Chris Hansen/Grifting
December 17, 2019–March 28, 2020: Censorship Campaign - Chris Hansen and Mike Morse Insist on a Recorded, Non-Live Interview
Communications dated December 17, 2019 and March 28, 2020 document negotiations for an interview between Onision and Chris Hansen.
The negotiations were handled through attorney Mike Morse, who wrote on Hansen’s behalf and later became an active participant in Hansen’s campaign against Onision.
December 17, 2019: Hansen Refuses a Reciprocal Appearance
On December 17, 2019 at 11:51 a.m., Morse emailed Onision:
- “I am writing on behalf of television journalist Chris Hansen.”
Morse acknowledged that Onision had publicly invited Hansen to appear on Onision’s program.
He then stated:
- “Mr. Hansen will not be appearing as requested.”
Morse offered a one-sided alternative:
- “the previous offer for you to appear on Mr. Hansen’s channel still stands.”
The email therefore established Hansen’s preferred arrangement:
- Hansen would not submit to questioning on Onision’s platform.
- Onision could appear on Hansen’s platform.
- Hansen’s operation would control the recording and publication.
- Morse would manage the communications on Hansen’s behalf.
The email also referenced compensation that Onision had requested during earlier discussions.
That earlier disagreement became irrelevant during the later March 2020 exchange because Onision expressly removed advertising, donations, and payment from his proposed appearance.
March 28, 2020: Morse Insists on “Recorded. Not Live.”
A forwarded March 28, 2020 email chain shows Morse stating:
- “On his channel. Recorded. Not live. No ads.”
This was not merely a request that Hansen be allowed to retain a recording. Morse specifically rejected a live presentation.
Onision responded at 10:51 a.m.:
- “NO, LIVE - OMG!!!! Everyone wants it live so NOTHING can be edited out!”
He continued:
- “I’m telling everyone you guys are afraid to do it live! What you just said is proof!!!!”
Onision’s concern was explicit: a recorded-only interview would allow the publisher to remove context, rearrange material, omit answers, or present selected portions without an independent contemporaneous record.
Onision Removes Money From the Dispute
At 11:20 a.m., Onision offered a compromise:
- “I’ll do the recorded version with y’all”
He expressly accepted:
- “no ads or donations”
He also agreed that Hansen’s team could:
- “edit it and everything”
Onision requested only one evidentiary safeguard:
- “while you record it, I’ll just live stream”
His reason was equally direct:
- “that way people don’t have to wait to see your edited up version of it!”
He concluded:
- “Let’s go! Tonight 6pm PST!!!”
This proposal eliminated the explanations previously offered for refusing the interview:
- Onision agreed to Hansen’s recorded version.
- Onision agreed Hansen could edit his own publication.
- Onision waived advertising.
- Onision waived donations.
- Onision did not demand payment in the visible March exchange.
- Onision offered to participate immediately.
- Onision requested only the right to preserve and broadcast the full conversation simultaneously.
At 2:56 p.m., after receiving no visible substantive response, Onision wrote:
- “Hello???”
The Live Simulcast Was an Evidence-Preservation Measure
A simultaneous livestream would not have prevented Hansen from producing his own recorded or edited program.
It would have created an independent record against which any edited version could later be compared.
That safeguard would have preserved:
- every question
- every answer
- the order of the discussion
- the tone and surrounding context
- interruptions or refusals to answer
- material omitted from Hansen’s later presentation
- whether either party was misquoted or selectively edited
Once Onision removed compensation, advertising, and donations from the proposed interview, the central dispute was no longer money.
The remaining dispute was control of the complete record.
Hansen’s side wanted a recorded, non-live interview under its control. Onision agreed to that recording but insisted that the public also receive an immediate, unedited version.
The preserved correspondence shows no acceptance of that safeguard.
Mike Morse Was Not a Neutral Intermediary
Morse was not merely an attorney transmitting scheduling information.
His own law firm publicly released an Open Mike interview with Hansen in December 2019 that specifically discussed the campaign against Onision.
In January 2020, Morse accompanied Hansen and a camera crew to Onision and Lucas’s home.
