4 ms·

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

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.

usehand 5mo ago
If that's the case why did they lose the small claims cases?
- shadefinale 5mo ago
  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.
  - usehand 5mo ago
    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?
    - altairprime 5mo ago
      [retracted]
      - usehand 5mo ago
        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.
        altairprime 5mo ago
        Ooh, I missed that! I thought I’d watched it a couple days ago but I might have dozed off due to unrelated life tired; will revisit, thanks.
    - rubyn00bie 5mo ago
      They can't even serve papers because they're being relentlessly harassed by Police who have immediately banned them from serving them. In part 2, cops even verify the court case and he has a process server-- but they just refuse to. One of many different cops eventually took the papers to serve them, and ended up coming back saying "he didn't want them." Additionally, the original business in Kaizer shutdown as soon as the default judgements went through.
      - bishfish 5mo ago
        Would it count as being served if bodycam shows that police handed him the papers and he gave them back or tossed them on the floor?
        shadefinale 5mo ago
        According to Ben, the bodycam footage of the officer's attempt to serve the papers is fully redacted, no audio/video at all.
        batch12 5mo ago
        Is there an Uber for process servers? Eventually someone would get through...
        deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]
    - shadefinale 5mo ago
      I am not stating that I think B&M would win. B&M's original intent was to force Ed and Ben into a pyrrhic victory via dragging out one lawsuit, even if they lost that one suit. Without being able to run up Ed/Ben's legal costs, trying to defend these suits at all is just a further loss for B&M for no benefit. I don't think it was the deciding factor, but Ben also sent a fake Guinness award to the store around the same time they were being served. It is within the realm of possibility that they thought Ben was bluffing with the lawsuits and tried to call his bluff just to find out it was all real after they failed to appear.
      - usehand 5mo ago
        Nah, the whole Guinness thing was obviously just a bit for the video. Clearly the franchise would not fall for that, when you can easily check that you were summoned to small claims (and they also probably get some form of direct communication from the court I would guess). Legal costs for a small claims suit is tiny, and would be easily doable for them if they could win it. Again, there is a reason they lost those cases.
  - jonlucc 5mo ago
    Or they thought that the losses were acceptable to avoid having to make sworn statements about the series of events that are still at issue in the previous owner's case and some events that may very well still be charged by Oregon prosecutors.
    - usehand 5mo ago
      So they chose to lose a case on merits related to the other case instead of making statements that would help (if they are in the right)?
      - jonlucc 5mo ago
        That’s one possibility, yes.
        usehand 5mo ago
        Quantum physics guarantees us anything is a possibility. The question is, is it a likely one at all? And the overwhelmingly likely reasons are obvious to anyone with half a brain, given all the surrounding context here.
    - eloisant 5mo ago
      They didn't even lose any money, because by closing the store the damages were never paid. It's really depressing to see to be honest.
      - abirch 5mo ago
        I believe they would need to dissolve the business entity. These default judgments against them should count as debt that needs to be paid before the business is closed unless they declare bankruptcy in court and not like Michael Scott.
      - benjiro3000 5mo ago
        [dead]
- Aurornis 5mo ago
  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.
  - usehand 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - Aurornis 5mo ago
      > You go around this post defending B&M with no knowledge of the basic facts of the case. I'm not defending anyone. I'm saying the claims don't line up > I will not do your work for you. Everything I said is true and easily searchable, feel free to look it up. Everything I quoted was from me looking it up!
      - usehand 5mo ago
        You go around claiming the accusations are "just needless YouTube drama" and that you "wouldn't really trust the YouTube influencers for the whole story". If you think this is not defending the company, then you have some basic communications difficulties. Again, if this is your knowledge after looking it up, then refrain from commenting, as your intelectual limitations will inevitably lead you to make false claims.
axus 5mo ago
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.
- Aurornis 5mo ago
  > 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
  - thevinter 5mo ago
    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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zedmOopRTm0
    - jonlucc 5mo ago
      I haven't watched this particular video, but I've read her 46 page suit. That's not the case that was lost. The case(s) that were lost are small claims actions made by the YouTuber and 9 of his friends, essentially. They got default judgments from the court on 10 claims each worth $10k. The previous owner's suit was just filed in March of this year, I believe. Now as for the previous question of who was at the pointy end of those default judgments, I haven't been able to find that answer. I assume they should have named the local franchise as an entity and it's owners individually. Closing the store to avoid paying is arguably a fraudulent transfer of assets, but that would need to be taken to court in an enforcement action.
14 5mo ago
Reckless Ben's video I would rank as one of the top 3 best YouTube videos I have ever seen. I had never seen this guy before but this video was wild. It's a mix of reporting and trolling and questionable legal tactics. The evidence in the video seems pretty hard to dispute. Of course there is 2 sides to everything but I strongly believe bam is the bad guy here.

usehand 5mo ago

If that's the case why did they lose the small claims cases?

shadefinale 5mo ago
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.
- usehand 5mo ago
  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?
  - altairprime 5mo ago
    [retracted]
    - usehand 5mo ago
      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.
      - altairprime 5mo ago
        Ooh, I missed that! I thought I’d watched it a couple days ago but I might have dozed off due to unrelated life tired; will revisit, thanks.
  - rubyn00bie 5mo ago
    They can't even serve papers because they're being relentlessly harassed by Police who have immediately banned them from serving them. In part 2, cops even verify the court case and he has a process server-- but they just refuse to. One of many different cops eventually took the papers to serve them, and ended up coming back saying "he didn't want them." Additionally, the original business in Kaizer shutdown as soon as the default judgements went through.
    - bishfish 5mo ago
      Would it count as being served if bodycam shows that police handed him the papers and he gave them back or tossed them on the floor?
      - shadefinale 5mo ago
        According to Ben, the bodycam footage of the officer's attempt to serve the papers is fully redacted, no audio/video at all.
        batch12 5mo ago
        Is there an Uber for process servers? Eventually someone would get through...
        deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]
  - shadefinale 5mo ago
    I am not stating that I think B&M would win. B&M's original intent was to force Ed and Ben into a pyrrhic victory via dragging out one lawsuit, even if they lost that one suit. Without being able to run up Ed/Ben's legal costs, trying to defend these suits at all is just a further loss for B&M for no benefit. I don't think it was the deciding factor, but Ben also sent a fake Guinness award to the store around the same time they were being served. It is within the realm of possibility that they thought Ben was bluffing with the lawsuits and tried to call his bluff just to find out it was all real after they failed to appear.
    - usehand 5mo ago
      Nah, the whole Guinness thing was obviously just a bit for the video. Clearly the franchise would not fall for that, when you can easily check that you were summoned to small claims (and they also probably get some form of direct communication from the court I would guess). Legal costs for a small claims suit is tiny, and would be easily doable for them if they could win it. Again, there is a reason they lost those cases.
- jonlucc 5mo ago
  Or they thought that the losses were acceptable to avoid having to make sworn statements about the series of events that are still at issue in the previous owner's case and some events that may very well still be charged by Oregon prosecutors.
  - usehand 5mo ago
    So they chose to lose a case on merits related to the other case instead of making statements that would help (if they are in the right)?
    - jonlucc 5mo ago
      That’s one possibility, yes.
      - usehand 5mo ago
        Quantum physics guarantees us anything is a possibility. The question is, is it a likely one at all? And the overwhelmingly likely reasons are obvious to anyone with half a brain, given all the surrounding context here.
  - eloisant 5mo ago
    They didn't even lose any money, because by closing the store the damages were never paid. It's really depressing to see to be honest.
    - abirch 5mo ago
      I believe they would need to dissolve the business entity. These default judgments against them should count as debt that needs to be paid before the business is closed unless they declare bankruptcy in court and not like Michael Scott.
    - benjiro3000 5mo ago
      [dead]
Aurornis 5mo ago
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.
- usehand 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Aurornis 5mo ago
    > You go around this post defending B&M with no knowledge of the basic facts of the case. I'm not defending anyone. I'm saying the claims don't line up > I will not do your work for you. Everything I said is true and easily searchable, feel free to look it up. Everything I quoted was from me looking it up!
    - usehand 5mo ago
      You go around claiming the accusations are "just needless YouTube drama" and that you "wouldn't really trust the YouTube influencers for the whole story". If you think this is not defending the company, then you have some basic communications difficulties. Again, if this is your knowledge after looking it up, then refrain from commenting, as your intelectual limitations will inevitably lead you to make false claims.

axus 5mo ago

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.

Aurornis 5mo ago
> 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
- thevinter 5mo ago
  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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zedmOopRTm0
  - jonlucc 5mo ago
    I haven't watched this particular video, but I've read her 46 page suit. That's not the case that was lost. The case(s) that were lost are small claims actions made by the YouTuber and 9 of his friends, essentially. They got default judgments from the court on 10 claims each worth $10k. The previous owner's suit was just filed in March of this year, I believe. Now as for the previous question of who was at the pointy end of those default judgments, I haven't been able to find that answer. I assume they should have named the local franchise as an entity and it's owners individually. Closing the store to avoid paying is arguably a fraudulent transfer of assets, but that would need to be taken to court in an enforcement action.

14 5mo ago

Reckless Ben's video I would rank as one of the top 3 best YouTube videos I have ever seen. I had never seen this guy before but this video was wild. It's a mix of reporting and trolling and questionable legal tactics. The evidence in the video seems pretty hard to dispute. Of course there is 2 sides to everything but I strongly believe bam is the bad guy here.