UNHINGED! Blake Lively:

UNHINGED! Blake Lively:

Oh my god, so much to talk about in today’s live stream, including multiple newly unsealed depositions in the It Ends With Us saga, as well as exclusive information that I was given by my sources. Hello my friend. It is Perez, the queen of all media, the original influencer, and your number one source for everything. It ends with us, Saga. Oh, it’s going to be so good today. Thank you for joining me. I appreciate you. All right, that’s kind of saying like allegedly, but it’s not allegedly. Um, sources tell me that somebody else has been paying Stephanie Jones’s legal bills. That makes so much sense. I mean, I I I was told who, but I’m not going to share that with you all because remember what I said a minute ago. I don’t want to get sued. Oh my god. Yeah. And let me tell y’all, my information is legit. Have any of you read this yet? Because shiz just got nuclear. That was the wrong button. There we go. Katherine Casease shared information that is explosive. And then afterwards in her deposition, Melissa Nathan called her former employee a liar. And yes, this is in regards to the Stephanie Jones of exhibits together. So Melissa Nathan was shown some information about Stephanie Jones, Belon’s former publicist, who is suing Beldon for breach of contract and also suing Jen Ael and their counter suing and ah the drama. So, remember there was there were those multiple websites and accounts that were defaming Stephanie Jones. But I ask, is it defamation? If it’s true, perhaps the things being said about Stephanie Jones by alleged former employees are um I see that. I see that says Melissa Nathan. Exhibit 56 is a document from what appears to be an ex account or Twitter account under the name Lying Steph Jones. I see that says Melissa Nathan. Exhibit 54 is what appears to be a Facebook account with the banner Stephanie Jones leaks. I see that, says Melissa Nathan. And exhibit 58 is a Pinterest account with the banner Stephanie Jones leaks. I see that. Melissa Nathan. Stephanie Jones lawyer to Melissa Nathan. You asked Katie Casease, her former employee at TAG, to write copy for that website, the Stephanie Jones Leaks website. Isn’t that true, Melissa Nathan? That is not true, Stephanie Jones lawyer. And you also had a role in the creation of publication of exhibit 56, the exac account, right? No, says Melissa Nathan. You asked Katie Casease to write copy for at least five or six tweets that were posted on that ex account in exhibit 56. Right, Brian Freriedman? Objection. Melissa Nathan, no. Katie Casease, your former employee testified that you asked her to write copy for the website in exhibit 54. Brian Freriedman. Objection. Melissa Nathan, I was told that she did testify. I did not listen to her deposition. I was on a plane. Who told you that? I can’t remember exactly who told me. It would have been one of my lawyers, Brian Freriedman. So, no information from your lawyers you should be disclosing. Got you, says Melissa Nathan, the lawyer for Stephanie Jones. Have you since read a transcript of her testimony? I have. You have? Yes. And so you read what she testif? Yes. Stephanie Jones lawyer. Okay. And is it your under oath testimony that when she testified in her deposition that you gave her specific language to write for this website? including that Stephanie Jones holds clients hostage, that she leaks clients secrets, and that she treats her employees poorly, that she, Katherine Casease, your former employee, was giving false under oath testimony. Melissa Nathan, yes, Brian Freriedman, objection. If Katie Casease testified that you asked her to draft the tweets about Stephanie Jones that appeared in exhibit 56, the outlying Steph Jones exac account. Is it your under oath testimony that Katie Casease was giving false under oath testimony? Melissa Nathan about me? Yes, absolutely. Stephanie Jones’s lawyer. Okay. Do you have any personal knowledge about whether or not Katie Casease did write the copy for the website? Melissa Nathan. Now or then. Stephanie Jones’s lawyer. Personal knowledge. No, says Melissa. Whether or not Katie Casease wrote five or six tweets that appeared on exhibit 56, the X account. No, says Melissa Nathan. Okay, so you’re saying you didn’t ask her to do it, but you don’t know whether or not she actually did it. Melissa Nathan, I mean, she testified that she did it. Correct. Melissa Nathan is so good. When you answer a question with a question, chef’s kiss. Yes, says Stephanie Jones, lawyer Melissa Nathan. So, based on that and the conversations that I’m not allowed to, then yes. Okay. Stephanie Jones lawyer. And you are also aware that Jed Wallace had involvement in building or creating the website in exhibit 54. Right. The Stephanie Jones lies website. Objection. Melissa Nathan. No. Stephanie Jones lawyer. If Katie Casease testified that Jed Wallace did, is it your testimony that she would be giving false under oath testimony? Melissa Nathan, I can only talk to myself as to what I know about my own personal test, you know, or objection. Two lawyers objected there. Brian Freriedman and a lawyer for Jed Wallace. Correct. I don’t know. And if Katie Case Stephanie Jones lawyer says if Katie Casease said she spoke to Jed Wallace about that creating the Stephanie Jones Lies website, you don’t have any basis to deny that. Jed Wallace’s lawyer. Objection. Melissa Nathan’s lawyer, Brian Freriedman. Objection. Melissa Nathan. If I was not on any telephone calls between those two. If it did or did not happen, I was not on them. Would prefer. Objection, says Brian Freriedman. Okay. Stephanie Jones lawyer. Do you have any knowledge as to who was involved in any respect in the website Steph about Stephanie Jones in exhibit 54? Objection. Oh. Oh. Melissa Nathan says I do. Now what is that knowledge? says Stephanie Jones lawyer Melissa Nathan from Katie’s testimony that she wrote it. Anything else? Says Stephanie Jones’s lawyer. No, says Melissa Nathan. I the Lively litigations. Correct. Okay. What about for redacted My guess is that’s a celebrity. No, I have not built any websites, says Melissa Nathan. Stephanie Jones lawyer. I’m not asking if you built websites. I’m asking if you’ve been involved in a matter where a website was built. Stephanie Jones’s nemesis, Melissa Nathan, says succinctly, “No. including redacted Brian Freriedman. Objection. Melissa Nathan. I have not been involved in that. In any matter at all, says Melissa Nathan. Yes. I already testified yes to that, said Melissa Nathan. Which ones? Melissa Nathan. The one in connection with the lively. Uh-huh. My own. Uh-huh. Melissa Nathan. And there could have been one previously for clients that back back I please show me I maybe but that’s what I’ve been involved with. Okay. Do you know whether redacted requested that Katie case write copy for the website in exhibit 54? Melissa Nathan I have never met redacted. That’s a celebrity. My guess or something could be. Stephanie Jones lawyer. Does copy typically mean background report? Melissa Nathan. Yes, it can. Really? Yes, it can. Okay. So if Katie Casease testified that this was another website that she created at your request in conjunction with Brian Freriedman and Jed Wallace that would be false under oath testimony. Yes, says Melissa Nathan. This is probably about Rebel Wilson. Rebel Wilson. remember that drama and the Brian Freriedman of it all and the Jed Wallace and apparently Melissa Nate reached out to hire us. We had one conversation with them and said okay before we knew more and I have to I’m not sure of the time period when we found out I would say a couple of days a day two days we declined to work with them. Fudge. Who is she talking about? Okay. So, you ultimately declined to bring them as clients to bring them on as clients of tag. Is that right? Correct. Okay. But notwithstanding that they were never clients of tag. You did work with Katie case to create a website in connection with their litigation, didn’t you? I did not, says Melissa Nathan. Objection says testified that you did that would be false under oath testimony. Is that your testimony? Melissa Nathan completely false. Okay, says Stephanie Jones’s lawyer. Is Katie Casease a huge liar? Melissa Nathan. Apparently so. Yes. Stephanie Jones lawyer. Okay. What reason does she have to lie about you? Brian Freriedman. Objection. Melissa Nathan. I don’t know how she is lying about me apart from her being scared of Stephanie Jones. I don’t know any other lies so far unless you tell. Hold on. Wait, that’s from 20 21 though. Let me look up by date. Hold on. 2021. Oh my god. This is about Scooter Braun. Hello, Scooter. You have entered the chat. was sued for $50 million by a former Goldman Sachs partner, Peter Kazar, who claimed Brun misled him about a new business venture. Komaazar alleged that Braun’s promise of lucrative roles, blah blah blah blah blah. So Melissa Nathan and Jed Wallace and Brian Freriedman were in some capacity working with Scooter Braun. And that could also explain why Scooter Braun back when he used to work at Hibby played a big role in financially helping Melissa Nathan create her communications agency that we were supposed to take another step. We thought the step was done. We talked about it. She got it off her even though we disagreed. I still contend to this day that most of what she is saying either all of it either it’s twisted or fabricated says Jamie Heath. She says I talked about my genitals. I still haven’t had heard anybody ask me. She said I had a corn addiction in her complaint. No one has asked me where that came from or if it it was discuss. And then we moved on. Oh, I can’t wait for trial because oh god, I’ve learned so much about the law because of this case. Jamie Heath is basically saying that Blake Lively was lying about all of these things. But because Blake Lively made her allegations in a complaint in a lawsuit because it was done in this legal document, Jamie Heath cannot sue Blake Lively for defamation even though he alleges and is telling us now in this deposition that no he was going to dictate to me a letter and I didn’t have a hard copy. of it. So, I wanted to record it so that I could actually write it down and have it. The lawyer. And what about the Sony marketing call? Alex Shapiro. Objection. Jamie Heath. In the Sony call, we were planning Oh, this is definitely new. I didn’t know this before. In the Sony call, we were planning how to navigate these two different premieres because remember they only ended up having one premiere in New York where Blake Lively had Justin Baldon banished to the basement. as you know, is one of the co-founders of Wayfair Studios, a billionaire whom my sources tell me has been paying for all of Belon and Cruz legal bills because they’re spending millions a month on attorneys fees. So, Steve Sarowitz continues, “Oh, couple other things. They had locked our entire team, including myself, as you mentioned, that $30 million figure into the movie, and they locked me completely out of the premiere and along with Justin and Jamie and everyone else and relegated us to the basement in a separate and also not allowed us to be on the red carpet else, not allowed to be photographed with anyone else. And I guess probably, believe it or not, and fired. This is probably the thing that bothered me the most. Were they Oh, wow. It’s now part of the public record. Steve Sorrowitz says that Blake Lively actively fired quote our editors, our composer and assistant producer among others and had removed Justin from the poster and then had Justin removed in his cut from her cut. We’re talking now about all of the messages that Stephanie Jones took from Jen Ael. Stephanie Jones lawyer. Do you believe that any security measures were circumvented in accessing your iCloud? Jenel, I’m not sure. Sorry. Stephanie Jones, lawyer. In your counter claims, you assert or allege that you were ordered to provide your passcode to your company iPhone. Who ordered you to provide your passcode? Jennable Gordon Duran, Stephanie’s chief of staff. Stephanie Jones lawyer. What did he say after I clarified to both him and So, as I said before, it was communicated to me after I said for clarity, it was agreed that my personal cell phone would be released back to me, which would render the phone inactive. I clarified with the lawyer who was present that it was my personal cell phone, that I had private stuff on there. And Gordon, Stephanie Jones, chief of staff, says, “Yes, right.” And I looked at the lawyer and the lawyer said, “Yes, fine. It would render that phone inactive.” And so I said, “Okay.” I handed it over and as I was walking here sanctions available under rule 37E including an adverse inference that an August 2024 crisis management strategy was not only planned but executed and a preclusion order barring defendants from presenting any evidence refuting Lively’s claim. that they executed on the plan to manipulate the internet to defame Lively and derail her career for which she is now seeking okay I’m so glad I read this a mere $300 million in damages oh the irony is that no that’s sarcasm of Lively’s complaint without disabling the autodelete feature Lively assumes and asks the court to assume that all eight defendants deleted messages that might have further shown that defendants executed on a crisis management strategy that turned the internet against Lively in August 2024. at the time the film It Ends With Us was released. The mere assumption that some or all defendants may have deleted relevant evidence even intentionally is not enough to justify sanctions that would devastate. that are personal and cannot be awarded against a group of eight without proof that each independently spoliated evidence. Lively fails to show that any message evidencing the implementation of a smear campaign was deleted by a particular defendant or even that all defendants used signal to communicate about Lively prior to the filing of her complaint. Lively indiscriminately seeks sanctions against all eight defendants. plaintiff admits that it is unclear whether all the okay so the allegation that all defendants executed a crisis management strategy to manipulate the internet lively refers to this as the digital campaign is based solely on the supposition that negative publicity about Lively went viral in August 2024 and thus defendants must have been the cause. In fact, Lively fails to identify specific communications that might demonstrate the implementation. But you know who makes better hot chocolate? I love my Mexican hermanosmanas. Cubans make better hot chocolate. Hot take. You want to know why? It’s sweeter. Cuban hot chocolate has more I don’t even know. Well, I don’t even know if Mexican had hot chocolate has it. Cubans put sweetened condensed milk in their hot chocolate. Sweetened condensed milk makes everything better. Sweetened condensed milk. Cubans literally eat out of the can. We put the can in a pot of boiling water and cook it. And very first page of her motion. plaintiff admits that she was not prejudiced by the deletion of signal threads by noting that despite defendants alleged efforts to cover their tracks, there is substantial evidence that the retaliatory campaign was in fact implemented as planned. Oh yeah, I can’t wait to see that. Whatever Blake Lively has will likely show that Beldon and crew were just correcting false narratives and defending themselves, not defaming Blake Lively or asking anyone to write negatively about much less the severe sanctions of any adverse inference and presumption that damaging evidence existed and was deleted. Ed. In fact, this is only one this is only one of multiple sanctions motions in which Lively implicitly conceded that the evidence aduced in discovery will not support her claims seeks to exclude evidence crucial to the defense. She’s got nothing. She’s got nothing. She’s got nothing.

These are snippets from my most recent livestream. Talking #BlakeLively and so much more. Watch this in context and the show in full HERE: https://youtu.be/J4AETo6GWZs

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!

UNHINGED! Blake Lively:

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