Regina/Damages

Damages and Causation Review

Regina: Claimed Harm and Damages

Regina’s claimed injuries compared with her documented preexisting mental-health history, statements that Onision’s work helped her, affectionate communications, later public conduct, media participation, and financial interest.

Related: Grooming · Complete Record · Damage to Onision and Lucas

April 27, 2012: Regina Says Onision’s Forum Kept Her From Suicide and Offers Him Thousands of Dollars Without Receiving a Reply

Regina initiated contact with Onision, credited his video and forum with interrupting her suicidal thoughts, professed her support, and offered to pay thousands of dollars toward his expenses.

On April 27, 2012, Regina sent Onision an unsolicited email after watching his video about overcoming suicidal thoughts.

Regina wrote:

“I live my life to excel on the Onision Forums, because on there I’m happy.”

She said that when she began thinking of ways to die:

“I instantly get on there.”

Regina disclosed that she had experienced moderate-to-severe depression and stated:

“every day, I just want to die.”

She nevertheless described Onision’s content and community as a source of relief—not harm.

Regina then offered extraordinary financial assistance:

“I’d wish to donate half of what you owe for a year or two”

and:

“I’ll be buying a ton of Onision shirts to help with profits.”

She concluded:

“You don’t deserve this torture.”

and signed the email:

“Love and Support, Regina”

What the Evidence Establishes

The email documents that:

• Regina initiated the attempted contact
• her severe depression and suicidal thoughts already existed
• she credited Onision’s video and forum with helping her survive those thoughts
• she expressed love, support, and admiration toward Onision
• she voluntarily offered him potentially thousands of dollars
• the preserved email record shows no reply or encouragement from Onision

This directly conflicts with a narrative in which Onision sought Regina out, created her psychological distress, financially exploited her, or initiated a coercive relationship.

At this stage, the record shows the opposite: Regina was an intensely attached viewer attempting to create direct contact with Onision, while Onision did not reciprocate.

Source

Email from Regina to: onisionproject@gmail.com

Dated April 27, 2012, at 6:31 a.m. The screenshot was preserved from Onision’s email account.

Related evidence:

• Regina: Grooming Allegations

October 2–9, 2016: Regina Initiates Contact, Says She Misses Lucas, and Receives Brief Responses

In October 2016, Regina initiated contact with Lucas, said she was worried about him and missed him, and later asked whether he still had a P.O. box. Lucas responded briefly and did not reciprocate Regina’s emotional language.

On October 2, 2016, Regina contacted Lucas after watching a video published by Onision concerning public controversy surrounding the household.

Regina wrote:

“I saw Greg's video and I'm just worried abt you and all the bs drama..”

She then added:

“And I miss you.”

Lucas did not respond with similar emotional or romantic language. He replied:

“Well we are still together”

Regina clarified that she was referring to the public criticism surrounding Lucas:

“I mean that's fantastic but all the bs from other people since its all so public”

On October 9, Regina initiated contact again and asked:

“Do you still have a P.O. box?”

Lucas answered only:

“No”

Regina replied:

“Dang. Okay.”

What the record directly shows

The messages show Regina independently initiating contact with Lucas and expressing concern and personal attachment.

The exchange establishes that:

• Regina told Lucas that she was worried about him.
• Regina voluntarily stated that she missed him.
• Regina expressed support regarding the public criticism directed at the household.
• Regina initiated another conversation one week later concerning Lucas’s P.O. box.
• Lucas answered Regina with short, restrained responses.
• Lucas did not reciprocate Regina’s statement that she missed him.
• Lucas did not solicit money, gifts, sexual communication, or a private meeting in the displayed exchange.
• The messages contain no threat, pressure, enticement, or demand from Lucas.

Why it matters

Regina’s later allegations portray Lucas as the person who pursued, enticed, groomed, or emotionally manipulated her.

This contemporaneous exchange records the opposite communication pattern.

Regina initiated the interaction, expressed that she missed Lucas, communicated concern for him, and attempted to continue contact. Lucas’s responses were brief and did not encourage or mirror Regina’s emotional attachment.

The exchange does not show Lucas attempting to deepen the relationship, isolate Regina, introduce sexual subjects, or exploit her expressed concern. Instead, the available messages show Regina pursuing communication while Lucas remained comparatively disengaged.

The record therefore conflicts with any portrayal of this particular interaction as an example of Lucas aggressively pursuing Regina or cultivating emotional dependence. It documents Regina voluntarily seeking his attention and expressing attachment without corresponding encouragement from Lucas.

Source

Facebook Messenger exchange between Regina Alonso and Lucas dated October 2 and October 9, 2016.

Lucas’s messages appear in gray. Regina’s messages appear in blue.

The screenshot was captured and publicly shared by Regina.

January 28, 2017: Regina Forgives Lucas For Being "Harsh", Says She Loves Him Always, and Calls Him Near and Dear to Her

On January 28, 2017, Regina accepted Lucas’s apology, told him “I love you always,” and said he would “always” remain near and dear to her, directly contradicting her later portrayal of Lucas as someone who had already traumatized, groomed, or psychologically abused her.

On January 28, 2017, Lucas apologized for being "Harsh" to Regina after receiving information that she had been providing material concerning his family to hostile blogs. (Regina appeared to be malicious and evil to Lucas at some point, which given time, revealed Lucas should have never apologized for reacting in a "harsh" manner considering the amount of times Regina has lied to countless people to date).

Lucas wrote:

“Hey. I wanted to say sorry for being so harsh. Someone had told me that you were giving info to the blogs & it made sense at the time but now it doesn't, so I'm really sorry.”

Regina accepted the apology and responded:

“I really appreciate the apology. I'm still a little upset but I do forgive you.”

She then stated:

“I love you always and you're always gonna be near and dear to me.”

Lucas continued the conversation by asking:

“So how've you been?”

What the record directly shows

Regina’s own messages establish that:

• Lucas apologized to Regina for being harsh. (clearly not grooming Regina, instead, lashing out at Regina)
• Lucas explained the reason for his earlier reaction.
• Regina voluntarily accepted Lucas’s apology.
• Regina expressly stated that she forgave Lucas.
• Regina told Lucas that she loved him “always.”
• Regina said Lucas would “always” remain near and dear to her.
• Regina continued the connection after the disagreement.
• The exchange was affectionate, voluntary, and reconciliatory.
• Regina did not describe Lucas as a predator, groomer, trafficker, abuser, or source of trauma.
• Lucas’s conduct in the exchange was apologetic for rudeness rather than coercive, threatening, or manipulative.

Direct contradiction of the Third Amended Complaint

The Third Amended Complaint portrays Lucas as having groomed, exploited, coerced, psychologically harmed, and trafficked Regina during the years preceding this exchange. Regina’s own contemporaneous words directly and repeatedly conflict with that narrative.

After the alleged conduct, Regina did not describe Lucas as someone who had traumatized or exploited her. She told him:

“I love you always”

and:

“you're always gonna be near and dear to me.”

These statements match what she publicly stated to Lucas in 2019, when both were well into their adulthood, far past any alleged trauma for Regina's end of the claims. These are not vague statements of politeness. Regina affirmatively described a lasting emotional attachment to Lucas and voluntarily continued the relationship after accepting his apology.

The exchange also documents Lucas apologizing for his own conduct rather than using fear, threats, pressure, or control to silence Regina. Regina responded with forgiveness and affection, not fear or avoidance.

Why it matters

Regina’s later allegations require the public to believe that Lucas had already subjected her to severe grooming, trafficking, coercion, psychological abuse, and lasting harm. Her own message records a radically different relationship.

Regina:

• forgave Lucas for being "harsh" when Lucas was informed that Regina was malicious and dishonest,
• reaffirmed Regina's supposed love for him,
• described him as permanently near and dear to her, completely incompatible with her later complaint,
• and continued communicating with him voluntarily.

This exchange occurred years after the period Regina later characterized as traumatic. Her own conduct and language show that she regarded Lucas as a loved and valued person, not as the perpetrator described in her smear campaign.

The record also reinforces the broader chronology showing that Regina repeatedly sought contact with Lucas, expressed affection toward him, and treated the relationship as personally important even after disagreements.

Regina later publicly reframed Lucas’s apology for being "harsh" as inadequate, but the underlying contemporaneous message shows that she accepted it, forgave him, declared her lasting love for him, and continued the conversation.

Her later characterization cannot erase what she actually said at the time.

Source

January 28, 2017 message exchange between Regina Alonso and Lucas.

Regina’s messages appear in blue. Lucas’s messages appear in gray.

Regina publicly posted the screenshot to her Twitter account, @hahan0bye, on September 19, 2019.

January 8, 2019: Regina Expresses Support for Lucas and Voluntarily Discusses Returning to Therapy

On January 8, 2019, Regina told Lucas that she was happy for him, emphasized that his well-being mattered to her, and voluntarily disclosed that she planned to return to therapy following a death in her family.

On January 8, 2019, Regina sent Lucas a supportive message concerning his new name and pronouns.

Regina wrote:

“I'm really happy for you, I really like the name too. I feel like it suits you really well.”

She then stated:

“your wellbeing especially with this new name and pronouns”

Regina also voluntarily disclosed that she had recently experienced a death in her family and intended to resume therapy:

“someone close to my family got murdered 6 months or 2 ago and I never had a chance to come out to them before they passed”

She added:

“I'm working on going back to a therapist”

What the record directly shows

The message shows Regina voluntarily communicating with Lucas in a supportive and personally open manner.

The exchange establishes that:

• Regina told Lucas she was happy for him.
• Regina expressed approval of Lucas’s new name.
• Regina stated that Lucas’s well-being mattered to her.
• Regina voluntarily discussed a painful event involving her family.
• Regina stated that she was working toward returning to therapy.
• The visible message contains no accusation that Lucas had harmed, threatened, coerced, or exploited her.
• Regina’s tone toward Lucas was supportive rather than fearful, hostile, or avoidant.

Why it matters

Regina’s later allegations portray Lucas as someone who had previously traumatized, exploited, or psychologically harmed her.

This January 2019 message records Regina communicating with Lucas in a markedly different manner. She expressed happiness for him, affirmed his identity, emphasized concern for his well-being, and voluntarily shared sensitive information about her own emotional state and plans for therapy.

It is relevant to Regina’s contemporaneous conduct and stated relationship with Lucas. At the time of this exchange, Regina did not describe Lucas as a source of fear or harm. She instead treated him as someone whose happiness and well-being mattered to her and with whom she felt comfortable discussing a deeply personal family loss.

The record therefore conflicts with a simple portrayal of Regina as consistently viewing Lucas as her abuser or remaining in contact only through visible fear, coercion, or duress. Her own message shows active support, personal trust, and voluntary emotional disclosure several years after the period addressed by her later allegations.

Source

January 8, 2019 text-message exchange between Regina Alonso and Lucas.

Regina’s message appears in gray. The preceding visible message from Lucas appears in green.

The screenshot was captured from Lucas’s phone.

September 9, 2019: Regina Promotes a “Deplatform Predators” Campaign Alongside Multiple Payment and Monetization Accounts

Regina’s Twitter profile combined her “#DeplatformPredators” campaign with direct links to her Venmo and Linktree accounts, placing fundraising and monetization tools alongside the accusations she promoted against Onision and Lucas.

During Regina’s public campaign against Onision and Lucas, her Twitter profile identified her stated mission as:

“#DeplatformPredators”

The same profile directly advertised Regina’s Venmo account:

“venmo: hahan0bye”

and linked viewers to:

“linktr.ee/hahan0bye”

The profile displayed an audience of approximately 5,301 followers.

Regina’s Linktree directed visitors to Venmo, Cash App, OnlyFans, YouTube, Instagram, and Tumblr, confirming that the financial and promotional link displayed beside her “#DeplatformPredators” profile led to multiple monetization and audience-building platforms under her control.

Regina’s Linktree expanded the financial and promotional structure attached to her campaign.

The page contained direct links to:

• Instagram
• Venmo
• Cash App
• OnlyFans
• YouTube
• Tumblr

The Linktree was publicly displayed on the same Twitter profile Regina used to identify her mission as “#DeplatformPredators.”

What the record directly shows

The combined screenshots show that Regina placed her campaign against Onision and Lucas beside a network of financial, subscription, content, and promotional accounts.

The record establishes that:

• Regina publicly branded her account around a campaign to “deplatform” people she labeled predators.
• Regina directed followers to a Venmo account.
• Regina directed followers to a Linktree page.
• The Linktree included Venmo and Cash App payment accounts.
• The Linktree included an OnlyFans subscription account.
• The Linktree included YouTube, Instagram, and Tumblr accounts.
• Regina promoted these links to an audience of more than 5,300 followers.
• Regina controlled the campaign messaging, the linked accounts, and the pathways through which followers could financially support or subscribe to her content.
• The accusations and Regina’s monetization structure were presented through the same public profile.

Direct contradiction of the Third Amended Complaint

The Third Amended Complaint portrays Regina primarily as a psychologically harmed victim whose public conduct arose from alleged grooming and exploitation by Lucas and Onision.

Regina’s own profiles show her operating an organized accusation campaign while simultaneously directing the resulting audience toward payment accounts, a subscription platform, content channels, and social-media pages under her control.

Regina was not merely recounting an experience.

She was:

• branding a public campaign,
• identifying targets as predators,
• building an audience around those accusations,
• directing followers toward Venmo and Cash App,
• promoting an OnlyFans account,
• and routing traffic toward her YouTube and social-media platforms.

That documented structure shows that Regina’s campaign generated direct pathways to money, subscriptions, content traffic, and audience growth.

Why it matters

Regina’s public campaign and monetization network were not separate.

They appeared together.

Her “#DeplatformPredators” profile sent followers directly to a Linktree containing:

• two payment services,
• a paid subscription platform,
• a video platform,
• and multiple social-media accounts.

This structure gave Regina a direct personal benefit from the attention produced by her accusations against Onision and Lucas.

The more attention the allegations generated, the more people were exposed to Regina’s:

• Venmo,
• Cash App,
• OnlyFans,
• YouTube,
• Instagram,
• and Tumblr accounts.

The screenshots therefore document a financial and promotional infrastructure built directly into Regina’s accusation campaign.

Regina’s later portrayal of herself as merely a harmed individual seeking accountability cannot be separated from the public record showing that she attached payment, subscription, promotional, and audience-building links to the campaign itself.

This evidence fits the broader pattern in which Regina converted accusations against Onision and Lucas into publicity, follower growth, direct payment access, subscription traffic, and promotion for multiple accounts under her personal control.

Source

Screenshots of Regina Alonso’s Twitter profile at @hahan0bye and the linked Linktree page at linktr.ee/hahan0bye.

The Twitter profile displayed the hashtag “#DeplatformPredators,” Regina’s Venmo account, the Linktree address, and approximately 5,301 followers.

The Linktree displayed direct links to Instagram, Venmo, Cash App, OnlyFans, YouTube, and Tumblr.

September 16–17, 2019: Regina Publicly Wishes Emotional Distress on Lucas, Insults Him, and Amplifies Claims That He Could Be Jailed or Lose His Children

On September 16, 2019, Regina publicly stated that Lucas “better be fuckin’ crying,” openly expressing satisfaction at the possibility that he was emotionally distressed and declaring that he “isn’t any better.”

On September 16, 2019, Regina publicly attacked Lucas and expressed that he should be emotionally suffering, showing one of many examples of how malicious & sadistic Regina Alonso is.

Regina wrote:

“And Kai better be fuckin' crying. He isnt any better.”

On September 17, 2019, Regina publicly called Lucas “a pussy” while amplifying another account’s accusations that Lucas had broken the law and could face jail or lose his children.

The following day, Regina continued attacking Lucas publicly.

Her Tweet establishing she isn't even remotely intimated or traumatized by Lucas, Regina wrote:

“Kai is a pussy.”

Regina’s post quoted and amplified a statement from Mary Beth Wylie alleging that Lucas had broken the law and stating:

“She could go to jail. She could lose her kids.”

Regina’s direct contribution was the public insult. By quoting the post, she also placed accusations threatening Lucas’s liberty, family, and reputation before her own audience.

What the record directly shows

Regina’s posts establish that:

• Regina publicly stated that Lucas “better be fuckin’ crying.”
• Regina openly expressed hostility toward Lucas.
• Regina publicly insulted Lucas.
• Regina amplified false accusations that Lucas had committed a crime.
• Regina amplified statements suggesting Lucas could be jailed.
• Regina amplified statements suggesting Lucas could lose his children.
• Regina was actively participating in a public campaign against Lucas.
• Regina showed no hesitation about publicly attacking Lucas before thousands of followers.
• Regina’s conduct was aggressive, hostile, and designed to increase public pressure against Lucas.
• These attacks followed Regina’s prior statements that she loved Lucas “always,” considered him “near and dear,” and wanted him to communicate with her again.
• The very same year Regina was professing "all" her love for Lucas & openly promoting the idea of a relationship between Lucas and Sarah, the contradiction is impossible to honestly ignore. The reality of Regina being a fraud (someone who lies for personal profit) is difficult to argue against considering the extensive evidence against her.

Direct contradiction of Regina’s prior statements and the Third Amended Complaint

Regina’s later legal complaint portrays her as someone who had been groomed, psychologically controlled, intimidated, and severely harmed by Lucas. Her own public conduct shows her confidently attacking Lucas, wishing emotional distress on him, insulting him, and amplifying claims that he could be imprisoned or lose his children.

Earlier, Regina had told Lucas:

“I love you always and you're always gonna be near and dear to me.”

Regina later publicly admitted:

“I really wanted to be close again”

She also posted messages showing herself repeatedly pressing Lucas to say whether he would ever consider friendship with her again.

Lucas did not confirm Regina’s characterization of their prior contact and did not promise her future friendship or communication.

Shortly afterward, Regina’s public conduct changed from professing affection and seeking Lucas’s attention to openly attacking him and

Regina admitted that she “really wanted to be close again” and displayed messages showing that she was the person seeking renewed friendship with Lucas, while Lucas remained noncommittal and offered no promise of future closeness.

expressing that he deserved further suffering.

The documented chronology shows:

• Regina declared lasting affection for Lucas.
• Regina sought renewed communication from Lucas.
• Lucas gave Regina no promise of future friendship.
• Regina then publicly wished emotional distress on Lucas.
• Regina insulted him.
• Regina amplified claims threatening his freedom and family.

This pattern directly undermines Regina’s later portrayal of herself as someone who remained fearful, intimidated, or controlled by Lucas.

Why it matters

Regina’s posts document an abrupt and extreme change in her public narrative.

After previously declaring that she loved Lucas “always” and pressing him about future friendship, Regina began publicly wishing suffering on him and promoting accusations carrying severe consequences.

Regina was not acting like someone unable to speak, afraid to criticize Lucas, or controlled by him.

She was publicly:

• attacking Lucas,
• insulting Lucas,
• encouraging hostility toward him,
• expressing satisfaction at the possibility that he was crying, (honestly, what non-evil person does that?)
• amplifying claims that he could be imprisoned,
• and amplifying claims that he could lose his children. (all while monetizing her smear campaign, and promoting her own OnlyFans, like the suffering of someone who rejected Regina was just a marketing opportunity for her own unpopular NSFW page)

These posts demonstrate that Regina was an active participant in the punishment campaign against Lucas, not a silent or intimidated observer.

The chronology also exposes the retaliatory character of Regina’s conduct. Regina first sought Lucas’s attention and future friendship. When Lucas did not provide the assurance she requested, Regina’s public statements eventually shifted into hostility, ridicule, and attacks on his liberty, family, and reputation, but not until well after Regina FIRST promoted the idea of Lucas and Sarah being together publicly, while actively publicly professing "all" her (Regina's) love for Lucas, leaving no room for her narrative to later shift about their past prior to that time, yet somehow, they still tried to shift it anyway, pretending the past public proclamations did not exist. Regina’s allegations cannot erase her own documented statements or the sequence in which they occurred.

Source

September 16 and September 17, 2019 Twitter posts by Regina Alonso from the account @hahan0bye.

The September 16 post was later included as Exhibit 169 in the defendants’ evidentiary submission.

The September 17 post was later included as Exhibit 170 in the defendants’ evidentiary submission.

The quoted September 17 statement concerning jail and the possible loss of Lucas’s children originated from Mary Beth Wylie. Regina’s direct statement was:

“Kai is a pussy.”

September 2019–November 2020: Regina, A Self-Proclaimed Trauma Victim of MANY Men, Sexualizes Onision & Directs a Hateful Choking Remark, Months Later Publicly Celebrates The Death of Yet Another Man She Accused

Regina directly tagged Onision and published a degrading statement that he “needs to choke,” adding to her documented campaign of public humiliation, hostility, and targeted abuse.

On September 17, 2019, Regina directly tagged Onision while publishing a degrading and hostile statement against him.

Regina wrote:

“Dont get me wrong now. Just because I'm gearing towards Kai doesnt mean I dont think @Onision needs to choke on a fucking fat cock”

The post received approximately 129 likes.

Regina publicly celebrated another person’s death, wrote “rot in hell,” and expressed hope that he experienced the “most painful death,” documenting an extreme pattern of punitive and dehumanizing rhetoric toward people she accused.

On November 17, 2020, Regina celebrated the death of a man she accused of giving her drugs and grooming her. This was not the only person Regina blamed for her claimed trauma. By her own public accounts, her severe mental-health problems and suicidal thinking existed before any contact with Lucas, she credited Onision’s anti-suicide content with encouraging her not to kill herself, she accused this separate man of victimizing her, she described other alleged predators outside Onision’s world, and she later blamed Onision and Lucas for extensive psychological harm.

That chronology creates a basic credibility and causation problem Regina never resolves. Which specific supposed conduct caused which alleged injury, when did it occur, and what evidence connects it to Onision or Lucas? Regina repeatedly shifts the source of her suffering among unrelated people and different periods of her life while presenting each new target as responsible for the same broad trauma narrative. Her own statements show longstanding problems that predated Onision and Lucas, multiple unrelated accusations against other men, and a direct admission that Onision’s content helped her during a suicidal crisis. The record therefore does not support Regina’s attempt to assign her entire history of distress to Onision or Lucas. It shows a person repeatedly redirecting blame while changing the alleged cause to fit the target she is attacking at the time.

Regina accompanied the announcement with a reaction image stating:

“THANK YOU JESUS”

She then wrote:

“rot in hell tom”

and:

“i hope it was the most painful death u fucking pedophile”

Regina presented the criminal label as fact and publicly expressed satisfaction over the person’s death and alleged suffering.

What the record directly shows

Regina’s posts establish that:

• Regina directly tagged Onision in a sexually harassing, degrading statement involving choking.
• Regina publicly expressed intense hostility toward Onision.
• Regina’s attack received substantial audience approval.
• Regina later publicly celebrated another accused person’s death.
• Regina told the deceased to “rot in hell.”
• Regina stated that she hoped the person experienced the “most painful death.”
• Regina publicly labeled the deceased a pedophile as an established fact.
• Regina repeatedly used humiliation, suffering, death, and criminal labels as instruments of public punishment.

Why it matters

Regina’s public conduct shows that her objective extended far beyond any stated interest in accountability.

Her rhetoric repeatedly demanded or celebrated:

• humiliation,
• emotional suffering,
• physical suffering,
• financial destruction,
• deplatforming,
• family consequences,
• persecution,
• and death.

The statements also demonstrate how Regina encouraged her audience to view accused people as subhuman and undeserving of ordinary restraint or fairness.

Against Onision, she directly published sexual harassment toward Onision referencing male reproductive orders and that he “needs to choke” on said "cock." Against another accused person, she celebrated his death and hoped it had been maximally painful.

These were deliberate public statements distributed to Regina’s audience, not private reactions. They contributed to an online environment in which attacks, threats, reputational destruction, and financial punishment against Onision and Lucas were normalized and rewarded.

Source

September 17, 2019 Twitter post by Regina Alonso from the account @hahan0bye.

November 17, 2020 Twitter posts by Regina Alonso from the account @hahan0bye.

October 20, 2019: Regina Sadistically Joins a Harassment Campaign to Flood Onision’s PayPal and Demands $1,000

Regina joined a public proposal to flood Onision’s PayPal with payment requests by announcing, “I’ll take $1000 mr onision.” A supporter then encouraged Regina to invoice him, claiming that he owed her money.

On October 20, 2019, a Twitter user proposed flooding Onision’s PayPal account with payment requests and invoices:

“Sure would be a shame if everyone filled his onision paypal inbox with money requests or invoices for wasting the internet's time”

Regina joined the proposal and publicly demanded:

“I'll take $1000 mr onision”

Another participant encouraged Regina to convert the demand into an invoice:

“You actually should legit invoice him. He owes you money. You did all that work for them.”

Why it matters

Regina publicly portrayed her campaign as an effort to expose wrongdoing while repeatedly creating routes through which the controversy could benefit her financially.

Her documented conduct included:

• advertising Venmo and Cash App accounts,
• promoting an OnlyFans subscription page,
• directing attention toward her other monetized platforms,
• expanding the accusations through media outreach,
• and publicly demanding $1,000 from Onision.

The PayPal exchange makes the financial objective explicit. Regina was not merely receiving incidental attention. She openly participated in an effort to send Onision payment demands and personally named the amount she wanted.

This evidence supports the broader chronology showing that Regina combined public accusations, harassment, audience growth, and monetization while Onision and Lucas absorbed the resulting reputational and financial harm.

Source

October 20, 2019 Twitter exchange involving Regina Alonso’s account, @hahan0bye.

September 28, 2019: Regina Publicly Calls For Onision's Death

On September 28, 2019, Regina publicly told Onision to “stop existing forever.” Twitter’s preserved safety notice placed the post under its rule against promoting or encouraging suicide or self-harm.

On September 28, 2019, Regina used an alternate Twitter account to direct a public death wish at Onision.

Regina wrote:

“Hi @Onision pls stop existing forever thank u”

The preserved screenshot displays Regina’s post beneath Twitter’s rule against:

“promoting or encouraging suicide or self-harm.”

Regina’s wording was not a demand for investigation, accountability, or lawful adjudication. She publicly told Onision to cease being alive permanently.

What the record directly shows

Regina’s own post establishes that:

• Regina directly tagged Onision.
• Regina told Onision to “stop existing forever.” (wishing death on a man she is a stranger to)
• Regina used an alternate account to publish the statement.
• Regina publicly expressed that Onision should no longer exist.
• Twitter’s displayed safety notice categorized the surrounding issue under its rule against promoting or encouraging suicide or self-harm.
• Regina showed no fear or hesitation about directly targeting Onision.
• The post formed part of Regina’s continuing campaign of insults, harassment, demands for suffering, and targeted public attacks against Onision and Lucas. The malice of Regina leaves no surprise that she would later vexatiously litigate the innocent family.

Direct contradiction of Regina’s later allegations

Regina Alonso’s alternate account, @hahabyeee, was suspended by Twitter after she used it during her documented harassment campaign against Onision, including publicly telling him to “stop existing forever.”

Regina’s Complaint portrays her as frightened, psychologically controlled, intimidated, and severely harmed by Onision and Lucas.

Her own public conduct shows the opposite.

Regina directly tagged Onision and told him:

“stop existing forever”

This is not the conduct of someone silenced, controlled, or afraid to confront Onision. It is an overtly hostile public attack directed at his continued existence.

Regina’s post also fits the same pattern shown in her surrounding statements:

• wishing that Lucas was crying,
• publicly insulting Lucas,
• demanding that Lucas be “persecuted,”
• amplifying claims that Lucas could be jailed or lose his children,
• repeatedly tagging and taunting Onision,
• and mocking Onision after he blocked her.

The evidence shows Regina acting as an aggressor in the public punishment campaign, not as someone unable to speak because of fear or control.

Parallel conduct with Sarah

Regina’s statement also mirrors Sarah’s documented public hostility toward Onision.

Both women publicly moved beyond making allegations and expressed a desire for Onision’s death. This behavior is highly common for predatory individuals, not victims.

That parallel conduct demonstrates the malicious character of the campaign surrounding the accusations. The objective was not limited to presenting evidence or seeking a judicial determination. The public rhetoric openly demanded Onision’s suffering, destruction, and execution or death.

Why it matters

Regina later sought to portray her actions as those of a harmed person pursuing accountability. Her own words document something materially different.

Regina publicly:

• targeted Onision by name,
• told him to die,
• participated in conduct addressed by Twitter’s suicide and self-harm rule,
• and continued escalating a public campaign intended to humiliate, harm, and destroy him.

The post supplies direct evidence of malice.

It also undermines any attempt to portray Regina as fearful of Onision, controlled by him, or reluctant to speak publicly. Regina was openly directing hostile statements at Onision and expressing that he should die.

Regina's post, a woman who is stranger to Onision, reveals the true severity of the campaign she joined against Onision and Lucas, mirroring Sarah's repeat calls for Onision to die for things he didn't even do (as the evidence, their own confessions, reports and the true sequence of events revealed).

Source

September 28, 2019 Twitter post from Regina Alonso’s alternate account, @hahabyeee.

The preserved screenshot also displays Twitter’s rule notice concerning promotion or encouragement of suicide or self-harm.

Consolidated Third Amended Complaint, paragraphs 413–417 and 423–424.

September 28–29, 2019: Regina Repeatedly Tags, Taunts, and Publicly Attacks Onision After He Blocks Her

Regina repeatedly tagged and publicly attacked Onision, called him degrading names, taunted him about crying, and mocked him for blocking her. Her posts show active pursuit and hostility toward Onision, not fear, intimidation, or silence.

On September 28 and 29, 2019, Regina repeatedly targeted Onision through public Twitter posts.

Regina directly tagged Onision and wrote:

“ATTN: GREGORY AVEROE IS A SCARED PUSSY ASS BITCH @Onision R U CRYING BUD”

In another thread involving Onision and Sarah, Regina replied:

“LOL”

Regina then posted a screenshot showing that Onision had blocked her and wrote:

“HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HOES MAD HUH @ONISION”

The screenshot Regina posted stated:

“You are blocked from following @Onision and viewing @Onision’s Tweets.”

What the record directly shows

Regina’s own posts establish that:

• Regina repeatedly tagged Onision.
• Regina directly sought Onision’s attention.
• Regina publicly called Onision a “scared pussy ass bitch.”
• Regina publicly asked whether Onision was crying.
• Regina participated in a hostile thread involving Onision and Sarah.
• Regina mocked Onision after learning that he had blocked her.
• Onision had taken affirmative action to prevent Regina from following him or viewing his posts.
• Regina responded to that boundary by escalating her public ridicule.
• Regina showed no fear or hesitation about directly confronting and insulting Onision.
• Regina was the person pursuing public interaction after Onision had blocked access to his account.

Direct contradiction of the Complaint

The Third Amended Complaint portrays Regina as a psychologically harmed person subjected to intimidation and damaging conduct by Onision and Lucas.

Regina’s own public behavior shows her aggressively pursuing Onision’s attention, directly tagging him, insulting him, taunting him about emotional distress, and mocking him for blocking her.

Onision was not pursuing Regina in these posts.

He had blocked her.

Regina nevertheless continued publicly tagging him and attempting to provoke a reaction.

The documented direction of conduct is clear:

• Onision restricted Regina’s access.
• Regina publicized the block.
• Regina mocked Onision for enforcing that boundary.
• Regina continued addressing and attacking him publicly.

This conduct directly conflicts with any portrayal of Regina as frightened to address Onision, intimidated into silence, or unwilling to confront him publicly.

Why it matters

These posts demonstrate that Regina was an active aggressor in the public campaign against Onision.

She was not quietly documenting an allegation or asking for a lawful investigation. She was:

• repeatedly tagging Onision,
• directing degrading insults at him,
• taunting him about crying,
• publicly ridiculing him,
• participating in hostile threads,
• and mocking his decision to block her.

The block is especially significant.

Onision used the platform’s available boundary-setting tool to prevent Regina from accessing or engaging with his account. Regina then used that boundary as additional content for public ridicule.

Her response documents persistence rather than fear.

It also fits the broader chronology in which Regina publicly wished suffering on Lucas, insulted him, demanded his “persecution,” amplified claims involving jail and his children, and attached financial and promotional links to her public campaign.

Regina’s own posts show a deliberate pattern of pursuit, provocation, ridicule, and malice directed at Onision and Lucas.

Source

September 28 and September 29, 2019 Twitter posts by Regina Alonso from the account @hahan0bye.

Consolidated Third Amended Complaint, paragraphs 2 and 417.

November 13, 2019: According To Regina Alonso, Without Onision Videos, She Would Be Dead, But That Didn't Stop Her From Suing The Innocent Man

Regina admitted that she discovered Onision while heavily considering suicide at age 12 and credited his anti-suicide video with encouraging her not to kill herself. Her own testimony establishes that Onision’s content helped her during a life-threatening mental-health crisis.

During a November 13, 2019 interview, Chris Hansen asked Regina how she first discovered Onision and why his content resonated with her.

Regina answered:

“I was 12 when I first discovered Onision. I was struggling with my mental health at the time and found a video of his of why you should not kill yourself.”

When Hansen asked why the video affected her, Regina explained:

“I was struggling with my health physically and mentally, and what he said in the video, originally, it was encouraging. As to why I should not kill myself, which I was heavily considering at age 12.”

What the record directly shows

Regina’s own testimony establishes that:

• Regina discovered Onision while experiencing a severe mental-health crisis.
• Regina was heavily considering suicide at age 12.

• 

  Sarah independently admitted that she had wanted to kill herself months before her first contact with Lucas. Her own chronology establishes that her suicidal crisis and severe mental-health difficulties predated any communication with Lucas.

  Onision had published content discouraging suicide.
• Regina watched that anti-suicide content.
• Regina described Onision’s message as “encouraging.”
• Regina directly connected the video to reasons she should not kill herself.
• Onision’s documented influence on Regina at that time was protective and beneficial, not harmful.

Direct contradiction of Regina’s later narrative

Regina’s later campaign portrays Onision as someone who caused her psychological harm.

Her own testimony records the opposite.

When Regina was heavily considering suicide, Onision’s content encouraged her not to kill herself.

This was not an interpretation supplied by Onision. Regina admitted it herself during an interview intended to support accusations against him.

The contradiction is severe:

• Regina credited Onision with creating content that helped her survive a suicidal crisis.
• Regina later publicly celebrated Onision’s distress.
• Regina later publicly wished death on Onision, a stranger who's videos saved her life.
• Regina later participated in a campaign portraying the same stranger whose anti-suicide message helped her as a source of psychological harm.

Regina’s later hostility cannot erase her own admission that Onision’s content gave her encouragement against suicide at one of the lowest points in her life.

Why it matters

Regina’s testimony establishes a documented positive effect Onision had on her life before she joined the public campaign against

Vincent Nicotra, who stated that he had worked with Chris Hansen, wrote that Hansen was attempting to sell the story, that Nicotra began questioning the truth of the allegations, and that he viewed the campaign as a “cash grab” when Regina and Sarah wanted payment and publicity.

him.

Onision did not encourage self-harm.

He published a video opposing suicide.

Regina did not describe that video as manipulative, predatory, or damaging. She described it as:

“encouraging”

and specifically connected it to:

“why I should not kill myself”

Years later, Regina publicly wished death upon Onision and celebrated his emotional suffering.

The hypocrisy is direct: Regina credited Onision’s anti-suicide message with helping her during a suicidal crisis, then later used her platform to direct death wishes and psychological abuse toward him.

Her own words document both sides of that chronology.

Source

November 13, 2019 interview of Regina Alonso by Chris Hansen.

Relevant interview segment: approximately 01:36 through 02:34.

Consolidated Third Amended Complaint, including Regina’s allegations of psychological harm against Onision and Lucas.

May 2, 2020: Regina Confirms Her Recruiting & Coordinating The People Censoring Anyone Criticizing the Hansen Livestreams, They Were In Fact Sarah, Regina & Sarah's Friends Themselves Silencing Opposing Voices, Mirroring Their Deplatform Campaign

Regina attempted to dismiss the evidence as irrelevant while publishing her own proof that she helped staff the livestream operation, including forwarding Sarah, Haylee, and Lane for moderator access.

On May 2, 2020, Regina publicly reposted private messages documenting her internal role in Vincent Nicotra’s livestream operation.

Regina wrote:

“idk how this is even relevant to Greg but Vincent Nicotra is a ridiculous human”

The messages Regina herself published show discussion of moderator channels, the livestream waiting room, public display names, and who would receive moderator access. Regina stated:

“Sarah, Haylee, and Lane want to mod so I will send theirs.”

She then confirmed:

“Sent you an email”

What the record directly shows

Regina’s own screenshot establishes that:

• Regina was performing backstage organizational work for the livestreams.
• Regina collected and forwarded information for proposed moderators.
• Regina helped arrange moderator access for Sarah, Haylee, and Lane. (Sarah & Haylee, the censorship patrol, also being guests of Hansen's streams)
• Regina communicated directly with Nicotra concerning the moderator channels and waiting room.
• Regina helped determine who would receive authority over who in the audience was allowed to have a voice.
• Regina was not merely an independent interview subject recounting allegations.
• Regina publicly authenticated the messages by posting them herself.
• Regina responded to the evidence by insulting Nicotra rather than disputing the messages.

Why it matters

Moderators are selected specifically to control livestream participation, including the ability to regulate comments and remove disruptive or unwanted audience activity.

Regina’s own messages therefore place her inside the operation responsible for choosing who would control the livestream environment.

This was not independent journalism conducted at arm’s length from Regina.

Regina was helping staff the production.

She was:

• communicating with the organizer,
• recruiting moderators,
• collecting their information,
• forwarding their details,
• coordinating access,
• and assisting with the controlled environment in which the accusations against Onision and Lucas were presented.

Sarah was not merely appearing as a supposed source. Regina specifically identified Sarah as one of the people seeking moderator authority over the same livestream operation promoting their narrative.

The resulting structure allowed the accusers and their associates to help regulate the audience response to their own accusations.

Regina Accidentally Confirms Nicotra’s Account

Regina apparently published the screenshot to discredit Vincent Nicotra.

Instead, she confirmed a central part of his later account: Regina was working behind the scenes rather than merely participating as an unrelated guest.

Her statement that the messages were irrelevant is directly contradicted by what they reveal.

The messages show that Regina had an operational role in selecting the people who would control audience participation during livestreams used to publicly attack Onision and Lucas.

Regina supplied the proof herself.

Damages significance

The livestreams helped distribute accusations against Onision and Lucas to a large public audience while generating attention, donations, advertising revenue, and publicity for the participants.

Regina’s messages show that the people advancing those accusations were also involved in selecting who would moderate the resulting public discussion.

That arrangement created a controlled media environment in which:

• the accusations were presented as fact,
• the accusers helped staff the moderation team,
• supportive voices could be elevated,
• opposing responses could be restricted,
• and the resulting appearance of public agreement could be manufactured or exaggerated.

Regina was therefore not simply describing alleged events.

She was helping operate the machinery used to disseminate and protect the campaign’s narrative while Onision and Lucas suffered the resulting reputational, financial, professional, and emotional damage.

Source

May 2, 2020 Twitter post by Regina Alonso from the account @hahan0bye, containing private messages between Regina and Vincent Nicotra.

August 8, 2020: Participants Say Regina Used the Campaign to Pursue Career Advancement and Left Others With “No Say”

Billie Webb stated that participants were left with “no say” over footage recorded with Regina. Another participant stated that Regina had discussed using the project to further her career, directly challenging the portrayal of Regina as merely an uninvolved accuser seeking accountability.

On August 8, 2020, Billie Webb publicly complained that footage recorded while she was with Regina had been used without giving Billie meaningful control over its publication.

Billie wrote:

“They already used a video with my face in it while recording with regina. They left us with no say”

Another participant, posting as Butters, stated:

“Regina has made comments about wanting to do this to further their career in this kind of business”

The same post stated that Shiloh’s manager wanted participation for publicity.

What the record directly shows

• Billie claimed that footage recorded with Regina was used without her approval.
• Billie stated that participants were left with “no say.”
• The discussion concerned a commercial production using the participants’ stories and footage.
• Another campaign participant stated that Regina had discussed using the project to further her career.
• The exchange documents conflict among the accusers over publicity, control, and personal benefit.
• Regina was described as actively involved in the production process, not merely recounting allegations from a distance.

Defamation and damages significance

The public campaign against Onision and Lucas was repeatedly presented as a spontaneous effort by alleged victims seeking accountability.

This exchange records participants describing a production driven by publicity and career interests.

According to Billie, footage recorded with Regina was used while Billie was left with:

“no say”

According to Butters, Regina had discussed using the project:

“to further their career”

These statements support the broader evidence that accusations against Onision and Lucas were being converted into:

• television content,
• career opportunities,
• audience growth,
• publicity,
• and commercially valuable material.

The people whose stories were being used were openly disputing who controlled the footage and who benefited from the resulting production.

Why it matters

The exchange exposes a serious credibility problem within the campaign.

Regina publicly portrayed herself as pursuing accountability while another participant stated that Regina viewed the project as a way to advance her career. Billie simultaneously complained that footage recorded with Regina was being used without meaningful consent.

The discussion therefore documents:

• internal manipulation concerns,
• commercial exploitation of the allegations,
• Regina’s involvement in producing usable footage,
• and an asserted career motive attached to the continued promotion of the campaign.

That motive is directly relevant to the reputational and financial destruction inflicted on Onision and Lucas. Their names and livelihoods were being used as the foundation for a media project that participants themselves described in terms of publicity, production control, and career advancement.

Source

August 8, 2020 Twitter discussion involving Billie Webb, Chelsey, and the account @Luxymoo.

October 2022: Regina Operates an Adult-Content Profile Advertising Chaturbate, SextPanther, and OnlyFans, Then the Account Disappears

Regina’s alternate @rileyyrampage profile openly advertised Chaturbate, SextPanther, and OnlyFans, documenting her voluntary attempt to earn money through adult sexual content years after the events she later portrayed as the cause of sexual trauma.

By October 5, 2022, Regina operated an adult-content profile under the username:

“@rileyyrampage”

The account identified itself as:

“NSFW (18+ ONLY)”

and openly advertised:

• Chaturbate
• SextPanther
• OnlyFans
• Linktree

The profile also displayed a pinned post soliciting tips.

What the record directly shows

• Regina voluntarily created or operated an adult-content profile.
• Regina publicly promoted multiple commercial sexual-content platforms.
• Regina attempted to earn money through subscriptions, private interactions, tips, or adult-content sales.
• The account presented Regina’s adult sexuality as a product available to paying viewers.
• This conduct occurred years after the communications she later used to accuse Lucas of causing sexual harm.
• Regina’s adult-content activity was self-directed, commercial, and independent.

Monetization significance

The @rileyyrampage adult-content account was later removed or deleted, leaving the platform notice, “This account doesn’t exist.”

This account fits Regina’s broader pattern of attaching financial opportunities to the publicity surrounding her accusations.

Regina had already promoted:

• Venmo,
• Cash App,
• OnlyFans,
• YouTube,
• donation links,
• direct requests for payment from Onision,
• and media projects she was accused of viewing as career opportunities.

The @rileyyrampage account expanded that monetization into commercial adult content.

Regina was not merely coping privately or passively participating in conduct initiated by another person. She was publicly advertising adult services, directing users toward payment-based platforms, and requesting tips.

Subsequent disappearance of the account

The profile later displayed:

“This account doesn’t exist.”

The timing of the account’s disappearance is significant because the archived profile directly undermines Regina’s effort to attribute her voluntary adult sexual conduct to anyone but herself.

The archived evidence remains relevant even though the account itself was later removed from public access.

Source

Archived October 5, 2022 profile for @rileyyrampage.

Later X profile notice showing that @rileyyrampage no longer exists.