**What she means**

She is trying to defer the framing choice to process.

**Short reply**

> I’m comfortable with that, but I still think it helps to know whether we are asking the mediator to help us pursue fairness or just to benchmark the likely legal minimum.

**If needed**

> That seems like a legitimate threshold question for mediation itself.

---

**8. If she says: "Missouri law is part of fairness."**

**What she means**

She is trying to collapse fairness into legal baseline.

**Short reply**

> It’s part of the picture, yes. I’m only resisting the idea that it necessarily defines the entire picture.

**If needed**

> Mediation exists because the parties can sometimes reach a result that is more thoughtful than the bare fallback.

---

**Best Pressure Question**

If she keeps agreeing in principle while retreating in practice, the strongest follow-up is:

> Then do you agree that mediation should remain open to an outcome that is fairer than the narrowest Missouri baseline if the facts support it?

That turns a vague value statement into a practical commitment.

---

**Anchor Rule**

Do not let this question drift into a long abstract philosophy discussion.

Its purpose is narrower:

- establish whether fairness is really the frame,
- establish whether Missouri is a floor or a ceiling,
- and then move on.

---

*This note is a working mediation prep sheet. It is not legal advice.*
```


text: ok - good - let's move to question 2.


text:
```text
**Question 2 — Likely Live Responses and Short Replies**
Karl Stiefvater | Date: 2026-03-24 | Status: Working mediation note

---

**Question**

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

---

**Purpose**

This question is meant to force the core factual premise into the open.

If Lisa does not contest it, that materially strengthens the fairness discussion. If she does contest it, then the mediation can stop pretending the disagreement is only about numbers and face the real dispute directly.

The biggest risk is not a flat denial. The bigger risk is that Lisa will try to partially agree while narrowing the point so much that the practical meaning disappears.

---

**1. If she says: "That’s too broad" or "I don’t know what you mean by that."**

**What she means**

She is trying to make the premise sound vague or slippery.

**Short reply**

> I mean that we were not building separate retirement security on independent tracks. We were living on the understanding that your inheritance would provide long-term security for both of us.

**If needed**

> If you think that is not right, then I think it would help to say clearly what different understanding you think we were living under.

---

**2. If she says: "I agree the inheritance mattered to our long-term security, but that is different from saying we planned to use it for retirement security."**

**What she means**

This is the most likely narrowing move. She is trying to preserve a softer, more ambiguous version of the story.

**Short reply**

> I do not see a meaningful difference between those two ideas in the way we actually lived. We did not build meaningful separate retirement savings, and we made decisions as though long-term security was being handled through the inheritance.

**If needed**

> If we were not planning to use the inheritance for retirement security, then what exactly do you say we were planning to use?

---

**3. If she says: "We never explicitly agreed to that."**

**What she means**

She is trying to shift the burden to a written or verbal explicit promise.

**Short reply**

> I agree we did not sit down and state it in contract language. But marriages operate on shared financial understandings all the time, and this one did too.

**If needed**

> I am asking about the practical understanding we lived under, not whether we drafted formal words for it.

---

**4. If she says: "That was your assumption, not mine."**

**What she means**

She is trying to privatize the expectation and make it yours alone.

**Short reply**

> If that is true, then I do not understand why we failed to build meaningful separate retirement savings, why other resources were used up inside the marriage, and why Snow Day was wound down once the inheritance had arrived.

**If needed**

> Those choices make much more sense if the inheritance was understood as the long-term backstop for both of us.

---

**5. If she says: "The trust was always legally mine."**

**What she means**

She is trying to slide from practical expectation into legal ownership.

**Short reply**

> I am not asking a legal ownership question here. I am asking how we actually understood and used the inheritance in the marriage.

**If needed**

> Those are not the same question.

---

**6. If she says: "Using trust distributions for the household is not the same as saying it was our retirement plan."**

**What she means**

She is trying to isolate each piece of evidence so none of it carries enough weight alone.

**Short reply**

> On its own, maybe not. But in combination with the rest of the record, it matters a great deal: no separate retirement build, other resources depleted, Snow Day wound down, and the allowance stream entering our marital cash flow.

**If needed**

> Taken together, that is exactly what treating it as retirement security looks like in practice.

---

**7. If she says: "Things were still evolving in 2022."**

**What she means**

She is trying to weaken the inference from the timing.

**Short reply**

> I agree the transition was not instantaneous. The full allowance payments did not begin until April 2023, which helps explain why 2022 was still fully active. But the broader direction was already clear: we were moving away from active business dependence and toward the inheritance-backed structure.

