Lisa Haba: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:29, 30 July 2026

Settlement Pressure · Media Relationships · Evidentiary Context · Litigation Strategy

The Lisa Haba Record: Litigation and Media Conduct

The record includes a written demand for silence, Onision’s contemporaneous notes of a $400,000 settlement demand, repeated appearances with Chris Hansen, a proposal exchanging reduced damages for a Google-related affidavit, and complaint exhibits that omit or crop material context. These records bear on leverage, motive, media coordination, and evidentiary accuracy.

Connected evidence: Documented Damages · Sarah’s Credibility Record · Police Reports and Findings · Regina’s Public Accusations · Media Record

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

July 29, 2021 Haba Law Firm letter listing statements about Sarah and Regina that the firm characterized as defamatory. — The July 2021 letter identifies alleged defamatory statements concerning Sarah and Regina and claims reputational and emotional harm.

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

The letter objected to Onision describing Sarah as involved in:

“sexual misconduct and criminal activity”

It also objected to statements that Sarah was:

“a literal criminal”

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

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

The letter demanded that Onision:

“immediately cease and desist”

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

It then offered:

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

Conclusion of the July 29, 2021 Haba Law Firm letter demanding that Onision cease discussing Sarah and Regina and offering settlement negotiations and a release. — The letter demands that Onision stop speaking and offers a “full resolution” that could include a release of liability.

The Allegations Later Became Far More Extreme

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

The later complaint accused Onision and Lucas of:

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

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

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

The $400,000 Demand

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

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

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:

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

September 23, 2021 email containing Onision’s notes from a 25-minute call recording a combined $400,000 demand and threatened lawsuits. — Onision’s preserved notes record that attorneys representing Sarah and Regina demanded $200,000 for each client in exchange for not suing him in two states.

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

The notes record that Sarah and Regina demanded:

“$200,000 each”

in exchange for:

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

The combined demand was therefore $400,000.

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

Monetary Pressure Backed by Reputational Threats

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

The sequence was direct:

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:

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

October 1, 2021 email containing Onision’s notes from a call concerning a new Regina settlement offer and the attorneys ending the call after he mentioned legal counsel and counterclaims. — Onision’s contemporaneous notes record another settlement call concerning Regina. The attorneys reportedly ended the conversation after Onision mentioned consulting counsel, asserting his own damages, and intending to countersue.

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

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

Onision responded that:

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

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

Greg Gutzler reportedly said:

“this conversation is over”

The call then disconnected.

What the Evidence Establishes

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

The call changed direction once Onision asserted that:

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

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

Source

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

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

Related evidence:

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

YouTube search results showing several Chris Hansen videos featuring attorney Lisa Haba, including an interview about the newly filed Onision lawsuit. — Chris Hansen’s channel shows Lisa Haba appearing repeatedly to discuss the Peter Nygård litigation, a Twitter lawsuit, and the newly filed lawsuit against Onision.

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

The visible videos include:

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

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

A Repeated Media Relationship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Connection to the Missing Plaintiff Interviews

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

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

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

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

The public sequence is therefore significant:

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

December 30, 2022: Anonymous Gene Sends Material “For Sarah’s Lawyers” to Chris Hansen While Threatening Onision

Composite dated December 30, 2022 showing a message attributed to Anonymous Gene telling Onision that “Sarahs lawyers” see his activity and using a homophobic slur, together with a Google Voice exchange in which Gene sends material labeled “For Sarahs lawyers” to a contact named Chris Hansen, who replies “Got it” and proposes catching up the following week. — December 30, 2022 composite attributed to Anonymous Gene. Gene invokes “Sarah’s lawyers,” threatens Onision with litigation, and uses a homophobic slur; he then sends material “For Sarahs lawyers” to a contact labeled Chris Hansen, who acknowledges receipt.

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

Chris Hansen/Harassment

Lisa Haba

Sarah/Credibility

Onision/Damages

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

Search results showing Reddit posts titled reupload of the deleted Chris Hansen interviews with Sarah and Regina. — Users of the openly anti-Onision subreddit independently circulated reuploads of Chris Hansen’s interviews with Sarah and Regina after the originals disappeared from easy public access.

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

“Reupload of the deleted Chris Hansen Interview with Regina”

and:

“Reupload of the deleted Chris Hansen Interview with Sarah”

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

What the Public Record Establishes

The public record establishes that:

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

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

The Interviews Contained Material Prior Statements

These were not irrelevant or disposable videos.

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

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

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

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

Why This Matters to Lisa Haba’s Litigation Narrative

Lisa Haba later became lead counsel for Sarah and Regina.

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

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

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

That sequence creates an obvious evidentiary concern:

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

January 30 – February 9, 2023: Lisa Haba & Margaret Mabie Funded by Chris Hansen Associate & Criminal Anonymous Gene According to Private & Public Claims

Between January 30 and February 9, 2023, criminal stalker Anonymous Gene repeated demands that Onision kill himself, branded him a "pedophile," and confessed to personally financing the plaintiffs' legal team. Same individual going by "Eugene William Lynch", publicly corroborated this financial confession.

