Null 🥝 Joshua Moon Financial BS

[The Gays From LA]

Maybe Hardin realized that Null and his milieu are very likely to have various run-ins with the law, and this was a unique opportunity for him to become the far-right's lawyer of choice? Popehat on Twitter did the same thing a decade ago, it's a tried and true grift for a lawyer. Lawyers always look for some extremist activist movement to attach themselves to, because those Horseshoe Theory people are historically shown to be very lolsuit prone, whether it's far-left anarchist TRAs, like in Caraballo's case, or Null and his fair use porn-critics.

 

[KampungBoy]

Maybe Hardin realized that Null and his milieu are very likely to have various run-ins with the law, and this was a unique opportunity for him to become the far-right's lawyer of choice? Popehat on Twitter did the same thing a decade ago, it's a tried and true grift for a lawyer. Lawyers always look for some extremist activist movement to attach themselves to, because those Horseshoe Theory people are historically shown to be very lolsuit prone, whether it's far-left anarchist TRAs, like in Caraballo's case, or Null and his fair use porn-critics.

Null did talk about various other ideas he had for Hardin on MATI yesterday so he does seem to have a continuing relationship in mind.

 

[Onion NullOnion Null is verified member.]

Maybe Hardin realized that Null and his milieu are very likely to have various run-ins with the law, and this was a unique opportunity for him to become the far-right's lawyer of choice? Popehat on Twitter did the same thing a decade ago, it's a tried and true grift for a lawyer. Lawyers always look for some extremist activist movement to attach themselves to, because those Horseshoe Theory people are historically shown to be very lolsuit prone, whether it's far-left anarchist TRAs, like in Caraballo's case, or Null and his fair use porn-critics.

A lot of lolsuits are settled out of court. Despite his so-called years of experience, I don't see any reviews. This raised a red flag from my perspective.

 

[The Gays From LA]

Despite his so-called years of experience, I don't see any reviews. This raised a red flag from my perspective.

LMAOOO! He's been Null's lawyer for years, but even Null himself couldn't be bothered to leave him a review.

 

[Bigg Drip]

I had no idea he was so young.

 

[KampungBoy]

I had no idea he was so young.

Yeah I don't know if I would rely on someone so untested. However TBH don't think Null ever intended to take this to trial and was hoping to grift the donations and quickly settle out of court.

 

[Onion NullOnion Null is verified member.]

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice.

On February 2nd, Null's attorney launched on IOLTA account to ostensibly pay for litigation costs. According to their website: https://lolcowfund.hardin.law/ But what exactly is an IOLTA?

IOLTA (Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts) is a way of raising money for charitable purposes. It is intended to fund civil legal services for people who are indigent (impoverished). IOLTAs were set up in the United States after federal banking laws were changed to allow some checking accounts to earn interest. IOLTAs operate in all 50 states, Washington DC, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands.

An IOLTA is a trust account set up by an attorney to handle money that belongs to the client such as settlement checks, advance payments for services not yet performed or funds needed to pay various court fees. If the amount of funds is substantial the attorney can deposit the funds into a trust account so they can earn interest for the client.

Since the money in the trust account belongs to the client, the interest earned from that account also belongs to the client. Normally the funds are only in there for a short time or they are relatively small and don't earn interest. Lawyers are not permitted to derive a financial benefit from the interest on an IOLTA.

Source: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/interest_lawyers_trust_accounts/overview/
More information on IOLTAs: https://www.cosmolex.com/resource-c...t-happens-to-the-interest-in-a-trust-account/

Now according to Quora, a lawyer will usually spend between 10 to 50 hours on a case depending on its complexity.

Currently: Null's fund has $157,886 in it. Null has stated that he is looking for an out of court settlement rather than an expensive court case.

In a previous thread, I think it stated that Matthew Hardin's legal fees ranged from $285 to $400 per hour which for the Washington DC area is reasonable.

Let's assume that Hardin charges $340/hour which is approximately halfway between these two figures.

At 10 hours X $340/hour Hardin's legal fees amount to $3,400
At 50 hours X $340/hour Hardin's legal fees amount to $17,000

Based on Hardin's previous thread, I am going to assume that he isn't the type of person who is a "ball of fire" litigator but one who prefers to settle things quietly behind the scenes. So It would be a reasonable conclusion that Hardin's time would probably be in the lower end of the 10 to 50 hour range.

Contingency Fees vs. Hourly rate: Lawyers who handle civil litigation cases typically work on a contingency basis. In other words, if they win the case they get a percentage of the damages awarded. Typically the average is around 33% (1/3). So if Null and Epik for example agree to a $100,000 out of court settlement, Hardin would collect 1/3 of that about $33,333, while Null would get the rest $66,666 minus whatever court costs would involved.

And here is the catch with a contingency arrangement. Generally on a contingency basis lawyers only get paid if they win. If an lawyer doesn't think they have a very strong case, that attorney might enter negotiations with the other party to come up with an agreed upon settlement and avoid the expense of a trial.

In other words in the event of an out of court settlement, the IOLTA funding may not even be necessary (certainly not to the tune of $157,886).

 

[KampungBoy]

It should be noted also I think that Null is doing not even the bare minimum of transparency and is dodging questions about his legal plans. At least some people still seem to be under the impression that this is being brought to trial whereas Null seems to be expressing that he would prefer to settle begging the question of why exactly he needed 150k or even his initial goal of 75k which he stated would be the minimum he would need for such a case.

In the sense that he seems to be leading people on by hyperbolizing the financial requirements and then immediately taking the cheapest way out which is not what he outlined in the initial plea for donos.

Here is Null completely ignoring a user asking for a timeline for his legal action. Null has also not put up a tally for the donos he received which he said he would do meaning that if you want an update on the fundraiser you will need to get the amount from the main site and then search through the litigation thread to find the latest update and then add that with the total from the main site.

It's almost like he is trying to make this info hard to find. For all these reasons I do suspect this to be a grift.

 

[Gore San]

Tl;Dr you're not an attorney. disregard_everything_you_said,_you_suck_cocks.meme

 

[polonium]

t's almost like he is trying to make this info hard to find. For all these reasons I do suspect this to be a grift.

I posted it elsewhere, will update this here when I get back to a computer later but you're right, it's absolutely transparent that it's a grift: when he's touting for donations he talks about the lawsuit and what he says he's planning to do. However, the donation collection pages say nothing about any of that and actually they say the opposite: no refunds, this is a personal donation to Joshua Moon to be spent on whatever he likes with no expectation of a particular result, etc etc.

 

[atmos driver]

Imagine giving your hard earned money to a Blockland troll who runs a tiny webforum which discusses things you can discuss on dozens of other sites.

 

[The Gays From LA]

If the amount of funds is substantial the attorney can deposit the funds into a trust account so they can earn interest for the client.

Define "substantial". Is $100k substantial? Is $1 million? $1000?

Now according to Quora, a lawyer will usually spend between 10 to 50 hours on a case depending on its complexity.

My dude, this is not gonna be a single 50 hour standard case. Whether he sues Epik or Caraballo or LFJ or all three, there are inevitably going to be anti-SLAPP motions from all or some of them, and those anti-SLAPP motions can take up to a year to fight in court. Hardin won't be able to do anything if there is anti-SLAPP in place, All Hardin will be doing is fighting the anti-SLAPP. Especially in California, where LFJ/Honeycomb are, anti-SLAPP is very strong. Marilyn Manson filed a defamation lolsuit against his ex-girlfriend who claimed she was #MeTooed by him, and he spent a year in court fighting anti-SLAPP in California and he still lost. Marilyn Manson is a multi-millionaire rockstar who had a team of the best Hollywood lawyers money can buy, and he still couldn't get the anti-SLAPP motions dismissed.

At 10 hours X $340/hour Hardin's legal fees amount to $3,400
At 50 hours X $340/hour Hardin's legal fees amount to $17,000

Again, this is not going to be a single 50 hour case. If the defendants file anti-SLAPP motions - and it's almost inevitable here, because Caraballo & LFJ are de facto TRAs, so they will claim that whatever they said was part of their online activism in the context of a public campaign - he will spend a whole year fighting those.

Another mistake you are making in your calculation is to assume that Null is going to sue these people together. My impression from the crowdfunder is that he plans to sue them separately, in different States. So you're looking at 3 different lolsuits, not just one. Then there's the appeal in Australia, which he claims is another half a million dollars, and then there's the Greer appeal, which Hardin is already doing. Those are 5 different lolsuits, all in all. I don't know what involvement, if any, Hardin is going to have in the Australian appeal. I still haven't heard the name of that anonymous Australian firm that wants half a million dollars to do Vincent's appeal. Null suggested that there was unnamed lawyer in California who wants to do his case against LFJ/Honeycomb there, so perhaps Hardin - who I don't recall being licensed to practice in California?- won't be doing the LFJ/Honeycomb lolsuit in CA.

In other words in the event of an out of court settlement, the IOLTA funding may not even be necessary (certainly not to the tune of $157,886).

That's not why they set up the IOLTA though. Null explicitly said that Hardin set it up to prevent discovery of Null's donors. Null claims that Epik threatened to use discovery to expose anyone donating money to his crowdfunder. (I still haven't seen an actual source for this claim, but this is what Null claims Epik said). So the IOLTA was not put in place to collect interest on $100k, it was mainly to anonymize the donors by protecting them from discovery.

Which is funny because it might eventually be Null himself who won't be able to do any discovery if the defendants invoke anti-SLAPP. That's often how anti-SLAPP is strategically used in cases where there's a speech component: to kill a lolsuit by preventing discovery of incriminating documents. Even if you can show that the defendants have the incriminating documents that prove their culpability, that still won't kill an anti-SLAPP.

Null really needs to read these articles and seriously reconsider suing LFJ in California:

Hanson Bridgett Secures Victory in Anti-SLAPP Motion Against Marilyn Manson

May 10, 2023 (San Francisco, CA) – After a year-long battle against Brian Warner (f/k/a Marilyn Manson), Hanson Bridgett partner Maggie Ziemianek and associate Tom Rivera secured victory on the anti-SLAPP motion filed on behalf of their client Ashley Gore.

www.hansonbridgett.com

Judge tosses out bulk of Marilyn Manson's defamation suit against Evan Rachel Wood

A California judge has tossed out most of Marilyn Manson's defamation lawsuit against actress Evan Rachel Wood following her claims of abuse.

consequence.net

Anti-SLAPP Laws Cited in Dismissal of Marilyn Manson Defamation Suit: What is a SLAPP lawsuit?

A very public legal battle between musician Marilyn Manson and actress Evan Rachel Wood (and additional defendant, Illma Gore) has put a spotlight on SLAPP laws. A California judge recently tossed out the bulk of a defamation lawsuit...

www.turnpikelaw.com

 

[polonium]

So the IOLTA was not put in place to collect interest on $100k, it was mainly to anonymize the donors by protecting them from discovery.

Does it do that though?

Spoiler: Text

I understand that donations do not establish an attorney-client relationship, and Matthew Hardin is not able to offer individual advice or acknowledgement to any donor. Matthew Hardin and his firm represent only Joshua Moon and Lolcow LLC. Upon receipt, all funds will become the sole property of Joshua Moon and will be held in trust for disbursement at his sole discretion, including but not limited to disbursement to support ongoing litigation or anticipated litigation in which the Hardin Law Office represents Mr. Moon or Lolcow LLC. Contributions are not tax deductible. I understand that if I have any questions about whether it is advisable for me to contribute to this fund, I am welcome to consult an independent attorney or tax professional.

 

[Onion NullOnion Null is verified member.]

@The Gays From LA this is an estimate per individual case not everything put together.

 

[KampungBoy]

That's not why they set up the IOLTA though. Null explicitly said that Hardin set it up to prevent discovery of Null's donors. Null claims that Epik threatened to use discovery to expose anyone donating money to his crowdfunder. (I still haven't seen an actual source for this claim, but this is what Null claims Epik said). So the IOLTA was not put in place to collect interest on $100k, it was mainly to anonymize the donors by protecting them from discovery.

What about those to things cancels each other out and also as an aside are you aware of a concept called "lying"?

 

[Ferengi of Romania]

Let's see this lawyer's retainer agreement and billable hours. Typically they charge by the hour in 15 min increments. A phone call for example. whether its 5 min or 10 min is billed at 15 min. Some lawyers have a minimum of a half hour, ie, one phone called is billed at a minimum of one half hour or hour; however, that's usually an arrangement experienced and well known litigation firms such as Skadden, Arps whose clients are in the business/financial sector-Goldman Sachs, for example-have with their clients. That's not the case here so if Null doesn't provide receipts he's probably griftting.

So if Null retained an attorney he'd have, at the very least, a retainer agreement signed by him and the attorney as to what he's expected to do, and the lawyer would provided Null with a monthly billing statement showing what work he did on his case like initiating legal proceedings, trust fund or paying Null's OnlyFans subs.

 

[Onion NullOnion Null is verified member.]

Let's see this lawyer's retainer agreement and billable hours. Typically they charge by the hour in 15 min increments. A phone call for example. whether its 5 min or 10 min is billed at 15 min. Some lawyers have a minimum of a half hour, ie, one phone called is billed at a minimum of one half hour or hour; however, that's usually an arrangement experienced and well known litigation firms such as Skadden, Arps whose clients are in the business/financial sector-Goldman Sachs, for example-have with their clients. That's not the case here so if Null doesn't provide receipts he's probably griftting.

So if Null retained an attorney he'd have, at the very least, a retainer agreement signed by him and the attorney as to what he's expected to do, and the lawyer would provided Null with a monthly billing statement showing what work he did on his case like initiating legal proceedings, trust fund or paying Null's OnlyFans subs.

Null is grifting his users. His litigation fund still says $157,886 despite receiving additional funding for this. Coincidence?

 

[Ferengi of Romania]

Null is grifting his users. His litigation fund still says $157,886 despite receiving additional funding for this. Coincidence?

I agree. Null's ball washers don't seem to understand how an attorney-client relationship works except for An Ominous and he's probably fine with the grift; in fact, I suspect he advised him how to cloak it so it appears Null's being upfront and honest but not really.

 

[polonium]

I said I'd update my post but I was lazy and it's been too long to edit that one but here's how you know it's absolutely a grift.

On his lolcow fund page his refund policy says this: (highlight is mine)

Refund Policy​

No Refunds​

All contributions made are considered as donations. Please note that once the donation has been made, we do not offer refunds.

Donations​

Donations are voluntary contributions made without the expectation of receiving any goods, services, or return on investment. They are made out of goodwill to support our litigation causes and are not tied to specific products or services.

So, this page seems to suggest that these donations will go towards litigation. The title of the page is "Lolcow LLC Litigation Fund" and right there in the definition and explanation of what they mean by "donation" it acknowledges that the donations are a gesture of support towards his effort to sue Epik and The Trannies.

But as we know, when you visit the actual donation page, there's a checkbox to tick to confirm that you agree with the following:

I understand that donations do not establish an attorney-client relationship, and Matthew Hardin is not able to offer individual advice or acknowledgement to any donor. Matthew Hardin and his firm represent only Joshua Moon and Lolcow LLC. Upon receipt, all funds will become the sole property of Joshua Moon and will be held in trust for disbursement at his sole discretion, including but not limited to disbursement to support ongoing litigation or anticipated litigation in which the Hardin Law Office represents Mr. Moon or Lolcow LLC. Contributions are not tax deductible. I understand that if I have any questions about whether it is advisable for me to contribute to this fund, I am welcome to consult an independent attorney or tax professional.

