Earlier this week, we discussed the video of Angelina Jolie acting “shady” at a “drug den” back in 1998. As I said in the earlier post, we already knew all about Angelina’s drug use in the 1990s. She was open about it. She talked about it in interviews and it’s a well-documented part of her past. I’m sure she spent time with lots of shady characters in many drug dens. But the video seemed rather boring and not all that scandalous. Angelina seemed a little bit strung out, and she was pacing around a rather bland NYC apartment, talking on the phone, presumably to her father. Radar published the video. As did the Enquirer (same media company). The Daily Mail ran with it. The video was embed-able, so many sites ran with the story too.
Well, now Angelina is apparently taking legal action. Against The Daily Mail, not the Enquirer. I guess the Daily Mail is having a really bad week.
Angelina Jolie has reportedly begun legal action against the Daily Mail for publishing a video it claims showed her while she was addicted to heroin in the 1990s. The newspaper suggested the footage, taken from the National Enquirer, featured a conversation between Jolie and her father Jon Voight about her brother James and late mother Marcheline Bertrand.
The Times writes Jolie is believed to regard the publication of the video as a gross violation of her privacy.
Former drug dealer Franklin Meyer claims he supplied cocaine and heroin three times a week to the actress and allegedly recorded the footage.
Reports of Jolie’s legal action come just days after the Daily Mail was forced to apologise to actor George Clooney for suggesting his fiancee’s mother objected to their marriage on religious grounds.
Sources in the industry say that while the video has never been made public before, the images are nothing new. One insider told the New York Daily News: “This Angelina story is ancient history. Pictures like this have been floating around for years. The Enquirer has run pictures like this before. They’re just revisiting old news that they think people have forgotten about and slapping a big ‘exclusive’ on it. The video was probably floating around back then, too. Thing is, nobody cared about the video back then.”
Considering most people dismissed this 16-year-old video as an over-hyped piece of evidence for a history that Angelina has always been open about, I kind of wonder why Angelina is even responding in any way. And why she’s specifically going after the Daily Mail and not the Enquirer?
Photos courtesy of WENN.
Oh yes! Please do sue that Kardashian loving rag. Please!
+1. I’m loving this.
The fact that the video is boring and proves nothing is totally irrelevant. I’m just psyched to see two big-name actors going after the Daily Fail.
+ 1 to everything you said OKitt.
I hope she sues and the Daily Mail stops being such a rag masquerading as a legitimate newspaper.
Why the DM? Way easier to sue in the UK. Basically you cannot touch the American tabloids. Tom Cruise has tried and they just make the person look worse. Anige cares because like George they have a higher agenda now. It is one thing to have this when just an actress/actor but another when you are working with government on stuff.
Tom Cruise failed because he sued on grounds that the tabs were lying about things, and turned out they had evidence to show they weren’t. So the Xenu-loving midget backed down.
In the DM’s case, George can sue because they apparently lied, and in Angelina’s case she’s not claiming they lied, but they violated her privacy (whether she’ll succeed is anybody’s guess). If this story is true, of course. In the past she’s sort of shrugged it all off.
Yep. Expectations of privacy are protected more in the UK than in the US.
Faye, Tom failed because in the US you not only have to prove it wasn’t true, but also that the people who published it knew it wasn’t true when they printed it AND that they intended to do financial harm to you when they published it.
It is very hard to prove intent and whether or not they understood that the information was false and that they intended to do finanical harm. That is why celebs have a very hard time going after the tabloids in the US, and few do. In the UK, the bar is much lower.
I think Dame Angie Jo’s fame game is way too tight to make a misstep like going after the Daily Mail. Nobody cares about the video. Don’t be discount butt hurt like Clooney.
LMAO at “discount butt hurt.” That is – poetry. Seriously. What a perfect description.
Good. Her kids don’t need to see that. Maddox is old enough that he might have come across it. The Daily Mail is a hideous rag.
She’s probably going after the Daily Mail because the UK has much stricter laws about privacy . Also because the Daily Mail has a much greater reach than the Enquirer.
I actually agree with this being an invasion of privacy. Although the video wasn’t really scandalous I really felt icky watching it and listening to a private conversation she was having with her family. That being said the Streisand effect is real.
I think the violation of privacy is probably more about the content of the phone call then the issue of drug use. There was a lot about her brother and her deceased mother. It was pretty personal. I bet it’s about that more than anything.
I share the same thoughts, it’s really invasion of someone’s privacy. The 16mins private phonecall with her family is so personal. Yet DM which have a greater reach invaded her privacy, they even fabricated a story and twisted facts on that personal moment of her with her family.
hmmm.. not sure if this is true. I’ll wait to see. She has not made any statement. When she and Brad sued NOTW their lawyers issued a statement. So if this was true that is what would happen. Tabloids have posted this same story before.
again I’m not convinced this is true.
They only issued a statement IIRC when they sued not as a lead up to the suit. But perhaps my memory is off.
It is a much faster route to get a remedy if you sue under the violation of privacy cause of action in the UK. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other legitimate grounds to sue under so you can’t argue that it must be true because of her choice of “cause of action.” That choice just means you can handle this within a short period of time and be done with it.
The published story that it is a “drug den” is BS since that’s her own apartment in the Ansonia. IIRC this guy Franklin has said he’d deliver her purchases to her apartment. His past statements about his sales to her also don’t make a very strong case for the allegations that she was an addict either. I’m not sure why people think she sounds strung out. Her conversation sounds typical when you are hearing one side of a phone conversation. I think people hear what they want to hear. Plenty of people pace all over the place while talking on the phone without being strung out. Suggesting pacing is proof of anything is a real stretch.
When she and Brad sued before their legal team had gone to the tabloid to tell them to remove the story;
here is the initial statement that was made when the lawsuit was filed. Again nobody knew any of this until the legal action was taken. Again this is from that lawsuit not this rumored one. And it was from their legal team not them. They never said a word.
*****************
Keith Schilling of Schillings, the couple’s London lawyers, said today: “The News of the World has failed to meet our clients’ reasonable demands for a retraction of and apology for these false and intrusive allegations which have now been widely republished by mainstream news outlets. We have advised them to bring proceedings, which they have now done.”
*********************
so like I said if they were going to sue then it would be handled the way it was before. Because there were not statements from either Angie or Brad before the lawsuit was filed..and when they won their case they still didn’t talk about it. So that leads me to the thought that this may not be legit.
Maybe they had their solicitors fire off a letter to the DM, earlier I read this article which is sort of backtracking from their earlier article, calling the dealer seedy and how she overcame her past.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2688257/How-Angelina-went-heroin-heroine-Jolie-overcomes-troubled-past-Hollywood-actress-mother-six-UN-envoy.html
Plus it’s her Dad, who she’s always had a strained relationship with who owed Marcheline about a qtr mil in back child support and Angelina has just found out her mom has terminal ovarian cancer and Angelina is the only one taking care of her and her brother…discussing housing. The girl was 23 and hadn’t even made her Tomb raider loot. The fact they posted her private family personal convo inside her apt is as bad as Murdoch’s NOT hacking her pal Eunice’s cell phone to find out about Brad and she. Disgusting.
That said, I don’t think Angie’s suing. She could give a fck..if she was upset abt anything its maybe Jamie hearing her discuss his well being and her family seeing how worried she was over them. I think angelina was careful to never blame her coping mechanisms and issues on her mom’s illness while she was alive. She didn’t want her to feel bad..so if Marcheline was alive I think AJ would care..but now she could GAF. So yah..dont believe it.
I think this has become another tactic to get even more press for a crraap publication. See Joan Rivers and the lie about Stewart suing her…keeps her dumb book in the press. This shite got 2000 hits on DM..so any publication keeping it alive, including CB and Huff, gets the same kind of healthy traffic.
