Sarah/NDA

Mutual Terms · Lawful Reporting · Sarah’s Conditions · Later Reversal

Sarah’s NDA Claims: The Signed Agreement and Negotiation Record

Messages, the signed agreement, and Sarah’s own livestream admissions show a mutual five-year NDA that permitted lawful reporting and prohibited false statements by both parties. Sarah actively negotiated its terms, demanded Onision sign to keep his "fat mouth" shut, and admitted linking her signature to first receiving the sexual activity she wanted, quoted exactly getting her "shit rocked" to "do stuff" and stating she would only sign if she "got what (she) wanted"—materially contradicting claims that the NDA was imposed to conceal crime or coerce her. Sarah was the only one, of 7 total signers (including Onision & Lucas) to demand sex in exchange for signing. 1 out of 7 anti-defamation agreement signers demanded sex, and that one person was Sarah.

Connected evidence: Credibility Record   ·   Grooming Allegations   ·   Assault Allegations   ·   Public Accusations   ·   Later Calls and Admissions   ·   Documented Damages

The NDA at a Glance

Editorial illustration summarizing the mutual NDA proposal, the other participants’ agreement to sign, and the separate condition Sarah attached to signing.

Visual Summary The Mutual NDA This editorial illustration summarizes the documented NDA negotiation presented in the Sarah record. Onision proposed a mutual agreement intended to prevent the participants from lying about one another for five years. Other participants agreed to sign, while Sarah demanded they "do stuff" in exchange - this is connected to multiple other clarifying statements Sarah made that reveal beyond question what her intent/plot was.

January 5, 2019: Sarah Says the Allegations Would Have No Standing Unless She Personally Made Them

On January 5, 2019, Sarah and Lucas discussed the false accusations then being circulated by Ayalla and others.

Sarah privately stated that the allegations would only have “standing” if she personally made them, rather than someone claiming to remember a conversation with her from years earlier.

Sarah explained that she had decided not to conduct another livestream:

“Yeah and that exactly why I didn’t live stream. Anything else would just be repetitive and unnecessary”

Lucas stated that he felt able to move forward and let his attorney handle anything further:

“I feel better I can move on and let my lawyer deal with the rest”

Sarah advised him to ignore the controversy, explaining that it had not changed anyone’s existing opinion:

“No fans turned against you for it”

She continued:

“No one had their mind changed if you thought I was a bad person you still do and if you support me you know it’s fake”

Sarah Recognizes That She Holds the Decisive Power

Sarah then made the most important statement in the exchange:

“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. What kind of evidence did you think that was??”

Sarah understood that rumors from outsiders lacked meaningful force unless she personally adopted them.

Lucas agreed:

“Exactly you are literally the only person who can confirm or deny this and you know what’s true”

He added:

“Our stories match up not yours and theirs”

Sarah did not dispute either statement.

The exchange establishes that Sarah knew:

• she was the decisive witness
• unsupported third-party accusations depended upon her endorsement
• she alone could convert rumors into a first-person allegation
• she alone could publicly confirm or deny what had happened to her
• her account matched Lucas’s account at the time
• she considered the allegations false
• the accusations would have no meaningful “standing” unless she personally made them

This gave Sarah extraordinary power over the reputations and lives of Onision and Lucas.

The accusations concerned Sarah. If she rejected them, they remained unsupported rumors. If she adopted them, they became allegations presented in the voice of the claimed victim.

Sarah plainly understood that distinction.

The Earlier Threat Gives This Statement Greater Significance

The significance of Sarah’s statement becomes clearer when read with the surrounding chronology.

Onision later confronted Sarah about an alleged late-2018 threat to destroy the household’s lives through false accusations after Lucas rejected her advances.

During the recorded August 7, 2024 telephone call, Sarah was confronted about whether she had made the statement. She responded:

“As a joke!? Sure, I probably did.”

Sarah attempted to characterize the statement as a joke, but she did not clearly deny making it.

The sequence is therefore significant:

1. Sarah threatened that she could destroy their lives by saying whatever she wanted to
2. Sarah privately recognized that allegations would only gain standing if she personally made them
3. Onision and Lucas sought a written agreement protecting the household from false public claims from 5 of their total friends, one having signed before Sarah.
4. Only Sarah demanded sex, out of all the five friends, in exchange for signing
5. Sarah repeatedly linked signing that agreement to receiving what she wanted sexually
6. Sarah eventually abandoned her former story and adopted the internet-generated allegations she had previously rejected
7. Those anonymous detractor originating allegations became the foundation of a federal lawsuit

The January 5 message demonstrates that Sarah understood exactly why her personal endorsement carried such destructive potential.

The NDA Was Sought in the Shadow of That Power

Onision and Lucas later sought 4 other people & Sarah’s signature on a mutual agreement intended to prevent false and damaging public statements among all parties who signed.

The agreement did not prohibit truthful reports to police or lawful authorities. Its significance was protection against public lies and reputational attacks.

Sarah later publicly acknowledged that she connected her willingness to sign the agreement to receiving sexual attention.

She described agreeing to sign if the household would:

“do stuff”

She said she would sign if she:

“got what I wanted”

She also described wanting to get her:

“shit rocked”

Those statements are central to understanding the power imbalance that actually existed.

Onision and Lucas were seeking written protection against accusations Sarah & 4 other friends actively in their lives. Sarah then linked that protection to whether she received the sexual outcome she wanted.

The agreement was not evidence that Sarah lacked power. The surrounding record shows why Onision and Lucas believed they needed protection from the power Sarah openly recognized she possessed & anyone else in their life associated with the public.

Sarah Later Exercised the Exact Power She Identified

Sarah’s later lawsuit depended upon her doing precisely what she identified here as necessary:

• personally adopting the accusations
• presenting herself as the victim
• supplying first-person credibility to previously unsupported rumors
• transforming outsider speculation into formal legal allegations
• accusing Onision and Lucas of grooming, trafficking, sexual abuse, coercion, and related misconduct

On January 5, 2019, Sarah privately said the accusations would have no standing unless she made them.

She later became the person making them.

That is not a minor change in wording. It is a complete reversal of the position she privately expressed while the events were still recent.

At the time of this exchange, Sarah maintained that:

• the allegations were false
• the existing evidence was worthless
• her account matched Lucas’s
• she was the only person who could confirm or deny what happened
• she did not want to make additional public accusations
• she considered the controversy finished

The later complaint derives its power from Sarah reversing those positions and supplying the personal endorsement she had already identified as the only thing capable of giving the allegations standing.

Sarah Controlled Whether and How She Spoke

The messages also contradict the claim that Sarah lacked control over her public statements.

Sarah independently decided:

• not to livestream
• that additional discussion was unnecessary
• that the rumors should be ignored
• that outsiders’ recollections were not evidence
• that she did not want her private life made public
• whether the accusations generated by strangers online would receive her endorsement

Sarah stated:

“Yeah and unlike some people I don’t like making my personal life public. I fucking hate it.”

Lucas did not order Sarah to remain silent. Sarah evaluated the controversy and made her own decision not to continue addressing it.

The record shows a person who understood her influence, controlled whether she spoke, recognized that her endorsement would determine the allegations’ credibility, and knew that she possessed the ability to either protect or devastate the household’s reputation. Sarah had enormous power over the future of the people she was extorting, that is why the extortion worked.

Source

January 5, 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 privately calls the allegations “100% slander”
• Sarah: Defamation Claims
• Sarah: Phone Calls

January 7, 2019: Sarah Defines What She Wanted Before Signing the NDA

Sarah writes:

“I’m an adult if I wanna get my shit rocked by another consenting adult there’s nothing wrong with that lol”

She then rejects the idea that Lucas had been planning sexual activity with her while she was underage:

“Were you plotting all along while I was underage? to wait until I was 18 to do shit with me? No. It was literally the opposite”

On January 7, 2019, immediately before the NDA negotiations, Sarah described the sexual activity she wanted as consensual adult conduct and denied that Lucas had planned it while she was underage.

What this establishes in the NDA timeline

Sarah was not describing herself as someone afraid of sexual contact or being pressured into it.

She was openly expressing that:

• She wanted sexual activity.
• She considered it consensual adult conduct.
• She believed there was nothing wrong with pursuing it.
• She rejected the idea that Lucas had planned or cultivated it while she was underage.
• She understood that the sexual situation began only after she was an adult.

This message was sent one day before Sarah discussed adding a clause to the NDA, joked about her “totally professional intentions,” demanded that Onision sign, and asked what the agreement meant.

The timing matters.

The January 7 message explains what Sarah wanted. The January 8 messages show her attempting to connect that desire to the NDA negotiations. The January 18 signatures show that the agreement was executed afterward.

Months later, during her August 27 livestream, Sarah admitted that she had said:

“Only if we do stuff will I sign the papers.”

She also acknowledged saying she would not sign unless she:

“got something out of it”

and:

“got what I wanted.”

Much of the relevant chronology is:

1. January 7: Sarah states that she wants consensual adult sex and denies that anyone had been plotting sexual activity while she was underage.
2. January 8: Sarah discusses adding a clause, jokes about her intentions, demands that Onision sign, and asks what the NDA means.
3. January 8: Lucas tells Sarah that illegal conduct is not protected and that she can read the agreement.
4. January 18: Sarah makes demands in person & only after getting what she wanted, signs the mutual NDA.
5. August 27: Sarah publicly admits that she said she would sign only if they “did stuff” and only after she “got what [she] wanted.”

Source: January 7, 2019 text-message exchange between Sarah and Lucas, displayed from an iPhone conversation and photographed using an iPhone camera.

January 18, 2019: Sarah Signs the Mutual NDA After Saying She “Got What [She] Wanted”

This two-page agreement documents the mutual confidentiality and no-false-statements arrangement signed by Sarah and Onision on January 18, 2019.

The displayed agreement was not a one-sided restriction imposed only on Sarah. Both Sarah and Onision accepted confidentiality obligations, both were protected against unauthorized disclosure, and both were prohibited from making false statements about the other.

The wording of the agreement must also be read alongside the communications and events that occurred before Sarah signed it.

According to the surrounding record, Sarah actively discussed the agreement, wanted Onision legally bound by it, proposed terms for her own benefit, and asked questions about its meaning. Onision and Lucas state that Sarah then refused to sign until she first received the sexual contact she wanted, later describing the sequence as signing only after she “got what [she] wanted.”

The written agreement contains no promise of sex because the sexual condition Sarah allegedly imposed was not written as a future contractual benefit. According to Onision and Lucas, Sarah insisted on receiving it first and signed the NDA afterward.

Page one of the January 18, 2019 mutual NDA between Sarah and Onision, including the lawful-disclosure exception and the provision forbidding false statements about either party.

The Agreement Was Mutual

The agreement identifies Sarah as the “First Party” and Onision as the “Second Party.”

Its obligations applied to both of them.

Either party could share confidential information with the other, and both parties were required to protect information they received. The contract did not grant Onision a special right to speak while silencing Sarah.

Section 2 required private information and witnessed events to remain between the parties unless both agreed that the material was no longer private.

If only one party authorized disclosure and the other did not, releasing the information would violate the agreement.

What the Agreement Protected

The agreement defined confidential information to include:

• Business plans, methods, and practices
• Personal stories
• Private information about either party
• Conversations
• Events
• Other information the parties treated as private

Section 3 required confidential material to remain the property of the person who disclosed it. It also allowed the disclosing party to request that copies be returned or destroyed.

The provision authorized legal relief if confidential information was improperly released.

Page two of the mutual NDA showing its five-year term and the January 18, 2019 signatures of Sarah and Onision.

The Agreement Preserved Lawful Reporting

Section 4 lists information that would not be treated as confidential.

Section 4(c) expressly excludes information that:

“Is disclosed pursuant to the lawful requirement of a court or governmental agency or where required by operation of law.”

This provision directly contradicts the later portrayal of the agreement as a document designed to conceal criminal conduct or prevent Sarah from cooperating with authorities.

The agreement did not prohibit Sarah from responding to:

• A court order
• A subpoena
• A governmental agency
• A lawful investigation
• Another disclosure required by law

On January 8, 2019, Sarah negotiated the mutual NDA, demanded that Onision also sign, and was expressly told that the agreement did not protect illegal conduct.

Sarah was also told during the negotiations that the agreement would not protect Onision or Lucas if they were breaking the law.

The written contract and the surrounding messages therefore communicate the same basic rule: ordinary private information was protected, but lawfully required reporting was not prohibited.

The Agreement Prohibited False Statements

Section 8 states:

“Parties are forbidden from producing false statements about one another to any third parties…”

This was not merely a secrecy agreement. It was also a mutual no-lying agreement.

The provision protected Sarah from false statements by Onision and protected Onision from false statements by Sarah.

This section is especially important because the agreement was intended to protect the household from someone gaining access to private family information and later presenting false claims about what occurred.

The Agreement Created No Partnership or Relationship

Section 5 states that the contract did not create:

• An agency
• A partnership
• A joint venture
• Any similar formal relationship

Section 7 states that the NDA did not require either party to disclose more information, enter another agreement, or provide any additional

Sarah states that allegations against the Onision household would only have “standing” if she personally made them, recognizing that her own endorsement controlled whether the narrative gained credibility.

obligation or benefit.

The written agreement therefore gave Sarah no continuing right to:

• A romantic relationship
• A sexual relationship
• Continued access to the household
• Continued contact with Onision or Lucas
• Money
• Employment
• Any other personal benefit

That absence must be understood in the correct sequence.

The surrounding communications and Sarah’s later statements indicate that she attached her own sexual condition to whether she would sign. According to Onision, Lucas & Sarah's own live stream confessions, Sarah insisted on first receiving the sexual contact she wanted and then signed the agreement after stating that she had “got what [she] wanted.”

Once signed, the NDA functioned only as a mutual confidentiality and no-false-statements agreement.

Sarah’s Role in Negotiating the Agreement

The surrounding messages show Sarah participating directly in the NDA process.

Sarah:

• Discussed adding a clause
• Said the clause was for her own “peace of mind”
• Joked about her “totally professional intentions”
• Specifically requested that Onision sign
• Said she wanted Onision bound because he had “a fat mouth”

  

  Sarah publicly invited Onision to say anything he wanted about her and challenged him to “bring it.”

• Asked what the agreement meant
• Was told that illegal conduct was not protected
• Was encouraged to read the agreement herself

This was not a document secretly introduced after the fact without Sarah’s knowledge.

Sarah discussed it before signing, wanted its protections applied to Onision, asked questions, received explanations, and signed the completed agreement.

Other Friends Signed Similar Agreements

Onision and Lucas have possession of documents proving other friends connected to the household signed substantially similar confidentiality agreements.

That wider use is important because it demonstrates that the agreement format was not invented uniquely for Sarah and was not sexual.

According to Onision and Lucas:

• The agreements were used to protect the household’s private information.
• Other friends signed them without demanding sex.
• Sarah was the only signer who attempted to connect her signature with sexual access to Onision and Lucas.
• Sarah signed only after she received what she later described as what she “wanted.”

The agreement itself was a household privacy measure. The sexual condition came from Sarah, not from the written contract.

The Agreement Lasted Five Years

Section 9 states that the agreement would remain in effect for five years from its effective date.

It also states that the obligation to protect confidential information already disclosed would survive the formal expiration of the agreement.

Both Sarah and Onision signed and dated the document January 18, 2019.

What the Signed Agreement Directly Establishes

The document establishes that:

• Sarah and Onision entered a written mutual confidentiality agreement.
• The obligations applied to both parties.
• Sarah was protected by the agreement as well as restricted by it.
• Disclosure required by courts, government agencies, or law remained permitted.
• False statements about either party were expressly prohibited.
• The agreement created no partnership or continuing personal relationship.
• Sarah signed and dated the agreement.
• Onision signed and dated the agreement.
• The agreement became effective January 18, 2019.
• Its stated term was five years.

Why It Matters

The signed document contradicts the portrayal of the NDA as a one-sided instrument created to silence Sarah about criminal conduct.

The complete record instead shows:

1. The agreement was mutual.
2. Sarah actively participated in discussing it.
3. Sarah specifically wanted Onision legally bound.
4. Sarah asked what the agreement meant.
5. Sarah was told that illegal conduct was not protected.
6. Court and governmental disclosures were expressly preserved in writing.
7. False statements by either party were prohibited.
8. The agreement gave Sarah no right to a relationship or future benefit.
9. Onision and Lucas state that Sarah conditioned her signature on first receiving the sex she wanted.
10. Sarah signed only afterward, when she said she had “got what [she] wanted.”

The written NDA did not create the sexual condition. Sarah did.

The document then served its stated purpose: protecting private household information and forbidding false statements by either party.

Source

Physical copies of the mutual nondisclosure agreements established in Gig Harbor, Washington, including the agreement signed by Sarah and Onision on January 18, 2019, together with the surrounding January 2019 communications concerning its negotiation, purpose, and signing.

August 27, 2019–January 22, 2021: Sarah Says She Has No Money, Then Reports Documentary Payments and Enough for a House Down Payment

In August 2019, Sarah emphasized that she had no money for Onision to recover through a lawsuit. Days later, she said she could “say whatever I want.” Onision’s January 2021 call notes later record Sarah discussing paid documentary participation and enough money for a house down payment.

During an August 27, 2019 livestream, Sarah was asked:

“What money would Greg sue you with?”

Sarah responded:

“What money would he get from me? I am 19 years old! I don’t have money.”

On September 4, 2019, Sarah publicly wrote:

“this is so freeing omg I really can just say whatever I want now”

Read together, the statements show Sarah treating her lack of money as practical protection against the consequences of a defamation or contract lawsuit.

Sarah’s View of Legal Accountability

Sarah did not defend herself by saying that every accusation she intended to publish was verified and supported by evidence.

She focused on whether Onision could collect anything from her:

“What money would he get from me?”

Days later, she characterized her position as liberating:

“I really can just say whatever I want now”

The combined statements establish that Sarah believed:

• Onision could sue her
• her lack of money would make a lawsuit less effective
• she had little reason to fear a civil judgment
• she felt free to publish unrestricted statements
• she understood that her statements could provoke legal action
• she continued escalating the public conflict anyway

Her confidence was not based on fearlessness about the truth of every statement. It was based on her belief that Onision could not recover money from her.

The Later Financial Change

Onision’s contemporaneous notes from a voluntary nine-hour telephone call with Sarah on January 22, 2021 record a materially different financial position.

According to those notes, Sarah stated that:

• participants in the documentary were paid
• documentary participants were bound by confidentiality agreements
• she could not disclose how much participants received
• she had enough money to make a down payment on a house

When Onision asked whether she had personally profited from appearing in the documentary, Sarah reportedly said that she was not legally permitted to answer.

The same person who stated in August 2019:

“I don’t have money”

was, after participating in the Blackfin-produced documentary, reportedly describing herself as having enough money for a house down payment.

That is a substantial change in financial position over a relatively short period.

The Documentary-Payment Inference

Sarah’s statements connect three subjects within the same conversation:

1. Documentary participants were paid
2. The payment amounts were protected by confidentiality terms
3. Sarah now possessed enough money for a house down payment

Sarah did not openly identify the exact source or amount of her funds. She reportedly refused to answer whether her money came from the documentary because she said she was legally prohibited from discussing it.

That refusal does not eliminate the inference. It strengthens the need to examine:

• Sarah’s appearance agreement
• compensation schedules
• payment records
• tax documents
• bank deposits
• confidentiality provisions
• communications with Blackfin and Discovery+
• any payments made directly or through intermediaries
• whether compensation depended upon participation, exclusivity, publicity, or particular content

Sarah herself confirmed the general payment structure while invoking contractual secrecy when asked whether she personally benefited.

The Reported $40,000 Figure

Onision later publicly estimated that Sarah received approximately $40,000 in connection with the Blackfin or Discovery+ production.

The legal complaint reproduces that exact allegation while disputing its truth.

The currently available evidence independently establishes:

• Sarah said she had no money in August 2019
• Sarah later said documentary participants were paid
• Sarah said the payment amounts were confidential
• Sarah later claimed enough money for a house down payment
• Sarah declined to disclose whether the documentary supplied that money

The precise amount should ultimately be established through the production company’s contracts and payment records. The chronology nonetheless provides a concrete factual basis for investigating the reported $40,000 estimate rather than dismissing the payment issue as invented from nothing.

A Serious Financial-Interest Issue

The documentary commercially presented accusations against Onision and Lucas.

Sarah was one of its central participants. Her allegations supplied valuable content to a production marketed around claims of grooming, exploitation, and abuse.

If the production substantially compensated Sarah, that creates a serious financial-interest and credibility issue:

• Sarah had a financial relationship with the production presenting her accusations
• more severe and sensational allegations increased the commercial value of the program
• viewers were entitled to know whether a central accuser was being compensated
• compensation could affect motive, bias, exclusivity, and willingness to participate
• confidentiality terms prevented the public from evaluating the financial relationship
• the production and Sarah possessed information directly relevant to her later litigation claims

This does not concern payment for unrelated work. It concerns possible payment from the commercial production built around Sarah’s accusations against the same people she later sued.

Relevance to Sarah’s Defamation Campaign

Sarah later portrayed herself as the victim of Onision’s public speech and claimed that he caused harassment and reputational harm.

The record documents a different sequence:

1. Sarah publicly attacked Onision and Lucas
2. Sarah stated that she had no money for Onision to recover
3. Sarah described herself as free to “say whatever I want”
4. Sarah participated in a commercial documentary about the accusations
5. Sarah later confirmed that documentary participants were paid
6. Sarah later reported enough money for a house down payment
7. Sarah invoked confidentiality when asked whether the documentary paid her

This creates a direct motive question.

Sarah initially believed she could publish damaging claims without facing meaningful civil recovery. She then participated in commercial media coverage capable of producing substantial financial benefit from the same accusation campaign.

Connection to the NDA

The chronology also explains why Onision and Lucas sought a written agreement protecting them from false public statements.

Sarah understood that her endorsement controlled whether accusations involving her would gain credibility. She previously stated that such allegations would only have “standing” if she personally made them.

The sequence was:

1. Sarah understood that her allegations carried unique power
2. Onision and Lucas sought an agreement against false public claims
3. Sarah connected signing that agreement to receiving what she wanted sexually
4. Sarah later publicly attacked the household
5. She emphasized that she had no money for Onision to recover
6. She announced that she could “say whatever I want”
7. She then participated in a commercial documentary presenting the allegations
8. She later acknowledged paid participation and reported enough money for a house down payment

The available evidence supports the conclusion that Sarah believed she could violate the agreement, damage the household publicly, avoid an effective judgment, and potentially benefit financially from the resulting controversy.

Agency, Financial Incentive, and Lack of Intimidation

Sarah’s statements conflict with the portrayal that she was silenced or controlled by Onision.

She publicly demonstrated:

• awareness of possible litigation
• confidence that her lack of assets protected her
• willingness to continue publishing accusations
• excitement about unrestricted public speech
• participation in commercial media coverage
• knowledge that documentary participants were paid
• knowledge that payment details were confidential
• a later financial position sufficient for a house down payment

Her public statement was not that she was afraid to speak.

It was:

“this is so freeing”

and:

“I really can just say whatever I want now”

Source

Sarah’s August 27, 2019 livestream, approximately 01:16:45–01:17:08.

Original livestream account: https://www.younow.com/sarahbear8500

Preserved YouTube upload: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc2UDXaZzDk

Sarah’s public Twitter post dated September 4, 2019.

Original account: https://twitter.com/notsolillioness

Archived account captures: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://twitter.com/notsolillioness

Onision’s contemporaneous notes from the January 22–23, 2021 telephone conversations with Sarah.

Onision’s March 27, 2021 email preserving and distributing the call summary.

Related evidence:

• January 2021 call notes concerning documentary payments
• Sarah recognizes that her endorsement controlled the accusations’ credibility
• Sarah invites Onision to use her cocaine admission
• Sarah invites Onision to use her prescription-drug-sale admission

August 27, 2019: Sarah Admits She Conditioned Signing the NDA on Sexual Access

On August 27, 2019, Sarah admitted that she told Onision and Lucas she would sign the NDA only if they first engaged in sexual activity with her, then claimed the demand was a joke.

During a YouNow livestream, Sarah described the discussion surrounding the mutual NDA and acknowledged that she told Onision and Lucas she would sign only if they first engaged in sexual activity with her.

Sarah stated:

“I was like, ‘only if we do stuff will I sign the papers.’”

She then attempted to dismiss the demand by saying:

“It was a fucking joke.”

What Sarah directly admits

Sarah confirms that:

• She initially resisted signing the NDA.
• She demanded a clause or condition representing something she wanted.
• She told Onision and Lucas she would sign only if they “did stuff” with her.
• The phrase “did stuff” referred to sexual activity.
• She signed the agreement after the sexual encounter occurred.
• She later claimed the condition was merely a joke.

The statement matches the surrounding January 2019 messages in which Sarah joked about her “totally professional intentions,” discussed a clause for her own benefit, and expressed her desire for sexual activity with Onision and Lucas.

Why it matters

Sarah’s own account establishes that the sexual condition came from her, not from the household.

Onision and Lucas did not place sexual access into the written NDA, promise sex in the agreement, or use the contract to obtain sexual activity from Sarah. Sarah admits that she was the person who connected her willingness to sign with first receiving the sexual activity she wanted.

Calling the demand a “joke” afterward does not erase the sequence she describes:

1. Sarah said she did not want to sign.
2. Sarah demanded that sexual activity occur first.
3. Onision and Lucas gave Sarah what she said she wanted.
4. Sarah then signed the mutual NDA.

Elsewhere in the contemporaneous record, Sarah used explicitly sexual language to describe what she wanted, including saying she wanted to get her “shit rocked.”

The evidence therefore shows Sarah negotiating for sexual access and signing only after the encounter—not Sarah being forced into sexual conduct through the NDA.

Source

August 27, 2019 YouNow livestream hosted by Sarah under the username “Sarahbear8500.”

Relevant timestamp: approximately 24:26–25:12.

Original channel: https://www.younow.com/sarahbear8500

Archived upload: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc2UDXaZzDk

August 27, 2019: Sarah Says She Refused to Sign Until She “Got Something Out of It”

On August 27, 2019, Sarah said she refused to sign the mutual NDA unless she “got something out of it” and “got what [she] wanted,” referring to the sexual activity she had requested.

During the same YouNow livestream discussion of the mutual NDA, Sarah described Onision confronting her about refusing to sign.

Sarah stated:

“Yeah basically he was like, ‘yeah you didn’t sign…’”

She then described her own response:

“I made jokes about not signing it unless I ‘got something out of it’ — ‘got what I wanted.’”

Sarah added:

“Yeah and even if I was being serious like, ‘wh eh eh.’”

What Sarah directly admits

Sarah acknowledges that she connected her willingness to sign the NDA with first receiving something she wanted from Onision and Lucas.

Read together with her immediately preceding admission that she said:

“Only if we do stuff will I sign the papers,”

the meaning is clear: Sarah was referring to the sexual activity she wanted before signing.

Her statement also matches earlier messages in which she joked about her “totally professional intentions” and separately used explicit language about wanting to get her “shit rocked.”

Why it matters

Sarah’s own account confirms the sequence:

1. Sarah did not immediately sign the mutual NDA.
2. Sarah said she wanted to “get something out of it.”
3. Sarah identified that outcome as “what I wanted.”
4. The surrounding discussion identifies what she wanted as sexual activity with Onision and Lucas.
5. Sarah signed the agreement afterward.

Sarah later attempted to minimize the demand as a joke. However, her own retelling repeatedly links signing the NDA to receiving the sexual outcome she wanted first.

The sexual condition did not come from the written agreement or from Onision and Lucas. Sarah introduced it herself and then signed after the condition she described had been satisfied.

Source

August 27, 2019 YouNow livestream hosted by Sarah under the username “Sarahbear8500.”

Relevant timestamp: approximately 25:40–26:09.

Original channel: https://www.younow.com/sarahbear8500

Archived upload: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc2UDXaZzDk