In July, Angelina Jolie won her case before the California Court of Appeal. The case? To have the private judge, Judge John Ouderkirk, thrown off her divorce case. Ouderkirk had been acting as a private judge, adjudicating the Jolie-Pitt divorce case for the better part of five years. But when it came down to the line on custody of the younger Jolie-Pitt children, Ouderkirk made a series of odd decisions, like refusing to allow the children to testify. Jolie’s lawyers had also caught Ouderkirk in a flagrant ethics violation when Ouderkirk had failed to disclose his financial arrangements with Brad Pitt’s lawyers. The Court of Appeal ruled unanimously on Ouderkirk’s disqualification. Well, Brad filed a petition to bring back his favorite unethical judge. And now Angelina’s lawyers have responded:

Angelina Jolie has accused Brad Pitt of trying to use his celebrity to win special treatment in their long-running custody dispute, Page Six has learned.

Pitt’s attorneys Monday launched a bid to overturn a decision to dismiss the judge overseeing the custody fight. But Jolie’s legal team retaliated and in court papers seen by Page Six, they stated: “This sort of gamesmanship, a last-ditch effort by a celebrity litigant seeking special treatment, is not what this Court’s limited review resources are for. There is nothing to see or review here. There is no issue meeting this Court’s rigorous standards for, or worthy of, review.”

Pitt’s team has asked for permission to launch an appeal against the decision, but Jolie’s filing stated that the Court of Appeal was unanimous in finding that Judge John Ouderkirk violated the clear mandate of the Code of Judicial Ethics.

“There is no serious question that a privately compensated judge who, without full disclosure, has secured a favorable repeat customer relationship with one litigant’s counsel must be disqualified,” the filing said.

Pitt attorney Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. told Page Six: “The lower court’s ruling will reward parties who are losing child custody cases, and condone their gamesmanship, by allowing them to wait and see about the likely direction of the case before seeking the disqualification of the judge. Condoning the use of this type of strategic ‘lie in wait’ disqualification challenge will cause irreparable harm to both the children and families involved in this case, and other families in other cases, by unnecessarily prolonging the resolution of these disputes in an already overburdened court system.

“Allowing this kind of crafty litigation strategy will deprive parents of irreplaceable time with their children as judges are disqualified for minor reasons in the midst of their cases. Nothing in the opposition brief calls into question the urgent need for California Supreme Court review, nor does the opposition address nor refute the important fact that the lower court’s ruling is bad for children and bad for California’s overburdened judicial system.”

[From Page Six]

Pitt’s legal argument makes no sense – they’re suggesting that Jolie didn’t have any complaints about Judge Ouderkirk until after he made a temporary ruling on custody in Pitt’s favor. That is false. Jolie and her lawyers had raised the alarm about Ouderkirk’s unethical behavior for months before the custody ruling. Jolie’s lawyer tried to force Ouderkirk to recuse himself, and they tried to have him dismissed from the case. Once the blatantly pro-Pitt ruling on custody came through, it became easier for Jolie’s team to go straight to the Court of Appeals and show them the tit-for-tat, the pro-Pitt ruling from an unethical judge who clearly had a bias towards the lawyers who were giving him more business.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.