January 30, 2023: Gene Repeats Suicide Solicitation

Responding to a list Onision posted cataloging the harassment, false accusations, and confirmed abuse he endured, Gene wrote:

"rolls eyes, no one feels sorry for you greg and they certainly don't believe your bullshit stretch of being raped by a foster kid because you tried to have her sign some NDA you made up with your 2.19 GPA.... you sir truly are a huge idiot. Kill yourself. Do the world that favor and let them just make fun of you for eternity. Thats your calling greg, to be known as a pedophile forever.... forever..."

(970) [redacted] · Jan 30, 2023

February 9, 2023: Gene Confesses Twice, Under Two Different Names, to Personally Funding the Plaintiffs' Lawyers

On February 9, 2023, Gene wrote via Google Voice:

"I wonder who is paying for the lawyers... oh yea its me ;) lolz..."

(970) [redacted] · Feb 9, 2023

This statement is a direct, first-person admission that Gene personally financed the legal representation pursuing claims against Onision and Lucas. Gene did not frame this as speculation or a joke made in isolation — the statement follows a documented pattern of Gene previously claiming to have bought Sarah a house "not Discovery" (January 23, 2023) and repeatedly celebrating the financial destruction of Onision and Lucas throughout this record.

The same day, on Twitter, user NopeCat (@Thekrazykook3) replied to a post from Onision's account:

"2) I understand the importance of clearing your name, but please be aware that while you're pointing out inconsistencies in their stories, they're probably trying to prepare a counter for that, and, again, legal system = corrupted as fuck."

Gene, posting under the name "Eugene William Lynch" (listed as "1 of 4"), replied to both NopeCat and Onision:

"Corrupt and for sale.

I know I paid a lot to see this show. He's fucked and I helped.

)"

Gene's use of a separate account under the name "Eugene William Lynch" is consistent with his established pattern of operating under multiple names and identities across platforms. This is not a second individual independently corroborating Gene's claim — it is Gene himself repeating the same financial confession twice, within hours, under two different names, on two different platforms.

Gene Repeated the Same Financial Confession Twice in One Day

Gene confessed, using two separate names on two separate platforms, to personally paying money toward the legal effort against Onision and Lucas. Neither confession was framed as speculation or humor intended to be dismissed — both were stated plainly, celebrated with "lolz" and a winking emoji, and tied directly to the ongoing lawsuit's outcome ("He's fucked and I helped").

Gene's repetition of this admission under a different identity on the same day is directly relevant to establishing that the litigation against Onision and Lucas was not solely the product of the named plaintiffs' independent legal judgment, but was materially supported, encouraged, and financed by a documented stalker who separately admitted to soliciting Onision's suicide, doxxing his family's home address, and threatening physical confrontation.

Criminal and Civil Liability

The conduct documented above implicates the following Washington State and federal statutes:

RCW 9A.36.045 — Washington felony solicitation/promotion of suicide, addressing Gene's repeated, direct demands that Onision "kill yourself"
RCW 9A.46.020 — Washington criminal harassment, addressing threats or malicious acts intended to substantially harm safety, communicated electronically
RCW 9A.46.110 — Washington stalking, addressing repeated conduct occurring on two or more separate occasions causing substantial emotional distress
18 U.S.C. § 2261A — Federal stalking through electronic communications, addressing a course of conduct intended to harass or intimidate causing substantial emotional distress
RCW 9A.08.020 — Washington accomplice liability, applicable to Gene's admitted financial contributions toward the plaintiffs' legal effort, given his expressed knowledge and intent that the funding would promote a specific outcome against Onision and Lucas
Defamation Per Se — applicable to Gene's repetition of the "pedophile" label absent any supporting criminal finding, official investigation, or credible evidence
Tortious Interference with Litigation / Champerty Principles — Washington common law disfavors third parties funding litigation for personal vendetta purposes; Gene's repeated confessions, made under two separate identities, are directly probative of improper third-party financial interference in the underlying litigation, supporting Onision and Lucas's claims of vexatious, coordinated litigation abuse

Harm to Onision and Lucas

Gene's repeated confession, made under two different names within hours of each other, establishes that Onision and Lucas were made to defend against litigation that was, by Gene's own admission, substantially financed by a single individual with a documented history of harassment, doxxing, and suicide solicitation, operating under multiple aliases to amplify the appearance of widespread support for the campaign against them.

Source

Google Voice messages attributed to Anonymous Gene, dated January 30 and February 9, 2023.

Twitter (X) posts from NopeCat (@Thekrazykook3) and Eugene William Lynch, dated February 9, 2023, displayed as a reply to a post from Onision's account.

The communications were captured using screen-capture software on a computer.

Personal phone numbers are partially redacted.

