Lisa Haba: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 558: | Line 558: | ||
== January 22–23, 2023: Anonymous Gene Confirms He Collaborates With Chris Hansen To Coordinate Material Delivery To Lisa Haba &/or Margaret Mabie For Weaponization == | == January 22–23, 2023: Anonymous Gene Confirms He Collaborates With Chris Hansen To Coordinate Material Delivery To Lisa Haba &/or Margaret Mabie For Weaponization == | ||
[[File:2023-01-22 to 2023-01-23 | [[File:2023-01-22 to 2023-01-23 chris hansen text chain evidence relay to lawyers.jpg|alt=January 22 and January 23, 2023 Google Voice messages and a Chris Hansen text conversation in which Anonymous Gene admits downloading Onision's livestream, sending it to Chris Hansen, and confirming Hansen forwarded it to Sarah's lawyer, followed by a January 23 screenshot proving the same relay chain repeated a second time.|thumb|486x486px|January 22–23, 2023 records showing Anonymous Gene admitting he downloaded Onision's private livestream content, transmitted it to Chris Hansen, and confirming Hansen forwarded the material directly to Sarah's legal counsel, establishing a repeated evidence-relay chain between the stalker and the plaintiffs' attorneys.]] | ||
On January 22, 2023, criminal stalker Anonymous Gene told Onision directly that he had downloaded Onision's livestream from that day and sent it to Chris Hansen, who was at that moment forwarding it to Sarah's lawyer. | On January 22, 2023, criminal stalker Anonymous Gene told Onision directly that he had downloaded Onision's livestream from that day and sent it to Chris Hansen, who was at that moment forwarding it to Sarah's lawyer. | ||
Revision as of 12:07, 30 July 2026
July 29, 2021: Haba Demands Silence and Offers a Release Before the Allegations Expand Into a "Grooming" Lawsuit
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 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:
- 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)
- provide written assurances
- negotiate an alternative resolution
- receive a release from existing liability
- 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 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:
- Onision was ordered to stop publishing his evidence and accusations
- Sarah and Regina demanded $400,000
- refusal was tied to threatened litigation in multiple states
- 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
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
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:
- Hansen interviewed Sarah and Regina before the lawsuit
- Those interviews preserved their earlier accounts
- The original interviews later disappeared from easy public access
- Haba repeatedly appeared on Hansen’s channel
- Hansen gave Haba a dedicated platform to promote the newly filed Onision lawsuit
- 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
December 30, 2022: Anonymous Gene Sends Material “For Sarah’s Lawyers” to Chris Hansen While Threatening Onision
A composite screenshot dated December 30, 2022 documents an apparent communication channel between the individual known as Anonymous Gene and a Google Voice contact identified as Chris Hansen. The exhibit is significant because Gene expressly described material sent through that channel as being “For Sarahs lawyers,” while Hansen’s contact replied that he had received it and proposed that they speak again.
Gene Invokes “Sarah’s Lawyers,” Threatens Litigation, and Uses a Homophobic Slur
The upper portion of the composite preserves a message attributed to Anonymous Gene:
- “you talk about Sarahs lawyers, but they see everything you do... You think your not gonna be sued? I bet you, you will... bet me fagget.” [sic]
The message contains three independently relevant statements:
Gene claimed that “Sarah’s lawyers” were observing Onision’s activities.
Gene invoked the prospect of litigation as part of a threatening or intimidating communication.
Gene used a homophobic slur while doing so.
The legal significance of the slur is not that offensive expression automatically constitutes an independent cause of action. Rather, it is evidence of hostility, animus, and harassing intent. That context is material when evaluating Gene’s purpose, credibility, and state of mind throughout the broader course of threats and information-gathering attributed to him.
Gene Sends Material “For Sarah’s Lawyers” to Chris Hansen
The lower portion shows a Google Voice conversation with a contact labeled “Chris Hansen.” At 9:31 a.m., the sender attributed to Anonymous Gene transmits an image or document and writes:
- “For Sarahs lawyers. Morning... Im with ya.”
The contact labeled Chris Hansen responds:
- “Got it”
One minute later, the contact adds:
- “Hope you guys had a wonderful Christmas! Let’s catch up next week!”
Gene answers:
- “hit me up when your ready... I’ll be here. ;)” [sic]
The contact then sends the ambiguous message:
- “Sorry for lawyer”
The exchange is not phrased as an unsolicited message rejected by its recipient. The recipient acknowledges receiving the material, addresses Gene and others familiarly as “you guys,” and proposes future contact. If authenticated, it establishes a direct and continuing communication channel between Gene and Hansen on December 30, 2022.
It also shows that Gene represented the transmitted material as intended “For Sarahs lawyers.” That description is Gene’s statement.
The sequence was as follows (1) Anonymous Gene gathers information he feels is relevant. (2) Anonymous Gene transmits that information to Chris Hansen (3) Chris Hansen then forwards that information to Sarah's lawyers, who are Lisa Haba & Margaret Mabie. This establishes the criminal association between the three bodies.
The documented sequence was as follows: (1) Anonymous Gene gathered information he considered relevant; (2) Gene transmitted that information to Chris Hansen expressly “for Sarah’s lawyers”; and (3) Hansen served as the intermediary through whom the information was conveyed to Sarah’s attorneys, Lisa Haba and Margaret Mabie. This evidentiary chain establishes a coordinated association among the criminal Anonymous Gene, Hansen, and Sarah’s legal team.
Source
Composite Google Voice and text-message screenshot attributed to Anonymous Gene, December 30, 2022.
Related Evidence
January 9, 2023: Anti-Onision Users Preserve the “Deleted” Sarah and Regina Interviews
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:
- Hansen recorded the future plaintiffs’ original accounts
- Those interviews contained statements harmful to later allegations
- The original interviews disappeared from easy public access
- Members of an anti-Onision community had to preserve them through reuploads
- 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:
May 15, 2024: Haba Offers Reduced Damages if Onision Signs an Affidavit Supporting the Google “Partnership” Theory
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:
- The plaintiffs sought substantial damages from Google
- Haba offered reduced exposure to Onision in exchange for a Google-partnership affidavit
- Onision refused to sign the requested statement
- The affidavit was never obtained
- 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
January 22–23, 2023: Anonymous Gene Confirms He Collaborates With Chris Hansen To Coordinate Material Delivery To Lisa Haba &/or Margaret Mabie For Weaponization
On January 22, 2023, criminal stalker Anonymous Gene told Onision directly that he had downloaded Onision's livestream from that day and sent it to Chris Hansen, who was at that moment forwarding it to Sarah's lawyer.
Gene wrote:
- "I went ahead and downloaded your live video from today, sent it to Chris, hes right now sending it to Sarahs lawyer. You're fucked greg. ;)"
The accompanying Hansen text thread documents the mechanics of the transfer. Gene told Hansen:
- "send it your way."
- "another hour and 30 minutes of my life... ;)"
- "we got it, uploading to google drive. URL in just a couple minutes... to your email."
- "sent. its downloadable if you just send the link to sarahs lawyers."
Hansen replied:
- "Got it thank you! Will pass it along!"
On January 23, 2023, Gene repeated the identical pattern, again documenting with a screenshot that he had transmitted content to Hansen, who again passed it forward toward the plaintiffs' legal team, establishing that the January 22 transfer was not an isolated event but a recurring operational relationship.
Gene Established a Direct, Repeated Evidence Pipeline to the Plaintiffs' Attorneys
Gene did not merely claim a relationship with Hansen in the abstract. He documented, in his own words and with his own screenshots, a concrete and repeated four-party chain: Gene surveils and downloads Onision's content, Gene transmits it to Hansen, Hansen uploads and forwards it via email and Google Drive link, and the material reaches the attorneys representing Sarah and Regina.
Hansen's response, "Got it thank you! Will pass it along!", confirms Hansen's active participation and acceptance of material sourced from a self-admitted "criminal internet stalker" rather than through any formal discovery or investigative process.
The January 23 repetition proves this was a standing arrangement rather than a one-time favor, meaning privileged or private content was being funneled to opposing counsel outside of any lawful evidentiary channel on more than one occasion.
Gene's Own Words Establish Willful Coordination, Not Coincidence
Gene bragged to Hansen about the personal cost of his surveillance ("another hour and 30 minutes of my life"), demonstrating premeditated effort rather than incidental discovery.
He then instructed Hansen on exactly how to route the material to "Sarahs lawyers," proving Gene understood precisely who the end recipients were and directed the transmission toward them by name.
Hansen's casual, gossiping response about Onision's criminal record ("he talks a lot about you... said you went to Prison for a bad check... lolz, still making me giggle. ;)") further shows a familiar, ongoing working relationship between Hansen and Gene rather than a professional journalist receiving an unsolicited tip.
Legal Significance: Corruption of the Litigation and Discovery Process
This chain of communications is directly relevant to the pending civil litigation brought by Sarah and Regina through their counsel, Lisa Haba of The Haba Law Firm and Margaret Mabie of Marsh Law Firm.
The conduct implicates:
- Improper ex parte acquisition of evidence outside formal discovery, potentially tainting any material obtained through Gene and Hansen's channel
- RCW 9A.90.120, Washington cyber harassment, given Gene's continuous targeting of Onision in the same messages documenting the evidence transfer
- RCW 9A.46.110, Washington stalking, given the repeated surveillance and monitoring of Onision's livestreams required to produce the downloaded content
- Attorney ethical obligations under applicable bar rules concerning the receipt of materials obtained through unlawful surveillance or harassment of a party
- Spoliation and evidentiary taint concerns, since content funneled through an admitted stalker's unlawful surveillance operation raises serious chain-of-custody and admissibility questions
An attorney's knowing acceptance of surveillance material from a source who is simultaneously threatening the opposing party's life, sending unsolicited sexual images, and soliciting suicide is directly relevant to any argument that the litigation itself has been contaminated by improper, harassment-driven evidence gathering.
Gene, Hansen, and the Plaintiffs' Attorneys Formed a Documented Circle
Gene's messages, by his own admission, prove a functioning circuit: stalker to journalist to plaintiffs' counsel.
- Gene surveils and downloads Onision's private/livestream content without consent
- Gene transmits the content to Chris Hansen
- Hansen uploads it and forwards the link "to your email," addressed to Gene
- Gene instructs Hansen to send the link "to sarahs lawyers"
- Hansen confirms receipt and forwarding: "Got it thank you! Will pass it along!"
- The pattern repeats on January 23, 2023
This is not a one-time lapse in judgment by a journalist receiving a tip. It is a repeated, coordinated operational relationship in which a self-admitted stalker's harassment-derived material was knowingly routed into active federal litigation through counsel representing Sarah and Regina.
Harm and Relevance to Onision and Lucas's Position
The relay chain demonstrates that material used or intended for use against Onision and Lucas in litigation may have originated from an individual engaged in an ongoing campaign of doxxing, suicide solicitation, sexual harassment, and threats of physical violence against the family.
This directly supports arguments concerning the reliability, provenance, and admissibility of evidence associated with the plaintiffs' case, and establishes that Hansen and, by extension, the receiving attorneys, were willing to accept material from a known harasser rather than distance themselves from his conduct.
Source
Google Voice message and associated screenshot attributed to Anonymous Gene, dated January 22, 2023, and January 23, 2023.
The communications were captured using screen-capture software on a computer.
Personal names and identifying information are redacted.
Related Evidence
April 4, 2025: Lisa Haba's Complaint Conceals Sarah’s and Regina’s Actual Replies, Then Mischaracterizes the Exchange as “Flirtatious” and “Sexual”
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 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.
April 4, 2025: The Complaint Crops a Group Joke Into Alleged Sexual Evidence and Omits Sarah’s Own Statements
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 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”
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
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.
Spring 2015: The Complaint Blatantly Removes the Critical "You Are Starting To Look Like Me" Context of Joke While The Others Are Unverified, & Possibly Fake
Paragraph 269 of the Third Amended Complaint states:
“Over the spring of 2015, Lainey tweeted Sarah and Regina many sexual and flirtatious comments, to include:”
The filing then presents three isolated tweets:
“yeah I have a meal for you”
“I'm in love with you”
and:
“I'm grooming you nicely”
No surrounding conversation is provided for any of the three posts. Contexts completely omitted/hidden from the Court.
What is known and what remains unknown
The complete conversations surrounding the “meal” and “I'm in love with you” posts have not yet been located, this lack of context may suggest the screenshots themselves are fake. The alleged "Meal" comment includes Regina Alonso, and the Tweet, like the others, are publicly made, furthering the claim that it is a joke. Meanwhile Sarah cannot so plausibly claim her numerous confessions via text jokes, as they were made privately.
What is established is that the complaint presented both posts without context and immediately labeled them sexual and flirtatious, again, showing now actual sign of them being real exchanges other than the assumption that they are not faked screenshots.
The “I'm grooming you nicely” post is materially different because its complete context has been located.
That context was publicly available on LifeOfOnion.com, the apparent source, which is not even a reliable source, from which the isolated image was obtained.
The complete “grooming” exchange
The full exchange begins with Lucas viewing a photograph of Sarah and writing:
“I legitimately thought this was me for a second”
Sarah responds:
“we’re twins af”
Lucas then continues the twins joke:
“I'm grooming you nicely”
Sarah replies enthusiastically and continues participating in the joke.
The surrounding conversation supplies the precise meaning of the word “grooming.”
Lucas was joking that Sarah was increasingly resembling him after Sarah described the two of them as twins.
Nothing in the complete exchange concerns sexual conduct, sexual photographs, recruitment, secrecy, travel, or exploitation. Humans groom their hair, humans groom their dogs, and in this case, people often start to look like other people in friendships. The context Lisa Haba clearly willfully removed to push her vexatious litigation.
The complaint removes the statements that define the joke
The filed image preserves:
“I'm grooming you nicely”
but removes the immediately preceding statements:
“I legitimately thought this was me for a second”
and:
“we’re twins af”
Those are not irrelevant comments.
They are the statements that explain exactly what “grooming” meant within the conversation.
After those lines are removed, the remaining phrase can be presented as though Lucas used the word in the sense of sexual grooming.
The complete exchange establishes that he did not.
Evidence that the omitted context was available
The full exchange appeared on the same LifeOfOnion.com (an unreliable site run by individuals how have no first hand experience or knowledge of key events) material containing the isolated “I'm grooming you nicely” screenshot.
The cropped post used in the complaint matches the post preserved on that page, while the filing excludes the surrounding exchange displayed with it.
This supports the conclusion that the omission did not result from the context being unavailable.
The context existed at the apparent source.
It was simply hidden from the Court. Lisa Haba has been informed of this issue, and she has not corrected it. Her misleading complaint continues to be the active draft, supporting the idea she is willfully presenting a false, out of context narrative. This falls in line with the overall fraudulent lawsuit Lisa Haba has wasted multiple Court's time with while pursuing the punishment of innocent people for things they did not do.
Why it matters
The complaint uses the cropped post to support exceptionally serious allegations involving grooming and sexual exploitation.
Presenting a quotation in support of those allegations while omitting the adjacent statements that establish its innocent meaning creates a materially false impression of the evidence.
The complete exchange shows:
- Lucas mistook Sarah’s photograph for himself.
- Sarah called the two of them twins.
- Lucas continued the twins joke.
- Sarah understood and participated in that joke.
- No sexual communication occurred in the visible exchange.
Lisa Haba knowingly misrepresented facts on a legal document to pursue a frivolous lawsuit. The evidence is in the fact that even after she was informed of the issue, she failed to correct it, and continues to vexatiously litigate against innocent parties.
Source
May 28, 2015 Twitter exchange between Lucas and Sarah, preserved on LifeOfOnion.com.
Consolidated Third Amended Complaint, paragraph 269.