EVERY Six Months Jolie reiterates accusations against Pitt

[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:https://people.com/angelina-jolie-must-produce-years-of-ndas-brad-pitt-winery-case-8652487

Judge orders Angelina to turnover the NDAs she’s signed to Brad. Let’s see how many “unconscionable gag orders” she’s imposed on others.

I fail to see how an employee gag order is the same as a family member gag order, especially when there was abuse.

Court news said the judge wanted to see them to have a better understanding on her thought process when signing them or deciding not to sign them. That makes sense. I don’t see how that ruins her credibility since she never denied using them? I am not really understanding his position tbh.

What do her employee NDAs have to do with anything? Shouldn't the judge be comparing whatever Pitt requested (and Jolie rejected) to standard business NDAs?

I would think so. I honestly don't understand why the judge needs to see NDAs between a celebrity and employees to gauge whether Pitt was stipulating something standard or not in a business context.

Da I don't get it either. Maybe to see what she usually considers a standard cause and if there's variations between NDA's depending on the situation. In that case I don't see how that helps Brad. Signing one NDA doesn't mean you have to sign them all.

Okay so that kind of makes sense but his argument is bizarre. She only had problems with the NDA when he changed the terms. If he didn't change the terms then the deal would have went through. He sounds quite controlling.

He wanted a say in the children's upbringing but didn't get it because she is extremely controlling. He wanted control of his pet project, the vineyard. And he didn't get it because she is extremely controlling and extremely vindictive.

But sure, make him out to be the bad guy. That makes sense.

He wanted to change terms when he could have let the sale closed so yeah that's on on him. And yes that does make him sound controlling. Not here for this poor little Brad narrative.

I think they're both controlling and nuts. She's now saying the NDA request is to punish her for leaving him. No, genius, it's about selling the family winery to a Russian oligarch.

it honestly does sound like he's trying to punish her. The way he keeps bringing up how he's enriched her shows. There was a whole dailymail article a few weeks ago saying the same thing. He's mad she's not financially dependent on him anymore.

They've been divorcing for 7 years. Of course he's mad. But him wanting her financially dependent on him? No way.

And let's be honest, their star power is not equal. It isn't now and it never was.

The way his side keeps repeating how he's enriched her shows me its a dependency issue. He made her rich. He made her. It's odd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://people.com/angelina-jolie-must-produce-years-of-ndas-brad-pitt-winery-case-8652487

Judge orders Angelina to turnover the NDAs she’s signed to Brad. Let’s see how many “unconscionable gag orders” she’s imposed on others.

I fail to see how an employee gag order is the same as a family member gag order, especially when there was abuse.

Court news said the judge wanted to see them to have a better understanding on her thought process when signing them or deciding not to sign them. That makes sense. I don’t see how that ruins her credibility since she never denied using them? I am not really understanding his position tbh.

What do her employee NDAs have to do with anything? Shouldn't the judge be comparing whatever Pitt requested (and Jolie rejected) to standard business NDAs?

I would think so. I honestly don't understand why the judge needs to see NDAs between a celebrity and employees to gauge whether Pitt was stipulating something standard or not in a business context.

Da I don't get it either. Maybe to see what she usually considers a standard cause and if there's variations between NDA's depending on the situation. In that case I don't see how that helps Brad. Signing one NDA doesn't mean you have to sign them all.

Okay so that kind of makes sense but his argument is bizarre. She only had problems with the NDA when he changed the terms. If he didn't change the terms then the deal would have went through. He sounds quite controlling.

He wanted a say in the children's upbringing but didn't get it because she is extremely controlling. He wanted control of his pet project, the vineyard. And he didn't get it because she is extremely controlling and extremely vindictive.

But sure, make him out to be the bad guy. That makes sense.

He wanted to change terms when he could have let the sale closed so yeah that's on on him. And yes that does make him sound controlling. Not here for this poor little Brad narrative.

I think they're both controlling and nuts. She's now saying the NDA request is to punish her for leaving him. No, genius, it's about selling the family winery to a Russian oligarch.

