- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bricks and Minifigs (Lego reseller), scammed a family out of $200k in legos
Posted on 6/5/26 at 7:13 am to Salviati
Posted on 6/5/26 at 7:13 am to Salviati
This was quite the rabbit hole I found myself in. But I couldn’t stop watching any of it, the whole story really is wild.
Don’t you think that reckless Ben could actually sue BAM and or the AF police department too at this point? I would think he has a very good case with all the video evidence he has now, and even more now that some of the police videos are becoming unredacted. I personally would love to be able to see more of the body cam stuff they muted. It really is so telling that they did that.
Don’t you think that reckless Ben could actually sue BAM and or the AF police department too at this point? I would think he has a very good case with all the video evidence he has now, and even more now that some of the police videos are becoming unredacted. I personally would love to be able to see more of the body cam stuff they muted. It really is so telling that they did that.
This post was edited on 6/5/26 at 7:15 am
1
Posted on 6/5/26 at 9:16 am to jivy26
new quick updates from Ben
Brick by Brick
This post was edited on 6/5/26 at 9:25 am
Posted on 6/5/26 at 10:13 am to GravelLotinCanada
quote:There are lots of potential claims Ben could assert against the recent franchise owners, BaM, and AFPD: IIED, 1983, defamation, wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution, etc.
Don’t you think that reckless Ben could actually sue BAM and or the AF police department too at this point? I would think he has a very good case with all the video evidence he has now, and even more now that some of the police videos are becoming unredacted. I personally would love to be able to see more of the body cam stuff they muted. It really is so telling that they did that.
Ben would face some headwind:
Depending on insurance coverage, the recent franchise owners might not have deep pockets.
The AFPD will have qualified immunity.
Punitive damages are split between the victim and the state in Utah after the first $50,000.
This post was edited on 6/5/26 at 12:25 pm
Posted on 6/5/26 at 11:51 am to Eighteen
quote:
new quick updates from Ben
Why is that video not on his main account, but instead on a two week old account with just three videos?
Posted on 6/5/26 at 1:58 pm to LegendInMyMind
quote:
Why is that video not on his main account, but instead on a two week old account with just three videos?
think he mentioned there were issues with YouTube flagging and removing videos on his main account at one point
Posted on 6/5/26 at 2:31 pm to Eighteen
Posted on 6/5/26 at 3:02 pm to stout
Has the PD responded since their unredacted videos got hacked and posted?
Posted on 6/5/26 at 4:24 pm to LegendInMyMind
I just saw this late last night and I have tried to stay away, but it just sucked me in. This is wild and just pisses me off. That company should not exist anymore
Posted on 6/5/26 at 4:26 pm to LegendInMyMind
Don’t think they got hacked per se.
The logs were posted in the department’s Dropbox account. All indications are that someone at the department did it, either by accident or on purpose. The account has since been restricted.
The logs were posted in the department’s Dropbox account. All indications are that someone at the department did it, either by accident or on purpose. The account has since been restricted.
Posted on 6/5/26 at 4:45 pm to Sasquatch Smash
quote:
Why is the top right corner of the video blurred out for much of the beginning?
Second comment on YT:
"If you're just watching and wondering about the blurs on the top right, Bricks and Minifigs used the YouTube system to force a redaction on those parts of the videos. Either these blurs stay due to the request, or Ben has to delete this whole video and reupload - losing the traction this video currently has. Try your best to look past the blurs or else Bricks get exactly what they want."
Posted on 6/5/26 at 4:48 pm to jivy26
I've only watched a few videos on this but I have yet to see what legal leg BAM Corporate is standing on. How can they justify "seizing" third party merchandise submitted for sell on consignment? They truly seem like complete dirtbags. I am curious what they claim gives them the right to not return the third-party items.
Posted on 6/5/26 at 5:01 pm to johnqpublic
IF they were unaware of the consignment situation, there is a way to claim they thought they owned the collection free and clear because of all the stock they repoed from the previous franchisee.
