15 ms·

Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection

• plagiarist 4mo ago
  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.
  • barelysapient 4mo ago
    That remains to be seen. Individuals absolutely can be held to account. Corporations are not pass to behave illegally.
    • dylan604 4mo ago
      Someone should let bigTech know about this
    • jimjimjim 4mo ago
      [flagged]
• vasco 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  • underlipton 4mo ago
    That is the gist of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ktgvoH4Mc's 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.
    • iwontberude 4mo ago
      And here I was just using my CIA Simple Sabotage Field Manual
  • kylemaxwell 4mo ago
    There's no moral universe where shooting somebody over money, especially this amount of money, is the correct course of action.
    • amanaplanacanal 4mo ago
      The legal system is supposed to take care of this kind of thing. If the legal system fails, I can certainly understand why people might take things into their own hands.
    • fastball 4mo ago
      TIL that morality is actually objective, glad we finally cleared that up.
• artnanika 4mo ago
  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.
  • deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  • shadefinale 4mo ago
    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.
    • DrammBA 4mo ago
      I believe that's the one thing BAM refuses to acknowledge, they have no legal possesion of the lego sets, that's the beginning and end of it. They are trying their damnest to hide that fact behind a consignment/contract/franchise/corporate/arrests/heroin/lawsuit curtain of smoke.
    • everforward 4mo ago
      [flagged]
      • shadefinale 4mo ago
        I don't know how effective the wording of the original consignment agreement would end up if tested in a suit. It reads "Consigned merchandise shall remain the property of Mansell until sold". On the other hand, without the agreement, how can one prove the expectation that the goods were handed over with, at all? Without establishing that expectation wouldn't the ownership of the goods just stay with the original owner at all times? It would make sense that there are some ways you can abandon property you own in a way that someone else can swoop up and take ownership it without having to give it back, but do any of those potentially apply here?
• tunesmith 4mo ago
  There should be class action lawsuits just from widespread recognition of corporate wrongdoing.
• xmprt 4mo ago
  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.
  • A_D_E_P_T 4mo ago
    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!)
    • frmersdog 4mo ago
      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.
• lvl155 4mo ago
  Adults ruined LEGO. There I said it.
  • iwontberude 4mo ago
    They ruined Pokemon too, not that it was any good to begin with but these scalping chuds took it subterranean.
    • throwaway85825 4mo ago
      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.
  • pyb 4mo ago
    and Disney
    • fortran77 4mo ago
      and My Little Pony.
  • ssl-3 4mo ago
    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.
• gkoberger 4mo ago
  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 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 unsold sets have been returned but the money is 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 https://youtu.be/14ktgvoH4Mc?si=yhSzpEDo5ut6s8eS&t=880
  • deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  • underlipton 4mo ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ktgvoH4Mc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ktgvoH4Mc has a good overview.
  • yesod 4mo ago
    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.
    • usehand 4mo ago
      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.
• quietsegfault 4mo ago
  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.
  • gosub100 4mo ago
    I wonder if it would hurt them if many people went in, bought an item, and returned it? Either by restocking fees or credit card headaches.
    • gblargg 4mo ago
      The individual franchises can always get the clue and drop being a franchise, just be a local store.
• throwaway85825 4mo ago
  The part 2 video where the police harass and falsely arrest ben is even more shocking.
  • busterarm 4mo ago
    Welcome to the Mormon Mafia.
    • throwaway85825 4mo ago
      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.
      • aprilthird2021 4mo ago
        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.
        • throwaway85825 4mo ago
          The founder of mormonism married a child and given that mormon doctrine is just whatever he said definitionaly it's an official sanctioned thing. Some coercion? It was entirely external pressure. Some of the mormons haven't even stopped polygamy today.
          • zargon 4mo ago
            > Some of the mormons haven't even stopped polygamy today. Using the term 'Mormon' to refer to the the entire family tree including splinter sects is just a recipe for confusion. Adherents to splinter sects, excluding RLDS, number in the tens of thousands compared to millions of CoJCoLDS. The problems with CoJCoLDS are damning on their own without needing to conflate facts with fringe groups.
• paulddraper 4mo ago
  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-oregon-bricks-and-minifigs-store-situation/ 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.
  • thevinter 4mo ago
    All of these quotes are false and directly contradicted by publicly available statements made by the CEO + Corporate.
  • quietsegfault 4mo ago
    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?
• Animats 4mo ago
  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.
  • thevinter 4mo ago
    No, the guy tried to resolve the legal dispute with lawyers and has been quoted multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees.
    • wombat-man 4mo ago
      I haven't dealt with anything like this, so maybe this is naive, but wouldn't you also sue for legal fees as apart of the damages?
      • terabytest 4mo ago
        Where do you get the money from while the lawsuit is ongoing?
        • wombat-man 4mo ago
          yeah, I guess you would need a lawyer willing to work on spec. This just seems like a winnable case but IANAL.
  • Aurornis 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    • jasonlotito 4mo ago
      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?
