role: user

text: oh!  i thought of another reason i should get part of the allowance - i was the one who argued and negotiated the trust allowance to be switched from just dividends to a 4%.


role: assistant

text:
Yes. That is a strong factual point.

Why it helps:
- you were not just passively relying on the allowance
- you directly helped shape the allowance structure into the form that actually funded the marriage
- that makes the stream look even more like a shared marital resource in practice, not just Lisa’s separate financial world

Best framing:
- `I was the one who pushed to have the allowance changed from a dividends-only structure to a 4% distribution structure. That matters because the usable income stream we ultimately lived on did not simply exist in the background — I actively helped create and secure it.`

Why that matters for fairness:
- it shows `contribution`, not just `expectation`
- it strengthens the claim that the allowance was part of the shared economic plan
- it supports the idea that a fair outcome should account for your role in creating the stream itself

Best supporting proof, if you have it:
- emails with the trust lawyers
- emails/texts with Lisa about the change
- any notes showing the old structure vs the new `4%` structure
- timing showing the change led to the later `April 2023` full payments

This is worth adding to:
- the inheritance-for-retirement reasons note
- the question 2 evidence note
- the Jennifer Piper brief, if you want it there

If you want, I can patch it into those docs now.


text: what is the name of the trust that uses the entire increased value of the trust for income, not just the dividends?


text:
The name you’re looking for is usually:

- `total return unitrust`

Short version:
- instead of paying only `net income` / dividends,
- it pays a fixed percentage of the trust’s fair market value each year,
- often something like `4%`.

People also shorten it to:
- `unitrust`
- or `unitrust conversion`

An official example of that terminology:
- Rhode Island statute defines a trust paying a fixed percentage of fair market value as a `“Total Return Unitrust”`: https://webserver.rilegislature.gov/statutes/title18/18-4/18-4-29.htm

So if you’re describing what you negotiated, the clean phrase is:
- `we pushed to convert the trust from an income-only/dividend-based structure to a 4% total return unitrust structure.`


text: yep.  put that into all the relevant places, please.


text:
Done.

Updated the inheritance/allowance docs to include that you were the one who pushed to convert the trust from a dividends-only structure to a `4%` total return unitrust:

- `records/analysis/2026-03-17_trust_allowance_as_retirement_income_position.md:18`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-17_retirement_security_mediation_brief.md:22`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-12_retirement_security_mediation_brief.md:22`
- `records/mediators/piper/2026-03-25_karl_mediation_brief_for_jennifer_piper.md:25`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-22_reasons_inheritance_intended_for_retirement.md:50`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-22_best_evidence_for_inheritance_as_retirement.md:102`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-22_inheritance_as_retirement_attack_response.md:40`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-24_question2_live_responses.md:84`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-17_shared_expectation_argument_note.md:45`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-22_mediation_cheat_sheet.md:81`
- `records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-03-23_strategy_note_three_opening_questions.md:63`

Rebuilt PDFs after the `.tex` changes:
- `records/analysis/2026-03-17_retirement_security_mediation_brief.pdf:1`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-12_retirement_security_mediation_brief.pdf:1`
- `records/mediators/piper/2026-03-25_karl_mediation_brief_for_jennifer_piper.pdf:1`

If you want, I can show you the updated paragraph from the Jennifer Piper brief or the question 2 note.


text: and this is morbid, but i want to use it anyway if i'm pressed - in the secontion of fairness vs. legal minimums - i want to cite the Epstein victims and that poor woman who was shot in the face by ICE as examples of how the law today fails to protect the weak.


text:
You can use it, but keep it tight.

The safer version is not:
- `the law is failing because of X and Y`

It is:
- `we all know legality is not the same thing as justice, and there are very public examples of that right now`

If you want the examples in the sentence, I would phrase them this way:

- `I think we all know the legal system does not always protect vulnerable people the way it should. We have seen that in very public ways — from the failure to protect Epstein’s victims to the killing of Renée Good by an ICE officer in Minneapolis. That is why, for me, legality is not the same thing as justice, and I hope this mediation tries to do better than the minimum legal floor.`

Why this version works:
- it keeps the point on `principle`
- it avoids litigating those cases in the room
- it uses the examples as illustrations, not as the main argument

Two precision notes:
- use `Renée Good` by name if you invoke that example
- say `fatally shot by an ICE officer` or `killing of Renée Good`, not `shot in the face`, unless you specifically want the extra voltage and are willing to fight over wording

Support:
- AP on Renée Good and the DOJ declining a civil-rights probe: https://apnews.com/article/f456dc01c7d72e15662016193b2e383e
- AP on the fallout after the ICE shooting: https://apnews.com/article/c062100e0432bff06a6f7b7b26a831e8
- Judge found prosecutors violated Epstein victims’ rights in the secret plea deal: https://www.axios.com/2019/02/21/jeffrey-epstein-federal-prosecutors-plea-deal-alex-acosta
- DOJ OPR statement on the Epstein investigation: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-doj-office-professional-responsibility-report-jeffrey-epstein-2006-2008

If you want, I can add this as an optional spoken variant in the fairness docs.


text: add it where ever it needs to go, so it's not forgotten


text:
Added where it matters so it won’t get lost.

Updated:
- `records/analysis/2026-03-24_question1_live_responses.md:11`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-22_mediation_cheat_sheet.md:29`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-22_fairness_not_just_missouri_law.md:98`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-25_questions_you_will_likely_be_asked.md:27`
- `records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-03-23_strategy_note_three_opening_questions.md:28`

The stored line is:

`I think we all know the legal system does not always protect vulnerable people the way it should. We have seen that in very public ways — from the failure to protect Epstein's victims to the killing of Renée Good by an ICE officer in Minneapolis. That is why, for me, legality is not the same as justice, and I hope this mediation tries to do better than the minimum legal floor.`

If you want, I can show you the updated question 1 note or the Sarah memo.