IUC Exclusive: Wednesday Afternoon Delight – Brangie, Lindsay and POW

Posted on March 25th, 2009 by HisHighness in IUC:Entertainment, IUC:Exclusive

- A source close to Brangie told IUC today that one of the couple has decided to “rail against God”.  Wonder if the decision was arbitrary.

- An ex lover of Lindsay Lohan told IUC that Sam Ronson was Lohan’s first true love. “Lilo likes men when she feels the urge to get roughed up,” her ex lover said.  “She’s the most down and dirty chick I’ve ever been with.”

- Author Andy Nulman promoted his new book POW on IUCTV a month back.  Now, he’s moving up to The Late Late Show next Wed. night – April 1.  Knowing Nulman, Craig Ferguson better be prepared for an April Fool’s prank beyond blasphemy and sacrilege.  Nulman used to be the Prez of Just For Laughs Comedy Fest.  Maybe one of his old comics like Jim Carrey or Martin Short will make a surprise appearance.  With Nulman, you never know…Developing

  1. Guest said on March 25th, 2009 at 12:27 pm

    I think Lindsay’s first true love was an eight ball.

    Hope I can stay up for Craig Ferguson. I love his show.

    Rail against God?

    Reply
  2. cuze said on March 25th, 2009 at 12:34 pm

    Has Brad turned to Scientology?

    Reply
  3. p said on March 25th, 2009 at 12:40 pm

    @cuze:
    heh more likely Angie…who wants to play Dagney (over my dead body I might add) so maybe it’s not so arbitrary…or maybe it is. With nutjobs, who knows?

    Reply
  4. p said on March 25th, 2009 at 12:42 pm

    @p:
    Can you imagine AJ’s ethics cycles?

    Reply
  5. surreal said on March 25th, 2009 at 12:55 pm

    So have Brangie lost their religious faith lol? I never knew they were churchgoers.

    Reply
  6. Keane said on March 25th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    Sorry, can someone explain that for me please? What does Ian mean by “rail against God”? Don’t you have to have a faith to do that in the first place? Ange is an atheist is she not, so do we assume he means Brad? And what does railng against God actually entail anyway? I thought it just meant, was angry with.

    Reply
  7. Kate said on March 25th, 2009 at 1:27 pm

    @Keane:
    Brad has been railing against God for the last 10 years, so for him it would not be anything new. He made a strong statement in 2007 of saying he does not believe and why, and how he walked away from his Christian upbringing in college, so I am not sure why he would continue to do so now. I think everyone understands he is anti God. He also made some strong anti God comments in his Rolling Stones interview when the reporter made some references to his Fight Club denouncing God, and he said, “Well then we did something right” He does this all the time, so nothing new at all for him. As he said, he gets “mental” when someone tells him how he should live his life. Now if goes and does this right now, and he is trying to pursue a more respectable position he needs to tread carefully, you can’t just say FU to those who are believers. He has to be respectful. If this is him- Angelina does not rail against anything , does she?

    Reply
  8. tikki said on March 25th, 2009 at 1:33 pm

    I think it means someone will go public with a complaint. The clash is gonna happen “out there”.

    Reply
  9. Kate said on March 25th, 2009 at 1:41 pm

    @Keane:
    Good point Keane, how do you get angry with God if you do not believe in God? Explain that to me too. I do not understand his obsession with it. Why does it bother him so much? No one is forcing him to go to church, to read the bible, this country has freedom of religion, he should be happy he is not forced to live somewhere where he has to worship a certain “God”. Brad is obsessed with it, and I suspect it is because he is bisexual and he has all these conflicted feelings and he is angry about that. Maybe he wants to come out and can’t because of his parents, or because the US still has majority base that believes in God. I really don’t get that. I have many gay friends that do not reject God, that are active in their church, (yes there are churches that have have a gay base) and they are content and happy. I also have a few who are angry like him, because they feel someone is telling them they can not be gay. Maybe he falls into that latter group. I think he is tormented. The congenial sadness, maybe that is what the “Sexual Healing” reference is about on Sugar Rays post. The more he rants though, the worse he makes it for himself. He just needs to find a place he can be happy. He is obviously miserable, now, that we have made this about Brad, it will be Angelina. LOL

    Reply
  10. Kate said on March 25th, 2009 at 1:44 pm

    @tikki:
    What clash? Sorry, I am not getting this, why out there? I wish Ian would give us part of his opinions with these reports LOL

    Reply
  11. Susanna said on March 25th, 2009 at 2:08 pm

    Perhaps the reference to God is not literal? I say that bc it doesn’t make much sense and it’s in quotes.

    A poem by Dylan Thomas called Do Not Go Gentle:

    “Do not go gentle into that good night.” Paraphrased, “Don’t give up easily.” The second line offers the speaker’s belief that even when old and infirm, the man should stay energetic and complain if necessary as long as he does not give in to death easily. Then line three again is a command, “Rage, rage against the dying of the light”: Fight, complain, rail against the oncoming of death.

    http://poetry.suite101.com/article.cfm/dylan_thomas___do_not_go_gentle_

    Now maybe I am overanalyzing things, but maybe it means one of them has decided to fight — for the relationship to save it? For the children? Rail against, as in to fight, to not give up…

    Reply
  12. Keane said on March 25th, 2009 at 2:15 pm

    @ Susanna – Ange has decided to fight for the relationship or for the children? Brad from the sounds of it is quits. Or does it mean fight against Ian?

    Reply
  13. Alif said on March 25th, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    Rail against God? I’m sorry, but don’t most of us do that at one time or another? Don’t we prefer a God who is like Santa Claus? Like us?

    But God is not human. He is what He is!

    Rail against God, indeed!

    Reply
  14. Keane said on March 25th, 2009 at 2:32 pm

    And what does that bit mean “I wonder if the decision was arbitrary”? I don’t think Ian means argue with God, he means fight about something in the physical world, but what exactly?

    Reply
  15. Susanna said on March 25th, 2009 at 2:47 pm

    The “arbitrary” has to be a clue. It sounds like it’s being used in a sarcastic way…like I WONDER if it’s arbitrary…like obviously it is.

    Arbitrary

    1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent only upon one’s discretion. i.e. an arbitrary choice.
    2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by statute/law.
    3. using or abusing unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic.
    4. capricious, unreasonable.

    So one of them – Brad or Angie – has decided to rail against (or fight for) something….”God”.

    God is all-knowing, all powerful, high above us all…

    Reply
  16. Susanna said on March 25th, 2009 at 2:53 pm

    So this “arbitrary” decision was perhaps made in a fit of rage, “unreasonably” or believing that one was “uncontrolled or unrestricted” by any law….hmmm….I really think this is a decision by Angie to fight for sole custody of the kids.

    Railing against God could be a metaphor for fighting the impossible –because God can never be proven or disproven (since his existence is based solely on faith), so the philosphical discourse goes (yes, I was a philosophy major). So railing against God is fighting, but it’s a fight that will be in vain, an uphill battle. If all this crap is true about Angelina, it will definitely be an uphill battle to try and get sole custody of the kids!

    Reply
  17. Kate said on March 25th, 2009 at 3:21 pm

    LOL I kind of liked that “rail against Ian, that makes since” since he has been all knowing as of late. haha

    Reply
  18. Keane said on March 25th, 2009 at 3:30 pm

    @ Keane – that’s my interpretation too, we shall see!

    Reply
  19. anonymous said on March 25th, 2009 at 3:31 pm

    Being a satanist? Going into politics?

    Reply
  20. cuze said on March 25th, 2009 at 3:33 pm

    Since the grandparents are supposedly Christians maybe they are wanting their grandchildren to be brought up with their religious beliefs and AJ isn’t going for that. Just a thought. Their really isn’t enough information to draw any conclusions from as far as what this is in reference to.

    Reply
  21. Z said on March 25th, 2009 at 3:42 pm

    Thanks for the picture, Ian. We were looking for that.

    Reply
  22. Z said on March 25th, 2009 at 3:46 pm

    @Keane:
    I can see how he might be angry with God…but he did make his bed and slept in it. Maybe he should take a little responsibility.

    Reply
  23. Z said on March 25th, 2009 at 3:56 pm

    @Susanna:
    What a beautiful poem, Susanna. I’ve heard parts of it before.

    This is a comment from the link Susanna put up. This just gave me the chills:

    I am retired from NYPD. I was a weapons and tactics trainer for the Emergency Service Unit. I handed out copies of Mr. Thomas’ poem to all candidate officers. It was explained to them that when left no choice but to fight, as opposed to flight, that they should choose to live. I know that some still carry this poem on their person. Although I will never know with certainty, I suspect that some of my colleagues had the copy of this poem on their person the day they chose to go into the Twin Towers, Sept 11, 2001
    Jim Ludwig

    Reply
  24. Kate said on March 25th, 2009 at 3:56 pm

    @Keane:
    This is getting incredibly frustrating and a pain to figure out. Maybe there are too many souces or something because it just seems to be coming from all different directions with no connection anywhere, and even though it is SR and Ian reporting, there should be a common theme. There isn’t, beyond they are done and she is violent.

    A Spitzer Connection- ??
    Rail against God-that could even be private, who the hell knows??
    A sohisticated woman he is gaga over-we don’t even know if that is true??
    Mom and Dad have a chat with him, be very careful-of what??
    We liked Jen better-yeah we know, why keep droning that in mama??

    Then we have SR-
    She kicked his has, she is violent. Sexual healing, there is the sex again.?? Is Brad a trannie too ?lol

    There are so many variables in these bloggings it is like going in circles. I have no idea what the hell is going on with them. Some of it needs to be ruled out, ruled in, updated, just to jumbled up and vague to make a clear picture to tell a story.

    What it seems many want to know is, what is going to happen to the kids? I wonder if there is a source that can help out with that.

    Just sayin-

    Reply
  25. Keane said on March 25th, 2009 at 4:01 pm

    @ Kate – I assume what Ian is doing is giving us suggestions of things that will be written about in full in his book. He is teasing us with bits to keep us hooked. Or maybe he is not yet 100% sure of the details or is dealing with the legal issues. My guess would be the first one though. You have to see it as a Dickensian type narrative – probably very long, but released gradually in installments over a long period of time. Keeps us all intereted!

    Reply
  26. Guest said on March 25th, 2009 at 4:08 pm

    @Keane:
    So Ian is writing a book on this whole Brangelina thing? OK. I thought he was working on the MJ thing.

    Reply
  27. cuze said on March 25th, 2009 at 4:08 pm

    Anybody know what happened to Mickey’s book? It will probably never come to pass.. I’d bet he was paid off.

    Reply
  28. Z said on March 25th, 2009 at 4:16 pm

    @Susanna:
    Wow! I love your ideas!

