And Now Basically Everyone In This LEGO Dispute Looks Sketchy
from the it-only-gets-worse dept
A couple weeks ago I wrote 6,000 words about the Reckless Ben/Bricks & Minifigs LEGO mess and concluded that pretty much everyone involved had made serious mistakes — with the Utah contingent (Bricks & Minifigs corporate, Joshua Johnson, Brandon Best, and the American Fork police) looking the worst of all. That take upset basically everyone: some felt I was too hard on Reckless Ben, some felt I was too easy on the American Fork police, and probably a few people just resented spending that much time reading about legos. Since then, a lot more has come out, and the situation has only gotten murkier. My original read still holds up, but the Utah folks look even worse, and some of the other players are looking sketchier too.
And, I think it’s fair to say, mistakes were made by pretty much everyone involved.
Just as before, many of the new details are in long YouTube videos, but if you want watch just one, start with this one by Stephen Findeisen, who is better known as Coffeezilla and who regularly researches financial and cryptocurrency scams:
That video goes deep — Findeisen gets basically everyone on the phone at some point or another (except the cops), accesses a ton of evidence not previously public, and, unlike most of the earlier YouTube coverage, actually tries to find the truth instead of just stoking outrage.
He makes a few points that are hard to argue with:
- The Lego collection was never actually worth $200k (we had suggested this in our initial post as well). It was probably closer to $100k (and possibly a bit less).
- Some of it was definitely sold before all this, but much of it had not been.
- Plenty of it clearly remained in the store after Brandon Best showed up the night in November 2024 to kick out Law and take over the store.
- Best also showed up with a U-Haul truck, and there are some (slightly conflicting) reports that he subsequently appeared at his other Oregon Bricks & Minifigs store with a bunch of Star Wars Lego sets. Bricks & Minifigs corporate initially insisted this was false and said he showed up in a rental car. But Coffeezilla has visual proof of a U-Haul parked outside that night, which is pretty damning, which led Bricks & Minifigs to revise their story with a complicated one about hauling a camper trailer, which doesn’t make that much sense.
- Coffeezilla dropped this thread, in part because of a disagreement over the timeline, though it’s not clear to me that the timeline doesn’t really line up. It seems entirely possible that Best could have taken a bunch of legos out of the Gormans’ old store and taken them to his other store and then returned the U-Haul truck.
- Law & Gorman appear to have sold some of Mansell’s collection and not paid him for that, and it could be a lot of money. Law admits that she may have been a bit sloppy on the record keeping, saying she hadn’t done an inventory in a while and suggesting employees maybe hadn’t told her when certain sets from the collection were sold. But there’s also a credibility problem regarding sets that were listed as being on layaway, but where the spreadsheet suggests they were actually sold, but not accounted for as sold.
- To her credit, she admits it’s possible she owes Mansell some money and that if she can see evidence of this she will make sure that Mansell is paid what he is owed. But given how quick the Gormans were to insist this was entirely Bricks & Minifigs corporate who were the problem, it’s not a good look.
- Bricks & Minifigs corporate claims that there were about $5k worth of Star Wars legos left. That appears to be bullshit and wouldn’t really help their case, because even if it was just $5k of Mansell’s legos, those are still stolen legos.
- Bricks & Minifigs’ CEO and COO (the McNeff brothers) claim that they never were sent a spreadsheet of the collections, and the best moment in the video is when Coffeezilla points out that the Google Docs spreadsheet he’s been using is owned by their account and has been sitting there since 2024. That really makes the McNeffs look sketchy.
That video also includes dueling photographic and videographic evidence of what was in the store the night Best kicked the Gormans out (as well as a few weeks earlier when Best apparently surreptitiously filmed inside the store to see what was there). There are way more empty shelves the night Best kicked out Law & Gorman, but they say that’s because they had moved the high value consignment items to the safes they had purchased for that purpose, which were in the back. Later in the video Coffeezilla shows the McNeffs additional images from Law that appear to show Star Wars lego sets in what appears to be a safe, and which Matt McNeff (the company’s COO) admits they don’t appear to have listed in their own spreadsheet, which they had originally said was a complete listing of all the Star Wars legos in the store the night they took it over.
The McNeffs still look terrible, and Brandon Best also looks a bit sketchy. But it also appears that Law & Gorman’s record keeping was pretty sketchy as well, and while the McNeffs have gone overboard in claiming that they were responsible for Mansell’s “missing” legos, it does appear likely that Law owes Mansell for a decent number of Star Wars legos her store sold.
As for the American Fork Police department and Brandon Best’s partner, Joshua Johnson, we need a different video, this one from Legal Eagle. It breaks down just how many things they did wrong:
There were a lot of assumptions made about the police department, particularly around how they redacted the footage they released to Schneider. There was plenty of smoke, but no actual fire. As it turns out, beyond possibly being corrupt, the American Fork Police Department might also just be incompetent: they accidentally uploaded all the unredacted bodycam footage, which is now available on the Internet Archive.
Schneider initially claimed a hacker obtained the videos, which raised some questions about provenance. Once the department itself admitted the release was accidental, that question went away — and what’s in the footage is pretty hard to explain away. The police were way too credulous with Johnson. The “refusing to accept service” situation alone is maddening: Johnson claims the lawsuits are fake, the officer calls the court and confirms they’re real, and then… still lets Johnson refuse service. Beyond that, there are the extended traffic stops on no real probable cause, and the arrests on a search warrant instead of an arrest warrant — and they didn’t even find what they were looking for. Legal Eagle walks through all of it, and it’s a long list of failures.
Schneider is a more complicated case. He’s clearly one of the good guys here, and the attention he generated did move the needle when nothing else was. But some of his own claims haven’t held up. He never independently verified the value of the collection — and in the Coffeezilla video, he appears genuinely surprised it’s nowhere near $200k, which is a bad look for someone who made that figure central to his coverage. The small claims court situation is worse: Schneider said Johnson and Best had defaulted on those cases, but they were basically all dismissed for being filed against the wrong defendants, or never properly served. In a followup video, Reckless Ben admits he thought he’d won by default simply because he and his friends filed for default. Which goes back to the original point: talk to a lawyer, even just for an hour.
The Mexico situation is its own category of self-inflicted damage. In multiple videos he’s mentioned that after facing criminal charges he had fled to Mexico and joked about how Utah law enforcement can’t reach him there. Whether or not he actually left the country, publicly bragging about being a flight risk while facing criminal charges is exactly the kind of thing that hands prosecutors an easy argument. He has real defenses available to him. This doesn’t help.
And then there’s Law & Gorman, who aren’t villains, but they aren’t blameless either. It appears Law owes Mansell for a fair number of sets her store sold without paying him out — and the record-keeping problems aren’t fully explained by sloppy bookkeeping. The layaway-versus-sold discrepancy in the spreadsheet is a credibility problem, not just an accounting one. To her credit, Law has said she’ll make it right if shown the evidence. But the Gormans were also quick to frame this entire situation as purely a Bricks & Minifigs corporate problem, and that framing looks increasingly incomplete.
Every side of this story is a disaster. We’ve got a corporation willing to say anything to save face, a police department that accidentally leaked its own bad behavior, franchise owners who likely shortchanged their client, and a YouTuber whose good intentions were undercut by bad execution. About the only thing missing is anyone who actually handled this well.
Filed Under: american fork pd, ammon mcneff, ben schneider, benjamin gorman, bryan mansell, chrystal law, consignment, legos, matt mcneff, reckless ben, utah
Companies: bricks & minifigs


Comments on “And Now Basically Everyone In This LEGO Dispute Looks Sketchy”
Legos?
“… and probably a few people just resented spending that much time reading about legos.”
No, actually, what really tans our hide is using the word “legos”. LEGO is a plural noun – you’d bug us pedants (and LEGO fans) as much as if you said “sheeps” or “Attornies Generals”.
YW.
Re:
Everyone says “Legos” regardless of what the company says. Anyone who is so anal about the name of toy bricks that they whine about someone not getting corporate terminology exactly correct needs a life.
Re: Re:
“Everyone…” In the US. 😉
It sounds really weird on the other side of the pond.
Re: Re: Re:
And calling undergarments ‘pants’ sounds pretty weird on our side of the pond.
Don’t even get me started with calling self adhesive bandages ‘plasters’ and flashlights ‘electric torches’.
Re: Re: Re:2
I’ve always said pants, in England, and underpants for underwear.
I’m guessing that at one point the BBC banned saying underwear, and so ‘pause’ pants was said, and eventually just became pants. Now the “youth” say pants meaning underpants. (Gen X and older, bunch of troublesome youths in my opinion, need taking a switch to, the lot of them).
Was it because of someone called Mary Whitehouse?
Re:
As I said to someone on Bluesky, I decided long ago that I’m not here to go with the Lego company’s marketing. I’m going to communicate clearly and it’s better to say “legos.”
Re: Re: Nope
It is ‘LEGO bricks’. It’s not marketing, it’s how the language works (outside of the USA, it seems).
Re: Re: Re:
If the company what makes Legos wants to sue me for saying “Legos”, let them sue me. But I’ve always heard people call them “Legos”. Guess they’ll have to, what, sue everyone in the US for not adhering to specific and exacting corporate language? Seriously, dude—do you work for them or something?
Re: Re: Re:2 Legos?
Incessantly repeating something incorrect does not make it correct. Welcome to the Big Lie argument towards ‘truthiness’.
And furthermore, as pointed out elsewhere, it’s not corporate diktat; it’s how to speak English. Nobody is going to sue you for sounding like a moron; they’ll just think you’re a moron.
And an insulting moron, at that.
OC AC
Re: Re: Re:3
Then I guess you’ll have to forcibly re-educate the thousands, if not millions, of people who refer to Legos as Legos. You up for the task, son? You ready to torture people into following corporate trademarks?
You can whine and complain all you want that people call them “Legos”, but when people have been doing it for decades—when it’s how their entire family refers to Legos and how they refer to Legos and how their children refer to Legos—you are the one who needs to learn how to deal with it. Seriously, back when I was a kid, plenty of parents referred to all gaming consoles as “Nintendo” (and pluralized that as “Nintendos”). You wanna retroactively penalizing them for that? Because that’s what this feels like to me: you trying to police language in a very fucking weird way.
Do I need to seek forgiveness from the Legos people—sorry, “The™ LEGO™ People™”™—or should I chop off a limb as penance? Maybe I’ll lop off a foot; less chance of stepping on “A™ LEGO™ Brick™”™ that way.
Re: Re: Re:4
“Do I need to seek forgiveness from the Legos people—sorry, “The™ LEGO™ People™”™—or should I chop off a limb as penance? Maybe I’ll lop off a foot; less chance of stepping on “A™ LEGO™ Brick™”™ that way.”
It was pointed out to you several times that that’s just how the language works, yet you continually insist that it’s somehow a corporate thing?
Re: Re: Re:5
I insist on that because only a corporate stooge or an attorney in that corporation’s legal department would care this much about the precise terminology used for the product in question and whether some rando on the Internet is using said precise terminology.
You seem to think I am the one going “everyone has to call them Legos now”. I’m not. If someone refers to Lego pieces as “LEGO™ Bricks™”™, I don’t care. I’m going to keep calling them “Legos” and everyone else can call them what they want. What I care about is this really weird insistence from you that anyone who doesn’t use the exact same terminology that the corporation uses (and asks everyone else to use) is somehow worthy of condemnation or scorn. So I don’t call them “LEGO™ Bricks™”™. Unless you’re a corporate stooge or a trademark lawyer, why do you care when you still know what I’m talking about?
Re: Re: Re:6
“And I’m sure there are people who refer to such bricks that aren’t LEGO bricks as “Legos”. What are you gonna do, sue them into oblivion?”
No, nobody is suing you. I’m just going to think you’re a moron. Perhaps English isn’t your first language – I’ll cut you some slack for that – it is notoriously difficult to learn as an adult. I’m also assuming you’re an adult; in that too I could be wrong.
And we’re all going to die on some hill or other. Why not this one?
OC AC
Re: Re: Re:7
You’re really going to think that because I said “Legos” instead of “LEGO™ Bricks™”™, despite telling you that I’ve heard plenty of people call them “Legos” and I’ve known exactly what they’re talking about when they do.
Really.
Isn’t more idiotic to play word police like you’re trying to do? Because this “I’m going to insult you for not using the exactly correct corporate term for this child’s toy” shit is kind of fucking ridiculous. And for the record, I’m not going to stop calling them “Legos” because you insulted me. If anything, you’re making my decision on the matter far, far, far easier than you would have if you had shown an ounce of respect for other people instead of insulting them for how they refer to Legos.
But please, keep saying you’ll die on this hill. The real question is whether you’ll find anyone willing to bleed out next to you.
Re: Re: Re:8
You have made my choice clear.
It is kinda charming how you selectively quote me; and then accuse me of misleading language. No, I’m not going to sue you. No, it is not corporate speak. You write paragraph after paragraph accusing me of exactly what you are doing. ‘s very Republican of you.
I am going to run the risk of comment moderation here: You’re a … person.
OC AC
Re: Re: Re:9
Then let’s see you enforce it.
Re: Re: Re:10
No.
OC AC
Re: Re: Re:11
Then I guess the “Coward” in “Anonymous Coward” is more appropriate than usual in this instance. What, you ain’t got no way to make me stop referring to Legos as “Legos”? You ain’t even gonna threaten me or anything?
Re: Re: Re:12
No. I won’t.
OC AC
Re: Re: Re:13
Two things.
Re: Re: Re:9
You say you are pedantic but in reality you are just a very weird person willing to double down on something you are wrong about, and you know it. And if you don’t know it, then you are a moron.
Re: Re: Re:7
Haven’t you had it explained to you that nobody likes an obtuse pedant that also is wrong?
As Wiktionary describes it:
The plural form Legos is chiefly American. Other regions tend to use Lego as a mass noun, and refer to Lego bricks and Lego sets. Its use as a noun is proscribed by the company LEGO itself, as it believes it should always be used as an adjective; however, the use of it as a noun is seen widely.
Lego is also at this point also a genericized trademark.
But go ahead, keep arguing that a corporate brand dictates grammar which is one stupid position to take. Now go somewhere else and harass people who say Band-Aids, Cashpoints, Frisbees, Hoovers, Jacuzzis or Popsicles – which are all examples of pluralized trademarks.
Re: Re: Re:
How language works is what is most common and easily understood. And in this case, most people refer to the bricks as Legos. It’s natural, it’s understandable, and that’s all that matters.
Language adapts.
Re: Re: Re:2
As I said before, you and StS are assuming that an American-English specific usage of ‘legos’ is the way ‘everyone knows’ it is said. It is not. (certainly not in British English, though I can’t speak for Australian, NZ or any of the many other kinds of English)
In the end, I don’t care what you think about this, and I don’t think I can fix the USA (not even the USA citizenry appear to be able to do that right now), you’re just wrong.
Re: Re: Re:3
It’s how I’ve always referred to them. It’s how my parents always referred to them. It’s how my brother, my best friend, and other family members and acquiantances have always referred to them. I’ve seen and heard more people refer to them as “Legos” or “Lego pieces” than I’ve ever seen or heard them referred to as “LEGO™ Bricks™”™ or whatever corporate branding you apparently want branded on my forehead as a warning to everyone else. I’m sorry that I’m not using the correct legally-required-for-talking-about-plastic-bricks terminology, but I’ve spend 40-plus years of my life hearing and seeing them referred to as “Legos” and I’m not going to stop referring to them as “Legos” because you have more of “A™ LEGO™ Stick™”™ up your ass about trademarks.
No, we’re different. If I told you I bought “a Lego set” or I was “putting together some Legos”, would you really not understand what I was saying and demand greater clarity by way of correct trademark usage? Seriously, I would get being this level of anal about a press release, but you’re being really fucking weird about something that really doesn’t matter outside of lawsuits and hardcore hobbyist circles.
Re: Re: Re:4
Do these people say “I’d like to purchase a pallet of brick” or “I’d like to purchase a pallet of bricks”?
Why should a Lego brick be any different than a clay brick or a concrete brick?
Re: Re: Re:5
If people call them “LEGO bricks”, fine. But I’ve always heard people call them “Legos” or “Lego pieces”, and I’ve used the same terminology myself for as long as I’ve known about Legos. The weirdness about all this language policing around what is effectively a trademark is that in this context, you still know what I’m talking about if I say “Legos”. Why be so goddamned anal about people saying “Legos” unless you’re literally part of the company that makes Legos? Seriously, it’s weird as hell to care so much about how people refer to Legos on a blog that isn’t even dedicated to Legos. Like, do y’all do this kind of weird language policing “use the exact trademarks” shit if some rando on Twitter calls them “Legos”?
Re: Re: Re:3
Language adapts. As long as people understand it, it’s fine.
And yes, US English and British English are different, but I’d never say that Brits are “wrong” to say things differently than the US.
It’s just different.
Point being: again, there is no one who doesn’t understand what “legos” means, and being pedantic about it doesn’t help anyone.
Why die on this particular hill?
Re:
Turn in your AFOL card.
That’s not nearly pedantic enough
LEGO is not a plural noun it’s an identifier, the proper plural is LEGO Bricks, or LEGO Sets
Re: Re: Lego!
You may have a point there about it being an identifier. There are other manufacturers of interlocking plastic bricks out there.
“if not millions, of people who refer to Legos as Legos.” Talk about a circular argument.
Ah well, one cannot reason anyone out of a position they have not reasoned themselves into.
OC AC
Re: Re: Re:
And I’m sure there are people who refer to such bricks that aren’t LEGO bricks as “Legos”. What are you gonna do, sue them into oblivion? I guess Nintendo will have to do the same thing to all the parents who referred to gaming consoles as “Nintendos” instead of actual full brand name. Maybe whatever company produces brand-name Band-Aids bandages should start suing people who refer to all adhesive bandages as Band-Aids.
Do you really not see how weird it is to get hung up on how people refer to Legos even though you know exactly what they’re talking about?
Re:
I completely agree.
For all the people who say this is being pedantic, how would you feel if most of the paragraphs use the phrase “should of” instead of “should have”? Would you say that this is okay since so many people use this phrase on Facebook and language is changing?
Re: Re:
As someone who hates the “should of” mistake and its “would of” and “could of” siblings: I know what people are saying when they use that construction, so I don’t care enough to correct someone using it on social media or whatever. If we were talking about writing a book/story or something professional and I was an editor? Yes, I would care enough to correct the writer. But casual bullshitting on Facebook? Who gives that much of a shit, dude.
Re: Re:
Are you seriously comparing a grammatical error with pluralizing/mass noun a trademark name?
Yup.
I’m from the PNW and a bunch of stuff immediately seemed odd to me about the reporting on this and the ways people were behaving. The biggest thing to me that I haven’t seen anywhere outside the first techdirt article was that Law and Gorman were planning on leaving the country after the November 2024 election.
Everything after that point made a lot more sense to me, and a whole lot of the details and claims from various parties have just confirmed in my mind that all of this has been weird and disingenuous I have thoughts and opinions about even the Mancells at this point but I’m waiting to see what comes out going forward because all of this is just stupid and could have resolved much more easily if they hadn’t gotten an insane and unhinged YouTuber involved.
Re: Mansell family are litigators
Especially taking into account that Mansell’s spouse and siblings are all attorneys. Why did they allow him down this avenue? Because they thought BAM would fold under social media pressure to “pay the $200k to make it all go away.” Classic extortion language.
What tripped my “disingenuous radar” was the fact that Mansell was attempting to lay claim to be paid out by BAM for his entire collection with an inflated valuation, while not acknowledging the payments he had already received from the Gormans, and then the icing on the cake being that Mansell recently sold $12,000 of his collection to MandRProductons. How did he sell that $12k if BAM held his entire collection? What else is he concealing?
Re: Re:
“Classic extortion language.”
Bullshit!
BAM was refusing to pay anything. CZ found Brian was owed $50,000 to $80,000. with $10,000 to $20,000 unaccounted for.
It was clearly established that BAM owed something. And rather than do an honest accounting BAM stonewalled and denied owing anything.
Re: Re:
Yeah and the fact that Chrystal was supposed to have bought insurance on the collection means this entire thing would have been an insurance claim and never seen the public light. If she didn’t buy insurance then it’s even more of a breach of contract on her end and Bryan really really should have gone after her.
Not sure if you saw it, but in the original police report Bryan called them on January 9th, 2025 and stated he had over 230 minifigurines, 12 – 13 small sets (size not value) , and at least 1 and maybe more of the “Cloud City” sets. The language is vague and it doesn’t mention how many of the Cloud City sets were returned to him.
Re:
“all of this is just stupid and could have resolved much more easily if they hadn’t gotten an insane and unhinged YouTuber involved.”
All of this could have been resolved easily if BAM had acted honestly and not tried to steal.
All this over some plastic bricks. It almost makes the Prenda disaster seem quaint in comparison.
Re:
You’d appreciate the difference more if you stepped on a Prenda lawsuit in the middle of the night while going to get a drink from the fridge.
Re: Re:
If this doesn’t show up on the best-of-the-comments post this Sunday, I’ll be severely disappointed.
Re:
Given how those plastic bricks are the gateway drug for STEAM that set a lot of people from diverse backgrounds off in the direction of the Arts and Sciences, there’s little wonder folks have become emotionally invested in them.
I mean. Why are you both siding this?
On one hand you have people who didn’t do the best.
On the other you have cops that comments call out for having time for this while they ignore women getting stalked until they get killed. Then you have a whole shady corporation that could have solved all this by not being lying ass hats and instead made themselves at best like they were trying to cover up and hide crimes.
Some people made mistakes, others lied, abused their government power, and likely committed what would be felonies if it wasn’t a business.
Re:
It’s called… accurately discussing. I’m not “both siding.” That means something different. The whole point is that I’m calling out the sketchy behavior of everyone involved… because they all did sketchy things. I make it clear who comes out of this looking worse.
Did you… want me to lie to you?
Re: Re: Sorta lied
I mean you are still kinda lying. Coffeezilla has many facts about this case wrong, but even going by everything in your statement you lied about what he found.
Before the store was even taken over by corporate only 21k per Coffeezilla’s own account was left in the store. The rest was 100% missing. He also claims that all of this was Bryan’s, but in the Salem Journal Article at the start of all of this there are 9 photos from Chrystal. In it there is one shot with 2 boxes with stickers and one in the middle without. This calls into question whether or not that was actually his or not.
Worse for Coffeezilla is that he didn’t get the original police report like Legal Eagle’s first video did. In that Bryan called in on January 9th, 2025 and admitted that Chrystal had returned over 230 minifigurines, 12 – 13 small sets (refers to size not price), and at least one of the “Cloud City” sets, but possibly more as the language is ambiguous. The Cloud City set is between 4k – 10k alone which means that’s a large chunk of the missing inventory he didn’t look into.
In the worst case scenario BAM owes Bryan 13k, but they also found those sets in the safe and offered them to Bryan so it’s actually less than that. Chrystal owes him 18.85 – 38k based on the numbers that Coffezilla threw out in the end. (note I took it as the 65% split that he was owed for the sets not the actual price Coffezilla listed)
You hurt your credibility by not reporting these facts accurately based on the video you yourself watched.
I don’t expect you to have all the other information I listed to be clear.
Re: Re: Re:
Which part here do you think I “lied” about?
I had not seen any report about Bryan getting stuff back from Chrystal, but that doesn’t change any of the reporting above, it’s just an additional fact that again suggests that Law could have been clearer in what was left at the store vs. left in her possession.
And, not having all the info is not the same as “lying,” my goodness.
Re: Re: Re:2
From what you wrote:
Plenty of it clearly remained in the store after Brandon Best showed up the night in November 2024 to kick out Law and take over the store.
Plenty to me implies a majority or a large portion. 15% at max of the total amount is not plenty to me. That’s why I said sorta lied not outright lied. I just want it clear only a small portion remained in that store the night of the takeover which was proven.
But hey maybe you see 15% as plenty and it’s just a difference in opinion so not a lie and I’ll concede that.
I agree you have been more fair than almost everyone else in this saga. Your first article and this one do have bias, but it’s much less than everyone else covering it by far.
I even made sure to give you grace for information you didn’t have:
I don’t expect you to have all the other information I listed to be clear.
I hope every one involved gets stepped on by everyone involved at this point.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I have no idea about his lego thing, no opinion really.
I only know that you are adding nothing to it.
The Lawaway thing isn't Sketchy
Since the Coffee video launched some people dug up an old police report about the original dispute where Brandon told a police officer that most of the things in the store left behind were marked for consignment, but coffee’s video they claim it was only 2 to 3 things so they clearly stole the consigned good. Luckily the police included this seemingly minor detail at the time in his police report. Also a scalpers speculate the reason there was so much layaway including layingaway the same items multiple times was that Crystal only required a $10 deposit and would hold items upto one month then issue refund so scalpers were putting the most desirable items on consignment then placing third party listing online intending to only purchase the items if they find a buyer who would pay more (so drop shipping). Crystal too naive in business so she didn’t realized she was being taken advantage of. She seems like such a nice person I hope she never finds out what happened
Re:
Yes, she claimed she only required the $10 deposit in that video. But the spreadsheet shows much higher numbers — including the full price of some of the sets. That’s what’s sketchy.
The consignment agreement was set to expire shortly.
If BAM corporate hadn’t suddenly stolen the franchise from Chrystal Law the day before the monthly payment was due she would have had a better chance to clean up the books. I think it’s a fair inference that she would have gone over the books thoroughly at the end of the consignment contract to resolve any errors had BAM corporate not forcefully taken the store.
Any accounting errors by Chrystal Law were exacerbated by BAM corporate’s actions.
Apparently it's the "Mormon Mafia"
Life Take Two is an ex-Mormon who did a good video about this. Check it out.
Even if the former owners book keeping was wrong, surely from the pov of the legal owner of the legos, that is the responsibility of the company, not the individual owner.
If an item is sold by the gormans as owners of the shop, and mancells hadn’t been paid, then that liability still falls on the company (albeit slightly complicated a bit as he would be a creditor not an owner of product) And if there is an issue with the gormans performance as owners that is between BAM and the gormans.
Ultimately, to me. Only BAM (whether Franchise or corporate) owes Mancell money or product, his share of all sales before he formally requested their return, and 100% of all product remaining after this date – and it’s up to BAM to prove a sale happened before that date.
BAM can then argue with the gormans of who is at fault but thats not Mancells problem
I am not a lawyer though. But I think this is the thing that’s grabbed people with this. It’s such an obvious line of responsibility but a corporation thinks they can just bully their way out of having anything to do with it.
Yeah I knew there was more to the story than what most people were saying. BAM corporate still looks bad but I’m not surprised considering how they have acted to this point. And criticism of Ben was slowly piling up and it’s clear he’s a good guy but very obsessed with creating captivating content over finding the truth.
And Law is the one I always had reservations about. she’s active in Reddit and watching the videos and looking through her explanations on Reddit showed to me they were gaps between what happened. Doing only a bit of research to it already indicated that Law isn’t exactly the best businesswoman and her record keeping and management of her store raised questions. Glad Coffeezilla confirmed there was more to her claims than previous thought.
Also the layaways are sketchy. Coffeezilla and Law herself confirmed it’s rare for BAM stores. If BAM corporate are right that consignment products aren’t allowed (but services are), then putting products on layaway has to be prohibited too or at least discouraged, so wish Coffee expanded on that. And that’s where the record keeping becomes a big issue. Plus the fact Law has some LEGO sets in her house doesn’t instill confidence in her abilities but she returned them to Mansell at least. Obviously I don’t think Law is malicious, just sloppy but overall I think BAM and the American Fork Police look the worst here.
legos
As a man childe I loved playing with my legos. Nothing funnier than people arguing about whether I capitalize my Lego brix.
If I spell them lEgo do they turn into waffles? If I call them leGo do they become French?
I hope if lego lawyers get sweaty about lEGO then its like an anime where they have the giant drop of sweat, rather than rivulets of sweat.
way to play both sides - ugh
To say that a youtuber in his 20s made some missteps is parallel to corruption in the local PD, the city council, the church of morman, and a major corporation – it’s the definition of yellow journalism. You’re telling your readers to “stay tuned to see who’s in the wrong”. It wrong and a crime to the fourth estate.
It’s embarrassing. Reminds me of Jim Downey in Billy Madison.
What you’ve just posted is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. Everyone who reads your reporting is now dumber for having read it. No Points. May God have Mercy on your Soul.
Also – why is the text so small? Isss so smol.
Re:
Accurately pointing out that almost everyone involved here misrepresented things, while calling out that some parties misrepresented things more than others is… “yellow journalism” and “a crime to the fourth estate?”
Buddy: get a fucking grip.
Re: Re: "Get a fucking grip"
holy moly dude… anger issues much? learn to take a minor writing critique without taking it so personally.
anyways, my interpretation of ben is that he is well intentioned, but not incredibly bright. I mean he acted as Pro Se representation during his court appearances (which you gotta be really stupid or really stubborn to do). But the valuation of the sets is still within the 5-6 digit range which is a substantial amount of capital owed, it’s more the principle of the matter. And you really should’ve mentioned how the ring footage the night of the takeover that shows Crystal telling corporate she needs to update the books to ensure Bryan is paid. And corporate told her in C-suite-speak to take a hike. She was trying to do right, the company leadership inhibited that, and that is a crucial detail you left out. That’s my major criticism. There’s a huge moral gap between people who are simple (not the brightest) and made some pretty significant mistakes vs. the c-suite of a wealthy corporate entity deliberately taking advantage of the legal landscape and their significantly larger capital to silence opposition through SLAPP suits and takedown demands to Patreon. A c-suite which is mormon, and resides in a mormon community. A community in the religion was founded by a con man who found gold plates nobody ever saw that said jesus visited the americas and that the garden of eden is in jackson county missouri. I’m agnostic, so I don’t really buy into any religions, but out of all the religions that were based on pure fabrications, this is the most fabricated (2nd only to Scientology)
But yeah McNeff providing false/fallacious statements to the police to get Ben arrested. e.g. accusing Ben of threatening to burn the place down. There is definitely one side that is much more morally reprehensible and it’s not the weird lady and her also weird husband with the eyebrow piercings. It’s the ones with the suits using their network to appear on cable programs to spread their narrative.
Though ben saying “we can do this the hard way” was stupid as fuck of him to do, because that can be construed to be a threat in court which to reemphasize my early point, I think he’s just not that smart. Though now he has legal counsel, so hopefully only an upward trajectory from here.
Re: Re: Re:
“Minor writing critique.”
He called my accurate reporting “a crime.”
Nothing I said was said in anger.
I take it you’re new around here?
As for the rest of your post… you basically are agreeing with what I’ve already said. Super helpful.
Not a Surprise
It’s not a surprise the former Franchise owner owes money to the family. She admitted early on in the security footage she released that she still needed to figure out how much she owed him prior to being kicked out. The B&M guy on the phone said it’s a business matter and they’d take care of it.
best series on 😉tv
Total aside —
I call ’em legos & so do most people I hear talking about ’em. When I hear “Lego…”, I think “…my Eggo!”
And it’s true everybody makes mistakes. But a conglomerate is suing individuals for monetary damages to their business reputation because average people with no dog in the fight have come to view them as “robber barons”.
Except from an outsider’s perspective, that reputation wasn’t damaged by justice system amateurs on a media production filming themselves standing up for a little guy seemingly denied a fair shake. It was damaged by buffoonery pulled in the name of the corporation. The real damage is to the collecting community’s trust, and that damage wasn’t caused by social media exposure. It was caused by the behavior of a legal franchisee of the LEGO System who doesn’t fit the brand because their business practices violate the LEGO Group mission statement. To protect profit from a hostile takeover today, Bricks & Minifigs chose to stifle the LEGO builders of tomorrow.
They did that to themselves.
Come on
Chrystal lost access to the bulk of her her records the day she was kicked out. In that moment she voiced (on camera) her concern about Bryan getting his money if she didn’t have access to her records.
In the Coffeezilla sketch instead of DARVO she chose to say she’d right any wrongs that were her fault. She was forthright and honest. You calling that sketchy shows why DARVO is the way to go.
To call one victim sketchy because the way they were victimized prevented them from preventing part of the perpetrators’ crime is fully disingenuous.
You’re allowing the crooks to muddy the waters. I honestly expect better from you, Mike.
A contract and a spreasheet
Basic accounting in the first place would have been nice!
“We never had no U-Haul”
[presents a photo of a u-haul]
“Oh yeah, we had a u-haul”
Re:
That was the point at which BAM corporate lost ALL credibility. If you’re gonna lie, you absolutely have to be consistent in your lies … and consistency with reality is the best defense in the first place.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
this ignorant loser cant see the writing on the wall for what is a massive violation of rights and an immediately slam dunk case for any of the thousands of lawyers begging for the chance at a case like this.
not only are you stupid you lack basic critical thinking skills to understand what’s a joke and whats an actual crime.
no you stupid fucking loser he did not leave the usa that would be a crime. your article is nothing more than a low iq recycling of someone else’s dictation of the events. God people like you are truly the bottom of the barrel, you are why we need caution hot coffee is hot on every cup of coffee.
Re:
Are you, by any chance, a BAM employee?
For what its worth, a month ago I was watching video that made clear it was an amount in the high 80K that was ‘unsold’. One of reckless ben’s stunts was to split the unsold inventory 10 ways to get into small claims court, and that would not have worked with a 200K valuation. I am unsure how much of the framing coffeezilla uses that the claim was of 200K being stolen was from the collection owners & the original store owners (value from actual claims of theft), how much was BAM framing the claims in a misleading light to make their resistance more clear, and how much was the media/social media telephone sandblasting details off a case for brevity or drama. Where that shift happens really impacts how shady people look. I’m really intersted how the theft was described to coffeezilla, because it being 200k Legos was not the impression I got.
Given the amount I heard originally is in line with Coffeezilla’s comparison of the spreadsheet, I think this further supports the idea that the store owners, while having bad bookkeeping and questionable business decisions, were being above board. I’ve watched too many local businesses take on value-add services to compete and not consider the time and paperwork and drown despite having a successful model.
Ben's Playing Y'all
On 12/27/2025 a Benjamin Schneider was admitted to the CA state bar.
He is a lawyer and knows exactly what he’s doing.
I suspect he knew criminal charges were being filed in the case before going to Utah.
There’s been lots of criticism of how he keeps talking to police without a lawyer, but what he’s doing is getting the police to talk.
He really is the UNO reverse master.
I expect part 3 to be released on the 30th. He could probably release it sooner if he wanted to, but the delay will just make the release a bigger event.
Lying about $100,000 so a case that would never have otherwise got attention is a very small and almost irrelevant detail. The point is Small consumer was harmed by a medium sized company.