Onision/Damages
August 27, 2019: Sarah Publicly States She Wishes For Violence To Be Inflicted on Onision By Her Own Hands
During her August 27, 2019 public livestream, Sarah stated that she had previously wrestled and challenged Onision to a boxing match.
Sarah stated:
- “I used to wrestle. I challenge Onision to a boxing match.”
The challenge occurred near the end of an approximately ninety-minute broadcast in which Sarah publicly discussed Onision, Lucas, their sexual history, and private events involving the household.
A Public Physical Challenge, Not an Expression of Fear
Sarah did not present herself as too frightened to confront Onision.
She publicly:
- named him directly
- challenged him to a physical contest
- invoked her prior wrestling experience
- made the challenge before a live audience
- continued publicly mocking and confronting him
- showed no concern that he could prevent her from speaking
The statement placed Sarah in the role of challenger and Onision in the role of the person being challenged.
That posture materially conflicts with the later portrayal that Sarah remained psychologically dominated by Onision or too afraid to oppose him.
Consistent With Sarah’s Surrounding Public Conduct
The boxing challenge was not an isolated moment.
During the same public campaign, Sarah:
- portrayed Onision as afraid of her
- wrote “lol be mad”
- challenged him to “say whatever” he wanted
- told him to “bring it”
- publicly discussed their sexual relationship
- collaborated with Ayalla Karina
- participated in jokes about having sex with Onision
- conducted an extended public “tell-all”
- described herself as free to “say whatever I want”
The boxing challenge continued the same confident and confrontational pattern.
Sarah was not attempting to avoid Onision or remove herself from public conflict. She was repeatedly provoking, challenging, and escalating it.
Conflict With the Claimed-Damages Narrative
Sarah later alleged severe psychological harm, fear, coercion, intimidation, and emotional control.
Her conduct on August 27, 2019 shows that, at that time, she was willing to publicly confront Onision and challenge him physically before an audience.
The exhibit is relevant because Sarah’s own behavior showed:
- confidence in opposing Onision
- willingness to provoke a response
- no visible hesitation about direct confrontation
- enjoyment of the public conflict
- active participation in escalating the controversy
The challenge does not merely show that Sarah was willing to discuss Onision.
It shows her publicly presenting herself as prepared to meet him in a physical competition.
Relevance to Harm Caused to Onision
The public challenge also contributed to the atmosphere of hostility surrounding Onision.
Sarah’s campaign was not limited to describing past events. It included:
- personal insults
- public taunting
- invitations to continued conflict
- efforts to embarrass Onision
- portrayals of him as weak or afraid
- a direct public boxing challenge
- wishing Onision's cancer, the same cancer that killed his grandfather, return to Onision after he survived it twice
This conduct encouraged audiences to treat the dispute as entertainment and confrontation rather than a private matter.
It should therefore be considered both when evaluating Sarah’s claimed fear and when documenting the public hostility directed toward Onision.
Source
Sarah’s August 27, 2019 YouNow livestream, approximately 01:27:17–01:27:39.
Original account: https://www.younow.com/sarahbear8500
Preserved YouTube upload: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc2UDXaZzDk
Related evidence:
- Sarah’s public “tell-all” livestream
- Sarah portrays Onision as afraid of her
- Sarah: Defamation Claims
2019: Sarah Celebrates Patreon Removing Onision’s Page and Income During Her Deplatform Campaign With Regina Targeting Onision's Families' Livelihood
In 2019, Sarah announced that Patreon had removed Onision’s page:
- “I just got off work and found out @Patreon took down onision’s page and I’m like..”
She attached an excited reaction GIF and followed it with:
- “HAHAHAHA”
What the Evidence Establishes
Sarah was not reluctantly participating in the controversy or attempting to avoid further harm.
She openly celebrated a platform decision that eliminated an income source for Onision, Lucas, and their family. The post documents:
- hostility toward Onision
- satisfaction at his financial loss
- support for his deplatforming
- active participation in the campaign against him
- confidence rather than fear or intimidation
The exhibit is relevant to the financial damage caused during the accusation campaign and Sarah’s motive and state of mind while that damage occurred.
Source
Sarah’s public Twitter posts from 2019.
Original account: https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
Archived account captures: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
Related evidence:
September 10–12, 2019: Sarah Falsely Claims Onision and Lucas Had Sex With Her at Their “First Chance” After She Turned 18
On September 10, 2019, Sarah retweeted a post stating:
- “self care is officially over we’re doing cocaine now”
Two days later, Sarah publicly accused Onision and Lucas:
- “You took me in as a child who looked up to you guys and completely fucked me up in the head for YEARS.”