    My gut feeling is it’s about the kids…and one of then fighting for them. I hope AJ doesn’t get sole custody…esp. of the biological ones, since she had admitted she likes them least (or whatever she said). Geez! imo, Treat them all the same and treat them all well!

    Reply
  29. p said on March 25th, 2009 at 4:28 pm

    @Keane:
    Rail against the court (decision)?

    Reply
  30. Kate said on March 25th, 2009 at 4:28 pm

    @Keane:
    Hmmm, I don’t think Ian is wriing a book on them, he is working on MJ still. By the time he got one out on these two, they will be history, and while it will still be an interesting read, that should not really have anything to do with what is going down right now with them, right? For readers to be hooked they have to be able to follow along, so I am thinking his sources are not giving him more than what he is giving us, not that he is playing games because Ian does not do that shit, Ted does. That is why I don’t like to read Ted’s blinds, it is waste of time. I am just wondering why the disconnected reports , is someone playing with him, which that could be. There is someone over on FF trying to convince them that the truth is that Brad and Angelina are just fine, no problems , a happy little family. lol See how hard they work when the truth starts to come out. At the same time it would not surprise me for Jolie or Pitt to throw some kinks into his story either just to f**k with him. Would that surprise you? I would like to hear what Ian thinks, just thinks, not knows, but his opinon, of what is happening. :) I mean, “railing against God” lol what are we suppose to do with that?

    Reply
  31. topbrit said on March 25th, 2009 at 4:32 pm

    @ suzanne – thought the link to the poem was great too,thanks.i like your posts,really get you thinking
    @ kate – i agree with you kate,ian and sr have commented on your posts before and give you some more info so perhaps they will again,here’d hopin!

    Reply
  32. p said on March 25th, 2009 at 4:35 pm

    @Z:
    Fascinating, and thank you for your service.

    Reply
  33. Kate said on March 25th, 2009 at 4:35 pm

    @p:
    Rail against the court (decision)?

    Isn’t it a bit too soon for that? They would have to go through mediation first, and counseling.

    Reply
  34. Kate said on March 25th, 2009 at 4:43 pm

    @topbrit:
    I am not complaining, I am just confused as hell. I suppose that picture of AJ and the horse is there for a reason and is a clue to something…anyone got any ideas on that.., P, what about Rail against a Judge, is it possible a Judge has ordered her to have a shrinks evaluation…how would that have come about at this point in regard to the kids?

    Reply
  35. p said on March 25th, 2009 at 4:47 pm

    @cuze:
    I would think they’d both have problems w the Christian grandfolk. Then again compared to a booze-soaked, scag-funked’, whore pounding shit hole, it might seem like heaven (pardon the expression heathens) to the kids.

    Reply
  36. Canuck said on March 25th, 2009 at 4:49 pm

    I think that “rail against the Gods” might be that one of them has decided to play hardball, regardless of what that does to their image. Their “god” for the past few years has been fame and celebrity. I’m guessing it’s Brad who has decided that the kids are worth the risk. It may be that is what Momma Pitt was telling him to be careful about.

    Reply
  37. p said on March 25th, 2009 at 4:50 pm

    @Kate:
    mediation? They probably took one look at her medical records and said..”okay, YOU”…pointing to someone, ANYONE else in the room.

    Reply
  38. Keane said on March 25th, 2009 at 4:54 pm

    @ Kate – I got the imrpression he was or had something in the pipeline, not sure whether he has a deal for it though. The post he did about “Kimmy” said part 1 on it, so I assume he interviewed her at much greater length and has lots more to tell. He’s nearly finished the MJ book hasn’t he so could easily have started researching his next one. And even if Brange do split and all is finalised within a year or so there is still SO much that isn’t known about their relationship. And it is the big celeb story of the past 4-5yrs and no-one has written a tell-all on them yet so there is definitely money to be made there. If I were Ian and had just written a book about the most controversial pop star of all time, my next subject would definitely be Brange. He’s not making much money off this site yet advertising-wise, so he needs to do more than this. I think he has a book planned. But as for all the hints, I guess Ian is God now, cos he’s the only one who knows what is really going on!

    Reply
  39. explain said on March 25th, 2009 at 4:56 pm

    [Rail against the court ]

    1. It means AJ will removed her tattooed cross from her belly. OR
    2. It means BP will fight for Maddox custody. He likes the kid as yours.

    Reply
  40. Keane said on March 25th, 2009 at 4:59 pm

    @ p – very funny, that made me LOL! And something else did on the thread before last that you said, now what was it again? Oh yes, the thing about them having the best wedding with the honeymoon and the best marriage and the all round bestest time of best people everywhere or something! That really made me laugh my ass off! That’s what its all been about with really hasn’t it? Look how “best” we are at everything, for four whole years! Its so pathetic, like two little kiddies showing off. Nothing seems to matter unless they can flaunt it to the world on the grounds of how best they are. I really have never seen anything like it. Its so the most popular/pretty girl in school hooking up with the most popular/pretty boy for one purpose and one alone: to tell everyone else how best they are. Its hilarious!

    Reply
  41. topbrit said on March 25th, 2009 at 5:04 pm

    @ kate – with the animal reference maybe she could be fighting against the beastiality comments,just a thought with you mentioning the rumours,after all she seems to be coming out of this worse so is she trying to fight back?quite pointless i’m sure

    Reply
  42. Kate said on March 25th, 2009 at 5:05 pm

    @p:
    lollll that is funny so true. So In Touch has a story about how James is staying with them at the Waldorf and she wants him to talk some sense into Brad, and there are a bunch of pictures showing how she is more into James than Brad. ha ha, and Star has him sleeping with the kids. Now, that to me means James is staying with her at the Waldorf and who knows where Brad is staying. I dont think he is staying with her.Does anyone else?

    Keane, I don’t think Ian is in need of money, he has long been successful, this site is an afterthought :)
    JMO he is a journalist, not a blogger. He probably uses this just to get tips in and to maintain contacts in the business. So one of the couple has decided to all of a sudden, rail against God. That could be Ian, and that being the reason for emailing him and letting him know he is in for it. In my guess then it would be her. We already were told Brad was going to go for sole custody, so we knew that. Nothing new there. At the same time, didn’t AJ threaten SR before and nothing came of that, so now this would be a new theat?

    Reply
  43. Kate said on March 25th, 2009 at 5:07 pm

    @topbrit:
    That makes sense to me, after all, that is the worse that has been said about her so far, far worse than peeing and poop. yes? And the dog rumor is all over the internet, even Ted is talking about it. ha ha

    Reply
  44. explain said on March 25th, 2009 at 5:08 pm

    @p:
    lolololol, she created too many antibodies, She’s hopeless: no “drugs” will work on her.

    Reply
  45. Keane said on March 25th, 2009 at 5:09 pm

    I’ve change my mind, I think it refers to a court judgment. The word “arbitrary” suggests something related to a judge’s decision doesn’t it? That a decision has been made and the person who it hasn’t been made in favour of has decided to fight it? If it was about Ian then it wouldn’t be a source in Brangie’s camp telling Ian, he would be hearing from one of them directly!

    Reply
  46. Kate said on March 25th, 2009 at 5:11 pm

    @explain:
    lol ah no, she is never gonna get that cross off her belly, nope that is there forever, do you know what she went through to just get BBT off her arm, like 9 lasers and the pain????

    As for Maddox, I think that depends on BBT…I am still not convinced Brad has adopted any of the kids. There are those who say they know him and he has not.

    Reply
  47. Keane said on March 25th, 2009 at 5:12 pm

    @ Kate – and the cover says: The Break-up in fairly large letters! And how JH is trying to step into save the relationship apparently, yeah right! Whose side did you say InTouch would be on again?

    Reply
  48. Kate said on March 25th, 2009 at 5:17 pm

    @Keane:
    Brads, the article makes her look bad,it shows picture after picture of her with Jame compare to pictures of her with Brad and notes how she really always has loved James. lol

    Reply
  49. explain said on March 25th, 2009 at 5:17 pm

    @Kate:
    lol, Kate, I’m trying by best in order to think and think and think, lolol! OK, seriously, I believe THAT cross is a very nice place for… shots injections.

    I too believe the kids were not adopted by BP but he can fight for Maddox custody UNLESS if one of the twins is not his (hmmm?) he will fight to remove his golden stuPITT name from the poor little.

    Reply
  50. anonymous said on March 25th, 2009 at 5:18 pm

    @Kate: I suppose that picture of AJ and the horse is there for a reason and is a clue to something…anyone got any ideas on that..?
    The beastiality story?

    Reply
  51. explain said on March 25th, 2009 at 5:23 pm

    WTF has Daryl Hannah done to her once amazing face??? can’t believe those plastiic surgeons are mysoginists.

    About the brangeloonies, you know P make it pretty clear: they both are caca and really deserves their caca halo.

    Reply
  52. Kate said on March 25th, 2009 at 5:25 pm

    @Keane:
    yes, but Ian said, wonder if that was arbitrary? In that context it means-

    Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

    Unless he is just using it as a play on words, but why not just say that a ruling has been made and she is going to fight it.- Ian comes right out in chats and says those things, he does not beat around like this. He says it straight up, -yes they are filing litigation, yes Brad wants sole custody, yes they each have their own lawyers, Brad has been keeping track of her moves, who she talks too, what she does, he plans to take the kids and he has enough to get them, in fact at one point in the chat I commented I was not sure he could, and Ian quickly said, he diasgreed, that Brad has enough to take her down and this will be the biggest and nastiest custody fight ever….- see that is how Ian communicates, he does not play on riddles, he just puts it straight out there. That is why I question this. It is not his style, unless he is changing it, but dont think so. He is straight up. So guess I will wait and see how this develops.

    Reply
  53. Z said on March 25th, 2009 at 5:55 pm

    @Kate:
    A couple of us asked for a link to the horse pic yesterday…so I’m thinking that’s why Ian put it up. If not, it’s a good coincidence…

    @Kate:
    I agree, I’d love Ian’s opinion, too.

    @p:
    LOL…your cracking me up again….

    @topbrit:
    Watch, she’ll be joining PETA next. haha

    @Keane:
    arbitrary – I think that is a good point, Keane!

    But, Kate, that’s good info, too…Ian doesn’t talk in riddles.

    Reply
  54. Keane said on March 25th, 2009 at 6:05 pm

    @ Z – in future if you just put “Angelina Jolie” and “horse” into Google Image search it just comes up with the whole series, there are a few but that is the worst one. Put her name and whatever and it will come up with all the appropriate pics – makes it easy to find them all x

    Reply
  55. guest said on March 25th, 2009 at 6:06 pm

    Anyone know what state is considered the children’s domicile? That’s the state where they’d have to commence the custody action, could be a Judge has already said, you can’t commence it here, you have to do this there. And depending on what state it is could favor one party over the other. Or a Judge has already told him to bad so sad over the three nonbiologicals if didn’t formally adopt them already.

