Sarah/Damages
May 16, 2018: Sarah Calls Lucas “the Best Friend I’ve Ever Had” and Says She Loves and Appreciates Him
On May 16, 2018, Sarah privately and without prompting told Lucas:
- “you’re the best friend I’ve ever had”
Lucas appeared surprised and asked:
- “You ok?”
Sarah answered:
- “Yeah”
Lucas thanked her and replied that she was also the best friend he had ever had.
Sarah then explained why she had initiated the exchange:
- “I know haha I just wanted you to know how much I love and appreciate you”
Sarah’s Own Description of the Relationship
Sarah’s statement was spontaneous, affectionate, and private.
She described Lucas as:
- the best friend she had ever had
- someone she loved
- someone she appreciated
- an important and positive person in her life
Lucas did not request praise, pressure Sarah to reassure him, or tell her what to say.
Sarah initiated the exchange because she personally wanted Lucas to understand how highly she regarded him.
Evidence Concerning Sarah’s Claimed Harm
This message comes from the period Sarah later portrayed as emotionally abusive, psychologically damaging, coercive, and exploitative.
Her contemporaneous description was the opposite.
Sarah did not describe Lucas as:
- frightening
- controlling
- abusive
- manipulative
- predatory
- a source of trauma
- someone she wanted to escape or avoid
She called him:
- “the best friend I’ve ever had”
and emphasized:
- “how much I love and appreciate you”
The message records Sarah’s own emotional assessment of Lucas during the relevant period. She described affection, trust, gratitude, and emotional closeness rather than harm.
Sarah Repeated the Same Position Years Later
This was not an isolated message that Sarah immediately disavowed.
Years later, Sarah continued making statements inconsistent with severe or lasting injury caused by Lucas or Onision.
Contemporaneous records from later telephone calls document Sarah stating that:
- she had “healed”
- she had “moved on”
- she forgave Onision for being rude to her while she was a minor
- she had no animosity toward Onision or Lucas
- she wanted to move on with her life
- she wanted privacy
- she did not want to file the lawsuit
- she did not want to testify
- Lucas was “still the best friend she’s ever had”
- she wanted Lucas to check on Onision because she understood that he had been emotionally hurt
These later statements reinforce the meaning of the May 2018 message.
Sarah continued describing Lucas as her closest friend and described herself as recovered, no longer holding animosity, and wanting to leave the controversy behind.
Continued Voluntary Contact
Sarah’s conduct also matched her positive statements.
The later record documents Sarah voluntarily:
- speaking with Onision for more than half an hour in December 2021
- telling him that she had healed and moved on
- forgiving him for the limited issue of being rude to her while she was a minor
- reconnecting with Lucas in February 2023
- participating in repeated and lengthy telephone calls
- discussing music, relationships, friends, and ordinary life
- arranging additional calls
- sharing highly personal information
- continuing to call Lucas the best friend she had ever had
This was sustained, voluntary contact years after the relationship ended.
Sarah did not behave as though she needed permanent separation from Lucas or Onision for her safety or recovery. She repeatedly chose to resume personal communication with them.
The Claimed-Damages Conflict
Sarah’s later complaint seeks damages based on allegations of severe and continuing emotional, psychological, and reputational injury.
Her own statements create a direct conflict with that presentation.
Sarah repeatedly described:
- love and appreciation for Lucas
- Lucas as the best friend she had ever had
- herself as healed
- herself as having moved on
- no remaining animosity toward the household
- a desire for privacy rather than litigation
- reluctance to testify
- continued concern for Onision’s emotional condition
- continued friendly communication with Lucas
The claimed-damages narrative therefore must be compared with Sarah’s own repeated descriptions of recovery, affection, voluntary contact, and absence of continuing hostility.
The available record does not show Sarah consistently describing herself as emotionally destroyed by Lucas or Onision.
It shows Sarah repeatedly describing Lucas as deeply valued and later describing herself as healed, moved on, and without animosity.
A Broader Pattern Relevant to Damages
This page will collect additional evidence concerning Sarah’s claimed harm, including:
- Sarah’s statements that she had healed and moved on
- Sarah’s statement that she had no animosity toward Onision or Lucas
- Sarah’s repeated voluntary contact with the household
- Sarah’s statement that she did not want the lawsuit
- Sarah’s statement that she did not want to testify
- Sarah’s desire to move on and have privacy
- her continued social, romantic, employment, and financial activity
- her friendly discussions of music and everyday life
- her continuing description of Lucas as her closest friend
- evidence that any public controversy was amplified through Sarah’s own interviews, social-media activity, and documentary participation
The evidence should be evaluated cumulatively. Sarah’s private messages, later telephone statements, and voluntary conduct consistently conflict with the portrayal of ongoing, incapacitating damage caused by Onision or Lucas.
Source
May 16, 2018 private text-message exchange between Sarah and Lucas.
Sarah’s messages appear in gray. Lucas’s messages appear in blue.
The conversation was displayed through iMessage and captured using a MacBook.
Related evidence:
- Sarah says she has healed and moved on
- Sarah says she has no animosity and wants to move on
- Sarah again calls Lucas the best friend she has ever had
- Sarah calls Lucas one of the sweetest people she knows
June 6, 2018: Sarah's "Trauma" Attributed to One Of The Many People She Has Accused, Supposedly Violating Her Many Months Prior
On June 6, 2018, Sarah privately discussed a distressing encounter involving another person.
After receiving an unexpected message from him, Sarah wrote:
- “i hate men. I literally had those images in my head all day and when I’m finally relaxing HE TEXTS ME FOR THE FIRST TIME IN TWO WEEKS”
She expressed a desire to confront him:
- “I WANT THE LAST WORD THOUGH. I WANT HIM TO FEEL BAD. WHAT DO I SAY”
Sarah then directly identified the conduct she believed was wrong:
- “IF HE HAD JUST LISTENED TO ME WHEN I SAID NO AND DIDNT GHOST ME”
Sarah Clearly Understood and Expressed Nonconsent
Sarah’s statement was explicit:
- “I said no”
She did not describe herself as unable to understand whether a boundary had been violated. She identified:
- that she had refused
- that the other person allegedly ignored her refusal
- that she blamed him for what occurred
- that the experience continued to upset her
- that she wanted him to acknowledge the harm
- that she wanted answers and closure
This private exchange shows that Sarah could clearly distinguish conduct she considered consensual from conduct she considered nonconsensual.
The Allegation Concerned Someone Outside the Onision Household
In this exchange, Sarah attributed the alleged ignored refusal to another person—not to Onision or Lucas.
Lucas appears only as the person Sarah trusted with the disclosure. He advised her:
- “Block him bitch”
Sarah continued discussing whether she wanted closure from the other person:
- “And the worst part is that I wanna see him again. Not to have sex obviously but I just want closure. Like ask him why”
The communication depicts Lucas as Sarah’s confidant while she described an alleged violation by someone else.
Relevance to Sarah’s Later Account
The exchange is relevant because it demonstrates that Sarah was capable of:
- recognizing an alleged consent violation
- stating that she had said no
- identifying the person she blamed
- describing the emotional effect
- seeking advice and support
- differentiating an unwanted encounter from consensual conduct
This should be compared with Sarah’s contemporaneous descriptions of her later adult interactions with Onision and Lucas, which she repeatedly described differently.
In her police statements and earlier interviews, Sarah described herself as a willing participant in the adult sexual relationship and stated that she had not told Onision or Lucas no.
The distinction in Sarah’s own language is important:
- In this exchange, she said another person ignored her “no”
- In her original descriptions of Onision and Lucas, she did not make the same claim
- She instead described the adult interactions as willing or consensual
- The severe allegations against Onision and Lucas appeared later
This exhibit therefore contributes to the consent chronology by showing how Sarah spoke when she believed someone had actually disregarded a refusal.
Connection to Related Evidence
Separate messages may establish additional facts concerning this person, including Sarah’s description of the relationship and whether she regarded that encounter as her first sexual experience.
Those facts should be presented in their own supported entry or incorporated here only when the corresponding source is displayed.
