EVERY Six Months Jolie reiterates accusations against Pitt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shiloh has a job...I think maddox does too. Zahara is in college and looks like Pax is working on being in the digital arts. Why the hostility if they're actively doing things

These are not the high expectations most upper middle class or beyond have for their kids. She is not a role model for any parent here.

How is having a job not high expectations? Get real. You're just mad they aren't on his side and won't play his games.

Are you low income or something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Brad is a loser and an abuser and she's not gonna let him wriggle out of it. HE keeps dragging her back in court and she fights back every time. Good for her

A loser? Angelina is the barely employed almost broke parent with too many kids still complaining about her ex. Nobody admires that woman or thinks she's a winner.

And that is a sign of abuse. If she is the broke parent as you insist, why is he continuingly dragging her back into the court keeping that winery sale alive. What is his end objective, for he cannot get that portion of the winery back. That ship has sailed. Is it to bankrupt her. Great, you win because that is a sign of abuse to try and leave the mother of your children bankrupt.

Angelina broke the contract she and Brad had. She sold her shares to the winery behind his back. He woke up one morning to a press release that he had a new business partner that he had already turned down. The lawsuit is against Jolie, her former company Nouvel, and Stoli and its ownership. He is seeking to keep control of his winery and either undo the illegal sale or recoup monetary damages for the harm he has suffered as a result of the sale. The judge has already said Angelina failed to prove that they did not have an implied in fact contract. Brad can recoup damages from her for her illegal actions. She sought an unearned profit by selling her shares and gained money based on the money and work that he put into the winery. Angelina did nothing for the winery and harmed Brad and his partner Marc Perrin by selling her shares to a partner they don’t want involved in their business. It’s not abuse to sue someone who has harmed you. But you seem to believe Angelina can do whatever she wants and Brad just has to accept her malicious actions without fighting back.

Now you’re making things up, basically using kellyanne Conway alternative facts. No judge has ruled there was an implied contract. In fact, implied contracts are hard to prove due to ambiguity and what was intended along with consideration and more. If the judge had made that ruling, they still would not be litigating the merits of the case.

The judge refused to throw out the claims against Angelina for breach of implied-in-fact contract and breach of quasi-contract. She said Brad had proven the elements of the contract. We will see at trial what a jury says, because Angelina should be ordered to pay damages to Brad for her illegal sale.

No she didn't. At all. She said there could be a contract. They get to argue the merits of the case at the summary judgement.

Proof. "Regarding Defendant's factual arguments as to whether the parties' conduct actually resulted in a contract, the Court is not inclined to resolve this issue on demurrer." It's only that one could exist not that one actually did and a contract was actually formed.

And proof of shiloh. She helps with her dance studio but has worked for the past year or so. You only see kids as a tool to help Brad's image. If not you wouldn't be disparaging them all them time. You see relationships as transactional which is why you went straight to "when they need money/connections they will run back to him" not to reconnect based on a genuine relationship.

The judge said that Brad pled the existence of the contract, including the conduct that forms a contract. He also proved his performance of the contract, the defendant’s breach and the damages he has suffered.

It sounds like Brad could file a motion for summary judgement on the breach of implied contract and breach of quasi contract claims, and the judge might rule in favor of him and order Jolie to pay him damages. He has asked for a jury trial and said he is ready to testify at trial and stand up for what is right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shiloh has a job...I think maddox does too. Zahara is in college and looks like Pax is working on being in the digital arts. Why the hostility if they're actively doing things

These are not the high expectations most upper middle class or beyond have for their kids. She is not a role model for any parent here.

DCUM is bipolar in nature. There’s another active thread about upper middle income class GenZ kids being lazy and not working at all. Now PP is opining about teenage kids and young 20 something Jolie-Pitt kids having little to no expectations for not saving the world yet. Funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Brad is a loser and an abuser and she's not gonna let him wriggle out of it. HE keeps dragging her back in court and she fights back every time. Good for her

A loser? Angelina is the barely employed almost broke parent with too many kids still complaining about her ex. Nobody admires that woman or thinks she's a winner.

And that is a sign of abuse. If she is the broke parent as you insist, why is he continuingly dragging her back into the court keeping that winery sale alive. What is his end objective, for he cannot get that portion of the winery back. That ship has sailed. Is it to bankrupt her. Great, you win because that is a sign of abuse to try and leave the mother of your children bankrupt.

Angelina broke the contract she and Brad had. She sold her shares to the winery behind his back. He woke up one morning to a press release that he had a new business partner that he had already turned down. The lawsuit is against Jolie, her former company Nouvel, and Stoli and its ownership. He is seeking to keep control of his winery and either undo the illegal sale or recoup monetary damages for the harm he has suffered as a result of the sale. The judge has already said Angelina failed to prove that they did not have an implied in fact contract. Brad can recoup damages from her for her illegal actions. She sought an unearned profit by selling her shares and gained money based on the money and work that he put into the winery. Angelina did nothing for the winery and harmed Brad and his partner Marc Perrin by selling her shares to a partner they don’t want involved in their business. It’s not abuse to sue someone who has harmed you. But you seem to believe Angelina can do whatever she wants and Brad just has to accept her malicious actions without fighting back.

Now you’re making things up, basically using kellyanne Conway alternative facts. No judge has ruled there was an implied contract. In fact, implied contracts are hard to prove due to ambiguity and what was intended along with consideration and more. If the judge had made that ruling, they still would not be litigating the merits of the case.

The judge refused to throw out the claims against Angelina for breach of implied-in-fact contract and breach of quasi-contract. She said Brad had proven the elements of the contract. We will see at trial what a jury says, because Angelina should be ordered to pay damages to Brad for her illegal sale.

No she didn't. At all. She said there could be a contract. They get to argue the merits of the case at the summary judgement.

Proof. "Regarding Defendant's factual arguments as to whether the parties' conduct actually resulted in a contract, the Court is not inclined to resolve this issue on demurrer." It's only that one could exist not that one actually did and a contract was actually formed.

And proof of shiloh. She helps with her dance studio but has worked for the past year or so. You only see kids as a tool to help Brad's image. If not you wouldn't be disparaging them all them time. You see relationships as transactional which is why you went straight to "when they need money/connections they will run back to him" not to reconnect based on a genuine relationship.

The judge said that Brad pled the existence of the contract, including the conduct that forms a contract. He also proved his performance of the contract, the defendant’s breach and the damages he has suffered.

It sounds like Brad could file a motion for summary judgement on the breach of implied contract and breach of quasi contract claims, and the judge might rule in favor of him and order Jolie to pay him damages. He has asked for a jury trial and said he is ready to testify at trial and stand up for what is right.

Judge never used the word proved in what you posted and cited. Pled in a pleading does not mean proved, and you know that. Stop with the lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shiloh has a job...I think maddox does too. Zahara is in college and looks like Pax is working on being in the digital arts. Why the hostility if they're actively doing things

These are not the high expectations most upper middle class or beyond have for their kids. She is not a role model for any parent here.

DCUM is bipolar in nature. There’s another active thread about upper middle income class GenZ kids being lazy and not working at all. Now PP is opining about teenage kids and young 20 something Jolie-Pitt kids having little to no expectations for not saving the world yet. Funny.

These kids are do nothings. They seem to fit the bill of lazy lack of ambition GenZ. It's a wonder that you're here and so easily impressed by these typical Hollywood entitled brats. Yet somehow are totally impressed by Angelina's parenting. I guess you are easily impressed when kids have a pulse, but nothing else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Brad is a loser and an abuser and she's not gonna let him wriggle out of it. HE keeps dragging her back in court and she fights back every time. Good for her

A loser? Angelina is the barely employed almost broke parent with too many kids still complaining about her ex. Nobody admires that woman or thinks she's a winner.

And that is a sign of abuse. If she is the broke parent as you insist, why is he continuingly dragging her back into the court keeping that winery sale alive. What is his end objective, for he cannot get that portion of the winery back. That ship has sailed. Is it to bankrupt her. Great, you win because that is a sign of abuse to try and leave the mother of your children bankrupt.

Angelina broke the contract she and Brad had. She sold her shares to the winery behind his back. He woke up one morning to a press release that he had a new business partner that he had already turned down. The lawsuit is against Jolie, her former company Nouvel, and Stoli and its ownership. He is seeking to keep control of his winery and either undo the illegal sale or recoup monetary damages for the harm he has suffered as a result of the sale. The judge has already said Angelina failed to prove that they did not have an implied in fact contract. Brad can recoup damages from her for her illegal actions. She sought an unearned profit by selling her shares and gained money based on the money and work that he put into the winery. Angelina did nothing for the winery and harmed Brad and his partner Marc Perrin by selling her shares to a partner they don’t want involved in their business. It’s not abuse to sue someone who has harmed you. But you seem to believe Angelina can do whatever she wants and Brad just has to accept her malicious actions without fighting back.

Now you’re making things up, basically using kellyanne Conway alternative facts. No judge has ruled there was an implied contract. In fact, implied contracts are hard to prove due to ambiguity and what was intended along with consideration and more. If the judge had made that ruling, they still would not be litigating the merits of the case.

The judge refused to throw out the claims against Angelina for breach of implied-in-fact contract and breach of quasi-contract. She said Brad had proven the elements of the contract. We will see at trial what a jury says, because Angelina should be ordered to pay damages to Brad for her illegal sale.

No she didn't. At all. She said there could be a contract. They get to argue the merits of the case at the summary judgement.

Proof. "Regarding Defendant's factual arguments as to whether the parties' conduct actually resulted in a contract, the Court is not inclined to resolve this issue on demurrer." It's only that one could exist not that one actually did and a contract was actually formed.

And proof of shiloh. She helps with her dance studio but has worked for the past year or so. You only see kids as a tool to help Brad's image. If not you wouldn't be disparaging them all them time. You see relationships as transactional which is why you went straight to "when they need money/connections they will run back to him" not to reconnect based on a genuine relationship.

The judge said that Brad pled the existence of the contract, including the conduct that forms a contract. He also proved his performance of the contract, the defendant’s breach and the damages he has suffered.

It sounds like Brad could file a motion for summary judgement on the breach of implied contract and breach of quasi contract claims, and the judge might rule in favor of him and order Jolie to pay him damages. He has asked for a jury trial and said he is ready to testify at trial and stand up for what is right.

As the other person said you're lying and you know it. The judge flat out said their decision was not based if a contract was met or not and that if the conduct actually formed a contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Brad is a loser and an abuser and she's not gonna let him wriggle out of it. HE keeps dragging her back in court and she fights back every time. Good for her

A loser? Angelina is the barely employed almost broke parent with too many kids still complaining about her ex. Nobody admires that woman or thinks she's a winner.

Angelina is a legend and huge with young women. She's an icon and extremely looked up to. And her kids all love her and hate their deadbeat, loser, abuser father. Angie wins <3

Brad is a legend. He is admired by his peers and the public. He is still hired for big roles while the crazy ex-wife can barely be hired for a job. She is so bitter; the only thing she can do is turn her children against their father, just like her mother did.

no one likes Brad anymore. Especially young people. We love Angelina and recognize Brad for what he is- a wifebeater.

Liar. Brad is way more popular than Angelina. If Angelina was so popular, she wouldn’t struggle to get hired for acting roles. She is not popular, and most people recognize her for what she is - a crazy, vindictive, bitter ex-wife who can’t move on.

This.

Even though in the 2 articles posted above she decries LA as a toxic place, she's the one who sealed her own fate with the industry, after being given a second chance with her incestuous behavior.

The meteoric fame that arose from coupling with Pitt magnified her already off-the-charts ego. She walked red carpets as though she was above it all, was a nightmare on movie sets - remember the director who called her a minimally talented spoiled brat?

After her acting failures, thought she could pivot to directing and instantaneously become the next Jane Campion or Martin Scorsese, etc. The fact that she couldn't see what an abject embarrassment her By the Sea film would turn out to be is testament to how out of touch with reality she actually is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Brad is a loser and an abuser and she's not gonna let him wriggle out of it. HE keeps dragging her back in court and she fights back every time. Good for her

A loser? Angelina is the barely employed almost broke parent with too many kids still complaining about her ex. Nobody admires that woman or thinks she's a winner.

And that is a sign of abuse. If she is the broke parent as you insist, why is he continuingly dragging her back into the court keeping that winery sale alive. What is his end objective, for he cannot get that portion of the winery back. That ship has sailed. Is it to bankrupt her. Great, you win because that is a sign of abuse to try and leave the mother of your children bankrupt.

Angelina broke the contract she and Brad had. She sold her shares to the winery behind his back. He woke up one morning to a press release that he had a new business partner that he had already turned down. The lawsuit is against Jolie, her former company Nouvel, and Stoli and its ownership. He is seeking to keep control of his winery and either undo the illegal sale or recoup monetary damages for the harm he has suffered as a result of the sale. The judge has already said Angelina failed to prove that they did not have an implied in fact contract. Brad can recoup damages from her for her illegal actions. She sought an unearned profit by selling her shares and gained money based on the money and work that he put into the winery. Angelina did nothing for the winery and harmed Brad and his partner Marc Perrin by selling her shares to a partner they don’t want involved in their business. It’s not abuse to sue someone who has harmed you. But you seem to believe Angelina can do whatever she wants and Brad just has to accept her malicious actions without fighting back.

Now you’re making things up, basically using kellyanne Conway alternative facts. No judge has ruled there was an implied contract. In fact, implied contracts are hard to prove due to ambiguity and what was intended along with consideration and more. If the judge had made that ruling, they still would not be litigating the merits of the case.

The judge refused to throw out the claims against Angelina for breach of implied-in-fact contract and breach of quasi-contract. She said Brad had proven the elements of the contract. We will see at trial what a jury says, because Angelina should be ordered to pay damages to Brad for her illegal sale.

No she didn't. At all. She said there could be a contract. They get to argue the merits of the case at the summary judgement.

Proof. "Regarding Defendant's factual arguments as to whether the parties' conduct actually resulted in a contract, the Court is not inclined to resolve this issue on demurrer." It's only that one could exist not that one actually did and a contract was actually formed.

And proof of shiloh. She helps with her dance studio but has worked for the past year or so. You only see kids as a tool to help Brad's image. If not you wouldn't be disparaging them all them time. You see relationships as transactional which is why you went straight to "when they need money/connections they will run back to him" not to reconnect based on a genuine relationship.

The judge said that Brad pled the existence of the contract, including the conduct that forms a contract. He also proved his performance of the contract, the defendant’s breach and the damages he has suffered.

It sounds like Brad could file a motion for summary judgement on the breach of implied contract and breach of quasi contract claims, and the judge might rule in favor of him and order Jolie to pay him damages. He has asked for a jury trial and said he is ready to testify at trial and stand up for what is right.

As the other person said you're lying and you know it. The judge flat out said their decision was not based if a contract was met or not and that if the conduct actually formed a contract.

The claim would have been dismissed, as other claims in the complaint were, if it had no legal basis. The judge decided his two most important claims have a legal basis and he provided evidence that he entered into a contract with Jolie. Their conduct and statements over the years more than meet the basis for entering an implied contract. Brad adequately pled that, if he had not the claim would have been dismissed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Brad is a loser and an abuser and she's not gonna let him wriggle out of it. HE keeps dragging her back in court and she fights back every time. Good for her

A loser? Angelina is the barely employed almost broke parent with too many kids still complaining about her ex. Nobody admires that woman or thinks she's a winner.

And that is a sign of abuse. If she is the broke parent as you insist, why is he continuingly dragging her back into the court keeping that winery sale alive. What is his end objective, for he cannot get that portion of the winery back. That ship has sailed. Is it to bankrupt her. Great, you win because that is a sign of abuse to try and leave the mother of your children bankrupt.

Angelina broke the contract she and Brad had. She sold her shares to the winery behind his back. He woke up one morning to a press release that he had a new business partner that he had already turned down. The lawsuit is against Jolie, her former company Nouvel, and Stoli and its ownership. He is seeking to keep control of his winery and either undo the illegal sale or recoup monetary damages for the harm he has suffered as a result of the sale. The judge has already said Angelina failed to prove that they did not have an implied in fact contract. Brad can recoup damages from her for her illegal actions. She sought an unearned profit by selling her shares and gained money based on the money and work that he put into the winery. Angelina did nothing for the winery and harmed Brad and his partner Marc Perrin by selling her shares to a partner they don’t want involved in their business. It’s not abuse to sue someone who has harmed you. But you seem to believe Angelina can do whatever she wants and Brad just has to accept her malicious actions without fighting back.

Now you’re making things up, basically using kellyanne Conway alternative facts. No judge has ruled there was an implied contract. In fact, implied contracts are hard to prove due to ambiguity and what was intended along with consideration and more. If the judge had made that ruling, they still would not be litigating the merits of the case.

The judge refused to throw out the claims against Angelina for breach of implied-in-fact contract and breach of quasi-contract. She said Brad had proven the elements of the contract. We will see at trial what a jury says, because Angelina should be ordered to pay damages to Brad for her illegal sale.

No she didn't. At all. She said there could be a contract. They get to argue the merits of the case at the summary judgement.

Proof. "Regarding Defendant's factual arguments as to whether the parties' conduct actually resulted in a contract, the Court is not inclined to resolve this issue on demurrer." It's only that one could exist not that one actually did and a contract was actually formed.

And proof of shiloh. She helps with her dance studio but has worked for the past year or so. You only see kids as a tool to help Brad's image. If not you wouldn't be disparaging them all them time. You see relationships as transactional which is why you went straight to "when they need money/connections they will run back to him" not to reconnect based on a genuine relationship.

The judge said that Brad pled the existence of the contract, including the conduct that forms a contract. He also proved his performance of the contract, the defendant’s breach and the damages he has suffered.

It sounds like Brad could file a motion for summary judgement on the breach of implied contract and breach of quasi contract claims, and the judge might rule in favor of him and order Jolie to pay him damages. He has asked for a jury trial and said he is ready to testify at trial and stand up for what is right.

As the other person said you're lying and you know it. The judge flat out said their decision was not based if a contract was met or not and that if the conduct actually formed a contract.

The claim would have been dismissed, as other claims in the complaint were, if it had no legal basis. The judge decided his two most important claims have a legal basis and he provided evidence that he entered into a contract with Jolie. Their conduct and statements over the years more than meet the basis for entering an implied contract. Brad adequately pled that, if he had not the claim would have been dismissed.

Just stop. The judge very clearly stated they that's not what was being decided at the moment.

"Regarding Defendant's factual arguments as to whether the parties' conduct actually resulted in a contract, the Court is not inclined to resolve this issue on demurrer."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Brad is a loser and an abuser and she's not gonna let him wriggle out of it. HE keeps dragging her back in court and she fights back every time. Good for her

A loser? Angelina is the barely employed almost broke parent with too many kids still complaining about her ex. Nobody admires that woman or thinks she's a winner.

Angelina is a legend and huge with young women. She's an icon and extremely looked up to. And her kids all love her and hate their deadbeat, loser, abuser father. Angie wins <3

Brad is a legend. He is admired by his peers and the public. He is still hired for big roles while the crazy ex-wife can barely be hired for a job. She is so bitter; the only thing she can do is turn her children against their father, just like her mother did.

no one likes Brad anymore. Especially young people. We love Angelina and recognize Brad for what he is- a wifebeater.

Liar. Brad is way more popular than Angelina. If Angelina was so popular, she wouldn’t struggle to get hired for acting roles. She is not popular, and most people recognize her for what she is - a crazy, vindictive, bitter ex-wife who can’t move on.

This.

Even though in the 2 articles posted above she decries LA as a toxic place, she's the one who sealed her own fate with the industry, after being given a second chance with her incestuous behavior.

The meteoric fame that arose from coupling with Pitt magnified her already off-the-charts ego. She walked red carpets as though she was above it all, was a nightmare on movie sets - remember the director who called her a minimally talented spoiled brat?

After her acting failures, thought she could pivot to directing and instantaneously become the next Jane Campion or Martin Scorsese, etc. The fact that she couldn't see what an abject embarrassment her By the Sea film would turn out to be is testament to how out of touch with reality she actually is.

She’s a talentless nepo baby who lacks talent for acting, directing, and writing (she also write the terrible By The Sea, in addition to her wooden acting and amateurish directing). She was lucky to have a career for decades based on her talent for self-promotion.

She’s not being hired for roles anymore because she’s older and doesn’t bring in big box office dollars. She also launched a very public smear campaign against a beloved Hollywood power player who everyone loves and thinks is a great guy. I think many in the industry share the personal dislike of her that we do. The Sony leaks proved that many think she’s talentless and a camp event. She’s only slating Hollywood because her career is essentially over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Brad is a loser and an abuser and she's not gonna let him wriggle out of it. HE keeps dragging her back in court and she fights back every time. Good for her

A loser? Angelina is the barely employed almost broke parent with too many kids still complaining about her ex. Nobody admires that woman or thinks she's a winner.

And that is a sign of abuse. If she is the broke parent as you insist, why is he continuingly dragging her back into the court keeping that winery sale alive. What is his end objective, for he cannot get that portion of the winery back. That ship has sailed. Is it to bankrupt her. Great, you win because that is a sign of abuse to try and leave the mother of your children bankrupt.

Angelina broke the contract she and Brad had. She sold her shares to the winery behind his back. He woke up one morning to a press release that he had a new business partner that he had already turned down. The lawsuit is against Jolie, her former company Nouvel, and Stoli and its ownership. He is seeking to keep control of his winery and either undo the illegal sale or recoup monetary damages for the harm he has suffered as a result of the sale. The judge has already said Angelina failed to prove that they did not have an implied in fact contract. Brad can recoup damages from her for her illegal actions. She sought an unearned profit by selling her shares and gained money based on the money and work that he put into the winery. Angelina did nothing for the winery and harmed Brad and his partner Marc Perrin by selling her shares to a partner they don’t want involved in their business. It’s not abuse to sue someone who has harmed you. But you seem to believe Angelina can do whatever she wants and Brad just has to accept her malicious actions without fighting back.

Now you’re making things up, basically using kellyanne Conway alternative facts. No judge has ruled there was an implied contract. In fact, implied contracts are hard to prove due to ambiguity and what was intended along with consideration and more. If the judge had made that ruling, they still would not be litigating the merits of the case.

The judge refused to throw out the claims against Angelina for breach of implied-in-fact contract and breach of quasi-contract. She said Brad had proven the elements of the contract. We will see at trial what a jury says, because Angelina should be ordered to pay damages to Brad for her illegal sale.

No she didn't. At all. She said there could be a contract. They get to argue the merits of the case at the summary judgement.

Proof. "Regarding Defendant's factual arguments as to whether the parties' conduct actually resulted in a contract, the Court is not inclined to resolve this issue on demurrer." It's only that one could exist not that one actually did and a contract was actually formed.

And proof of shiloh. She helps with her dance studio but has worked for the past year or so. You only see kids as a tool to help Brad's image. If not you wouldn't be disparaging them all them time. You see relationships as transactional which is why you went straight to "when they need money/connections they will run back to him" not to reconnect based on a genuine relationship.

I'm not the person to whom you are responding and I agree that people should not be talking about the kids in any disparaging way whatsoever.

But it's absolutely ridiculous to say that the kid's are a tool to help Brad's image. Angelina has used those children as props for her PR for years and years. She seemingly cannot go anywhere without being pictured with at least one of them or clinging onto them at red carpets, award ceremonies, involving them in all her endeavors (fashion house, movies, theater, etc.). It's as if she knows no one will pay attention to her if she isn't pictured with one of her kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Brad is a loser and an abuser and she's not gonna let him wriggle out of it. HE keeps dragging her back in court and she fights back every time. Good for her

A loser? Angelina is the barely employed almost broke parent with too many kids still complaining about her ex. Nobody admires that woman or thinks she's a winner.

Angelina is a legend and huge with young women. She's an icon and extremely looked up to. And her kids all love her and hate their deadbeat, loser, abuser father. Angie wins <3

What iconic films has Angelina starred in? All of her films suck. She’s never starred in a movie that’s been nominated for a Best Picture Oscar. She was a talentless “B” movie actress who only kept her name in the news by publicizing her personal life. Now that she’s old and ugly, the roles have dried up. She tried directing, but she sucks at it too. She tried creating a fashion house, but it’s a flop because she has no sense of style. She’s a talentless, old washed up hag who doesn’t want to work. She only wants to b***h about her ex-husband and live off his money. She needed her ex-husband to loan her money to buy a house, since she’s a lazy, washed up wastrel who doesn’t work (just like her talentless nepo kids). Those kids are defective because of her bad parenting. Brad has made it clear he will have more kids with a normal, sane, good mom.

OMG, you’re an INCEL.

That part. They can pretend this has anything to do with the kids and they don't have animosity toward them.

You do understand that one post is a truly unhinged troll, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Brad is a loser and an abuser and she's not gonna let him wriggle out of it. HE keeps dragging her back in court and she fights back every time. Good for her

A loser? Angelina is the barely employed almost broke parent with too many kids still complaining about her ex. Nobody admires that woman or thinks she's a winner.

And that is a sign of abuse. If she is the broke parent as you insist, why is he continuingly dragging her back into the court keeping that winery sale alive. What is his end objective, for he cannot get that portion of the winery back. That ship has sailed. Is it to bankrupt her. Great, you win because that is a sign of abuse to try and leave the mother of your children bankrupt.

Angelina broke the contract she and Brad had. She sold her shares to the winery behind his back. He woke up one morning to a press release that he had a new business partner that he had already turned down. The lawsuit is against Jolie, her former company Nouvel, and Stoli and its ownership. He is seeking to keep control of his winery and either undo the illegal sale or recoup monetary damages for the harm he has suffered as a result of the sale. The judge has already said Angelina failed to prove that they did not have an implied in fact contract. Brad can recoup damages from her for her illegal actions. She sought an unearned profit by selling her shares and gained money based on the money and work that he put into the winery. Angelina did nothing for the winery and harmed Brad and his partner Marc Perrin by selling her shares to a partner they don’t want involved in their business. It’s not abuse to sue someone who has harmed you. But you seem to believe Angelina can do whatever she wants and Brad just has to accept her malicious actions without fighting back.

Now you’re making things up, basically using kellyanne Conway alternative facts. No judge has ruled there was an implied contract. In fact, implied contracts are hard to prove due to ambiguity and what was intended along with consideration and more. If the judge had made that ruling, they still would not be litigating the merits of the case.

The judge refused to throw out the claims against Angelina for breach of implied-in-fact contract and breach of quasi-contract. She said Brad had proven the elements of the contract. We will see at trial what a jury says, because Angelina should be ordered to pay damages to Brad for her illegal sale.

No she didn't. At all. She said there could be a contract. They get to argue the merits of the case at the summary judgement.

Proof. "Regarding Defendant's factual arguments as to whether the parties' conduct actually resulted in a contract, the Court is not inclined to resolve this issue on demurrer." It's only that one could exist not that one actually did and a contract was actually formed.

And proof of shiloh. She helps with her dance studio but has worked for the past year or so. You only see kids as a tool to help Brad's image. If not you wouldn't be disparaging them all them time. You see relationships as transactional which is why you went straight to "when they need money/connections they will run back to him" not to reconnect based on a genuine relationship.

The judge said that Brad pled the existence of the contract, including the conduct that forms a contract. He also proved his performance of the contract, the defendant’s breach and the damages he has suffered.

It sounds like Brad could file a motion for summary judgement on the breach of implied contract and breach of quasi contract claims, and the judge might rule in favor of him and order Jolie to pay him damages. He has asked for a jury trial and said he is ready to testify at trial and stand up for what is right.

As the other person said you're lying and you know it. The judge flat out said their decision was not based if a contract was met or not and that if the conduct actually formed a contract.

The claim would have been dismissed, as other claims in the complaint were, if it had no legal basis. The judge decided his two most important claims have a legal basis and he provided evidence that he entered into a contract with Jolie. Their conduct and statements over the years more than meet the basis for entering an implied contract. Brad adequately pled that, if he had not the claim would have been dismissed.

Just stop. The judge very clearly stated they that's not what was being decided at the moment.

"Regarding Defendant's factual arguments as to whether the parties' conduct actually resulted in a contract, the Court is not inclined to resolve this issue on demurrer."

Why wasn’t the claim dismissed, like several other claims were? Because it has a legal basis and Brad has provided adequate facts to back his claim that they had an implied contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Brad is a loser and an abuser and she's not gonna let him wriggle out of it. HE keeps dragging her back in court and she fights back every time. Good for her

A loser? Angelina is the barely employed almost broke parent with too many kids still complaining about her ex. Nobody admires that woman or thinks she's a winner.

And that is a sign of abuse. If she is the broke parent as you insist, why is he continuingly dragging her back into the court keeping that winery sale alive. What is his end objective, for he cannot get that portion of the winery back. That ship has sailed. Is it to bankrupt her. Great, you win because that is a sign of abuse to try and leave the mother of your children bankrupt.

Angelina broke the contract she and Brad had. She sold her shares to the winery behind his back. He woke up one morning to a press release that he had a new business partner that he had already turned down. The lawsuit is against Jolie, her former company Nouvel, and Stoli and its ownership. He is seeking to keep control of his winery and either undo the illegal sale or recoup monetary damages for the harm he has suffered as a result of the sale. The judge has already said Angelina failed to prove that they did not have an implied in fact contract. Brad can recoup damages from her for her illegal actions. She sought an unearned profit by selling her shares and gained money based on the money and work that he put into the winery. Angelina did nothing for the winery and harmed Brad and his partner Marc Perrin by selling her shares to a partner they don’t want involved in their business. It’s not abuse to sue someone who has harmed you. But you seem to believe Angelina can do whatever she wants and Brad just has to accept her malicious actions without fighting back.

Now you’re making things up, basically using kellyanne Conway alternative facts. No judge has ruled there was an implied contract. In fact, implied contracts are hard to prove due to ambiguity and what was intended along with consideration and more. If the judge had made that ruling, they still would not be litigating the merits of the case.

The judge refused to throw out the claims against Angelina for breach of implied-in-fact contract and breach of quasi-contract. She said Brad had proven the elements of the contract. We will see at trial what a jury says, because Angelina should be ordered to pay damages to Brad for her illegal sale.

No she didn't. At all. She said there could be a contract. They get to argue the merits of the case at the summary judgement.

Proof. "Regarding Defendant's factual arguments as to whether the parties' conduct actually resulted in a contract, the Court is not inclined to resolve this issue on demurrer." It's only that one could exist not that one actually did and a contract was actually formed.

And proof of shiloh. She helps with her dance studio but has worked for the past year or so. You only see kids as a tool to help Brad's image. If not you wouldn't be disparaging them all them time. You see relationships as transactional which is why you went straight to "when they need money/connections they will run back to him" not to reconnect based on a genuine relationship.

I'm not the person to whom you are responding and I agree that people should not be talking about the kids in any disparaging way whatsoever.

But it's absolutely ridiculous to say that the kid's are a tool to help Brad's image. Angelina has used those children as props for her PR for years and years. She seemingly cannot go anywhere without being pictured with at least one of them or clinging onto them at red carpets, award ceremonies, involving them in all her endeavors (fashion house, movies, theater, etc.). It's as if she knows no one will pay attention to her if she isn't pictured with one of her kids.

You only see kids as a tool to help Brad's image YOU.

Which is 100% true. You were salivating at the thought it would be a situation where it was the bio vs adopted ones. That Shiloh and the twins would run to Brad once they turn 18. Now that's clearly not and was never the case, you're disparaging the bio ones too. It's all transactional for you. That's why you keep repeating he will have kids as if that changes anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Brad is a loser and an abuser and she's not gonna let him wriggle out of it. HE keeps dragging her back in court and she fights back every time. Good for her

A loser? Angelina is the barely employed almost broke parent with too many kids still complaining about her ex. Nobody admires that woman or thinks she's a winner.

And that is a sign of abuse. If she is the broke parent as you insist, why is he continuingly dragging her back into the court keeping that winery sale alive. What is his end objective, for he cannot get that portion of the winery back. That ship has sailed. Is it to bankrupt her. Great, you win because that is a sign of abuse to try and leave the mother of your children bankrupt.

Angelina broke the contract she and Brad had. She sold her shares to the winery behind his back. He woke up one morning to a press release that he had a new business partner that he had already turned down. The lawsuit is against Jolie, her former company Nouvel, and Stoli and its ownership. He is seeking to keep control of his winery and either undo the illegal sale or recoup monetary damages for the harm he has suffered as a result of the sale. The judge has already said Angelina failed to prove that they did not have an implied in fact contract. Brad can recoup damages from her for her illegal actions. She sought an unearned profit by selling her shares and gained money based on the money and work that he put into the winery. Angelina did nothing for the winery and harmed Brad and his partner Marc Perrin by selling her shares to a partner they don’t want involved in their business. It’s not abuse to sue someone who has harmed you. But you seem to believe Angelina can do whatever she wants and Brad just has to accept her malicious actions without fighting back.

Now you’re making things up, basically using kellyanne Conway alternative facts. No judge has ruled there was an implied contract. In fact, implied contracts are hard to prove due to ambiguity and what was intended along with consideration and more. If the judge had made that ruling, they still would not be litigating the merits of the case.

The judge refused to throw out the claims against Angelina for breach of implied-in-fact contract and breach of quasi-contract. She said Brad had proven the elements of the contract. We will see at trial what a jury says, because Angelina should be ordered to pay damages to Brad for her illegal sale.

No she didn't. At all. She said there could be a contract. They get to argue the merits of the case at the summary judgement.

Proof. "Regarding Defendant's factual arguments as to whether the parties' conduct actually resulted in a contract, the Court is not inclined to resolve this issue on demurrer." It's only that one could exist not that one actually did and a contract was actually formed.

And proof of shiloh. She helps with her dance studio but has worked for the past year or so. You only see kids as a tool to help Brad's image. If not you wouldn't be disparaging them all them time. You see relationships as transactional which is why you went straight to "when they need money/connections they will run back to him" not to reconnect based on a genuine relationship.

The judge said that Brad pled the existence of the contract, including the conduct that forms a contract. He also proved his performance of the contract, the defendant’s breach and the damages he has suffered.

It sounds like Brad could file a motion for summary judgement on the breach of implied contract and breach of quasi contract claims, and the judge might rule in favor of him and order Jolie to pay him damages. He has asked for a jury trial and said he is ready to testify at trial and stand up for what is right.

As the other person said you're lying and you know it. The judge flat out said their decision was not based if a contract was met or not and that if the conduct actually formed a contract.

The claim would have been dismissed, as other claims in the complaint were, if it had no legal basis. The judge decided his two most important claims have a legal basis and he provided evidence that he entered into a contract with Jolie. Their conduct and statements over the years more than meet the basis for entering an implied contract. Brad adequately pled that, if he had not the claim would have been dismissed.

Just stop. The judge very clearly stated they that's not what was being decided at the moment.

"Regarding Defendant's factual arguments as to whether the parties' conduct actually resulted in a contract, the Court is not inclined to resolve this issue on demurrer."

Why wasn’t the claim dismissed, like several other claims were? Because it has a legal basis and Brad has provided adequate facts to back his claim that they had an implied contract.

The judge clearly stated that they didn't
rule a contract validity and it's terms was being ruled on. I understand being in denial but come on.