Używasz przestarzałej przeglądarki. Może ona nieprawidłowo wyświetlać tę lub inne strony. Powinieneś zaktualizować przeglądarkę lub użyć alternatywnej przeglądarki.
Reckless Ben (Youtuber: Ben Schneider) vs Bricks and Minifigs and CEO Ammon McNeff - $200k in stolen LEGO - SWATTING by Mormon Police - Mexico arrest Avoidance - Major Lawsuits (Civil RICO)
I want to move this thread out of PG but struggling where to put it. I am leaning towards Community Watch and can always move to Lolcow v Lolcow once formal litigation is filed.
An art forger is someone who creates or uses forged art/documents with the intent to deceive in order to obtain an asset (whether that asset is money, the artwork itself, or access/status). Yes, Ben Schneider is an art forger.
The fact that he later monetized the event via YouTube ad revenue or framed it as "critique" does not erase the fact that the initial act was a calculated fraud using forged instruments to obtain property. The "stunt" label describes the packaging of the crime, not the nature of the act itself.
I don't like mass psyops. They make people stupid. People who perpetrate them should be hanged.
He is clowning on you. He is a confidence man who has conned you. You have been conned. There's a quote about how it's easier to fool someone (you) than to convince him that he has been fooled (still you).
No, not fuckery; those 333 pages contain proof that Ben is a lying scam artist, mark my words (i.e. bookmark this).
If it was a psyop, then none of what ben has alleged would be remotely true, which would mean bryan is also lying since the core of all this is on his behalf. Plus, It's more believable for an autistic Cali sped to be overzealous than it is for this Corporation with a track record of lying, and shadiness to be completely honest about their allegations.
tl;dr you're coming off as being retarded because you don't like ben and how he did things.
I know I'm probably just repeating myself or others, but something about this whole situation stinks. The fact that you're going after platforms like Patreon with legal threats, the way you have police on your side to attack and arrest people with nonsensical charges...
Like it really makes the mind wonder what the fuck could possibly be hiding in those accounting books that you wouldn't just write a check for 100k and tell these people to fuck off and be done with it.
An art forger is someone who creates or uses forged art/documents with the intent to deceive in order to obtain an asset (whether that asset is money, the artwork itself, or access/status). Yes, Ben Schneider is an art forger.
The fact that he later monetized the event via YouTube ad revenue or framed it as "critique" does not erase the fact that the initial act was a calculated fraud using forged instruments to obtain property. The "stunt" label describes the packaging of the crime, not the nature of the act itself.
It kind of sucks to learn that language is imprecise and while something may meet the technical definition of a phrase it may not meet the communicated definition. Huh?
Lego Ambassador goes over different companies that have pulled out of Bricks and Minifigs, or making statements about not being affiliated with them. https://youtube.com/watch?v=m5E95uuDG2o
Does anyone know what they mean by that first point about trying to give the legos back i 2025? I don't remember that being mentioned before
Wondering if it was some scummy attempt to give back only a few of the LEGOs so it looked like it was a settled matter to the courts.
Does anyone know what they mean by that first point about trying to give the legos back i 2025? I don't remember that being mentioned before Wyświetl załącznik 9101672
Wondering if it was some scummy attempt to give back only a few of the LEGOs so it looked like it was a settled matter to the courts.
My guess it is reffered to that time when BAM wanted to give bryan a couple of lego sets as a "compensation" aka an argument in court that the deal was settled
I'm not reading through all 333 pages of bullshit legalese, so I'll just ask here. Does Bryan have charges against him from the document? He's on video working with Ben and his crew fucking with B&M, which would mean he's an accessory to at least some of the charges levied against Ben. Everyone who watched the videos would know he was there, knew what was going to happen and signed off on some of the shenanigans.
For all intents and purposes, he should be charged too, but I haven't heard anything about that. Just about Ben
My guess it is reffered to that time when BAM wanted to give bryan a couple of lego sets as a "compensation" aka an argument in court that the deal was settled.
Yep sure are, especially after I found that Conversion Claim in Oregon. This case gonna be big and many arguments will be made over the legality of consignment first. However doesn't matter, as BAM has changed their opinion on it too many times.
