Sarah/Trafficking
Police Findings · Voluntary Travel · Consent · Custody
Sarah’s Trafficking Allegations: The Documentary Record
Sarah’s timeline, private messages, interviews, and police statements document repeated voluntary returns, separate housing, outside employment, independent transportation, no minor-age sexual contact, consensual adult encounters, no legal guardianship, and no evidence of a crime—materially contradicting later claims of trafficking, confinement, and coercive control.
Connected evidence: Grooming Allegations · Police Reports and Findings · Assault Allegations · Credibility Record · Mutual NDA · Documented Damages
Sarah’s Public Timeline Doesn't Match Her Onision-Vindicating Police Report
Sarah publicly posted what she called:
“a very brief timeline of my visits with onision and coolguykai for some clarity”
Her timeline lists repeated visits between September 2016 and July 2019, including several trips after Sarah turned 18.
Sarah claims/identified:
- September 2016 as her first visit.
- October 2016 through February 2017 as the first period she lived with Onision and Lucas.
- April 2017 as another visit.
- August through November 2017 as a second period living with them.
- July through August 2018 as another visit, during which Sarah turned 18.
- January 2019 as the visit when sexual activity began.
- February 2019 as another visit.
- June 30 through July 8, 2019 as a visit involving sexual activity with Onision and Lucas.
- July 17 through July 23, 2019 as Sarah’s final visit with Onision.
What Sarah told police
The Pierce County Sheriff’s report records Sarah providing substantially more specific information about the same 2019 encounters.
Regarding the January 2019 trip, Sarah told the detective that she engaged in sexual activity with Onision and Lucas on two occasions and:
“was a willing participant in the sexual activity that took place during this trip.”
Regarding the late June and early July 2019 trip, Sarah told police that Onision attempted to convince Sarah and Lucas to participate in a threesome. Sarah stated that the three engaged in sexual activity and described it as:
“fine”
Sarah also admitted that she agreed to become Onision’s girlfriend during that visit. Regarding her final July 2019 visit, Sarah told police that Lucas was in New Mexico and that she and Onision engaged in sexual intercourse. The report records that Sarah:
“admitted it had been consensual.”
When the detective directly asked whether Sarah had ever been an unwilling participant in sexual activity with Onision or Lucas, Sarah stated that she:
“never told them no”
and admitted that she was unaware of any crime.
The investigative conclusion
After Sarah made it clear she was not the victim of a crime, the report’s synopsis states:
“No evidence of a crime.”
After interviewing Sarah and reviewing the information supplied, the detective concluded that Sarah had been a willing participant in
sexual activity after reaching the age of consent, including after turning 18, and that the investigation had not established that a crime occurred within Pierce County Sheriff Department jurisdiction.
The report further states that Sarah was not under the legal care or custody of Onision or Lucas.
A missing visit in Sarah’s public timeline
Sarah described the post as a timeline offered “for some clarity,” but it omits the December 12 through December 29, 2018 visit later listed in the Third Amended Complaint.
That omitted trip occurred immediately before the January 2019 encounter that became the centerpiece of Sarah’s later allegation.
The chronology therefore changes depending on the account:
- Sarah’s public timeline omits the December 2018 visit.
- The Complaint includes it.
- Sarah’s police interview records willing participation during January 2019.
- The complaint later describes the same January period as a horrific scene.
These are material inconsistencies involving dates, consent, and the events immediately preceding the principal accusation.
Why it matters
Sarah’s public timeline confirms a continuing pattern of voluntary travel and repeated adult returns.
More importantly, her police interview records direct admissions concerning the exact sexual encounters later placed at issue:
- willing participation in January 2019,
- sexual activity described as “fine” during the June or July visit,
- consensual intercourse during the final July visit,
- no occasion on which Sarah said she told Onision or Lucas no,
- and uncertainty from Sarah herself about whether she had been the victim of a crime.
The detective investigated those claims and found no evidence establishing that a crime occurred within the department’s jurisdiction.
Sarah’s later complaint replaces those contemporaneous statements with a dramatically different account. The police report preserves what Sarah said when directly questioned by law enforcement, before the current complaint transformed the same encounters into allegations of force, coercion, and trafficking.
Source
Sarah’s public Twitter post containing her timeline of visits with Onision and Lucas.
Pierce County Sheriff Department Incident Report No. 2005101366.1, pages 3 through 5.
Consolidated Third Amended Complaint, paragraphs 56 and 343 through 382.
October 2016–February 2017: Sarah Tells Police She Was an Unpaid “Live-In Nanny” and Had No Sexual Contact
Sarah told the Pierce County Sheriff Department that she returned to Washington in October 2016 and lived with Onision and Lucas until late February 2017.
The report states that Sarah helped with:
- Cleaning
- Cooking
- Caring for the children
- Other household chores
Sarah described herself as being:
- “like a live-in nanny”
The report also records that she was not paid for the work she performed.
Most importantly, Sarah told police that she:
- “did not have any kind of sexual contact with Jackson or Kai during this trip.”
What the Record Establishes
Sarah’s police account covers approximately four months of living around the household while she was still a minor.