Related Evidence

March 3–10, 2023: On Behalf of Sarah & Regina's Legal Team (Margaret Mabie &/or Lisa Haba) Chris Hansen Requests The Legal Process Assistance of A Criminal, Anonymous Gene

Between March 3 and March 10, 2023, the anonymous stalker known as Gene falsely accused Onision and Lucas of rape based on Sarah's since-debunked and fabricated allegations, then separately coordinated directly with Chris Hansen to locate and serve Onision with the complaint in this very lawsuit, culminating in a direct threat demanding Onision's address.

Gene Repeats Sarah's Debunked Rape Allegations as Fact

The image contains an excerpt from a one-sided narrative document containing Sarah's fabricated allegations, including a passage stating Onision "continued to rape Sarah" and that Lucas "did nothing to help Sarah" during the alleged incident. Sarah's own statements to police, made long after the timeframe she now alleges, confirmed she was consensual and that no crime occurred, and Sarah repeated on multiple occasions that she was unaware of anything criminal happening to her either as a minor or as an adult. Sarah only reversed this position after being offered the prospect of a multi-million-dollar settlement in her since-lost lawsuit against Google, a financial incentive documented in the 209 exhibits presented in the underlying litigation that fully vindicate Onision and Lucas.

Relying on this debunked, financially-motivated narrative, Gene wrote via Google Voice:

"you are both rapists..."

(970) [redacted] · Mar 3, 2:11 PM

Branding Onision and Lucas as rapists based solely on Sarah's fabricated, financially-motivated allegations, absent any criminal charge, judicial finding, or corroborating evidence, is a defamatory statement of fact presented as established truth.

Gene Mocks the Service Process and Threatens Onision Directly

On March 10, 2023, Gene wrote:

"Ready to be served yet?"

(970) [redacted] · Mar 10, 12:39 PM

Gene's Own Screenshot Proves Direct Coordination with Chris Hansen

Gene separately captured and shared his own conversation with a contact saved as "Chris," documenting real-time coordination to locate Onision for service of this lawsuit's complaint:

"Still no service on greg? Morning..." — Fri 8:42 AM

"Morning..." — 9:08 AM

"Hiya! Not yet!" — Chris, 9:37 AM

"A month seems like a long time to me. Any way I can help speed up the process?" — 9:46 AM

"Sure I'm sure they'd love to have some help. If you could pinpoint a location on a minute time they could serve." — Chris, 9:47 AM

"OK. That we can do." — 9:50 AM

"Cool. I know it's would be appreciated." — Chris, 10:06 AM

Immediately following this exchange, Gene sent Onision a direct message demonstrating that he had been personally recruited to locate him for service:

"Easy way, or the hard way greg... I will give you a choice now that i have been asked to find you.... And you know I will. I am not the US Marshals, not some county process server or meatwad private process server... I will find you.... If you give me an address we can make the process simple... No Hansen no cameras, just the process server, I promise you I will make sure it is as private and quietly done as possible.... This is like your only chance before the US Marshals get involved.... and once they are looking for you, well greg, they wont be as nice as I am."

This message is Gene's own admission that a plaintiff-affiliated individual ("Chris") personally recruited him, a criminal stalker with a documented history of soliciting suicide, doxxing the family's home address, and threatening murder, to locate and pressure Onision during active litigation built on Sarah's own since-recanted and financially-motivated allegations. Gene's threat that being found "the hard way" would be worse than his own involvement compounds the coercive nature of this recruitment, using the threat of increased harm to extract Onision's address directly from him.

Criminal and Civil Liability

The conduct documented above implicates the following Washington State and federal statutes:

RCW 9A.46.020 — Washington criminal harassment, addressing threats of bodily injury or malicious acts intended to substantially harm safety, communicated electronically
RCW 9A.46.110 — Washington stalking, addressing repeated conduct causing substantial emotional distress or fear of injury to a person or family member
18 U.S.C. § 2261A — Federal stalking through electronic communications, addressing a course of conduct intended to harass or intimidate causing substantial emotional distress
RCW 9A.08.020 — Washington accomplice liability, applicable to the plaintiff-affiliated contact "Chris" knowingly recruiting Gene, a documented harasser, to locate Onision for service
Defamation Per Se — applicable to Gene's public branding of Onision and Lucas as "rapists" based solely on Sarah's fabricated, financially-motivated, and since-debunked allegations
Tortious Interference with Litigation / Champerty Principles — Gene's own screenshot documenting his recruitment by a plaintiff-affiliated contact to locate Onision for service is direct, self-authenticated evidence of improper third-party coordination in litigation built on already-debunked claims

Harm to Onision and Lucas

Gene's public defamation branding Onision and Lucas as rapists, based on Sarah's debunked and financially-motivated allegations, compounded the reputational harm already documented throughout this record. Gene's own admission that he was personally recruited by a plaintiff-affiliated contact to locate Onision, paired with his direct threat that failing to cooperate would result in being found "the hard way," forced Onision to confront the service of legal process under conditions of coercion and threat rather than through standard, professional means, all in service of claims that Sarah and Regina had themselves already contradicted and abandoned in earlier statements to police.

Source

Google Voice messages attributed to Gene, dated March 3 and March 10, 2023.

Separate Google Voice conversation between Gene and contact "Chris," contextually tied to this same period.

The communications were captured using screen-capture software on a computer.

Personal phone numbers are partially redacted.

Related Evidence

January 17–20, 2024: Chris Hansen Associate Gene Escalates to Explicit Murder Fantasies, Suicide Instructions, and Confesses to Funding Lisa Haba's Lawsuit

Between January 17 and January 20, 2024, Eugene Lynch, an account attributed to the anonymous stalker known as Gene, repeatedly and publicly stated that Onision would be killed, posted explicit suicide instructions, expressed a desire to have Onision's heart removed from his body, confirmed his own role in sending Chris Hansen to Onision's home, and confessed to personally funding plaintiffs' attorney Lisa Haba's pursuit of the underlying lawsuit. This conduct furthers the same psychological and emotional harm originating from Sarah and Regina Alonso's debunked and financially-motivated defamation.

Neither Onision nor Lucas has ever been charged with, or convicted of, any crime. Sarah's own statements to police confirmed she was consensual and unaware of any crime as a minor or an adult, before reversing her position only after being offered the prospect of a multi-million-dollar settlement from Google, a lawsuit she and Regina Alonso ultimately lost. Regina Alonso separately admitted having "little to no" communication with Onision at any point. The 209 exhibits filed in the underlying litigation document this record and fully vindicate Onision and Lucas. Gene's repeated references to prison and murder throughout this record are apparent fantasies invented by Gene, disconnected from any charge, conviction, or credible evidence.

January 17, 2024: Gene Repeats the Prison Murder Threat Across Multiple Posts

Responding to a user comparing Onision's situation to another public figure, Eugene Lynch wrote:

"Their gonna kill @onision in prison."

In a separate reply the same day, Eugene Lynch added:

"You don't have to believe me, but no girl is fucking him willingly... Unless its an underage teen he's trying to fuck 'legally' by grooming them.

Their gonna kill @onision in prison..."

Eugene Lynch repeated the threat a third time within the same conversation:

"Why you so mad greg? @onision? You know imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.

Their gonna kill you in prison."

Gene's decision to repeat the identical murder statement three separate times within a single day, across multiple replies, demonstrates a deliberate pattern of psychological harassment rather than an isolated remark.

January 19, 2024: Gene Publicly Posts Suicide Instructions

Responding to another user encouraging Onision not to isolate himself, Eugene Lynch posted an instructional noose diagram captioned "How to Tie a Hangman's Knot (Noose)? Uses & Video Instructions," writing:

"I hope this will work for you."

Publicly posting step-by-step instructions for constructing a hangman's noose directly in response to a conversation about Onision's wellbeing is an explicit, unambiguous act of soliciting his suicide.

January 19, 2024: Gene States He Wants Onision's Heart Removed

In a separate post the same day, Eugene Lynch wrote:

"I personally would love to see @onision's heart on his sleeve...

. . .

Literally."

January 19, 2024: Gene Describes His Preferred Method of Killing Onision

In another post the same day, replying directly to Onision, Eugene Lynch wrote:

"I know exactly what would fix that greg..

... a nice size hole in your head, two would be better, but that would require another participant."

January 19, 2024: Gene Confirms He Sent Chris Hansen to Onision's Home and Confesses to Funding Lisa Haba

Responding to Onision directly, Eugene Lynch wrote:

"That even made me laugh greg.

Why you so mad at me man? Is it because I sent Chris Hansen to your house?"

Eugene Lynch continued in a following reply:

"Is it because with one simple phone call I took your fame away?

Is it that I'm paying Lisa Haba to send you and your wife to prison?

Why? Just why you mad?"

This statement is a direct, first-person confession that Gene personally financed attorney Lisa Haba's pursuit of the lawsuit against Onision and Lucas (a civil lawsuit, not criminal, a disparity in understand creating serious questions about the credibility of many of Gene's statements, while other claims remain clearly relevant due to the inclusion of actual prior conversations involving Gene with Chris Hansen, direct associate of Lisa Haba), and a separate admission that Gene personally arranged for Chris Hansen to appear at Onision's home. These admissions corroborate the record already established elsewhere showing Chris Hansen directly coordinating with Gene by text message to locate Onision for service of legal documents, and Gene separately confessing on other dates to funding the plaintiffs' legal team. Chris Hansen has publicly acknowledged working with Gene, and the documented text history between Hansen and Gene, together with Gene's repeated funding confessions, establishes that Hansen, Gene, and the plaintiffs' legal team, including Lisa Haba, operated in coordination rather than independently.

January 20, 2024: Gene Directly Tells Onision to Hang Himself

On January 20, 2024, in a separate exchange, Eugene Lynch wrote:

"I hear me, but you don't....

A noose is the answer here greg."

This statement directly follows Gene's January 19, 2024 noose diagram, reinforcing his sustained, repeated solicitation of Onision's suicide across consecutive days.

Criminal and Civil Liability

The conduct documented above implicates the following Washington State and federal statutes:

RCW 9A.36.045 — Washington felony solicitation/promotion of suicide, addressing Gene's repeated posting of noose instructions and direct statements telling Onision to hang himself
RCW 9A.36.080 — Washington malicious harassment, addressing threats to cause bodily injury or death
RCW 9A.46.020 — Washington criminal harassment, addressing threats to kill or injure communicated with intent to intimidate
RCW 9A.46.110 — Washington stalking, addressing repeated conduct across two or more occasions causing substantial emotional distress
18 U.S.C. § 875(c) — Federal statute criminalizing the transmission of communications containing threats to injure or kill another person
18 U.S.C. § 2261A — Federal stalking through electronic communications, addressing a course of conduct intended to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate
RCW 9A.08.020 — Washington accomplice liability, applicable to Gene's confessed financial support of Lisa Haba's legal effort and his confirmed role in directing Chris Hansen to Onision's home (again, pending legitimate confirmation of this claim made by Gene)
Tortious Interference with Litigation / Champerty Principles — Gene's repeated, first-person confessions to funding plaintiffs' counsel, corroborated by his documented text coordination with Chris Hansen, establish improper third-party financial and logistical interference in the underlying litigation
Defamation Per Se — applicable to Gene's repeated, unsupported "grooming" and criminal accusations against Onision, built on Sarah and Regina Alonso's own since-recanted and financially-motivated allegations

Harm to Onision and Lucas

Gene's sustained, multi-day campaign of murder threats, explicit suicide instructions, and graphic descriptions of desired physical harm compounded the psychological and emotional injury already caused by Sarah and Regina Alonso's debunked defamation. Gene's confirmed confession/claim to funding Lisa Haba's legal team, corroborated by his documented coordination with Chris Hansen, establishes that Onision and Lucas were forced to defend litigation that was directly financed and logistically supported by an individual simultaneously conducting a sustained campaign of death threats and suicide solicitation against them.

Source

Twitter (X) posts attributed to Eugene Lynch, dated January 17, 19, and 20, 2024.

The communications were captured using screen-capture software on a computer.

Related Evidence

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

May 15, 2024 email reporting Lisa Haba’s proposal for reduced damages in exchange for an affidavit stating that Onision had a partnership agreement with Google. — Onision’s former attorney reported that Lisa Haba offered to limit the plaintiffs’ damages demands if Onision signed an affidavit stating that he had a partnership agreement with Google.

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

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

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

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

The email continued:

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

It further stated:

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

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

What Haba’s Proposal Offered

The proposed exchange was direct:

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

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

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

Why the Requested Affidavit Mattered

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

Their complaint repeatedly alleged that:

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

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

Wittner explained his understanding of its intended purpose:

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

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

Onision Refuses to Supply the Requested Statement

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

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

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

The requested affidavit was never provided.

Testimony Tied to Financial Leverage

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

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

The practical message was:

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

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

That makes the email relevant to:

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

The Google Claims Were Later Dismissed With Prejudice

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

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

The sequence is significant:

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.

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

February 9–16, 2023: Criminal Anonymous Gene Works Directly With Chris Hansen To Orchestrate Legal Process For Lisa Haba &/Or Margaret Mabie, Same Legal Team Attempts and Fails To Bury Evidence

Between February 9 and February 16, 2023, the anonymous stalker known as Gene sent Onision a series of messages fantasizing about imprisonment and death by murder while incarcerated, mocking Onision and Lucas's freedom. A separate Google Voice conversation captured during this same period shows Gene coordinating directly with Chris Hansen regarding Onision's whereabouts. When this coordination evidence was later filed in the underlying litigation, Sarah and Regina Alonso's attorneys, moved to strike and seal it from public view, a request the presiding judge did not grant.

Gene's Prison and Murder Fantasies Have No Basis in Reality

Neither Onision nor Lucas has ever been charged with any crime in connection with the allegations underlying this litigation. Sarah and Regina Alonso themselves have separately and repeatedly stated they were not aware of Onision or Lucas ever breaking any laws, specifically stating this to police when interviewed. Gene's repeated references to prison, imprisonment, and death by murder while incarcerated are fantasies invented and repeated by Gene alone, disconnected from any charge, conviction, or official finding, and are documented here specifically to establish the disturbing and obsessive nature of Gene's harassment campaign in direct connection with Chris Hansen.

On February 9, 2023, Gene wrote:

"We're all just wondering how you are going to claim that the courts in Florida are lying... We all bet you can't... But it wont matter because they are going to ban you and Lucas from using any electronic devices..."

(970) [redacted] · Feb 9, 10:46 PM

On February 10, 2023, Gene wrote:

"Hows these last days of freedom feeling? You're both gonna miss them in prison. I'd be trying to enjoy them as much as possible..."

(970) [redacted] · Feb 10, 8:08 AM

On February 13, 2023, Gene wrote:

"you two are both fucked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSLvcqY1Ra8"

(970) [redacted] · Feb 13, 12:16 PM

On February 16, 2023, Gene escalated to a direct threat predicting Onision would be murdered while incarcerated:

"Whats the matter pussy, why you hiding? They will get to you eventually.... Just know you and Lucas are not getting out of a prison term. You are gonna get killed in prison, I promise you that. She might make it thru, but even that is unlikely."

(970) [redacted] · Feb 16, 6:37 PM

Gene Coordinated Directly with Chris Hansen to Locate Onision

A separate Google Voice conversation captured during this period shows Gene, using the contact name "Chris Hansen," discussing Onision's location and legal status directly with Hansen. The exchange includes the following messages:

"Did not buddy...I've been crazed with shoots and everything. I will catch up with him at some point I promise." — Chris Hansen, Tue 1:45 PM

"Well Id really like to see chris hansen be the one that unearths Jimmy....;)"

"Think Lisa might get greg to admit to false copywrite claiming people to keep the backlash to a minimum?"

"Well that'd be good" — Chris Hansen, Tue 6:22 PM

"Morning.... Still no word on if greg has been served?" — Chris Hansen, 8:23 AM

"Not yet they looking for him" — Chris Hansen, 8:28 AM

"I assume they went to his address in Puyallup?"

This exchange establishes that Gene maintained direct, ongoing communication with Chris Hansen concerning Onision's legal proceedings, service of process, and physical location in Puyallup, Washington. The reference to "Lisa" discussing strategy to get Onision to make admissions "to keep the backlash to a minimum" ties this coordination directly to the plaintiffs' legal team.

Plaintiffs' Attorneys Attempted to Bury This Evidence, and the Judge Refused

When this Gene–Hansen coordination evidence was filed in the underlying litigation, Sarah and Regina Alonso's legal team, including Lisa Haba and Margaret Mabie, moved to strike and seal the exhibits documenting Gene's confessions and coordination from public view. The relevant filing states:

"Striking these exhibits is warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), which permits removal of immaterial or scandalous matter. Should the Court decline to strike any exhibits, Plaintiffs respectfully defer to its discretion to seal them to prevent further prejudice."

Case 3:25-cv-05594-JHC, Document 251, Filed 10/20/25, Page 15 of 18

The presiding judge did not grant Plaintiffs' counsel's request to strike or seal this evidence, and the record documenting Gene's threats and coordination with Chris Hansen remains part of the public court record. Plaintiffs' counsel's attempt to remove this material from public view is itself probative of the significance of what this evidence establishes about the origins and coordination behind the litigation against Onision and Lucas. This is one of several instances documented throughout this record in which Sarah and Regina Alonso's legal team has sought to prevent the public from reviewing evidence tying their case to third-party harassers.

Criminal and Civil Liability

The conduct documented above implicates the following Washington State and federal statutes:

RCW 9A.36.080 — Washington malicious harassment, addressing threats to cause bodily injury or death
RCW 9A.46.020 — Washington criminal harassment, addressing threats to kill or injure communicated with intent to intimidate, placing the target in reasonable fear the threat will be carried out
RCW 9A.46.110 — Washington stalking, addressing repeated conduct causing substantial emotional distress or fear of injury
18 U.S.C. § 875(c) — Federal statute criminalizing the transmission of communications containing threats to injure or kill another person
18 U.S.C. § 2261A — Federal stalking through electronic communications, addressing a course of conduct intended to harass, intimidate, or cause substantial emotional distress
RCW 9A.08.020 — Washington accomplice liability, applicable to Gene's coordination with Chris Hansen regarding locating and confronting Onision
Tortious Interference with Litigation / Champerty Principles — Gene's direct coordination with Chris Hansen concerning service of process, Onision's address, and legal strategy involving "Lisa" is directly probative of improper third-party coordination with the plaintiffs' litigation effort

Harm to Onision and Lucas

Gene's explicit threat that Onision would be murdered in prison, built entirely on a fictional premise since neither Onision nor Lucas has ever been charged with a crime, combined with documented direct coordination with Chris Hansen regarding Onision's location and legal proceedings, forced Onision and Lucas to litigate this case under a genuine and reasonable fear of physical violence. Plaintiffs' counsel's subsequent attempt to seal this evidence from public view, rather than dispute it, compounded the harm by attempting to prevent the public and the court from fully understanding the coordinated nature of the campaign against them.

Source

Google Voice messages attributed to Gene, dated February 9, 10, 13, and 16, 2023.

Separate Google Voice conversation with contact "Chris Hansen," contextually tied to this same period.

Case 3:25-cv-05594-JHC, Document 251, Filed October 20, 2025, Page 15 of 18.

The communications were captured using screen-capture software on a computer.

Personal phone numbers are partially 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”

Paragraphs 258 and 259 of the Third Amended Complaint characterizing a May 2015 exchange as “flirtatious” and “sexual” while blacking out Sarah’s and Regina’s actual replies. — The Third Amended Complaint leaves Sarah’s and Regina’s identities visible but conceals their actual words, then uses the altered screenshot to characterize the exchange as “flirtatious” and “sexual.” The unredacted image shows both women saying they hate Lucas.

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

“a flirtatious, sexual chat”

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

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

The only information removed is what they actually said.

Unredacted May 13, 2015 screenshot showing Sarah replying “I fucking hate you omg” and Regina replying “Bye I hate u” to Lucas’s post stating “am loved. — The unredacted screenshot reveals that the statements concealed from the complaint were “I fucking hate you omg” and “Bye I hate u,” directly contradicting the filing’s characterization of this specific exchange as flirtatious or sexual.

The original, unredacted screenshot reveals the hidden text.

Lucas posted:

“am loved”

Sarah replied:

“I fucking hate you omg”

Regina replied:

“Bye I hate u”

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

What the record directly shows

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

The redactions remove context, not identity

The selective nature of the redactions is critical.

Sarah’s name remains visible.

Regina’s name remains visible.

The bear, heart, and lipstick emojis remain visible.

Only the text contradicting Plaintiffs’ characterization is removed.

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

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

The complaint converts emojis into sexual evidence

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

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

The visible evidence establishes only that:

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

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

Direct contradiction of paragraph 258

Paragraph 258 alleges that Lucas turned the group chat into:

“a flirtatious, sexual chat”

This particular screenshot shows no sexual chat.

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

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

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

“I fucking hate you omg”

and:

“Bye I hate u”

Accuracy and candor significance

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

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

The Court was shown:

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

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

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

Why it matters

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

Yet the unaltered evidence shows no sexual exchange.

It shows Sarah and Regina saying they hate Lucas.

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

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

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

Here, the contradiction was concealed behind black bars.

Source

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

Consolidated Third Amended Complaint, paragraphs 258–259.

April 4, 2025: The Complaint Crops a Group Joke Into Alleged Sexual Evidence and Omits Sarah’s Own Statements

Paragraphs 266 and 267 of the Third Amended Complaint characterize a January 2015 Twitter exchange as ongoing sexual communication and cite Lucas’s phrase “INTO THE DUNGEON” while displaying only a cropped portion of the thread. — The complaint isolates “INTO THE DUNGEON,” labels it sexual, and omits the surrounding thread showing a group joke in which Sarah added “WITH ALL THE DEAD BODIES” and expressly stated that Onision would not be invited.

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

The complaint states:

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

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

January 22, 2015 Twitter exchange in which Lucas jokingly says he is unfollowing Onision, Onision makes a self-deprecating joke about sleeping against the wall, Lucas suggests sleeping upstairs, and Sarah replies “not the forbidden floor.” — The omitted setup shows casual group banter. Lucas jokes about unfollowing Onision, Onision responds self-deprecatingly, and Sarah introduces the “forbidden floor” language that leads into the later “dungeon” joke.

The full exchange begins with Lucas jokingly telling Onision:

“unfollowing bc you're awful”

Onision responds with a self-deprecating joke:

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

Lucas replies:

“you could always just sleep upstairs you know”

Sarah then introduces the imaginary forbidden location:

“not the forbidden floor”

Lucas continues the joke:

“INTO THE DUNGEON”

January 22, 2015 Twitter thread in which Lucas writes “INTO THE DUNGEON,” Sarah replies “WITH ALL THE DEAD BODIES,” another user, who is a stranger to Onision, jokes about “kinky” activity, and Sarah alone humors them, but also states that Gregory will not be invited. — The omitted continuation reveals the actual joke. Sarah supplied the “dead bodies” response and expressly stated that Onision would not be invited, contradicting the complaint’s claim that the supposed commentary included Onision, or was even actually sexual at all.

Sarah immediately escalates the joke herself:

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

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

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

Sarah responds:

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

Another stranger then jokes:

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

What the complete record directly shows

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

Direct contradiction of paragraph 267

Paragraph 267 describes the commentary as:

“inclusive of Onision”

Sarah’s own omitted response states the opposite:

“Gregory will not be invited.”

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

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

Sarah’s own role is removed from the complaints narrative

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

Sarah supplied:

“not the forbidden floor”

and:

“WITH ALL THE DEAD BODIES”

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

Screenshot of January 7, 2019 messages in which Sarah says she wants consensual adult sex and denies any underage plan to wait until she turned 18. — On January 7, 2019, immediately before the NDA negotiations, Sarah described the sexual activity she wanted as consensual adult conduct and denied that Lucas had planned it while she was underage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why the omitted context matters

The filing presents:

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

It omits:

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

The omitted material changes the meaning of the exchange.

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

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

Source

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

Consolidated Third Amended Complaint, paragraphs 266–267.

