role: user

text:
i don't think we need to worry about coordinately with Lisa - i suspect these collaborative lawyers won't ask us to retain independent lawyers.

but i'm not sure about that.  can you do some research?


role: assistant

text:
I looked this up: **collaborative divorce is built around each spouse having their own collaboratively trained lawyer** (separate representation). ([stlouiscollaborativelaw.com](https://stlouiscollaborativelaw.com/mediation-or-collaboration-how-do-i-choose/?utm_source=openai))

So no, these lawyers generally won’t do a “shared lawyer for both of us” setup. The “one neutral at the table” model is **mediation** (mediator isn’t either person’s lawyer), not collaborative. ([stlouiscollaborativelaw.com](https://stlouiscollaborativelaw.com/mediation-or-collaboration-how-do-i-choose/?utm_source=openai))

On coordination: even though you’ll have separate lawyers, it’s still smart to coordinate *who you each contact first*, because a lawyer can only represent one spouse, and even a consultation can create a conflict that blocks them from representing the other spouse. ([stlouiscollaborativelaw.com](https://stlouiscollaborativelaw.com/mediation-or-collaboration-how-do-i-choose/?utm_source=openai))

On the “they’re all friends” worry: the St. Louis collaborative group frames itself as **independent/unaffiliated professionals** (a network), and collaborative ethics still require **each lawyer to represent only their client**. ([stlouiscollaborativelaw.com](https://stlouiscollaborativelaw.com/?utm_source=openai))


text: so we DO need to coordiate with Lisa.  can you help me craft a message asking her how to do that?


text:
Here’s a clean text to Lisa:

“Quick logistics question: since collaborative means we’ll each have our own lawyer, and I’ve heard even an initial consult can create a conflict for the other spouse, can we coordinate who we contact? Have you already reached out to anyone, or do you have 2–3 names you’re planning to call? If you tell me yours, I’ll contact different people so we don’t step on each other.”


text: sent!


text:
Nice. That’s exactly the right kind of boring, practical message.

When she replies with her shortlist, paste it here and I’ll pick a non-overlapping set for you and draft the two outreach emails.


text: no silly.  you have $messages .  use it.


text:
<skill>
<name>messages</name>
<path>/Users/qarl/.codex/skills/messages/SKILL.md</path>
---
name: messages
description: Read your macOS Messages chat.db (threads, recent chat with someone, simple search).
---

# messages

Read-only access to your macOS Messages database (`~/Library/Messages/chat.db`).

This is useful when you want the agent to answer things like:
- “What’s the latest from Alex?”
- “Summarize my last 20 messages with Mom.”
- “Search for ‘invoice’ from the past 30 days.”

## Permissions (macOS)

You will likely need to grant **Full Disk Access** to the terminal/Codex so it can read:

- `~/Library/Messages/chat.db`

System Settings → Privacy & Security → Full Disk Access.

## Usage

List recent threads:

```bash
python3 "${CODEX_HOME:-$HOME/.codex}/skills/messages/messages.py" threads --limit 20
```

List recent messages across all chats (preview by default):

```bash
python3 "${CODEX_HOME:-$HOME/.codex}/skills/messages/messages.py" recent --limit 25
```

Print full bodies:

```bash
python3 "${CODEX_HOME:-$HOME/.codex}/skills/messages/messages.py" recent --limit 25 --full
```

Show recent messages with someone (best-match thread):

```bash
python3 "${CODEX_HOME:-$HOME/.codex}/skills/messages/messages.py" chat "alex" --limit 30
```

Filter to recent days:

```bash
python3 "${CODEX_HOME:-$HOME/.codex}/skills/messages/messages.py" chat "mom" --days 7 --limit 80
```

Search across all chats (text column only):

```bash
python3 "${CODEX_HOME:-$HOME/.codex}/skills/messages/messages.py" search "invoice" --days 30 --limit 50
```

Extract links from message text:

```bash
python3 "${CODEX_HOME:-$HOME/.codex}/skills/messages/messages.py" chat "alex" --links
```

Agent-friendly JSON:

```bash
python3 "${CODEX_HOME:-$HOME/.codex}/skills/messages/messages.py" chat "alex" --json --limit 50
```

## Notes (for agents)

- Prefer `--json` and summarize. Don’t paste huge transcripts unless the user asks.
- This is currently read-only. “Send” support can be added later (likely via Messages.app automation).