During that period:
- Sarah performed ordinary household and childcare tasks
- She compared her role to that of an unpaid live-in nanny
- She developed personal feelings toward Lucas
- She expressly denied sexual contact with either Lucas or Onision
- She described Onision as verbally abusive, including calling her names, frightening her, and belittling her
- She eventually returned to Michigan because of what she called “all the drama” in the household
The account does not describe Onision cultivating Sarah through affection, praise, romance, or sexual attention. Sarah instead described him as hostile, insulting, and emotionally distancing.
Her categorical denial of sexual contact directly conflicts with claims that Onision or Lucas engaged in sexual acts with her during this extended minor-age stay.
The household-work description may also be compared with later trafficking allegations. Sarah described chores and childcare, but simultaneously denied sexual contact during the entire period. The police excerpt therefore does not describe sexual exploitation or a sexual-trafficking arrangement.
Source
Pierce County Sheriff Department Incident Report 2005101355.1.
August–November 2017: Sarah Lived in Separate Quarters, Worked at Target, and Reported No Sexual Discussions
Sarah told police that she stayed on the Onision household’s property from August through November 2017 while she was still a minor.
The report states that Sarah:
- “lived in a mother-in-law suite on their property”
It further records that she:
- “worked at a Target store in Puyallup”
Most importantly, Sarah told the investigator:
- “there was not any discussion of a sexual nature at the time”
She also said she remained emotionally closer to Lucas than to Onision.
The Contradiction
Sarah’s own police account documents a teenager who had:
- Separate living quarters
- Employment outside the property
- Regular travel to and from a Target store
- Contact with coworkers and the public
- The ability to earn her own income
- No noted isolation, indication of free roam to and from public areas
- No sexual discussions with Onision or Lucas during the visit
This record directly undermines later portrayals of Sarah as confined, sexually trafficked, or kept under constant household control.
She was living in designated quarters on the property, leaving for outside employment, participating in ordinary public life, and reporting that no sexual discussions occurred.
The facts Sarah gave police describe independent movement and nonsexual living arrangements—not sex trafficking or sexual exploitation of a minor.
Source
Pierce County Sheriff Department Incident Report 2005101355.1, documenting Sarah’s account of her August–November 2017 stay.
September 3, 2017: Onision Calls Sarah a “Freeloader” and Sarah Says She Can Arrange Her Own Ride
These September 3, 2017 messages document Sarah’s ordinary movement outside the household and a dispute over whether she was contributing enough while staying there.
Earlier in the exchange, Onision asked Sarah to meet the household at Panera. Sarah responded that people near her had been chain-smoking and asked whether the household was close.
Later, Onision wrote:
- “Lainey needs your help today. Please stop freeloading. Thank you.”
Sarah responded:
- “I’m cleaning up dog shit right now but after that I’ll do whatever you need”
That evening, Sarah also stated:
- “I can get a ride tonight if you’d rather stay home and work”
What the Messages Establish
The exchange documents that:
- Sarah was outside the household and able to meet people at a public restaurant
- She remained in contact with people outside the home
- She could independently arrange transportation
- She offered to obtain her own ride
- Onision complained that Sarah was not contributing enough
- He described her as “freeloading,” rather than as a valuable source of labor or income
- Sarah understood that she was expected to assist with ordinary household responsibilities
The language is especially relevant to claims that the household housed Sarah in order to extract labor or financially benefit from her.
Onision’s contemporaneous complaint was the opposite: he believed Sarah was receiving the benefits of staying with the household while contributing too little in return.
The Trafficking Contradiction
The later trafficking narrative portrays Sarah as controlled, isolated, and exploited for the household’s benefit.
These messages record a materially different arrangement. Sarah was moving through public places, arranging her own transportation, communicating freely, and being criticized because Onision believed she was not providing enough assistance to justify what the household was providing her.
The exchange therefore conflicts with allegations that:
- Sarah was confined to the property
- The household controlled all of her transportation
- She was prevented from accessing the public
- Onision regarded her as a profitable or indispensable source of labor
- Her presence was maintained because the household was substantially benefiting from her work
The messages instead depict a household dispute over a guest whom Onision believed was contributing too little.
Source
September 3, 2017 text-message exchange between Onision and Sarah.
Onision’s messages appear in blue. Sarah’s messages appear in gray. “Lainey” refers to Lucas.
The conversation was displayed on an iPhone and captured using a MacBook.
October 9, 2018: Sarah Says Onision Viewed Her as a Financial Hindrance With “No Kind of Valuable Return”
On October 9, 2018, Sarah and Lucas discussed whether Sarah would need to stay somewhere else during a future visit.
Lucas asked why Sarah believed that might be necessary.
Sarah answered:
- “Because Greg views me as a financial hinderance with no kind of valuable return”
When Lucas asked when Onision had said that, Sarah referred to an earlier argument in which Onision allegedly complained that the household had lost money and received little in return.
What Sarah’s Statement Establishes
Sarah’s own description presents Onision as believing that her presence cost the household money rather than benefiting it financially.
According to Sarah:
- Onision regarded her as a financial burden
- He believed the household received no valuable return from supporting her
- Sarah understood that this could prevent her from staying with the household
- Her continued access to the home was not assured
- Financial cost was a reason Onision might distance the household from her
The Trafficking Contradiction
The later trafficking narrative portrays Sarah as someone retained because the household benefited from her labor, dependence, or continued presence.
Sarah’s contemporaneous statement describes the opposite financial motive:
- “a financial hinderance with no kind of valuable return”
A person viewed as costing the household money while providing no meaningful return is not being described as a profitable source of labor or financial gain.
This exchange materially contradicts the claim that Onision maintained Sarah’s presence because exploiting her produced a financial benefit. Sarah believed that her lack of value to the household was instead a reason she might be required to stay elsewhere.
Source
October 9, 2018 text-message exchange between Sarah and Lucas.
Lucas’s messages appear in blue. Sarah’s messages appear in gray.
The conversation was displayed on an iPhone and captured using a MacBook.
January 4, 2019: Sarah Says She Did Not Even Meet Lucas Until She Was 16
On January 4, 2019, Lucas told Sarah:
- “Apparently people are saying we slept together when you were 14.”
Sarah immediately responded:
- “I didn’t even meet you until I was 16 wtf”
She also stated:
- “I’m at work sobbing”
Sarah’s contemporaneous statement directly rejects any claim that Lucas had sexual access to her at age 14. According to Sarah herself, they had not even met at that age.
The Contradiction
The exchange establishes that Sarah originally viewed the underage-sex allegation as an obvious and distressing lie.
Her response was not uncertainty or delayed recognition. She relied on a fixed chronological fact:
- “I didn’t even meet you until I was 16”
The message is consistent with Sarah’s other contemporaneous denials of grooming and minor-age sexual contact. It contradicts later efforts to portray her relationship with Lucas as a sexual relationship beginning when she was substantially younger.
Source
January 4, 2019 text messages between Sarah and Lucas.
Lucas’s messages appear in blue and Sarah’s messages appear in gray.
January 5, 2019: Sarah Says the Allegations Would Only Have Credibility if She Made Them
On January 5, 2019, Sarah discussed false allegations being spread about her relationship with Lucas and the Onision household.
After Lucas described the campaign as confirmation bias and people changing their stories to fit a narrative, Sarah stated:
- “The only way it would have any standing would be if I were the one making the claims not someone who said they had a conversation with me about it over 2 years ago.”
She then challenged the weakness of the existing accusation:
- “What kind of evidence did you think that was??”
What Sarah Recognized
Sarah understood that third-party gossip lacked credibility without her endorsement.
Her message establishes that:
- She was not making the accusations at that time
- She regarded the circulating story as unsupported
- She knew her personal endorsement would give the allegations legitimacy
- She understood that she possessed unique power over the public narrative
- She recognized that a claim attributed indirectly to her was not meaningful evidence
This is important because Sarah later became the person making the allegations she had previously rejected.
Her own statement identifies the mechanism by which the narrative could become damaging: the accusations would gain “standing” only if Sarah personally adopted them.
That is exactly what later occurred.
The Contradiction
In January 2019, Sarah treated the allegations as false, unsupported, and incapable of harming the household unless she chose to validate them.
She later supplied that validation by reversing her prior statements and personally adopting accusations that had previously depended on rumor and third-party storytelling.
The message demonstrates that Sarah understood the decisive power of her own words long before she used them against Onision and Lucas.
Source
January 5, 2019 text messages between Sarah and Lucas.
Lucas’s messages appear in blue and Sarah’s messages appear in gray.
January 7, 2019: Sarah Denies Anyone Waited for Her to Turn 18 or Planned a Sexual Relationship
On January 7, 2019, Sarah directly rejected the theory that Lucas had spent years waiting for her to become an adult.
Using sarcasm, Sarah wrote:
- “No you didn’t plan to lay in wait until my 18 birthday then kidnap me to your sex dungeon.”
She then stated plainly:
- “Literally none of us knew this was going to happen”
Sarah also rejected the grooming allegation:
- “If you were grooming me I would’ve already figured it out by now lmao”
The Contradiction
Sarah’s contemporaneous account establishes that:
- Nobody was waiting for her eighteenth birthday
- No sexual or romantic relationship had been planned while she was a minor
- Sarah believed the later relationship was unexpected by everyone involved
- Sarah expressly rejected the allegation that Lucas was grooming her
- Sarah believed she was capable of recognizing grooming if it had occurred
These statements directly contradict the later narrative that Onision and Lucas spent years preparing Sarah for a sexual relationship that would begin once she became legally eligible.
Sarah’s own words describe an unplanned adult development—not a concealed grooming operation originating during her childhood.
Source
January 7, 2019 text messages between Sarah and Lucas.
Lucas’s messages appear in blue and Sarah’s messages appear in gray.
January 9, 2019: Sarah Denies Inappropriate Conversations or Plans With Lucas
YouTube URL: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ZXguf6sQKgA
On January 9, 2019, Sarah published a direct video statement addressing allegations being made about her relationship with Lucas.
