Random Fuzzy
Tony Webb
dm
“Mr. Pitt’s continued attempt to equate common NDAs for security personnel and housekeepers covering confidential information employees learn at work, with him demanding an expanded NDA to ensure the continued coverup of his deplorable actions remains shameful. This case is not about NDAs in general, but about power and control. All Angelina has ever wanted was separation and health, with positive relationships between all members of their family, including Mr. Pitt. She looks forward to the day when he is finally able to let her go.”
A source close to the case adds that the former bodyguard Tony Webb who made the declaration was present on the tarmac when Pitt allegedly attacked Jolie and the children in the 2016 incident on a private plane which ended the marriage.
The source said: 'Webb is on Pitt's payroll and worked for the same security team whose other members stood on the Tarmac in LA and turned a blind eye to Pitt's actions that day.
'Webb's declaration also conveniently leaves out the fact that the second security guard mentioned in the declaration, though called to testify by Pitt, testified in favor of Angelina, not against her.'
In legal papers seen by Daily Mail.com, Jolie objects to and moves to strike the declaration of their former bodyguard, filed by Pitt on Wednesday.
The filing notes: 'Pitt clearly is trying to gain an unfair advantage by offering this contested evidence for the first time on reply when Jolie has no opportunity to respond.
The law is crystal clear that this form of evidence sandbagging grossly violates due process of law and should be struck. 'The general rule of motion practice is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers.'
It adds: 'The Webb declaration has no relevance to this case or to the issue presented by Pitt's motion. In fact, the Webb declaration, which does not mention the word 'Miraval' a single time, serves to demonstrate exactly why other NDAs involving other parties and other circumstances are irrelevant and will—as Jolie predicted in her opposition brief— cause a mini-trial on each and every NDA Pitt claims is relevant to this case.
'The Webb declaration illustrates the point: Pitt is now claiming that conversations with two 'contractors' (security guards) about testimony in a different case are somehow relevant here. Jolie contests the testimony's relevance, its credibility (Webb works for Pitt), and its accuracy.
'To resolve this, the Court would have to have a mini-trial on this issue alone, yet none of it explains whether Pitt's demand for an expanded NDA from Jolie as a condition of purchasing her interest in Miraval was the reason the deal they had struck fell apart.
'If this evidence truly was relevant and material to Pitt's motion, he would have— indeed, was required to—offer it in his moving papers.
'That he did not do so tells the Court all it needs to know about the strength of Pitt's motion and, frankly, his true purpose in filing the Webb declaration—to create a press event and again put external pressure on Jolie. The declaration is irrelevant and violates Jolie's due process rights. The Court should strike the declaration. '
Portions of Tony Webb's declaration filed with Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses and Production of Documents from Defendant Angelina Jolie
3. My work with Ms. Jolie began as individual assignments, typically on movie sets. In or around 2012, however, my work for her increased and I began running security for her and the family whenever they left the United States. My working relationship with Ms. Jolie also evolved in other ways. Initially, I took instruction either directly from her or from her then- personal assistant, a woman named Holly. Later, in the mid-to-late 2000s, I was introduced to a man named Michael Vieira who assumed a similar role for Ms. Jolie, and Mr. Vieira began providing me and my team with instruction and direction on behalf of Ms. Jolie. This sometimes included Mr. Viera telling me to present people with non-disclosure agreements on behalf of Ms. Jolie and obtain their signatures. For example, Mr. Viera often asked me to provide hotel staff with non-disclosure agreements and to get signatures from them.
6. Shortly before two SRS Global contractors testified in a court case that I understood was related to Ms. Jolie and Mr. Pitt’s divorce and the custody of their children, Mr. Vieira called me on my cell phone. At the time I received the phone call, I was in my home office located in Hereford, UK. During the call, Mr. Viera told me that he had heard that two contractors who had provided personal security for Ms. Jolie through SRS Global might be testifying in the family court case. Mr. Vieira then asked me to stop these two individuals from testifying. I understood that Mr. Viera was making this request on behalf of Ms. Jolie. I explained to Mr. Vieira that I had no power to stop them because they were independent contractors and not employees of SRS Global. Mr. Vieira then told me that his call should serve as a reminder that those individuals had entered into non-disclosure agreements with Ms. Jolie and that I should remind them of that and tell them that if they testified in the family law case, Ms. Jolie would sue them. I communicated this message to the two individuals over the phone and they both told me that they planned to testify. One of the two individuals, Ross Foster, specified that he intended to testify regardless of the NDA, if he received a court subpoena. When Mr. Foster told me this, he also told me that if asked, he would testify about statements he overheard that Ms. Jolie made to the children, encouraging them to avoid spending time with Mr. Pitt during custody visits.
7. I received a second phone call from Mr. Vieira shortly after the first, asking me whether Mr. Foster and the other individual about whom we had previously spoken were, in fact, going to testify. I told him that I believed that they were. Mr. Vieira once again asked me to remind them that they had signed non-disclosure agreements, and that if they testified, Ms. Jolie would sue them. Mr. Vieira also stated that Ms. Jolie may need to subpoena me to testify, though I never actually received a subpoena.
8. I understand that Mr. Foster and the other individual mentioned above were, in fact, subpoenaed, and that both did, in fact, testify in the Jolie/Pitt family law case.
Tony Webb's curriculum vitae
CAREER HISTORY
Apr 97 – To Date Company Director
Since 1997 I have worked for my own companies with various business partners. My clients include many high profile VIP’s as well as company executives and their families. The work has been in various different theatres of operations in many different areas of the world.
Jan 95 – Apr 97 Security Consultant
From January 1995 I worked as a Security Consultant employed by many different companies, V.I.P’s and their families advising them on their security arrangements and providing Personal Protection when required.
telegraph UK 26 July 2008
Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt bodyguards clash with paparazzi
The security chief for the Hollywood stars said the photographers had invaded the grounds of their French estate but the paparazzi claimed they were attacked in a neighbouring public forest.
Both sides have confirmed there was angry fistfight as the snappers tried snatch a picture that could sabotage the exclusive deal following the birth of Knox Leon and Vivienne Marcheline. Police were called after the altercation.
Tony Webb, who heads security at the 1,235-acre Chateau Miraval estate, said: "We caught the two and tried to escort them off the property, and the guy's just gone berserk, thrashing out, kicking and actually biting one of the security people, breaking his finger, drawing blood and screaming that he had Hepatitis C."
An important detail that he omitted from his Curriculum Vitae. This was 2008 -- four years earlier than what he indicated
"In or around 2012, however, my work for her increased and I began running security for her and the family whenever they left the United StatesOmitting and misrepresenting material facts calls into question the veracity of the rest of his declaration.
The obvious reason for the glaring omission is it allowed Murphy to assert that Webb "does not mention the word 'Miraval' a single time."
Webb was "present on the tarmac" because he was with the family when they arrived from Miraval. He was in charge of their security in Miraval and flew back with them on the plane.
Webb's loyalty is first to Angelina. His supposed letter to her is to show his continued affection for her. As a loyal soldier, he will do what he is asked, and the only reason why he agreed to this ruse is because she asked him to. He is with Brad only because Brad is with Angelina.
Murphy said, "'Webb is on Pitt's payroll and worked for the same security team whose other members stood on the Tarmac in LA and turned a blind eye to Pitt's actions that day." Brad grabbed Angelina on the tarmac but quickly let her go when one of the children said not to hurt her. Nothing much happened on the tarmac that required intervention. Webb defended Angelina and the kids on the plane. Angelina would not have been able to physically pull Brad back on her own when he tried to choke one of the boys.
There is absolutely no question they are all working together on this.
This is a very carefully scripted story. Their script.
They started writing the script before 2021.
Brad's lawyers do not deny his abuse and refer to it euphemistically as "unfortunate circumstances."
03/12/2021 Notice ((UNDER SEAL) of intent to offer video recording of the deposition of Ross Foster at Trial pursuant to CCP 2025.620 and 2025.340 (M) )The claim that Angelina wanted to stop Ross Foster from testifying is verifiably false.
Filed by Petitioner
Angelina objected to Brad's "Intent To Offer Video Recording Of Deposition Pursuant To C.C.P. 2025.620" and simultaneously filed to present it herself "pursuant to CCP 2025.620 and 2025.340 (M)" They were filed together with the Offers of Proof in a dump of filings by Petitioner on 03/12/2021 -- which is odd since the hearings took place late Jan to mid-Feb. It is likely not a coincidence that these late filings turned up in the Nouvel case.
If Foster told Webb in advance that "he would testify about statements he overheard" it would be in his pre-recorded deposition. It is telling that Brad's lawyers did not attach any part of the transcript from Foster's deposition and/or a declaration from Ross Foster himself. They presented instead Webb's declaration with a conveniently easily deniable second-hand account. Paul Murphy also did not attach any portion of the Offers of Proof and instead just presented a printout of the online list of documents filed. Both claims are false.
The puzzling "encouraging them to avoid spending time with Mr. Pitt during custody visits" is not the same as refusing custody visits -- which is what the older boys did for months after the incident.
Lance Spiegel's letter to Laura Wasser when Brad was trying to run around the therapists controlling his visits acknowledged that the older boys declined to participate in Brad's sessions.
Nov. 28 5:43 PMMichael O. is Angelina's assistant, Rich and Darren are Brad's. They were all on Brad's Witness List, and there is no claim that Angelina did not want any of them to testify. They would know much more than security who only sees them during their trips abroad.
Between now and the start of the holidays/school break, Brad is requesting 30 to 60 minutes sessions to be scheduled as follows: 1 session with the twins, 1 sessions with the middle kids, 1 session with all 4, one session with the older boys and if they are not going to participate, another session with the 4 younger kids.
Darren, Michael O. or Richie can be present. The sessions will be at a home that is approximately 10 minutes from your clients residence.
There will be a request for a step-up in connection with the holidays/school break.
Please let me know good time for us to talk tomorrow.
Perhaps a more definitive proof that the alleged quote isn't true is that the February 2024 S&O re Vivienne's stay in NY for The Outsiders makes no reference to Brad having any complaints about the kids disappearing when he visits(!?)
WHEREAS Petitioner and Respondent understand and acknowledge that Knox will remain in Los Angeles while Vivienne is in New York and Respondent's visitation with Knox will continue pursuant to the status quo.
F, While Vivienne is in New York, Knox shall remain in Los Angeles and Respondent's visitation with Knox shall continue pursuant to the status quo.
The fact that Webb witnessed Brad's behavior but was not asked to testify shows that the hearing was not about the incident itself. The key focus of the hearing was the small army of mental health experts' testimonies on their work with the family. Webb's claim re what Foster supposedly overheard is irrelevant to their testimonies and the Court's focus.
Nothing else about Webb's claims holds up to close scrutiny. The sole purpose of Webb's declaration is as a public distraction.
Webb states he "began running security for her and the family whenever they left the United States." Their only prolonged stay outside the country between 2016 and 2021 was during MaleficentMoE in 2018. Without Blood was in 2022, a year after the 2021 hearings and after Webb's contract was supposedly terminated.
Brad's only visits that took place under Webb's and his subcontractors' watch were those during the filming of Maleficent MoE in London during the summer of 2018. The schedule and details of his visits were set out in minute detail under the May 30, 2018 leaked Order and were supervised by Dr. Boxer and Dr Trop. Select:
Respondent shall have custody of the Minor Child(ren) he designates for four hours each day from June 8, 2018 through June 17, 2018. Respondent, in his sole discretion in advance, shall designate one Minor Child or two Minor Children to be with Respondent for the four hour period of time each day. During this ten day period, Respondent shall spend time with each child at least twice-The scheduled visits were very tightly controlled and monitored. There was no wiggle room for any deviation such as Angelina's alleged suggestion. In fact, the May 30 Order contained a strong incentive for Angelina to encourage the children to open up to Brad.
Dr. Trop shall be present with the Minor Child(ren) during Respondent's time, as arranged by Respondent and at Respondent's cost. Respondent shall also have the discretion to have a recreational facilitator present. Petitioner shall not be present during or interfere with Respondent's custodial time, Respondent shall make arrangements to have Dr. Trop available to meet with the Minor Child(ren) and/or Petitioner before and after visits.
The Court hereby provides notice to Petitioner that if the Minor Children remain closed down to their father and depending on the circumstances surrounding this condition, it may result in a reduction of the time that they spend with Petitioner and may result in the Court ordering primary physical custody to Respondent.
The May 30 Order was, in reality, their attempt at a carrot-and-stick approach to nudge the children to have a relationship with Brad. They timed it for when Angelina would be busy filming all day. Up to this point, the children were evidently clinging to Angelina. They knew the children might resist spending time alone with Brad without her, so the Order started off by "requiring" Angelina to explain to them the summer schedule with the assistance of the two Drs and "to confirm the parties' mutual desire and support for the Court's Orders as set forth herein"—twice.
Petitioner shall forthwith arrange for a telephone call among Petitioner, the Minor Children, Maddox, Dr. Jeffrey Trop and Dr. Oren Boxer which shall take place on or before May 31, 2018 to explain the summer schedule to the Minor Children as set forth herein and to confirm the parties' mutual desire and support for the Court's Orders as set forth herein. Respondent shall make arrangements for Dr Trop to arrive in London on June 6 or 7, 2018. Petitioner shall make arrangements for Dr. Trop to meet with the Petitioner, the Minor Children and Maddox on June 7, 2018 in person to explain the summer schedule as set forth herein and to confirm the parties’ mutual desire and support for the Court's Orders as set forth herein. In both the telephonic and the in person meetings, Petitioner shall tell the Minor Children and Maddox:
a. The Court has detemined that not having a relationship with their father is hamful to them;
b, The Court has detennined that it is critical that each of them have a healthy and and strong relationship with their father and mother;
c. The Court has determined that each of them are safe with their father
This is proof that the divorce case was in reality their effort at helping Brad heal his relationship with the children. A true divorce court would simply adjudicate and not act like a therapy and reunification coach and manager.
They started selling the wine business when they came to some sort of agreement with LVMH in 2017 that led to the transfer of the trademarks from Chateau Miraval to Miraval Provence. Before 2021, they knew that the wrangling was necessary and started to lay the groundwork for it. Hence, the scripted purported texts and emails. This is unquestionably an elaborate lie-fest they have going. They knew full well that Webb's declaration left open the interpretation that she was encouraging the children not to be close to Brad. That isn't what the quote said but it can be interpreted that way. Why they need to project this level of mess at this point in time, we will presumably eventually find out.
Brad's lawyers make the claim that Angelina started to negotiate with Stoli in May, weeks before the expanded NDA, but Laurent Schummer's April 6, 2021 letter to Frank LeMentec notes that Brad and the Perrins walked away from the deal on March 18, 2021 and that
"The position taken could even be seen as coming close to an ttempt to influence the course of future events relating to those or other proceedings, by suggesting that any public knowledge of information regarding the family situation would be a reason for abrogating the agreement."An NDA in other words. And again bearing in mind that the script for this was written before the start of 2021.
The next status report for the FBI FOIA case is June 6. The hearing on this MTC is May 16. They have to continue going through the motions.
====
Exhibit 2 of Tony Webb's declaration
On Jun 16, 2021, at 8:40 AM, Tony Webb wrote:
Re: Termination
Hi Angie,
I decided to write to you directly as I didn't think it would be right just to accept the brief termination letter from Terry and walk away after 20 years with you and your family. I know it has been a very difficult time with everything that's been going on, and sadly we seem to have become very distant over the past couple of years. The lack of travel because of the virus not helping!
I know you blame me for a lot of things Ross has subsequently done, but he didn't work full time for me, he is a self employed security consultant and so is free to work for whoever. This is the same as for the rest of the guys. I can't control what they do or say, when not directly employed by my company.
In regards to the guys, I'm glad you have decided to continue with Matt Fletcher's services, as he is one of the best security consultants I have had the pleasure to employ and work with over the years.
Please take care and love always,
Tony x
From: AJ
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2021 6:30 PM
To: Tony Webb
Subject: Re: Termination
Thank you for your note.
Take good care
As ever
Angie
Sent from my iPhone
From Respondent's Witness List filed September 2021 filed by Anne Kiley (it misspells a few names)
On June l9, 2020, Respondent served his Request for Evidentiary Hearing and Witness List Pursuant to Family Code Section 217 and California Rule of Court 5.1 l3. The parties agreed through counsel to serve Amended and Updated Witness Lists on August l7, 2020. Respondent submits this Amended Witness List setting forth the witnesses he may call at the hearing in this proceeding scheduled to commence October 5, 2020. Pursuant to agreement of counsel contact information is not included in this Amended Witness list. Witness contact information shall be sent to opposing counsel by email upon request. Time estimates shall be provided afier discovery is completed.
l. Respondent, William Bradley Pitt.
2. Petitioner, Angelina Jolie Pitt. Petitioner will be called on 776 and cross-examined.
3. Stan Katz Ph.D. Dr. Katz is expected to testify regarding his recommendations and his interactions and communications with the parties, the children, other professionals and third parties regarding the parties and the childrén and consistent with his deposition taken March 3, August 10 and September 8, 2020.
4. Oren Boxer, M.D. Dr. Boxer is expected to testify regarding his intefactions and communications with the parties, the children, Dr. Katz and third parties regarding the parties and the children.
5. Alan Yellin, Ph.D. Dr. Yellin is expected to testify regarding his interactions and communications with the parties, the children, Dr. Katz, other professionals and third parties regarding the parties and the children.
6. Melissa Brymer, Ph.D. Dr. Bryrner is expected to testify regarding her interactions and communications with the parties, the children, Dr. Katz, other professionals and third parties regarding the panics and the children.
7. Alyce LaViolette. Ms. LaViolette is expected to testify regarding her interactions and communications with the parties, the children, Dr. Katz, other professionals and third parties regarding the parties and the children.
8. Fred Luskin, PhD. Dr. Luskin is expected to testify regarding his interactions and communications with the parties, the children, Dr. Katz, other professionals and third parties regarding the parties and the children.
9. Bren Chasse. Ms. Chassc is expected to testify regarding her interactions and communications with the parties, the children, Dr. Katz, other professionals and third parties regarding the parties and the children.
10. Robin Deutsche, PhD. Dr. Deutsche will be called to testify as set forth on Respondent's Expert Witness Designation dated August l4, 2020.
ll. Daneen Scott. Ms. Scott is expected to testify regarding her interactions and communications with and observations of Petitioner, Respondent and/or the children.
12. Jillian Armenante. Ms. Armenante is expected to testify regarding her interactions and communications with and observations of Petitioner, Respondent and/or the children.
13. Ross Foster. Mr. Foster is expected to testify regarding his interactions and communications with and observations of Petitioner, Respondent and/or the children.
l4. Garreth Netherword. Mr. Netherword is expected to testify regarding his interactions and communications with and observations of Petitioner, Respondent and/or the children.
lS. William Thiel. Mr. Thiel is expected to testify regarding his interactions and communications with and observations of Petitioner, Respondent and/or the children.
16. Adam Dowell. Mr. Dowell is expected to testify regarding his interactions and communications with and observations of Petitioner, Respondent and/or the children.
l7. Rich Malchat. Mr. Malchat is expected to testify regarding his interactions and communications with and observations of Petitioner, ReSpondent and/or the children.
l8. Darren Laos. Mr. Laos is expected to testify regarding his interactions and communications with and observations of Petitioner, Respondent and/or the children.
19. Michael Oftedahl. Mr. Oftedahl is expected to testify regarding his interactions and communications with and observations of Petitioner, Respondent and/or the children.
20. Adama Kebe. Ms. Kebe is expected to testify regarding her interactions and communications with and observations of Petitioner, Respondent and/or the children.
21. Binta Bah. Ms. Baht is expected to testify regarding her interactions and communications with and observations of Petitioner, Respondent and/or the children.
DATED: August 17, 2020
From Petitioner's Witness List
Pursuant to Family Code section 2 I 7 and California Rules of Court, Rule 5.] l3, Petitioner, Angelina Jolie, hereby submits the following Witness List in connection with Respondent’s Request for Order for Modification of Child Custody.
l. Petitioner, Angelina Jolie.
2. Respondent, William Bradley Pitt.
3. Oren Boxer, PhD. is expected to testify about his work with the children and with Dr. Katz over the course of his work with this family.
4. Bren Chasse, LMFT is expected to testify about her work with the children, including their current psychological functioning and what interventions are necessary to address their respective needs.
5. Alyce LaViolette, MS, MFT is expected to testify about her individual work with the Respondent as well as the children and interactions with Dr. Katz over the course of her work with this family.
6. Stan Katz, Ph.D. is expected to testify about his work with this family as both an evaluator and a Parenting Coordinator, the recommendations stemming therefrom and the basis for his recommendations.
7. Frederic Luskin, PhD. is expected to testify about his individual work with the Petitioner and Respondent as well as the children and interactions with Dr. Katz over the course ofhis work with this family.
Dated: August l7, 2020
Laurent Scummer's letter
attn .: Franck le Mentec
Luxembourg, 6 April 2021 Furthermore, she feels unable to be part of a business centred around wine, given the part that alcohol played in harm to their family. She continues therefore to believe that the sale is in the best interests of all concerned, including the future of the Miraval business.
My client stays committed to the exit deal and has done all things possible to see the agreement come through. She was therefore upset and hurt to learn that on my telephone calls with you and Christophe Salin on 18 and 26 March 2021 (and the period in between, with calls nearly each other day}, you conveyed the wish of Mr Pitt and the Perrin family to step back from the agreement until an undefined future point.
Most disturbing of all was the reasoning given, and the reference made to recent reports that during sealed legal proceedings currently taking place in California, my client had submitted offers of proof relating to domestic violence.
Setting aside the fact that the legal proceedings in question were not initiated by my client; it would be entirely inappropriate for this to have any bearing on the sale of my client's stake in Miraval. The position taken could even be seen as coming close to an attempt to influence the course of future events relating to those or other proceedings, by suggesting that any public knowledge of information regarding the family situation would be a reason for abrogating the agreement. As you will be aware, financial autonomy is an extremely sensitive issue in cases of this nature. This suggestion has therefore caused my client acute distress and concern.
Furthermore, information regarding a serious family situation that led to the filing for divorce is not new to the parties concerned. The only new development is the presentation of evidence to a private court. My client has not spoken publicly about the events that led to the ending of her marriage in four and a half years, and has no intention of speaking. The position taken is therefore insensitive at the very least. It is extremely distressing to my client that the primary if not the sole concern that has been expressed is not the health and well-being of family members, but how this situation might affect a business. We were therefore expecting to receive your firm confirmation that you intend to proceed with the sale in April as agreed. Instead, on 3 April 2021 I received a phone from Frank Le Mentec setting out, on behalf of both Mr Pitt and Marc Perrin, a wish to renegotiate the terms of the agreement in a way that would defer payment of a substantial portion of the funds due to my client and further extend completion of the agreement.
We are waiting to receive your proposal in writing as requested. In the meantime, you will understand why this new proposal, unless clarified, could compound the impression of a wish to put undue and inappropriate pressure on my client.
We look forward to your urgent and prompt written response clarifying your position. We note however that any delay or suspension of completing the deal or any attempt to change the terms thereof at this stage would, to the least, constitute 'culpa in contrahendo' if not actually a breach for non-performance of a legally valid and binding agreement.
Other excerpts from May 30, 2018 Order
2. In the Stipulation and Order executed by the Court February 28, 2017 the parties stipulated that with with respect to their oldest child, Maddox Jolie-Pitt DOB 8/5/2001 because of his age and maturity, his preference shall be primary in determining his custody arrangements with Respondent.
3, Petitioner shall forthwith arrange for a telephone call among Petitioner, the Minor children, Children, Maddox, Dr. Jeffrey Trop and Dr. Oren Boxer which shall take place on or before May 31, 2018 to explain the summer schedule to the Minor Children as set forth herein and to confirm the parties' mutual desire and support for the Court's Orders as set forth herein. Respondent shall amake arrangements for Dr Trop to arrive in London on June 6 or 7, 2018. Petitioner shall make arrangements for Dr. Trop to meet with the Petitioner, the Minor Children and Maddox on June 7, 2018 in person to explain the summer schedule as set forth herein and to confirm the parties’ mutual desire and support for the Court's Orders as set forth herein. In both the telephonic and the in person meetings, Petitioner shall tell the Minor Children and Maddox:
a. The Court has detemined that not having a relationship with their father is hamful to them;
b, The Court has detennined that it is critical that each of them have a healthy and and strong relationship with their father and mother;
c. The Court has determined that each of them are safe with their father
Respondent shall have custody of the Minor Children fot a four consecutive 4 day period of time between July 8, 2018 and July 14, 2018 as follows. Either: Respondent shall designate the four day period of time. Respondent shall designate in his sole discretion one, two or three of the Minor Child(ren) to be with Respondent from 10:00 a.m. day one through 6:00 p.m. day two, Petitioner shall make arrangements and be responsible for the drop off of the designated Minor Child(ren) at Cosworth Park Hotel at 10:00 a.m. day one. Respondent shall return the Minor or cause the Minor Child(ren) to be returned 10 to Windlesham by 6:00 p.m. on day two, Respondent shall designate in his sole discretion one, two or three of the Minor Child(ren) to be with Respondent from 10;00 a.m. day three through 6:00 p.m. day four. Petitioner shall make arrangements and be responsible for the drop off of the designated Minor Child(ren) at Coworth Park Hotel at 10:00 a.m. day three. Respondent shall return the Minor Child(ren) or cause the Minor Child(ren) to be retumed to Windlesham by 6:00 p.m. on day four, Respondent shall have Dr. Boxer or Dr, Trop present, and may have a recreational facilitator present
In the alternative, at Respondent's option, Respondent may make arrangements to have the Minor Children participate in a four day program between July 8 and July 14, 2018 designed by Dr. Rebecca Bailey of Transitioning Families and the members of her support staff, to work with Respondent and the children, and shall pay the cost of same, Respondent shall provide notice to Petitioner that he is doing so and of the four day period, and Petitioner, shall make arrangements and be responsible for the drop off of the children at Coworth Park Hotel on the day and at the time designated by Respondent. Petitioner shall not be present during four day program unless requested by Dr. Bailey.
d. Respondent shall have custody of the Minor Children in California from July 21, 2018 to July 29, 2018, Petitioner shall be responsible for ensuring that the children return to Los Angeles on July 21, 2018, Respondent Shall be responsible for causing the children to return to Petitioner in London on July 29, 2018. Respondent shall designate and pay the cost of the children's transportation between London and Los Angeles, including the cost for assistants and security for the children, whether they travel commercially or privately. During this period, Respondent shall have the discretion to determine whether the children spend the night at Respondent's residence, the former family home ( "Briarcliff'), ot at Petitioner's residence ("DeMille") and may take them to Santa Barbara. If any of the children stay overnight at DeMille, Respondent shall arrange for appropriate child care and security, at Respondent's cost, and Respondent shall make arrangements to have the child or children return to Briarcliff in the moming. Respondent shall have either Daren Laos or Michael Ofstedahl present, and shall have the discretion to have a recreational facilitator present. Respondent shall make anangements to have Dr. Boxer and/or Dr. Trop spend some time with the Minor Children during this time period.
The Court hereby provides notice to Petitioner that if the Minor Children remain closed down to their father and depending on the circumstances surrounding this condition, it may result in a reduction of the time that they spend with Petitioner and may result in the Court ordering primary physical custody to Respondent.
ONLINE SERVICES
Case Access
DOCUMENTS FILED
03/12/2021 Objection ((UNDER SEAL) to notice of intent to offer video recording of deposition )
Filed by Petitioner
03/12/2021 Request - Judicial Notice ((UNDER SEAL) Amended )
Filed by Petitioner
03/12/2021 Notice ((UNDER SEAL) of intent to offer video recording of the deposition of respondent )
Filed by Petitioner
03/12/2021 Miscellaneous ((UNDER SEAL) Offer of Proof and authority in support thereof RE: testimony regarding domestic violence )
Filed by Petitioner
03/12/2021 Notice ((Under Seal) of intent to offer video recording of the deposition of Robin Deutsch, PH.D at trial pursuant to CCP sections 2025.620 (B) and 2025.340 (M) )
Filed by Petitioner
03/12/2021 Response (to Motion to strike testimony of David Martindale, PH.D. (UNDER SEAL) )
Filed by Petitioner
03/12/2021 Request - Judicial Notice (Under Seal )
Filed by Petitioner
03/12/2021 Miscellaneous ((UNDER SEAL)-Offer of Proof and Authority in support thereof RE: testimony of minor children )
Filed by Petitioner
03/12/2021 Objection ((UNDER SEAL) to Notice of intent to offer video recording of deposition pursuant to CCP 2025.620 (Ross Foster) )
Filed by Petitioner
03/12/2021 Notice ((UNDER SEAL) of intent to offer video recording of the deposition of Ross Foster at Trial pursuant to CCP 2025.620 and 2025.340 (M) )
Filed by Petitioner
03/12/2021 Objection ((UNDER SEAL) to respondent's notice of intent to offer video recording of deposition pursuant to ccp 2025.620 )
Filed by Petitioner
