Justin Baldoni Surprise-Releases NEW Video Evidence! Changes Everything! WATCH HERE! Blake Lively:

Justin Baldoni Surprise-Releases NEW Video Evidence! Changes Everything! WATCH HERE! Blake Lively:

Oh my god. Hello my frame. It is Perez, the queen of all media, the original influencer, and your number one source for everything. It ends with us. I stayed up late to bring this to you, and I’m so glad I did. Justin Baldoni and the Wayfairer defendants motion for summary judgement just dropped moments ago and they are taking some big swings. If you don’t know what this stage of litigation means, I’m going to attempt to explain it to you in very simple terms. Baldon and the Wayfairer defendants have gone to the judge and they’ve basically said, “Listen, there’s no need for this to even go to trial. All of this which we are going to show you is undisputed and everything can go away now or this and that can go away now and the other can remain.” However, their swing is so big, they’re asking for everything to say bye-bye. Malice Alice is going to blow a gasket, as they say, because I quickly went through this and it is so solid and it was written by the fancy new appellet lawyers. Not Brian Freriedman, not Kevin Fritz, not Ellen Garop. Boss babe Alexandra Shapiro took the lead here. And let’s get right into it. Introduction. Blake Lively, an immensely powerful A-list actor starting off a little weak. I don’t know if I would agree with that. Blake Lively, an immensely powerful A-list actor, agreed to act in a film adaptation of It Ends With Us, a book with themes of S to the E to the X and DV. During the initial stages of filming, she voiced objections to certain on the set behavior she did not like. That behavior involving no more than miscommunications and awkward comments falls well below the threshold for any claim of sh or other legal wrong, especially in the context of collaborating to make a sensual and provocative sexually charged film. Regardless, Lively’s concerns were heard and fully accommodated. It is undisputed that whatever she claimed to have experienced ceased. Filming continued during all future stages entirely without incident in an environment Lively touted as redacted and redacted, including the filming of all intimate scenes involving Lively herself. Even Lively’s then lawyer said no formal HR process, let alone litigation, was necessary. Any issues, had been successfully resolved. Months then went by, but as the film was edited and moved toward its premiere, something else happened. Lively asserted control of the film and took aggressive steps to minimize Justin Baldon’s role. Even though Baldon had conceived, directed and co-starred in the film and it had been produced and co-inanced by his production company Wayfairer Studios. Lively took all the credit. She wrote to the Producers Guild of America. Redacted. Why are we playing this redacted game again? Especially when things they’re redacting we’ve read before. At the same time, Lively and her actor husband Ryan Reynolds disparaged Baldon to their famous highpowered friends in Hollywood and to Baldon’s talent agency. As the film’s premiere approached, Lively became increasingly hostile. She excluded Beloni from marketing materials, press, and promotions for the film, snubbed him on social media, urged Sony to eliminate his A film by credit, and even tried to exclude him from the premiere. In light of these astounding developments and not the minor concerns about on the set behavior raised and successfully resolved months earlier, Baldoni sought the advice of a crisis management public relations firm as any reasonable person in his position would do. Yes, he wanted to minimize fallout from media coverage of Lively’s increasing attempts to alienate him from the film. He did so for the benefit of both his professional reputation and the newly releasleased film. He relied on media professionals to boost his image and assure that any coverage would be balanced and accurate. None of that is against the law. Aided by two of the world’s largest litigation firms, Lively now seeks to create causes of action where none exist. She cannot show the behavior she disliked was caused by her sex or gender, a basic pre-erequisite for SH claims. She alleges Belon’s resort to public relations professionals was retaliation for complaints she had raised. This ignores the larger temporal gap, not to mention the many intervening events between her raising of concerns and Beldon’s resort to crisis management professionals. There can be no claim for retaliation based on purported complaints raised in the distant past. Nor did Baldoni and his codefendants engage in a defamatory smear campaign. It was not illegal for Baldoni to promote positive content about himself or truthful narratives about various events. that Lively’s reputation may have suffered is a result of her own ill-advised public