January 7, 2019: Sarah Defines What She Wanted Before Signing the NDA
Sarah writes:
“I’m an adult if I wanna get my shit rocked by another consenting adult there’s nothing wrong with that lol”
She then rejects the idea that Lucas had been planning sexual activity with her while she was underage:
“Were you plotting all along while I was underage? to wait until I was 18 to do shit with me? No. It was literally the opposite”
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.
What this establishes in the NDA timeline
Sarah was not describing herself as someone afraid of sexual contact or being pressured into it.
She was openly expressing that:
She wanted sexual activity.
She considered it consensual adult conduct.
She believed there was nothing wrong with pursuing it.
She rejected the idea that Lucas had planned or cultivated it while she was underage.
She understood that the sexual situation began only after she was an adult.
This message was sent one day before Sarah discussed adding a clause to the NDA, joked about her “totally professional intentions,” demanded that Onision sign, and asked what the agreement meant.
The timing matters.
The January 7 message explains what Sarah wanted. The January 8 messages show her attempting to connect that desire to the NDA negotiations. The January 18 signatures show that the agreement was executed afterward.
Months later, during her August 27 livestream, Sarah admitted that she had said:
“Only if we do stuff will I sign the papers.”
She also acknowledged saying she would not sign unless she:
“got something out of it”
and:
“got what I wanted.”
The complete sequence
The relevant chronology is:
January 7: Sarah states that she wants consensual adult sex and denies that anyone had been plotting sexual activity while she was underage.
January 8: Sarah discusses adding a clause, jokes about her intentions, demands that Onision sign, and asks what the NDA means.
January 8: Lucas tells Sarah that illegal conduct is not protected and that she can read the agreement.
January 18: Sarah signs the mutual NDA.
August 27: Sarah publicly admits that she said she would sign only if they “did stuff” and only after she “got what [she] wanted.”
Source: January 7, 2019 text-message exchange between Sarah and Lucas, displayed from an iPhone conversation and photographed using an iPhone camera.
January 18, 2019: Sarah Signs the Mutual NDA After Saying She “Got What [She] Wanted”
This two-page agreement documents the mutual confidentiality and no-false-statements arrangement signed by Sarah and Onision on January 18, 2019.
The displayed agreement was not a one-sided restriction imposed only on Sarah. Both Sarah and Onision accepted confidentiality obligations, both were protected against unauthorized disclosure, and both were prohibited from making false statements about the other.
The wording of the agreement must also be read alongside the communications and events that occurred before Sarah signed it.
According to the surrounding record, Sarah actively discussed the agreement, wanted Onision legally bound by it, proposed terms for her own benefit, and asked questions about its meaning. Onision and Lucas state that Sarah then refused to sign until she first received the sexual contact she wanted, later describing the sequence as signing only after she “got what [she] wanted.”
The written agreement contains no promise of sex because the sexual condition Sarah allegedly imposed was not written as a future contractual benefit. According to Onision and Lucas, Sarah insisted on receiving it first and signed the NDA afterward.
Page one of the January 18, 2019 mutual NDA between Sarah and Onision, including the lawful-disclosure exception and the provision forbidding false statements about either party.
The Agreement Was Mutual
The agreement identifies Sarah as the “First Party” and Onision as the “Second Party.”
Its obligations applied to both of them.
Either party could share confidential information with the other, and both parties were required to protect information they received. The contract did not grant Onision a special right to speak while silencing Sarah.
Section 2 required private information and witnessed events to remain between the parties unless both agreed that the material was no longer private.
If only one party authorized disclosure and the other did not, releasing the information would violate the agreement.
What the Agreement Protected
The agreement defined confidential information to include:
Business plans, methods, and practices
Personal stories
Private information about either party
Conversations
Events
Other information the parties treated as private
Section 3 required confidential material to remain the property of the person who disclosed it. It also allowed the disclosing party to request that copies be returned or destroyed.
The provision authorized legal relief if confidential information was improperly released.
Page two of the mutual NDA showing its five-year term and the January 18, 2019 signatures of Sarah and Onision.
The Agreement Preserved Lawful Reporting
Section 4 lists information that would not be treated as confidential.
Section 4(c) expressly excludes information that:
“Is disclosed pursuant to the lawful requirement of a court or governmental agency or where required by operation of law.”
This provision directly contradicts the later portrayal of the agreement as a document designed to conceal criminal conduct or prevent Sarah from cooperating with authorities.
The agreement did not prohibit Sarah from responding to:
A court order
A subpoena
A governmental agency
A lawful investigation
Another disclosure required by law
On January 8, 2019, Sarah negotiated the mutual NDA, demanded that Onision also sign, and was expressly told that the agreement did not protect illegal conduct.
Sarah was also told during the negotiations that the agreement would not protect Onision or Lucas if they were breaking the law.
The written contract and the surrounding messages therefore communicate the same basic rule: ordinary private information was protected, but lawfully required reporting was not prohibited.
The Agreement Prohibited False Statements
Section 8 states:
“Parties are forbidden from producing false statements about one another to any third parties…”
This was not merely a secrecy agreement. It was also a mutual no-lying agreement.
The provision protected Sarah from false statements by Onision and protected Onision from false statements by Sarah.
This section is especially important because the agreement was intended to protect the household from someone gaining access to private family information and later presenting false claims about what occurred.
The Agreement Created No Partnership or Relationship
Section 5 states that the contract did not create:
An agency
A partnership
A joint venture
Any similar formal relationship
Section 7 states that the NDA did not require either party to disclose more information, enter another agreement, or provide any additional obligation or benefit.
The written agreement therefore gave Sarah no continuing right to:
A romantic relationship
A sexual relationship
Continued access to the household
Continued contact with Onision or Lucas
Money
Employment
Any other personal benefit
That absence must be understood in the correct sequence.
The surrounding communications and Sarah’s later statements indicate that she attached her own sexual condition to whether she would sign. According to Onision, Lucas & Sarah's own live stream confessions, Sarah insisted on first receiving the sexual contact she wanted and then signed the agreement after stating that she had “got what [she] wanted.”
Once signed, the NDA functioned only as a mutual confidentiality and no-false-statements agreement.
Sarah’s Role in Negotiating the Agreement
The surrounding messages show Sarah participating directly in the NDA process.
Sarah:
Discussed adding a clause
Said the clause was for her own “peace of mind”
Joked about her “totally professional intentions”
Specifically requested that Onision sign
Said she wanted Onision bound because he had “a fat mouth”
Asked what the agreement meant
Was told that illegal conduct was not protected
Was encouraged to read the agreement herself
This was not a document secretly introduced after the fact without Sarah’s knowledge.
Sarah discussed it before signing, wanted its protections applied to Onision, asked questions, received explanations, and signed the completed agreement.
Other Friends Signed Similar Agreements
Onision and Lucas have possession of documents proving other friends connected to the household signed substantially similar confidentiality agreements.
That wider use is important because it demonstrates that the agreement format was not invented uniquely for Sarah and was not sexual.
According to Onision and Lucas:
The agreements were used to protect the household’s private information.
Other friends signed them without demanding sex.
Sarah was the only signer who attempted to connect her signature with sexual access to Onision and Lucas.
Sarah signed only after she received what she later described as what she “wanted.”
The agreement itself was a household privacy measure. The sexual condition came from Sarah, not from the written contract.
The Agreement Lasted Five Years
Section 9 states that the agreement would remain in effect for five years from its effective date.
It also states that the obligation to protect confidential information already disclosed would survive the formal expiration of the agreement.
Both Sarah and Onision signed and dated the document January 18, 2019.
What the Signed Agreement Directly Establishes
The document establishes that:
Sarah and Onision entered a written mutual confidentiality agreement.
The obligations applied to both parties.
Sarah was protected by the agreement as well as restricted by it.
Disclosure required by courts, government agencies, or law remained permitted.
False statements about either party were expressly prohibited.
The agreement created no partnership or continuing personal relationship.
Sarah signed and dated the agreement.
Onision signed and dated the agreement.
The agreement became effective January 18, 2019.
Its stated term was five years.
Why It Matters
The signed document contradicts the portrayal of the NDA as a one-sided instrument created to silence Sarah about criminal conduct.
The complete record instead shows:
The agreement was mutual.
Sarah actively participated in discussing it.
Sarah specifically wanted Onision legally bound.
Sarah asked what the agreement meant.
Sarah was told that illegal conduct was not protected.
Court and governmental disclosures were expressly preserved in writing.
False statements by either party were prohibited.
The agreement gave Sarah no right to a relationship or future benefit.
Onision and Lucas state that Sarah conditioned her signature on first receiving the sex she wanted.
Sarah signed only afterward, when she said she had “got what [she] wanted.”
The written NDA did not create the sexual condition. Sarah did.
The document then served its stated purpose: protecting private household information and forbidding false statements by either party.
Source
Physical copies of the mutual nondisclosure agreements established in Gig Harbor, Washington, including the agreement signed by Sarah and Onision on January 18, 2019, together with the surrounding January 2019 communications concerning its negotiation, purpose, and signing.
August 27, 2019: Sarah Admits She Conditioned Signing the NDA on Sexual Access
On August 27, 2019, Sarah admitted that she told Onision and Lucas she would sign the NDA only if they first engaged in sexual activity with her, then claimed the demand was a joke.
During a YouNow livestream, Sarah described the discussion surrounding the mutual NDA and acknowledged that she told Onision and Lucas she would sign only if they first engaged in sexual activity with her.
Sarah stated:
“I was like, ‘only if we do stuff will I sign the papers.’”
She then attempted to dismiss the demand by saying:
“It was a fucking joke.”
What Sarah directly admits
Sarah confirms that:
She initially resisted signing the NDA.
She demanded a clause or condition representing something she wanted.
She told Onision and Lucas she would sign only if they “did stuff” with her.
The phrase “did stuff” referred to sexual activity.
She signed the agreement after the sexual encounter occurred.
She later claimed the condition was merely a joke.
The statement matches the surrounding January 2019 messages in which Sarah joked about her “totally professional intentions,” discussed a clause for her own benefit, and expressed her desire for sexual activity with Onision and Lucas.
Why it matters
Sarah’s own account establishes that the sexual condition came from her, not from the household.
Onision and Lucas did not place sexual access into the written NDA, promise sex in the agreement, or use the contract to obtain sexual activity from Sarah. Sarah admits that she was the person who connected her willingness to sign with first receiving the sexual activity she wanted.
Calling the demand a “joke” afterward does not erase the sequence she describes:
Sarah said she did not want to sign.
Sarah demanded that sexual activity occur first.
Onision and Lucas gave Sarah what she said she wanted.
Sarah then signed the mutual NDA.
Elsewhere in the contemporaneous record, Sarah used explicitly sexual language to describe what she wanted, including saying she wanted to get her “shit rocked.”
The evidence therefore shows Sarah negotiating for sexual access and signing only after the encounter—not Sarah being forced into sexual conduct through the NDA.
Source
August 27, 2019 YouNow livestream hosted by Sarah under the username “Sarahbear8500.”
August 27, 2019: Sarah Says She Refused to Sign Until She “Got Something Out of It”
On August 27, 2019, Sarah said she refused to sign the mutual NDA unless she “got something out of it” and “got what [she] wanted,” referring to the sexual activity she had requested.
During the same YouNow livestream discussion of the mutual NDA, Sarah described Onision confronting her about refusing to sign.
Sarah stated:
“Yeah basically he was like, ‘yeah you didn’t sign…’”
She then described her own response:
“I made jokes about not signing it unless I ‘got something out of it’ — ‘got what I wanted.’”
Sarah added:
“Yeah and even if I was being serious like, ‘wh eh eh.’”
What Sarah directly admits
Sarah acknowledges that she connected her willingness to sign the NDA with first receiving something she wanted from Onision and Lucas.
Read together with her immediately preceding admission that she said:
“Only if we do stuff will I sign the papers,”
the meaning is clear: Sarah was referring to the sexual activity she wanted before signing.
Her statement also matches earlier messages in which she joked about her “totally professional intentions” and separately used explicit language about wanting to get her “shit rocked.”
Why it matters
Sarah’s own account confirms the sequence:
Sarah did not immediately sign the mutual NDA.
Sarah said she wanted to “get something out of it.”
Sarah identified that outcome as “what I wanted.”
The surrounding discussion identifies what she wanted as sexual activity with Onision and Lucas.
Sarah signed the agreement afterward.
Sarah later attempted to minimize the demand as a joke. However, her own retelling repeatedly links signing the NDA to receiving the sexual outcome she wanted first.
The sexual condition did not come from the written agreement or from Onision and Lucas. Sarah introduced it herself and then signed after the condition she described had been satisfied.
Source
August 27, 2019 YouNow livestream hosted by Sarah under the username “Sarahbear8500.”
