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

https://mybricklog.com/blog/bricks-minifigs-corporate-stole-old-mans-200000-lego-collection

by philips • 2 months ago

1394 522 2 months ago

plagiarist• 2 months 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• 2 months ago

That remains to be seen. Individuals absolutely can be held to account. Corporations are not pass to behave illegally.

dylan604• 2 months ago

Someone should let bigTech know about this

artnanika• 2 months 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.

shadefinale7• 2 months 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• 2 months 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.

jonlucc8• 2 months ago

I watched a video from a lawyer who was explaining some of the legal aspects of this debacle, and this one stuck out. Basically, if the Mansells had filed a form with the Oregon Secretary of State, they would have a much simpler claim. That form basically just says "X company is holding Y merchandise that is mine for consignment". Because they (likely) didn't do that, the process for determining their ownership may be more complicated in certain events, and closure of the store might be on that list. Reasons the new owners and BAM corporate are screwed: 1) they made statements during the seizure of the store that they are aware of the consignment and that will transfer to them 2) they were made aware of the consignment in writing by Mansell in a letter terminating the agreement and demanding return of the merchandise after a missed payment in Nov 2025 3) they sold a set from Mansell's collection after 1 & 2 to one of Mansell's confederates 4) they knowingly removed stickers placed on the collection by the previous store owner to identify it as part of the collection

Even if the consignment was undone, they don't get to just keep the collection. The agreement can almost certainly be terminated, but the collection would then be returned to Mansell.

retired• 2 months ago

Would a simple audit not completely destroy this case?

"How did you acquire these sets?"

"Uhm... don't know they just appeared out of nowhere"

Straight to jail.

ChrisRR4• 2 months ago

It's not even paying 200k. It's returning the sets that haven't been sold. They hadn't paid for the sets, they just hold them in stock until they're sold

pluc• 2 months ago

"This agreement is null and void except for this part that works in my favour"

robotnikman• 2 months ago

For a guy like him, 200k is probably no big deal. Instead of doing the right and easy to do thing, he is instead deciding to drag out this whole ordeal. Really says a lot about the guys character.

tunesmith• 2 months ago

There should be class action lawsuits just from widespread recognition of corporate wrongdoing.

xmprt• 2 months 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_T3• 2 months 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!)

frmersdog2• 2 months 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.

bfkwlfkjf2• 2 months ago

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.

fragmede2• 2 months ago

I have no social media presence.

You know HN is just social media for nerds, right?

charcircuit2• 2 months ago

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.

throwaway8582516• 2 months ago

Did the criminal investigation start before or after the social media campaign. I suspect after.

bananamogul• 2 months ago

"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.

aranelsurion• 2 months ago

All your examples are also in the category of "individual vs. organization" though.

N_Lens3• 2 months ago

All of your examples show the same pattern - the smaller party (in terms of capital) stealing from the larger party.

The law protects capital and binds humans.

hedora4• 2 months ago

It's extremely rare for a rich / famous person to get prosecuted for securities fraud.

For instance, Martha Stewart (the only example that comes to mind) was convicted of lying and obstruction of justice, not for any actual crime that was being investigated.

It's not like she was the mastermind of the 2008 securities fraud meltdown, but she was the only person to go to jail for it.

lvl155• 2 months ago

Adults ruined LEGO. There I said it.

iwontberude2• 2 months ago

They ruined Pokemon too, not that it was any good to begin with but these scalping chuds took it subterranean.

throwaway8582516• 2 months 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• 2 months ago

and Disney

fortran773• 2 months ago

and My Little Pony.

ssl-33• 2 months 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.

turtlebits• 2 months ago

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.

gosub1006• 2 months ago

It's interesting to me that Lego can't be easily made at home in 2026. That whatever they do with plastic, dye and injection molding cannot be easily replicated.

FireBeyond2• 2 months ago

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.

bena3• 2 months ago

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.

komali2• 2 months ago

The only place in Taiwan to get good hot wings is Hooters, so I was there the other day with some folks, and we noticed this dude alone at a table for a bit. His beer arrives, and he pulls out an unopened Lego box set for some car. For the next hour he slowly drinks his beer while building the entire set. Finishes the beer and set simultaneously, puts the car in his bag, pays his bill, and walks out.

There's few strangers I've encountered that I've respected more and the rest are all firemen.

Theodores2• 2 months ago

When I was ten, my mum questioned whether my sister and myself were 'too old for LEGO'. In Woolworths we had to reassure her that Set 376-2 Town House with Garden was what we wanted as it came with lots of lovely red bricks that we 'needed'. To be honest, at the time, I thought my mum was right, and that we were getting too old for LEGO, but we had sunk costs...

For us, LEGO was all about ingenuity, improvisation and imagination. We would build a set once, with the alternate back-of-the-box design, without the instructions. Then the real fun would begin, as the new set went in with the bricks we had.

At secondary school (age 11 in UK), the LEGO was cast aside as a mere child's toy. We had moved on and the idea of 'still playing with LEGO' would have been a social faux pas.

Nowadays kids have a ridiculous abundance of LEGO but where is the ingenuity and imagination? Or even the play time? With tablets, phones, video games and so much else, it seems that the set gets built as per the instructions and that is it, job done. The play hasn't even really started.

My parents hosted dinner parties, as was the custom at the time, when restaurants were rare. They quite liked to have our current creations on show, in a low-key way. That is how adults should do LEGO, proud of their kids' creations.

None of our LEGO had a market value, however, every brick had utility and colour value within our LEGO world. We had other things for collecting, even stamps, and they notionally had value.

Hence I am not sure what is going on with people having $200k LEGO collections. That level of abundance just isn't about play, and certainly not for kids. I have no sympathy for the guy, and although the loss is painful, at least he has a chance to grow up a bit!

P.S. Corporate LEGO also ruined it by promoting the whole AFOL thing, but the success of the company has been astounding, considering the product is plastic waste.

wredcoll3• 2 months ago

What a weirdly hypocritical post.

You played with legos as a kid. Congratulations, so did lots of other kids at the time, and so do kids right now. Nothing has actually changed. Legos are still sold in a box with instructions, just like they were 20 years ago and 40 years ago and so on and so forth.

The idea that adults can't play with or enjoy legos is, well, genuinely sad, as in, it invokes the emotion of sadness. Adults are allowed to have fun and play games, whether that be building race cars out of metal or out of lego or any other activity they find joy in.

At secondary school (age 11 in UK), the LEGO was cast aside as a mere child's toy. We had moved on and the idea of 'still playing with LEGO' would have been a social faux pas.

I genuinely wish you had a better childhood. Maybe you would have grown up into a person who can feel empathy for others.

gkoberger2• 2 months 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

underlipton• 2 months ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ktgvoH4Mc has a good overview.

yesod2• 2 months 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.

usehand12• 2 months 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.

dbeardsl• 2 months ago

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.

sylos2• 2 months ago

Incorrect.

A_D_E_P_T3• 2 months ago

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!

iwontberude2• 2 months ago

This is essentially what is going to happen with Monetary Metals (although I hope not!)

throwaway8582516• 2 months ago

Theft by conversion.

gkoberger2• 2 months ago

It is hard to understand if you only read the blog posted here. They left out a lot of this specificity.

prophesi• 2 months ago

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.

busterarm3• 2 months ago

They were actually getting a 35% share. This is pure greed.

consumer451• 2 months ago

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.

psygn89• 2 months ago

This is a gofundme I would gladly donate to. Fight the power for what's right.

fortran773• 2 months ago

It's not that hard to understand.

FWIW, I couldn't follow it either from the blog.

singpolyma32• 2 months ago

As soon as there is a shred of dispute every theft becomes a contract dispute

Aurornis3• 2 months ago

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.

scotty79• 2 months ago

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?

warumdarum• 2 months ago

Lucky though, you can find somebody with deep pockets to step in and take his share of the case should you win.

crazygringo6• 2 months ago

But the end of the blog post says the man sued and won.

But the store closed to get out of paying.

Which makes no sense if the store was corporate-owned. So why isn't the corporation paying?

gamblor9563• 2 months ago

If the consignment contract was not legal then BAM never owned the goods and would not have had the right to sell them.

EDIT: as other commenters point out, BAM actually did lose the lawsuit over this and now the issue is the consigner is trying to collect the judgment. In that case it would normally be irrelevant that the store was a franchise location, because BAM would have become the successor to all liabilities upon taking over the store (in the U.S., at least). With deep pockets BAM could drag out the collections process long enough to try an extract a settlement from the consigner; the risk with doing so though is that interest accrues on the settlement at statutory rates that are normally higher than market rates and they face the possibility of court sanctions for any attempts at delay that have no reasonable legal basis.

brittlepeanut2• 2 months ago

By this logic, nothing is theft, and everything is just a civil contract dispute.

There is no need for us to accept your sociopathic assertion that the rich should and will win.

apercu• 2 months ago

Sounds like theft to me.

myko2• 2 months ago

It seems like theft

It is theft!

rolandog• 2 months ago

(sprinkle a bunch of IIRC's) You're glossing over the fact that they have continued to sell the items in spite of a cease and desist from the brick owners which makes them totally culpable of selling other people's property, and that they're also being sued for unfair termination because the managers were calling in good faith to let them know they were going to take a job abroad.