Deadline Detroit reported that Morse joined the trip after Hansen briefed him during the podcast and that Morse was providing pro-bono legal advice to some of Onision’s accusers.
Morse therefore occupied several overlapping roles:
- Hansen’s attorney or legal representative
- Hansen’s podcast host and media collaborator
- adviser to people accusing Onision
- public commentator against Onision
- participant in the uninvited monetized privacy-invading visit to the family home
- intermediary controlling the proposed interview terms
These were advocacy roles, not those of an independent fact-finder.
Mike Morse’s Own Sexual-Assault Litigation
Before Hansen brought Morse into the Onision campaign, Morse had already been sued by multiple women alleging sexual assault or sexual harassment.
Michigan appellate records describe allegations by two former employees.
Samantha Lichon alleged that Morse repeatedly groped her breasts without permission, pressed his body against her, and made sexual comments during work.
Jordan Smits alleged that Morse approached her from behind and grabbed her breasts without consent during a firm-sponsored Christmas party.
Court records further state that Lichon alleged she complained to the firm’s human-resources department without corrective action and that an attorney from the firm later pressured her not to file an action.
The litigation generated published decisions from the Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court concerning whether the claims could be forced into arbitration.
Those appellate opinions addressed procedural and arbitration issues rather than issuing a factual verdict that Morse committed the alleged assaults.
Morse denied wrongdoing, and separate claims involving other women were dismissed or withdrawn under differing circumstances.
The ethical conflict does not depend on falsely describing Morse as convicted or adjudicated liable.
The relevant fact is that Hansen selected Morse as a visible legal and moral ally while Morse was publicly associated with serious sexual-assault and harassment litigation of his own.
The Undisclosed Ethical Conflict
Hansen’s campaign publicly treated accusations against Onision as sufficient to justify condemnation, doorstep confrontation, deplatforming pressure, and claims that children inside the home were endangered.
At the same time, Hansen worked closely with an attorney who had himself faced multiple public civil allegations involving sexual assault and harassment.
Morse was not kept behind the scenes. Hansen:
- appeared on Morse’s podcast
- accepted Morse’s legal assistance
- allowed Morse to negotiate interview access
- involved Morse with accusers
- brought Morse to Onision and Lucas’s private residence
- presented Morse publicly as a credible legal authority
Lucas and the couple’s young child were inside the home during the confrontation.
Morse himself publicly discussed the presence of small children when defending his involvement.
Hansen therefore claimed to be protecting a family from an alleged sexual threat while bringing to that family’s home a man who was publicly defending himself against multiple sexual-assault and harassment allegations.
That contradiction was highly relevant to evaluating Hansen and Morse’s credibility, judgment, conflicts, and motives.
It was not meaningfully disclosed to the audience being encouraged to trust their campaign.
Reputation and Motive
Morse’s involvement also created an obvious reputational incentive.
A lawyer publicly associated with sexual-assault litigation could benefit reputationally from appearing as an advocate for alleged victims and joining a highly visible campaign framed as protecting women and children.
The strongest provable point does not require speculation about Morse’s private thoughts.
The public record establishes that:
- Morse had been publicly accused of sexual assault and harassment.
- Morse was defending related civil litigation.
- Morse then publicly aligned himself with Hansen’s campaign against Onision.
- Morse advised accusers and appeared as a legal authority.
- Morse participated in the confrontation at Onision and Lucas’s home.
- Hansen did not present this history as a material conflict to his audience.
Whether reputation repair was Morse’s subjective motive is secondary. The undisclosed appearance of conflict existed regardless.
What the Evidence Establishes
The correspondence and public record establish that:
- Hansen refused to appear on Onision’s program.
- Hansen invited Onision onto Hansen’s own channel instead.
- Morse acted as Hansen’s attorney and intermediary.
- Morse insisted that the interview be recorded and not live.
- Onision initially objected because material could be edited out.
- Onision then accepted Hansen’s recorded interview.
- Onision expressly waived advertising and donations.
- Onision allowed Hansen to edit his own version.
- Onision requested only a simultaneous livestream.
