Movies

Pro-Baldoni YouTuber targeted by Blake Lively in ‘invasive’ subpoena reveals ironic financial link to Ryan Reynolds

BBG News

A lesser-known YouTube personality responded to being served a subpoena for financial records by Blake Lively with a court document filing. In this response, she accused Lively of using “aggressive and suspicious” methods, and formally lodged a grievance against Lively’s legal representative.

37-year-old Lively asserts consistently in her continuing court case that Justin Baldoni, her former co-star, compensated influencers to tarnish her reputation after the release of the 2024 domestic violence movie “It Ends With Us.

However, surprisingly, a supporter of Baldoni on YouTube, Kassidy O’Connell, claims that the funds she’s received are solely from advertisements appearing in her videos featuring Ryan Reynolds, Lively’s spouse.

In a recent filing, O’Connell stated that Ms. Lively continues to dispute the authenticity of the criticism she receives online, and in an attempt to improve her tarnished reputation, she has lashed out at content creators on social media, which is likely to worsen the situation even further. [This version attempts to simplify the original text by making it more straightforward and easier to understand while maintaining its essence.]

As a devoted follower, I found myself at the center of a buzzing online discussion recently. Actress Lively, from It Ends With Us, ignited a stir on social media when she initiated a legal request earlier this month. This request targeted Google, demanding access to the financial and personal records of 16 YouTube users, and also aimed at another 20 users on a social media platform X.

According to some content creators, they suspect Lively is attempting to expose a theory that Baldoni paid them to generate unfavorable content about her, an allegation they firmly reject.

As an ardent admirer, I find myself compelled to express my thoughts about the recent turn of events involving Kassidy O’Connell, who goes by this pen name. In a passionate response, she has requested the court to revoke her subpoena, and has leveled accusations against Ryan Reynolds for what she perceives as a ‘desperate and paranoid’ endeavor to substantiate an ‘imaginary smear campaign’. This is quite intriguing!

On Wednesday, without the assistance of a lawyer, O’Connell – who boasts approximately 16,000 subscribers on her YouTube channel – submitted her first response. She explained that she was rushing to comply with strict legal deadlines before securing legal representation.

In her 11-page document aimed at dismissing the Google subpoena, she severely criticized Lively, and this submission was made concurrently with a duplicate of her California State Bar grievance directed at Lively’s lawyer, Esra Hudson.

She stated clearly that no outside entity is allowed to supplement a YouTuber’s regular income on a monthly basis, thus debunking the notion that creators receive extra payments from Baldoni.

‘AdSense pays us based on the ads shown on our channel. Interestingly, Mint Mobile frequently places ads on my channel that feature their spokesperson, Ryan Reynolds. So, if I have received any payment directly or indirectly from anyone related to this situation, it would be Ryan Reynolds.’

In Reynolds’ ads for Mint Mobile, he previously held an estimated $300 million share of the business, but this ownership ended in 2023.

The subpoena issued to Google requests the following information about O’Connell: her residential address, banking details, subscription records, as well as comprehensive details regarding her YouTube account.

In her submission, O’Connell contended that it constituted an unjustified breach of privacy, citing Lively’s past legal documents where she upheld her right to privacy when Baldoni attempted to access her information.

In his writing, O’Connell points out that Ms. Lively presents a strong case suggesting that every person has the constitutional guarantee for the confidentiality of their financial details.

Ms. Lively seems aware of the fundamental aspects of privacy rights that individuals deserve, even though she tries to infringe upon the privacy rights that others also hold.

The YouTube content creator, specializing in analyzing court records related to high-profile celebrity cases and criminal trials, expressed concern that actress Blake Lively might disclose her personal information, potentially placing her at risk, as she had previously experienced stalking and sexual assault.

The attorneys representing the plaintiffs have consistently failed to appropriately redact information in their court filings, which has unintentionally disclosed the home addresses of each Wayfarer defendant, as stated by O’Connell.

As an ardent follower, I can’t help but express my deep concern over the escalating events surrounding this legal case. The aftermath has been nothing short of alarming, with all defendants, including several women, receiving death threats. This isn’t just about the lawsuit; it’s extended to their personal lives, with threats of kidnapping and harm levied against a wife and daughter who have no connection to the lawsuit.

The incident doesn’t stop there. An act of arson occurred, and the perpetrator is now behind bars. The revelation of two separate medical conditions has only increased the risk of sensitive information being exposed and potentially causing harm to anyone associated with this lawsuit. It’s a chilling reminder of the far-reaching consequences that can stem from a simple legal dispute.

She portrays herself as a champion for women’s rights, promising unwavering advocacy on our behalf. Yet, her guidance and the Court’s aid appear to inflict enduring damage upon one woman after another.

In a similar vein to many others who were victimized by her, I maintain that I am innocent and undeserving of having my constitutional rights unjustly taken away to fulfill her personal desires.

In a statement, O’Connell described Lively’s subpoenas as both abusive and broad, mentioning that she issued approximately 60 third-party subpoenas and plans to file even more based on court records.

The energetic YouTube personality asserted that there was an error in the process followed by Lively’s law firm, Manatt, Phelops & Phillips, which renders their subpoena null and void.

According to O’Connell, clerks at the Northern California federal court informed her that a subpoena directed towards Google’s Bay Area headquarters in California was issued from New York, not Northern California. However, she referenced legal precedents arguing that for a subpoena to be considered valid, it should pass through the nearest court.

Additionally, it was pointed out that the subpoena for Lively classified Reynolds as a ‘defendant’ in the case, but a judge had previously released him from further participation in the legal proceedings.

In his observations, O’Connell pointed out the questionable aspects of a grievance leveled against attorney Esra Hudson of Manatt, regarding the supposedly inappropriate use of a subpoena submitted to the California State Bar.

In her complaint, the YouTuber stated that her actions breached several professional conduct rules in California and ignored the freedom of speech guarantees as protected by the First Amendment.

As a die-hard admirer, I can’t help but express my dismay when I learned about the denial, on no less than three occasions, from Ms. Hudson’s office regarding the issuance of a subpoena. This raises profound doubts in me, as it should anyone who values professional integrity and truthfulness, under the rules that govern such conduct.

Abusing legal procedures for the purpose of prolonging lawsuits, silencing opponents, and unlawfully acquiring information from non-involved parties is a grave violation of professional conduct that erodes both ethical standards in law and safeguards established by the constitution.

In response to her original filing, Judge Lewis Liman issued an order on Wednesday afternoon requiring that O’Connell resubmit her case using her real name, or provide further legal justifications for keeping her identity confidential.

The court will only consider a motion to dismiss if it is made publicly or if there is a separate request for permission to proceed without revealing one’s identity, along with an explanation as to why keeping the identity hidden is more important than disclosing information and any potential harm it may cause to the other party. This was stated in Liman’s order.

On Friday, O’Connell resubmitted her paperwork, now bearing the signature of ‘Ni Cai’, who holds the position of Manager at Kassidy O’Connell, LLC.

In my exploration of the situation, I found evidence supporting Lively’s claim that Baldoni enlisted influencers to tarnish her image. This conviction stemmed from correspondence between myself and my legal team regarding Jed Wallace, a social media strategist whom Baldoni’s public relations team employed.

Melissa Nathan from Baldoni PR texted her colleagues about a proposal by Wallace. The proposal included a three-month online campaign priced at $175,000 for initiating discussions on various theories and completely handling social media account take downs. Additionally, there was a monthly service of $25,000 for creating social media fan engagement, interacting with negative accounts to alter the narrative and maintain focus.

‘All of this will be most importantly untraceable,’ Nathan added in the August 6 2024 text.

However, on Wednesday, Judge Liman removed Wallace from the case, which dealt a significant setback to Lively’s allegations about the supposed smear campaign.

The judge’s summary of Wallace’s points suggests that the online researcher discovered an organic backing for Baldoni on social media, while there was a general preference against Lively.

In my role as a lifestyle expert, I can appreciate Wallace’s insights into the concept of ‘social combat’ or ‘manipulation strategies’, yet he didn’t offer such specific services tied to ‘It Ends With Us’, ‘Wayfarer’, ‘Baldoni’, ‘Lively’, or ‘Reynolds’. This is what Liman penned down.

Wallace explains that he primarily observed and analyzed the social media landscape without actively participating or influencing it.

Judge Liman decided that Wallace couldn’t be part of the New York case anymore since the court lacked authority over him. Furthermore, Judge Liman indicated that Lively was at liberty to initiate a separate lawsuit against the consultant in Texas, where he resides.

It seems that Lively’s legal team has issued a subpoena to social media platform X, requesting information from approximately 20 content creators as well.

One source, titled ‘The Spiritual Shift’, stated on July 17th that they got an email from X stating they were served with a legal document dated July 3, 2025, asking for details about their X account.

The X user, who says they are a licensed attorney, attached an apparent screenshot of the email.

‘As a legally qualified lawyer and casual blogger, I began delving into this case from late December 2024 through early January 2025 as it was significant and piqued my curiosity. This is what The Spiritual Shift shared in their July 17 entry.’

I don’t earn money through advertisements, sponsorships, or donations. I currently have approximately 2,400 followers, but I haven’t earned any money yet.

The subpoena notifies me that they’re trying to get access to my personal X account details, apparently as a result of my boldness in expressing the truth publicly, critically, and honestly regarding them and their legal case.

’20 users were named in my copy of the subpoena,’ the X user added.

‘This is an extreme example of unfairness that favors the privileged. It’s essentially a fishing trip, a calculated effort by the rich and influential to frighten, stifle, and muzzle opposition. Instead of being open inquiry, it’s a form of intimidation cloaked as legal action.’

A Lively spokesperson did not respond to DailyMail.com’s request for comment.

Read More

2025-07-22 18:50

Previous post Whale Wars: Hoskinson’s Cheeky Comeback in Cardano’s Splashy Showdown! 🐋💥
Next post BNB Hoarders: $90M & Counting! 🤑