Wednesday, August 8, 2018


Random Fuzzy

I understand her lawyer's desire to issue a rebuttal but they need to put an end to this sad public spectacle.
Regardless of the merits, the means they chose to make this request and the timing right after bifurcation was broached suggests their filing was a knee jerk emotional response.
This hopefully is the final shot. I hope cooler heads intervene and muzzle Lance Spiegel.
It is notable that no one is talking bifurcation at this point.  DeJean's statement doesn't mention divorce.  She said "following the incident of Sept. 2016, Angelina and the children needed to move" without mentioning the petition.  It was a reminder to Brad of why they are in this position, of what Angelina has had to endure, how she has and is still protecting him, and worked to help him and the children heal.  And how much he had hurt her.
For the $24 million that she paid for DeMille, Angelina could have bought a more desirable property in Beverly Hills or Bel Air.  She overpaid for the DeMille because she wanted a suitable property near Brad and their old home.
Brad's rash request for bifurcation started this mess but now it is all about child support which had not been a heated issue between them before.  They had already been advised that no one wins in court, it's just a question of who gets hurt worse.  They should have heeded it.
Both filings contain inaccurate statements.  DeJean originally said he "has paid no meaningful child support since separation." As reports pointed out, she didn't define "meaningful." $1.3M is less than what Brad needed to pay but it is not entirely insignificant.  It might not fit her definition of "meaningful" but it left her open to Spiegel's rebuttal.  In her new statement she is more precise and states that he has "not fully met his obligations" -- which is what she should have said from the start as it would have limited Spiegel's response.  As for Spiegel's filing, as she and others have pointed out, the loan for the house is not child support and should not have been presented as though it was.
Brad's contribution to the house may have been structured as a loan at the advise of their financial managers.  The tax and estate management considerations that go into structuring real estate purchases of high net worth individuals are often very complex, involving trusts and off-shore holding companies.  It doesn't appear as though Angelina has started to pay back any part of the loan. 


-- Fussy






Jolie's attorney, Samantha Bley DeJean, said in a statement to NBC News on Wednesday that Jolie's filing Tuesday was "both legally appropriate and factually accurate in all respects."
"What has been filed by Brad’s side today is a blatant attempt to obfuscate the truth and distract from the fact that he has not fully met his legal obligations to support the children," DeJean continued.
Furthermore, she said, Pitt was asked to help pay the expenses for a new home for Jolie and the children "but instead he loaned Angelina money, for which he is charging her interest on a payment plan.
"Angelina will of course honor that loan," DeJean said. "A loan is not; however, child support and to represent it as such is misleading and inaccurate.
The attorney said Jolie is asking Pitt to pay 50% of their children’s expenses.
 "He has not," she said. "Angelina has had to shoulder the majority of those without his contribution for the past two years."

No comments:

Post a Comment

I strictly enforce a ONE STRIKE and YOU"RE OUT rule. I practice ZERO tolerance for HATE, RUDE, MALICIOUS or IDIOTIC posts. If you post these, don't bother posting again because you are flagged and ALL your posts go STRAIGHT to TRASH.

Whenever possible, avoid bringing over links or photos from SITES or ACCOUNTS known to promote garbage.

Best for everyone NOT to WASTE TIME and ENERGY.