Onision/Damages
Defamation · Deplatforming · Retaliation · Damages
Onision and Lucas: Defamation and Coordinated Harm
A chronological record of accusations, threats, media amplification, platform removals, institutional complaints, and litigation pressure directed at Onision and Lucas. Each claim is compared with contemporaneous messages, official findings, platform notices, financial records, and later contradictions documenting motive, credibility failures, and measurable harm.
Connected evidence: Documented Damages · Sarah’s Public Campaign · Regina’s Public Campaign · Sarah’s Credibility Record · Police Findings · Media Conduct · Litigation Conduct
August 27, 2019: Sarah Publicly States She Wishes For Violence To Be Inflicted on Onision By Her Own Hands
During her August 27, 2019 public livestream, Sarah stated that she had previously wrestled and challenged Onision to a boxing match.
Sarah stated:
- “I used to wrestle. I challenge Onision to a boxing match.”
The challenge occurred near the end of an approximately ninety-minute broadcast in which Sarah publicly discussed Onision, Lucas, their sexual history, and private events involving the household.
A Public Physical Challenge, Not an Expression of Fear
Sarah did not present herself as too frightened to confront Onision.
She publicly:
- named him directly
- challenged him to a physical contest
- invoked her prior wrestling experience
- made the challenge before a live audience
- continued publicly mocking and confronting him
- showed no concern that he could prevent her from speaking
The statement placed Sarah in the role of challenger and Onision in the role of the person being challenged.
That posture materially conflicts with the later portrayal that Sarah remained psychologically dominated by Onision or too afraid to oppose him.
Consistent With Sarah’s Surrounding Public Conduct
The boxing challenge was not an isolated moment.
During the same public campaign, Sarah:
- portrayed Onision as afraid of her
- wrote “lol be mad”
- challenged him to “say whatever” he wanted
- told him to “bring it”
- publicly discussed their sexual relationship
- collaborated with Ayalla Karina
- participated in jokes about having sex with Onision
- conducted an extended public “tell-all”
- described herself as free to “say whatever I want”
The boxing challenge continued the same confident and confrontational pattern.
Sarah was not attempting to avoid Onision or remove herself from public conflict. She was repeatedly provoking, challenging, and escalating it.
Conflict With the Claimed-Damages Narrative
Sarah later alleged severe psychological harm, fear, coercion, intimidation, and emotional control.
Her conduct on August 27, 2019 shows that, at that time, she was willing to publicly confront Onision and challenge him physically before an audience.
The exhibit is relevant because Sarah’s own behavior showed:
- confidence in opposing Onision
- willingness to provoke a response
- no visible hesitation about direct confrontation
- enjoyment of the public conflict
- active participation in escalating the controversy
The challenge does not merely show that Sarah was willing to discuss Onision.
It shows her publicly presenting herself as prepared to meet him in a physical competition.
Relevance to Harm Caused to Onision
The public challenge also contributed to the atmosphere of hostility surrounding Onision.
Sarah’s campaign was not limited to describing past events. It included:
- personal insults
- public taunting
- invitations to continued conflict
- efforts to embarrass Onision
- portrayals of him as weak or afraid
- a direct public boxing challenge
- wishing Onision's cancer, the same cancer that killed his grandfather, return to Onision after he survived it twice
This conduct encouraged audiences to treat the dispute as entertainment and confrontation rather than a private matter.
It should therefore be considered both when evaluating Sarah’s claimed fear and when documenting the public hostility directed toward Onision.
Source
Sarah’s August 27, 2019 YouNow livestream, approximately 01:27:17–01:27:39.
Original account: https://www.younow.com/sarahbear8500
Preserved YouTube upload: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc2UDXaZzDk
Related evidence:
- Sarah’s public “tell-all” livestream
- Sarah portrays Onision as afraid of her
- Sarah: Defamation Claims
2019: Sarah Celebrates Patreon Removing Onision’s Page and Income During Her Deplatform Campaign With Regina Targeting Onision's Families' Livelihood
In 2019, Sarah announced that Patreon had removed Onision’s page:
- “I just got off work and found out @Patreon took down onision’s page and I’m like..”
She attached an excited reaction GIF and followed it with:
- “HAHAHAHA”
What the Evidence Establishes
Sarah was not reluctantly participating in the controversy or attempting to avoid further harm.
She openly celebrated a platform decision that eliminated an income source for Onision, Lucas, and their family. The post documents:
- hostility toward Onision
- satisfaction at his financial loss
- support for his deplatforming
- active participation in the campaign against him
- confidence rather than fear or intimidation
The exhibit is relevant to the financial damage caused during the accusation campaign and Sarah’s motive and state of mind while that damage occurred.
Source
Sarah’s public Twitter posts from 2019.
Original account: https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
Archived account captures: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
Related evidence:
September 10–12, 2019: Sarah Falsely Claims Onision and Lucas Had Sex With Her at Their “First Chance” After She Turned 18
On September 10, 2019, Sarah retweeted a post stating:
- “self care is officially over we’re doing cocaine now”
Two days later, Sarah publicly accused Onision and Lucas:
- “You took me in as a child who looked up to you guys and completely fucked me up in the head for YEARS.”
She then made the central false statement:
- “Only to fuck me the first chance you got after I turned 18.”
Sarah’s own earlier statements, the documented travel chronology, her later interview, and the complaint itself contradict that claim.
The Documented Timeline
Sarah turned 18 in August 2018.
The relevant chronology is:
- Sarah became an adult in August 2018
- On October 1, 2018, Sarah stated that Onision still firmly opposed any relationship between her and Lucas
- Sarah returned for another visit around Christmas 2018
- During that visit, Sarah forced a kiss on Lucas jumped back and said "OH FUCK" then ran down stairs and asked if she could Hug Onision. Neither Lucas nor Onision appreciated Sarah doing this, and Sarah went on a rant about being rejected over and over again by them later via text.
- Sarah returned again in January 2019
- The first sexual activity described by Sarah occurred on January 17, 2019, as the product of her sexually extorting them after years of them rejecting her.
This was not sex at the “first chance” after Sarah turned 18.
Months passed. Sarah made multiple visits. Onision continued opposing the relationship right after she turned 18, and Lucas continued rejecting Sarah’s romantic advances. It's documented on this site.
Sarah Previously Admitted the Rejection Continued After Adulthood
On October 1, 2018, Sarah privately stated:
- “I have known for two years it was out of the question not just when I was 16/17 but even after I was 18.”
She then directly described Onision’s position:
- “Greg made it painfully clear multiple times that pigs would fly before I would ever come close to having a chance with you even after my 18th birthday.”
Sarah also explained:
- “I stayed because you’re my best friend and I love you.”
These statements establish that:
- Sarah wanted a relationship with Lucas
- the romantic interest originated with Sarah
- Lucas did not reciprocate that interest
- Onision repeatedly opposed the possibility
- the opposition continued after Sarah became an adult
- Sarah understood months after her birthday that she still had no chance
Sarah’s September 2019 accusation erased this entire history.
Lucas Again Rejected Sarah During the Christmas Visit
Sarah returned to the household around Christmas 2018.
During that visit, Sarah initiated a kiss with Lucas. Lucas did not reciprocate it.
That rejection occurred approximately four months after Sarah became an adult.
It provides another direct contradiction to the claim that Onision and Lucas were waiting to have sex with her at the first available opportunity.
The record instead shows:
- Sarah pursuing Lucas
- Sarah initiating romantic contact
- Lucas refusing to reciprocate
- Onision having already made clear that a relationship would not happen
- no sexual relationship beginning during the Christmas visit
If Onision and Lucas had been waiting for Sarah to become an adult, they would not have continued rejecting her for months after she did.
Sarah Previously Denied That Anyone Waited for Her Birthday
In January 2019, Sarah directly mocked the exact narrative she later adopted.
She told Lucas:
- “No you didn’t plan to lay in wait until my 18 birthday then kidnap me to your sex dungeon.”
She continued:
- “Literally none of us knew this was going to happen”
Sarah therefore previously established:
- no one planned a sexual relationship while she was a minor
- no one was waiting for her eighteenth birthday
- the later relationship was unexpected
- the alleged grooming interpretation was false
Sarah Admitted the First Sexual Contact Was January 17, 2019
Sarah later stated in her October 30, 2019 interview that Onision had never done anything sexual with her before January 17, 2019.
She explained that she and Onision had not even kissed before the first sexual encounter.
The filed evidence summarizes Sarah’s admission:
- “they didn’t even kiss until the first time they had sex which Sarah admits was January 17 of 2019.”
That was more than five months after Sarah became an adult.
The complaint follows the same basic timing. It alleges that Sarah arrived in Washington on January, 2019 and identifies January 17 as the first of two sexual encounters for that trip. It does not allege that Onision and Lucas had intercourse with Sarah immediately after her August birthday.
The complaint therefore contradicts Sarah’s September tweet as well.
Sarah’s Own Accounts Destroy the “First Chance” Claim
Sarah’s September statement cannot be reconciled with her other accounts.
Her own evidence establishes:
- she turned 18 in August 2018
- Onision still rejected the relationship in October
- Lucas did not reciprocate Sarah’s kiss during the Christmas visit
- Sarah denied anyone had waited for her birthday
- Sarah said nobody expected the relationship to occur
- no sexual activity occurred until January 17, 2019
- Sarah later told police that she willingly participated in the January activity
The phrase:
- “the first chance you got”
was not an innocent simplification.
That false framing was central to publicly portraying Onision and Lucas as groomers, an incredibly convenient narrative shift after Sarah was rejected, in part, for demanding Onision impregnate her in July 2019, the second day into her trip to visit Onision alone in his home.
The Cocaine Retweet Corroborates Sarah’s Other Drug Admissions
Immediately before publishing the false accusation, Sarah amplified a post stating:
- “self care is officially over we’re doing cocaine now”
This followed Sarah’s own direct public admission:
- “I did cocaine. Use it against me.”
Sarah also publicly admitted selling prescription medication.
The record therefore includes:
- Sarah directly admitting cocaine use
- Sarah inviting Onision to use the admission against her
- Sarah amplifying a post celebrating cocaine use
- Sarah admitting that she sold prescription medication
- Sarah later claiming that Onision falsely portrayed her as someone involved in unlawful conduct
Sarah created the factual record herself.
Onision did not invent her drug admissions. He repeated conduct Sarah had publicly admitted and openly invited him to discuss.
The September Narrative Was a Complete Reversal
Before the smear campaign, Sarah said:
- Onision repeatedly rejected the possibility of a relationship
- Lucas did not share her romantic feelings
- the rejection continued after she turned 18
- nobody waited for her birthday
- nobody planned the relationship
- nothing sexual occurred while she was a minor
- she willingly participated in the later adult activity
During the campaign, Sarah replaced that chronology with:
- “Only to fuck me the first chance you got after I turned 18.”
That was false according to Sarah’s own record.
It removed every fact that disproved grooming and replaced them with a sentence calculated to make Onision and Lucas appear as though they had spent years waiting to sexually exploit a child despite the fact that such a claim contradicts nearly ever single prior statement by all parties who experienced all events first hand.
Source
Sarah’s Twitter activity dated September 10 and September 12, 2019.
Original account: https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
Archived account captures: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
Related evidence:
- Sarah admits Onision continued rejecting the relationship after adulthood
- Sarah denies anyone waited for her birthday
- Sarah identifies January 17, 2019 as the first sexual contact
- Sarah directly admits cocaine use
September 14, 2019: Sarah Publicly Labels Lucas a “Pedophile” Despite Repeatedly Denying Underage Sexual Contact
On September 14, 2019, Sarah publicly stated:
- “Kai is a pedophile.”
Sarah offered no diagnosis, evidence, or identified prepubescent victim supporting that accusation.
In another post, she wrote:
- “you know who the only person that ever made greg apologize for bullying me when I was 16 was? Billie.”
The Direct Contradiction
Sarah’s own prior and later statements establish that:
- neither Lucas nor Onision kissed her while she was underage
- no sexual contact occurred with either person while she was underage
- nobody planned to wait for her eighteenth birthday
- Onision continued rejecting the possibility of a relationship after she became an adult
- Lucas rejected Sarah’s romantic advance even when she was an adult during the December 2018 visit
- the first alleged sexual encounter occurred on January 17, 2019
- Sarah later described the adult sexual activity to police as willing or consensual with no sexual contact prior to January 2019
Her second post creates an additional contradiction. Sarah described Onision’s conduct toward her at 16 as bullying and hostility—not affection, courtship, or sexual pursuit. No grooming.
Factually, Pedophilia concerns sexual interest in prepubescent children. Sarah was not prepubescent during any part of the alleged history, and her own account places all sexual contact after adulthood.
The accusation was therefore not a factual description of Sarah’s own documented timeline. It was an inflammatory public label that contradicted her own repeated statements and damaged Lucas and Onision by associating them with sexual attraction to children which is an accusation often extending beyond any possible repair.
Source
Sarah’s public Twitter posts dated September 14, 2019.
Original account: https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
Archived account captures: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
Related evidence:
- Sarah denies underage kissing
- Sarah denies anyone waited for adulthood
- Sarah identifies the first sexual contact
- Sarah’s statements to law enforcement
September 28, 2019: Twitter User Threatens to End Onision
On September 28, 2019, Twitter user hahan0bye publicly replied to Onision:
- You're just scared bc I'm gonna end you huh Greg, at onision
A Direct Threat, Not Criticism
This message is not commentary, satire, or an expression of disagreement with Onision's public statements. The phrase "I'm gonna end you" is a direct statement of intent to cause harm.
The tweet received 39 likes and was left publicly visible for some time, demonstrating that threats of this nature toward Onision have been normalized and even socially rewarded within segments of his online audience rather than condemned or reported.
Pattern of Normalized Threats
This tweet is one documented example within a broader pattern in which individuals opposing Onision and Lucas have felt emboldened to threaten violence publicly, without meaningful platform intervention or accountability. The willingness of an account to threaten to end a private citizen, and the public engagement that message received, reflects the hostile environment Onision and Lucas have had to endure for years, an environment fueled in part by the unsubstantiated and since-debunked allegations originating from Sarah and Regina.
Legal Significance
Under RCW 9A.46.020, a statement communicating intent to cause bodily injury, made in a manner that places the recipient in reasonable fear the threat will be carried out, constitutes criminal harassment under Washington law. Under 18 U.S.C. 875(c), transmitting a threat to injure another person through interstate communication, including social media, is a federal offense. This tweet's plain language and its public, targeted delivery to Onision's account satisfy the threatening-communication elements recognized under both statutes.
Source
Twitter (now X) post by hahan0bye, dated September 28, 2019. Captured using screen capture software on a computer.
Related Evidence
- Documented Damage to Onision and Lucas
- Chris Hansen's Harassment Campaign
- Anonymous Gene Criminal Record
- RCW 9A.46.020 - Washington Criminal Harassment
- 18 U.S.C. 875 - Interstate Communication of Threats
November 1, 2019: CPS Formally Classifies Another Allegation Against Onision as “Unfounded”
On November 1, 2019, Washington’s Department of Children, Youth, and Families notified Onision that CPS had completed an investigation arising from a report received on or about September 12, 2019.
The alleged conduct was:
- “Negligent treatment or maltreatment”
CPS’s formal finding was:
- “Unfounded.”
Another Accusation Fails Government Investigation
This report arose during the public accusation campaign amplified by Sarah, Regina, and their associates.
Despite the online narrative portraying Onision and Lucas as dangerous parents and abusers, CPS investigated and did not substantiate the allegation.
The document establishes:
- CPS completed an actual investigation
- the alleged abuse or neglect was not substantiated
- the allegation received the formal classification “Unfounded”
- Onision and Lucas were forced to endure government scrutiny while the public campaign continued
- the investigation became another source of stress, reputational damage, and interference with their family
The accusation campaign did not remain online. It repeatedly invaded the family’s home through reports to police, CPS, and other government agencies—while official investigations repeatedly failed to establish the alleged wrongdoing.
Source
Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families CPS determination letter dated November 1, 2019.
The underlying report was received on or about September 12, 2019.
Related evidence: Onision: Defamation
September–October 2019: Twitter Restricts and Later Suspends Regina’s Alternate Account After Her Death-Wish Post Targeting Onision
On September 28, 2019, Regina used her alternate Twitter account, @hahabyeee, to tell Onision:
“Hi @Onision pls stop existing forever thank u”
Twitter subsequently restricted the account for violating its rules. The enforcement notice displayed Regina’s post beneath Twitter’s rule against:
“promoting or encouraging suicide or self-harm.”
Regina publicly reacted to the enforcement by writing:
“What the fuck man”
Rather than recognizing that publicly telling another human being to stop existing violated basic platform rules, Regina expressed outrage that Twitter penalized her bloodthirsty conduct. Regina’s alternate account was later displayed with the notice:
“Account suspended”
Twitter further stated:
“Twitter suspends accounts which violate the Twitter Rules”
What the record directly shows
- Regina created and used an alternate account and targeted Onision.
- Regina directly told Onision to “stop existing forever.”
- Twitter identified the post under its suicide and self-harm policy.
- Twitter restricted Regina’s account.
- Regina responded with anger and confusion instead of accepting responsibility.