statements and actions. This is a dispute about Hollywood reputations, not genuine legal wrongs. It does not belong in court. Ma, I’m not going to read the statement of facts because we know all of this. Let me glance over it and see if there’s anything that I don’t recall reading before. I want to get to the meat and potatoes, the legal arguments, which the judge has to now consider. All right, quickly. Taylor Swift is here again. Underneath the section of from the outset, Lively sought increased control over the film. They bring up the infamous rooftop scene. Lively took special steps to convince Baldoni to accept her version of this scene which she had rewritten. They redacted the infamous meeting, but we know what happened, who was there. After the meeting, Baldoni told Lively he would gladly accept her revisions, even without urging from redacted Taylor Swift. I love this. Lively has since disclosed that Reynolds, not she, rewrote the scene. This episode, which occurred even before filming began, was the first of a series of events in which Lively relied on an array of Hollywood friends to increase her control over the film while denigrating Belon to them along the way. Wait, more than Taylor Swift? What other famous friends? She did list Gigi Hadid as somebody who had information that was relevant to her claims, possibly her. Before filming began, Lively took additional steps to influence the direction of and take control of the film. At her request, Wayf Farer abandoned plans to film the movie in Boston, where the novel takes place and relocated the set to New Jersey near Lively’s home. Wayfairer also agreed to change the start date and schedule to accommodate Lively’s other professional and personal commitments. Lively raised concerns about her physical appearance. We know this. She had recently given birth. This is good. This is good because it goes back to what they said at the beginning. None of her complaints, if this is true, if we are to believe this argument, mount to sh or anything that a jury needs to even consider. A-list Alex, the new lawyer, says Lively’s stated concerns, even if accepted as true, all involve incidents of relatively lowlevel or innocuous behavior that considered separately or together fall far short of actionable discrimination or SH. For instance, Lively claims Baldoni described his male appendage in their first meeting before she had agreed to join the film. This is a hyperbolic lawyer’s spin on what really happened. Then what really happened according to them is redacted. Such a statement is obviously not justification to bring any claim in court. Indeed, Lively herself seemed unfased. She had raised the subject, did not complain to anyone at the time, and after the meeting, her husband sent Belon an eusive message saying redacted. Lively also accuses Baldoni of fat shaming. This allegation is based on a single instance in which Baldoni, who had chronic back problems and anticipated a scene in which he would have to lift Lively up, privately asked a physical trainer he had consulted with, who also trained Lively about her weight. He did so discreetly outside the workplace and outside Lively’s hearing. But even if this inquiry was, as Lively now portrays it, a sly criticism, any petty slight that might have arisen when the trainer on his own initiative repeated the comment to Lively is simply too trivial to constitute SH. I fully agree. Duh. Lively further accuses Baldoni of adding gratuitous sexual content to the script before filming began. The evidence shows, however, that the scenes were redacted to align with the explicit female authored book on which the film was based. Baldoni asked a female intimacy coordinator to review them with Lively. To the extent Lively objected, scenes were revised or removed. Moreover, Lively herself rewrote other scenes to boost their sexual vibe. Lively claims Baldon improperly used the word sexy to refer to her wardrobe on one occasion and to that of another actor on another occasion and that at one point he complimented Lively’s own personal low cut outfit. Such passing sporadic comments while perhaps ill advised, so they’re not denying it, are not outrageously offensive in an environment where professionals are working closely together to make a deliberately sexually charged film. Lively also asserts that Baldoni at times alluded to his own sexual and marital experiences. Again, such exchanges are hardly surprising given that Lively and Beldon were collaborating and communicating daily about how best to portray various adult and marital themes. Lively also claims Jaime Heath, Wayfairer’s CEO and one of the film’s producers, momentarily glanced at her naked upper body after she permitted him to come into her trailer while she was having body makeup removed. Lively says she instructed Heath not to look at her, but at some point during their brief conversation, redacted. redacted. Whatever fleeting mishap may or may not have occurred, it is being characterized as sinister only in retrospect. At the time, Lively said, “I know you weren’t trying to cop a look.” Lively also objected to being shown a video image relating to Heath’s wife’s home birth, incorrectly believing it was cornography. redacted. Lively includes an assortment of other objections in her complaint, including that she contracted the vid, the cove to the vid on set. That after Lively told Baldoni she had never seen pornography, he shared that fact with others. that at one point Baldoni shared a personal story about being pushed past his own consent boundaries, an experience he has discussed publicly, including in his published books, and that there was too much hugging on set. Lively’s objections were addressed before and during the filming hiatus. Although Lively’s description of events is disputed, what is undisputed is that Lively’s objections were resolved as soon as they were raised. Lively chose not to file any formal complaint. Skipping ahead here. On June 1st, 2023, a few weeks into shooting, Lively met with Baldon and Heath and reviewed various matters she was unhappy about. Baldon and Heath apologized for Lively’s discomfort. Evidently, that was enough to resolve the issue. Lively has not identified any incident after that meeting that she claims constitutes SH. On November 9th, 2023, 5 months after filming had stopped due to the strikes, Lively through her entertainment lawyer sent a list of protections she wanted observed in connection with any future filming. The requested protections largely replicated protections that were already in place, such as the use of nudity writers and an intimacy coordinator. Other protections implicated conduct Lively herself had engaged in during the earlier phase of filming, such as improvising, kissing in scenes, commenting on her own physical appearance and that of others, and hugging other cast members. The second phase of filming proceeded without incident. Lively used her famous friends and connections to take control of the film. Shortly after filming rap, Lively told Sony she would not agree to promote the film unless she was permitted to participate in the edit. Sony should have said, “No, you don’t have that in your contract.” So much of this saga drama is Sony’s fault. Thereafter, she amassed an enormous level of control over the film. When Lively received push back, she recruited famous friends redacted Taylor Swift to support her while disparaging Baldoni to them. A lot of redacted here. Lively also insisted on changes to the film’s credits and removing Belon’s film by credit all together. Disgusting. Despicable. It still befuddles and infuriates me that she was able to pressure Sony to remove his film by credit. They then quote the letter that she wrote to the Producers Guild of America. A lot of redactions. It is a remarkable document. More redactions. Lively stirred up negative press about Baldoni and the film. They allege. Immediately after the premiere, numerous outlets published stories about the feud between Lively and Belon. This was in part prompted redacted. Baldon’s PR team led by Abel, Nathan, and Tag distributed positive information and stories about Baldoni and worked to mitigate or minimize negative ones. Standard operating procedure for PR professionals. Baldoni himself made numerous positive public statements about Lively. I love that they are doubling down on the organic dislike of the authorship thief. Lively suffered backlash. By virtue of all the coverage, she was put under a very public microscope. In August 2024, she experienced a massive outpouring of negative sentiment. But the undisputed evidence shows Lively’s own missteps were a significant driver of that response. Undisputed indeed. Several press outlets picked up, for example, on Lively’s decision to crosspromote a serious film about TV with, among other things, her husband’s superhero blockbuster, as well as her own hair care and beverage products. Yep. Lively privately redacted. Lively also came under fire for past missteps, including redacted, but most likely your little baby bump and more redactions. Oh, this is so good. This is so good. Oh my god. This is what Oh, this is what I’ve been saying for a while now. Perez told you after months of scorched earth discovery backed up by a pounding drum beatat of almost daily motions to compel Lively has been unable to identify any instance in which any defendant distributed or promoted any false story about her even after subpoenaing dozens of content creators. Her interrogatory response summarizing the evidence of what she described as a highly orchestrated smear campaign reveals a surprising truth. What Lively primarily objects to is Baldon’s effort to defend himself, whether by promoting positive stories or trying to suppress negative ones. But