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.

Photos are from 2013. Credit: WENN.com