Sunday, November 6, 2016




Random Fuzzy


A reader (bia - Thanks!) is an ace investigative sleuth and just provided us with the link to Brad's full response.

Here is the link for your perusal:  https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3214540/Pitt-Jolie.pdf

I have reposted below Angelina's petition.

I have also reposted the info from the TMZ report on their prenup


The petition and the response are almost identical even in the order in which they list the children with Shiloh listed last.  The notable differences aside from custody are:

Under separate property Angelina also listed "miscellaneous jewelry" and "Earnings and accumulations"

Angelina's states "There are additional personal property / community and quasi community assets and obligations of the parties  the exact nature and extent of which are presently unknown."

Brad's states:  "Respondent is uncertain at this time of the full extent of his separate / of the community and quasi community property and will seek leave of this court to amend this response when the information has been ascertained. "


TMZ
Sources close to the couple tell us their prenuptial agreement is ironclad and details the specifics of their combined fortune ... a reported $400 mil.
Brangelina have 12 total properties together ... all of which they snatched up either before they were married or before they were even dating. 7 of those belong to Brad, 2 to Angie and 3 which they bought together prior to tying the knot in 2014.
It's unclear who exactly shelled out what for those 3 properties, which include a vineyard in France, a mansion in New Orleans and an apartment in NY ... but we're told the prenup makes divvying all that up simple.

I believe Angelina allowed Wasser to "leak" the info regarding the prenup (on Sept. 26 or a week after she filed) so people will notice its absence in the petition.   This would be consistent with my view that they are providing hints as to their true intentions so they can't be accused of totally misleading people.

The report notes that the prenup is "ironclad" which is to be expected since they both would have had the best available legal advice prior to signing.  Their prenup is legally binding.  If they wanted to split their properties they have to invoke the prenup.

I would be more concerned that they were serious about divorcing if the prenup was mentioned in either the petition or the response. 

An observation:  Brad's signature here is different from anything I've seen before. 


bia also points out that Brad signed his response on Oct 31 but filed on Nov 4.

What happened between Oct. 31 and Nov. 4?  Nothing we are aware of.



bia further asks if perhaps he filed because he was concerned about losing custody.

If he was concerned about losing custody and he did not trust Angelina he would have definitely filed before the deadline.  The latest he would have been officially served with the divorce petition is Sept . 22 when it was widely reported that he hired Lance Spiegel to represent him in the divorce -- that would put the end of the 30-day period at Oct. 23.

He filed two weeks after which was more than enough time for Angelina to seek a default judgement if she wanted to.  That means that he left himself open to the possibility that Angelina could ask the court to grant her everything she asked for including sole custody for two weeks.  I think that clearly indicates that he trusted her and wasn't concerned about losing custody.  

Recall that Angelina repeatedly stated that she did not intend for sole custody to be permanent -- just until the children's "health and safety is assured."  That would happen when the DCFS closes its investigation.  When the "DCFS is satisfied that the children are not in any danger with either of the parties, DCFS would then close their investigation.”

The filing therefore in not about his concern that he would lose custody. 


But I am curious as to when in October this form was prepared.

It is signed and was apparently prepared by Lance Spiegel and his law office.  But the first page of the form also includes the name of Gary Fishbein, another divorce lawyer who however did not co-sign the form. 



-- Fussy






























31 comments:

  1. "What happened between Oct. 31 and Nov. 4? Nothing -- which I think was the whole point.
    They waited but the investigation remained open."


    so you think he waited until the last day (which would be November 4) to see if the investigation would end ......as the investigation was not finished , Brad decided to continue with the process .....because it would be expected
    Or do you think maybe between him and Angelina still unable to take time to communicate to get a sense of what is it really going to happen ... and he found better answer asking for joint custody , so he does not lose the time and his rights about custody. It may be that the situation between them is still not resolved.

    ReplyDelete
  2. She indicated as the deadline passed that she did not intend to seek a default judgement. She also had enough time to do so if she wanted to. But more important, she kept repeating that she did not intend for sole physical custody to be permanent -- just until the children's "health and safety is assured." So she fully intended to give him joint custody anyway IF they actually did divorce.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If he didn't trust her, he would have filed immediately and not risk having her file for a default judgement. He waited for 2 weeks after the deadline and 5 days after the DCFS extended the investigation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He could have asked for an extension , and have more time to answer.

      Delete
    2. Today i'm not so optimistic, and i speculate what if Brad thought she'll be waiting period of time with the filing going nowhere ( and not enter in default of course ) and at this point he knows she's serious about divorce ? And therefore it's why he had to answer otherwise he could had lose his rights .

      Delete
    3. If he had an bit of an extension to answer ( 15 days ) we can speculate that Angelina didn't have to enter in default at all.

      Delete
    4. And what if Angelina filed for divorce to protect her family but ALSO because she wanted divorce after what the are going through , the risk to lose custody of the children is the highest motive to part ways with a spouse, even if there is feelings .

      Delete
    5. California favors joint custody , but i think Brad will have to show that he's in a healing process that have results .

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank You Fussy
    Again you maid valid points on every count. ITA Brad trusts Angelina as she could have gone for the default judgment when she had the golden opportunity, but she did not and that alone speaks volumes about them and their actions and having the trust in each other. This alone does not indicate couple intend on Brange War like Lainey used to brag about.Talking about Lainey Fussy why do you think she is oh so quite? I'd have thought she would be all over the JP's on daily bassists but she has been awfully quite since October?Even her last article was less attacks and more subdued , very unlike her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Lainey is just being aware of the fact that this is quite sensitive issue that involves minor children and she is careful what she writes, especially if things are still unclear. She doesn't write about, what she calls, "sad smutt" and I think she would not cross the line of bad taste, like lots of other bloggers do. She still writes about it, but carefully and in a subdued way. At least, this is my oppinion.

      Delete
    2. I suspect one of her sources told her what is really going on -- and of course I think (hope) that it is as I have been writing. But mine is pure speculation.

      Delete
    3. IF that were the case Fussy then why would she sit on the source news why not take advantage of it and do those silly BI's and allude there.It's not like she is team JP.You know she can't resist not posting and that would have given her more hits on the site, especially when she always snarks on JP's but now its odd reaction from her the silence.

      Delete
    4. Because I can speculate but if she is citing a source it is no longer speculation. The situation is delicate and Angelina could still lose the children if they thought she couldn't stand up to Brad. She can't reveal what she knows until it is over and everyone is "safe"
      Again, just my guess.

      Delete
    5. Fussy I also think since Angelina hired the litigator team and their warning to Pereze that might have slowed Laineys roll to post anything, just saying. ITA as its minor kids and DCFS that would have made her think twice posting anything.But I also agree with your point that seems more valid.

      Delete
    6. I think she would hint if she had sources (lay sources tell me it is not what it seems, or something like that) because she likes to go back and say :See, I was right, when she has previous knowledge of some situation. I don't think she has information now, she just don't want to speculate about delicate situation.

      Delete
    7. I meant to write my instead of lay.

      Delete
  6. I honestly think he did not get served the petition
    until a later date remember his address was listed as unknown. TMZ probably figured since hers was filed on the 19th that it was 30 days from that. They have access to the filings so I'm probably sure they kept checking and they spun a story when it wasn't there by Oct 20th. There is no way he would not respond or he would go into to default, meaning he would lose his rights to custody since she listed sole custody and its no way he would be okay with that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They didn't want his address in a public document and as you can see, addresses were redacted in the pdf but of course Angelina would know where to serve him. Their home is his legal address and they could have also served him in his office.
      Like I already explained in my post above, he knew he wasn't in danger of losing custody because she kept saying she wanted a "fully involved father and mother". She said it many times:
      "E! News has learned the 41-year-old actress doesn't intend for the custody situation to remain permanent."
      "She wants them to have a relationship with him once their health and safety is assured.”

      I believe that all the reports in TMZ that clearly state they are getting info from "sources close to Angelina" or "sources close to the case" are from Wesser -- including the story on Brad's response.

      TMZ may sometimes be over-agressive in their pursuit of a story but they don't have a reputation for fabricating reports the way the Sun or In Touch do. Wesser and Angelina would not deal with them if they did.

      Delete
    2. Also, it was reported that Brad hired Lance Spiegel as his divorce lawyer on Sept. 22. At that point in addition to serving him personally, they could have served him thru Spiegel. That would have put them in default Oct. 23.
      If they were concerned about custody and didn't trust Angelina, they had ample time to file long before they actually did.

      Delete
  7. Fussy, i'm just surprised people are missing the point of "default judgment" period that Angelina could have done as she had ample opportunity to do it, but again she didn't so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess I am confused and missing the point of "default judgment." I've never been divorced, separated etc and just don't understand what I should be reading in between the lines. Right now all I see is that they both checked the box to end their marriage and I guess I'm not able to see beyond that no matter how much I truly want to. I kinda want to see the Affleck-Garner papers to compare. They called a halt to things and so I guess I'm wondering if that possibility exists for J-P.

      Delete
    2. Garner and Affleck never filed for divorce. They just announced that they were separating, which was over a year ago, but as far as I know, never got to a point of filing for divorce.

      Delete
  8. The Nov 4th date makes a lot of sense it was a lowkey move on a late Friday afternoon that is how you do it when you want the news to be buried is released. Plus next week is the US elections, all the media will be focused on that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that was his move, but to me, that would make sense if they were announcing divorce right now, but Angelina filed on Sep. 19th, and they are obviously in the news already. Also, he has premiere on Wednesday, so he will be in the news anyhow.

      Delete
    2. The day of the premiere though is the day after the election again it will muffled out by all of the news of the election results. The worlds focus will be directly on that and nothing else really.

      Delete
  9. Thank you for your posting.

    Fussy, I think you are giving TMZ too many trust.
    TMZ: EXCLUSIVES, CLUELESS, FALSE.............

    Reality is a reality. Divorce paper is a reality.
    Divorce paper--- There is no prenup between Angelina & Brad.


    Divorce paper is a important paper.
    Angelina divorce petition is a scan. This is not a electronic litigation.
    In law case, the most important thing is to receive by registered mail.
    The date to receive is very important.

    Angelina filed a divorce petition(2016/9/19)→LA COURT have to Examine in cold blood(a few days)→ LA COURT have to send the divorce petition to brad's address or hired Lance Spiegel(a few days)→ prabably (2016/10/5.......) brad or hired Lance Spiegel must receive a divorce petition.

    Brad is exercising his right. Angelina & Brad are divorcing.

    I am so sad for JP KIDS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. scan means the picture of Angelina divorce paper.

      Delete
  10. If we look coldly at the facts , it's a bad and cold split.At this point they could also have made a joint statement via their repr├ęsentatives and say we are parting ways . They didn't , and this is very bizarre for high profile couple.
    Or are they insinuating that it's very bad between them?
    We have facts but we don't have all the puzzle.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm sticking to the DCFS factor for now.

    ReplyDelete