This image directly establishes only that Sarah accused another person of failing to listen when she said no.
Source
June 6, 2018 private text-message exchange between Sarah and Lucas.
Sarah’s messages appear in gray. Lucas’s messages appear in blue.
The conversation was displayed through iMessage and captured using a MacBook.
Related evidence:
January 4, 2019: Sarah Attributes Harm to Ayalla and Billie While Describing Lucas as Her Best Friend
On January 4, 2019, Sarah privately discussed accusations being circulated by Ayalla Karina and Billie Dawn Webb.
Sarah expressed disbelief that they were publicly attacking Lucas and the Onision household:
- “What have I done to deserve this”
She then identified specific conduct she attributed to Ayalla:
- “SHE WAS ACTUALLY TRYING TO SLEEP WITH ME WHEN I WAS 16”
Sarah separately accused Billie of contributing to her eating problems:
- “AND BILLIE GAVE ME TIPS ON HOW TO STARVE MYSELF”
Sarah contrasted those allegations with her description of Lucas:
- “all you did was let me live with you and be my best friend”
Sarah Identifies Ayalla and Billie as Sources of Harm
Sarah assigned responsibility for two serious alleged harms to Ayalla and Billie:
- Sarah accused Ayalla of attempting to initiate sexual conduct with her when she was 16
- Sarah accused Billie of giving her instructions on how to starve herself
- Sarah described their later public conduct as an attack upon Lucas and the household
- Sarah did not attribute either of these alleged harms to Lucas or Onision
These were Sarah’s own private statements during the period when the underlying events remained comparatively recent.
Sarah was capable of identifying conduct she considered harmful, naming the people she believed were responsible, and distinguishing those people from Lucas.
Sarah’s Description of Lucas Was the Opposite
Sarah did not describe Lucas as the person who sexually targeted, controlled, psychologically abused, or damaged her.
She told him:
- “all you did was let me live with you and be my best friend”
That statement identifies two things Sarah believed Lucas had done:
- allowed her to live with the household
- acted as her best friend
Sarah’s contemporaneous account therefore placed Lucas in a supportive role while assigning alleged sexual misconduct and eating-disorder encouragement to other people in her life.
Relevance to Sarah’s Claimed Damages
Sarah’s later complaint attributes extensive psychological and emotional harm to Onision and Lucas.
This message documents a materially different allocation of responsibility.
At the time, Sarah attributed specific harms to:
- Ayalla Karina
- Billie Dawn Webb
- Kourtney, whom Sarah separately accused of ignoring her refusal
- her mother, whom Sarah accused of repeatedly forcing graphic sexual discussions upon her
- and others documented throughout this site, to even include Regina Alonso as another accused party by Sarah
By contrast, Sarah repeatedly described Lucas as:
- her best friend
- the best friend she had ever had
- someone she loved and appreciated
- one of the sweetest people she knew
- someone without malicious intent
- the person she trusted with disclosures concerning alleged harm by others
This evidence is relevant to identifying the actual sources Sarah herself associated with emotional distress, eating problems, unwanted sexual conduct, and interpersonal trauma.
A Consistent Contemporaneous Pattern
This message fits a broader sequence in which Sarah privately distinguished between people she believed had harmed her and the Onision household.
Sarah contemporaneously stated that:
- Ayalla allegedly tried to sleep with her when she was 16
- Billie allegedly encouraged her to starve herself
- another man allegedly ignored her when she said no
- her mother allegedly exposed her to unwanted graphic sexual discussions
- Lucas merely allowed her to live with the household and acted as her best friend
- nothing illegal had occurred involving Lucas or Onision
- accusations against the household were “100% slander”
The record therefore does not show Sarah consistently blaming Lucas and Onision for the hardships in her life.
It shows Sarah repeatedly assigning specific alleged wrongdoing to other people while describing Lucas as a trusted friend and source of support.
Source
January 4, 2019 private text-message exchange between Sarah and Lucas.
Sarah’s messages appear in gray. Lucas’s messages appear in blue.
The conversation was displayed through iMessage and captured using a MacBook.
Related evidence:
- Sarah attributes unwanted sexual discussions to her mother
- Sarah calls Lucas the best friend she ever had
- Sarah accuses another person of ignoring her refusal
- Sarah calls the allegations against the household “100% slander”
January 12, 2019: Sarah Attributes Childhood Sexual Trauma to Another Man and Turns to Lucas for Support
On January 12, 2019, Sarah told Lucas that she had unexpectedly encountered the twin brother of a man she accused of molesting her as a child.
Sarah wrote:
- “Well I’m at work and the brother of the man who molested me as a kid came in.”
She explained why the encounter was upsetting:
- “It wouldn’t bother me so much except they’re twins lmao”
Lucas responded:
- “I’m sorry dude”
and:
- “I hope you’re ok”
Sarah replied:
- “Yeah it’s fine it’s not like it was him just didn’t like seeing his face”
She later described the experience as:
- “Just kinda embarrassing”
Lucas reassured her:
- “No you shouldn’t be embarrassed”
and:
- “It wasn’t your fault”
Sarah Identifies Another Source of Childhood Trauma
Sarah attributed this alleged childhood sexual abuse to another man long before she ever spoke to Lucas.
Her account establishes that:
- she identified a man in Michigan having molested her during childhood
- seeing that person’s twin brother triggered an emotional reaction
- the resemblance brought the alleged event back to mind
- she felt upset and embarrassed by her response
- she trusted Lucas enough to disclose the experience to him
This is relevant when evaluating the cause of emotional or psychological symptoms later attributed broadly to Onision and Lucas.
Lucas Responds as a Supportive Confidant
Lucas did not dismiss Sarah, blame her, exploit the disclosure, or introduce sexual commentary.
He responded with concern:
- “I hope you’re ok”
When Sarah said she felt embarrassed, Lucas told her:
- “No you shouldn’t be embarrassed”
and:
- “It wasn’t your fault”
The exchange depicts Lucas as the person Sarah approached for emotional support concerning alleged sexual abuse committed by someone else.
Relevance to Sarah’s Claimed Damages
Sarah’s later claims attribute severe psychological and emotional harm to Onision and Lucas.
Her contemporaneous communications identify several other alleged sources of trauma and distress, including:
- a man Sarah accused of molesting her as a child
- another person she accused of ignoring her refusal during a sexual encounter
- Ayalla Karina, whom Sarah accused of attempting to sleep with her at age 16
- Billie Dawn Webb, whom Sarah accused of encouraging disordered eating
- Sarah’s mother, whom Sarah accused of repeatedly forcing graphic sexual discussions upon her and just before moving to safety in the Onision home, accused her mother of beating her
These records matter to causation.
They show that Sarah herself attributed specific emotional distress, sexual trauma, eating problems, and unwanted sexual experiences to people outside the Onision household.
By contrast, Sarah repeatedly described Lucas as:
- her best friend
- the best friend she had ever had
- someone she loved and appreciated
- a trusted confidant
- a person who supported her when she discussed harm allegedly caused by others
The damages record must distinguish harm Sarah contemporaneously attributed to other people from harm she later attempted to attribute to Onision and Lucas.
Source
January 12, 2019 private text-message exchange between Sarah and Lucas.
Sarah’s messages appear in gray. Lucas’s messages appear in blue.
The conversation was displayed through iMessage and captured using a MacBook.
Related evidence:
- Sarah attributes alleged harm to Ayalla and Billie
- Sarah attributes unwanted sexual discussions to her mother
- Sarah accuses another person of ignoring her refusal
- Sarah calls Lucas the best friend she ever had
May 28, 2019: Sarah Apologizes for Hurting Lucas and Calls Him “the Best Friend I Ever Had” Months After the Alleged Assault
On May 28, 2019, Sarah sent Lucas an unsolicited private message:
- “I’m sorry that I hurt you or acted like I wasn’t bothered that was never what I wanted.”
She continued:
- “You’re still the best friend I ever had and I love you so much.”
Sarah concluded:
- “I don’t expect a response just letting you know. Goodnight.”
Sarah Identifies Herself as the Person Who Hurt Lucas
Sarah’s description of the emotional harm between them was direct:
- “I’m sorry that I hurt you”
She did not accuse Lucas of harming, betraying, exploiting, or traumatizing her.
Instead, Sarah:
- accepted responsibility for hurting Lucas
- apologized for appearing emotionally unaffected
- said that hurting him was never what she wanted
- continued to call him her best friend
- expressed intense love for him
- expected nothing in return for the message
The statement was not made in response to Lucas demanding reassurance. Sarah expressly said that she did not expect a response.
She initiated the apology because she wanted Lucas to know that she still loved and valued him.
Four Months After the Incident Later Described in the Complaint
The timing is critical.
The later complaint portrays a January 2019 sexual encounter as a violent assault during which Sarah was allegedly terrified, silently crying, and unable to move while Lucas watched and did nothing to help her.
The complaint therefore assigns Lucas a central role in the alleged trauma—not merely as someone present in the household, but as someone who allegedly witnessed the assault and abandoned Sarah during it.
Approximately four months later, Sarah privately told Lucas:
- “You’re still the best friend I ever had”
and:
- “I love you so much”
She also apologized for the pain she believed she had caused him.
That is a direct chronological conflict with the later portrayal of Lucas as a person Sarah regarded as complicit in a brutal violation.
Sarah’s Contemporaneous Emotional Account
Sarah’s own message identifies the emotional roles as follows:
- Lucas was the person Sarah believed had been hurt
- Sarah was apologizing for causing that hurt
- Lucas remained her closest friend
- Sarah continued loving him deeply
- Sarah wanted him to know that her apparent indifference was not genuine
- Sarah reached out voluntarily without expecting a reply
The message contains no accusation that Lucas had failed her during a sexual assault.
It contains no expression of fear, disgust, betrayal, or trauma associated with Lucas.
It expresses apology, affection, concern, and continuing emotional attachment.
Relevance to Claimed Psychological Harm
The later damages narrative attributes severe and continuing psychological injury to both Onision and Lucas.
Sarah’s contemporaneous message presents a materially different emotional condition.
Months after the event later described as traumatic, Sarah was:
- concerned about Lucas’s emotional pain
- apologizing for hurting him
- assuring him that she cared
- describing him as the best friend she had ever had
- expressing continuing love
- seeking no response, favor, or benefit
This was not a public defense of Lucas written for an audience. It was a private communication sent directly to him.
It therefore records Sarah’s personal emotional assessment rather than a position designed for public consumption.
Consistent With Sarah’s Repeated Descriptions of Lucas
The May 2019 message repeats language Sarah had already used before the alleged January incident.
On May 16, 2018, Sarah told Lucas:
- “you’re the best friend I’ve ever had”
and said she wanted him to know:
- “how much I love and appreciate you”
On May 28, 2019, she again told him:
- “You’re still the best friend I ever had and I love you so much.”
Years later, during voluntary contact in February 2023, Sarah again described Lucas as:
- “still the best friend she’s ever had”
The consistency matters.
Before the alleged incident, after the alleged incident, and years later, Sarah repeatedly described Lucas as the best friend she had ever had.
The Direct Conflict With the Later Complaint
The later complaint presents Lucas as someone who:
- participated in grooming Sarah
- conditioned Sarah to obey
- witnessed a violent assault
- failed to protect Sarah
- contributed to her fear, shame, and psychological injuries
Sarah’s private May 2019 message presents Lucas as someone who:
- remained her best friend
- was loved by Sarah
- had been emotionally hurt by Sarah
- deserved an apology from her
- remained someone she wanted to comfort and reassure
The two accounts assign opposite emotional and moral roles to Lucas.
In the contemporaneous message, Sarah does not describe herself as the person harmed by Lucas. She describes Lucas as the person she had harmed.
Source
May 28, 2019 private text message from Sarah to Lucas.
Sarah’s message appears in gray.
The conversation was displayed through iMessage and captured using a MacBook.
Related evidence:
- Sarah calls Lucas the best friend she ever had before the alleged incident
- Sarah again calls Lucas the best friend she ever had in 2023
- Sarah: Assault Allegations
August 23–24, 2019: Sarah Publicly Mocks Onision, Says “Be Mad,” and Portrays Him as Afraid of Her
On August 23 and 24, 2019, Sarah published a series of taunting posts during her public campaign concerning Onision and Lucas.
Sarah wrote:
- “lol be mad”
She then stated:
- “What’s wrong guys? I’m just trying to be honest.”
The following day, she posted:
- “imagine being scared of a 19 year old girl. again”
Sarah Presented Herself as the Person With Power
Sarah’s public framing reversed the power relationship later alleged in litigation.
She did not portray herself as frightened of Onision, intimidated into silence, or unable to oppose him.
She portrayed Onision as the frightened party and herself as the person capable of provoking that fear.
Her posts communicated:
- confidence
- mockery
- control over the public exchange
- enjoyment of the household’s reaction
- willingness to continue publishing
- no concern that Onision could silence her
- no desire to avoid conflict with him
The message was not that Sarah feared retaliation.
It was:
- “imagine being scared of a 19 year old girl”
The Posts Were Part of an Active Public Campaign
These statements appeared alongside Sarah and Ayalla Karina publicly disclosing and joking about Sarah’s sexual relationship with Onision.
During the same period, Sarah:
- publicly discussed the sexual relationship
- joked about it being her recent “first relationship”
- collaborated with Ayalla to amplify it
- invited public attention
- mocked people who objected
- characterized herself as merely being “honest”
- portrayed Onision as afraid of what she might say
- treated the conflict as entertaining public drama
This was deliberate participation in a public confrontation, not reluctant disclosure from someone attempting to remain hidden or protected.
Connection to the NDA and Sarah’s Recognized Power
Sarah had already privately acknowledged that allegations involving her would only gain credibility if she personally adopted them.
She stated in January 2019:
- “The only way it would have any standing would be if I were the one making the claims”
Onision and Lucas later sought a written agreement intended to prevent false and damaging public statements.
By August 2019, Sarah was exercising the exact power she had previously recognized:
- She publicly adopted accusations involving herself
- She collaborated with critics of the household
- She disclosed private sexual information
- She mocked Onision’s objections
- She presented him as afraid of her
- She continued escalating the public controversy
The posts help explain why Onision and Lucas believed protection against false public accusations was necessary. Sarah understood that her endorsement could transform internet rumors into claims attributed to the person directly involved.
Conflict With the Later Harm Narrative
Sarah later claimed that Onision’s public discussion of her caused fear, harassment, emotional distress, and reputational damage.
The contemporaneous posts show Sarah voluntarily opening and escalating that public conflict.
She did not request that the subject remain private. She publicly taunted the household and framed its reaction as weakness:
- “lol be mad”
and:
- “imagine being scared of a 19 year old girl”
The evidence shows Sarah acting as an aggressor in the public exchange rather than someone avoiding Onision from fear.
It also shows that Sarah understood her ability to damage the household’s reputation and publicly celebrated the effect she believed she was having.
Source
Sarah’s public Twitter posts dated August 23 and August 24, 2019.
Original account: https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
Archived account captures: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
August 24, 2019: Sarah and Ayalla Publicly Joke About Sarah Having Sex With Onision
On August 24, 2019, Sarah publicly referred to her recent adult relationship:
- “I remember my first relationship like it was just last month...oh wait it was”
Minutes later, Ayalla Karina publicly posted:
- “Onision fucked Sarah 🤡”
Ayalla then posted a photograph under the heading:
- “Receipts?”
The image shows Sarah smiling beside another person while holding a handwritten card.
The Public Framing Was a Joke, Not an Assault Allegation
The visible posts did not describe the sexual relationship as rape, coercion, exploitation, or trauma.
Instead, Sarah and Ayalla publicly presented it as:
- provocative gossip
- a joke
- a recent relationship
- information they wanted circulated
- a public reveal supported by supposed “receipts”
Sarah’s own wording described it as her:
- “first relationship”
Ayalla’s wording was crude and mocking, but it similarly described sex as having occurred without suggesting that Sarah had been violated.
