Angelina Jolie's lawyer orders ex Brad Pitt to 'let her go' as actor is accused ... trends now
Angelina Jolie's lawyer made a highly unusual public appeal to her ex husband Brad Pitt – asking the actor to 'let her go' - on Friday.
Paul Murphy, her attorney, said: 'She looks forward to the day when he is finally able to let her go'. Pitt is accused of 'sandbagging' his former wife by filing a response to documents which her team say was 'designed to cause a press event.'
Her team also say that the latest legal skirmishes, which concern Pitt requiring Jolie to sign an NDA as part of a deal to sell her portion of their vineyard, are part of a 'shameful' cover-up of his abuse of her and are 'about power and control.'
The appeal follows a declaration by a former bodyguard which was lodged at the LA Superior Court by Pitt's side. It accused Jolie of trying to drive a wedge between Pitt and their six children. Jolie's team are now moving to have that filing struck.
It's thought that the three eldest children – Maddox, Pax and Zahara - have no relationship with Pitt, and son Pax said in an Instagram post three years ago that his father was a 'world class a**hole' and 'f***ing awful human being' who made his children tremble with fear.
Angelina Jolie's lawyer made a highly unusual public appeal to her ex husband Brad Pitt – asking the actor to 'let her go' - on Friday (the couple pictured in 2013)
Pitt is no longer seeking to vary custody arrangements for the three children who are under 18, following protracted legal action which failed.
Meanwhile, battle rages over the vineyard they once co-owned, which Ms Jolie sold to billionaire Yuri Sheffler of the Stoli group.
Pitt argues went against their agreement to offer the other the right of first refusal.
Paul Murphy, attorney for Angelina Jolie, said: 'Mr. Pitt's continued attempt to equate common NDAs for security personnel and housekeepers covering confidential information employees learn at work, with him demanding an expanded NDA to ensure the continued coverup of his deplorable actions remains shameful.
'This case is not about NDAs in general, but about power and control.
'All Angelina has ever wanted was separation and health, with positive relationships between all members of their family, including Mr. Pitt. She looks forward to the day when he is finally able to let her go.'
A source close to the case adds that the former bodyguard Tony Webb who made the declaration was present when Pitt allegedly attacked Jolie and the children in the 2016 incident on a private plane which ended the marriage.
The source said: 'Webb is on Pitt's payroll and worked for the same security team whose other members stood on the Tarmac in LA and turned a blind eye to Pitt's actions that day.
It's thought that the three eldest children – Maddox, Pax and Zahara - have no relationship with Pitt (Brad is pictured in 2014 with L-R Pax, Shiloh, Maddox and his parents Jane and William)
Angelina and Brad are pictured in 2005 movie Mr And Mrs Smith, where they met while he was still married to Jennifer Aniston
'Webb's declaration also conveniently leaves out the fact that the second security guard mentioned in the declaration, though called to testify by Pitt, testified in favor of Angelina, not against her.'
In legal papers seen by Daily Mail.com, Jolie objects to and moves to strike the declaration of their former bodyguard, filed by Pitt on Wednesday.
The filing notes: 'Pitt clearly is trying to gain an unfair advantage by offering this contested evidence for the first time on reply when Jolie has no opportunity to respond.
The law is crystal clear that this form of evidence sandbagging grossly violates due process of law and should be struck. 'The general rule of motion practice is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers.'
It adds: 'The Webb declaration has no relevance to this case or to the issue presented by Pitt's motion. In fact, the Webb declaration, which does not mention the word 'Miraval' a single time, serves to demonstrate exactly why other NDAs involving other parties and other circumstances are irrelevant and will—as Jolie predicted in her opposition brief— cause a mini-trial on each and every NDA Pitt claims is relevant to this case.
'The Webb declaration illustrates the point: Pitt is now claiming that conversations with two 'contractors' (security guards) about testimony in a different case are somehow relevant here. Jolie contests the testimony's relevance, its credibility (Webb works for Pitt), and its accuracy.
'To resolve this, the Court would have to have a mini-trial on this issue alone, yet none of it explains whether Pitt's demand for an expanded NDA from Jolie as a condition of purchasing her interest in Miraval was the reason the deal they had struck fell apart.
'If this evidence truly was relevant and material to Pitt's motion, he would have— indeed, was required to—offer
