Lisa Haba - Revision history

Admin at 23:08, 21 August 2026

2026-08-21T23:08:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:08, 21 August 2026
Line 1,317:		Line 1,317:


			== April 4, 2025: Haba’s Team Omits Critical Information, Reports False Timeline To Court & Gaslights Actual Victims ==
			[[File:2025-04-04-Lisa-Haba-DARVO-Allegation-Contradicted-by-July-20-2019-Chronology.jpg\|alt=Timeline showing that Onision accused and rejected Sarah on July 20, 2019, before the August 24 date on which Haba’s complaint omits key information and falsely accuses Onision of DARVO.\|thumb\|801x801px\|Haba’s team alleged that Onision manufactured an accusation after Sarah spoke publicly. The dated record places Onision’s accusation, rejection of Sarah, and termination of the relationship on July 20, 2019—more than a month before the date pleaded by counsel.]]
			'''Haba’s “DARVO” allegation depends on a non-existent reversed chronology.''' The complaint alleges that Sarah made public statements first and that Onision responded on August 24, 2019, by “manufactur[ing]” an accusation that Sarah had blackmailed and raped him. The dated record places that accusation, Onision’s rejection of Sarah, and the termination of their relationship on July 20—more than a month earlier.

			This date discrepancy reaches the foundation of the allegation. Counsel used the supposed August 24 origin date to portray Onision’s accusation as retaliation for Sarah’s statements. Restoring the July 20 date restores the actual causal order: Onision accused and rejected Sarah first; Sarah’s later litigation reinventing chronology followed years after.

	~~== April 4, 2025: Haba’s Team Reverses the Chronology to Brand Sarah’s Original Accuser as the “DARVO” Offender ==~~

	[[File:2025-04-04-Lisa-Haba-DARVO-Allegation-Contradicted-by-July-20-2019-Chronology.jpg\|thumb\|right\|450px\|alt=Timeline comparing Haba’s April 4, 2025 DARVO allegation with dated records placing Onision’s accusation and rejection of Sarah on July 20, 2019.\|Haba’s team alleged that Onision manufactured an accusation after Sarah spoke publicly. The dated record places Onision’s accusation, rejection of Sarah, and termination of the relationship on July 20, 2019—more than a month before the date pleaded by counsel.]]

	'''Haba’s “DARVO” allegation depends on a reversed chronology.''' The complaint alleges that Sarah made public statements first and that Onision responded on August 24, 2019, by “manufactur[ing]” an accusation that Sarah had blackmailed and raped him. The dated record places that accusation, Onision’s rejection of Sarah, and the termination of their relationship on July 20—more than a month earlier.

	This date discrepancy reaches the foundation of the allegation. Counsel used the supposed August 24 origin date to portray Onision’s accusation as retaliation for Sarah’s statements. Restoring the July 20 date restores the actual causal order: Onision accused and rejected Sarah first; Sarah’s ~~public reframing and~~ later litigation followed.

	=== What Haba’s team told the court ===		=== What Haba’s team told the court ===
Line 1,344:		Line 1,339:
	# Sarah made public statements.		# Sarah made public statements.
	# Onision allegedly reacted to those statements.		# Onision allegedly reacted to those statements.
	# On August 24, he ~~supposedly~~ invented a rape-and-blackmail accusation.		# On August 24, they claim he invented a rape-and-blackmail accusation.
	# Counsel characterized that supposedly reactive accusation as “DARVO.”		# Counsel characterized that supposedly reactive accusation as “DARVO.”

	The July 20 record defeats the premise that the accusation originated on August 24.		The July 20 record defeats the premise that the accusation originated on August 24.

	~~=== The distinction between manufacturing and later publishing an accusation ===~~

	~~The complaint says Onision “manufactured a story” on August 24. That allegation concerns the supposed invention of the accusation, rather than merely its later publication online.~~

	~~The distinction is decisive.~~

	Even if August 24 marked a later online publication, repetition, or expansion of the accusation, that date cannot accurately identify when the accusation was manufactured because the dated record establishes that:

	* Onision had already accused Sarah;
	* the accusation had already caused Onision to reject Sarah;
	* the relationship had already ended because of that conflict; and
	* Sarah later repeatedly acknowledged that the accusation existed.

	Counsel converted a possible date of later publication into the alleged date of invention. That substitution supplied the causal bridge necessary to portray Onision’s accusation as retaliation for Sarah’s public statements.

