Friday, December 23, 2016


Random Fuzzies


It is important to note that Angelina's reps did not blame Brad for the recent filing, they blamed "Mr. Pitt's legal team."  
A source with knowledge of the situation tells Vanity Fair, however, “Yesterday’s filing was a clear press move and makes no legal sense. We find it surprising that Mr. Pitt’s legal team filed anything with the court because he had already filed the same request with the court weeks ago, and Ms. Jolie had already signed an agreement to seal the court file."
If the source from Angelina's side believed Brad was responsible for both filings, the source could have easily said, "We find it surprising that Mr. Pitt filed anything with the court because he had already filed..."  Instead, they made a point to note that it was Mr. Pitt's legal team that was behind the 2nd filing, and that Brad only filed the original request.

Since Angelina's reps believe Brad was not responsible for the recent filing, that means they believe his legal team did not clear it with him first.  Brad may have been as surprised as they were that his team filed anything.  As the source noted, what was filed was the same as what had already been filed weeks ago.  Spiegel filed a Supplemental memorandum, an addition to the earlier action which allowed him to file without showing it first to Brad.


Vanity Fair, which seems to know about their reunification plans, was the only site that made a conscious effort to attribute what was said in the memo to "Pitt’s legal team" instead of to Brad.   They also noted that the filing was at odds with Brad's efforts to be quiet and low key. 


From the first statement that announced the dissolution filing to this most recent one, all the carefully worded statements have contained hints as to what is really transpiring behind the scenes.

What we can glean from the above is that Angelina understands what happened and Spiegel's filing is not causing any problems between them.  Angelina and Wasser must have noticed from his emails that Spiegel is easily riled.  Brad needs to keep his hot-tempered attorney on a very short leash.


******


Angelina's reps only gave statements to Vanity Fair and Us.  Even ET which I thought had the best coverage of recent events and has quoted her rep numerous times in the past did not have a quote from her this time.  Their response has been very restrained and very limited.  They let it be known that she signed the agreement and that the filing serves no purpose other than to attack her, but they were not concerned about disseminating it widely.  In contrast, her rep was quoted everywhere when she denied the story that Angelina planned to move to London.

The filing doesn't affect Angelina and she doesn't want it to affect their family.  She does not want anything to derail the carefully laid plans for the Holidays that they all worked so hard to put in place.

The children take their cues from Angelina and with her encouragement, things will still proceed as planned. But the reports on Spiegel's filing will serve to remind the children that they still cannot rely on their dad.   He doesn't have his team under control.  Angelina in contrast has no such problem.


*******

Like I wrote previously, there will undoubtedly be fallout from what Spiegel did.  The filing serves no purpose other than to allow Spiegel to vent his anger at Wasser and Angelina for having filed the emails which exposed that many of his claims and arguments in support of their Request to seal were false.  It embarrassed him and weakened their standing before the court.  It was a big part of why the judge denied all of their key requests: ex parte, a broad sealing and a shortened hearing.

Spiegel's arguments in his Supplemental Memo would not sway anyone who is fully aware of the contents of the emails and the S&O -- much less the judge.   But then that was not the purpose of his filing.  Spiegel focuses his energy on insulting and bitterly attacking Angelina.   He was livid at having been outmaneuvered by Wasser and Angelina and he unleashed his pent up anger in his filing.  He lost sight of the fact that his role was supposed to be to help the family achieve it's "long-term reunification goals" and to serve as a liaison to mental health professionals with Wasser so Brad and Angelina will be insulated from any conflict.  In launching a blistering, personal attack on Angelina he was instead fanning a conflict and dragging Angelina and Brad into the center of it.  

The fallout is happening privately between Brad and Spiegel.  Spiegel is his lead attorney and while Gary Fishbein is also Brad's attorney of record, it is Spiegel who has signed all the documents.  Spiegel must try to convince everyone that his actions were in Brad's best interests and will help the family achieve its goals.
Spiegel will likely be censured and his ability to act in the future will be restricted.


******

Since Spiegel filed the Supplemental Memorandum in Brad's name, his words are being attributed to Brad.  Brad's image as a gentleman is taking a serious hit.  This is not the cool, polite and affable Brad the public thinks it knows.  Instead, the public sees him angrily attacking and insulting Angelina in an official court filing.  Her reps and  lawyers have never attacked him in the same manner and they have refrained from responding to Spiegel in kind. 



******


Angelina's lawyers filed a "Notice - Lodging" with the Court on Dec. 22. (Thanks to all who posted in the comments section about it.)

In his Supplemental Memo, Spiegel said Wasser and Angelina filed a "redacted" Request for Order to which the emails were again attached after Brad filed his Request to Seal.

The likely purpose of filing a redacted RFO is to seal confidential documentsUnder the California Rules of Court shared by Pride&Joy (Thanks!):

A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing. 
"The party requesting that a record be filed under seal must lodge it with the court under (d) when the motion or application is made"

These documents are likely what they received from the DCFS that Wasser referred to in her declaration:   
"The Custody Stipulation memorializes the custody and visitation arrangement set forth above and incorporates recommendations made by DCFS.  I have not attached copies of documents our office received from DCFS in order to protect the minor children's privacy and to comply with confidentiality statutes.

As she explained above, Wasser couldn't attach the documents outright, she needed to file them under seal.  They redacted the RFO so there would be no public knowledge of it or its purpose.  All of this is designed principally to protect Brad since it is his actions and behavior they want to keep from the public.  Which makes one wonder why Spiegel needlessly mentioned it in his Supplemental Memo since it is his client they are trying to protect.

After filing a redacted RFO, they lodged the documents with the court and filed a Notice -- Lodging.  All of this would still be part of their response to Brad's request to seal. 

The purpose of filing the documents would be to make the judge aware of the DCFS' recommendations and the reasons behind them.  It was necessitated by Brad's plan to seek additional non-therapeutic visits with the children against the therapists' recommendations. The documents explain the conditions imposed on Brad under the S&O and the need for the court to enforce them  Together, they would thwart any attempt by Brad to seek court orders that go against the S&O.

(e) Order
(1)If the court grants an order sealing a record and if the sealed record is in paper format, the clerk must substitute on the envelope or container for the label required by (d)(2) a label prominently stating "SEALED BY ORDER OF THE COURT ON (DATE)," and must replace the cover sheet required by (d)(3) with a filed-endorsed copy of the court's order. .
(3)The order must state whether any person other than the court is authorized to inspect the sealed record.
(4)Unless the sealing order provides otherwise, it prohibits the parties from disclosing the contents of any materials that have been sealed in anything that is subsequently publicly filed.

The Supplemental Memo Spiegel filed has no bearing on any of this.  As noted elsewhere, his filing serves no legal purpose other than to attack Wasser and Angelina.


******

I am assuming that the agreement they signed is the Stipulation and Order to Seal Records regarding Custody Issues that was originally proposed last September 26 with some added protection for Brad.  Unlike with the S&O re custody and therapy, filing a S&O to seal will not give them a court order that would seal any and all documents.  The court has very stringent rules on sealing documents.

Under the California Rules of Court, "A record must not be filed under seal without a court order. The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties."

So if Brad's lawyers want to seal a record, the existence of an agreement between him and Angelina is not enough.  They have to go through the same process that Wasser went through to seal the DCFS documents.  The agreement means Angelina and Wasser will not oppose their request.


******

Before Spiegel filed, I had expected everything to remain very quiet because this is a critical time for Brad.  This is his first chance to celebrate with the family.  It could give him a big boost towards normalizing his relationship with the children.  Perhaps the fact that it has been quiet since is a sign that Spiegel's actions did not upset the children and Brad is making good progress.

What has broken the silence in the past have been actions or statements from Brad's side because he was unhappy -- his solo Thanksgiving in Turks & Caicos, his attempts to get more visits outside of therapy -- which have in turn triggered a reaction from Angelina's side.



-- Fussy


============================================================


Pride&Joy shares this:

2016 California Rules of Court
Rule 2.551. Procedures for filing records under seal

(a) Court approval required
A record must not be filed under seal without a court order. The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.
(Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.)
(b) Motion or application to seal a record
(1)Motion or application required
A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.
(2)Service of motion or application
A copy of the motion or application must be served on all parties that have appeared in the case. Unless the court orders otherwise, any party that already has access to the records to be placed under seal must be served with a complete, unredacted version of all papers as well as a redacted version. Other parties must be served with only the public redacted version. If a party's attorney but not the party has access to the record, only the party's attorney may be served with the complete, unredacted version.
(3)Procedure for party not intending to file motion or application
(A)A party that files or intends to file with the court, for the purposes of adjudication or to use at trial, records produced in discovery that are subject to a confidentiality agreement or protective order, and does not intend to request to have the records sealed, must:
(i)Lodge the unredacted records subject to the confidentiality agreement or protective order and any pleadings, memorandums, declarations, and other documents that disclose the contents of the records, in the manner stated in (d);
(ii)File copies of the documents in (i) that are redacted so that they do not disclose the contents of the records that are subject to the confidentiality agreement or protective order; and
(iii)Give written notice to the party that produced the records that the records and the other documents lodged under (i) will be placed in the public court file unless that party files a timely motion or application to seal the records under this rule.
(B)If the party that produced the documents and was served with the notice under (A)(iii) fails to file a motion or an application to seal the records within 10 days or to obtain a court order extending the time to file such a motion or an application, the clerk must promptly remove all the documents in (A)(i) from the envelope, container, or secure electronic file where they are located and place them in the public file. If the party files a motion or an application to seal within 10 days or such later time as the court has ordered, these documents are to remain conditionally under seal until the court rules on the motion or application and thereafter are to be filed as ordered by the court.
(4)Lodging of record pending determination of motion or application
The party requesting that a record be filed under seal must lodge it with the court under (d) when the motion or application is made, unless good cause exists for not lodging it or the record has previously been lodged under (3)(A)(i). Pending the determination of the motion or application, the lodged record will be conditionally under seal.
(5)Redacted and unredacted versions
If necessary to prevent disclosure, any motion or application, any opposition, and any supporting documents must be filed in a public redacted version and lodged in a complete, unredacted version conditionally under seal. The cover of the redacted version must identify it as "Public-Redacts materials from conditionally sealed record." The cover of the unredacted version must identify it as "May Not Be Examined Without Court Order-Contains material from conditionally sealed record."
(6)Return of lodged record
If the court denies the motion or application to seal, the clerk must return the lodged record to the submitting party and must not place it in the case file unless that party notifies the clerk in writing that the record is to be filed. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the submitting party must notify the clerk within 10 days after the order denying the motion or application.
(Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2016; previously amended effective January 1, 2004, and January 1, 2007.)
(c) References to nonpublic material in public records
A record filed publicly in the court must not disclose material contained in a record that is sealed, conditionally under seal, or subject to a pending motion or an application to seal.
(Subd (c) amended effective January 1, 2004.)
(d) Procedure for lodging of records
(1)A record that may be filed under seal must be transmitted to the court in a secure manner that preserves the confidentiality of the records to be lodged. If the record is transmitted in paper form, it must be put in an envelope or other appropriate container, sealed in the envelope or container, and lodged with the court.
(2)The materials to be lodged under seal must be clearly identified as "CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL." If the materials are transmitted in paper form, the envelope or container lodged with the court must be labeled "CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL."
(3)The party submitting the lodged record must affix to the electronic transmission, the envelope, or the container a cover sheet that:
(A)Contains all the information required on a caption page under rule 2.111; and
(B)States that the enclosed record is subject to a motion or an application to file the record under seal.
(4)On receipt of a record lodged under this rule, the clerk must endorse the affixed cover sheet with the date of its receipt and must retain but not file the record unless the court orders it filed.
(Subd (d) amended effective January 1, 2016; previously amended effective January 1, 2004, and January 1, 2007.)
(e) Order
(1)If the court grants an order sealing a record and if the sealed record is in paper format, the clerk must substitute on the envelope or container for the label required by (d)(2) a label prominently stating "SEALED BY ORDER OF THE COURT ON (DATE)," and must replace the cover sheet required by (d)(3) with a filed-endorsed copy of the court's order. If the sealed record is in an electronic format, the clerk must file the court's order, store the record ordered sealed in a secure manner, and clearly identify the record as sealed by court order on a specified date.
(2)The order must state whether-in addition to the sealed records-the order itself, the register of actions, any other court records, or any other records relating to the case are to be sealed.
(3)The order must state whether any person other than the court is authorized to inspect the sealed record.
(4)Unless the sealing order provides otherwise, it prohibits the parties from disclosing the contents of any materials that have been sealed in anything that is subsequently publicly filed.
(Subd (e) amended effective January 1, 2016; previously amended effective January 1, 2004, and January 1, 2007.)
(f) Custody of sealed records
Sealed records must be securely filed and kept separate from the public file in the case.
(Subd (f) amended effective January 1, 2004.)
(g) Custody of voluminous records
If the records to be placed under seal are voluminous and are in the possession of a public agency, the court may by written order direct the agency instead of the clerk to maintain custody of the original records in a secure fashion. If the records are requested by a reviewing court, the trial court must order the public agency to deliver the records to the clerk for transmission to the reviewing court under these rules.
(h) Motion, application, or petition to unseal records
(1)A sealed record must not be unsealed except on order of the court.
(2)A party or member of the public may move, apply, or petition, or the court on its own motion may move, to unseal a record. Notice of any motion, application, or petition to unseal must be filed and served on all parties in the case. The motion, application, or petition and any opposition, reply, and supporting documents must be filed in a public redacted version and a sealed complete version if necessary to comply with (c).
(3)If the court proposes to order a record unsealed on its own motion, the court must give notice to the parties stating the reason for unsealing the record. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, any party may serve and file an opposition within 10 days after the notice is provided and any other party may file a response within 5 days after the filing of an opposition.
(4)In determining whether to unseal a record, the court must consider the matters addressed in rule 2.550(c)-(e).
(5)The order unsealing a record must state whether the record is unsealed entirely or in part. If the court's order unseals only part of the record or unseals the record only as to certain persons, the order must specify the particular records that are unsealed, the particular persons who may have access to the record, or both. If, in addition to the records in the envelope, container, or secure electronic file, the court has previously ordered the sealing order, the register of actions, or any other court records relating to the case to be sealed, the unsealing order must state whether these additional records are unsealed.
(Subd (h) amended effective January 1, 2016; previously amended effective January 1, 2004, and January 1, 2007.)
Rule 2.551 amended effective January 1, 2016; adopted as rule 243.2 effective January 1, 2001; previously amended effective January 1, 2004; previously amended and renumbered as rule 2.551 effective January 1, 2007.

5 comments:

  1. Thank you for all the info. Merry Christmas.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fussy, just found some info you might find interesting i'm posting some part of it:
    Just read this and Notice-Lodging might have to do with sealing- which if Spiegel had not filed the memo 12/21, the Notice-Lodging might not have been filed by Wasser which it was not until 12/22
    http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/r...

    2016 California Rules of Court

    Rule 2.551. Procedures for filing records under seal

    (a) Court approval required

    A record must not be filed under seal without a court order. The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties

    (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.)

    (b) Motion or application to seal a record

    (1)Motion or application required

    A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.

    (2)Service of motion or application

    A copy of the motion or application must be served on all parties that have appeared in the case. Unless the court orders otherwise, any party that already has access to the records to be placed under seal must be served with a complete, unredacted version of all papers as well as a redacted version. Other parties must be served with only the public redacted version. If a party's attorney but not the party has access to the record, only the party's attorney may be served with the complete, unredacted version.

    (3)Procedure for party not intending to file motion or application

    (A)A party that files or intends to file with the court, for the purposes of adjudication or to use at trial, records produced in discovery that are subject to a confidentiality agreement or protective order, and does not intend to request to have the records sealed, must:

    (i)Lodge the unredacted records subject to the confidentiality agreement or protective order and any pleadings, memorandums, declarations, and other documents that disclose the contents of the records, in the manner stated in (d);

    ReplyDelete
  3. Fussy this is teh 2nd part of my long post to you:
    (ii)File copies of the documents in (i) that are redacted so that they do not disclose the contents of the records that are subject to the confidentiality agreement or protective order; and

    (iii)Give written notice to the party that produced the records that the records and the other documents lodged under (i) will be placed in the public court file unless that party files a timely motion or application to seal the records under this rule.

    (B)If the party that produced the documents and was served with the notice under (A)(iii) fails to file a motion or an application to seal the records within 10 days or to obtain a court order extending the time to file such a motion or an application, the clerk must promptly remove all the documents in (A)(i) from the envelope, container, or secure electronic file where they are located and place them in the public file. If the party files a motion or an application to seal within 10 days or such later time as the court has ordered, these documents are to remain conditionally under seal until the court rules on the motion or application and thereafter are to be filed as ordered by the court.

    (4)Lodging of record pending determination of motion or application

    The party requesting that a record be filed under seal must lodge it with the court under (d) when the motion or application is made, unless good cause exists for not lodging it or the record has previously been lodged under (3)(A)(i). Pending the determination of the motion or application, the lodged record will be conditionally under seal.

    (5)Redacted and unredacted versions

    If necessary to prevent disclosure, any motion or application, any opposition, and any supporting documents must be filed in a public redacted version and lodged in a complete, unredacted version conditionally under seal. The cover of the redacted version must identify it as "Public-Redacts materials from conditionally sealed record." The cover of the unredacted version must identify it as "May Not Be Examined Without Court Order-Contains material from conditionally sealed record."

    (6)Return of lodged record

    If the court denies the motion or application to seal, the clerk must return the lodged record to the submitting party and must not place it in the case file unless that party notifies the clerk in writing that the record is to be filed. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the submitting party must notify the clerk within 10 days after the order denying the motion or application.

    (Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2016; previously amended effective January 1, 2004, and January 1, 2007.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Fussy this link is about how a DCFS investigation works, it's not from Los Angeles, but you can get an idea and it was written by a lawyer who specializes in this area.
    http://www.familydefensecenter.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Responding-to-Investigations-Manual-FINAL.pdf
    I think it's pretty much what you've been explaining for a long time , how much Angelina's role is important for the interaction of Brad and the children. Do you think the S & O was used as an "intact services" by DCFS. Apparently the "intact services" even after the investigation has closed.
    "Once the investigation closes and you have initially agreed to participate in intact services,
    however, it may sometimes be in your interest to make a decision that you no longer wish
    to submit to certain assessments or complete certain services. This decision will depend on
    how intrusive the services are that are being requested of you and what your relationship
    with the intact services worker is. Intact services are expressly supposed to be voluntary,
    so you will have the right to refuse to continue services even if you initially accept services.
    The law provides that refusal of voluntary services is not a ground for adjudicating abuse
    or neglect—rather, there must be other grounds that show that abuse or neglect occurred.
    However, you should beware of the potential consequence of refusal if the services you are
    receiving are considered essential to the safety of the child. While you have the right to
    refuse services, DCFS intact services workers have the right to seek a court order requiring
    that you comply with services if it can show probable cause that you have abused or
    neglected the child (with the indicated finding against you potentially supplying sufficient “probable cause” to get the case into court). If you have been cooperative with services and the monitoring visits to your home have proceeded smoothly, you may be at low risk of having a petition filed against you should you politely decline to continue services. But securing legal advice about the risk you may be running if you terminate services is recommended. Most cases in intact services do close, however, after 6 months without any court action being filed. Intact services workers do not have the authority to take protective
    custody of your child. The Family Defense Center has raised claims in several lawsuits that any continued separation of children and parents during intact services cases is unlawful. If you have an
    intact services case and DCFS is insisting that there is a basis for separating you from your
    child or restricting your contact with your child without a court order, you should seek
    legal advice and assistance if the intact services worker refuses to restore your access to
    the child to the same level it was prior to the Hotline call. "
    S & O was drafted with the recommendations of the DCFS, if Brad and his lawyer pledged to follow even after the closed investigation, they had to legally follow the recommendations, it is clear that if it was not for the divorce (that allowed the children to stay with Angelina) and this S & O, perhaps only when all of these recommendations of Brad's interaction with the children were approved by the therapists that the DCFS investigation would be closed.
    If after the investigation closed, and Brad tried to talk to the professional therapists to ask for something other than what they agreed as in his lawyer's email that the therapists were not worried about his concerns. I think it was because of Brad's impatience. he should have tried Angelina's suggestion to have a trauma specialist for the two to know how to help the children and wait until January when the schedule of visits was stipulated. Because entering the court would be an aggressive way to counter DCFS recommendation. “Litigation absolutely does not effectuate that goal.”

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Fussy just random post:Angelina's Stylist Jen Rade posted this yesterday:

    stylistjenrade#tbt To that time when #angelinajolie & I brought emeralds back in a major way!!! I could not love this woman any more! She is smart, funny, beautiful inside and out! We have so much fun together!! She makes me laugh so hard! Thanks to @lorraineschwartz for the gems & @eliesaabworld for the gown! #styledbyme #redcarpet #fashion #blackgown #eliesaab #lorraineschwartz #emeralds #glamour #lovemyjob #stylist #oscars
    https://www.instagram.com/p/BOWeVSLDHll/?taken-by=stylistjenrade

    ReplyDelete