Christie Brinkley’s ex husband’s lawyer attacks her for statements she never made

Special screening of 'White Gold'
Yesterday we read an angry missive by Christie Brinkley’s ex husband, Peter Cook, blaming her for a false statement about their divorce, which was not a quote from Christie and was made in an obscure online source which Christie had nothing to do with. The article is poorly worded and reads like it was written by a non-native English speaker. It states that “Brinkley won a large settlement, especially after revelation of Cook’s heavy hand on the three children.” Cook latched on to this, linked the source, and accused Christie of planting it in the media.

In Christie’s People Magazine interview, the only reference she made to Cook was in claiming that her 50s “weren’t easy. I lost both my parents and went through a miserable divorce while trying to be a pillar for my kids.” That’s it, that’s all Christie said, but it was enough to set Cook off on a rant against her, along with that random article. Instead of calming down and realizing that Christie had nothing to do with that other story, Cook doubled-down and had his lawyer attack her in the media. Again, the lawyer accuses Christie of planting that article and confuses it with her People interview, in which she said no such thing. This is just unbelievable to me:

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Press:

After several years of representing Peter Cook as his attorney on an array of legal issues created mostly by Christie Brinkley’s insatiable need for attention and self ­justification, I am compelled to write to set the record straight.

Ms. Brinkley latest attack on Mr. Cook, falling on the eve of her 60th birthday celebration, suggests that she won a “large settlement after revelation of Cook’s heavy hand on the three children”. And PEOPLE magazine celebrates her swim­suit wearing good looks on its cover with an article touting her need to be a “pillar” for her children after her nasty divorce from Mr. Cook.

If she is the “pillar” that she claims to be then she will publicly repudiate the false statements that there was a “large settlement” in her favor and that Mr. Cook ever used a “heavy hand on the three children.” She should do this for her children’s sake.

I have been representing men and women in divorce proceedings for more than 35 years and have never, I repeat never, witnessed such little regard for the well­being of children as evidenced by Ms. Brinkley, beginning when she and her lawyers asked the trial Judge to open the courtroom and permit her to testify about every detail of the parties marital discord in front of scores of reporters, all for the world to witness and her children to experience. Moreover, she insisted on putting in the most personal testimony about her children’s father which was wholly unnecessary because Mr. Cook had already acknowledged his mistakes and consented to the divorce.

But Ms. Brinkley required her pound of flesh even if her children had to be humiliated by the daily reporting of the most personal details of their family life. And the public trial was only the tip of the iceberg. Ms. Brinkley’s public relations people, who have made millions from Ms. Brinkley generous use of them, have relentlessly peppered the media with untrue statements about Mr. Cook from the beginning of the legal difficulties until this very day. Ms. Brinkley herself continues to state publicly, among of things, that Mr. Cook was a “diagnosed narcissist”, a statement that is completely false and no doubt actionable slander. Of course, Ms. Brinkley herself could be cited by most observers as a pretty good example of a narcissist.

She is willing to hurt her own children because it makes her feel so good to hurt Mr. Cook in every public forum and at every opportunity. To set the record straight, Mr. Cook is a great father. I have personally witnessed his anguish about what his children have gone through. He tries to shield them from the hurt of this personal family tragedy but he is no match for the anger of this very wealthy and scorned woman determined to trash the father of her children at every opportunity.

Ms. Brinkley’s need for revenge knows no bounds. Her subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, message to her children about their father is designed to cause them to question their own reality and the father they know, simply to exact revenge for herself. I have witnessed this behavior in my law practice over 35 years and the harm it has caused thousands of children.

It is shameful.

In the long run, Mr. Cook will be the “pillar” for his children because he is grounded and real. It is time for Christie Brinkley to stop trashing the father of her children and let them freely appreciate the gifts he has to offer them as a parent.

James R. Winkler, Attorney for Peter Cook

[From Radar Online]

Both Cook and his lawyer are incapable of actually reading Christie’s People article and seeing that she didn’t trash Cook at all, or realizing that she has nothing to do with something written in “Liberty Voice.” In their argument, Christie is responsible for everything written about her on the Internet, and is supposed to immediately respond to some random journalist’s incorrect statement, in an article riddled with errors, in an online source people have barely heard of. Otherwise she’s a horrible awful person who is attacking her ex. The more I hear from Cook and his hack lawyer, the more I see Christie’s perspective. Just look at how Cook is behaving.

