Angelina Jolie, a prominent Hollywood actress and director, has asserted that the judge overseeing her child custody case displayed "bias" in favor of her ex-husband, Brad Pitt. She is now utilizing her personal experience to advocate for legislation aimed at addressing perceived "corruption" within the court system.

In a two-page letter dated September 29 and acquired by The NY Post, Jolie has called upon California Governor Gavin Newsom to endorse "Piqui’s Law." This proposed law would mandate domestic violence training for judges, mediators, and other court professionals, specifically focusing on the impact of child abuse and trauma.

According to a source close to Jolie, her motivation for championing this legislation stems from the difficulties she encountered during her legal proceedings under the jurisdiction of Judge John W. Ouderkirk in Los Angeles. This judge declined to permit her children to testify about their experiences of domestic violence involving their father.

"This issue is deeply personal to her, and with good reason," noted a source with close ties to Jolie. "Consider what she endured from a partial judge who was later removed by the appellate court due to questionable and undisclosed financial interactions with Brad Pitt's legal team, which breached judicial ethics in her family's case. Furthermore, he declined to review evidence of domestic abuse."

"It's not surprising that she has chosen to address this specific issue. Her entire family has been negatively affected by systemic shortcomings. She has been privately advocating for her family and, in the public sphere, for other families for a considerable period," the source added.

In May 2021, Ouderkirk, a retired private judge who had officiated the former couple's wedding, issued a ruling that granted the couple joint 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 Brad Pitt’s attorneys.

“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's attorneys on other cases, which he disclosed." A source close to Brad Pitt reportedly told the Post.

“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.”

“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.”

If passed, Piqui’s Law, named after a 5-year-old boy who was killed by his father in 2017— also would prevent abused children from being separated from their non-violent parent, as well as block children from going into reunification camps.

Okay

Noted