I'm really confused by this blog. There seems to be a large portion of the story missing. I can't figure out the correlation between the owner losing their franchise and the rest of the story. Why did they want to steal the sets? If they're really a $400M company (whatever that means), why would they do this over (at most) $200k?
I couldn't figure out what is being claimed here. I'm not saying it's not true, I just can't follow the story at all.
EDIT: After reading other sources, it seems that the franchise both owed $200k to BAM (unrelated) and also made a deal with the Mansell's directly. And it seems like the parent company is saying the sets are theirs because the store owed them money, while the Mansells are (correctly) saying consignment means they own the sets, not the franchise. BAM crossed into definitively illegal territory when they continued to sell sets after the Mandells asserted they wanted their property back (as confirmed by a "sting" operation).
A man gave a store merchandise on consignment, signed a contract with the store manager.
The manager lost control of the store to corporate. The goods were still there, still on display and being sold.
Corporate says, "this is mine now" and refuses to honor the contract. "It wasn't our name on it, says right here that the previous store manager signed this, and she's no longer with us." They sell the goods and keep all of the revenue, rather than just their 10% share.
It seems like theft, but it's a very common civil contract dispute. The side with possession and deeper pockets is the side with the leverage, sadly!
Corporate is also claiming that they don't allow stores to take on consignment deals, contrary to their franchise agreement explicitly allowing franchise owners to take on consignment deals.
I have absolutely no doubts a court would consider it impossible to transfer goods under consignment to a different entity free of the burden of the consignment contract. So the corporation trying to reach into the franchise to grab these goods without honoring the contract is absolute BS and they should be dragged through the mud over it.
The unfortunate loophole here is that, potentially, by shutting down that franchise in a bankruptcy the corporation may end up being preferred for being made whole on debts relative to the consigner. Bankruptcy is complicated so while I am pretty sure any remaining goods from the consignment would be returned to the original owner the proceeds from sales that were successfully made might end up in the pocket of the corporation.
Personally, I absolutely loathe consignment. It is an incredibly complex agreement with a lot of weird edge cases about deprecation of goods and the duty to seek a good price that get complex quick. If you have goods like this and can find a store that will buy your goods in bulk you should be very careful in considering how much you care about the price difference between that bulk price and the percentage they list for consignment. A single transaction is usually much cleaner and easier for both sides and in this case (trying to pay for medical costs) having the money immediately can be quite attractive.
Forgive me if I'm trying to figure out what's going on here. I just read the linked blog and some of the links within, but I don't have time to watch all these long YouTube videos
> The goods were still there, still on display and being sold.
The store says the full inventory was not discoverable at the store. They said the person gave a written statement in the past saying the collection was "moved off site for security reasons" so I don't think this is really as cut and dry as the YouTuber and blogger people are trying to make it look.
> Corporate says, "this is mine now"
Their statement says they located what inventory they could and offered it back.
I think there's a lot more to this story. I wouldn't really trust the YouTube influencers for the whole story.
The store (as managed by the second group) lost the suit, if they were negligent they still owe the consigner. What's missing is the relationship between the second group and the corporate parent. Seems there's some reason the liability from the lawsuit doesn't transfer to the corporation.
> The store (as managed by the second group) lost the suit, if they were negligent they still owe the consigner. What's missing is the relationship between the second group and the corporate parent.
This does seem like a very key point that keeps getting ignored for the sake of a simpler story.
Everyone keeps talking about this lawsuit loss, but what lawsuit? Against whom? The article doesn't even explain, but it's starting to look like the lawsuit was against the former owners, contrary to the ragebait "Bricks and Minifigs stole..." title
They lost default judgements because they did not appear. Either they thought it was fake or they thought they'd lose, but they were served and did not appear.
A default judgement is still a loss. Why would not they not fight back small claims cases, which would be trivially easy for someone with their resources, if they could win?
Small claims can’t exact $200,000 of payment from them, and tends to be capped at four figures — a cost well worth paying for such an exceedingly large profit in the eyes of a typical corporation.
I don't know what point you're trying to make. But also please watch the video, they submitted multiple separate claims via different aggrieved parties, this totaled $100k, despite the low individual small claims maxima.
Yeah, but you don't know the whole story. There was a young motorcyclists who ran from the police and killed in a crashed. His family has a go-fund me still just to collect money.
In my experience, he’d report theft to the police. The police would ask what happened. He’d get as far as “I brought it to the store and handed it to them.” and at that point the officer taking a statement would say it’s a civil matter, not criminal and close the case.
From what I can see: Franchisee entered into a consignment agreement to sell the lego. They were not allowed to do that, so corporate took over the franchise.
BUT rather than unwind the agreement and return the lego, they just kept it. Argued for it to be dealt with legally. It was, they lost, so they closed down the store rather than return the lego.
Incorrect as the article points out with an image of the contract:
> However, it was brought to my attention by site user @luddevig that Chrystal Law, the Bricks & Minifigs Salem-Keizer store's original owner, was able to pull the franchise agreement between her and and the B&M Corperation, that clearly states that consignment is allowed.
According to the former franchise owner this is a lie from corporate and they were indeed allowed to sign consignment agreements. They showed a contract that says as much as evidence.
> And it seems like the parent company is saying the sets are theirs because the store owed them money, while the Mansells are (correctly) saying consignment means they own the sets, not the franchise.
I read down to where they linked to the store's statement. They said that there's evidence that most of the collection was moved off-site in the past. They said they tried to locate what they could from the inventory list and offer it back, but the person believes they have more.
So yeah, I think there's more to the story. I don't think we're going to get it from the YouTuber making hours of content for it, though.
You seem to be all over this thread trying to defend the company LOL Are you B&M corporate? If they have such a solid case, why did they lose the small claims lawsuits?
I get annoyed when I read a full article and realize I'm not being told the full story.
> If they have such a solid case, why did they lose the small claims lawsuits?
I can't find "small claims" anywhere in the linked article. There's some mention of a "lawsuit loss" but no details, like much of the other key points in the article.
Was this lawsuit against Bricks & Minifigs? Or the old owners? And what was it about?
There are so many people in this thread who seem confident about the facts but can't point to anything other than extremely long YouTube videos
And I for one get annoyed when people make claims about something which they have done 0 effort of looking into.
You ask questions that are easily answerable by following this story. Feel free to look up what I said. If you are too stupid to find them for yourself, maybe stay away from trying to undermine credibility or claiming to be annoyed at others.
You'd think that if there was a side of the story where the details exonerated the company, you'd think they would share those details. If they moved someone else's property out of the store, then surely they would be able to share evidence supporting this.
All we have to go by is the blogger's account, so that's the story. Just saying "there must be more to it" without evidence that there is more to it, is just vague speculation.
> Bricks & Minifigs CEO Ammon McNeff is a graduate of Brigham Young University. Joshua Johnson and Brandon Best are, by public record and documented account, members of the LDS community. When Reckless Ben's team, following the pattern of obstruction by local law enforcement, looked into the individual officers involved in these incidents, they found that multiple officers were also BYU alumni.
I thought “it has to be some kind of corruption here”. And yup it’s the mormon mafia apparently
The best part about this is that the CEO insists that the agreement with the previous store owner is null (thus relieving him of the burden of paying 200k), and yet he also insists on keeping the Lego collection set and selling it. It's comical.
From what I understand ownership of the Lego sets never left the Mansells. The consignment agreement states as much.
Even if we take what corporate says at face value (there was no agreement, or the agreement is null, or it's an agreement that the previous owners agreed to) that still just means that the store possesses property that they do not legally own. Whether or not they legally came to possess the sets seems irrelevant here.
I'm not a lawyer but I don't see how the Mansells ever stopped owning the lego sets.
A $200k loss isn't much in the context of the whole company but it may be a very large amount for an individual franchise, and they want to set an example.
Think of it like a restaurant chain pursuing legal action against an internal theft ring at a single location.
(I am not taking the BAM side here, just providing a rationale for their actions).
Why would a billion-dollar company pay their employees so little that they need assistance to live? Or need to urinate in a bottle to keep their delivery times up? Greed and a belief that the rules don't apply to them.
