Angelina Jolie accuses Brad Pitt of being ‘physically abusive’ towards her BEFORE that infamous 2016 row on plane in latest bombshell lawsuit

Angelina Jolie’s legal team says Brad Pitt was physically abusive to her before their 2016 row a on plane, in newly-filed legal documents linked to the former pair’s battle over their French winery.

Attorneys on Thursday for Jolie, 48, filed papers in a motion in Los Angeles County Superior Court, saying that Pitt, 60, had a history of being physically aggressive with Jolie before the well-documented September 14, 2016 row during a flight from Nice, France, to Los Angeles.

Pitt has denied all of the allegations of physical abuse, and was not charged amid an FBI probe into the incident; Dailymail.com has reached out to Pitt’s reps for comment on the story.

‘While Pitt’s history of physical abuse of Jolie started well before the family’s September 2016 plane trip from France to Los Angeles, this flight marked the first time he turned his physical abuse on the children as well,’ Jolie’s legal team said in court docs about the ongoing legal proceedings.

A source close to the Maleficent actress said that Pitt declined to enter into counseling for domestic violence, and disregarded severe family problems by seeking partial custody of their six children: Maddox, 22, Pax, 20, Zahara, 19, Shiloh, 17, and twins Vivienne and Knox, 15.

‘Pitt never came to this understanding and not only sought 50-50 custodial time – including with children with whom he had not had a stable relationship in years – but also sought sole custody if the children did not sufficiently bond with him,’ Jolie’s lawyers told the court in legal docs.

Jolie’s legal team said in their court filing Thursday that ‘despite this distressing request, Jolie still did not seek sole custody’ of the children, as ‘instead she advocated that the children’s wishes and needs be prioritized, based in part on what the children felt they could do, and for a custody plan formulated in the children’s best interest to heal.’

Jolie’s attorneys said in the court motion that the Academy Award-winning actor was required by to address his abusive conduct amid their efforts to procure more information from Department of Children and Family Services in regards to a safety plan and drug and alcohol testing in the wake of the flight; as well as the actor’s communications with the FBI, U.S. Attorney’s Office, DCFS, and the Los Angeles Police Department regarding the flight.

Jolie’s lawyer Paul Murphy told Dailymail.com in a statement that the information released in Thursday’s filing is revealing of why the Fight Club actor wanted Jolie to sign a non-disclosure agreement amid the parting.

‘Mr. Pitt refused to purchase Ms. Jolie’s interest when she would not be silenced by his NDA,’ Murphy said. ‘By refusing to buy her interest but then suing her, Mr. Pitt put directly at issue why that NDA was so important to him and what he hoped it would bury: his abuse of Ms. Jolie and their family. After eight months of delays, this motion asks the Court to force Mr. Pitt to finally produce that evidence.’

An insider close to the situation told Dailymail.com that the Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood actor has caused himself problems with his long-running litigation over the French winery.

‘Pitt is drawing all of this out of Angelina,’ the insider said. ‘She does not want to be here, she does not want to be raising any of these facts, and she is doing it only because Pitt’s lawsuit against her is forcing her to defend herself.’

The insider described the situation as ‘incredibly sad,’ adding that Jolie ‘just wishes’ Pitt ‘could move on and let her be.’

By prolonging the legal battle over the winery – which the former couple purchased in 2008 for $28.4 million – Pitt has left himself more exposed to further problematic allegations that could circulate through the court system, and subsequently, to the public, the insider said.

A source close to Pitt said that the latest accusations raised by Jolie and her legal team mark what has been a recognizable pattern of obfuscation, in terms of how the Lara Croft: Tomb Raider has reacted to adverse developments amid the court case involving the winery.

‘This is a pattern of behavior – whenever there is a decision that goes against the other side they consistently choose to introduce misleading, inaccurate and/or irrelevant information as a distraction,’ a friend of Pitt familiar with the litigation over the years told Daily Mail.com on Thursday. ‘There was a lengthy custody trial that involved the entire history of their relationship and a judge who heard all the evidence still granted him 50/50 custody.’

Pitt and his team have sought to bury details related to the flight and other matters raised in the legal docs, Jolie’s legal team told the court.

The children were not allowed to testify even though they wanted to, and should have been permitted to do so by law, Jolie’s attorneys said.

‘Some of their children over 14 years old sought to testify on their preferences on child custody, which they have the right to do per Family Code section 3042, but Pitt objected to allowing their input,’ Jolie’s legal team said in court docs.

Jolie’s attorneys added that ‘despite the legal relevance and obvious importance of Pitt’s physical abuse of his own children and the children’s preferences on custody,’ then-Judge John Ouderkirk ‘sided with Pitt and refused to allow any children to give their testimony, even in a closed hearing and despite their wish to speak.’

Jolie’s legal team has been seeking records of the actor’s communications with third parties, in regards into Pitt’s abusive behavior both before and aboard the flight, Jolie’s attorneys said in court docs.

Jolie’s attorneys told the court that that records disclosing Pitt’s third party communications would qualify as highly relevant evidence in terms of illustrating his behavior toward his family, and the measures he took to convince those agencies not to bring charges against him.

Jolie’s legal team said in the court filing that the A-list actress said in a May 30, 2021 text message that she has sought to sell her share of the winery to Pitt, ‘but he’s really not being fair and also [including] a lot of punishing restrictions.’

Jolie’s legal team said in the court filing that Pitt and his team asked for a new expanded NDA in a June 2, 2021 proposal.

Pitt’s team now demanded ‘an even more onerous NDA,’ Jolie’s lawyers said in the court filing, in which he asked for a four-year period of both parties refraining from speaking about the other; or make comments or take actions that could impact that could impact the winery, its product or its shareholders.

In a legal complaint filed in June 21, 2023 in Los Angeles Superior Court, attorneys for Pitt said the actor and Jolie ‘were on the cusp of striking a deal on a buyout’ of the winery, until Jolie withdrew amid concerns about the NDA terms laid out.

Jolie’s legal team told Pitt’s lawyers that the actress was ‘stepping back from all aspects of negotiations regarding the sale of her stake in Miraval’ due to the ‘restrictive language’ requested in the mutual non-disparagement clause, attorneys for Pitt said in the complaint.

Jolie claimed the clause was “designed to limit [her] freedom to speak,” Pitt’s legal team said in the court filing.

Pitt’s legal team said in the 2023 filing that Jolie’s withdrawal in 2021 ‘was clearly pretextual,’ as Jolie, ‘through divorce counsel, proposed an even broader non-disparagement clause’ within a year’s time ‘in connection with the former couple’s divorce proceedings.’

Jolie requested that other ‘than in court pleadings or testimony, neither party shall directly or through a party’s representatives make in a public forum any derogatory remark about the other party,’ Pitt’s lawyers said in the 2023 filing.

Pitt’s legal team said in the 2023 court filing that the actor’s NDA requests were ‘narrower’ and ‘intended to protect the business.’

Pitt’s lawyers said in the 2023 court filing that the terms he laid forth ‘made clear that there would be no limitation on Jolie’s ability to speak in connection with Pitt and Jolie’s divorce or custody proceedings.

‘It specifically provided: This commitment shall however not limit the ability, for any Party, to make any claims, filings or testimony in any legal proceedings.’