Last January, Nouvel LLC under Shefler filed in the U.S. District Court a (U.S. Code ) § 1782 application (Assistance to foreign and international tribunals and to litigants before such tribunals.) Angelina is very clearly not involved but her name is being used for clickbait garbage. One of the respondents together with Brad and Mondo Bongo is Warren Grant, described as "Pitt's agent." Grant is also a VP and director of the
. Angelina is a Co-President and director. Brad is a Co-President, director and secretary, Terry Bird is VP and director.
On July 22, the Court accepted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge to overrule the objections of Brad's lawyers and grant Nouvel's application.
The Luxembourg lawsuit argues that the transfer of 10% of Quimicum, prepared by their financial advisors communicating exclusively with Brad and with no active participation from Angelina, should be voided on the grounds that the token €1 sale price was never paid and isn't a serious price. It attached the S&O re ATROs as an exhibit but it totally avoided identifying them by name or making any reference to their relationship because that would make it obvious that the 10% was a
between a long-time and then-engaged couple and therefore its arguments on price and payment don't apply. If Nouvel wanted the reason for the transfer to show "cause" they don't need to look far or dig deep. They are all really just going through the motions.
Hummel's counterpart on Brad's side is William Savitt who is co-head of Wachtell. Lipton's litigation department, but the filings both in this and the complaint were signed by Laura Brill who is an appellate and
that featured an in-depth look at Miraval noted "only 10% of Miraval's labeled production - about 2 million bottles in total - is vinified on site. The rest comes from partner winemakers. All blends and bottlings are made in Orange." It isn't the vineyards in the Château Miraval estate that are valuable, it's the Miraval
that is. While the Jolie-Pitt pixie dust and the Perrins' expertise helped Miraval rosé stand out from the crowd and made it a success, going forward, the brand can already stand on its own.
The strength of the Miraval brand or trademark accounts for the healthy PE multiple Shefler paid for his share. As Hummel stated in his filing in the § 1782 case:
"Chateau Miraval is very profitable and its trademarks are likely worth hundreds of millions of dollars."
"Pitt's usurpation of the governance of Chateau Miraval has had dire consequences. Dating back to at least 2017, Chateau Miraval’s directors, without proper authorization, have allowed a different French entity, Miraval Provence, to register as its own Chateau Miraval’s trademarks, which are among its most valuable assets, apparently for no compensation."
Hummel uses "Chateau Miraval" to refer to Chateau Miraval S.A. the holding company that owns both the Château and Miraval Provence.
Hummel added:
Pitt now runs Chateau Miraval as if it were his personal fiefdom, pugnaciously refusing all reasonable efforts to resolve the deadlock at Quimicum; to allow Nouvel or Nouvel’s current owner, Tenute de Mondo, to get even basic information about Chateau Miraval’s business; or to allow them to share in its governance on an equal footing with Pitt and Mondo Bongo.
And Pitt and his directors appear to have wasted the Chateau’s assets, spending €43,704,111 on renovations that lack a business function, including €1,106,658 on a swimming pool.
To mitigate and remedy this situation, Nouvel plans to file action in France against Chateau Miraval’s directors, Miraval Provence, and certain related entities... Here, Nouvel seeks documents concerning the assets and supervision of Chateau Miraval and Miraval Provence for use in the French Action.
Hummel added in reference to the complaint:
"Indeed, Pitt did not even challenge the sale until well after, and apparently in retaliation for Nouvel's § 1782 application.
While Brill claimed that no due diligence was done
at all by Shefler / Stoli/ Temute and Hummel claims that Brad refused "to allow Nouvel or Nouvel’s current owner, Tenute de Mondo, to get even basic information about Chateau Miraval’s business," they nevertheless know enough to state that he allowed Miraval Provence "to register as its own Chateau Miraval’s trademarks" "without proper authorization" and "no compensation." Further, the precise info on how much was spent on renovations and how much was spent on the swimming pool could only have come from a review of expenditures covering several years. This shows that not only did Shefler / Stoli have access to basic information, they were able to dig deep into Chateau Miraval S.A. and Miraval Provence's books and operations -- in other words, perform
thorough due diligence contrary to claims by both sides.
The claim Brad filed the complaint in retaliation for the § 1782 application is maybe just a tad less incredible.
All of this highlights their difficulty in explaining the reasons for the lawsuits. As Angelina's purported statement said, "the truth of the situation has still not been made public" and until it is they have to resort to awkward contortions trying to explain actions that can only be explained by the truth. The GQ interview and a subsequent People article referred to the lawsuits euphemistically as "
wrangling." "Lawsuit" has a precise definition but
wrangling (noun) can mean management, haggling, and discussion.
What emerges as the key issue the teams of lawyers are working on are the many Miraval trademarks that have already been registered.
The raison d'etre of the wranglings is apparently to give them cover as they proceed with the necessary restructuring to formalize what they really sold to Shefler -- a minority stake in Miraval Provence -- and resolving the tangled web of Miraval's trademarks while avoiding the appearance of working in concert. Their goal is to delineate the rights to the Miraval name that leaves Château Miraval free to use "Miraval" for products like SAS Miraval Studios incorporated Nov 2, 2021 which lists Mondo Bongo, Château Miraval, and DQ holdings as shareholders, and to properly compensate Château Miraval for each trademark. This benefits them as the sole owners of the Château Miraval estate and not Shefler.
The inclusion in the S&O of "By stipulating that the ATROs no longer apply in this proceeding, Respondent is not consenting to the sale of Nouvel LLC or any of the assets thereof, and Petitioner is not consenting to the sale of Mondo Bongo LLC or any of the assets thereof" stuck out and
strongly hinted at a planned lawsuit even as they were eager to close the sale. ("Not consenting to" is different from "objecting to") That there were matters that will be settled after a purported legal challenge, which in turn hints at the scope of the planned changes. There was no way to explain any sort of strategic partnership and a thorough restructuring of all their holdings without acknowledging that the sale of Nouvel was a joint decision which they apparently can't do while the divorce case is open.
The amended complaint claims "Stoli has falsely suggested in press interviews that it has reached an agreement with Pitt on plans for the business and the property. That claim is entirely untrue." Or the claim that it is untrue is what is untrue.
Miraval rosé started out as an afterthought of their purchase of the estate, but it is entering the big leagues and requires changes to its management and ownership structure.
The lawsuits have been an opportunity for their lawyers to exercise their creativity which meant often totally ignoring the truth. But they have been very careful that anything that is directly attributed to Brad and Angelina, any
direct quote, in or outside any legal filing,
is true. It is notable that Brad's complaint quotes Angelina but it only repeats quotes Brad gave to publications on innocuous matters like discussing the estate's previous wine operation.
The amended complaint had stated:
"In January 2021, Jolie informed Pitt in writing that she had reached a 'painful decision, with a heavy heart.' Jolie explained that she had purchased Miraval with Pitt 'as a family business' and as a place where she believed they 'would grow old' together. Nevertheless, Jolie continued, she could no longer maintain any ownership position in an alcohol-based business given her personal objections."
The quote sends three clear messages: 1) that the sale does
not have anything to do with their relationship or the petition, 2) that they will spend the rest of their lives
together, and 3) that what was sold was an ownership position in
Miraval Provence only. They've reiterated this in her statement and Brad's GQ interview.
There was no need to provide an explanation for a sale that had long been the subject of speculation after the Sept. 2016 petition. The only purpose of this quote was to give the truth about their relationship and this sale.
While the complaint and Angelina's quote above refers to their purchase of Chateau Miraval as a "family business," they did not in fact have any business until 2013 when Miraval Provence was formed with the Perrins -- 2 years after they formalized the purchase of Miraval in 2011. Brad told British Vogue in his Sept. 2022 interview for Le Domaine,
"when we first got here, I mean, I never thought about having a winery either! I just wanted a beautiful base in this area and it happened to have a winery. And it happened to be hemorrhaging tonnes of money. So we had to go to work. And then we went out on a search and found Marc [Perrin] and his family."
It undercuts his own complaint and is another sign those arguments were never intended to be defended in court. The same interview also gives one of the reasons why bringing in a strategic partner who could help Miraval Provence's sales and distribution was an attractive idea.
"how are we spending our time, why are we grinding so much, what are we dedicating our lives to? And I think that family and friends at the end of the day is all that matters."
The Le Figaro article said "The two celebrities in search of tranquility fell in love with the place in 2008." They first leased Château Miraval and then bought it as their home -- where their family could enjoy privacy and tranquility. There was no reference at the time to the family going into the wine business
The then existing Miraval-labeled rosé production was little more than a money-losing hobby of the previous owner that the lawsuit said was more suited for giving to friends and neighbors. That it could give rise to a flourishing family business was at best a distant possibility. Brad developed it into a hugely profitable one and Angelina is proud of what he did with both the estate and Miraval Provence.
The amended lawsuit states:
Jolie proposed that Pitt be compensated with a substantial management fee in recognition of his “day to day management of the business” and that Pitt receive the vast majority of the proceeds of any joint sale, in recognition of his disproportionate investment in the family home and business. Jolie explained through her representative that she “value[d] what Brad does and has done” at Miraval and “trust[ed] that his business decisions [would] bring additional value to the property and business.”
Those decisions included bringing in Shefler as a business partner in much the same way they became partners with the Perrins. Her words that she valued what Brad had accomplished in Miraval, that she had trust and confidence in his management, and wanted him to be generously rewarded for his efforts to the point of giving him most of her share of any proceeds are in very stark contrast to her own lawyer, Joseph Mannis' description of her as an "unwilling and disregarded business partner" who was "extremely desirous of closing the pending agreement for the sale of Nouvel LLC after years of trying to extricate herself from being business partners with her ex-husband" and the "substantial expenditures incurred" on his unilateral direction.
Left unmentioned while Mannis and Hummel claimed Brad was profligately wasting money to justify whatever filing was that the success of Miraval was, as Angelina said, due to his efforts. And of course the Chateau was purchased to be their home and most of the €43M was for renovations before Miraval Provence was created and became a profitable business.
I recall Angelina saying Provence was a good place for the kids to grow up and study. I don't recall her saying they bought Miraval as "a place where she believed they 'would
grow old' together." I think for a long time she was shy about declaring that she believed their union was for life. Of course, saying it
now after everything they've been through is a lot more significant.
She had said that every challenge they faced had brought them closer and overcoming the challenges of the last 5+ years has resulted in the strongest statement she could give on their relationship. She now has full faith and confidence that their union
is for life -- '
til death do us part' -- and is able to boldly state it. This is much stronger even than what she had said shortly after they got married.
Inquirer, HFPA interview for By the Sea:
"We thought, this is the best honeymoon because we felt, as the film says in the end — whatever you go through, weather the storm and stay together. It was a message to each other of we are going to weather whatever comes and we are going to stick together."
Awards Chatter podcast for First They Killed My Father
"I’m happy we did that film (By the Sea) because we did explore something together, and ... we did communicate something that maybe needed to be communicated to each other.”
Brad wanted to fight the DCFS. The DCFS had put a protective order against him and Angelina was not allowed to communicate directly with him. He was
blindsided by the petition but she had told his family and they were prepared. Doug Pitt told their local paper at the time,
""You know, I've been hanging up on reporters all morning," Pitt told the News-Leader. He declined to specifically comment.
"Man, I'm sorry, I'm just not feeling this," he told the News-Leader. "I don't know if it's even still relevant tomorrow, but let me sleep on it. Right now, I'm going to hang out on the sidelines."
It wasn't until Brad hired Spiegel who could communicate with Wasser that he learned the DCFS had required Angelina to file to keep the children. He was itching to fight them in court. The S&O to seal was drafted by Lance Spiegel and sent to Laura Wasser on September 26, 2016 -- a week after Angelina filed the petition and 1 1/2 months before Brad filed his response. Sealing the file would have allowed him to challenge the DCFS without revealing the details of the plane incident. Angelina dissuaded him from proceeding. In Wasser's email to Spiegel when Brad wanted to go to court to challenge the therapists' visitation schedule, "Angie's reluctance to enter into a stipulation to seal the file stems from her firm belief that
litigation is the
wrong decision."
GQ May, 2017
BP "I heard one lawyer say, “No one wins in court—it's just a matter of who gets hurt worse.” And it seems to be true, you spend a year just focused on building a case to prove your point and why you're right and why they're wrong, and it's just an investment in vitriolic hatred. I just refuse. And fortunately my partner in this agrees. It's just very, very jarring for the kids, to suddenly have their family ripped apart."
Q: It must be much harder when visitation is uncertain—
BP "It was all that for a while. I was really on my back and chained to a system when Child Services was called. And you know, after that, we've been able to work together to sort this out. We're both doing our best."
VF, July, 2017
Q I mention Pitt’s mea culpa in GQ Style. Did it surprise her?
AJ “No,” she replies,
Q I refer to tabloid reports that suggest their communication has improved, and ask if that’s true. There’s a long pause. She looks down, formulates an answer.
AJ “We care for each other and care about our family, and we are both working towards the same goal.”
Angelina's statement after the DCFS ended its investigation
"The job of the DCFS is to make sure the children are in a safe and secure situation. As we said earlier this week, childcare professionals encouraged a legal agreement accepted and signed by both sides that was in the best interest of the children. Angelina said from the beginning that she felt she had to take action for the health of the family and is relieved that after their 8-week involvement, the DCFS is now satisfied the safeguards are put in place that will allow the children to heal."
The legal agreement was the Custody Stipulation that Wasser said in her declaration "incorporates recommendations made by DCFS."
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."
"It took a lot for me to be in a position where I felt I had to separate from the father of my children.”
They apparently agreed not to contest the DCFS' conclusions and to follow whatever the DCFS and the therapists recommended "in the best interest of the children" -- which, in Brad's view, "ripped their family apart." In exchange for their agreement they got something in turn -- something that includes the DCFS and the FBI not filing charges against Brad. To encourage their strict adherence to the agreed safeguards there were likely consequences if they didn't. Angelina was worried for the whole family.
She did not think it was a good idea to fight the system in court at the time, but she has made reforming the system her goal since. The systemic improvements beyond VAWA -- including the policies and procedures of the FBI, the Katz case and issues the Appellate court did not address like the right of teenagers to testify -- may be what they are working on now and may determine when they will fully emerge out of this.
AP, May 2021Peter 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."
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.”
Quimicum S.à r.l., Château Miraval S.A., and SAS Miraval Provence may all undergo a thorough restructuring. The multiple holding company layers which have mainly served to shield their ownership have outlived their usefulness. From the top, Quimicum could be dissolved. That means Nouvel may be as well since it was created to hold Quimicum shares. And that could allow them to reclaim the LLC in Shiloh
's name which in itself is a huge hint that Angelina would not on her own want to sell Nouvel and perhaps the real reason it was a "painful decision, with a heavy heart."
Château Miraval S.A. would also have to be dissolved if they wish to enable direct ownership that will allow Shefler to have a share in Miraval Provence
only and adjust the size of that share independent of Mondo Bongo's. If 20% of the market value of Quimicum is for Château Miraval, then the 10% of Quimicum gifted in December, 2013 by Brad/ Mondo Bongo to Angelina/Nouvel and the subject of a Luxembourg lawsuit can represent the
value of
1/2 of the Château Miraval estate. They can release the 10% in exchange for his 1/2 share of the estate and give him 50% of Quimicum's share of Miraval Provence. Or he can give up the 10% representing half of the estate and keep a 40% share of Quimicum's stake in Miraval Provence. It would depend on how much of Quimicum's share of Miraval Provence they actually sold. One of the stated objectives of the Luxembourg lawsuit was so they could keep 60% and control. Either way they will have sole ownership of the estate and Shefler gets part ownership of only Miraval Provence. They can more precisely adjust the % ownership in Miraval Provence which they could not do before the restructuring.
The Luxembourg lawsuit to void the transfer of Brad's 10% gift to Nouvel was filed Sept. 21, 2021. The same date as Mannis' declaration attached to his and Kiley's efforts to make sure that the S&O to lift the ATROs originally filed Sept. 8, 2021 was signed by the court before the Sept. 22, 2021 hearing. (The English translation of the Luxembourg lawsuit carried an erroneous Summons date "two thousand and nineteen on 21 September" but the original in French states "deux mille vingt et un, le vingt et un septembre" and the attached proofs of service are similarly dated.)
What the Luxembourg lawsuit and the §1782 application accomplish is singling out the key role of the 10% in the actual sale.
On Aug. 9, 2021 or 5 weeks after Mannis' June 30 ex parte motion to lift the ATRO to allow the sale, Miraval Provence was converted from a SNC (société en nom collectif) or partnership to a SAS (société par actions simplifiée) or limited liability company. It's possible that its ownership distribution was adjusted at the time in preparation for Shefler's buy-in. The original complaint said Brad wants "to secure his position in the business he built from scratch for the long-term benefit of his family" and that probably translates into being the largest shareholder of Miraval Provence. There are various ways for Mondo Bongo to directly have the largest bloc of shares post-restructuring. Miraval Provence could move to increase its paid-up capital by issuing new shares and Mondo Bongo could be allowed to subscribe to most of it, Brad could be given stock options in recognition of his work, or the Perrins could sell part of their stake to him.
Between the Luxembourg lawsuit for the 10% and the Miraval Provence reorganization to an LLC, Brad was very busy indeed preparing to be "shocked by the announcement of the sale" on Oct. 5.
The Statements
People:
a source close to the situation tells PEOPLE.
"Mr. Pitt's lawsuit against Ms. Jolie is an extension of a false narrative, and the truth of the situation has still not been made public," an insider now tells PEOPLE. "After the events that led to Ms. Jolie filing for divorce and her years devoted to caring for their children, Ms. Jolie and the children have not been able to return to the property, and she made the difficult decision to sell her stake in the business. After making multiple offers to her ex-husband, and knowing the business will be inherited by their children, she found a business partner with experience in the alcohol industry."
The source adds, "It's unfortunate that after she properly and legally exited the business, Mr. Pitt is entangling her in multiple lawsuits."
However, a source close to Pitt says, "This makes no sense. The best way to retain value for the family would have been for one of their parents to retain ownership of an increasingly valuable asset. He could have bought her out. There's a lot more value in a family owning 100 percent than 40 to 50 percent."
- While the statement ostensibly gives Angelina's reaction to the lawsuit,
People did not attribute it to her. It said the statement was from "a "source close to the situation," an "insider," and a "source" -- not specifically associating the person with Angelina. This must have been a specific request and puts some distance between her and the statement. Her statements have always been very scrupulous so she has some reservations about this.
- The article also has a quote from a "source close to Pitt" but it isn't a response to the statement. It does not address anything that was said, instead droning on about value that was never a point even in the lawsuit. It does not repeat the complaint's claims regarding contracts or understandings over Nouvel's sale.
- The statement does not specifically address any of the lawsuit's claims other than to say she "properly and legally exited the business." It also does not offer any criticism of Brad or the lawsuit, only that it is "unfortunate" that he is "entangling her in multiple lawsuits."
- The statement avoided mentioning Miraval and Nouvel by name. This allowed them to differentiate between the
business or wine operations and the
property or estate.
- They've had statements in the past that consisted of only a cryptic phrase so this is the equivalent of a long essay.
"Mr. Pitt's lawsuit against Ms. Jolie is an extension of a false narrative, and the truth of the situation has still not been made public."
Ever since they were forced to live with the legal safeguards afforded the children through the petition, they've had to resort to filings that are filled with false and misleading assertions as they maneuver within the constraints they are under. It restricts what they can openly appear to do together and in this instance, it forced them to resort to faux lawsuits. She has alluded to the false public narrative of the divorce petition many times and that they've had to deny the truth of their relationship. Brad's lawyers Lance Spiegel and Anne Kiley drafted the the S&O to lift the ATROs entirely and he filed it in court. It is the clearest legal proof that there is no disagreement between them on any material matter and they do not need the protection of the ATROs. They trust each other completely just as if the divorce petition never existed because it is
false.
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."
British Vogue, March 2021
On her latest tattoo EPPUR SI MUOVE:
"'And yet it moves.' Galileo's reported words at the end of his trial, when he was forced to deny that the Earth moves around the Sun. Certain truths are undeniable."
Guardian, 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.”
"After the events that led to Ms. Jolie filing for divorce"
The events occurred on their flight back from Miraval, hence its connection to the children's trauma and their inability to return.
"and her years devoted to caring for their children,"
Refers to those years in the past tense "devoted," and not present perfect "has devoted" or "has been devoting." As implied in in recent statements , the children have recovered and no longer require as much care from her. Which is why she is now able to return to the more demanding and time-consuming work of a director.
In
June, Brad wore a ring on his left finger publicly for the first time at a
gallery exhibit in L.A.. In
July, for the first time, Brad not only allowed himself to be seen joining the family in Rome, he kept his mask off and smiled for the paps. One of the rings appeared to be a
gold band. He started to display a new
personal signet ring and looked better and happier than he has in years.
On the
Bullet Train red carpet, he was asked for tips for staying young and he said,
"I would say I've got a lot of lovely people in my life, and I stay creative."
In August after the film's L.A. World Premiere he was asked what advice he would give to co-star Bad Bunny on coping with pressure he said,
"It's being surrounded by people you love, and respect."
Between the May GQ interview when he spoke of the recent embrace of friends and family, and the July start of
Bullet Train promotion, there were developments that allowed him to be more open and explicit. His joy is palpable.
After the incident, he talked about crashing with his long time friends -- Fincher, Jonze, Houseago, a friend in Santa Monica who could be his make-up artist Jean. He was always able to stay
with them and be embraced by them. But not with or by the children. For a long time he was "completely alone" in the "very solemn" house. "Not til recently" was he able to talk about having "the greater embrace" of "family. Not til July as he was downright giddy while doing
Bullet Train promo did he start to talk about having "a lot of lovely people" in his life.
"My interpretation of the stabbing dreams were on the surface about fears, feeling unsafe, completely alone—but beneath it all they mostly seemed to be about buried needs—those aspects of self that weren’t allowed to bloom as a child—like healthy anger, individuality, or especially a voice."
He’s also a guy who, hidden under his shirt, has a line from a Rumi poem inked across his right bicep: “There exists a field, beyond all notions of right and wrong. I will meet you there.” It’s a deeply romantic idea, but does it also hint at a certain solitude? “I always felt very alone in my life,” he explains, “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.”
In almost every post-2016 interview, he has referred to his mistakes and missteps, embracing the beauty and the ugly, his successes and his failures, on the road to self betterment and reconciliation.
In his first GQ interview in 2017:
For me this period has really been about looking at my weaknesses and failures and owning my side of the street. I'm an asshole when it comes to this need for justice. I don't know where it comes from, this hollow quest for justice for some perceived slight. ... And this is coming from a guy who hit the lottery, I'm well aware of that. I hit the lottery, and I still would waste my time on those hollow pursuits."
A few months ago I was having frightening dreams and I'd consciously lie awake trying to ask, What can I get out of this? What can I learn from this? Those ceased. And now I have been having moments of joy, and you wake and realize it's just a dream, and I get a bit depressed for the moment. Just the moment, just glimpse moments of joy because I know I'm just in the middle of this thing now and I'm not at the beginning of it or at the end of it, just where this chapter is right now, just smack-dab in the middle. It's fucking in the middle of it and, you know, I just don't want to dodge any of it. I just want to stand there, shirt open, and take my hits and see, and see.
Family first. People on their deathbeds don't talk about what they obtained or were awarded. They talk about their loved ones or their regrets—that seems to be the menu. I say that as someone who's let the work take me away. Kids are so delicate. They absorb everything. They need to have their hand held and things explained. They need to be listened to. When I get in that busy work mode, I'm not hearing. I want to be better at that.
This house was always chaotic and crazy, voices and bangs coming from everywhere, and then, as you see, there are days like this: very…very solemn. I don't know. I think everyone's creative in some way. If I'm not creating something, doing something, putting it out there, then I'll just be creating scenarios of fiery demise in my mind. You know, a horrible end. And so I've been going to a friend's sculpting studio, spending a lot of time over there. My friend [Thomas Houseago] is a serious sculptor.
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.
During his 2019 Ad Astra promo he said:
“I'm telling you, even someone who's hit the lottery has trouble sleeping sometimes,” Pitt says. “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.”
“Pitt, who also has definite thoughts on Netflix-cheating” as a concept. “See, this is the problem with (couple) viewing. It’s something you’ve got to say, ‘Honey, you're just going to have to catch up because I can't wait.'”
"James and I have been friends for a couple of decades and have always been pretty open in our conversations about our missteps -- the stupidity, really. ..."I think it's cyclical, certainly in America the post-war generation was all about strength and not showing weakness, and winning. And that works to a certain degree, but I think more vulnerability, more getting you arms around your successes and your failures, makes for a better partner, a better dad, a better son."
"We set out to make a very sincere film, a real bare bones, bare, raw honesty.
"You get older and you just get tired of protecting yourself or having any secrets. You want to get on with it and we wanted to get on with it in this film in a way. 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. We just wanted, no holds barred, let's just go, let's get it out there."
"I mean a man who owns his own flaws and is aware of them and open about it. And vulnerable, with real feelings, rather than being this macho, trying-to-be-tough guy."
The voiceovers:
"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."
“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, and that’s the best you can do. Then maybe we can dispense with those regrets if they’re handled. I’m a big believer in making amends.”
“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."
GQ,
2022
"I think joy’s been a newer discovery, later in life....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.”
"For a solid four or five years there, the most predominant dream I would experience would be getting jumped and stabbed.....This stopped a year or two ago only when I started going straight back into the dream and asking simply why?"
Those dates align with the 2016 petition and with Brad's June 19, 2020 Request for Evidentiary Hearing indicating the experts were ready to testify that the children had recovered and the family had healed. In August, 2020 they celebrated Jane Pitt's birthday in Santa Barbara and a few days later Brad's niece posted an Instagram story during a lunch at the DeMille.
On the
Bullet Train promo tour he told
AFP
"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."
He wants to make up for the time they weren't able to spend together these past 6 years. And to continue to make amends. Producing
She Said may have been part of his efforts to make amends for his unfortunate decision to recruit Harvey Weinstein to distribute
Killing Them Softly.
The direct quotes chart their journey and they have been very consistent from the start.
The purpose of having a judge preside over the reunification process through the petition was to protect the integrity of the process until the experts were ready to testify in court that the family has healed, the children have recovered and their relationship with Brad has healed, and therefore it is in the children's best interests for the now healthy family to be reunified. It is done. What is left that is "legally necessary based on the detailed findings of the independent experts" is to formalize reunification by lifting the legal impediments that served as safeguards. When the VAWA legislation was signed Angelina said, "I've been in a family court system" -- "I've been" past tense, not "I am."
British Vogue, March 2021
Q 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…
AJ "I wanted it to be close to their dad, who is only five minutes away."
Q Do you feel as if you’re at a happy stage in your life?
AJ "I don’t know. The past few years have been pretty hard. I’ve been focusing on healing our family. It’s slowly coming back, like the ice melting and the blood returning to my body."
Guardian, Sept. 2021
"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."
NBC Interview, March 2022
“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.”
Healing is no longer a focus. The family has already healed.
Her recent statements also appear to signal that they are getting ready to open up. While she previously often spoke of health and healing, she studiously avoided mentioning trauma. Laura Wasser's December, 2016 declaration did not mention trauma. It was only mentioned in the emails between Wasser and Lance Spiegel that were not originally intended to be made public -- probably the only authentic email exchange among the filings. They were all protecting Brad as the person who inflicted the trauma, and the children so they could heal without being bothered.
In her first post-2016 interview in Cambodia with the BBC's Yalda Hakim
BBC: An incident occurred that led to your separation.
AJ: “I don’t want to say very much about that, except to say it was a very difficult time and we are a family and we will always be a family, and we will get through this time and hopefully be a stronger family for it,”
BBC: Because you haven't said much actually, the tabloids have been doing all the talking for you. And you haven't said anything at all actually.
AJ: "And I won't."
"The real truest love pulls out your best self. It's what you value, what you're loyal to and what you're willing to fight for."
Now that they've completed the process, they are getting ready to talk about their ordeal. After saying it was personal in her NBC interview and then parrying to say it was personal for everyone, she definitively said it was personal for her in her address 3 weeks later to the ABA.
"Ms. Jolie and the children have not been able to return to the property"
While they've consistently emphasized that Miraval is for the family, including repeatedly in the lawsuit, they've kept it a secret that Brad is the only family member who has been able to visit since the incident. The fact that they are opening up about it likely means they've already overcome this lingering effect of the trauma. Miraval is a short hop from where she is filming
Without Blood in Italy and if Yuri Shefler did in fact throw in a jet as part of the deal they can put that to good use. The children's ability to ride a plane with Brad would probably be the last big hurdle to overcome.
Despite not physically being able to return to Miraval since the events, Angelina had always been acknowledged in the Miraval website which is controlled by Brad and directed by Marc Perrin.
Une Inspiration:
SUR UNE TERRE D’EXCEPTION SE LIENT DÉSORMAIS TOUTE LA MAÎTRISE DE LA FAMILLE PERRIN ET LA SENSIBILITÉ DE BRAD PITT ET ANGELINA JOLIE. DEUX PASSIONS S’UNISSENT POUR FAIRE NAÎTRE LE BEAU, L’EXCEPTION, L’INOUBLIABLE.
On an exceptional Land, all the mastery of the Perrin Family is now bound with the sensitivity of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. Two Passions unite to create the Beautiful, the Exceptional, the Unforgettable.
Until her cross complaint was filed which claimed that she was being forced to remain tied to Miraval, it served to reiterate that despite the sale of Nouvel, she is bound to Brad and all of Miraval including Miraval Provence.
"she made the difficult decision to sell her stake in the business." "she properly and legally exited the business."
The distinction between the
property -- the Château Miraval estate -- from the
business -- Miraval Provence is one they've made repeatedly in the lawsuit, this statement and Brad's interview with GQ. It means her stake in the property was not sold to Shefler. In order to accomplish this, she and Brad may have executed the equivalent of a stock swap prior to the sale so that she has a share in Mondo Bongo and part of what was sold from their share of Miraval Provence was his. The sale may have also included a buy-back arrangement with Shefler that once the holding companies have been reorganized or dissolved and he is able to be a direct shareholder in Miraval Provence, the rest of the assets that were not actually sold to him will be returned to them. It's an obviously complex transaction that could have been much simpler if they were free to openly act together without the false narrative.
Mondo Bongo, the song the LLC was named after, is the soundtrack of the
Mr. and Mrs. Smith scene where their characters start to fall in love. The fact that Mondo Bongo remains the name of Brad's LLC for his personal real estate interests including his home is just one more indication that their relationship and the song's meaning to him has not changed since.
"After making multiple offers to her ex-husband, and knowing the business will be inherited by their children, she found a business partner with experience in the alcohol industry."
If she has quibbles about any part of the statement it might be this which seems to have been written to conform to the complaint's narrative. She has made it clear that she did
not want to sell Nouvel
at all and getting to the point of even nominally selling the business was difficult and painful. She said a year after the "events":
Blick HFPA interview September, 2017 for First They Killed My Father:
Q Your winery Miraval in France produces very good wines. Will you continue to do so in the future?
A "Absolutely. Soon a new wine from us will be on the market. The Miraval Estate is something particularly beautiful for our family. We have a deep connection with it. I hope that this will continue to be the case."
She also did not "find" a business partner. Shefler and Brad had known each other for some time. Marc Perrin, himself an industry insider, may have served as a conduit.
"Mr. Pitt is entangling her in multiple lawsuits."
Just as she was never actively involved in the business, she is not a key player in the wranglings. She is merely entangled in them because Nouvel was the designated vehicle for the sale.
Like the divorce petition which they try to avoid mentioning, the lawsuit is another necessary filing they try to keep out of their consciousness. She isn't happy about it but accepts that it is necessary in much the same way he wasn't happy about the petition and the safeguards but accepted that they were in the children's best interest. Her immediate interest would be the restructuring that will allow her to formally and openly reestablish her stake in the Château Miraval estate and Miraval Provence.
They've been very adept at keeping unwanted noise from penetrating their bubble -- as
Alia Shawkat can attest.
The Complaint
Decanter Feb 22, 2022
‘Tenute del Mondo chose to invest in Miraval as it is an exceptional wine and brand that complements our portfolio. We entered this partnership wanting to bring the talent, skills and distribution channels that will only further enhance the Miraval offering and make Miraval the most successful brand of rosé wine & Champagne.
The lawsuit states:
"In 2008, Pitt and Jolie acquired Miraval through business entities they controlled. Through Mondo Bongo, Pitt’s California LLC, Pitt paid €15 million to acquire 600 shares of
Quimicum, constituting an indirect 60% ownership interest in Château Miraval S.A. Through
Nouvel, Jolie’s California LLC, Jolie paid €10 million to acquire 400 shares of Quimicum,
constituting an indirect 40% ownership interest in Château Miraval S.A. Pitt and Jolie
subsequently leased the estate for appropriate consideration from Château Miraval S.A."
"Initially, Pitt and Jolie determined that they would invest in Miraval, through loans to Quimicum, on a pro rata basis reflecting their respective ownership interest. But by 2013, in the midst of preliminary renovations, Jolie stopped contributing altogether." "All in, Pitt funded roughly 70% of the couple’s investment in Miraval, while Jolie funded the remaining 30%."
"In December 2013, Pitt, through Mondo Bongo, purported to transfer 100 Quimicum shares to Nouvel (or 10% of Quimicum) for the sum of one euro, never paid, such that Mondo Bongo and Nouvel each nominally hold a 50% interest in Quimicum and, by extension, Château Miraval S.A."
Quimicum was reincorporated as a private limited liability company in 2013 at which time they agreed to Quimicum's articles of association that placed requirements on the transfer of Quimicum shares to non-shareholders. It does not explicitly give existing shareholders the right of first refusal but the lawsuit states it is implied thru an Article that anything not specifically discussed is covered by Luxembourg statutes.
The entire relevant section of Quimicom's articles of association:
5 4-Transfer of Shares (parts sociales)
5 4 1 In case of a single shareholder, the Company's shares (parts sociales) held by the single shareholder are freely transferable.
5 4 2 In case of plurality of shareholders, the shares (parts sociales) held by each shareholder may be transferred incompliance with the provisions of Articles 189 and 190 of the Law.
5 4 3 Shares (parts sociales) may not be transferred inter vivos to non-shareholders unless shareholders representing at least three-quarters of the corporate share capital shall have agreed thereto.
5 4 4 Transfers of shares (parts sociales) must be recorded by notarial or private deed. Transfers shall not be valid vis-a-vis the Company or third parties until they shall have been notified to the Company or accepted by it in accordance with the provisions of Article 1690 of the Civil Code.
While the sale of Quimicum shares is covered by the Quimicum articles, there is nothing that covers the sale of a holding company that owns Quimicum shares. The sale of Nouvel is not covered by the Quimicum articles because Nouvel is not selling it's Quimicum shares. Since
all their shares in Quimicum are held through holding companies they would have been aware that they left a
loophole. They evidently did not want to submit their holding companies to any restrictions and it is outside the purview of Quimicum's articles to impose restrictions on the disposition of a separate holding co. esp. one registered in a different country.
Quimicum's March 25, 2013 articles of association does not say anything about maintaining a family business. Miraval Provence had just been formed a few days earlier, on March 21, 2013.
The amended complaint acknowledges that in May, 2021, the CEO of Château Miraval S.A. met with Shefler's reps after he expressed renewed interest in Miraval in early 2021. Any such high-level meetings on Shefler's proposed purchase of Miraval could only take place with Brad's knowledge and consent and indicates that despite describing Shefler as an "unreliable stranger" and "unacceptable," Brad and Miraval did not "refuse to deal" with him and were in fact entertaining his offer. The lawsuit claims "following this meeting, Pitt confirmed that he had no interest in a deal with Shefler" and that the CEO informed Shefler's reps that no deal could be done because of "Pitt's and Mondo Bongo's contractual rights concerning any third party sale" -- two different things entirely. From the declarations attached to the July RFO re ATROs, no such contractual rights exist and therefore would not have factored in any conversation in May.
Since this is not Shefler's first attempt to buy Miraval, he would already know about Miraval's multi-layered holding company ownership structure and that a sale meant buying part of Mondo Bongo and/or all of Nouvel. From what the CEO said, as of May, 2021 they were looking at how to structure the deal with the holding companies which means the broad terms of Shefler's offer was acceptable. By June they had ironed out the details. Shefler wanted a 30-day exclusivity agreement and Mannis filed an ex parte to lift the ATROS so Angelina could sign the agreement. Sometime after, they realized the petition constrained their ability to fully execute the necessary changes, that ownership of the trademarks was a very complex issue and made plans to use lawsuits.
The decision to get a strategic business partner could only have been Brad's and only Brad could have led the negotiations. The sale and partnership agreement governing Nouvel's sale would be between Shefler and Brad
and Angelina. A sale involving "hundreds of millions" that strongly impacts what their children would inherit would have required exhaustive discussions between future partners Shefler and Brad and a complete review of operations, obligations, assets and liabilities of all the parties and companies -- i.e. thorough due diligence. The lawsuit's claims that no due diligence was done at all is an attempt at explaining how they could have been totally unaware of the sale but if anything it stretches credulity even further. They are scrounging for a half-way believable story and failing. By the complaint's own account, all of Shefler's contacts and dealings before and after the sale involved Brad, not Angelina. It states that Shefler continues to directly communicate with Brad.
Automatic Temporary Restraining Orders or
ATROs are designed to remain in effect from the time the petition is filed and a summons is issued until a final judgment is entered, or the petition is dismissed, or a court orders it lifted. It affords the parties strong protections where conflict or disagreements may arise.
ATROs prevent both parties from doing the following:
1. Removing the minor child or children of the parties, if any, from the state without the prior written consent of the other party or an order of the court.
This does not apply in situations where the child is already living in another state when the petition is filed, nor does it require that a child be returned to California if he or she is not living here at the time of the petition.
2. Transferring, encumbering, hypothecating, concealing, or in any way disposing of, any property, real or personal, whether community, quasi-community, or separate, without the written consent of the other party or an order of the court, except in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life.
- You may not take out a loan on community property.
- You may not “hypothocate” community property, i.e. pledging property as security or collateral for a debt. Although title or possession of the property is not transferred to the lender, the lender has the right to sell the property upon default.
- You may not close a joint checking account and transfer the money into your own separate account.
- You may not remove items from your safe deposit box or cash from your safe and give them to a third party to hold for you.
3. Cashing, borrowing against, canceling, transferring, disposing of, or changing the beneficiaries of any insurance or other coverage, including life, health, automobile and disability, held for the benefit of the parties and their child or children for whom support may be ordered.
- You must not take any action to affect any insurance policy that mutually benefits your spouse and/or your children. This includes refraining from cancelling, borrowing against, transferring, or changing the beneficiary on any insurance policy
- You must refrain from changing any legal document (other than your last will and testament) affecting the transfer of property upon your death without your spouse’s prior written consent. This includes revocable trusts, totten trusts, bank accounts, and investment accounts.
In addition, each party must notify the other of any proposed extraordinary expenditures at least five business days prior to incurring those expenses and must account to the court for all extraordinary expenditures made after the restraining orders are effective.
....
The Stipulation & Order re ATROs was filed by Brad on 09/08/2021. It was signed by the judge on 09/22/2021. It lifted the ATROs
entirely. Mannis previously had
only asked that it be lifted as it applies to Nouvel. It states:
"the parties agree that the ATROs no longer apply in this proceeding and neither party is restrained or required to give notice pursuant to the ATROs."
It shows that
regardless of everything else that has been filed, there is, in fact,
no disagreement, no reason for any concern between them regarding the children, properties, bank accounts, valuables, and trusts. That they have
no need for the protections the ATROs offer. They trust each other just as they've always had since they became a couple because the narrative of divorce is
false.
The lifting of the ATROs on September 22, 2022 paved the way for the announcement of the sale of Nouvel to the Stoli Group on October 5, 2021. Joseph Mannis' Sept. 21, 2021 declaration stated that lifting the ATROs was a condition of the sale and he and Anne Kiley were working together to make sure it was signed by the judge and entered on or before Sept. 22, 2021. There was some confusion at the time if it already was because the clerk was new. Their actions and the fact that the S&O to lift the ATROs was drafted by Kiley/Spiegel and filed by Respondent (Brad) unmistakably shows that they were
both eager to expedite and close the sale, perhaps him even more than her.
- The amended complaint attempted to explain Brad's signing the S&O to lift the ATRO's while claiming he had no knowledge of and would not have approved the sale by stating "The disposition of Nouvel was not subject to the jurisdiction of the divorce court and so Pitt stipulated to the formal lifting of the ATROs on September 8, 2021." The claim is false and the reasoning is non sequitur. There is no logic to saying because (they claimed) Nouvel's sale is not under the divorce court, that gave Brad reason to stipulate to lift restraining orders on
everything that is including on the minor children and on
all of their properties.
It was acknowledged and undisputed in all the related filings that lifting the ATRO's was necessary to allow Nouvel's sale to proceed.
Angelina's Luxembourg lawyer, Laurent Schummer's declaration:
"I am advised that under California law Ms. Jolie may not be able to sign the
exclusivity agreement without first being relieved from the temporary restraining orders
under California Family Code section 2040 (“ATROs”) even though Nouvel is, as l
understand, Ms. Jolie‘s separate property, the parties’ previously bifurcated and terminated
their marital status, and the divorce proceeding is approaching five years since the initial
filing and automatic issuance of the temporary restraining orders."
"l am informed by Mr. Mannis that on June 30, 2021, the Court denied Ms. Jolie's request for an emergency relief from the ATROs as they may apply to this sale. I am attempting to keep the sale afloat by showing the Buyer Ms Jolie has demonstrated good faith to go forward with the sale in that she has sought and is seeking relief from the ARTOs, and she will sign an Exclusivity Agreement with the addition of a condition precedent that the Agreement is subject to the Court lifting the ATROs as they may apply to the sale of Nouvel, LLC."
It was acknowledged and undisputed in July, 2021 that there was no contract, understanding or obligation whether between Brad and Angelina or Mondo Bongo and Nouvel covering the sale of Nouvel. That the
only obstacle to the sale of Nouvel was the ATROs.
Mannis' July 5, 2021 declaration:
On July 1, 2021, I and my partner, James Simon, had a scheduled telephone
conversation with Mr. Spiegel to attempt to informally resolve this matter without the need for a hearing. I informed Mr. Spiegel that the proposed sale was subject to an NDA and I could not disclose any terms. I expressed my opinion that Respondent’s use of the ATROs as a means to block the sale is a “rearguard action" because other than the existence of the ATROS Respondent has no legitimate/legal basis to block Petitioner’s sale of her separate property membership interest in Nouvel, LLC. Mr. Spiegel stated he would get back to me.
It was only later much later -- after Shefler / Stoli completed due diligence -- that they realized there were complex issues mostly relating to the trademarks that could not be easily addressed owing to the constraints imposed by the petition and the safeguards they agreed to. They drafted and signed the S&O in September with the lawsuits already in mind. It was only then that they dreamed up the existence of the contracts and understandings claimed in the Feb. complaint.
- The lawsuit states "Both Jolie and Pitt
understood, as
manifested by their
conduct over the course of more than a decade, that neither could or would sell his or her stake in Miraval to anyone without the other’s knowledge and permission. And Pitt would not have devoted substantial time, attention, and resources to Miraval in the absence of that agreement." That "he was
assured—
based on, among other things, the couple’s
years-long relationship and marriage, their joint vision for Miraval, Pitt’s transformation of the estate into a private residence for the family, and Jolie’s willingness to allow him to invest in a manner far disproportionate to his relative ownership share—that neither party could,
as a matter of mutual and binding commitment, dispose of his or her interest without the other’s consent." The lawsuit does not cite an actual contract, agreement or understanding, but rather the assumption of tacit understandings based on their relationship and commitment to each other as a couple. The only proof the lawsuit presents to back up its claims is Quimicum's articles of association from March 25,2013 which does not directly or indirectly refer to Mondo Bongo or Nouvel.
While Laura Wasser was Angelina's attorney, Wasser's friends in TMZ reported that they had an "ironclad" prenup that covers all their assets and would almost certainly cover Quimicum and Miraval but there is no mention of it or any written agreement here -- because obviously the sale complies with
all their agreements including the sale agreement with Shefler which would have had Brad as a signatory.
The amended complaint states
Miraval was in need of renovation when Pitt and Jolie purchased it in 2008,
particularly if the grounds were to support a viable wine business and serve as the flagship
property used to advertise and promote that business. While Pitt had been led to believe in the
run-up to the purchase that the existing wine business on the estate could pay for itself, that was
not true. The business was losing money each year.
Initially, Pitt and Jolie determined that they would invest in Miraval, through
loans to Quimicum, on a pro rata basis reflecting their respective ownership interest. But in
2013, in the midst of preliminary renovations, Jolie stopped contributing. As both Pitt and
Jolie—by then engaged to be married—recognized, unless Pitt continued to finance the
development of Miraval, the couple’s plan for their family estate and business would be derailed.
As Jolie has publicly acknowledged, it was Pitt who “took responsibility for the
architecture and renovation of Miraval.” Jolie, meanwhile, focused on “heading and running the
Jolie-Pitt Foundation,” which had no relation to Miraval. Although Pitt and Jolie were an “equal
partnership,” Jolie explained, Miraval “was [Pitt’s] passion.”
Just as Jolie herself recognized, Pitt invested substantial time and money year
after year to make Miraval successful. In making this investment, Pitt was assured—based on,
among other things, the couple’s years-long relationship and marriage, their joint vision for
Miraval, Pitt’s transformation of the estate into a private residence for the family (which in turn
increased the value of Château Miraval S.A.), and Jolie’s willingness to allow him to invest in a
manner far disproportionate to his relative ownership share—that neither party could, as a matter
of mutual and binding commitment, dispose of his or her interest without the other’s consent
The "mutual and binding commitment" between couples the lawsuit is basing its claims on ends when a divorce petition is filed. A couple in the midst of divorce no longer have the same commitment, conduct and understanding towards each other they had while they were a couple -- which is why the ATROs take effect as soon as a petition is filed.
The lawsuit said
"In Jolie’s words: Pitt and Jolie bought Miraval “as a family, for our family,” and “intended it to be a family business.”
They bought the estate for their family but they had not initially intended to get into the wine making business as Brad stated to Vogue:
"When we first got here, I mean, I never thought about having a winery either! I just wanted a beautiful base in this area and it happened to have a winery."
What the lawsuit refers to as an implied-in-fact contract or a quasi-contract are
tacit marital understandings logically and legally recognized as having ended on Sept. 19, 2016. So the lawsuit's demands that those understandings be enforced 5+ years after the petition was filed is, let's just say,
very amusing. But the lawsuit's assertion that their conduct, relationship, understandings and mutual and binding commitment remained true and unaltered even after Sept. 19, 2016 serves the bigger purpose of stating that the divorce petition isn't real, it's a
false narrative. That as they've repeatedly implied, their marriage is and has always been intact.
- The lawsuit claims that Angelina "pursued and then consummated the sale in secret" that "Pitt had no reasonable notice of Jolie’s plan to force him to partner on his family business and share his home with a controversial Russian oligarch" and that the Oct. 5 announcement of the sale "was the first Pitt or anyone associated with him learned that Stoli was even in discussions with Jolie to buy Nouvel." In fact, Joseph Mannis' June 30 and July 8 public filings months before the sale announcement included correspondence between him and Lance Spiegel and Anne Kiley on Nouvel's forthcoming sale and declarations from Mannis and Spiegel.
Lance Spiegel's June 29, 2021 declaration stated:
"On June 18, 2021, I received an email from Petitioner's counsel‚ Joe Mannis, asking me to "confirm [his] belief that the ATROS are no longer in force given the length of Separation of the parties, etc." Thereafter I discussed with Mr. Mannis, and he indicated that Petitioner wished to
"lift" the ATRÜS for estate planning purposes. Mr. Mannis also informed me that he would send a proposed stipulation to me. On June 25, I asked Mr. Mannis if his proposed stipulation had any implications on Petitioner trying to sell assets in France, and Mr. Mannis responded Petitioner was exploring sales involving the French assets."
In an email to Kiley, Mannis wrote:
"I specifically referenced a sale to a third party as the basis for our bringing an ex parte to lift the ATROs."
On June 29, 2021 Mannis wrote that
"the potential buyer has requested the Petitioner sign" "a 30-day exclusivity agreement to provide the buyer the sole right to acquire Nouvel LLC, on the agreed terms after the buyer completes due diligence, and the buyer has communicated that the agreement may be revoked at any time prior to the receipt of the signed agreement by Petitioner."
Legal filings months before the sale gave repeated notice that a deal had been reached and the sale was imminent. The claim that they were oblivious of all of that flies against the public evidence.
- As the lawsuit repeatedly stated, Angelina was a passive investor.
"she value[d] what Brad does and has done” at Miraval and “trust[ed] that his business decisions [would] bring additional value to the property and business.”
Brad made decisions for both of them. The complaint further quotes her as saying
"I regarded the house as my home, and I used it for meetings related to my international work.”
"As Jolie has publicly acknowledged, it was Pitt who “took responsibility for the architecture and renovation of Miraval.” Jolie, meanwhile, focused on “heading and running the Jolie-Pitt Foundation,” which had no relation to Miraval. Although Pitt and Jolie were an “equal partnership,” Jolie explained, Miraval “was [Pitt’s] passion.”
Her statement confirms that she had not returned to Miraval since 2016 but she has always been credited in Miraval's website -- under Brad's control through Marc Perrin who is officially the director of publication -- with inspiring and creating "the beautiful, the exceptional, the unforgettable" forming one passion and one formidable force jointly with Brad. Like this lawsuit, the
Une Inspiration page with both their names would always have been carefully reviewed knowing it would be scrutinized for the message it was giving.
- One of the interesting new details in the amended lawsuit is that Shefler had been pursuing a sale with Brad since 2016. He had "offered €60 million for Château Miraval S.A. Shefler also offered a bizarre sweetener for Pitt: a €50 million private jet on “very attractive terms,” the discounted price of €23 million." The lawsuit states that Shefler renewed his interest in purchasing Miraval in early 2021 and in May 2021 his reps met with Château Miraval S.A.'s CEO. Those dates align perfectly with Angelina's January 2021 letter explaining her personal objection to an alcohol-based business, her April 2021 letter that she would ""out of necessity have to remain in the business" if there was no deal," and her reps' June 2021 letter after the Miraval CEO's May meeting “we consider ourselves free from any negotiations with you,” and “free to pursue any other transactions that we would deem appropriate to undertake."
- The complaint attempts to explain Angelina's abrupt turnabout and decision to sell to Shefler by saying it came "in the wake of" Judge Ouderkirk's May, 2021 tentative ruling "finding that Jolie was not credible and that the existing custody order required modification, at Pitt's request, in the best interests of Pitt's and Jolie's children." This seems to have been lifted from Brad's lawyers' filing before the Appellate Court around that date that was widely quoted by
reports. It ignores the fact that the Appellate Court rejected his lawyers' arguments and the "existing custody order" remains unmodified to this day. The Appellate Court ruled "Judge Ouderkirk’s ethical breach, considered together with the information disclosed concerning his recent professional relationships with Pitt’s counsel, might cause an objective person, aware of all the facts, reasonably to entertain a doubt as to the judge’s ability to be impartial." Concern about Judge Ouderkirk's impartiality was deepened by his rulings against Angelina after she filed the statement of disqualification on August 7, 2020 and which included his opinion on her credibility and his refusal to allow the children to testify. The Appellate Court's July 23, 2021 decision that the judge must be disqualified was retroactive to when the statement was filed and voided all his rulings from that date. Resorting to using a disqualified judge's discredited opinion is scraping the bottom of the barrel. The fatal flaw in the complaint's attempt at ascribing a motive is that almost three months before the sale was finalized, the Appellate Court's
unanimous decision erased what they claimed was Angelina's motive to be "vindictive" and to seek "to inflict harm on Pitt." Brad's lawyers' singular accomplishment with this very lame effort was a gift-wrapped sensationalist headline that the tabloids predictably pounced on. The Appeals Court's decision, swiftly upheld by the CA Supreme Court, was a stunning victory for Angelina and Samantha Bley DeJean. If this resulted in any motive, it would be for magnanimity -- for being generous towards and acceding to Brad's wishes. Which in actual fact is what happened with Nouvel.
- A small, privately held, niche, "celebrity" wine producer like Miraval has few direct comparables so its market value cannot be easily estimated, the only way they can confidently say it is worth "
hundreds of millions" -- much more than the €140M appraised value of its assets -- is because they
know what half of Quimicum was sold for.
- The lawsuit adds "no one affiliated with Stoli Group or Tenute del Mondo ever contacted Pitt prior to the announcement of the sale. Pitt was shocked by the announcement of the sale." This last at least isn't necessarily a lie, they may not have told him of the
exact hour and minute of the announcement.
The original 02/17/2022 lawsuit stated: "And in the context of the much-advanced divorce proceedings, Pitt and Jolie both recognized that the ATROs no longer applied." That line was removed from the amended complaint and replaced by the even lamer one above. They are however much advanced towards their goal:
"The parents are committed to act as a united front to effectuate recovery and reunification."
Laura Wasser's December 1, 2016* email to Lance Spiegel:
Is it not the end goal that within the next 6-12 months Brad is enjoying frequent and continuous contact with all of the children on a joint custodial basis?
Angelina's statements on the medical impact of trauma gives hints 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 appointed in 2019 as Surgeon General of CA and served in that capacity 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.
Wasser's declaration* stated:
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.
7. 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 statement after the DCFS ended its investigation
"
The job of the DCFS is to make sure the children are in a safe and secure situation. As we said earlier this week, childcare professionals encouraged a legal agreement accepted and signed by both sides that was in the best interest of the children. Angelina said from the beginning that she felt she had to take action for the health of the family and is relieved that after their 8-week involvement, the DCFS is now satisfied the safeguards are put in place that will allow the children to heal."
Guardian UK, Sept. 2021
And did she fear for the safety of her children? This time she answers.
“Yes, for my family. My whole family."
"It took a lot for me to be in a position where I felt I had to separate from the father of my children.”
The custody stipulation was not immediately filed in court and they were hoping they would not need to. But as the DCFS and the children's therapists had anticipated when they encouraged the Stipulation re Child Custody and Therapy in the best interest of the children, Brad was quickly chafing at the bit to prematurely rejoin the rest of the family. Brad apparently believed he just needed to make the children spend more time alone with him to speed up reconciliation -- to forgive and forget as Angelina alluded.
Wasser's declaration:
By mid-November, our office began receiving demands from Respondent's counsel for increased visitation which was not recommended by the minor children's therapists and not agreed upon when the parties entered into the Custody Stipulation less than one month earlier. ... In both face to face meetings and written correspondence, our office maintained that it was premature to end the therapeutic monitoring only weeks after executing the Custody Stipulation encompassing both the therapists' and DCFS's recommendations.
Spiegel wrote:
For the past 3 months, Brad has complied with every aspect of the therapy process, notwithstanding ongoing concerns that the therapy team has ignored or disregarded issues that he has raised. ... His access to the children is and has been far more limited than it should be and is much less than any judge is likely to order on a going forward basis.
As I mentioned yesterday, it would be misleading for me to tell you that the request for access may be impacted by the opinions of the kids' therapists. Regardless of their views, there is no reason for Brad not to request court orders that are likely to include more access than I proposed yesterday.
The message that I attempted to deliver on Wednesday was that it is inconceivable to me that the court will not provide Brad with much greater access to the children than the time that I proposed earlier this week. It would be an extraordinary understatement to describe Brad as an involved parent. Based on evidence that has been corroborated by multiple sources (including public and private statements from your client), he has been a great father and there is no reason to exclude him from the children, including the isolated incident that was investigated and rejected by the DCFS.
Wasser told Spiegel:
"I understand that Brad is frustrated but feel that it is incumbent upon us to help this family achieve their long-term reunification goals in a smooth and expeditious manner. Litigation absolutely does not effectuate that goal."
"Angie's reluctance to enter into a stipulation to seal the file stems from her firm belief that litigation is the wrong decision."
"We also propose that the parties participate in joint sessions with a trauma specialist so that they may learn how to best support and interact with their children given their current state."
"I think that in order to be good liaisons between our clients and the mental health professionals, it is important we hear what they have to say firsthand and at the same time."
Even after the custody stipulation was filed in court, Brad wanted to push through with his plan to ask the court to grant him nontherapeutic visits. He filed a request to seal all files as a prelude to challenging the therapists so the details of what transpired on the plane and its effect on the children would not be made public -- which the court denied.
While Wasser batted for listening to the therapists, there was no mention of the potential effects on the children if Brad had visits without a therapist present before the children were ready. There was no mention of the neurobiological impact on the children of trauma that Angelina cited, likely because no one was aware of it at the time. Brad's push for premature non-therapeutic visitation, accompanied by false and misleading public posturing in his name, could only have deepened the children's problems with him. The DCFS was right that safeguards were needed and they served not only to allow the children to heal, but also to prevent Brad from making the family's situation worse in his misguided belief that he knew better than the experts.
"When I get in trouble it's because of my hubris."
"I think it's cyclical, certainly in America the post-war generation was all about strength and not showing weakness, and winning. And that works to a certain degree, but I think more vulnerability, more getting you arms around your successes and your failures, makes for a better partner, a better dad, a better son."
"I'm an asshole when it comes to this need for justice. I don't know where it comes from, this hollow quest for justice for some perceived slight. It's done me no good whatsoever. And this is coming from a guy who hit the lottery, I'm well aware of that. I hit the lottery, and I still would waste my time on those hollow pursuits."
"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."
Pitt is committed to his sobriety. “I had taken things as far as I could take it, so I removed my drinking privileges,” he told me. After she filed for divorce, Pitt spent a year and a half in Alcoholics Anonymous. “It was actually really freeing just to expose the ugly sides
of yourself. There’s great value in that.”
"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."
"I have a responsibility to myself and my family to remain true and authentic. I treat people whom I love honestly and sincerely."
“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.”
"It is a lovely thing to discover that your children don’t want you perfect. They just want you honest,"
Brad and Spiegel were correct about the process the therapists had in place in late 2016 not being sufficient to meet their objectives, but for the wrong reasons. It wasn't until October 8, or 24 days after the Sept. 14 incident, that the therapists felt the children were ready to receive visits from Brad. Brad thought they were proceeding too conservatively when in fact the therapists had underdiagnosed the trauma's medical impact. None of the therapists named in the October, 2016 custody stipulation or in Wasser's and Spiegel's emails were included in the witness lists for the Feb. 2021 hearings. An entirely different group of mental health experts took over which signaled a major shift in post-traumatic treatment
On January 9, 2017, after the family returned from a ski vacation, they announced that they had hired Judge Ouderkirk and signed an S&O to seal the files.
“The parties and their counsel have signed agreements to preserve the privacy rights of their children and family by keeping all court documents confidential and engaging a private judge to make any necessary legal decisions and to facilitate the expeditious resolution of any remaining issues. The parents are committed to act as a united front to effectuate recovery and reunification.”
Lance Spiegel and Judge Ouderkirk seemed in a hurry to hold the hearings on Brad's June 19, 2020 RFO to modify the 2018 Judgement on Custody and Visitation and tried but failed to get an exemption from mandated pandemic restrictions on court activity. The hearings were finally held in
February, 2021. Judge Ouderkirk's order was issued on June 29, 2021. On
July 23, 2021 the Appellate Court ruled that Judge Ouderkirk must be disqualified and ordered Judge Larsch to reverse his decision denying the disqualification. On
October 27, 2021 the Supreme Court denied the requests for a review and stay and the Appellate Court's decision became final. His disqualification was retroactive to August 7, 2020 and any orders after that date -- the only notable order was the June 29 Order on the RFO -- became void. There has been no request for new hearings to-date and the 2018 Judgement remains unchanged. Their statements that the Appellate and Supreme Court rulings did not invalidate the testimonies, evidence, and conclusions presented by the mental health experts over several full days of hearings hinted that
that was what really mattered,
not the judge's order or any judgement. They went ahead with the exhaustive hearings despite the judge's possible disqualification because regardless of how the upper courts ruled, it would not have any impact on the experts' testimonies. The judgement on custody and visitation, the judgement on status, and the orders are just tools they've had to use. It is the experts' detailed findings that they need. Specifically, the conclusion that their goals of recovery and reunification have been met -- the children have recovered and the family has healed. The statements, both released by Brad, are also notable because he was dismissive of the opinions of the therapists earlier.
"The appeals court ruling was based on a technical procedural issue." "The Supreme Court's decision not to review that procedural issue does not change the extraordinary amount of factual evidence which led the trial judge — and the many experts who testified — to reach their clear conclusion about what is in the children's best interests." "We will continue to do everything that's legally necessary based on the detailed findings of the independent experts."
"Ms. Jolie is glad for the family to now move forward cooperatively."
The experts and their expected testimonies from pre-hearing witness lists, and their areas of expertise.
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
Dr. Oren Boxer, a neurocognitive deficiency specialist, also supervised the effort outlined in the May 30, 2018 order designed to nudge the children to have a relationship with Brad. A year and a half after he tried to forcibly obtain nontherapeutic visits, the children still did not feel safe alone with him and needed to have Angelina or a therapist with them or within reach. It wasn't until the end of that 2018 summer effort, after several weeks of monitored preparation, that Brad and the children were scheduled to spend unsupervised time alone together.
The leaked May 30, 2018 order was a faux order (drafted by Anne Kiley after a 7-day hearing) that used subterfuge to force the children to start having a relationship with Brad. It included the reassurance that the court had determined they were safe with him and required Angelina to inform the children of "the parties' mutual desire and support for the Court's Orders as set forth herein." It most notably included the threat that
"if the minor children remain closed down to their father and depending on the circumstances surrounding this condition, it may result in a reduction of the time they spend with Petitioner and may result in the Court ordering primary physical custody to Respondent."
This was blatantly false. A sign of desperation as they tried a carrot and stick approach to getting to the children to open up to Brad. Angelina may have had reservations about the whole effort which Wasser may have supported -- and may have leaked since she had the motive and the means. There was reportedly "considerable tension" between Angelina and Wasser as Samantha Bley DeJean started to take over as Angelina's lead counsel in the middle of the schedule. The schedule had been timed to coincide with the filming of
Maleficent Mistress of Evil in London and
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood in L.A.
It was at the end of the schedule as Angelina and the children were preparing to return to L.A. after she wrapped filming her part in
MMoE, that she and Brad had their big public fight. Angelina filed a request for Case Management on August 7, 2018 and Brad filed his response on Aug. 8. The notable revelations from the filings were that Brad had failed to pay his share of the children's expenses but he had paid for $8M or 33.3% of the DeMille via a "loan." Their contributions to the DeMille are the mirror image of what they put in Miraval where Brad paid almost 70% and Angelina 30%. Miraval and the DeMille are their two biggest purchases. Given the timing, the fight was likely over the children's response to the schedule and perhaps assessing blame after progress fell short of what they had hoped. They both claimed to want to bifurcate marital status with Spiegel stating they requested it first and Bley stating Angelina wanted it finalized before the end of the calendar year -- 2018. After the uncharacteristically subdued response from the usually ornery Spiegel, nothing more was filed and they evidently swiftly made up.
Samantha Bley DeJean officially replaced Laura Wasser on August 25, 2018 or a week after Angelina and the kids returned to L.A. on Aug. 11. Mindy Nyby said, "Angelina has decided to change counsel to Samantha Bley Dejean, as Samantha’s expertise is the protection and best interest of children.”
"Angelina remains focused on healing her family,” “She continues to support the reconciliation of the children with Brad.”
Two and a half months later, the November 5, 2018 extension of Judje Ouderkirk's appointment stated:
"Trial on the bifurcated issue of custody is to begin on December 4, 2018, and completion date of this appointment shall be June 30, 2019, and the Temporary Judge's appointment shall continue in effect through June 30, 2019 (the ”completion date").
The intended December 4, 2018 trial or hearings would eventually be held in February, 2021. It was obviously very premature to even consider holding the hearings in December, 2018. In lieu of a trial, on Nov. 21, 2018 they filed
"Notice - Entry of Judgment (*Sealed Document* *Judgment on bifurcated issue of child custody and visitation. Jurisidcation is reserved over termination of marital status and over all financial issues.)"
The statement at the time:
A source close to Jolie said that she “is very pleased to be entering the next stage and relieved with progress for the health of their family.”
On 04/12/2019 they filed
Judgment - Status - only (Sealed Copy) and Judgment - Status - only (Per Court order of 4-12-19, attachments to Judgment - Staus only are sealed (4 pages). Termination Date 04-12-19 ) was filed."
Their statement:
“both parents are focused on what’s best for the kids."
All the judgements which would normally be routine are
sealed because they are
all part of their efforts to heal the family. They are all part of the false narrative.
Even without his disqualification, Judge Ouderkirk would no longer be presiding over the case. Anne Kiley's July 7, 2021 email to Joe Mannis (after the Judge's June 29 order and before the Appellate Court's July 23, 2021 decision):
"We agree that the second minute order is not correct because Judge Ouderkirk’s assignment is completed....
As you know there was a pending RFO as of December 31, 2020 and therefore under 1.c. of the stipulation and order for appointment the appointment was extended for the purpose of the hearing of the RFO through the entry of Judge Ouderkirk’s Orders thereon.
After the November, 2018 Judgement on Custody and Visitation, the "bifurcated issue of child custody" was the only matter mentioned in any of the stipulations extending the judge's appointment and the completion of the judge's work was specifically tied to it.
The succeeding extensions said:
"The Temporary Judge shall hear and determine any requests to modify the Judgment on the bifurcated issue of child custody and visitation through the term of the Temporary Judge."
The Oct. 25, 2019 stipulation for the extension of Judge Ouderkirk's appointment included two provisions that were not in any of the 3 previous S&Os to extend. The first indicated that they knew there would be no need for another extension:
"Any Requests for Order that are filed after the earlier of the two dates listed in subparagraph a. and b. above shall be heard by the Judge in the Los Angeles Superior Court to whom this proceeding is assigned."
The 2nd seemed to be prescient of the statement of disqualification against the judge which was filed 9 months later:
d. Under no circumstances shall this appointment be extended except upon joint
further written stipulation of the parties; the terms of this appointment shall not be extendable over
either party's objection, and neither party may file a Request for Order extending this appointment over the other party's objection.
A disqualification for ethical lapses is a big stain on the judge's record and he appeared to show bias after the statement was filed in denying Angelina's requests on matters like allowing Pax to testify. But the above provision which hinted that one side would have objections regarding the judge where none existed before gives me pause on whether some of it was pre-planned.
The only matters that required the attention of the assigned Judge in the L.A. Superior Court was signing the S&O lifting the ATROs and the California Board of Psychology's request for child custody evaluation reports and related testimony and orders necessary for its investigation into the conduct of custody evaluator Stan Katz. They apparently waited to complete the process before filing a complaint against him.
Once they were able to hold the hearings with the experts testifying to the success of the reunification process, Judge Ouderkirk's appointment "to make any necessary legal decisions and to facilitate the expeditious resolution of any remaining issues" was
completed. There are no necessary legal decisions left to be made, no remaining issues to be resolved
The Delays
There is an obvious pattern of delays that started with Brad's delay in serving the original complaint on Angelina. There have been three S&Os that successively pushed back the deadline for responses from April 4, to August 2, to October 3 currently. In the various lawsuits, both sides claim that a deadlock in Quimicum is detrimental to its health but are in no apparent hurry to have the courts resolve control.
On July 1 as the 30 day period the plaintiffs had to serve the amended complaint was about to end, they filed an ex parte application for an extension to Oct. 3 claiming they needed time to find out where Shefler and Olynik lived.
On July 12, almost 6 weeks after the amended complaint was filed and two weeks before the deadline for responses from Angelina and Nouvel, they filed an S&O that states: "No defendant shall respond to the First Amended Complaint and no party shall engage in discovery,
until October 3, 2022." The case management conference and OSC re: failure to file proof of service hearing scheduled for July 19 were moved to November 8.
Nothing from
defendants before Oct. 3. Plaintiffs are free to file. The complaint is still pending and not yet operative. The various lawsuits are all tied together and they are stretching along everything around it mostly focused on discovery.
The original complaint was filed February 17, 2022 and served on Nouvel on March 3. Proof of service was filed March 7. On March 18 Nouvel filed proof of service on an S&O to extend the deadline for Nouvel to respond from April 4 to May 4. It was signed by the Court on March 28. A defendant normally has 30 days after the complaint is served to file a response.
On March 14, the Clerk of Court ordered Brad and Mondo Bongo to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to file proof of service on Angelina. Two days later, on March 16, a process serving co. began efforts to serve the papers. On March 30 its agents signed Affidavits of Due Diligence on their failed efforts to personally serve the papers on Angelina. Three weeks later, on April 18, Brad's attorney Laura Brill filed proof of service by substituted service. In the case of substituted service, a defendant has 40 days from the date the papers are mailed to respond -- in this instance she had up to May 4.
The attempts were made "at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the party." Her address was redacted in the declarations on the 6 attempts to personally serve her as well as the last effort on March 25 by mail. The process servers evidently went up to the gates of the DeMille after entering Laughlin Park which is also gated.
March 16, 9:30AM. There are two vehicles there but they appear to belong to staff. No one answered the callbox or came to the gate or door when I attempted at 11:25AM. Left location at 11:30AM.
March 16, 5:50PM. Spoke with a H/F 5'6" Blk/Brn 40s-50s. Looked to be a housekeeper or worker. Stated subject was "unavailable." She stated she was "uncertain" of when she would be available.
March 21, 7:10PM. There were no vehicles as per my last visit. I rang the callbox again. There are surveillance cameras at the entrance to the home. No activity to report during my time at the home. Left location at 8:15PM
March 22, 11AM. The same Toyota Prius seen previously was parked there. There were no other cars here. I did not see anyone walking around or on the property. I rang the callbox before leaving. I received no answer. Left location at 2:15PM.
March 23, 5PM. No vehicles present, Several lights on but gate locked. No one arrived or exited. Left location at 8:15PM.
March 24. I arrived at the residence to find the Toyota Tacoma and an Audi sedan parked outside the gated residence. I rang the callbox. It was answered by security who advised me they would not accept any packages etc. at the residence. At approximately 6:25PM the gates opened and a large black SUV (later determined to be one of Ms. Jolies Corps) started to drive out. As I approached with my vehicle the blk SUV proceeded to speed off. The gates remained opened so I approached another vehicle that had its headlights on grey Audi. Registered to Thomas Oliver Crane. A Caucasian, Male, 6'8" 300 exited the vehicle. I approached him and explained who I was and why I was there. I asked if he lived there, and he did not answer. He said Ms. Jolie was not here right now. I proceeded to sub serve the subject. He then asked what the documents were regarding. Then said that Ms. Jolie did not live there. I then waited until 11PM to see if the black SUV would return. It did not. Left location a 11:00 p.m.
The big security said Angelina did not live in the DeMille and as the servers' reports show,
no one was living in the DeMille. Aside from the fact that there were no packages etc. being accepted in the residence, there was little to no activity observed by the process servers who spent hours staking out the property at various times of the day over several days. With all the kids in their teens or older, at least 2 large dogs, and a sizable security team, there should have been a lot of activity in the residence, vehicles entering and leaving, an instantaneous response from the dogs and security to the callbox ringing, and security investigating anyone sitting outside for hours spying on the house's occupants.
Brad's purpose in dragging his feet in serving Angelina with the complaint was apparently to delay the need for her to file a response -- something she clearly does not want to do as a month after the papers were sub served there was still no attorney listed for her. (Brad's response to the Sept. 19, 2016 petition was similarly delayed. It was filed 6 weeks later on Nov. 4, more significantly, that was 9 days after the Stipulation re custody and therapy was signed on Oct. 26. After signing the Custody Stipulation, he could not not file his "Response and Request for Dissolution of Marriage" but he didn't want to do it. Laura Wasser said in her declaration,* "Our office previously granted Respondent an open extension of time to file his response; there was no deadline to file.")
In this lawsuit, the successive delays that started with Brad's delay in serving the papers and extends to the latest request that gives them until October 3 to serve Shefler and Olynik may be because they are waiting for something that was itself delayed. The Order granting the California Board of Psychology's request for access to documents it needs to investigate their complaint against Stan Katz was only signed April 19, 2022 -- two months after the proposed order was filed on Feb. 7. This lawsuit was filed Feb 17, ten days after the proposed order was filed.
The threat of sanctions forced Brad to hire a process service but he made sure they would not be able to personally serve the papers on Angelina. Angelina had numerous outings during the period. On March 11 she was photographed with Vivienne exiting The Container Store in The Grove and on March 21 she was again seen walking with Vivienne in The Grove. On March 26 she was photographed arriving at the Cara Hotel, Los Feliz. She was in Washington, DC with Zahara for VAWA on March 16. The paparazzi would not have had much trouble serving the papers. The process servers on the other hand confined their efforts strictly to the DeMille and made no effort to locate her anywhere else. After being informed that Angelina was unavailable, the server did not ask where she was. After being told that she did not live there, the server did not ask where she lived. The server made no effort to follow any of the vehicles -- not the black SUV or the grey Audi -- even though he seemed to think that Angelina may return to the DeMille in the SUV. Brad apparently gave very strict instructions that they could only attempt service
inside the DeMille. If she wasn't available for them in the DeMille, they couldn't serve her. They could not ask about her whereabouts. They could not stop or follow individuals or vehicles leaving the DeMille. There were tight restrictions on what they could ask and do and which guaranteed that those efforts would fail. (On the other end of the spectrum was the
service on Olivia Wilde during an unannounced CinemaCon appearance and skepticism that Jason Sudeikis "had no prior knowledge" of the effort.)
Before she left to do
Without Blood, only one of her four recent video calls was clearly in the DeMille, the other 3 were in indeterminate locations.
Vanity Fair's article for May 20, World Bee Day said they had a mid-April Zoom chat from her office.
In mid to late March, perhaps just in time to avoid the process servers, they were all living in Briarcliff while in L.A. In late April and early May around the time of the GQ interview they had left Briarcliff.
==========================================
From the 2017 - 2019 Miraval Provence website
*
Select Filings
Sept. 26, 2016 cover letter and September draft for the S&O to seal
DECLARATION OF LAURA A. WASSER, ESQ
I, Laura A. Wasser, hereby declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney at law duly license to practice before all courts of the State of California, and am a partner in the firm of Wasser, Cooperman & Mandles, P.C., attorneys of record for Petitioner Angelina Jolie Pitt. I have personal knowledge of the following facts, and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.
2. Our firm has represented Petitioner since September 2016. On Sept. 19, 2016, our firm filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage from Respondent William Bradley Pitt on Petitioner's behalf. A true and correct copy of the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage is attached as Exhibit A. The Petition included custody requests regarding the parties' six minor children...
3. It is my understanding that on Sept. 14, 2016, the parties and their minor children were involved in an incident during a flight from Europe to California. As a consequence of that incident, the DCFS and the FBI initiated investigations regarding allegations of abuse.
4. It is my further understanding that since the Sept. 14, 2016 incident, the minor children have lived exclusively with Petitioner. Respondent has had weekly therapeutic visits with the minor children since Oct. 8, 2016. The frequency and duration of these visits have been determined by the minor children's therapists, who were put in place jointly by the parties immediately after the Sept. 14, 2016 incident. The therapists have been present during each of the Respondent's visits. With the cooperation of the parties, further weekly therapeutic visits of 5 hours each have been scheduled through the end of January 2017. Respondent's visits may increase at any time based on the therapists' evaluation of each child's individual feelings and progress.
5. On Oct. 26, 2016, the parties executed a Stipulation and Order re Child Custody and Therapy (Custody Stipulation). A true correct copy of the Custody Stipulation is attached as Exhibit B.
The Custody Stipulation memorializes the custody and visitation arrangement set forth above and incorporates recommendations made by DCFS. I have not attached copies of documents our office received from DCFS in order to protect the minor children's privacy and to comply with confidentiality statutes.
6. Approximately one week after the Custody Stipulation was executed, our office received a copy of Respondent's Response and Request for Dissolution of Marriage. A true and correct copy of the Response and Request for Dissolution of Marriage filed on Nov. 4, 2016 is attached as Exhibit C. Our office previously granted Respondent an open extension of time to file his response; there was no deadline to file.
7. By mid-November, our office began receiving demands from Respondent's counsel for increased visitation which was not recommended by the minor children's therapists and not agreed upon when the parties entered into the Custody Stipulation less than one month earlier. True and correct copies of Respondent's counsel's letters of Nov. 17, 2016 and Nov 21, 2016 demanding additional visitation are attached collectively as Exhibit D. In both face to face meetings and written correspondence, our office maintained that it was premature to end the therapeutic monitoring only weeks after executing the Custody Stipulation encompassing both the therapists' and DCFS's recommendations. A true and correct copy of my letter of Nov 18, 2016 clearly outlining our position is attached as Exhibit E.
8. Our office requested a joint meeting with both parties' counsel and the minor children's therapists to get their impressions. For weeks, Respondent's counsel indicated Respondent would not consent to such a meeting. Respondent's counsel instead continued to demand additional visitation for Respondent without regard for the mental health professionals' recommendations. A true and correct copy of our email exchange on Nov 28 / 29 2016 detailing additional demands is attached as exhibit F.
9. On Dec 1, 2016, our office finally received Respondent's consent to conduct a joint meeting with counsel and therapists the following week. However, Respondent's request for additional visitation in an non-therapeutic setting was not withdrawn and his counsel continued to advise that they intended to file a Request for Order. Our office therefore sent a letter to Respondent's counsel of Dec 1, 2016 requesting compliance with the Custody Stipulation and the therapists' recommendations. A true and correct copy of our Dec 1, 2016 letter is attached as Exhibit G.
10. On Dec. 2, 2016, our office received a response to my letter of the previous day which again suggested that Respondent sought additional visitation with the minor children and would be requesting same from the court. A true and correct copy of the Dec. 2, 2016 letter is attached as Exhibit H. The same day we filed a copy of the Custody Stipulation with the Court for enforcement purposes.
11. On Dec 6, 2016 our office received ex parte notice of Respondent's intent to apply for orders sealing the file in this case. A true an correct copy of the Dec. 6, 2016 letter confirming notice is attached as Exhibit I.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 6th day of December 2016 at Los Angeles, California
LAURA A. WASSER
======
Nov 17
Re Marriage of Pitt
Dear Laura,
Pursuant to our conversation this morning, I confirm the following:
1. I have proposed that Dr. Jonathan Salk be included in the therapy process. Dr Salk has excellent credentials and experience and would provide important input regarding the trauma issues.
2. I have informed you that the frequency of therapy sessions between Brad and the children needs to be increased to at least twice per week and that Brad wants to designate the location for these sessions in order to facilitate consistency.
3. We have agreed that I can preserve priority in depositions without the necessity of my noticing your client's deposition.
4. You have requested additional time to consider and respond to whether or not your client will stipulate to seal the custody pleadings.
5. You have also suggested that I contact the children's therapists regarding their perspectives about the progress of therapy to date.
cc Brad Pitt
======
Nov 18, 2016
Re: Marriage of Jolie Pitt
Dear Lance
I am in receipt of your letter of November 17, 2016. With regard to items 1 and 2, I believe it is important to rely on the suggestion confirmed in item 5 of your letter. As I said during our conversation yesterday, we believe that the children's therapists, Catherine Green and Angela Bissada are in the best position to determine whether Dr. Salk is necessary in the current therapy process. As you are aware, both Angela Bissada and Ian Russ have extensive training and experience in therapy of trauma issues. If the therapists feel that Dr. Salk could be a valuable addition to the team, we will certainly confer with our client.
With regard to the frequency of therapy sessions, you state that they need to be increased to at least twice a week and that Brad wants to designate the location for these sessions in order to facilitate consistency. I am wondering about your choice of the word "need" and again defer to the therapists to determine frequency. As to location, I am certain that the parties, with the help of their security team, can come up with a venue that makes sense for this family.
You will recall that only three weeks ago we signed a custody Stipulation and a week and a half ago Ian disseminated his recommendations. I understand that a schedule for the visits is in place through January. Please explain what has changed since October 26 and/or November 9, 2016.
With regard to an agreement that we request that the Court seal the custody pleadings, please specify what custody pleadings you intend to file. To my knowledge, we are currently operating under the terms of he Stipulation and following the Nov. 9, 2016 recommendations. Nothing further should be filed until next February at the earliest. It is my hope that we will be able to resolve custody issues in this case without the need for litigation. During our discussions, you have indicated that you agree. Continued rhetoric regarding a stipulation to seal pleadings we hope not to file seems counter intuitive.
During our 11:30 a.m. call yesterday, you asked whether it was acceptable that you spoke to Ian Russ unilaterally. I advised that it was. I was not aware that Azita and Gary were meeting with Ian while we were having our conversation wherein you confirmed our authorization for such communications.
Today Samantha and I met with Ian at his request. We believe that rather than separate meetings, an all-hands meeting which includes Ian Russ, Angela Bissada, Catherine Green, Judy Goldman, Lisa Hacker and the parties' Family Law attorneys would be most productive. I think that in order to be good liaisons between our clients and the mental health professionals, it is important we hear what they have to say firsthand and at the same time. Perhaps such a meeting could prove helpful in resolving some, if not all, of the issues raised in your letters of Nov 15 and Nov. 17, 2016.
Please let me know your thoughts.
cc Angelina Jolie (via email)
Samantha Klein
======
Nov. 21
Re Marriage of Pitt
Dear Laura:
This is in response to your correspondence dated Nov. 18, 2016 and initially reviewed this morning.
I am concerned that there has been a breakdown in communications. My proposals regarding Dr. Salk, frequency of sessions and location were in response to your question of how to stay focused on therapy efforts rather than litigation. I was not inviting debate about the needs for Dr. Salk or increased frequency and was not suggesting an all hands discussion regarding those subjects.
During our conversation, I asked about my contacting the children's therapists, not Dr. Russ. I was aware that the lawyers could meet with Dr. Russ and in fact both Gary and I previously have met with him.
Based on Dr. Salk's reputation and experience, we believe that he would provide assistance to the experts and the parties in dealing with the trauma concerns. The request for increased frequency and location were based on several factors, including the difficulty in scheduling and last-minute changes that have impeded the process.
Our client has made a major effort and commitment to the ongoing therapy efforts. However, his limited access to the children is not acceptable. My original message was and is that unless there are changes to the process, it is not going to accomplish its objectives.
Please advise whether your client will agree to Dr. Salk and commit to increasing the frequency of sessions with the children.
cc Brad Pitt
======
Nov. 28 5:43 PM
Between now and the start of the holidays/school break, Brad is requesting 30 to 60 minutes sessions to be scheduled as follows: one session with the twins, one session with the middle kids, one session with all 4, one session with the older boys and if they are not going to participate, another session with the 4 younger kids.
Darren, Michael O. or Richie can be present. The sessions will be at a home that is approximately 10 minutes from your clients residence.
There will be a request for a step-up in connection with the holidays/school break
Please let me know good time for us to talk tomorrow.
=====
Nov. 29, 8:28 AM
From Laura Wasser
To Lance Spiegel
cc Alicia Thomas
Re Access outside of therapy
Good morning Lance,
As I told you yesterday. I am out of the office today and not in a position to forward your request to my client for discussion until tomorrow
Are we confirmed for a meeting with the children's therapists on Monday at our office at 9:30AM? I understand that their impressions and opinions will not be dispositive of whether there is a shift in the status quo which increases Brad's interaction with the children and begins visits which are in a non-therapeutic setting, I do think that we ought to hear what they have to say and give some weight to their expertise.
I should have more to report tomorrow afternoon once I return to LA and Angie and I have had a chance to discuss.
======
To Laura Wasser
cc Alicia Thomas
Nov. 29 10:38 AM
Re Access outside of therapy
Laura,
For the past 3 months, Brad has complied with every aspect of the therapy process, notwithstanding ongoing concerns that the therapy team has ignored or disregarded issues that he has raised. At the same time, the process has been hampered by scheduling and other logistical problems that have resulted in significant periods of no contact between Brad and the children. His access to the children is and has been far more limited than it should be and is much less than any judge is likely to order on a going forward basis.
As I mentioned yesterday, it would be misleading for me to tell you that the request for access may be impacted by the opinions of the kids' therapists. Regardless of their views, there is no reason for Brad not to request court orders that are likely to include more access than I proposed yesterday. If your client is willing to agree to our proposal, we can avoid the necessity of filing an RFO and the meeting next week can be for the purpose of us telling the therapists that the parties have agreed to non-therapy access.
Bottom line is that I need to know whether your client will agree to yesterday's proposal.
======
Dec 1, 2016
Re Marriage of Jolie Pitt
Dear Lance
Our meeting yesterday left me feeling disconcerted. You have told us that you intend to file a request for additional non-therapeutic visitation and do not seem to have any regard for what the children's therapists feel is in their best interests.
I understand that Brad is frustrated but feel that it is incumbent upon us to help this family achieve their long-term reunification goals in a smooth and expeditious manner. Litigation absolutely does not effectuate that goal.
Is it not the end goal that within the next 6-12 months Brad is enjoying frequent and continuous contact with all of the children on a joint custodial basis? If we know that we will get to that point via either costly, ugly, protracted and public court battles or by virtue of out-of-court resolution and the therapeutic process upon which we all agreed less than a month ago, why would you opt to blow it all up and choose the former?
Please give the therapists a chance to tell us how the kids are feeling. I absolutely know that it will not be dispositive of your/your client's decision on how to proceed but I cannot imagine that it will not shape how we move forward.
There must be a middle ground upon which we can all agree, one which does not necessitate a public battle. Angie's reluctance to enter into a stipulation to seal the file stems from her firm belief that litigation is the wrong decision.
We have discussed a custody evaluation in this matter. As we advised yesterday, we are agreeable and would like it to commence immediately. We propose that Dr. Lulow be appointed. Is Brad agreeable? You have told us that you will not agree to the appointment of minor's counsel. We feel it is essential that the children have advocates who can communicate with the evaluator or the judge on their behalf. Will you reconsider? We also propose that the parties participate in joint sessions with a trauma specialist so that they may learn how to best support and interact with their children given their current state.
Please consider and ask your client to engage with us in trying to figure out how to effectively satisfy this family's concerns.
cc Angelina Jolie
Samantha Klein
======
Dec 2, 2016
Re Marriage of Pitt
Dear Laura
This is in response to your letter dated Dec. 1, 2016
The message that I attempted to deliver on Wednesday was that it is inconceivable to me that the court will not provide Brad with much greater access to the children than the time that I proposed earlier this week. It would be an extraordinary understatement to describe Brad as an involved parent. Based on evidence that has been corroborated by multiple sources (including public and private statements from your client), he has been a great father and there is no reason to exclude him from the children, including the isolated incident that was investigated and rejected by the DCFS.
As you know, we have confirmed that we will be present for the meeting on Monday. However, I have to tell you that this case is not going to end up in a court room because of my reluctance to listen to the therapists. If there is litigation, it is going to be because your client is either unable or unwilling to recognize that the children need to continue to have two loving parents in their lives.
I will get back to you regarding Dr. Lulow and on Monday I hope that you will be able to respond to Brad's request regarding the holidays.
cc Brad Pitt
======
From Laura Wasser
To Lance Spiegel
cc Samantha Klein, Linda Bigbee
Subject Jolie / Pitt
Dec. 2, 2:41PM
Lance -
Yesterday morning I sent you a letter regarding various custody issues and have yet to receive a response. We believe it is prudent to commence a child custody evaluation and to appoint minors' counsel. You have made it clear that Brad intends to file an RFO for increased custodial time next week and that nothing the therapists say during our meeting on Monday will change Brad's position. Therefore, we will be filing the Stipulation & Order Re Custody and Therapy. We have repeatedly attempted to avoid any court intervention. Brad's position made that impossible.
======
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE CHILD CUSTODY AND THERAPY
Petitioner and Respondent ...hereby stipulate to the following temporary orders:
Pending written agreement of the parties or further order of the court-
- Petitioner shall have physical custody of the children.
- Respondent shall continue to have agreed upon therapeutic visitation. The frequency and conditions of the visits are determined by Ian Russ, PhD
. Prior to making such determination, Dr. Russ shall consult with Lisa Hacker, Judy Goldman, Angela Bissada and Catherine Green. Dr. Russ shall at all times consider the best interests of the minor children.
- Respondent shall continue to participate in individual therapy a minimum of once a week for no less than 50 minutes per session. At the conclusion of each month Respondent shall provide Dr. Russ with proof
of his ongoing participation in individual therapy
as set forth in this paragraph.
- Respondent shall continue to participate in group therapy a minimum of one time per a week. At the conclusion of each month Respondent
shall provide Dr. Russ with proof
of his ongoing participation in group therapy
as set forth in this paragraph
- Respondent shall continue to submit to random drug and alcohol testing as directed by Dr. Robert Waldman. The random testing shall not exceed one time per week and there shall be a minimum of 4 tests every 30 days. Within 24 hours of receipt, Dr. Waldman shall provide Dr. Russ with Respondent's test results.
- the minor children shall continue to participate in individual counseling, the frequency and duration
of the minor children's therapy shall be as recommended by Angela Bissada and Catherine Green.
- Petitioner, Respondent, and the minor children shall continue to participate in conjoint sessions.
All communications are considered "safe harbor therapy" and protected by psychotherapist-patient privilege.
Confidentiality: "In the interest of privacy of the parties and their minor children. this Stipulation and Order is not being submitted to the Court for entry at this time. Nonetheless, upon execution, this Stipulation and Order shall be effective between the parties as a valid and binding agreement, whether or not it is ever entered by the Court. Either party may file this Stipulation and Order with the Court as necessary to enforce any term contained herein."
Dated and signed by all parties Oct 26, 2016
Angelina is represented by Laura Wasser and Samantha Klein both of Wasser, Cooperman Mandles PC
Brad is represented by Lance Spiegel of Young, Spiegel & Lee LLP who also signed his response, and Gary Fishbein of Butler Buzard Fishbein & Royce who did not sign. He would eventually be replaced by Anne Kiley of Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP
========
Dec. 7, 2016
The Court denies Respondent's Ex-Parte request for Order to Seal Records
The Court finds no emergency requiring ex-parte relief. In addition, the proposed broad sealing order fails to meet the requirements of the California Rule of Court 2.550. The Court states that such ruling should not delay any filing of a Request for Order by Respondent as such may be filed conditionally under seal following the procedures under California Rule of Court 2.551. Any proposed sealing order must specifically identify the documents to be sealed. In connection therewith the Court recognized the privacy rights of the minor children and will be guided by what is in the minor children's best interests.
================
Stipulations for Extended Appointment
Feb 6, 2018
STIPULATION FOR EXTENDED APPOINTMENT
Pursuant to the provisions of Article VI, section 21 of the California Constitution, and California Rules of Court, Rules 2.830 through 2.835, inclusive, the parties hereto, with the approval of, and joinder by‚ their respective attorneys of record, stipulate as follows:
1. The appointment of Honorable John W. Ouderkirk‚ a retired Judge of the Los
Angeles Superior Court. whose office address is 1875 Century Park East, Suite 450. Los
Angeles, California 90067. telephone (310) 284-8224, as a Temporary Judge shall be
extended. pursuant to the stipulation of the parties herein FOR ALL PURPOSES. Said Temporary Judge shall hear and determine all pre-trial issues, requests for order, and motions in the above-referenced matter. and preside over the trial or trials in the above- referenced matter until rendition of the judgment and any further judgments on bifurcated or reserved issues herein. and shall continue to act in said capacity until the conclusion of all matters which may be determined within the trial Jurisdiction of the California Superior Court including, but not limited to, all post-trial motions relating to the judgment and enforcement thereof but excluding modification proceedings.
2. The place of any hearing or trial shall be determined by the Temporary Judge and at the discretion of the Temporary Judge, appearances may be made telephonically.
3. Each party shall advance one-half of the cost of the Temporary Judge's
services, including the Temporary Judge's fees‚ administrative costs and costs for court reporting services, for any hearing or trial over which the Temporary Judge presides. subject to reallocation by the Temporary Judge, who is specifically authorized to order either party to pay attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with any matter presented to him.
4.Trial dates have yet to be scheduled but the completion date of this appointment shall be December 31. 2018, and the Temporary Judge’s appointment shall continue in effect through December 31‚ 2018 (the "completion date").
========
November 5, 2018
STIPULATION FOR EXTENDED APPOINTMENT
Pursuant to the provisions of Article VI, section 21 of the California Constitution, and California Rules of Court, Rules 2.830 through 2.835, inclusive, the parties hereto, with the approval of, and joinder by‚ their respective attorneys of record, stipulate as follows:
1. The appointment of Honorable John W. Ouderkirk‚ a retired Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, whose office address is 1875 Century Park East, Suite 450. Los Angeles, California 90067. telephone (310) 284-8224, as a Temporary Judge shall be extended. pursuant to the stipulation of the parties herein FOR ALL PURPOSES. Said Temporary Judge shall hear and determine all pre-trial issues, requests for order, and motions in the above-referenced matter. and preside over the trial or trials in the above- referenced matter until rendition of the judgment and any further judgments on bifurcated or reserved issues herein. and shall continue to act in said capacity until the conclusion of all matters which may be determined within the trial Jurisdiction of the California Superior Court including, but not limited to, all post-trial motions relating to the judgment and enforcement thereof but excluding modification proceedings except as provided herein.
2. The place of any hearing or trial shall be determined by the Temporary Judge and at the discretion of the Temporary Judge, appearances may be made telephonically.
3. Each party shall advance one-half of the cost of the Temporary Judge's services, including the Temporary Judge's fees‚ administrative costs and costs for court reporting services, for any hearing or trial over which the Temporary Judge presides, subject to reallocation by the Temporary Judge, who is specifically authorized to order either party to pay attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with any matter presented to him.
4. Trial on the bifurcated issue of custody is to begin on December 4, 2018, and completion date of this appointment shall be June 30, 2019, and the Temporary Judge's appointment shall continue in effect through June 30, 2019 (the ”completion date").
5. Each of the parties waives any right now or hereafter to challenge the Temporary Judge's appointment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §170.6, or to withdraw the stipulation to the Judge as Temporary Judge except for good cause pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §170.1
========
November 28, 2918
STIPULATION FOR EXTENDED APPOINTMENT
Pursuant to the provisions of Article VI, section 21. of the California Constitution, and California Rules of Court, Rules 2.830 through 2.835, inclusive, the parties hereto, with the approval of, and joinder by‚ their respective attorneys of record, stipulate as follows:
1. The appointment of Honorable John W. Ouderkirk‚ a retired Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court. whose office address is 1875 Century Park East, Suite 450. Los Angeles, California 90067. telephone (310) 284-8224, as a Temporary Judge shall be extended. pursuant to the stipulation of the parties herein FOR ALL PURPOSES. Said Temporary Judge shall hear and determine all pre-trial issues, requests for order, and motions in the above-referenced matter. and preside over the trial or trials in the above- referenced matter until rendition of the judgment and any further judgments on bifurcated or reserved issues herein. and shall continue to act in said capacity until the conclusion of all matters which may be determined within the trial Jurisdiction of the California Superior Court including, but not limited to, all post-trial motions relating to the judgment and enforcement thereof but excluding modification proceedings except as provided herein.
2. The Temporary Judge shall hear and determine any requests to modify the Judgment on the bifurcated issue of child custody and visitation through the term of the Temporary Judge.
3. The place of any hearing or trial shall be determined by the Temporary Judge and at the discretion of the Temporary Judge, appearances may be made telephonically.
4. Each party shall advance one-half of the cost of the Temporary Judge's services, including the Temporary Judge's fees‚ administrative costs and costs for court reporting services, for any hearing or trial over which the Temporary Judge presides, subject to reallocation by the Temporary Judge, who is specifically authorized to order either party to pay attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with any matter presented to him.
5. The completion date of this appointment shall be December 31, 2019, and the Temporary Judge’s appointment shall continue in effect through December 31, 2019 (the “completion date”).
========
October 25, 2019
STIPULATION FOR EXTENDED APPOINTMENT
Pursuant to the provisions of Article VI, section 21 of the California Constitution, and California Rules of Court, Rules 2.830 through 2.835, inclusive, the parties hereto, with the approval of, and joinder by‚ their respective attorneys of record, stipulate as follows:
1. The appointment of Honorable John W. Ouderkirk, a retired Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, whose office address is 1875 Century Park East, Suite 450, Los Angeles, California 90067, telephone (310) 284-8224, as a Temporary Judge shall be extended, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties herein, FOR ALL PURPOSES until the earlier of:
a. December 31, 2020; or
b. six months following the entry of the Further Judgment on all reserved issues
(if there is a Further Judgment which provides for a reservation of jurisdiction over an issue or issues not resolved therein, that is not the Further Judgment on all reserved issues).
c. However in the event there is one or more Requests for Orders pending as of the earlier of the two dates listed in subparagraph a. and b. above, then the appointment of the Temporary Judge shall be extended for the purpose of the hearing of said Request(s) for Orders through the entry of the Temporary Judge‘s Order(s) thereon. Any Requests for Orders that
are filed after the earlier of the two dates listed in subparagraph a. and b. above shall be heard by the Judge in the Los Angeles Superior Court to whom this proceeding is assigned (which assignment shall be after the earlier of the two dates listed in subparagraph a. and b. above). Additionally, in the event that trial over any of the reserved issues has commenced but has not been concluded by December 31, 2020, then the appointment of the Temporary Judge shall be extended through the
entry of the Judgment resolving the reserved issues.
d. Under no circumstances shall this appointment be extended except upon joint
further written stipulation of the parties; the terms of this appointment shall not be extendable over
either party's objection, and neither party may file a Request for Order extending this appointment over the other party's objection.
2. Subject to the terms of the duration of the appointment FOR ALL PURPOSES as set
forth in subparagraphs a. through d. above‚ said Temporary Judge shall hear and determine
all pre trial issues, requests for order, and motions in the above-referenced matter, and preside over the trial or trials in the above-referenced matter until rendition of the judgment and any further judgments on bifurcated or reserved issues herein, and shall continue to act in said capacity until the conclusion of all matters which may be determined within the trial jurisdiction of the California Superior Court, including, but not limited to, all post-trial motions relating to the judgment and enforcement thereof, but excluding modification proceedings except as provided herein. The Temporary Judge shall hear and determine any requests to modify the Judgment on the bifurcated issue of child custody and
visitation through the term of the Temporary Judge's appointment.
3, The place of any hearing or trial shall be determined by the Temporary Judge and, at
the discretion of the Temporary Judge, appearances may be made telephonically.
4. Each party shall advance one-half of the cost of the Temporary Judge’s services, including the Temporary Judge’s fees, administrative costs and costs for court reporting services, for any hearing or trial over which the Temporary Judge presides, subject to reallocation by the Temporary Judge, who is specifically authorized to order either party to pay attorney's fees and costs incurred in connection with any matter presented to him.
_________________________________
**They spent €78M (€35 + 43) on the estate and its subsequent renovation and expansion. Miraval Provence paid out annual dividends of $12M. A 30 - 50% dividend payout ratio is considered healthy. A PE ratio of around 30 is in the mid-range for the industry. Miraval Provence has seen double digit growth the past few years so it could be higher. The increase in the value of the Château Miraval estate likely mirrors the success of the
rosé market with recent figures showing an annual increase of 10% for vineyards in the Var region. Château Miraval could reasonably account for around 20% of the value of Quimicum.
_________________________________
Damian McKinney, global CEO of Stoli Group said they had long admired Miraval’s “exceptional” wines and brand and was thrilled to have a position alongside Brad Pitt as curators of its extraordinary vintages. “We are truly honoured to do our part to uphold the integrity and commitment, as well as invest the time and passion, evidenced in both the Chateau and the Miraval brand,” he said.
Miraval
Original 2019 version and still presently the English version
When contacted by Decanter this week, Tenute del Mondo said: ‘Tenute del Mondo chose to invest in Miraval as it is an exceptional wine and brand that complements our portfolio. We entered this partnership wanting to bring the talent, skills and distribution channels that will only further enhance the Miraval offering and make Miraval the most successful brand of rosé wine & Champagne.’
A spokesperson for Miraval winery told Decanter today (22 February) there was no comment on the latest media reports. ‘In terms of the winery itself, it is business as usual and we are now ready to release the delicious 2021 vintage of Miraval rosé.’
