ANGELINA Jolie tried to turn her kids against Brad Pitt by telling them to shun the star during custody visits, a court has been told.
A former bodyguard told the Los Angeles Superior Court in a declaration about claims that the Maleficent actress, 48, tried to drive a wedge between her estranged husband, 60, and their six children.
5
5
5
It came as part of a legal case regarding Jolie’s disputed 2021 sale of her stake in the Chateau Miraval winery in France that the former Hollywood power couple owned together.
Former British SAS special forces soldier Tony Webb explained in his declaration that he had worked for the family for more than 20 years beginning in 2000.
He says Jolie fired him after two of his security personnel sided with Pitt following the couple’s acrimonious split and agreed to testify against her in custody hearings.
Falklands War veteran Webb explained that he had set up SRS Global Security after retiring from military service and that he provided protection to the couple and their kids through the company.
Read more in The U.S. Sun
Webb said he typically took his orders from Jolie’s personal assistant, Michael Vieira.
Discussing Pitt and Jolie’s marriage breakdown, he said he became aware that they were divorcing in 2016.
He said, “After their divorce, SRS Global and I continued to provide security for Ms. Jolie, Mr. Pitt, and their children.
“Shortly before two SRS Global contractors testified in a court case that I understood was related to Ms. Jolie and Mr. Pitt’s divorce and the custody of their children, Mr. Vieira called me on my cell phone.
“Mr. Vieira told me that he had heard that two contractors who provided personal security for Ms. Jolie through SRS Global might be testifying in the family court case.
“Mr. Vieira then asked me to stop the two individuals from testifying.
“I understood that Mr. Vieira was making this request on behalf of Ms. Jolie.”
Webb says that he explained to Vieira that he had “no power” to stop the pair from testifying because they were independent contractors rather than employees of his company.
He went on, “Mr. Vieira then told me that his call should serve as a reminder that those individuals had entered into non-disclosure agreements with Ms. Jolie and that I should remind them of that, and that if they testified in the family law case, Ms. Jolie would sue them.
“I communicated this message to the two individuals over the phone and they both told me that they planned to testify.
“One of those two individuals, Ross Foster, specified that he intended to testify regardless of the NDA if he received a court subpoena.
“When Mr. Foster told me this, he also told me that if asked, he would testify about statements he overheard that Ms. Jolie made to the children encouraging them to avoid spending time with Mr. Pitt during custody visits.”
Take good care. As ever. Angie
Ex-bodyguard Tony Webb said Angelina Jolie last wrote to him.
Webb said Jolie’s personal assistant later repeated the threat to sue the bodyguards during a follow-up call.
The former soldier’s claims may prove legally problematic for Jolie because NDAs typically should not be used to stop witnesses from coming forward in court proceedings.
Despite the alleged threats, Webb said he understood that both of his colleagues went on to testify under subpoena, leading to Jolie terminating SRS in June 2021.
Webb wrote to Jolie on June 16, 2021, thanking her for employing him.
He said, “I also wrote that I was sad that we had become distant over the past few years and that I knew that she blamed me for what my independent contractors had done but that because they were self-employed I could not control what they did or said as they were not employed directly by SRS Global.”
In their last exchange, Jolie simply responded ‘Take good care. As ever. Angie.’”
The bodyguard’s explosive claims are the latest chapter in the so-called War of the Rosé over ownership of the Chateau Miraval winery.
Pitt is asking the Los Angeles Superior Court to reverse Jolie’s October 2021 sale of her stake in the vineyard in Provence, France, to Russian booze tycoon Yuri Shefler.
He claims it breached an agreement the pair had to offer the other first refusal on a sale if either of them wanted out.
Jolie claims she backed out of selling to Pitt because he asked her to sign an “unconscionable” NDA as part of the deal to sell her shares to him.
But Pitt’s lawyers say her claims are merely an attempt to “rationalize” her betrayal of the Oscar winner and that just six months later she proposed that Pitt sign an NDA as part of their divorce talks.
They now want her to come clean about NDAs she asked others to sign so the court can test her credibility.
Pitt’s legal team argue that Webb’s evidence suggests that Jolie found NDAs much less “unconscionable” when she was demanding them from others.
Webb said in his declaration that he received instructions, which “included Mr. Vieira telling me to present people with non-disclosure agreements on behalf of Ms. Jolie and obtain their signatures.”
“For example, Mr. Vieira often asked to provide hotel staff with non-disclosure agreements and to get signatures from them,” Webb said.
Pitt’s motion on NDA disclosure is expected to be decided at a hearing on May 16.
In a separate legal filing, Pitt’s attorney, John Berlinski, accused Jolie of using NDAs in an “improper manner.”
He added: “Jolie’s use of NDAs to silence her security detail and attempt to prevent them from testifying truthfully in court about what actually happened behind closed doors bears a striking resemblance to Jolie’s allegations in this case that Pitt improperly used an NDA to ‘silence’ her.”
Berlinski added that Webb’s evidence “reveals that Jolie is the one who has weaponized NDAs in an effort to prevent an open airing of the couple’s family issues – the very thing that Jolie claims was so sacred to her that Pitt’s proposed NDA caused her to renege on her deal to sell to him.”
John Berlinski said: “The documents will show that Jolie had a long history of using NDAs for business purposes and that they were a routine aspect of her professional life making it highly likely that she understood Pitt and Perrin’s legitimate business reasons for including it.”
Berlinski went on to accuse Jolie of trying to gain a “tactical advantage” by “turning this business dispute into a sideshow about family court matters.”
A ruling on who will remain in control of Chateau Miraval is not expected this year.
5