Problem for them is that a high ranking corporate officer was captured on a call that night being informed by the outgoing franchisee of the consignment deals, that what was sold of Brian’s that hadn’t been paid out still needed to be paid out, etc.
IOW, they got a lot of indications that there was a significant amount of stock in the store which didn’t belong to the franchisee.
May not hold up in a court of law for notice but it sure holds up in the court of public opinion.
What also does not help BAM is that Josh admitted on the body cam that the consignment agreement existed and claimed it didn’t apply to him because he didn’t sign anything, it was signed by the prior franchisee.
This has been described as the “lending your car” theory to where you can lend your car to someone who then has all their stuff seized but the car can’t be seized to pay debts because they never owned it.
Problem for them is that a high ranking corporate officer was captured on a call that night being informed by the outgoing franchisee of the consignment deals, that what was sold of Brian’s that hadn’t been paid out still needed to be paid out, etc.
IOW, they got a lot of indications that there was a significant amount of stock in the store which didn’t belong to the franchisee.
May not hold up in a court of law for notice but it sure holds up in the court of public opinion.
What also does not help BAM is that Josh admitted on the body cam that the consignment agreement existed and claimed it didn’t apply to him because he didn’t sign anything, it was signed by the prior franchisee.
This has been described as the “lending your car” theory to where you can lend your car to someone who then has all their stuff seized but the car can’t be seized to pay debts because they never owned it.
Posted on 6/5/26 at 5:06 pm to johnqpublic
quote:
I've only watched a few videos on this but I have yet to see what legal leg BAM Corporate is standing on. How can they justify "seizing" third party merchandise submitted for sell on consignment? They truly seem like complete dirtbags. I am curious what they claim gives them the right to not return the third-party items.
Still my main question all along... what makes BAM think they or the franchise own all Mansells stuff?
Posted on 6/5/26 at 5:20 pm to Eighteen
quote:
Saw this in another thread:
The CEO and the two new franchise owners all used to work at a company called LegallyMine. The company was owned by the CEO's dad, and the CEO's brother is the COO of that company.
The company's entire schtick was stealing stuff from people and using loopholes in the legal system to keep it.
That can’t be true.
Posted on 6/5/26 at 5:21 pm to Meauxjeaux
quote:
Still my main question all along... what makes BAM think they or the franchise own all Mansells stuff?
If you want to understand the legal side watch the video I posted at the end of page 8. Devin is going to put out a video focused on Ben's actions, but it isn't out yet. It will be filled with "don't do that, don't ever do that". Ben is ofcourse trying to produce content as well as help, but the "need" to produce content has made the entire process more difficult.
Posted on 6/5/26 at 5:26 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
Devin is going to put out a video focused on Ben's actions, but it isn't out yet. It will be filled with "don't do that, don't ever do that".
Legal Mindset already did that
Posted on 6/5/26 at 5:27 pm to olemc999
quote:
So here is the conclusion that I have come to.
BAM Corporate pushes franchisees into default and then takes control of their stores.
I believe this is the major corporate scam at play. They’re using their associates Josh and the other owner to purchase the stores that go into default. They control numerous stores (likely by seizing them in the same way they did with Chrystal’s). It’s essentially a large-scale method to rip off people who invest in BaM. This is the truth they’re trying to hide and cover up. They don’t want this story to gain traction and did everything they could to suppress it. It didn’t work, and the entire operation is going to collapse. This ties into the practices of that Legally Mine business that Ammon was a president of.
Well that would make things even more interesting.
Posted on 6/5/26 at 5:35 pm to stout
quote:
Legal Mindset already did that
I prefer Devin to Andrew by a long shot. Devin is much more complete and approaches it like a prof and includes all the granular caveats, which may or may not be interesting to others. He is usually behind other channels because he does more research.
Posted on 6/5/26 at 5:42 pm to Obtuse1
IDC that Devin has gotten into political commentary lately
Page 9 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News