    Reply
  56. Keane said on March 25th, 2009 at 6:29 pm

    Another major giveaway that there is trouble in, ahem, paradise, is the sudden absence of paparazzi photos from the pair. They usually do them on a regular basis. There are none on sites like JustJared for example for pages and pages, the loons will be going into meltdown, all they have are shots of Jen Aniston to slag off! Its such a giveaway really. There have been a few of each of them on their own but virtually none of them together except at the official functions. If Brange ain’t promoting their brand, you can tell for sure something is up.

    Reply
  57. Keane said on March 25th, 2009 at 7:01 pm

    And if we were ever in any doubt about the incestuous relationship with James Haven, a FemaleFirst poster has handily compiled a montage of shots of AJ kissing James Haven full on the mouth at several different events. Its is utterly bizarre that their relationship isn’t widely known about. And I defo think they’re back together now, he’s there with her on set. They’re the oddest pair and from the things being said on that site, so was their mother.

    Reply
  58. p said on March 25th, 2009 at 8:00 pm

    @Keane:
    [Nothing seems to matter unless they can flaunt it to the world on the grounds of how best they are. for one purpose and one alone: to tell everyone else how best they are.]

    That’s it. Nothing has value, including the kids, unless it’s demonstrate their perfection and supreme bestness.

    @Keane:
    [The word “arbitrary” suggests something related to a judge’s decision doesn’t it?]

    Which might explain Charlie the errant chipmunk, who happened to be sitting on the window ledge during mediation, being granted full custody. When judges panic, there’s no telling. That must have been what Ian meant…”arbitrary,”..I’m sure of it.

    Reply
  59. Tigerlilly said on March 25th, 2009 at 8:09 pm

    Railing against God= Going against the grain. I’m thinking maybe the fight for a FATHER to get sole custody??? It’s very rarely awarded, you know. It’s almost a law of God that the mother will get more custody than the father.
    Arbitrarily=Arbitration? I’m not sure but I think arbitration would ensure that the details were not brought to the public’s attention, AND the decision is final…meaning no appeals.

    Reply
  60. Kate said on March 25th, 2009 at 8:16 pm

    @p:
    Judges are not present during mediation,that happens in the lawyers office, with a mediator. Before you can even get to see a Judge, you have to go through all these steps, so at this point , at best, all there could be is a recommedation. I don’t even see how they can do this in NY, of course we don’t know the logistics , but I am thinking this has to go down in California courst. Even if they have both met with each of their lawyers, and the lawyers have met, and called them all together to work it out and it all went kaput, what could have really come out of that except Brad saying FU , I am taking the kids. They would still need to be assessed by a pychologist, and then ,and only then given a court date. I don’t think there is any chance they have banged out a custody agreement this fast. Maybe Jolie or Brad is fighting a temporary one while they are seperated ..even his divorce with Jen was done in private with a private Judge, he hired, but you can do that in California. This is different. Much more complicated. Maybe it has to do with just the legal guardianship. Jolie has the power to change that at any time. If Brad has not adopted, (it was once reported he was just legal guardian to Pax, Mad, and Zee and she was thinking of changing it to James) and she decides now she does not want him to be legal guardian any longer, now that might be pissing him off. James is said to be staying with her.

    Reply
  61. p said on March 25th, 2009 at 8:31 pm

    @Kate:
    Okay I meant mediator, spoil sport!

    Yeah, I’m sure the court can intervene with an emergency hearing and grant temporary guardianship to someone. But you’d need to show cause. The details for a final decision will take a lot longer, needless to say. And it’s complicated since I don’t think they’ve lived in any one state for 6 mos, but I assume they’re legal residents of California, but then again didn’t they establish residence in Louisiana? Maybe it’s wherever you’re registered to vote. Not too sure about that.

    Reply
  62. Z said on March 25th, 2009 at 8:34 pm

    @Keane:
    Thanks, Keane…so I wonder why she was letting the horse do that. Oh nevermind…lol. Looks kinda scary to me.

    Reply
  63. Tigerlilly said on March 25th, 2009 at 8:35 pm

    @Kate:
    That’s why I’m thinking the arbitrary reference is arbitration which is NOT the same thing as mediation. Arbitration is before a (private) judge who will make a FINAL decision on the matter which means no appeal. It’s risky for both sides. Mediation is not binding if no consensual agreement is met. It’s simply a formal means to try to come to an agreement. So, it could mean that efforts at mediation failed because (I’m assuming) Brad would NOT agree to give up sole custody and Angie would NOT agree to give it up either. Neither side want to go to court because they don’t want the public to know there is a custody battle brewing. If I’m right, arbitration would be kept entirely private. That’s my theory.

    Reply
  64. Z said on March 25th, 2009 at 8:36 pm

    She should leave the poor beasts alone!!!

    Reply
  65. Z said on March 25th, 2009 at 8:46 pm

    @Keane:
    “loons will be going into meltdown”

    So true! I’ve been thinking about this a lot…what are the poor loons going to do. They spent all there time being nasty to anyone that said one word, you know? They really are going to have a huge collective breakdown or something…it seems their lives revolved around this couple. And the reason it’s hilarious is because the loons are so mean and nasty…karma, right? And I’m just talking about the loons…not all the nasty stuff Brange has done.

    Reply
  66. Tigerlilly said on March 25th, 2009 at 8:53 pm

    Ok, a quick look tells me that in the US if both parties agree, virtually everything about arbitration will be kept confidential. I’m thinking if you’re gonna get down and dirty, NASTY AS YOU WANNA BE and you are a celeb., this is the way to go. I don’t envy that judge. Do you think he’s/she’s prepared for these two?_ Even if it were to leak that these two whores were in arbitration, it could be summarily dismissed by PR that these two whores have “a lot of assets” and that it’s a complicated, but “entirely amicacable” negotiation of their shared assets in light of what’s best for the children….yadda, yadda, yadda…Yep, that’s my theory still….

    Reply
  67. Kate said on March 25th, 2009 at 9:02 pm

    @Tigerlilly:
    Can they do that though, in New York? This quick? That is like just putting all your cards on the table winner take all, yes? Is that what you mean? Maybe that is what his parents meant by be very careful. That is very risky. Do people really do that? I have never heard of that. So of they choose that route, and allow a private Judge to make the decision, then once he does, that is it , no appeal, ever, is that what you are saying? Whatever he decides they are stuck with?

    Reply
  68. Kate said on March 25th, 2009 at 9:04 pm

    @p:
    this all just boggles my mind, I could just see Brad trying to keep it quiet, but to the point of losing?

    Reply
  69. Kate said on March 25th, 2009 at 9:06 pm

    @Tigerlilly:
    But what if they each want sole custody??? That does not apply?? right Remember Diandra Douglas, Sharon Stone, Charlie Sheem, Michael Jackson, there have been so many high profile custody cases battled out in the public..

    Reply
  70. Z said on March 25th, 2009 at 9:31 pm

    @Kate:
    Brad should be compiling pictures – Angie with horse pics, Angie tonguing her brother pics…and I’m sure there are endless, endless pics he could find and use. Not just pictures, but her quotes through the years…when she was more open. Even if this stuff took place a while ago any judge/court would have to take it into consideration.

    Reply
  71. p said on March 25th, 2009 at 9:33 pm

    @Kate:
    This where the dirty part comes in and whomever is dirtiest loses. Usually the mother gets primary custody but in this case, if current buzz is to be believed, it’s hard to imagine. Since BO’s (heh typo but I thought I leave it–twas supposed to be BP heh) track record ain’t great either (especially since he ramped up rather than rolled back his schedule), and I’m sure she’s gonna sling the shit right back, he’d do well to suck up to mom and dad. There may well be an stern admonishment from the judge. And hopefully a closer look at some adoption agencies.

    Reply
  72. Z said on March 25th, 2009 at 9:34 pm

    @Tigerlilly:
    That’s a good thought for railing against god….father getting custody – going against the grain.

    So is Ian being straight up or getting poetic? Ian?

    Reply
  73. Z said on March 25th, 2009 at 9:37 pm

    @Kate:
    it was once reported he was just legal guardian to Pax, Mad, and Zee and she was thinking of changing it to James

    Hey, P, do you know when she was thinking of changing it to James?

    Reply
  74. Z said on March 25th, 2009 at 9:38 pm

    @Z:
    Sorry, Kate…not P.

    Reply
  75. Kate said on March 25th, 2009 at 9:41 pm

    @Z:
    I think that was reported when the last break up rumors circulated around 2007 , before she got pregnant with the twins.

    Reply
  76. mich said on March 25th, 2009 at 9:43 pm

    What about the bio kids and the fact that none of them were born in the US? I know nothing of residency or citizenship laws, so I wonder if that is of any significance…

    Reply
  77. Z said on March 25th, 2009 at 9:47 pm

    @p:
    Yes, a closer look at adoption agencies! I really hope that is an outcome of this. AJ also said she was going to take less jobs and didn’t, right? So maybe they are even on that score? Except mom usually wins…and if BO (haha) didn’t actually adopt them… I hope they just work it out with the kids in mind. If AJ takes the boys away from Brad, I think they are going to be devastated and way more F’d up in the long run. All those kids need him, imo. I really see AJ as the more dangerous one.

    Reply
  78. Z said on March 25th, 2009 at 9:50 pm

    @Kate:
    Oh, OK, thanks. Yeah, I’ve been thinking about that too. They had those twins to try to save the relationship and that didn’t work. Just made it worse. I wish people would realize that babies do not save relationships!!! Ugh!!!

    Reply
  79. Tigerlilly said on March 25th, 2009 at 9:53 pm

    @Kate:
    If they chose arbitration, then yes, they are STUCK with that decision. You cannot appeal that decision. However, I don’t know if you would or could take that route in custody cases? I’m assuming you could, but the private judge would just order whatever a court would order in determining the welfare of the child? I dunno. Now, I’m not saying that’s what they’ve done. I dunno…But let’s just say mediation failed. (We don’t know how long mediation may have been ACTUALLY going on)…Ok, well the next step for something like this is to atleast CONSIDER arbitration, at least for property. This keeps it out of the courts. Since the decision is final and you cannot appeal, you might not want to do this, UNLESS confidentiality is a MAJOR concern. BOTH sides have A LOT of dirt if you can believe what you read here. I’m just sayin’….
    Yeah, I would like to know if anyone has any legal expertise in the US and specifically in CA, NY or wherever else these whores can claim residence if child custody can be determined through arbitration in such an ugly case as this…(assuming beastiality and all that lovely stuff is going to come out). It seems to me if the ugliness comes out (assuming it’s true), CPS would have to be involved. Can a private judge order that and still keep it all confidential? Hmmm…..
    Ok, theory 2: arbitration for the PROPERTY is either underway or complete and one side is NOT happy and is going for blood in a custody battle???? Ooh, that could be it.

    Reply
  80. Hope said on March 25th, 2009 at 10:22 pm

    Back in February, As good as its guests reported that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were moving to the Sassafras Estate, nearby our home town in Huntington, Long Island while Angelia films her new movie “Salt”. We also told you we would let you know if there were any Brangelina sightings in the area and there were! Brad Pitt was seen buying a few slices at DiRaimo’s Pizza, one of our hometown Pizzeria’s. Newsday and Life & Style magazine reported on the sighting and got to speak with owner Steve DiRaimo for the details.

    Brangelina was also seen dining at Bistro Cassis on Wall Street in Huntington Village. I have been visiting home the past few weekends to escape the city and have noticed a growing number of out-of-towners at our local bars- all hoping to catch a peak of Hollywood’s “It” couple. Maybe we will be lucky enough to run into the twosome and their clan of kiddie’s…
    xoxo,
    As good as its guests

    http://www.asgoodasitsguests.com/2009/03/spotted-brad-pitt-in-huntington.html

    Reply
  81. p said on March 25th, 2009 at 11:04 pm

    @Z:
    [I really see AJ as the more dangerous one.]
    Yeah and that’s the way the courts will see it, if half this stuff is true. Since BP is the de facto paternal figure here, the court will generally rule accordingly, even if the adoption process was never completed as some people seem to think. There’s just too much evidence he was their dad. Only potential jackpot is if someone else has been on the scene playing that role, but there is no one, so unless there’s a better solution, the courts will probably award primary custody to the better of the two. Unless of course there’s very damning evidence against both …abuse and danger versus benign neglect. That’s my take on it.

    Reply
  82. Z said on March 25th, 2009 at 11:17 pm

    @p:
    I agree with you. That all sounds right on…and maybe if BP’s parents are there, willing to help raise, he will look even better. I’m not crazy about the guy…but I don’t think he is crazy. I think she is. As sad as it all is…she seems untrustworthy (she’s probably been too abused to know what a good parent is, imo). And the crap with the brother…yikes. Really. They have to pick the more stable person. And it doesn’t look like there is another party, huh? The closest would be BP’s parents, maybe?

    Reply
  83. p said on March 25th, 2009 at 11:51 pm

    @Z:
    [I’m not crazy about the guy…but I don’t think he is crazy.]
    Opportunist maybe, not crazy. Based on my understanding, his parents are a huge boon in terms of a favorable decision. But I don’t know how HE actually sees this. Remember he was willing to carry-on, thus the twins, so who knows…he might go for joint custody, if there is in fact a split.

    Reply
  84. Z said on March 26th, 2009 at 12:01 am

    That would make a whole lot of sense to me. The parents seem like regular people. Although looks are deceiving, as we all know – they do seem OK. Yeah, geez, I hope he clears his head and gets it together. 6 kids. 6 lives. That is nothing to screw with.

    Reply
  85. guest said on March 26th, 2009 at 3:03 am

    Most likely it will be AJ’s domicile that would be the jurisdiction. Domicile is determined by where you have your driver’s license, where you vote and where you pay taxes. If she pays CA resident income tax, CA gets the case. Because they aren’t married and the biological kids were born outside the United States paternity may be at issue. Which means a paternity test on the three biologicals – which could be interesting if any of them began life in a petri dish. If he has not adopted the other three, he has no rights to them at all. The only way he could get custody of those three would be to prove she’s an unfit mother and be appointed by the court as guardian over her brother or father. Visitation is a different issue, in CA he could probably get visitation with the nonbiologicals even if he didn’t adopt them – CA recognizes the concept of the pyschological parent. As far as I know NY does not have joint custody. Most contested custody cases are sealed by the Judge to protect the kids, the only reason the public hears about it is because the parents take it to the court of public opinion.

    Reply
  86. g said on March 26th, 2009 at 3:11 am

    @Z:
    Jen realized that.

    Reply
  87. g said on March 26th, 2009 at 3:25 am

    @guest:
    You stated what I was thinking regarding the custody of the non-bios, that it is likely they would be given to her brother and then father if she was declared unfit. Pitt could argue Haven as unfit also, however they would then likely go to John Voight (if he wanted them). However a judge can overrule anything and given that Voight is 70, unmarried at this time (I believe) and has never had any relationship with the kids, it is quite possible the judge would rule in Pitt’s favor unless she were to assign legal guardianship to someone else. It’s also possible they would grant him sole custody on a temp basis for a year or two (sort of like what they do for foster parents when a single parent is a drug addict). Then if she gets help and goes through the process she could ask for joint custody down the line. What a mess!!

    Reply
  88. g said on March 26th, 2009 at 3:38 am

    @Kate:
    Per your comments below, I don’t get it either. The Waldorf is a pretty open hotel smack in the middle of the city. What do the kids never go out? I can’t believe some tabloid isn’t footing the bill to have a pap rent a room there even for just a week or two. I’m guessing she is at the Waldorf with Haven and the kids are somewhere else, maybe with Brad or maybe not.

    Another major giveaway that there is trouble in, ahem, paradise, is the sudden absence of paparazzi photos from the pair. They usually do them on a regular basis.

    Now, that to me means James is staying with her at the Waldorf and who knows where Brad is staying. I dont think he is staying with her.Does anyone else?

    Reply
  89. g said on March 26th, 2009 at 3:44 am

    @p:
    I thought this originally also, that he would go for joint custody. So if he is actually contemplating going for full custody then things must be even worse than we think behind the scenes (which is pretty bad given all that’s been written these last few weeks).

    [I’m not crazy about the guy…but I don’t think he is crazy.]
    Opportunist maybe, not crazy. Based on my understanding, his parents are a huge boon in terms of a favorable decision. But I don’t know how HE actually sees this. Remember he was willing to carry-on, thus the twins, so who knows…he might go for joint custody, if there is in fact a split.

    Reply
  90. Billi said on March 26th, 2009 at 7:30 am

    @Tigerlilly:
    That’s exactly how I interpreted “Rail against God”, as going against the grain. Brad’s pushing for custody of the kids? As for “was the decision arbitrary” I interpreted as did Brad make the decision or was he encouraged by others, e.g. his parents, lawyers, friends.

    Reply
  91. Susanna said on March 26th, 2009 at 8:40 am

    Canuck – I like your idea about “God” being a metaphor for celebrity and fame.

    KEane – I totally agree – your observation that there are no pap photos lately indicates there is trouble

    As for the legal issues, domicile/residence is defined on a state by state basis. In NC (not sure about NY or CA) it is defined as the place where you lived and resided for the past six months. So, anyone who lived in NC for six months prior to filing for divorce can bring an action in NC. NY and CA tend to be a lot more liberal than NC so I really don’t know what applies here.

    Tigerlilly is right on about arbitration and mediation. In NC we have court ordered mediation, meaning that for virtually every civil case, the parties have to try and mediate it before going to trial. It is a method of keeping the courts from getting over-burdened. Mediation is non-binding and the parties both agree on a mediator, who is not a judge (at least in NC), but usually a lawyer who specializes in mediations. Many are former judges. Arbitration is by choice as well, there is an association called the American Arbitration Assoc., some parties choose to arbitrate according to those rules, and they have a list of arbitrators to choose from. The parties agree to arbitrate INSTEAD of going to trial, and the decision is only appealable if there has been an abuse by the arbitrator. Arbitrators (at least here in NC) are also not judges, most are lawyers trained to be arbtrators or former judges.

    As for confidentiality, the parties can agree to a confidential settlement in either an arbitration or mediation, and it’s kept hus hush because the public cannot come into an arbitration/mediation like they can a court room. Many settlements at mediation/arbitration involve confidentiality agreements, I see it all the time…in cases where big corporations don’t want the public to know they are paying big $$$ to settle (can create an inference of liability), medical malpractice actions, etc.

    Reply
  92. p said on March 26th, 2009 at 1:41 pm

    @g:
    Yeah it’s certainly seems like a mess. I’m just speculating possibilities based on people’s tendency to go back and forth. It depends on how the case is handled. For all we know by the time this hits the fan, they may both decide there are too many respective skeletons and go for “irreconcilable differences.” Sad but possible.

    Reply
  93. p said on March 26th, 2009 at 1:56 pm

    @Susanna:
    [In NC (not sure about NY or CA) it is defined as the place where you lived and resided for the past six months.]

    Yeah I think it’s that way in most states of the union. With them…maybe the last place they had a 6 mos residency, or are registered to vote or have a permanent, priimary mailing address. I’m not sure.

    @guest:

    [Most likely it will be AJ’s domicile that would be the jurisdiction. Domicile is determined by where you have your driver’s license, where you vote and where you pay taxes. If she pays CA resident income tax, CA gets the case.]

    That sounds about right from what I remember.

    [The only way he could get custody of those three would be to prove she’s an unfit mother and be appointed by the court as guardian over her brother or father. Visitation is a different issue, in CA he could probably get visitation with the nonbiologicals even if he didn’t adopt them - CA recognizes the concept of the pyschological parent.]

    I wonder if his rights as a “pyschological parent” would extend further in the “unfit mother” scenario.

    Reply
  94. Z said on March 26th, 2009 at 2:45 pm

    @g:
    Someone put a link up here that there was a BP sighting on Long Island (Huntington or something like that)….maybe he’s there w/ the kids?

    Reply
  95. explain said on March 26th, 2009 at 3:41 pm

    BP doesn’t give a “poo” for the kids.

    Reply
  96. Kate said on March 26th, 2009 at 8:46 pm

    @explain:
    I disagree about that, I think the kids are the one thing he does care about, I think he truly loves the kids or most of them as much as he has had a chance to bond with them.

    Reply
  97. explain said on March 28th, 2009 at 1:41 pm

    @Kate:
    Very well, you always seemed to have accurate insights about the Brangeloonies. I won’t contest what I, in fact, didn’t know. And gossiping is not my best skill…

    anyway, Kate, even if I’m far away and not available to judge his real feelings, I would like to see him in his future candids (I wish VERY parcimonious candids ops!!!) with a better caring for the children. The last one showed us a man holding the hands of little children ABOUT to fall down. He didn’t spend one second waiting and watch for the littles…

    Reply

What do you think? Join the discussion...

How do I change my avatar?

Go to gravatar.com and upload your preferred avatar.

Categories

Posts By Day

March 2009
M T W T F S S
« Feb   Apr »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Meta