Angelina Jolie has been accused of trying to poison her children’s relationship with Brad Pitt by telling them to shun the actor during custody visits, DailyMail.com can reveal.

The Hollywood actress is accused of trying to drive a wedge between her estranged husband and their six kids in the aftermath of their split, according to court filings lodged at LA Superior Court.

In an explosive declaration seen by DailyMail.com, a former bodyguard for the couple was informed by his own contractors that Jolie was pushing for her children to avoid Pitt when she had custody of them.

Documents detailing the explosive claims were made public as part of the ongoing ‘War of the Roses’, with the A-List couple stuck in an acrimonious battle over her rights to sell their French vineyard and home.

The Tomb Raider star sold her $62million stake to Russian billionaire Yuri Shefler in 2021, which Pitt argues went against their agreement to offer the other the right of first refusal.

Pitt, 60, and Jolie, 48, have been locked in a long-running bitter battle over the Chateau Miraval estate, which produces an award-winning sparkling rosé.

Former British SAS solider Tony Webb worked for the family for more than 20 years, starting in 2000, but claims that Jolie fired him after two of his security personnel sided with Pitt after the split.

According to documents lodged by Pitt’s lawyers today, Webb claims that the two colleagues were told by Jolie’s personal assistant  that she ‘would sue’ after it emerged that they might give evidence in the couple’s custody battle.

Documents submitted to the court, seen by DailyMail.com, state Webb’s colleague told him he overheard Jolie ‘encouraging the children to avoid spending time with Pitt during custody visits.’

His comments make up part of the motion lodged by Pitt, where Jolie is called a ‘hypocrite’ for claiming he wanted to use an NDA in the sale of their French vineyard to ‘control’ her – despite regularly gagging her own staff with similar contracts.

In his statement, Webb claims that two of his contractors were subpoenaed to give evidence at the estranged couple’s custody hearings – exposing conversations between Jolie and the children.

He claims in the document that he typically took orders from Jolie’s personal assistant Michael Vieira and became aware that the relationship between Pitt and Jolie broke down in 2016.

According to Webb, the papers read, ‘After their divorce SRS Global and I continue 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.

‘He 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 the behalf of Ms. Jolie,’ Webb alleges in his declaration.

Webb went on to say in the document that he had ‘no power’ to stop the two individuals from testifying because they were ‘independent contractors’ rather than his direct employees.

The filings claim that Vieira then warned Webb that both men had ‘entered into NDA’s’ with Jolie, and if they ‘testified in the family law case, Jolie would sue them.’

Webb added: ‘I communicated this message to the two individuals over the phone and they both told me they planned to testify.

‘One of the 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 told me also that if asked he would testify about statements he overheard that Ms. Jolie making to the children, encouraging them to avoid spending time with Mr. Pitt during custody visits’.

Webb, from England, retired from military service to set up SRS Global Security Ltd before working for Pitt and Jolie.

He spent more than a decade with the famous SAS service, and the Falklands veteran now works for Pitt following the pair’s acrimonious split.

His statement added that the work began with Jolie as ‘individual assignments on movie sets’, before running her security for the family in 2012 when they left the US.

His declaration accuses Jolie of repeating her threat to sue the bodyguards in a follow up email, with Pitt’s lawyers using the claims as part of their motion to force the actress to reveal her use of NDA’s.

NDAs are not typically used to gag witnesses coming forward to testify in court proceedings, though despite the threats Webb told the hearing that both his colleagues testified under subpoena.

This led to Jolie terminating SRS in June 2021, with Webb writing to Jolie to thank her for the work, adding: ‘I also wrote that I was sad that we had become distant over the past few years and that I knew 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’.

‘Ms Jolie responded take good care as ever, Angie,’ according to Webb’s declaration.

Pitt’s team argues that Jolie is ‘using NDA’s in an ‘improper manner’.

In a separate previous legal filing, Pitt’s attorney John Berlinski argued that Webb’s evidence shows that Jolie has ‘weaponized’ NDAs in a bid to keep the couple’s ‘family issues’ under wraps.

He added: ‘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.

‘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 (false) allegations in this case that Pitt improperly used an NDA to “silence” her.

‘The only reason this motion is even before the Court is because of Jolie’s ploy to turn this business dispute into a sideshow about family court matters.

‘In short, establishing that NDAs are a commonplace feature of Jolie’s personal and professional life, and entirely routine for her, goes directly to the credibility of her defense— regardless of the precise terms or subject matter of any one particular NDA.’

He went on to accuse Jolie of using the NDA proposal to ‘introduce into this case the unfortunate circumstances related to the dissolution of the couple’s marriage, claiming that the proposal engendered an “emotionally devastating” reaction in her.’

Berlinski added that her timeline ‘does not work’, claiming that the confidentiality agreement suggested by Pitt was provided after she ‘opened negotiations’ with the Russian billionaire.

The bodyguards’ explosive claims are the latest chapter in the court battle, as Pitt is asking LA Superior court to unwind Jolie’s October 2021 sale of her stake over claims she breached and agreement the pair had to offer the other first refusal on a sale if either wanted out.

Jolie claims she backed out of selling to Pitt because he asked her to sign an NDA as part of the deal, which she found ‘unconscionable’.

But Pitts lawyers insist this is a smokescreen to rationalize her betrayal of the Oscar winner, with her proposing her ex-husband sign an NDA just six months later as part of her divorce talks.

Part of their motion asks for Jolie to disclose any other NDA’s that she entered with third parties – including her own personal staff.

They argue that it could ‘undermine her defense’ and that disclosure of her NDAs will ultimately discredit Jolie’s arguments over why she abandoned the talks with her estranged husband.

Webb added in his statement that Vieira ‘often asked’ his company to ‘provide hotel staff with NDA’s and get signatures from them’ on behalf of Jolie.

Legal documents obtained by DailyMail.com in April revealed Pitt had branded Jolie a hypocrite for claiming he wanted to use the NDA to ‘control’ her.

The arguments come after Pitt has landed several legal victories in the battle for the winery including a key judgement in Luxembourg which handed him back control of the award-winning vineyard pending further hearings.

In March LA Superior court rejected the allegations that his suit was ‘frivolous, malicious, and part of a problematic pattern.’

A hearing on Pitt’s NDA motion is to be decided during a hearing on May 16, while full trial over the issues is not expected this year.