The public narrative visible here was not that Sarah had survived a brutal assault. It was that Sarah had recently had sex with Onision and that the subject was entertaining material for public discussion.
Sarah Was an Active Participant
Sarah was not shown being forced into silence or reluctantly exposed by hostile outsiders.
She was publicly participating in the disclosure.
The record shows:
- Sarah posting about the relationship herself
- Sarah joking about how recently it had occurred
- Ayalla publicly amplifying it
- a photograph apparently created to support the public reveal
- Sarah smiling and voluntarily participating in the presentation
- no visible request that the posts stop
- no visible description of the event as nonconsensual
The material records deliberate public participation rather than coercion or intimidation.
The Reversal Concerning Ayalla
The collaboration with Ayalla is independently significant.
On January 4, 2019, Sarah privately accused Ayalla of attempting to sleep with her when Sarah was 16.
Sarah stated:
- “SHE WAS ACTUALLY TRYING TO SLEEP WITH ME WHEN I WAS 16”
She also attempted to involve police and discussed obtaining a cease-and-desist letter against Ayalla.
By August 2019, Sarah was actively collaborating with Ayalla in a public campaign concerning her sexual relationship with Onision.
The sequence is:
- Sarah accused Ayalla of inappropriate sexual conduct toward her as a minor
- Sarah described Ayalla’s allegations as lies and “100% slander”
- Sarah considered police and legal action against Ayalla
- Months later, Sarah joined Ayalla in publicly attacking and embarrassing the Onision household
- The earlier accusation against Ayalla was no longer reflected in Sarah’s public conduct
That reversal is relevant to the credibility, motive, and formation of the later accusation campaign.
Connection to the NDA
The posts also appeared while Sarah was publicly rejecting the confidentiality agreement governing private events involving the household.
Rather than appearing frightened or reluctantly disclosing alleged abuse, Sarah was joking about the sexual relationship and helping present it as public entertainment.
This conduct is relevant to whether Sarah’s later disclosures resulted from:
- fear
- coercion
- psychological domination
- inability to resist Onision or Lucas
The material instead shows Sarah acting openly, voluntarily, and in coordination with a prior adversary of the household.
Relevance to Claimed Harm
Sarah later sought damages based on a narrative of severe psychological injury, fear, shame, coercion, and trauma.
Her contemporaneous public presentation was materially different.
At the time, Sarah:
- called the experience a relationship
- joked about how recent it was
- participated in publicizing it
- collaborated with Ayalla
- displayed no visible effort to conceal the sexual history
- allowed the subject to be framed as a joke and spectacle
- did not publicly characterize the encounter as an assault
This exhibit does not merely show Sarah discussing the subject after the fact. It shows her participating in the creation and amplification of the public controversy from which she later claimed damages.
Source
Sarah’s Twitter post dated August 24, 2019.
Ayalla Karina’s Twitter posts dated August 24, 2019.
Original source: https://twitter.com/ayallakarina
Archived account captures: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://twitter.com/ayallakarina
The screenshot also preserves the posts as embedded in an Onision forum submission dated August 23, 2019, depending on the forum’s displayed time zone.
Related evidence:
August 27, 2019: Sarah Conducts a Public “Tell-All” While Laughing, Joking, and Voluntarily Escalating the Conflict
On August 27, 2019, Sarah conducted an approximately ninety-minute public livestream devoted to her relationship and conflict with Onision and Lucas.
Throughout the broadcast, Sarah repeatedly laughed, smiled, joked with the interviewers and audience, and voluntarily continued discussing private events involving the household.
The stream was not a brief answer forced from Sarah under pressure. It was an extended public presentation in which Sarah chose:
- which subjects to discuss
- which private events to reveal
- how to characterize Onision and Lucas
- which audience questions to answer
- how long to remain on the broadcast
- whether to continue escalating the public controversy
Voluntary Public Participation
Sarah was not shown being compelled by Onision or Lucas to appear.
She voluntarily entered the livestream, remained for approximately an hour and a half, answered questions, made accusations, and publicly challenged the household’s account.
Her visible conduct included:
- laughing
- smiling
- making jokes
- interacting comfortably with the interviewers
- responding directly to the audience
- discussing highly personal sexual information
- openly criticizing Onision and Lucas
- dismissing the possibility of meaningful legal recovery against her
- continuing despite knowing the statements could provoke litigation
- repeatedly contradicting and dismembering the legitimacy of her later legal complaint
The relevant point is not that a smile, by itself, proves a person has never experienced harm. The evidentiary significance is that Sarah’s conduct during this broadcast shows active, voluntary, and confident participation rather than contemporaneous intimidation by the people she was attacking.
Sarah’s Demeanor Matched Her Surrounding Public Conduct
The livestream should be evaluated with Sarah’s posts from the same period.
Sarah publicly wrote:
- “lol be mad”
She asked:
- “What’s wrong guys? I’m just trying to be honest.”
She mocked Onision as:
- “scared of a 19 year old girl”
She told him:
- “say whatever you want about me onision, bring it.”
She also participated in posts presenting her sexual relationship with Onision as provocative gossip and a public joke.
Her smiling and joking during the livestream were therefore consistent with her broader presentation of the conflict: confident, confrontational, public, and deliberately provocative.
Relevance to Claimed Damages
Sarah later sought substantial damages based partly on emotional distress, fear, humiliation, reputational injury, coercion, and psychological abuse.
The August 27 broadcast documents Sarah voluntarily publicizing the same private events and sexual history she later claimed caused her reputational and emotional damage when discussed by Onision.
The resulting publicity cannot be evaluated without acknowledging Sarah’s own actions:
- Sarah voluntarily conducted the public “tell-all”
- Sarah disclosed private sexual and relationship information
- Sarah encouraged widespread public discussion
- Sarah collaborated with established critics of the household
- Sarah mocked the possibility of legal consequences
- Sarah publicly invited Onision to respond
- Sarah later objected when Onision continued discussing the controversy she had helped publicize
The stream is therefore relevant both to the existence of claimed damages and to who caused or amplified them.
Source
Sarah’s August 27, 2019 YouNow livestream.
Original account: https://www.younow.com/sarahbear8500
Preserved YouTube upload: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc2UDXaZzDk
Related evidence:
August 27, 2019: Sarah Laughs While Repeating Onision’s Accusation of Blackmail and Sexual Misconduct
During her August 27, 2019 public livestream, Sarah explained the accusation Onision had made against her.
Sarah stated:
- “That I blackmailed and raped them, dead ass.”
She then laughed.
Sarah repeated:
- “Dead ass!”
After the interviewer asked whether Lucas was on Onision’s side, Sarah grinned, laughed, and answered:
- “Yeah”
Sarah Understood That Both Onision and Lucas Accused Her
The exchange is significant because Sarah acknowledged that the accusation did not come from Onision alone.
When asked whether Lucas supported Onision’s account, Sarah answered:
- “Yeah”
Her response establishes that she understood both members of the household regarded her conduct as wrongful.
Sarah nevertheless presented the accusation to a public audience while smiling and laughing rather than treating it as a frightening allegation she was unable to confront.
The Public Framing
Sarah voluntarily chose to discuss the accusation during an extended public “tell-all.”
She:
- repeated the accusation in explicit terms
- emphasized it by saying “dead ass”
- laughed while discussing it
- acknowledged that Lucas agreed with Onision
- remained comfortable continuing the public conversation
- presented the dispute as material for an entertaining livestream
This was not a private disclosure reluctantly extracted from Sarah. She chose to place the accusation before an audience and shaped how it was publicly presented.
Connection to the July 2019 Apologies
The accusation is important when read alongside Sarah’s later acknowledgment that she had made two statements using the words:
- “I’m sorry for raping you guys”
Sarah later attempted to characterize those statements as sarcasm or jokes.
During the August 7, 2024 telephone call, she admitted making the apologies while insisting they were not sincere admissions.
The chronology is therefore:
- Onision accused Sarah of sexual extortion when ending the relationship
- Sarah twice responded with “I’m sorry for raping you guys”
- Sarah later publicly repeated the accusation while laughing
- She acknowledged that Lucas supported Onision’s account
- Years later, she admitted making the apologies but claimed they were jokes, that right after she was dumped, she spontaneously decided to make light of rape by joking about it.
The repeated use of the same language across different events is directly relevant to evaluating Sarah’s later explanation.
Relevance to Claimed Harm
Sarah later sought damages based on severe emotional distress, coercion, fear, shame, and psychological injury.
Her August 2019 conduct shows her publicly:
- laughing about the accusation
- confronting the household
- mocking Onision
- portraying him as afraid of her
- challenging him to a boxing match
- discussing the sexual relationship as public entertainment
- collaborating with critics of the household
- continuing the controversy voluntarily
The evidentiary significance comes from Sarah’s words, laughter, acknowledgment of Lucas’s position, and voluntary public framing together.
Her conduct does not match the later portrayal of someone still unable to oppose Onision or Lucas because of fear or psychological control.
Source
Sarah’s August 27, 2019 YouNow livestream, approximately 00:14:28–00:14:59.
Original account: https://www.younow.com/sarahbear8500
Preserved YouTube upload: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc2UDXaZzDk
Related evidence:
- Sarah’s later acknowledgment that she made the two apologies
- Sarah: Assault Allegations
- Sarah: The NDA
- Sarah apologizes for hurting Lucas
- Sarah’s public livestream conduct
August 27, 2019: Sarah Says She Asked Lucas for Help Leaving a Difficult Situation in Michigan
During her August 27, 2019 livestream, Sarah explained how the possibility of living with Onision and Lucas originated.
Sarah stated:
- “When I was going to move in with them, it was because I was having a really hard time where I was.”
She continued:
- “I basically texted Kai from my car like crying one night”
Sarah described herself saying:
- “oh my god all this stuff is happening”
According to Sarah, Lucas responded:
- “Oh I’m seriously going to talk to Greg about you living here.”
Sarah Initiated the Request for Help
Sarah’s own account identifies the sequence:
- Sarah was experiencing serious problems in Michigan (a story referencing her mom allegedly beating her)
- Sarah contacted Lucas while crying
- Sarah told Lucas that numerous upsetting events were occurring
- Lucas responded by offering to speak with Onision
- The possibility of Sarah living with the household arose as a response to her request for help
This is not an account of Onision or Lucas searching for a vulnerable minor and recruiting her into their home.
Sarah said that she approached Lucas during a crisis and that Lucas attempted to help her obtain a safer or more stable living arrangement. The Onision household thought they were saving someone from an abusive home because that person claimed their mother was physically assaulting them. Sarah sought out what she herself described as salvation from an abusive home in Michigan.
Sarah’s Distress Predated Living With the Household
Sarah expressly located her hardship before the proposed move:
- “I was having a really hard time where I was”
Her statement is relevant to claims that Onision and Lucas caused her emotional and psychological condition.
The contemporaneous record identifies substantial difficulties that existed independently of the household, including Sarah’s reported problems involving:
- her home environment in Michigan
- conflict with her mother
- unwanted graphic sexual discussions in her home
- alleged childhood sexual abuse by another person
- an alleged later encounter in which another man ignored her refusal
Any evaluation of Sarah’s claimed damages must distinguish those preexisting experiences from harm she later attributed to Onision and Lucas.
The Household Was Responding to a Distress Call
Sarah’s account describes Lucas as the person she contacted for assistance.
According to Sarah, he responded by saying he would seriously discuss whether she could live with the household.
The evidence therefore shows:
- Sarah trusted Lucas enough to call him during an emotional crisis
- Sarah sought assistance from the household
- Lucas treated her situation seriously
- Lucas attempted to advocate for housing on her behalf
- the proposed living arrangement was responsive rather than predatory
This is consistent with Sarah’s later private statement to Lucas:
- “all you did was let me live with you and be my best friend”
Conflict With the Trafficking Narrative
The later complaint portrays Sarah as having been lured, recruited, and drawn into the household for exploitative purposes.
Sarah’s own recorded account describes the opposite direction of initiation.
She did not say that Onision or Lucas approached her with an offer designed to entice her away from Michigan.
She said:
- she was already experiencing serious hardship
- she contacted Lucas
- she was crying and asking for help
- Lucas offered to speak with Onision about rescuing her from the most recent person Sarah decided to accuse of harming her
The household’s involvement began as a response to Sarah’s expressed need for assistance.
That materially contradicts the characterization that the proposed move originated as a calculated recruitment or trafficking scheme.
Relevance to Sarah’s Claimed Damages
Sarah later sought substantial damages based on alleged emotional and psychological injury caused by Onision and Lucas.
Her own account establishes that serious distress existed before she lived with them.
It also identifies Lucas as someone she relied upon during that distress.
The damages record must therefore account for:
- Sarah’s preexisting home-life difficulties
- prior alleged childhood trauma
- harm she attributed to other people
- the supportive role she contemporaneously assigned to Lucas
- her own request to live with the household
- her repeated later description of Lucas as her best friend
- her later statements that she had healed, moved on, and had no animosity
Sarah’s statement does not describe the household creating her vulnerability.
It describes Sarah turning to the household because that vulnerability already existed.
Source
Sarah’s August 27, 2019 YouNow livestream, approximately 00:40:16–00:40:43.
Original account: https://www.younow.com/sarahbear8500
Preserved YouTube upload: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc2UDXaZzDk
Related evidence:
August 27, 2019: Sarah Publicly States That She Still Loves Lucas and Onision
During her August 27, 2019 public livestream, Sarah discussed her feelings toward Lucas and Onision after the relationship and friendship had broken down.
Sarah stated:
- “I mean I’m not gonna sit here and... pretend like it’s not... it fucking sucks”
She continued:
- “I still... like especially... especially Kai but... I... I feel... I still... love them... even Greg...”
Sarah’s Own Emotional Description
Sarah did not describe herself as emotionally detached from the household.
She publicly acknowledged that:
- losing the relationships was painful
- she remained strongly attached to Lucas
- she continued loving Lucas
- she also continued loving Onision
- the rejection and separation were emotionally difficult for her
Her wording placed particular emphasis on Lucas:
- “especially Kai”
This is consistent with Sarah’s repeated statements that Lucas was the best friend she had ever had and someone she continued to love deeply.
After the Rejection and Accusation
The statement was made after:
- the adult relationship had ended
- Onision had accused Sarah of sexual extortion
- Sarah had apologized using the words “I’m sorry for raping you guys”
- Sarah had left the household
- Sarah had begun publicly criticizing Onision and Lucas
Despite that conflict, Sarah still publicly admitted:
- “I still love them”
and:
- “even Greg”
The statement records continuing emotional attachment rather than fear-based avoidance or complete emotional rejection.
Relevance to Sarah’s Claimed Damages
Sarah’s later complaint portrays the relationship as a source of severe psychological injury, fear, shame, coercion, and lasting trauma.
Her August 2019 statement presents a materially different emotional picture.
Sarah was publicly:
- grieving the loss of the relationships
- emphasizing her love for Lucas
- acknowledging continued love for Onision
- describing separation and rejection as what “fucking sucks”
- remaining emotionally invested in both men
This is relevant to whether Sarah’s distress arose from alleged abuse or from the breakdown of relationships she still wanted and valued.
The contemporaneous record repeatedly shows that Sarah’s strongest emotional reaction concerned rejection and loss:
- she apologized for hurting Lucas
- she continued calling Lucas the best friend she had ever had
- she begged Onision for forgiveness at the airport
- she remained upset that Lucas had rejected her
- she later explained that Lucas’s rejection caused her to seek someone else to love her
- she continued describing Lucas as her best friend years later
The evidence supports a consistent alternative explanation for Sarah’s distress: she remained attached to the household and was deeply affected by losing access to relationships she wanted to preserve.
