She NEVER Expected This !!
Episode Stats
Harmful content
Misogyny
11
sentences flagged
Toxicity
9
sentences flagged
Hate speech
1
sentences flagged
Summary
Does Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively live separate lives? Is that why Blake posted a story about sadness this weekend? Is she trying to look like a martyr, or is she just trying to make a martyr out of herself? Plus, a new report suggests that the couple is no longer living together.
Transcript
00:00:04.340
She is a real victim and she wants your sympathy.
00:00:14.500
I'm Kersti Floor, journalist, Hollywood truth teller
00:00:17.020
and your voice of reason in a town built on delusion.
00:00:21.100
Okay, I got a little scoop from my insider again
00:00:24.420
and we also have to talk about these divorce rumors
00:00:28.660
does Blake and Ryan live separate lives and is that why Blake posted this story about sadness
00:00:35.740
this weekend? Trying to use some old Irish saying to look like a martyr or is she just trying to
00:00:42.300
tell us that she's sad? Instead of saying I'm sad they say sadness is on me not inside you
00:00:51.400
not defining you. In the meantime Jamie Heath who is Justin Baldoni's partner who's also sued by
00:00:57.900
Blake Lively for all the same things, posted a video this weekend where he was playing basketball
00:01:02.700
with his son and Justin Baldoni was there looking happy and Jamie's wife was there dancing as well.
00:01:09.700
So yeah, that made me happy to see. And we have to talk about Wayfarer's new response to Blake
00:01:15.460
Lively or to the judge on why the judge should toss out the retaliation claim. I was a little
00:01:21.660
confused about this, but it still looks like actually Blake could only end up with one claim
00:01:27.540
when she goes to trial and let's talk about Blake's expert you know she has eight of them and this one
00:01:34.500
really made me laugh the hardest and that's why I wanted to share it with you guys this expert
00:01:39.920
claims that Blake can spend between 14 to 20 million dollars to brainwash the public back to
00:01:46.700
liking her you got to hear this also thanks to everyone who watched my video yesterday I went
00:01:51.820
through another expert report and I kind of tore it apart by sharing my inside data on my little
00:01:59.660
bump video, which did not match the findings of the expert. And keep in mind, I'm the only one
00:02:07.320
who actually has the access to my videos analytics on YouTube. If you missed that video, please go
00:02:13.320
and watch it. It's really interesting. Anyways, let's get into it. So I have this little scoop
00:02:18.260
from my insider who told me that Blake Lively has a burner phone or at least one burner phone
00:02:26.280
and she keeps changing up her cell phone number. So this person said that friends of there have
00:02:33.660
been calling Blake and then she kept changing her phone number and this person said I'm sure there
00:02:39.300
are pretty damning text messages on her burner phone. So I hope that the wayfair parties also
00:02:45.980
are aware of the fact that Blake has burner phones so maybe we haven't even seen a fraction
00:02:51.740
of the text messages that she's been sending to people in regards to this lawsuit. Anyways let's
00:02:58.440
look at these divorce rumors. So this is a story from International Business Times in the UK saying
00:03:03.860
Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds divorced looming. Deadpool star reportedly done with their marriage
00:03:12.120
As you know, it seems like Ryan Reynolds is spending
00:03:24.560
which means that he has to be there physically, I'm assuming.
00:03:27.780
And the only time we've actually seen them together
00:03:29.940
was in that Broadway show a couple of weeks ago.
00:03:33.260
And of course, Ryan made sure to make a big deal about being there
00:03:37.260
so the press would pick it up that they were out as a family and also they made sure that the
00:03:42.740
paparazzi got some pictures of them kissing in public when they were watching a Wrexham game
00:03:48.840
together. So Blake went to visit Ryan in the UK. I think that he's there most of the time now
00:03:55.140
although I do know that some people that I've been told are interviewing Ryan tomorrow here in LA
00:04:02.660
because he's promoting Wrexham for Emmy nominations.
00:04:06.560
This person also told me that they're not allowed to ask any questions
00:04:12.480
I'm fascinated that actually outlets agree to these terms.
00:04:16.220
Like what's left of journalism if you're not allowed to ask real questions to a person anyway?
00:04:21.240
So here they're reporting a new report from the social media account Celebrity Blinds
00:04:26.280
has sent shockwaves through the industry by claiming that the couple is no longer living together.
00:04:31.280
The account suggests that the ongoing legal tensions involving Lively, and it ends with us co-star Justin Baldoni, have placed an immense burden on her marriage.
00:04:41.440
While Reynolds has maintained a supportive stance in the public eye, the private reality is reportedly much more strained.
