Justin Baldoni Has A New Accuser! Blake Lively Is Winning Today!

Justin Baldoni Has A New Accuser! Blake Lively Is Winning Today!

Hello. Like my cap? Greetings. It is Perez, the queen of all media, the original influencer, journalist, podcaster, and your number one source for everything. It ends with us saga. And every time I think I am sick and tired of this mess, it pulls me back in like now. I saw that today the ruin the friendship muse filed a motion for attorney’s fees and I didn’t pay much attention to it until I also saw a declaration attached to it. The reason I didn’t make much of this initially is because this is not the first time that Sue Ella no chill has asked for attorneys fees, damages, sanctions against Belon and the Wayfairer defendants. But this time is different. I’ll explain why in a moment. But first, another update and a half. A lot to cover. Today is the day that the Wayfairer defendants are supposed to hand over everything, including any communications, if they exist, with me. See you in court. I don’t know if they have sent over anything, but last week in court here in Las Vegas, the Grifting Girly’s lawyer, Merrill, told the judge that the Wayfairer defendants had at that point not submitted anything with me attached to it. This is of note because TAG the agency group Melissa Nathan’s company had listed me as somebody that they had spoken to. But butthole Lively’s lawyer says that the Wayfairer defendants as of last week had not even included my name in any privilege log. So I’m very curious what if anything is handed over. It is possible that the wayfairer defendants might hand over nothing. But a lot of butts today. If the wayfairer defendants do hand over any relevant communications with me, if they exist, which I’ve never confirmed or denied, I’ve never said who my sources are. If these folks do hand over anything relevant, I hope that Latigious Lively withdraws her subpoena against me cuz there’s no need, right? But we know, oh my god, but again, but we know how contentious things are between these two sides. And today, Justin Baldon’s lawyers filed a request with Judge Lyman in New York for an extension of time to specifically hand over the Signal Communications. Signal has had a very stellar 2025. Remember all those signal chats that Pete Hexith was involved in for very sensitive security information with the US government. Baldon’s lawyers informed the court today, quote, “Unfortunately, the process of collecting and processing signal data has presented logistical and technological issues delaying the production of these custodians.” Mhm. I don’t need to read this in full, but basically they’re just asking for a oneweek extension. That seems sensible to me. Now, let’s get to the real meat and potatoes here. This declaration attached to the motion for attorney’s fees. A motion which unfortunately she’s making me get to because it’s especially relevant now. And it’s emotion attached to California rule 47.1 which goes back to me. Thank you for making my arguments even stronger. The wench of multitudes has repeatedly argued that California law should be applied in New York. And Judge Lyman has applied California law in New York. Yet the imagined victim’s lawyers argued that Nevada law, where I live and am fighting her, should not be applied in Nevada. As recently as today, they are arguing for California law in New York, yet against Nevada law in Nevada. Make it make sense. Make it make sense. And what irks me, perturbs me, is destroying my soul is that last week the judge here in Nevada told me no, not going to apply Nevada law here, even though she repeatedly said that California law should govern in New York. And today is arguing the same. Yeah, I’m having some words with the judge here about that. I’m not happy with this ruling and I’m most likely going to appeal it. It doesn’t make sense. It’s not just. It’s not equal. It’s not fair. Specifically, the Garden Variety Actresses lawyers are arguing with regards to California section 47.1. It’s a fairly newer civil code that was designed to protect real victims of sh real victims. Section 47.1 states that a communication made by an individual without malice regarding an incident of SA, SH or discrimination is privileged under section 47. A prevailing defendant in any defamation action brought against that defendant for making a communication that is privileged under this section shall be entitled to their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successfully defending themselves in the litigation plus tribal damages for any harm caused to them by the defamation action against them. in addition to punitive damages available under section 3294 or any other relief otherwise permitted by law. So they are pursuing that and a few things of note which is why it’s important to read everything. I’m not sure how it ties into everything, but some communications made on Signal regarding the creation of that lawsuit info website is relevant here. And it seems like they’re using that in this new motion. That tidbit was included in ethically challenged Ezra’s declaration that says a true and correct copy of Signal Chat messages dated February 1st, 2025 produced by nonparty the skyline agency is attached here too as exhibit A. Exhibit A was filed under seal. So, we don’t know what was said in those signal chats, but I’m guessing it’s something not favorable or or that they’re trying to use against them. It’s filed under steel. We don’t know. It could be like her team has done repeatedly, trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. It could be much to do about nothing. It could be misrepresenting what was said in those signal chats. We don’t know. It’s filed under seal. And here, this next part, it is peak hypocrisy. Remember, the cinematic terrorist and her team have repeatedly accused Baloni and the Wayfairer defendants of using the court’s docket to manipulate the media for press. What are they doing now? That very same thing. Ezra could have filed the following declaration under seal, but no, she didn’t. The whole thing could have been filed under seal, but instead she strategically redacted it and filed the unredacted version under seal and the redacted version for the public so that the public and the media would read these new to us allegations. However, while we’re working on the assumption that this is a new allegation, it might not be new. We don’t know who is making this new allegation, whom this new accuser is, but let’s read this redactions and all. This declaration is fairly brief and very crafted. I’ll share some thoughts about whom I think it is after I read it. And I’m super curious to hear whom you think it is. Declaration of redacted. I redacted pursuant to 28USC1746 hereby declare as follows. One, I am over 18 years of age, of sound mind, and otherwise competent to make this declaration. The evidence, it should be in quotations, but it’s not. The evidence set out in the foregoing declaration is based on my personal knowledge. Two redacted Wayfairer Studios LLC. Justin Beldone, a founder of Wayfairer, redacted, “I had repeated negative interactions with Mr. Baldoni and his associates, including verbal abuse by Mr. Baldoni. Redacted. Mr. Baldoni not be permitted on set during the majority of production as a result of those experiences. Whoa. Three. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. I requested that he not be involved in redacted marketing or public relations efforts. redacted. Four. Redacted. I was contacted by the assistant to Steve Sorrowowitz, the co-founder and co-chairman of Wayfairer, to schedule a time for me and Mr. Sarowitz to speak. Five, Mr. Sarowitz’s assistant did not identify a topic for the meeting. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Six. A true and correct copy of redacted produced in discovery as BL then a number is being submitted with this declaration as exhibit one that was filed under seal. So we don’t know. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. dated September 4th, 2025. Now, I’m going to guess this is my expert analysis. This is something other than it ends with us. Cuz if this would have happened with Baldoni while making it ends with us, that would have leaked by now. And how would that have been able to happen? How could that have occurred because he was the director of the movie? I mean, and it goes back to what I just said. If Kruella, if Amber Lively would have actually directed it, I I mean, I could be wrong. I could be wrong. This is This is just bonkers. We don’t know who said this, but verbal abuse is being hurled at him, accusing Justin Baldoni of being verbally abusive. That’s the exact term. I had repeated negative interactions with Mr. Baldon and his associates, including verbal abuse by Mr. Baldoni. I would have read this anyways because I read every filing. I just would not have shared this with you all. But I have we have to get into this together now. I have not read this motion for attorney’s fees that Klux Khesi is now making very important because the declaration does not prove sh. I mean maybe the redacted part does I mean make the allegation of sh just because somebody said that they experienced that doesn’t make it true. So let’s get into this. I just know this is going to make my blood boil. Let’s try to get through this quickly. And yes, this was authored by our girl Ezra. Introduction and summary of argument. The Wayfairer party’s defamation action against Blake Lively was baseless from the start. Despite repeated warnings about the impropriy of their legal claims and the consequences of continuing to pursue them, the Wayfairer parties refused to back down. Instead, they stoked the flames of public sentiment, posting their retaliatory lawsuit on a public website, hence the signal communications in that skyline agency. Instead, they stoked the flames of public sentiment, posting their retaliatory lawsuit on a public website alongside dozens of heavily redacted and contextfree exhibits masquerading as receipts to flood the zone with vicious character attacks on Miss Lively designed to damage her credibility and to conceal their own unlawful acts. Indeed, the Wayfairer parties tried their best to sue Miss Lively into oblivion and made substantial progress towards fulfilling Steve Sorrow’s threat to spend $100 million to ruin the lives of Miss Lively and her husband, leaving two dead bodies in his wake. The court has already recognized the Wayf Farer party’s pattern of using filings on the docket as an opportunity to litigate this case in the press rather than in court just like they are doing now. and to exploit the litigation process to invite public speculation and scandal. Using a $400 million lawsuit against Miss Lively as their vehicle, the Wayfairer parties tried to manufacture an air of legitimacy to their conduct. A tactic about which this court has warned them and has cautioned the public and press. This is just so ridiculous and exhausting, y’all. like seriously. And they continue, while Miss Lively has used every tool available to her to try to stop this abuse, including moving to strike offensive filings, moving for sanctions under rule 11 and rule 36, and successfully moving to dismiss the Wayfairer party’s lawsuit in its entirety. Their improper conduct continues unabated. Uh, please. Now, this work of fiction continues. Miss Lively seeks the deterrent remedy provided in California civil code section 47.1 which prohibits the precise tactics that the Wayfairer parties have deployed here imposing severe penalties for unsuccessfully filing retaliatory defamation actions against sexual harassment and retaliation complainants. Under section 47.1, any communication made by an individual without malice regarding an incident of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination, including retaliation, is privileged so long as the speaker has or at any time had a reasonable basis to file a complaint of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination, whether the complaint is or was filed or not. Section 47.1 ensures that individuals who experience sexual harassment or retaliation are able to share their experiences with courts, agencies, the press, and others without fear of being sued for doing so. This law needs to change, I think, because it gives people in California cart blanch to make up claims. Yes, there are the true victims. But this law and the more publicity that this section 47.1 gets, it lets nefarious actors know if you want a payday, make up an SH or SA claim and you can’t get sued for defamation. That seems very problematic to me. What do you think? They continue saying the California legislature enacted this privilege to provide a clear, unambiguous pathway to justice for victims of sexual assault, harassment, and discrimination. Specifically, section 47.1 is intended to deter frivolous claims that force survivors to defend against a long and expensive retaliatory defamation lawsuit by imposing significant remedies for successful defendants in defamation claims. Moreover, because section 47.1 is intended to protect victims from the litigation itself, these remedies must be available at the earliest stage, typically through a motion to dismiss to protect survivors from a punishing protracted legal process. Consistent with section 47.1’s stated purpose, the court should act promptly to remedy the substantial harm Miss Lively has incurred. There can be no doubt that the Wayfairer Party’s suit, which was tossed out already, is the protottypical suit that the California legislature intended to shortcircuit by enacting section 47.1. The alleged defamatory statements that formed the basis of the Wayfairer party’s lawsuit meet all the elements of privileged statements under that section for reasons this court has already recognized. Thus, as the prevailing defendant, Miss Lively is entitled to her attorney’s fees. Pause. which I would safely guesstimate have been at least a minimum of $2 million a month. And because of the van zam of it all that began in September of last year. So easily she’ll be asking for let’s let’s scale it down. Let’s let’s lower the estimate at a minimum $20 million, which the billionaire co-founder has easily. And they argue Miss Lively is entitled to her attorney’s fees and costs, treble damages, and punitive damages. As for punitive damages, the record as it currently exists is sufficient for the court to determine the wayfairer parties engaged in oppression, fraud, or malice by bringing and maintaining their claims against Miss Lively, entitling her to punitive damages under civil code sections 47.1 and 3294. As set forth in greater detail below, the Wayfairer parties and their lawyers used the now dismissed claims to pedal falsehoods in the media. And they did not stop even after the court granted Miss Lively’s motion to dismiss, misrepresenting in a televised interview. The Nick Pause. Remember, when the judge granted her motion to dismiss, he did not rule on the merits of their case, he just ruled that procedurally [Music] because she made her claims in this government filing with the California Civil Rights Department. He could not sue her for defamation because of that. Thus far, neither side has had any claims of SH proven or disproven. Okay. But they claim that the Wayfairer parties and their lawyers used the now dismissed claims to pedal falsehoods in the media. And they did not stop even after the court granted Miss Lively’s motion to dismiss, misrepresenting in a televised interview the nature of the court’s order and feeding the media and online frenzy by thanking the internet sleuth community who continue to cover the case. It is hard to imagine a more straightforward application of section 47.1, including its provision for punitive damages. Accordingly, Miss Lively respectfully requests a ruling that she is a prevailing defendant under section 47.1 and as such that she is entitled to her reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successfully defending herself in the litigation. triple damages for the harm caused by the Wayfairer party’s retaliatory defamation action against her and punitive damages sufficient to deter the Wayfairer parties from engaging in such conduct in the future. Following those legal determinations, Miss Lively respectfully requests that the court set a schedule for the submission of affidavit and a decision after an evidentiary hearing if necessary as to the quantification of those awards pursuant to rule 54D1C. They say the Wayfairer parties openly discuss their intent to retaliate against Miss Lively. Before and during this litigation, the Wayfairer parties have repeatedly made clear their intent to retaliate against Miss Lively, including by weaponizing the legal system. As Miss Lively alleged in the second amended complaint, that plan was backed by virtually unlimited resources. Wayfairer’s co-founder, co-chairman, and leading financier is multi-billionaire Steve Sorrows, who dulged to a witness at the film’s New York premiere on August 6, 2024, that he was prepared to spend $100 million to ruin the lives of Miss Lively and her family. That was not the only time Mr. Sorowitz made such a threat. Later in August 2024, even though the film had turned out very well and Wayfairer had made a lot of money on it, Mr. Sorrowitz confessed to another witness, an individual who was working with Wayfairer on an unrelated project that if Miss Lively or Mr. Reynolds ever crossed the line ever, I will go after them. He declared, “I will protect the studio like Israel protected itself from