According to the documents, Webb was the “head of Jolie’s security detail for two decades, and he remained in that role for approximately four years after the couple divorced.”
Webb stated that Jolie “required him and his contractors to sign NDAs relating to various personal and professional details of her, and her family’s, life.”
After the couple filed for divorce, they had a major custody battle over their six children. According to the documents, Webb claimed he “received multiple calls from Jolie’s representative, who told Mr. Webb to remind his staff that they had entered into NDAs with Jolie and that if they testified in a custody proceeding, Jolie would sue them.”
Webb said that he had conveyed the message to his contractors, and both of them confirmed that they would testify if they were to be subpoenaed.
The documents further claimed that “one of them told Webb that ‘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.’”
The documents also stated that the “the two security contractors both testified” despite being threated with being sued and shortly after, Mr. Webb’s company was fired by Jolie.
Webb himself does not claim to have heard Jolie’s directive instructing the children not to interact with Pitt during custody visits. He now also works for Pitt.
Jolie’s attorney, Paul Murphy has since then addressed the media over this matter. He said in a statement, “Mr. Pitt’s continued attempt to equate common NDAs for security personnel and housekeepers covering confidential information employees learn at work, with him demanding an expanded NDA to ensure the continued coverup of his deplorable actions remains shameful.” “This case is not about NDAs in general, but about power and control. All Angelina has ever wanted was separation and health, with positive relationships between all members of their family, including Mr. Pitt. She looks forward to the day when he is finally able to let her go,” the statement further read.
The latest filing comes after over a month after Jolie’s lawyer filed documents claiming that Pitt had been physically abusive toward her even before the alleged infamous plane incident of 2016. That incident, according to documents, was the final straw in asking for a divorce.
The motion that Jolie’s legal team filed in early April, most revolved around the dispute over their shares of ownership in their French winery estate, Château Miraval.
Her legal team filed a motion asking the court to compel Pitt and his legal team to provide “responses” and “documents” that explained why the actor “suddenly conditioned his purchase of Jolie’s share of Miraval on her agreeing to a greatly expanded NDA now covering Pitt’s personal misconduct, whether related to Miraval or not.”
Jolie firmly claims that this move to demand NDAs was Pitt’s attempt to “cover up” the alleged abuse against Jolie and their children.
Pitt was never charged with a crime after authorities investigated the 2016 plane incident.
In contrast to what Jolie’s legal team is saying, Pitt’s lawyers allege that it was Jolie and her team who requested a “broader” NDA.
In the interest of the saint, please stop reversing into parking spaces!
Reversing into a parking space often seems like a good idea, but it also comes with some challenges. It can be difficult to judge the space required and maneuver safely, and there’s a chance you might miss something important in your reversing alerts, leading to potential accidents. Even with modern safety technology, reversing into tight spots can still be prone to error. Aside from the safety concerns, it can also be frustrating for other drivers to have to wait while you slowly back into a parking space, especially in crowded parking lots. In some places, reversing into a parking space is even prohibited due to the risks involved.
When reversing, drivers need to be extra aware of their surroundings, especially in high-traffic areas or busy parking lots. Without backup cameras or warning systems, maneuvering can be difficult. Newer cars may have cameras to help with this, but not all have these features.
Reversing into gaps can be dangerous because many drivers lack the skills to do so safely. Aside from battling with other vehicles and pedestrians, it’s also easy to miss obstacles. This can lead to serious accidents involving both drivers and pedestrians. Additionally, taking up more than one space when reversing is inconsiderate of other drivers, and in tight parking lots there may not be enough room behind you to maneuver safely. Even the most skilled reverse parkers often take longer than those who park upside down.
Ultimately, the potential risks and delays often outweigh the perceived benefits of backing into a space. Head-first into a parking space is generally safer and more convenient for everyone. It provides better visibility and minimizes the risk of collision or damage to vehicles. For larger vehicles or pickup trucks, backing into a spot can be particularly challenging due to the size and location of the spot relative to other vehicles.
In some areas, reversing is not permitted for safety reasons. Without visible brake lights when reversing, other drivers and pedestrians may not see you stop, increasing the risk of an accident. While reversing is possible in some winding parking lots, it is often a nuisance and a potential danger to those around you.
In summary, reversing into parking spaces can be risky and often not worth it. It can cause accidents, inconvenience other drivers and even result in parking tickets. For safety and convenience, it is best to park head first.
Leave a Reply