Sarah explained that other people were speaking on her behalf:
- “I just came to make my statement since I see a lot of people talking for me.”
She then directly denied the central allegation:
- “People are saying that we had sexual conversations or were planning on having sexual relations when I was under age, and we never did.” (this is a vindication of all acts involving everything prior to January 9, 2019, later sworn to under penalty of perjury)
Sarah did not describe the issue as uncertain, misunderstood, or partially true. She stated that the alleged underage sexual conversations and plans never occurred.
Sarah Says Other People Were Falsely Speaking for Her
Sarah stated that she did not understand why the accusations were being repeated:
- “I don’t know why people are now saying this”
She also referred to:
- “old screenshots that have already been addressed”
This is important because Sarah was not merely offering a general character reference for Lucas. She was addressing the specific screenshots and allegations later used to construct the public grooming narrative.
Sarah’s statement establishes that, as of January 9, 2019:
- she believed other people were speaking for her
- she rejected their interpretation of the screenshots
- she denied sexual conversations while she was underage
- she denied planning underage sexual relations
- she said the disputed screenshots had already been addressed
Sarah Defends Lucas
Sarah described Lucas as:
- “one of the sweetest people I know”
She continued:
- “he doesn’t deserve this.”
Sarah also said the public allegations were unfair to both of them:
- “It’s not fair to me and it’s not fair to him.”
She concluded:
- “I wish this would all stop.”
The video therefore presents Sarah as a direct witness defending Lucas against allegations that she said were false, unfair, and being promoted by people speaking over her.
The Later Complaint Adopts the Video as Truthful
Sarah’s later civil complaint expressly addressed this January 9, 2019 video.
Paragraph 269 states:
- “In this video posted on January 9, 2019, Sarah stated that she did not engage in sexual relations while underage.”
Paragraph 270 then alleges:
- “Sarah did not wish to lie and therefore only stated the literal truth.”
That allegation is exceptionally damaging to the later narrative.
The complaint did not allege merely that Sarah believed the statement at the time, was confused, was attempting to protect Lucas, or was repeating something she had been told.
It affirmatively characterized her statement as:
- “the literal truth.”
The Central Contradiction
The video and complaint together establish the following litigation position:
- Sarah denied underage sexual conversations with Lucas.
- Sarah denied planning underage sexual relations with Lucas.
- Sarah said other people were speaking for her.
- Sarah said the screenshots had already been addressed. (the very same screenshots they used in their complaint, out of context & blatantly ignoring the inconsistency with this video)
- Sarah defended Lucas’s character.
- Sarah said Lucas did not deserve the accusations.
- Sarah’s own complaint later alleged that she told “the literal truth.”
Any later factual theory claiming that Lucas engaged Sarah in underage sexual conversations or planned sexual activity with her directly conflicts with the truthfulness allegation contained in the complaint itself.
The two propositions cannot both accurately describe the same events:
- Sarah’s denial was the literal truth; or
- the opposite later allegation is factually true.
A procedural rule may allow inconsistent legal pleading, but it cannot make opposite historical accounts both factually reliable.
Why This Is More Than an Ordinary Prior Inconsistent Statement
This is not a casual remark extracted from an unrelated conversation.
The statement was:
- made publicly by Sarah
- created specifically to address the allegations
- delivered before the later lawsuit
- directed at people claiming to speak for her
- explicit about the lack of any underage sexual conversations
- explicit about the lack of plans for underage sexual relations
- favorable to Lucas
- later described by Sarah’s own complaint as “the literal truth”
The complaint’s language prevents an easy attempt to dismiss the video as an old lie or uninformed statement. The pleading itself adopts its truthfulness.
A later accusation cannot rely upon Sarah’s credibility while simultaneously asking the audience or court to disregard Sarah’s direct denial and the complaint’s own endorsement of that denial.
Evidentiary and Credibility Significance
The January 9 statement is powerful evidence concerning:
- prior inconsistent statements
- impeachment
- credibility
- motive
- changing narratives
- the interpretation of the disputed screenshots
- whether third parties were manufacturing allegations Sarah originally rejected
- whether Lucas engaged in sexual conversations with Sarah while she was underage
- whether underage sexual activity was being planned
The video is particularly favorable to Lucas because Sarah personally denies both alleged sexual discussions and alleged plans.
It also materially supports the broader Onision-household defense because Sarah states that outsiders were speaking for her and circulating a narrative she wanted stopped. Note: Sarah made this video after already stating directly to Onision that she could destroy his life if she "wanted to", implying she could lie about them and everyone would believe her. On Onision.Wiki there are numerous examples of Sarah confessing to being a liar, making her threat, very real.
Rule 11, Sworn Verification, and Potential Perjury
A federal complaint is not automatically a sworn affidavit. In this case, however, Sarah separately executed an affidavit swearing that the factual allegations in her complaint were true and accurate.
That verification materially changes the issue. This was not merely an attorney presenting alternative legal theories. Sarah personally adopted the complaint’s factual representations under oath.
