role: user

text: can you check for new email from Maya?


role: assistant

text:
Yes. In INBOX (last 5 days) I see 5 emails from Maya Slater `maya@jonesfamilylawgroup.com`:

- 2026-03-02 07:26 PT: “Your completed form”
- 2026-03-02 06:32 PT: “RE: Consultation Request – Sarah Wittrock”
- 2026-03-02 06:22 PT: “An invoice from Jones Family Law Group”
- 2026-03-02 06:21 PT: “Please fill out this form”
- 2026-03-02 06:20 PT: “Your Phone Consultation with Sarah Wittrock was Scheduled”


text: do you still have that letter that summarizes my goals?  (retirement security)


text:
Yes. It’s saved at `legal/records/lawyers/templates/pitch_long_term_support_safety_stability.md`.

```text
Hi Sarah,

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
```


text: yes - perfect.  but we should remove the "Hi Sarah" and closing, since we're just laying it as groundwork and i'm sending it to Maya, the assistant.


text: Updated `legal/records/lawyers/templates/pitch_long_term_support_safety_stability.md` to remove the “Hi Sarah” greeting and the closing/signature, so it’s just the groundwork body text you can send to Maya.


text:
ok... let's send that to Maya with a header -

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


text:
Draft email (dry-run preview):

```text
To: maya@jonesfamilylawgroup.com
From: qarl@qarl.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
```

Reply “send” and I’ll send it exactly as-is.


text: send


text: Sent to Maya from `qarl@qarl.com` with subject “Additional context for Sarah Wittrock consult”.


text: pull messages!


text:
New messages since the last pull (highlights, in order):

- 08:38 Lisa: “When you say you didn’t get a chance to respond, I’m trying to understand what that would have looked like to you. What do you imagine you would have said or done differently?”
- 08:52 Lisa: “…once that clarity formed, it didn’t feel like something I could hold open as a joint restructuring process. It felt like something I needed to act on honestly.”
- 09:04 Lisa: “When you say you would have wanted more time in therapy before it became irreversible, are you imagining that time as a way to come to terms with it, or as a way to try to change it?”
- 09:12 Lisa: “…I didn’t experience our situation as stable or collaborative enough for that kind of slow integration. And once clarity formed for me, it felt honest to act on it.”
- 09:16 Lisa: “February” (clarifying what she meant by “at the time”)
- 09:23 Lisa: “I’m open to getting into the longer arc, but I’m going to stop here for today.”
- 09:32 Lisa: “I’ve been answering from my experience. If that doesn’t fit the structure you’re looking for, that doesn’t mean I’m not answering honestly.”
- 09:33 Karl: “I’m not trying to fit your experience into a structure. I’m trying to understand it… I’m just trying to reconcile your experience with mine.”


text: sorry - i should have had Jimmy-divorce-legal send that.  i get you guys confused.


text:
No worries. There are a lot of Jimmys in the shop.

Quick routing rule we can use going forward:

- Anything to/from **Lisa** (texts): **Jimmy-divorce** (me)
- Anything to/from **lawyers / assistants** (email, intake, invoices): **Jimmy-divorce-legal**
- Anything **housing**: the housing Jimmy in `scripts/housing/`

If you want, I can write this rule into a short repo note so we both follow it consistently.


text: perfect.


text:
Wrote it down at `docs/jimmy-routing.md` (routing rule + outbound reminder).

Want me to commit just that note?