Someone at a lower level probably a regional director, noticed that a franchise owed them a debt, took inventory from the store as payment of the debt, and when all this blew up and he realized he needs to give the inventory back, he doubled down bc otherwise he'd need to record a $200k loss on that franchise
I've personally never heard of consignment deals where the consignment store becomes the owners of the goods. Not once.
Back in college I used to make money flipping stuff on Ebay, and did that extensively. I did consignment for others, as well as sending stuff to others to sell.
This sounds illegal, and like a case of the store / new franchise owners trying to bully the consignors into submission.
Slightly confusingly, the article seems to be using the word "trespassed" incorrectly; I think they mean "charged with trespassing" both times? It's a bit confusing.
> People showed up with the contract in hand to retrieve it and were immediately thrown out and permanently trespassed.
> He was kicked out, trespassed, and had the police called on him. Multiple times.
As I understand it, "to be trespassed" is a term of art that basically means "the cops were called, told that person was trespassing, the cops duly informed that person they are trespassing & had to leave the property, and the person left, but was not charged". It's basically establishing a legal trail so that if the person refuses to leave or continues to trespass at that location in the future they have a better basis for charging them.
It seems to be a real definition, see definition 6 under etymology 2:
> (transitive, law, especially New Zealand)[1] To subject [someone] to a trespass notice, formally notifying them that they are prohibited from entry to a property, such that any current or future presence there will constitute trespass, (especially) criminal trespass
Ah, I thought that could be the case but didn't see it listed in Merrium-Webster [0]. Seems like it is legal jargon, so might be better to use plain language here.
You have to be informed that you're not allowed to be on the premises ("trespassed") and be allowed to leave before you can be charged with trespassing.
If this the same Ben in YouTube then omg was he annoying. I couldn't even get throught the first quarter of the video.
The dude shows up at a store. They ask him to leave multiple times. They call on the police on him. Then he says "the police are in on it" because they trespassed him. Like wow shocking that the police won't get involved in a civil matter. Then they manipulate a store employee that had nothing to do with this? That's where I stopped watching.
This is a basic contract case. If the original owner's son had no intention of suing the other party then why did he draft up a contract in the first place? Just get a fucking lawyer.
The best part is when the officer takes the process server's subpoena, says he'll serve it, then walks back and says the defendant isn't accepting it while refusing to allow her to serve the subpoena.
The search of his person over a call to police is a clear violation of his rights, a phone to call to police is not PC or RAS. The fact they held him for three hours will to be to his benefit in court. Arresting him for starting a gofundme, a clear violation of his first amendment rights, I mean they're just digging that hole. Then they raid him, dislocate his arm, and now he has a warrant out for physical threats?
This story is not blowing up because because of Legos or stealing from old people. It's blowing up because we're watching a corporation and a police department abuse their power and we're all grossed out by it.
Regardless if it's a civil manner or not the police clearly had no intention on even working towards a solution. They didn't attempt to find out if it was a civil or criminal matter, because he refused to listen.
Find him annoying sure, but it was made very clear why they even had to call in a youtuber to be annoying and get attention. Clearly legally they would bury the original owner with legal fees. If you have a solution that doesn't involve fighting big corperations, that very clearly do have connections with morally questionable cops then go ahead because it is made very clear why "just get a fucking lawyer" doesn't work
I'd say the police did have a clear intention to works towards a solution, a solution that helped BAM and his leaders, not honoring the law or helping the victims. They are obviously colluding, part2 video leaves very small room for imagination.
I do agree that Ben has done a good thing exposing to the public the situation.
Mormonism is the original cult that survived the first generation. It has all the hallmarks of a cult, singular charismatic leader, polygamy, child abuse, apocalyptic prophecy etc.
Child abuse is not an official sanctioned thing in Mormonism. And they have officially ended the practice of polygamy (yes there was some coercion on the part of the US govt)
The other three were pretty much traits of every major traditional religion at its founding.
This guy tried to resolve a legal dispute without a lawyer. Any competent business lawyer should have been able to straighten this out within days. He even tried to do process service himself, which nobody does. You pay a process server $100 or so for that.
The guy who tried to serve the papers isn't the owner of the legos. It was a YouTuber who got involved and has been making video content on the subject.
If I'm reading this right, he travelled to a different state to serve the paperwork to the guy in person. He would have had to spend a lot more than $100 to do that.
He also didn't leave after the police were called, which is not all that unusual for someone who looks out their window and sees someone they're in conflict with has traveled across the country to stand in front of their door.
This is just needless YouTube drama generation. I agree, he should have paid a process server to do the job correctly, but that wouldn't be good business for his YouTube channel.
This looks like a corporation stealing from an old man, I wouldn’t put it in the same bucket as a common murderer with similar favorable as Stephen Miller.
It stuns me when I read about people investing in Lego in order to make money later, and in this case it was to pay for someone's college. That info is from the fundraising page that's trying to pay for the lawyers.
putting aside that this deal went sour, which is very frustrating, i am curious how much they actually spent to buy all that lego, and how much they gained, if anything, over just directly saving the money.
Could he take them to small claims court one Lego set at a time, get a judgment against the business then go in with the sheriff and start taking stuff to cover the judgement?
I dont understand how that works: The entire $400M business decided to close over $200K judgment? Or just the single store? If just the store, why did they sue the store and not the underlying business?
No. Small claims are for claims which are small. This belongs in civil court all at once and you don't get to go in with the sheriff (if you win) unless they are ordered to pay you and refuse to.
There are explicit rules against claim splitting and you risk either the judge combining all of your filings into one case and moving it to a different court or dismissing all of the claims after the first one. There are very good reasons why a person can't keep suing you over and over for the same event.
Watch the video. They worked around this by selling lego sets to 10 different people (as it was still owned by the lego owner), then the 10 different people all opened separate $10k suits, which they all won.
Then corporate shut down the location to avoid paying the suits they lost.
There seems to be a lot of misinformation in the comments, I would assume because the linked article doesn't cover many of the developments.
The youtuber Reckless Ben has recently covered the story and spearheaded a campaign of "provocative journalism" against the store[0]. Regardless of whether you support the way in which he goes about things, his video explains the story in much greater detail, and enormously expands on the malpractice of Bricks and Minifigs and the local police department.
Here are some bulletpoints in case you do not care to watch Part 1 + Part 2:
- Bricks and Minifigs explicitly threatened both the previous owners of the store and the original owner of the collection with lengthy legal battles
- The owner of the collection tried going the legal route but was quoted prices that he couldn't afford, so youtube was his last resort
- Bricks and Minifigs CEO publicly admitted of having the collection, being aware of the issue, and not wanting to give it back, while at the same time trying to run PR campaigns denying the allegations.
- BAM leadership went out of its way to create legal trouble for Reckless Ben, involving the police and fabricating false evidence about him
- The local police went out of its way to legally stop Ben, arrest him without probable cause, try to plant Heroin on his car, and even *ended up swatting his house*, dislocating his shoulder.
- All of this while the police department illegally scrubbed any incriminating evidence from the bodycam recordings they were obligated to provide.
This is an *insane* story that doesn't get enough credit. It not only exposes the inefficacy of (parts of) the American justice system, but also the enormous level of corruption and abuse of power of the American police (and tangentially the Mormon community)
I really recommend watching both videos. I promise you it's even more insane than it sounds like.
It's wild to me how willing people are to torch their company's reputation. If you've seen some of the videos and comments around this it really seems like the corporate owners, and possibly the new franchisee, are arguably, for lack of a better descriptio0n, egotistical bullies, the "yeah? sue me then" types. They've probably gone their entire life just being a-holes and not being held accountable. And now they're digging their heels in.
The facts and the law here are quite simple. Man consigns LEGO collection to the store. He has a contract. The new store owner still has that liability. The existence of a contract is in dispute. The franchisee's and corporate owner's positions seems to be that the contract is with the previous owner not the owner's store.
Well, if that's true, the LEGO collection still belongs to that previous owner and the new owner has simply stolen it. So their legal argument is ridiculous.