00:04:49.740
And then there's a source there saying that this illiterate actor keeps saying all of the right things about his wife, but he's not even living with her.
00:04:58.440
some commentators believe that the couple is maintaining a facade of unity specifically to
00:05:04.760
protect their individual and collective professional brands yes there's no way that
00:05:10.580
they're not going to pretend that they're a unified front before and during this lawsuit
00:05:15.620
because that would be terrible for her case so it says here that ryan is really worried about all
00:05:21.720
his brands of course it's all about money which we know it is for both of them that's why blake
00:05:26.460
filed this lawsuit because she wants more money. And here it says that Ryan is really worried that
00:05:31.980
all this negativity is going to affect his brands. And of course it is. Anyways, let's get to this
00:05:37.960
story that Blake posted on Instagram this weekend. So she grabbed this inspiring video from someone
00:05:43.740
else talking about sadness and how sadness in the Irish language has a different word because they
00:05:51.000
have a saying that sadness, it's not something that lives inside you. It's something that's
00:05:57.660
brought upon you. So that means sadness does not define you. And if you're scared, it's not who you
00:06:03.840
are. And all your emotions is something that passes through you. Anyways, it's no doubt here
00:06:10.260
that Blake wants us to look at her as a real traumatized victim. And she's really sad right now
00:06:17.540
because she has experienced so much trauma but in reality I think she's really sad right now
00:06:23.940
because she knows everything that she has lost. She has sacrificed her own career, her husband's
00:06:30.560
career, her friendships, her popularity. She's dragged so many people into this and now she's
00:06:37.980
sad about it. Now it really suits her to be sad to try and manipulate the public and she's hoping
00:06:44.020
that a media outlet will pick this up obviously to make some headlines about being a victim,
00:06:50.500
being sad and being scared. Anyways in the meantime Justin Baldoni's partner Jamie Heath
00:06:57.460
posted on his Instagram that he was out with his wife, his son and Justin Baldoni was there
00:07:03.780
and they were all having a great time together. He was sneak filming his wife who was just dancing
00:07:08.180
happily around smiling what are you doing i'm just dancing at the park that's what normal people do
00:07:22.500
They all seem to be in a good place which made me really happy and especially considering that
00:07:45.720
Blake really wants us to feel sorry for her because she's really sad. Anyways let's get
00:07:50.620
to this response from the Wayfair parties. So as you know, TAG, the crisis management company,
00:07:56.840
responded also to the judge one more time because he left this door open for them to adjust things
00:08:03.460
in their summary judgments. And then they responded to the judge and the judge responded back saying,
00:08:08.820
sorry, not good enough. You're still in this lawsuit. He also gave the same opportunity to
00:08:14.160
the Wayfair parties and they have now responded as well. And I think Blake responded once back
00:08:19.360
and now they responded again so many is so much going on back and forth here but anyways this is
00:08:24.020
quite interesting because the motion that the wayfair parties filed is a motion on the pleadings
00:08:29.020
meaning that this is just motions on the law basically keep out all the evidence here and as
00:08:35.600
you know Blake has been trying really hard to apply California law to New York and here are
00:08:41.820
some interesting things because they're making a point here saying if the judge allows this this
00:08:47.380
time that a plaintiff can use California law in another state, that opens the door for all states
00:08:55.240
to be able to use California law in their states. Does the judge really want to be responsible for
00:09:01.480
a ruling like that? They're also saying that the only thing that is connecting this case to
00:09:07.660
California is Blake filing her CRD complaint. So she filed a complaint in California before she
0.68
00:09:16.320
filed her real lawsuit in New York. And that CRD complaint is the only action that actually
00:09:23.200
happened in California. And if she's claiming that that is the protected activity that she's
00:09:29.320
suing for, you know, to sue for retaliation, you actually have to have a protected activity first,
00:09:35.480
like her SH claims. And earlier, she said that the protective activity was that 17-point list.
00:09:45.260
So the only thing that actually happened in California is this CRD complaint.
00:09:49.860
And if that is her protected activity, then the reaction from the Wayfair parties, and TAG for that matter, only is to protect themselves.
00:09:59.100
They protected themselves against a lawsuit and came out with receipts.
00:10:03.380
Their lawyer came out with statements saying this is not true, and they're allowed to do that.
00:10:08.260
There's no law saying you're not allowed to defend yourself.
00:10:12.420
against a lawsuit. So it's going to be really interesting here to see what the judge actually
00:10:18.140
rules on this. And if he agrees with them, that means that basically the tag claim also falls
00:10:27.320
apart. Because how can tag actually be connected to a retaliation campaign when the retaliation
00:10:34.440
claim is tossed out? So there are some options here. He could toss it out completely and he can
00:10:40.860
also keep part of this claim to move forward. As you know, today is only three weeks until the
00:10:48.700
trial actually starts. So these things need to be sorted out pretty quickly. In three weeks,
00:10:54.440
they'll start the jury election, which could take one to two weeks to actually find the right people
00:11:00.200
that everyone agrees on. So all of these things and all of the evidence that's going to be allowed
00:11:06.160
at trial has to be decided upon before that. Tomorrow is another meeting, so we'll see what
00:11:12.480
happens then. There's a pre-trial meeting, so hopefully the judge will do some rulings before
00:11:18.540
that happens. Anyways, as I said, I found this amazing expert report that made me laugh so hard
00:11:24.700
and I want to share it with you. So this is Ashley Humphrey, one of Blake's eight experts. She has
00:11:30.140
eight experts. It's so insane. But anyways, this is my favorite one because this person is explaining
00:11:37.220
in her deposition how people were brainwashed mainly by something that Brian Friedman said in
00:11:43.980
a statement insinuating that Blake Lively is a liar and how people jumped on conclusions because
00:11:51.080
of that without having any critical thinking themselves, obviously, and how much is going to
00:11:57.200
cast Blake Lively to get her reputation back and also how she is going to do that. So I'm going to
00:12:03.740
read a little bit from her deposition so you understand how incredibly funny this is. So first
00:12:08.020
they're asking what statement issued by Brian Friedman were new negative associations. As you
00:12:13.640
know they're claiming that Brian Friedman, just developed on his attorney, is behind a smear
00:12:18.460
campaign as well because they need to prove that the smear campaign kept going after she filed her
00:12:25.100
lawsuit. And every human being with two brain cells would understand that the Wayfair parties
00:12:32.080
and TAG and everyone involved in the lawsuit would never go out and smear Blake Lively publicly
00:12:38.600
after they've been sued. So to make this smear campaign still ongoing, blaming her bad reputation
0.67
00:12:45.020
on everyone else but herself, they needed to find someone else to blame. So they blamed Brian
00:12:49.960
Friedman because he came out in a statement after she filed a lawsuit saying hey this is not true
00:12:55.820
and I believe she's lying and that's what this expert is really focusing on here. So they're
00:13:02.760
asking her what statement issued by Brian Friedman were new negative associations and she says
00:13:08.180
so the ones that I have one of them that I find in my analysis is the association with Miss Lively
00:13:13.740
as a liar that would lie in a government proceeding or documents and then they get in to talk about
00:13:20.100
how some people commented on this post where brian friedman was quoted saying that blake is a liar
00:13:28.140
and one of them he's called jari at line du and they're saying here got it okay in the middle a
00:13:36.220
poster named jari jari like du is having a conversation somehow i don't know how to
00:13:42.020
characterize this post but there are some people up there and this poster writes Blake Lively is
00:13:47.800
Amber Heard in the making. She was proven to be a pathological liar. Let's wait until it all comes
1.00
00:13:54.880
out. He is innocent until proven guilty. As of right now Blake Lively has been proven to be a
00:14:00.840
bully. Look at her past interviews. Again do you know who posted this? I'm sorry this is on Twitter
00:14:08.480
is that right and the person says this is from Twitter yes and then the attorney says okay do
00:14:14.040
you know who Yari is that's referred to at the top of this post and she says so I believe there
00:14:20.400
are two different posts the quotation that you read from I believe this is footnote blah blah
00:14:25.960
blah and then the attorney is asking did you speak with Yari and she says I did not did you ever reach
00:14:33.760
out to Yari in any way shape or form I did not she says did you ever reach out to paper crumbs
00:14:40.700
this is where I started laughing so hard no and the attorney says did I say that right paper
00:14:48.560
crumbs which is obviously another user who commented on this post from Brian Friedman
00:14:55.060
and she says yeah that's right and the attorney says what is defamatory about a poster saying
00:15:01.940
let's wait until it all comes out he is innocent until proven guilty and she says so I'm not a
00:15:09.040
lawyer I offer no opinion on in a if a statement is defamatory or not so what is your concern with
00:15:15.920
this statement that I just read and she says what do you mean concern well why is it referenced
00:15:23.160
well why is it referenced in your report and she said so this example and the others are used to
00:15:29.840
illustrate the reception of Mr. Friedman's statements by the public. Namely, do they believe
00:15:35.480
them? Do they endorse his statements? And the attorney says, but looking at this statement,
00:15:41.440
look at her past interviews. Isn't that indicative that this particular post is motivated
00:15:47.480
not by what necessarily Mr. Brian Friedman said, but Blake Lively's past actions?
00:15:54.000
the person says actually here says I believe that statement refers to a belief a prior belief that
00:16:01.900
makes her receptive to the statement that she's a liar attorney says okay but isn't it possible
00:16:08.600
that the prior belief came before Brian Friedman ever uttered a word about Blake Lively and she
00:16:15.180
says not necessarily not necessarily might also mean it is necessarily it could be either couldn't
00:16:22.740
it. And she says, so her statement is made directly underneath Mr. Friedman's statement. It would not
00:16:28.880
appear in the public sphere, but for his statement. So she's saying this person wouldn't have said
00:16:34.940
this if it wasn't for Brian Friedman having this statement. I mean, it's so dumb. So the attorney
0.99
00:16:40.280
continues. So if Brian Friedman speaks about Blake Lively and someone on X had formulated a previous
00:16:46.760
opinion about Blake Lively based upon her past interviews and now speaks up. You're attributing
00:16:54.920
her speaking up to Brian Freeman and not her past opinions and impressions of Blake Lively.
00:17:01.420
And she says, what I see in this particular post, although I offer many others and I have
00:17:07.480
aggregate analysis as well, but what I see in her post is expressing a prior belief that makes her
0.86
00:17:13.860
receptive to the idea that she's a pathological liar. And that particular term, as I've said,
00:17:21.780
did not show up in any measure in the public discourse about Ms. Lively until after Ms.
00:17:27.220
Friedman's statements. So she's basically saying no one thought Blake Lively was a liar. They only
00:17:32.740
thought she was a bully, a mean girl, and tone deaf. And now people start thinking she's a liar
0.99
00:17:40.080
because Brian Friedman said so, not because all these people all of a sudden saw all the evidence
00:17:47.520
coming from Justin Baldoni. No, no, no. It's only because Brian Friedman did an interview.
00:17:53.240
Then the attorney is mentioning all the access Blake herself has to outlets like the Hollywood
00:17:59.360
Reporter, Variety, Entertainment Weekly and People Magazine. Why didn't she reach out to them
00:18:06.200
with the truth because she obviously had access to all of this and the attorney's asking wouldn't
00:18:12.700
that have drawn more attention to this situation it ends with us Justin Baldoni Blake Lyley wouldn't
00:18:17.860
something like that draw more attention than potential and potentially more viewers than
00:18:23.240
those posts or those replies to other posts on x which makes totally sense and she's saying here
00:18:31.540
So I create a very precise count of exactly how many viewers viewed that or how many impressions
00:18:40.160
Those are accounts for in my accounts at the at issue statement.
00:18:44.560
And then they start talking about what an impression is.
00:18:47.240
And an impression doesn't necessarily mean that you actually saw the statement.
00:18:54.320
So it doesn't even mean that you read it or you noted what was actually in it.
00:19:00.680
And here comes my favorite part, because then the attorney is suggesting, why didn't she just use Ryan Reynolds to fix her reputation?
00:19:08.620
Because he has a ton of followers. Reynolds couldn't use their own.
00:19:12.560
And they're saying, why couldn't Reynolds use their own built-in media, which has hundreds of millions of followers, to institute this reputational repair that you claim is needed?
00:19:22.820
And she says, there is a reason for that. And what is it, says the attorney.
00:19:27.240
So as I discuss in my report, reputation is built largely by collective agreement,
00:19:35.980
Reputation isn't built by what you say about yourself.
00:19:40.920
So you need a third party to vouch for you to make it credible, the attorney is asking.
00:19:48.580
And then they're asking, is there a reason why Blake Lively couldn't use Taylor Swift,
00:19:52.960
a third party with a gazillion followers to speak for her or vote vouch for her and help restore
00:20:00.020
her reputation and she says yes why so in marketing practice you want to target the receptive audience
00:20:08.920
and in this case you'd want to target the audience who is receptive to Mr. Friedman's statements or
00:20:14.680
to Mr. Baldoni in general and so you would want to pick the audience that follows the sources
00:20:20.160
associated with Mr. Freeman and Mr. Baldoni and others.
00:20:23.880
So she's basically saying here that you need to target all the people
00:20:27.780
that agreed with Brian Friedman and Justin Baldoni.
00:20:32.820
And Ryan Reynolds and Taylor Swift wouldn't be able to reach those people.
00:20:37.580
so the hope would be that through this $14 to $26 million campaign,
00:20:43.760
you would sway those individuals who were previously swayed by Brian Friedman.
00:20:53.300
Then the attorney is asking something really interesting.
00:20:57.260
will Blake still need between 14 to 26 million reputational repair
00:21:11.680
So the purpose of the campaign to correct the reputational damage
00:21:15.200
is targeted at those who receive the initial statements
00:21:18.400
because of a number of factors related to digital media
00:21:21.840
and the way communication functions in the media system.
00:21:25.160
It's not at all a foregone conclusion that the target audience
00:21:31.280
So she's basically saying all those people who supported
00:21:33.920
Justin Baldoni and Brian Friedman that are actually invested in this
00:21:38.220
and so invested that they actually commented on things online,
00:21:47.340
and if she lost and they knew about it it wouldn't change their mind it would only change their mind
00:21:53.300
about her if they saw a post on social media saying that hey Blake Lively is a really nice
00:21:59.860
person and you should be her fan and you should go and watch her movies and you should also buy
00:22:04.700
her products again because it was all a big misunderstanding she's saying here the expert is
00:22:10.580
saying that it's not a foregone conclusion that they will trust the message and it's not all the
00:22:16.600
foregone conclusion that the verdict would repair the reputational harm. So why on earth did she sue
00:22:23.620
to begin with then if an expert is saying that this lawsuit will not repair her reputation? I mean
00:22:30.660
it's so crazy. She sued to get her reputation back but then if she wins the lawsuit that doesn't mean
0.84
00:22:37.200
that she'll get her reputation back. I mean try to make sense of this. I mean the promotion of it
00:22:41.680
ends with us and the backlash she received back then. That's not what ruined her career.
00:22:45.460
she got a hit she got a reputational hit at the time but it didn't ruin her career what ruined
00:22:52.040
her career is this lawsuit that she filed to get her reputation back and then this expert is saying
00:22:58.940
that even if she wins it it wouldn't get her let her get her reputation back and then she spent
1.00
00:23:05.340
until now that I've heard she spent about 50 million dollars on this lawsuit but then it
0.99
00:23:10.800
would only cost between 14 to 14 to 26 million to repair her damage and as you know the damage is
00:23:18.600
much worse right now than it was before she filed the lawsuit so doing a very simple calculation
0.98
00:23:23.960
here this is so stupid she should have spoken to this expert before she filed this lawsuit
0.99
00:23:29.540
that's for sure anyways i love how this expert is like well we can just brainwash these people back
1.00
00:23:35.100
to actually liking her again we just send out a new message they actually treat people like idiots
0.96
00:23:41.640
saying that you can just switch on and off this like button we just need to show you enough times
0.62
00:23:48.160
that Blake is a really good person that you should like and then you will automatically just like her
00:23:54.560
again yeah if she could buy back her reputation why didn't she just do that to begin with wouldn't
00:24:00.840
that have been much simpler? Because she has to believe what this expert is saying, because she
00:24:05.340
wants Justin Baldoni, obviously, to pay all of this money for her to get her reputation back.
00:24:11.180
So she must believe that this is true. So then it doesn't make any sense that she would spend
00:24:15.820
$50 million suing him if it only costs half of that to be popular again. Yeah, I mean, these
00:24:21.940
experts are hilarious. And if this ever goes to trial, it looks like it will at this point. Then
00:24:27.180
I can't wait to hear what they're going to say on that stand,
00:24:29.780
trying to defend this kind of humbug reports that they're put together.
00:24:34.460
Yeah, as I said in my episode with Magnus yesterday,
00:24:36.660
experts are paid between $50,000 to $150,000 to do these reports.
00:24:42.260
And on top of that, of course, then there's depositions.
00:24:45.460
And then if you have to actually be at trial, that costs even more money.
1.00
00:24:49.600
So the fact that she's just throwing millions and millions and millions of dollars at people
1.00
00:24:56.420
And at the same time, she's just fueling the public with more dislike.
1.00
00:25:00.940
So she's spending millions of dollars on funding her own smear campaign against herself at the moment.
00:25:13.480
I really appreciate all the tips you're sending me as well.
00:25:20.960
So please send me there or go to my Instagram and DM me there.
00:25:24.160
and by the way whenever I'm wearing something that's available in any stores I tag them in
00:25:29.260
the video something I also did with this shirt if you like it anyways if you haven't subscribed yet
00:25:33.760
please do hit the notification bell so you never miss an episode of Flawsome Talk and I'll see you soon