Hamas. There were 39,000 dead bodies. There will be two dead bodies when I’m done, minimum. Not dead, but you’re dead to me.” So, that kind of dead, but dead to a lot of people. If they ever get me to that point, then I’ll make it worth their while because I’m going to spend a lot of money to make sure the studio is protected. They allege. And after Miss Lively brought suit here, the Wayfairer parties through their attorney Brian Freriedman reconfirmed their intent to sue Miss Lively and others into oblivion. Thus, the court need look no further than the Wayfairer party’s own statements to confirm their intent to retaliate against Miss Lively for reporting sexual harassment and retaliation, including by filing their now dismissed claims. Chewing some ice cuz I need to chill out. All right, I’m not going to read this all, but let’s skim through it together, and I’ll share the extra relevant parts. They argue, “The Wayf Farer parties begin seeding their false litigation narrative, the day after Miss Lively files her CRD complaint, and then file frivolous claims.” Or perhaps they were just defending themselves. Perhaps, perhaps they have issue with a statement that Brian Freriedman made that said that her CRD complaint was shameful and declaring her allegations completely false, outrageous, and intentionally salacious with an intent to publicly hurt. What if that’s true? Cuz remember, those claims have not been proven or disproven yet, and they weren’t back in December of 2024. Oh, so they bring up the signal group chat in February and it’s redacted. Oh, I want to know what that signal group chat from February said. But it was clearly a chat about launching the website because then it says later that day after the website launched the group redacted. I have a feeling as I said earlier misrepresenting what was said. And you know what? It would not surprise me if the Wayfairer defendants move to unseal this signal communications. I would love to see it. My guess is they were just talking about defending themselves, not retaliation, defending themselves from what they viewed as madeup claims. I know it’s not good for your teeth. Uh, don’t comment on Don’t comment on it. They continue. Miss Lively moves to dismiss the First Amended complaint and the Wayfairer parties repeatedly refuse to withdraw their deficient claims. This part is interesting. Plaintiffs through their council failed to withdraw these claims within the 21day safe harbor period prescribed by rule 11 and that her team informed that they would seek sanctions from the court. Then the court grants Miss Lively’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. Woohoo. The Wayfairer parties and their council repeatedly attack Miss Lively and her family in the media and abuse the litigation process and this court’s orders just like she has done. It’s a twoway street, sweetie. After all of that backstory, Miss Lively’s allegedly defamatory statements are privileged under section 47.1, which mandates a fee and damages award. They clarify that Miss Lively’s allegedly defamatory statements are communications protected by section 47.1. Additionally, they argue Miss Lively’s allegedly defamatory statements were without malice. This I suspect Beldon and crew are going to go hard against. Seems to many, maybe even me, that her claims were made with Malice to attempt to do some image rehab. allegedly. That could be my opinion. And just as I called it, I’m so y’all, they don’t call me Perez Adamus for nothing. And I’m not the number one whatever the hell I I Oh God, I wait. Whatever. Hello, it’s Perez, the queen of all media, the original influencer, journalist, podcaster, reporter, and your number one source for everything. It ends with a saga. I’m not your number one source for everything. It ends with a saga for nothing. I’ve been reading every filing since December of last year and I’m also now a featured player and I know how these people work and how they think. Look at this. Look at this. In this filing from today, they try to spin it that Baldon’s first amended complaint, quote, is replete with admissions confirming the truth of Miss Lively’s allegations. The first amended complaint admits that misconduct on set did occur and that the Wayfairer parties even apologized for their misconduct. It’s fascinating how each side is living in its own planet. Totally different worlds. And it’s up to me to cut through the BS and tell it to you like I see it, which I think is in the middle. Because remember, I’m not team Baldon. I’m definitely not team her. I am team the truth. And because I’m team the truth, I believe him. But I’m not team Baldon. I’m team the truth. Oh my god. They claim that Baldon’s first amended complaint basically comes down to asserting that Miss Lively quote asked for it. What? Come on. The FAC did not say that this one deservedly tauntable. I might say they did not argue that she asked for it. Oh my god. At best, the FAC asserts that Miss Lively published the alleged statements either to save her own reputation or as part of a power grab. They alleged that she needed a scapegoat to blame for her missteps in promoting the film. They claim she was driven by overweening ambition and a need for control. I see no lie. No lie detected. They assert she wanted to match her star husband or boost her own brand and business ventures. They state she was determined to extract creative control and to steal the film, which she did. Ezra, what were you smoking when you wrote this? Ah, but as described above, none of these theories contain allegations that Miss Lively fabricated the sexual harassment allegations or insinuations in the protections for return to production, particularly given that so many of those insinuations directly tracked actual incidents that the First Amended complaint concedes s occurred. Even taking the above as true, the first