- A livestream would have preserved an independent, complete record.
- The visible chain shows no substantive reply after Onision offered that compromise.
- Morse was already publicly involved in sexual-assault and harassment litigation.
- Morse nevertheless became a legal adviser, media collaborator, accuser advocate, and doorstep participant in Hansen’s campaign.
- Hansen brought Morse to a home occupied by Lucas and young children.
- Hansen’s audience was not given the context necessary to evaluate Morse’s conflicts and credibility.
The exchange directly challenges Hansen’s presentation that Onision was unwilling to answer questions.
Onision offered to participate without advertising, donations, or exclusive control. The condition Hansen’s side would not accept was the creation of an immediate, unedited public record.
Sources
- Preserved December 17, 2019 and March 28, 2020 email composite.
- Mike Morse Law Firm press release: Chris Hansen interview
- Mike Morse Law Firm: Open Mike episode concerning Chris Hansen and Onision
- Deadline Detroit: “Why Is Mike Morse Chasing Accused YouTube Sex Predator Onision?”
- Michigan Court of Appeals: Lichon v. Morse and Smits v. Morse
- Michigan Supreme Court: Lichon v. Morse
- CBS Detroit: Fifth complaint reported against Mike Morse
The court sources summarize allegations contained in civil complaints. They should not be represented as criminal convictions or factual findings of liability.
Related: Chris Hansen Record · Damage to Onision and Lucas
December 19, 2019: Vincent Nicotra Coordinates YouTube Monetization Approval With Chris Hansen for Videos Featuring Regina and Sarah
On December 19, 2019, Vincent Nicotra, then a co-host and business partner of Chris Hansen, exchanged text messages with Hansen tracking the monetization status of videos featuring Regina and Sarah on Hansen's channel.
Nicotra wrote:
- "Nov 20th till Dec 11th yes"
- "Dec 18th still under review"
- "Regina, Shiloh, Sarah, Blair, and Repzion not monetized"
- "4 Videos are Monetized. 5 are not. waiting to hear on last nights. you made 192.87 in superchats last night"
Hansen replied asking:
- "But we are appealing Regina, Shiloh etc?"
Nicotra confirmed:
- "yes already did"
- "especially Shiloh because that video alone can bring in a lot of revenue"
What "Approved" Actually Meant
"Approved" in this exchange refers to YouTube's advertiser-friendly monetization review process, the system YouTube uses to determine whether a video is eligible to run paid advertisements. Nicotra and Hansen were not discussing journalistic accuracy, editorial standards, or the wellbeing of the women appearing in these videos. They were tracking, video by video, whether YouTube's algorithm and review team would allow them to profit from advertising revenue generated by interviews with Regina and Sarah discussing Onision.
When Nicotra wrote that a video was "still under review," he was reporting that YouTube's monetization system had not yet decided whether Hansen's business would be permitted to earn advertising income from that specific video. When Hansen asked whether they were "appealing" the videos featuring Regina and Shiloh, he was directing Nicotra to actively contest YouTube's monetization decisions so the videos could generate revenue, not to correct any factual error or address any concern for the women involved.
Superchat Revenue From Viewer Donations Made While Believing Onision Was a Predator
Nicotra separately reported that Hansen personally made 192.87 dollars in superchat donations in a single night. Superchats are payments viewers send during a livestream, funds sent by an audience that had just watched content designed to falsely portray Onision as a predator and criminal.
This is a direct financial transaction: viewers paid money in real time because they believed the narrative Hansen's livestream was presenting about Onision. Nicotra's message to Hansen tracking this dollar figure alongside monetization approval status shows that both men treated the emotional reaction of an audience convinced Onision had committed crimes as a revenue stream to be monitored and maximized, not as a matter of public interest reporting.
Why This Conduct Violates Basic Journalistic and Ethical Standards
Legitimate journalism requires that reporters and commentators disclose and avoid direct financial conflicts of interest with the outcome of their reporting. The Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics specifically instructs journalists to "avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived" and to refuse "gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment" that could compromise integrity, and to be "wary of sources offering information for favors or money."
Hansen inverted this standard entirely. Rather than avoiding a financial stake in the narrative, Hansen and Nicotra actively coordinated to appeal YouTube's monetization decisions specifically to maximize their personal earnings from videos accusing Onision of predatory conduct, while simultaneously soliciting direct cash payments from viewers reacting emotionally to that same content. This is precisely the arrangement Onision later insisted on avoiding by refusing to be interviewed for money, recognizing that any interview tied to a financial incentive for the interviewer creates pressure toward sensationalism over accuracy.
Legal and Ethical Significance
Washington's consumer protection framework and general principles of tortious interference recognize that knowingly profiting from the publication of defamatory or unsubstantiated material can support liability separate from the defamation itself. Under RCW 19.86.020, unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce, including monetized content built on unverified accusations presented to the public as factual reporting, are actionable under Washington's Consumer Protection Act.
Sarah and Regina's underlying allegations were later contradicted by their own statements to police, statements made before either woman was offered the prospect of a multi-million-dollar settlement from Google, litigation Sarah and Regina ultimately lost. Hansen and Nicotra's monetization coordination occurred while presenting these unverified and since-discredited claims to a paying, donating audience as though they were established fact.
Source
Text message screen capture provided by Vincent Nicotra, former co-host and business partner of Chris Hansen, to Onision. Dated December 19, 2019.
Related Evidence
- Chris Hansen's Monetization and Grifting Record
- Chris Hansen's Harassment Campaign
- Sarah's Credibility Record
- Regina's Public Accusations
- Documented Damage to Onision and Lucas
- SPJ Code of Ethics - Avoiding Conflicts of Interest
- RCW 19.86.020 - Washington Consumer Protection Act
May 1, 2020: Chris Hansen Allowed For Monetized Fake Victims (Sarah, Regina etc.), Who Themselves Requested Mod Abilities, To Censor Anyone Questioning Their Narratives During Live Streams
On May 1, 2020, Vincent Nicotra emailed Onision about the internal operation of the Chris Hansen livestreams used to promote accusations against Onision and Lucas.
Nicotra stated:
“Regina still works for Chris and she is his head Modator.”
He further wrote:
“Sarah, Billie, and Beck were mods too. how about that. Alleged victims running the show.”
Nicotra described the operation as:
“a total sham.”
He also stated that he possessed supporting messages:
“I have text messages and proof if you don't believe it.”
Nicotra separately claimed that Regina recruited another guest for Hansen:
“Regina told me she got Adam for Chris and Chris confirmed.”
What the record directly shows
Nicotra’s email records his firsthand claims that:
- Regina continued working for Chris Hansen.
- Regina held a leading moderation role.
- Sarah and other participating accusers also received moderator access.
- Regina recruited or connected additional guests with the production.
- The accusers were participating in the operation behind the broadcasts, not merely appearing as independent interview subjects.
- Nicotra believed the people presented as alleged victims were “running the show.”
- Nicotra described the operation as “a total sham.”
- Nicotra claimed that text messages existed to support his account.
Evidence of a coordinated campaign
The email supports the broader record showing that Regina and Sarah were involved in both presenting accusations and helping control the environment in which those accusations were broadcast.
Regina’s separately published messages confirm that she collected and forwarded moderator information for Sarah, Haylee, and Lane. Nicotra’s email goes further by identifying Regina as the lead moderator and stating that Sarah and other participating accusers also held moderation authority.
This structure placed the accusers inside the production itself.
They were allegedly involved in:
- recruiting guests,
- selecting moderators,
- regulating audience participation,
- controlling livestream comments,
- amplifying supporting narratives,
- and promoting accusations against Onision and Lucas.
The same participants presenting themselves as sources were therefore also helping manage the platform through which their accusations were monetized and distributed.
Defamation and damages significance
The broadcasts were publicly presented as investigative coverage concerning Onision and Lucas.
Nicotra’s account describes something materially different: a controlled media campaign in which participating accusers helped operate the broadcast, moderate the audience, recruit additional guests, and determine which voices received access.
