EVERY Six Months Jolie reiterates accusations against Pitt

[Anonymous]

Isn't the truth likely to be somewhere in the middle? He was an abusive drunk (seems clear!) and she's a pretty good mom overall but really was nasty in deliberately alienating the children from him after he became clean and tried to make amends with them.

[Anonymous]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13427653/amp/Angelina-Jolie-told-hand-staff-NDAs-judge-sides-Brad-Pitt-Miraval-wine-court-battle.html

The judge will order Jolie to give Brad her past NDAs.

Jolie has no legal case, just misdirection. She is attempting to turn a contract dispute into a venue to relitigate her abuse claims that have already been dismissed by the FBI and Los Angeles Child and Family Services department. She started negotiating with the Russian oligarch she sold the winery to during discussions with Brad. She sold to the Russian oligarch because he would pay her more money and to spite Brad. She is attempting misdirection by bringing a standard NDA like she has signed and had others sign dozens of times into the discussion - so she can turn the court case into a venue to rehash and exaggerate the same tired claims she has been making for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:x100 re women supporting these guys. MAKE IT MAKE SENSE

The obsession with making sure no one thinks bad thoughts about their precious icons is exactly what has allowed so much terrible seedy behavior to thrive in entertainment. The whole Depp thing ASTOUNDED me.

You’re the one who seems obsessed with ensuring no one has any bad words to say about your own precious icons.

Jolie is not a woman who stands with other woman. She is a predatory woman known for breaking up multiple marriages and engagements.

She is a woman known for checking into mental institutions and hiring hit men to kill her. She is not well mentally. I don’t think Brad is perfect, but he’s proven to be a far better person than her through out the course of most of his life. She keeps making and expanding on the same claims that have already been debunked by law enforcement agencies. She’s done this constantly for eight years in order to further her campaign to destroy Brad’s reputation and career, and alienate him from his children, and take his winery away from him. She is a vengeful woman who cannot move on and will not be happy until Brad is completely destroyed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the truth likely to be somewhere in the middle? He was an abusive drunk (seems clear!) and she's a pretty good mom overall but really was nasty in deliberately alienating the children from him after he became clean and tried to make amends with them.

I generally agree with this but also think he felt entitled to her monetary investment in Miraval. After what he did to their family, he should have made her a very generous offer to buy her out, and quickly. She just wanted financial independence at that time. His unwillingness smacks of coercive control.
My opinion is that both sides sucked in this scenario, but that he was the worst. And the kids know it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13427653/amp/Angelina-Jolie-told-hand-staff-NDAs-judge-sides-Brad-Pitt-Miraval-wine-court-battle.html

The judge will order Jolie to give Brad her past NDAs.

Jolie has no legal case, just misdirection. She is attempting to turn a contract dispute into a venue to relitigate her abuse claims that have already been dismissed by the FBI and Los Angeles Child and Family Services department. She started negotiating with the Russian oligarch she sold the winery to during discussions with Brad. She sold to the Russian oligarch because he would pay her more money and to spite Brad. She is attempting misdirection by bringing a standard NDA like she has signed and had others sign dozens of times into the discussion - so she can turn the court case into a venue to rehash and exaggerate the same tired claims she has been making for years.

you write “she sold to the Russian oligarch because he would pay more money “. Everything you wrote is irrelevant. Why should she accept less money. No rational person would. She owes Pitt nothing. He should have matched the oligarchs price.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the truth likely to be somewhere in the middle? He was an abusive drunk (seems clear!) and she's a pretty good mom overall but really was nasty in deliberately alienating the children from him after he became clean and tried to make amends with them.

I generally agree with this but also think he felt entitled to her monetary investment in Miraval. After what he did to their family, he should have made her a very generous offer to buy her out, and quickly. She just wanted financial independence at that time. His unwillingness smacks of coercive control.
My opinion is that both sides sucked in this scenario, but that he was the worst. And the kids know it.

Well, I think this is exactly what we don't quite know, the dynamics of the Miraval sale. I'm sure she wanted initial investment plus profit. But he had invested all the sweat equity plus more financial capital. Bet it was difficult to come to terms on how much profit on her initial investment she was entitled to in that kind of murky scenario. So could they not agree, did he drag his feet when she wanted a quick payout, was it really about the NDA? I can't imagine that don't have plenty of documents on both sides to help establish the truth of what happened. His NDA arguments seem spurious, unless he can establish the NDA he requested was a standard business one that did not extend to their personal lives. Then again, with them, where could you draw the line between the personal and professional in terms of non-disparagement when there was so much overlap due to their family "brand"? Seems very messy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:x100 re women supporting these guys. MAKE IT MAKE SENSE

The obsession with making sure no one thinks bad thoughts about their precious icons is exactly what has allowed so much terrible seedy behavior to thrive in entertainment. The whole Depp thing ASTOUNDED me.

You’re the one who seems obsessed with ensuring no one has any bad words to say about your own precious icons.

Jolie is not a woman who stands with other woman. She is a predatory woman known for breaking up multiple marriages and engagements.

She is a woman known for checking into mental institutions and hiring hit men to kill her. She is not well mentally. I don’t think Brad is perfect, but he’s proven to be a far better person than her through out the course of most of his life. She keeps making and expanding on the same claims that have already been debunked by law enforcement agencies. She’s done this constantly for eight years in order to further her campaign to destroy Brad’s reputation and career, and alienate him from his children, and take his winery away from him. She is a vengeful woman who cannot move on and will not be happy until Brad is completely destroyed.

I don’t get the alienation of all the children claim. The older kids were old enough to witness and experience the behavior without any input from Jolie and they made independent decisions based on their experiences. If the older children wanted contact with Brad, they were old enough to make that happen with or without Jolie. I don’t think a parent should ever make a child be in the presence of an abusive parent just because a court says such parent has visitation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13427653/amp/Angelina-Jolie-told-hand-staff-NDAs-judge-sides-Brad-Pitt-Miraval-wine-court-battle.html

The judge will order Jolie to give Brad her past NDAs.

Jolie has no legal case, just misdirection. She is attempting to turn a contract dispute into a venue to relitigate her abuse claims that have already been dismissed by the FBI and Los Angeles Child and Family Services department. She started negotiating with the Russian oligarch she sold the winery to during discussions with Brad. She sold to the Russian oligarch because he would pay her more money and to spite Brad. She is attempting misdirection by bringing a standard NDA like she has signed and had others sign dozens of times into the discussion - so she can turn the court case into a venue to rehash and exaggerate the same tired claims she has been making for years.

you write “she sold to the Russian oligarch because he would pay more money “. Everything you wrote is irrelevant. Why should she accept less money. No rational person would. She owes Pitt nothing. He should have matched the oligarchs price.

Although I agree with this, the problem is that she didn't give him the opportunity. It was a covert sale. As much as she didn't owe him anything, the decent thing to do would have been to give him a chance to match the offer. I think she wanted to screw him, and ensure he was subjected to a hated partner because at that moment it didn't look the custody proceedings were going her way. Although I think he did plenty to earn her anger, I don't think she handled it fairly or well. A swift "match this offer or else" in a short timeframe would have sufficed. She wanted him to suffer, it's completely clear. But it may turn out legally she had the right to handle it however she wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the truth likely to be somewhere in the middle? He was an abusive drunk (seems clear!) and she's a pretty good mom overall but really was nasty in deliberately alienating the children from him after he became clean and tried to make amends with them.

These things are incompatible. A part of being a good mom is co-parenting, whether you like or dislike the other parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13427653/amp/Angelina-Jolie-told-hand-staff-NDAs-judge-sides-Brad-Pitt-Miraval-wine-court-battle.html

The judge will order Jolie to give Brad her past NDAs.

Jolie has no legal case, just misdirection. She is attempting to turn a contract dispute into a venue to relitigate her abuse claims that have already been dismissed by the FBI and Los Angeles Child and Family Services department. She started negotiating with the Russian oligarch she sold the winery to during discussions with Brad. She sold to the Russian oligarch because he would pay her more money and to spite Brad. She is attempting misdirection by bringing a standard NDA like she has signed and had others sign dozens of times into the discussion - so she can turn the court case into a venue to rehash and exaggerate the same tired claims she has been making for years.

you write “she sold to the Russian oligarch because he would pay more money “. Everything you wrote is irrelevant. Why should she accept less money. No rational person would. She owes Pitt nothing. He should have matched the oligarchs price.

Although I agree with this, the problem is that she didn't give him the opportunity. It was a covert sale. As much as she didn't owe him anything, the decent thing to do would have been to give him a chance to match the offer. I think she wanted to screw him, and ensure he was subjected to a hated partner because at that moment it didn't look the custody proceedings were going her way. Although I think he did plenty to earn her anger, I don't think she handled it fairly or well. A swift "match this offer or else" in a short timeframe would have sufficed. She wanted him to suffer, it's completely clear. But it may turn out legally she had the right to handle it however she wanted.

Yes, I feel like there is a lot of obfuscation on both sides. Was she legally entitled to make a covert sale or not? I'm guessing she was. It's his stupid fault if he hadn't sufficiently protected himself in the event of a future split. I mean, what a dumb@ss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13427653/amp/Angelina-Jolie-told-hand-staff-NDAs-judge-sides-Brad-Pitt-Miraval-wine-court-battle.html

The judge will order Jolie to give Brad her past NDAs.

Jolie has no legal case, just misdirection. She is attempting to turn a contract dispute into a venue to relitigate her abuse claims that have already been dismissed by the FBI and Los Angeles Child and Family Services department. She started negotiating with the Russian oligarch she sold the winery to during discussions with Brad. She sold to the Russian oligarch because he would pay her more money and to spite Brad. She is attempting misdirection by bringing a standard NDA like she has signed and had others sign dozens of times into the discussion - so she can turn the court case into a venue to rehash and exaggerate the same tired claims she has been making for years.

you write “she sold to the Russian oligarch because he would pay more money “. Everything you wrote is irrelevant. Why should she accept less money. No rational person would. She owes Pitt nothing. He should have matched the oligarchs price.

Although I agree with this, the problem is that she didn't give him the opportunity. It was a covert sale. As much as she didn't owe him anything, the decent thing to do would have been to give him a chance to match the offer. I think she wanted to screw him, and ensure he was subjected to a hated partner because at that moment it didn't look the custody proceedings were going her way. Although I think he did plenty to earn her anger, I don't think she handled it fairly or well. A swift "match this offer or else" in a short timeframe would have sufficed. She wanted him to suffer, it's completely clear. But it may turn out legally she had the right to handle it however she wanted.

Yes, I feel like there is a lot of obfuscation on both sides. Was she legally entitled to make a covert sale or not? I'm guessing she was. It's his stupid fault if he hadn't sufficiently protected himself in the event of a future split. I mean, what a dumb@ss.

Yeah, he should have known that she's a witch, that she would leave him and that she would burn him down when she left. No fury like Angelina Jolie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13427653/amp/Angelina-Jolie-told-hand-staff-NDAs-judge-sides-Brad-Pitt-Miraval-wine-court-battle.html

The judge will order Jolie to give Brad her past NDAs.

Jolie has no legal case, just misdirection. She is attempting to turn a contract dispute into a venue to relitigate her abuse claims that have already been dismissed by the FBI and Los Angeles Child and Family Services department. She started negotiating with the Russian oligarch she sold the winery to during discussions with Brad. She sold to the Russian oligarch because he would pay her more money and to spite Brad. She is attempting misdirection by bringing a standard NDA like she has signed and had others sign dozens of times into the discussion - so she can turn the court case into a venue to rehash and exaggerate the same tired claims she has been making for years.

you write “she sold to the Russian oligarch because he would pay more money “. Everything you wrote is irrelevant. Why should she accept less money. No rational person would. She owes Pitt nothing. He should have matched the oligarchs price.

That is what the court case is about. Pitt is claiming they had an implied-in-fact contract and she did have the obligation to sell to him or get his approval to sell to another business partner that was suitable to him.

They bought the winery and family home together as an investment for their children. The very least Jolie could have done if she wanted out of the business is sell to a third party who was palatable to Pitt. She sold to a hostile third party who has attempted to orchestrate a take over of the business. There are also numerous lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions regarding the winery. She wanted her children to inherit the winery, but there may be nothing to inherit if the court cases go against her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13277719/Brads-history-physical-abuse-Angelina-court-papers-claims-Pitt-clashed-children-fight-private-jet-ALISON-BOSHOFF.html

Every six months she brings up the accusation of abuse. Discrediting him hasn’t worked with this or his cheating on Aniston. When will she realize she can’t hurt him?

She’s boring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13427653/amp/Angelina-Jolie-told-hand-staff-NDAs-judge-sides-Brad-Pitt-Miraval-wine-court-battle.html

The judge will order Jolie to give Brad her past NDAs.

Jolie has no legal case, just misdirection. She is attempting to turn a contract dispute into a venue to relitigate her abuse claims that have already been dismissed by the FBI and Los Angeles Child and Family Services department. She started negotiating with the Russian oligarch she sold the winery to during discussions with Brad. She sold to the Russian oligarch because he would pay her more money and to spite Brad. She is attempting misdirection by bringing a standard NDA like she has signed and had others sign dozens of times into the discussion - so she can turn the court case into a venue to rehash and exaggerate the same tired claims she has been making for years.

The judge already agreed the abuse was relevant since he left their deal after she filed papers. Shes not randomly bringing it in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the truth likely to be somewhere in the middle? He was an abusive drunk (seems clear!) and she's a pretty good mom overall but really was nasty in deliberately alienating the children from him after he became clean and tried to make amends with them.

I generally agree with this but also think he felt entitled to her monetary investment in Miraval. After what he did to their family, he should have made her a very generous offer to buy her out, and quickly. She just wanted financial independence at that time. His unwillingness smacks of coercive control.
My opinion is that both sides sucked in this scenario, but that he was the worst. And the kids know it.

Agreed. I saw shiloh's personal account got leaked. Not one mention of Brad or Pitt anywhere.