Shiloh/Damages

December 14–23, 2020: Leaked Blackfin Record Appears to Show Shiloh Was Paid $20,580 for the Onision Documentary

A circulated Blackfin invoice bearing Shiloh Hoganson’s name lists $20,000 for the “Onision Documentary,” $580 in tax, $20,580 paid, and a zero balance.

A document circulated as a leaked Blackfin payment record bears Shiloh Hoganson’s name and identifies the billed item as:

“Onision Documentary”

The invoice lists:

• rate: $20,000
• tax: $580
• total: $20,580
• amount paid: $20,580
• balance due: $0.00

The invoice is directed to Collin Emley. Separate employment results identify Emley as a Blackfin video editor, connecting the name on the payment record to the documentary company.

What the Evidence Means

If authentic, the invoice destroys the portrayal of Shiloh as merely an uncompensated witness reluctantly sharing her experiences.

Search results identify Collin Emley, the person named on the invoice, as a video editor employed by Blackfin.

Blackfin did not simply provide her with a microphone. The record indicates that the company paid her more than $20,000 for work or participation connected to a documentary built around attacking Onision and Lucas.

That creates a direct financial interest in:

• participating in the production
• providing commercially valuable accusations
• sustaining the most dramatic possible narrative
• helping Blackfin market the documentary
• keeping public outrage focused on Onision and Lucas

The documentary therefore cannot be treated as neutral corroboration of Shiloh’s claims. It was a commercial production in which a featured accuser appears to have received substantial compensation.

Connection to Sarah’s Financial Motive

This record is also important to Sarah’s compensation history.

Onision’s contemporaneous call notes record Sarah stating that:

• documentary participants were paid
• confidentiality terms prevented her from disclosing the amount
• she had enough money to make a down payment on a house

The Shiloh invoice does not establish Sarah’s exact payment amount. It does, however, corroborate the existence of substantial participant compensation within the same production.

Sarah’s refusal to reveal whether or how much she received therefore cannot be dismissed as baseless suspicion. The production appears to have paid at least one major accuser more than $20,000 while presenting the finished program as evidence against Onision and Lucas.

Commercial Testimony Presented as Independent Evidence

The conflict is straightforward:

1. Blackfin produced a documentary accusing Onision and Lucas
2. Blackfin appears to have paid a featured accuser $20,580
3. the accuser’s allegations supplied valuable content for the production
4. the production then presented those paid allegations to an international audience as corroboration
5. the resulting publicity caused severe reputational and financial damage to Onision and Lucas

The payment does not make every statement automatically false. It establishes bias, financial incentive, and a commercial relationship that audiences should have been told about when evaluating the documentary’s credibility.

Any payment terms, contracts, editorial instructions, confidentiality provisions, bonuses, reimbursements, and communications between Shiloh and Blackfin are therefore material evidence.

Authentication Evidence Still Needed

The employment screenshot strengthens the invoice’s internal consistency because the named recipient appears connected to Blackfin.

The decisive authentication evidence would be:

• the original invoice file and metadata
• Blackfin’s accounts-payable ledger
• Shiloh’s appearance agreement
• payment confirmation or bank-transfer record
• tax documents or 1099 records
• communications discussing the amount and purpose of payment

Those records would establish whether the circulated invoice is genuine and exactly what Blackfin purchased for $20,580.

Source

Circulated Blackfin invoice dated December 14, 2020.

Employment search results concerning Collin Emley dated or captured December 23, 2020.

The documents were reportedly circulated online by a person described as a Blackfin whistleblower.

Related evidence:

• Sarah discusses documentary payments and a house down payment
• Damage inflicted on Onision and Lucas
• Defamation against Onision and Lucas