Sarah/Credibility

Prior Statements · Narrative Reversals · Bias · Corroboration

Sarah’s Credibility Record: Contradictions and Campaign Reliability

A record of prior denials, conflicting accounts, personal motives, omitted context, and admissions from campaign participants who acknowledged accepting false claims without evidence. The evidence challenges the appearance of independent corroboration and requires Sarah’s later allegations to be tested against her contemporaneous statements, police interviews, continued contact, and litigation conduct.

Connected evidence: Grooming Allegations   ·   Police Reports and Findings   ·   Assault Allegations   ·   Calls and Admissions   ·   Public Accusations   ·   Documented Damages

March 18, 2021: Jessica Admits Believing False Statements and Supporting Accusations Without Evidence

Messages published March 18, 2021 show Jessica admitting that she believed false statements because she was hurt, publicly supported accusations without credible evidence, and knew Onision and Lucas had never committed illegal conduct against her.

On March 18, 2021, Onision published a composite screenshot of a conversation with Jessica. Onision’s messages appear in blue and Jessica’s appear in gray.

Jessica initiated the exchange by apologizing:

“I believed false statements because I was hurt and was stupid to think they were legitimate accusations.”

She later acknowledged that she had been wrong:

“After everything went down and things were being sent to me I wasn’t thinking clearly but I was wrong to do so…”

Jessica said she had privately apologized before intending to apologize publicly because she wanted the public statement to be sincere.

No Firsthand Evidence of Illegal Conduct

During the argument, Onision accused Jessica of publicly supporting people who wanted Lucas imprisoned.

Jessica responded:

“I wasn’t trying to aid anyone going to Jail I don’t even have anything credible for that kind of thing anyway?”

She also stated:

“You guys never did anything to me prison WORTHY”

Later, she made the admission even more explicit:

“If I was I would have been one of the many saying you did illegal shit to me which you never have and I’ve always made CLEAR you never have.”

She admits believing and publicly acting upon false statements supplied by other people.

Her Grievance Was Personal Rejection, Not Criminal Conduct

Jessica explained that much of her anger concerned Lucas ending contact without explanation:

“He and I made plans to go to an event in Seattle like a day prior and then he just dipped.”

She repeatedly described feeling ghosted, abandoned, or rejected after Lucas withdrew from the friendship.

This chronology is significant. Jessica’s participation in the hostile public narrative followed an interpersonal grievance, while she simultaneously acknowledged that neither Onision nor Lucas had committed illegal conduct against her.

Jessica Defends Lucas’s Character and Parenting

Jessica stated that she had consistently defended Lucas:

“I’ve never disrespected Kai’s identity and have full force defended him every single time he was dead named or misgendered.”

She continued:

“I made it clear you never did anything illegal toward me.”

“I made it clear Kai was and is an amazing parent. Through EVERYTHING.”

She later repeated:

“I know he’s a great parent I’ve always said that even with everything going on”

Her firsthand assessment was that Lucas was a good parent and had never committed illegal conduct toward her.

What the Evidence Establishes

The conversation records that Jessica:

• believed statements she later identified as false
• acted while hurt and emotionally affected
• publicly participated before verifying the allegations
• knew Onision and Lucas had committed no illegal conduct against her
• described Lucas as a great parent
• defended Lucas against deadnaming and misgendering
• associated her anger with being ghosted or abandoned
• privately apologized and intended to apologize publicly

This provides direct evidence that participation in the anti-Onision campaign was not necessarily based on firsthand knowledge or independently verified facts.

Jessica’s account shows how an interpersonal grievance could be converted into public support for severe accusations originating with other people. Her later admissions also undermine the appearance that every person aligned against Onision and Lucas served as an independent corroborating witness.

Jessica admits that false statements circulated within the campaign, that she accepted them while emotionally hurt, and that she publicly acted despite having no credible criminal evidence of her own.

Jessica later reported that when Sarah discovered she had returned to friendship with Lucas, Sarah stated something synonymous with "I'm not surprised but I'm disappointed"

Source

Composite screenshot captured by Onision from his conversation with Jessica and published to social media on March 18, 2021.

The messages display relative labels including “Thursday,” “Friday,” and “Yesterday.” The publication date is preserved, while the exact calendar date of each individual message is not displayed in the composite.

Related: The Onision and Lucas Record · Documented Damages · Sarah’s Public Accusations · The Shiloh Record · The Regina Record

October 3, 2022: Sarah directly working with Criminal Stalker Anonymous Gene, who invokes violence against Onision

Google Voice records attributed to Anonymous Gene document threatening communications directed toward Onision and a contemporaneous statement indicating that Gene was receiving lawsuit-related information directly from Sarah.