amended complaint does not plausibly allege that Miss Lively actively disbelieved any of the allegations set forth in her verified CRD complaint. The court’s order on Miss Lively’s motion to dismiss lends further support to the inescapable conclusion that Miss Lively’s statements were made without actual malice. Inescapable according to you. She said that the court judge Lyman concluded that Miss Lively did not give Mr. Reynolds, her husband, Miss Sloan, her publicist, or the New York Times, any reason to doubt her account of the events with regard to the alleged harassment and retaliation against her? Remember, the claims that so far have not been proven true in court. But they don’t want to remember that or highlight that. I do and I have repeatedly and they argue. Moreover, as to the retaliation statements specifically, the court concluded that the Wayfairer party’s own judicial admissions and text communications support the existence of a retaliation campaign. No, let me read this. Hold on. I’ll be right back. Oh my god. I’m thankful I went and I looked this up. They’re citing a footnote. A footnote which is being misrepresented. Now, let me read it verbatim. quote, “Some messages relied on by the Wayfairer parties for the claim that they were not engaging in negative messaging regarding Lively and Reynolds can in fact be read to imply the opposite.” Ezra knows what the word imply means. A message from Baldoni to Nathan about protecting myself, this footnote continues, asks, “So, do we say Blake and Ryan hire Harvey Weinstein publicist?” To which Nathan responds, “That’s a conversation I’m going to have with Jen Jamie today.” This implies that Belon and Nathan at least considered spreading a negative story regarding Lively’s choice of Sloan as her publicist. Is it negative if it’s the truth? Jesus. The judge continued. In addition, the Wayfairer parties emphasized text messages between TAG team members stating, “We didn’t tell Jed to go after the idea that her promo was inappropriate. That happened organically.” But these texts can be read to imply that Tag did tell Wallace to go after Lively on other issues. That would be a reach. Okay. And again, it could be Jesus. I’m I’m gonna stop reading this footnote. It’s ridiculous. Today’s motion continues saying Miss Lively had a reasonable basis to file her complaints. And therefore, the court should award Miss Lively damages under section 47.1. Miss Lively is entitled to her attorney’s fees and costs in defending against the Wayfairer party’s claims. Miss Lively is entitled to damages for harm caused by the defamation action. Miss Lively is entitled to triple damages for harm suffered. Miss Lively is entitled to punitive damages. She says the wayfairer parties have been guilty of oppression, fraud, and malice. The alleged nose job recipient goes on to accuse Baldoni and the Wayfairer parties of oppression, fraud, and malice, therefore entitling her to punitive damages. They also argue malicious prosecution and once again bringing up their attorney’s conduct, which they think warrants punitive damages. Brian Freriedman, who still is my attorney, too, by the way. Yes. Although he’s not representing me with regards to the subpoena. too expensive. She continues, “The Wayfairer parties, with and through their lead attorney, Mr. Freriedman, brought and maintained claims that were not based on factual or legal merit, but instead a deliberate plan to discredit Miss Lively and to harm her and her husband by suing them into oblivion. They did so despite ample warning of their obligations not to retaliate against Miss Lively as well as the frivolity of their claims. As if that were not enough, as is already before the court, the Wayfairer parties affirmatively elected to maintain their claims despite repeated warnings about the potential consequences of doing so. This case, in some presents a straightforward application of section 47.1, including its punitive damages provision. Indeed, it is hard to imagine more despicable conduct in conscious disregard of Miss Lively’s rights than that in which the wayfairer parties engaged here. Additionally, the court should set a schedule for promptly quantifying these monetary awards. For the foregoing reasons, the court should grant Miss Lively’s renewed motion for attorneys fees and costs, trouble damages, and punitive damages under section 47.1 and set schedule for determining any disputed factual issues relating to these damages awards pursuant to rule 54D2C, including the measure of Miss Lively’s harm and the amount of punitive damage. damages that should be imposed against the wayfairer parties. Respectfully submitted, Ezra Hudson. All right, now that I got through that whole thing, I still have no freaking clue other than PR spin manipulation, abusing the court docket. Um, I don’t I don’t understand why this other person’s declaration was attached to this motion for fees and costs. If you’re a lawyer or work in the legal profession, can you help me out? How is that related to this? Why would that separate declaration be tied to this new motion? I don’t get it. I gave you my theory. I think that’s solid. But is there another theory? Is there another reason? Do you disagree? What’s your take? Let’s discuss this. And even if you’re not a lawyer or a legal professional, I want to hear from you. Thoughts? Let’s talk about everything in the comments section. And if you made it through to the end, you are a superstar. And a reminder, I have new merch. Check it out at bypopstuff.com. Grab your friends, wear your florals. Yep, I’m selling that on tease. And you can also get a personalized video from me at cameo.com/parezhilton. But honestly, just watching until the end and liking and commenting and sharing that is superstar VIP member of my fram. I love you. I thank you. I will see you in the comments section. Lots to discuss.

🚨 #JustinBaldoni #BlakeLively #TaylorSwift

Join this channel to get access to perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaHE2Xd6bhJbfM7T1TAmI9Q/join

Listen to The Perez Hilton Podcast with Chris Booker HERE: http://PerezPodcast.com

Sign up for my Patreon and get lots of exclusive content at http://Patreon.com/PerezHilton

Follow Me!
MAIN CHANNEL: http://youtube.com/PerezHilton
WEBSITE: http://PerezHilton.com
PEREZ’S INSTAGRAM: http://Instagram.com/ThePerezHilton
WEBSITE’S INSTAGRAM: http://Instagram.com/PerezHilton
GET A PERSONALIZED VIDEO FROM ME HERE: https://www.cameo.com/perezhilton
LISTEN TO MY PODCAST HERE: http://PerezPodcast.com
WEBSITE’S FACEBOOK: http://Facebook.com/PerezHilton
PEREZ’S FACEBOOK: http://Facebook.com/ThePerezHilton
WEBSITE’S TWITTER: http://Twitter.com/PerezHilton
PEREZ’S TWITTER: http://Twitter.com/ThePerezHilton

Check out my merch: http://BuyPopStuff.com

About Perez Hilton:
The original influencer, Perez Hilton founded and oversees one of the most iconic websites ever. In addition to his eponymous blog, he is the host of a very successful podcast, has a loyal following across two YouTube channels, has written four books, has acted in countless TV shows and films – as well as the stage. And, most importantly, he is the proud father of three happy and thriving kids and an adult child, his mother. Perez is one of the most sought after commentators and your best friend!

Justin Baldoni Has A New Accuser! Blake Lively Is Winning Today!

Perez Hilton
https://www.youtube.com/perezhilton