• z3t4 4mo ago
  I hope that they continue to sue until there's justice.
• em-bee 4mo ago
  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.
  • bena 4mo ago
    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 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.
    • cogogo 4mo ago
      Wow. I do not want to knock collectors but I will never understand them. That particular set worth 10k looks kind of crappy to me. I understand the star wars crossover appeal but still. And I have three kids and have bought countless sets. Every bday and xmas times 3.
      • bena 4mo ago
        This set is expensive mostly due to rarity.
  • praseodym 4mo ago
    The screenshot of the Facebook post says they purchased the sets for approximately $20,000.
  • qingcharles 4mo ago
    Lego can be way better than stocks as an investment. I remember buying one Millennium Falcon set for $250 on sale and then a couple of years later offloading it on eBay for $10K.
• 4rt 4mo ago
  https://encyclopedia.uia.org/problem/anarcho-tyranny https://encyclopedia.uia.org/problem/anarcho-tyranny
• jmyeet 4mo ago
  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.
  • ryandrake 4mo ago
    > 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.
  • wang_li 4mo ago
    >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. That would only be true if a new owner purchased the business. In bankruptcy consigned goods become property of the consignee's bankruptcy estate and cannot be returned to the original owners. The original owners have a cause of action against the estate, but they are not guaranteed the return of the consigned goods or full recompense for the value of the goods. It largely depends on how corporate took over the franchise. Generally, if the consignee under such a consignment arrangement files for bankruptcy relief, the consigned goods are property of the consignee's bankruptcy estate. Accordingly, 11 U.S.C. §362(a)(3) prohibits the consignor from picking up the consigned goods after the filing of the bankruptcy. Additionally, if the consignor picks up the goods, (1) the consignor may be subject to a turnover action under 11 U.S.C §§542 or 543 for their return and/or (2) within 90 days prior to the bankruptcy filing, the consignor may be subject to a preference action under 11 U.S.C. §547(b) for their return. From https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/navigating-the-consignment-rules-under-ucc-article-9 https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/navigating-the-consignment-r...
• standardly 4mo ago
  This seems like an easily arbitrated dispute. But I'm not privy to all the details and IANAL.
  • quietsegfault 4mo ago
    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.
  • rcxdude 4mo ago
    Arbitration only works if both parties are at least somewhat co-operative with the process. If someone decides to just not co-operate with the process or actively impede it, you need to escalate far beyond arbitration, which gets very expensive very quickly (with maybe some small chance that if you can pay for it, you might be able to get some of it back at the end. The belligerent side is generally just betting you'll run out of funds and willpower before you get there).
• pimlottc 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  • gkoberger 4mo ago
    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.
    • JMiao 4mo ago
      hear cops often say it like that on body cam footage
      • ZeWaka 4mo ago
        used a lot in legal settings, yes - "bob was trespassed at that time"
  • deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  • ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago
    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.
  • bena 4mo ago
    It can also be used to mean "kicked out and told they can't come back".
  • wfleming 4mo ago
    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.
• rubyn00bie 4mo ago
  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 threatened Ben numerous times. He has recordings of it. It’s all in his videos. He even got the franchise agreement which states consignment is allowed. He 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 he 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, and they have been 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 $200k of legos from an 83 year old man. If this all seems crazy, it’s because it absolutely is crazy. Ben does an absolutely incredible job, attempting to document everything and goes to huge lengths to do things the right way. Edit: Fix autocorrect mistake and minor readability tweaks.
  • jasonmp85 4mo ago
    [dead]
  • guidedlight 4mo ago
    Part 2 is here: https://youtu.be/cxZPfj8AlmY https://youtu.be/cxZPfj8AlmY
• Aurornis 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  • philips 4mo ago
    I think the statement from Bricks and Minifigs is quite incorrect based on the written letter demanding return of inventory and later evidence of buyer purchasing consigned property after demand letter was received: https://youtu.be/14ktgvoH4Mc?t=781 https://youtu.be/14ktgvoH4Mc?t=781
  • thevinter 4mo ago
    > I feel bad for the guy who lost some LEGO sets. I do not like the podcasters and bloggers milking him for content for their media channels The statements made by the company are simply untrue. And the guy who lost the LEGO sets (worth 100k$ 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.
    • Aurornis 4mo ago
      [flagged]
      • thevinter 4mo ago
        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"
• quietsegfault 4mo ago
  Here's a thread on Reddit from the original owner of the store: https://old.reddit.com/r/lego/comments/1tos7p5/bricks_and_minifigures_drama_megapost/oo445a5/ https://old.reddit.com/r/lego/comments/1tos7p5/bricks_and_mi...
• hacker_homie 4mo ago
  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?
  • fortran77 4mo ago
    In many counties there's a limit to how many small claims actions you can take in a year. (Where I live, it's 2).
  • singpolyma3 4mo ago
    They already have a judgement against the business for the full amount. But the business chose to close rather than pay
    • ryandrake 4mo ago
      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?