**If needed**

> That timing actually makes the story more coherent, not less.

---

**8. If she says: "I’ve always been willing to support a fair outcome, but that is different from agreeing the inheritance was our retirement plan."**

**What she means**

She is trying to concede moral flexibility while still resisting the factual premise.

**Short reply**

> I appreciate that distinction, but I still think the factual premise matters because it explains how we got here and why a fair outcome has to account for the loss of that expected security.

**If needed**

> Otherwise the marriage gets reframed as though we were operating on independent financial tracks when we were not.

---

**9. If she says: "This feels loaded."**

**What she means**

She thinks the question implies too much and wants process cover.

**Short reply**

> I am asking it directly because I think it is the central factual question, and I would rather have it surfaced than buried.

**If needed**

> We can refine the language if needed, but I do think the issue itself has to be faced.

---

**Best Pressure Question**

If Lisa narrows, hedges, or partially agrees without accepting the practical meaning, the strongest follow-up is:

> If we were not planning to use the inheritance for retirement security, then what exactly do you say we were planning to use?

That question matters because it forces an alternative explanation.

---

**Anchor Rule**

Do not drift into arguing that the trust became your property.

Stay with:

- shared expectation,
- reliance,
- conduct,
- depletion of other resources,
- and the consequences of withdrawing that structure.

---

*This note is a working mediation prep sheet. It is not legal advice.*
```


text: can you convert the USD from bitcoin numbers to today's dollars?


text:
Yes. Using U.S. `CPI-U` and converting to the latest published index I found, `February 2026 = 326.785`, the `USD withdrawal` totals come out to about these `2026 dollars`:

- `2017` `$30,000.00` → `$39,994.90`
- `2018` `$110,099.53` → `$143,281.05`
- `2019` `$18,621.13` → `$23,801.84`
- `2020` `$31,969.74` → `$40,366.26`
- `2022` `$65,617.49` → `$73,269.93`

Approximate total in `February 2026 dollars`:
- `$256,307.89` → `$320,713.98`

This is an approximation because I used `annual average CPI-U` for each year, not month-by-month CPI for each transaction date.

Sources:
- Latest CPI-U (`February 2026 = 326.785`): https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/cpi_03112026.htm
- Annual average CPI-U table (`2017–2025`): https://www.bls.gov/regions/mid-atlantic/data/ConsumerPriceIndexAnnualandSemiAnnual_Table.htm

If you want, I can turn this into a note in `records/analysis/`.


text: can you add it to the USD doc?


text:
Added to `records/analysis/2026-03-25_bitcoin_usd_withdrawals_note.md:1`.

It now includes:
- the year-by-year inflation-adjusted table,
- the approximate `February 2026` total,
- and the note that this uses annual-average `CPI-U` rather than month-by-month adjustments.


text: can you show me that file?


text:
```text
**Coinbase USD Withdrawals — Bitcoin/Crypto Account**
Karl Stiefvater | Date: 2026-03-25 | Status: Working factual note

---

**Source**

The withdrawal history below is drawn from:

- `records/financial/crypto/bitcoin/2015_bitcoin_transactions_export.csv`

As with the sale note, the filename is misleading. This export spans transactions from `2017-12-07` through `2022-12-12`.

---

**All USD Withdrawals In The Export**

| Timestamp (UTC) | Withdrawal Amount | Notes |
|---|---:|---|
| 2022-06-12 22:35:14 UTC | $28,617.49 | Withdrawal to Commerce Bank - CHECKING *****4249 |
| 2022-05-24 21:31:59 UTC | $25,000.00 | Withdrawal to Commerce Bank - CHECKING *****4249 |
| 2022-05-11 20:28:37 UTC | $10,000.00 | Withdrawal to Commerce Bank - CHECKING *****4249 |
| 2022-05-11 16:44:15 UTC | $2,000.00 | Withdrawal to Commerce Bank - CHECKING *****4249 |
| 2020-03-12 18:29:03 UTC | $16,933.86 | Withdrawal to Commerce Bank - CHECKING *****4249 |
| 2020-01-13 21:09:50 UTC | $15,035.88 | Withdrawal to Commerce Bank - CHECKING *****4249 |
| 2019-06-15 14:43:37 UTC | $3,941.13 | Withdrawal to Commerce Bank - CHECKING *****4249 |
| 2019-05-18 21:27:07 UTC | $6,180.00 | Withdrawal to Commerce Bank - CHECKING *****4249 |
| 2019-03-07 15:14:07 UTC | $4,000.00 | Withdrawal to Commerce Bank - CHECKING *****4249 |
| 2019-02-15 23:01:54 UTC | $2,500.00 | Withdrawal to Commerce Bank - CHECKING *****4249 |
| 2019-01-07 14:16:24 UTC | $2,000.00 | Withdrawal to Commerce Bank - CHECKING *****4249 |
| 2018-12-24 21:23:00 UTC | $2,000.00 | Withdrawal to Commerce Bank - CHECKING *****4249 |
| 2018-12-13 22:33:15 UTC | $6,000.00 | Withdrawal to Commerce Bank - CHECKING *****4249 |
| 2018-11-03 15:04:35 UTC | $18,000.00 | Withdrawal to Commerce Bank - CHECKING *****4249 |
| 2018-10-05 18:06:07 UTC | $6,402.80 | Withdrawal to Commerce Bank - CHECKING *****4249 |
| 2018-09-23 12:32:01 UTC | $19,771.03 | Withdrawal to Commerce Bank - CHECKING *****4249 |
| 2018-03-23 15:21:56 UTC | $50,475.70 | Withdrawal to Commerce Bank - CHECKING *****4249 |
| 2018-03-18 16:43:50 UTC | $7,450.00 | Withdrawal to Commerce Bank - CHECKING *****4249 |
| 2017-12-24 19:20:39 UTC | $15,050.00 | Withdrawal to Commerce Bank - CHECKING *****4249 |
| 2017-12-09 19:39:56 UTC | $14,950.00 | Withdrawal to Commerce Bank - CHECKING *****4249 |

---

**Year Totals**

| Year | Number of Withdrawals | Total Withdrawn |
|---|---:|---:|
| 2017 | 2 | $30,000.00 |
| 2018 | 7 | $110,099.53 |
| 2019 | 5 | $18,621.13 |
| 2020 | 2 | $31,969.74 |
| 2022 | 4 | $65,617.49 |

---

**High-Level Takeaways**

- The export shows `20` USD withdrawals from Coinbase to `Commerce Bank - CHECKING *****4249`.
- Total USD withdrawn in the export: `$256,307.89`
- The largest withdrawal year was `2018`, with `$110,099.53` withdrawn.
- The largest single withdrawal shown is `2022-06-12` for `$28,617.49`.

This note is useful because it shows realized cash leaving Coinbase and entering the linked bank account, not just crypto sale activity inside the exchange account.

---

**Approximate Value In Today's Dollars**

Using U.S. `CPI-U` and converting each year's withdrawals into `February 2026` dollars (`CPI-U = 326.785`), the approximate present-value equivalents are:

| Year | Historical Withdrawals | Approximate February 2026 Dollars |
|---|---:|---:|
| 2017 | $30,000.00 | $39,994.90 |
| 2018 | $110,099.53 | $143,281.05 |
| 2019 | $18,621.13 | $23,801.84 |
| 2020 | $31,969.74 | $40,366.26 |
| 2022 | $65,617.49 | $73,269.93 |

Approximate total in `February 2026` dollars:

- `$256,307.89` historical USD withdrawals
- `$320,713.98` in approximate `February 2026` dollars

This is an approximation using annual-average CPI-U by year, not transaction-by-transaction monthly CPI.
```


text: if we used montly CPI would the numbers be higher?


text:
Not overall.

For this withdrawal set, using `monthly CPI-U` instead of `annual-average CPI-U` makes the total **slightly lower**, not higher:

- `annual-average method`: `$320,713.98`
- `monthly method`: `$320,527.94`

Difference:
- `-$186.04` total
- about `-0.06%`

Why:
- some withdrawals happened in months with CPI **below** the annual average for that year, which pushes the adjusted value up,
- but others happened in months with CPI **above** the annual average, which pushes it down.

In your data:
- `2018`, `2019`, `2020` would be a bit **higher** with monthly CPI
- `2017` and `2022` would be a bit **lower**
- net result: **slightly lower overall**

Sources:
- BLS historical monthly CPI-U table: https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/supplemental-files/historical-cpi-u-202412.pdf
- BLS latest CPI table (`February 2026`): https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t05.htm

If you want, I can update the USD note to say that the monthly method changes the result only trivially.


text: ok - let's not worry about it then.


text: Right. The annual-average version is close enough.