	=== What the July 20 record establishes ===		=== What the July 20 record establishes ===

	Document 237-2, page 11, contains Exhibit 33 and the July 20, 2019 Ring event history. The footage fixes Sarah’s departure from the household ~~at approximately 11:00 a.m.~~ following the confrontation and termination of the relationship.		Document 237-2, page 11, contains Exhibit 33 and the July 20, 2019 Ring event history. The footage fixes Sarah’s departure from the household following the confrontation and termination of the relationship.

	The accompanying filed account states that immediately before the recorded departure:		The accompanying filed account states that immediately before the recorded departure:
Line 1,414:		Line 1,394:
	=== Why the corrected chronology defeats the pleaded DARVO narrative ===		=== Why the corrected chronology defeats the pleaded DARVO narrative ===

	DARVO describes an offender responding to confrontation by denying wrongdoing, attacking the person seeking accountability, and reversing the positions of victim and offender.~~<ref name="DARVO">~~[https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2020.1774695 Harsey and Freyd, ''Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender (DARVO)'']~~</ref>~~		DARVO describes an offender responding to confrontation by denying wrongdoing, attacking the person seeking accountability, and reversing the positions of victim and offender. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2020.1774695 Harsey and Freyd, ''Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender (DARVO)'']

	The complaint invokes that framework by presenting Onision’s accusation as a response to Sarah holding him accountable. The dated record establishes the following sequence:		The complaint invokes that framework by presenting Onision’s accusation as a response to Sarah holding him accountable. The dated record establishes the following sequence:
Line 1,451:		Line 1,431:
	=== The professional-responsibility failure ===		=== The professional-responsibility failure ===

	The complaint was filed in the Northern District of California on April 4, 2025. Civil Local Rule 11-4(a)(4) required counsel to practice with the “honesty” and “care” necessary for the fair and efficient administration of justice.~~<ref name="NDCal114">~~[https://cand.uscourts.gov/attorneys/professional-conduct N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 11-4(a)(4) — Standards of Professional Conduct]~~</ref>~~		The complaint was filed in the Northern District of California on April 4, 2025. Civil Local Rule 11-4(a)(4) required counsel to practice with the “honesty” and “care” necessary for the fair and efficient administration of justice. [https://cand.uscourts.gov/attorneys/professional-conduct N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 11-4(a)(4) — Standards of Professional Conduct]

	Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(3) provides that presenting or later advocating a pleading certifies that its factual contentions possess evidentiary support following an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances.~~<ref name="FRCP11">~~[https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) — Factual contentions and reasonable inquiry]~~</ref>~~		Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(3) provides that presenting or later advocating a pleading certifies that its factual contentions possess evidentiary support following an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) — Factual contentions and reasonable inquiry]

	Advocacy permits counsel to argue among competing interpretations. Rule 11 still requires reasonable factual support for the specific date, origin, and causal sequence counsel affirmatively alleged.		Advocacy permits counsel to argue among competing interpretations. Rule 11 still requires reasonable factual support for the specific date, origin, and causal sequence counsel affirmatively alleged.
Line 1,467:		Line 1,447:
	# how Sarah later explained the two apologies attributed to her.		# how Sarah later explained the two apologies attributed to her.

	Following transfer, Western District of Washington LCR 83.3(a) requires attorneys appearing in that district to comply with the Federal Rules and Washington Rules of Professional Conduct.~~<ref name="WAWDLCR833">~~[https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/sites/wawd/files/032725%20WAWD%20Local%20Civil%20Rules%20-%20Clean.pdf W.D. Wash. LCR 83.3(a) — Standards of Professional Conduct]~~</ref>~~		Following transfer, Western District of Washington LCR 83.3(a) requires attorneys appearing in that district to comply with the Federal Rules and Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. [https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/sites/wawd/files/032725%20WAWD%20Local%20Civil%20Rules%20-%20Clean.pdf W.D. Wash. LCR 83.3(a) — Standards of Professional Conduct]