Allegedly that previous owner was basically kicked out of the store and denied the opportunity to take inventory so that owner probably has a case against corporate and the new owners as well.
There is no world in which this ends well for the company of the new store owner. And it's wild to me that they're sticking to their guns here. Beyond the legal issues, the reputational damage is massive. These stores are for LEGO collectors and they're screaming bloody murder. Plus ordinary people who hear about this story have an innate sense of fairness so immediately side with the people who've had their $200k LEGO collection effectively stolen.
Plus this now has so much publicity that there are any number of lawyers who will take on this case just for the publicity.
It's also funny that the Utah police who got involved when people went to corporate are basically just acting like corporate's security arm.
I read down to the part where they linked to the official announcement from the store. This blog's summary of the announcement is very different than the actual content of the announcement.
The company claims the consignor gave a written statement to a podcast that his collection was "moved offsite for security reasons". They also said they tried to locate his collection in the inventory but it's not there:
> A few days later, we became aware of the previous arrangement, and compared our inventory assessment to the limited documentation provided by the consignor. It was clear the full list of inventory in his documentation was not located in the store. What items could be reasonably identified as allegedly belonging to the consignor was offered back to the consignor, but that offer was refused.
> A deeper dive into the sales receipts uncovered that a significantly higher volume of the listed sets had sold over the course of the consignment deal prior to the store transition. The consignor also provided a written statement to a podcast that his collection was moved offsite for security reasons. Additional attempts to restore what we could with what was in our possession, was also declined, in writing.
This seems like a huge detail that is conspicuously missing from the drama reports on the subject. What's going on?
I know this is internet drama and we're supposed to assume the corporation is lying and the bloggers and podcasters are all telling the truth, but there's so many sketchy details in this story that I don't trust either side.
One of the guys involved even went to another person's house and sat outside for hours trying to serve them with lawsuit paperwork until the police were called, which is not a thing you do yourself. Especially in conflict with someone. That same person has a YouTube channel where they're posting hours long videos on the topic, so they have a lot of incentive to escalate everywhere.
I don't know what's going on here. I feel bad for the guy who lost some LEGO sets. I do not like the podcasters and bloggers milking him for content for their media channels.
> I feel bad for the guy who lost some LEGO sets. I do not like the podcasters and bloggers milking him for content for their media channels
The statements made by the company are simply untrue. And the guy who lost the LEGO sets (worth 100k$ btw) is directly working with the "bloggers" because they're his last avenue. He's also incredibly grateful to them because thanks to them he at least ended up winning in small claims court.
- At 3:06 they explicitly acknowledge the consignment and state they will be taking it over
- At 13:15 the CEO says he never had the LEGOs in the store and then is confronted with screenshots of said LEGOs from their official Facebook pages
- At 23:05 the new owner that took over the store (and also the LEGOs) first says he doesn't know about any LEGOs, then he says that he wasn't the one to sign the consignment and therefore doesn't have to give them back
- At 47:42 the same guy confirms again they have the LEGOs, tries to argue about the definition of theft and says that he won't give them back. (quoting "who cares if it's theft or not")
- At 49:46 the same guy admits again that he has the LEGOs and he promises to give them back if the actual owner provides him an apology and removes the negative reviews.
- At 1:00:45 corporate says "I'm not gonna distribute those things at this point. We've kept them on hold for this long so"
I recommend watching the videos and deciding for yourself. They've already won in court and nobody has paid them. How are they in the wrong at all here?
I think the statement from Bricks and Minifigs is quite incorrect based on the written letter demanding return of inventory and later evidence of buyer purchasing consigned property after demand letter was received: https://youtu.be/14ktgvoH4Mc?t=781
Bricks and Minifigs is a very popular birthday party destination for my kids peers. I will make sure to share this story with anyone considering to go there and allow them to form their own conclusions.
One of the saddest things about modern capitalism is that people stealing from businesses is criminalized and heavily punished but businesses stealing from people (eg. wage theft, illegal contracts, medicare/PPP fraud, and outright stealing like this case) is treated as a civil violation and almost impossible to prosecute.
The only cases of white collar crime I've seen get prosecuted is securities fraud and that's rich people stealing from other rich people.
"The only cases of white collar crime I've seen get prosecuted is securities fraud and that's rich people stealing from other rich people."
There are thousands of YouTube videos of people being arrested or being in court on charges of embezzling from their employers, committing fraud, presenting bogus checks at banks, etc.
Hacking is white collar crime. So is mortgage fraud. So is tax evasion and bribery. There are tons of prosecutions of these crimes every year.
Federal and most state civil courts are pay-to-win, too. They have absolutely nothing to do with justice. The only time "the little guy" wins anything is when the lawyers stand to make a windfall in contingency fees.
(...See, e.g., authors vs. Anthropic. The most prolific author might make somewhere in the low six figures, the average author is gonna make ~$10k, and the lawyers representing the class asked for $300M!)
The legal system is captured by legal professionals. The average American is bound by a system that they can't engage directly with. The middlemen who most people must hire to navigate through it generally will not help unless there's a substantial payday in it for them. And in civil matters, defendants have no right to representation.
(Also, the judge is colleagues with counsel, opposing or otherwise; none of them think much of you, which a trip to /r/LawyerTalk will confirm.)
All of this is a choice. Essentially the same choice that we have to have medical insurers instead of a single-payer system; a broken housing market controlled by large corporate interests, instead of one where prices are moderated by a stock of residences built by the government and sold at-cost or lower, as in Singapore or pre-Thatcher Great Britain; broken and spread-thin policing instead of the kind of sophisticated social support system that you would expect the richest country on the planet to be able to afford (and avoids sending the same armed ex-jock to domestic disturbances, mental health crises, car accidents, public school security, etc.). My suspicion is that the fight against change in any of these cases is so fierce because breaking one cartel threatens the others.
You correctly identify the problem as an over-complicated legal bureaucracy in your first paragraph, and propose more government as the solution in your third?
The solution here should be to simplify the legal system so legal adjudication is more accessible to non-lawyers, not add more layers of government bureaucracy on top of the existing ones.
There is an active criminal investigation into this from the Keizer police. Your implication that this is only being treated as a civil matter is false.
> The only cases of white collar crime I've seen get prosecuted is securities fraud and that's rich people stealing from other rich people.
I was trying to popularize the phrase "the only thing which is illegal in America is defrauding investors" but I have no social media presence. Feel free to take it.
Regardless I agree with you on capitalism, but my take on securities fraud is less cynical. In late stage capitalism it makes _perfect sense_ that the only crime is to steal from investors - that's capitalism protecting itself.
The problem with the legal system in cases like this is if you have the police in your pocket, you can manipulate the perception of the truth and feel confident in bullying your adversary.
For the alternate side, Bricks and Minifigs claims much of Mansell's inventory had been sold, or relocated by Mansell himself. The liability for any discrepancy in sales and his compensation is the responsibility of the franchisee with whom he sign the contract.
> It was clear the full list of inventory in his documentation was not located in the store. What items could be reasonably identified as allegedly belonging to the consignor was offered back to the consignor, but that offer was refused.
> A deeper dive into the sales receipts uncovered that a significantly higher volume of the listed sets had sold over the course of the consignment deal prior to the store transition. The consignor also provided a written statement to a podcast that his collection was moved offsite for security reasons. Additional attempts to restore what we could with what was in our possession, was also declined, in writing.
> BAM denies allegations that we “stole” this consignor’s collection, let alone a collection worth what has been claimed online. However, we remain willing to provide any appropriate assistance in recovering any and all portions of this collection or funds generated off of its sale to the original consignor and their family, through appropriate means.
> Serious claims require serious evidence. We have repeatedly asked for the original documents and undoctored recordings that support these accusations. Selective social media posts and misleading investigative-style videos are not a substitute for the complete records and legal agreements that govern the rights of all involved parties.
> If a legitimate claim exists, there are established legal and dispute-resolution processes to handle it fairly. Attempting to force a business outcome through public pressure, especially on unrelated stores and employees, is not a productive or fair path forward.
I don't have first-hand corroboration of the facts, though I am surprised that the article favorable to Mansell did not simply publish the consignment agreement with the franchise owner.
Do you care to disclose your relation to the leadership of Bricks and Minifigs? Did you go to the same university as those involved from the company? Are you affiliated with any of the same organizations?
Since it is done under guise of a corporation, there will be zero actual consequences for the individuals involved in the theft. Nor will there be any consequences for the officers involved in violating rights.
There really needs to be consequences for blatantly manipulating courts to waste money and delay judgement.
I’ve watched both videos by RecklessBen (Part 2 is on his patreon, and apparently will be made public when he has Part 3 ready)…
The videos are damning of the behavior by Brick and Minifigs, the two owners who took over the store in Kaiser, and both the Kaiser (Oregon) police for and American Force (Utah) police.
Brick and Minifigs both corporate and the owners who stole the legos, have consistently and thoroughly lied as well as treated Ben numerous times. He has recording of it. It’s all in his videos. He even got a the franchise agreement which states consignment is allowed. He even got a default judgement in small claims court, that caused the original location to permanently shutter its doors. He’s now trying to sue them in civil court, but can’t even serve the papers.
Ben has tried every legal channel, and been hit with at least trespass at every point. His AirBnB was raided, he was searched for three hours for heroin possession allegations, the police continuously and non-stop targeted him. They’ve issued warrants that are redacted so Ben doesn’t even know what he’s gotta defend against.
I’d really encourage folks to go watch the part 1 since it’s freely available on YouTube, but part 2 is where the Utah police seem to full throttle shit all over his civil rights to protect a Bricks and Minifigs, and the franchise owners, who stole $200k of legos from an 83 year old man.
If this all seems crazy, it’s because it absolutely is crazy. Ben does an absolutely incredible job, attempting to document everything and goes to huge lengths to do things the right way.
That is the gist of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ktgvoH4Mc's take-away (though with great pains taken to convey that he doesn't condone it). Extralegal solutions become more and more attractive the less and less just the "justice" system appears; whether it's right or not, that's just the truth of it, and I suppose we're lucky that only one of the three recent "get 'em back" instances that come to my mind involve shooting someone dead in the street. (The other two being the UNH CEO's execution and the burning of that paper warehouse.)
The novel maneuvers "Reckless" Ben Schneider took were... amusing, at the very least.
Ruined seems like very strong phrasing when nothing important has been ruined.
They sell new Lego sets in stores every day. They might seem expensive for a few bags of plastic bits and some instructions, but then: They've never been cheap.
A kid can still grow up playing with Lego today, just as they've always been able to.
I still remember building my first new Lego widget. Set 918. It was just a small basic spaceship and no real accessories but a little Lego space dude. I'd already scattered the pieces around and stuck them together in strange ways when I noticed that there was an instruction book so I could assemble it the "right" way. That may have been the first instruction book I'd ever followed; I remember the sense of wonderment as I learned the value of it. That model didn't last long before I tore it apart and went back to sticking the pieces together in strange ways. :)
Anyway, it seems like it would have been about $6.50 back then, or about $31 in today's money.
That's not so different from today's prices -- in fact, it looks things may have actually gotten a bit less expensive since then for a given amount of complexity.
That's not ruination; it's the opposite of it. The kids are fine. Lego is fine.
---
I do see that someone on eBay that someone hopes to get over $2,000 for a new, sealed copy of set 918. That's a about sixteen more fuckton more than $31.
And I can't justify spending that kind of money on some Lego.
But I don't have to spend that kind of money. If I have a Lego itch that I want to scratch, then I'm a grown-ass adult. I can just go to the store or some online seller or whatever, and buy a new set that I like, and put it together.
I don't need to spend $2k to pretend relive a part of my childhood. I already experienced it once, and I remember that part very fondly.
Ruined as in - Lego sets are glorified EZ-mode puzzles and not creative toys anymore. Too many limited sets means it's trending toward "collector items" and not kids toys.
The pokemon company intentionally limits the supply to drive up demand. Cardboard is in no way a limited resource, they could print as many cards as there is demand for if they wanted. The problem is not the scalpers but the corporation who values the artificial scalped demand more than gameplay. That no one in the so called community can correctly place blame is an indictment of their intelligence.
Star Wars LEGO seems to be the worst. I went to the Bellevue, WA store a few years ago before Christmas. I have no interest in SW or SW LEGO (I'm much more into the Architecture series).
I was walking around though, and an associate came up to me and pointed out that the Death Star (IIRC) was about to stop being sold so if I wanted one I should grab it... "... and that we have several of it, so if you want allll of them."
I assume they were talking about 75159 right before it retired.
I think that was when Lego speculation was just becoming a bigger thing.
Now, I don't think something like that could retire with stock being on the shelf.
I grabbed Betrayal at Cloud City (75222) from my local Lego Store after it retired because they still had one in stock. I don't think I'll get that lucky again.
Especially with the push for exclusive Gift With Purchase (GWP) sets. It's become slightly ridiculous.
But I'm not a speculator, I'm just a dude who likes assembling plastic bricks.
I'm really confused by this blog. There seems to be a large portion of the story missing. I can't figure out the correlation between the owner losing their franchise and the rest of the story. Why did they want to steal the sets? If they're really a $400M company (whatever that means), why would they do this over (at most) $200k?
I couldn't figure out what is being claimed here. I'm not saying it's not true, I just can't follow the story at all.
EDIT: After reading other sources, it seems that the franchise both owed $200k to BAM (unrelated) and also made a deal with the Mansell's directly. And it seems like the parent company is saying the sets are theirs because the store owed them money, while the Mansells are (correctly) saying consignment means they own the sets, not the franchise. BAM crossed into definitively illegal territory when they continued to sell sets after the Mandells asserted they wanted their property back (as confirmed by a "sting" operation).
The Reckless Ben stuff is actually pretty interesting: https://youtu.be/14ktgvoH4Mc?si=yhSzpEDo5ut6s8eS&t=880
It's not that hard to understand.
A man gave a store merchandise on consignment, signed a contract with the store manager.
The manager lost control of the store to corporate. The goods were still there, still on display and being sold.
Corporate says, "this is mine now" and refuses to honor the contract. "It wasn't our name on it, says right here that the previous store manager signed this, and she's no longer with us." They sell the goods and keep all of the revenue, rather than just their 10% share.
It seems like theft, but it's a very common civil contract dispute. The side with possession and deeper pockets is the side with the leverage, sadly!
Corporate is also claiming that they don't allow stores to take on consignment deals, contrary to their franchise agreement explicitly allowing franchise owners to take on consignment deals.
I have absolutely no doubts a court would consider it impossible to transfer goods under consignment to a different entity free of the burden of the consignment contract. So the corporation trying to reach into the franchise to grab these goods without honoring the contract is absolute BS and they should be dragged through the mud over it.
The unfortunate loophole here is that, potentially, by shutting down that franchise in a bankruptcy the corporation may end up being preferred for being made whole on debts relative to the consigner. Bankruptcy is complicated so while I am pretty sure any remaining goods from the consignment would be returned to the original owner the proceeds from sales that were successfully made might end up in the pocket of the corporation.
Personally, I absolutely loathe consignment. It is an incredibly complex agreement with a lot of weird edge cases about deprecation of goods and the duty to seek a good price that get complex quick. If you have goods like this and can find a store that will buy your goods in bulk you should be very careful in considering how much you care about the price difference between that bulk price and the percentage they list for consignment. A single transaction is usually much cleaner and easier for both sides and in this case (trying to pay for medical costs) having the money immediately can be quite attractive.
In bankrupty a court appointed liquidator can seize assets and sell them to repay creditors. Of course none of this happened here.
The (former) franchise owner shared their contract with BAM that explicitly allowed consignments.
It is hard to understand if you only read the blog posted here. They left out a lot of this specificity.
As soon as there is a shred of dispute every theft becomes a contract dispute
Forgive me if I'm trying to figure out what's going on here. I just read the linked blog and some of the links within, but I don't have time to watch all these long YouTube videos
> The goods were still there, still on display and being sold.