If you’d like to know more about Cook, check out his 20/20 interview following the divorce. He blamed Christie for the fact that he was cheating on her with an 18 year-old girl he hired to work at his architectural firm. He was 49 at the time.

Grand Prix Sunday at the 2013 Hampton Classic

Christie Brinkley leaving NBC studios

Photos are from 2013. Credit:

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

24 Responses to “Christie Brinkley’s ex husband’s lawyer attacks her for statements she never made”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. starrywonder says:

    Wow this guy and Nigella’s ex are definitely in the running for biggest douche in the world

  2. Boxy Lady says:

    Peter, you ignorant slut.

  3. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    This is known in the legal world as “the crybaby letter.” Ignore it and move on.

  4. eliza says:

    Peter and his Louis Vuitton skinned wife need to lay off sunbathing. Damn!

    The response to her article in People is ridiculous and shows Peter for the twisted ahole he is. If he was so into taking the high road and moving on both he and his equally dumb attorney would have STFU and kept on movin’.

    • DTX says:

      Ha ha ha! Louis Vuitton skinned!

      I almost spit out my tea laughing! I’m totes gonna use that line!

  5. Audrey says:

    And it’s somehow good for the kids for them to write up a long essay attacking her as a parent and person?

    If he really cared, he would shut up

    what an awful lawyer, acting like this is the worst any kids have ever been through. That’s actually really offensive for him to say gicen the struggles some kids go through thanks to abusive parents

  6. gypsy says:

    So, when Brinkley wanted an open courtroom she was disrespecting the children, but when a lawyer pens an open letter about a contrived contraversy that essentially throws those kids under HIS bus, its professional? The ex and his lawyers are first class fuqtwats.

  7. gg says:

    Lawyers should never write PR statements, ugh.

    • nicole says:

      As a lawyer I cringed the whole way through. Even if everything he said was true, he must have had a charmed family law practice if that’s the worst he has seen. That’s a normal day of behaviour in that field.

      • lithe says:

        I cringed too—and I’m not even a lawyer!

      • gg says:

        Exactly what I thought. If this person were my attorney I would go elsewhere. I really hope that, for once, Christie keeps it shut and lets him hang himself once and for all. Dignifying this with a response just makes everybody that touches it stink.

  8. Frida_K says:

    Baked ham on the attack, aisle four! Grab your children and elderly and RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! Escape while you still can!!

  9. Vampi says:

    I saw him on Inside Edition last night. I wanted to punch my TV.

  10. Nerd Alert says:

    Maybe Peter Cook should divorce Kelsey Grammar if he wants to know what it really feels like to be bad-mouthed all over town. Otherwise? Sit down, sir.

  11. Blondey says:

    Peter Cook is an architect. Having worked in the industry, architects are notoriously known for having over-inflated egos. Sounds like he is one of the finest!

  12. MSMLNP says:

    This sh*tty response from the Cook Team only supports a “heavy hand” when dealing with all matters. Talk about killing a fly with a cannon.


  13. Izzy says:

    You know what I find even more astounding? That some other woman was stupid enough to marry this douche-canoe after his very public bad behavior during his prior marriage. It’s not like he was sorry he cheated. Good luck with that, honey.

  14. Ok says:

    I am sure it has been very, very difficult for Peter Cook coming to the realization that without being married to Christie Brinkley, nobody gives a cr*p about him.

    He is probably driving to Michael’a Arts and Crafts Stores right now to purchase frames and acid free scrapbooks for all the ensuing articles that will appear across the various papers !!!!!

    I am sure he misses being the spouse of a celebrity.

  15. Ninks says:

    And now we know Peter Cook googles himself.

  16. Moi says:

    Are we sure than attorney wrote that letter? I thought I was reading a letter from a scorned lover.

    He and his lawyer are two peas in a douche-pod. Seriously, both idiots to the highest degree.

    I hope she doesn’t respond to this foolery. We love you Christie!