Any time Brad tries to stand up for his interests in the face of her constant aggressions against him, she claims he’s trying to control her or punish her. In her view, he’s supposed to sit back and do nothing in response to her taking his kids away from him and selling part of his beloved winery to a hostile third party behind his back? She’s looney and I think he is glad to be rid of her. He has a woman 15+ years younger than her who has none of her baggage. His biggest mistake in life was getting with her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://people.com/angelina-jolie-must-produce-years-of-ndas-brad-pitt-winery-case-8652487

Judge orders Angelina to turnover the NDAs she’s signed to Brad. Let’s see how many “unconscionable gag orders” she’s imposed on others.

I fail to see how an employee gag order is the same as a family member gag order, especially when there was abuse.

Court news said the judge wanted to see them to have a better understanding on her thought process when signing them or deciding not to sign them. That makes sense. I don’t see how that ruins her credibility since she never denied using them? I am not really understanding his position tbh.

What do her employee NDAs have to do with anything? Shouldn't the judge be comparing whatever Pitt requested (and Jolie rejected) to standard business NDAs?

I would think so. I honestly don't understand why the judge needs to see NDAs between a celebrity and employees to gauge whether Pitt was stipulating something standard or not in a business context.

Da I don't get it either. Maybe to see what she usually considers a standard cause and if there's variations between NDA's depending on the situation. In that case I don't see how that helps Brad. Signing one NDA doesn't mean you have to sign them all.

Okay so that kind of makes sense but his argument is bizarre. She only had problems with the NDA when he changed the terms. If he didn't change the terms then the deal would have went through. He sounds quite controlling.

He wanted a say in the children's upbringing but didn't get it because she is extremely controlling. He wanted control of his pet project, the vineyard. And he didn't get it because she is extremely controlling and extremely vindictive.

But sure, make him out to be the bad guy. That makes sense.

He wanted to change terms when he could have let the sale closed so yeah that's on on him. And yes that does make him sound controlling. Not here for this poor little Brad narrative.

I think they're both controlling and nuts. She's now saying the NDA request is to punish her for leaving him. No, genius, it's about selling the family winery to a Russian oligarch.

Any time Brad tries to stand up for his interests in the face of her constant aggressions against him, she claims he’s trying to control her or punish her. In her view, he’s supposed to sit back and do nothing in response to her taking his kids away from him and selling part of his beloved winery to a hostile third party behind his back? She’s looney and I think he is glad to be rid of her. He has a woman 15+ years younger than her who has none of her baggage. His biggest mistake in life was getting with her.

Well he did try to change the NDA terms and was angry that she didn't roll over and accept it....

[Anonymous]

No one plays the "girl" card better than Jolie, and I am not a huge fan of Pitt but it's beyond obvious the games she has played not just with there shared property but with their children. Actually I would like to see the NDA's the judge ordered produced in court today. Maybe she'll actually produce them, shut up and take her pity party home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://people.com/angelina-jolie-must-produce-years-of-ndas-brad-pitt-winery-case-8652487

Judge orders Angelina to turnover the NDAs she’s signed to Brad. Let’s see how many “unconscionable gag orders” she’s imposed on others.

I fail to see how an employee gag order is the same as a family member gag order, especially when there was abuse.

Court news said the judge wanted to see them to have a better understanding on her thought process when signing them or deciding not to sign them. That makes sense. I don’t see how that ruins her credibility since she never denied using them? I am not really understanding his position tbh.

What do her employee NDAs have to do with anything? Shouldn't the judge be comparing whatever Pitt requested (and Jolie rejected) to standard business NDAs?

I would think so. I honestly don't understand why the judge needs to see NDAs between a celebrity and employees to gauge whether Pitt was stipulating something standard or not in a business context.

Da I don't get it either. Maybe to see what she usually considers a standard cause and if there's variations between NDA's depending on the situation. In that case I don't see how that helps Brad. Signing one NDA doesn't mean you have to sign them all.

Okay so that kind of makes sense but his argument is bizarre. She only had problems with the NDA when he changed the terms. If he didn't change the terms then the deal would have went through. He sounds quite controlling.

He wanted a say in the children's upbringing but didn't get it because she is extremely controlling. He wanted control of his pet project, the vineyard. And he didn't get it because she is extremely controlling and extremely vindictive.

But sure, make him out to be the bad guy. That makes sense.