      • ExpertAdvisor01 4mo ago
        Just the single store closed .
      • ball_of_lint 4mo ago
        In my (possibly flawed) understanding, it's a franchise so they were able to dissolve the LLC that owned this particular store. The franchise is what has physical possession of the lego and signed the consignment contract.
  • colechristensen 4mo ago
    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.
• thevinter 4mo ago
  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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wscQpkcwgNU
  • hedora 4mo ago
    All the other stuff dwarfs the theft of $200K. I'm hoping this leads to financial damages that are a large multiple of that number, and multiple jail sentences. Of course, that probably won't happen. I can imagine reform-oriented candidates running on putting an end to this sort of crap, and winning a local election or two. Speaking of which, I wonder if anything's come of the Afroman case in Ohio.
    • 4mo ago
• solomonb 4mo ago
  Can anyone explain WHY a 400M company would do this? This is just bonkers. They are destroying their reputation for $200k of legos???
  • alt219 4mo ago
    More money & power than sense. Hubris, greed, malice, psychopathy. One, some or all of these combined in various proportions.
  • usehand 4mo ago
    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.
    • solomonb 4mo ago
      I think you're right. I can't think of any reason an entire organization would act this way unless it had been repeatedly successful for them in the past.
    • pigeons 4mo ago
      Its a different kind of rational though. There is a world leader who gets away with all kinds of obvious theft and bribery and grift and fraud and self-serving out in the open, but to reasonable people, he doesn't seem rational at all, despite getting away with everything.
      • usehand 4mo ago
        Yep, I meant rational in the purely self-interested sense
  • aprilthird2021 4mo ago
    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
• eutropia 4mo ago
  Seems like a good reason to avoid ever transacting with this business.
• pinkmuffinere 4mo ago
  This YouTube video covers it with much more detail, and (imo) more entertainment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wscQpkcwgNU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wscQpkcwgNU
  • ogig 4mo ago
    That's the original material and indeed is entertaining, part 2 is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxZPfj8AlmY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxZPfj8AlmY
    • qingcharles 4mo ago
      If you like Part 2 (it shows the most egregious police misconduct I've seen in the USA in a while) then please consider Ben's Patreon where he will post Part 3 next week. The Part 2 is technically "paywalled" but the link has leaked. I think everyone needs to see Part 2 as it really blows the story fully open. His Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/RecklessBen https://www.patreon.com/RecklessBen The latest updates on the whole scenario are happening here: https://www.reddit.com/r/RecklessBen/ https://www.reddit.com/r/RecklessBen/
    • natureiskino 4mo ago
      Holy mother of God this seems like one of those landmark cases by the looks of what's going on. So much rot in there... Bro also fled to Mexico, they could even make a movie out of this.
      • wilburx3 4mo ago
        100% would watch the shit out of this movie
  • throw101010 4mo ago
    And if you want a (less entertaining but very interesting) legal analysis of the various legal tricks Ben used in this video Lawful Masses with Leonard French has just released this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ktgvoH4Mc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ktgvoH4Mc Some of the people in this thread making very definitive claims about consignments contracts without considering this specific jurisdictions should watch it... the victims here could have had an almost open and shut case if they did a bit more paperwork (and paid $20), as there is an exception for consignments over $1000 that gave some undue leverage to that corporation.
• bravoetch 4mo ago
  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.
• TrackerFF 4mo ago
  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.
• jawns 4mo ago
  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.
  • trehalose 4mo ago
    They can't nullify the debt by shutting the store down, but can they shut it down to create further headaches and delays for the person trying to collect the debt?
  • AntonyGarand 4mo ago
    The entity that was sued is the franchise that is now closed, and not corporate.
    • dghlsakjg 4mo ago
      Corporate was involved with transferring the consigned goods to a new franchisee, and was aware that the goods were consigned. They may have significant liability.
  • itsalwayscults 4mo ago
    > There's clearly something else going on here Yes, what you're missing on is that it's an intentional stalling strategy. It's obvious the debt goes to either the corporate, or to whoever owns the affiliate store. None of that is the problem. None of that is meant to be what's stated. Closing the store was done to hide the responsibility and the responsibili-tee. The video has people doing that type of shit down to the leve of the employee > talk to the owner > okay, give me their number > no
• freediddy 4mo ago
  And people wonder why Luigi has so much support from the general public?
  • xigoi 4mo ago
    There is a little difference between this story and the Luigi thing, in that the man in this story did not commit murder.
    • AlexeyBelov 4mo ago
      Neither did Luigi. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
      • xigoi 4mo ago
        i’m not saying that Luigi did it, but someone did it and people are celebrating them for it.
  • JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
    This looks like a corporation stealing from an old man. It’s clear-cut wrong, even if the YouTuber is annoying. I wouldn’t put it in the same bucket as a common murderer with similar favorable as Stephen Miller.
    • jasonlotito 4mo ago
      > This looks like a corporation stealing from an old man, I would. They are evil. Treat them like so.
    • 59percentmore 4mo ago
      The Legos were being sold to fund the college education of the old man's young descendants IIRC. So, like the killing, the alleged issue is a corporation stealing from a young man, actually.
  • 348752389 4mo ago
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• rdtsc 4mo ago
  > 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
  • eff-nix 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    • fragmede 4mo ago
      Depends. Do the atheists of your region have literal physical temples where they hold weekly ceremonies and tithings to a central coordinating organization that goes back almost 200 years?
      • eff-nix 4mo ago
        [flagged]
        • fragmede 4mo ago
          What's the weekly gathering (usually Sunday morning) the organization they pay taxes to hold?
          • eff-nix 4mo ago
            [flagged]
            • fragmede 4mo ago
              Where do you live that weekly public sports competitions is possibly, "idk", a function of the organization that collects taxes?
• jccalhoun 4mo ago
  It seems like the guy who put them on consignment is getting screwed but it doesn't seem like this Reckless Ben is helping things by doing weird stunts https://kotaku.com/youtuber-starts-a-cult-and-is-raided-by-police-in-attempt-to-recover-old-mans-star-wars-lego-collection-2000699026 https://kotaku.com/youtuber-starts-a-cult-and-is-raided-by-p...
  • qingcharles 4mo ago
    We would never be talking about it if it wasn't for Ben. Yeah, he's weird, but he's the one that finally got a light shone onto this insanity. The fact he has literally fled to Mexico to avoid any more police harassment is wild.
  • wredcoll 4mo ago
    People always say this in these situations. What do you think would be helping things? Passively sitting in the house waiting for the CEOs to change their minds? Writing polite letters to the local newspaper? Like, whats your theory here?
    • jccalhoun 4mo ago
      a lawyer
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• SwellJoe 4mo ago
  This is comic book villain shit. The story isn't told well anywhere that is covering it, YouTubers aren't always exactly great journalists or incentivized to tell a coherent and concise story. But, it's obvious the Bricks and Minifigs folks are lying about damned near everything at every turn and not engaging in good faith. So, the facts are hard to follow, but I know for a fact the old guy who lost his collection to a shitty corporation is not the bad guy in the story.
  • wang_li 4mo ago
    He kind of is. The right thing to do here is go straight to court. All this drama, grandstanding, conspiracist thinking, and stunts are bullshit. Sue. Get the judgment. Collect.
    • SwellJoe 4mo ago
      You shouldn't have to sue to have contracts honored by large corporations, and it's entirely reasonable to shame the fuck out of a corporation that responds to a situation like this with "fuck you, sue us if you don't like it". Dealing with the legal system sucks. There is a sizable amount of money that I would give up to avoid having to deal with it. It's probably well under $200k, but it's far above small claims limits. Nobody in their right mind goes to court as a first resort, especially for an older person who maybe doesn't have all their wits about them and doesn't have the economic means to bring the kind of legal heat you need against a large corporation.
• _rifo 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  • giltron 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    • free652 4mo ago
      >Please enlighten us what other "due diligence" these people should have done for your point. $20 filing with the state https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ktgvoH4Mc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ktgvoH4Mc
      • eloisant 4mo ago
        It's easy to say after the fact, how are people supposed to know that before doing business with a nationwide franchise?
        • deleted 4mo ago
          [deleted]
    • fastball 4mo ago
      Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this more criminal? BAM / new franchisee claims that any consignment deal is null and void after their takeover. If they knowingly possess items that therefore do not belong to them legally (because they were never owned by the previous franchisee), is that not theft (and therefore criminal behavior)? Like imagine the previous franchisee left their phone in the store. Then the new owners say "nah, it doesn't belong to me". But actually it does. That is theft.
• protocolture 4mo ago
  >Joshua Johnson and Brandon Best are, by public record and documented account, members of the LDS community. Ah there it is. Classic.
  • N_Lens 4mo ago
    Mormon Mafia.
    • cindyllm 4mo ago
      [dead]
• crazygringo 4mo ago
  > Then Bricks & Minifigs Corporate took control of the Salem location from the original franchise owner > They were found liable in court. They closed the store rather than pay. This doesn't make any sense. If the corporation took control of the franchise, the corporation now owns it and its obligations. They can close the store if they want, but that doesn't do anything about their obligation to pay. What's missing from this story? Because as presented, it makes no sense.
  • abirch 4mo ago
    I believe what is missing is a Brick and Minifig's attorney with a law degree. This is why you shouldn't buy a business for 1 dollar because you can inherit its debts.
  • hedora 4mo ago
    If they were smart, they took the "inventory" as payment for some imaginary debt, bankrupting the store without taking ownership of it. Hopefully, the courts will see through that tactic, and add a contempt charge on top of all the civil penalties.
    • jasonfarnon 4mo ago
      do we know the debt is "imaginary"? Was this inventory seized in satisfaction of some debt.
  • AntonyGarand 4mo ago
    It is my understanding that they sued the franchise, which then closed, and not the parent corporate entity. While they won against the franchise due to the default judgement, they didn't win against corporate. The store that is now closed is the franchise they sued.
    • smcl 4mo ago
      This entire story started because the corporation took control of the franchise though
• arjie 4mo ago
  One surprising thing I learned over time from news articles is that "won a judgment for $x from person y" actually doesn't mean very much in the US. The first thing that came to mind is a parachutist site in Lodi, but this one is another one. I suppose it is indeed as Andrew Jackson said: John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!
  • crazygringo 4mo ago
    If someone is poor and doesn't have the money, sure you can't enforce it. If it's a corporation, it's pretty straightforward. If they refuse to pay, you get a writ from the court that authorizes seizure of assets. Usually that means you go their bank and the value of the judgment will be garnished by their bank and given to you. Occasionally and theatrically, a sheriff will take you to their headquarters to seize property like computers and printers that you can sell at auction until the value is satisfied. It only becomes difficult if the corporation is bankrupt, which is similar to a poor person who doesn't have the money. Then it becomes a question of prioritization, e.g. do you get paid before or after lenders, and will there be any money left.
    • HaZeust 4mo ago
      Have you actually gone through this process? Like sure, obtaining a writ is technically part of the same case, but it's pretty much starting all over again. And you'll still be paying filing fees, dealing with court clerks, and waiting weeks or months. Finding a corporation's bank is a whole separate issue, where you have to go back to court for a post-judgement discovery to force them to tell you. And even if they do - or you already knew - you have to get the writ served to the bank, and just hope they didn't move funds beforehand - or else you're back to start. As GP said, it IS a huge PITA to get judgments paid, and it's particularly menacing in Small Claims. Unless the other side act on some virtue (which, they were already bad-faithed enough to have a lawsuit against them AND lose), your judgment is just an IOU, and actually forcing collection is often way more money — or time in money — than most state's Small Claims limits. It's a broken system.
      • 4mo ago
• hedora 4mo ago
  If the allegations in the article are true (doxxing the victim, leading to injury), "losing" the contract, refusing to accept delivery of a copy of the contract, etc, etc, the corporation is clearly acting in bad faith. This is so egregious that pain and suffering would likely enter into any judgement. In the US, that means punitive multipliers on a high base value. DDG's LLM-thingy estimates a $1.5M-$5M judgement if the judge is in a sufficiently bad mood, or a $10-50M jury award that'd be reduced on appeal. I'm hoping they get the high range of those estimates.
• washbasin 4mo ago
  I don't understand this style decision in web page design. I don't want to read content like a receipt from the grocery store. I instantly go to Reader Mode in my browser when I see pages like this. Is this because of phones? Why can't it adapt? My 42" monitor wants to know.
• itomato 4mo ago
  That would just about cover the price of a B&MF franchise license.
• Crontab 4mo ago
  [dead]
• redsocksfan45 4mo ago
  [dead]
• kittikitti 4mo ago
  This is abhorrent and unfortunately not surprising. This corporate culture of fascism is deep, including the culture of YCombinator. The police were founded to protect corporate interests and nothing else.
  • tempaccountabgd 4mo ago
    [dead]
• mattmaroon 4mo ago
  I just don’t understand why a company with $95m in sales would steal $200k. That’s a fraction of a percent of sales for the year. There’s now a boycott against them that will easily cost them more than that. If the case is as this blog says, it cannot be hard to find a lawyer to do this one pro bono. Breach of contract is one of the few things in America where you can sue for your legal fees. If you take over a business you assume it’s contracts even though your name wasn’t on them. You gain anything the business owns but a consignment shop doesn’t own the inventory. BAM is going to lose millions and for what? Is this article just wrong on substantial facts? Simple greed wouldn’t explain this as it will almost certainly lead to far less money, even in a short period, than returning it. Something must be missing.
  • passive 4mo ago
    Because this isn't the first collection they've stolen from someone, presumably. It's a lot easier to become a really successful company if you can keep your inventory costs down. Perhaps by investing in local law enforcement instead, to make sure no one looks too close at said inventory? Donald Trump is famous for not paying even really cheap contractor bills, because he knew he could get away with it.
    • mcv 4mo ago
      This is the answer. They thought they could get away with it. And from what I understand, they nearly did, because the original victim couldn't afford the risk of a lengthy and expensive lawsuit.
  • jmcgough 4mo ago
    I have a family member who works in estate planning. From all the stories he's told me, a lot of wealthy people compulsively screw over people / refuse to follow the contract they agreed to / etc, simply because they can and know that it is too expensive for most people to file a lawsuit.
    • deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
• 50208 4mo ago
  Why didn't you say they were mormons from the beginning? That all makes sense now. Truth, lies, and morality doesn't mean the same in that case. Read Under The Banner of Heaven by Krakauer.
• ddtaylor 4mo ago
  I actually am from this town and I have watched this play out over the last five years. I moved away from Oregon because of these exact kind of problems. My daughter's e-bike was stolen and we had a tracker in it and we attempted to get the police to help us recover it from a homeless encampment where it has been tracked to. We have ever possible way to prove ownership of the bike from beginning to end multiple times over. The Keizer Police laughed at us and acted like it was absurd that we would try to get our property back or that they would help us in any capacity whatsoever. I have a video of a KPD officer telling me that he's not going to arrest a junkie because only some spit landed on my daughter because the junkie was spitting on my daughter. It sucks because Keizer used to be a really nice town and it's where people went to retire. It's where I went to retire as well and that's not how it works anymore. Oregon is a failed trash fire now. I moved to rural Montana and don't regret a second of it.
• dnnddidiej 4mo ago
  This is the much reveered capitalism we love. Atlas cheered!
• eranation 4mo ago
  So infuriating. Seems there is a gofundme link deep in there. I hope this gets him and his family back what he deserves + lawyer fees so he can get justice. Someone needs to do a movie about this. If anyone from Disney or Lego is here, this is a phenomenal way to get some free advertising + do good in the world. https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-bryan-recover-his-lego-collection https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-bryan-recover-his-lego-colle...
• stainablesteel 4mo ago
  If this was 200k of anything else I don't think I'd care as much. I'm not sure why childish objects are worthy of more vitriol than anything else, but I definitely feel that way.
• waltwalther 4mo ago
  New video from the previous franchise owners that explains more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zedmOopRTm0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zedmOopRTm0
• aleclipse 4mo ago
  As one commenter said PRICKS & MINIDICKS
• myko 4mo ago
  Damn, I didn't realize this was a huge chain. I've hundreds of dollars at a local store and need to rethink that (easy enough to just go to the actual Lego store instead). This is crazy behavior, shameful.
• aleclipse 4mo ago
  [dead]
• stlava 4mo ago
  Those who hire a crisis management team rarely win in the court of public opinion. BAM just continues to dig a hole when they could instead facilitate fixing the situation regardless of if they think they are a party to this or not.
• qingcharles 4mo ago
  The CEO's brother (the COO) appeared on a live stream tonight and showed the Temporary Restraining Order they obtained against everyone -- Ben, Chrystal, etc. which requires them to remove all their media on all platforms etc. The basis for the TRO was that they offered "sufficient evidence" that Ben, Chrystal etc were a "criminal conspiracy" subject to RICO. This shit is crazy. Here's a screen grab of the TRO: https://imgur.com/a/ICUDXxa https://imgur.com/a/ICUDXxa Here was the live stream: https://www.youtube.com/live/K-lc6XWV3ms https://www.youtube.com/live/K-lc6XWV3ms
  • fusslo 4mo ago
    I have never been more convinced of guilt than the COO's actions in this live stream.
    • fusslo 4mo ago
      reading through the court documents now: 1. BAM expresses that the original franchise owner (Chrystal) was heavily in debt to BAM ($175,000 ) owed to BAM 2. When Chystal told BAM of her intent to sell, BAM 'repossessed' her store and her inventory to help cover her debt (really, it was the her LLC's debt, but I'm using Chrysal as a shorthand). There is a clause in the franchise agreement that says everything IN the store will be repossessed. Afterwards BAM characterizes Chrystal's actions as 'abandoning' her store 3. BAM valued the repossessed inventory at $38,000 and subtracted that amount from her $175,000 debt. 4. BAM then sold the repossessed inventory to another franchisee who took over the store location (Baker Bricks, LLC). 5. BAM argues that this agreement and rules only provide consignment IFF BAM receives a request in writing and approves the consignment. 6. BAM says they never were informed of the agreement and disallows consignment. 7. BAM says the consignment was a PRIVATE agreement between Chrystal and Mansell. 8. BAM questions the veracity of the agreement as they claim the only version they have is unsigned. 9. BAM completes the sale to Baker Bricks, LLC and claims "Baker did not at any time acquire, take over or assume any obligations of Chrystal or Salem LLC" Then things go off the rails as Mansell is trying to figure out what happened to his LEGO. Isn't that bad for BAM? IF: 1. it's a PRIVATE agreement between Mansell and Chrystal 2. The agreement state Mansell is the owner of the lego until sold 3. Mansell's legos were repossessed by BAM THEN: What legal right do they have to 'repossess' and then sell the Lego to Baker?
• gverrilla 4mo ago
  "Justice" is pay2win
• toofy 4mo ago
  i ignored this for the last week. but after enough people who’s opinions i trust wouldn’t shut up about it, i caved and watched today. this is fucking bonkers. part 2 (and i don’t say this often) is f’ing crazy. i was like, “a story about legos? cmon.” and then part 1 was a 7/10 and hooked me enough to subscribe to his patreon to see the next part early and wtf, the stuff going on in utah is crazy. i cannot recommend this enough. i’m confident this is going to blow much wider, and once it breaks these utah cops containment, more than a few people will be going to prison.
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• Artoooooor 4mo ago
  How the "justice" system intends to undo the wrong arrests?