That arrangement increased the damage to Onision and Lucas by creating the appearance that:
- the accusations were independently verified,
- numerous unrelated people supported the same narrative,
- criticism was absent or insignificant,
- and the livestream audience overwhelmingly accepted the accusations.
In reality, the people advancing the allegations were allegedly helping control the forum in which those allegations were evaluated.
The resulting broadcasts expanded the accusations, generated revenue and publicity, discouraged meaningful scrutiny, and contributed to the reputational, professional, financial, and emotional harm inflicted on Onision and Lucas.
Why it matters
Independent reporting requires separation between the interviewer, the subjects, and the people controlling audience participation.
Nicotra’s email describes no such separation.
According to Nicotra:
- Regina worked for Hansen,
- Regina was his lead moderator,
- Sarah and other accusers were moderators,
- Regina recruited participants,
- and the alleged victims were “running the show.”
That evidence supports the conclusion that the livestreams were not neutral examinations of disputed claims. They were part of an organized accusation campaign managed in significant part by the same people who financially and publicly benefited from its continued escalation.
Source
May 1, 2020 email from Vincent Nicotra to Onision.
June 20, 2020: Vincent Nicotra Says Regina and Sarah Wanted Payment and Publicity and Describes the Campaign as Chris Hansen's “Cash Grab”
On June 20, 2020, Vincent Nicotra sent Onision an email describing what Nicotra claimed to have witnessed while working with Chris Hansen.
Nicotra wrote:
“Chris is lying. I know he has been working on selling the story when I was working with him. He was in negotiations back in December.”
Nicotra stated that he advised against the proposed deal because he had begun doubting the allegations:
“I advised against it because I started questioning the truth about your allegation.”
He then directly identified payment and publicity as the reason he perceived the campaign as financially motivated:
“I felt it was a cash grab when Regina and Sarah wanted to be paid and advertised. Then Sarah gets a talent manager.”
Nicotra separately told Onision:
“A lot of people say you are a scumbag and an abuser however I can say that you were nothing but respectful and nice to me and my sister”
What the record directly shows
Nicotra’s email establishes that:
- Nicotra claimed that he worked with Chris Hansen.
- Nicotra stated that Hansen was working to sell the story.
- Nicotra stated that negotiations had occurred.
- Nicotra began questioning the truth of the allegations.
- Nicotra said Regina and Sarah wanted to be paid and advertised.
- Nicotra described the resulting campaign as a “cash grab.”
- Nicotra noted that Sarah subsequently obtained a talent manager.
- Nicotra stated that his own direct experience with Onision was respectful and positive.
- These statements came from a person describing activity behind the public media campaign, not from Onision or Lucas.
Financial-motive and credibility significance
Nicotra’s statement is devastating to the credibility of the public campaign because it documents a participant describing financial and promotional objectives operating behind the accusations.
The sequence Nicotra described was:
- Hansen was working to sell the story.
- Negotiations were occurring.
- Nicotra began questioning the truth of the allegations.
- Regina and Sarah wanted to be paid and advertised.
- Nicotra concluded that the effort appeared to be a “cash grab.”
- Sarah later obtained a talent manager.
This account is consistent with the separate public record showing Regina attaching Venmo, Cash App, OnlyFans, YouTube, and other promotional accounts to her accusation campaign, demanding money from Onision, and celebrating the destruction of his income.
Nicotra’s email provides direct evidence that concerns about monetization and credibility existed inside the media operation itself.
Why it matters
Regina and Sarah publicly presented their campaign as an effort motivated by truth and accountability.
Nicotra described something different: efforts to sell the story, negotiations, requested payment, requested publicity, and professional representation.
His email also records that he began questioning whether the allegations were true.
That combination directly supports the broader documented pattern of:
- monetizing accusations,
- seeking publicity,
- attempting to sell the story,
- increasing personal exposure,
- recruiting media figures,
- and financially benefiting while Onision and Lucas suffered reputational and economic destruction.
Nicotra’s firsthand assessment was explicit:
“I felt it was a cash grab”
Source
June 20, 2020 email from Vincent Nicotra to Onision.
The quoted email chain was preserved in Onision’s receiving email account.