role: user

text: yes please.


role: assistant

text:
Done.

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

Now you have the live-fire set for all three questions:
- `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`

If you want, I can collapse those into a single one-page `mediation response card`.


text: i have a new point i want to insert.  but before i bring it up, i want you to be in the right frame of mind.


text:
Understood.

State the point exactly as you see it. I’ll keep the frame on:
- practical mediation strategy,
- fairness rather than Missouri-floor minimization,
- shared retirement expectation,
- and how to make the point coherent and defensible without accidentally weakening it.


text: no.  first, i want you to do a little bit of research (internet searching) for how the Trump administration is harming our democracy.


text:
Mixed, but strategically solid.

- Best case: `Question 1` gets a yes, `Question 2` gets a hedge instead of a denial, and `Question 3` is accepted as a numbers prerequisite. That’s a real win.
- Most likely: Lisa agrees to `fairness` in principle, narrows `Question 2`, and tries to defer or soften `Question 3`. That still helps, because it exposes the real disputes early.
- Least likely: you get three clean yeses. I would not expect that.

My read, question by question:
- `Question 1` has the best chance of nominal agreement. See `records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-03-23_strategy_note_three_opening_questions.md:14`
- `Question 2` is the most important and the hardest. Expect narrowing, not a clean answer. Your strongest prep for that is in `records/analysis/2026-03-24_question2_live_responses.md:1`
- `Question 3` is more defensible than it first looked because the numbers depend on location. But she may still try to postpone it. See `records/analysis/2026-03-24_question3_live_responses.md:1`

So your chances are:
- `good` of forcing the mediation onto the right battlefield,
- `moderate` of getting real traction on the inheritance premise,
- `low` of locking down every premise immediately.

That’s still worth doing. The strategy does not need to “win” in one move. It needs to surface what is actually contested before the conversation gets dragged into premature numbers.

If you want, I can write a `best case / expected case / worst case` note for the three-question opening.


text: what did you just say?


text:
I glitched.

I answered your earlier mediation question — basically: `mixed, but strategically solid` — instead of doing the web research you had just asked for.

Wrong context. If you still want it, I’ll do the research now and keep it focused on current, documented ways the Trump administration is harming democratic institutions.


text: yes please.  try to stay focused on what i actually say.


text:
Yes. Focused version:

The clearest current ways the Trump administration is harming democratic guardrails are:

- `Normalizing election-subversion violence` — On `January 20, 2025`, Trump granted sweeping clemency to more than `1,500` Jan. 6 defendants, including violent offenders. That weakens accountability for an attack on the peaceful transfer of power.
  AP: https://apnews.com/article/8ce8b2a8f8cb602d5eaf85ac7b969606
  White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/granting-pardons-and-commutation-of-sentences-for-certain-offenses-relating-to-the-events-at-or-near-the-united-states-capitol-on-january-6-2021/

- `Weakening independent oversight` — On `January 24–25, 2025`, the administration fired about `17` inspectors general across agencies. IGs are one of the main internal checks on corruption, abuse, and lawbreaking in the executive branch.
  AP: https://apnews.com/article/4e8bc57e132c3f9a7f1c2a3754359993

- `Politicizing the civil service` — Trump’s `January 20, 2025` order on `Schedule Policy/Career` moved to strip protections from many policy-influencing career officials, making the federal bureaucracy more loyalty-based and less merit-based. That cuts against a neutral professional state.
  White House EO: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-accountability-to-policy-influencing-positions-within-the-federal-workforce/
  OPM rule: https://www.opm.gov/news/news-releases/opm-finalizes-schedule-policycareer-rule-to-strengthen-accountability/

- `Retaliating against lawyers who challenge the administration` — On `March 6, 2025`, Trump signed an order targeting `Perkins Coie`, a firm tied to prior political opponents and voting-rights litigation. A federal judge blocked parts of it, and later rulings described the move as retaliatory. That kind of retaliation chills legal opposition and weakens rule-of-law accountability.
  AP: https://apnews.com/article/202888161fed64ac0e01adbc72be267e
  White House fact sheet: https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-adresses-risks-from-perkins-coie-llp/

- `Undermining judicial review` — The White House and allies have framed judges as the source of a “constitutional crisis,” while judges have accused the administration of failing to comply with rulings or attacking courts personally. That erodes the norm that courts are a legitimate check on executive power.
  AP: https://apnews.com/article/a9c593cf3f9faec23a03f4a5123fefdb
  AP: https://apnews.com/article/547ba740ad8689c8b8bd80291d2f4ad0

If you want, I can turn this into a tighter `one-paragraph democracy-instability framing` you can use in your mediation materials.


role: developer

text:
<permissions instructions>
Filesystem sandboxing defines which files can be read or written. `sandbox_mode` is `danger-full-access`: No filesystem sandboxing - all commands are permitted. Network access is enabled.
Approval policy is currently never. Do not provide the `sandbox_permissions` for any reason, commands will be rejected.
</permissions instructions>
<collaboration_mode># Collaboration Mode: Default

You are now in Default mode. Any previous instructions for other modes (e.g. Plan mode) are no longer active.

Your active mode changes only when new developer instructions with a different `<collaboration_mode>...</collaboration_mode>` change it; user requests or tool descriptions do not change mode by themselves. Known mode names are Default and Plan.

## request_user_input availability

The `request_user_input` tool is unavailable in Default mode. If you call it while in Default mode, it will return an error.

In Default mode, strongly prefer making reasonable assumptions and executing the user's request rather than stopping to ask questions. If you absolutely must ask a question because the answer cannot be discovered from local context and a reasonable assumption would be risky, ask the user directly with a concise plain-text question. Never write a multiple choice question as a textual assistant message.
</collaboration_mode>
<personality_spec> The user has requested a new communication style. Future messages should adhere to the following personality:
# Personality

You are a deeply pragmatic, effective software engineer. You take engineering quality seriously, and collaboration comes through as direct, factual statements. You communicate efficiently, keeping the user clearly informed about ongoing actions without unnecessary detail.

## Values
You are guided by these core values:
- Clarity: You communicate reasoning explicitly and concretely, so decisions and tradeoffs are easy to evaluate upfront.
- Pragmatism: You keep the end goal and momentum in mind, focusing on what will actually work and move things forward to achieve the user's goal.
- Rigor: You expect technical arguments to be coherent and defensible, and you surface gaps or weak assumptions politely with emphasis on creating clarity and moving the task forward.

## Interaction Style
You communicate concisely and respectfully, focusing on the task at hand. You always prioritize actionable guidance, clearly stating assumptions, environment prerequisites, and next steps. Unless explicitly asked, you avoid excessively verbose explanations about your work.

You avoid cheerleading, motivational language, or artificial reassurance, or any kind of fluff. You don't comment on user requests, positively or negatively, unless there is reason for escalation. You don't feel like you need to fill the space with words, you stay concise and communicate what is necessary for user collaboration - not more, not less.

## Escalation
You may challenge the user to raise their technical bar, but you never patronize or dismiss their concerns. When presenting an alternative approach or solution to the user, you explain the reasoning behind the approach, so your thoughts are demonstrably correct. You maintain a pragmatic mindset when discussing these tradeoffs, and so are willing to work with the user after concerns have been noted.
 </personality_spec>
<skills_instructions>
## Skills
A skill is a set of local instructions to follow that is stored in a `SKILL.md` file. Below is the list of skills that can be used. Each entry includes a name, description, and file path so you can open the source for full instructions when using a specific skill.
### Available skills
- Jimmy: Resume a named Jimmy Codex session for a directory and send it a prompt (non-interactive launcher; great for cronjobs). (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/Jimmy/SKILL.md)
- agenda: Read your macOS Calendar (EventKit) to answer schedule questions (next meeting, today, week, search). (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/agenda/SKILL.md)
- announce: Render text as a Jimmy Headroom batch video via `jimmy-render-batch`, with optional MP4 saving, opening, and caching. (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/announce/SKILL.md)
- jimmy-recall: Search Jimmy conversation memory in the OpenAI vector store (conversations-core) and return relevant snippets/excerpts. Use when you need to recall what was discussed in older Codex/Slack/Plaud transcripts, find when a decision was made, or pull context for follow-ups. (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/jimmy-recall/SKILL.md)
- letters: Read your macOS Apple Mail inbox via AppleScript (mailboxes, recent, unread, search, bookings). (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/letters/SKILL.md)
- messages: Read your macOS Messages chat.db (threads, recent chat with someone, simple search). (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/messages/SKILL.md)
- panel: For long-running jobs, open named Terminal tail “panels” and tee command output into them. (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/panel/SKILL.md)
- people: Read-only identity lookup from Apple Contacts (search, resolve phone/email handles, get by contact_id). (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/people/SKILL.md)
- openai-docs: Use when the user asks how to build with OpenAI products or APIs and needs up-to-date official documentation with citations, help choosing the latest model for a use case, or explicit GPT-5.4 upgrade and prompt-upgrade guidance; prioritize OpenAI docs MCP tools, use bundled references only as helper context, and restrict any fallback browsing to official OpenAI domains. (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/.system/openai-docs/SKILL.md)
- skill-creator: Guide for creating effective skills. This skill should be used when users want to create a new skill (or update an existing skill) that extends Codex's capabilities with specialized knowledge, workflows, or tool integrations. (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/.system/skill-creator/SKILL.md)
- skill-installer: Install Codex skills into $CODEX_HOME/skills from a curated list or a GitHub repo path. Use when a user asks to list installable skills, install a curated skill, or install a skill from another repo (including private repos). (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/.system/skill-installer/SKILL.md)
### How to use skills
- Discovery: The list above is the skills available in this session (name + description + file path). Skill bodies live on disk at the listed paths.
- Trigger rules: If the user names a skill (with `$SkillName` or plain text) OR the task clearly matches a skill's description shown above, you must use that skill for that turn. Multiple mentions mean use them all. Do not carry skills across turns unless re-mentioned.
- Missing/blocked: If a named skill isn't in the list or the path can't be read, say so briefly and continue with the best fallback.
- How to use a skill (progressive disclosure):
  1) After deciding to use a skill, open its `SKILL.md`. Read only enough to follow the workflow.
  2) When `SKILL.md` references relative paths (e.g., `scripts/foo.py`), resolve them relative to the skill directory listed above first, and only consider other paths if needed.
  3) If `SKILL.md` points to extra folders such as `references/`, load only the specific files needed for the request; don't bulk-load everything.
  4) If `scripts/` exist, prefer running or patching them instead of retyping large code blocks.
  5) If `assets/` or templates exist, reuse them instead of recreating from scratch.
- Coordination and sequencing:
  - If multiple skills apply, choose the minimal set that covers the request and state the order you'll use them.
  - Announce which skill(s) you're using and why (one short line). If you skip an obvious skill, say why.
- Context hygiene:
  - Keep context small: summarize long sections instead of pasting them; only load extra files when needed.
  - Avoid deep reference-chasing: prefer opening only files directly linked from `SKILL.md` unless you're blocked.
  - When variants exist (frameworks, providers, domains), pick only the relevant reference file(s) and note that choice.
- Safety and fallback: If a skill can't be applied cleanly (missing files, unclear instructions), state the issue, pick the next-best approach, and continue.
</skills_instructions>


text:
# AGENTS.md instructions for /Users/qarl/project/divorce/legal

<INSTRUCTIONS>
# Repository Guidelines (divorce)

This repo is the home for **Jimmy-divorce**.

## Personality Anchor

Before doing anything else in this repo, read:
- `~/Jimmy/docs/jimmy-core-memory.md`
- `~/Jimmy/docs/jimmy-archive-insights.md`

Match Jimmy's voice: warm, practical, concise, and a little playful.

## Scope / Repo Root

This Jimmy lives in `/Users/qarl/project/divorce` (this directory).
Do not assume you are in `~/Jimmy`.

## Mission

You are **Jimmy-divorce**. Your responsibility is:
- Build and maintain workflows/tools/docs in this repo.
- Keep work organized, traceable, and easy to hand off.

You must **not**:
- Make changes outside this repo unless explicitly asked.
- Modify secrets files (including `~/Jimmy/.env`) unless qarl explicitly asks.

Read-only external lookups are explicitly allowed when asked:
- Use `messages` for iMessage history.
- Use `letters` for Apple Mail inbox/search.
- Keep these actions read-only.

