Flaawsome Talk with Kjersti Flaa - She NEVER Expected This !!

00:00:00.000 Rake Lively is so sad and so scared right now.

00:00:04.340 She is a real victim and she wants your sympathy.

00:00:12.840 Hi and welcome to Falsam Talk.

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

00:00:27.260 that are looming right now.

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

00:03:09.640 and relationship entirely.

00:03:12.120 As you know, it seems like Ryan Reynolds is spending

00:03:14.880 basically all his time in the UK these days.

00:03:18.500 He keeps posting from Wrexham Games,

00:03:21.700 also when he's a commentator on Wrexham Games,

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

00:04:10.020 that are not related to Wrexham.

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

00:07:21.620 oh really yeah

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.

00:09:42.420 But that didn't happen in California.

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

00:18:37.360 the at issue statement received.

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.

00:18:51.280 It was just shown to you in the algorithms.

00:18:54.320 So it doesn't even mean that you read it or you noted what was actually in it.

00:18:58.500 It's just that it's been shown to you.

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,

00:19:32.820 by what people say about you, about you.

00:19:35.980 Reputation isn't built by what you say about yourself.

00:19:39.020 It's built.

00:19:40.920 So you need a third party to vouch for you to make it credible, the attorney is asking.

00:19:45.920 That's one way to put it, yes.

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.

00:20:36.480 And then the attorney is asking,

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.

00:20:48.940 Yes, that's congruent with what I'm saying.

00:20:53.300 Then the attorney is asking something really interesting.

00:20:55.460 He's saying that,

00:20:57.260 will Blake still need between 14 to 26 million reputational repair

00:21:03.080 despite a jury verdict in her favor?

00:21:06.740 And the expert is saying that's correct.

00:21:09.720 And why is that?

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

00:21:28.620 will receive that message of the verdict.

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,

00:21:41.820 they wouldn't be bothered to inform themselves

00:21:44.280 if she actually won or lost the lawsuit.

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

00:24:54.320 to help her with this. 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.

00:25:08.960 Anyways, that's it from you guys.

00:25:10.540 I hope you enjoyed this episode.

00:25:11.860 Thank you so much for watching.

00:25:13.480 I really appreciate all the tips you're sending me as well.

00:25:16.020 Please keep them coming.

00:25:17.540 My email is flawsometalk at gmail.com.

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

00:25:39.200 bye

Flaawsome Talk with Kjersti Flaa - April 28, 2026

She NEVER Expected This !!

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript