Angelina Jolie's lawyer begs Brad Pitt to 'let her go' as he accuses actor of 'shameful' cover-up

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA: In a highly unusual public appeal, Angelina Jolie's lawyer, Paul Murphy, directly addressed her ex-husband Brad Pitt, urging him to "let her go" amid their ongoing divorce drama, as reported by The Daily Mail.

Murphy's statement came in response to recent legal maneuvers by Pitt's team, which Jolie's camp alleges were designed to generate media attention rather than pursue legitimate legal objectives.

Angelina Jolie's lawyer urges Brad Pitt to 'let her go' amid divorce battle

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 claims was "designed to cause a press event."

According to Murphy, the latest legal skirmishes, including Pitt's demand for Jolie to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) as part of a deal to sell her portion of their vineyard, are part of a "shameful cover-up" of Pitt's alleged abuse and exertion of power and control over Jolie. He emphasized that Jolie's ultimate goal is separation and health for both herself and their family, including positive relationships between all members.

Pitt filed the appeal after a former bodyguard filed a declaration at the LA Superior Court. Jolie was accused of trying to drive a wedge between Pitt and their six children. The team representing Jolie is now seeking to have that filing struck down.

It's believed that the three eldest children – Maddox, Pax, and Zahara - have no relationship with Pitt. Son Pax had expressed negative sentiments about his father in an Instagram post three years ago, referring to him as a "world class ahole" and a "f*ing awful human being," stating that Pitt made his children tremble with fear.

Pitt is no longer seeking to change custody arrangements for the three children who are under 18, after extended legal proceedings that were unsuccessful.

Meanwhile, a dispute continues over the vineyard they previously co-owned, which Jolie sold to billionaire Yuri Sheffler of the Stoli group. Pitt argues that this sale violated their agreement to give each other the right of first refusal.

Paul Murphy, Angelina Jolie's attorney, criticized Brad Pitt's attempt to equate common NDAs for security personnel and housekeepers with an expanded NDA to cover up his actions, calling it shameful and emphasizing that the case is about power and control.

"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 cover-up of his deplorable actions remains shameful," Murphy said. 

"This case is not about NDAs in general, but about power and control," the lawyer added. 

"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," he said. 

The source suggests that Tony Webb, the former bodyguard who made the declaration, was present during the 2016 incident on a private plane where Pitt allegedly attacked Jolie and the children, which ultimately led to the end of their 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."

In legal documents obtained by the Daily Mail, Jolie is objecting to and seeking to strike the declaration of their former bodyguard, which was filed by Pitt. The documents highlight that the declaration conveniently overlooks the fact that the second security guard mentioned, who was called to testify by Pitt, actually testified in favor of Angelina, rather than against her.

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 legal argument put forward by Jolie's team emphasizes that this type of evidence sandbagging, which involves introducing new evidence in reply papers without giving the opposing party a chance to respond, flagrantly violates due process of law and should be dismissed. They point out that the standard practice in motion proceedings is to disallow the introduction of new evidence in reply papers.

Angelina Jolie's legal team challenges Brad Pitt's filing in bitter divorce battle

The crux of Jolie's team's argument revolves around the concept of "evidence sandbagging," where new evidence is introduced in reply papers without giving the opposing party an opportunity to respond. They argue that this practice blatantly disregards due process and should be dismissed. They highlight that standard practice in motion proceedings disallows the introduction of new evidence in reply papers.

Furthermore, Jolie's team asserts that the evidence presented in the Webb declaration, submitted by Pitt's legal team, lacks relevance to the case at hand. 

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."

The declaration is scrutinized for attempting to draw connections between unrelated conversations and cases, leading to potential distractions and the need for additional mini-trials. Jolie's team contests the relevance, credibility, and accuracy of the testimony presented by Webb, emphasizing his affiliation with Pitt as undermining his impartiality.

"If this evidence truly was relevant and material to Pitt's motion, he would have— indeed, was required to—offer it in his moving papers."

Moreover, Jolie's team criticizes Pitt's failure to include this evidence in his initial motion papers, suggesting that its belated introduction is aimed at creating a press event and exerting external pressure on Jolie. They argue that this tactic violates Jolie's due process rights and undermines the integrity of the legal proceedings.

In contrast, documents submitted by Pitt's legal team, citing former SAS soldier Webb, allege that Jolie's personal assistant warned two colleagues that she "would sue" if they testified in the couple's custody dispute.

 Angelina Jolie's lawyer plea to Brad Pitt sparks online reaction

As the legal battle between Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt continues to unfold, public opinion remains sharply divided, with social media platforms buzzing with commentary on the latest developments.

In response to Angelina Jolie's lawyer's plea for Brad Pitt to "let her go," social media users wasted no time in expressing their views.

Some users criticized Jolie for allegedly making the divorce process difficult, accusing her of using their children as pawns and portraying her as spiteful and unwilling to move on.

One user wrote, "She wanted a divorce and then she started being difficult. About everything! He has moved on and has a girlfriend. AJ acts like the jealous ex. Apparently cannot let him go. She uses the children as a showcase for her so-called good deeds. It's pathetic." while another user wrote, "She is clearly the one who has made it difficult, she sold to a Russian illegally and had alienated him from the children ! She is the most spiteful person , not pleasant."

Another user wrote, "She's trying to hurt him with this never-ending litigation."

Some even went as far as predicting consequences for Jolie, with one user stating, "She will pay for alienating him from his children."

One user wrote, "If you start a relationship as a homewrecker, you get what you get." 

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.