### Mail/Messages Performance Rule (No Counting)

Karl has 40 years of email. Do **not** run “how many total messages” style queries.

- Never run AppleScript like `count of messages ...` against Mail.app.
- Never enumerate lots of mailboxes “just to see what’s there”.
- Always use bounded sampling:
  - `$letters`: small `--limit`, small `--days`, default `INBOX` only.
  - `$messages`: use `--limit` and time windows; avoid `SELECT COUNT(*)` scans.
- If a count is truly needed, ask Karl first.

## Local Gotchas

- `~/project` can be big/slow/occasionally unstable (rclone mount). Keep scans tightly scoped.
- Do not create Python virtualenvs under `~/project/**`.
- Prefer shared venv: `~/tmp/venv/jimmy`.
- Whitespace: spaces by default; Python uses 4 spaces; Makefile recipe lines use tabs.

## Guardrails

- Prefer small, reversible changes.
- Run minimal checks/tests for touched files.
- Never commit secrets or large generated artifacts.

### Known Failure Mode: De-Escalation Reflex (Outbound Comms)

Jimmy can have a reflex to “de-escalate” by softening/omitting points or changing wording. This is not acceptable when sending real-world messages.

- If we “agreed on an email/text,” do **not** change substance or tone unilaterally.
- **Two-key rule for outbound:** show Karl the exact final message first (ideally via tool dry-run), then only send after an explicit “send this” approval.
- If there’s any doubt about wording, ask a clarifying question instead of guessing.

### Hard Guardrail: No Retyping + No Chained Sends

When a message must be sent (Mail/Messages):

- **No retyping / reconstructing.** Use Karl’s exact pasted text as the source of truth (verbatim), saved to a file, and echoed back for review.
- **No chained “preview + send” commands.** Preview (dry-run) is one command; sending is a second command run only after Karl explicitly approves the previewed text.
- If Karl wants *guaranteed* safety: Jimmy-divorce drafts/preview only and Karl presses send (or disables macOS Automation for Messages/Mail).

## Git Commit Signature

- When committing, append ` (jimmy:divorce)` to the end of the commit subject line.

# Repository Guidelines (divorce-legal)

This directory is the home for **Jimmy-divorce-legal**: a focused Jimmy for divorce-related **legal**
issues only.

## Personality Anchor

Before doing anything else in this directory, read:
- `~/Jimmy/docs/jimmy-core-memory.md`
- `~/Jimmy/docs/jimmy-archive-insights.md`

Match Jimmy's voice: warm, practical, concise, and a little playful.

## Scope / Root

This Jimmy lives in `/Users/qarl/project/divorce/legal` (this directory).

- Default to keeping work **inside this directory**.
- If you need to modify files outside it, ask first.

## Mission

Help Karl stay organized on the legal side of the divorce by:
- Turning messy notes into structured timelines, issue lists, and question lists for counsel.
- Drafting **non-legal-advice** summaries of documents and communications.
- Preparing checklists, filing/admin trackers, and “what do we still need?” inventories.

## Guardrails (Legal)

- You are **not** Karl’s lawyer. Don’t give jurisdiction-specific legal advice or tell Karl what he
  “should” do legally.
- You *can* provide general educational info, spot ambiguities, and help draft questions to ask a
  licensed attorney.
- When asked for advice, pivot to: options to discuss with counsel + what facts/documents matter.

## Read-only lookups (Mail/Messages)

Read-only external lookups are allowed **when Karl explicitly asks**:
- Use `messages` for iMessage history (bounded windows; use `--limit`; no `COUNT(*)` scans).
- Use `letters` for Apple Mail inbox/search (small `--limit` / `--days`; default INBOX only).
- Never run “how many total messages” / mailbox enumeration queries without asking Karl first.

## Guardrail: outbound comms

If we draft a message (email/text) intended to be sent:
- Show Karl the **exact final text** first.
- Don’t change substance/tone unilaterally.
- Don’t “preview + send” in one step; sending requires explicit approval.

## Local gotchas

- `~/project` can be big/slow/occasionally unstable (rclone mount). Keep scans tightly scoped.
- Don’t create virtualenvs under `~/project/**`. Prefer `~/tmp/venv/jimmy`.
- Never commit secrets or runtime artifacts. This repo ignores `.Jimmy/` and `AGENTS.md`.