The store says the full inventory was not discoverable at the store. They said the person gave a written statement in the past saying the collection was "moved off site for security reasons" so I don't think this is really as cut and dry as the YouTuber and blogger people are trying to make it look.
> Corporate says, "this is mine now"
Their statement says they located what inventory they could and offered it back.
I think there's a lot more to this story. I wouldn't really trust the YouTube influencers for the whole story.
The store (as managed by the second group) lost the suit, if they were negligent they still owe the consigner. What's missing is the relationship between the second group and the corporate parent. Seems there's some reason the liability from the lawsuit doesn't transfer to the corporation.
> The store (as managed by the second group) lost the suit, if they were negligent they still owe the consigner. What's missing is the relationship between the second group and the corporate parent.
This does seem like a very key point that keeps getting ignored for the sake of a simpler story.
Everyone keeps talking about this lawsuit loss, but what lawsuit? Against whom? The article doesn't even explain, but it's starting to look like the lawsuit was against the former owners, contrary to the ragebait "Bricks and Minifigs stole..." title
The lawsuit was *from* the previous owners against the new owners that kicked them out of the store.
Here's a video from the previous owners explaining their story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zedmOopRTm0
If that's the case why did they lose the small claims cases?
Who is "they"?
Bricks and Minifigs? Or the previous owners?
Do you mind citing your sources at least? The linked article refers to a "lawsuit loss" but doesn't explain who it was against or what it was for.
They lost default judgements because they did not appear. Either they thought it was fake or they thought they'd lose, but they were served and did not appear.
A default judgement is still a loss. Why would not they not fight back small claims cases, which would be trivially easy for someone with their resources, if they could win?
Small claims can’t exact $200,000 of payment from them, and tends to be capped at four figures — a cost well worth paying for such an exceedingly large profit in the eyes of a typical corporation.
I don't know what point you're trying to make. But also please watch the video, they submitted multiple separate claims via different aggrieved parties, this totaled $100k, despite the low individual small claims maxima.
I have heard of the same thing happening with fancy used car dealerships, where cars that were to be sold on consignment have been lost.
And dealers have gone to prison for that.
This is a gofundme I would gladly donate to. Fight the power for what's right.
Yeah, but you don't know the whole story. There was a young motorcyclists who ran from the police and killed in a crashed. His family has a go-fund me still just to collect money.
Theft by conversion.
> It seems like theft, but it's a very common civil contract dispute.
What if he reported theft? Wouldn't they have to prove how did they come into possession of the goods they are selling?
In my experience, he’d report theft to the police. The police would ask what happened. He’d get as far as “I brought it to the store and handed it to them.” and at that point the officer taking a statement would say it’s a civil matter, not criminal and close the case.
They were actually getting a 35% share. This is pure greed.
> It's not that hard to understand.
FWIW, I couldn't follow it either from the blog.
This is essentially what is going to happen with Monetary Metals (although I hope not!)
From what I can see: Franchisee entered into a consignment agreement to sell the lego. They were not allowed to do that, so corporate took over the franchise.
BUT rather than unwind the agreement and return the lego, they just kept it. Argued for it to be dealt with legally. It was, they lost, so they closed down the store rather than return the lego.
> They were not allowed to do that
Incorrect as the article points out with an image of the contract:
> However, it was brought to my attention by site user @luddevig that Chrystal Law, the Bricks & Minifigs Salem-Keizer store's original owner, was able to pull the franchise agreement between her and and the B&M Corperation, that clearly states that consignment is allowed.
Yup, agreed. B&M making every PR screwup you'd expect!
According to the former franchise owner this is a lie from corporate and they were indeed allowed to sign consignment agreements. They showed a contract that says as much as evidence.
Incorrect.
> And it seems like the parent company is saying the sets are theirs because the store owed them money, while the Mansells are (correctly) saying consignment means they own the sets, not the franchise.
I read down to where they linked to the store's statement. They said that there's evidence that most of the collection was moved off-site in the past. They said they tried to locate what they could from the inventory list and offer it back, but the person believes they have more.
So yeah, I think there's more to the story. I don't think we're going to get it from the YouTuber making hours of content for it, though.
You seem to be all over this thread trying to defend the company LOL Are you B&M corporate? If they have such a solid case, why did they lose the small claims lawsuits?
I get annoyed when I read a full article and realize I'm not being told the full story.
> If they have such a solid case, why did they lose the small claims lawsuits?
I can't find "small claims" anywhere in the linked article. There's some mention of a "lawsuit loss" but no details, like much of the other key points in the article.
Was this lawsuit against Bricks & Minifigs? Or the old owners? And what was it about?
There are so many people in this thread who seem confident about the facts but can't point to anything other than extremely long YouTube videos
And I for one get annoyed when people make claims about something which they have done 0 effort of looking into.
You ask questions that are easily answerable by following this story. Feel free to look up what I said. If you are too stupid to find them for yourself, maybe stay away from trying to undermine credibility or claiming to be annoyed at others.
Also, what about the false police reports leading to police brutality?
You'd think that if there was a side of the story where the details exonerated the company, you'd think they would share those details. If they moved someone else's property out of the store, then surely they would be able to share evidence supporting this.
All we have to go by is the blogger's account, so that's the story. Just saying "there must be more to it" without evidence that there is more to it, is just vague speculation.
The store owner was allowed to sell things on consignment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ktgvoH4Mc has a good overview.
> Bricks & Minifigs CEO Ammon McNeff is a graduate of Brigham Young University. Joshua Johnson and Brandon Best are, by public record and documented account, members of the LDS community. When Reckless Ben's team, following the pattern of obstruction by local law enforcement, looked into the individual officers involved in these incidents, they found that multiple officers were also BYU alumni.
I thought “it has to be some kind of corruption here”. And yup it’s the mormon mafia apparently
The best part about this is that the CEO insists that the agreement with the previous store owner is null (thus relieving him of the burden of paying 200k), and yet he also insists on keeping the Lego collection set and selling it. It's comical.
From what I understand ownership of the Lego sets never left the Mansells. The consignment agreement states as much.
Even if we take what corporate says at face value (there was no agreement, or the agreement is null, or it's an agreement that the previous owners agreed to) that still just means that the store possesses property that they do not legally own. Whether or not they legally came to possess the sets seems irrelevant here.
I'm not a lawyer but I don't see how the Mansells ever stopped owning the lego sets.
Unless the entire corporation files for bankruptcy, they can't just shut down a store to avoid paying a debt, much less a court judgment.
There's clearly something else going on here that the blog post is either intentionally leaving out or grossly misunderstanding.
Can anyone explain WHY a 400M company would do this? This is just bonkers. They are destroying their reputation for $200k of legos???
A $200k loss isn't much in the context of the whole company but it may be a very large amount for an individual franchise, and they want to set an example.
Think of it like a restaurant chain pursuing legal action against an internal theft ring at a single location.
(I am not taking the BAM side here, just providing a rationale for their actions).
Why would a billion-dollar company pay their employees so little that they need assistance to live? Or need to urinate in a bottle to keep their delivery times up? Greed and a belief that the rules don't apply to them.
The likely explanation is not that they are stupid, but that they are actually being rational and they can do this often and get away with it.
Someone at a lower level probably a regional director, noticed that a franchise owed them a debt, took inventory from the store as payment of the debt, and when all this blew up and he realized he needs to give the inventory back, he doubled down bc otherwise he'd need to record a $200k loss on that franchise
More money & power than sense. Hubris, greed, malice, psychopathy. One, some or all of these combined in various proportions.
This YouTube video covers it with much more detail, and (imo) more entertainment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wscQpkcwgNU
I've personally never heard of consignment deals where the consignment store becomes the owners of the goods. Not once.
Back in college I used to make money flipping stuff on Ebay, and did that extensively. I did consignment for others, as well as sending stuff to others to sell.
This sounds illegal, and like a case of the store / new franchise owners trying to bully the consignors into submission.
Slightly confusingly, the article seems to be using the word "trespassed" incorrectly; I think they mean "charged with trespassing" both times? It's a bit confusing.