that is not retaliation. Mic drop. We know this. Even when certain defendants, my guess is Jen Abel and Melissa Nathan, contacted the press about Lively in August 2024, their efforts were far from the sophisticated internet takedown Lively touted in the press. The few instances in which the evidence suggests any defendant spoke to the press about Lively all involved truthful references to her actual conduct or to that of her husband or the sharing of opinions about that conduct. Lively and Reynolds smeared Belon once again. Ironically, Lively’s cry that Baldoni tried to bury her more accurately describes her own efforts to tar him. Sadly, following that is a lot of redactions. Now, we start to get to the good stuff. In December 2024, 18 months after the minor issues she raised about on the set behavior were fully and successfully resolved, Lively launched this dispute with an administrative complaint and the fanfare of her New York Times headline. The behavior she previously regarded as not requiring any formal HR process was now presented by two large sophisticated global law firms as sh of the gravest kind and Baldon’s natural defensive effort after being sidelined from his own premiere to manage his own and his film’s reputation by employing experienced PR professionals was now recast as retaliation against Lively for raising purported SH concerns. Lively’s numerous claims against numerous defendants cannot withstand scrutiny. Judgment should be entered for defendants on all claims. Let’s get into it. For the reasons set forth below, Lively’s claims all fail. This motion also incorporates the arguments in defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings, including that extr territorial application of California statutes is improper because, as the undisputed facts show, no alleged instance of harassment took place there. Number one, Lively cannot prove any actionable sh. This court, as well as many others, have pointedly observed that in evaluating what constitutes actionable harassment or a hostile work environment, context matters. When viewed in context, no reasonable juror could find that the handful of comments and miscommunications Lively has mustered amounts to sh. Next, Lively cannot prove severe and pervasive harassment. In order to prove sh, the bar is high. The litany of minor grievances, lively cobbles together, falls far short of the requisite level of being severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment. And I guarantee you, they have the entire crew they can call to be witnesses to testify that it was a pretty good set, right? with one exception. Isolated acts unless very serious do not meet the threshold of severity or pervasiveness. They cited that case law. Alfano versus Castello. Additionally, the law says the sporadic use of abusive language, gender related jokes, and occasional teasing are not actionable harassment. Lively’s claims premised on a few purportedly offensive utterances, sexy and onset mishaps, do not satisfy these standards. Then they discussed some cases of harassment that did not legally meet the standard. The second circuit held a high school teacher’s claims that her male supervisor occasionally commented on her physical appearance and participated in a bet with three other male employees as to when he would be able to engage her in explicit conversation. Lively’s other complaints are equally deficient when viewed in context. It would be one thing if Lively and Baldoni were two insurance executives reviewing actuarial figures on a spreadsheet and out of nowhere Baldon alluded to his marital or sexual experiences or to a prior cornography addiction. It is quite another thing here because Lively and Beldon were discussing these issues in the context of creating intimate scenes and adult themes in the film they were making together. Context matters. Lively’s complaint that Baldon inquired about her weight similarly falls short. He didn’t make the comment in the workplace or in the presence of any cast or crew member or even Lively herself. It had no effect on the workplace environment. Lively was not targeted on the basis of her gender. To sustain an SH claim, Lively must show that the offending conduct was motivated by her gender, that she was treated a certain way because she was a woman. Lively cannot show that here. The basis of many of her claims has nothing to do with her sex. For instance, Lively contends there was too much hugging on the set. She does not claim, let alone prove that hugging was gender specific. The undisputed evidence, including video footage, shows both men and women being hugged. Nor do the two alleged instances involving Heath, the looking at you and the wife video involving Heath reflect any gender motivation or animus. Lively relies on the facious assumption that any unwelcome reference to sex or sexuality is gender discrimination. That is