Which establishes very clearly that this money is a gift to null to spend how he pleases including litigation if he wants to. When he talks about it on the forum he more often talks about it in terms of a litigation fund rather than a general slush fund, which it plainly is.

Null's also claiming that the way the fund is established offers some kind of anonymity to his users but I don't see how it does. Null claims this in his post about the Cheese Fund:

Last week, I asked the community if they would be willing to support me in the pursuit of litigation against Epik and others. Over 1,600 people voted both that they would, and that they would financially support it.

My attorney, Matthew Hardin, who has represented us with both Melinda Scott's cases and now Greer's, has agreed to set up an IOLTA account. This is a trust account that he manages. It enjoys certain legal protections due to its nature and purpose. I hid on the toilet when a man in a dress knocked on my door.

Over the last week, we've quickly set up a custom charge form for the purpose of fundraising a conservative estimate for the cost of a lawsuit up until jury trial: $75,000. Having this money upfront, specially purposed for litigation, is a very strong position for opening moves against the companies and people detailed on the fund.
https://lolcowfund.hardin.law/

This form does accept traditional card payments and should work for international cardholders as well. I will stress that I've gone through some undertaking to ensure that the form is both incredibly simple and very secure: card numbers never touch any server that I manage, instead it goes directly to the bank. Further, the fund itself enjoys certain legal protections as it is an IOLTA. Epik actually threatened on Twitter that they'd use litigation to perform discovery and 'expose' Kiwi Farms users, which an IOLTA helps protect against. Our attorney is bound by the rules of professional conduct as well as by the attorney work product doctrine and the attorney-client privilege, and will take maximum steps to ensure your privacy.

There is more detailed explanation for all of this on the website. I would encourage anyone interested to read it over. The information on the site is what is binding, this is my layman's explanation of it.


I will also mention that literally just yesterday, Stripe decided to debank my podcast. I have received no explanation for this. They closed out 1776 Hosting's old account, and all integrations that my other LLC has with other companies to monetize my work. The only given reason is "Prohibited Business". They will not give more information. This also affects my ability to charge money for merchandise runs.

So while the site has been more stable than usual, I promise you certain people are still working every day to try and destroy it. There are continuous emails being sent to all providers, they are complaining to banks to try and figure out how to stymie my ability to make money even through my side projects, and then they are defaming us on Twitter to try and snowball accusations into a genuinely untenable position. The only way forward is to be aggressive.

His lawyer is going to have to keep proper accounting of where this money came from, I can't believe for a second there's no regulatory oversight of this kind of thing otherwise it would be the easiest and quickest form of money laundering known to mankind, so the donors' identifying information is being stored for sure. Null is claiming that you're protected by three things: the rules of professional conduct, the attorney work product doctrine, and the attorney-client privilege.

The last one is an out-and-out lie. The donation form leaves absolutely no wiggle room, there is no attorney-client relationship between the donor and null's lawyer, and he knew that when he wrote the post. Also, the attorney-client privilege only applies to communications between Null and Hardin, not to records. Those are covered in the second thing he claims, the attorney work product doctrine, but that's supposed to protect work done in preparation for litigation, so that you don't have to divulge all your strategy and notes to the opposition. I think it's a stretch to say that financial records of donors to a slush fund fall under "materials prepared in anticipation of litigation". So that just leaves "the rules of professional conduct", which sounds good, but really doesn't mean anything. He won't act in an unprofessional way with your private information. Great, that doesn't mean that he won't comply with a legal request for that information though, which is what we're trying to find protection against.

So in a nutshell the fund isn't for what he says it's for and doesn't offer the anonymity he says it does, because null is a lying grifter.

 

[KampungBoy]

How do you post on a website that talks about scam dono funds and then get tricked into donating to a scam dono fund that even tells you it's a scam dono fund.

The fallout from these things doesn't appear immediately, but it always does happen making me seriously wonder if this is Null's exit strategy.