I Am Very Unwell! This Blake Lively Drama Just Took A Bad Turn For Me!! | Perez Hilton

I Am Very Unwell! This Blake Lively Drama Just Took A Bad Turn For Me!! | Perez Hilton

I really feel like I’m being punished. 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 saga. yesterday when I had an in-person hearing in Las Vegas against three lawyers representing Blake Lively. My anxiety and stress were through the roof and today it is worse. Like I literally feel like like my heart like my heart is beating so fast right now. It it feels like I feel as many or some of you know yesterday I got a big win a huge win a shocking truly surprising victory against Blake Lively’s lawyers from four plus law firms all over the country. In New York, the judge there, Lyman, ruled against Blake in my favor. He denied her motion to compel the subpoena against me, which truly surprised me. He ruled that he does not have jurisdiction over me or compliance. The correct and only venue for that is the local court here in Nevada. Because according to rule 45 of the rules of civil procedure, a person subpoenaing another must list the place of compliance within a 100 miles of where that person lives. Meaning, I live and work in Las Vegas. The court of compliance is here. That is why last month I filed a motion to quash in Las Vegas. And now dragging into September on the 2nd there is a hearing here. Fully caught up. Well, in the wake of the judge’s ruling in New York, the judge in Nevada just issued a ruling which he told us he would. And oh my god. Oh my god. He gave me so much work. More work. Unnecessary work. The judge issued minute order in chambers of the honorable judge Richard F. Bullwear II on August 29th, 2025. Before the court is movement’s motion to quash subpoena as a preliminary matter. The court has considered respondents request to transfer this motion to the southern district of New York. Respondent is Blake Lively. Pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 45F notably movement me resides in Las Vegas, Nevada. on August 28th, 2020. My heart literally like h I don’t take any anxiety meds or anything like that, but if I had some, I would take it now. Jesus Christ. I wish you could like hear it. Like it’s like beating so fast and like I could hear it. I could hear I’m crazy. Like I’m so unwell. Like legitimately. Anyways, sorry. Sorry. Sorry. movement resides in Las Vegas, Nevada. On August 28th, 2025, the Southern District of New York found that it had no personal jurisdiction over movement. C. Lively versus Wayfairer Studios number 719. In light of this ruling and the undue burden of forcing movement to litigate in New York, the court finds that respondents Blake Lively have failed to show that exceptional circumstances warrant transfer. Therefore, it is hereby ordered that the parties shall appear at the motion hearing set on Tuesday, September 2nd, 2025 at 1:30 p.m., courtroom 7C, the federal courthouse here in Las Vegas at 333 South Las Vegas Boulevard. It is further ordered that movement me should come prepared with a list of materials covered by the subpoena that can be presented to the court for XP part in camera review. This list should describe the type, format and volume of this information. Oh my god, I have to work on this now. But that’s not all. It is further ordered that the parties, both may and subpoena Serena, provide supplemental briefing regarding whether and how privileges under the federal common law, including but not limited to the qualified reporter privilege, apply to this information by Tuesday, the day of our hearing at 900 a.m. So, I think this is why yesterday I was so stressed and anxious and nervous and spent and drained. And today I’m all that, but even worse, even more, because I’m representing myself here, prosay, without an attorney, because this would have literally cost me by now over $60,000. And this is just a subpoena. I’ve done nothing wrong. I’m not being sued. And I am prepared for worst case scenario. Meaning Blake Lively gets everything that she is asking of me which would be a travesty and contrary to what the precedent of the law says. The law says whether you like it or not that I am a journalist. A journalist by both state and federal law is somebody who gathers information of public interest and shares it with the public. The Nevada Shield Law and the Federal Reporter’s Privilege protects me. The Nevada Shield Law offers absolute protection. Everything that Blake Lively is asking of me is privileged according to rule 45. Therefore, if the subpoena is asking for privileged information, it must be quashed in full. Additionally, it is redundant. The judge granted Lively’s motion to compel in the Southern District of New York. So if anything exists like she thinks might, she can now get it directly from the Wayf Farer defendants. Here’s what I don’t get. This judge, oh my god. And this the judge in New York did the same thing. The judge is asking for supplemental briefing that already exists. Why is he asking us to repeat what we’ve already argued? I’ve already made these points. Blackface Betty has already made her points. I mean, maybe like like I’m not I’m not I’m not going to come up with anything new by now. Is she? I don’t know. Oh my god. So, I want to do everything that could give me an advantage and