Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s breakup has been super public, and it looks like things are really messy between them. Now, it seems like some new details are starting to come to light.
Continue reading to find out what the newest update is all about.
A previous security guard who was employed by Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie is making some shocking claims about the actress and her actions during her marriage to Pitt.
The media has gotten hold of some court papers, and they show that Pitt’s lawyers claim a former security guard named Tony Webb was informed that Jolie told the kids not to talk to Pitt during their custody visits.
The papers also claimed that Jolie tried to use non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to intimidate the security guards and keep them quiet about this.
The papers are part of a long legal fight between the two ex-partners about their shared Château Miraval vineyard. In this situation, there has been a lot of arguing back and forth about NDAs and other problems.
The papers say that Webb was in charge of Jolie’s security team for twenty years, and he kept that job for about four years even after they got divorced.
Webb mentioned that Jolie made him and his workers sign non-disclosure agreements about different personal and work-related information about her and her family’s life.
After the couple decided to get a divorce, they ended up in a big fight over who would take care of their six kids. In the legal papers, Webb said that he got several calls from Jolie’s team. They told him to remind his staff that they had signed NDAs with Jolie, and if they spoke out in court about the custody case, Jolie would take legal action against them.
Webb mentioned that he told his contractors about the message, and both of them agreed that they would come forward to testify if they received a subpoena.
The papers also said that “one person informed Webb that ‘he would share what he heard Ms. Jolie say to the kids, urging them to stay away from Mr. Pitt during their visits for custody.’”
The papers also mentioned that “the two security contractors both gave their testimonies” even though they were warned they might get sued, and soon after that, Mr. Webb’s company was let go by Jolie.
Webb says he didn’t actually hear Jolie tell the kids not to talk to Pitt when they were visiting. Now, he is working with Pitt.
Jolie’s lawyer, Paul Murphy, has spoken to the media about this situation. He mentioned, “Mr. Pitt’s ongoing effort to compare regular NDAs for security staff and housekeepers, which protect private information they learn at work, to his request for a broader NDA to keep his terrible actions hidden is really disappointing.” He added, “This case isn’t really about NDAs at all; it’s about power and control. All Angelina has ever wanted is to be separated and to have a healthy environment, with good relationships among everyone in their family, including Mr. Pitt. She hopes for the day when he can finally let her move on.”
The newest court papers were submitted more than a month after Jolie’s lawyer claimed that Pitt had been physically abusive to her, even before the well-known plane incident in 2016. According to the documents, that incident was what made her decide to file for divorce.
In early April, Jolie’s lawyers submitted a motion that mainly focused on the argument about who owns what in their French winery, Château Miraval.
Her lawyers submitted a request to the court, asking it to make Pitt and his lawyers give “answers” and “documents” that would clarify why the actor suddenly made his buying of Jolie’s part of Miraval depend on her accepting a much broader NDA that now includes Pitt’s personal behavior, even if it has nothing to do with Miraval.
Jolie strongly believes that Pitt’s request for NDAs was his way of trying to hide the supposed abuse he inflicted on her and their kids.
Pitt was not charged with any crime after the authorities looked into the plane incident that happened in 2016.
Unlike what Jolie’s legal team claims, Pitt’s lawyers argue that it was actually Jolie and her team who asked for a “broader” NDA.