In a message dated October 3, 2022, Gene wrote:

"So you think your fellow inmates will like honey buns. I'll get them honey buns... Make sure they all become friends with you... I'm sure they'll be fans of Hansen too. ;)"

The message displays a fictional fantasy of Onision’s non-existent incarceration and suggested that Gene would provide goods to inmates so that they would target or become forcibly involved with him. The reference to Chris Hansen connected the threat to the same public accusation campaign Gene had been promoting.

Google Voice communications attributed to Anonymous Gene, including an October 3, 2022 message invoking Onision’s future treatment by inmates and a message stating, “Sarah says the papers are on the way, expect them greg.” Personal information is redacted.

Gene reported direct communication with Sarah concerning legal papers

The related Google Voice record contains the statement:

"Sarah says the papers are on the way, expect them greg."

The Google Voice sidebar simultaneously displays a separate conversation associated with Sarah.

This is contemporaneous evidence that Gene represented himself as receiving information directly from Sarah concerning legal papers intended for Onision. Sarah later filed suit, making the statement probative of Gene’s advance knowledge of the contemplated litigation and his communication with Sarah before filing.

The importance of the message is not merely that Gene knew a lawsuit might occur. He used the information while participating in an ongoing campaign of unwanted contact, neighborhood targeting, public accusations, and threats directed toward Onision and Lucas.

Litigation information used as intimidation

The statement that legal papers were “on the way” was delivered as part of a hostile message thread rather than as neutral legal notice.

It communicated that:

• Gene was in contact with Sarah;
• Sarah was discussing impending legal action with him;
• Gene possessed advance information about the papers;
• Gene was relaying that information directly to Onision;
• Gene was combining the anticipated litigation with personal degradation and threats involving incarceration.

This conduct supports the conclusion that Gene was acting as an active participant in the pressure campaign surrounding Sarah’s allegations rather than as a disconnected online observer.

The inmate message was a threat, not legal advocacy

The reference to purchasing “honey buns” for Onision’s future inmates served no legitimate litigation purpose.

Its apparent purpose was to frighten, humiliate, and intimidate Onision by suggesting that Gene would facilitate hostile treatment after their fantasized & fictional incarceration. The smiling emoticon and reference to Hansen reinforced the retaliatory and celebratory nature of the message.

Washington law recognizes criminal harassment where a person knowingly communicates a qualifying threat and places the recipient in reasonable fear that it will be carried out. RCW 9A.46.020.

Washington stalking law applies to repeated intentional harassment that causes substantial emotional distress or reasonable fear of injury to a person or property. RCW 9A.46.110.

Federal stalking law applies when a person uses electronic communications as part of a course of conduct intended to harass or intimidate and the conduct causes, attempts to cause, or would reasonably be expected to cause substantial emotional distress. 18 U.S.C. § 2261A.

When considered with Gene’s attributed neighborhood mailing campaign, repeated unwanted communications, dissemination of accusations, use of residential information, and litigation-related threats, the messages are evidence of a continuing course of targeted harassment.

Evidence of coordination with Sarah

Gene’s own statement placed Sarah inside the communication chain:

"Sarah says the papers are on the way"

That statement directly contradicts any portrayal of Gene as an entirely independent commentator with no inside contact.

The record supports a documented connection between:

• Sarah’s contemplated legal action;
• Gene’s advance knowledge of the papers;
• Gene’s direct communication with Onision;
• Gene’s ongoing harassment campaign;
• Gene’s use of the accusation narrative promoted through Chris Hansen’s coverage.

Harm to Onision and Lucas

The messages contributed to a sustained environment in which Onision and Lucas were forced to confront:

• direct threats involving incarceration and inmate violence;
• knowledge that a hostile harasser was receiving information from Sarah;
• fear that litigation information was being circulated among campaign participants;
• unwanted contact directed into their private communications;
• harassment extending beyond criticism into the family’s home, neighborhood, and physical safety;
• concern that Gene or others aligned with the campaign would escalate their conduct.

Onision and Lucas were entitled to defend litigation through lawful court procedures without being subjected to threats, stalking, neighborhood mail campaigns, or intimidation by outside participants.

Source

Google Voice communications attributed to Anonymous Gene.

The visible message is dated October 3, 2022.

The communications were captured using computer screen-capture software. Personal information and the remainder of Sarah’s name have been redacted.

Related evidence

• Neighborhood mail campaign targeting Onision and Lucas
• Anonymous Gene
• Sarah’s public accusation campaign
• Chris Hansen
• Damage to Onision and Lucas

June–July 2026: Plaintiffs Sarah & Regina Propose Hiding Any & All Documents Exchanged From The Public

Court filings document plaintiffs’ proposed “any and all documents” confidentiality definition and Onision and Lucas’s position favoring targeted privacy protections instead of blanket discovery confidentiality.

In a filing dated June 10, 2026, plaintiffs Sarah and Regina Alonso stated their intention to seek a Protective Order and Confidentiality Order governing disclosure of case materials (consequently hiding the bulk of evidence from the public). Onision and Lucas, proceeding pro se, opposed entering any broad confidentiality framework at this stage of the litigation (pushing to keep the public informed and the evidence available to all).

The documented sequence

1. On June 10, 2026, Sarah and Regina stated in the parties’ Joint Status Report that they intended to seek a protective order and confidentiality order governing discovery. Onision and Lucas opposed blanket confidentiality while accepting existing rules, redaction requirements, and ordinary protections for genuinely private information.
2. On June 12, 2026, Onision and Lucas served their first requests for production. Plaintiffs’ counsel confirmed receipt and accepted service by email.
3. On July 11, 2026, plaintiffs served written responses without producing the responsive documents. Their transmittal expressly stated that documents would be produced following agreement to, or a court ruling on, a protective order.
4. On July 11, July 14, and July 15, Onision and Lucas requested production, identified the passed discovery deadline, sought a Rule 37 conference, and asked plaintiffs to identify the specific materials being withheld and the legal basis for withholding them.
5. On July 17, 2026, plaintiffs transmitted their proposed protective order. During the ensuing conference, Onision rejected the proposal as drafted and offered narrow protection for medical records, financial-account information, and similarly sensitive material.
6. Plaintiffs’ counsel subsequently confirmed in writing that plaintiffs intended to produce responsive, nonprivileged documents after entry of what counsel described as a “comprehensive protective order.”

The proposed definition departed from the court’s model

The Western District of Washington’s official model protective order directs parties to list specific documents, such as medical records or a customer list, and expressly instructs them to avoid broad categories.

Plaintiffs replaced that instruction with the following definition:

“Confidential” material shall include any and all documents and their content and tangible things produced or otherwise exchanged.

Under the proposal’s scope provision, that definition extended beyond the original material to copied or extracted information, copies, excerpts, summaries, compilations, testimony, conversations, and presentations that might reveal it.

This produced a direct conflict within the draft. Its opening paragraph repeated the model order’s statement that blanket protection would be unavailable, while its operative definition encompassed every document and tangible item exchanged. The model order separately prohibits mass, indiscriminate, and routinized confidentiality designations.

The screenshot’s search count is accurate: Dkt. 276-9 contains 36 instances of “confidential” and 7 instances of “confidentiality,” totaling 43 matches.

The proposal remained unexecuted

The July 17 document was transmitted as a proposed protective order. Its party dates and signature lines remained incomplete, the judicial approval line remained unsigned, and the correspondence records that the parties reached no agreement. As of the July 17 record, entry remained pending.

This status matters because the proposal records what plaintiffs sought; it represents counsel’s proposed language rather than a judicial finding or court-approved restriction.

Onision and Lucas offered targeted protection

The correspondence establishes a materially narrower position from Onision and Lucas:

• production of responsive, nonprivileged documents under the ordinary discovery schedule;
• protection for specifically identified sensitive records;
• continued use of existing privacy rules and required redactions;
• document-specific justification for confidentiality;
• opposition to blanket nonproduction, universal confidentiality, overbroad designations, default sealing, and unrestricted Attorney’s Eyes Only treatment.

That position tracks the structure of the court’s model order, which requires restraint, specific qualifying material, and individualized justification.

Federal discovery and public-access standards

Federal procedural law governs this discovery dispute.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2) generally requires written responses and production within 30 days after service. Plaintiffs accepted email service on June 12, 2026, and later conditioned their production on entry of a protective order.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) authorizes a motion to compel when a party fails to produce documents requested under Rule 34, following a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute.

Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule 5(g) establishes a strong presumption of public access to court files. Discovery confidentiality and court-record sealing operate through separate procedures: material presented for filing remains subject to document-specific justification, consideration of redaction, and judicial approval.

Evidentiary significance

The filed record establishes four material facts:

1. Sarah and Regina withheld responsive document production pending entry of a protective order.
2. Their proposed Section 2 encompassed “any and all” exchanged documents and tangible things.
3. That definition departed from the court model’s express requirement for specific protected documents.
4. Onision and Lucas pursued production while offering tailored safeguards for legitimately sensitive material.

The strongest defensible conclusion is that plaintiffs sought comprehensive control over discovery disclosure while Onision and Lucas advocated production subject to narrow, evidence-specific privacy protections. This is concrete evidence of opposing approaches to transparency, discovery access, and public accountability.

Sources and authorities

• Western District of Washington — Model Stipulated Protective Order
• Western District of Washington — Current Local Civil Rules
• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26
• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34
• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37
• Sarah et al. v. Jackson et al., Dkt. 264 — Rule 26(c) and LCR 5(g) standards
• Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003)