Random Fuzzy
Messenger Politics has all of 70 followers on Twitter/X, but its parent site, The Messenger, has a more respectable 42K. It boasts a number of industry veterans -- its editor in chief is the former editor in chief of People, and its deputy editor was executive editor of Time -- which may explain how they could have access to a legitimate source.
"System failure"-- something they've only mentioned without much detail -- will undoubtedly be the central topic when they are finally able to talk. She told the Guardian two years ago, “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.”
"Family" usually means including Brad. "Whole family" unquestionably includes Brad.
Some additional comments on the statements issued by "a source close to Jolie" and "sources close to Pitt’s legal team" -- a notable distinction that distances Brad personally from the source The statements illustrate that they don't lie but their "sources" and esp. their legal teams routinely do:
From the "source close to Jolie":
"his corrupt and secretive financial dealings with Brad Pitt's team, violations that ran afoul of judicial ethics in her family’s case, and who refused to review evidence of domestic abuse"Calling Ouderkirk's failure to disclose additional engagements "corrupt" is excessive and unnecessary. Bearing in mind what Angelina said to VF in 2017:
“We care for each other and care about our family, and we are both working towards the same goal.”They want the same thing and are on the same side. As Laura Wasser wrote to Lance Spiegel in November, 2016:
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.Which Peter Harvey reiterated in May, 2021:
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?
Peter Harvey, a lawyer for Jolie who is close to the case but not directly involved, said the actress “supports joint custody” but the situation is complicated and he can’t go into detail because the court proceedings are under seal.Robert Olson's statement when the CA Supreme Court denied the request to review:
In a statement Wednesday, Jolie's attorney tells PEOPLE, "Ms. Jolie is focused on her family and pleased that her children's wellbeing will not be guided by unethical behavior, As reinforced by California's appellate courts, our judiciary prioritizes ethics and children's best interests, and won't tolerate judicial misconduct to reward the interests of a party. Ms. Jolie is glad for the family to now move forward cooperatively."The "source close to Jolie" -- likely Paul Murphy -- should have simply repeated Olson's words. He knew full well that while Ouderkirk and Spiegel regarded the rules cavalierly -- and this needed to change as a general practice -- in their case there could not be any intended bias or corruption. They only needed Judge Ouderkirk to preside over the proceedings. They didn't need his rulings. What really mattered was the mental health experts testimonies. They already have what they both wanted from the start.
The assertion that Ouderkirk "refused to review evidence of domestic abuse" is false. The whole process he presided over -- all the testimonies -- involved reviewing evidence of healing from domestic abuse. Their filings used the "offer of proof" (which is actually a prep for appeals and not literally an offer of proof) as an excuse to explain why Brad supposedly backed out of the deal re Nouvel so this part is a sanctioned, standing falsehood.
From "sources close to Pitt’s legal team":
"the 2021 appellate court ruling was based on a “technical procedure,” and had nothing to do with the facts related to the custody case"It is much more than a technical procedure, it was a serious ethical lapse. While it does not have anything to do with the underlying facts, specifically the experts' testimonies, it concerns the Judge's actions which form part of the "facts related to the custody case."
From the Appellate court's decision:
Advised of Judge Ouderkirk’s involvement in two previously undisclosed matters in 2019/2020 in which Pitt’s counsel represented one of the parties, thereby renewing and expanding a relationship with lawyers who had in the past attained the status of significant repeat-players, in conjunction with Judge Ouderkirk’s failure to voluntarily disclose those matters to Jolie and her new lawyer, who had no prior professional relationship with the judge, the person on the street might reasonably entertain a doubt as to Judge Ouderkirk’s ability, consciously or subconsciously, to remain impartial in the upcoming, hotly contested custody dispute. Indeed, Pitt’s counsel’s advocacy—over objection—for the extension of Judge Ouderkirk’s appointment in Levitan and his request for, and Judge Ouderkirk’s acceptance of, a new appointment in Merade in the months leading up to an effort by Pitt to modify the parties’ stipulated custody judgment, even without considering Judge Ouderkirk’s failure to disclose, create a level of discomfort that might justify disqualification. When coupled with Judge Ouderkirk’s breach of his ethical obligation to timely disclose the new professional relationships in 2019 and 2020, the broad standard of those provisions — “might reasonably entertain a doubt” —has certainly been satisfied.
“Judge Ouderkirk was not in business with anyone,” sources close to Pitt’s legal team said. “Like other private judges, he was engaged by both Ms. Jolie’s and Mr. Pitts attorneys on other cases, which he disclosed.The Appellate court noted Judge Ourderkirk's "failure to voluntarily disclose those matters to Jolie and her new lawyer, who had no prior professional relationship." The Brad team statement thus is misleading on both counts.
“While the legislation she is supporting is potentially very viable, it has nothing to do with her custody case. It is inexplicable why she would use her advocacy for another defamatory effort to disregard all the objective facts in order to advance her own interest.”Murphy is openly excited to be representing Angelina. Even though the case is still pending, he lists her together with his notable court victories. It seems he let his enthusiasm get the better of him. As the Brad team noted, Piqui's law "has nothing to do with her custody case. It is inexplicable" why Murphy included a defamatory reference to Judge Ouderkirk to expound on her support for the law. He seemed to lose sight of the fact that the objective was to support the legislation. A public sparring match that distracted from passing the legislation would be the last thing Angelina wants.
While making an obligatory defense of Ouderkirk, the Brad team was careful to subtly show support for the "potentially very viable" legislation.
The rest of the Brad team statement -- "disregard all the objective facts" "in order to advance her own interest" -- is total nonsense regardless of whether it refers to Ouderkirk or to Piqui's Law especially given the statement's misleading claims noted above precisely ignore "objective" facts. Murphy simply got carried away.
Perhaps most significant, consistent with the earlier People article on Petit Fler de Miraval champagne, no one mentions the word "divorce." Murphy refers to "her family’s case," while the Brad team refers to "her custody case." This was never a divorce case. It was always a case that served as an umbrella to protect the therapeutic process for the children while the family worked on healing and reunification.
Angelina Jolie Urges Gov. Newsom to Sign Piqui’s Law Amid ‘Personal’ Fight for Family’s Safety (Exclusive) https://t.co/aUoZFO5qYp pic.twitter.com/FH7mmJ2Udu
— Messenger Politics (@MessengerPol) October 3, 2023
In a heartfelt appeal to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Angelina Jolie has championed Piqui's Law, a critical piece of legislation aimed at addressing systemic flaws within the family court system.
This law would introduce essential training for judges, mediators and court professionals concerning child abuse and domestic violence. Jolie's involvement in this cause transcends her public persona, stemming from her own experiences and her close connection to Ana Estevez, the mother of Piqui, a 5-year-old tragically killed by his father in 2017.
The Messenger has viewed the physical letter, signed by the actress.
"You will be aware that Piqui's Law derives its name from a 5-year-old boy who suffered a tragic fate, killed by his father in April of 2017. Piqui's mother, Ana Estevez, fought unsuccessfully within the California family court to secure protection for her child," Jolie wrote to Newsom. "Over the past six years, Ana has collaborated with California legislators to ensure that authorities do not overlook or dismiss the signs of abuse, signs that tragically result in harm and death for numerous children in our country."
If enacted, Piqui's Law holds the promise of ushering in a new era of child safety within the family court system. Additionally, the legislation is driven by the goal of preventing abused children from being separated from their non-violent parents and ordered into reunification camps — an outcome tragically experienced by young Piqui.
A source close to Jolie also told The Messenger why this law is so important for her, explaining: "Angelina has been motivated to advocate for judicial training and legal reforms based on her own personal experiences and years of meeting with experts and affected families like Ana's. This is personal to her, and for good reason. Look at what she faced from a biased judge who was removed by the appellate court for his corrupt and secretive financial dealings with Brad Pitt's team, violations that ran afoul of judicial ethics in her family’s case, and who refused to review evidence of domestic abuse. It's no surprise she has taken on this specific issue. Their whole family is a victim of system failure. She has been fighting privately for her family and publicly for other families for years."
The Governor has 12 days from Sept. 21 to sign it into law or veto the bill.
Angelina Jolie slams ‘corrupt’ judge in Brad Pitt child custody case, claims he favored ex https://t.co/agBGJtEOHq pic.twitter.com/swVudtQIWg
— New York Post (@nypost) October 4, 2023
Sources close to Brad Pitt, however, told The Post Jolie is using “her usual tactics” to “misrepresent the truth” and damage the reputation of the judge and other professionals who have testified against the actress.
Ouderkirk, a retired private judge who actually officiated the former couple’s nuptials, ruled in May 2021 that the couple would maintain 50/50 custody of their children.
The couple has six children— Maddox, 22, Pax, 19, Zahara, 18, Shiloh, 17, and twins Knox and Vivienne, who are 15. The actress said Ouderkirk denied her children the opportunity to testify even though California law allowed children 14 years old and older to do so.
Jolie challenged the judge’s tentative custody decision and filed a petition in the appellate court to remove Ouderkirk from the case.
The appellate court in July 2021 ruled Ouderkirk should be disqualified from the case because the retired judge didn’t sufficiently disclose business relationships with Pitt’s attorneys.
However, sources close to Pitt’s legal team told The Post the 2021 appellate court ruling was based on a “technical procedure,” and had nothing to do with the facts related to the custody case.
“Judge Ouderkirk was not in business with anyone,” sources close to Pitt’s legal team said. “Like other private judges, he was engaged by both Ms. Jolie’s and Mr. Pitts attorneys on other cases, which he disclosed.
“It’s disappointing but not surprising that she would continue to manipulate the media and the public with [Donald] Trump-like distortions and to deliberately make misrepresentations without any regard for the damage it causes to innocent third-parties just trying to do their jobs.”
Sources close to Pitt’s team added, “While the legislation she is supporting is potentially very viable, it has nothing to do with her custody case. It is inexplicable why she would use her advocacy for another defamatory effort to disregard all the objective facts in order to advance her own interest.”
Guardian, Sept., 2021
And did she fear for the safety of her children? This time she answers. “Yes, for my family. My whole family.”
“I’m not the kind of person who makes decisions like the decisions I had to make lightly. It took a lot for me to be in a position where I felt I had to separate from the father of my children.”
“What I know is when a child has been harmed, physically, emotionally, or witnessed the harm of somebody they love or care for, it can cause damage to that child.
“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.” She says the lack of ratification has had a significant impact on her battle: “My 17-year-old, for example, has been denied a voice in court.
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.”