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 labels three isolated tweets “sexual and flirtatious” without supplying their complete conversations. For the “I’m grooming you nicely” tweet, the missing context was publicly available and showed that Lucas and Sarah were joking about looking like twins.

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.

Three cropped spring 2015 tweets presented in the Third Amended Complaint, including an “I’m grooming you nicely” post removed from the surrounding twins joke available on LifeOfOnion.com. — The complaint displays three isolated posts while withholding all surrounding conversation. The known context for “I’m grooming you nicely” was available at the apparent source page but was excluded from the filing.

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.

Full LifeOfOnion.com screenshot showing Lucas mistaking Sarah’s photograph for himself, Sarah replying “we’re twins af,” Lucas joking “I’m grooming you nicely,” and Sarah continuing the twins joke. — The source page contained the complete exchange explaining the word “grooming.” The complaint used only the isolated final post and omitted the immediately preceding statements proving that it was a joke about Sarah looking like Lucas.

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.

Admin (talk | contribs)

Revision as of 17:29, 30 July 2026

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

The Allegations Later Became Far More Extreme

The $400,000 Demand

The Core Conflict

Source

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

Monetary Pressure Backed by Reputational Threats

Source

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

What the Evidence Establishes

Source

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

A Repeated Media Relationship

Connection to the Missing Plaintiff Interviews

Evidentiary Significance

What This Exhibit Establishes

Source

December 30, 2022: Anonymous Gene Sends Material “For Sarah’s Lawyers” to Chris Hansen While Threatening Onision

Gene Invokes “Sarah’s Lawyers,” Threatens Litigation, and Uses a Homophobic Slur

Gene Sends Material “For Sarah’s Lawyers” to Chris Hansen

Source

Related Evidence

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

What the Public Record Establishes

The Interviews Contained Material Prior Statements

Why This Matters to Lisa Haba’s Litigation Narrative

Selective Public Access

Sources

January 30 – February 9, 2023: Lisa Haba & Margaret Mabie Funded by Chris Hansen Associate & Criminal Anonymous Gene According to Private & Public Claims

January 30, 2023: Gene Repeats Suicide Solicitation

February 9, 2023: Gene Confesses Twice, Under Two Different Names, to Personally Funding the Plaintiffs' Lawyers

Gene Repeated the Same Financial Confession Twice in One Day

Criminal and Civil Liability

Harm to Onision and Lucas

Source

Related Evidence

March 3–10, 2023: On Behalf of Sarah & Regina's Legal Team (Margaret Mabie &/or Lisa Haba) Chris Hansen Requests The Legal Process Assistance of A Criminal, Anonymous Gene

Gene Repeats Sarah's Debunked Rape Allegations as Fact

Gene Mocks the Service Process and Threatens Onision Directly

Gene's Own Screenshot Proves Direct Coordination with Chris Hansen

Criminal and Civil Liability

Harm to Onision and Lucas

Source

Related Evidence

January 17–20, 2024: Chris Hansen Associate Gene Escalates to Explicit Murder Fantasies, Suicide Instructions, and Confesses to Funding Lisa Haba's Lawsuit

January 17, 2024: Gene Repeats the Prison Murder Threat Across Multiple Posts

January 19, 2024: Gene Publicly Posts Suicide Instructions

January 19, 2024: Gene States He Wants Onision's Heart Removed

January 19, 2024: Gene Describes His Preferred Method of Killing Onision

January 19, 2024: Gene Confirms He Sent Chris Hansen to Onision's Home and Confesses to Funding Lisa Haba

January 20, 2024: Gene Directly Tells Onision to Hang Himself

Criminal and Civil Liability

Harm to Onision and Lucas

Source

Related Evidence

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

What Haba’s Proposal Offered

Why the Requested Affidavit Mattered

Onision Refuses to Supply the Requested Statement

Testimony Tied to Financial Leverage

The Google Claims Were Later Dismissed With Prejudice

Source

January 22–23, 2023: Anonymous Gene Confirms He Collaborates With Chris Hansen To Coordinate Material Delivery To Lisa Haba &/or Margaret Mabie For Weaponization

Gene Established a Direct, Repeated Evidence Pipeline to the Plaintiffs' Attorneys

Gene's Own Words Establish Willful Coordination, Not Coincidence

Legal Significance: Corruption of the Litigation and Discovery Process

Gene, Hansen, and the Plaintiffs' Attorneys Formed a Documented Circle

Harm and Relevance to Onision and Lucas's Position

Source

Related Evidence

February 9–16, 2023: Criminal Anonymous Gene Works Directly With Chris Hansen To Orchestrate Legal Process For Lisa Haba &/Or Margaret Mabie, Same Legal Team Attempts and Fails To Bury Evidence

Gene's Prison and Murder Fantasies Have No Basis in Reality

Gene Coordinated Directly with Chris Hansen to Locate Onision

Plaintiffs' Attorneys Attempted to Bury This Evidence, and the Judge Refused

Criminal and Civil Liability

Harm to Onision and Lucas

Source

Related Evidence