Random Fuzzy


Update

The Joint Status report filed on October 17, 2022 reveals that it is the "policies and written procedures in the 2020 FOIPA Request" more than the investigative file, which the leaked report was from, that they are really interested in.

Plaintiff requested that the government (1) ensure that the collection of potentially responsive documents is complete because, in Plaintiff’s assessment, the prior disclosure appeared to contain material drawn from the investigative file only; (2) disclose to Plaintiff the number of pages the FBI is reviewing to ensure that any completeness concerns may be promptly addressed; and (3) provide descriptions or a draft index of any documents that are withheld in their entirety. Plaintiff is awaiting a response from the government on the first two requests itemized above. As to the third request, the government has not agreed to provide a draft index at this time in view of the fact that the records are still being processed.

The parties respectfully set forth individual positions relating to government counsel’s October 6 statements regarding the FBI’s handling of Plaintiff’s requests for policies and written procedures in the 2020 FOIPA Request. Plaintiff’s position, supported by two attorneys’ contemporaneous notes, is that counsel for the government stated, in sum and substance, that the FBI did not respond to the Plaintiff’s requests for policies and written procedures in the 2020 FOIPA Request, and that counsel for the government did not know the reason those materials had not been processed and reviewed. After the October 6 meet and confer, counsel for the government stated by email, in relevant part, “The FBI can’t say with certainty that the policies were not previously reviewed.”

The government disputes Plaintiff’s characterizations regarding the government’s representations to the extent Plaintiff attempts to indicate that the FBI has failed to fulfill its statutory obligations under FOIA, and in particular with respect to Plaintiff’s request regarding policies and written procedures, if any.

On October 17, 2022, counsel for the government clarified Ms. Doe’s understanding regarding the processing and productions of the 2020 request for policies and procedures, noting that undersigned is not aware, and therefore did not previously represent, that the FBI had never processed the requested materials regarding the policies and procedures. There is clear disagreement between the parties on this point, but ultimately, the FBI has indicated that it will produce responsive materials in its possession to Plaintiff, including any responsive policies and procedures.

This is why the FOIA lawsuit was necessary.  They need the policies and written procedures so they can identify specific problem areas as part of her campaign to improve the system.



Background

Last April, Politico speculated that Angelina may be the Jane Doe with a high-powered lawyer who filed a lawsuit vs the DOJ to obtain files from the FBI, after failing to get them from previous FOIA requests.  On Aug. 15, Puck News said they had seen the FBI file and that Jane Doe is Angelina.  Outside of the redacted amended complaint, all the files are now sealed.  Several media outlets were able to get hold of the FBI report that has a highly redacted account of an FBI agent, possibly from Puck.

Puck said

I can now confirm that Jolie is indeed the plaintiff in the F.B.I. suit. I can also reveal that the pseudonymous lawsuit is available publically for the first time...Federal agents drew up a statement laying out the case for arresting Pitt. But after meeting with an assistant U.S. attorney, they decided not to pursue criminal charges.

Before the F.B.I. announced that Pitt would not be charged with assault on an airplane, the agent investigating the Sept. 2016 incident prepared a statement of probable cause and presented it to the chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles. 

A probable cause statement means the agent believed the evidence they had gathered was strong enough to support charging and arresting Brad.

The FBI went to interview Angelina and the kids as a result of a referral from the DCFS. The report contains their responses to questions on what transpired on the plane.  Together with corroborating testimony from other witnesses and evidence, it resulted in a statement of probable cause. Based on the  description of the assault as having taken place on the flights and on the tarmac, the victim was Angelina.  The assault on Maddox was shortly after they took off from Minnesota which means Minnesota would have jurisdiction.

From the FBI files

“This author provided both AUSAs copies of a probable cause statement related to this incident. After reviewing the document, representative of the United States Attorney’s Office discussed the merits of this investigation with the case agent. It was agreed by all parties that criminal charges in this case would not be pursued due to several factors.”

One of the factors may be because Angelina, as the victim of the assault, “was personally conflicted on whether or not to be supportive of charges.”   She did not want to set an example of minimizing the assaults.  Brad had to be accountable. She didn’t want to delegitimize the children’s experience and resulting need for trauma and other medical care.  She wanted Brad to realize the need for them to follow the therapeutic process -- he was still trying to push past the therapists.  But she did not want him charged and arrested.  Another factor may be because Brad already agreed to conditions set by the DCFS that included undergoing individual and group therapy (Alcoholics Anonymous) and abiding by the safeguards that will allow the children to heal.  In effect, a plea deal.  This may be why it is necessary for them to strictly abide by those conditions.

Guardian UK, Sept. 2021

Q; And did she fear for the safety of her children? This time she answers.
AJ “Yes, for my family. My whole family."

Her response indicated that she feared for the whole family's safety -- Brad's and the children.  It hinted that he was facing possible legal jeopardy which is confirmed by the statement of probable cause.

In the video below she says:

E! I feel that's been you wild and free and unapologetic and living
AJ "It has been. But unlike the character, there have been times in my life, where I have felt, and maybe I've hidden the well from the public, but I have not felt free. I have not felt safe, I have not felt free of harm or I have felt small. I have felt cornered. And it has taken a lot to stay, to kinda find that again and probably more that today than I was in the last 4 years.”

She is referring to the restrictions they are living under, possible sanctions, that compelled them to accept the safeguards.







That the world was shocked by the contents of the FBI report is proof that despite the public wrangling, they had in fact circled the wagons and locked things down TIGHT.   Angelina was firmly in control and protecting her whole family.

The last statement given to People by a source identified with Brad said, "Since Angelina filed for divorce, Brad has been focused on having the best relationship possible with his kids." and "believes there will be a time when he has a great relationship with his kids again."  It is an admission that the problem since the filing has only been in his relationship with the kids.

The details of the FBI report gives the lie on all the bogus stories about custody including on Judge Ouderkirk's voided order.  This was never about custody.  It was about managing the process of Brad reestablishing a relationship with the kids.  In four years all the kids will be 18 and over. 

Taken together with all of Angelina's efforts to protect and help Brad by keeping the details of his assaults and their aftermath a secret and helping heal his relationship with the kids, the false narrative is slowly being peeled away. 

The effort to protect Brad continued with the amended complaint which blacked out all reference to trauma to hide the severity of Brad's behavior.  The unredacted mention of trauma was in the Judge's order.

The only reason for the petition is that Angelina was forced into it.  They only reason the petition still exists is they were forced to agree to keep it as a safeguard.

HFPA What do you like about being a single? And what do you dislike?
AJ  I don't like it. It's not something I wanted.
HFPA Is there a good side?
AJ  No. I'm sorry, there’s just nothing nice about it. It’s just hard.

Complaint


As the FBI investigation was unfolding, TMZ, whose friend Laura Wasser was still representing Angelina, reported:

TMZ, Oct. 19, 2016

Angelina Jolie and her kids were interviewed Tuesday by 2 FBI agents ... primarily to determine where exactly the incident between Brad Pitt and 15-year-old son Maddox went down.

Law enforcement sources tell us ... 2 FBI agents paid Angelina a visit at her Malibu home and spent more than 3 hours there. Well-placed sources tell us there is not an official investigation ... the agency is in a "fact-finding" stage to determine if there's evidence to warrant an investigation.

We're told the agents wanted Angelina and the kids to walk through the incident step-by-step, but they spent a lot of time trying to pin down the location of the airplane at the time it happened.

We're told it matters if the plane was not in U.S. airspace when the argument went down. The FBI also asked numerous questions about what happened on the ground when the plane refueled in Minnesota. There's some question as to whether Minnesota officials might have jurisdiction.

Sources tell us Angelina was cooperative but her endgame is for the whole thing to just go away.

As we reported, it's highly unlikely the FBI will press the case.

What caught Politico's attention was that Jane Doe had an unusually high-powered lawyer for a FOIA lawsuit -- Amanda Kramer is a former human trafficking coordinator at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan.

From the amended complaint 

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff JANE DOE brings this action against Defendants Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and its component the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) for injunctive and other appropriate relief, seeking the immediate processing and release to Ms. DOE of agency records requested by Ms. DOE pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Privacy Act of 1974 (the “Privacy Act”), 5 U.S.C. 552a. Defendants have violated FOIA by failing to respond to Ms. DOE’s request within the statutorily prescribed time limit, failing to disclose the requested documents, and unlawfully withholding the requested information. Ms. DOE has been seeking the withheld information for more than X years in an effort to ensure that her children receive qualified X care and X counseling to address harm suffered XX. Information withheld by DOJ and the FBI contains evidence of the harm. The persistent denial of that information to Ms. DOE XX a victim of the assault herself—has hampered, and continues to hamper, her efforts to obtain for her children necessary ongoing care and medical attention, and has further harmed the children in the family law system.

Ms. DOE has endeavored to obtain the withheld records without exposing to the public the details of the abusive incident and the ongoing effects on her children’s health and wellbeing. Her position is that a crime victim or protective parent of a victimized child should be able to obtain unredacted agency records and corroborating evidence for purposes of X care, other medical X care, and legal protection. Ms. DOE seeks to obtain access to evidence in the FBI’s sole possession, which is necessary for her children’s medical care. DOJ refused to provide a single document pursuant to the Privacy Act, which could have permitted Ms. DOE access to necessary evidence of harm X without making such evidence public. She renews her request that these records be provided in unredacted form directly to her or her counsel.

Without any other recourse to obtain the withheld records necessary to obtain for her children qualified X and other medical care X , Ms. DOE has no choice but to file the instant action so that Ms. DOE and her children may receive their records. The FBI and DOJ should protect vulnerable and victimized individuals, including by providing them records from crimes they experienced and reported, rather than withholding records and interfering with their efforts to seek medical care and legal protection.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
In response to a referral from Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, agents with the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office opened an investigation into the assault aboard the flights, which continued on the tarmac , based on the federal jurisdiction conveyed by 49 U.S.C. § 46506, which makes it a federal crime to commit assault on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(4) and (a)(5). As part of its investigation, the FBI conducted interviews of Ms. DOE, the minor children, and others.

In an attempt to better understand the FBI’s investigation and obtain the requested information to ensure that her children received X Ms. DOE filed a FOIA request on X for the FBI’s investigative file of the in-air incident.

The FBI responded on X. That response was redacted extensively, and the FBI withheld 55 pages of the file in their entirety on various grounds, including purported law enforcement sensitivity.

As a result of the continuous denial of records pertaining to the incident, on X, Ms. DOE and her oldest son (no longer a minor) again sought access to the underlying FBI records, jointly filing a FOIA and Privacy Act request seeking records related to the in-air incident (the “Request”). A true and correct copy of the Request is being filed under seal as Exhibit A.1

On X, 2021, nearly six months after the Request was submitted, the FBI responded by withholding 45 pages in full and extensively redacting the 91 pages that it did release. The FBI claimed that the withheld information was subject to certain FOIA and Privacy Act exemptions. A true and correct copy of the FBI’s X, 2021 response (hereinafter, the “FBI’s 2021 FOIA Response”) is being filed under seal as Exhibit B.

On X, 2021, Ms. DOE appealed the FBI’s partial denial of the Request (the “Appeal”). In the Appeal, Ms. DOE argued the inadequacy of the FBI’s search and response and the inapplicability of the claimed exemptions. A true and correct copy of the Appeal is being filed under seal as Exhibit C.

To date, Ms. DOE has received no further response from DOJ or the FBI related to the Appeal.

The FBI and DOJ should protect vulnerable and victimized individuals, including by providing them records from crimes they experienced and reported, rather than withholding records and interfering with their efforts to seek medical care and legal protection.

It is obvious that Angelina is doing this for other victims, replicating their experience in dealing with the likes of the FBI so she can advocate for improvements in the system for them.  She may be interested in studying the files to understand how the FBI handled their case but as far as obtaining medical care and trauma counseling and protection for the children -- the oft repeated reason for the request -- the DCFS made sure those needs were covered from the start.


From the judge's Order  The judge quoting the unredacted complaint provided the only mention of trauma.

I. BACKGROUND
Several years ago, while plaintiff, her then-husband, and their children, who were all minors at the time, were traveling via private aircraft, the husband allegedly physically and verbally assaulted plaintiff and the children, who have “experienced lasting physical and mental trauma as a result of the assault.  plaintiff has filed several “FOIA request[s] on behalf of herself and her minor children for the FBI’s investigative file” in hopes of “better understand[ing] the FBI’s investigation and obtain[ing] information necessary for her children to receive medical care and trauma counseling.”  Alleging that the responses she has received to her request are legally insufficient, plaintiff has filed the instant suit challenging defendants’ withholding of additional records. Id. Plaintiff seeks “to maintain the case under seal, and to proceed under a pseudonym . . . in order to protect the privacy interests of herself and her minor children who were witnesses to and victims of” this incident. Id. at 1.

plaintiff asserts that pseudonymity, alone, is insufficient “given that the complaint will necessarily reveal details from which the identities of [her] and the children will be readily apparent.”

At this early stage in the litigation, this Court is persuaded that plaintiff has met the burden of showing that the privacy interests of her minor children outweigh the public’s presumptive and substantial interest in knowing her identity and that of her children. ...Permitting plaintiff to proceed pseudonymously is sufficient to protect these privacy interests, with only parts, as necessary, of court filings sealed rather than the entire case. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Sealed Motion for Leave to File Case Under Seal and Proceed Under a Pseudonym is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, subject to any further consideration by the United States District Judge to whom this case is randomly assigned; it is further
ORDERED that the plaintiff’s request to proceed under pseudonym is GRANTED and the plaintiff may proceed with the case using the pseudonym “Jane Doe;” it is further
ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to file the case under seal is DENIED, except that the plaintiff may file a declaration containing her residence address under seal in exception to D.D.C. LCvR 5.1(c); it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall not file the Complaint on the docket nor randomly assign the case to a United States District Judge until after the plaintiff is provided the opportunity to revise her Complaint to remove any personal information that is not essential to pursuing her claim for relief under FOIA; and it is further
ORDERED that the defendants are prohibited from publicly disclosing the plaintiff’s identity or any personal identifying information that could lead to the identification of plaintiff or her children by nonparties.
SO ORDERED.
Date: March 7, 2022

Clearly, the Judge underestimated the interest in them.  She probably now realizes the case should have been sealed as requested.  Almost all documents including the FBI report are now sealed.


Their efforts to seal the lawsuit and black out all reference to trauma and the details of the assaults are principally if not solely to protect Brad.  They wanted to prevent the full extent of his behavior from becoming public.


Angelina is and has been protecting Brad.  That in itself is incontrovertible proof that the public narrative is false.  It also refutes the reports that Angelina accused Brad of child abuse because if she wanted to, she would have started with her own strong case.


What is amazing is how they were able to keep the fact that Angelina was "a victim of the assault herself" a total secret.  There was no hint of it anywhere.  The DCFS investigation that stretched 8 weeks was public knowledge.  They had no control over that information.  But they successfully kept the public from knowing that Angelina was also on the receiving end perhaps even more than Maddox.  This is proof that despite the appearance of early confusion and public wrangling, they had quickly circled the wagons and locked things down tight.  Angelina was in firm control and she was determined to protect the children and Brad.  Even when Brad was bullheadedly trying to obtain nontherapeautic visits against the therapists' recommendations and Spiegel was starting to adopt a belligerent tone, Wasser never so much as hinted at it to get them to toe the line.  It was not a trump card.  There was no sword of Damocles hanging over Brad.  It was totally off the table. They knew Angelina would never agree to reveal it under any circumstances.  Even during their big public fight in August, 2018 there was no hint of it.

"Following the incident of September 2016, Angelina and the children needed to move from the family home, which Brad chose to keep including all of its contents. Brad was asked to assist in the expense of a new home for Angelina 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. A loan is not, however, child support and to represent it as such is misleading and inaccurate "

"Angelina is asking Brad to pay 50% of the children's expenses. He has not. Angelina has had to shoulder the majority of those without his contribution for the past two years. Child support is not optional in California. Typically a father of means would pay these expenses voluntarily without the need for a request or court order. We are hopeful that this can be resolved without any further delay or posturing.


Jolie has “tried to bridge the gap between the kids and their dad,” the source tells PEOPLE. “She’s worked to achieve reinstatement for them. But it’s now between Brad, his kids, and the court. The court will determine things.”

She made public that he was behind in child support and effectively told him he was on his own when he tries to convince the court that he has achieved reinstatement with the kids.  But even as she was furious with him, the secret remained inviolable.


The FOIA lawsuit could not avoid mentioning that Angelina was "a victim of the assault herself" because she had previously "filed several “FOIA request[s] on behalf of herself and her minor children for the FBI’s investigative file” and was doing so again in the same capacity in the lawsuit. 


VAWA was not about her, but her experience informed her advocacy.  Like the FOIA lawsuit VAWA was her helping other victims.

CBS News

"It's a health crisis, what is happening," Jolie told reporters in September. "And it's going to be solved if you look at it as healthy families and invest in when there is the harm within the families, especially for the children and getting the care early, and prevention, and a lot of the - as they say 'the upstream,' a lot of focus on the prevention and the health and really seeing it that way, so it's a less adversarial situation and more about keeping families together and focusing on protection of women and children, but protection of the whole family."

If the judge had granted the request to seal the case, her assault would still be a secret and perhaps never to be publicly known.


I think absent the DCFS' involvement, this whole incident may have been handled quietly as is their practice and we may never have heard of it.  It seems obvious that if she had her way, the DCFS and the FBI would not have been involved in their lives.  We may have heard that Brad was in rehab, some members of the family were in therapy and that may have been it.


Guardian UK, Sept. 2021

“I think at the end of the day, even if you and a few people you love are the only people who know the truth of your life, what you fight for, or what you sacrifice, or what you’ve suffered, you come to be at peace with that, regardless of everything going on around you.”

The order of importance is: what she is fighting for, what she sacrifices, what she suffered.

She is fighting for her family and for other victims. She sacrificed her married life in filing and keeping the petition. She suffered during and as a result of the incident.


British Vogue (self) Q&A for World Refugee Day 2020

"After choosing to separate from your partner and children’s father, actor Brad Pitt, how have you sustained a healthy environment for your children?"
"I separated for the wellbeing of my family. It was the right decision. I continue to focus on their healing. Some have taken advantage of my silence, and the children see lies about themselves in the media, but I remind them that they know their own truth and their own minds."

The leak


Puck got hold of the report before it could be sealed.  While the report is heavily redacted, it identifies Angelina by her full name as well as "AJ", and includes a photo with her tattoos.

The court had

ORDERED that the defendants are prohibited from publicly disclosing the plaintiff’s identity or any personal identifying information that could lead to the identification of plaintiff or her children by nonparties.

The amended lawsuit stated "(Jane Doe) renews her request that these records be provided in unredacted form directly to her or her counsel."  The docket does not show any response filed by the FBI. 

The complaint states:

The exhibits to this Complaint, if filed publicly, would substantially jeopardize the privacy interests of the children discussed herein. On that basis, and pursuant to United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293 (D.C. Cir. 1980), Ms. DOE, by separate motion, respectfully requests that the Court accept the Complaint Exhibits for filing under seal.

On X, 2021, nearly six months after the Request was submitted, the FBI responded by withholding 45 pages in full and extensively redacting the 91 pages that it did release. The FBI claimed that the withheld information was subject to certain FOIA and Privacy Act exemptions. A true and correct copy of the FBI’s X, 2021 response (hereinafter, the “FBI’s 2021 FOIA Response”) is being filed under seal as Exhibit B.

The report that leaked was 53 pages.  It isn't Exhibit B which is 91 pages.  The other exhibits are: A - copy of the request, C - appeal, D - DOJ letter, E - follow up letter.  Two weeks after all the exhibits were filed under seal, Amanda Kramer's associate, Molly Doggett, filed another document under seal.  The leaked report, which also appears to be part of the FBI's extensively redacted 2021 FOIA response, may have been that document.

Before the amended complaint was filed, the court twice notified Doggett that two sealed documents contained errors, one was identified as a letter, which was refiled, the other as a pdf file that the court advised her not to refile.  The FBI report could have been the 2nd sealed document.  It was mishandled, accidentally or intentionally, by someone in the court and was left exposed.

There may have been others with access to the report who feel the same way Omid Scobie does.


Piecing together the FBI file from ET, CNN and other reports.  Photos from PageSix

ET has obtained the FBI's 53-page report that details assault allegations on board a private aircraft involving Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt and their children. The heavily redacted report states, among many things, that the FBI's Los Angeles Division received a report of two alleged assaults that took place Sept. 14, 2016.

According to the FBI report, the Department of Children and Family Services Bureau of Child Protection also received a report detailing that a minor child had been assaulted on the flight. Details of the incident in question have been heavily redacted,

In the heavily redacted report obtained by EW, Jolie (is) identified by her full name and also as "AJ,"

The incident type is listed as “criminal activity," and it's in this report where Jolie's version of events -- as told to the FBI during an interview on Oct. 18, 2016 at her Malibu, California, home -- are laid out in distressing detail.

The report begins with Jolie telling the FBI that she and her six kids were returning to California from a two-week trip. She told the FBI that, because Pitt had a business meeting prior to departure, she took the children with her and they all met at the airport.

"Once at the airport, the family split up into two cars to get from the terminal, across the tarmac, and to the plane," Jolie said.

Jolie said she could tell there was already an "issue between [redacted] and [redacted], a minor." Jolie said she could see that "[redacted] was holding [redacted]’s arm and pointing." Jolie said she could sense tension between them [redacted] looked “sad.”

At one point, Jolie said she knelt at Pitt's feet and asked what was wrong. According to the report, Pitt said, "That kid looks like a fucking Columbine kid. You don't know what you're doing."

Jolie said she then proceeded to take her seat and had a glass of wine.

Approximately an hour and a half into the flight, Jolie said Pitt approached her and aggressively told her to "come here" and directed her toward the back of the plane. Jolie said she didn't think Pitt was drunk.

They went to the restroom, which had a privacy door that did not allow their children to see them as she said Pitt "grabbed her by her head," "grabbed her by the shoulders," shook her, pushed her into the bathroom wall and was yelling various things at her, including "'You're fucking up this family,'" And, in reference to [redacted], Pitt said "[redacted is] gonna kill someone, will you be happy then?"
Jolie said she told Pitt to stop being so mean. Jolie said Pitt also "punched the ceiling of the plane approximately four times."

As she opened the door to the restroom, Jolie told investigators that two of their children "were outside the door crying and asked 'Are you ok Mommy?'"
Jolie said she knelt to hug her kids and Pitt pushed her.  Pitt yelled in response, "'No, mommy's not ok. She's ruining this family. She's crazy,'"
According to Jolie, that prompted one of their children to respond "'It's not her, it's you, you prick,'" which she said enraged Pitt and she saw him run toward the minor "like he was going to attack," at which point she said she got Pitt into a choke hold that he tried to break by throwing himself back, pushing her into the seats behind them

Jolie said she suffered injuries to her back and elbow as a result and shared a photo of the injury to her elbow with the FBI. (2nd photo below).  Jolie said she also suffered "a rug burn type wound" on her left hand.  A photo of the wound is included in the redacted report (below, note she was still wearing her wedding ring some time after the incident).  She was asked about a reported scratch on Pitt, which Jolie said could have been caused by her though she believed she had him more in a choke hold.

The report also included handwritten pages from her children containing descriptions of the incident. The handwritten pages are substantially redacted.

Note her wedding ring on her left ring finger

FBI Doc

At one point, Jolie said red wine spilled all over and she later learned that the wine spillage caused approximately $25,000 in damages to the plane.

Jolie said Pitt came by her as she laid with her kids and “poured beer on (Jolie) and the blanket she was under.” "AJ said she did not want to get a different blanket because she didn’t want to bring attention to them.”

Jolie said Pitt was getting drunk but he was still very aware, functional, was not rambling. Pitt had “consumed about two or three drinks” — which “was not a lot of alcohol” for him, Jolie claimed she’d “seen him drink an entire bottle of vodka” and still function.

Pitt sat in the back of the plane “watching the family in the reflection of a mirror on the wall.” Pitt “would start up a new rant every 30 minutes and pace throughout the plane yelling at everyone. He was "becoming a monster" as he "ranted" and "mimicked the behavior of a monster and screamed at them"

Pitt’s actions frightened the couple’s six children.  She and the kids were "shell-shocked." His behavior “didn’t feel real.” She said she was "frozen, scared and didn't know what to do."

Jolie said she inquired about separate transportation for her and the kids when the plane landed (in Minnesota). She was told that “there was really nothing available where they were going.” Jolie then said she explained it had been a long flight and that they needed to get out of this environment, the kids hadn’t slept and they should get a hotel and continue to California the next day.  To this, Pitt “erupted,” “You’re not fucking going anywhere. You’re not getting off this fucking plane. Fuck you all. I’m fucking leaving you.”

As the second leg of the trip began, Jolie said it hadn't been more than 20 minutes before Pitt began ranting again. Pitt yelled at one of the kids, "You broke up your family. Wake up [redacted], you broke up your family, congratulations."

At this point, Jolie claims Pitt told her to get to the back of the plane, which she did, and Pitt allegedly began yelling at her there. Jolie said she started to feel like a "hostage."

At the end of the flight, Pitt passed out in the back of the plane.  As they were about to land, Jolie told the FBI that she told the kids to pack their bags and wait by the door. She went to Pitt to try to explain that it had been a long flight, the kids hadn't slept, so she was taking the kids to a hotel for 12 hours so they could rest. Jolie said she had already communicated with her people in Los Angeles to have an extra car waiting for her and the kids.

Jolie said Pitt exploded upon hearing this, "You're not taking my fucking kids." As he continued to yell, Pitt jumped out of bed and pushed her. She claims they began fighting, and the altercation continued to the back door of the plane. Once at the door, Jolie claims Pitt pushed her down again and told the children that they were not getting off the plane.

Pitt kept them from deplaning "for about 20 minutes." Once the family was off the plane, Pitt "grabbed her arm and turned her toward him. Then he grabbed her by the head and the shoulders and shook her." Someone interjected and said, "Don’t hurt her." An unnamed person "saw what was happening and intervened."

The FBI report also said that her lawyer told investigators in a December, 2016 call that Jolie “was personally conflicted on whether or not to be supportive of charges.”

The FBI agent added, “This author provided both AUSAs copies of a probable cause statement related to this incident. After reviewing the document, representative of the United States Attorney’s Office discussed the merits of this investigation with the case agent. It was agreed by all parties that criminal charges in this case would not be pursued due to several factors.”

The family at that point was in dire need of intervention.


The leaked report made their effort at blacking out all mention of trauma moot. 


In wearing her diamond wedding ring in the photo of her hand injury Angelina is making a statement that the divorce petition isn't real.  Despite Brad's behavior on the plane they were not and are not estranged.  She said his behavior “didn’t feel real." She knew he wasn't himself.  She wasn't cutting him out, she wanted to help him work his way back in.


The injuries to her back and elbow were from when she had Brad in a choke hold. There is no explanation for how the "rug burn type wound" on her left hand came about. That could have been when Brad went for Maddox.


When news of the DCFS investigation broke, Brad issued statements

“He is emphatic that it did not reach the level of physical abuse, that no one was physically harmed.

there was absolutely no physical injury to him."

Obviously, this wasn't entirely true.



ET speculated that the kid Brad had an "issue" with was Maddox but I think it may have been Pax, who was actually quite close to Brad.  Maddox has always seemed calm but Pax used to react angrily at the paparazzi.  There are many photos of him looking surly, making faces, and more than once pretending to shoot them with his toy gun.  (Note that Angelina looked amused.). He has calmed down considerably since.

Spiegel's letter to Wasser showed that as of Dec. 2016, Maddox and Pax still refused Brad's visits.

"That kid looks like a fucking Columbine kid" and "[redacted is] gonna kill someone" is a reference to the kid being temperamental and Brad's anger about it is ironic given his unfolding behavior.

While they are very upset about the FBI report leaking, they would be particularly upset that those quotes are now public.  Even if Brad was not in his right mind and both Maddox and Pax are no longer minors, it's a troubling thing to have people know your father said that of you.  Both the judge who declined to seal and the FBI that did not file it under seal can share the blame.  Allowing those quotes to become public definitely impinged on the kids' privacy rights.  The Columbine quote has been the headline of several reports.  Whatever issues any or all of them had should have been addressed in the years they've been having therapy.

I think it was Maddox who called Brad a prick.  Angelina was able to foil that attack which is why she said she saw Brad run toward the minor "like he was going to attack" but makes no mention of Brad reaching his target.  Shortly after they took off from Minnesota, Brad yelled at one of the kids -- probably Maddox, "You broke up your family. Wake up [redacted], you broke up your family, congratulations." The timing matches that of their confrontation

TMZ reported at the time.

Brad Pitt crossed a line he had never crossed before by lunging at his 15-year-old son on a private jet and making contact with him, but the details of precisely what happened are in conflict ... and frankly, murky. TMZ broke the story ... the L.A. County Dept. of Children and Family Services launched an investigation after getting an anonymous tip that Brad allegedly attacked his eldest son on a trip back from France.
Here's what's alleged -- Shortly after the plane took off, Brad and Angelina began arguing and Maddox jumped up to verbally defend his mom. We're told Brad then lunged at the boy and Angelina jumped in between them to block her husband. Brad connected in some fashion with his son.

Brad's story given to People initially said

“He is emphatic that it did not reach the level of physical abuse, that no one was physically harmed. He did not hit his child in the face in any way. He did not do that; he is emphatic about that. He put his hands on him, yes, because the confrontation was nose to nose and was spiraling out of control.”

It was subsequently amended to add

"Brad made contact with Maddox in the shoulder area, and there was absolutely no physical injury to him."

The report on the FBI interview said

We're told the agents wanted Angelina and the kids to walk through the incident step-by-step, but they spent a lot of time trying to pin down the location of the airplane at the time it happened.

We're told it matters if the plane was not in U.S. airspace when the argument went down. The FBI also asked numerous questions about what happened on the ground when the plane refueled in Minnesota. There's some question as to whether Minnesota officials might have jurisdiction.

It appears someone on the ground in Minnesota, probably someone servicing the plane, witnessed Brad's behavior towards the family and contacted the DCFS.  The flight crew are trained to keep client info confidential and making such a call would have jeopardized their employment.  It could not have been anyone in their party -- family member or staff -- because, as the leaked report demonstrates, they are extremely private and secretive and involving any outsider in their personal affairs is anathema to them.

Brad started his assault and rants an hour and a half after they took off from Nice.  If the call to the DCFS was made while they were en route to the U. S. and before they landed in Minnesota, the DCFS in Minnesota would have met the plane.  The DCFS met them in L.A. The witness who was alarmed by Brad's behavior and had no qualms about reporting him made the call when they were on their way to L.A. from Minnesota.

In response to a referral from Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, agents with the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office opened an investigation into the assault aboard the flights, which continued on the tarmac, based on the federal jurisdiction conveyed by 49 U.S.C. § 46506, which makes it a federal crime to commit assault on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States

Because some of the events occurred during the X, the FBI’s Los Angeles field office informed Ms. DOE that the FBI field office in X would also open an investigation into the incident. Ms. DOE was never contacted by anyone in the X field office.

The assault (singular) aboard the flights (plural) that continued on the tarmac in L.A. matches the one described by Angelina.  It is not clear if part of the assault on Maddox also occurred within the jurisdiction of the FBI-LA. The complaint notes that the FBI field office in Minnesota had jurisdiction over other events.




Aftermath


Most media reports on the leak state that representatives of both declined comment:

NBC: "Representatives for Jolie did not respond to requests for comment. Representatives for Pitt declined to comment. The FBI also has declined to discuss the case."
"CNN has reached out to representatives for both Pitt and Jolie for comment."
"Reps for Jolie and Pitt did not respond to requests for comment from Rolling Stone."

Some reports quote a "source close to Pitt" while also stating his rep declined comment.

However, a source close to Pitt insisted to Page Six her legal bid to get them was “all for show.”
“This is all information that she already had five and a half years ago. There is nothing new here,” the source said.
A rep for Pitt declined to comment, while one for Jolie was not immediately available.

The "source close to Pitt" talked to multiple outlets but the lengthiest was to People.

“This report was given to both parties, almost six years ago. We both had it, in its entirety,” sources told NBC News. 

A source close to Pitt also told ET ..."Angelina and her team have been desperately trying to find something," the source added. "This is all for show. This is all information that she already had five and a half years ago. There is nothing new here."

EW, which is essentially People
A source close to Pitt tells EW "there is nothing new here,"  "What type of person files an anonymous FOIA request for information they already had?" "Both parties have had this information for nearly six years and it was even used in previous legal proceedings. There is no purpose that this serves other than it being a media stunt intended to inflict pain."
Reps for Jolie didn't immediately respond to EW's request for comment Thursday.

PEOPLE... A source close to Pitt claims Jolie likely meant to "revive an issue that was painful for everybody and was resolved six years ago."
"What are the motivations of a person to take up court time and public resources in filing an anonymous FOIA request for material they have had for years? There's only one: inflicting the most amount of pain on her ex. There is no benefit to this. It is harmful to the children and the entire family for this to be made public."  Says the Pitt source, "This is not a factual document. This is what she claimed happened. It was investigated and there were no charges brought. It's standard for these types of things to not be released."

The "source close to Pitt's use of "we," "Angelina and her team," "previous legal proceedings," and the tenor of his remarks, leads me to believe that it's Lance Spiegel who has often given People similar statements in the past.  However, Kiley's statements to the press after the Angelina's cross-complaint made me reconsider.

Brad's decision to let Spiegel/Kiley go on the attack to deflect attention away from the contents of the file was ill-advised and ill considered.  All Spiegel/ Kiley accomplished was to reinforce the ugly image left by the FBI report.  

Spiegel/Kiley repeatedly states that they've long had the information in the leaked report.   Her lawsuit states that

Her position is that a crime victim or protective parent of a victimized child should be able to obtain unredacted agency records and corroborating evidence for purposes of trauma care, other medical care, and legal protection."

The leak clearly shows that what was provided by the FBI was heavily redacted.  More importantly, the Joint Status report revealed that they had requested the FBI's  "policies and written procedures" which they FBI failed to provide at all.


The short answer to Spiegel'/Kiley's question "What type of person files an anonymous FOIA request for information they already had?" is: What type of person finds it necessary to lie and mischaracterize the lawsuit to mount a meaningless mock defense?  Seriously?


The complaint states

More than X years after the X and the FBI’s investigation of the same, Ms. DOE and her children still do not have a clear picture of how the FBI handled the matter, nor any better understanding as to why it was abruptly closed without any advance notice to X, who continue to be affected by the FBI’s unusual public statement closing the investigation and announcing that charges would not be filed against Mr. DOE. As one example, the FBI’s public statement has served as a basis for the widely-reported claim that the FBI exonerated and “cleared” Mr. DOE. The FBI did not, in fact, clear Mr. DOE of wrongdoing. The FBI’s 2021 FOIA Response demonstrates, among other things, that the FBI Special Agent in charge of investigating whether Mr. DOE committed a federal crime prepared a statement of probable cause (which has been withheld in full by the FBI) and presented it to the Assistant United States Attorney and the Chief of the Criminal Division at the United States Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles (“USAO-LA”). See Ex. B at 72-73, 78. This misstatement has contributed to the ongoing harm X by delegitimizing their experience, making it difficult to demonstrate in ongoing family law proceedings XX , and allowing Mr. DOE to rely on the misstatement XXX.

That last part is true. Politico wrote:

A spokesperson for Pitt declined to comment, but pointed POLITICO to the FBI’s statement saying it was closing its inquiry without pursuing charges.

The spokesperson didn't belabor it like Kiley did.  Sensitivity to being perceived as delegitimizing the children's experience may be why they hurriedly scrambled to issue a follow up statement.

Kiley's claim that a pseudonymous lawsuit that Jane Doe asked to be sealed in which case only the DOJ and FBI would have seen it, is "for show" or a "media stunt" is patently ridiculous.  It says a lot about the (lack of) mental acuity of the People / EW reporters that they were fed a transparently false claim and they printed it unchallenged.  They failed even in reading comprehension.  Where the report stated

"Once at the airport, the family split up into two cars to get from the terminal, across the tarmac, and to the plane," Jolie said.
She said she could tell there was already an "issue between [redacted] and [redacted], a minor." She could see that "[redacted] was holding [redacted]’s arm and pointing.  She said she could sense tension between them "[redacted] looked “sad.”

People's Benjamin VanHoose wrote it as: "According to the FBI report, Jolie told investigators there was "tension" between her and Pitt that day." (?!) To help those like VanHoose who are challenged, Angelina's cross-complaint makes it clear:

As documented in a lengthy and detailed FBI report, Pitt’s aggressive behavior started even before the family got to the airport, with Pitt having a confrontation with one of the children. After the flight took off, Jolie approached Pitt and asked him what was wrong. Pitt accused her of being too deferential to the children and verbally attacked her.

Kiley's insistence that there is "nothing new here" when the world is in shock over the revelations, and "Angelina and her team have been desperately trying to find something" when they had been hiding the most explosive secret, are so laughable.  What is damning for People is that its writers and editors swallowed all the nonsense Kiley was spouting hook, line and sinker and trumpeted it like they had a big scoop -- whether it's because they are truly dumb and clueless or because there were other considerations.

People is their go-to outlet for promotional posts like the recent ones about Without Blood and Fleur de Miraval.  But when the issue is between the two of them, from the start People has consistently cast its lot with Brad as they did again here.  Omid Scobie's tweet helps explain why

Predictable noise coming from Pitt's side (who in 2016 promised all sorts to certain outlets in exchange for ignoring Jolie's story). The fact all children remain close with their mother and Zahara has advocated for the renewal of the Violence Against Woman Act says a lot more. https://t.co/m1H0i630ub

— Omid Scobie (@scobie) October 5, 2022

If they were not in this together, a valid and irrefutable response Spiegel could have given was that she does not need the FBI files to obtain "necessary ongoing care and medical attention" for the children because a small army of health experts have been looking after the children from the start and the DCFS made sure that safeguards were in place that would allow the children to heal.  He didn't because they are.

DECLARATION OF LAURA A. WASSER, ESQ

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.

Angelina's full statements 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 earlier statement

"We can confirm that childcare professionals have encouraged a legal agreement accepted and signed by both sides over a week ago. In accordance with this agreement, the six children will stay in their mother's custody, and the children will continue therapeutic visits with their father. This has been determined by childcare professionals to be in the children's best interest.

"We are not in a position to discuss the details. We hope now that it is clear that the events which led to the dissolution filing involved minor children and their wellbeing, there will be understanding of the sensitivity of the family situation. We believe that all sides are committed to healing the family and ask for your consideration during this difficult time."

The mental health experts named in the witness lists

Oren Boxer, MD.  Dr. Boxer is expected to testify about his work with the children and Dr. Katz over the course of his work with this family. - Neurocognitive deficiency
Bren Chasse, LMFT.  Ms. Chasse 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. - Trauma psychotherapy and family reunification
Alyce LaViolette, MS, MFT.  Ms. LaViolette is expected to testify about her individual work with Respondent as well as the children and interactions with Dr. Katz over the course of her work with this family. -  Anger Management and Domestic Violence Counseling for Survivors and Perpetrators
Stan Katz, Ph.D.  Dr. Katz is expected to testify about his work with this family as both an evaluator and a Parenting Coordinator, his interactions and communications with the parties, the children, other professionals and third parties, the recommendations stemming therefrom and the basis for his recommendations, and consistent with his deposition taken March 3, August 10 and September 8, 2020.
Fred Luskin, PhD.  Dr. Luskin 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 of his work with this family. - Forgiveness
Melissa Brymer, PhD.  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 parties and the children. - Children's trauma
Allan Yellin, PhD.  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.  - Psychodynamic and cognitive behavior therapy
Robin Deutsch, PhD.  Dr. Deutsche will be called to testify as set forth on Respondent's Expert Witness Designation dated August l4, 2020. Overcoming Parent-Child Contact Problems

The only expert in the list above who had "individual work with" Angelina as well as the rest of the family was Luskin whose specialization is forgiveness -- which is also the theme of Without Blood.


A subsequent article in People quoted a second "Pitt source."  The article referred to Kiley's previous comments as from "another insider close to Pitt."  That they felt the need to quickly issue a new statement that was starkly different in tone and content from Kiley's is an acknowledgement that Kiley's attempt at deflection did not go down well with the public and probably worse within the family.  Maddox joined Angelina in the earlier FOIA request to the FBI.  This latest effort was as much a statement for the public as to the kids.

"It's been a sad situation for years," says the source. "Since Angelina filed for divorce, Brad has been focused on having the best relationship possible with his kids. It's been very difficult for him. Many times, there have been long gaps where he didn't see the kids at all."

"He misses the kids when he doesn't see them," the source adds. "He still has many good things going on in his life. He has a positive attitude. He believes there will be a time when he has a great relationship with his kids again."

The incident was the elephant in the room.  Angelina's filing was used only as a point of reference.  The focus was strictly on Brad's relationship with the kids without any mention of Angelina having any part in it.  Most of the statement is ambiguous.  It is only in the last sentence that they get to the key point.  It was their first public admission that Brad's relationship with the kids was damaged in the wake of the incident and it is still not great.  It explains why reunification was a "long-term goal" and why the petition was deemed a necessary safeguard for the children's healing.  Before the leak, all that the public knew was there was an incident involving Maddox.  The leak revealed the full extent of his behavior.


Brad and his team found themselves in a very unfamiliar and uncomfortable position.  The cool, laid back image they had aggressively protected has been shattered.  They appeared rattled and flummoxed.  The paradigm has shifted but they were still clinging to old PR tactics that no longer work.

Extra: You're very laid back.  It's a chill Brad we're seeing with you. What have you learned about yourself?  It's been a few years since you've been back in a film.
BP “Ha, ha, my god, we’re going deep,” “It's just like: it's going to be alright, don’t sweat it. It's going to be alright. (deep inhale) Let it go. (deep inhale) Let it go”

When it was crunch time, he absolutely could not let it go.  Angelina had her team in step.

One of the "many good things going on in his life" is Angelina who had a leading part in the effort to protect Brad.  It was her telling him, "It's going to be alright, don’t sweat it. Let it go.”  She was going to take care of it.  This was always about managing the effort at repairing the relationship between Brad and the kids.  That relationship flows through Angelina.  It does not exist without her.  In the aftermath of the incident, Angelina was in full protection mode.  She hired the late legendary Hollywood lawyer Bert Fields to keep the runaway tabloid reports somewhat in check.

Text of Bert Field's letter:

"I represent Angelina Jolie Pitt. This is to address a very serious situation.  What is at stake here is the health, welfare, and safety of six minor children. Their protection is the only issue about which Angelina is concerned.

There has now been a published reference to an official Child Services document reporting Angelina's custody of the children and Brad's supervised visitation.

Unfortunately, the situation has been widely misrepresented, and protection of the children's welfare may be jeopardized by the continued planting and publication of false and inflammatory media reports about Angelina, the children, and every aspect of the family situation.

No matter what claims you may hear from "sources" about that situation, we urge you not to be misled and that you not to publish without carefully checking the facts."

Field refers to the situation being misrepresented.  It was not all tabloid concoction, the seed came from Brad's side, the tabloids just ran with it.  Brad at one point wanted to fight the DCFS.  He then wanted to fight the therapists despite signing the legally binding custody stipulation.  Brad talked about getting into trouble because of his hubris.  It was frequently on display.  He was lonely and frustrated with his slow progress.  That he was once a great father  -- an argument Spiegel tried to use when Brad wanted to forcibly obtain nontherapeutic visits -- is in the past.  He could not simply force the children to have a relationship with him.



I also noticed that THR has not written about the FBI file at all.  In early 2017 shortly after FTKMF premiered in Cambodia, THR published a thinly veiled hatchet job that makes for an amusing read now:

By Tatiana Siegel, The Hollywood Reporter

Hollywood and Asian royalty rubbed shoulders Feb. 18 at the Cambodian premiere of Angelina Jolie‘s new directorial endeavor, First They Killed My Father. Adapted from Khmer Rouge survivor Loung Ung’s memoir, the movie tells the story of Ung’s dramatic childhood and features a cast of mostly nonprofessionals, reproducing the nightmare of life under Pol Pot.

But Jolie isn’t expected to toil in obscurity much longer, despite reports that she is done with Hollywood. Once Hollywood’s best-paid female star, able to command $20 million against 20 percent of the gross for 2014’s Maleficent, the actress-director is plotting her return to high-profile fare in the wake of her massively publicized and acrimonious split from Brad Pitt, first announced Sept. 20 (the breakup was so ugly that it included child abuse accusations that Pitt was cleared of).

...

Her Cambodian odyssey may mark her last red carpet for a while, and possibly the last one funded by Netflix. Arranging for travel, accommodation, and the other requirements of the star, her family, and her entourage, who flew in on a private jet, is estimated to have cost the company more than $1 million. Netflix was so willing to appease its star that Jolie’s 15-year-old son, Maddox Jolie-Pitt, received an executive producer credit on the film.

Holding the premiere near the famed Angkor Wat temple complex was a logistical nightmare, which one source called “her Tropic Thunder moment.” The plan was hatched by Jolie and the two women who, multiple sources say, have become her closest confidantes, Lady Arminka Helic and Chloe Dalton, once aides to former British Foreign Secretary and Conservative party stalwart William Hague. Helic, a survivor of the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s, last year was named to the international relations committee of England’s House of Lords.

...

Complicating matters is insiders’ backlash to her following what many deemed a smear campaign against Pitt. 

Siegel has since moved to Rolling Stone which did report on the files.  Helic and Dalton were in Cambodia for FTKMF's premiere.  They could be seen communicating with the security who often appears abroad with them.

He was also with Brad in Korea and Japan for Bullet Train together with Tony Webb.

Brad was reportedly none too fond of Helic and Dalton who were once such a ubiquitous presence they joined the family on vacations.  After Angelina and the kids moved to the DeMille and back near Brad, they largely disappeared. 

British Vogue

We had the great pleasure of photographing you at your home, which also happens to be the former estate of Cecil B DeMille. How wonderful…

I wanted it to be close to their dad, who is only five minutes away. I felt a little pressure moving in. Like I had snuck into where DeMille and Chaplin would hang out. I love most that there is no entertainment room, but lots of pathways and places to walk and think. I feel very fortunate we have that at this time.

Healing and Forgiveness

Brad has referred to his mistakes, his ugly side, his failures, his faults and his struggles in every interview.  That and their long road to recovery and reunification were strong hints of the gravity of his behavior on the plane. 

ANTHONY HOPKINS: And you’re as easy going as ever.

PITT: Pretty much, it’s my gliding speed. But I lose it at times. I get sucked into something, and I can lose it. I take my hands off the wheel.

Brad Pitt admits he 'loses his cool' despite being a 'pretty laid-back guy' https://t.co/RPUWEUHRAp

— Daily Mail Celebrity (@DailyMailCeleb) August 2, 2022

Are you a Zen guy?

'Listen, I can be all things.'

'I mean, I'm pretty laid-back but I can lose it and lose my shit, and I can certainly step in shit and put my foot in my mouth,'

'Listen, I can be all things.' -- He seemed to initially snap back, like he was sensitive about it.


He started to lose his shit shortly after they left Nice before he was drunk, and it continued thru the duration of their flight, their stop in Minnesota and after landing in L.A. with no sign of abating.  Even though the report was heavily redacted, there was enough detail so you understood the severity of the children's trauma.  On top of his hours-long verbal abuse, it was his assaults especially his repeated assault on Angelina that was particularly distressing to the children.

Large consumption of alcohol over a prolonged period affected his personality.  It made him irascible, mean and violent.  It may have exacerbated a lurking anger management problem.  He totally lost it in a manner and to a degree that Angelina and the kids had never seen before which is why it didn't seem real and they were left shell-shocked.  He exhibited a sustained simmering rage for over 12 hours which is remarkable.

Alyce LaViolette, MS, MFT, "is expected to testify about her individual work with Respondent as well as the children" -  Anger Management and Domestic Violence Counseling for Survivors and Perpetrators

Brad had said:

“We all have our demons, the things we're wrestling with. We can spend a lifetime pushing them away until we have to deal with them at the very end in a very scary, frightening, ugly way. Or we can start acknowledging those. That's pretty much where I see it now.”

"When I get in trouble it's because of my hubris."

In the end, you find: I am those things I don't like. That is a part of me. I can't deny that. I have to accept that. And in fact, I have to embrace that. I need to face that and take care of that. Because by denying it, I deny myself. I am those mistakes. For me every misstep has been a step toward epiphany, understanding, some kind of joy.

“I don’t think I’m the only one to experience those bouts in your lifetime, those feelings of despair, of meaninglessness, of no worth..... Everyone hits those darker periods in life where we feel really cut off from everyone and feel a profound loneliness, a real disconnection.”

"I’m realizing, as a real act of forgiveness for myself for all the choices that I’ve made that I’m not proud of, that I value those missteps, because they led to some wisdom, which led to something else. You can’t have one without the other."

We all carry great pains, great regrets. We've all experienced loss, we've all experienced great loneliness at times. And we're good at packing that away and not dealing with it. Some of us are good at getting through it and coming out the other side with a more well-rounded, a more confident and loving human being.

Harpers Bazaar Nov. 2019

HARPER'S BAZAAR: We recognize in these photos the free-spirited, bold side of you we know from old. Is that a fair characterization?
ANGELINA JOLIE: My body has been through a lot over the past decade, particularly the past four years, and I have both the visible and invisible scars to show for it. The invisible ones are harder to wrestle with. Life takes many turns. Sometimes you get hurt, you see those you love in pain, and you can’t be as free and open as your spirit desires. It’s not new or old, but I do feel the blood returning to my body.

Do you feel like you’re finding yourself again?
AJ: The part of us that is free, wild, open, curious can get shut down by life. By pain or by harm. My children know my true self, and they have helped me to find it again and to embrace it. They have been through a lot. I learn from their strength. As parents, we encourage our kids to embrace all that they are, and all that they know in their hearts to be right, and they look back at us and want the same for us.

You have traveled the world as both an actor and a United Nations special envoy. What is your favorite place?
AJ: My favorite place is somewhere I’ve never been. I like to be dropped into the middle of something new. I enjoy being out of my element. I want the children to grow up in the world—not just learning about it but living it and having friends around the world. Next year we break ground on a home in Africa.

You talk about wanting to encourage your children to explore the world, including the world of ideas and expression. Can you give a specific example of a time when you and your family personally butted up against these kinds of unspoken societal limits?
AJ: I would love to live abroad and will do so as soon as my children are 18. Right now I’m having to base where their father chooses to live.

Whimn September, 2019, Ad Astra

Having lived all over the world, where does he call his favourite place?
“I’ve been thinking about that because I’ve been thinking about death, just in terms of, ‘Where do you want to spend that last leg of your life? We settle in places or get sucked into a place sometimes because of a job or for family, speaking of which, my kids have probably eight more years of school to keep us relatively in one spot. But then comes a time where you think about where you want to spend that last period. For me, it would be somewhere in the mountains.”

If Pitt returned from a space mission and could land anywhere on earth, where would it be?
He laughs. “Can I just land in my yard? That would make me really happy. Being in your own bed, man, that’s hard to beat, isn't’ it? But when I’m gone for a long time, I just want to go home.”

As for his critically lauded performance, does he agree that his latest role is his best acting?
“Well, we always set out for something, though often we end up somewhere else by the end of the film. And there are degrees of how close you get to that, what you hope for.” He pauses. “I feel like [in Ad Astra], I got close to that thing that I’ve always hoped for.”

This was before they bought Seaward.

The complaint cites misstatements of the FBI’s closing its investigation as having the effect of delegitimizing the children’s trauma.  Angelina “was personally conflicted on whether or not to be supportive of charges" because she didn't want to set an example of condoning abusive behavior.  She didn’t want to delegitimize the children’s experience and their need for trauma care and counseling.  She wanted Brad to stop trying to force his way and to follow the health professionals who were acting in the children's best interests.  But she did not want him charged or arrested.  It was important for accountability to come before forgiveness.

Her forgiveness and support was critical in his efforts at reestablishing his relationship with the kids.  Any relationship that exists now is because of her.  As it is, he struggled even with her total support for healing the family.

"I just want my family to heal. And I want everyone to move forward – all of us, including their dad. I want us to heal and be peaceful. We’ll always be a family.”

"I want us to heal and be peaceful" hints that the road to reconciliation and healing may have been bumpy, with the kids possibly confronting Brad over various issues.  Spiegel's response (almost) gave them one more.



Angelina's statements on the medical impact of trauma hinted on why reunification has taken much longer than the initial 6 months to a year estimate.  In talking about VAWA she said, "There is science behind…the real medical damage that is done when there is abuse and post traumatic stress disorder and trauma…" In addressing the ABA she said she had been aware of the effect of trauma on children in conflict areas -- like the Syrian boy who lost the ability to speak after his mother was killed. But she had been unaware of the scientific research on the impact of experiencing or witnessing abuse or trauma on the brains and bodies of children in the U.S. and that there was a related child health emergency in America. "None of these issues in America were at the center of my work until it became personal." This strongly suggests that the neurobiological impact on the children of the traumatic plane incident was not immediately diagnosed and addressed, and perhaps the mandates applied by the DCFS missed the proper treatment.

She said during an April, 2020 zoom call with Dr. Nadine Burke Harris, a pediatrician who was Surgeon General of CA  from 2019 until she resigned this year:

AJ: "So many people don't take trauma seriously. They hear 'trauma' and they think it's something that you can overcome. You can open yourself up. You can relax into it. You can be forgiving of something that happened. But they don't understand how it really affected you so they don't treat it and we don't have strong treatment for trauma and care."

NBH: "There are a lot of people who think that trauma is hurt feelings. And that if you pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you can just choose to get over it. What I think that doesn't recognize is that when we're exposed to high levels of trauma and adversity, and especially during the critical years of childhood, when our brains and bodies are developing, that that releases stress hormones like adrenalin and cortisol and that has biological impact on our body.

So a child who has experienced four or more adverse childhood experiences, and that includes being victim to abuse or neglect or growing up in a household where there is parental substance dependence, incarceration, domestic violence, parental separation or divorce, or parental mental illness. A child who has experienced four or more of those adverse childhood experiences, they're twice as likely to develop asthma, they're up to 32X as likely to have learning and behavioral problems. And when they grow up, they're twice as likely to develop heart disease, stroke, caner, chronic lung disease. These are not small impacts and we're just now beginning to understand how exposure to high levels of trauma and adversity are affecting the way our brains and bodies function and increasing our risk for serious health complications."

The "time when he has a great relationship with his kids again" or even a good one, which is a vast improvement from not having any at all, may be close at hand:

“I always felt very alone in my life, alone growing up as a kid, alone even out here, and it’s really not till recently that I have had a greater embrace of my friends and family. What’s that line, it was either Rilke or Einstein, believe it or not, but it was something about when you can walk with the paradox, when you carry real pain and real joy simultaneously, this is maturity, this is growth.”

"I think joy’s been a newer discovery, later in life. I was always moving with the currents, drifting in a way, and onto the next. I think I spent years with a low-grade depression, and it’s not until coming to terms with that, trying to embrace all sides of self—the beauty and the ugly—that I’ve been able to catch those moments of joy.”


Brad Pitt reveals the secret to his youthful looks, as the 58-year-old star brings #BulletTrainMovie to the U.K.
"I would say I eat well, but I don't. I would say I meditate, but not really. I would say I've got a lot of lovely people in my life, and I stay creative."


GMA: What's the secret to surviving the kind of thing Benito (Bad Bunny) is talking about?
BP "Well, it's, one, it's being surrounded by people you love, and respect. And it's just following what interests you.

After being visibly giddy in Europe and L.A., Brad was subdued and solemn on the Bullet Train promo in Asia.  But whether it's because he's reliving his remorse over his behavior or because the world now knows their big secret is not clear.  That Brad removed his personal signet ring and did not wear any ring on his left ring finger in Korea and Japan serves to confirm that both were about them and how they are inching closer towards coming out of this.  It may not have felt appropriate to celebrate reunification just when the cause of the rupture was making headlines.  



AP, May 2021

Peter Harvey, a former attorney general of New Jersey who has been working with Jolie on policy issues...told The Associated Press, “Ms. Jolie has been working privately for four and a half years to both heal her family and to fight for improvements to the system to ensure that other families do not experience what hers has endured.”

Guardian, Sept. 2021

"It has been so horrific that I almost have to see it as a godsend to be in a position to be able to fight this system. It doesn’t start with the violation [the plane incident]. It’s so much more complicated than that."

As shocked as we are with the contents of the FBI report, it is only at the point of "the violation."  There is "much more" and what they suffered under the system is worse.

NBC Today, March, 2022

“I think once you’re exposed to this system, whoever you are, once you’re exposed to it and you realize how unbelievably broken this system is, you have to do something to improve it.”

“My children’s health is my priority at this moment.” “And my focus for the last few years has been to help my family and … to focus on helping change laws to protect other families and other women and focus on their stories.”

Angelina's efforts to help other families has come at the cost of revealing their secret.  But this may have been for the best.   Keeping the secret benefitted Brad but it was a burden on everyone else.  Knowing how badly he lost it that day and the repercussions may help others in the same situation to learn to seek help.

While the family needed intervention when they landed, what emerged as their biggest problem was the system itself.

Brad Pitt attends the 'Bullet Train' promotion event at Koyasan Tokyo Betsu-In Temple on August 22, 2022 in Tokyo, Japan.



Brad said during his Ad Astra promo "You get older and you just get tired of protecting yourself or having any secrets."  Another wise thought he had difficulty putting into practice when the leak occurred.  Adulation and all that springs from it can be just as intoxicating and addictive.  The sale of Nouvel means he is no longer financially dependent on his image.  This may have been part of the calculation when he talked about being on his last leg.


Brad's game plan while they tread water until they're out of this should be to inch closer to the truth. What the world needs to hear and what would help him best is his full mea culpa.


An Aug. 25 post in his niece Sydney Pitt's stories may or may not be addressed to him but it is apropos.  It's possible that the leak was the first time other members of his Springfield family learned the details.  Sydney is a prolific poster and is the Pitt family's de facto posting arm. 

Aug. 15, 2020, Pitt family lunch in the DeMille

Six years ago they were in Miraval for harvest season, the high point of the year which should be going on now.  They only recently revealed that Angelina and the children had not been back to Miraval since the incident even though it was extensively renovated with recreational facilities for the kids.  A sign of how wide the chasm between Brad and the children had been.


People, 09/04/2014

Since taking over the property in 2008, Pitt, 50, has channeled his passion for architecture into improving the main house and grounds, while making the estate a dream playground for the couple's six children. The château now reportedly houses a spa, gym facilities, indoor and outdoor pools, a professional home theater, a state-of-the-art video game room, a dirt bike course and two helicopter pads.

Half of the children are in college.  They wouldn't be able to go now even if they wanted to.  (Angelina brought both Maddox and Zahara to their schools but there is nothing on Pax.  I assume he's in college or taking something akin to college.)   Angelina probably needs to be at Disney's D23 Expo on Sept. 9. The years when they could have gone as a whole family were instead spent on healing.  Some of the "Many times, there have been long gaps where he didn't see the kids at all" were because the children didn't want to be with him.  This year, Miraval was just a short hop from Italy.  Maybe they dropped by before harvest and before classes started.

Brad spoke with British Vogue in late Sept. and said of Miraval:   

"This past spring was special. We had a good five or six weeks here. The stories you hear about Provence in the spring, why people come here. Well, it’s real. And I can’t quite describe it, other than the freshness in the air, the light... it’s just a real feeling of peace and harmony and the nights are so soothing. In summer you get the symphony of frogs, they lull you to sleep."

Brad Pitt says he was almost moved to tears during a Buddhist ceremony while promoting #BulletTrain in Tokyo. pic.twitter.com/oitr2dFZMU

— AP Entertainment (@APEntertainment) August 26, 2022

Clearly emotional, his voice quivering. It probably helped clear his mind and remember, "It's going to be alright, don’t sweat it. Let it go.”



Brad:

"We’ve always placed great importance on the mistake. But the next move, what you do after the mistake, is what really defines a person. We’re all going to make mistakes. But what is that next step? We don’t, as a culture, seem to stick around to see what that person’s next step is. And that’s the part I find so much more invigorating and interesting."

“I’m hoping to deal with all my regrets. It takes some forgiveness of self as well. And if there’s someone that you need to [apologise to], something you need to clean up, then you clean it up... Then maybe we can dispense with those regrets if they’re handled. I’m a big believer in making amends.”

"I'm over that hump of middle age and so I'm looking at that last leg... how do I want to spend that time? At my age, you've made enough mistakes... now there's a comfort in applying that kind of wisdom."

Angelina:

"we’re all human and very flawed."

"I am a big believer that we have to make mistakes in life and learn from them. And that we are who we are because of all the things we have done right and wrong. We grow."

Sydney Pitt's Sept. 2 stories had a short clip from Meet Joe Black:

"If you and I were married I'd wanna give you what you need, that's all.
I'm talking about taking care of each other the best we can.
What's wrong with taking care of a woman, she takes care of you"

"You'll have a hard time finding a woman like that these days".

He found that woman and exactly how special she is we are only learning now.  She took care of him even at great personal sacrifice.
Now it's his turn to devote his last leg to taking special care of her.

The original source of her clip was thinkingmindspage


In his latest GQ interview

After Jolie filed for divorce, in 2016, he got sober and spent a year and a half attending Alcoholics Anonymous. “I had a really cool men’s group here that was really private and selective, so it was safe,” he says. “Because I’d seen things of other people who had been recorded while they were spilling their guts, and that’s just atrocious to me.”

He used his Ad Astra voiceovers to open up

"So many times in my life, I've screwed up. I've talked when I should have listened. I've been harsh when I should have been tender."
"I made a promise to always be truthful. But I wasn't."
"I'm selfish. I'm selfish. I've let so many people down. I'm just a selfish person."
"a self-destructive side"
"I am looking forward to the day my solitude ends. And I'm home."
"I'm unsure of the future, but I'm not concerned. I will rely on those closest to me. And will share their burdens, as they share mine. I will live, and love."

The true narrative they originally intended to give publicly probably would have expounded on the above in similar general terms.  The leak of the FBI agent's report means that narrative will now have to include far more detail and explanations -- including from Angelina -- than they may have originally intended.  Brad may not have given the full details even to his "safe" Alcoholics Anonymous group.

It would be hard for Angelina to explain why Brad's behavior towards her was kept a secret without revealing the true narrative.  From the latest revelations and their own limited statements, the false narrative has been peeling away.   

The leak may have some impact on what she is trying to do to reform the system but the court itself will deal with the leak. 

This is external to the family and should not result in a dramatic change in their schedule.  If anything, it should make them more eager to open up because that is what would help Brad at this point.

It probably won't happen until they complete what they are trying to accomplish with the lawsuit vs. the FBI, assuming they have everything else.

They are likely to try to focus more on what they have been doing these past 6 years working on recovery, healing and reforms — personal and systemic.


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



Politico, April 19, 2022

WHO IS JANE DOE? — Josh Gerstein writes in: Rulings in Freedom of Information Act suits rarely capture much attention in Washington, but an intriguing decision released Monday allowing a woman to anonymously file such a case against the FBI is prompting curiosity about just who is the “JANE DOE” behind the suit.

The order from U.S. District Court Chief Judge BERYL HOWELL said the case stems from an FBI investigation into allegations that the plaintiff’s “then-husband … physically and verbally assaulted” her and their children while they were traveling on board a private plane “several years ago.”

The facts Howell outlined — including a statement from the FBI confirming an inquiry into the claims and another statement that the inquiry had been concluded without action — track closely with accusations Hollywood star ANGELINA JOLIE leveled at her then-husband BRAD PITT as she filed for divorce from him in 2016.

The mystery plaintiff also has an unusually high-powered attorney for a FOIA case: Covington & Burling partner AMANDA KRAMER, the former human trafficking coordinator at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan.

“I’m unable to comment on the identity of Jane Doe, who has sought to preserve the family’s privacy,” Kramer told POLITICO. “Our position is that victims and survivors should be able to access federal agency records of crimes they experienced or reported, as is common at the state level, so they can advocate for help and trauma care and legal protection for their children and themselves. Our client has been seeking such records for years and has been stonewalled and has had to resort to court action to receive those much-needed records. Legislative remedies are necessary.”

Jolie has been a frequent presence on Capitol Hill over the past year, lobbying as recently as February for reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Biden signed the extension measure in March, an event that Jolie attended.

Kramer asked to put the whole FOIA lawsuit under seal, citing the potential impact on the privacy of her client’s minor children. But Howell declined that request, saying that allowing the suit to be filed anonymously would be sufficient to protect the children’s privacy.

A lawyer representing Jolie in the divorce case did not respond to a message seeking comment.

A spokesperson for Pitt declined to comment, but pointed POLITICO to the FBI’s statement saying it was closing its inquiry without pursuing charges.

Puck

Angelina Jolie v. Brad Pitt: The F.B.I. Lawsuit Revealed
Federal agents drew up a statement laying out the case for arresting Pitt. But after meeting with an assistant U.S. attorney, they decided not to pursue criminal charges. Now Jolie is demanding to know more.

Back in April, Politico published a short item pertaining to a judge who refused to seal a “Jane Doe” Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. It demanded that the F.B.I. turn over documents related to allegations that the plaintiff’s then-husband “physically and verbally assaulted” her and their children while they were traveling on a private plane “several years ago.” The item speculated—based on the timeline, the details of the incident, and the powerful attorney involved—that this “Jane Doe” was Angelina Jolie, and that the “then-husband” was Brad Pitt. After all, Jolie made similar allegations about Pitt in 2016. Eventually, however, the F.B.I. decided not to press charges.

Having followed their bizarre post-divorce legal battle for some time, I can now confirm that Jolie is indeed the plaintiff in the F.B.I. suit. I can also reveal that the pseudonymous lawsuit is available publically for the first time. On Aug. 9, Jolie amended the complaint, which includes an interesting new detail. Before the F.B.I. announced that Pitt would not be charged with assault on an airplane, the agent investigating the Sept. 2016 incident prepared a statement of probable cause and presented it to the chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles. (In the amended complaint, Jolie says she learned this from the F.B.I.’s FOIA response last year.)

Was the F.B.I. preparing for the possibility of charging Pitt with a crime? Here’s what I can say after looking into the F.B.I.’s investigation. Jolie told the special agent that Pitt was drinking and had taken her to the back of the plane, according to the agent’s notes at the time. He allegedly grabbed her shoulders and shook her and yelled things like, “You’re fucking up this family.” Later, during this same flight, another physical altercation allegedly took place, and Jolie said she sustained injuries; she gave the agent a photo of her elbow in an attempt to corroborate this. At another point, Jolie says Pitt poured beer on her. (Pitt’s camp has denied any wrongdoing.)

After preparing a statement of probable cause, the F.B.I. agent met with the assistant U.S. attorney. They subsequently agreed that criminal charges would not be pursued, according to the case file. What was their reasoning? Jolie’s amended complaint cites the need for those unredacted records and corroborating evidence, which remain in the agency’s possession.

From the Order allowing "Jane Doe" to file the FOIA lawsuit

I. BACKGROUND
Several years ago, while plaintiff, her then-husband, and their children, who were all minors at the time, were traveling via private aircraft, the husband allegedly physically and verbally assaulted plaintiff and the children, who have “experienced lasting physical and mental trauma as a result of the assault.” Pl.’s Mot. at 1–2. The FBI “opened an investigation into the assault” but later, without advance notice to plaintiff or her children, “publicly announced it was closing its investigation of the incident without further action.” Id. at 2. Since then, plaintiff has filed several “FOIA request[s] on behalf of herself and her minor children for the FBI’s investigative file” in hopes of “better understand[ing] the FBI’s investigation and obtain[ing] information necessary for her children to receive medical care and trauma counseling.” Id. Alleging that the responses she has received to her request are legally insufficient, plaintiff has filed the instant suit challenging defendants’ withholding of additional records. Id. Plaintiff seeks “to maintain the case under seal, and to proceed under a pseudonym . . . in order to protect the privacy interests of herself and her minor children who were witnesses to and victims of” this incident. Id. at 1.

III. DISCUSSION
At this early stage in the litigation, this Court is persuaded that plaintiff has met the burden of showing that the privacy interests of her minor children outweigh the public’s presumptive and substantial interest in knowing her identity and that of her children. The public’s interest in plaintiff’s and her minor children’s identities is de minimis compared to their significant privacy and security interests. Permitting plaintiff to proceed pseudonymously is sufficient to protect these privacy interests, with only parts, as necessary, of court filings sealed rather than the entire case. Thus, the grounds for plaintiff’s further request to seal the case as an additional precaution are insufficient to rebut the “strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial proceedings.” Hardaway, 843 F.3d at 980. First, as the description of plaintiff’s FOIA claim makes clear, plaintiff does not seek to proceed under pseudonym “merely to avoid . . . annoyance and criticism,” but to “preserve privacy in a matter of [a] sensitive and highly personal nature.” In re Sealed Case, 931 F.3d at 97 (quoting James, 6 F.3d at 238). Plaintiff argues that pseudonymity is appropriate “to protect her children from having the details of their assault and the subsequent information they provided during a law enforcement investigation made public.” Pl.’s Mot. at 5. Masking plaintiff’s name will help ensure that her children will remain anonymous, and their “privacy interests are intractably intertwined.” J.W. v. Dist. of Columbia, 318 F.R.D. 196, 199 (D.D.C. 2016). As plaintiff notes, in the past this Court has recognized the need “to prevent the public airing of the abuse suffered by [plaintiffs’] minor charges . . . undeniably qualifies as a ‘sensitive and highly personal’ matter.” K.H. v. Dist. of Columbia, No. 19-cv-3124 (BAH), 2019 WL 11322514, at *2 (D.D.C. Oct. 18, 2019) (quoting In re Sealed Case, 931 F.3d at 97).
Second, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that disclosure of her identity “poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the requesting party or[,] even more critically, to innocent non-parties.” In re Sealed Case, 931 F.3d at 97 (quoting James, 6 F.3d at 238). Specifically, plaintiff explains that “the potential exposure of private details about the assault and its impact on the children’s physical and mental health risks great harm to the children,” who have already suffered from the assault itself. Pl.’s Mot. at 6. The risk to the minor children is greater still due to plaintiff’s public status. Id. As such, “innocent non-parties” would be affected by disclosure of plaintiffs’ identities and could face similar harm, as well. In re Sealed Case, 931 F.3d at 97.
The third James factor also weighs in favor of granting plaintiff’s motion, as serving the interests of plaintiff’s minor children is cited as a key component of plaintiff’s suit and the instant request. See In re Sealed Case, 931 F.3d at 97.
The fourth James factor weighs slightly against granting plaintiff’s motion. Although “there is a heightened public interest when an individual or entity files a suit against the government,” In re Sealed Case, 971 F.3d at 329, as plaintiff has done here, nothing about these proceedings creates any need for transparency with respect to plaintiff’s identity. Cf id. (describing public interest as particularly great where regulated entity sued government agency regarding “special exemptions” from statutory obligations). Here, plaintiff seeks to vindicate only her own rights, and those of her children, under FOIA, and anonymity appears to be necessary to provide her the opportunity to do so.
Finally, the defendants would suffer no “risk of unfairness” if plaintiff’s motion is granted. See In re Sealed Case, 931 F.3d at 97 (quoting James, 6 F.3d at 238). Allowing plaintiff to proceed under pseudonym will have no impact on any private rights, as the only defendants are United States government agencies, see Compl. at 1, and “defendants will be made fully aware of [plaintiff]’s identity, so there will be no risk of unfairness,” Pl.’s Mot. at 7. Nor will allowing the plaintiff to proceed anonymously compromise the defendants’ ability to defend this action.
In sum, weighed against the minimal apparent interest in disclosure, plaintiff’s significant and “legitimate interest in anonymity” for her and her minor children, given the alleged abusive conduct at issue, is more than sufficient at this early stage in the litigation to overcome “countervailing interests in full disclosure.” In re Sealed Case, 931 F.3d at 97; see also Horowitz v. Peace Corps, 428 F.3d 271, 278 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (“If there is no public interest in the disclosure of certain information, ‘something, even a modest privacy interest, outweighs nothing every time.’” (quoting Nat’l Ass’n of Retired Fed. Emps. v. Horner, 879 F.2d 873, 879 (D.C. Cir. 1989))).
Plaintiff argues that the “dual relief” of sealing the case in addition to proceeding under pseudonym is necessary to ensure plaintiff’s privacy rights and those of her minor children are fully protected. Pl.’s Mot. at 7. Specifically, plaintiff asserts that pseudonymity, alone, is insufficient “given that the complaint will necessarily reveal details from which the identities of [her] and the children will be readily apparent.” Id. The Court is unpersuaded that this concern justifies plaintiff’s extraordinary request to “maintain the case under seal,” Pl.’s Mot. at 1, given the “strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial proceedings,” Hardaway, 843 F.3d at 980, which is “a bedrock principle of our judicial system,” In re Sealed Case, 971 F.3d at 325. The extent of sealing requested here to litigate plaintiff’s claim entirely under seal shielded from any public access is simply not warranted. Plaintiff’s sole claim alleges that defendants failed to comply with FOIA and, as such, the details of what plaintiff says occurred and then led her to file a FOIA request are essentially superfluous in resolving whether defendants failed to fulfill their statutory obligations to search for and disclose non-exempt records. To the extent specific filings merit sealing under the Hubbard factors, plaintiff may seek permission to file those specific records under seal, which decision shall be at the discretion of the District Court judge randomly assigned to this case.
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Sealed Motion for Leave to File Case Under Seal and Proceed Under a Pseudonym is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, subject to any further consideration by the United States District Judge to whom this case is randomly assigned; it is further
ORDERED that the plaintiff’s request to proceed under pseudonym is GRANTED and the plaintiff may proceed with the case using the pseudonym “Jane Doe;” it is further
ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to file the case under seal is DENIED, except that the plaintiff may file a declaration containing her residence address under seal in exception to D.D.C. LCvR 5.1(c); it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall not file the Complaint on the docket nor randomly assign the case to a United States District Judge until after the plaintiff is provided the opportunity to revise her Complaint to remove any personal information that is not essential to pursuing her claim for relief under FOIA; and it is further
ORDERED that the defendants are prohibited from publicly disclosing the plaintiff’s identity or any personal identifying information that could lead to the identification of plaintiff or her children by nonparties.
SO ORDERED.
Date: March 7, 2022

Rolling Stone

Dramatic new details about the mid-air meltdown that ended Brad Pitt’s marriage to Angelina Jolie – but did not lead to criminal charges – are coming to light in newly surfaced FBI investigative records obtained Tuesday by Rolling Stone.

The records include an interview summary in which Jolie purportedly told FBI officials that Pitt yelled at her, “grabbed her by her head,” shook her, “pushed her into the bathroom wall” and repeatedly punched the ceiling of the plane during an initial outburst about 90 minutes into the private jet flight that departed France and made a pitstop in Minnesota before eventually landing in Los Angeles on Sept. 14, 2016.

Jolie said Pitt’s actions frightened the couple’s six children, who ranged in age from 8 to 15 at the time. When one of the kids allegedly called Pitt a “prick,” he bolted at the minor “like he was going to attack,” the paperwork states. At that point, Jolie “jumped up” and grabbed Pitt round his neck with her arms, “like in a choke hold,” according to the report summarizing Jolie’s version of events. Pitt purportedly threw himself back, pushing Jolie into the seats behind them, causing injury to her back and elbow, she told investigators.

According to the highly redacted paperwork, Pitt allegedly consumed multiple alcoholic beverages during the flight and at one point “poured beer on (Jolie) and the blanket she was under.” When the plane landed, it also had $25,000 worth of damage from spilled red wine, Jolie claimed.

Jolie said Pitt’s alleged behavior “didn’t feel real” and left her feeling “scared” and “like a hostage.” She claimed Pitt pushed her again when she suggested taking the couple’s children to a hotel to get some much-needed sleep after landing. “You’re not taking my fucking kids,” Pitt allegedly yelled in response.

Jolie detailed her injuries to FBI investigators, including a “rug-burn type wound on her right hand.” When asked about a “scratch” on Pitt, she replied that it could have been from her, the paperwork states.

The fact that both parties had apparent injuries likely complicated the charging decision for investigators. The files obtained by Rolling Stone also said that Jolie “was personally conflicted on whether or not to be supportive of charges.” At least, that’s what her lawyer expressed in a call with investigators in December 2016, weeks after prosecutors made their initial decision to decline charges.

“After reviewing the document, representative(s) of the United States Attorney’s Office discussed the merits of this investigation with the case agent. It was agreed by all parties that criminal charges in this case would not be pursued due to several factors,” the FBI case agent wrote in a report memorializing a Nov. 22, 2016, meeting.

“In response to allegations made following a flight within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States which landed in Los Angeles carrying Mr. Brad Pitt and his children, the FBI has conducted a review of the circumstances and will not pursue further investigation,” Laura Eimiller, a spokeswoman for the FBI’s field office in Los Angeles, said in Nov. 22, 2016 statement. “No charges have been filed in this matter.”

Jolie, 47, filed for divorce within days of the jet confrontation. She and Pitt, 58, were later declared legally single, but their custody arrangement remains in dispute.

The FBI files obtained by Rolling Stone were the results of a FOIA request linked to Jolie’s ongoing pursuit of more documentation in the case. That effort led the Maleficent star to sue the Justice Department as a Jane Doe plaintiff in March. Politico first speculated that Jolie was the anonymous plaintiff behind the suit, and Puck confirmed the hunch Tuesday. Jolie is seeking a more thorough search of government records for non-exempt files related to the 2016 probe.

Reps for Jolie and Pitt did not respond to requests for comment from Rolling Stone.

Page Six

In the initial FBI report, Jolie told officials that she believed Pitt was “mad” from the time they boarded the private jet from Nice, France, to the US, with their six kids: Maddox, now 21, Pax, 18, Zahara, 17, Shiloh, 16, and twins Vivienne and Knox, 14.

During the Sept. 14, 2016, flight, Jolie said that her then-husband, who had been drinking, took her to the restroom, where he “grabbed her by the head, shaking her,” and also shook her by the shoulders as they argued over one of their children.

She alleged that he punched the ceiling of the plane four times after telling her, “You’re f—ing up this family.”‘ When the kids asked, “Are you OK, Mommy?,” Pitt allegedly replied: “No, she’s not OK, she’s ruining this family, she’s crazy.”

At this point, one of the kids — whose name was redacted from the report — yelled, “It’s not her, it’s you, you p—k!,” according to the report. Pitt then allegedly ran toward the child, but Jolie held him back, suffering injuries to her back and elbow in the process.

She submitted photos of her alleged injuries to the FBI for the report and also journals from the kids.

At another point during the flight, according to the initial FBI report, Jolie said that Pitt poured beer on her as she tried to sleep.

At the end of the flight, Jolie claimed that Pitt held the family back from deplaning for about 20 minutes after she told him she was taking the kids to a hotel in California to rest. She said he yelled, “You’re not taking my f–king kids” and that he pushed her.

The newly released FBI documents added: “This author provided both AUSAs copies of a probable cause statement related to this incident. After reviewing the document, representative of the United States Attorney’s Office discussed the merits of this investigation with the case agent. It was agreed by all parties that criminal charges in this case would not be pursued due to several factors.”

Reps for Jolie were unavailable for comment, while a rep for Pitt declined comment.

EW

An explosive FBI report is shedding new light on an allegedly violent incident between Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt on their private plane in 2016.

In the heavily redacted report obtained by EW, Jolie, identified by her full name and also as "AJ," accused then-husband Pitt (whose name is redacted) of physical assault aboard a plane as the family returned to California after a two-week trip. The actor allegedly led Jolie to the back of the plane, where he grabbed her by the head and shoulders and shook her while yelling, "You're f---ing up this family."

Pitt also allegedly punched the ceiling of the plane four times. Per the report, when Jolie opened the door, two of her children, whose names are also redacted, were "outside the door and crying and asked, 'Are you okay mommy?.'" Pitt, who Jolie suspected was inebriated, allegedly yelled, "No, mommy's not okay. She's ruining this family." He also allegedly poured beer on Jolie while she was under a blanket with the kids.

The 2016 incident is making headlines once again after news site Puck reported that Jolie is the anonymous Jane Doe who filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the FBI earlier this year, demanding answers about why the FBI dropped its investigation into Pitt. Politico first published a blurb in April about a judge who refused to seal an anonymous lawsuit pertaining to a plaintiff's allegations that her then-husband physically and verbally assaulted her and their children while aboard a private plane several years ago. That report pointed out that details of the suit "track closely with accusations" Jolie had leveled against Pitt as she filed for divorce in 2016.

That year, the FBI also confirmed they were they were looking into an incident between Jolie and Pitt on a private plane that closely aligned with the blurb. Per the FBI report obtained by EW, "a representative of the United States Attorney's Office discussed the merits of this investigation" and "it was agreed by all parties that criminal charges in this case would not be pursued due to several factors."

A source close to Pitt tells EW "there is nothing new here," noting that the FBI report was made available to both parties six years ago. "What type of person files an anonymous FOIA request for information they already had?" the source said. "Both parties have had this information for nearly six years and it was even used in previous legal proceedings. There is no purpose that this serves other than it being a media stunt intended to inflict pain."

Reps for Jolie didn't immediately respond to EW's request for comment Thursday.

According to the FBI report, the Department of Children and Family Services Bureau of Child Protection also received a report detailing that a minor child had been assaulted on the flight. Details of the incident in question have been heavily redacted, but the document notes tension reported by Jolie between Pitt and the children, with Pitt allegedly stating, "That kid looks like a f---ing Columbine kid."

Back in 2016, a source with knowledge of the incident told PEOPLE: "There was a parent-child argument which was not handled in the right way and escalated more than it should have." But insisted that "it did not reach the level of physical abuse. [Pitt] did not hit his child in the face in any way. ... He put his hands on him, yes, because the confrontation was spiraling out of control."

Later that year, Pitt was cleared of allegations of verbal and physical abuse against one of the couple's children tied to the plane incident after an investigation launched by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services and the LAPD.

Jolie filed for divorce from Pitt in 2016 after a decade of dating and two years of marriage, resulting in a messy court battle over custody of their children — Shiloh, Vivienne, Zahara, Maddox, Knox, and Pax — that has yet to be resolved.

Variety

Counterclockwise from bottom right, T-10 days, T+2 months, T+6 months, T+6 years