She then made the central false statement:
- “Only to fuck me the first chance you got after I turned 18.”
Sarah’s own earlier statements, the documented travel chronology, her later interview, and the complaint itself contradict that claim.
The Documented Timeline
Sarah turned 18 in August 2018.
The relevant chronology is:
- Sarah became an adult in August 2018
- On October 1, 2018, Sarah stated that Onision still firmly opposed any relationship between her and Lucas
- Sarah returned for another visit around Christmas 2018
- During that visit, Sarah forced a kiss on Lucas jumped back and said "OH FUCK" then ran down stairs and asked if she could Hug Onision. Neither Lucas nor Onision appreciated Sarah doing this, and Sarah went on a rant about being rejected over and over again by them later via text.
- Sarah returned again in January 2019
- The first sexual activity described by Sarah occurred on January 17, 2019, as the product of her sexually extorting them after years of them rejecting her.
This was not sex at the “first chance” after Sarah turned 18.
Months passed. Sarah made multiple visits. Onision continued opposing the relationship right after she turned 18, and Lucas continued rejecting Sarah’s romantic advances. It's documented on this site.
Sarah Previously Admitted the Rejection Continued After Adulthood
On October 1, 2018, Sarah privately stated:
- “I have known for two years it was out of the question not just when I was 16/17 but even after I was 18.”
She then directly described Onision’s position:
- “Greg made it painfully clear multiple times that pigs would fly before I would ever come close to having a chance with you even after my 18th birthday.”
Sarah also explained:
- “I stayed because you’re my best friend and I love you.”
These statements establish that:
- Sarah wanted a relationship with Lucas
- the romantic interest originated with Sarah
- Lucas did not reciprocate that interest
- Onision repeatedly opposed the possibility
- the opposition continued after Sarah became an adult
- Sarah understood months after her birthday that she still had no chance
Sarah’s September 2019 accusation erased this entire history.
Lucas Again Rejected Sarah During the Christmas Visit
Sarah returned to the household around Christmas 2018.
During that visit, Sarah initiated a kiss with Lucas. Lucas did not reciprocate it.
That rejection occurred approximately four months after Sarah became an adult.
It provides another direct contradiction to the claim that Onision and Lucas were waiting to have sex with her at the first available opportunity.
The record instead shows:
- Sarah pursuing Lucas
- Sarah initiating romantic contact
- Lucas refusing to reciprocate
- Onision having already made clear that a relationship would not happen
- no sexual relationship beginning during the Christmas visit
If Onision and Lucas had been waiting for Sarah to become an adult, they would not have continued rejecting her for months after she did.
Sarah Previously Denied That Anyone Waited for Her Birthday
In January 2019, Sarah directly mocked the exact narrative she later adopted.
She told Lucas:
- “No you didn’t plan to lay in wait until my 18 birthday then kidnap me to your sex dungeon.”
She continued:
- “Literally none of us knew this was going to happen”
Sarah therefore previously established:
- no one planned a sexual relationship while she was a minor
- no one was waiting for her eighteenth birthday
- the later relationship was unexpected
- the alleged grooming interpretation was false
Sarah Admitted the First Sexual Contact Was January 17, 2019
Sarah later stated in her October 30, 2019 interview that Onision had never done anything sexual with her before January 17, 2019.
She explained that she and Onision had not even kissed before the first sexual encounter.
The filed evidence summarizes Sarah’s admission:
- “they didn’t even kiss until the first time they had sex which Sarah admits was January 17 of 2019.”
That was more than five months after Sarah became an adult.
The complaint follows the same basic timing. It alleges that Sarah arrived in Washington on January, 2019 and identifies January 17 as the first of two sexual encounters for that trip. It does not allege that Onision and Lucas had intercourse with Sarah immediately after her August birthday.
The complaint therefore contradicts Sarah’s September tweet as well.
Sarah’s Own Accounts Destroy the “First Chance” Claim
Sarah’s September statement cannot be reconciled with her other accounts.
Her own evidence establishes:
- she turned 18 in August 2018
- Onision still rejected the relationship in October
- Lucas did not reciprocate Sarah’s kiss during the Christmas visit
- Sarah denied anyone had waited for her birthday
- Sarah said nobody expected the relationship to occur
- no sexual activity occurred until January 17, 2019
- Sarah later told police that she willingly participated in the January activity
The phrase:
- “the first chance you got”
was not an innocent simplification.
That false framing was central to publicly portraying Onision and Lucas as groomers, an incredibly convenient narrative shift after Sarah was rejected, in part, for demanding Onision impregnate her in July 2019, the second day into her trip to visit Onision alone in his home.
The Cocaine Retweet Corroborates Sarah’s Other Drug Admissions
Immediately before publishing the false accusation, Sarah amplified a post stating:
- “self care is officially over we’re doing cocaine now”
This followed Sarah’s own direct public admission:
- “I did cocaine. Use it against me.”
Sarah also publicly admitted selling prescription medication.
The record therefore includes:
- Sarah directly admitting cocaine use
- Sarah inviting Onision to use the admission against her
- Sarah amplifying a post celebrating cocaine use
- Sarah admitting that she sold prescription medication
- Sarah later claiming that Onision falsely portrayed her as someone involved in unlawful conduct
Sarah created the factual record herself.
Onision did not invent her drug admissions. He repeated conduct Sarah had publicly admitted and openly invited him to discuss.
The September Narrative Was a Complete Reversal
Before the smear campaign, Sarah said:
- Onision repeatedly rejected the possibility of a relationship
- Lucas did not share her romantic feelings
- the rejection continued after she turned 18
- nobody waited for her birthday
- nobody planned the relationship
- nothing sexual occurred while she was a minor
- she willingly participated in the later adult activity
During the campaign, Sarah replaced that chronology with:
- “Only to fuck me the first chance you got after I turned 18.”
That was false according to Sarah’s own record.
It removed every fact that disproved grooming and replaced them with a sentence calculated to make Onision and Lucas appear as though they had spent years waiting to sexually exploit a child despite the fact that such a claim contradicts nearly ever single prior statement by all parties who experienced all events first hand.
Source
Sarah’s Twitter activity dated September 10 and September 12, 2019.
Original account: https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
Archived account captures: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
Related evidence:
- Sarah admits Onision continued rejecting the relationship after adulthood
- Sarah denies anyone waited for her birthday
- Sarah identifies January 17, 2019 as the first sexual contact
- Sarah directly admits cocaine use
September 14, 2019: Sarah Publicly Labels Lucas a “Pedophile” Despite Repeatedly Denying Underage Sexual Contact
On September 14, 2019, Sarah publicly stated:
- “Kai is a pedophile.”
Sarah offered no diagnosis, evidence, or identified prepubescent victim supporting that accusation.
In another post, she wrote:
- “you know who the only person that ever made greg apologize for bullying me when I was 16 was? Billie.”
The Direct Contradiction
Sarah’s own prior and later statements establish that:
- neither Lucas nor Onision kissed her while she was underage
- no sexual contact occurred with either person while she was underage
- nobody planned to wait for her eighteenth birthday
- Onision continued rejecting the possibility of a relationship after she became an adult
- Lucas rejected Sarah’s romantic advance even when she was an adult during the December 2018 visit
- the first alleged sexual encounter occurred on January 17, 2019
- Sarah later described the adult sexual activity to police as willing or consensual with no sexual contact prior to January 2019
Her second post creates an additional contradiction. Sarah described Onision’s conduct toward her at 16 as bullying and hostility—not affection, courtship, or sexual pursuit. No grooming.
Factually, Pedophilia concerns sexual interest in prepubescent children. Sarah was not prepubescent during any part of the alleged history, and her own account places all sexual contact after adulthood.
The accusation was therefore not a factual description of Sarah’s own documented timeline. It was an inflammatory public label that contradicted her own repeated statements and damaged Lucas and Onision by associating them with sexual attraction to children which is an accusation often extending beyond any possible repair.
Source
Sarah’s public Twitter posts dated September 14, 2019.
Original account: https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
Archived account captures: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://twitter.com/notsolillioness
Related evidence:
- Sarah denies underage kissing
- Sarah denies anyone waited for adulthood
- Sarah identifies the first sexual contact
- Sarah’s statements to law enforcement
November 1, 2019: CPS Formally Classifies Another Allegation Against Onision as “Unfounded”
On November 1, 2019, Washington’s Department of Children, Youth, and Families notified Onision that CPS had completed an investigation arising from a report received on or about September 12, 2019.
The alleged conduct was:
- “Negligent treatment or maltreatment”
CPS’s formal finding was:
- “Unfounded.”
Another Accusation Fails Government Investigation
This report arose during the public accusation campaign amplified by Sarah, Regina, and their associates.
Despite the online narrative portraying Onision and Lucas as dangerous parents and abusers, CPS investigated and did not substantiate the allegation.
The document establishes:
- CPS completed an actual investigation
- the alleged abuse or neglect was not substantiated
- the allegation received the formal classification “Unfounded”
- Onision and Lucas were forced to endure government scrutiny while the public campaign continued
- the investigation became another source of stress, reputational damage, and interference with their family
The accusation campaign did not remain online. It repeatedly invaded the family’s home through reports to police, CPS, and other government agencies—while official investigations repeatedly failed to establish the alleged wrongdoing.
Source
Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families CPS determination letter dated November 1, 2019.
The underlying report was received on or about September 12, 2019.
Related evidence:
January 5, 2021: CPS Finds the Physical-Abuse Allegation Against Onision “Unfounded”
On January 5, 2021, the Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families notified Onision of the result of a Child Protective Services investigation.
The letter states that CPS received a report on or about November 5, 2020 alleging that Onision had abused or neglected:
- “your child or a child in your care.”
The alleged conduct was identified as:
- “Physical abuse”
After investigating, CPS concluded:
- “The investigation determined that the allegations of abuse and neglect against you are Unfounded.”
What “Unfounded” Meant
The agency defined its conclusion directly in the letter:
- “When an allegation is ‘Unfounded,’ it means that CPS investigated the allegation and, based on the information available, has determined that it was more likely than not that the alleged abuse or neglect did not occur, or that there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the alleged child abuse did or did not occur.”
The official result was therefore not a substantiated or founded finding against Onision.
It was:
- Unfounded
Harm to the Household
The CPS report forced the household to undergo an official child-abuse investigation during the height of the public accusation campaign.
Regardless of the investigation’s result, such a report creates immediate and serious consequences:
- scrutiny of the household
- questioning concerning the children and their care
- fear that the family could be separated
- time spent responding to allegations
- emotional distress for both parents
- disruption of ordinary family life
- permanent documentation of another accusation requiring investigation
- pressure to prove innocence concerning conduct that CPS did not substantiate
The damage was not limited to Onision’s online reputation. The accusations reached the family home and triggered state involvement concerning the children.
The Public Narrative Did Not Match the Official Result
At the time of the report, Sarah, Regina, and their public supporters were promoting an increasingly severe narrative portraying the household as abusive, dangerous, predatory, and criminal.
The resulting CPS investigation did not validate that portrayal.
Instead, after investigation, the agency classified the physical-abuse allegation as unfounded.
This result is consistent with the broader official record in which:
- police cleared the original allegations with no evidence of criminal activity
- Sarah repeatedly stated privately that nothing illegal had happened
- Sarah told police she had no sexual contact with Onision or Lucas while underage
- investigators were unable to establish that Sarah was the victim of a crime
- CPS did not substantiate the physical-abuse allegation involving the household’s children
The public campaign produced another investigation, but the investigation did not produce the finding the accusers’ narrative suggested it should.
Repeated Investigations Were Themselves a Form of Damage
An unfounded conclusion does not undo the burden imposed by the report.
The household still had to live through:
- the accusation
- contact from CPS
- investigation of the family
- uncertainty concerning the children
- the possibility that online allegations could influence government action
- the emotional and practical cost of responding
- the continued public circulation of claims after the investigation failed to substantiate them
The pattern matters. Public accusations repeatedly generated outside scrutiny, while official investigations repeatedly failed to establish the alleged criminal or abusive conduct.
The process itself became part of the harm.
Source
Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families.
Child Protective Services investigation-results letter dated January 5, 2021.
The report was received on or about November 5, 2020.
Finding:
- Unfounded
Related evidence:
October 30, 2019: Sarah Publicly Says She Wishes Onision “Did Not Exist”
During her October 30, 2019 interview, Sarah stated:
- “I wish that he did not exist.”
This was not a private expression made while trying to avoid publicity. Sarah directed the statement to a public audience during an interview devoted to accusations against Onision and Lucas. Publicly, to thousands of people, stating it was her will for Onision to be dead.
What the Evidence Establishes
The statement documents:
- intense personal hostility toward Onision
- willingness to express that hostility publicly
- participation in escalating the campaign against him
- a motive to damage his reputation, livelihood, public standing & very life
- conduct inconsistent with the claim that Sarah was too frightened or controlled to oppose him
The statement also fits a continuing pattern. During Sarah’s August 7, 2024 call to Onision, she expressed hope that his skin cancer would return and destroy part of his body.
Together, the statements show sustained animus toward Onision rather than fear of confronting him.
Source
Sarah’s October 30, 2019 interview, approximately 00:34:48–00:35:21.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7vma6ynwuy
https://archive.org/details/have-a-seat-with-chris-hansen-ft.-sarah-discussing-onision
Related evidence: