Monday, October 15, 2018



Random Fuzzy

Dr. Katz, the custody evaluator, filed a declaration.  It comes over a year and a half after he was appointed on Jan. 9, 2017 and filed the required FL-326 declaration regarding his qualifications on Jan. 25, 2017.  Court-connected custody evaluators are required to submit the declaration form regarding their qualifications every year after their appointment.  Dr. Katz is a private custody evaluator, not a court-connected evaluator and he may not be subject to the same requirements. 

A declaration is a written statement submitted to a court in which the writer swears 'under penalty of perjury' that the contents are true.  If this declaration contained any custody-related information it would have been sealed.  Thus like his initial declaration regarding his qualifications, this declaration would have to pertain to Dr, Katz and fulfills a procedural requirement. 

After filing this declaration, Dr. Katz was added to the case's Party Information as "Other" joining Petitioner, Respondent and their respective attorneys.  It means Dr. Katz is now recognized as an independent party in the case.  This distinguishes him from the psychiatrist and neuropsychologist whose opinions would also be included in the custody evaluation report and who are paid by Brad.

This declaration would have been among the steps needed to legally complete the family's reunification as required by the DCFS and which were discussed in the status conference on Aug. 21.  The DCFS anticipated that there would be pressure, principally from Brad, to rush the process and required them to wait until they obtain clearance that the children have fully recovered and are ready for the family to resume it's normal life together.  Dr. Katz would provide that clearance and this helps establish his independence and the credibility of his conclusions.

The family would have already had several custody evaluations.  In her Dec. 1, 2016 letter Wasser wrote:  "We have discussed a custody evaluation in this matter. As we advised yesterday, we are agreeable and would like it to commence immediately."  So the first custody evaluation likely took place December 2016.  All the custody evaluations since January 2017 would have been conducted by Dr. Katz.  Their decision to hire a psychiatrist and a neuropsychologist to take over from the trauma specialists would have been based on the results of a custody evaluation.  The observations in the May 30 order that the children were still closed down to Brad, did not feel safe with him, and did not have a relationship with him would have come from a custody evaluation conducted immediately prior.  Their latest custody evaluation would have started as soon as the children arrived back in L.A. -- the week of Aug. 13, the same as the review hearing.  The custody evaluation would rely mainly on interviews with the children and the psychiatric team.  Since they already have information gathered from previous custody evaluations, this would have been finished relatively quickly.

The custody evaluation report is always confidential and never made a part of the public court file. 


-- Fussy

****

Documents Filed
10/12/2018 Declaration (of private child custody evaluator )
Filed by Other

01/25/2017 Declaration (of private child custody evaluator re: qaulifications filed by Stan J. Katz, Ph.D. )


PARTY INFORMATION
DEJEAN SAMANTHA BLEY - Attorney for Petitioner for Petitioner
KATZ STAN J - Other
PITT ANGELINA JOLIE - Petitioner
PITT WILLIAM BRADLEY - Respondent
SPIEGEL LANCE STEPHEN - Attorney for Respondent



Form FL-325



Form FL-328



Dr. Katz's original declaration of his qualifications filed Jan. 25, 2017



From the May 30 order



Random Fuzzy

Updated

09/12/2018 Responsive Declaration (This is a Sealed Document )
Filed by Respondent
Since it is a sealed document, there is no accompanying description, no "On behalf of: Respondent."

There are strict procedures that have to be followed in handling sealed filings designed to prevent unauthorized access but as we know, the May 30 Order was leaked.  This led them to file on 07/20/2018  a "Stipulation and Order (Regarding Filing of Sealed Custody and Custody Related Pleadings, and Order Thereon)."

The seal order is very narrowly defined to cover only custody-related filings.  The court does not allow a broad sealing order.  Sealing all custody-related records was for Brad's benefit to keep the public from knowing the details of his behavior on the plane which left the children severely traumatized and unable and unwilling to be with him.  The May 30 Order and this Declaration are the only two documents that have been sealed since the S&O to seal custody-related records was filed and Judge Ouderkirk was hired on 01/09/2017.  This Responsive Declaration would have to pertain to the efforts to heal the children's relationship with Brad in order to be sealed.  All other matters including everything discussed in Bley Dejean's Request and Spiegel's Response are not covered which is why they were not sealed.

Unlike with previous Responsive Declarations (see below), nothing else was filed along with it.  It is not in response to another filing, i.e. Brad is not responding to anything Angelina filed.  What he is responding to are the testimonies and opinions provided directly to the court by the mental health professionals assisting with and evaluating his relationship with the children.

***

This bears repeating time and again:

Do not be duped into clicking on trash.

No site other than People has had any genuine contact since they hired Judge Ouderkirk.  People's recent legitimate reports identified their source -- Mindy Nyby.   She gave brief, succinct quotes.

Everything being churned out by all other sites from TMZ and Page Six to E, ET and Us are bogus, entirely made up stories. 

A "leak" is privileged information not otherwise available to the public.  The only leaks came from Wasser who started to leak details to TMZ as soon as Angelina filed.  She immediately leaked that the filing was due to substance abuse and anger issues -- what Brad later acknowledged as boozing too much and being an asshole seeking justice for a perceived slight.  These problems combined to precipitate the incident on the plane which led to the DCFS' investigation for child abuse -- which Wasser also leaked.  She leaked that Maddox and Pax walked out of Brad's first visit with them (in late October 2016) and refused other visits.  She also leaked that Brad and Angelina had an "iron clad" prenup.  Most recently Wasser leaked the May 30 Order to The Blast.  All of these revealed confidential info not known to the public.  Since Wasser was removed there have been no leaks. What are being published by the tabloid sites are obvious and idiotic fabrications embroidering upon already public information.   They are works of fiction written solely to generate clicks.  Do not click on tabloid garbage.  Do not reward garbage production.

No true insider and friend has ever and will ever talk about their lives especially with the sensitive situation involving the children.  Their inner circle is very tight and nothing goes out of that circle -- which is why no one knew before the May 30 Order leaked that the children still did not feel safe alone with Brad and that they already sought help from a psychiatrist.  True insiders like Frank Pollaro, Luong Ung and her dermatologist Rhonda Rand are very wary about being asked anything about them.  It is why they remain insiders.

Do not be gullible.  Do not waste your time and others'.

****

The only previous custody-related filing was the Stipulation re Child Custody and Therapy which was signed into an order on 12/02/2016 (before the seal order).  It was filed for enforcement purposes in response to Brad's attempts to forcibly obtain nontherapeutic visits against the recommendations of the children's therapists and in contravention of the custody stipulation.  To refresh: under the custody stipulation, they agreed that the frequency and conditions of Brad's visits with the children would be determined by Dr. Ian Russ.  Dr Russ, a trauma expert, would decide in consultation with the family's team of therapists and consider what is in the children's best interests.  Brad was required to undergo weekly individual and group therapy and random drug and alcohol tests and to provide proof of his compliance.  The children were to continue to have individual counseling.  Angelina's role was to to look after the children and join Brad and the kids in family therapy sessions.  The custody stipulation was "encouraged" by the children's therapists and incorporated recommendations made by the DCFS.  The requirements imposed on Brad would have come from the DCFS to address the problems it saw with him.

The custody stipulation was set aside without an order being filed and an entirely different team comprised of the psychiatrist and neuropsychologist took over.  This likely took place last year after the children's therapists determined that they had recovered from trauma as expected but they remained closed down to Brad and did not want to have a relationship with him.  This meant the family's reunification would have to be delayed.  The children did not feel safe alone with Brad and continued to cling to Angelina just as they had on the plane when she protected them during his drunken rampage.  The psychiatrist and the neuropsychologist had determined there was no medical impediment to reunification but they needed to overcome the children's stubborn resistance to Brad.  The May 30 Order no longer refers to therapeutic or nontherapeutic "visits" but to "time" together during which the psychiatrist or psychologist "shall be present."  Angelina requested the May 30 Order which was essentially court intervention to force the children to open up to Brad and wean them off their reliance on her.  It was while they were starting to implement the schedule that they realized they needed Samantha Bley Dejean to look after the protection and best interests of the children.




Since Angelina was not sure at the time the Order was written that she would be able to accompany the children back to L.A. on Aug 11, the stated hours are for the children's benefit -- to let them know that they must spend at least that much time with their father.  It should be obvious that Angelina is able to have leisurely outings with the children every day even when the children are spending all of their waking hours with Brad because Angelina is with Brad and they are all living together.  

They already knew from the feedback given directly to them by the psychiatrist and the psychologist how well the Summer schedule had worked, so they set the status conference to take place right after the review hearing -- on Aug 21 -- to discuss the timetable for the steps needed to legally complete the family's reunification.   The Responsive Declaration would have been among the needed steps discussed.

Angelina was compelled to file the petition in order to be allowed keep the children with her after the DCFS implemented a Child Safety Plan and placed a protective order against Brad upon examining the children and interviewing everyone right off the plane (on Sept. 14, 2016).  After the DCFS lifted the safety plan's restrictions on contact between them (on or about October 21), they were encouraged to sign the Stipulation Re Child Custody and Therapy (on Oct. 26, 2016).  They signed the stipulation which included the DCFS' recommendations while the DCFS' investigation was still ongoing.  The DCFS released its decision not to charge Brad with child abuse on Nov. 8, 2016.  Angelina's rep issued a statement after the DCFS ended its investigation:
"The job of the DCFS is to make sure the children are in a safe and secure situation. As we said earlier this week, childcare professionals encouraged a legal agreement accepted and signed by both sides that was in the best interest of the children. Angelina said from the beginning that she felt she had to take action for the health of the family and is relieved that after their 8-week involvement, the DCFS is now satisfied the safeguards are put in place that will allow the children to heal."  
The DCFS' priority was ensuring the children's recovery and continued safety and supporting the family's reunification.  It was less interested in going after Brad although based on the severity of the damage his behavior inflicted on his relationship with the children, it probably could have.

If this was a regular divorce case, the court would have quickly ruled that awarding the mother sole custody is in the best interest of the children.  The court only needs to reaffirm what is in the custody stipulation.  To remind, the custody stipulation is a legal agreement encouraged and approved by both the children's therapists and the DCFS and was further signed into a court order.  The court would note that the father's conduct triggered DCFS and FBI investigations on key concerns affecting the children's welfare (alcohol, abusive behavior) and resulted in strict DCFS recommendations that he undergo therapy..  The divorce could have been finalized once the 6-month waiting period was over and once they complied with disclosure requirements by filing their pre-nup via an amended petition and response.  With legal agreements covering custody and property division in hand, everything else can be quickly decided by the court.  As Bley-Dejean noted, they also have an informal agreement on sharing the children's expenses which can be easily made into a court order and be part of the judgement.  There are no key issues that still need to be resolved.  There is no need for bifurcation.  A judgement on the whole divorce case could have been handed down anytime after March 2017.  This should be very clear.

None of the efforts they've undertaken since September, 2016 which all involve mental health professionals would have an impact on, or be a part of, a regular divorce case.  The summer schedule was to get the children to open the door to Brad that they had kept closed to him for two years.  Once through, Brad still faces the slow process of rebuilding the children's trust and respect.  Even if they succeeded in getting the children to open up to Brad, the children would still overwhelmingly express a preference to live with Angelina.  The court would listen to the children's wishes given their age and maturity and the surrounding circumstances.  Brad's record before the court now includes not just the DCFS' conclusions and recommendations but also his attempts to contravene the legally binding custody stipulation and go against the therapists' recommendations which were expressly in the children's best interests.  These are serious points against him.  Nothing that has happened since Sept. 2016 could change the way the court would rule in a divorce.

Angelina officially requested the May 30 Order and explained to the children that she desired and supported it.  The effort behind the schedule was possible because the children trust her.  If this were a real divorce, Angelina would not be involved in helping reconcile Brad with the children.  It would not be her problem.  Brad brought this upon himself and he would have to try to restore his relationship with the children on his own.  The children would not be open to the summer schedule if only Brad requested and supported it because they were not open to and did not trust him.  They did not want to have anything to do with him without their mother.  Without Angelina, the efforts to reinstate Brad would be stalled.

After the children recovered from trauma, the psychiatrist and neuropsychologist took over from the trauma specialists and the efforts of the past year focused on the problem of overcoming the children's resistance to Brad.  Everything they've done since Sept. 2016 up to and including the May 30 Order matters only to a family that is trying to achieve reunification.  The only reason why the petition is still in place is because it was a requirement of the DCFS to provide cover for the children so their recovery is not rushed.  Next to the children, Angelina has been focused on helping and protecting Brad.  Through all his mistakes and lapses of judgement she has been very patient and forgiving.  But Brad's August 1 ruse waving bifurcation and whatever happened between them that led to it left her fuming  As explained above, they do not need bifurcation.  The court can hand down the same divorce judgement at any time just as it could have at the outset.  There is also no point to bifurcation as the only problem they are working on is to reconcile Brad with the children and it grinds to a halt without Angelina's support and encouragement.  Brad's bringing up bifurcation was simply a petulant display of pique.  Just like on the plane, he was again being an asshole because he didn't get what he felt was his due, but this time he was facing off against Angelina and unlike the children, Angelina is able to respond in kind.  She not only called his bluff, she was daring him to fight her in public.  It was a warning that she was prepared to escalate the fight and use the ammunition in her arsenal.  She was furious, but Brad has been in this position before and he knows how to make up with her.  However he managed to do it -- and she would not have made it easy for him -- their fight quickly evaporated without a trace.  Angelina returned to L.A. with the children on Aug. 11 in visibly high spirits and the family's reunification proceeded on track. 

The May 30 Order repeatedly mentioned that further orders would be issued after the review hearing.  The review hearing took place the week of Aug. 13 but no order was filed.  The absence of further interim orders indicates the psychiatrist and the neuropsychologist concluded that the family did not need them.  It means they've already achieved their goal of getting the children to open up to Brad and have a relationship with him.  This would have been further verified by the custody evaluation interviews conducted by Dr. Katz.  Angelina's recent statements alluded to this.  From the start, Angelina's role was to support both sides -- taking care of, helping, protecting and encouraging the children and Brad and serving as the bridge between them. 
(Angelina has) “tried to bridge the gap between the kids and their dad. She’s worked to achieve reinstatement for them.
“Angelina remains focused on healing her family.  She continues to support the reconciliation of the children with Brad."
That she is now comfortable publicly acknowledging that "healing her family" meant reconciling the kids with Brad hints that it has come to fruition.  The last statement was given Aug. 29.

In exchange for clearing Brad, the DCFS convinced them to accept conditions designed to protect the children and to address Brad's problems.  They agreed to abide by the stipulation and to keep the petition in place until the mental health professionals attest that the children have fully recovered and they've achieved reinstatement for Brad.  The DCFS anticipated that there would be pressure, principally from Brad, to rush the process and they agreed to wait until they obtain professional determination and clearance that the family is ready to resume it's normal life together.

The conclusions and recommendations of the mental heath professionals on the results of the summer effort were provided directly to the court during the review hearing and in the custody evaluation report.  Hence only Brad's Responsive Declaration -- his definitive acceptance of and commitment to follow them -- was filed on Sept. 12.

****

I had speculated on whether the cause of their quarrel on or before Aug. 1 was Brad's prematurely wearing his wedding ring on set because of a photo that surfaced July 31.  But after seeing the rest of the photos taken at the same time, I have my doubts.  First, because they were originally posted July 24, not July 31 so the timing is off.  Second, because I am not convinced that Brad is in all the photos.  Having seen his body double, I think the photo at top right is of the body double even though the agency info attached to the photos identified him as Brad.  As we know, agency info can be unreliable.  The one in the bottom right could be either but it is likely the same person.

Unique ID: 35851126 and Unique ID: 35851116 (for photos on the right)
Title: Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio back in their car on the set of 'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood'
Creation Date: 24/07/2018
Pictured: Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio


-- Fussy


****

Previously

01/09/2017 Stipulation and Order (Seal records regarding custody issues )
Filed by Respondent
-  The S&O was signed 12/22/2016 -- the same day as Spiegel's infamous rant but only filed after they returned from Crested Butte.

01/03/2017 Responsive Declaration (- On Behalf of: Petitioner: Pitt, Angelina )
Filed by Petitioner

 


01/03/2017 Miscellaneous (Public/Redacted materials from conditionally sealed record pursuant to calif. rules of court. - On Behalf of: Respondent: Pitt, William )
Filed by Respondent
01/03/2017 Notice - Lodging (Notice of Lodging conditionally under seal pursuant to California rules of court - On Behalf of: Respondent: Pitt, William )
Filed by Respondent


**

12/07/2016 Minute Order
The Court denies Respondent's Ex-Parte request for Order to Seal Records

The Court finds no emergency requiring ex-parte relief.  In addition, the proposed broad sealing order fails to meet the requirements of the California Rule of Court 2.550.  The Court states that such ruling should not delay any filing of a Request for Order by Respondent as such may be filed conditionally under seal following the procedures under California Rule of Court 2.551.  Any proposed sealing order must specifically identify the documents to be sealed.  In connection therewith the Court recognized the privacy rights of the minor children and will be guided by what is in the minor children's best interests. 

12/07/2016 Responsive Declaration (- On Behalf of: Petitioner: Pitt, Angelina - Filed and Entered on 2016-12-07 )
Filed by Petitioner
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Petitioner Angelina Jolie Pitt submits the within Memorandum of Pints and Authorities in opposition the the Ex Parte Application and Request for Order noticed by Respondent William Bradley Pitt for hearing on Dec 7, 2016.
1. INTRODUCTION
The governing statutes and case law restrict the use of ex parte applications to situations which generally can be claimed as "emergencies," where substantial injury, harm, or at the very least. prejudice would result if the matter were not either resolved immediately or on shortened time.  Respondent and his counsel apparently believe that such limitations apply to other but not to them.
Respondent's ex parte application to seal all documents and/or evidence relating to the parties' minor children and their child custody dispute must be denied as a matter of law.  There is no express authority to seal a court file.  Furthermore, the facts of this case do not suggest an emergency or even urgency.  Petitioner and Respondent have had a child custody visitation order in place since October 2016 for their six minor children.  This order was based on the recommendations of the minor children's therapists after the Dept. of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and the FBI initiated investigations into allegations of abuse during an incident on Sept. 14, 2016.
Respondent has nonetheless indicated his intention to seek additional visitation and/or custody beyond that which is recommended by the minor children's therapists.  Respondent is now simply attempting to create a private forum before formally applying for such visitation and/or custody.  Given that it was Respondent's conduct at the center of the DCFS and FBI investigations, it is Respondent who ostensibly has much to hide.  His ex parte request is a thinly veiled attempt to shield himself, rather than the minor children, from public view.
There is no emergency currently before this Court.  There is, in fact, no urgency at all.  As set forth in detail in the concurrently filed declaration of Laura A. Wasser, Respondent simply appears to be trying to seal this case from the public record before he seeks visitation and/or child custody orders contrary to the minor children's therapists' recommendations and the parties current custody/visitation order.  Petitioner is entitled to at least 16 court days notice in order to investigate and understand Respondent's contentions and to put forth her own case.
III. CONCLUSION
Given that there is no emergency or even urgency, Petitioner respectfully requests that Respondent's ex parte application be denied in its entirety.

Dec. 6, 2016
Samantha Klein
Attorney for Petitioner


DECLARATION OF LAURA A. WASSER, ESQ

I, Laura A. Wasser, hereby declare as follows:
1.I am an attorney at law duly license to practice before all courts of the State of California, and am a partner in the firm of Wasser, Cooperman & Mandles, P.C., attorneys of record for Petitioner Angelina Jolie Pitt.  I have personal knowledge of the following facts, and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.
2. Our firm has represented Petitioner since September 2016.  On Sept. 19, 2016, our firm filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage from Respondent William Bradley Pitt on Petitioner's behalf.  A true and correct copy of the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage is attached as Exhibit A.  The Petition included custody requests regarding the parties' six minor children...
3. It is my understanding that on Sept. 14, 2016, the parties and their minor children were involved in an incident during a flight from Europe to California.  As a consequence of that incident, the DCFS and the FBI initiated investigations regarding allegations of abuse.
4. It is my further understanding that since the Sept. 14, 2016 incident, the minor children have lived exclusively with Petitioner.  Respondent has had weekly therapeutic visits with the minor children since Oct. 8, 2016.  The frequency and duration of these visits have been determined by the minor children's therapists, who were put in place jointly by the parties immediately after the Sept. 14, 2016 incident.  The therapists have been present during each of the Respondent's visits.  With the cooperation of the parties, further weekly therapeutic visits of 5 hours each have been scheduled through the end of January 2017.  Respondent's visits may increase at any time based on the therapists' evaluation of each child's individual feelings and progress.
5. On Oct. 26, 2016, the parties executed a Stipulation and Order re Child Custody and Therapy (Custody Stipulation). A true correct copy of the Custody Stipulation is attached as Exhibit B.
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.
6. Approximately one week after the Custody Stipulation was executed, our office received a copy of Respondent's Response and Request for Dissolution of Marriage.  A true and correct copy of the Response and Request for Dissolution of Marriage filed on Nov. 4, 2016 is attached as Exhibit C.  Our office previously granted Respondent an open extension of time to file his response; there was no deadline to file.
7. By mid-November, our office began receiving demands from Respondent's counsel for increased visitation which was not recommended by the minor children's therapists and not agreed upon when the parties entered into the Custody Stipulation less than one month earlier.  True and correct copies of Respondent's counsel's letters of Nov. 17, 2016 and Nov 21, 2016 demanding additional visitation are attached collectively as Exhibit D.  In both face to face meetings and written correspondence, our office maintained that it was premature to end the therapeutic monitoring only weeks after executing the Custody Stipulation encompassing both the therapists' and DCFS's recommendations.  A true and correct copy of my letter of Nov 18, 2016 clearly outlining our position is attached as Exhibit E.
8. Our office requested a joint meeting with both parties' counsel and the minor children's therapists to get their impressions.  For weeks, Respondent's counsel indicated Respondent would not consent to such a meeting.  Respondent's counsel instead continued to demand additional visitation for Respondent without regard for the mental health professionals' recommendations.  A true and correct copy of our email exchange on Nov 28 / 29 2016 detailing additional demands is attached as exhibit F.
9. On Dec 1, 2016, our office finally received Respondent's consent to conduct a joint meeting with counsel and therapists the following week.  However, Respondent's request for additional visitation in an non-therapeutic setting was not withdrawn and his counsel continued to advise that they intended to file a Request for Order.  Our office therefore sent a letter to Respondent's counsel of Dec 1, 2016 requesting compliance with the Custody Stipulation and the therapists' recommendations.  A true and correct copy of our Dec 1, 2016 letter is attached as Exhibit G.
10. On Dec. 2, 2016, our office received a response to my letter of the previous day which again suggested that Respondent sought additional visitation with the minor children and would be requesting same from the court.  A true and correct copy of the Dec. 2, 2016 letter is attached as Exhibit H.  The same day we filed a copy of the Custody Stipulation with the Court for enforcement purposes.
11. On Dec 6, 2016 our office received ex parte notice of Respondent's intent to apply for orders sealing the file in this case.  A true an correct copy of the Dec. 6, 2016 letter confirming notice is attached as Exhibit I
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of he State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 6th day of December 2016 at Los Angeles, California
LAURA A. WASSER


STIPULATION AND ORDER RE CHILD CUSTODY AND THERAPY

Petitioner and Respondent ...hereby stipulate to the following temporary orders:

Pending written agreement of the parties or further order of the court-

- Petitioner shall have physical custody of the children.

- Respondent shall continue to have agreed upon therapeutic visitation.  The frequency and conditions of the visits shall be determined by Ian Russ, PhD.  Prior to making such determination, Dr. Russ shall consult with Lisa Hacker, Judy Goldman, Angela Bissada and Catherine Green.  Dr. Russ shall at all times consider the best interests of the minor children.

- Respondent shall continue to participate in individual therapy a minimum of one time per a week for no less than 50 minutes per session.  At the conclusion of each month Respondent shall provide Dr. Russ with proof of his ongoing participation in individual therapy as set forth in this paragraph.

- Respondent shall continue to participate in group therapy a minimum of one time per a week.  At the conclusion of each month Respondent shall provide Dr. Russ with proof of his ongoing participation in group therapy as set forth in this paragraph

- Respondent shall continue to submit to random drug and alcohol testing as directed by Dr. Robert Waldman.  The random testing shall not exceed one time per week and there shall be a minimum of 4 tests every 30 days.  Within 24 hours of receipt, Dr. Waldman shall provide Dr. Russ with Respondent's test results.

- the minor children shall continue to participate in individual counseling, the frequency and duration of the minor children's therapy shall be as recommended by Angela Bissada and Catherine Green.

- Petitioner, Respondent, and the minor children shall continue to participate in conjoint sessions.

All communications are considered "safe harbor therapy" and protected by psychotherapist-patient privilege.

Confidentiality:  "In the interest of privacy of the parties and their minor children. this Stipulation and Order is not being submitted to the Court for entry at this time.  Nonetheless, upon execution, this Stipulation and Order shall be effective between the parties as a valid and binding agreement, whether or not it is ever entered by the Court.  Either party may file this Stipulation and Order with the Court as necessary to enforce any term contained herein."

Dated and signed by all parties Oct 26, 2016

12/07/2016 Ex Parte - Application (- On Behalf of: Respondent: Pitt, William - Filed and Entered on 2016-12-07 )
Filed by Respondent
12/07/2016 RFO/MTN - Family Law (to Seal Records - On Behalf of: Respondent: Pitt, William - Hearing Set on 2017-01-17 )
Filed by Respondent










Oct. 14, Sunday

lunch at Beverly Hills Hotel










jared


lunch in Hollywood with Oliver Crane












Thanks Felicity & jordan932002



Saturday, October 13, 2018


Oct. 13, Saturday


Brad was last seen on set Oct. 7.  The past week was devoted to Margot Robbie.  He was back filming today.  It's obviously easier to film scenes of Cliff Booth driving around the streets of L.A. on the weekend -- adding to the many they've already done.  OUATIH has been filming for 4 months, Brad has been filming his part for 3.

Three bodyguards surrounded Brad on the street.  He would have had at least 4 with him if they all arrived together, counting the SUV's driver.   The big, bearded one is not around, the tall one is back and they were joined by the shave-headed one last seen with Shiloh and Zahara last month.

Only Richie is constantly with Brad.  This underscores the significance of Richie serving as Angelina's close-in security during the awards season this year.  Richie is Brad's alter ego and the meaning of his standing next to Angelina at those high profile events would be obvious to all who know them.  Richie was a stand in for Brad.  It was a possessive gesture and an emphatic declaration of Brad's relationship with Angelina and her importance to him.  It was a statement that behind the scenes, their relationship is unchanged from previous awards shows they all attended together.  Many at the awards shows are member-voters who would also know that FTKMF was presented at FYC screenings as a film by Angelina Jolie-Pitt.  She reaffirmed this a few weeks ago in choosing to sign the attorney substitution form as Angelina Jolie Pitt.

Brad's security watched over him very closely during street filming, with two standing right next to his car door.

With the exception of Richie, their security apparently rotates so the two bodyguards with him now would have been assigned elsewhere while the big, bearded guy was with him last week, and vice versa.














dm

****

Come Away wrapped today on schedule after a quick 3-week shoot in L.A.

Angelina was last seen on set Oct. 2.  She was on hand today for David Oyelowo's wrap selfie.

Her character in Oyelowo's photo is in black. They may have just filmed the scenes after their son David died.

Oyelowo was asked, “What have you learned from working with Angelina?????”
He replied, “excellence never sleeps





Caption: Actress Angelina Jolie is seen at the studio in a blonde wig and black dress costume as she gets ready to film more scenes for her latest film 'Come Away.' Jolie could later be seen in a big white dress for the role of Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland. Angelina's co-star David Oyelowo could also seen arriving on set. The fantasy film, directed by Brenda Chapman, is a prequel to the stories of Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland.







legion


****

The last time any of the kids was photographed was on Sept. 29 when Maddox and Pax were seen crossing the street.

They may have all been out of town for a few days.

****

Below, Brad in Seattle "a few months ago."  Based on his short hair and pale complexion, likely very early this year, months before the Breitling commercial.



Thanks jordan932002, Felicity and Amala

Wednesday, October 10, 2018



 Oct. 10, Wednesday

OUATIH

dm

Oct. 9, Tuesday

Margot Robbie as Sharon Tate with Emile Hirsch as hairstylist Jay Sebring. OUATIH

A disturbing image knowing what it presages.  Perhaps the family's security was tightened because of the impact the film's story had on Brad. 


dm



Thanks Jordan932002