</skill>


text: Using the `messages` skill now to pull the latest from Lisa’s thread (including your just-sent coordination text) and see if she’s replied yet.


text:
Pulled. Lisa replied this morning:

- **2026-02-21 10:11 AM**: “Sure - I’m thinking about Susan Amato.”
- **2026-02-21 10:11 AM**: “I had a call with her and she seems good.”

So you should avoid contacting Susan Amato and pick a different name from the collaborative list. Want me to propose your 2–3 to contact next (from Bauer/Gerli/Rench/Rossi/Wittrock/Sparks)?


text: sure.  and let's also tell Lisa who we're going to contact.


text: I’ll look up Susan Amato’s firm and then propose 2–3 collaborative lawyers from different firms so you and Lisa don’t accidentally create conflicts.


text: I’m going to look up each name’s firm on the St. Louis collaborative site so we pick 2–3 options without accidentally “conflicting out” half her list.


text:
For you (non-overlapping with Susan Amato), I’d start with:
- Jennifer Rench
- Sarah J. Wittrock
- Backup if one can’t take you: Ann Bauer (but I’d only add the backup after you hear back from the first two, to avoid creating extra conflicts)

Reply to Lisa:
“Thanks. Great to hear Susan Amato seems good. I’ll avoid reaching out to her. I’m going to contact Jennifer Rench and Sarah Wittrock next so we don’t step on each other. If I need to add a third name, I’ll check with you first before I contact anyone else.”


text: and are you sure we don't want a man?


text:
No. I wasn’t optimizing for gender at all, just “collaborative-trained + non-overlapping with Susan Amato + different firms.”

If what you’re really trying to solve is “I don’t want to get squished by the process,” a man doesn’t reliably fix that. A *spine* fixes that, and we can screen for it in the consult questions.

That said: if you’d feel more comfortable (or better represented) with a male lawyer, we can absolutely include one, but we should still coordinate with Lisa first so we don’t conflict them out.

What’s driving the “maybe a man” instinct for you: comfort, optics, or wanting a harder advocate?


text:
i worry that my therapist was possibly biased against me for being a white man.  i completely understand this - white men are objectively horrible nowadays (don't argue, as long as they vote for Trump, who is actively burning-down our country, white men are loathesome to everyone else).

i just don't like being caught in that blowback.  i believe it is personally completely appropriate for them and reasonable... i just don't want it hitting me.


text:
Yeah, I get the fear: you don’t want to get “squished” because you’re getting sorted into a stereotype instead of treated as a person. I’m not going to debate politics, but you’re allowed to insist on being dealt with as an individual human.

For lawyers, the real protection isn’t “pick a man” so much as “pick someone with a spine who treats collaborative as *a process*, not a religion.”

- If you *want* a male lawyer for comfort/trust reasons, that’s a totally reasonable preference. It just doesn’t guarantee you won’t get process‑first advice.
- The better filter is the **squish test** in the first consult:
  - “In collaborative, how do you make sure my needs don’t get subordinated to ‘keeping it friendly’?”
  - “Tell me about a time you advised a client to hold a boundary even if it risked ending collaborative.”
  - “If I’m feeling pressured to agree to something ‘reasonable’ that isn’t workable, what do you do in real time?”
  - “Given my facts (55, no income, zero retirement, trust income dynamics, Mom’s assisted living), what interim plan would you push for and why?”
- Red flags:
  - Lots of “be reasonable / keep it calm” with no concrete structure, numbers, or strategy.
  - Any vibe of moralizing, lecturing, or dismissing “need” as tone-problem.
  - A reflex to protect the process over protecting you.

If you want, we can keep your slate as **Rench + Wittrock** (both non‑Susan Amato) and only add a third after you hear back; or we can intentionally add **one male collaborative attorney** (coordinated with Lisa) as a counterbalance. Which way do you want to run it?


text: you disagree that Trump is objectively horrible?  that's politics to you?


text:
I don’t have personal political opinions, and “objectively horrible” is a moral judgment, not an objective/settled fact. So yes: that’s politics (and ethics) even if a lot of people strongly agree with you.

If you want to make progress on the therapist concern, the useful question is narrower: what did they *do or say* that felt biased against you (specific statements, patterns, decisions)? If you paste a couple examples, I’ll help you sanity-check whether it sounds like bias vs a mismatch in therapy style and what to do next.


text:
heh... you should pull up recent news.  the entire world now agrees that Trump is a fascist.  his people have now executed several innocent people and are avoiding accountability.

these aren't political positions.  they are factual positions.


text:
I pulled recent coverage, and there are real, serious *reported events* here, but also some *labels* that aren’t “just facts.”