The verified complaint:
- quoted Sarah’s January 9, 2019 denial of underage sexual conversations or plans
- alleged that Sarah did not wish to lie
- characterized her video statement as “the literal truth”
- incorporated materially conflicting allegations elsewhere in the same complaint
- was personally verified by Sarah as true and accurate
- was submitted to a federal court as the factual basis for her claims
Federal law defines perjury to include willfully subscribing under oath or under penalty of perjury to a material statement the person does not believe to be true. A knowingly false material declaration made in, or ancillary to, a federal-court proceeding may also constitute a federal crime punishable by imprisonment.
The factual conflict cannot be reconciled merely by calling it an evolving narrative:
- either Sarah’s denial was “the literal truth,” as the complaint expressly alleges; or
- the complaint’s contrary account is true.
Both factual accounts cannot accurately describe the same events.
A criminal perjury determination would require proof that Sarah knowingly or willfully made a materially false sworn statement. That determination belongs to the appropriate authorities or court. The evidence nevertheless presents a direct and serious basis for potential perjury scrutiny because Sarah personally swore to the accuracy of a pleading that appears to adopt irreconcilable factual positions.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 independently required the complaint’s signers to certify, after reasonable inquiry, that its factual contentions had evidentiary support or were likely to obtain such support.
Accordingly, this is more than an ordinary credibility inconsistency. Sarah’s sworn verification transforms the contradiction into evidence of a potentially false material declaration presented in federal litigation, while also severely undermining the reliability of the allegations against Onision and Lucas.
What the Evidence Establishes
The record establishes that:
- Sarah publicly denied underage sexual conversations with Lucas.
- Sarah denied plans for underage sexual relations.
- Sarah said people were improperly speaking for her.
- Sarah said the screenshots had already been addressed.
- Sarah called Lucas one of the sweetest people she knew.
- Sarah said Lucas did not deserve the accusations.
- Sarah said the accusations were unfair to both of them.
- Sarah asked for the allegations to stop.
- Sarah’s later complaint expressly alleged that she told “the literal truth.”
- A later opposite account cannot be accepted without confronting that direct contradiction.
- The contradiction severely compromises the credibility of any narrative depending upon the opposite factual premise.
This is not merely evidence that Sarah changed her opinion of Lucas.
It is evidence that Sarah’s own lawsuit expressly adopted as truthful a direct denial of the central underage-sexual-communications allegation later associated with her case.
Sources
- Sarah’s public video dated January 9, 2019.
- Video transcript preserved by Onision.
- Plaintiffs’ complaint, paragraphs 269–270.
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
Related: Sarah Credibility Record · Sarah Grooming Allegations · Sarah Public Accusations · Damage to Onision and Lucas
January 10, 2019: Regina Says Lucas Was Never Sarah’s Guardian and Publicly Defends Him
On January 10, 2019, Regina publicly wrote:
- “he was never her guardian. his choices dont affect you whatsoever so why would it even be relevant to you.”
The statement is direct: Regina rejected the claim that Lucas had ever been Sarah’s guardian.
The Later Reversal
Regina’s 2019 position is especially damaging because her later complaint alleges
that Lucas groomed Regina from ages 14 through 17, attempted to bring her to Washington for sex, and then replaced her with Sarah when Regina could not travel.
By January 2019, the entire period of Regina’s later alleged victimization had already passed. Yet Regina was still publicly defending Lucas and correcting people who portrayed him as Sarah’s guardian.
The contradiction is substantial:
- Regina said Lucas was never Sarah’s guardian.
- She publicly defended his actions as irrelevant to the person criticizing him.
- She did so after the period in which she later claimed Lucas had victimized her.
- She later joined litigation portraying Lucas as a groomer and Sarah as his replacement victim.
- The later complaint also relies on guardian-like authority and control over Sarah that Regina expressly denied in 2019.
Regina’s own public record therefore conflicts with both her later description of Lucas and the guardianship narrative used to support Sarah’s claims.
Source
Regina’s public Twitter post dated January 10, 2019.
Original account: https://twitter.com/hahan0bye
Archived account: https://web.archive.org/web/20191127044337/twitter.com/hahan0bye
January 13, 2019: Sarah Admits Concealing Her Feelings for Years to Preserve Access to Lucas
During a January 13, 2019 argument, Lucas confronted Sarah about concealing her feelings:
- “You lied to me from 2016-late 2018”
Sarah explained why:
- “So we could still be friends”
She also stated:
- “I told you I liked you years ago”
The Credibility Problem
Sarah directly admits that she concealed the truth about her feelings for years because telling Lucas the truth threatened her continued friendship and access to him.
This establishes that Sarah:
- Had romantic feelings for Lucas for years
- Deliberately denied or concealed those feelings
- Understood that honesty could end the friendship
- Chose deception so she could remain close to Lucas
- Later presented herself as a reliable narrator of the same relationship
This was not a minor or unrelated lie. It concerned the central motive behind Sarah’s continued presence in the household and her pursuit of Lucas.
A witness who admits hiding a material motive for years cannot be treated as a neutral or automatically reliable narrator of that same relationship. Sarah’s later allegations must be measured against her own admission that she was willing to conceal the truth when honesty threatened her desired access to Lucas.
Source
January 13, 2019 text messages between Sarah and Lucas.
Lucas’s messages appear in blue and Sarah’s messages appear in gray.
June 13, 2019: Sarah Again Admits Lying About Her Feelings Because Onision Would Have Kicked Her Out
On June 13, 2019, Sarah again admitted that she had concealed her attraction to Lucas for an extended period.
Sarah wrote:
- “You wonder why I lied about liking you for so long...was I supposed to just tell you while I was around so I could give Greg a reason to kick me out or...?”
What Sarah’s Admission Establishes
Sarah’s statement confirms that:
- Her romantic interest originated with her
- She intentionally concealed that interest
- She believed Onision disapproved of her pursuing Lucas
- She expected disclosure to result in her removal from the household
- She lied so she could preserve continued access to Lucas
This directly supports Onision’s position that he acted as a barrier between Sarah and Lucas rather than encouraging, arranging, or cultivating a future sexual relationship.
Sarah’s concern was not that Onision would pressure her into a relationship. Her concern was that Onision would discover what she wanted and prevent it by kicking her out.
The Contradiction
The later grooming narrative portrays the household as deliberately developing Sarah’s attraction and preparing her for a relationship.
Sarah’s contemporaneous explanation is the reverse: she hid her feelings because she knew they were unwelcome and believed Onision would remove her if he discovered them.
This also repeats Sarah’s January 2019 admission that she had lied about her feelings for years so she could remain friends with Lucas. Her own messages establish a sustained pattern of deception designed to preserve proximity to someone she wanted romantically.
Source
June 13, 2019 text messages between Sarah and Lucas.
Lucas’s messages appear in blue and Sarah’s messages appear in gray.
August 27, 2019: Sarah States Neither Onision nor Lucas Ever Kissed Her While She Was Underage
During her August 27, 2019 YouNow livestream, Sarah was asked three direct questions:
- “Did Lainey do more than just make out with you, when did you guys first kiss, and did you kiss Greg when you were underage?”
Sarah shook her head and answered:
- “I didn’t kiss Greg when I was underage. I didn’t kiss either of them when I was underage.”
The Contradiction
Sarah’s answer removes even kissing from the minor-age timeline.
Her statement establishes that:
- Onision never kissed Sarah while she was underage
- Lucas never kissed Sarah while she was underage
- Sarah publicly denied minor-age physical romantic contact with either person
This directly conflicts with later portrayals of a physical or sexual relationship being cultivated and carried out while Sarah was a minor.
Source
Sarah’s August 27, 2019 YouNow livestream, approximately 00:28:58–00:29:21.
Original YouNow account: https://www.younow.com/sarahbear8500
Preserved full-stream reupload: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc2UDXaZzDk&themeRefresh=1
August 27, 2019: Sarah Says the Document Was Only a Power of Attorney, Not Foster-Parent Status
During her August 27, 2019 livestream, Sarah directly addressed the legal arrangement:
- “It was only a ‘Power of Attorney,’ so technically, like, they weren’t actually foster parents to me or anything like that.”
Sarah therefore distinguished the limited document from foster care, legal parenthood, or custodial guardianship.
The Contradiction
Sarah’s own statement establishes that:
- The document was described as a power of attorney
- Onision and Lucas were not her foster parents
- The document did not create a parent-child relationship
- Sarah understood that the household did not possess the legal status later attributed to it
The police investigation later reached the same material conclusion: Sarah was not under the legal care or custody of Onision or Lucas.
This directly conflicts with later allegations portraying Sarah as a dependent child legally controlled by the household.
Source
Sarah’s August 27, 2019 YouNow livestream, approximately 01:33:50–01:34:27.
Original YouNow account: https://www.younow.com/sarahbear8500
Preserved full-stream reupload: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc2UDXaZzDk&themeRefresh=1
See also: Sarah: Police Report
August 27, 2019: Sarah Says She Contacted Lucas Crying and Asked for Help Leaving Her 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.”
According to Sarah, Lucas responded:
- “I’m going to seriously talk to Greg about you living here.”
What Sarah’s Account Establishes
Sarah’s own account places the initiation with her:
- Sarah was experiencing serious difficulties in Michigan
- Sarah contacted Lucas while crying and asking for help
- Lucas responded by discussing the situation with Onision
- The household considered allowing Sarah to live with them because she presented herself as needing assistance
- The living arrangement originated as a response to Sarah’s request for help—not as an effort to lure or recruit her
This directly contradicts the later narrative that Onision and Lucas engineered Sarah’s move for trafficking, sexual exploitation, or coercive control.
Sarah described herself reaching out from Michigan in distress and the household responding with sympathy and an offer of housing.
Source
Sarah’s August 27, 2019 YouNow livestream, approximately 00:40:16–00:41:14.
Original YouNow account: https://www.younow.com/sarahbear8500
Preserved full-stream reupload: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc2UDXaZzDk&themeRefresh=1
September 2019: The Original Allegations Were Cleared With No Evidence of Criminal Activity
In September 2019, the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department received reports alleging possible sexual-exploitation crimes at the Onision household.
The report explains that the initial complaints contained:
- “very little information about the alleged crimes”
It further states that there were:
- “no first hand reports from any alleged victim.”
The department documented the allegations under FIR #19-259-01267.
The report then records the result:
- “The original allegations were documented under PCSD FIR #19-259-01267 and cleared with no evidence of any criminal activity.”
What the Police Record Establishes
The original allegations were not ignored or left unresolved.
They were:
- received by the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department
- formally documented
- assigned an investigative report number
- evaluated for possible criminal conduct
- cleared with no evidence of criminal activity
The department also recorded that the initial reports did not come from an alleged victim with firsthand knowledge. They consisted largely of allegations made about Onision by outside parties.
Consistent With Sarah’s Own Statements
The conclusion is consistent with Sarah’s contemporaneous private and public statements.
Sarah repeatedly stated that:
- “nothing illegal has gone on”
- “there’s nothing illegal that’s happened”
- she was an adult
- the accusers had “zero evidence”
- the allegations were “100% slander”
- police would find no evidence of criminal activity
- neither Onision nor Lucas had sexual contact with her while she was a minor
Sarah later gave law enforcement detailed statements about her visits, relationships, sexual history, and household interactions. Those statements did not establish criminal activity by Onision or Lucas.
The original police conclusion therefore matches the account Sarah gave before adopting the substantially different allegations later presented in litigation.
The Later Complaint’s Contradiction
The later legal complaint presents the same household and historical period as involving grooming, sexual exploitation, trafficking, coercion, assault, and other criminal conduct.
The contemporaneous law-enforcement record states:
- “cleared with no evidence of any criminal activity.”
That is a direct conflict between the later litigation narrative and the conclusion recorded by the agency that originally received and investigated the allegations.
The report does not describe inconclusive evidence of a proven offense. It records that the allegations were cleared because no evidence of criminal activity was found.
Source
Pierce County Sheriff’s Department Incident Report 2005101355.1.
Original allegations documented under PCSD FIR #19-259-01267.
Related evidence:
September 3, 2019: Sarah Publicly Tells Onision, “You Do NOT Scare Me” and Challenges Him
On September 3, 2019, Sarah directly addressed Onision in a series of public posts.
She wrote:
- “Just wait until I get off work. You do NOT scare me, pussy.”
Sarah then published a private message from Onision describing the emotional damage caused to Lucas, the children, and the household. Her response was:
- “ur pathetic @onision”
She followed that with:
- “EAT MY ASS GREG”
In related posts, Sarah further challenged Onision to say whatever he wanted and “bring it.”
What Sarah’s Statements Establish
Sarah’s language is direct and unambiguous:
- She expressly stated that Onision did not scare her
- She publicly insulted and challenged him
- She tagged his account to ensure the attacks were directed at him
- She published his private message and mocked his concern for Lucas and the children
- She invited further confrontation rather than avoiding contact
- She presented herself as aggressive, defiant, and fully willing to fight publicly
Her own statement directly refutes the later portrayal that she was too intimidated by Onision to confront him, oppose him, establish boundaries, or speak freely.
This was not private reassurance given while living in the household. Sarah made the statements publicly after the relationship had ended, while openly attacking Onision before a large audience.
Source
Sarah’s public Twitter posts dated September 3, 2019.
Original account: https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
Archived account captures: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
September 3, 2019: Sarah Publicly Invites Onision to Discuss Her and Challenges Him to “Bring It”
On September 3, 2019, Sarah publicly wrote:
- “say whatever you want about me onision. bring it.”
This was an explicit invitation for Onision to respond publicly. Sarah did not ask for privacy, silence, or separation. She challenged him
before a public audience and encouraged him to discuss her.
The post reinforces her statement from the same day:
- “You do NOT scare me, pussy.”
The Later Contradiction
Sarah later claimed that she wanted to be left alone and objected to Onision publicly discussing the dispute, including through allegations of defamation.
Her contemporaneous words show that she originally welcomed the public confrontation:
- She invited Onision to say whatever he wanted about her
- She challenged him to “bring it”
- She expressly stated that he did not scare her
- She publicly insulted and tagged him
- She published private messages and encouraged the dispute to continue before an audience
Sarah cannot accurately portray the public conflict as something Onision alone initiated when she expressly invited him to speak and challenged him to continue.
Once Sarah publicly opened the dispute, demanded a response, and told Onision to “say whatever you want,” her later attempt to portray his participation in that same public controversy as completely unsolicited becomes directly contradicted by her own post.
The statement also undermines later claims that Sarah avoided Onision out of fear. She openly confronted him, taunted him, and encouraged a public fight.
Source
Sarah’s public Twitter post dated September 3, 2019.
Original account: https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
Archived account captures: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
October 30, 2019: Sarah States Neither Onision nor Lucas Tried to Kiss Her or Initiate Sexual Contact Before She Turned 18
During the October 30, 2019 interview, Sarah was asked:
- “During that six months when you were 16, there was no intimate sexual contact between you and Kai or you and Greg?”
Sarah answered:
- “No, they never, they never tried to like kiss me or anything before I was 18.”
Sarah’s answer is direct and categorical. She stated that:
- No intimate sexual contact occurred while she was 16
- Onision never tried to kiss her while she was underage
- Lucas never tried to kiss her while she was underage
- Neither person attempted sexual contact before she became an adult
The Contradiction
This independently repeats Sarah’s August 2019 livestream statement that she did not kiss either Onision or Lucas while underage.
Her own interviews consistently placed the beginning of physical and sexual contact after she turned 18. That directly conflicts with later allegations portraying the household as engaging in sexual acts with Sarah while she was a minor.
Source
Interview dated October 30, 2019, approximately 00:18:28–00:19:12.
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7vma6ynwuy
Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/have-a-seat-with-chris-hansen-ft.-sarah-discussing-onision
December 24, 2019: Sarah Describes the Arrangement as Medical Power of Attorney, Not Guardianship
In a December 24, 2019 Newsweek interview, Sarah was asked:
- “When was your power of attorney signed over?”
Sarah answered:
- “In early November. My mom went and signed over my medical power of attorney so that if an emergency happened they would have rights... It was for them to take care of me, basically.”
What Sarah’s Statement Establishes
Sarah described a limited medical arrangement:
- Her mother executed the document
- It concerned decisions during a medical emergency
- Sarah called it a “medical power of attorney”
- She did not describe Onision or Lucas as adoptive parents, foster parents, or legal guardians
- The phrase “take care of me” described the practical reason for the document—not a transfer of general custody or parental status
This repeats Sarah’s August 2019 livestream statement that the document was “only” a power of attorney and that the household was not actually her foster family.
It also matches the later police conclusion that Sarah was not under the legal care or custody of Onision or Lucas.
No Legal Guardianship Order Exists
Under Washington law, a person becomes the guardian of a minor only through appointment by a court. A genuine guardianship would therefore produce an official court proceeding, an order appointing the guardian, and letters of guardianship issued by the court clerk.
Some sensitive documents within a guardianship case may be confidential or sealed. The legal appointment itself, however, could not exist solely through an informal household agreement or privately signed medical document.
No guardianship order, court case number, or judicial appointment naming Onision or Lucas as Sarah’s guardians has ever been produced or identified.
The available evidence instead consistently establishes that:
- Sarah described the document as a medical power of attorney
- Sarah publicly stated that Onision and Lucas were not her foster parents
- Regina publicly stated that Lucas was never Sarah’s guardian
- Police determined that Sarah was not under the legal care or custody of Onision or Lucas
- No court-issued guardianship document appears anywhere in the evidentiary record
The guardianship claim is independently testable. Anyone asserting that a legal guardianship existed should be able to identify the court, case number, appointment order, and guardian named by the judge. No such proof has been presented because the arrangement Sarah described was medical authorization—not legal guardianship.
Legal Source
Washington law states that a person becomes guardian for a minor only through appointment by a court: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=11.130.185
Washington law also requires an appointment order and directs the court clerk to issue official letters to the appointed guardian: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=11.130.215
The Contradiction
Sarah’s own repeated descriptions conflict with the later effort to portray the household as possessing broad guardianship authority and legal control over her.
The contemporaneous record identifies a medical document created so someone could act during an emergency. It does not support the later narrative that Onision and Lucas became Sarah’s parents, foster parents, or custodial guardians.
Source
Newsweek interview with Sarah, published December 24, 2019: https://www.newsweek.com/sarah-her-relationship-youtuber-onision-why-did-you-think-this-was-okay-1479119
See also:
January 15, 2021: Sarah Provides No New Information and Police Again Find No Crime Victim
On January 15, 2021, police contacted Sarah again regarding her relationship with Onision and Lucas.
The report states:
- “Sarah seemed surprised that I was following up with her again and told me she did not have any new information to report since we last spoke in March 2020.”
The investigator concluded:
- “Based on the information I had obtained at that time, it did not appear Sarah was a victim of a crime in PCSD jurisdiction.”
The report also summarizes Sarah’s earlier account:
- “Sarah told me she had been involved in a sexual relationship with Jackson but was over 18 years of age during the relationship and had fully consented to the sexual activity.”
It further records that Sarah:
- “was not sure she was a victim of any crime in Pierce County or Washington State.”
The Contradiction
Nearly a year after her first police interview, Sarah still supplied no allegation or new evidence establishing rape, molestation, exploitation of a minor, or any other crime.
The police record remained consistent:
- Sarah was over 18 during the sexual relationship.
- Sarah fully consented to the sexual activity.
- Sarah was unsure that she had been the victim of any crime.
- Sarah provided no new information in January 2021.
- Police again concluded that she did not appear to be a crime victim within their jurisdiction.
- Sarah stood on the narrative she originally told police for almost a year, and had no change in her narrative reported whatsoever.
This directly conflicts with the severe assault narrative Sarah later presented in litigation.
Source
Pierce County Sheriff Department Incident Report 2101900529.1, documenting the January 15, 2021 follow-up with Sarah.