@Lisa2 : I’m with you on this. It seems out of her character for suing a rag over publishing her past. On the other side, what Clooney did also seems out of his usual MO.
Well, as you said above, let’s just wait and see.
It’s easier to sue tabs in England. Don’t blame her.
Nah – I don’t think this is true. Angelina and Brad has always taken the high road and ignored the tabloids so far. They both know the more wind you give the fire the more it will burn instead of dying out. They will just get on with their business as usual without reacting at all to this. It’s only once they reacted to a story and that was when the media got hold of their legal documents about their wealth and how they split it between their children. That was breaking the low and was taken to court. Everything else has simply been ignore and dealt with in a classy and dignified way.
The only good thing that came out this video being publiced is that it turned many people against the media and made them support Angelina. I saw hundreds of comments where they praised Angelina for coming out of that drug hell she was in and grew into this wonderful and inspiring woman she is today. In fact she gained many more fans after this video.
The DM is the worst but I’m addicted to it! they have the latest pap shots you can’t see anywhere, I hate myself for giving them clicks.
if true… wrong move. No one was interested in this video. So old that there was zero story.
Sorry, but you don’t get privacy when you use your own private life to promote your movies.
Um, think again, lidia.
I know she’s a saint and all but I tend to agree with this. She puts everything out for public consumption in the name of helping others, so why not a video showing how she’s recovered. Was it illegal to show this video? I know she does a lot of good works but people forget she is an actor like George Clooney and his selective p.r.
No, she is not just an actor. She is doing far much more significant work than “just” acting and she is not complaining about it (yes gp)
Who told you that your Rights to privacy is abridged when you speak on “your life” for whatever reason?
Which constitutional law professor told you that?
I will agree that she uses her life to promote, however I don’t think that in any way makes it OK for privacy to be violated like this. There’s a line, and I think recording someone in private, and then (eventually) selling that to the tabloids crosses it.
Her talking about her private life and giving small tidbits about it here and there isn’t the same as someone violating the privacy of your home. An example of this would be talking about her kids in an interview versus someone releasing a video of the activities of her children within her home. The video was taken and given to a tabloid for a quick buck.
Well if this lawsuit is true she is complaining about it now. Don’t AJ usually let things role off her shoulder at least that’s what I have read from some of her fans, why would this bother her so much.
@Nevermindme, who wrote: “Well if this lawsuit is true she is complaining about it now. Don’t AJ usually let things role off her shoulder at least that’s what I have read from some of her fans, why would this bother her so much.”
Don’t you think there is a difference between ignoring a$$holes who make up shite about you in order to sell more magazines and going after those magazines for publishing something ‘real’ involving a private conversation with/and about a member of your family, fairly innocent yet labeled evil, that was recorded without your knowledge? Isn’t that correctly called ‘invasion of privacy?’
Again @Nevermindme, who wrote (in #12 below): “It is a private matter but why isn’t she suing her former friend/dealer since he was the one who sold or gave the tape to the media outlet.”
He may well be named in the lawsuit, if there is such a thing … which I doubt. If he isn’t named it’s probably because he no longer ‘owns’ the video in question, after selling it.
I didn’t watch the video out of respect for Angelina. I saw the headline on DM and then read the post and comments here on CB. Not that it matters, but I found this episode very upsetting and I really feel for Angelina. And if she sues, I hope it works out in her favour.
Me, too. I get the feeling she’s not suing because she looks bad, but because she’s having a private conversation about her family. That would piss me off no end, and it’s not like she tries to hide her past.
Yes, a private conversation. There have to be some limits.
And I also wanted to add that what I got was a malicious, not sensationalist kind of vibe from the publication of the video and article. That’s what it screamed to me. Anyway, I am glad I didn’t click on it. And it was up on the front page if I remember correctly.
Yes, I haven’t watched the video but I understand it concerns private issues related to her brother and mother. IF she sues, it will be on privacy grounds.
I think Venus may be right if there is any legal action. It reveals some personal matters about her brother and her mother and I believe that is why they took on the NOTW over a story that involved lies about her family that could have harmed their children.
I was so curious, I watched a minute or two, and then I felt guilty. It was a conversation about her family, and that a-hole was filming it. It was kind of sad to me, and that jerked who filmed her-gross. Why did she let him? But, ancient history. God knows I was up to some stuff 16 years ago I wouldn’t want filmed(NOT looking at you Kim).
It is a private matter but why isn’t she suing her former friend/dealer since he was the one who sold or gave the tape to the media outlett. If it’s so private why was she letting him record her. From the size of that camcorder I’m sure she knew what he was doing. The DM is shit trash but hey it’s their job to put the gossip out there. That’s why I don’t fully believe she is going after them.
Wasn’t it an invasion of privacy for Mel Gibson’s crazy rants to be recorded and released to the public. Wasn’t it an invasion of privacy for Pam”s and Tommy Lee sex tape to be stolen and published. Though some said they think Pam released the tape.
Yet they had their private matters released.
Think about it what’s private anymore, have you seen youtube lately. My thing is when you see a camera or cell phone pointed at you tell the person to put it down, don’t do anything that you don’t want people to see or just run the other way.
If she does sue on those grounds, I think she’s also establishing a precedent — revealing private conversations about her family is completely unacceptable. That would help protect her children from having information leaked about them, which must be a concern, especially as they get older.
Oh my gawd! First I never said she was JUST an actor PP. Second you speak about her as if you personally knew her. She was on video and knew she was being videoed. She’s not your real friend dear.
@Vic, who wrote: “She was on video and knew she was being videoed. She’s not your real friend dear.”
Did she?
As far as her kids finding out about her drug use I bet she has already discussed it with them. She isnt about to let some rag come out with all of this and catch her by surprise because she knows what low lifes they are. I think she is pretty open with her kids and I bet they know how she and Brad got together too or will, I doubt they will sue but if they do the money will go to a charity. They drag this old crap out because they have nothing better to out in the rag for the week. Time for the rag to move on. They made the headline look like it was yesterday lol . AJ has come a long way, She had her wild chld days and they are over now. Too bad people cannot let it rest. I bet everyone has done things they would want to stay in the closet but when you get famous they clean the closet out for you lol
The Daily Mail ran it really big with a sensationalist headline — so that’s probably why. Their traffic must be amazing, that’s why everyone freaks on them.
In truth, I do find it odd that her drug past is something media is obsessed with. It’s like they don’t want her to move on and be a full formed human being who does good work. They need her to be a druggy. It would somehow make sense to them. Very odd to want someone to OD, basically.
+1
The ongoing effort to break her and treat her like a pariah is puzzling to me as well. There are other Hollywood stars whose drug addicted pasts are public and well documented, but for some reason Angelina is singled out for continual scorn and shame. What is the point of helping people get clean if their pasts are going to be constantly brought up so people don’t forget? It’s not like she got away with murder.
She is not suing the DM HuffPo is a tabloid gossip site in regards to entertainment news.All they do is copy and paste tabloid stories.AJ doesn’t talk about suing she would have filed the lawsuit.Sue under what grounds?
I read the article and DM specifically said that the video shows her on drugs (heroin), in Court they have to prove that statement to be fact.
Also, they have to prove that the person who they promoted as her drug dealer who talke to them is a valid person and that they made every reasonable effort to collaborate his story.
Also, they have to prove that they obtained that video from a valid ownership source that did not violate her privacy and also was not the product of theft or illegal violation o her property.
I could be wrong, it’s not like I’m some genius Attorney or something.
Yes, I believe you are correct on all points.
While I am reluctant to believe this story, it could be true for one reason only imo. The content of the phone call. She was discussing personal family issues and that could be the privacy she is referencing.
Her drug use history is well known and self-proclaimed. I doubt that is the problem. But the stuff about taking care of her mother’s expenses and her brother and whatever else she was talking about, she could feel those details – and the privacy of her loved ones – was invaded.
And suing in the UK is far easier.
Anyway, we’ll see whether true or not. Something tells me she isn’t. But Clooney might.
Its very funny to see that after years of vicious attacks on Angelina the Daily Mail has managed to make its own readers supportive of her.
People who commented on the video were so against its publication that the Mail has printed another article of how Angelina turned her life round, and also made it clear that she has always been open about her drug use.
She was clearly having a private conversation about her family and there was no evidence of drugs or drug use. She has said before in interviews that even on the phone she cannot be still and walks about.
She is entitled to sue because it an invasion of not just her privacy but also her brother and mother.
The Mail is extremely misogynistic, its treatment of women in the 21st century is simply awful.
I saw that story and assumed they were just re-hashing a surprisingly good Buzzfeed feature, but your analysis is probably spot on. They’re pandering to their readers, whose humanity they apparently underestimated.
And yes, from what I saw of the video, there was nothing that would lead me to think “drugs”. I, too, pace back and forth when I’m talking on the phone. So does my partner. We probably walk miles every month between the two of us; it’s just the same nervous, restless energy that she’s always had. And look what she did with it: traveled the world to save lives! It still really does astonish me that she managed to find such a productive and effective way to channel her wild energy.
I really hope that dealer didn’t profit very much off this, because the drug connection is basically just word of mouth… there’s absolutely nothing to see here, except an intimate moment that’s boring at best and invasive at worst.
I just want to say how relieved I am that there are no videos (that i know of) of my younger days. I was wild with alcohol and the occasional more than alcohol fun but I grew up. As most people do. Most people dont do any drugs and I say God Bless Them however some of us do but it does not make us addicts for life when we experimented when we were younger.
I guess my point is – I would be horrified if a video surfaced of me when I was younger now that I have kids and work in my corporate job. Its not me anymore, its in the past and its unethical to use it against me now. I feel for Angie.
If she’s suing DM the reason may be that laws there give her a better chance than U.S.
I just read the source of this story is The Times of London.Is this a rival tabloid ?
The more pressure and hardship the Daily Fail has to endure, the happier I am.
The Enquirer is mostly harmless.
Is it just me that found this quote kind of creepy? ” The Enquirer has run pictures like this before. They’re just revisiting old news that they think people have forgotten about and slapping a big ‘exclusive’ on it.
WHY would you even entertain the notion of running an old news story that has no value or significance to anything happening today? It’s not like it’s a cold case crime that they don’t want left unsolved on the shelf, forgotten about forever.
And if THAT’s what they consider a “dirty drug den”, then I’m really glad they never saw pictures of my kids’ rooms as toddlers/children , who know what they would have been called!!!
I think the video was rather intrusive but boring. I thought Jolie appeared to be drugged up though. Good for her if she has totally cleaned herself up. I dont think it’s easy and it is a life long struggle.
it’s Ocean’s 14 taking on the tabloid press. first Clooney sues, then Brad and Angelina sue, next it’ll be Matt Damon, then Andy Garcia, then Julia Roberts, then Catherine Zeta-Jones, then Don Cheadle, then Bernie Mac, then Casey Affleck and Scott Caan. they’ll tag team them until the Daily Mail sobs “no more! we give up! we’ll stop writing made up fiction and become a reputable gossip site like Celebitchy!”
Hahaha, this was wonderful. Thank you for this. I did get a little sad reading Bernie Mac’s name, though… 🙁
If she actually *did* (or does) pursue legal action, I’m willing to bet it’s for Jamie’s sake. The video wasn’t actually incriminating in any way (and even if it was, it’s nothing new). The personal family conversation, though, is what made me stop watching it almost immediately.
I read that the scumbag dealer even ends the video by saying, “you need to learn to trust me”. He was exploiting a budding star after getting her high, and while I don’t blame him for her drug use, I do blame him for capitalizing off such a vulnerable moment. If she takes action, it’s not about hiding her past or protecting her image; it’s about standing up for her brother and mother, whose personal lives and finances were dragged into the public sphere without their consent.
Oh Come on jolie ! we know and you know that you had a hand in releasing that video , so people will say how inspirational your transformation is and all that crap
Don’t quit your day job 🙂
No, so far you seem to be the only person who believes that crap.
Actually she made him film her 16 years ago SO she could release the video after she became a Dame to look inspirational.She is diabolical. BTW she is also responsible for LeBron James leaving Miami Heat
She is evil.
LMAO! Angie’s my girl, but your comment is too funny!
I can understand why she thinks it’s a violation of her privacy. I’m a Brangeloonie and even I was bored to tears with the video after about a minute. I shut it down because it did seem like something private as well. I just enjoy her movies and of course admire her ambassador work. I love to see photos of her growing family. I don’t understand how the video is “an exclusive” and so “newsworthy” for all of the reasons Kaiser states here. If she’s going to pursue the lawsuit then good for her. I can relate in a way since I partied a lot in high school and ditched classes, got into trouble, etc. But then I cleaned up my act, went to college on my own, graduated with honors and got a great government job. When I went to my 20th high school reunion people could only relate to me as that troubled girl I once was. The experience was so frustrating that I decided to never go to another reunion again. I rarely even visit my hometown. All of that stuff is in the past and I’m only focusing on the present. I assume that’s probably why Angie feels strongly enough to pursue legal action.
If she is suing I think its because she was having a private, not flattering family phone conversation with her father about her late mother and her brother. Their privacy she would care about. I’ll bet she is furious to have their names brought into this.
I saw nothing in the video that screamed “Drugs!” She paced. So what? Lots do it, including me, depending on the length & intensity of the conversation. I also didn’t see a comfy chair among the moving boxes in what appeared to be a newly-occupied apartment. It was definitely a deeply personal, should have been private, conversation about getting help for family members. She was already on the phone when the vid starts so I don’t know who initiated the call. She clearly ignored the cameraman, so he mustn’t have been as important as I’d expect an addict’s dealer to be. She was how old when this was filmed? 19? Twenty? Ancient history.
I’ll believe Angie is suing the tabloids when there’s a direct quote from Angie saying she is. As of now, it’s nothing but hearsay and “sources said.”
Personally, I’d be really bloody upset if a video of me having a conversation about my now deceased mother was publicity available. This video is her saying things about her mother’s state of mind and misery, but it’s simply being used because of the drug implication. It was a really sad conversation and it must suck for her that it’s now out in the public arena.
I never even looked at this clip. I didn’t see any reason to. This came out several years back or at least some part of it by him or someone else from that time I saw a brief part of it where she was sitting talking and found it boring and nothing shocking and turned it off immediately. She has always said she had problems with drugs and was lucky to get out of it. What is the interest to a high Angelina rambling then having a personal conversation on the phone? It’s none of my business.
I think she ought to. The question to me is not about the drug angle- as everyone notes, she defused that issue years ago by being so totally open about it- but c’mon. It’s just gross and awful to publish ancient video of a person’s private conversations. I mean, the conversation wasn’t about some drug deal or anything scandalous, it was boring family stuff about housing or whatever. The fact that 16 years later the entire world can now hear that conversation and pick her apart (I think it’s an exaggeration to say she looked strung-out) looking for a negative angle is just creepy. I wouldn’t want anyone putting my private conversations with a parent out in the world, ugh.
Gia was telecast in Jan 1998, filming will be at least in 1997 or earlier, the video is at least 17 years ago.
Yeah, you are right!! I can’t imaging having the whole world eavesdropping my private conversation with my mummy or daddy. Nobody have the right to do that! In fact the video look obviously secretly taken without her knowing about it while talking to her dad.
It’s really gross that DM invaded her privacy and fabricated a story of drug den with a private family phonecall…….
I doubt Angelina is suing .
Dame Angelina will probably just continue on with her humanitarian work and not even give it any more airtime.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen Angelina angry in all these years at much really. She’s quite an astute lady.