Here is the part you should slow down and really notice:
Bricks & Minifigs is no longer saying, “There were no LEGO.”
They are no longer saying, “There is nothing to return.”
They are no longer saying, “Brian Mansell has no issue worth discussing.”
In this new interview, Ammon McNeff, CEO of Bricks & Minifigs, appears to acknowledge several things that matter.
He acknowledges there was a consignment agreement.
He acknowledges Brian Mansell may have been underpaid.
He acknowledges inventory was identified that appeared to match Brian’s collection.
He acknowledges some of that inventory was set aside.
He acknowledges “whatever was left over” was offered.
He acknowledges BAM wants to make Brian “whole.”
That is not nothing.
That is a major shift from the way many people understood this story at the beginning.
But here is the deeper question:
If Brian needs to be made whole now, why did it take this much pressure to get here?
Why did it take videos, bodycam footage, public records, arrests, lawsuits, online outrage, and millions of people watching before the language changed from denial to resolution?
That is the heart of the issue.
Not LEGO.
Leverage.
Because this case shows what happens when an ordinary person has to fight an entity with more lawyers, more money, more structure, more institutional knowledge, and more ability to shape the narrative.
A corporation can say, “We want to resolve this.”
A person says, “I need my property back.”
A corporation can say, “There were documentation issues.”
A person says, “That was my life’s work.”
A corporation can say, “This is complicated.”
A person says, “I have been trying to be heard for years.”
That imbalance is the story.
And it is not unique to Bricks & Minifigs.
It is built into modern America.
Corporations get many of the benefits of personhood without the limitations of being human. They can speak, sue, lobby, contract, arbitrate, delay, outspend, rebrand, restructure, and survive scandal in ways no ordinary person can.
A human being gets tired.
A corporation gets counsel.
A human being runs out of money.
A corporation files another motion.
A human being has a reputation.
A corporation has a public relations strategy.
That does not mean corporations are always wrong.
It means the playing field is not equal.
And when the law pretends both sides are standing on equal ground, the result is often injustice dressed up as procedure.
This case also forces an uncomfortable question about consignment.
If a customer gives property to a store to sell, does the public understand how vulnerable that customer may be if the store fails, transfers, changes ownership, defaults, or gets taken over?
Most people think consignment means, “Those items are still mine until they sell.”
But commercial law can be far more complicated than common sense. Under the UCC, consigned goods can become tangled in creditor rights, inventory claims, security interests, perfection rules, and third-party disputes.
That may be legally sophisticated.
But to the average person, it feels insane.
Because morally, the question is simple:
If the previous franchisee did not own Brian’s collection, how could anyone else simply become entitled to it?
That is the question people keep coming back to.
And now BAM’s own framing raises another issue:
If this was an unauthorized consignment agreement by a rogue franchisee, then why is Brian the one paying the price for BAM’s franchise-control failure?
If corporate says consignment was forbidden, then corporate is admitting this happened inside a system they were responsible for overseeing.
If the franchisee violated policy, that may explain BAM’s position.
It does not automatically erase Brian’s harm.
And it should not erase the public’s concern.
Because when a company benefits from a franchise model, brand recognition, shared systems, national reputation, and customer trust, it cannot simply disappear behind “independent franchisee” language the moment the customer gets hurt.
That may be a legal defense.
It is not a moral answer.
The most important development in this transcript is not that BAM says it wants to make Brian whole.
The most important development is that the story now appears to be moving from “nothing happened” to “something happened, but the details are complicated.”
That distinction matters.
Once “something happened” is admitted, the burden changes.
Now the public has every right to ask:
What inventory remained?
What was sold?
Who sold it?
Who had possession?
Who knew it was consigned?
When did they know?
What records exist?
Why were there multiple sets of books?
Why was Brian not paid correctly?
Why did this take public pressure to resolve?
Why is Brian named in litigation while also being described as someone BAM wants to make whole?
Those are not conspiracy questions.
Those are basic accountability questions.
And this is where the call to action becomes simple:
Do not harass anyone.
Do not threaten anyone.
Do not blindly worship Ben.
Do not blindly condemn BAM.
Do something harder.
Read.
Watch.
Compare timelines.
Ask for documents.