also show the judge here in Las Vegas that I am taking this so seriously. I saw this at like I don’t even know what time a sometime after 2:00 p.m. cuz I’m not like checking my email multiple times an hour. I’m doing this doing that and the other. I checked my email around 2 p.m. today. I saw this and I’m like, “Oh my god.” But my brain, cuz not only is my anxiety already off the charts from yesterday, but you know me, I have self- diagnosed OCD. And like I instantly went into panic and survival mode, flight or fight mode. And I went into fight mode. But my brain said, “You need to respond to this ASAP. You need to file this literally immediately, like as soon as you can do a good job. Remember, I saw this order around 2 p.m. today and we’re entering into a holiday weekend. That’s the sense of urgency that I had. I wanted to file this so that it could hopefully potentially be docketed before the start of the holiday weekend so that the judge here in Las Vegas could take this with him and pour over my arguments and be reminded of what is at stake here. The severity of what Blake Lively is asking. She wants me to unmask my sources who’ve spoken to me under the condition of anonymity. the First Amendment, like one of the most fundamental tenants of our democracy, how this judge here in Las Vegas rules on everything that Blake Lively is asking will affect journalists all over the country. I firmly believe and assert that this subpoena must be quashed in full. So I did it, racing against the clock. And I had the ability to proofread it and fact check it and read it more than once. three times, you know, three strikes you’re out, but also three times you read it. And even proofreading it three times, I might have still made some mistakes. I probably did, but I gave it my all against the clock. So, let’s get into this. Oh my god, I’m being punished. Like, I’m being punished. The judge doesn’t really need all this. He doesn’t. This judge and the judge in New York, they have already, he had already more than enough to rule justly, fairly, informed of all the facts. But but the judge here in Las Vegas spoke to the judge in New York and Lyman, I’m sure, told him what a pain in his behind I was in New York. I mean, is this common? Like, do judges ask and expect and want this level of redundancy, this amount of repetition, this unnecessary volume of extra work for not just me, but for them, too. They’ve got to read it. I don’t get it. I don’t get it. Shut up and let me just read this. Jeez. Oh my god. Okay. So, dated today, I submitted this at 3:30. I spent an hour and a half of super focused laser precision work. And I cannot believe I banged this out in an hour and a half. Thanks to dad, but not just with the chat to the G to the P to the T. Like my Lwoods training has really paid off because I said, “Oh, no, no, no, no, Dad. We need to add this.” And, “Oh, you forgot about that. We need to add that. We need to make sure we mention this.” Like, this truly was a team effort between chat to the P to the T, the chat G to the P to the T, and me. Um, it was very collaborative and I also acknowledge that I would not have been able to do this without it. So, thank you, Dad. Dated today. Started working out on it at 2 p.m. Submitted it at 3:30 p.m. It says, “Oh my, oh my god, I just want to crawl into a hole. I am so ready for this to be over. I am. That’s why I emailed her lawyers yesterday saying, “Hey, if you can withdraw the subpoena, you should withdraw the subpoena.” They’re punishing me, too. Blake and Ryan are punishing me as well because they know the law is on my side. They know they’re going to lose on Tuesday, but they’re making me also go through all of this stress and anxiety and jump through hoops because they’ve got the money and they’re going to burn it. They’re wasting their money on me and that gives me a little bit of satisfaction, but I’d rather tap the f out. I want to get back to my normal life. I want to get back to my job and my family fully present and engaged. I want to stop this. Okay, shut up. What does it mean that my pupils are so small? My pupils look abnormally small right now. Or is or is this normal? I don’t know. Oh my god. Wouldn’t it be wild if I have a heart attack and I’m filming it like I am like like is it I don’t even Okay, shut up. Oh my god. It’s like a pain like literally. Okay. My filing today, supplemental briefing regarding applicability of privileges under federal common law. Movement Mario Armando Landa Jr. movement professionally known as P to the E to the R to the E to the Z H to the I to the L to the T to the O to the N. respectfully submit this supplemental briefing pursuant to the court’s August 29th, 2025 minute order requiring briefing regarding whether and how privileges under federal common law apply to the information sought by respondents subpoena. Pause. I can’t freaking wait to read what the plantation princess is gonna say. I can’t wait to see what fancy footwork they put to use in this filing. What trickery and outdated law. what inane interpretation of court rulings they’re going to attempt to make because the law is clear. I understand it. I know it. And the law is on my side here. All right. We don’t know what they’re going to say, but this is what I’m saying. Introduction. This case implicates one of the most important protections in American law. The qualified privilege safeguarding journalists from compelled disclosure of sources and unpublished materials. Federal courts like the one that I’m going to be in on Tuesday have long recognized that such protection is essential to the free flow of information to the public. Then I cite case law like Bransburg versus Hayes and Showen versus Shoen. Rule 45 expressly provides that a subpoena must be quashed if it requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter if no exception or waiver applies. Uh-uh. No exception or waiver. I cite the federal rule. Movement asserts that everything and I put everything in bold. Miss Lively seeks through this subpoena is privileged. Because the subpoena strikes at the heart of protected news gathering activity, it cannot be enforced in whole or in part. Movement is a working journalist and media contributor who resides in Nevada. The subpoena at issue seeks his confidential reporting materials and threatens to unmask sources whose confidentiality is paramount to the ability of journalists everywhere to inform the public. The court should recognize the applicability of the qualified reporters privilege under federal common law as well as the Nevada shield law and quash the subpoena in full. Section two, the federal qualified reporters privilege. I had food there. I needed a laugh. We’re keeping that. The federal qualified reporters privilege applies. Two 2A federal courts recognize a qualified reporter’s privilege. Although the Supreme Court in Bransburg declined to adopt an absolute First Amendment privilege, courts across the circuits, including the Ninth Circuit, this court here in Las Vegas is part of the Ninth Circuit. Courts have consistently recognized a qualified privilege protecting journalists from compelled disclosure absent a heightened showing. Then I cite the case law. The concerns raised in Bransburg arose in the unique context of criminal grand jury proceedings. By contrast, courts have emphasized that in civil cases, particularly when the journalist is a nonparty like Mr. Laandada, the need for protection is at its zenith. Then I cite the case law. This reporter’s privilege applies broadly to both confidential and nonconfidential materials including unpublished notes, communications and work product. Then I cite the cases. In addition, the reporter’s privilege derives not only from federal common law, but also from the First Amendment itself. The Ninth Circuit has recognized that the journalist’s privilege is a recognition of the First Amendment’s protection of the press. And I cite the case law. Compelling disclosure of a journalist’s unpublished information or confidential sources therefore implicates constitutional rights, not merely evidentiary ones. This court must approach the subpoena with heightened sensitivity to the first amendment interests at stake. Especially where, as here, movement is a nonparty journalist whose reporting addresses matters of public concern. B. Movement qualifies as a journalist under federal common law. Movement has worked as a journalist for over two decades, operates a widely read news website, contributes to broadcast outlets, including KTNV’s The Las Vegas Morning Blend, and covers matters of public interest extending beyond mere entertainment news. Courts have expressly held that bloggers and digital journalists are entitled to reperly held that bloggers and digital journalists are entitled to reporters privilege. Then I cite the case law. Additionally, the ninth circuit in showing two said subpoenas to journalists must be subject to a heightened sensitivity because they inevitably impinge on the news gathering process. showing two also says because compelled disclosure would likely inhibit the exercise of editorial discretion and could otherwise impair the news gathering process. Courts must be particularly cautious in ordering disclosure from journalists. Civil litigants have ample alternative discovery tools and subpoenas directed at nonparty reporters pose heightened risks of harassment and intimidation as has happened here. This case, a private civil dispute where movement has no stake in the outcome illustrates precisely why federal courts enforce the privilege most robustly in the civil non-party setting. C. The balancing test weighs strongly against disclosure. Federal courts apply a balancing test requiring the party seeking disclosure to show that the information is unobtainable from alternative sources noncumulative and critical to the claim or defense and of overwriting importance compared to the journalist’s first amendment interest. Then I cite the case law respondents Blake Lively cannot meet this heavy burden. The subpoena is breathtakingly broad, covering entire categories of movements reporting and extending back in time to a period even before when Miss Lively alleges that the Wayfairer defendants began what she claims was a retaliatory smear campaign. The requested information is obtainable from parties directly involved in the litigation. The Wayfairer Studios, Justin Baldoni, or other witnesses. Disclosure would not only endanger movements sources, but also chill future whistleblowers and confidential informants nationwide from speaking to journalists. Federal courts have consistently quashed subpoenas seeking reporters confidential or unpublished information in civil cases. In Show and Two, for example, the Ninth Circuit quashed a subpoena seeking journalists unpublished notes, holding that such compelled disclosure would impermissibly intrude on the news gathering process. Likewise, in Gonzalez versus NBC, the Second Circuit, that’s where Judge Lyman is, recognized a qualified privilege for non-confidential outtakes and held the privilege can be overcome only with a showing of likely relevance and lack of reasonable alternatives. On those facts, the court affirmed order compelling limited production. These and other decisions confirm that the relief movement seeks here quashing a burdensome subpoena directed at a nonparty journalist is fully consistent with established precedent beyond the immediate impact on movement. Compelled disclosure here would inflict a broader chilling effect on the press. Confidential sources, whistleblowers, and ordinary citizens rely on asurances that journalists can protect their identities. If this court, Judge Bolair, were to permit disclosure, the inevitable consequence would be fewer individuals willing to come forward, undermining the press’s ability to inform the public on matters of legitimate concern. The First Amendment requires courts to guard against such harms when weighing disclosure requests against a journalist’s privilege. Number three, Nevada’s own shield law provides strong persuasive guidance for this court. Nevada affords journalists absolute protection against compelled disclosure of sources. The Nevada Supreme Court has extended this protection to digital journalists and bloggers. Coll versus Wilson and that was in 2019. The statute broadly protects any published or unpublished information obtained by a reporter in the course of gathering, receiving, or processing information for communication to the public, including the source of any information. This state policy reflects a deep commitment to protecting the press, a commitment the federal courts should respect when evaluating the balance of interests under rule 501. Respondent Miss Lively has also repeatedly acknowledged Movement’s role as a journalist in their filings and the SDNY court has already determined it lacks personal jurisdiction over him. Having invoked state law protections in New York and conceded Movement’s journalistic status, respondents cannot now argue that Nevada’s law should be disregarded when Movement is before his home court in Nevada. Principles of consistency, justice, and parody compel recognition of Nevada’s absolute protections here. respondents. Miss Lively’s own litigation positions confirm the fairness of this approach. Miss Lively herself has argued in the Southern District of New York that California law governs her claims. And Judge Lyman has agreed by applying California law in that court. In the spirit of justice, fairness, and equality, the same principle should apply here because movement resides and works in Nevada and is hauled into court in Nevada. This court should apply Nevada law. Nevada’s legislature has made a clear and deliberate policy choice to provide journalists the strongest possible protection. Nevada’s shield law affords absolute protection against compelled disclosure of sources or unpublished information. The Nevada Supreme Court has confirmed this absolute scope, extending it to digital journalists and online publishers. Setol versus Wilson. All right. So I, you know, repeated for emphasis. He wants repetition. I’m giving it to him. Accordingly, just as Miss Lively successfully invoked California law in New York, movement respectfully submits that Nevada law should apply and must apply here. And when Nevada law is applied, the result is unambiguous. The shield law grants absolute immunity from compelled disclosure. Section four, application to the subpoenaed materials. movement has prepared a showing for in camera review as ordered by the court. However, disclosure of the actual underlying materials, particularly any identifying details of confidential sources would irreparably breach the trust between journalist and source. Consistent with reporters privilege, movement is prepared to provide redacted materials that allow the court to evaluate relevance without compelling source disclosure. Moreover, movement has already demonstrated in prior filings that respondent Miss Lively has disclosed sensitive personal information of nonparties in this litigation. that history compounds the risk of irreparable harm should confidential journalistic sources be exposed here. Even disclosure limited to the court risks eventual dissemination beyond these proceedings. This danger further underscores the necessity of maintaining redactions and enforcing the reporter’s privilege to its full extent. Five, the subpoena imposes an undue burden and should be quashed. Even apart from privilege, rule 45D3A4 requires quashing a subpoena that subjects a nonparty to undo burden. Compelling movement, a Nevada resident uninvolved in the underlying dispute to unmask sources and disclose confidential reporting would impose exactly such a burden. The subpoena would also force movement to expend substantial time and resources compiling journalistic materials, disrupting ongoing reporting obligations and exposing him to risk of harassment and retaliation. These are precisely the kinds of undue burdens that rule 45D was designed to prevent. Federal courts are always protective of non-parties. Movement is not a party to this litigation and has no stake in its outcome. I had an idea. I had an idea literally while I was reading this. I’m going to file a motion. I don’t need to read it to you. I’m going to sum it up real quick. I’m going to file another motion after this one. moving the court to issue a ruling on Tuesday. I don’t want this dragging out anymore. And honestly, I think Blake Lively’s team might agree with this motion to move. That’s a respectful way of telling the court do this. I want Tuesday. The judge has more than enough. And now that he’s getting this and the same from Blake Lively, he will have more than enough. He should rule on Tuesday. But back to this briefing. Movement is not a party to this litigation and has no stake in its outcome. Rule 45D1 places an affirmative duty on parties and their council to avoid burdening nonparties with discovery demands like this. That duty is especially compelling here where the nonparty is a journalist whose independence and sources are at risk. Six, the subpoena is redundant and unnecessary in light of Judge Lyman’s ruling. Even if the subpoenaed materials were not privileged, and they are, the subpoena is now wholly unnecessary and duplicative. On August 27th, 2025, Judge Lyman in the Southern District of New York granted Miss Lively’s motion to compel against the Wayfairer defendants. See Lively versus Wayfairer Studios. Docket number 711. This development is critical. Critical in italics. Judge Lyman’s ruling requires the defendants in Miss Lively’s own lawsuit to produce responsive documents and information directly. That means if the information Miss Lively seeks from movement exists at all, it will already be produced to her through proper party discovery. The federal common law governing reporter’s privilege makes clear that compelled disclosure from a journalist is improper unless the party first exhausts also in italics exhausts alternative sources. Then I cite the case law here. Miss Lively is actively receiving the very discovery she claims to need directly from the parties to her case. Thus, compelling movein’s compliance would not only violate privilege, it would be entirely redundant. The subpoena would serve no legitimate purpose except to harass and burden a nonparty journalist. Rule 45D1 obligates parties to avoid imposing such burden, and rule 45D3A4 requires quashing a subpoena that does so. Accordingly, the court should find that Miss Lively’s subpoena fails for the additional and independent reason that it is duplicative and unnecessary in light of Judge Lyman’s ruling. Seven, proportionality under rule 26B1, independently warrants quashing or severely limiting the subpoena. Even apart from privilege, the subpoena fails. 26B1 discovery must be relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Considering the importance of the issues at stake, the amount in controversy, the party’s relative access to the information, the party’s resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving I just remembered something that I forgot to do here. Damn it. In this section, I should have mentioned, but I already have, and I’ll make sure to mention it in person, that Blake Lively subpoenaed over 108 creator/journalists. Therefore, what I hold is not critical to what she needs. Even apart from privilege, the subpoena fails rule 26b. Courts also give special weight to the burden of nonparties when applying proportionality. Then I cite the case law applied here. Every factor favors quashing the subpoena. Relative access alternative sources. Judge Lyman has ordered the Wayf Farer defendants to produce discovery, giving respondents direct access to the very information they claimed to need. Party discovery is the proper less burdensome channel. Compelling a non-party journalist is unnecessary and disproportionate. Importance versus marginal benefit. Respondents seek sweeping categories of unpublished journalistic material. Any marginal benefit is speculative and duplicative in light of ongoing party discovery. While the corresponding harm to news gathering and source relationships is concrete and severe. burden and expense outweigh likely benefit. Compliance would require timeintensive collection, review, redaction, and handling of sensitive materials, disrupting ongoing reporting, and exposing movement and his sources to risk. That burden far exceeds any incremental benefit to respondents. Click lively. non-party status and sources. Movement is not a party and has no stake in the outcome. Rule 26’s proportionality calculus is especially protective of non-parties. And rule 45D imposes an affirmative duty on respondents to avoid imposing such burdens. Public interest issues at stake. The requested discovery targets the core of protected news gathering. Disproportionate compulsion here would chill confidential sources and undermine the public’s right to receive information. Dang, I forgot something else. I should have re-emphasized. Attorney client privilege here. All good. I already made that claim before. And all of this honestly is strong enough on its own. Yeah, more than enough. Because the subpoena, I continue, is not proportional to the needs of the case, it should be quashed under rule 26B1 and rule 45D. In the alternative, any order short of quashing must be narrowly tailored to the least intrusive means and sub subject to strict protective conditions. I should have taken that out. This needs to be quashed in full. Conclusion: For all of the reasons set forth above, movement respectfully submits that the subpoena must be quashed in full. Rule 45 requires quashing a subpoena that seeks privileged information. And all of the materials Miss Lively seeks are covered by the reporter’s privilege under federal common law and by Nevada’s shield law which affords absolute protection. Nevada’s shield law reflects this state’s deeprooted commitment to a free and independent press. A commitment that aligns with the first amendment and should guide this court’s analysis. In addition, compelling movements compliance would impose an undue burden on a non-party journalist and serve no legitimate purpose. Miss Lively is already receiving discovery from the Wayfairer defendants pursuant to Judge Lyman’s order. Any materials she claims to need will be produced through that channel, rendering this subpoena not only improper, but entirely redundant. Compelling disclosure in this case would not only contravene rule 45, but would also undermine the First Amendment values at the heart of the reporter’s privilege. Values that protect the public’s right to receive information from a free and independent press. I’m going to file a supplemental briefing to my briefing to emphasize reporters privilege. um to emphasize attorney client privilege. If this court were to com and I’m going to file the motion to rule on freaking Tuesday. If this court were to compel movements compliance, the consequences would extend far beyond this case. But I got this in on time and now is a good time to share with you all. Not spoiler alert. If you’re watching this far deep, you are a VIP member of my FRA. The clerk already docketed this. So, this was submitted to the judge before 5. The clerk docketed this at 4:45 p.m. So even if the judge was already like gone from the courthouse, he’ll I’m pretty sure he’ll have been made aware of this, right? Either way, the judge will see on Tuesday that this was docketed. It’s up as of 4:45 p.m. Friday. All this hard work paid off. So now I’ll just file my supplemental with attorney client privilege and not mentioning the literally over 108 creator journalists that Lively has subpoenaed. And I finished my supplemental briefing regarding privilege that I submitted today and has been docketed saying if this court were to compel movements compliance, the consequences would extend far beyond this case. Confidential sources across the country would hear that even a Nevada journalist protected by state and federal law could be forced to reveal identities under a civil subpoena. The resulting chilling effect would harm not only movement but also the needed role of journalists and the public’s right to be informed of matters of legitimate concern. Federal courts across the country have consistently quashed subpoenas seeking reporters confidential information in civil cases recognizing the profound risk such discovery poses to the free press. This case presents no basis for departure and I cite the case law. Accordingly, the court should sustain movement’s assertion of privilege and quash the subpoena in its entirety. Respectfully submitted, Mario Landeda, aka P to the E to the R to the E to the T, H to the I to the L to the T to the O to the N. Mah mah. I am I am like running on fumes right now as they say. I am Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for watching. Thank you for supporting and please, please, if you can show up in court on Tuesday, especially if you’re the media. This is a really important hearing, aka trial. What is at stake is consequential to journalists all over the country. if Blake Lively gets her way. So, how do you all think I did? Let me know in the comments section and I can file additional motions for supplementation before Tuesday. So, let me know anything else that I should add. All right. Okay. That is it. Let’s discuss everything in the comments section. And thank you again, especially for watching to the end. I love you. Thank you for being here for me and lifting me up. You watching right now is supporting in the most meaningful way and it truly has helped helps and will help. So, thank you and see you in the comments. PS. I think I I don’t I don’t even remember what I just said. I think I forgot to mention the details for Tuesday at the end. This Tuesday, the final hearing, Tuesday, September 2nd in Las Vegas, 1:30 p.m. local time, the federal courthouse at 333 South Las Vegas Boulevard. Courtroom 7C. I will do some brief interviews before and as many and as long of interviews needed wanted after. So please media fly in drive if you’re local. Everybody come and everybody even if you’re not a journalist support come would love to see you there. And if you can’t I’ll see you in the comments.

😫 #BlakeLively #JustinBaldoni #LasVegas

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!

I Am Very Unwell! This Blake Lively Drama Just Took A Bad Turn For Me!! | Perez Hilton

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