- Regina’s alternate account was later displayed as suspended for violating Twitter’s rules.
- Regina’s own misconduct resulted in platform enforcement against her.
- Regina was publicly portraying Onision as dangerous while her own conduct triggered enforcement under Twitter’s safety rules.
- Meanwhile Onision's account remains active to this date, despite Regina & Sarah falsely characterizing him.
Damage to Onision
Regina was not simply criticizing Onision, a stranger to her.
She was directly targeting him with:
- public death wishes,
- repeated insults,
- taunts about emotional suffering,
- attacks involving his livelihood and family,
- and continued harassment after Onision blocked her.
Twitter’s enforcement confirms that Regina’s conduct crossed the platform’s rules.
The sequence is direct:
- Onision blocked Regina.
- Regina continued targeting him.
- Regina wished death on Onision publicly and directly.
- Twitter restricted the account over that post.
- Regina publicly complained about being penalized for wishing death on people.
- The alternate account was later suspended.
Regina publicly characterized Onision as the monster while she was the person using Twitter to wish permanent nonexistence on another human being and receiving platform discipline for it.
Why it matters
The enforcement record independently supports the documented pattern of harassment directed at Onision.
Regina’s campaign was not limited to allegations or demands for lawful accountability. She personally attacked Onision, wished death upon him, evaded his attempt to block her by using another account, and continued until Twitter intervened.
The attached record shows Twitter disciplining Regina’s conduct while Regina simultaneously attempted to convince the public that Onision was the dangerous party.
Her own posts and Twitter’s resulting enforcement expose the malicious and abusive nature of the campaign that caused Onision substantial reputational, emotional, personal, and professional harm.
Source
September 28, 2019 post from Regina Alonso’s alternate Twitter account, @hahabyeee.
October 3, 2019 Twitter post by Regina Alonso displaying the platform’s restriction notice.
Twitter profile notice showing @hahabyeee as suspended.
September 17–October 6, 2019: Regina Falsely Accuses Lucas, Who Rejected Her Repeatedly, Body-Shames Him, and Attacks Anyone Who Questions Sarah’s Narrative
On September 17, 2019, Regina, the woman who complained Lucas refused to fly her up when she was a minor, published a false accusation of criminal sexual misconduct against Lucas:
“#coolguykai is a pedophile”
Regina, the woman who confessed her friendship with Lucas fell apart due to her being a drug addict, supplied no evidence in the post. She presented the accusation as a fact to her public audience. The tweet received 281 likes and 40 retweets, substantially expanding its reach.
On October 6, 2019, another Twitter user criticized Sarah and people supporting what the user called her “delusions.”
Regina responded:
“You're a fucking disgusting pathetic human being. And you support pedophiles too? Fucking cunt.”
Rather than answer the criticism with evidence, Regina accused the speaker of supporting pedophiles and directed degrading abuse at them.
On October 4, 2019, Regina also attacked Lucas’s physical appearance:
“Yknow how once you see someone's true self they look ugly as fuck no matter how attractive you found them to begin with.....? Yeah Kai that's your ugly ass.”
Regina then directly tagged Lucas’s account.
The body-shaming post received 295 likes, 22 retweets, and three quote tweets.
What the record directly shows
Regina’s posts establish that:
- Regina publicly falsely labeled Lucas a “pedophile.”
- Regina presented the accusation as fact without supplying evidence in the post.
- The accusation was widely republished through likes and retweets.
- Regina attacked a person who questioned Sarah’s narrative.
- Regina accused that critic of supporting pedophiles rather than addressing the criticism with evidence.
- Regina used degrading and gendered abuse against the critic.
- Regina publicly body-shamed Lucas and directly tagged him.
- The personal attack against Lucas received hundreds of public engagements.
- Regina’s campaign extended beyond stating allegations and included ridicule, humiliation, name-calling, and attacks against dissenters.
- Regina used the accusation of pedophilia as both a direct attack on Lucas and a weapon against anyone who questioned her side’s narrative.
Defamation and damages significance
Calling a person a “pedophile” is not merely an expression of dislike. It is a direct false accusation. Regina published that accusation to a substantial public audience and received hundreds of engagements. Each retweet further distributed the accusation and increased the resulting reputational harm to Lucas.
Her surrounding conduct is relevant to intent and malice.
Regina did not limit herself to reporting alleged facts or requesting an investigation. She simultaneously:
- falsely labeled Lucas a pedophile,
- attacked his physical appearance,
- publicly humiliated him,
- accused anyone questioning their narrative of supporting pedophiles,
- and used abusive language to discourage disagreement.
The October 6 post shows how the accusation was enforced socially. Anyone questioning Sarah’s public account could be publicly branded as a supporter of pedophiles and subjected to abuse. This is the same woman, Discovery + & Chris Hansen, decided to feature on an internationally distributed TV show, compensating with free marketing for her payment profiles, her NSFW site & allegedly even payment in exchange for her furthering her smear campaign of Lucas, the person who rejected her, and Onision, the man who is, to this day, a stranger to Regina Alonso.
The October 4 post further shows that Regina’s objective extended beyond any claimed pursuit of accountability. Calling Lucas an “ugly ass” contributed no evidence and addressed no disputed event. It served only to ridicule and degrade him before Regina’s audience.
Together, the posts document a coordinated pattern of reputational attack:
- Regina published an extreme false criminal accusation against Lucas.
- The accusation received substantial public circulation.
- Regina personally humiliated Lucas through unrelated attacks on his appearance.
- Regina attacked and stigmatized people who questioned the narrative.
- The campaign increased public hostility toward Lucas while discouraging scrutiny of the accusation itself.
This evidence supports the documented damages to Lucas’s reputation, dignity, emotional well-being, and ability to participate online without being subjected to repeated criminal labeling and organized public abuse.
Source
September 17, October 4, and October 6, 2019 Twitter posts by Regina Alonso from the account @hahan0bye.
October 2019–February 2021: Regina Celebrates Onision’s Distress, Recruits Chris Hansen to Target Lucas, and Repeatedly Publishes “Pedophile” Accusations
On October 16, 2019, Regina publicly celebrated Onision’s apparent emotional distress.
Regina wrote:
“Greg is losing his shit and I'm living for it”
The post received approximately 450 likes and 22 retweets, widely circulating Regina’s expressed enjoyment of Onision’s suffering.
During the same month, Regina attempted to recruit journalist Chris Hansen into the campaign against Lucas.
Regina publicly wrote:
“@chrishansen let's deep dive into @onision's spouse kai/@p00dleXboy since he is also a predator as well”
She separately demanded:
“Please also cover Onision's spouse, Kai/@p00dleXboy / laineybot. He is also just as much of a predator”
Regina also publicly identified what she claimed was Lucas’s private account:
“That's Kai's priv account”
Regina was not merely repeating allegations to her existing audience. She was actively identifying Lucas’s accounts, tagging a journalist known for investigations involving alleged child predators, and requesting broader media coverage based on accusations she presented as fact.
On October 6, 2019, Regina made the direct factual accusation:
“THIS MAN: @ONISION, GREGORY JACKSON; IS A PEDOPHILE”
She accompanied the accusation with a image and called Onision:
“PATHETIC TRASH.”
Regina continued using the labels “pedophile,” “groomer,” and “predator” over the following years. She also attacked people who questioned Sarah’s public narrative, accusing one critic of supporting pedophiles rather than responding with evidence.
What the record directly shows
Regina’s own posts establish that:
- Regina publicly celebrated Onision’s emotional distress.
- Regina stated that she was “living for” Onision “losing his shit.”
- Regina directly and repeatedly labeled Onision and Lucas predators or pedophiles.
- Regina presented those grave accusations as established facts.
- Regina identified what she claimed was Lucas’s private account.
- Regina actively solicited Chris Hansen to investigate and publicly target Lucas.
- Regina attempted to increase the accusations’ audience and media reach.
- Regina attacked people who questioned Sarah’s narrative.
- Regina used personal humiliation and degrading insults alongside the accusations.
- Regina’s conduct continued for years rather than occurring as an isolated statement.
Defamation and damages significance
Regina’s posts were calculated to cause maximum reputational damage.
Calling Onision a “pedophile” and Lucas a “predator” communicated specific accusations of criminal sexual misconduct. Regina did not present the statements as questions, suspicions, or disputed allegations. She published them as facts.
Regina then worked to expand their reach by:
- tagging Onision and Lucas,
- identifying Lucas’s alleged private account,
- recruiting Chris Hansen,
- demanding media coverage,
- repeating the accusations over time,
- and attacking anyone who challenged the narrative.
The substantial engagement on these posts increased their dissemination and exposed Onision and Lucas to further ridicule, hostility, threats, reputational damage, and professional harm.
Regina’s statement that she was “living for” Onision’s distress is also directly relevant to her motive. It documents personal enjoyment of the suffering produced by the campaign she was helping escalate.
Her objective was not limited to presenting evidence for neutral examination. Her own words document a punitive campaign intended to maximize public condemnation and emotional harm.
Direct contradiction of Regina’s legal narrative
Regina’s Complaint portrays her as psychologically controlled, intimidated, groomed, and harmed by Onision and Lucas.
Her public conduct shows that she was neither silent nor afraid to confront them.
Regina was actively:
- targeting them by name,
- insulting them,
- celebrating their distress,
- exposing accounts associated with Lucas,
- recruiting journalists against them,
- presenting criminal accusations as facts,
- and mobilizing her audience against anyone who disagreed.
The record shows Regina acting as a predatory, hostile public aggressor and campaign organizer against Onision and Lucas.
It also shows her malicious intent through her own words. Regina did not merely claim that Onision was distressed. She publicly stated that she was:
“living for it”
Why it matters
These posts document how Regina helped transform accusations into an organized public punishment campaign.
She combined:
- extreme criminal labeling,
- media recruitment,
- account identification,
- repeated publication,
- personal humiliation,
- attacks against dissenters,
- and open celebration of the resulting distress.
This conduct caused direct and foreseeable damage to the reputations, emotional well-being, safety, family lives, and careers of Onision and Lucas.
Regina publicly characterized them as monsters while her own documented behavior consisted of celebrating suffering, encouraging mass condemnation, and attempting to recruit outside media figures to intensify the campaign.
Her own words establish hostility, punitive motive, and deliberate participation in the reputational destruction inflicted on Onision and Lucas.
Source
October 6, October 10, October 16, October 18, and October 21, 2019 Twitter posts by Regina Alonso from the account @hahan0bye.
November 17, 2020 and February 13, 2021 Twitter posts by Regina Alonso from the account @hahan0bye.
October 30, 2019: Sarah Publicly Says She Wishes Onision “Did Not Exist”
During her October 30, 2019 interview, Sarah stated:
- “I wish that he did not exist.”
This was not a private expression made while trying to avoid publicity. Sarah directed the statement to a public audience during an interview devoted to accusations against Onision and Lucas. Publicly, to thousands of people, stating it was her will for Onision to be dead.
What the Evidence Establishes
The statement documents:
- intense personal hostility toward Onision
- willingness to express that hostility publicly
- participation in escalating the campaign against him
- a motive to damage his reputation, livelihood, public standing & very life
- conduct inconsistent with the claim that Sarah was too frightened or controlled to oppose him
The statement also fits a continuing pattern. During Sarah’s August 7, 2024 call to Onision, she expressed hope that his skin cancer would return and destroy part of his body.
Together, the statements show sustained animus toward Onision rather than fear of confronting him.
Source
Sarah’s October 30, 2019 interview, approximately 00:34:48–00:35:21.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7vma6ynwuy
https://archive.org/details/have-a-seat-with-chris-hansen-ft.-sarah-discussing-onision
Related evidence:
November 14–26, 2019: Regina Body-Shames Onision and Celebrates His Family Losing Income
On November 14, 2019, one day after her public interview where monetized Regina pretended to be a victim concerning Onision and Lucas, Regina returned to Twitter and directed an appearance-based personal attack at Onision.
Regina wrote:
“Greg, wash your fucking face you nasty ass troll.”
The post quoted a collage of photographs selected to ridicule Onision’s appearance. It contained no evidence, factual argument, or request for lawful accountability. Its purpose was public humiliation.
On November 26, 2019, another account announced that Onision’s Patreon page had been removed and mocked the resulting harm:
“Hey Jeff, can you inform @onision that his @patreon page has been removed. Break it to him softly as you’re his only link to the real world. Thanks bub!”
The post included:
“#deplatformpredators”
Regina responded:
“LMAO”
The original announcement received approximately 2,100 likes and 190 retweets. Regina’s response publicly documented her enjoyment of the removal of an income source used by Onision to support himself and his family.
What the record directly shows
- Regina publicly attacked Onision’s physical appearance.
- Regina called Onision a “nasty ass troll.”
- Regina published the attack immediately after her November 13 interview.
- Regina publicly participated in the “DeplatformPredators” campaign.
- Regina laughed at the announcement that Onision’s Patreon page had been removed.
- Regina openly celebrated economic harm directed at Onision.
- The Patreon announcement received thousands of public engagements.
- Regina’s conduct combined personal humiliation with approval of efforts to damage Onision financially.
Malice and damages significance
These posts document that Regina’s campaign extended far beyond presenting disputed allegations.
Regina personally participated in:
- appearance-based humiliation,
- degrading insults,
- public ridicule,
- deplatforming efforts,
- and celebration of lost income.
Her response to the Patreon announcement is particularly relevant to motive. Regina did not react with neutrality or concern about whether the punishment was justified. She laughed:
“LMAO”
That reaction documents satisfaction with the financial harm caused to Onision.
The contrast with Regina’s own conduct is also significant. During the same campaign, Regina publicly promoted her Venmo, Cash App, OnlyFans, YouTube, and other accounts, and separately announced that she would take $1,000 from Onision. She attempted to benefit financially from the controversy while celebrating the destruction of Onision’s ability to earn income.
Why it matters
Regina publicly portrayed her campaign as an effort to expose wrongdoing. Her own posts show a punitive and personally malicious objective. Regina's campaign actively harmed the children of the Onision household, and she showed no remorse in doing so.
She was not merely seeking an investigation. She was:
- humiliating Onision’s appearance,
- celebrating his distress,
- demanding money,
- seeking to harm the entire household of Onision, including his children,
- promoting her own monetized accounts,
- and laughing when one of his income sources for his family was removed.
The November 14 post shows that Regina’s attacks were personal rather than evidentiary. The November 26 post shows that she celebrated concrete economic damage.
Together, these posts support the documented harm to Onision’s reputation, income, emotional well-being, family stability, and ability to maintain an online career.
Source
November 14 and November 26, 2019 Twitter posts by Regina Alonso from the account @hahan0bye.
November 19, 2019: Sarah Publicly Mocks Lucas for His Suffering
On November 19, 2019, Sarah publicly posted:
- “(kai is crying)”
The post received approximately 1,600 likes and was circulated to Sarah’s large audience.
Public Humiliation and Harm to Lucas
Sarah used Lucas’s emotional suffering as material for public ridicule.
This was the same person Sarah had repeatedly described as:
- “the best friend I’ve ever had”
- someone she loved and appreciated
- one of the sweetest people she knew
- someone she had personally hurt
Rather than showing fear of Lucas, Sarah publicly humiliated him while he was visibly distressed. The post documents hostility, cruelty, and deliberate amplification of Lucas’s suffering during the campaign against Onision and Lucas.
It is relevant both to Sarah’s claimed intimidation narrative and to the emotional harm inflicted on Lucas through mass public mockery.
Source
Sarah’s public Twitter post dated November 19, 2019.
Original account: https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
Archived account captures: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
Related evidence: Sarah calls Lucas the best friend she ever had
December 24, 2019: Sarah Admits She Maintained Contact Because She Loved Lucas, Then Publicly Condemns Him to “Burn”
When Newsweek asked Sarah why she continued speaking with Onision and Lucas, she answered:
- “I kept it going because I loved Kai a lot.”
She continued:
- “We were such good friends, I still have love for Kai because we were so close for so long.”
Sarah then declared:
- “At the end of the day he did what he did, and they will both burn for it.”
Love, Rejection, and Public Retribution
Sarah expressly admitted that she voluntarily maintained contact with Lucas because she loved him. Her continued involvement was not described as fear, coercion, captivity, or an inability to escape.
She then turned that admitted love into a public pronouncement of punishment against both Lucas and Onision.
The statement documents:
- continued emotional attachment to Lucas
- voluntary contact motivated by love
- intense resentment after the relationships collapsed
- a desire to see Onision and Lucas to "burn"
- willingness to condemn Lucas publicly despite repeatedly calling him her closest friend
- clear malice during the media campaign
This was not the language of someone avoiding an alleged abuser. Sarah remained attached to Lucas, continued pursuing contact, and then used a national publication to announce that he and Onision would “burn.”
The contradiction is severe: Sarah described Lucas as someone she loved and chose to remain connected to, while simultaneously promoting a campaign intended to destroy his reputation, livelihood, relationships, and emotional stability.