> People showed up with the contract in hand to retrieve it and were immediately thrown out and permanently trespassed.
> He was kicked out, trespassed, and had the police called on him. Multiple times.
As I understand it, "to be trespassed" is a term of art that basically means "the cops were called, told that person was trespassing, the cops duly informed that person they are trespassing & had to leave the property, and the person left, but was not charged". It's basically establishing a legal trail so that if the person refuses to leave or continues to trespass at that location in the future they have a better basis for charging them.
It seems to be a real definition, see definition 6 under etymology 2:
> (transitive, law, especially New Zealand)[1] To subject [someone] to a trespass notice, formally notifying them that they are prohibited from entry to a property, such that any current or future presence there will constitute trespass, (especially) criminal trespass
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trespass#English
Ah, I thought that could be the case but didn't see it listed in Merrium-Webster [0]. Seems like it is legal jargon, so might be better to use plain language here.
0: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trespass
You have to be informed that you're not allowed to be on the premises ("trespassed") and be allowed to leave before you can be charged with trespassing.
I don't use it that way, but it is correct. "The property owner or police barred you from the property."
I had never heard it until recently, and now this is the third time I've heard it used that way.
hear cops often say it like that on body cam footage
used a lot in legal settings, yes - "bob was trespassed at that time"
To be trespassed means given legal notice to stay away from now on. If you don't, the cops will often be called at that point.
It can also be used to mean "kicked out and told they can't come back".
The part 2 video where the police harass and falsely arrest ben is even more shocking.
If this the same Ben in YouTube then omg was he annoying. I couldn't even get throught the first quarter of the video.
The dude shows up at a store. They ask him to leave multiple times. They call on the police on him. Then he says "the police are in on it" because they trespassed him. Like wow shocking that the police won't get involved in a civil matter. Then they manipulate a store employee that had nothing to do with this? That's where I stopped watching.
This is a basic contract case. If the original owner's son had no intention of suing the other party then why did he draft up a contract in the first place? Just get a fucking lawyer.
The best part is when the officer takes the process server's subpoena, says he'll serve it, then walks back and says the defendant isn't accepting it while refusing to allow her to serve the subpoena.
The search of his person over a call to police is a clear violation of his rights, a phone to call to police is not PC or RAS. The fact they held him for three hours will to be to his benefit in court. Arresting him for starting a gofundme, a clear violation of his first amendment rights, I mean they're just digging that hole. Then they raid him, dislocate his arm, and now he has a warrant out for physical threats?
This story is not blowing up because because of Legos or stealing from old people. It's blowing up because we're watching a corporation and a police department abuse their power and we're all grossed out by it.
Regardless if it's a civil manner or not the police clearly had no intention on even working towards a solution. They didn't attempt to find out if it was a civil or criminal matter, because he refused to listen.
Find him annoying sure, but it was made very clear why they even had to call in a youtuber to be annoying and get attention. Clearly legally they would bury the original owner with legal fees. If you have a solution that doesn't involve fighting big corperations, that very clearly do have connections with morally questionable cops then go ahead because it is made very clear why "just get a fucking lawyer" doesn't work
I'd say the police did have a clear intention to works towards a solution, a solution that helped BAM and his leaders, not honoring the law or helping the victims. They are obviously colluding, part2 video leaves very small room for imagination.
I do agree that Ben has done a good thing exposing to the public the situation.
That was part 1. I'm referring the Utah police in part 2.
Welcome to the Mormon Mafia.
Mormonism is the original cult that survived the first generation. It has all the hallmarks of a cult, singular charismatic leader, polygamy, child abuse, apocalyptic prophecy etc.
Child abuse is not an official sanctioned thing in Mormonism. And they have officially ended the practice of polygamy (yes there was some coercion on the part of the US govt)
The other three were pretty much traits of every major traditional religion at its founding.
This guy tried to resolve a legal dispute without a lawyer. Any competent business lawyer should have been able to straighten this out within days. He even tried to do process service himself, which nobody does. You pay a process server $100 or so for that.
The guy who tried to serve the papers isn't the owner of the legos. It was a YouTuber who got involved and has been making video content on the subject.
If I'm reading this right, he travelled to a different state to serve the paperwork to the guy in person. He would have had to spend a lot more than $100 to do that.
He also didn't leave after the police were called, which is not all that unusual for someone who looks out their window and sees someone they're in conflict with has traveled across the country to stand in front of their door.
This is just needless YouTube drama generation. I agree, he should have paid a process server to do the job correctly, but that wouldn't be good business for his YouTube channel.
The company should have done the right thing, but instead, they are evil, criminals, and crooks who should be treated as such.
> he should have paid a process server
He was quoted a LOT more money to try.
> He also didn't leave after the police were called,
He was legally allowed to be there trying to serve the individual.
Why are you defending a clearly evil criminal company?
No, the guy tried to resolve the legal dispute with lawyers and has been quoted multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees.
Does Bricks & Minifigs have an official relationship with LEGO? That would seem like the next logical place to escalate PR pressure to.
https://encyclopedia.uia.org/problem/anarcho-tyranny
And people wonder why Luigi has so much support from the general public?
This looks like a corporation stealing from an old man, I wouldn’t put it in the same bucket as a common murderer with similar favorable as Stephen Miller.
> This looks like a corporation stealing from an old man,
I would. They are evil. Treat them like so.
It stuns me when I read about people investing in Lego in order to make money later, and in this case it was to pay for someone's college. That info is from the fundraising page that's trying to pay for the lawyers.
putting aside that this deal went sour, which is very frustrating, i am curious how much they actually spent to buy all that lego, and how much they gained, if anything, over just directly saving the money.
The screenshot of the Facebook post says they purchased the sets for approximately $20,000.
Cloud City 10123 is 698 pieces. That would've retailed for around $70-$90 new.
It is worth roughly $10,000 sealed in box.
I have some of the original Lego Star Wars sets. All opened and built and etc.
Including this one which I purchased for like $5 or $10
https://www.ebay.com/itm/198386156944
I also have the only Deadpool figure Lego ever put in a set that goes for $75 or $100 by itself. It was in a $20 set.
So the amount they spent could be somewhere in the thousands, but probably below $100,000.
Seems like a good reason to avoid ever transacting with this business.
Could he take them to small claims court one Lego set at a time, get a judgment against the business then go in with the sheriff and start taking stuff to cover the judgement?
They already have a judgement against the business for the full amount. But the business chose to close rather than pay
I dont understand how that works: The entire $400M business decided to close over $200K judgment? Or just the single store? If just the store, why did they sue the store and not the underlying business?
Just the single store closed .
In many states there's a limit to how many small claims actions you can take in a year. (Where I live, it's 2).
No. Small claims are for claims which are small. This belongs in civil court all at once and you don't get to go in with the sheriff (if you win) unless they are ordered to pay you and refuse to.
There are explicit rules against claim splitting and you risk either the judge combining all of your filings into one case and moving it to a different court or dismissing all of the claims after the first one. There are very good reasons why a person can't keep suing you over and over for the same event.
Watch the video. They worked around this by selling lego sets to 10 different people (as it was still owned by the lego owner), then the 10 different people all opened separate $10k suits, which they all won.
Then corporate shut down the location to avoid paying the suits they lost.
There seems to be a lot of misinformation in the comments, I would assume because the linked article doesn't cover many of the developments.
The youtuber Reckless Ben has recently covered the story and spearheaded a campaign of "provocative journalism" against the store[0]. Regardless of whether you support the way in which he goes about things, his video explains the story in much greater detail, and enormously expands on the malpractice of Bricks and Minifigs and the local police department.
Here are some bulletpoints in case you do not care to watch Part 1 + Part 2:
- Bricks and Minifigs explicitly threatened both the previous owners of the store and the original owner of the collection with lengthy legal battles
- The owner of the collection tried going the legal route but was quoted prices that he couldn't afford, so youtube was his last resort
- Bricks and Minifigs CEO publicly admitted of having the collection, being aware of the issue, and not wanting to give it back, while at the same time trying to run PR campaigns denying the allegations.