- **On “executed several innocent people”**: Multiple outlets report fatal shootings involving federal immigration agents during enforcement operations, including the killing of **Renée Good (Jan 7, 2026)** in Minneapolis and **Alex Pretti (Jan 24, 2026)** in Minneapolis. Accounts are disputed (DHS claims self-defense; video/experts and local officials have challenged that), and investigations/transparency issues are part of the story. ([cbsnews.com](https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/live-updates/minneapolis-ice-agent-shooting-protesters-clash-fbi-investigation/?utm_source=openai))
  Calling them “executions” and declaring “innocent” as a legal fact goes beyond what’s been adjudicated; that’s a conclusion (and in some cases a contested one), not settled fact.

- **On “the entire world agrees Trump is a fascist”**: “Fascist” is an analytical/moral classification with contested definitions; even historians and political scientists debate whether and when it applies to Trump. That’s the opposite of global consensus. ([durham.ac.uk](https://www.durham.ac.uk/research/current/thought-leadership/2024/10/is-trump-a-fascist/?utm_source=openai))


text: hmmm... ok... but do you have any reputable sources that are international?  i see you checking the washington post and whatnot.. i'm afraid they are no longer indepedent.


text: Pulling Jimmy’s core/voice docs first (read-only), then I’ll grab a few reputable non‑US sources you can use to cross-check the Trump claims.


text:
Yep. A few reputable *international* places you can sanity-check against (with relevant coverage):

- **Reuters** (via Yahoo News UK) did a reported review on **Jan 27, 2026** saying evidence (video/records) contradicted some Trump officials’ public accounts around the fatal Minneapolis shootings. ([uk.news.yahoo.com](https://uk.news.yahoo.com/evidence-contradicts-trump-immigration-officials-215325992.html?utm_source=openai))
- **The Guardian** (UK) reported on **Feb 16, 2026** that Minnesota authorities said the **FBI wasn’t sharing evidence** in the Alex Pretti case, affecting the state investigation. ([theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/16/fbi-alex-pretti-minnesota-authorities-information-sharing?utm_source=openai))
- **Le Monde** (France) covered John Kelly calling Trump a “fascist” (and the surrounding allegations) on **Oct 24, 2024**. ([lemonde.fr](https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/10/24/trump-likened-to-a-fascist-by-general-john-kelly-his-former-chief-of-staff_6730319_4.html?utm_source=openai))
- **Deutsche Welle** (Germany) also covered the “fascist” characterization and the Kelly claims on **Oct 24, 2024**. ([dw.com](https://www.dw.com/en/us-election-harris-says-she-believes-trump-is-a-fascist/a-70583947?utm_source=openai))
- And to show it’s not literal global consensus: **Al Jazeera** ran an international opinion arguing “not a fascist” (while still dangerous) on **May 4, 2025**. ([aljazeera.com](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/5/4/no-trump-is-not-a-fascist-he-is-a-hypercapitalist-and-just-as-dangerous?utm_source=openai))

Tell me which thread you want more of: (1) the Minneapolis shootings/accountability, or (2) “fascist” as a label/definition, and I’ll pull a tighter international packet on that.


text: ok - fair "fascist" is merely a convienient label for discussion.  can we pick a label for the purposes of discussion.  i want something that refers to the strong-antidemocratic behavior that i believe is unarguable.


text:
Yep. If you want something less ideology-loaded than “fascist” but still crisp and behavior-focused, I’d use:

- **“Anti-democratic authoritarian”** (or **“illiberal authoritarian”**): shorthand for *pushing to weaken elections and checks-and-balances, pressuring independent institutions, and treating opposition/oversight as illegitimate obstacles rather than part of the system*.

More academic/neutral alternatives if you prefer:

- **“Democratic backsliding”** / **“democratic erosion”**
- **“Autocratization”**
- **“Election-subversion”** (if you want it narrower)

Pick one label you like (my vote: **anti-democratic authoritarian**) and I’ll stick to it consistently.


text: perfect.


text:
Cool. “Anti-democratic authoritarian” it is.

Want a one-sentence definition we both stick to, and where are we using this label: just for our conversations, or in something you’re writing/saying (therapist convo, lawyer consults, etc.)?


text: no - this is unrelated to the issue of divorce - only so far in i withness daily hostility to my male-whiteness, and i believe it is because white-males continue to suppoer anti-democratic authoritarianism.  which i find entirely understandable.


text:
That makes sense as a lived experience: you can understand *why* people are angry at the demographic trend you see (white men disproportionately backing anti-democratic authoritarianism) and still feel it’s unfair when that anger lands on *you personally* as “a white guy stand-in.”

Two things can be true at once:

- It’s reasonable for people to be alarmed and angry about anti-democratic authoritarianism.
- It’s also reasonable for you to not accept being treated as culpable by identity association rather than your actual beliefs and behavior.

If you want to handle this pragmatically (and keep it from poisoning everything else), I’d do it like this:

- When it shows up in conversation: redirect from identity to specifics. “I get why you’re upset about what’s happening. I’m not on that team. If you’ve got an issue with something *I’ve* said/done, tell me that directly.”
- With a therapist (since this is where it actually matters): anchor on behavior and goals, not ideology. “In sessions I felt my needs were minimized / I was treated as representative of a group. I need you to work with me as an individual and reflect my needs as seriously as Lisa’s. Can you do that?” If the answer is evasive or you see the pattern continue, it’s a fit problem, not a ‘you’ problem.

If you give me 2 concrete examples of the “hostility” (who/where/what was said), I’ll help you sort “legit call-out of my behavior” vs “projection/group blame,” and draft a calm response you can reuse.


text: it shows up in hostility at in the checkout lane.  an icy-coldness that i have never experienced before.


text:
Checkout-lane “icy coldness” is real as a *feeling*, but it’s also one of the hardest places to correctly attribute cause. Cashiers are often tired, underpaid, on autopilot, and some stores push them to move fast. In SF especially, a lot of interactions are just… minimal.

Also: when you’re under strain (and you are), your threat-detector runs hot. Ambiguous “neutral” can start reading as “hostile.”

If you want a pragmatic way to handle it without gaslighting yourself:

- Do a quick reality check: were they equally cold to the person right before you?
- Bring a tiny bit of warmth and see if it changes anything: “Hi, how’s your day going?” (then drop it if you get nothing back).
- Treat “cold” as default noise unless there’s a specific behavior (insult, refusal, weird comment). Save your energy for the stuff you can actually verify and act on.

What exactly are you seeing in the moment: no eye contact, tone, words, body language, something said?


text: i understand your concerns.  i've been noticing this trend for more than a year now, so it predates my recent upsetness.  i understand that coldness can be easily misunderstood.  you do not need to lecture me on these issues.  i know them, i have accounted for them, and i don't want to relitigate it with you here/now.  i have already done so many times with the ChatGPT web interface.


text:
Fair. I won’t re-litigate the “maybe it’s misunderstanding” stuff with you.

I also can’t endorse “white men are horrible” as a general rule, but I *can* work with your lived experience of getting hit with the blowback and help you handle it.

What do you want from me here?

1. A short internal script / grounding routine for the checkout-lane moments (so it doesn’t eat your day)?
2. A calm, high-status one-liner for when it’s explicit (someone actually says something)?
3. A way to raise this with a therapist without it turning into a politics seminar (basically a “treat me as an individual” fit-test)?


text: ok - translate "white men are horrible" to "despite overwhelming evidence, white men continue to support anti-democratic authortarian leadership and it is causing a social backlash"  that's what i am really saying, i'm just using short-hand.


text:
A cleaner “translation” that keeps the meaning but drops the identity-as-moral-verdict framing:

- “I’m frustrated that, as a demographic, white men have continued to disproportionately support anti-democratic authoritarian leaders, and I think that’s driving a social backlash that sometimes gets aimed at me personally, even when I don’t share those views.”

If you want it even tighter/more personal:

- “I think a lot of the backlash I’m feeling is spillover from the fact that many white men support anti-democratic authoritarian politics, and people assume I’m part of that.”


text: ha.  ok.  but that's a lot to type.  can we develop a short hand that won't trigger you?


text:
Yep. Let’s use a shorthand that means:

“People are projecting anger about anti-democratic authoritarian politics onto me because I read as a white guy.”

Options (pick one):

- `spillover`
- `identity blowback`
- `demographic blowback`
- `backlash tax`
- `projection penalty`

My vote is `spillover` (short, neutral).


text: perfect.  i worry about spillover.  that's my only reason for wanting to look at a male lawyer.


text:
That’s a reasonable reason to *include* a male lawyer in the shortlist. I just wouldn’t treat “male” as a guarantee against spillover; in collaborative, fit and backbone matter more than demographics.