Ask who had possession.
Ask who had title.
Ask who had notice.
Ask who benefited.
Ask who had power.
Ask who paid the price.
Because if we reduce this to “YouTuber vs LEGO store,” we miss the real lesson.
The real lesson is that ordinary people need better protection when they trust businesses with their property.
The real lesson is that franchise systems need stronger accountability when local operators harm customers.
The real lesson is that corporate legal power should not be allowed to overwhelm factual truth.
The real lesson is that justice should not depend on whether the injured person happens to find a YouTuber with enough audience to force the issue into daylight.
Because without the cameras, without the pressure, without the public, would Brian Mansell be getting this conversation at all?
That is the question.
And every person who has ever signed a contract, left property with a business, trusted a company, rented a storage unit, used a repair shop, consigned goods, worked for a franchise, or tried to fight a corporation should care.
This case is not just about what happened to one LEGO collection.
It is about what happens when human beings enter systems built for corporations.
And it asks one very simple question:
When the average person stands across from a company with more money, more lawyers, and more time, does the truth still have a fair chance?
If the answer is no, then the problem is bigger than Bricks & Minifigs.
It is the structure itself.
And structures do not change because people scroll past them.
Fug, you ninja'd me on the FOX affiliate interview with the ratfink CEO with the evil cum-crusties 'stache who thinks everything is LEGALLY MINE.
The guy looks dead inside. Sounds like he is trying to be dispassionate, but is 9,000% smoldering with incandescent rage, same as that queermo police chief, just with better audio mixing. You can see how desperate this guy is to get Bryan to take a deal, and then be made to shut up and never be seen again, but he definitely wants vengeance through lawfare.
And they are continuing to fucking lie about this consignment shit! Why is this demonstrable LIE so important to them that they continue to tell it again and again? Other franchisees have said they do consignments, the agreements -surely we've all seen it- they said they allow it. He's trying to claim they never knew about the consignment until they got the footage from the security cameras rubbed in their faces later, despite one of their corporate flunkies being in the store to seize it and with another corporate flunky on the phone. Just fucking lies.
They are trying to say that antifa's strongest soldiers were scamming the sales. Maybe? But why did it take you this long and getting the ever loving shit clowned out of you before you even bothered to check the books and are only sharing this information under duress. Fuck, this guy is so viscerally untrustworthy.
Consignment is also the bread and butter of autism brick and mortar stores like a fucking Lego store. Sure, profit can be made on selling initially manufactured goods. But the real money is the second hand sales. Which is pure PROFIT. You don't have to buy that shit. You just put it on the shelf and it makes money for nothing. Especially for high value consignment items. A 35% commission on a 40 year old lego set valued at 5,000 dollars will make way more then a 20% markup of a Lego set released this year and sold at 80 dollars.
I don't know who this idiot is trying to fool here. The idea that their business model doesn't involve consignment is fucking absurd.
They are trying to say that antifa's strongest soldiers were scamming the sales. Maybe? But why did it take you this long and getting the ever loving shit clowned out of you before you even bothered to check the books and are only sharing this information under duress. Fuck, this guy is so viscerally untrustworthy.
I believe that all parties involved besides Bryan Mansell and Ben have been made to believe they are at odds.
If BAM is stating they had 3 books for consignment (this is why I said illegally prosecute them), where's the RICO for racketeering at from the very beginning?
You telling me after seeing POS, Gorman's books and Mansell's you believed the sets were yours legally?
What pieces I am putting together knowing Chrystal's background (And they allowed her to do a franchise) is that we have very LARGE LEGO collection probably worth more than $200k or could be priced that higher if wasn't consigned to their pricing.
I think, nefariously Chrystal may be helping and BAM used her to obtain them.
BAM stating she cooked books, did all this illegal stuff, didn't pay what she owed. So you let accrue to $175k before you did something? Or did they allow it to accrue to cover something of same value to paint a narrative of a scheme that Chrystal is to blame so they keep the LEGO sets. All the while would secretly drop her case and tell Bryan that she's the party that lost his LEGOs not us.
So it's either the libtard is complicit in helping, did shady things and BAM covered it up while doing their own shady things.
Or last she's not guilty and this is all BAM's fault.
