Brad Pitt SLAMS Angelina Jolie’s latest divorce filing as a ‘tactical gambit’ to delay bitter custody battle and says their children will be ‘hurt most’ by ‘depriving them of a final resolution’
- Brad Pitt has fired back at ex-wife Angelina Jolie after she filed a request to remove Judge John W. Ouderkirk from their almost four-year divorce battle
- Jolie, 45, claimed Ouderkirk – who married the former couple in 2014 – failed to disclose his ‘business relationships’ with one of Pitt’s attorneys
- Pitt, 56, claims Jolie was made aware of business dealings and is making a ‘transparently tactical gambit’ to delay matters
- The actor adds that their six children Maddox, 19, Pax, 16, Zahara, 15, Shiloh, 14, and twins Knox and Vivienne, 12, will be ‘hurt most’ by the hold up
Brad Pitt has fired back at ex-wife Angelina Jolie via his legal team, after she filed a request to remove Judge John W. Ouderkirk from their almost four-year divorce battle on Thursday.
Angelina, 45, filed papers on August 7 claiming that Ouderkirk – who married the former couple in 2014 – failed to disclose other ‘business relationships’ he had with Pitt’s lawyers, suggesting that he would be ‘biased’ in their divorce case.
However, Pitt, 56, has responded via his legal team in papers filed on August 13, calling Jolie’s filing a ‘Hail Mary’ – an American Football reference to deliberately delay a game – according to legal documents obtained by PEOPLE.
Ongoing battle: Bratt Pitt has slammed his ex-wife Angelina Jolie for attempting to delay their almost four-year divorce case, saying that it will be their children who are ‘hurt most’
In them, Pitt’s legal team accuses the actress of making a ‘transparently tactical gambit’ to delay matters, adding that it will be their own children who are ‘hurt most’ by the hold up.
The papers also allege that it is a ‘a thinly-veiled attempt by Jolie to delay the adjudication of long-pending custody issues in this case.’
The former power couple – who first split in 2016, effectively ending a 12-year relationship and two years of marriage – six children, Maddox, 19, Pax, 16, Zahara, 15, Shiloh, 14, and twins Knox and Vivienne, 12.
Jolie originally alleged in her filing that Ouderkirk ‘failed to make timely mandatory disclosures of ongoing business and professional relationships between himself’ and Pitt’s legal team.
Final resolution: Angelina with their six children, Maddox, 19, Pax, 16, Zahara, 15, Shiloh, 14, and twins Knox and Vivienne, 12, pictured last February in New York City
She added in her request that she was ‘never afforded the opportunity to even raise a concern or to object to the ever-increasing business relationships between Judge Ouderkirk and [Pitt’s] counsel — relationships that were providing a steady stream of income to Judge Ouderkirk and the potential for future work.’
Adding: ‘These are precisely the type of repeat customer circumstances that create doubts about a privately-compensated private judge’s ability to remain impartial.’
Yet, Pitt’s team has responded saying Jolie had been fully made aware that Ouderkirk had accepted ‘additional new enegagements’ involving the actor’s team, and that she had ‘never objected’ to Ouderkirk’s ‘continued involvement’ in the proceedings until now.
In Pitt’s response, he also pointed out three times where Jolie and her lawyers are said to have asked to extend Ouderkirk’s appointment to their ongoing divorce case.
The documents add that Pitt is concerned about how the continued delays will affect their children, saying: ‘Unfortunately, the individuals hurt most by Jolie’s transparently tactical gambit are the parties’ own children, who continue to be deprived of a final resolution to these custody issues.’
Jolie’s lawyer. Samantha Bley DeJean, responded to Pitt’s filing in a statement to PEOPLE saying: ‘This is the Judge who married them, someone who her team knew well and who her team actually introduced to the couple.’
‘Her lawyers have also worked with him, so the only excuse for their filing is that her team knew they were likely to lose and they needed to stall by changing the referee in the fourth quarter.’