Conflict With the Later Portrayal of Lucas
The later complaint portrays Lucas as someone who groomed Sarah, participated in exploiting her, and failed to protect her during an alleged assault.
Sarah’s contemporaneous statements repeatedly described Lucas as:
- the best friend she had ever had
- one of the sweetest people she knew
- someone she loved and appreciated
- someone without malicious intentions
- the person she trusted with disclosures about harm caused by others
- the person she still loved after the relationship ended
Her August 27 statement adds another direct example:
- “especially Kai”
Sarah’s continuing affection toward Lucas is difficult to reconcile with the later portrayal that she contemporaneously regarded him as a knowing participant in severe abuse.
Source
Sarah’s August 27, 2019 YouNow livestream, approximately 01:40:51–01:41:13.
Original account: https://www.younow.com/sarahbear8500
Preserved YouTube upload: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc2UDXaZzDk
Related evidence: Sarah: Assault Allegations
September 3–4, 2019: Sarah Says Onision Does Not Scare Her, Publicly Taunts Him, and Declares She Can “Say Whatever I Want”
On September 3 and 4, 2019, Sarah publicly escalated her conflict with Onision through a series of hostile and taunting posts.
Sarah first wrote:
- “guilt tripping me is only making me angrier keep it up”
She later warned:
- “Just wait until I get off work.”
Sarah then stated directly:
- “You do NOT scare me, pussy.”
In another post directed at Onision, she wrote:
- “ur pathetic”
Sarah attached a private message in which Onision told her:
- “I want you to know, I have never seen Kai hurt this much. The damage you did, I can’t believe you would hurt Kai & the kids like this. What you did hurt everyone in the house.”
Rather than responding with fear or withdrawing from the dispute, Sarah publicly mocked him.
Sarah Explicitly Denied Being Afraid
The strongest direct statement in the sequence is:
- “You do NOT scare me”
Sarah did not merely behave confidently or appear unafraid. She expressly announced that Onision did not frighten her.
Her public conduct included:
- insulting Onision directly
- telling him to continue confronting her
- warning him to wait until she finished work
- publicly reposting his private message
- mocking his report that Lucas and the children had been hurt
- portraying herself as increasingly angry rather than intimidated
- continuing the conflict before a large public audience
The posts document Sarah deliberately presenting herself as the stronger and more confrontational participant.
Sarah Says the Conflict Is “Freeing”
On September 4, Sarah wrote:
- “this is so freeing omg I really can just say whatever I want now”
This statement identifies how she viewed her new public position.
Sarah described herself as:
- free to speak
- unrestricted by the confidentiality agreement
- comfortable publicizing private events
- willing to attack the household openly
- unconcerned about Onision’s objections
- excited by her ability to continue publishing
The statement conflicts directly with the portrayal that Sarah remained silenced or psychologically unable to resist Onision.
She did not describe herself as cautiously escaping control.
She described the ability to publish whatever she wanted as:
- “so freeing”
Sarah Acknowledges Begging Onision for Forgiveness
Sarah also publicly referred to the airport interaction following the end of the relationship:
- “remember when you made me feel so guilty that I was sobbing while holding you and begging for you to forgive me?”
She continued:
- “I bet that made you feel powerful.”
and:
- “do you feel powerful now?”
Sarah attempted to reframe the apology as Onision making her feel guilty. Nevertheless, she expressly acknowledged that she:
- felt intense guilt
- sobbed
- physically held Onision
- begged him to forgive her
That admission corroborates the existence of the airport apology and Sarah’s emotional effort to obtain Onision’s forgiveness after he ended the relationship.
Sarah later admitted that she had also made repeat apologies:
- “I’m sorry for raping you guys”
She subsequently characterized those statements as rape jokes spoken right after she had just gotten rejected by Onision.
The September posts show Sarah acknowledging an additional, emotionally intense plea for forgiveness while simultaneously attempting to reinterpret why she made it.
Sarah Challenges Onision to Respond
Sarah concluded another post with:
- “talk your way outta this one bitch”
This was not a request that Onision stop discussing her.
It was a direct public challenge for him to respond.
During the same period, Sarah also told him publicly:
- “say whatever you want about me onision, bring it.”
Her conduct therefore included both:
- making accusations and disclosures about Onision
- publicly inviting and challenging him to answer
This is important when evaluating Sarah’s later objections to Onision continuing to discuss the controversy. She did not merely open the subject publicly; she repeatedly demanded and invited a response.
The Documented Power Dynamic
Taken together, the posts show Sarah publicly asserting control over the conflict.
She:
- stated that Onision did not scare her
- portrayed guilt as something that increased her anger
- insulted him publicly
- posted his private communication
- mocked his reports of harm to the household
- announced that she could say whatever she wanted
- acknowledged begging him for forgiveness
- challenged him to respond
- invited the public conflict to continue
The visible dynamic is not one of Sarah being unable to oppose Onision.
It is Sarah openly confronting him, attempting to provoke him, and presenting his emotional reaction as evidence of her power over the dispute.
Relevance to Sarah’s Claimed Damages
Sarah later attributed fear, emotional distress, intimidation, and reputational injury to Onision’s public responses.
The September 2019 record establishes that Sarah was an active source of the public confrontation.
Sarah intentionally opened, expanded, and encouraged the dispute before later objecting to his continued participation in it.
Connection to the NDA
The statement:
- “I really can just say whatever I want now”
also belongs within the NDA chronology.
The agreement was intended to prevent false and damaging public statements concerning private household events. Sarah’s posts show her publicly treating the collapse or rejection of that agreement as liberation from restraint.
Her conduct included:
- disclosing private communications
- publicizing sexual and relationship information
- collaborating with hostile commentators
- mocking the possibility of legal consequences
- announcing that she could publish anything she wanted
The posts therefore document not coercion to remain silent, but Sarah’s deliberate decision to disregard the agreement and make the household’s private life part of a public campaign.
Source
Sarah’s public Twitter posts dated September 3 and September 4, 2019.
Original account: https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
Archived account captures: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
Related evidence:
September 7, 2019: Sarah and Regina Publicly Unite Behind a Narrative Both Had Previously Rejected
On September 7, 2019, Regina publicly posted a message supporting Sarah under the hashtag:
- #WeStandWithSarah
Regina wrote:
- “I love you. Thank you for being there for me through all the shit you were going through yourself.”
She continued:
- “Im so proud of how far you’ve come.”
Regina concluded:
- “Thank you for showing me what a true friend is.”
The post included multiple smiling photographs of Sarah and Regina together.
Sarah then retweeted the post to her own audience, affirmatively promoting Regina’s endorsement and their newly unified public position.
Both Women Had Previously Rejected the Allegations
The September alliance represents a dramatic reversal from what both women had said only months earlier.
Sarah had privately stated:
- “nothing illegal has gone on”
She called the accusations against herself, Lucas, and Onision:
- “100% slander”
She told Lucas that police would find:
- “there’s nothing illegal that’s happened”
Sarah publicly denied that she and Lucas had sexual conversations or planned sexual relations while she was underage:
- “People are saying we had sexual conversations or were planning on having sexual relations when I was underage and we never did”
Regina also publicly rejected the allegations.
On January 10, 2019, Regina called the controversy:
- “incredibly ridiculous drama”
She stated that the matter had already been addressed and defended Lucas and Sarah as adults capable of making their own decisions.
Regina corrected the supposed evidence being circulated:
- “the first screenshot is MY texts, NOT kai and sarah.”
and:
- “the second screenshot is fucking meme. grow up.”
She also publicly sent:
- “all my love to them”
The alleged historical conduct involving Regina had already supposedly occurred years before those statements. The conduct Sarah later described as underage grooming had also supposedly occurred before her January 2019 denials.
Both women therefore had the opportunity to identify the household as abusive before January 2019.
They did not.
The two adult women publicly defended Onision and Lucas when Onision and Lucas had not yet permanently rejected Sarah.
The Sudden Narrative Reversal
By September 2019, Sarah and Regina were presenting a completely different account.
