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:I think he made a tactical error in not making a very generous financial settlement, very quickly. Things surely would have gone more smoothly if he had, and the chateau sale could have been part of it. It smacks of egotism and control. She's the mother of his six children and he should have been very generous. Just on principle, let alone his gross behavior on the plane.

What does wanting a big lump sum payout say about someone? Did she want money or justice?

I'm not saying she's an angel, far from it. But she was entitled to a huge sum for division of property and child support for six kids over 8 years, and it does seem like he withheld it to punish her for leaving and publicly embarrassing him. And she retaliated by withholding the kids, even when it seemed reasonable he was healthy and ready to co-parent. They both suck.

What kind of mother does this?

I'm sure she rationalized it to herself--he's an awful father and person, the kids were better off with her etc. Like most narcissists do.

I was a little shocked when she had a member of her team basically admit she's been brainwashing the kids to think they had no voice because their father has privilege and power. What? The kids worked with court-appointed therapists, who represented their perspectives in custody proceedings. Only a sadistic mother would want to put her kids through testifying in court. Four are now adults and are free to speak out at any time. At least three seem to have dropped his name, out of loyalty to their mother not because he's been a terrible father as far as we can see. There is no evidence to suggest he deserved to have his parental rights severed. She's a vindictive nutcase who absolutely cannot see the harm she's done to her family (after his initial harm, which while terrible seems to have been short-lived). It's always been about her and what she wants, not what's in the best interest of raising well-adjusted kids who have healthy relationships with both parents.

-1
He tried to hit the children.

Yes, terrible behavior when drunk. What about once he was clean and therapists agreed he deserved 50-50 custody?

Da but nope! Being sober doesn't undo traumatizing them. Abusers deserve limited contact with their kids

Active abusers yes. But I think the bulk of the research indicates that alienating a child from a parent who does not pose an ongoing threat to them does the child more harm in the long run because the child has so many unresolved issues with the parent. This is one of the reason why there are so many programs to link kids with their incarcerated parents — even if they are awful people, the children need to be able to navigate the relationship. I’m not saying it’s easy but as a parent you aren’t really doing your kid any favor by interfering with that process.

The kids don't seem like they are doing well. Can't wait for the Mommy Dearest books to come out some day.

Daddy dearest. It's getting closer by the day.

None of the children seem to have any skills or career prospects of their own. They seem to latch onto Jolie and live off what she provides them. Writing a book would only be evidence of their dysfunction and Jolie’s poor parenting.

Maybe it will be the fawning book that PP presumes will happen, but I will bet otherwise. Not many Hollywood offspring write those sorts of books.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol 😂 finally. Someone posted a link about Giselle and I saw that they signed Christmas day

Angelina did on Christmas, and Brad on the 30th lol. Lots of people saw this coming after she won his correspondences. They'll settle the winery sooner then later so he messages don't leak

Or perhaps she finally settled hoping for an Oscar nom.

Then why wouldn't she settle months ago? That's laughable. He doesn't want his communications out.

I like how his side said he settled because of his gf lol

That’s funny but he’s still an a ss

I find it sad their narrative isnt that he settled for kids but the girfriend instead.

Yup, he wants to get married and have a family with his girlfriend. I wish him well and hope he has stability in his life after all he has had to go through because of his crazy ex-wife.

You misunderstood me. I am saying it's sad he didn't pick a better cover narrative. I know the real reason isnt for the the gf or the kids, but they had the chance to make him look good and choose not too. Another pr mishap

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol 😂 finally. Someone posted a link about Giselle and I saw that they signed Christmas day

Angelina did on Christmas, and Brad on the 30th lol. Lots of people saw this coming after she won his correspondences. They'll settle the winery sooner then later so he messages don't leak

Or perhaps she finally settled hoping for an Oscar nom.

Then why wouldn't she settle months ago? That's laughable. He doesn't want his communications out.

I like how his side said he settled because of his gf lol

That’s funny but he’s still an a ss

I find it sad their narrative isnt that he settled for kids but the girfriend instead.

Yup, he wants to get married and have a family with his girlfriend. I wish him well and hope he has stability in his life after all he has had to go through because of his crazy ex-wife.

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:I think he made a tactical error in not making a very generous financial settlement, very quickly. Things surely would have gone more smoothly if he had, and the chateau sale could have been part of it. It smacks of egotism and control. She's the mother of his six children and he should have been very generous. Just on principle, let alone his gross behavior on the plane.

What does wanting a big lump sum payout say about someone? Did she want money or justice?

I'm not saying she's an angel, far from it. But she was entitled to a huge sum for division of property and child support for six kids over 8 years, and it does seem like he withheld it to punish her for leaving and publicly embarrassing him. And she retaliated by withholding the kids, even when it seemed reasonable he was healthy and ready to co-parent. They both suck.

What kind of mother does this?

I'm sure she rationalized it to herself--he's an awful father and person, the kids were better off with her etc. Like most narcissists do.

I was a little shocked when she had a member of her team basically admit she's been brainwashing the kids to think they had no voice because their father has privilege and power. What? The kids worked with court-appointed therapists, who represented their perspectives in custody proceedings. Only a sadistic mother would want to put her kids through testifying in court. Four are now adults and are free to speak out at any time. At least three seem to have dropped his name, out of loyalty to their mother not because he's been a terrible father as far as we can see. There is no evidence to suggest he deserved to have his parental rights severed. She's a vindictive nutcase who absolutely cannot see the harm she's done to her family (after his initial harm, which while terrible seems to have been short-lived). It's always been about her and what she wants, not what's in the best interest of raising well-adjusted kids who have healthy relationships with both parents.

-1
He tried to hit the children.

Yes, terrible behavior when drunk. What about once he was clean and therapists agreed he deserved 50-50 custody?

Da but nope! Being sober doesn't undo traumatizing them. Abusers deserve limited contact with their kids

Active abusers yes. But I think the bulk of the research indicates that alienating a child from a parent who does not pose an ongoing threat to them does the child more harm in the long run because the child has so many unresolved issues with the parent. This is one of the reason why there are so many programs to link kids with their incarcerated parents — even if they are awful people, the children need to be able to navigate the relationship. I’m not saying it’s easy but as a parent you aren’t really doing your kid any favor by interfering with that process.

The kids don't seem like they are doing well. Can't wait for the Mommy Dearest books to come out some day.

Daddy dearest. It's getting closer by the day.

None of the children seem to have any skills or career prospects of their own. They seem to latch onto Jolie and live off what she provides them. Writing a book would only be evidence of their dysfunction and Jolie’s poor parenting.

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:I think he made a tactical error in not making a very generous financial settlement, very quickly. Things surely would have gone more smoothly if he had, and the chateau sale could have been part of it. It smacks of egotism and control. She's the mother of his six children and he should have been very generous. Just on principle, let alone his gross behavior on the plane.

What does wanting a big lump sum payout say about someone? Did she want money or justice?

I'm not saying she's an angel, far from it. But she was entitled to a huge sum for division of property and child support for six kids over 8 years, and it does seem like he withheld it to punish her for leaving and publicly embarrassing him. And she retaliated by withholding the kids, even when it seemed reasonable he was healthy and ready to co-parent. They both suck.

What kind of mother does this?

I'm sure she rationalized it to herself--he's an awful father and person, the kids were better off with her etc. Like most narcissists do.

I was a little shocked when she had a member of her team basically admit she's been brainwashing the kids to think they had no voice because their father has privilege and power. What? The kids worked with court-appointed therapists, who represented their perspectives in custody proceedings. Only a sadistic mother would want to put her kids through testifying in court. Four are now adults and are free to speak out at any time. At least three seem to have dropped his name, out of loyalty to their mother not because he's been a terrible father as far as we can see. There is no evidence to suggest he deserved to have his parental rights severed. She's a vindictive nutcase who absolutely cannot see the harm she's done to her family (after his initial harm, which while terrible seems to have been short-lived). It's always been about her and what she wants, not what's in the best interest of raising well-adjusted kids who have healthy relationships with both parents.

-1
He tried to hit the children.

Yes, terrible behavior when drunk. What about once he was clean and therapists agreed he deserved 50-50 custody?

Da but nope! Being sober doesn't undo traumatizing them. Abusers deserve limited contact with their kids

Active abusers yes. But I think the bulk of the research indicates that alienating a child from a parent who does not pose an ongoing threat to them does the child more harm in the long run because the child has so many unresolved issues with the parent. This is one of the reason why there are so many programs to link kids with their incarcerated parents — even if they are awful people, the children need to be able to navigate the relationship. I’m not saying it’s easy but as a parent you aren’t really doing your kid any favor by interfering with that process.

The kids don't seem like they are doing well. Can't wait for the Mommy Dearest books to come out some day.

Daddy dearest. It's getting closer by the day.

They don't even know him. What would they write? People want to know what Angelina was really like, not him.

People are dying to know more into why they stopped talking to him and how he was under the influence. It'll happen.

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:I think he made a tactical error in not making a very generous financial settlement, very quickly. Things surely would have gone more smoothly if he had, and the chateau sale could have been part of it. It smacks of egotism and control. She's the mother of his six children and he should have been very generous. Just on principle, let alone his gross behavior on the plane.

What does wanting a big lump sum payout say about someone? Did she want money or justice?

I'm not saying she's an angel, far from it. But she was entitled to a huge sum for division of property and child support for six kids over 8 years, and it does seem like he withheld it to punish her for leaving and publicly embarrassing him. And she retaliated by withholding the kids, even when it seemed reasonable he was healthy and ready to co-parent. They both suck.

What kind of mother does this?

I'm sure she rationalized it to herself--he's an awful father and person, the kids were better off with her etc. Like most narcissists do.

I was a little shocked when she had a member of her team basically admit she's been brainwashing the kids to think they had no voice because their father has privilege and power. What? The kids worked with court-appointed therapists, who represented their perspectives in custody proceedings. Only a sadistic mother would want to put her kids through testifying in court. Four are now adults and are free to speak out at any time. At least three seem to have dropped his name, out of loyalty to their mother not because he's been a terrible father as far as we can see. There is no evidence to suggest he deserved to have his parental rights severed. She's a vindictive nutcase who absolutely cannot see the harm she's done to her family (after his initial harm, which while terrible seems to have been short-lived). It's always been about her and what she wants, not what's in the best interest of raising well-adjusted kids who have healthy relationships with both parents.

-1
He tried to hit the children.

Yes, terrible behavior when drunk. What about once he was clean and therapists agreed he deserved 50-50 custody?

Da but nope! Being sober doesn't undo traumatizing them. Abusers deserve limited contact with their kids

Active abusers yes. But I think the bulk of the research indicates that alienating a child from a parent who does not pose an ongoing threat to them does the child more harm in the long run because the child has so many unresolved issues with the parent. This is one of the reason why there are so many programs to link kids with their incarcerated parents — even if they are awful people, the children need to be able to navigate the relationship. I’m not saying it’s easy but as a parent you aren’t really doing your kid any favor by interfering with that process.

The kids don't seem like they are doing well. Can't wait for the Mommy Dearest books to come out some day.

Daddy dearest. It's getting closer by the day.

None of the children seem to have any skills or career prospects of their own. They seem to latch onto Jolie and live off what she provides them. Writing a book would only be evidence of their dysfunction and Jolie’s poor parenting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he made a tactical error in not making a very generous financial settlement, very quickly. Things surely would have gone more smoothly if he had, and the chateau sale could have been part of it. It smacks of egotism and control. She's the mother of his six children and he should have been very generous. Just on principle, let alone his gross behavior on the plane.

What does wanting a big lump sum payout say about someone? Did she want money or justice?

I'm not saying she's an angel, far from it. But she was entitled to a huge sum for division of property and child support for six kids over 8 years, and it does seem like he withheld it to punish her for leaving and publicly embarrassing him. And she retaliated by withholding the kids, even when it seemed reasonable he was healthy and ready to co-parent. They both suck.

What kind of mother does this?

I'm sure she rationalized it to herself--he's an awful father and person, the kids were better off with her etc. Like most narcissists do.

I was a little shocked when she had a member of her team basically admit she's been brainwashing the kids to think they had no voice because their father has privilege and power. What? The kids worked with court-appointed therapists, who represented their perspectives in custody proceedings. Only a sadistic mother would want to put her kids through testifying in court. Four are now adults and are free to speak out at any time. At least three seem to have dropped his name, out of loyalty to their mother not because he's been a terrible father as far as we can see. There is no evidence to suggest he deserved to have his parental rights severed. She's a vindictive nutcase who absolutely cannot see the harm she's done to her family (after his initial harm, which while terrible seems to have been short-lived). It's always been about her and what she wants, not what's in the best interest of raising well-adjusted kids who have healthy relationships with both parents.

-1
He tried to hit the children.

Yes, terrible behavior when drunk. What about once he was clean and therapists agreed he deserved 50-50 custody?

Da but nope! Being sober doesn't undo traumatizing them. Abusers deserve limited contact with their kids

Active abusers yes. But I think the bulk of the research indicates that alienating a child from a parent who does not pose an ongoing threat to them does the child more harm in the long run because the child has so many unresolved issues with the parent. This is one of the reason why there are so many programs to link kids with their incarcerated parents — even if they are awful people, the children need to be able to navigate the relationship. I’m not saying it’s easy but as a parent you aren’t really doing your kid any favor by interfering with that process.

The kids don't seem like they are doing well. Can't wait for the Mommy Dearest books to come out some day.

Daddy dearest. It's getting closer by the day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol 😂 finally. Someone posted a link about Giselle and I saw that they signed Christmas day

Angelina did on Christmas, and Brad on the 30th lol. Lots of people saw this coming after she won his correspondences. They'll settle the winery sooner then later so he messages don't leak

Or perhaps she finally settled hoping for an Oscar nom.

Then why wouldn't she settle months ago? That's laughable. He doesn't want his communications out.

I like how his side said he settled because of his gf lol

That’s funny but he’s still an a ss

I find it sad their narrative isnt that he settled for kids but the girfriend instead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have been divorced. They fight was about money and custody and a bunch of the kids are adults. She is horrible to refuse contact.

Hes horrible for being abusive. She's right for listening to them and protecting them.

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:I think he made a tactical error in not making a very generous financial settlement, very quickly. Things surely would have gone more smoothly if he had, and the chateau sale could have been part of it. It smacks of egotism and control. She's the mother of his six children and he should have been very generous. Just on principle, let alone his gross behavior on the plane.

What does wanting a big lump sum payout say about someone? Did she want money or justice?

I'm not saying she's an angel, far from it. But she was entitled to a huge sum for division of property and child support for six kids over 8 years, and it does seem like he withheld it to punish her for leaving and publicly embarrassing him. And she retaliated by withholding the kids, even when it seemed reasonable he was healthy and ready to co-parent. They both suck.

What kind of mother does this?

I'm sure she rationalized it to herself--he's an awful father and person, the kids were better off with her etc. Like most narcissists do.

I was a little shocked when she had a member of her team basically admit she's been brainwashing the kids to think they had no voice because their father has privilege and power. What? The kids worked with court-appointed therapists, who represented their perspectives in custody proceedings. Only a sadistic mother would want to put her kids through testifying in court. Four are now adults and are free to speak out at any time. At least three seem to have dropped his name, out of loyalty to their mother not because he's been a terrible father as far as we can see. There is no evidence to suggest he deserved to have his parental rights severed. She's a vindictive nutcase who absolutely cannot see the harm she's done to her family (after his initial harm, which while terrible seems to have been short-lived). It's always been about her and what she wants, not what's in the best interest of raising well-adjusted kids who have healthy relationships with both parents.

-1
He tried to hit the children.

Yes, terrible behavior when drunk. What about once he was clean and therapists agreed he deserved 50-50 custody?

Da but nope! Being sober doesn't undo traumatizing them. Abusers deserve limited contact with their kids

Active abusers yes. But I think the bulk of the research indicates that alienating a child from a parent who does not pose an ongoing threat to them does the child more harm in the long run because the child has so many unresolved issues with the parent. This is one of the reason why there are so many programs to link kids with their incarcerated parents — even if they are awful people, the children need to be able to navigate the relationship. I’m not saying it’s easy but as a parent you aren’t really doing your kid any favor by interfering with that process.

The kids don't seem like they are doing well. Can't wait for the Mommy Dearest books to come out some day.

Daddy dearest. It's getting closer by the day.

They don't even know him. What would they write? People want to know what Angelina was really like, not him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he made a tactical error in not making a very generous financial settlement, very quickly. Things surely would have gone more smoothly if he had, and the chateau sale could have been part of it. It smacks of egotism and control. She's the mother of his six children and he should have been very generous. Just on principle, let alone his gross behavior on the plane.

What does wanting a big lump sum payout say about someone? Did she want money or justice?

I'm not saying she's an angel, far from it. But she was entitled to a huge sum for division of property and child support for six kids over 8 years, and it does seem like he withheld it to punish her for leaving and publicly embarrassing him. And she retaliated by withholding the kids, even when it seemed reasonable he was healthy and ready to co-parent. They both suck.

What kind of mother does this?

I'm sure she rationalized it to herself--he's an awful father and person, the kids were better off with her etc. Like most narcissists do.

I was a little shocked when she had a member of her team basically admit she's been brainwashing the kids to think they had no voice because their father has privilege and power. What? The kids worked with court-appointed therapists, who represented their perspectives in custody proceedings. Only a sadistic mother would want to put her kids through testifying in court. Four are now adults and are free to speak out at any time. At least three seem to have dropped his name, out of loyalty to their mother not because he's been a terrible father as far as we can see. There is no evidence to suggest he deserved to have his parental rights severed. She's a vindictive nutcase who absolutely cannot see the harm she's done to her family (after his initial harm, which while terrible seems to have been short-lived). It's always been about her and what she wants, not what's in the best interest of raising well-adjusted kids who have healthy relationships with both parents.

-1
He tried to hit the children.

Yes, terrible behavior when drunk. What about once he was clean and therapists agreed he deserved 50-50 custody?

Da but nope! Being sober doesn't undo traumatizing them. Abusers deserve limited contact with their kids

Active abusers yes. But I think the bulk of the research indicates that alienating a child from a parent who does not pose an ongoing threat to them does the child more harm in the long run because the child has so many unresolved issues with the parent. This is one of the reason why there are so many programs to link kids with their incarcerated parents — even if they are awful people, the children need to be able to navigate the relationship. I’m not saying it’s easy but as a parent you aren’t really doing your kid any favor by interfering with that process.

The kids don't seem like they are doing well. Can't wait for the Mommy Dearest books to come out some day.

Daddy dearest. It's getting closer by the day.

Anonymous wrote:She’s a nasty piece of work. She’s releasing press about how she wishes Brad would stop attacking her, when she is the one who has been constantly attacking him through her PR people, rehashing the same story over and over again, in a failed and vindictive attempt to ruin her ex’s career.

She never seems to take any responsibility for any of her actions. She acts as if she is a victim of the lawsuit that Brad filed over the winery. However, she is the one who sold to a third party behind his back. She could have at least found an agreeable business partner to sell to, but everything she does is calculated to harm her ex and be as vindictive as possible.

I think she’s basically impossible to live with. Brad turned to alcohol to deal with the toxicity of living with her crazy and controlling self. She can’t be part of a partnership at all, which is why she’s stayed single all of these years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her brother got married and is in a throuple with 2 otjer women lol

this is killing me. I just checked the girls page. How do you elope, not have your daughter there then break up the next say