- BAM leadership went out of its way to create legal trouble for Reckless Ben, involving the police and fabricating false evidence about him
- The local police went out of its way to legally stop Ben, arrest him without probable cause, try to plant Heroin on his car, and even *ended up swatting his house*, dislocating his shoulder.
- All of this while the police department illegally scrubbed any incriminating evidence from the bodycam recordings they were obligated to provide.
This is an *insane* story that doesn't get enough credit. It not only exposes the inefficacy of (parts of) the American justice system, but also the enormous level of corruption and abuse of power of the American police (and tangentially the Mormon community)
I really recommend watching both videos. I promise you it's even more insane than it sounds like.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wscQpkcwgNU
I hope that they continue to sue until there's justice.
It's wild to me how willing people are to torch their company's reputation. If you've seen some of the videos and comments around this it really seems like the corporate owners, and possibly the new franchisee, are arguably, for lack of a better descriptio0n, egotistical bullies, the "yeah? sue me then" types. They've probably gone their entire life just being a-holes and not being held accountable. And now they're digging their heels in.
The facts and the law here are quite simple. Man consigns LEGO collection to the store. He has a contract. The new store owner still has that liability. The existence of a contract is in dispute. The franchisee's and corporate owner's positions seems to be that the contract is with the previous owner not the owner's store.
Well, if that's true, the LEGO collection still belongs to that previous owner and the new owner has simply stolen it. So their legal argument is ridiculous.
Allegedly that previous owner was basically kicked out of the store and denied the opportunity to take inventory so that owner probably has a case against corporate and the new owners as well.
There is no world in which this ends well for the company of the new store owner. And it's wild to me that they're sticking to their guns here. Beyond the legal issues, the reputational damage is massive. These stores are for LEGO collectors and they're screaming bloody murder. Plus ordinary people who hear about this story have an innate sense of fairness so immediately side with the people who've had their $200k LEGO collection effectively stolen.
Plus this now has so much publicity that there are any number of lawyers who will take on this case just for the publicity.
It's also funny that the Utah police who got involved when people went to corporate are basically just acting like corporate's security arm.
> It's also funny that the Utah police who got involved when people went to corporate are basically just acting like corporate's security arm.
When it comes to disputes between the poor and the rich, the police always choose to act as the rich's private security arm.
I read down to the part where they linked to the official announcement from the store. This blog's summary of the announcement is very different than the actual content of the announcement.
The company claims the consignor gave a written statement to a podcast that his collection was "moved offsite for security reasons". They also said they tried to locate his collection in the inventory but it's not there:
> A few days later, we became aware of the previous arrangement, and compared our inventory assessment to the limited documentation provided by the consignor. It was clear the full list of inventory in his documentation was not located in the store. What items could be reasonably identified as allegedly belonging to the consignor was offered back to the consignor, but that offer was refused.
> A deeper dive into the sales receipts uncovered that a significantly higher volume of the listed sets had sold over the course of the consignment deal prior to the store transition. The consignor also provided a written statement to a podcast that his collection was moved offsite for security reasons. Additional attempts to restore what we could with what was in our possession, was also declined, in writing.
This seems like a huge detail that is conspicuously missing from the drama reports on the subject. What's going on?
I know this is internet drama and we're supposed to assume the corporation is lying and the bloggers and podcasters are all telling the truth, but there's so many sketchy details in this story that I don't trust either side.
One of the guys involved even went to another person's house and sat outside for hours trying to serve them with lawsuit paperwork until the police were called, which is not a thing you do yourself. Especially in conflict with someone. That same person has a YouTube channel where they're posting hours long videos on the topic, so they have a lot of incentive to escalate everywhere.
I don't know what's going on here. I feel bad for the guy who lost some LEGO sets. I do not like the podcasters and bloggers milking him for content for their media channels.
> I feel bad for the guy who lost some LEGO sets. I do not like the podcasters and bloggers milking him for content for their media channels
The statements made by the company are simply untrue. And the guy who lost the LEGO sets (worth 100k$ btw) is directly working with the "bloggers" because they're his last avenue. He's also incredibly grateful to them because thanks to them he at least ended up winning in small claims court.
> The statements made by the company are simply untrue.
Okay? Is there a place to see this evidence without watching 90-minute YouTube videos?
No but I can link timestamps to relevant clips:
- At 3:06 they explicitly acknowledge the consignment and state they will be taking it over
- At 13:15 the CEO says he never had the LEGOs in the store and then is confronted with screenshots of said LEGOs from their official Facebook pages
- At 23:05 the new owner that took over the store (and also the LEGOs) first says he doesn't know about any LEGOs, then he says that he wasn't the one to sign the consignment and therefore doesn't have to give them back
- At 47:42 the same guy confirms again they have the LEGOs, tries to argue about the definition of theft and says that he won't give them back. (quoting "who cares if it's theft or not")
- At 49:46 the same guy admits again that he has the LEGOs and he promises to give them back if the actual owner provides him an apology and removes the negative reviews.
- At 1:00:45 corporate says "I'm not gonna distribute those things at this point. We've kept them on hold for this long so"
I recommend watching the videos and deciding for yourself. They've already won in court and nobody has paid them. How are they in the wrong at all here?
I think the statement from Bricks and Minifigs is quite incorrect based on the written letter demanding return of inventory and later evidence of buyer purchasing consigned property after demand letter was received: https://youtu.be/14ktgvoH4Mc?t=781
There should be class action lawsuits just from widespread recognition of corporate wrongdoing.
Bricks and Minifigs is a very popular birthday party destination for my kids peers. I will make sure to share this story with anyone considering to go there and allow them to form their own conclusions.
Here's a thread on Reddit from the original owner of the store:
https://old.reddit.com/r/lego/comments/1tos7p5/bricks_and_mi...
One of the saddest things about modern capitalism is that people stealing from businesses is criminalized and heavily punished but businesses stealing from people (eg. wage theft, illegal contracts, medicare/PPP fraud, and outright stealing like this case) is treated as a civil violation and almost impossible to prosecute.
The only cases of white collar crime I've seen get prosecuted is securities fraud and that's rich people stealing from other rich people.
"The only cases of white collar crime I've seen get prosecuted is securities fraud and that's rich people stealing from other rich people."
There are thousands of YouTube videos of people being arrested or being in court on charges of embezzling from their employers, committing fraud, presenting bogus checks at banks, etc.
Hacking is white collar crime. So is mortgage fraud. So is tax evasion and bribery. There are tons of prosecutions of these crimes every year.
Federal and most state civil courts are pay-to-win, too. They have absolutely nothing to do with justice. The only time "the little guy" wins anything is when the lawyers stand to make a windfall in contingency fees.
(...See, e.g., authors vs. Anthropic. The most prolific author might make somewhere in the low six figures, the average author is gonna make ~$10k, and the lawyers representing the class asked for $300M!)
The legal system is captured by legal professionals. The average American is bound by a system that they can't engage directly with. The middlemen who most people must hire to navigate through it generally will not help unless there's a substantial payday in it for them. And in civil matters, defendants have no right to representation.
(Also, the judge is colleagues with counsel, opposing or otherwise; none of them think much of you, which a trip to /r/LawyerTalk will confirm.)
All of this is a choice. Essentially the same choice that we have to have medical insurers instead of a single-payer system; a broken housing market controlled by large corporate interests, instead of one where prices are moderated by a stock of residences built by the government and sold at-cost or lower, as in Singapore or pre-Thatcher Great Britain; broken and spread-thin policing instead of the kind of sophisticated social support system that you would expect the richest country on the planet to be able to afford (and avoids sending the same armed ex-jock to domestic disturbances, mental health crises, car accidents, public school security, etc.). My suspicion is that the fight against change in any of these cases is so fierce because breaking one cartel threatens the others.
You correctly identify the problem as an over-complicated legal bureaucracy in your first paragraph, and propose more government as the solution in your third?
The solution here should be to simplify the legal system so legal adjudication is more accessible to non-lawyers, not add more layers of government bureaucracy on top of the existing ones.
There is an active criminal investigation into this from the Keizer police. Your implication that this is only being treated as a civil matter is false.