Source
Steven Asarch, “Sarah on Her Relationship With YouTuber Onision: ‘Why Did You Think This Was OK?’” Newsweek, December 24, 2019. https://www.newsweek.com/sarah-her-relationship-youtuber-onision-why-did-you-think-this-was-okay-1479119
Related evidence:
- Sarah publicly mocks Lucas’s suffering
- Sarah calls Lucas the best friend she ever had
- Onision: Defamation
November 2019–January 2020: Regina Celebrates Onision’s Family Suffering and Calls for Others to “Come Together” To Harm Onision & His Family More
On November 26, 2019, Regina publicly celebrated the removal of one of Onision’s online platforms.
Regina wrote:
“One platform down. So many more to go.”
Her statement did not describe the removal as the conclusion of her campaign. Regina expressly identified additional platforms as future targets.
The post received approximately 1,200 likes and 75 retweets, distributing that objective to a substantial audience.
On January 20, 2020, Regina encouraged multiple users to set aside their disagreements and coordinate against Onision.
Regina wrote:
“Why are we infighting when we could come together against Greg.”
Regina’s wording openly identified Onision as the common target around whom others should organize. Regina served as a repeat ring leader in her goal to further destroy the life of the stranger she claimed made videos that saved her own life and are the reason for her still existing. The same stranger she also publicly called for the death of.
What the record directly shows
Regina’s posts establish that:
- Regina celebrated the removal of one of Onision’s platforms.
- Regina stated that “so many more” platforms remained to be targeted.
- Regina treated deplatforming as an ongoing campaign rather than an isolated event.
- Regina encouraged other users to unite against Onision.
- Regina expressly prioritized coordinated opposition to Onision over disagreements among campaign participants.
- The deplatforming statement received substantial public engagement.
- Regina’s conduct was organized, public, punitive, and directed toward expanding the damage imposed on Onision.
Damages and intent significance
The two posts document both the objective and the method of Regina’s campaign.
The objective was continuing platform removal:
“So many more to go.”
The method was collective coordination:
“come together against Greg.”
Onision’s platforms were central to his ability to communicate with his audience, publish his work, maintain his reputation, and financially support his family. Regina openly celebrated the loss of one platform and immediately identified additional platforms as targets.
She then called for other participants to coordinate against Onision as a unified group.
This evidence supports a documented pattern of intentional economic and reputational harm, including:
- encouraging mass reporting and deplatforming,
- celebrating the destruction of income sources,
- increasing public pressure against companies associated with Onision,
- coordinating users around a common target,
- and attempting to remove Onision from every remaining platform.
Why it matters
Regina’s own words show that the campaign was not confined to discussing allegations or seeking a neutral investigation.
She sought continuing punishment.
Regina publicly treated each removed platform as one completed step in a larger campaign and encouraged others to unite against Onision to continue that work.
The sequence is direct:
- A platform associated with Onision was removed.
- Regina publicly celebrated the removal.
- Regina stated that additional platforms remained to be eliminated.
- Regina later called for multiple users to unite against Onision.
These posts document deliberate participation in a coordinated campaign intended to isolate Onision, destroy his audience access, eliminate his income sources, and prevent him from maintaining an online career.
Source
November 26, 2019 and January 20, 2020 Twitter posts by Regina Alonso from the account @hahan0bye.
Public calls for and threats to kill Onision
During the period in which allegations involving Sarah and Regina were being widely amplified, social-media users repeatedly posted public statements calling for Onision to be killed, asking other people to kill him, offering payment for his killing, or personally declaring an intention to murder him.
The exhibit displays twelve examples dated between August 13, 2019 and February 15, 2021. Among the statements visible in the exhibit are:
- “Is anyone gonna kill Onision or do I have to do it myself”
- “Your first mission is to kill @Onision. Bring us his head.”
- “if the government doesnt kill onision i will”
- “ill pay some1 rn to kill onision”
- “i know what i was born to do... kill onision”
- “im going to kill onision with my own hands”
- “Can somebody hire an assassins to kill Onision? Thanks.”
- “i hope i get to be the one to murder onision”
These were not merely expressions of dislike or criticism. The visible statements include personal declarations of intent, requests that another person commit murder, an apparent offer of payment, and repeated endorsements of Onision’s death.
Relevance to damages and household safety
Onision shared his residence with Lucas and their children. Public distribution of information identifying that residence therefore exposed the entire household—not only Onision—to a documented population of people openly expressing a desire or willingness to have him killed.
The danger did not depend upon every poster possessing the address or ultimately attempting an attack. The posts establish that violent rhetoric had moved beyond ordinary online hostility into repeated calls for murder. Against that documented background, efforts to preserve the family’s residential privacy were reasonable and directly connected to household safety.
The resulting harm includes fear for personal and family safety, loss of privacy, heightened security concerns, disruption of ordinary family life, and the continuing uncertainty created by not knowing whether an anonymous person making such statements might act upon them.
Evidentiary scope
This exhibit documents the violent public reaction occurring during the accusation campaign. It does not, by itself, establish that Sarah, Regina, or another campaign participant wrote, directed, or approved each individual post.
Its evidentiary value is direct and limited: social-media users publicly called for, solicited, endorsed, or personally threatened Onision’s killing while allegations against Onision and Lucas were being widely circulated. That documented environment made publication of the family’s home address materially dangerous.
Where available, the original URLs, archived copies, platform reports, account identifiers, and contemporaneous captures should be preserved alongside this composite.
January 9, 2020: Chris Hansen Leads a Six-Person Trespass Onto the Family's Private Property Past Posted "No Trespassing" Signs, Bringing Attorney Mike Morse, an Accused Serial Sexual Assailant
On January 9, 2020, Ring camera footage recorded Chris Hansen and six other individuals approaching the private residential property of Onision and Lucas in Gig Harbor, Washington, walking past multiple posted "No Trespassing" and "Private Property" signs.
Seven People Trespassed on Posted, HOA-Governed Private Property
The footage shows seven individuals total, including Hansen, present on the private roadway leading to the family's home. The property sits within a private, HOA-governed community, meaning the road itself was private property clearly marked with both community-level and individual "No Trespassing" and "Private Property" signage. Hansen walked directly past this posted signage to approach the family's front door while his associates remained further back near the vehicles.
Hansen Brought Attorney Mike Morse, a Man Repeatedly Accused of Sexual Assault
Among the individuals Hansen brought onto the property was attorney Mike Morse, who has been named as a defendant in at least five separate sexual assault and sexual harassment lawsuits filed by different women, including allegations of unwanted groping and touching at his own law firm's holiday parties and during personal encounters, with plaintiffs collectively seeking tens of millions of dollars in damages. Hansen, whose entire public persona is built on confronting alleged predators, brought a man carrying this documented history of sexual assault allegations to stand outside the home of a family with young children and openly discuss whether Onision, a man never charged with any crime and later vindicated by Regina & Sarah to police, was somehow a predator.
Only Hansen Approached the Occupied Home
Of the seven individuals present, only Hansen walked from the private community road up to the family's front door while Onision's spouse, Lucas, and their young child remained inside. The remaining six men, including Morse, stayed back near the vehicles on the private road rather than approaching the residence directly.
Police Responded and Directed Onision to Pursue an Anti-Harassment Protection Order
Onision contacted law enforcement, and responding officers arrived and directed Hansen to leave the property. The responding officer, identified in a handwritten note as Deputy Sheriff Decker, documented the incident under incident number 2009009013 and personally advised Onision to pursue an Anti-Harassment Protection Order against Hansen. The note includes confirmation numbers for petitions against Hansen, and directs the filing location as the Pierce County District Court. Onision followed this direct law enforcement guidance and filed for the protective order as instructed.
Hansen Discussed Onision's Alleged "Predator" Status With an Accused Sexual Assailant
After being told to leave by police, Hansen stood in front of the family's home and was recorded discussing his belief that Onision was a predator directly with Mike Morse, a man facing multiple pending sexual assault allegations. This is a director of a self-described predator-hunting media operation trespassing on private, posted property to stand with a man repeatedly accused of sexually assaulting women, in order to jointly declare an uncharged, unconvicted private citizen a predator, outside that citizen's home, in front of his spouse and child.
This Trip Was Reportedly Financed by Anonymous Gene
Anonymous Gene has separately and repeatedly claimed personal responsibility for financing Hansen's travel to confront Onision at his home, including a direct written statement that he paid for "Chris and the entire crew" to fly out and knock on the door, explicitly for the stated purpose of provoking Onision's suicide. This January 9, 2020 trespass is consistent with, and corroborates, that funding admission, connecting an unlawful trespass carried out by a media figure and an accused sexual assailant to a stalker's confessed campaign to induce a family tragedy.
Legal Significance
Under RCW 9A.52.080, a person commits criminal trespass in the second degree by knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on the premises of another after being informed to leave or after ignoring posted notice, including the posted "No Trespassing" signage documented in this footage. Under RCW 10.14.040, a person who has been subjected to a knowing and willful course of conduct causing substantial emotional distress and serving no legitimate purpose may petition for an Anti-Harassment Protection Order, precisely the remedy the responding officer advised Onision to pursue. Hansen's continued presence and confrontational conduct after police involvement is directly relevant to establishing the pattern of harassment necessary to support that protection order.
Source
Ring camera footage from the Onision family residence, dated January 9, 2020. Handwritten police note provided to Onision by the responding officer, including incident number 2009009013 and Pierce County District Court filing instructions. Captured using phone camera and screen capture software.
Related Evidence
- Chris Hansen's Harassment Campaign
- Chris Hansen's Monetization and Grifting Record
- Anonymous Gene Criminal Record
- RCW 9A.52.080 - Criminal Trespass in the Second Degree
- RCW 10.14.040 - Anti-Harassment Protection Orders
- Deadline Detroit: Why Is Mike Morse Chasing Accused YouTube Sex Predator Onision
- Detroit Free Press: Mike Morse Sexual Assault Litigation History
January 15, 2020: Online Hostility Reaches the Home of Onision and Lucas
On January 15, 2020, unidentified individuals arrived at the home shared by Onision, Lucas, and their children during an incident reported to police as residential vandalism in a private neighborhood.
Ring security cameras recorded multiple vehicles and individuals at or immediately adjacent to the property. Police were called, but the individuals had already departed by the time officers arrived, and the reported property damage had already occurred.
The incident occurred during the height of the public accusation campaign involving Sarah and Regina, when Onision and Lucas were being portrayed online as dangerous, abusive, predatory, and criminal.
The harassment was no longer confined to comments, videos, interviews, or social-media posts.
Unknown individuals had located the family home, physically appeared at the property, and the residence was vandalized.
The Threat Was No Longer Merely Online
The importance of this incident is not limited to the cost of repairing property damage.
It established that people motivated by the public controversy could locate and approach the residence where Onision, Lucas, and their children lived.
That created an immediate and continuing safety risk involving:
- strangers physically appearing at the family home
- damage to private property
- fear that the individuals could return
- concern for the safety of the children
- police involvement
- increased monitoring of the property
- loss of residential privacy
- disruption of ordinary family life
- uncertainty about whether online threats would become physical violence
The family could no longer treat the campaign as something occurring exclusively on the internet.
It had reached their front door.
Public Disclosure of the Address Created a Concrete Danger
The residence was occupied not only by Onision, but also by Lucas and their children.
Publishing or circulating identifying information about the home therefore exposed the entire household to anyone following the controversy—including people who had publicly expressed a desire to harm or kill Onision.
The danger was not speculative.
The preserved record includes repeated social-media posts calling for Onision’s murder, asking other people to kill him, offering payment for his killing, or personally declaring an intention to do it.
The January 15 incident establishes the additional physical component: unidentified people did, in fact, locate and appear at the residence.
No completed physical attack was required before the family could reasonably fear for its safety. Once strangers had appeared at the home during a vandalism incident, the risk associated with continued disclosure of the address was obvious.
The public campaign did not merely damage an online reputation.
It helped create an environment in which the private family home became a target.
Source
Ring security-camera footage recorded January 15, 2020.
The still images were captured through the Ring application.
Police were called concerning the residential vandalism incident, but the individuals had departed before officers arrived.
Related evidence
- Public calls for and threats to kill Onision
- Sarah’s public accusation campaign
- Regina’s public accusation campaign
- Media amplification of the allegations
January 5, 2021: CPS Finds the Physical-Abuse Allegation Against Onision “Unfounded”
On January 5, 2021, the Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families notified Onision of the result of a Child Protective Services investigation.
The letter states that CPS received a report on or about November 5, 2020 alleging that Onision had abused or neglected:
- “your child or a child in your care.”
The alleged conduct was identified as:
- “Physical abuse”
After investigating, CPS concluded:
- “The investigation determined that the allegations of abuse and neglect against you are Unfounded.”
What “Unfounded” Meant
The agency defined its conclusion directly in the letter:
- “When an allegation is ‘Unfounded,’ it means that CPS investigated the allegation and, based on the information available, has determined that it was more likely than not that the alleged abuse or neglect did not occur, or that there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the alleged child abuse did or did not occur.”
The official result was therefore not a substantiated or founded finding against Onision.
It was:
- Unfounded
Harm to the Household
The CPS report forced the household to undergo an official child-abuse investigation during the height of the public accusation campaign.
Regardless of the investigation’s result, such a report creates immediate and serious consequences:
- scrutiny of the household
- questioning concerning the children and their care
- fear that the family could be separated
- time spent responding to allegations
- emotional distress for both parents
- disruption of ordinary family life
- permanent documentation of another accusation requiring investigation
- pressure to prove innocence concerning conduct that CPS did not substantiate
The damage was not limited to Onision’s online reputation. The accusations reached the family home and triggered state involvement concerning the children.
The Public Narrative Did Not Match the Official Result
At the time of the report, Sarah, Regina, and their public supporters were promoting an increasingly severe narrative portraying the household as abusive, dangerous, predatory, and criminal.
The resulting CPS investigation did not validate that portrayal.
Instead, after investigation, the agency classified the physical-abuse allegation as unfounded.
This result is consistent with the broader official record in which:
- police cleared the original allegations with no evidence of criminal activity
- Sarah repeatedly stated privately that nothing illegal had happened
- Sarah told police she had no sexual contact with Onision or Lucas while underage
- investigators were unable to establish that Sarah was the victim of a crime
- CPS did not substantiate the physical-abuse allegation involving the household’s children
The public campaign produced another investigation, but the investigation did not produce the finding the accusers’ narrative suggested it should.
Repeated Investigations Were Themselves a Form of Damage
An unfounded conclusion does not undo the burden imposed by the report.
The household still had to live through:
- the accusation
- contact from CPS
- investigation of the family
- uncertainty concerning the children
- the possibility that online allegations could influence government action
- the emotional and practical cost of responding
- the continued public circulation of claims after the investigation failed to substantiate them
The pattern matters. Public accusations repeatedly generated outside scrutiny, while official investigations repeatedly failed to establish the alleged criminal or abusive conduct.
The process itself became part of the harm.
Source
Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families.
Child Protective Services investigation-results letter dated January 5, 2021.
The report was received on or about November 5, 2020.
Finding:
- Unfounded
Related evidence:
January 19–20, 2021: YouTube Indefinitely Suspends Monetization Across Three Onision Channels After Sarah & Regina's Campaign
On January 19, 2021, YouTube notified Onision that it had reviewed three established channels:
- Onision
- OnisionSpeaks
- UhOhBro
YouTube stated that it was concerned about:
- “continued allegations of off-platform behavior related to child safety”
It then announced:
- “we have determined that your channels (Onision, OnisionSpeaks and UhOhBro) will be indefinitely suspended from the YouTube Partner Program and no longer eligible to monetize.”
The suspension took effect on January 20, 2021.
YouTube further stated that the three channels—and any new channels Onision created—would not be eligible to apply for monetization in the future.
Onision responded with evidence pages addressing the allegations and pleaded:
- “Please do not punish a long time creator & innocent man.”
YouTube upheld the suspension.
Direct Evidence of Economic Destruction
This email is direct corporate proof that the accusation campaign produced measurable financial damage.
YouTube identified two considerations: enforcement actions involving channel content and the continuing off-platform child-safety allegations. The second expressly connects the public accusation campaign to the decision to terminate Onision’s income.
The consequences were immediate:
- three long-established channels lost monetization
- YouTube creator-support access was removed
- future channels were barred from monetization
- more than a decade of audience-building was rendered financially unusable
- the income loss continued indefinitely from January 20, 2021
This was not vague reputational harm. It was a dated corporate action terminating an identifiable revenue stream.
The allegations cited by YouTube were the same category of accusations Sarah and the surrounding media campaign had repeatedly broadcast—even though Sarah’s earlier statements, police interviews, and other evidence contradicted the narrative being circulated.
Source
YouTube Partner Support emails dated January 19 and January 20, 2021.
The correspondence was sent directly to Onision’s Gmail account concerning the monetization status of Onision, OnisionSpeaks, and UhOhBro.
Related evidence:
- The accusation campaign against Onision and Lucas
- Sarah celebrates the destruction of Onision’s Patreon income
- Sarah’s materially different statements to law enforcement
April 7, 2021: Neighborhood mail harassment campaign targeting Onision's Family Home
On April 7, 2021, Onision received an email documenting a campaign to distribute accusation-based materials to people living near
the home shared by Onision, Lucas, and their children.
The sender wrote:
- "THIS is what is being sent to everyone"
The email displayed apparent neighborhood addresses, instructions to print and distribute a letter, and a flyer labeling Onision and Lucas:
- "well known predators"
The flyer referenced the Discovery+ program Onision: In Real Life and announced:
- "They have recently moved into the Puyallup area!!"
The harassment entered the family's physical neighborhood
This was not ordinary online criticism. The material was prepared for physical distribution to people living near the family residence.
The campaign identified the community where Onision and Lucas lived, presented disputed accusations as established facts, and encouraged local distribution of the flyer. Its foreseeable effect was to expose, isolate, intimidate, and damage the reputation of the entire household within its own neighborhood.
The resulting harm included:
- loss of residential privacy
- reputational damage among neighbors
- fear of confrontation or surveillance
- increased danger to Onision, Lucas, and their children
- concern that strangers would approach or target the residence
- substantial emotional distress
- interference with the family's right to live safely and peacefully
Conduct attributed to Anonymous Gene
The preserved source record attributes the neighborhood mail campaign to a person using the name Anonymous Gene.
The conduct attributed to Anonymous Gene was deliberate and invasive. It involved using residential information and physical mail to carry an accusation campaign directly to the people living around Onision and Lucas.
The mailing repeated the same accusation narrative promoted publicly by Sarah and Regina and amplified through media coverage including Onision: In Real Life. Any preserved emails, direct messages, admissions, mailing records, or communications showing Anonymous Gene's coordination with Sarah, Lisa Haba, or other campaign participants should be retained with this record.
Potential stalking and harassment violations
Federal stalking law, 18 U.S.C. 2261A, applies when a person uses the mail as part of a course of conduct intended to harass or intimidate and that conduct causes, attempts to cause, or would reasonably be expected to cause substantial emotional distress.
Washington's stalking statute, RCW 9A.46.110, applies to intentional and repeated harassment that causes substantial emotional distress or places a person in fear of injury to a person or property.
When viewed with the wider documented pattern of online targeting, residential exposure, death threats, and physical harassment, the neighborhood mailing is evidence of a coordinated course of conduct capable of supporting criminal stalking and civil-harassment claims.
Physical mail is not a legal loophole. A law-breaker who uses neighborhood mailing lists, residential information, and inflammatory accusations to intimidate or torment a targeted family may face criminal and civil liability.
Accusations presented as fact
The flyer did not present its language as opinion. It categorically labeled Onision and Lucas "predators," identified their new community, invoked a commercial television program as apparent validation, and encouraged recipients to contact police.
Accusing identifiable people of predatory or criminal conduct and distributing those accusations throughout their neighborhood creates severe reputational and safety consequences. The harm is intensified when the targets' children live at the same residence.
Harm to Onision, Lucas, and their children
Onision and Lucas were forced to live with the knowledge that nearby residents may have received the flyer, believed its accusations, redistributed it, watched the residence, contacted authorities, or considered confronting the family.
The campaign attacked more than their online reputations. It interfered with their home, their community relationships, their privacy, and their ability to protect their children.
Onision and Lucas had the right to be left alone. Their children had the right to live safely without an internet accusation campaign being delivered into their physical neighborhood.
Source
Gmail message dated April 7, 2021 at 1:43 a.m.
The email and attached neighborhood-distribution materials were captured using computer screen-capture software.
Personal names and residential information are redacted.
Related evidence
- Anonymous Gene
- Damage to Onision and Lucas
- Sarah's public accusations
- Regina's public accusations
- Chris Hansen
- Lisa Haba
April 18, 2021: Onision Documents Deplatforming, Lost Income, and His Consistency
On April 18, 2021, Onision published a detailed statement after learning that TikTok had permanently banned his account (TikTok.com/@Onision).
He wrote that the TikTok action followed earlier penalties involving:
- removal from the YouTube partnership program
- removal from the Twitch partnership program
- Twitch retaining earnings he said had never been paid
- removal from YouNow
- continuing difficulty maintaining accounts and income across major platforms
Onision stated that he had violated none of the cited platforms’ policies and described the accumulated result as the destruction of an online career and income source developed over more than twelve years.
The Same Account Years Earlier
The statement is important because it records, in April 2021, the same central chronology Onision continued to present years later.
Onision stated that an adult woman had threatened:
- “I could destroy you if I wanted to”
He wrote that she later clarified that the threat concerned what would happen if he did not provide what she wanted. He further stated that he refused continued sexual contact after two days into her final trip, attempted to end the relationship, and was later subjected to further threats and accusations.
Onision also recorded that:
- the threat was later admitted publicly
- he possessed extensive documentation supporting his account
- people involved in the campaign later turned against one another and accused each other of lying
- later admissions supported warnings he had issued before removing those people from his life
- platforms imposed economic punishment before the accusations were established through legal process
This chronology predates the present wiki, the current organization of the evidence, and later litigation activity. Its consistency strengthens the credibility of Onision’s account because the essential facts were being recorded publicly while the consequences were actively unfolding.
Documented Economic and Professional Harm
The post identifies specific forms of damage rather than speaking only in general terms:
- permanent loss of a TikTok account
- loss of YouTube monetization
- loss of Twitch partnership status
- unpaid platform earnings
- removal from YouNow
- loss of music-video and entertainment opportunities
- destruction of a long-established online income
- inability to maintain accounts despite Onision’s stated compliance with platform policies
- continuing fear that any new website or platform presence would also be removed
Onision described the result as the effective elimination of his career:
- “There is no career left for me.”
The statement therefore provides a contemporaneous record of both the platform actions and their cumulative effect on his income, audience access, creative work, reputation, and ability to continue operating professionally.
Consistency Beyond His Own Case
Onision did not argue that accusations should be disregarded merely because they concerned him. He cited public accusations involving James Charles and Jake Paul while repeatedly emphasizing the same broader rule: evidence should be examined before a person’s career or reputation is destroyed.
He wrote that people should believe and support those who report misconduct, while also refusing to condemn anyone without evidence.
That distinction matters. It shows that his stated standard was that accusations against anyone should be handled through evidence, investigation, and legal process rather than immediate online punishment.
What the Record Establishes
The April 18, 2021 statement documents that:
- Onision was publicly reporting severe platform and income losses while they were occurring.
- His account of rejection, blackmail, later admissions, and preserved evidence was already established years before the present wiki.
- He consistently linked the accusation campaign to measurable professional and financial destruction.
- He maintained that platform punishment occurred without an adjudicated finding establishing the accusations.
- He applied the same evidence-based standard to other accused public figures..
- His present account is a continuation of the chronology he documented in real time—not a narrative created after the fact.
Source
Onision statement dated April 18, 2021, preserved in full-screen screenshot form.
Related: The Onision and Lucas Record · Forum Allegations
September 25, 2021: Sarah & Regina's Harassment Campaign Reaches Onision’s College and Subjects Him to Institutional Monitoring
On September 25, 2021, Pierce College received a complaint accusing Onision of unspecified:
- “concerning online activities.”
The college informed Onision that his instructors would be warned about the accusations and instructed to:
- “monitor online activity related to their courses and report any activity of concern to the College administration.”
Damage Beyond Social Media
The accusation campaign had now invaded Onision’s private effort to pursue higher education.
The complaint caused:
- college administrators to scrutinize Onision
- instructors to be alerted about allegations unrelated to his coursework
- his educational activity to be specially monitored
- the threat of disciplinary action if further accusations affected the college community
- additional stress and reputational damage in a setting where he was attempting to rebuild his life
The letter does not identify who submitted the complaint. Its timing, however, places it directly within the campaign in which Sarah, Regina, their supporters, and associated media figures were encouraging institutions and platforms to act against Onision.
This is concrete evidence of real-world harm. The campaign did not merely produce hostile comments. It followed Onision into school, placed him under heightened institutional surveillance, and damaged his ability to participate in education as an ordinary student.
Source
Confidential letter from Pierce College administration concerning a complaint received September 25, 2021.
Related evidence:
- YouTube removes Onision’s income
- Defamation against Onision and Lucas
- Settlement demands and litigation threats
August 25, 2023: Onision Pays Another $5,000 in Legal Costs
On August 25, 2023, Onision paid Steven Meyer:
- “$5,000.00 USD”
The PayPal confirmation provides direct proof of another substantial expense incurred while defending against litigation connected to Sarah and Regina’s accusation campaign.
Quantifiable Financial Damage
This payment is not speculative reputational harm. It is a dated, documented loss of $5,000.
It belongs in the damages calculation alongside:
- attorney and consultant payments
- filing and service expenses
- travel and document-production costs
- lost work time
- destroyed platform income
- future litigation expenses
Each payment should be added to a running legal-cost total supported by receipts, invoices, bank records, and PayPal confirmations.
Source
PayPal payment confirmation dated August 25, 2023, preserved in Onision’s email account.
Recipient: Steven Meyer.
Amount: $5,000.
Related evidence: Settlement demands and litigation threats
October 2, 2023: Onision Is Required to Produce $5,313 for Legal Representation and Filing Costs
On October 2, 2023, attorney Brett L. Wittner informed Onision that expedited filing required:
- “cashier’s check for $5,000”
and:
- “cash of $313 for the filing fee.”
The immediate requested outlay totaled **$5,313**.
Documented Litigation Damage
This email documents another specific legal expense imposed on Onision while responding to the continuing litigation arising from Sarah and Regina’s accusations.
The email establishes the amount requested and its purpose. The payment should be added to the final damages total once matched with the corresponding receipt, withdrawal, or payment record.
Source
October 2, 2023 email from attorney Brett L. Wittner of Morton McGoldrick PLLC to Onision.
October 11, 2022: Chris Hansen and Sarah Associate Anonymous Gene Admits Operating a Bot to Doxx and Defame the Onision Household
On October 11, 2022, criminal stalker Anonymous Gene sent Onision and Lucas a Google Voice message documenting an automated social-media system used to distribute the family's residential information.
The attached screen capture shows a Twitter account publishing material containing the home address associated with Onision, Lucas, and their children.
Gene wrote:
- "Im just gonna leave the bot running."
He then asked:
- "Just wanted to get a final spell check before I let it run. I spelled everything correctly right?"
Gene Admitted Automating the Doxxing Campaign
This was not a single impulsive publication.
Gene documented a system designed to continue operating without requiring him to manually publish each post. His statement that he would leave the bot running establishes that the distribution was planned, repeatable, automated, and intended to continue.
The automated operation allowed Gene to:
- publish the household's residential information repeatedly
- attach the information to discussions concerning Onision
- reach people who encountered or interacted with Onision-related content
- reproduce defamatory accusations at machine speed
- expand the number of people capable of locating the family
- continue the harassment even while Gene was not actively posting
- multiply the reputational, financial, and safety damage caused by every publication
Gene had already admitted publishing the family's information hundreds of times and targeting Puyallup community groups. The bot industrialized that campaign.
The Bot Combined Defamation With Residential Exposure
Gene's wider campaign did not distribute neutral address information.
It paired identifying information with accusations portraying Onision and Lucas as sexual criminals and dangers to children. Those accusations were designed to make strangers fear, hate, exclude, and potentially confront the household.
The automated system therefore combined two dangerous components:
- inflammatory accusations intended to enrage an audience
- residential information enabling that audience to locate the targets
The accusations supplied the hostility.
The address supplied the destination.
Automating that combination substantially increased the foreseeable risk that a hostile stranger would approach, threaten, vandalize, or attack the home shared by Onision, Lucas, and their children.
Direct Damage to the Household
Automated doxxing magnified the harm every time the bot published or redistributed the family's information.
The consequences included:
- continued exposure of the family residence
- increased risk of stalking, vandalism, confrontation, or violence
- fear for the safety of Lucas and the children
- reputational destruction among new audiences
- interference with Onision's ability to earn income online
- contamination of searches and discussions concerning Onision
- pressure on platforms, advertisers, and business relationships
- emotional distress caused by an automated campaign that could continue indefinitely
- increased difficulty identifying every publication and obtaining its removal
- loss of control over private information concerning the household
The financial harm was not incidental. Gene's automated operation attached defamatory accusations and residential information to Onision-related activity, further damaging the reputation and audience relationships on which Onision's established online business depended.
Criminal Stalking and Cyber-Harassment Evidence
Gene's admission is evidence of intentional and repeated electronic communication directed at Onision, Lucas, and third parties for the purpose of harassment, intimidation, residential exposure, and reputational destruction.
The conduct is relevant to:
- Washington cyber harassment under RCW 9A.90.120
- Washington stalking under RCW 9A.46.110
- federal stalking through electronic communications under 18 U.S.C. 2261A
RCW 9A.90.120 applies to repeated electronic communications made to a person or third party with intent to harass or intimidate under the circumstances defined by the statute.
RCW 9A.46.110 addresses intentional and repeated harassment that causes substantial emotional distress or reasonable fear of injury to a person or property.
18 U.S.C. 2261A applies to a course of conduct using an interactive computer service or electronic communication system with intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place another person under surveillance when the conduct causes, attempts to cause, or would reasonably be expected to cause substantial emotional distress or fear of serious bodily injury.
Gene's own statement supplies direct evidence of automation, repetition, planning, control, and intent. His wider documented conduct supplies the surrounding course of stalking, threats, local targeting, residential exposure, and third-party mobilization.
The Family Had a Right to Be Left Alone
Onision and Lucas had the right to speak online without a criminal stalker deploying automated accounts to publish their home address.
Their children had the right to sleep in their home without strangers being supplied with the information necessary to locate them.
Gene deliberately transformed a defamatory online campaign into an automated system capable of endangering the household continuously.
The bot did not merely spread speech.
It repeatedly exposed a real family, at a real residence, to an audience Gene had worked to inflame against them.
Source
Google Voice communication attributed to Anonymous Gene and dated October 11, 2022.
The attached Twitter screen capture displays the automated publication of residential information concerning the household.
The communication was captured using a phone. The residential address and other private information are redacted.
Related Evidence
May 3, 2024: Plaintiffs’ Litigation Position Is Reported as “Only Interested in Getting Money From Google”
On May 3, 2024, bankruptcy attorney Brett L. Wittner informed Onision that an attorney representing Sarah and Regina’s interests intended to file amended bankruptcy claims seeking:
- “$5 million each”
The total threatened claims were therefore $10 million.
Wittner then reported what the attorney told him:
- “the plaintiffs don’t really care too much about your bankruptcy, that they are really only interested in getting money from Google.”
The attorney reportedly added that Sarah and Regina did not genuinely want to pursue Onision and Lucas because they lacked Google’s financial resources and doing so would be:
- “more hassle than it would be worth.”
Onision and Lucas Were Being Used as Litigation Leverage
The email exposes the profound conflict between the public narrative and the private financial objective.
Sarah and Regina were maintaining devastating accusations against Onision and Lucas, threatening $10 million in bankruptcy claims, and forcing them to spend years defending themselves. Yet their own litigation position was reportedly that Onision and
Lucas were not the real financial target.
The target was Google.
This independently corroborates Sarah’s February 2023 statement that:
- she never wanted to file the lawsuit
- she did not want to testify
- she had no animosity toward Onision and Lucas
- lawyers told her there was money available from YouTube or Google
The litigation structure was therefore brutally one-sided: Onision and Lucas absorbed the legal fees, bankruptcy pressure, reputational destruction, stress, and public accusations, while Sarah and Regina pursued a corporate settlement from Google.
When Google and YouTube were later dismissed with prejudice, the expected corporate payout disappeared. The claims against Onision and Lucas nevertheless continued, despite the reported admission that the plaintiffs did not truly care about pursuing them.
That sequence strongly supports the conclusion that Onision and Lucas were used as instruments in a financially motivated campaign against Google rather than pursued as the genuine source of "relief".
Source
May 3, 2024 email from bankruptcy attorney Brett L. Wittner to Onision.
The email reports communications with an attorney representing Sarah and Regina’s interests concerning proposed amended bankruptcy claims of $5 million each.
Related evidence:
- Sarah states that she did not want to sue and was told there was money from Google
- Settlement demands and litigation threats
May 15, 2024: Onision Pays $10,000 for Michigan Defense Work Rendered Useless by the Case Transfer
On May 15, 2024, Onision documented paying his Michigan attorney the agreed balance:
- “$10,000.00”
Sarah originally filed her lawsuit in the Western District of Michigan. The $10,000 concerned the initial defense and motion to dismiss prepared there.
The Michigan court never decided that motion before transferring Sarah’s case to the Northern District of California.
Quantifiable Damage From the Multi-State Litigation
This payment documents an immediate $10,000 loss caused by defending Sarah’s chosen Michigan filing.
The transfer meant that:
- Onision paid for defense work prepared for the Michigan court
- the principal dismissal motion was never decided there
- new work was required after the case reached California
- the remaining claims were later transferred again to Washington
- Onision was forced to repeatedly defend the same accusations across multiple federal courts
The result was not merely inconvenience. Onision paid $10,000 for a motion that became practically useless when the case left Michigan.
The case’s shifting venues multiplied legal work, delayed resolution, and drained money from Onision and Lucas while Sarah continued revising her allegations eventually arriving at her Third Amended Complaint because the complaints before that were insufficient, again, repeatedly wasting everyone's time and money.
Source
May 15, 2024 email correspondence between Onision and Michigan attorney Michelle McLean.
The email records that the agreed $10,000 balance was paid in full.
Related evidence: