Blake Lively’s Court Games Just Turned VILE—CONFESSES to STOLEN EVIDENCE, Then Goes After the VICTIM

“They Weren’t the Same Person”: Inside Blake Lively’s Shadowy Legal Chess Game with Vanzan Inc and Jennifer Abel

Blake Lively is no stranger to the spotlight, but it seems the bright lights of Hollywood may now be casting long, litigious shadows. In a twist straight out of a courtroom thriller, new legal filings have peeled back the curtain on an alleged shell company, hidden subpoenas, and accusations of retaliation and manipulation. The name at the center of it all? Vanzan Inc. A company that, on paper, has no ties to Lively. But in the real world? That’s another story.

Let’s rewind to September 2024. Vanzan Inc.—a mysterious corporate entity—filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of New York County. The target? No one, officially. But beneath the surface, subpoenas were flying. Stephanie Jones of Jones Works, a prominent PR firm, was served and required to turn over all data from Jennifer Abel’s phone. The problem? No one told Abel. No one informed the parties involved. There was no direct connection between Abel and Vanzan Inc. So how did a private PR firm end up forking over sensitive digital data belonging to someone who wasn’t even part of the lawsuit?

It all begins to make sense—or make less sense—when you realize Vanzan Inc. is allegedly a shell company being used by Blake Lively. The move allowed Lively to act without attaching her name directly to court documents or public scrutiny. But now that the veil has lifted, many are questioning just how far she and her legal team are willing to go to silence dissent and shape the narrative.

Discovery or Deception?

Jennifer Abel, now acutely aware of the subpoena that accessed her phone records, is fighting back. She’s demanding the release of the original subpoena, all the records that were pulled, and detailed correspondence between Vanzan and Jones Works. She wants transparency, and understandably so—her private data was accessed without her knowledge, in what appears to be a calculated maneuver.

Blake Lively’s legal team insists that everything was above board. They point to a protective order—loaded with confidentiality clauses and non-disclosure agreements—as the reason Abel can’t access any of the information. Essentially, even if Abel somehow has the records, she can’t use them in court. A classic Catch-22. She has it, but she can’t say she has it. If she tries, she risks contempt.

In a document filed in federal court, Lively’s attorneys taunted Abel by stating that the information she seeks has already been shared—but only within the confines of a separate, unrelated legal action. It’s like saying, “Sure, you can see the evidence… just not here. And not in any way that helps your case.”

To make matters more suspicious, Vanzan Inc. recently retained new legal representation—completely separate from the firm that also represents Blake Lively. Why the sudden legal reshuffle? If Vanzan is truly independent of Blake, why act like it’s covering someone else’s tracks?

A Legal Shell Game?

In court filings, Lively’s side insists that Abel is weaponizing this subpoena issue to further a “negative media campaign” against her. The claim is that Abel is less interested in justice and more interested in creating headlines. But the reality is more complicated. If Vanzan Inc. had no involvement with Abel, why would they have her phone data? And if Vanzan Inc. had no connection to Lively, why are her attorneys repeatedly invoking confidentiality rules to block access?

Blake Lively, through her attorneys, maintains that everything done was legal and justified. But it’s hard not to notice the contradictions: she wants to say, “Here’s the proof,” while also saying, “You’re not allowed to look at the proof.” It’s a masterclass in legal gymnastics.

And let’s not forget the timeline. Abel’s phone was allegedly accessed in August 2024, after her termination, but before the lawsuit from Vanzan was filed. How did Vanzan know to go after her phone if there was no connection between them? How did they know to subpoena Stephanie Jones? These are questions the court—and the public—deserve answers to.

Smoke, Mirrors, and Judge Lyman

Abel’s faith in the justice system is wearing thin. She’s openly voiced concerns that Judge Lyman, the presiding judge in the federal case, has already chosen sides. Her team believes that Blake Lively and her lawyers are dragging out proceedings in hopes of getting the case dismissed before the full truth comes to light. They argue that all of this—the shell companies, the subpoenas, the protective orders—is part of a larger campaign to control the narrative and sidestep accountability.

And while Blake’s team claims that Abel’s motions are “moot” or already resolved, many legal experts (and fans watching this unfold) are raising their eyebrows. Why is it so hard for Abel to get basic answers? Why so many roadblocks to discovery? And why does this entire process feel like a shell game—where just as you think you’ve found the truth, it slips away under another paper-thin corporate veil?

Beyond the Courtroom

This isn’t just about legal strategy. It’s about power—who has it, who wields it, and who suffers when it’s misused. Abel has stated that the entire system is being manipulated against her, with Lively and her legal team allegedly using technicalities and confidential filings to stonewall her at every turn.

There’s also a deeply emotional element to this saga. Abel has made clear that her efforts to raise concerns about sexual harassment were met not with support, but with retaliation. She believes this entire court battle is just another form of punishment for speaking up—a campaign designed to discredit her, disarm her, and destroy her credibility.

Meanwhile, Lively’s camp maintains the opposite: that this is all just a smear campaign intended to tank her reputation, and that Abel is spinning baseless conspiracy theories for PR. But the facts don’t lie: someone got access to a private phone. A subpoena was issued through a company with no clear reason for involvement. And now, everyone is pretending the pieces don’t fit.

Final Thoughts

“They weren’t the same person,” the filings say. But the truth may be more tangled than that. If Blake Lively was indeed hiding behind a corporate alias to skirt transparency, it sets a dangerous precedent—not just for celebrity legal tactics, but for justice itself.

Whether the courts will see through this elaborate legal smokescreen remains to be seen. But for now, one thing is clear: this isn’t just a legal case. It’s a story about power, secrecy, and the cost of silence—a Hollywood drama playing out in a courtroom near you.