Lisa Haba

Attorney and Media Record

The Lisa Haba Record

Demand letters, settlement pressure, media relationships, changing allegations, financial conflicts, proposed affidavits, litigation strategy, and communications involving Sarah and Regina.

Browse: Damages

July 29, 2021: Haba Demands Silence and Offers a Release Before the Allegations Expand Into a Grooming and Trafficking Lawsuit

The July 2021 letter identifies alleged defamatory statements concerning Sarah and Regina and claims reputational and emotional harm.

On July 29, 2021, Lisa Haba and Greg Gutzler sent Onision a formal demand letter centered on alleged defamation.

The letter objected to Onision describing Sarah as involved in:

“sexual misconduct and criminal activity”

It also objected to statements that Sarah was:

“a literal criminal”

Regarding Regina, the letter challenged statements concerning alleged fraud, money, drug use, and impersonation.

The stated damages were reputational harm, lost associations, online harassment, and emotional distress.

The letter demanded that Onision:

“immediately cease and desist”

and provide written assurance that he would stop speaking about Sarah and Regina.

It then offered:

“a full resolution, which could include a release of liability for claims up to the present.”

The letter demands that Onision stop speaking and offers a “full resolution” that could include a release of liability.

The Allegations Later Became Far More Extreme

These pages do not present the sprawling trafficking narrative later filed in court.

The later complaint accused Onision and Lucas of:

• grooming minors
• sexual assault
• attempted and completed sex trafficking
• possession or exchange of alleged CSAM
• benefiting from trafficking ventures
• prolonged psychological coercion and exploitation

The 2021 letter instead framed the dispute principally as defamation arising from Onision’s public descriptions of Sarah and Regina.

That shift matters. The accusation package became substantially more severe after Onision refused to stop speaking and refused the demanded settlement.

The $400,000 Demand

The accompanying telephone communication, Haba demanded $400,000 and warned that refusal would result in litigation expanding into grooming accusations.

The written letter confirms the leverage structure even though it does not print the amount:

1. stop speaking about Sarah and Regina (Sarah & Regina ran a silencing campaign of Onision before on social media, and wanted to silence him again through legal action)
2. provide written assurances
3. negotiate an alternative resolution
4. receive a release from existing liability
5. otherwise face litigation

Onision refused to pay and continued publishing the records he believed disproved the accusations.

The dispute then expanded from a defamation demand into litigation alleging grooming, trafficking, sexual abuse, and CSAM-related conduct.

This chronology supports the conclusion that the later criminalized narrative was used as escalating litigation pressure after the original effort to silence Onision failed.

The Core Conflict

Haba’s letter accused Onision of causing Sarah and Regina reputational and emotional damage.

By July 2021, however, Onision had already suffered:

• mass public accusations
• loss of Patreon income
• permanent YouTube demonetization
• repeated police and CPS scrutiny leading to repeat vindications by both government authorities who, once experienced on the issue, could openly see the claims were false
• international media condemnation
• harassment directed at his family
• destruction of long-established business income

The letter demanded silence from the person suffering those consequences while offering no meaningful accounting for the contradictory statements and official investigative findings he was publishing.

The attempted resolution was therefore one-sided: Onision was expected to stop defending himself, retract his descriptions, and pay for a release while Sarah and Regina’s accusation campaign remained publicly intact.

Source

The Haba Law Firm demand letter dated July 29, 2021, signed by Lisa D. Haba and Greg G. Gutzler and delivered directly to Onision.

Onision’s account of the related telephone demand states that Haba demanded $400,000 and threatened expanded grooming litigation if payment was refused.

Related evidence:

• Defamation against Onision and Lucas
• Damage inflicted on Onision and Lucas
• Sarah’s materially different statements to law enforcement

September 23, 2021: Onision’s Notes Record a $400,000 Demand Backed by Threats of Lawsuits in Two States

Onision’s preserved notes record that attorneys representing Sarah and Regina demanded $200,000 for each client in exchange for not suing him in two states.

Onision preserved written notes concerning a 25-minute telephone call involving Lisa Haba and Greg Gutzler.

The notes record that Sarah and Regina demanded:

“$200,000 each”

in exchange for:

“not taking James to court in ‘two different states’”

The combined demand was therefore $400,000.

Onision documented that he responded by showing that he did not possess the demanded money, including substantial debts and combined personal-account balances below $10,000. The attorneys reportedly said they would call again to explore another resolution.

Monetary Pressure Backed by Reputational Threats

The demand followed the July 2021 letter requiring Onision to stop discussing Sarah and Regina and offering a release through settlement.

The sequence was direct:

1. Onision was ordered to stop publishing his evidence and accusations
2. Sarah and Regina demanded $400,000
3. refusal was tied to threatened litigation in multiple states
4. the later lawsuit expanded far beyond the original defamation dispute

Onision contemporaneously labeled the communication:

“Extortion By Lawyer”

and described it during the call as:

“a shake down”

The importance of the exhibit is not merely the amount. The demanded payment was paired with the threat of expensive, public, reputation-destroying litigation unless Onision paid and stopped defending himself.

The notes also show that the original dispute concerned Onision’s descriptions of conduct Sarah had publicly admitted, including cocaine use and selling prescription medication. The later case transformed that dispute into dramatically broader allegations of grooming, trafficking, sexual abuse, and CSAM-related conduct.

This exhibit documents the moment the accusation campaign became explicit financial leverage against Onision.

Source

Email notes preserved by Onision under the date September 23, 2021, documenting a 25-minute telephone call.

The note refers to “Greg & Hana,” identifying Greg Gutzler and Lisa Haba in context.

Related evidence:

• The July 2021 demand letter
• Defamation against Onision and Lucas
• Damage inflicted on Onision and Lucas

October 1, 2021: Attorneys Convey Another Regina Settlement Offer, Then End the Call After Onision Mentions Counsel and Counterclaims

Onision’s contemporaneous notes record another settlement call concerning Regina. The attorneys reportedly ended the conversation after Onision mentioned consulting counsel, asserting his own damages, and intending to countersue.

On October 1, 2021, Onision preserved notes concerning another telephone call from attorneys representing Sarah and Regina.

The attorneys reportedly stated that Regina had a new settlement offer and that they had spoken with her extensively.

Onision responded that:

• Regina’s accusations had contributed to the loss of his career and income
• Regina had been paid to portray him negatively in the Discovery documentary
• he intended to countersue
• he had never met Regina or had a single conversation with her
• another attorney had advised him that Regina lacked a viable claim against him as a public figure

According to the notes, the attorneys attempted to end the call immediately after Onision stated that he had consulted counsel.

Greg Gutzler reportedly said:

“this conversation is over”

The call then disconnected.

What the Evidence Establishes

This was not an isolated attempt to resolve a misunderstanding. It followed the earlier $400,000 demand and documents continuing settlement pressure while Onision was already suffering severe financial and reputational damage.

The call changed direction once Onision asserted that:

• he had legal advice
• he possessed counterclaims
• Regina had never met him
• he would not simply pay to avoid threatened litigation

The exhibit strengthens the chronology showing repeated monetary demands backed by the prospect of public litigation, while Onision consistently refused to pay and instead asserted his right to defend himself.

Source

Email sent by Onision to preserve contemporaneous notes from a telephone call received October 1, 2021, at approximately 2:59 p.m. Pacific.

The email was sent at 4:14 p.m. the same day.

Related evidence:

• The earlier $400,000 demand
• Damage inflicted on Onision and Lucas
• Defamation against Onision and Lucas

2021–2023: Lisa Haba Repeatedly Appears With Chris Hansen Across Multiple Lawsuits

Chris Hansen’s channel shows Lisa Haba appearing repeatedly to discuss the Peter Nygård litigation, a Twitter lawsuit, and the newly filed lawsuit against Onision.

By November 9, 2023, Chris Hansen’s public channel displayed multiple interviews featuring Lisa Haba.

The visible videos include:

• “Have A Seat With Chris Hansen ft. Lisa Haba & Pekka Mykkänen Discussing Peter Nygard”
• “Lisa Haba Sits Down With Chris To Discuss The Newly Filed Onision Lawsuit”
• “Have A Seat With Chris Hansen ft. Lisa Haba, Greg Gutzler & Kai Zen Bickle Discussing Peter Nygard”
• “Have A Seat With Chris Hansen ft. Lisa Haba, Peter Gentala & Jane Doe Discussing Twitter lawsuit”

The same search results also display Hansen’s “Onision Investigation” playlist.

A Repeated Media Relationship

This was not a single request for a brief legal comment.

The record shows Haba repeatedly appearing on Hansen’s platform to discuss:

• The Peter Nygård litigation
• A lawsuit involving Twitter
• Other sexual-abuse and trafficking-related claims
• The newly filed lawsuit against Onision

Haba was therefore a recurring guest and professional legal source on Hansen’s channel before and during the litigation involving Sarah and Regina.

Most significantly, Hansen provided Haba with a dedicated interview specifically titled:

“Lisa Haba Sits Down With Chris To Discuss The Newly Filed Onision Lawsuit”

That appearance gave the plaintiffs’ lead attorney a public platform to promote and characterize the lawsuit shortly after it was filed.

Connection to the Missing Plaintiff Interviews

Hansen’s media operation had previously recorded and published interviews with Sarah and Regina.

Those original interviews later became unavailable through their original public source and were described by independent Reddit users as “deleted.” Third parties subsequently circulated replacement copies.

Sarah’s preserved interview contains numerous statements that materially conflict with the allegations Haba later placed into the legal complaint, including Sarah’s statements that:

• She and Onision “never did anything” while she was a minor
• She and Onision never even kissed until their first adult sexual encounter
• She was 18 and capable of consenting
• She repeatedly returned to Washington
• She resumed the sexual relationship during later visits

The public sequence is therefore significant:

1. Hansen interviewed Sarah and Regina before the lawsuit
2. Those interviews preserved their earlier accounts
3. The original interviews later disappeared from easy public access
4. Haba repeatedly appeared on Hansen’s channel
5. Hansen gave Haba a dedicated platform to promote the newly filed Onision lawsuit
6. The plaintiffs’ earlier contradictory statements were no longer equally accessible through the original source

The result was an uneven public record: the later litigation narrative received new promotion while the earlier plaintiff interviews became substantially harder to locate.

Evidentiary Significance

The repeated Hansen-Haba relationship is relevant to determining:

• When Haba first communicated with Hansen
• Whether they discussed Sarah or Regina before the lawsuit
• Whether Haba reviewed or possessed the original interviews
• Whether Hansen provided interview footage or source materials to counsel
• Who decided to remove, private, or restrict the interviews
• Whether Haba or the plaintiffs were consulted about those decisions
• Whether contradictory statements were discussed before the complaint was drafted
• Whether Hansen coordinated public coverage with the plaintiffs or their attorneys
• Whether the media appearances were intended to promote the litigation
• Whether any compensation, publicity, referral, or other mutual benefit existed

These are legitimate questions because Hansen was simultaneously connected to three important parts of the record:

• The original interviews of the future plaintiffs
• The public investigation of Onision
• Repeated promotional appearances by the plaintiffs’ lead attorney

What This Exhibit Establishes

This exhibit establishes that:

• Lisa Haba and Chris Hansen had a repeated, public working relationship
• Their relationship extended across multiple lawsuits and subject matters
• Hansen specifically interviewed Haba about the Onision lawsuit
• Haba was given access to the same media platform that had previously hosted Sarah and Regina
• Hansen continued promoting the later litigation narrative after the original plaintiff interviews became unavailable
• Hansen’s role cannot accurately be reduced to that of a completely disconnected observer

The exhibit does not identify who personally changed the original interviews’ public-access settings. It establishes why the removal decision, related communications, original footage, and complete publication history require scrutiny.

Source

Chris Hansen’s YouTube channel and search results preserved as of November 9, 2023: https://www.youtube.com/@ChrisHansen

See also:

• Third-party preservation of the Sarah and Regina interviews
• Sarah: Grooming Allegations
• Sarah: Assault Allegations

January 9, 2023: Anti-Onision Users Preserve the “Deleted” Sarah and Regina Interviews

Users of the openly anti-Onision subreddit independently circulated reuploads of Chris Hansen’s interviews with Sarah and Regina after the originals disappeared from easy public access.

On January 3, 2024, users of the r/Onision subreddit published two separate posts titled:

“Reupload of the deleted Chris Hansen Interview with Regina”

and:

“Reupload of the deleted Chris Hansen Interview with Sarah”

The subreddit openly identifies itself as opposed to Onision. These were not Onision supporters attempting to manufacture concern over missing evidence. Even hostile viewers recognized that the original interviews were no longer readily available and circulated replacement copies.

What the Public Record Establishes

The public record establishes that:

• Sarah and Regina gave recorded interviews through Chris Hansen’s media operation
• The original interviews later disappeared from easy public access
• Independent users described both interviews as “deleted”
• Separate mirrors were created to preserve both interviews
• Members of an openly anti-Onision community considered the missing interviews important enough to restore
• The concern over their disappearance did not originate with Onision

The Reddit posts preserved public access that the original publisher no longer provided.

The Interviews Contained Material Prior Statements

These were not irrelevant or disposable videos.

Sarah’s interview preserved numerous statements that materially conflict with allegations later presented in the complaint, including statements that:

• She and Onision “never did anything” before their first adult sexual encounter
• They never even kissed before she was 18
• She was an adult and able to consent
• She repeatedly returned to Washington after ending contact
• She continued having sex during later visits
• She independently chose to resume the relationship

These recorded statements are directly relevant to Sarah’s later allegations of minor-age sexual touching, grooming, coercion, confinement, and assault.

Removing easy access to the original interview made those contradictions substantially harder for the public to locate, compare, and evaluate.

Why This Matters to Lisa Haba’s Litigation Narrative

Lisa Haba later became lead counsel for Sarah and Regina.

The prior interviews are therefore recorded statements from Haba’s own clients concerning the central events underlying their claims. They are relevant to:

• Credibility
• Prior inconsistent statements
• Witness impeachment
• The evolution of the allegations
• Media coordination
• Preservation of evidence
• The accuracy of the complaint
• Whether the public narrative omitted materially contradictory information

Chris Hansen later gave Lisa Haba repeated access to his media platform to promote allegations and discuss litigation involving Onision.

That sequence creates an obvious evidentiary concern:

1. Hansen recorded the future plaintiffs’ original accounts
2. Those interviews contained statements harmful to later allegations
3. The original interviews disappeared from easy public access
4. Members of an anti-Onision community had to preserve them through reuploads
5. Hansen’s platform later amplified Haba and the litigation narrative

The practical effect favored the later complaint: the attorney and allegations remained publicly promoted while the clients’ earlier contradictory interviews became more difficult to find.

Selective Public Access

The importance of this evidence is cumulative.

This exhibit establishes that the Sarah and Regina interviews disappeared from ordinary public access and were independently preserved by third parties.

The following records document Hansen’s direct relationship with Haba, his repeated interviews with her, and the use of his platform to promote litigation arising from the same allegations.

Read together, the evidence raises serious questions concerning:

• Why the original plaintiff interviews became unavailable
• Who decided to remove or restrict them
• When those decisions were made
• Whether counsel or future litigants were consulted
• Whether contradictory statements were intentionally excluded from later coverage
• Whether the original recordings, edits, metadata, and communications were preserved
• Whether Hansen functioned as an independent interviewer or as a participant in the later media and litigation campaign

The disappearance did not erase the interviews. Independent copies preserved what Sarah and Regina said before the later complaint was filed.

Sources

Reddit reupload of the Sarah interview: https://www.reddit.com/r/Onision/comments/18xdimu/reupload_of_the_deleted_chris_hansen_interview/

Reddit reupload of the Regina interview: https://www.reddit.com/r/Onision/comments/18xdk23/reupload_of_the_deleted_chris_hansen_interview/

Preserved Sarah interview: https://archive.org/details/have-a-seat-with-chris-hansen-ft.-sarah-discussing-onision

See also:

• Sarah: Grooming Allegations
• Sarah: Assault Allegations
• Sarah: Police Reports

May 15, 2024: Haba Offers Reduced Damages if Onision Signs an Affidavit Supporting the Google “Partnership” Theory

Onision’s former attorney reported that Lisa Haba offered to limit the plaintiffs’ damages demands if Onision signed an affidavit stating that he had a partnership agreement with Google.

On May 15, 2024, attorney Brett L. Wittner emailed Onision after receiving a telephone call from Lisa Haba.

Wittner explained that Haba did not want to contact Onision directly because he was not represented by an attorney in California. She instead asked Wittner to relay a proposal.

The email stated that the plaintiffs still wanted to obtain substantial damages from Google. It then presented the following offer:

“If you were willing to sign an affidavit that says that you had a partnership agreement with Google, the plaintiffs would agree to only pursue liquidated damages against you.”

The email continued:

“You would not need to give any admission to say that you did anything wrong.”

It further stated:

“This affidavit would make their case against Google much easier.”

Wittner reported that Haba’s side agreed to seek less than the statutory amount of $150,000 per plaintiff if Onision agreed to provide the affidavit.

What Haba’s Proposal Offered

The proposed exchange was direct:

• Onision would sign a sworn affidavit supporting the plaintiffs’ claim that he had a partnership agreement with Google
• The affidavit would strengthen the plaintiffs’ case against Google
• In return, the plaintiffs would limit the damages they pursued against Onision and Lucas
• The plaintiffs might agree to seek less than $150,000 per plaintiff
• Onision would not be required to admit that he committed the alleged underlying misconduct

The requested benefit to the plaintiffs was not an apology, settlement payment, correction, or admission of wrongdoing.

It was sworn testimony designed to improve their ability to recover money from Google.

Why the Requested Affidavit Mattered

The plaintiffs’ claims against Google depended heavily on portraying an ordinary YouTube Partner Program monetization agreement as an agency or business partnership.

Their complaint repeatedly alleged that:

• YouTube creators and Google entered a “partnership relationship”
• Google and Onision shared revenue
• Google materially participated in the development of Onision’s channels
• Onision and YouTube formed a “contractual business partnership”
• Google could therefore be held responsible for the alleged conduct

The proposed affidavit would have supplied the plaintiffs with a sworn statement from Onision personally adopting that disputed characterization.

Wittner explained his understanding of its intended purpose:

“I suspect that they need a judgment against you saying that you violated a federal statute and the affidavit from you to be able to make their case against Google.”

His statement identifies the apparent litigation strategy: secure a judgment or statutory finding against Onision, obtain his affidavit endorsing the alleged Google partnership, and use both against the deeper-pocket corporate defendants.

Onision Refuses to Supply the Requested Statement

Onision rejected the proposal for multiple reasons, one of the reasons was because he did not have the partnership agreement Haba wanted him to claim existed.

He participated in YouTube’s monetization program as a content creator. He did not regard that standardized platform arrangement as creating the legal partnership represented in the plaintiffs’ complaint.

Onision therefore refused to sign a sworn affidavit adopting language he believed was false merely to reduce his own potential financial exposure.

The requested affidavit was never provided.

Testimony Tied to Financial Leverage

This email raises a serious issue concerning the manner in which the plaintiffs attempted to obtain evidence supporting their Google claims.

The proposal did not simply ask Onision to provide whatever truthful documents or testimony he possessed. It identified the particular statement the plaintiffs wanted and attached a substantial financial benefit to his willingness to sign it.

The practical message was:

• Sign the affidavit supporting our Google theory
• Make our case against Google easier
• Avoid our largest damages demands against you
• Potentially receive an additional reduction below the statutory amount

The value of the requested affidavit was expressly tied to its usefulness against Google.

That makes the email relevant to:

• The factual basis of the alleged Google partnership
• The plaintiffs’ financial motive
• Efforts to obtain strategically useful sworn testimony
• Settlement leverage directed at an unrepresented defendant
• The accuracy of later partnership allegations
• Haba’s communications with Onision’s former attorneys
• Whether the requested wording reflected evidence or litigation strategy

The Google Claims Were Later Dismissed With Prejudice

On June 24, 2025, the Northern District of California dismissed all claims against Google LLC and YouTube LLC with prejudice.

The dismissal occurred approximately thirteen months after Haba’s proposal was relayed.

The sequence is significant:

1. The plaintiffs sought substantial damages from Google
2. Haba offered reduced exposure to Onision in exchange for a Google-partnership affidavit
3. Onision refused to sign the requested statement
4. The affidavit was never obtained
5. The plaintiffs’ claims against Google and YouTube were later dismissed with prejudice

The email preserves a firsthand report of an attempt to obtain sworn testimony that Haba’s side believed would make its corporate case “much easier.”

Source

May 15, 2024 email from attorney Brett L. Wittner reporting his telephone conversation with Lisa Haba and relaying Haba’s proposal to Onision.

See also:

• Consolidated Third Amended Complaint, paragraphs 21–33 and 134–137
• Northern District of California order dated June 24, 2025, dismissing Google LLC and YouTube LLC with prejudice

May 13, 2015: Plaintiffs’ Complaint Conceals Sarah’s and Regina’s Actual Replies, Then Mischaracterizes the Exchange as “Flirtatious” and “Sexual”

The Third Amended Complaint leaves Sarah’s and Regina’s identities visible but conceals their actual words, then uses the altered screenshot to characterize the exchange as “flirtatious” and “sexual.” The unredacted image shows both women saying they hate Lucas.

In paragraphs 258 and 259 of the Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs characterize a May 13, 2015 exchange as part of:

“a flirtatious, sexual chat”

The complaint then displays a screenshot in which Sarah’s and Regina’s names remain visible, but their actual replies are covered with black bars.

This is not an identity-protecting redaction. The filing openly identifies both speakers as Sarah and Regina.

The only information removed is what they actually said.

The unredacted screenshot reveals that the statements concealed from the complaint were “I fucking hate you omg” and “Bye I hate u,” directly contradicting the filing’s characterization of this specific exchange as flirtatious or sexual.

The original, unredacted screenshot reveals the hidden text.

Lucas posted:

“am loved”

Sarah replied:

“I fucking hate you omg”

Regina replied:

“Bye I hate u”

The actual words are the opposite of the characterization supplied to the Court.

What the record directly shows

• The complaint identifies Sarah and Regina by name.
• The complaint conceals only their substantive replies.
• Sarah’s concealed reply was, “I fucking hate you omg.”
• Regina’s concealed reply was, “Bye I hate u.”
• Neither visible reply is romantic, flirtatious, or sexual.
• The screenshot contains no sexual request, proposition, photograph, invitation, or recruitment statement.
• The filing relies principally on decorative emojis beside contact names while withholding the words that provide the exchange’s actual meaning.
• The unredacted image was publicly available and preserved before the complaint was filed.

The redactions remove context, not identity

The selective nature of the redactions is critical.

Sarah’s name remains visible.

Regina’s name remains visible.

The bear, heart, and lipstick emojis remain visible.

Only the text contradicting Plaintiffs’ characterization is removed.

That means the alteration did not protect the speakers’ identities. It removed the evidence necessary for the Court to independently evaluate what the conversation meant.

The filing preserved the ambiguous decorative elements that Plaintiffs wished to characterize as sexual while concealing the direct language showing Sarah and Regina rejecting or mocking Lucas.

The complaint converts emojis into sexual evidence

Paragraph 259 argues that a bear-and-heart emoji beside Sarah’s name and a lipstick emoji beside Regina’s name demonstrate how Lucas viewed them.

That conclusion is not contained in the screenshot. It is Plaintiffs’ interpretation of ordinary contact-label decorations.

The visible evidence establishes only that:

• Sarah’s contact label included a bear and heart.
• Regina’s contact label included a lipstick emoji.
• Sarah said she hated Lucas.
• Regina said she hated Lucas.

The complaint converts ambiguous emojis into supposed evidence of sexual intent while suppressing the plain-English statements that contradict that interpretation.

Direct contradiction of paragraph 258

Paragraph 258 alleges that Lucas turned the group chat into:

“a flirtatious, sexual chat”

This particular screenshot shows no sexual chat.

It shows Lucas sarcastically or humorously posting that he was loved, followed by Sarah and Regina saying they hated him.

The unredacted text therefore does not merely fail to support the complaint’s characterization. It directly undermines it.

The filing presents the Court with the conclusion “flirtatious, sexual chat” while removing the evidence showing:

“I fucking hate you omg”

and:

“Bye I hate u”

Accuracy and candor significance

A party may argue that evidence should be interpreted in a particular way.

It is materially different to conceal the only substantive replies and then describe the altered image as supporting the opposite meaning.

The Court was shown:

• the speakers’ identities,
• the emojis Plaintiffs relied upon,
• Plaintiffs’ characterization of the conversation,
• and black bars where the contradictory words appeared.

The Court was not shown that the concealed statements expressed hatred rather than flirtation.

That selective presentation creates a seriously misleading impression of the underlying evidence.

Why it matters

The complaint uses this screenshot to support severe allegations involving grooming, sexualization, and the treatment of minors.

Yet the unaltered evidence shows no sexual exchange.

It shows Sarah and Regina saying they hate Lucas.

The difference is not minor. It changes the apparent meaning of the exhibit completely.

Had the full screenshot been displayed, the Court could have immediately seen that the direct language did not match the description supplied by Plaintiffs’ counsel.

The unredacted record therefore exposes a recurring evidentiary problem: neutral or contradictory communications are stripped of context and then relabeled as proof of grooming or sexual misconduct.

Here, the contradiction was concealed behind black bars.

Source

May 13, 2015 post from Lucas’s @laineybot account and the associated replies from Sarah and Regina.

Consolidated Third Amended Complaint, paragraphs 258–259.

January 22, 2015: The Complaint Crops a Group Joke Into Alleged Sexual Evidence and Omits Sarah’s Own Statements

The complaint isolates “INTO THE DUNGEON,” labels it sexual, and omits the surrounding thread showing a group joke in which Sarah added “WITH ALL THE DEAD BODIES” and expressly stated that Onision would not be invited.

Twitter was a place for baseless accusations & offensive jokes during this timeframe, unfortunately, many jokes get poorly translated and taken out of context over time. Paragraphs 266 and 267 of the Third Amended Complaint characterize a January 22, 2015 Twitter exchange as evidence of ongoing sexual communications involving Sarah, Lucas, and Onision.

The complaint states:

“Jackson’s commentary, inclusive of Onision, contained a sexual connotation, such as ‘INTO THE DUNGEON.’”

The screenshot presented with that allegation is cropped before the thread’s full context and responses are shown.

The omitted setup shows casual group banter. Lucas jokes about unfollowing Onision, Onision responds self-deprecatingly, and Sarah introduces the “forbidden floor” language that leads into the later “dungeon” joke.

The full exchange begins with Lucas jokingly telling Onision:

“unfollowing bc you're awful”

Onision responds with a self-deprecating joke:

“ok, will sleep on my belly tonight and face the wall so you don't have to look at my big ole dumb mug”

Lucas replies:

“you could always just sleep upstairs you know”

Sarah then introduces the imaginary forbidden location:

“not the forbidden floor”

Lucas continues the joke:

“INTO THE DUNGEON”

The omitted continuation reveals the actual joke. Sarah supplied the “dead bodies” response and expressly stated that Onision would not be invited, contradicting the complaint’s claim that the supposed commentary included Onision, or was even actually sexual at all.

Sarah immediately escalates the joke herself:

“WITH ALL THE DEAD BODIES” (making fun of the ridiculous rumors circulating at the time about Onision involving insane baseless claims of dungeons, basements, murder, dead bodies etc. context is critical)

A stranger, not Lucas or Onision, introduces the “kinky” characterization:

“i have a feeling some real kinky shit is gonna happen in there, and im perfectly okay with it.”

Sarah responds:

“there is eventually, but Gregory will not be invited.” (note only Sarah is the one being weird, everyone else is simply referencing online rumors and jokes - hence why Sarah was, admittedly, kicked out repeatedly for being perverted toward Lucas &/or Onision, per her own confessions)

Another stranger then jokes:

“i would like to be a part of that tbh”

What the complete record directly shows

• The conversation began with Lucas jokingly insulting Onision.
• Onision responded with a self-deprecating joke about his appearance.
• Sarah introduced the phrase “forbidden floor.”
• Lucas continued that joke with “INTO THE DUNGEON.”
• Sarah escalated the imaginary scenario by adding “WITH ALL THE DEAD BODIES.”
• The “kinky” interpretation came from an unrelated third-party account.
• Sarah expressly stated that Onision would not be invited.
• No visible message shows Lucas or Onision directing sexual commentary toward Sarah.
• The full thread documents collective joking rather than the one-directional sexualization portrayed in Lisa Haba's dishonest complaint.

Direct contradiction of paragraph 267

Paragraph 267 describes the commentary as:

“inclusive of Onision”

Sarah’s own omitted response states the opposite:

“Gregory will not be invited.”

Onision’s only visible contribution was a self-deprecating response to Lucas jokingly calling him awful. Onision did not introduce the dungeon language (reference to online rumors of a "dungeon" existing), the dead-bodies language (again, people involved actually understood the context, which was mockery of online dead body rumors - for example, at one point someone online reported to the police that Sarah was dead, and when they arrived at the house she answered the door completely fine), or the “kinky” interpretation by a stranger.

The complaint nevertheless groups Onision into the alleged sexual meaning while omitting Sarah’s express statement excluding him. It also fails to point out that the only one even hinting at anything sexual was not Lucas, and was not Onision.

Sarah’s own role is removed from the complaints narrative

The cropped presentation also obscures that Sarah was actively participating in and escalating the joke.

Sarah supplied:

“not the forbidden floor”

and:

“WITH ALL THE DEAD BODIES”

She then continued responding after another user introduced the “kinky” joke, while Lucas and Onision did not engage with it like

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.

Sarah did, because again, Sarah herself asked the rhetorical question of whether or not Lucas was "plotting" the whole time, and then said if anything it was "the opposite". As Sarah has repeatedly confessed that is what happened, and it is what lead to Sarah sexually extorting Lucas and James. Sarah laid out everything in her texts and video confessions.

The full sequence does not show Lucas imposing sexual content upon a passive Sarah. It shows Sarah independently creating and expanding the imaginary scenario. This is information Lisa Haba had access to, but very clearly ignored or omitted entirely.

The “Jailbait” display name is treated as proof of intent

Paragraph 266 argues that Sarah’s use of the display name “Jailbait” acknowledged sexual communications and legal risk.

The filing substitutes that interpretation of Sarah’s self-selected online name for evidence of an actual sexual request or instruction from Lucas or Onision.

The complete thread instead shows several users employing exaggerated usernames, insults, horror imagery, and absurd statements as jokes.

A provocative username does not transform every surrounding joke into evidence that Lucas or Onision was grooming Sarah. Sarah having a public name of that nature supports the very same factual narrative of Sarah mocking rumors online, and joining in that mockery of rumors with Lucas, who Sarah had to sexually extort by threatening to destroy his life with lies if she did not get what she "wanted" and she would only not destroy his life if they would "do stuff" when the full context is considered.

Why the omitted context matters

The filing presents:

• the phrase “INTO THE DUNGEON,”
• Sarah’s provocative display name,
• and counsel’s conclusion that the exchange was sexual.

It omits:

• the joking dispute between Lucas and Onision,
• Onision’s self-deprecating response,
• Sarah’s “forbidden floor” setup,
• Sarah’s “dead bodies” punchline,
• the fact that a third party introduced the “kinky” interpretation, and only Sarah engaged with it,
• in addition, Sarah’s express statement that Onision would not be invited.

The omitted material changes the meaning of the exchange.

The complete conversation shows a group joke involving an imaginary forbidden floor, dungeon, and dead bodies. It does not show Onision or Lucas soliciting Sarah, directing her to engage in sexual conduct, or attempting to recruit her for any sexual purpose.

The selective crop removes the statements that allow the reader and the Court to recognize the actual tone, participants, and direction of the conversation. What Lisa Haba did to the innocent Onision and his spouse Lucas was incredibly dishonest and sloppy.

Source

January 22, 2015 Twitter thread involving Lucas, Onision, Sarah, and other users.

Consolidated Third Amended Complaint, paragraphs 266–267.