• phendrenad2 4mo ago
  What you are all missing about this story: > Ed Mansell spent years building what many believe to be the largest personal LEGO Star Wars collection in history, over $200,000 worth of sets Note that it says "$200k worth of SETS". The collection, in the possession of any single individual or entity, is worth many times that. That's why it took years to build the collection, and why it is what many believe to be the most extensive. Others might be trying to acquire a complete set like this, but rarity dictates that other collectors will be reluctant to sell. If I were to speculate I wonder if BAM already sold the collection to some billionaire for millions and doesn't want to admit it.
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• 999900000999 4mo ago
  Way to do millions of dollars in PR damage over 200k. As this story spreads people will just assume the whole chain is bad. The bigger story is an elderly man needing to sell his toys to pay for cancer treatment. We could give all people free cancer treatment, but defense contractors need money.
  • ChrisRR 4mo ago
    I totally don't get it. If I were the head of corporate I would've just given them the sets back to avoid all of the backlash.
    • mcv 4mo ago
      But you're not. The head of corporate is someone who thought he could get away with this. And almost did, until Reckless Ben showed up.
      • _zoltan_ 4mo ago
        but ... they did get away with it? based on the blog post, it ends with the store closure? (which I don't understand why)
        • gwd 4mo ago
          If you search for "Bricks and minifigs", every result apart from their main website is about this controversy. One of the values of a franchise is the branding; at least for the forseeable future, this will be a negative value. For a company that serves a small niche community, this seems like suicide.
        • mcv 4mo ago
          It seems they closed the store rather than give back the lego. That seems like a win of sorts, because I'm sure it hurts B&M to some degree, but it's not getting the stolen lego back. I've now also seen part 2, in which the amount of police harassment that B&M seems to be able to bring to bear is absolutely disgusting.
• prepend 4mo ago
  How is this company, BAM Franchising Inc, valued at $400M? They aren’t publicly traded so it’s hard to find out. It seems like there’s almost no employees and they collect a franchising fee and 6% royalty on the 200+ franchises that BAM claims makes $570k average annual revenue [0]. .06 x 570k x 200 = 6,840,00 So not sure how a $400M valuation comes from $7M/year in revenue. And this is revenue, who knows what the profit is. Still, I was surprised there’s 200 franchisees. [0] https://franchise.bricksandminifigs.com/the-financials/ https://franchise.bricksandminifigs.com/the-financials/
  • sgerenser 4mo ago
    I can't actually find anything that supports a $400M valuation. ChatGPT seems to agree, that there's no public documents supporting that valuation, and an estimate of $6-$10M year in revenue sounds in the ballpark, meaning a value nowhere near $400M. But something as high as $100M is probably appropriate if their profit margins are high, which would be expected for a franchisor.
    • prepend 4mo ago
      I’m guessing the valuation is just youtube bs/hype. 10-15x earnings seems pretty massive. But perhaps there is more money in the used lego market than I thought.
  • raffytaffy33 4mo ago
    The company are thieves. There is a 1hr 49min video regarding them. The police in Utah are corrupt and protect them. When body cam is requested, the police department redacts audio. https://youtu.be/GwhQHBIqpow?si=NkdwzdMtm-sW7ga1 https://youtu.be/GwhQHBIqpow?si=NkdwzdMtm-sW7ga1 https://youtu.be/CCbl2z8MWJE?si=FEtKDTzOTVWAZfvo https://youtu.be/CCbl2z8MWJE?si=FEtKDTzOTVWAZfvo
  • pigglywiggly42 4mo ago
    With the amount of stolen items from 'consignment deals' the $400 million valuation is probably correct. $200000 in stolen goods from 200 franchises will definitely get them to $400 million in no time. I say stop feeding the beast
• juleiie 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  • baobabKoodaa 4mo ago
    They also made the decision to get cancer. Such bad judgment. I always choose to not get cancer. What a loser.
    • juleiie 4mo ago
      [flagged]
      • ChrisRR 4mo ago
        Why don't you go away, do some googling of how much money there is to be made in rare lego collecting and then come back
        • juleiie 4mo ago
          I hope it’s true because I still have heaps of these silly bricks lying somewhere on my grandma’s attic. I hold your word on it that they are now worth a fortune Let’s keep them for a bit more appreciation and compound interest then… Move out of the way blue chips, plastic chips are the real investing. Who needs bricks of gold when you have bricks of finest danish plastic?
          • ChrisRR 4mo ago
            Misc bricks aren't worth anywhere near as much as full sets (unless you happen to have some of the rarer bricks people are after)
            • juleiie 4mo ago
              Okay but you get the point. This is not investment, this is playground. No one buys Lego thinking “oh they will make me rich if I just keep them unopened for next 20 years” cmon
• kang 4mo ago
  No one talking about the police brutality & governance issues.
  • tempaccountabcd 4mo ago
    [dead]
• 4lx87 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  • buellerbueller 4mo ago
    hackers are builders; it wouldn't surprise me if the proportion of lego enthusiasts here is far above that of the general population.
  • selfawareMammal 4mo ago
    As an engineer who doesn't give a fuck about Lego I can tell you there's almost an autistic obsession. There's a huge crossover, don't ask me why.
  • ant6n 4mo ago
    Because it’s a corporation doing the crime to an old man trying to pay for cancer treatment.
  • mrguyorama 4mo ago
    Because a mid sized business demonstrably is able to direct the cops to harass someone with a completely legitimate grievance against them, and the cops jump at the opportunity to do exactly that, working overtime to harm people trying to literally right wrongs, and the legal system bends over backwards to ensure that a trivially provable case is not worth pursuing. Turns out if you are mid level management in a $400 million dollar company that's all it takes to become the local "State" and ignore law.
• getnormality 4mo ago
  I read the counterclaims from Bricks and Minifigs here: https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/05/28/bricks-minifigs-salem-oregon-clarity-and-resolution/ https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/05/28/bricks-mi... This post and TFA have a common issue: no one seems to have a clear, compellingly evidenced account of basic questions about the collection and its history under consignment: 1. What exactly was in the collection? 2. What happened to the collection after it was consigned: which sets were sold, which were stolen or lost, which were moved to off-site storage, etc.? 3. How much money did the original franchise owner owe the consigner for the sets sold? The peripheral claims about e.g. police malfeasance are disturbing, but without this basic evidence about the substance of the matter, I don't know if it's a great idea for an online mob to take sides.
  • solenoid0937 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    • Ovah 4mo ago
      You are more or less accusing a named individual of severe crimes without much to back it up.
      • solenoid0937 4mo ago
        Presumably the company's legal team felt the claims were so strong that they felt comfortable airing them publicly.
  • Ovah 4mo ago
    Have you seen the youtube videos? They paint a pretty clear picture.
    • getnormality 4mo ago
      Clear enough that my questions can be answered in writing? Someone should do that.
• swordlucky666 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• BloondAndDoom 4mo ago
  How is there “justice” if everyone knows the party with less money cannot get into a legal battle? How is then America free and democratic? I’m not American and I’m very confused by this and also the concept of bail money.
  • spencerflem 4mo ago
    Haha, good catch- we’re not.
  • functionmouse 4mo ago
    turns out rich people own us
  • rincebrain 4mo ago
    Americans think they're "free and democratic" in the same way that aristocrats think they're better than everyone - it's been inculcated in them since birth, by every aspect of the culture and their upbringing, and as an axiomatic belief, it's not something they challenge. There's nuance, of course, with people who are worse off in America seeing some cracks in it, but that's how you get the idiom about "Americans vote like temporarily inconvenienced millionaires" - they are so convinced the game isn't rigged against them that they vote assuming they will win at the casino one day.
• pwillia7 4mo ago
  This guy should call the ACLU -- The cops' behavior might get them involved here.
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• blurbleblurble 4mo ago
  Reckless Ben has an amazing scientology series, worth watching
• cestith 4mo ago
  The police are wrong of course to participate in targeted harassment. However, it’s not entirely wrong that this is a civil matter. There is a contract regarding this, and there was not normal criminal theft by deception or robbery by force. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and I am certainly not your attorney. This is not legal advice, but information about a general concept of US law. There’s a concept in US law called “conversion” which is a class of tort. BAM is trying to convert these items from the collector’s ownership to being corporate property. https://uslawexplained.com/conversion_law https://uslawexplained.com/conversion_law https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conversion https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(law)
• swordsith 4mo ago
  from BAM faq post the other day[0]. FAQ Q: If you want a resolution, why not just pay the money demanded online? A: We are completely willing to sit down and figure out a fair, reality-based way to ensure this grandfather is made whole. However, there is a fundamental difference between a good-faith resolution and giving in to a coordinated, viral extortion campaign. We will not reward individuals who use fake delivery uniforms, forged signatures, staged police encounters, and residential harassment to manufacture a storyline for profit. We want to help the family; we will not reward a toxic online circus. Honestly heartless behavior to treat someone trying to get money for a cancer treatment. I hope they go under. [0] https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/05/28/bricks-minifigs-salem-oregon-clarity-and-resolution/ https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/05/28/bricks-mi...
  • Neywiny 4mo ago
    Even not a cancer treatment. Even if the original seller was an uber wealthy and healthy individual, if they can't get what's legally theirs without as little as "I want it back" (contract permitting, which I think here it does), that's a problem.
  • dghlsakjg 4mo ago
    “If only you hadn’t embarrassed us publicly after refusing to deal with this situation fairly, we would have dealt with this situation fairly”
• Havoc 4mo ago
  > "It's not my name on the contract." How can another party inherit the assets of a contract but not the obligations?
• drumhead 4mo ago
  Imagine sacrificing millions of dollars worth of business and goodwill for the sake of a $200,000 collection. If I were board member I'd be demanding the CEO's resignation.