	Washington RPC 3.3 prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact to a tribunal or failing to correct a material statement previously made by the lawyer. Its official comments explain that knowledge may be inferred from the circumstances and that counsel “cannot ignore an obvious falsehood.”~~<ref name="WARPC33">~~[https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/RPC/GA_RPC_03_03_00.pdf Washington RPC 3.3 — Candor Toward the Tribunal]~~</ref>~~		Washington RPC 3.3 prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact to a tribunal or failing to correct a material statement previously made by the lawyer. Its official comments explain that knowledge may be inferred from the circumstances and that counsel “cannot ignore an obvious falsehood.” [https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/RPC/GA_RPC_03_03_00.pdf Washington RPC 3.3 — Candor Toward the Tribunal]

	The record presents two serious professional failures:		The record presents two serious professional failures:
Line 1,495:		Line 1,475:

	The result is especially serious because counsel invoked terminology intended to identify the reversal of victims and offenders while presenting a record that itself reverses who accused whom, when the accusation arose, and how Sarah originally responded.		The result is especially serious because counsel invoked terminology intended to identify the reversal of victims and offenders while presenting a record that itself reverses who accused whom, when the accusation arose, and how Sarah originally responded.

	~~=== References ===~~

	~~<references />~~

	=== Sources and connected evidence ===		=== Sources and connected evidence ===

Admin at 22:52, 21 August 2026

2026-08-21T22:52:05Z

Show changes

Admin at 22:51, 21 August 2026

2026-08-21T22:51:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:51, 21 August 2026
Line 1,315:		Line 1,315:

	Consolidated Third Amended Complaint, paragraph 269.		Consolidated Third Amended Complaint, paragraph 269.





			////




	== April 4, 2025: Lisa Haba's Filing Makes Clearly False Statements To The Court About An NDA That Her Own Client Contradicts Alongside The Evidence ==		== April 4, 2025: Lisa Haba's Filing Makes Clearly False Statements To The Court About An NDA That Her Own Client Contradicts Alongside The Evidence ==

Admin at 22:51, 21 August 2026

2026-08-21T22:51:07Z

Show changes

Admin at 04:02, 21 August 2026

2026-08-21T04:02:04Z

Show changes

Admin at 22:23, 18 August 2026

2026-08-18T22:23:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:23, 18 August 2026
Line 462:		Line 462:


	== January 30 – February 9, 2023: Lisa Haba & Margaret Mabie Funded by Chris Hansen Associate & Criminal Anonymous Gene According to Private & Public Claims ==		== January 30 – February 9, 2023: Lisa Haba & Margaret Mabie Allegedly Funded by Chris Hansen Associate & Criminal Anonymous Gene According to Private & Public Claims ==
	[[File:2023-01-30 to 2023-02-09 google voice twitter foster child denial suicide solicitation legal funding confession.jpg\|alt=January 30 through February 9, 2023 Google Voice and Twitter records in which Anonymous Gene denies Onision history, calls Onision a pedophile, tells him to kill himself, admits to personally paying for the plaintiffs' lawyers, and a second stalker named Eugene William Lynch confirms paying to see Onision's downfall.\|thumb\|382x382px\|January 30–February 9, 2023 records showing Anonymous Gene denying Onision's documented history, repeating suicide solicitation and "pedophile" branding, and claims to fund Sarah and Regina Alonso's legal team, corroborated by public claim to paying for Onision's "downfall."]]		[[File:2023-01-30 to 2023-02-09 google voice twitter foster child denial suicide solicitation legal funding confession.jpg\|alt=January 30 through February 9, 2023 Google Voice and Twitter records in which Anonymous Gene denies Onision history, calls Onision a pedophile, tells him to kill himself, admits to personally paying for the plaintiffs' lawyers, and a second stalker named Eugene William Lynch confirms paying to see Onision's downfall.\|thumb\|382x382px\|January 30–February 9, 2023 records showing Anonymous Gene denying Onision's documented history, repeating suicide solicitation and "pedophile" branding, and claims to fund Sarah and Regina Alonso's legal team, corroborated by public claim to paying for Onision's "downfall."]]
	Between January 30 and February 9, 2023, criminal stalker Anonymous Gene repeated demands that Onision kill himself, branded him a "pedophile," and claims to personally financing the plaintiffs' legal team. Same individual going by "Eugene William Lynch", publicly corroborated this financial claim.		Between January 30 and February 9, 2023, criminal stalker Anonymous Gene repeated demands that Onision kill himself, branded him a "pedophile," and claims to personally financing the plaintiffs' legal team. Same individual going by "Eugene William Lynch", publicly corroborated this financial claim.
Line 693:		Line 693:
	* [[Sarah/Defamation\|Sarah's Public Accusation Record]]		* [[Sarah/Defamation\|Sarah's Public Accusation Record]]
	* [[Regina\|Regina Record]]		* [[Regina\|Regina Record]]

Admin at 16:03, 18 August 2026

2026-08-18T16:03:51Z

Show changes

Admin at 20:09, 14 August 2026

2026-08-14T20:09:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:09, 14 August 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<div style="margin:0 0 26px 0; padding:22px 22px 20px 22px; border:1px solid #e2dccf; border-left:9px solid #7a1f1f; background:linear-gradient(135deg,#faf3f0 0%,#ffffff 100%); box-shadow:0 3px 8px rgba(0,0,0,0.08);">		<div style="margin:0 0 26px 0; padding:22px 22px 20px 22px; border:1px solid #e2dccf; border-left:9px solid #7a1f1f; background:linear-gradient(135deg,#faf3f0 0%,#ffffff 100%); box-shadow:0 3px 8px rgba(0,0,0,0.08);">

	<div style="margin:0 0 6px 0; font-size:0.73em; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:0.15em; text-transform:uppercase; color:#7a1f1f;">~~Settlement Extortion ·~~ $400,000 Demand · Google Affidavit Scheme · CLAIMED Third-Party Funding</div>		<div style="margin:0 0 6px 0; font-size:0.73em; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:0.15em; text-transform:uppercase; color:#7a1f1f;">$400,000 Demand · Google Affidavit Scheme · CLAIMED Third-Party Funding</div>

	<div style="margin:0; font-size:2em; font-weight:bold; line-height:1.18; color:#171717;">The Lisa Haba Record: A Lawsuit Built on Leverage, Not Evidence</div>		<div style="margin:0; font-size:2em; font-weight:bold; line-height:1.18; color:#171717;">The Lisa Haba Record: A Lawsuit Built on Leverage, Not Evidence</div>
Line 10:		Line 10:

	<div style="margin:15px 0 0 0; padding:13px 15px; border:1px solid #e0c9c9; border-left:5px solid #7a1f1f; background:#ffffff; font-size:0.94em; line-height:1.6; color:#414141;">		<div style="margin:15px 0 0 0; padding:13px 15px; border:1px solid #e0c9c9; border-left:5px solid #7a1f1f; background:#ffffff; font-size:0.94em; line-height:1.6; color:#414141;">
	<b>The central finding of this record:</b> The evidence supports the conclusion that the litigation Haba filed was preceded by a monetary ~~extortion attempt~~, escalated in severity only after that demand was refused, and was pursued using strategic settlement offers designed to manufacture evidence against a third-party corporate defendant rather than to remedy any actual harm. Independent confessions from a documented stalker claiming to personally fund and coordinate elements of this same litigation further corroborate that the case was not built on good-faith evidentiary grounds.		<b>The central finding of this record:</b> The evidence supports the conclusion that the litigation Haba filed was preceded by a monetary demand, escalated in severity only after that demand was refused, and was pursued using strategic settlement offers designed to manufacture evidence against a third-party corporate defendant rather than to remedy any actual harm. Independent confessions from a documented stalker claiming to personally fund and coordinate elements of this same litigation further corroborate that the case was not built on good-faith evidentiary grounds.
	</div>		</div>

Line 135:		Line 135:
	# the later lawsuit expanded far beyond the original defamation dispute		# the later lawsuit expanded far beyond the original defamation dispute

	Onision contemporaneously labeled the communication:		Onision contemporaneously labeled the communication described it during the call as:

	~~: “Extortion By Lawyer”~~

	~~and~~ described it during the call as:

	: “a shake down”		: “a shake down”
Line 548:		Line 544:
	* knew Doe had never met him (Just like Regina is a stranger to Onision, yet Lisa Haba filed action on her behalf against Onision anyway) and that he had not participated in trafficking, but nevertheless “concocted” allegations that he trafficked Doe to Nygard to be raped (again, this is a repeat, Lisa Haba's filing accused both Lucas and Onision of already contradicted by police reports involving her own plaintiffs/impossible acts);		* knew Doe had never met him (Just like Regina is a stranger to Onision, yet Lisa Haba filed action on her behalf against Onision anyway) and that he had not participated in trafficking, but nevertheless “concocted” allegations that he trafficked Doe to Nygard to be raped (again, this is a repeat, Lisa Haba's filing accused both Lucas and Onision of already contradicted by police reports involving her own plaintiffs/impossible acts);
	* proceeded despite allegedly missing dates, communications, travel records, locations, witnesses, and other basic corroborating information; (again, Lisa Haba's complaint against Onision & Lucas is based on verifiable fabrication, this is a pattern of Lisa Haba's)		* proceeded despite allegedly missing dates, communications, travel records, locations, witnesses, and other basic corroborating information; (again, Lisa Haba's complaint against Onision & Lucas is based on verifiable fabrication, this is a pattern of Lisa Haba's)
	* searched Baram’s financial condition online, believed he possessed substantial assets, and expected him to pay a large settlement (Lisa Haba continues to sue Onision & Lucas despite them repeatedly refusing to pay her ~~extortionist~~ demands, and making it clear that they don't have the money to pay, but even if they did, they would not, because the did nothing wrong, they were victims of Sarah's sexual extortion, Sarah being Lisa Haba's plaintiff);		* searched Baram’s financial condition online, believed he possessed substantial assets, and expected him to pay a large settlement (Lisa Haba continues to sue Onision & Lucas despite them repeatedly refusing to pay her demands, and making it clear that they don't have the money to pay, but even if they did, they would not, because the did nothing wrong, they were victims of Sarah's sexual extortion, Sarah being Lisa Haba's plaintiff);
	* used a contingency arrangement, litigation financing, and Doe’s anonymity as components of an alleged financial-recovery strategy; (Lisa Haba allegedly is also representing Regina Alonso and Sarah on a contingency, they already lost to Google, and have only Onision & Lucas left now that the case is finally in the correct jurisdiction)		* used a contingency arrangement, litigation financing, and Doe’s anonymity as components of an alleged financial-recovery strategy; (Lisa Haba allegedly is also representing Regina Alonso and Sarah on a contingency, they already lost to Google, and have only Onision & Lucas left now that the case is finally in the correct jurisdiction)
	* continued the claims against Baram until he refused to settle and discovery approached (Same, only now Lisa Haba is refusing to provide documents the counter claimants are entitled to, citing a protective order that they never even filed);		* continued the claims against Baram until he refused to settle and discovery approached (Same, only now Lisa Haba is refusing to provide documents the counter claimants are entitled to, citing a protective order that they never even filed);
Line 1,336:		Line 1,332:

	# disparaging attorneys Lisa Haba and Margaret Mabie and presenting their litigation conduct "as something else";		# disparaging attorneys Lisa Haba and Margaret Mabie and presenting their litigation conduct "as something else";
	~~# publicly sharing settlement communications and characterizing them as "extortion"; and~~
	# attributing the conduct of other online figures, including Anonymous Gene, to plaintiffs' counsel.		# attributing the conduct of other online figures, including Anonymous Gene, to plaintiffs' counsel.

	This passage records counsel's advocacy position regarding this archive. Its significance lies in confirming, in a federal filing, that plaintiffs' legal team is actively monitoring this wiki's documentation of their own conduct. Notably, the filing ~~disputes only the characterization of settlement communications as "extortion." It~~ does not deny the communications occurred, does not deny their content, and identifies no factual inaccuracy in this wiki's account of the underlying demands.		This passage records counsel's advocacy position regarding this archive. Its significance lies in confirming, in a federal filing, that plaintiffs' legal team is actively monitoring this wiki's documentation of their own conduct. Notably, the filing does not deny the communications occurred, does not deny their content, and identifies no factual inaccuracy in this wiki's account of the underlying demands.

	=== The Contradiction Within Plaintiffs' Own Proposed Order ===		=== The Contradiction Within Plaintiffs' Own Proposed Order ===

Admin at 20:07, 14 August 2026

2026-08-14T20:07:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:07, 14 August 2026
Line 1,327:		Line 1,327:

	Consolidated Third Amended Complaint, paragraph 269.		Consolidated Third Amended Complaint, paragraph 269.

			== August 10, 2026: Plaintiffs' Counsel Formally Objects to This Wiki, Then Files a Proposed Order Contradicting Its Own Stated Limits ==
			[[File:2026-08-10 Plaintiffs Attack Onision Wiki While Proposing All-Documents Confidentiality.jpg\|alt=Federal filing excerpts showing plaintiffs’ criticism of Onision.Wiki and consecutive pages of their proposed order containing conflicting confidentiality language.\|thumb\|502x502px\|Plaintiffs’ August 10, 2026 filing criticized Onision.Wiki while their proposed order disclaimed blanket protection on page one and defined “any and all documents” exchanged as confidential on page two.]]
			On August 10, 2026, plaintiffs' counsel filed Document 279 in ''Sarah et al. v. Jackson et al.'', No. 3:25-cv-05594-JHC (W.D. Wash.), formally objecting to this wiki's documentation of their conduct. The accompanying proposed order, Document 279-1, independently confirms the exact confidentiality dispute this archive has already reported.

			=== What Plaintiffs' Counsel Told the Court ===
			Document 279, at page 3, accused Onision of operating a wiki page devoted to:

			# disparaging attorneys Lisa Haba and Margaret Mabie and presenting their litigation conduct "as something else";
			# publicly sharing settlement communications and characterizing them as "extortion"; and
			# attributing the conduct of other online figures, including Anonymous Gene, to plaintiffs' counsel.

			This passage records counsel's advocacy position regarding this archive. Its significance lies in confirming, in a federal filing, that plaintiffs' legal team is actively monitoring this wiki's documentation of their own conduct. Notably, the filing disputes only the characterization of settlement communications as "extortion." It does not deny the communications occurred, does not deny their content, and identifies no factual inaccuracy in this wiki's account of the underlying demands.

			=== The Contradiction Within Plaintiffs' Own Proposed Order ===
			Page one of the proposed order states:

			: "It does not confer blanket protection on all disclosures or responses to discovery."

			The very next page defines the material it protects:

			: "'Confidential' material shall include any and all documents and their content and tangible things produced or otherwise exchanged."

			Read together, these provisions pull in opposite directions. Section 1 promises protection limited to qualifying information. Section 2 defines "confidential" to include every document, its contents, and every tangible item exchanged, without qualification. Section 5 of the same proposed order separately requires restraint and document-specific designation. This drafting conflict creates real uncertainty at the operative definition, one that would allow production to begin from an all-documents baseline while placing the burden on Onision and Lucas to challenge each disputed designation individually.

			=== A Documented Departure From the Court's Own Model Order ===
			The Western District of Washington's official model stipulated protective order instructs litigants to identify specific protected categories, offering examples such as medical records or a customer list, and expressly directs parties to avoid broad, undifferentiated categories. The same model order states plainly: "Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited."

			Plaintiffs' proposed language did not identify a broad category requiring scrutiny; it encompassed the entire universe of exchanged documentary and tangible material. This departure from the court's own template, standing alone, and independent of any dispute over the characterization of settlement communications, supplies an objective, document-based foundation for Onision's opposition.

			=== Why the Timing of the Wiki Objection Matters ===
			Two positions appear within the same filing package. Plaintiffs' counsel asked the court to treat this wiki's documentation as disparagement and mischaracterization, while attaching, in the same filing set, language broad enough to place every exchanged document behind a confidentiality designation. This juxtaposition raises a legitimate transparency concern: a legal team objecting to a public, source-linked archive of their own conduct while simultaneously proposing a discovery framework broad enough to restrict public access to the underlying record.

			Onision's response focused on the governing text itself: production of responsive evidence, narrow protection limited to genuinely sensitive categories, and document-specific confidentiality consistent with the court's own model. That position aligns directly with the model order's stated preference for precision and restraint.

			=== Governing Standards ===
			'''Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)''' authorizes protective relief only upon a showing of good cause, with the burden resting on the party seeking protection to identify the specific harm justifying it. The Ninth Circuit's decision in ''Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.'', 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003), directly addresses this standard in the protective-order context, holding that broad, undifferentiated confidentiality designations do not satisfy Rule 26(c)'s good-cause requirement.

			'''Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule 5(g)''' establishes a strong presumption of public access to court files; filing material under seal requires document-specific justification and judicial approval, not a categorical designation applied at the outset of discovery.

			'''Federal Rule of Evidence 408''' limits the admissibility of qualifying compromise communications on the question of liability or the amount of a disputed claim; it does not independently render a communication confidential. Confidentiality attaches only through an applicable agreement, recognized privilege, procedural rule, or court order, meaning the label "settlement" does not, by itself, establish a legal basis for withholding a communication from public discussion.

			The '''First Amendment''' and Article I, Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution protect public discussion and publication concerning litigation and matters of public concern, subject to accountability for actionable false statements of fact. This wiki's reliance on accurately identified primary sources, presented alongside clearly attributed analysis, is the foundation of that protection.

			=== Evidentiary Conclusion ===
			The August 10 filing establishes that plaintiffs' counsel objected to this wiki's public documentation of their conduct. Their own attached proposal, read across two consecutive pages of the same exhibit, then independently demonstrates the exact concern this archive has already reported: a disclaimer against blanket protection followed immediately by an operative definition encompassing "any and all documents." That contradiction is verifiable directly from plaintiffs' own filing, without reliance on any characterization by Onision or Lucas.

			=== Source ===
			''Sarah et al. v. Jackson et al.'', No. 3:25-cv-05594-JHC, Dkt. 279 at 3 and Dkt. 279-1 at 1–2 (W.D. Wash., filed August 10, 2026). Reviewed directly from court filings.

			=== Related Evidence ===

			* [[Lisa Haba\|Lisa Haba's Attorney and Media Record]]
			* [[Margaret Mabie\|Margaret Mabie's Litigation Record]]
			* [[Anonymous Gene/Crimes\|Anonymous Gene's Criminal Record]]
			* [[Sarah/Credibility\|Sarah's Credibility Record]]
			* [[Onision/Damages\|Documented Damages to Onision and Lucas]]
			* [https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/sites/wawd/files/ModelStipulatedProtectiveOrder%20CLEAN_2.1.23.pdf W.D. Wash. — Model Stipulated Protective Order]
			* [https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/local-rules-and-orders W.D. Wash. — Local Civil Rules]
			* [https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)]
			* [https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_408 Federal Rule of Evidence 408]
			* [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/331/1122/510883/ Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003)]
			* [https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ First Amendment]
			* [https://leg.wa.gov/state-laws-and-rules/washington-state-constitution/ Washington State Constitution, Article I, Section 5]

Admin: /* February 28, 2023: Repeat Accused Law-Abuser Lisa Haba Is Named in a Federal Suit Alleging Fabrication, Financial Targeting, and Abuse of Process */

2026-07-31T19:54:39Z

February 28, 2023: Repeat Accused Law-Abuser Lisa Haba Is Named in a Federal Suit Alleging Fabrication, Financial Targeting, and Abuse of Process

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:54, 31 July 2026
Line 536:		Line 536:

	== February 28, 2023: Repeat Accused Law-Abuser Lisa Haba Is Named in a Federal Suit Alleging Fabrication, Financial Targeting, and Abuse of Process ==		== February 28, 2023: Repeat Accused Law-Abuser Lisa Haba Is Named in a Federal Suit Alleging Fabrication, Financial Targeting, and Abuse of Process ==
	[[File:2023-02-28 Baram-v-Doe SDNY-Docket Complaint-Naming-Lisa-Haba.jpg.jpg\|alt=Southern District of New York docket showing a February 28, 2023 complaint filed by Jonathan Baram against Lisa Haba, The Haba Law Firm, Jane Doe, DiCello Levitt, Farzin Amanat, and Greg Gutzler.\|thumb\|~~620x620px~~\|February 28, 2023 SDNY docket entry confirming that Jonathan Baram filed a federal complaint naming Lisa Haba and The Haba Law Firm as defendants.]]		[[File:2023-02-28 Baram-v-Doe SDNY-Docket Complaint-Naming-Lisa-Haba.jpg.jpg\|alt=Southern District of New York docket showing a February 28, 2023 complaint filed by Jonathan Baram against Lisa Haba, The Haba Law Firm, Jane Doe, DiCello Levitt, Farzin Amanat, and Greg Gutzler.\|thumb\|450x450px\|February 28, 2023 SDNY docket entry confirming that Jonathan Baram filed a federal complaint naming Lisa Haba and The Haba Law Firm as defendants.]]
	On February 28, 2023, Jonathan Baram filed a federal complaint naming Lisa Haba, The Haba Law Firm, Jane Doe, DiCello Levitt, Farzin Amanat, and Greg Gutzler as defendants.		On February 28, 2023, Jonathan Baram filed a federal complaint naming Lisa Haba, The Haba Law Firm, Jane Doe, DiCello Levitt, Farzin Amanat, and Greg Gutzler as defendants.