The sequence was:
- Sarah privately said nothing illegal had happened
- Sarah called the allegations “100% slander”
- Sarah publicly denied underage sexual conversations or planning
- Regina dismissed the accusations as ridiculous old drama
- Regina defended Lucas and Sarah
- Regina rejected circulated screenshots as falsely attributed or memes
- Regina publicly expressed love toward the household
- Sarah began publicly attacking Onision and Lucas
- Regina publicly aligned herself with Sarah
- Sarah amplified Regina’s support
- Both later presented related accusations as mutually corroborating victim accounts
No explanation appears in this post for why allegations they had previously rejected suddenly became the foundation of a shared public campaign.
The September presentation simply replaces the earlier record with a new one.
A Coordinated Public Campaign
The post was not a private conversation between two distressed friends.
It was designed for public distribution.
It contained:
- a campaign hashtag
- mutual public endorsement
- photographs presenting Sarah and Regina together grinning ear to ear
- praise of Sarah’s alleged progress
- language connecting their respective experiences
- direct promotion to Regina’s followers
- further amplification through Sarah’s retweet
- hundreds of visible public reactions
Publicity, Attention, and Financial Interest
The surrounding record also documents both women using the controversy to attract public attention and publishing methods through which supporters could contribute money.
When read with those separate fundraising posts, this alliance shows that the campaign offered:
- increased social-media visibility
- supportive hashtags
- large public audiences
- interviews and media appearances
- mutual promotion
- documentary participation
- financial contributions from supporters
- potential compensation connected to media participation
- eventual litigation seeking substantial damages from Google & others
That does not resemble two independent accounts developing without outside influence.
It shows a shared publicity structure in which the women’s allegations increased each other’s potential financial benefit.
Source
Regina’s public Twitter post dated September 7, 2019.
Sarah publicly retweeted the post.
Original accounts: https://twitter.com/hahan0bye
https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
Archived account captures: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://twitter.com/hahan0bye
https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
September 9, 2019: Sarah Publicly Poses at a Courthouse and Tells Critics to “Catch Me in Court”
On September 9, 2019, Sarah publicly posted a photograph of herself crouching, smiling, and making a peace sign outside the Berrien County Courthouse.
The caption read:
- “catch me in court 😜”
The post is relevant because it shows Sarah publicly presenting the legal process in a casual, playful, and unbothered way during the same general period in which she was escalating public accusations against the Onision household who according to Sarah supposedly completely traumatized her. She appears to be enjoying herself, in the process of legally harassing the Onision household, quite a bit, all while recruiting more attention to herself, promoting her social media, and eventually, increased financial benefit.
What the Post Shows
The image and caption show Sarah:
- publicly associating herself with court action
- framing the situation in a joking or taunting manner
- appearing relaxed and upbeat rather than fearful
- using the controversy for public presentation and audience engagement
- showing no outward sign of intimidation by Onision or Lucas
This materially conflicts with later portrayals of Sarah as someone too harmed, too frightened, or too overwhelmed.
Relevance to Sarah’s Claimed Harm
Sarah later portrayed herself as severely harmed and intimidated by the Onision household.
This post cuts against that narrative.
Rather than appearing reluctant, distressed, or fearful of public conflict, Sarah presented herself as openly willing to escalate the dispute and to turn the legal process into a public-facing moment.
Her caption:
- “catch me in court 😜”
reads as yet another public taunt & challenge by Sarah, not a plea for protection.
The smiling pose, courthouse setting, and joking tone are all consistent with someone participating voluntarily and confidently in the public controversy. Sarah, on full display in the photo, shows nothing but pure joy and amusement that she is getting this attention while also obtaining her revenge for being rejected by Onision.
Source
Sarah’s public Twitter post dated September 9, 2019.
Original source: https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
Archived account captures: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
Related public account: https://twitter.com/hahan0bye
Archived captures: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/http://twitter.com/hahan0bye
See also: Sarah: Defamation Claims
October 30, 2019: Sarah Says She Was Suicidal Before Befriending Lucas and Describes Him as “the Good Thing” in Her Life
During her October 30, 2019 interview, Sarah described her condition before befriending Lucas:
- “I had wanted to, like, kill myself a few months prior to this meeting or, like, talking for the first time.”
She explained:
- “I was in a very bad place. A lot of really bad things were happening or had already happened in my life.”
Sarah then described Lucas’s role:
- “I just wanted something good to happen. And I felt like that was like the good thing that I got for everything else that was going wrong.”
The Damages and Causation Conflict
Sarah’s own account establishes that her severe psychological distress and suicidal thoughts predated her friendship with Lucas.
She identified:
- serious preexisting emotional distress
- multiple harmful events already occurring in her life
- suicidal thoughts before Lucas entered her life
- Lucas as a positive development during that crisis
This directly undermines any attempt to attribute Sarah’s psychological condition to Onision and Lucas. Her own account describes Lucas not as the source of her distress, but as “the good thing” that entered her life while everything else was going wrong.
Source
Sarah’s October 30, 2019 interview, approximately 00:06:07–00:06:42.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7vma6ynwuy
https://archive.org/details/have-a-seat-with-chris-hansen-ft.-sarah-discussing-onision
November 7, 2019: Chris Hansen’s Team Discusses Routing Money Through Sarah’s "Agent" During the Accusation Campaign
On November 7, 2019, Vincent Nicotra told Chris Hansen:
- “some emails coming in from people who want to donate money to the victims of Onision”
Hansen responded:
- “Contact Sarah’s agent and let him come up with a method of donating and dispersing.”
Financial Incentive and Conflict of Interest
These messages expose a serious conflict behind the supposedly investigative interviews.
The same media operation that:
- interviewed Sarah and Regina
- promoted them as victims
- broadcast accusations against Onision and Lucas
- generated publicity from those accusations
was also discussing how money generated by that publicity would be routed through Sarah’s own agent.
The structure was self-reinforcing:
- sensational accusations generated viewers
- viewers were told Sarah and Regina were victims
- viewers offered money
- Hansen directed Sarah’s agent to organize its collection and distribution
- the accusers, their representatives, and the media operation all benefited from keeping the allegations active
This was not detached journalism or independent fact-finding. It was a monetized accusation campaign with an obvious financial incentive to present the most damaging possible narrative about Onision and Lucas.
The Appearance of Independent Advocacy Was Misleading
The public was shown an interviewer appearing to investigate allegations and advocate for alleged victims.
Behind the scenes, the interviewer’s team was coordinating with Sarah’s agent about money.
That arrangement creates the appearance of independence while the participants were financially connected to the success of the same narrative they were broadcasting.
The resulting conflict is direct:
- Sarah’s accusations generated attention
- Hansen’s broadcasts amplified those accusations
- the audience was encouraged to financially support the accusers
- Sarah’s agent was selected to administer the money
- Onision and Lucas suffered reputational and financial destruction while the accusation network created new financial opportunities for itself
The messages therefore document motive, coordination, and financial interest—not a neutral search for truth.
Source
November 7, 2019 text-message exchange preserved from Vincent Nicotra’s phone.
Vincent’s messages appear in blue. Chris Hansen’s messages appear in gray.
Related evidence:
November 14, 2019: Sarah Publicly States She Does Not Know Why Anyone Would Say She Has PTSD & Denies Having It
On November 14, 2019, Sarah publicly wrote:
- “why does everybody keep saying I have PTSD??”
She continued:
- “appreciate the love but I’ve never been diagnosed with PTSD”
The Damages Conflict
This is Sarah’s own contemporaneous description of her mental-health status months after the claimed events she later blamed on Onision and Lucas.
The post establishes that, at that time:
- Sarah denied ever receiving a PTSD diagnosis
- she questioned why supporters were portraying her as having PTSD
- the PTSD characterization originated with other people, not Sarah or a disclosed clinician
- any later assertion that she had already been diagnosed with PTSD from these events would directly conflict with this statement
Sarah’s later complaint seeks recovery for alleged psychological and emotional injuries, emotional distress, and mental anguish. This post is therefore material to the existence, timing, documentation, and causation of those claimed injuries.
Source
Sarah’s public Twitter post dated November 14, 2019.
