Brad Pitt’s security guard claims Angelina Jolie told the couple’s children to “avoid” the father during custody visits

The legal battle between Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie over Chateau Miraval continues to reveal details of the warring couple’s personal lives.

In the latest dossier in the wine war, a former security guard for the couple claims in a statement that security staff “overheard” Jolie telling the couple’s children to avoid Pitt during custody visits with their father.

“Between 2000 and 2020, I provided varying degrees of personal security,” Tony Webb — a veteran of the U.K. Royal Marines and British Army Special Air Forces who later went into private security — says in court documents filed by Pitt’s lawyers on Thursday. “For Angelina Jolie and her family, and I am currently providing services to Brad Pitt.”

Webb claims that his job when he worked for the couple included “managing security for [Jolie] And
family whenever they leave the United States,” as well as convincing people to sign non-disclosure agreements for Jolie, including hotel employees.

After Pitt and Jolie split in 2016, Webb’s company, SRS Global, continued to provide security for the “Maleficent” star and her children. (The stars have been in a nearly five-year legal battle for custody of their six children.)

After Pitt and Jolie split, his business relationship with Jolie soured when Jolie’s a*sistant, Michael Vieira, told Webb that two independent contractors for his security firm “might testify in the family court case,” Webb recalls.

Jolly’s then-a*sistant “asked me to prevent these two individuals from testifying. It is my understanding that Mr. Vieira was making this request on Ms. Jolly’s behalf,” Webb says in court documents.

“I explained to Mr. Vieira that I had no power to stop them because they were independent contractors and not employees of SRS Global,” Webb adds. “Mr. Vieira then told me that his call should serve as a reminder that these individuals had entered into non-disclosure agreements with Ms. Jolie and that I should To remind them of that and tell them that if they testify in the family law case, Ms. Vieira Joli will sue them.”

Webb also states in Los Angeles Superior Court papers filed by Pitt’s attorneys, “I communicated this message to the two individuals by telephone and they both told me that they intended to testify. One of the two individuals, Ross Foster, specified that he intended to testify regardless of the NDA, if He received a subpoena from the court and when Mr. Foster told me about it, he also told me that if asked, he would testify about the statements he had heard about Ms. Jolie to the children, and to encourage them to avoid spending time with Mr. Pitt during custody visits.

Ultimately, he says, “it is my understanding that Mr. Foster and the other person mentioned above were in fact subpoenaed, and that they both in fact testified in the Jolie/Pitt family law case.”

The latest allegations stem from the couple’s battle over non-disclosure agreements.

And last month, Jolie’s team argued in court papers that she shouldn’t hand over all of her previous nondisclosure agreements to her ex-husband in their epic war over the $500 million winery.

She alleged that Pitt wanted her to sign a “onerous” and “unfairly broad” non-disclosure agreement, “covering Pitt’s personal misconduct, whether related to Miraval or not,” so she could sell her stake to him.

It claims the duo’s deal fell through due to a non-disclosure agreement, before Jolie instead sold her shares to a Stoli subsidiary. She also claimed that he was trying to silence her from talking about allegations that he abused her and her family.

But Pitt claims it unfairly sold the stake under him. As part of their ongoing legal war, Pitt, 60, wants Jolie, 48, to hand over all of her previous non-disclosure agreements — which she argued against in court documents.

Pitt’s side says in the latest court papers that Jolie orchestrated a “ruse to turn this business dispute into a sideshow on family court matters.”

“Her hook is to claim that she was justified in terminating an impending deal for Pitt to buy her interest in Château Miraval, thereby violating her obligations not to sell to a stranger without his consent, because Pitt’s lawyers requested a non-disclosure agreement to be included in the deal papers.

His side also says, “Jolie then uses Pitt’s suggestion of a non-disclosure agreement as an excuse to bring into the case the unfortunate circumstances of the dissolution of the couple’s marriage, alleging that the suggestion generated an ’emotionally devastating’ reaction in her that drove her to do so.” She backed out of the deal and sold it to Stoli because it was supposed to silence her ability to talk about personal matters.

“Jolie apparently believed she could gain a tactical litigation advantage if she brought this case over family issues, so she turned the NDA motion into the heart of this case,” Pitt’s lawsuit, filed by Bird Marella’s John Berlinski, said.

Jolie’s representatives did not immediately comment.

Pitt is asking the court to cancel Jolie’s 2021 sale of her stake in Chateau Miraval to Stoli billionaire Yuri Shefler, claiming that this violates the agreement the couple entered into to sell it to him.

We reported that a hearing in the Los Angeles case will be held on May 16. A full trial is not expected to take place this year.

The Maraval case is also being heard in the Luxembourg court as well.

The Hollywood stars have been fighting over the vineyard they purchased in 2008 ever since Jolie filed for divorce in 2016.

The couple had married at the same French property, but Jolie and the children have not been back since 2016.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button

 

Please Wait a Moment

This will close in 8 seconds