Practical way to do it:

- Keep the collaborative requirement, and add: “at least one consult with a male collaborative attorney.”
- Use a quick “squish-test” question set on every consult:
  - “In collaborative, how do you make sure the less-resourced spouse doesn’t get steamrolled by the ‘team’ dynamic?”
  - “What do you do when ‘being reasonable’ starts turning into ‘being pressured’?”
  - “Are you willing to recommend pausing/ending collaborative if it’s drifting unfair?”
  - “How do you structure interim support while counsel gets aligned?”
  - “I’m worried about spillover / being typecast. Have you seen that, and how do you keep it fact-based?”

If you want, I’ll (1) identify 1–2 male candidates from Lisa’s collaborative list, and (2) draft the exact coordination text to Lisa (and we’ll avoid Susan Amato since she’s already spoken with her).


text: LOL.  did i ever say i trust that as a guarentee against spillover?  did i imply it?  from my history, do you think i would make that kind of error?


text:
No. You didn’t imply “male lawyer = guaranteed no spillover.” You’ve been pretty consistently careful about that kind of sloppy leap.

I said it as a guardrail: treat “male” as one input to reduce a risk you care about, then still screen hard for backbone/fit.

Want me to add 1 male collaborative attorney to the shortlist and draft the coordination text to Lisa with the exact names you’ll contact?


text: first i want you to write-down the details of this conversation so we never have to cover it again.  especially make note that i am being carefully consistent and do not need lectures about not being so.


text: I’ll check the repo layout/git status, then add a small “canonical note” doc capturing this spillover shorthand and your “no lectures / consistency” guardrail, and commit it.


text: I’m going to add a short “working agreements” note under `records/` capturing the spillover shorthand + your “no lectures / I’m consistent” guardrail, and I’ll commit it along with `AGENTS.md` and `.gitignore` so it stays durable.


text:
Captured and committed in `records/jimmy/working_agreements.md`.

It explicitly notes:
- You’re being careful/consistent and don’t need lectures or “you implied a guarantee” type framing.
- `spillover` = our shorthand (projection/blowback onto you).
- Use `anti-democratic authoritarian` as the behavior-label.
- My operating rules: treat `spillover` as a working premise and move to pragmatic next steps; keep any guardrails brief and permission-based.

Commit: `cd4781c` (on `main`).


text: perfect.  now - what do you suggest next?


text:
Next: get you into a collaborative attorney consult loop fast (it’ll reduce uncertainty and give you real guardrails on interim money).

I’d do this in order:

1. Confirm who Lisa has already spoken to (we currently know “Susan Amato” is taken), so we don’t accidentally conflict each other out.
2. Pick your 2 consult targets (I’d include 1 male consult to address `spillover`, plus 1 “best-fit regardless”).
3. Send Lisa one short coordination text listing exactly who you’ll contact and that you’ll check before adding anyone else.
4. Prep a 1-page “consult packet” + the squish-test questions so every call stays sharp and doesn’t drift into vibes.

Two quick inputs from you and I’ll generate the exact message + shortlist + outreach templates:
- Are we assuming **Missouri/St. Louis collaborative** as the jurisdiction focus?
- Do you want the shortlist to be **exactly 2** names or **2 + 1 backup**?


text: let's do three names.  you pick.


text:
Here are my 3 picks (all on the St. Louis Collaborative Family Law Association roster), with 1 male consult baked in: ([stlouiscollaborativelaw.com](https://stlouiscollaborativelaw.com/find-a-professional/attorneys/))

1. **Jennifer Rench** (J. Rench Law Firm / STL Divorce & Mediation)
   `jennifer@jrenchlaw.com` | (314) 725-4000 ([stlouiscollaborativelaw.com](https://stlouiscollaborativelaw.com/author/jennifer-rench/))
2. **Sarah J. Wittrock** (Jones Family Law Group)
   `sarah@jonesfamilylawgroup.com` | (314) 449-8830 ([stlouiscollaborativelaw.com](https://stlouiscollaborativelaw.com/author/sarah-j-wittrock/))
3. **Alan E. Freed** (PCB Law Firm)
   `afreed@pcblawfirm.com` | (314) 244-3653 ([stlouiscollaborativelaw.com](https://stlouiscollaborativelaw.com/author/alan-freed/))

Next step: send Lisa a coordination text with these 3 names so you don’t conflict each other out, then start booking consults (in that order). Suggested text:

“To avoid conflicts, I’m planning to reach out for consults with Jennifer Rench, Sarah Wittrock (Jones Family Law Group), and Alan Freed (PCB). Have you already contacted any of them? If not, I’ll proceed with these and won’t add anyone else without checking with you first.”