Blake Lively Admits To Her Sham! And Accusations That Ryan Reynolds’ Wife Is Also A Thief! She: |DD

Inside the Sham Lawsuit Drama: Blake Lively, A Stolen Phone, and the Battle for Justice

“Rest? What rest? No weekends off.” That’s how the queen of all media Perez Hilton opened his latest bombshell exposé—and trust, the tea is boiling. The saga unfolding around Blake Lively, publicist Jennifer Abel, and the so-called “Wayfairer parties” is one of the juiciest, most legally labyrinthine scandals in recent celebrity memory. It’s got everything: betrayal, espionage, anonymous lawsuits, and Blake Lively allegedly playing legal puppet master with her own secret company. So buckle up. We’re diving deep into the tangled web of the Vanzan Sham Lawsuit, and how it may all have been a ruse to steal private communications from a former employee.

📱 It Started with a Phone

Jennifer Abel, once a rising star in the celebrity PR world and the publicist for actor Justin Baldoni, found herself at the center of chaos. Her former boss at Jones Works, Stephanie Jones, allegedly fired her upon discovering that Abel was planning to launch her own PR firm. But Jones didn’t stop at a pink slip—she reportedly confiscated Abel’s phone and laptop. And here’s where things get messy.

According to legal filings, those devices were full of confidential information: personal texts, health records, and sensitive business communications. And yet, Abel claims, Jones handed over the contents to none other than Blake Lively—who had been secretly investigating Justin Baldoni and his company, Wayfairer Studio.

But how did Blake get her hands on information she shouldn’t legally have? Enter: Vanzan, Inc.

🕵️‍♀️ The Vanzan Ruse

Vanzan is allegedly a shell company connected to Lively or possibly her husband, Ryan Reynolds. This company filed an anonymous lawsuit against Abel—one that nobody, including Abel herself or the Wayfairer parties, was even notified about.

This lawsuit didn’t just come out of nowhere. Abel’s legal team argues that it was a calculated move, a “sham action”, designed to create a legal cover for obtaining her personal data. The key players—Jones, Lively, and Vanzan—are accused of conspiring to use the courts to retroactively justify the illegal seizure and transfer of Abel’s communications.

Even stranger? Vanzan never had a contract with Abel. So how could they claim breach of contract? That, as Perez Hilton says, is “hella sketch.”

💼 The Subpoena That Shook Everything

Fast-forward to 2025. Jennifer Abel is no longer staying quiet. She’s fired back with her own legal counterclaims and is demanding answers. Specifically, she wants Vanzan and Blake Lively to comply with a subpoena that could prove the entire plot was a fraud.

In a recent court filing, Abel’s attorney (Perez’s new favorite legal hero, Ellen Garop) is pushing to compel Vanzan to produce Request Number 9—communications among Jones, Lively, and Vanzan regarding the subpoena and lawsuit.

Why does this matter? Because those messages might prove that the subpoena was an after-the-fact cover story. In other words, Abel believes Lively already had access to the data before Vanzan ever filed anything in court.

If true, this would mean the legal system was weaponized to cover up an unlawful data grab. Yikes.

📃 What Documents Are in Question?

Abel is asking for:

The original subpoena used in the Vanzan lawsuit

All communications between Jones, Lively, and Vanzan about that subpoena

Evidence of who actually owns or controls Vanzan (Is it Blake? Ryan? A front?)

Anything that proves the Vanzan subpoena was just a facade to get private info illegally

Vanzan tried to argue the requests were irrelevant. But then they quietly agreed to hand over documents for some of the other requests—an implicit admission that the subpoena matters.

Now, the only thing left to fight about is Request #9—the one that could expose all the dirty laundry.

🔥 Blake’s Silent (but Loud) Role

Interestingly, even though she’s a “non-party” to the main lawsuit, Blake Lively has been fighting hard to keep the documents sealed. She filed her own objections and wants to block the release of any additional communications.

But that raises a big question: Why fight so hard, unless there’s something to hide?

Abel’s legal team argues that Blake and Vanzan are one and the same. That’s not metaphorical—they literally say Lively = Vanzan. So any burden to turn over communications isn’t on some distant third party. It’s on Blake herself.

And if Blake knowingly received stolen data, even before a subpoena made it “legal”? That’s a PR nightmare—ironic for someone trying to take down a publicist.

⚖️ What Happens Now?

Abel’s legal request is straightforward: force Vanzan to produce everything related to Request #9. No more games. No more delays. If the court agrees, we could be moments away from uncovering:

Who truly runs Vanzan, Inc.

Whether Blake Lively knowingly used illegally obtained messages

Whether the legal system was exploited to retroactively justify digital theft

This isn’t just about Hollywood drama anymore—it’s about abuse of the legal process, invasion of privacy, and potentially career-ending consequences for several major players.

🧵 Final Thoughts

Perez wasn’t exaggerating when he said: no weekends off. This case is moving fast and could explode into something much bigger. It’s got the fingerprints of media manipulation, legal trickery, and celebrity ego all over it.

If what Abel says is true, it’s not just Blake Lively’s image at stake—it’s the integrity of the legal system, the boundaries of digital privacy, and the future of whistleblowers in the entertainment industry.

One thing is certain: this isn’t over. Not by a long shot.

So tell us—if you were the judge, what would you rule? Did Blake and Stephanie Jones go too far? Or is this just another Hollywood witch hunt? Let’s discuss everything in the comments.