not the law. defendants completely remedied any allegedly offensive behavior. So the whole first part was there was no SH. None. She can’t prove it. Can’t meet the definition of SH in a court of law. Now the second big argument is Lively cannot prove any actionable retaliation. Lively did not experience any actionable adverse action. To sustain a retaliation claim, Lively must prove, among other things, that she suffered an adverse action. But she didn’t. She got everything she wanted. Lively did not suffer any employment related adverse action. She was not demoted, sidelined, or paid less. To the contrary, her power in the workplace and control over the production both expanded dramatically after she complained. The only proven publicity efforts were reasonable defensive measures in lie of a traditional adverse action. Lively claims that the retaliation against her took the form of a barrage of negative publicity outside the workplace and after all of her onset work was done. Nothing defendants did can fairly be described as retaliation for Lively’s engagement in any protected activity. Instead, Baldoni and Wayfairer were reasonably attempting to protect themselves in response to an onslaught of vicious negative publicity launched by Lively and her famous husband. Defendants were exercising first amendment and due process rights, not stepping on Lively’s earlier exercised right to voice concerns in the workplace, which they had honored in full. It is neither against the law nor retaliatory for Baldoni to put out positive press about himself or to attempt to mitigate or suppress any negative stories that may arise. That is classic PR activity. Nor is pointing journalists to preexist Oh, I love that they talk about this. Nor is pointing journalists to preexisting negative coverage of Lively actionable. Hope that wasn’t sh. Lively has been unable to identify any instance in which any defendant provided false information about Lively to any member of the press or to any social media influencer. Lively has never asserted defamation claims against Abel, Nathan Tag, or any other member of Wayfair’s PR team. Her defamation claims against Wayfairer, Heath, and Beldoni conspicuously failed to identify any statements made in August 2024 when the alleged smear campaign was supposedly in full swing. Lively cannot prove any protected activity was the but for cause of the alleged smear campaign. There is no temporal proximity between any claimed protected activity and any alleged adverse action. Let me explain. She cannot prove that there was a smear campaign against her because she claimed sh. No, he was just defending himself. That’s it. You’re welcome. Then they get into some of the other claims. Lively was an independent contractor, not an employee. Why this matters? Team Kaka is claiming violation of title 7. Title 7, many of you know, refers to title 7 of the civil rights act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, national origin. None of that happened. None of that happened. This is interesting. Lively cannot prove a failure to investigate claim. Lively alleges that Wayfairer failed to take reasonable steps to prevent or investigate harassment regarding their employees. Undisputed facts show defendants took all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring, thereby fulfilling their statutory obligations. This important word comes up again. The reasonleness of any employer’s measures depends on the context. Wayfairer had a separate HR department as well as an employee handbook with clear anti-discrimination, harassment or retaliation policies. The movie also held an anti-harassment training administered by an outside law firm during pre-production. Lively may argue defendants failed to act reasonably because no formal investigation into issues she raised took place. Yet Lively herself conceded it was reasonable for defendants to forego any investigation. Her lawyer offered a proposed list of protections in lie of a more formal HR process. The legal significance of her specific request not to investigate is that it shows defendants alleged decision not to do so was perfectly reasonable. Lively cannot prove as she must that any technical failure to investigate or remediate was a substantial factor in causing her purported harm. Lively cannot prove aiding and abetting claims. Lively claims Abel, Nathan, and Tag aided and abetted harassment and retaliation in violation of FIHA, the anti-discrimination law. Also, they correctly state it’s impossible for any of these women to have harassed her, especially since Melissa, Nathan, and Tag weren’t even hired until August of 2024. The film wrapped a long time before then. Then we get into some minutia about the contract. Her contract claims fail. Everything fails. Especially because, as they mention, no final agreement was ever reached or signed with respect to its material terms. The contract, remember, she was holding the unsigned contract over their heads. When it is clear that both parties contemplate that acceptance of a contract’s terms would be signified in writing, the failure to sign the agreement means no binding contract is created. Here the undisputed facts show the parties communicated an intent not to be bound absent full execution. That didn’t happen. The defamation and false light claims fail. Lively alleges defendants launched a coordinated campaign to cast her in a false light during the publicity and promotion of the film and thereafter and points to statements related to conduct on set. Lively contends that Wayfairer, Belon, and Heath through their agents published false statements, knowingly false statements, asserting that Lively’s allegations of harassment filed with the California CRD and this court were false and fabricated. That’s not defamation. That is Lively’s defamation claim is by definition based entirely on statements about the litigation published after litigation commenced. This claim fails for multiple reasons. Lively cannot prove falsity or malice. Both are critical for defamation claims. Lively’s defamation claim fails because it is premised on the conceit that her harassment and retaliation allegations are true and any contrary statements false. But as explained already, there was no sh. There was no retaliation. Sorry to break it to you. defendants alleged statements denying the truth and validity of Lively’s claims and allegations were not statements of objective fact and therefore cannot constitute defamation as a matter of law. Any ultimate conclusion about whether conduct amounted to SH or retaliation is a subjective one or a legal one. statements about whether or not there was any smear campaign are for the same reason not actionable. Lively cannot prove the requisite malice, meaning that the defendants realized their statement was false or that they subjectively entertained serious doubt as to the truth of their statement. But even so, the allegedly defamatory statements were absolutely privileged. New York’s Fair Report privilege protects any fair and true report of any judicial proceeding, legislative proceeding, or other official proceeding. And that’s what they were responding to here. The post-litigation statements Lively claims were defamatory, all merely repeat allegations defendants had already asserted or would soon assert in this action, namely that Lively’s allegations of harassment and retaliation were false and selfserving and could not constitute actionable claims. Fuaca is one of my favorite words. If you know, you know. Seriously, it is not defamation to say, quote, “It is shameful that Miss Lively and her representatives would make such serious and categorically false accusations.” That’s standard operating procedure for lawyers permitting a defamation claim to proceed to trial because remember we are at motion for summary judgement. No need for a trial if the judge does the right thing. I’ll get to that. Permitting a defamation claim to proceed to trial based on an attorney’s blanket denial of serious accusations against his clients would raise serious first amendment concerns. Additionally, Lively’s conspiracy claim fails. There can be no claim of conspiracy. Whereas here there is no actionable underlying tort, no sh, no retaliation, no aiding and abetting, none of that. This is interesting. Steve Sorrowitz, the billionaire, gets his own little section. There is no basis for liability against defendant Steve Sorowitz. Lively alleges only two claims against Sorowitz. False light and conspiracy. For the reasons discussed, these claims fail. Better. Even if these claims could proceed against any defendant, no reasonable jury could find Sorowitz liable. His exceptionally limited involvement confirms why, and the record is devoid of any facts implicating him in either claim. Sorrowowitz is the majority investor in Wayfairer Studios and provides the studio with financing. He played no role in the production or marketing strategy of the film, visited the set only twice, and played no role overseeing press concerning the film or this dispute. Lively’s claims against him are predicated on overblown comments that are taken out of context. For example, Lively alleges Sorrowit stated he would spend $100 million to ruin Lively and her family, but the discovery record confirmed Sarowitz did not make any such comment and at all times was focused only on defending himself and the studio. Lively also quotes a surreptitious recording of Sorrowitz in which he states, “There will be two dead bodies when I’m done.” But as that recording makes clear, Sorrowowitz was speaking only in metaphorical terms. Left out of Lively’s allegations is Sorrowowitz’s immediate clarification that he meant not dead, you’re dead to me. Sorrowitz was focused solely on making sure the studio was protected from Lively’s attacks and not attacking Lively. And he disclaimed any intent to harm Lively as not the world I want to live in. Such comments without any evidence of any specific follow-up conduct are insufficient to support any of the claims in which Sorowitz is named. Additionally, several aspects of Lively’s damages claims must be dismissed. Lively lacks standing to assert claims for lost profits or royalties. Lively cannot recover speculative lost profits. And damn, we’re at the end. That was abrupt. For the foregoing reasons and those stated in defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings, that one had a lot to do with California and New York. The court should grant summary judgement in the wayfairer party’s favor on Lively’s claims. All of her claims. Alexandra Shapiro. Brilliant. So, what happens next? We wait. They’re going to have a chance to respond and then the judge will rule. I think the most likely scenario is that her bestie will probably grant some deny some, you know, partial this. Oh, that’s going to move forward. This will not or maybe it’ll be a total win for Wayfairer. but unlikely, right? I thought this was so well written, so brilliant. It seems like an easy, okay, granted to me under normal circumstances. Also, didn’t the subpoena superstar say that she too was going to file a motion for summary judgement? She didn’t. Why? Huh? Plus, Justin Baldon included a declaration. Basic stuff such as, “I recall that at some point during the first phase of filming, I was in a car with Miss Lively discussing the themes of the book and the film. During that conversation, I shared with Miss Lively my own experience of having a romantic partner go beyond my personal boundaries of consent. I have written about that experience in my books. What I found interesting was he dated this November the 12th like they went till the last minute for this declaration. And he signed this Waco, Texas. What’s Justin Beldoni doing in Waco, Texas? Also interesting is the declaration from one of the lawyers, not Alex, but Mitra Ahorian. Among the mountains of exhibits are videos. I pray this becomes public somehow. Videos of what I need to see. We need to see these videos. Her declaration is all about video. So much video. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. There’s a Dropbox. Let me see if I Oh my god. Oh my god. It works. Let’s look at this. This first video shows hugging. Hugging. Hopefully Justin’s very touchy and a hugger. Oh, there you are. A big hugger. That’s sh not. This video shows so much more hugging. Oh my god. Oh, this next clip shows the sexy comment. You have to listen closely cuz Baldon is not miked. really should go, please. So again, again, uh who’s gonna watch everything here? A wall comes in, right? So please make sure that nobody’s standing right here first. Okay. All right, we should go. Ready? Sexy. You heard it. Toothpick, please. Vim, do you have a toothpick? Yeah, I do. Thank you. And that’s Blake over there. Oh my god, that that we finally saw the infamous sexy moment and the infamous sexy outfit, y’all. Nobody has picked this up yet. And if you watch my videos until the end, you just got this huge This is huge. This huge bomb this huge revelation. This huge bombshell. Wow. Okay, two more things I want to end on a positive note. And that is according to Jamie Heath’s declaration, because of this movie, over $600,000 to date has been donated to No More. No More is an organization helping raise awareness and take action to end domestic andual violence. And if you watched until the end, thank you. I’m wearing a Team Perez shirt. You can get this and check out all of my merch at bypopstuff.com. bypopstuff.com. It would also put such a smile on my face and really support if you get a cameo from me. I nail them. I love making personalized videos for you all. Check out my reviews. I have thousands of glowing reviews. You can book a personalized video from me right now for whatever the occasion on the Cameo website at cameo.com/myame. P to the E to the R to the E to the Z to the H to the I to the L to the T to the O to the N. If you like my podcast, check out our Patreon. You’ll get an exclusive episode a week. Sign up now at patreon.com/myame and my website. It’s absolutely free. you’ll stay informed and entertained. Check out my website every day throughout the day. If you watched until the end, you are a superstar. You are the 1%. Hit the like button, share this video, and say surprise in the comments section cuz what a surprise with those videos. The sexy video. Oh my god. All right. thoughts on everything. Let’s discuss. You know where. Say surprise. I’ll see you there.

🚨 #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 Surprise-Releases NEW Video Evidence!!!! This Changes Everything! WATCH HERE! Blake Lively:

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