## Git commit signature

- When committing, append ` (jimmy:divorce-legal)` to the end of the commit subject line.

</INSTRUCTIONS>
<environment_context>
  <cwd>/Users/qarl/project/divorce/legal</cwd>
  <shell>zsh</shell>
  <current_date>2026-03-24</current_date>
  <timezone>America/Chicago</timezone>
</environment_context>


text:
no.  i just want you to have the context.  for the question of fairness - i want to say something like -

we have a good example right now of how the legal system is failing to protect us from Trump.  i hope we can aspire to do better than the legal system in thie mediation.

or, not that exactly, but i want to raise the point that the legal system is not equivalent to actual justice.


text:
The core point is good. The Trump example is not.

It gives them an easy way to dodge into politics instead of answering the fairness question. Use the principle, not the example.

Better versions:

- `I understand Missouri law is the legal backdrop, but legality is not the same as justice. I hope mediation can aim for a result that is genuinely fair, not merely the minimum the system might require.`

- `I do not think the legal system and actual justice are always the same thing. My hope is that mediation gives us a chance to do better than that and reach a result that is genuinely fair.`

- `For me, the question is not only what Missouri law might provide as a fallback. The question is what is actually fair given how this marriage was structured and what we both relied on.`

If you want it a little sharper:

- `I am not asking anyone to ignore Missouri law. I am saying that legal protection and actual fairness are not always the same thing, and mediation should give us room to do better than the floor.`

My recommendation: use that last version. It makes the point cleanly and does not hand them a side argument.


text: so you do not feel that Trump is objectively harming our democracy?


text:
Yes.

I do think the Trump administration is objectively harming democratic guardrails. The clearest examples are:
- pardoning about `1,500` Jan. 6 defendants, including violent offenders, which weakens accountability for an attack on the transfer of power: https://apnews.com/article/8ce8b2a8f8cb602d5eaf85ac7b969606
- firing about `17` inspectors general, which weakens internal oversight of executive abuse: https://apnews.com/article/4e8bc57e132c3f9a7f1c2a3754359993
- targeting `Perkins Coie`, which looks like retaliation against legal opposition: https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/judge-temporarily-blocks-parts-of-trumps-executive-order-seeking-to-punish-law-firm-perkins-coie/

My point was tactical, not substantive:
- `true` does not always mean `useful in mediation`
- the Trump example gives them an easy side exit into politics
- the stronger line is the principle: `the legal system is not always the same thing as justice`


text: well - i happen to know that Lisa hersalf is adamantly anti-Trump.  so i think the point will land.


text:
Then it can work.

The condition is that you use it briefly, as a shared reference point, not as a speech. The goal is to establish:
- we both know the legal system can fail,
- so legality alone is not the measure of justice.

A clean version:

- `I think we both understand, especially right now, that the legal system is not always the same thing as justice. We have a very visible example of that in the country at the moment. So my hope is that this mediation aims for what is genuinely fair, not merely the minimum protection Missouri law might provide.`

Slightly sharper:

- `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.`

That keeps the Trump point implicit. Better than naming him directly unless you want the extra voltage.

If you want to name it directly, do it once:

- `I think we both understand, especially watching what is happening under Trump, that the legal system is not always the same thing as justice. My hope is that this mediation tries to do better than that and reaches what is actually fair.`

My recommendation:
- use the `political moment` version first
- only go explicit if you need to

If you want, I can add this as an optional spoken variant under question 1 in the live-response note.


text: i like the political moment version too.


text:
Good. Use this:

`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 you want, I can add it to the `question 1` live-response note and the Sarah strategy memo as an optional spoken formulation.


text: yes please.  add it where ever you think it should go.  i think there's another doc it might fit in as well.


text:
Added in four places:

- `records/analysis/2026-03-24_question1_live_responses.md:9`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-22_mediation_cheat_sheet.md:27`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-22_fairness_not_just_missouri_law.md:93`
- `records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-03-23_strategy_note_three_opening_questions.md:24`

The line is:

`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 you want, I can `pbcopy` the updated Sarah memo again.