Did the criminal investigation start before or after the social media campaign. I suspect after.
> The only cases of white collar crime I've seen get prosecuted is securities fraud and that's rich people stealing from other rich people.
I was trying to popularize the phrase "the only thing which is illegal in America is defrauding investors" but I have no social media presence. Feel free to take it.
Regardless I agree with you on capitalism, but my take on securities fraud is less cynical. In late stage capitalism it makes _perfect sense_ that the only crime is to steal from investors - that's capitalism protecting itself.
> I have no social media presence.
You know HN is just social media for nerds, right?
No, it's not. It's just social. No media. I mean I realize there's links, don't I don't follow them, so to me it's just social without the media.
Besides, the actual point which is that I have no profile, still stands.
This seems like an easily arbitrated dispute. But I'm not privy to all the details and IANAL.
The problem with the legal system in cases like this is if you have the police in your pocket, you can manipulate the perception of the truth and feel confident in bullying your adversary.
For the alternate side, Bricks and Minifigs claims much of Mansell's inventory had been sold, or relocated by Mansell himself. The liability for any discrepancy in sales and his compensation is the responsibility of the franchisee with whom he sign the contract.
> It was clear the full list of inventory in his documentation was not located in the store. What items could be reasonably identified as allegedly belonging to the consignor was offered back to the consignor, but that offer was refused.
> A deeper dive into the sales receipts uncovered that a significantly higher volume of the listed sets had sold over the course of the consignment deal prior to the store transition. The consignor also provided a written statement to a podcast that his collection was moved offsite for security reasons. Additional attempts to restore what we could with what was in our possession, was also declined, in writing.
> BAM denies allegations that we “stole” this consignor’s collection, let alone a collection worth what has been claimed online. However, we remain willing to provide any appropriate assistance in recovering any and all portions of this collection or funds generated off of its sale to the original consignor and their family, through appropriate means.
> Serious claims require serious evidence. We have repeatedly asked for the original documents and undoctored recordings that support these accusations. Selective social media posts and misleading investigative-style videos are not a substitute for the complete records and legal agreements that govern the rights of all involved parties.
> If a legitimate claim exists, there are established legal and dispute-resolution processes to handle it fairly. Attempting to force a business outcome through public pressure, especially on unrelated stores and employees, is not a productive or fair path forward.
https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/05/21/salem-ore...
I don't have first-hand corroboration of the facts, though I am surprised that the article favorable to Mansell did not simply publish the consignment agreement with the franchise owner.
All of these quotes are false and directly contradicted by publicly available statements made by the CEO + Corporate.
Do you care to disclose your relation to the leadership of Bricks and Minifigs? Did you go to the same university as those involved from the company? Are you affiliated with any of the same organizations?
Since it is done under guise of a corporation, there will be zero actual consequences for the individuals involved in the theft. Nor will there be any consequences for the officers involved in violating rights.
There really needs to be consequences for blatantly manipulating courts to waste money and delay judgement.
That remains to be seen. Individuals absolutely can be held to account. Corporations are not pass to behave illegally.
Someone should let bigTech know about this
And yet, reality seems to disagree with you
I’ve watched both videos by RecklessBen (Part 2 is on his patreon, and apparently will be made public when he has Part 3 ready)…
The videos are damning of the behavior by Brick and Minifigs, the two owners who took over the store in Kaiser, and both the Kaiser (Oregon) police for and American Force (Utah) police.
Brick and Minifigs both corporate and the owners who stole the legos, have consistently and thoroughly lied as well as treated Ben numerous times. He has recording of it. It’s all in his videos. He even got a the franchise agreement which states consignment is allowed. He even got a default judgement in small claims court, that caused the original location to permanently shutter its doors. He’s now trying to sue them in civil court, but can’t even serve the papers.
Ben has tried every legal channel, and been hit with at least trespass at every point. His AirBnB was raided, he was searched for three hours for heroin possession allegations, the police continuously and non-stop targeted him. They’ve issued warrants that are redacted so Ben doesn’t even know what he’s gotta defend against.
I’d really encourage folks to go watch the part 1 since it’s freely available on YouTube, but part 2 is where the Utah police seem to full throttle shit all over his civil rights to protect a Bricks and Minifigs, and the franchise owners, who stole $200k of legos from an 83 year old man.
If this all seems crazy, it’s because it absolutely is crazy. Ben does an absolutely incredible job, attempting to document everything and goes to huge lengths to do things the right way.
Isn't this why you guys have guns? What a story, how can people keep trying to do things the right way after all of that.
That is the gist of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ktgvoH4Mc's take-away (though with great pains taken to convey that he doesn't condone it). Extralegal solutions become more and more attractive the less and less just the "justice" system appears; whether it's right or not, that's just the truth of it, and I suppose we're lucky that only one of the three recent "get 'em back" instances that come to my mind involve shooting someone dead in the street. (The other two being the UNH CEO's execution and the burning of that paper warehouse.)
The novel maneuvers "Reckless" Ben Schneider took were... amusing, at the very least.
And here I was just using my CIA Simple Sabotage Field Manual
There's no moral universe where shooting somebody over money, especially this amount of money, is the correct course of action.
Adults ruined LEGO. There I said it.
Ruined seems like very strong phrasing when nothing important has been ruined.
They sell new Lego sets in stores every day. They might seem expensive for a few bags of plastic bits and some instructions, but then: They've never been cheap.
A kid can still grow up playing with Lego today, just as they've always been able to.
I still remember building my first new Lego widget. Set 918. It was just a small basic spaceship and no real accessories but a little Lego space dude. I'd already scattered the pieces around and stuck them together in strange ways when I noticed that there was an instruction book so I could assemble it the "right" way. That may have been the first instruction book I'd ever followed; I remember the sense of wonderment as I learned the value of it. That model didn't last long before I tore it apart and went back to sticking the pieces together in strange ways. :)
Anyway, it seems like it would have been about $6.50 back then, or about $31 in today's money.
That's not so different from today's prices -- in fact, it looks things may have actually gotten a bit less expensive since then for a given amount of complexity.
That's not ruination; it's the opposite of it. The kids are fine. Lego is fine.
---
I do see that someone on eBay that someone hopes to get over $2,000 for a new, sealed copy of set 918. That's a about sixteen more fuckton more than $31.
And I can't justify spending that kind of money on some Lego.
But I don't have to spend that kind of money. If I have a Lego itch that I want to scratch, then I'm a grown-ass adult. I can just go to the store or some online seller or whatever, and buy a new set that I like, and put it together.
I don't need to spend $2k to pretend relive a part of my childhood. I already experienced it once, and I remember that part very fondly.
Nothing here is ruined.
Ruined as in - Lego sets are glorified EZ-mode puzzles and not creative toys anymore. Too many limited sets means it's trending toward "collector items" and not kids toys.
They ruined Pokemon too, not that it was any good to begin with but these scalping chuds took it subterranean.
The pokemon company intentionally limits the supply to drive up demand. Cardboard is in no way a limited resource, they could print as many cards as there is demand for if they wanted. The problem is not the scalpers but the corporation who values the artificial scalped demand more than gameplay. That no one in the so called community can correctly place blame is an indictment of their intelligence.
and Disney
and My Little Pony.
Star Wars LEGO seems to be the worst. I went to the Bellevue, WA store a few years ago before Christmas. I have no interest in SW or SW LEGO (I'm much more into the Architecture series).
I was walking around though, and an associate came up to me and pointed out that the Death Star (IIRC) was about to stop being sold so if I wanted one I should grab it... "... and that we have several of it, so if you want allll of them."
I despise scalping, though, but perhaps I should.
I assume they were talking about 75159 right before it retired.
I think that was when Lego speculation was just becoming a bigger thing.
Now, I don't think something like that could retire with stock being on the shelf.
I grabbed Betrayal at Cloud City (75222) from my local Lego Store after it retired because they still had one in stock. I don't think I'll get that lucky again.
Especially with the push for exclusive Gift With Purchase (GWP) sets. It's become slightly ridiculous.
But I'm not a speculator, I'm just a dude who likes assembling plastic bricks.