He wanted to change terms when he could have let the sale closed so yeah that's on on him. And yes that does make him sound controlling. Not here for this poor little Brad narrative.

I think they're both controlling and nuts. She's now saying the NDA request is to punish her for leaving him. No, genius, it's about selling the family winery to a Russian oligarch.

it honestly does sound like he's trying to punish her. The way he keeps bringing up how he's enriched her shows. There was a whole dailymail article a few weeks ago saying the same thing. He's mad she's not financially dependent on him anymore.

Financially dependent? More like toeing the line of obsession. LOL I thought that last year when he thought some Spanish model at his Babylon premiere was Angelina. She said he told his castmates and his attitude changed afterwards. He was down a about it. Then he dates look a likes and keeps hammering on how happy he is. They need to get their frustration out with a quick bang and move on like normal people.

[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:https://people.com/angelina-jolie-must-produce-years-of-ndas-brad-pitt-winery-case-8652487

Judge orders Angelina to turnover the NDAs she’s signed to Brad. Let’s see how many “unconscionable gag orders” she’s imposed on others.

I fail to see how an employee gag order is the same as a family member gag order, especially when there was abuse.

Court news said the judge wanted to see them to have a better understanding on her thought process when signing them or deciding not to sign them. That makes sense. I don’t see how that ruins her credibility since she never denied using them? I am not really understanding his position tbh.

What do her employee NDAs have to do with anything? Shouldn't the judge be comparing whatever Pitt requested (and Jolie rejected) to standard business NDAs?

I would think so. I honestly don't understand why the judge needs to see NDAs between a celebrity and employees to gauge whether Pitt was stipulating something standard or not in a business context.

Da I don't get it either. Maybe to see what she usually considers a standard cause and if there's variations between NDA's depending on the situation. In that case I don't see how that helps Brad. Signing one NDA doesn't mean you have to sign them all.

Okay so that kind of makes sense but his argument is bizarre. She only had problems with the NDA when he changed the terms. If he didn't change the terms then the deal would have went through. He sounds quite controlling.

He wanted a say in the children's upbringing but didn't get it because she is extremely controlling. He wanted control of his pet project, the vineyard. And he didn't get it because she is extremely controlling and extremely vindictive.

But sure, make him out to be the bad guy. That makes sense.

He wanted to change terms when he could have let the sale closed so yeah that's on on him. And yes that does make him sound controlling. Not here for this poor little Brad narrative.

I think they're both controlling and nuts. She's now saying the NDA request is to punish her for leaving him. No, genius, it's about selling the family winery to a Russian oligarch.

it honestly does sound like he's trying to punish her. The way he keeps bringing up how he's enriched her shows. There was a whole dailymail article a few weeks ago saying the same thing. He's mad she's not financially dependent on him anymore.

They've been divorcing for 7 years. Of course he's mad. But him wanting her financially dependent on him? No way.

And let's be honest, their star power is not equal. It isn't now and it never was.

The way his side keeps repeating how he's enriched her shows me its a dependency issue. He made her rich. He made her. It's odd.

He obviously feels she unfairly profited from his financial investment and effort he put into turning Miraval into a success when she sold her share to a hostile third party competitor behind his back. It’s obvious she did nothing for Miraval beyond her initial investment. Brad should have never given her his shares and made her an equal partner. Then maybe he wouldn’t be in this mess. He truly never saw her for the vindictive person she is until the end their marriage, when it was too late.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:https://people.com/angelina-jolie-must-produce-years-of-ndas-brad-pitt-winery-case-8652487

Judge orders Angelina to turnover the NDAs she’s signed to Brad. Let’s see how many “unconscionable gag orders” she’s imposed on others.

I fail to see how an employee gag order is the same as a family member gag order, especially when there was abuse.

Court news said the judge wanted to see them to have a better understanding on her thought process when signing them or deciding not to sign them. That makes sense. I don’t see how that ruins her credibility since she never denied using them? I am not really understanding his position tbh.

What do her employee NDAs have to do with anything? Shouldn't the judge be comparing whatever Pitt requested (and Jolie rejected) to standard business NDAs?

I would think so. I honestly don't understand why the judge needs to see NDAs between a celebrity and employees to gauge whether Pitt was stipulating something standard or not in a business context.

Da I don't get it either. Maybe to see what she usually considers a standard cause and if there's variations between NDA's depending on the situation. In that case I don't see how that helps Brad. Signing one NDA doesn't mean you have to sign them all.

Okay so that kind of makes sense but his argument is bizarre. She only had problems with the NDA when he changed the terms. If he didn't change the terms then the deal would have went through. He sounds quite controlling.

He wanted a say in the children's upbringing but didn't get it because she is extremely controlling. He wanted control of his pet project, the vineyard. And he didn't get it because she is extremely controlling and extremely vindictive.

But sure, make him out to be the bad guy. That makes sense.

He wanted to change terms when he could have let the sale closed so yeah that's on on him. And yes that does make him sound controlling. Not here for this poor little Brad narrative.

I think they're both controlling and nuts. She's now saying the NDA request is to punish her for leaving him. No, genius, it's about selling the family winery to a Russian oligarch.

it honestly does sound like he's trying to punish her. The way he keeps bringing up how he's enriched her shows. There was a whole dailymail article a few weeks ago saying the same thing. He's mad she's not financially dependent on him anymore.

They've been divorcing for 7 years. Of course he's mad. But him wanting her financially dependent on him? No way.

And let's be honest, their star power is not equal. It isn't now and it never was.

The way his side keeps repeating how he's enriched her shows me its a dependency issue. He made her rich. He made her. It's odd.

He obviously feels she unfairly profited from his financial investment and effort he put into turning Miraval into a success when she sold her share to a hostile third party competitor behind his back. It’s obvious she did nothing for Miraval beyond her initial investment. Brad should have never given her his shares and made her an equal partner. Then maybe he wouldn’t be in this mess. He truly never saw her for the vindictive person she is until the end their marriage, when it was too late.

Her initial investment and loan still counts for something. If he wanted her to contribute more then they should have had a better partnership agreement. She outmoved him. You live and you learn

[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:https://people.com/angelina-jolie-must-produce-years-of-ndas-brad-pitt-winery-case-8652487

Judge orders Angelina to turnover the NDAs she’s signed to Brad. Let’s see how many “unconscionable gag orders” she’s imposed on others.

I fail to see how an employee gag order is the same as a family member gag order, especially when there was abuse.

Court news said the judge wanted to see them to have a better understanding on her thought process when signing them or deciding not to sign them. That makes sense. I don’t see how that ruins her credibility since she never denied using them? I am not really understanding his position tbh.

What do her employee NDAs have to do with anything? Shouldn't the judge be comparing whatever Pitt requested (and Jolie rejected) to standard business NDAs?

I would think so. I honestly don't understand why the judge needs to see NDAs between a celebrity and employees to gauge whether Pitt was stipulating something standard or not in a business context.

Da I don't get it either. Maybe to see what she usually considers a standard cause and if there's variations between NDA's depending on the situation. In that case I don't see how that helps Brad. Signing one NDA doesn't mean you have to sign them all.

Okay so that kind of makes sense but his argument is bizarre. She only had problems with the NDA when he changed the terms. If he didn't change the terms then the deal would have went through. He sounds quite controlling.

He wanted a say in the children's upbringing but didn't get it because she is extremely controlling. He wanted control of his pet project, the vineyard. And he didn't get it because she is extremely controlling and extremely vindictive.

But sure, make him out to be the bad guy. That makes sense.

He wanted to change terms when he could have let the sale closed so yeah that's on on him. And yes that does make him sound controlling. Not here for this poor little Brad narrative.

I think they're both controlling and nuts. She's now saying the NDA request is to punish her for leaving him. No, genius, it's about selling the family winery to a Russian oligarch.

it honestly does sound like he's trying to punish her. The way he keeps bringing up how he's enriched her shows. There was a whole dailymail article a few weeks ago saying the same thing. He's mad she's not financially dependent on him anymore.

Financially dependent? More like toeing the line of obsession. LOL I thought that last year when he thought some Spanish model at his Babylon premiere was Angelina. She said he told his castmates and his attitude changed afterwards. He was down a about it. Then he dates look a likes and keeps hammering on how happy he is. They need to get their frustration out with a quick bang and move on like normal people.

Source on Babylon thing?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://people.com/angelina-jolie-must-produce-years-of-ndas-brad-pitt-winery-case-8652487

Judge orders Angelina to turnover the NDAs she’s signed to Brad. Let’s see how many “unconscionable gag orders” she’s imposed on others.

I fail to see how an employee gag order is the same as a family member gag order, especially when there was abuse.

Court news said the judge wanted to see them to have a better understanding on her thought process when signing them or deciding not to sign them. That makes sense. I don’t see how that ruins her credibility since she never denied using them? I am not really understanding his position tbh.

What do her employee NDAs have to do with anything? Shouldn't the judge be comparing whatever Pitt requested (and Jolie rejected) to standard business NDAs?

I would think so. I honestly don't understand why the judge needs to see NDAs between a celebrity and employees to gauge whether Pitt was stipulating something standard or not in a business context.

Da I don't get it either. Maybe to see what she usually considers a standard cause and if there's variations between NDA's depending on the situation. In that case I don't see how that helps Brad. Signing one NDA doesn't mean you have to sign them all.

Okay so that kind of makes sense but his argument is bizarre. She only had problems with the NDA when he changed the terms. If he didn't change the terms then the deal would have went through. He sounds quite controlling.

He wanted a say in the children's upbringing but didn't get it because she is extremely controlling. He wanted control of his pet project, the vineyard. And he didn't get it because she is extremely controlling and extremely vindictive.

But sure, make him out to be the bad guy. That makes sense.

He wanted to change terms when he could have let the sale closed so yeah that's on on him. And yes that does make him sound controlling. Not here for this poor little Brad narrative.

I think they're both controlling and nuts. She's now saying the NDA request is to punish her for leaving him. No, genius, it's about selling the family winery to a Russian oligarch.

it honestly does sound like he's trying to punish her. The way he keeps bringing up how he's enriched her shows. There was a whole dailymail article a few weeks ago saying the same thing. He's mad she's not financially dependent on him anymore.

They've been divorcing for 7 years. Of course he's mad. But him wanting her financially dependent on him? No way.

And let's be honest, their star power is not equal. It isn't now and it never was.

The way his side keeps repeating how he's enriched her shows me its a dependency issue. He made her rich. He made her. It's odd.

He obviously feels she unfairly profited from his financial investment and effort he put into turning Miraval into a success when she sold her share to a hostile third party competitor behind his back. It’s obvious she did nothing for Miraval beyond her initial investment. Brad should have never given her his shares and made her an equal partner. Then maybe he wouldn’t be in this mess. He truly never saw her for the vindictive person she is until the end their marriage, when it was too late.

Her initial investment and loan still counts for something. If he wanted her to contribute more then they should have had a better partnership agreement. She outmoved him. You live and you learn

Sure. You can conduct business and marriage that way. But it won't win friends or influence people. Except negatively.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://people.com/angelina-jolie-must-produce-years-of-ndas-brad-pitt-winery-case-8652487

Judge orders Angelina to turnover the NDAs she’s signed to Brad. Let’s see how many “unconscionable gag orders” she’s imposed on others.

I fail to see how an employee gag order is the same as a family member gag order, especially when there was abuse.

Court news said the judge wanted to see them to have a better understanding on her thought process when signing them or deciding not to sign them. That makes sense. I don’t see how that ruins her credibility since she never denied using them? I am not really understanding his position tbh.

What do her employee NDAs have to do with anything? Shouldn't the judge be comparing whatever Pitt requested (and Jolie rejected) to standard business NDAs?

I would think so. I honestly don't understand why the judge needs to see NDAs between a celebrity and employees to gauge whether Pitt was stipulating something standard or not in a business context.

Da I don't get it either. Maybe to see what she usually considers a standard cause and if there's variations between NDA's depending on the situation. In that case I don't see how that helps Brad. Signing one NDA doesn't mean you have to sign them all.

Okay so that kind of makes sense but his argument is bizarre. She only had problems with the NDA when he changed the terms. If he didn't change the terms then the deal would have went through. He sounds quite controlling.

He wanted a say in the children's upbringing but didn't get it because she is extremely controlling. He wanted control of his pet project, the vineyard. And he didn't get it because she is extremely controlling and extremely vindictive.

But sure, make him out to be the bad guy. That makes sense.

He wanted to change terms when he could have let the sale closed so yeah that's on on him. And yes that does make him sound controlling. Not here for this poor little Brad narrative.

I think they're both controlling and nuts. She's now saying the NDA request is to punish her for leaving him. No, genius, it's about selling the family winery to a Russian oligarch.

it honestly does sound like he's trying to punish her. The way he keeps bringing up how he's enriched her shows. There was a whole dailymail article a few weeks ago saying the same thing. He's mad she's not financially dependent on him anymore.

They've been divorcing for 7 years. Of course he's mad. But him wanting her financially dependent on him? No way.

And let's be honest, their star power is not equal. It isn't now and it never was.

The way his side keeps repeating how he's enriched her shows me its a dependency issue. He made her rich. He made her. It's odd.

He obviously feels she unfairly profited from his financial investment and effort he put into turning Miraval into a success when she sold her share to a hostile third party competitor behind his back. It’s obvious she did nothing for Miraval beyond her initial investment. Brad should have never given her his shares and made her an equal partner. Then maybe he wouldn’t be in this mess. He truly never saw her for the vindictive person she is until the end their marriage, when it was too late.

Her initial investment and loan still counts for something. If he wanted her to contribute more then they should have had a better partnership agreement. She outmoved him. You live and you learn

Sure. You can conduct business and marriage that way. But it won't win friends or influence people. Except negatively.

Babylon was 20 years ago, how is this relevant? And the account is by the has-been model herself lol.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://people.com/angelina-jolie-must-produce-years-of-ndas-brad-pitt-winery-case-8652487

Judge orders Angelina to turnover the NDAs she’s signed to Brad. Let’s see how many “unconscionable gag orders” she’s imposed on others.

I fail to see how an employee gag order is the same as a family member gag order, especially when there was abuse.

Court news said the judge wanted to see them to have a better understanding on her thought process when signing them or deciding not to sign them. That makes sense. I don’t see how that ruins her credibility since she never denied using them? I am not really understanding his position tbh.

What do her employee NDAs have to do with anything? Shouldn't the judge be comparing whatever Pitt requested (and Jolie rejected) to standard business NDAs?

I would think so. I honestly don't understand why the judge needs to see NDAs between a celebrity and employees to gauge whether Pitt was stipulating something standard or not in a business context.

Da I don't get it either. Maybe to see what she usually considers a standard cause and if there's variations between NDA's depending on the situation. In that case I don't see how that helps Brad. Signing one NDA doesn't mean you have to sign them all.

Okay so that kind of makes sense but his argument is bizarre. She only had problems with the NDA when he changed the terms. If he didn't change the terms then the deal would have went through. He sounds quite controlling.

He wanted a say in the children's upbringing but didn't get it because she is extremely controlling. He wanted control of his pet project, the vineyard. And he didn't get it because she is extremely controlling and extremely vindictive.

But sure, make him out to be the bad guy. That makes sense.

He wanted to change terms when he could have let the sale closed so yeah that's on on him. And yes that does make him sound controlling. Not here for this poor little Brad narrative.

I think they're both controlling and nuts. She's now saying the NDA request is to punish her for leaving him. No, genius, it's about selling the family winery to a Russian oligarch.

it honestly does sound like he's trying to punish her. The way he keeps bringing up how he's enriched her shows. There was a whole dailymail article a few weeks ago saying the same thing. He's mad she's not financially dependent on him anymore.

They've been divorcing for 7 years. Of course he's mad. But him wanting her financially dependent on him? No way.

And let's be honest, their star power is not equal. It isn't now and it never was.

The way his side keeps repeating how he's enriched her shows me its a dependency issue. He made her rich. He made her. It's odd.

He obviously feels she unfairly profited from his financial investment and effort he put into turning Miraval into a success when she sold her share to a hostile third party competitor behind his back. It’s obvious she did nothing for Miraval beyond her initial investment. Brad should have never given her his shares and made her an equal partner. Then maybe he wouldn’t be in this mess. He truly never saw her for the vindictive person she is until the end their marriage, when it was too late.

Her initial investment and loan still counts for something. If he wanted her to contribute more then they should have had a better partnership agreement. She outmoved him. You live and you learn

Of course her initial investment counts for something but the fact remains his sweat equity did enrich her. That’s in part why he’s so outraged she screwed him with the sale. And I’m not buying the NDA as the primary catalyst. The timing directly coincided with his being awarded 50-50 custody against her wishes. I don’t like either one and I don’t blame her for leaving the marriage in light of his behavior but I do his side on this business issue. She 100% knew Miraval was his baby and wanted to hit him where it hurt.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://people.com/angelina-jolie-must-produce-years-of-ndas-brad-pitt-winery-case-8652487

Judge orders Angelina to turnover the NDAs she’s signed to Brad. Let’s see how many “unconscionable gag orders” she’s imposed on others.

I fail to see how an employee gag order is the same as a family member gag order, especially when there was abuse.

Court news said the judge wanted to see them to have a better understanding on her thought process when signing them or deciding not to sign them. That makes sense. I don’t see how that ruins her credibility since she never denied using them? I am not really understanding his position tbh.

What do her employee NDAs have to do with anything? Shouldn't the judge be comparing whatever Pitt requested (and Jolie rejected) to standard business NDAs?

I would think so. I honestly don't understand why the judge needs to see NDAs between a celebrity and employees to gauge whether Pitt was stipulating something standard or not in a business context.

Da I don't get it either. Maybe to see what she usually considers a standard cause and if there's variations between NDA's depending on the situation. In that case I don't see how that helps Brad. Signing one NDA doesn't mean you have to sign them all.

Okay so that kind of makes sense but his argument is bizarre. She only had problems with the NDA when he changed the terms. If he didn't change the terms then the deal would have went through. He sounds quite controlling.

He wanted a say in the children's upbringing but didn't get it because she is extremely controlling. He wanted control of his pet project, the vineyard. And he didn't get it because she is extremely controlling and extremely vindictive.

But sure, make him out to be the bad guy. That makes sense.

He wanted to change terms when he could have let the sale closed so yeah that's on on him. And yes that does make him sound controlling. Not here for this poor little Brad narrative.

I think they're both controlling and nuts. She's now saying the NDA request is to punish her for leaving him. No, genius, it's about selling the family winery to a Russian oligarch.

it honestly does sound like he's trying to punish her. The way he keeps bringing up how he's enriched her shows. There was a whole dailymail article a few weeks ago saying the same thing. He's mad she's not financially dependent on him anymore.

They've been divorcing for 7 years. Of course he's mad. But him wanting her financially dependent on him? No way.

And let's be honest, their star power is not equal. It isn't now and it never was.

The way his side keeps repeating how he's enriched her shows me its a dependency issue. He made her rich. He made her. It's odd.

He obviously feels she unfairly profited from his financial investment and effort he put into turning Miraval into a success when she sold her share to a hostile third party competitor behind his back. It’s obvious she did nothing for Miraval beyond her initial investment. Brad should have never given her his shares and made her an equal partner. Then maybe he wouldn’t be in this mess. He truly never saw her for the vindictive person she is until the end their marriage, when it was too late.

Her initial investment and loan still counts for something. If he wanted her to contribute more then they should have had a better partnership agreement. She outmoved him. You live and you learn

Sure. You can conduct business and marriage that way. But it won't win friends or influence people. Except negatively.

Babylon was 20 years ago, how is this relevant? And the account is by the has-been model herself lol.

Sorry I was thinking of BABEL, my mistake. The second part still holds though.

[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:https://people.com/angelina-jolie-must-produce-years-of-ndas-brad-pitt-winery-case-8652487

Judge orders Angelina to turnover the NDAs she’s signed to Brad. Let’s see how many “unconscionable gag orders” she’s imposed on others.

I fail to see how an employee gag order is the same as a family member gag order, especially when there was abuse.

Court news said the judge wanted to see them to have a better understanding on her thought process when signing them or deciding not to sign them. That makes sense. I don’t see how that ruins her credibility since she never denied using them? I am not really understanding his position tbh.

What do her employee NDAs have to do with anything? Shouldn't the judge be comparing whatever Pitt requested (and Jolie rejected) to standard business NDAs?

I would think so. I honestly don't understand why the judge needs to see NDAs between a celebrity and employees to gauge whether Pitt was stipulating something standard or not in a business context.

Da I don't get it either. Maybe to see what she usually considers a standard cause and if there's variations between NDA's depending on the situation. In that case I don't see how that helps Brad. Signing one NDA doesn't mean you have to sign them all.

Okay so that kind of makes sense but his argument is bizarre. She only had problems with the NDA when he changed the terms. If he didn't change the terms then the deal would have went through. He sounds quite controlling.

He wanted a say in the children's upbringing but didn't get it because she is extremely controlling. He wanted control of his pet project, the vineyard. And he didn't get it because she is extremely controlling and extremely vindictive.

But sure, make him out to be the bad guy. That makes sense.

He wanted to change terms when he could have let the sale closed so yeah that's on on him. And yes that does make him sound controlling. Not here for this poor little Brad narrative.

I think they're both controlling and nuts. She's now saying the NDA request is to punish her for leaving him. No, genius, it's about selling the family winery to a Russian oligarch.

Any time Brad tries to stand up for his interests in the face of her constant aggressions against him, she claims he’s trying to control her or punish her. In her view, he’s supposed to sit back and do nothing in response to her taking his kids away from him and selling part of his beloved winery to a hostile third party behind his back? She’s looney and I think he is glad to be rid of her. He has a woman 15+ years younger than her who has none of her baggage. His biggest mistake in life was getting with her.

Well he did try to change the NDA terms and was angry that she didn't roll over and accept it....

This is the question. What was in the NDA, was it non-standard or objectionable? I don’t see how this would be hard to establish one way or the other.

[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:https://people.com/angelina-jolie-must-produce-years-of-ndas-brad-pitt-winery-case-8652487

Judge orders Angelina to turnover the NDAs she’s signed to Brad. Let’s see how many “unconscionable gag orders” she’s imposed on others.

I fail to see how an employee gag order is the same as a family member gag order, especially when there was abuse.

Court news said the judge wanted to see them to have a better understanding on her thought process when signing them or deciding not to sign them. That makes sense. I don’t see how that ruins her credibility since she never denied using them? I am not really understanding his position tbh.

What do her employee NDAs have to do with anything? Shouldn't the judge be comparing whatever Pitt requested (and Jolie rejected) to standard business NDAs?

I would think so. I honestly don't understand why the judge needs to see NDAs between a celebrity and employees to gauge whether Pitt was stipulating something standard or not in a business context.

Da I don't get it either. Maybe to see what she usually considers a standard cause and if there's variations between NDA's depending on the situation. In that case I don't see how that helps Brad. Signing one NDA doesn't mean you have to sign them all.

Okay so that kind of makes sense but his argument is bizarre. She only had problems with the NDA when he changed the terms. If he didn't change the terms then the deal would have went through. He sounds quite controlling.

He wanted a say in the children's upbringing but didn't get it because she is extremely controlling. He wanted control of his pet project, the vineyard. And he didn't get it because she is extremely controlling and extremely vindictive.

But sure, make him out to be the bad guy. That makes sense.

He wanted to change terms when he could have let the sale closed so yeah that's on on him. And yes that does make him sound controlling. Not here for this poor little Brad narrative.

I think they're both controlling and nuts. She's now saying the NDA request is to punish her for leaving him. No, genius, it's about selling the family winery to a Russian oligarch.

Any time Brad tries to stand up for his interests in the face of her constant aggressions against him, she claims he’s trying to control her or punish her. In her view, he’s supposed to sit back and do nothing in response to her taking his kids away from him and selling part of his beloved winery to a hostile third party behind his back? She’s looney and I think he is glad to be rid of her. He has a woman 15+ years younger than her who has none of her baggage. His biggest mistake in life was getting with her.

Well he did try to change the NDA terms and was angry that she didn't roll over and accept it....

This is the question. What was in the NDA, was it non-standard or objectionable? I don’t see how this would be hard to establish one way or the other.

+1 was he using the NDA to cover up his abuse or not? Did she in fact propose a more extensive NDA a few months later or not? And, even if she wanted to punish him, was she legally entitled to do as she pleased with her share of the estate?

[Anonymous]

I wish someone conversant in contract law would weigh in.