Original account: https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
Archived account captures: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
February 19, 2020: Sarah Monetizes Her False Claims With a Laptop Replacement Scheme
On February 19, 2020, Sarah announced that she had surrendered her laptop and old phones to an FBI office in Michigan.
She then requested money:
- “They will probably be keeping the laptop for quite a while so I’ll be needing a new one for school.”
Sarah attached her Venmo account and wrote:
- “Anything to help is greatly appreciated”
The surrendered laptop had been purchased from Lucas for approximately $250. According to the filed evidence, Sarah collected more than $1,000 toward replacing it—more than four times its original cost.
The Financial Exploitation of an Unproven Accusation
Sarah allowed the public to believe the laptop might contain incriminating sexual material involving Lucas ("still" the best friend she's ever had, according to her, years later in 2023). That accusation generated attention, sympathy, and donations.
The evidentiary result did not support the fundraising narrative:
- the FBI possessed the laptop
- the FBI had not established that criminal activity occurred
- Sarah later supplied police with no new evidence, and claimed she was not aware of being the victim of a crime
- Onision’s contemporaneous notes from Sarah’s January 2021 call record her admitting that the laptop contained nothing incriminating
- donors were never publicly given the same warning before Sarah requested replacement money
The structure was deceptive: the accusation created the urgency, the urgency produced donations, and Sarah financially benefited before the accusation was substantiated.
The filed evidence identifies more than $1,000 raised to replace a $250 laptop. Sarah converted an accusation against Onision and Lucas into a personal financial gain even though the device failed to establish the criminal conduct suggested to the public.
This exhibit documents both the financial incentive surrounding Sarah’s campaign and the direct economic and reputational damage inflicted on Onision and Lucas through an accusation that law enforcement did not substantiate.
Pierce County law-enforcement records later stated that the FBI investigation had not established criminal activity. Sarah never had to give up her laptop because as officials confirmed, there was nothing of issue on it. She used the public to turn a $250 laptop into one four times that value.
Source
Sarah’s public Twitter post dated February 19, 2020.
Original account: https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
Archived account captures: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
Public response preserved from: https://twitter.com/Nicholas_DeOrio
Related evidence:
- Sarah’s statements and the law-enforcement findings
- Defamation against Onision and Lucas
- Damage caused to Onision and Lucas
June 20, 2020: Hansen Insider Calls the Accusation Campaign a “Cash Grab” and Says Sarah and Regina Wanted to Be “Paid and Advertised”
On June 20, 2020, Vincent Nicotra—an insider who worked directly with Chris Hansen’s interview operation—wrote:
- “Chris is lying.”
Nicotra stated that Hansen had been attempting to sell the story and had entered negotiations months earlier:
- “I know he has been working on selling the story when I was working with him. He was in negotiations back in December.”
He then described the financial motive he witnessed:
- “I felt it was a cash grab when Regina and Sarah wanted to be paid and advertised.”
Nicotra added:
- “Then Sarah gets a talent manager.”
An Insider Exposes the Financial Motive
This was not speculation from Onision or an outside critic. Nicotra worked inside the media operation that interviewed and promoted Sarah and Regina.
His account identifies:
- Hansen allegedly lying about the operation
- negotiations to sell the story
- Nicotra questioning the truth of the allegations
- Sarah and Regina demanding payment and publicity
- Sarah obtaining professional representation as the controversy generated attention
The public was sold a story of reluctant victims seeking accountability. Behind the scenes, according to Hansen’s own former associate, the accusers wanted money, advertising, and career representation.
That is a direct conflict of interest. The more sensational and destructive the accusations became, the more valuable the story became to the accusers, their representatives, the interviewer, and prospective media buyers.
Nicotra’s description of the operation as a:
- “cash grab”
cuts through the manufactured presentation. Onision and Lucas lost their reputations, income, privacy, and safety while the people accusing them pursued payment, publicity, representation, donations, and media deals.
Source
Email from Vincent Nicotra dated June 20, 2020, preserved in Onision’s email records.
Vincent Nicotra used the address: vincent@hansenvspredators.com
Related evidence:
- Hansen’s team discusses routing donations through Sarah’s agent
- Sarah raises replacement-laptop money
- Onision: Defamation
February 25, 2020: Sarah Is Documented To Be Generated Income From Defaming Onision & Lucas
On February 25, 2020, a public account stated that money collected through the campaign fundraiser had not been distributed and that control of the GoFundMe had been transferred to Shiloh’s manager:
- “She kept it all and the gofundme was transferred to her manager’s hands.”
The same post preserved private messages asking Sarah whether Shiloh had followed through and sent money to the intended recipients.
Sarah responded:
- “I’m not sure what’s going on with that right now tbh! Still working it out”
When told that Shiloh had blocked other people who asked about the promised distribution, Sarah replied:
- “Yeah me too!!”
What the Evidence Establishes
The exchange documents that:
- money was being collected from the public through a campaign tied to the accusations against Onision and Lucas
- Sarah expected or understood that some of the money was supposed to be distributed
- Sarah was directly communicating with donors or participants about that distribution
- the fundraiser allegedly remained active while promised payments were unresolved
- professional representatives or managers were involved in controlling the funds
This was not a purely emotional or uncompensated effort. Sarah was participating in a campaign that generated donations, media opportunities, representation, and expected financial benefits while Onision and Lucas suffered deplatforming and loss of income.
The screenshot does not establish that Sarah controlled the GoFundMe. It establishes her financial involvement and expectation of payment from the same campaign she publicly presented as a pursuit of accountability.
Source
Public Twitter post dated February 25, 2020: https://twitter.com/FaeButtz
The post includes preserved private Twitter messages involving Sarah.
Related evidence:
- Sarah: Fundraising and Financial Motive
- Shiloh: Media Payments and Financial Interest
- Damage inflicted on Onision and Lucas
November 21, 2021: Sarah Says She Misses Her “Other Home” in Washington
On November 21, 2021, Sarah posted airplane footage tagged:
- “#washington”
Her caption stated:
- “missing my other home”
In context, Sarah had repeatedly stayed with Onision and Lucas in Washington and had previously described their household as a place that took her in when her life in Michigan was unbearable.
The Contradiction
Sarah’s later damages narrative portrays the Washington household almost exclusively as the source of lasting trauma and psychological destruction.
Yet more than two years after leaving, she publicly called Washington:
- “my other home”
and stated that she missed it.
The post documents continued attachment and nostalgia toward the same place she later portrayed as solely abusive. It also fits Sarah’s repeated statements that she loved Lucas, considered him her closest friend, voluntarily resumed contact, and continued attempting to reconnect long afterward.
The account avatar shown here also matches the avatar associated with Sarah’s later 2025 TikTok request to reconnect with Lucas.
Source
Sarah’s public TikTok post dated November 21, 2021.
https://tiktok.com/@notsosarah
Related evidence: Sarah’s later voluntary contact
July 10, 2025: Sarah Attempts to Reconnect With Lucas After Google Is Dismissed From Her Lawsuit
On July 10, 2025, Sarah requested to follow Lucas’s private TikTok account.
Lucas did not accept the request. Reminder: This is the year after Sarah called Onision up at 6am and told him she hopes his cancer, which killed his grandpa, returns, and destroys his body.
The Contradiction
Sarah initiated personal contact with Lucas after years of publicly portraying him as a dangerous abuser who caused lasting psychological harm.
The request occurred shortly after Google and YouTube were dismissed with prejudice from the lawsuit, eliminating the wealthy corporate defendants Sarah had previously identified as her actual financial target.
Her conduct shows:
- no effort to avoid Lucas
- no apparent fear of entering his private online space
- continued interest in reconnecting with him
- another voluntary contact attempt inconsistent with her litigation narrative
The request follows Sarah’s repeated calls earlier, private conversations, statements that she had no animosity and moved on, and continued description of Lucas as the best friend she ever had.
Source
TikTok notification captured directly from Lucas’s phone on July 10, 2025.
Sarah’s account:
https://tiktok.com/@notsosarah
Related evidence: