Custom license plates provide drivers with a special chance to express their individuality. These people have the option to put personalized phrases or letter and number combinations to their license plates for an extra charge. Vanity plates provide people a chance to express themselves creatively and in a distinctive way. Vanity plate applications are sometimes denied, nevertheless, because state governments and their bureaus of motor vehicles object to controversial wording.
Wendy Auger found out lately that a term on her vanity plate—which she had proudly exhibited for fifteen years—had unexpectedly caused it to be denied. Many people smiled when she drove along the highways and back roads of her New Hampshire home because of her humorous vanity plate, which said “PB4WEGO.” Auger, a bartender from Rochester, New Hampshire’s Gonic neighborhood, was shocked to learn that the DMV found the circumstance to be disrespectful.
Auger is convinced that her fundamental right to free speech is being curtailed by the state. Furthermore, in her opinion, it is acceptable to include the term “pe* before we go” on a vanity plate. She interprets it as a common bit of wisdom that parents impart to their kids.
Auger had not bought the plate by accident. She had been looking for it for years and was excited that it was finally going to be available. She immediately decided to put “PB4WEGO” on her New Hampshire license plate, seizing the chance. The state’s decision to raise the character limit on its vanity license plates from six to seven was the driving force behind this modification.
The state stated that the rules are now quite explicit and that they were changed years ago as a result of a court order from the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Is Auger supposed to get a new license plate as it is fifteen years old?
Angelina Jolie’s former security guard comes out with shocking allegations against her in Brad Pitt case
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.
Leave a Reply