Pragmata• 2 months ago

The goods were still there, still on display and being sold.

This appears to be in dispute.

As per bricks and minifigs:

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.

It appears they are alleging that the prior operator had sold a larger portion of the consigned goods than they had claimed to the family.

james_marks• 2 months ago

When the parent buys the store, they are also buying their contracts and obligations.

Unless the contract was written so poorly this didn’t happen?

code_duck• 2 months ago

I used to sometimes do consignment with artistic products I made, and 80% of the time I ended up being jerked around by the store. Even stores that kept good records and paid for a while would, after a few years, end up with inventory left that they never returned or paid for. Sometimes the stores would close and disappear with the inventory. Other times they’d avoid me. Sometimes they’d insist they paid for everything already, and have done such a poor job of documenting what payments were for that it was difficult to tell. Some people just straight up ran their stores like Ponzi schemes - paying off old consignment with sales from new vendors. As an individual artist, I became very wary of consignment as it’s essentially an unsecured loan. Even worse was that some people who faded away and kept inventory were friends and good business partners, and it’s not like I would sue them for $400.

8note• 2 months ago

"It wasn't our name on it, says right here that the previous store manager signed this, and she's no longer with us."

this seems kinda obvious that if they dont have a contract to do consignment, they don't have a contract to the lego at all, and cannot sell the lego

nerdsniper3• 2 months ago

Civil “Conversion” (as opposed to criminal theft): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(law)

Suppafly• 2 months ago

It seems like theft, but it's a very common civil contract dispute.

Theft by conversion is an actual crime, not just a civil dispute.

sylos2• 2 months ago

The store owner was allowed to sell things on consignment.

Macha• 2 months ago

Frankly even if the store was on breach of its consignment agreement, that seems like a case corporate would have against the prior owner (and one it would be hard to prove damages in), but not one that would give them any rights to the property of the lego collection owner.

mx7zysuj4xew• 2 months ago

Yeah, it's textbook theft by conversion

waltwalther2• 2 months ago

New video from the previous franchise owners gives more details:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zedmOopRTm0

rib3ye• 2 months ago

The Reckless Ben video is the best thing I've seen on youtube in the last several years.

itsalwayscults4• 2 months ago

We really need an eccentric billionaire going around trolling all sorts of petty legal trolling. Ben is actively making the world a better place with this, and every person with a networth worth a damn is barely a toenail the man he is.

I didn't know Ben dealt with cults until he revealed he started the "Scientology Sucks" religion, but as soon as the cops started baiting him into agreeing they had cause for arrest, I instantly guessed he had completely accidentally walked right into another cult corruption video. If I had a penny for the amounts of times I saw this exact type of cult discovery happen, I'd have 4, which is a pattern -> ALL cults are corrupt.

klik99• 2 months ago

I read about this previously and had the same reaction - something seems missing, it’s too crazy, this has gotta be just one side of the story. Normal reaction in this media landscape. But this seems to be one of the rare cases that, yes, it really is a case of an edge case of law allowing theft.

Allan76• 2 months ago

I believe they think they can get away with it because they have before. This family is linked to a company called Legally Mine, which specializes in legally stealing from people in any way they can, even potential clients. It's insane.

quietsegfault4• 2 months 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.

gosub1006• 2 months 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.

gblargg4• 2 months ago

The individual franchises can always get the clue and drop being a franchise, just be a local store.

throwaway8582516• 2 months ago

The part 2 video where the police harass and falsely arrest ben is even more shocking.

busterarm3• 2 months ago

Welcome to the Mormon Mafia.

throwaway8582516• 2 months 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.

curiousgal• 2 months ago

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.

throwaway8582516• 2 months ago

That was part 1. I'm referring the Utah police in part 2.

forgotaccount22• 2 months ago

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

bastardoperator2• 2 months ago

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.

usehand12• 2 months ago

Watch part two and you will understand the claims of "the police are in on it". I agree it sounded like a joke in part 1, but after you see the rest of the story it makes sense.

ball_of_lint2• 2 months ago

The police are literally in on it. It's very likely they've violated Ben's civil rights, roughly at the behest of the new franchise owners (who they know personally through the LDS church). I hate to say 'details in part 2' but there are further details in part 2. IIUC it'll be available on youtube in a few weeks.

It's explained multiple times in the video that Mansell has considered suing, but the most likely outcome of that is he pays a lawyer upwards of $60k to get <<100k in awarded compensation, then struggles to collect. The new franchise owners threatened exactly this. It's a classic and well known (and exploited) problem with our legal system.

https://youtu.be/14ktgvoH4Mc?t=1029 talks about the distinction between civil and criminal here (and the whole video is good, worth a watch). There's not exactly an either-or distinction like it's commonly presented. The police can+probably should have investigated the initial refusal to return the legos as criminal theft.

HDThoreaun3• 2 months ago

Just get a fucking lawyer.

First they tried and realized they couldnt afford one. Then they came up with a way to settle this in small claims, won, and the franchisor decided to close the store. The legal process did not work here

paulddraper6• 2 months 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-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.

thevinter6• 2 months ago

All of these quotes are false and directly contradicted by publicly available statements made by the CEO + Corporate.

quietsegfault4• 2 months 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?

paulddraper6• 2 months ago

No affiliation, other than being a fan of building bricks in general, and making a couple small purchases from one of their franchises (not in Portland, OR).

wgjordan• 2 months ago

Looks like a more detailed followup statement was just posted today:

https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/05/28/bricks-mi...

paulddraper6• 2 months ago

This is worth the read.

The strange part continues to be that the 2023 franchising agreement that explicitly permits consignment. While BAM is also claiming that the 2023 owners manual prohibited franchise owners from consignment agreements.

I would guess that BAM simply had poorly audited, conflicting documentation. It's one part they haven't addressed (albeit not central to their claims).

Animats• 2 months 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.

thevinter6• 2 months 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-man2• 2 months 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?

shadefinale7• 2 months ago

The video has Ed Mansell stating that all the lawyers he spoke to informed him that it would not be financially viable for him to pursue a suit.

Additionally, there is audio of one of the would-be defendants saying that they intend to drag things out as long as possible, basically taunting both Ed and Ben to sue him as they all understand that it is not a viable solution to the problem for Ed.

Part 2 starts with 10 separate $10,000 default judgements won against the store, but they are unable to recover any of the funds.

Ben brings a process server with him to serve new lawsuits against the owners as individuals, and 4 separate times on the same day in the same spot, cops are sent to him. The cops even take the papers from the process server, try to serve the defendant, and then give it back to the process server saying it was refused . After that they don't allow the process server to serve the papers, and then the cops show up the 4th time and Ben is eventually arrested.

z3t4• 2 months ago

I hope that they continue to sue until there's justice.

em-bee• 2 months 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.

bena3• 2 months 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

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• 2 months 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.

praseodym• 2 months ago

The screenshot of the Facebook post says they purchased the sets for approximately $20,000.

qingcharles8• 2 months 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.

dnnddidiej2• 2 months ago

But it is then a greater fool "investment" unlike stocks.

4rt• 2 months ago

https://encyclopedia.uia.org/problem/anarcho-tyranny

jmyeet2• 2 months 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.

ryandrake2• 2 months 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_li2• 2 months 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-r...

jmyeet2• 2 months ago

But it’s not a bankruptcy so why are you bringing that up?

dghlsakjg4• 2 months ago

Your cited law applies to non consumer goods, and companies under bankruptcy protection. Neither applies here.

If you read the link you posted it explains all this.

standardly• 2 months ago

This seems like an easily arbitrated dispute. But I'm not privy to all the details and IANAL.

quietsegfault4• 2 months 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• 2 months 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).

rubyn00bie2• 2 months 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.

guidedlight• 2 months ago

Part 2 is here: https://youtu.be/cxZPfj8AlmY

quietsegfault4• 2 months ago

Here's a thread on Reddit from the original owner of the store:

https://old.reddit.com/r/lego/comments/1tos7p5/bricks_and_mi...

hacker_homie• 2 months 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?

fortran773• 2 months 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).

singpolyma32• 2 months ago

They already have a judgement against the business for the full amount. But the business chose to close rather than pay

ryandrake2• 2 months 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?

colechristensen• 2 months 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.

kenmacd• 2 months ago

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.

ogig4• 2 months ago

This is one of the stunts tried on the video. The original owner sold the sets to the crew members, and they presented 10 small claims. They won all of them because BAM did not went to court, the next day they closed the store permanently. This story is crazy.

dawnerd• 2 months ago

And when they try to serve him they keep being told they need to do it the right way but the cops stop them every time. The system is totally broken.

thevinter6• 2 months 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

hedora4• 2 months 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.

HDThoreaun3• 2 months ago

I dont see how B&M can even continue after this. The lego community is small. Why would a single person ever shop at one of their stores ever again? Maybe you can get some families trying to buy stuff for kids, but the vast majority of money here is adults that are very plugged into the lego scene and surely know about this.

solomonb5• 2 months 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• 2 months ago

More money & power than sense. Hubris, greed, malice, psychopathy. One, some or all of these combined in various proportions.

usehand12• 2 months 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.

solomonb5• 2 months 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• 2 months 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.

aprilthird20218• 2 months 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

solomonb5• 2 months ago

This literally involves the CEO.

SteveGerencser• 2 months ago

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.

IncreasePosts4• 2 months ago

I suppose if you advertise a job for $20/hr and a bunch of people show up and apply for the job, you're probably not going to start advertising the job for $40/hr instead.

And whether $20/hr is a "living wage" depends entirely on your circumstances. If you're a solo adult you can probably swing it. If you have 3 kids you will probably be on food stamps. Should Amazon pay people with kids more? Or only hire single people with no dependents?

fc417fc8022• 2 months ago

The apt comparison would be wage theft. It's one thing to advertise a job at a particular hourly rate, entirely another to breach the contract and lose public trust for a paltry gain. If you're going to commit what people will interpret as theft at least make sure it's worth your while.

anthomtb2• 2 months ago

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).

solomonb5• 2 months ago

This isn't an individual franchise. The franchise was already taken over by corporate!

IncreasePosts4• 2 months ago

Keep in mind you are getting one side of the story. The company seems to be claiming that the franchisee sold the sets and (perhaps) did not pay the consignor for the sales. And that the consignor moved his sets out of the store.

That said, after ownership of the Salem store changed, we thoroughly documented and assessed current inventory. 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.

fc417fc8022• 2 months ago

Difficult to imagine why it would be declined. Did they perhaps insist on unreasonable conditions for doing so, such as fully indemnifying them in the matter? (Just wild speculation on my part since for whatever reason neither party seems interested in providing a full, clear, objective telling of events.)

antirealist• 2 months ago

I read through all of this too. It just seems that 1. why would the consignor decline? 2. if he did decline, especially "in writing", then why not post proof?

As you suggest, maybe the reason is more complicated, e.g. some was sold, consignor not happy to have what's left returned and no compensation for what was sold, so refused to just have the smaller amount of stuff returned. If so that could have been much more clearly expressed in this letter. And again they could just post the correspondance.

ogig4• 2 months ago

You should watch the two videos if you haven't because it's full of jewels. The kind of conversations and plays recorded point to a pattern. This is not their first time doing something shady, they think they can get away with it, and they greatly underestimated Ben determination and resources. "are you stupid?", "you stole them", "i swear to god i'll return them if you send me first a false apology/confession" are some of the things these BAM people said to him. Again, the video is really fun to see, you get secret cameras on these guys, police bodycams with redactions undone, plenty of legal stunts, and a healthy amount of human misery documented.

solomonb5• 2 months ago

I'm not doubting the claims at all. I simply don't understand why a massive company would shoot themselves in the foot over something relatively small.

protocolture2• 2 months ago

400M value doesn't mean they have a big bin on the outskirts of town where they go swimming in 400M dollars of cash.

It seems like their franchisee went bust, and they bailed him out to some $ value. Taking over shit like his lease and probably some other debts.

200K is maybe what they need to recoup their losses from rescuing this store, and they have enough local LDS enforcers to make it stick.

amiga3862• 2 months ago

It seems like their franchisee went bust, and they bailed him out to some $ value.

Not what happened, according to a legal commentator: https://youtu.be/14ktgvoH4Mc?t=590

The seizure. November 14th, 2024. The [original franchise owners Crystal Law Gorman and her husband Benjamin Gorman] approach B&M about selling the store. They have an overseas job offer, they want to recoup their investment before they leave.
The same day --- same day -- corporate dispatches a representative to the Kaiser store. By B&M's account, the Gormans owed approximately $200,000 in unpaid royalties. The transition negotiations broke down and B&M terminated the franchise agreement under what McNeff described as a clause permitting offset of store assets similar to an asset seizure in a bankruptcy proceeding. By the Gormans' own account, they had approached corporate about selling, not closing. And B&M's response was a same-day forced removal? No notice, no inventory, and a single box of personal belongings?
That same evening, Law Gorman says she informed the B&M representative on site who was on speaker phone with the corporate director of operations, Key McAllister, that there was an active consignment in the store, that Mancel had not been fully paid, and that the property remaining in the store was not the store's to sell. According to Law Gorman, McAllister responded that the new operator would be "taking over the consignment as well."
This is a critical factual claim. McNeff has refused to address it on the record, citing pending litigation. McAllister has not responded to media requests at all. The Gormans say the store's security camera footage captured this exchange and that it has been provided to Kaiser police.

This reads like B&M corporate are hardball-playing morons, and they choose intimidation as their first action. They clearly didn't know or care about what a fuckup they just made in effectively seizing consigned goods while taking over the franchise, even though they were told about it. And they've relied on the stacked-deck of civil proceedings costs to get away with stealing a guy's property, while they taunt the guy and lie about their actions. And the police, instead of prosecuting them for what looks like a criminal offence, are helping them get rid of the annoying guy publicising B&M's malfeasance.

qingcharles8• 2 months ago

They just "tripled down" a few minutes ago with a brand new unhinged fantasy statement:

https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/05/28/bricks-mi...

phendrenad22• 2 months ago

Yikes, you can't find a single sentence in there that doesn't basically say "we're clueless, so we assume that the most convenient thing for us is true". Reads to me like: "We have no idea where the collection is! So we assume it's not our problem!"

TechSquidTV• 2 months ago

To protect the corruption scandal already at play. It's not about the company, it's about protecting the church.

eutropia• 2 months ago

Seems like a good reason to avoid ever transacting with this business.

pinkmuffinere• 2 months ago

This YouTube video covers it with much more detail, and (imo) more entertainment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wscQpkcwgNU

ogig4• 2 months ago

That's the original material and indeed is entertaining, part 2 is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxZPfj8AlmY

qingcharles8• 2 months 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

The latest updates on the whole scenario are happening here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/RecklessBen/

natureiskino• 2 months 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.

throw101010• 2 months 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

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.

morganw• 2 months ago

+1: I'm so glad I happened to watch Mr. French's video first.

rendall2• 2 months ago

Big, if true. Mansel received ineffective counsel from several lawyers, because no lawyers he initially consulted mentioned this form.

bravoetch• 2 months 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.

TrackerFF2• 2 months 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• 2 months 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• 2 months 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?

AntonyGarand2• 2 months ago

The entity that was sued is the franchise that is now closed, and not corporate.

dghlsakjg4• 2 months 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.

itsalwayscults4• 2 months 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• 2 months ago

And people wonder why Luigi has so much support from the general public?

JumpCrisscross• 2 months 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• 2 months ago

This looks like a corporation stealing from an old man,

I would. They are evil. Treat them like so.

59percentmore• 2 months 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.

xigoi3• 2 months 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• 2 months ago

Neither did Luigi. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

rdtsc3• 2 months 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

conartist6• 2 months ago

Honestly that pattern of actions by law enforcement was the most disturbing thing. There was a moment where they knew this person was present at a private property to serve a warrant in a legitimate lawsuit. Clearly the right and moral action for the police at that moment was to help serve the papers AND then escort the litigant from the property. They chose to behave more like mobsters than defenders of the public trust, like they were taking over responsibility from the courts

sleepybrett2• 2 months ago

when people say that the police are there to enforce laws to protect capital, this is what they mean.

superxpro123• 2 months ago

Thats because the cops were on the mormon in-group.

Voultapher• 2 months ago

Sadly this is pretty on brand for police everywhere, but it's particularly egregious in "the land of the free".

If you want a sobering perspective on government power and its connection to wealth look into the history of labor movement.

Or this senate report about the CIA's detention and interogation program [0]. The section "Findings and Conclusions" is some of the most damning stuff I've ever read. Essentially they lied about the scope and brutality of the torturing, lied about its success - there was none or even negative effectiveness and every case they used as an example was a success because of information collected through other means - and actively sabotaged all attempts at oversight.

[0] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/...

jasonfarnon2• 2 months ago

Do you know all these involved parties aren't mormons in some mormon area/mormon company? Eg the old guy, the franchisee?

rdtsc3• 2 months ago

The Salem, OR ex store owner and/or the owner of the LEGO set or the youtube who got involved? I'd be fairly sure they are not. Had the store itself been in Utah that would have been a 50/50 maybe.

63• 2 months ago

My understanding is that 50% of people in the state of Utah are mormon. I'm not saying there wasn't corruption, but it could very well be pure chance with those odds.

rdtsc3• 2 months ago

If cops are pulling over another person from Utah probably not a big deal but when dealing with an outsider from out of state the situation is different.

paulddraper6• 2 months ago

multiple officers were also BYU alumni

American Fork, UT is literally 10 miles from Brigham Young University, and BYU represents 1/4th of the state's bachelors degrees.

It's a bit like saying police officers in Italy are Catholic. I'd be more surprised if they weren't tbh.

(Disclaimer: I live near that area and also graduated from BYU.)

rendall2• 2 months ago

Yeah, as a non-Mormon, I agree. I think the Mormon connection is a paranoid distraction. The behavior of the police can be explained by the same kind of corrupt-small-town-police-defending-locals-from-outsiders behavior that happens across the country.

_DeadFred_3• 2 months ago

I think it's the very odd police behavior that's triggered people trying to understand WTF is going on there.

It would be smart for the Mormon church to get ahead of this because blowback/reputational damage is hitting them. In the least Mormon Police and Mormon business executives appear to be behaving in ways you would not expect from truly religious/moral people.

Jeffbeans• 2 months ago

Ki Mcallister was also BYU

jccalhoun2• 2 months 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-p...

qingcharles8• 2 months 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.

wredcoll3• 2 months 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?

jccalhoun2• 2 months ago

a lawyer

SwellJoe2• 2 months 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_li2• 2 months 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.

SwellJoe2• 2 months 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.

protocolture2• 2 months ago

Joshua Johnson and Brandon Best are, by public record and documented account, members of the LDS community.

Ah there it is. Classic.

N_Lens3• 2 months ago

Mormon Mafia.

crazygringo6• 2 months 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.

hedora4• 2 months 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.

jasonfarnon2• 2 months ago

do we know the debt is "imaginary"? Was this inventory seized in satisfaction of some debt.

abirch4• 2 months 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.

AntonyGarand2• 2 months 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• 2 months ago

This entire story started because the corporation took control of the franchise though

ChrisRR4• 2 months ago

I don't think they won in court, B&M just didn't respond so it went to a default judgement

KomoD2• 2 months ago

B&M just didn't respond so it went to a default judgement

So they won.

arjie• 2 months 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!

crazygringo6• 2 months 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.

HaZeust2• 2 months 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.

hedora4• 2 months 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• 2 months 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• 2 months ago

That would just about cover the price of a B&MF franchise license.

kittikitti• 2 months 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.

mattmaroon• 2 months 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• 2 months 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.

mcv9• 2 months 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• 2 months 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.

archon810• 2 months ago

Heck, our current president is a fine example of this behavior, according to numerous accounts.

fancyfredbot2• 2 months ago

I agree with you. It makes no rational sense for the corporation to act this way. I can see how they end up losing a court case but can't explain why they don't pay up.

It sounds like the first franchise collapsed owing money. I expect the company had created strong incentives for employees to claw that back. Someone has followed those incentives against the interest of the corporation. This happens all the time although in this case they break the law.

Eventually there's a lawsuit and a lot more people get involved including people without any incentive to do illegal things. However those involved originally present some varnished version of the truth (to avoid getting fired!) the company trusts this version of events. They decide to fight the case in court.

Then they lose the case. Those who decided to fight it realise they made a bad choice and they now look bad too. It's at this point that the weirdest thing happens. Why do they choose to close the store instead of paying up? My guess is that it became personal for someone.

K0balt3• 2 months ago

It’s a farcical notion that people are uniformly rational actors, as well as the notion that rational is adjacent to just.

It’s an unfortunate fact that many people in positions of wealth and power default to “F-you my lawyers will drown you and I will win” in every single case, regardless of merit.

Many times, that is the singular strategy that has put them in that position of wealth and power. Many times, they apply this strategy to every situation where they already possess an asset or service for which they have not paid, and that asset or service is valued higher than an ongoing good faith relationship with the person or entity that they owe for the asset or service that they received.

It’s a wholly predatory strategy but it can be a very rational calculus, and it can propel you to the very pinnacle of wealth and power. Its continuously surprising to plebs because it goes against the fantasy of the fundamental justice of society that they have been inculcated with, a convenient lie that keeps powerless people in their lane and justifies the use of police powers to protect the criminal activity of the owner class.

I say this as a member of the owner class. I try not to be one of those people, but it’s easy to see justice as an unnecessary and frivolous expense. I’d estimate that a significant fraction of my peers are in this category, and nearly everyone else occasionally dabbles, often without even being aware of it as their lawyers push in that direction.

Ultimately, it’s a side effect of obscene inequality. I don’t know how to fix it, much less how to make the world somehow intrinsically just. IMHO there is no justice except the justice we go out of our way to create. Justice is not the natural state of the world.

amiga3862• 2 months ago

It sounds like the first franchise collapsed owing money.

It did not, the franchisees simply wanted out because they were offered better paid work overseas.

They told corporate they wanted to sell the franchise back to them, as they say they wanted to recoup their investment in the franchise before they left the USA.

Corporate arrived the same day and started saying the franchise owes them $200,000, didn't inventory the franchise, terminated their franchise that day, seized the franchise that same day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ktgvoH4Mc&t=590s

I don't have the facts about who's right about that, but that corporate behaviour seems remarkably aggressive and fishy to me.

TrackerFF2• 2 months ago

My take is that this all comes down to the stores being franchises.

Yes, franchisor hold a lot of power, and in the big picture the franchisees are small owners and a move like this ($200k of merch they haven't paid a dime for) can affect the PnL quite a lot on the local level. It seems like the average Bricks and Minifigs franchise store has annual revenue of just $600k. At that's revenue. Another search shows that their margins are around 10%-20%

If these franchise owners managed to pull of this, and sell the collection for $200k on top of the expected annual revenue, that would put their store margin for that year around 45%-55%!

I'm guessing Bricks and Minifigs, the corporation, just assumed this would fly quietly under the radar, and let their franchisees.

I think it just comes down to greed. A couple of franchisees figured they could make a killing, and become one of the most profitable franchise stores with no effort.

JMiao• 2 months ago

if the theft accusation is credible and not a rogue fuck up, then you wonder if a company that authorizes a $200k theft could have some other skeletons in the closet. like the sus $95mm sales claim.

50208• 2 months 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• 2 months 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.

dnnddidiej2• 2 months ago

This is the much reveered capitalism we love. Atlas cheered!

eranation• 2 months 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-colle...

stainablesteel• 2 months 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.

waltwalther2• 2 months ago

New video from the previous franchise owners that explains more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zedmOopRTm0

aleclipse• 2 months ago

As one commenter said PRICKS & MINIDICKS

myko2• 2 months 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.

stlava• 2 months 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.

qingcharles8• 2 months 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

Here was the live stream:

https://www.youtube.com/live/K-lc6XWV3ms

fusslo4• 2 months ago

I have never been more convinced of guilt than the COO's actions in this live stream.

fusslo4• 2 months 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• 2 months ago

"Justice" is pay2win

toofy2• 2 months 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.

Artoooooor• 2 months ago

How the "justice" system intends to undo the wrong arrests?

phendrenad22• 2 months 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.

999900000999• 2 months 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.

ChrisRR4• 2 months 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.

mcv9• 2 months 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.

Schmerika3• 2 months ago

people will just assume the whole chain is bad.

The whole chain is bad.

We're far past the point where the company bigwigs should have fixed this. It's not like they don't know.

The bigger story is an elderly man needing to sell his toys to pay for cancer treatment.

Idk. Straight up corporate theft of $200k, backed up by the cops, is a more visceral story than 'yet another person merked by our predatory healthcare system'.

We could give all people free cancer treatment, but defense contractors need money.

Yes, and that's important - but there are unique aspects to this story which shouldn't be overshadowed by the higher priority problem for the nation. The immediate problem for this elderly cancer patient isn't going to be solved by Americans suddenly realising that they have people power - but getting his Legos back might save his life.

rithdmc4• 2 months ago

I think it's more visceral, but a smaller story. 'yet another person merked by our predatory healthcare system' is a headline that will be relevant again, with new participants, tomorrow, or next week.

This headline about star wars lego? Less so.

prepend2• 2 months 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/

sgerenser8• 2 months 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.

prepend2• 2 months 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• 2 months 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/CCbl2z8MWJE?si=FEtKDTzOTVWAZfvo

pigglywiggly42• 1 month 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

kang• 2 months ago

No one talking about the police brutality & governance issues.

getnormality3• 2 months ago

I read the counterclaims from Bricks and Minifigs here:

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.

Ovah2• 2 months ago

Have you seen the youtube videos? They paint a pretty clear picture.

getnormality3• 2 months ago

Clear enough that my questions can be answered in writing? Someone should do that.

abirch4• 2 months ago

You're right that we don't have the facts. That said, the way that Bricks and Minifigs handled this has been horrible. The CEO should have said on camera that he's willing to work with the lego owner to return the property and to work with police to charge the former franchise owner with theft.

If you see this clip, this is when corporate was removing the previous franchisee https://youtu.be/wscQpkcwgNU?si=_k_EDfs4NmO5riB5&t=126

maweaver• 2 months ago

One thing really stands out, which is that Bricks and Minifigs is pointing the finger at the franchisee for an "unauthorized" consignment deal. While the blog post has a screenshot of the contract specifically allowing consignments. Which undercuts a large part of the corporate argument.

paulddraper6• 2 months ago

Yeah, that's a glaring issue.

They say it was prohibited in the 2023 operating manual [1]. That's the same year as the franchise contract.

It'd be strange for B&M to lie about such an objectively falsifiable statement.

My best guess is that the franchise and operating manual were simply not in agreement.

(B&M wants to reject the consignment because they want the franchise operator to take liability for any missing or unreimbursed sales.)

[1] https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/05/28/bricks-mi...

BloondAndDoom• 2 months 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• 2 months ago

Haha, good catch- we’re not.

functionmouse• 2 months ago

turns out rich people own us

rincebrain• 2 months 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• 2 months ago

This guy should call the ACLU -- The cops' behavior might get them involved here.

blurbleblurble• 2 months ago

Reckless Ben has an amazing scientology series, worth watching

cestith• 2 months 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://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conversion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(law)

swordsith• 2 months 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-mi...

Neywiny• 2 months 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.

dghlsakjg4• 2 months 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• 2 months ago

"It's not my name on the contract."

How can another party inherit the assets of a contract but not the obligations?

drumhead• 2 months 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.

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

Related Stories