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.
On Techdirt, we often complain about lawyers and bad lawyering and bad cases. But there are times when lawyers are helpful, and my one-sentence summary after spending many days trying to understand a viral dispute about [checks notes] some old Star Wars LEGO sets is that a lot of people should have spoken to competent lawyers before doing… whatever the fuck they decided to do here.
If you haven’t been following the Bricks & Minifigs saga, congratulations on your peaceful existence. It’s a genuinely difficult story to track, partly because you have to watch a bunch of long YouTube videos to piece it together, and partly because almost everyone covering it is pushing a specific angle. Just as a point of reference, Bricks & Minifigs is a company that franchises its concept of stores for buying and selling lego blocks and sets — and, yes, minifigs. They have about 300 stores, most of which are franchised.
The basic summary (and some of this is disputed) is that a local Bricks & Minifigs franchise in Keizer, Oregon made an agreement with a guy named Bryan Mansell to sell a very large collection that his father had put together over many years of collectable unopened Star Wars LEGO sets. The intention of the collection had (we are told) always been to pay for college for Bryan’s children. His father, an 83-year-old man, had agreed to have Bryan sell the sets via the Keizer store on consignment. The collection was advertised, including on the store’s Instagram page where they made it clear that it was “one of the largest, most valuable privately held collections of Star Wars LEGO in the world” and that it was about to go on sale.
Later photos in that post detailed that they believed the collection was “worth well over $200,000” and that the entire collection would be sold through the store. The actual value of the legos in question is disputed, but the lowest number I’ve seen is closer to $60k. The entirety of the Instagram post text reads:
Saturday and Sunday, the 11th and 12th of November, the Bricks and Minifigs store in Salem-Kaiser will display one of the largest, most valuable privately held collections of Star WarsTM LEGO in the world. The event will be open to journalists and the public for photos before the collection goes on sale.
In the early 90s, Ed Mansell predicted Star WarsTM LEGO would be a good investment. Over the next 15 years, he purchased approximately $20,000 of Star WarsTM LEGO and preserved them, sealed, in their original boxes. The investment really paid off. The collection is now estimated to be worth well over $200,000. Multiple sets, including the highly prized, incredibly rare Cloud City set, are now worth more than $10,000 each. Some of the individual minifigs are worth more than $1,300 each. The ten-fold increase in the value of Mansell’s collection is a greater return than if Mansell had put the same amount of money into the stock market in a Dow Jones Index Fund.
When Ed Mansell decided it was time to divest, he turned to his son, Bryan Mansell. Bryan knows more about his father’s comic book and baseball card collection but didn’t feel confident in his knowledge of the LEGO secondary market. He saw the sign for the Bricks and Minifigs store while passing by on North River Road, came in, and asked the store owner, Chrystal Law, if she could help. “I told him, even if we couldn’t sell the collection, I would help him figure out how much it was worth because I didn’t want him to get ripped off. And I think that’s why he trusted me,” Law said. The entire collection will be sold through Law’s store, but first they wanted to put it all on display so the public can see it in its entirety.
The collection will be on display in the store’s party room from 10am till 6pm on Saturday, November 11th, and 11am till 6pm on Sunday. The collection will be available for sale immediately, so the best time for pictures will be Saturday morning. The collection will not be stored on-site after hours for security reasons, and after Sunday the sets will be available for purchase but stored elsewhere. Bricks and Minifigs is located at 3670 River Road in Kaiser.
Apparently, over the course of 2024, various parts of the collection were sold off and Mansell would stop by each month to collect his cut of the sales. There is a dispute over how much of the collection was actually sold before everything went off the rails in late 2024.
In November 2024, as you may have heard, Donald Trump was elected. Chrystal’s partner, Ben Gorman, runs a small publishing company called Not A Pipe Publishing, which (among other things) publishes something called the “Antifa Lit Journal.” Gorman felt like publishing such things in the US under a Trump regime might be problematic and looked into moving out of the country. As part of that, Law contacted corporate Bricks & Minifigs about selling or closing their franchise (exactly what she told them is disputed).
This next part is also disputed. Law & Gorman say corporate told them they had a franchisee who was interested in taking over the franchise. Bricks & Minifigs corporate claims that Law had told them she was shuttering the store and that she wasn’t allowed to do that, so they had to rush to reclaim the store. Almost immediately someone associated with Bricks & Minifigs, Brandon Best, showed up at the store, saying he was taking over the store and demanding the keys and that Law leave immediately. There’s also a dispute over whether or not Law & Gorman were in violation of their franchise agreement (Law & Gorman claim that the breach was due to failures by BAM corporate, which had been worked out months prior, and any claim of ongoing breach is misleading).
There’s a bit that is caught on video where Law tells Brandon and someone from the company on the phone that they have a large collection on consignment and that they owe Mansell money, and Bricks and Minifigs corporate tells Law they’ll “take on the consignment liability.”
Law and Gorman push back on Bricks & Minifigs just taking over the store, but are told by a B&M “official” name Ki McAllister (recorded by Gorman) that if they try to fight this, B&M will make their lives difficult: “If we go the legal route, it’s gonna be a very expensive battle for you and it’s not going to be a good position for you guys to get into. There’s not a whole lot of options for you. If you want to go the legal route, it’s just going to be a mess and it’s gonna be expensive for you.” When Gorman pushes back and asks if McAllister spoke “with” or “at” Crystal, McAllister admits he spoke “at” her and then says: “If you fight this, then you’re putting yourself into a whole lot of shit. It sounds like a threat and I can acknowledge that, because in a way it is.“
From there, it appears corporate Bricks & Minifigs transferred the franchise to two of its partners, Joshua Johnson and Brandon Best (the guy who showed up at the store) and they just… basically denied owing Mansell anything at all or even having his legos. Or sometimes they’d admit it and sometimes they wouldn’t. It became messy. Mansell claims that the people he spoke to store gave an almost identical message to him that Ki McAllister gave to Gorman & Law that it would be too expensive for him to go to court to get back what he’s owed.
Mansell then reached out to YouTubers, some of whom detailed how Bricks & Minifigs appeared to have effectively stolen all these lego sets. But then (according to one of the YouTubers) Bricks & Minifigs threatened to sue them (sense a pattern?) and they took down the videos.
Mansell then contacted another YouTuber named Ben Schneider, who goes by the handle Reckless Ben — best described as a Temu Nathan Fielder. He puts himself in ridiculous situations, goes to equally ridiculous lengths to justify them, and stares blankly into the camera with that specific combination of cluelessness and overconfidence that comes from someone who has talked himself into believing every move he makes is correct.
In this case, that included (not a complete list) trying to get back Mansell’s money and/or remaining legos by going to the store, confronting the employees, confronting the owners (who were difficult to track down), showing up at Bricks & Minifigs corporate, speaking to the CEO, setting up a registered religion in order to run a raffle for the lego sets to try to make this a criminal case to get law enforcement involved (not how any of this works), filing a bunch of small claims cases against the store and the company and the owners of the store, creating a company called We Steal from Old People, setting up a “franchise” structure for We Steal from Old People to use a mirror argument of Bricks & Minifigs that he can’t be held liable for franchisee actions, putting up signs for that store, and much more.
Some of these moves are interesting. Some are genuinely clever. Many are very stupid — particularly agreeing to talk to cops without a lawyer present after being arrested (more on that shortly), and believing that tricking a store employee into signing what she thought was a delivery receipt, but which was actually an unenforceable “contract” against trespassing him, accomplished anything at all. Mostly what all of this does is generate attention, rather than anything legally compelling.
The one potentially legally interesting move in all of this was filing the ten separate small claims cases against the store (I won’t even get into how they were able to structure things to file the ten separate claims even though that’s interesting, because this is freaking long enough, and the details are in some of the videos below). The store refused to show up in the cases, meaning that default judgments were entered in each case. When Schneider went to the store to try to collect, he found that the store had been permanently shuttered the day after the default judgments came down (which looks very, very bad for Bricks & Minifigs and the franchise owners).
The cops get called on Schneider repeatedly through all of this. When he’s in Utah trying to confront both Bricks and Minifigs CEO Ammon McNeff and the supposed franchise owners, Joshua Johnson and Brandon Best. He tries to take Johnson to small claims court and the court tells him he needs to first try to resolve the issue with Johnson, but Johnson (who at one point offers to give Mansell the lego back if Mansell apologizes, but then doesn’t) has blocked Schneider’s phone number and calls the police when he sees Schneider and associates near his house.
At multiple points the police stop cars that Schneider is in (one time after falsely claiming they didn’t stop at a stop sign, even though the dash cam shows they clearly did) and generally appear to be harassing Schneider and his colleagues. In what appears to be a tremendously egregious move, they pull them over and hold them for hours claiming that they believe there are drugs in the car which they search for and are unable to find. Later the cops get a warrant and raid the Airbnb where Schneider and others are staying, arresting them all.
Schneider and some of the others working with him are arrested at various points for stalking and harassment, while Schneider insists he’s just trying to serve Johnson with the papers from the small claims case. There’s also an attempt to claim that the Go Fund Me campaign that Schneider set up at some point violates some law. The whole thing goes off the rails in so many ways.
Schneider also gets access to various bodycam footage, some of which is redacted in places that look sketchy but happens all the time with police body cams. Some of the bodycam footage looks damning against the police (including a couple of admissions that they don’t really think Schneider and his friends have violated the law, even if the police chief later disputes that).
Very stupidly, Schneider and his friends/colleagues repeatedly talk to cops without a lawyer present. This is a very bad thing to do. Multiple people who were arrested later put up their own videos about it, including one (the guy who was arrested for trying to lock his phone when a cop tried to take it), who claims that he’s got a high IQ so was never going to get bested by a cop (this is also a stupid thing to say).
Bricks & Minifigs’ position on all of this appears to be that (1) anything bad that happened was because of the franchise owners and not corporate, both the previous ones and the ones they arranged to take over who appear to be closely associated with corporate Bricks & Minifigs anyway, (2) Law & Gorman violated their franchise agreement in many ways and the takeover of the store was necessary because of that, (3) that Gorman & Law “stole” Mansell’s legos and the new store really didn’t have any, (4) that Gorman & Law weren’t allowed to do consignment deals in the first place (despite evidence to the contrary, including the franchise agreement that lays out that consignment is acceptable), (5) that Ki McAllister is a low level employee and his statements don’t matter (not how it works), (6) that they didn’t know about any consignment deal (clearly untrue given video evidence as well as notifications from both Law and Mansell), (7) that Schneider is only giving a one-sided account (true, but doesn’t deal with many of the factual claims), and (8) that this is all an illegal harassment campaign against them designed to get them to pay out way more money than they owe (if they owe anything at all).
On top of all that we have competing additional civil lawsuits filed in Utah state courts and the various misdemeanor (not felony) charges against Schneider (though he claims he’s also being threatened with felony charges, though as far as I can tell none have been filed yet). Oh and the potential of criminal charges against… someone… in Oregon for the possible theft of Mansell’s collection.
Phew.
Let’s now insert some of the many videos on this. I will say that Bricks & Minifigs corporate (and the replacement franchise owners) come out of this all looking very, very, very sketchy. Ben Schneider comes out of it looking like both a hero for getting a tremendous amount of viral attention to all of this, but also kind of a dumbass for doing a bunch of very stupid things that he thinks helps his cause but don’t, which he could have avoided by… actually talking to a lawyer. Yes, Schneider got a ton of attention on the issue, but also did a ton of things that likely made everything worse for Mansell and himself.
If literally anyone involved had spoken to a lawyer at any point, an awful lot of this mess could have been avoided.
That’s why I’ll start with the most even-handed summary I’ve seen of the whole thing, from the always excellent Lawful Masses with Leonard French, who walks through the legal reality in exhaustive detail. It’s more complicated than any of the other coverage suggests, though yes, Bricks & Minifigs still comes out of it looking like people who took control of collectible legos they had no rights to.
Some of the key points highlighted by French that haven’t made it into most of the other videos I’ve seen:
Mansell should have filed a UCC-1 financing statement with the consignment to protect his property (this is genuinely useful information for anyone ever looking to sell things on consignment) but even if he didn’t do that, he’s probably protected by the “merchant exception” related to the Statute of Frauds. This is far beyond my own legal understanding, but is fascinating.
Mansell sent a termination letter to the new owners of the franchise, putting them on actual notice that the sets were his.
Mansell had a friend go in and purchase one of his sets after he had clearly informed the store not to sell one. As French points out, this is now a pretty clear theft case.
Bricks & Minifigs has some ways that they could (potentially successfully) challenge the small claims default judgments against them in Oregon, but the clock is ticking on that, and if they fail to, those judgments could follow them around.
Then as I was finishing up this already incredibly long article, I saw French has released part II, looking at some of the filed lawsuits that I discuss below and coming to similar conclusions that I do (i.e., no one comes out of any of this looking good).
Then there are some of Schneider’s amusing/cringey videos, starting with him talking about the effort to get back the legos. This is the main video that made this go viral and currently has around 3 million views.
He then published a follow up detailing how the police in American Fork treated him and his friends including stopping them multiple times and eventually raiding their AirBNB and arresting them.
And also a short video reading through and reacting to a leaked letter that Bricks & Minifigs corporate sent to their franchisees about how to deal with the controversy.
Then there are the American Fork police who released this bizarre video showing their side of the story, which appears to be set in… I dunno… heaven? John Oliver’s void? The entirely white background is a freaking choice is all I’m saying. So too is the “I’m reading you a bedtime story” tone of voice from police chief in the video.
The police chief also fails to address the weird redactions in the bodycam footage, and the multiple times his cops are caught effectively admitting that Schneider and his crew weren’t actually breaking the law.
Schneider has released a response video using a similar backdrop and highlighting problems and inconsistencies with the claims in the police video.
Then there’s Bricks & Minifigs CEO Ammon McNeff going on a livestream and doing a poor job of defending the company, including saying a few things that won’t do him any favors in court.
Believe it or not, there’s even more in all these videos that I don’t have time to go into, but we’re at almost 3,000 words already and we haven’t gotten to some of the competing lawsuits.
We have discussed the small claims cases (which have mostly ended in default because BAM folks ignored them) but the bigger deal are the competing lawsuits that have been filed in Utah’s state court and have received less direct attention. While it’s one thing to say things on a one-sided YouTube video, what you say in court can be a bit more serious. And we have two competing cases to look at. The first was filed by Law and Gorman and the LLC they had set up to run the Oregon store, and filed in Utah’s Chancery Court back in March.
It adds some useful details to the whole mess, including saying that the only breach they had regarding their franchise agreement with BAM corporate was… because BAM themselves refused to live up to the requirements of the agreement. Apparently Law had simply managed the store before this, but had approached corporate about taking on the franchise, which they agreed to do. But after working out a deal, the company failed to transfer the lease and the bank account over to Law & Gorman, which caused a bunch of problems regarding payments:
Shortly after the sale closed, BAM failed to fulfill its obligations to properly transfer the store’s bank account and assign the store lease to Plaintiffs’ LLC. These were not minor administrative oversights—they were fundamental obligations without which the franchisee could not operate the business. Without control of the bank account, Plaintiffs could not make the automated payments required under the Franchise Agreement. Without the lease in their name, Plaintiffs had no direct relationship with the landlord and no ability to ensure rent was paid. BAM’s failure to complete these transfers was the first material breach of the Franchise Agreement and the proximate cause of every subsequent “default” BAM later cited as grounds for termination.
BAM did not return the bank’s documentation needed to change account ownership, causing the account to be frozen without Plaintiffs’ knowledge. As a result, automated payments for franchise royalties and for the remaining purchase price were not withdrawn as scheduled.
Similarly, because BAM never assigned the store’s lease to BAMF Salem 1, LLC, the landlord’s notices of bounced ACH rent payments went to BAM as the tenant of record—not to Plaintiffs. BAM did not promptly inform Plaintiffs of these issues, effectively concealing the problem until it had compounded. Plaintiffs thus could not pay rent through no fault of their own: the lease was not in their name, the bank account was frozen, and the party responsible for both failures—BAM—kept Plaintiffs in the dark. BAM’s own Director of Operations later confirmed this failure on a recorded call, admitting that “the lease is technically in our name still.”
That is a pretty bad look. Especially given that, in BAM’s own lawsuit, they claim the reason they repossessed the store and handed its franchise to someone else was… the very things that Law & Gorman say they caused. BAM corporate’s massive lawsuit filed against Ben Schneider, Bryan Mansell, and a bunch of folks working with them (and, of course, claiming civil RICO because why not?) claims that they took back Law & Gorman’s franchise because of breaches to the agreement, such as those that Law & Gorman say were BAM’s fault n the first place (oddly, the BAM lawsuit refers to everyone by their first names, rather than last, which would be more typical).
Despite the foregoing plain requirements, Chrystal and Benjamin materially breached their obligations, as required APA payments were not completed, FA royalty payments became delinquent, the lease and various accounts were never properly transferred and lease amounts were unpaid. Chrystal’s outstanding contractual obligations mounted, eventually exceeding an estimated $175,000….
… Based on the foregoing uncured breaches and anticipatory repudiation, BAM, inter alia, issued a written 11/14/24 Notice of Immediate Termination to Salem LLC pursuant to the FA, exercised its priority rights to the collateral in the Security Agreement, pre-scheduled a repossession with Chrystal and repossessed the Salem LLC store on or after 11/14/24 and assumed the lease, as expressly permitted under the FA and APA, including any and all fixtures, inventory and other assets, and credited an estimated $38,000 paltry value thereof as an offset to the unpaid $175,000 debt.
That’s a pretty big factual dispute that the two courts are going to need to dig into.
The BAM lawsuit also claims that they had no notice of Mansell’s consignment, which is plainly bullshit given the video clip that shows up in basically all of the videos above:
Excepting only respecting the foregoing unpaid lease, BAM did so as a bona fide purchaser, without notice of any third party claims or liens of any kind, including Chrystal and Benjamin’s undisclosed and alleged 11/22/23 Consignment Agreement with Brian, referenced infra.
Prior to and at the time of repossession, BAM’s representative, Brandon, conducted an informal and video inventory of the Salem LLC fixtures and inventory. While he did not locate or identify any product that was identified as consigned or not owned by Salem LLC, he concluded that the maximum value of any residual inventory was less than $38,000. Less than $5,000 worth of Star Wars LEGO product could be located and identified in the entire residual Salem LLC onsite inventory.
This is quite a claim to make given the video evidence to the contrary, which had already gone viral by the time this lawsuit was filed last week.
There are other claims in the BAM lawsuit that seem problematic including this:
Bryan showed up later that day and began yelling at personnel and holding up purported consignment paperwork demanding the immediate return thereof or payment of $80,000. Josh interceded and asked to review it and briefly did so and pointed out that neither BAM (nor Josh and Brandon) were a party to this purported arrangement.
Again, taking over the store also meant taking over the consignment liability, which they had already been made aware of and which they admitted they were taking over (as recorded in the security camera video). That they hadn’t personally been a party to the arrangement doesn’t matter, because when they took over the franchise they also took over that agreement.
The complaint then says that Johnson and Best tried to find the alleged sets owned by Mansell but were unable to do so, concluding that they were all gone. This is, obviously, contested by Mansell and others who have pointed to evidence that the sets were still in the store, including Mansell having someone go in and purchase one of the sets after he had demanded them back in a written notification.
The complaint also claims that it was only in late 2025 and early 2026 that Best was able to dig into the old franchise’s accounting system to find details of sales of what were likely many of Mansell’s legos. The complaint argues that it appears most, if not all, were sold by Law prior to the takeover and if Mansell is owed money, it’s from Law and Gorman.
Many months later in the fall of 2025, and only after Baker Salem had entered its 3/27/25 Business and Asset Purchase Agreement, Brandon gained access to Salem LLC’s archived and incomplete POS accounting system, which he discovered identified Star Wars “lot sets” from Star Wars regular “lots” inventory sales. This inventory sale distinction was unclear to Brandon and Josh, and Chrystal had never explained the significance, if any, to anyone, but Brandon much later in 2026 discovered that approximately 367 purchases of lot sets (for an estimated retail value of $46,000) and 336 purchase of lots (for an estimated retail value of $12,600) had occurred after 2023. He still could not, however, confirm the specific products sold (and whether they had been consigned or not).
Then we get the RICO claims. The supposed “conspiracy”:
Upon information and belief, though they had no legitimate legal recourse or evidence upon which to file a claim, Chrystal, Benjamin and Bryan conspired to, inter alia, threaten, intimidate, extort and defraud Plaintiffs anyway possible, as detailed herein, including the formation of an Enterprise to engage in wrongful activities.
As an initial step, Salem LLC caused a 12/24/24 legal demand letter to be sent to BAM, variously alleging it had been damaged based on the termination of its FA, which was a private business matter between Chrystal and Salem LLC. On 1/10/25, BAM responded, denying the allegations and providing support for its termination. Neither Salem LLC, nor Chrystal or Benjamin, thereafter pursued any claim in the letter further with BAM until 1/2/26, when a separate legal demand letter was sent, as discussed infra.
Instead, upon information and belief and in furtherance of such threats, Chrystal, Benjamin and/or Bryan learned of Schneider and communicated with him, whereby they provided information regarding their unsupported claims against Baker Salem and/or BAM, ignoring and excluding Salem LLC and/or Chrystal’s sole obligation regarding any private consignment agreement with Bryan. In connection therewith, they, together with others (i.e., DOES 1-15) conspired to intentionally, maliciously, fraudulently and illegally threaten, extort, harass, profiteer, interfere with and damage Plaintiffs in furtherance of the Enterprise, including based on the unlawful activities described herein.
Upon information and belief, Schneider and the Schneider Group acquired a direct or indirect financial interest in Bryan, Chrystal, Benjamin and/or Salem LLC’s unsupported claims against Plaintiffs, whereby co-Defendants (with Bryan, Chrystal, Benjamin and/or Salem LLC’s assistance and support) organized and established the Enterprise that would launch a campaign of deception, disinformation and destruction intended to cause Plaintiffs injury and damage, to extort a demand of over $200,000, to deceive and manipulate Plaintiffs, to interfere with Plaintiffs economic and family relations, to harass Plaintiffs, to cause private and public nuisances, to trespass and to otherwise engage in a pattern of unlawful activities, as described herein.
They then claim that this “enterprise” engaged in numerous “unlawful activities” in support of the supposed conspiracy:
Commencing after Baker Salem began operations as a new franchisee and continuing to date, Schneider and the Schneider Group (with the support of Bryan and Chrystal) waged a malicious and intentional campaign of extortion and destruction through independent episodes of unlawful activities against Plaintiffs. Such included periodic harassment through phone calls, numerous disruptive store or office visits, repeated instances of trespass, deceptively staged events (i.e., disingenuous coronation, rally, raffle, store front table promotion, a fictitious Lego Club rally, manufactured and frivolous complaints to police, private and public nuisances, threatening phone calls, numerous deceptive live and telephonic impersonations, in person and remote threats (and via proxies), frivolous sham lawsuits (splitting claims in multiple ineffective small claims actions), etc.), issuing the Publications of defamatory and disparaging images and content, all in furtherance of the Enterprise.
The complaint quotes Schneider’s viral video in ways that… Schneider himself made easy for them to quote. The “we have to do something illegal” is not a great line for Schneider and the other defendants in this case. They also highlight this bit, which is also not a great fact for Schneider:
5/21/26 YouTube Video, Minute 12:46 through 14:46 (Schneider attempted extortion and directly threatened Ammon by stating that, “if you just want to give it back now, it’s going to be a lot easier for you guys. You know, I think you guys would prefer the easy way” or “the hard way. I don’t think you guys are really going to like it”. An implied depiction of the threatened violence associated with the “hard way” is an explosion at BAM’s corporate headquarters).
Of course it’s a bit rich for them to complain about the “easy or hard way” complaint when they apparently made similar statements to Law & Gorman as well as Mansell.
Once again, so so so much of all of this could have been avoided if either side had competent lawyers and listened to them.
Johnson and Best also claim that they tried to settle with Mansell and he rejected their offer, which they claim is evidence that “the enterprise” was seeking more than they were legitimately entitled to:
In late 2025 and based on co-Defendants’ ongoing harassment, Brandon and Josh further investigated the Baker Salem store inventory, and though they still could not reliably identify any product that appeared to belong to Bryan, they located a few (approximately 20) Star Wars LEGO sets in a back office lockable cupboard, on which they noticed stickers not previously recognized. As a precaution only, but still without knowledge that Bryan in fact had any right thereto, they directed that such not be sold from Baker Salem’s inventory and remain locked up pending completion of their ongoing investigation and receipt of reliable evidence of ownership and other conditions.
On or about 12/3/25, in a text exchange between Josh and Bryan (deceptively orchestrated by Schneider) and after sustaining incredible business disruption and harm, Josh discussed a possible settlement scenario under economic duress. Purely as an accommodation (and without any legal obligation to do so), Josh discussed a possible settlement scenario to allow Bryan to retrieve the few sets that had been provisionally identified as merely Star Wars related product in the back office (i.e., described above, though not necessarily belonging to Bryan), which as a precautionary matter, Josh had set aside pending receipt of ownership documentation from Bryan. Josh indicated a written apology and other concessions would need to be made and the harassment must stop. Bryan rejected this proposal outright and responded, “Unless you are going to make us whole on the whole Lego collection, I don’t see where we have anything to discuss.” This confirmed the Enterprise’s interest. Referring to the sets he had identified, Josh replied, “We can give you what was left when [presumably Chrystal] left. We can’t and aren’t responsible for what she sold the two years yall were working together. If you want what she left let me know.” Bryan refused this offer. This exchange further evidenced Bryan’s objectives were not about recovering a LEGO collection, but rather about extorting payment for the Enterprise beyond any legitimate claim.
That argument may sound good to the BAM folks, but I’m pretty sure they’re wrong when they claim they’re not responsible for what Law sold prior to them taking over, because (again) when they took over the store they took on any liabilities with the store. And that would be one of them. Also, there appears to be some evidence in the videos that some of the times they offered to return Mansell’s legos and then… didn’t.
Believe it or not, the 5,000+ words I’ve already written here barely scratches the surface.
Strip it all back and the core of this is pretty simple: an 83-year-old man’s carefully assembled lego collection — built over 15 years, meant to fund his grandkids’ college — appears to have been taken (at least in part) by people who calculated that it would cost more to fight them than to walk away. That bet almost paid off. The only reason this became a national story is that Bryan Mansell found someone willing to be very, very extremely online about it.
But “going viral” is not a legal strategy. And Schneider’s willingness to do basically anything for content — including things that are genuinely legally stupid, like talking to cops without a lawyer present, or making statements on camera that now appear in a civil RICO complaint — may have made things considerably worse for Mansell in the long run, even as it made things considerably more uncomfortable for Bricks & Minifigs in the short run. If Schneider had talked to a lawyer before doing half of what he did, he might have accomplished more with less collateral damage.
Though it might not have made such “good content.”
Meanwhile, if Bricks & Minifigs had talked to a lawyer — a good one, not just whoever is filing these complaints — they might have been advised that explicitly threatening people on recorded calls, taking over a store while explicitly acknowledging a consignment liability on video, and then denying that consignment existed in court filings, was not a sequence of events that tends to end well. And that shuttering the store the day after default judgments came down looks, to put it diplomatically, quite bad.
The deeper structural problem here — one that Leonard French articulates better than I can — is that the US legal system has a genuine dead zone around mid-five-figure disputes. Too big for small claims (even with Schneider’s claim splitting exploit), too small to justify the cost of a full civil suit, it’s exactly the range where a well-resourced defendant can make a calculated bet that the other side will run out of money or patience before getting justice. That’s a feature of the system Bricks & Minifigs happened to exploit, but is not unique to them.
The answer to that structural problem shouldn’t be “find a YouTuber willing to go to ridiculous lengths to get attention on this issue.” Though in 2026, that does appear to be working better than most alternatives — at least in the court of public opinion, where the verdict has already come in decisively on the side of Mansell and Schneider. That’s a real problem for Bricks & Minifigs and every one of their ~300 franchisees, regardless of how the legal cases resolve. You don’t get to un-become the lego store that allegedly stole an old man’s retirement collection. That story is going to follow this brand around for a long time.
None of this had to go this way. A competent lawyer on either side, at almost any point in this saga, probably changes the outcome significantly. Instead, both sides made calculated bets — Bricks & Minifigs that the costs of fighting would deter anyone from trying, and Schneider that going maximally viral would substitute for having an actual legal strategy. The first bet nearly worked. The second is still being litigated, in multiple senses of that word.
Signed by Governor Spencer Cox on March 19, the controversial law establishes that a user is considered to be accessing a website from Utah if they are physically located there, regardless of whether they use a VPN or proxy to mask their IP address. It also prohibits covered websites from sharing instructions on how to use a VPN to bypass age checks.
We’ve been highlighting the various attempts to ban VPNs as short-sighted legislators fail to grasp how necessary they are for basic security. But, now, Utah has touched the stove and is going to find out what it feels like.
While an earlier version of the law would have simply held a provider liable for not doing age verification, the amended version says service providers have to determine whether the person is physically located in Utah — even if they’re using a VPN to appear to be from somewhere else:
An individual is considered to be accessing the website from this state if the individual is actually located in the state, regardless of whether the individual is using a virtual private network, proxy server, or other means to disguise or misrepresent the individual’s geographic location to make it appear that the individual is accessing a website from a location outside this state.
In short, the genius legislators in Utah have decided that websites should do the impossible: either block all access from VPNs or somehow magically “know” that users whose digital footprints suggest they’re connecting from outside Utah are actually lying about their location. That is, in any understanding of the law, an effective ban on VPNs, because the only way to deal with that would be to block off huge segments of IP addresses associated with known VPN servers.
Even worse, the law says it’s a violation to tell people how to protect themselves with a VPN, which seems like a First Amendment violation on its own (you can’t ban a service from telling users how to use another service):
A commercial entity that operates a website that contains a substantial portion of material harmful to minors may not facilitate or encourage the use of a virtual private network, proxy server, or other means to circumvent age verification requirements, including by providing:
(a)instructions on how to use a virtual private network or proxy server to access the website; or
(b)means for individuals in this state to circumvent geofencing or blocking.
This is the sort of slop that if you asked the chatbot whether or not its previous statement was accurate, it would apologize profusely. Why? Because you cannot require a website doing age verification to determine where someone using a reputable VPN is browsing from—this feat is literally impossible by design for even the best hacker.
Such language and lack of logic begs the question—do Utah lawmakers actually understand what a VPN is? Let’s set the record straight: VPNs are an essential tool for online privacy, security, and liberty that everyone from abuse survivors to small businesses use to keep themselves safe. VPNs do this by totally hiding where a person is browsing the Internet from. Thus, when a person is using a VPN, the website they are browsing definitionally can’t tell whether or not they are in Utah.
It’s fairly astounding the level of technological ignorance legislators will openly admit in their efforts to demand technology do the impossible. Insisting that VPNs need to be banned should be a disqualifier from holding public office.
Blocking all known VPN and proxy IP addresses is a technical whack-a-mole that likely no company can win. Providers add new IP addresses constantly, and no comprehensive blocklist exists. Complying with Utah’s requirements would require impossible technical feats.
The internet is built to, and will always, route around censorship. If Utah successfully hampers commercial VPN providers, motivated users will transition to non-commercial proxies, private tunnels through cloud services like AWS, or residential proxies that are virtually indistinguishable from standard home traffic. These workarounds will emerge within hours of the law taking effect. Meanwhile, the collateral damage will fall on businesses, journalists, and survivors of abuse who rely on commercial VPNs for essential data security.
Again, Fight for the Future explains the real impact of such a law:
Websites are left with three choices: either try to block everyone around the globe who’s using a VPN (which they can’t actually do), or require age verification for everybody in the world no matter if they’re in Utah, or censor all content that meets Utah’s nebulous “harmful to minors” standard for age verification.
Oh wait, there’s a fourth option: sue Utah.
Ignoring the law or suing the state appear to be the only rational responses.
Age verification already has a long list of well-known problems, many of which put users at risk. An effective ban on VPNs just makes it that much more dangerous for anyone in that state to use the internet. The fact that they’re doing all of this under the pretense of “protecting” children, when the actual impact will put everyone at greater risk, is just the icing on the cake — performative headline-chasing dressed up as policy.
Republican lawmakers in Utah have long been on the cutting edge of shitty policymaking when it comes to regulating the internet. The latest chapter in that legacy is a proposed tax on porn and adult content purchased in the state’s digital space.
Originally proposed by a pair of Republican lawmakers in the Utah state legislature earlier this year, Senate Bill (SB) 73 would levy a so-called “material harmful to minors” tax at 2 percent on revenues generated by the sale of online porn (it was originally 7 percent). Having been amended and passed through the state Senate with considerable support, SB 73 is on track to clear the hurdles of the House of Representatives and be signed into law by Gov. Spencer Cox, a Republican and staunch anti-pornography activist like the bill’s sponsors.
This activism from Gov. Cox and the sponsors of porn tax bill—Republican state Sen. Calvin R. Musselman and state Rep. Steve Eliason—could presage a far more corrosive and expansive campaign against civil liberties and key freedom of expression protections that cover sexually-related speech.
First off, SB 73 would fund a variety of efforts for Utah’s state government. Such efforts benefiting from the funds under the proposal would include enforcement efforts for the state’s social media and pornography age verification laws.
But the bill goes further, especially after several rounds of being amended in the Senate and the House to include the mention of web traffic sourced from virtual private networks (VPNs) and other proxies. This bill would make it illegal to circumvent content blocks implemented by platforms due to local age verification laws, making it punishable by a bevy of civil penalties. Nonetheless, what goes well beyond extreme is that there is a provision in the bill that would also make it illegal for websites covered by age verification laws (e.g., a porn site) to offer Utah-based users information about using VPNs to get around any content blocks securely.
Consider the following language in the current form of Senate Bill 73 regarding VPN “facilitation”:
“A commercial entity that operates a website that contains a substantial portion of material harmful to minors may not facilitate or encourage the use of a virtual private network, proxy server, or other means to circumvent age verification requirements, including by providing: (a) instructions on how to use a virtual private network or proxy server to access the website; or (b) means for individuals in this state to circumvent geofencing or blocking.”
Utah’s bill doesn’t go that far on the concerns of records, but it certainly conjures up civil liberties concerns. Aside from the glaring privacy concerns related to age verification tech, Utah has no right to restrict the communications of a private company to its customers. This goes double for attempts to supersede interstate commerce on a category of products and services that are lawful. And don’t forget the dimensions of the porn tax. SB 73’s approach is expansive and blatantly violates the First Amendment rights of millions of people, not just those who live within the state boundaries of Utah.
The tax is a textbook “sin tax” a jurisdiction would levy on something like alcohol, tobacco, and gambling. But what is different between the purchase of a six-pack of beer versus wanking off alone in your home is that buying that beer from the liquor store isn’t necessarily considered expressive in its nature. Producing, selling, and consuming pornography are matters of protected sexual speech so long nothing illegal and criminal occur. Porn taxes like the one proposed in SB 73 explicitly outline “covered entities,” to include all entities that sell adult content through clip sales, subscriptions, and fan sites. And with total Utah sales, revenues are then taxed at the 2 percent levy and then paid to the state each year.
This might be an incidental bump in the road for many of the larger platforms, like Pornhub or OnlyFans, but this type of policymaking is a vindictive ploy to make operating a small and medium business in this space excruciatingly harder. I do see the Utah bill passing this legislative session, which would lead to a potential legal standoff in a federal courthouse. But I am not holding my breath for anything more beyond that.
Michael McGrady covers the tech and legal sides of theonlinepornbusiness.
Utah’s budding theocracy continues unimpeded as we head into the new year. On top of its other unconstitutional laws (like the oft-challenged social media ban) and legislative proposals, there’s its book ban law that has seen it become the first state to actually remove certain books from all public schools across the state.
The targeted books are exactly the ones you think they are. Of the 13 titles to make the first ban list in 2024, 12 of them were written by women. It has added more titles to the ban list for 2026, as BookRiot reports.
This law is basically just a heckler’s veto. No consensus is needed to subject a title to removal across the state. The law allows parents to file book challenges which, in reality, means a few bigoted activists will be able to impose their will on every resident in the state.
The law compounds this deliberate error by allowing certain schools (or those being pressured by this small group of anti-freedom activists) to place their thumbs on the scale. Since that’s what the law is designed to do, that’s exactly what has happened:
What is important to understand about the law is that despite claims this is about “local control,” schools in the state are forced to follow the decisions made in other districts. There are 42 public school districts in Utah, but two districts account for nearly 80% of the books banned statewide: Davis School District and Washington School District.
The three latest book bans came exclusively because of bans at Davis, Tooele, and Washington school districts. Again, two districts are doing nearly all of the dictating of what books are allowed at public schools throughout all of Utah.
“Local control” is as meaningless as “representative democracy.” Someone will always find a way to game the system to ensure they keep what they have if not take a little more. Political parties gerrymander. Utah legislators craft laws that allow a small subset of state schools to write the rules for the rest of them.
For now, the law remains in place and the entirety of the state remains under the direct, definitely not “local” control of a couple of school districts. For now. But things could get a bit more interesting soon, now that a serious challenge to the law has been raised by some of the authors directly affected by these bans.
A group of best-selling authors whose books are banned from Utah public schools are suing the state, arguing its sensitive materials law is unconstitutional.
Filed in federal court, the lawsuit comes after three more books were banned from K-12 schools.
[…]
Among those suing over Utah’s book ban law are award-winning novelists Elana K. Arnold and Ellen Hopkins, the Estate of Kurt Vonnegut and two anonymous Utah public high school students.
The lawsuit [PDF] raises questions the state isn’t going to be in any hurry to answer.
The Book Removal Law, codified at Section 53G-10-103 of the Utah Code, is unmoored from the First Amendment and requires Utah’s Local Education Agencies (“LEAs”) to strip their school libraries of any book that contains even a single description or depiction of sex, no matter how fleeting, no matter its context, and no matter its literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
The Book Removal Law also never asks the most basic question: appropriate for whom? A kindergartner learning to sound out words and a twelfth-grader weeks from graduation are treated identically. As described below, once a book is labeled “sensitive,” it must be taken from the shelf, including the high school library. There is no recognition that a seventeen-year-old preparing for college, navigating identity, relationships, and the realities of adulthood stands in a fundamentally different place than a five-year-old.
This creates an absurd mismatch with other parts of Utah’s own legal standards. State law permits sixteen-year-olds to consent to certain sexual activity. Yet the same students whom Utah trusts to make intimate, real-world decisions about their bodies are, under the Book Removal Law, barred from accessing out books that contain a mere single passage describing the very conduct in which is lawful for them to engage. The Book Removal Law tells them: you are mature enough to do this, but not mature enough to read about it.
The answer is, of course, that this isn’t about protecting children from content that might be inappropriate for them. It’s about giving bigots and public employees an easy way to remove content they personally don’t like. Because its ulterior motive is its only motive, it’s been written in a way that makes it extremely susceptible to legal challenges. With any luck, this law won’t survive much longer and the people who think no one should have access to content they don’t care for will have to go back to the ineffective seething that seems to make up a disproportionate portion of their existence.
AI can be useful. But so many people seem to feel it’s nothing more than an unpaid intern you can lean on to do all the work you don’t feel like doing yourself. (And the less said about its misuse to generate a webful of slop, the better.)
Like everyone everywhere, police departments are starting to rely on AI to do some of the menial work cops don’t like doing themselves. And it’s definitely going poorly. More than a year ago, it was already apparent that law enforcement agencies were just pressing the “easy” button, rather than utilizing it wisely to work smarter and faster.
Axon — the manufacturer of Taser and a line of now-ubiquitous body cameras — has pushed hard for AI adoption. Even it knows AI use can swiftly become problematic if it’s not properly backstopped by humans. But the humans it sells its products too don’t seem to care for anything other than its ability to churn out paperwork with as little human involvement as possible.
The report notes that Draft One includes a feature that can intentionally insert silly sentences into AI-produced drafts as a test to ensure officers are thoroughly reviewing and revising the drafts. However, Axon’s CEO mentioned in a video about Draft One that most agencies are choosing not to enable this feature.
Yep. They just don’t care. If it means cases get tossed because sworn statements have been AI auto-penned, so be it. If someone ends up falsely accused of a crime or falsely arrested because of something AI whipped up, that’s just the way it goes. And if it adds a layer of plausible deniability between an officer and their illegal actions, even better.
Not only is the tech apparently not saving anyone much time, it’s also being abused by law enforcement officers to justify their actions after the fact. But it’s shiny and new and seems sleek and futuristic, so of course reporters will occasionally decide to do law enforcement’s PR work for it by presenting incredibly fallible tech as the 8th wonder of the police world.
Sometimes reporters bury the lede. And sometimes their editors decide the lede should be buried by the end of the headline. That appears to be the case here, where Mya Constantino’s reporting isn’t exactly what’s being touted in this article’s original headline.
As can be observed from viewing the URL, the current headline (updated January 1st) wasn’t the original headline. The Wayback Machine tells the real story. This article was originally published on December 19, 2025 with this headline:
That headline (which reads “How Utah police departments are using AI to keep streets safer”) was immediately followed by these paragraphs:
Here’s a direct quote of those leading paragraphs:
HEBER CITY, Utah — An artificial intelligence that writes police reports had some explaining to do earlier this month after it claimed a Heber City officer had shape-shifted into a frog.
However, the truth behind that so-called magical transformation is simple.
“The body cam software and the AI report writing software picked up on the movie that was playing in the background, which happened to be ‘The Princess and the Frog,'” Sgt. Keel told FOX 13 News. “That’s when we learned the importance of correcting these AI-generated reports.”
Fortunately, those paragraphs still remain in the updated post, which now contains a headline that makes a lot more sense:
The headline (accompanied by a short video of a tree frog) says:
Ribbit ribbit! Artificial Intelligence programs used by Heber City police claim officer turned into a frog
While I can understand why a small news outlet (albeit one that’s a Fox affiliate) might decide to play nice with the local cops rather than call out their software failure in the headline, it really doesn’t make it acceptable. My guess is the original headline was about maintaining access to officers and officials. At some point, someone realized the stuff detailed in the first paragraphs would probably attract more attention than some dry recitation of cop AI talking points.
But even the belated headline change doesn’t really make anything better here. There’s not really anything in the article that demonstrates how AI is making anyone safer. The article also notes that two different AI programs are currently being tested (Code Four, developed by a couple of 19-year-old former MIT students) and Draft One, which is part of Axon’s vertical integration strategy. That was the product that turned a cop into a frog, which probably explains why the reporter’s ridealong (so to speak…) only involved use of Code Four’s AI.
The reporter was on hand for a faux traffic stop that was later summarized by the AI to (apparently) demonstrate its usefulness. The journalist points out that the AI-generated report needed corrections, but at least didn’t turn any of the participants into a Disney-inspired character.
That being said, there’s nothing here that indicates these products will make streets “safer.” Here is the entirety of what was said about the tech’s positives by Sgt. Rick Keel of the Heber City PD:
Keel says one of the major draws is that the software saves them time, as writing reports typically takes 1-2 hours.
“I’m saving myself about 6-8 hours weekly now,” Keel said. “I’m not the most tech-savvy person, so it’s very user-friendly.”
Giving cops more free time doesn’t make streets safer. It just means they have more time on their hands. That’s not always a good thing. Of all the things that need to be fixed in terms of US policing, writing reports is pretty far down the list. It’s what’s being done with this extra time that actually matters. Pursuing efficiency for its own sake makes no sense in the context of law enforcement. The statements by this PD official raise questions that were never asked by the reporter, like the most important one: what is being done with this saved time? And if something still requires a lot of human activity to keep it from generating nonsense, is it really any better than the system it’s replacing?
One thing is for sure: AI doing the menial work of filing police reports is never going to make anyone safer. On the contrary, it’s only going to increase the chance that someone’s rights will be violated. And because law enforcement agencies refuse to be honest about the risks this poses and the fact that it appears only officers who don’t like writing paperwork will benefit from this added expense, they shouldn’t be trusted with tech that will ultimately only make the bad parts of US policing even worse.
We’ve noted for years how U.S. regional telecom monopolies have effectively crushed competition in many U.S. markets and utterly defanged our regulators. This one-two punch of muted competition and no oversight routinely results in expensive, slow, spotty broadband access.
Frustrated by this, communities all over the U.S. have responded to this market and regulatory failure by building their own, more affordable, fiber networks. At last count there were somewhere around 400 such networks providing cheap fiber to 700 communities nationwide. There was a big boom during COVID born out of frustration from home telecommuting and education broadband problems.
One of the biggest and most popular such networks in the U.S. is UTOPIA Fiber, which is an open access fiber network serving 23 markets, mostly across Utah. UTOPIA offers fiber speeds up to 10 Gbps across 19 different partner ISPs, all competing on price and customer service. Such open access fiber deployments are a useful, local, and popular way to dismantle the monopoly logjam on internet access.
Recently, UTOPIA (now operating in the green after years of heavy fiber investment) began expanding broadband access into the town of Bountiful, Utah, population 46,000. Big broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast didn’t much like that. But because they have such terrible reputations, and UTOPIA is so popular, they didn’t feel they could attack the project directly.
So they did what they always do: they funded a dodgy proxy group to try and scare locals away from supporting the project. In this case it was called the “Utah Taxpayer Association,” and it’s a nonprofit funded by telecoms, pretending to be an objective third party simply concerned about the potential impact of the project on local taxpayers.
Except when the group went door to door to try and tell false and scary stories about how community broadband is dangerous to taxpayers, it failed completely because locals quickly sniffed out that the group wasn’t actually local:
“A dark money group called Utah Taxpayers Association financed a petition effort to force a vote on project funding. It hired signature collectors to try to persuade registered voters to oppose the project.
Timmerman said the signature campaign failed because residents would ask, “Who do you work for?” and the signature gatherers didn’t even know who was behind the campaign. And when residents asked, “Are you a resident of Bountiful?” the signature gatherers said, “No.”
Although these dark money groups don’t disclose their donors, one can only assume that they were funded by the incumbent providers in Bountiful, which include Comcast and CenturyLink. However, there is no verification of exactly who was behind the campaigns.”
You don’t have to assume, it’s on record. Such campaigns don’t cost these providers much. AT&T gave this particular group $1,163 during a six month span last year according to financial disclosure records. Comcast and Centurylink also sponsor the group’s annual conference. All entirely coincidental, I’m sure.
Telecom giants like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Charter have spent much of the last few years trying to derail these kinds of community-owned networks. Either by spreading lies about them, or trying to sue them out of existence. UTOPIA’s creation years ago was immediately met with a lawsuit from Qwest (now Centurylink/Lumen) which saddled the effort with extra legal costs right out of the gates.
Big telecom has also employed the help of Republicans, who have, at several different points (including during peak COVID lockdowns when affordable fiber was essential) tried to impose a federal ban on such popular networks. Loyal Republican puppets can often be found making up absurd claims about municipal broadband, like lies that they somehow “harm the First Amendment.”
The great irony is that telecom giants could derail such efforts by providing better, cheaper, and faster broadband access. But it’s generally cheaper to fund a few dodgy proxy groups, or bribe a senator, than it is push fiber out into neighborhoods they don’t care about because the ROI is two years longer than some bean counter would like. So here we are.
In this case it failed, spectacularly. As a result, Bountiful residents have access to a UTOPIA network, being paid for via bond, that’s offering gigabit fiber for as little as $50 a month. You can see why executives at companies like Comcast are afraid of this sort of model, the benefits of which we outlined in a Techdirt/Copia paper three years ago.
It’s not like we need any more of this sort of thing. COPPA (Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act) pretty much deters any app maker or social media service from catering to a very underage crowd. Compliance is difficult, if not impossible. But, all the same, it has deterred plenty of the worst developers in the world from exploiting the pre-teen demographic.
In Utah, that’s not enough. Now, it’s time to “protect” the age 13-18 group from their own actions. The bill [PDF], recently passed by the Utah legislature (and now headed for the governor’s desk), creates a private cause of action for parents of this subgroup of minors should app stores (and the developers of the apps they host) somehow fail to comply with a long list of impossibilities.
What I always find amusing to the point of nausea are things like this: the legislative presumption that it’s somehow possible to “verify” the ages of people who are too young to obtain legal forms of identification. But that’s what’s going on here, as the bill makes amply clear:
requires app store providers to: ● verify a user’s age category; ● obtain parental consent for minor accounts; ● notify users and parents of significant changes; ● share age category and consent data with developers; and ● protect age verification data
Some of this makes sense. Conscientious parents would appreciate any minor-affecting changes to terms of use agreements or further insight into how user data is collected/used. But it’s the first bullet point that’s a problem. You can’t verify “age category” without government documents that attest to a person’s age. And short of having every user upload a PDF of birth certificates, there’s no way to do this in a way that satisfies this bill’s vague demands for “verification.”
What this law is really about is giving parents leverage to sue app stores after their kid racks up $400 in Roblox purchases. That’s it. It serves no greater purpose than to alleviate parents of parental responsibility. While it does say things that sound like the sort of thing that should be said to the most exploitative of minor-targeting apps, most of this has already been said elsewhere in other laws.
There are some upsides, but they’re (excuse the pun) pretty minor when compared to the entirety of the bill. First, there’s a safe harbor provision for “compliant developers.” That this compliance will be defined by the same legislators that proposed this hot garbage isn’t exactly comforting, though.
Second, it does at least ensure the government doesn’t leave “compliance” completely up to the imaginations of app stores and developers. It does instruct the Division of Consumer Production to “establish standards for age verification methods.” That puts part of the compliance burden back on the government, where it definitely belongs. How can anyone “comply” when there are no specifications for “compliance?” Letting this law go into force before this guidance is in place is what’s commonly known as entrapment.
Back to the bad news:
…creates a private right of action for parents of harmed minors
This is all the bill does. In practice, that would mean awards of $1,000 per violation to any successful suing parent, along with legal fees. The bill does not allow the state to pursue legal action against app stores and developers. And if that last sentence sounds like adequate news, if not actual good news, it isn’t. It’s a dodge.
This makes it a “bounty” law. By doing so, it ensures the bill will have a much higher chance of surviving a legal challenge if it’s signed into law. This is the same playbook the Utah government used to keep its porn site age verification law from being blocked by federal courts. The argument — as weak as it is — appears to be working, so far. That argument is: if only private citizens can sue, it’s not really the government doing the enforcing of the law. And if the government isn’t enforcing it, suing the government doesn’t work because… well, it’s just private citizens taking private companies to court.
It’s bullshit. But it’s bullshit that works. And that sucks because the law, as written, is a vague, unworkable mess that requires minors to verify their age with documents they can’t possibly possess. And app stores shouldn’t be held responsible for purchases/contracts deployed by apps they host just because some kid has spent hundreds of their parents’ dollars on virtual goods. On top of that, app stores and developers have no way of knowing who’s using the devices accessing these apps. Plenty of minors use their parents’ devices to play games or access content. If the account has already been flagged (through whatever process) as belonging to an adult, app stores and developers aren’t going to restrict access and/or block purchases because they have no reason to believe a minor is utilizing that device or account.
This is stupid, performative crap that basically says parents who don’t pay attention to what their kids are doing can leverage their own negligence to extract money from tech companies. And all with the state’s blessing, even if the state is doing everything it can to pretend that passing laws that enable private legal actions is somehow not actually government imposition.
Utah state Rep. Trevor Lee is not going to like this headline. Too bad. It’s accurate, even if he’d like to pretend it isn’t.
Trevor Lee is again pushing a bill that would ban government agencies from displaying pride flags, but would allow Nazi and Confederate flags to be displayed in classrooms, so long as they are part of the so-called educational experience.
This bill originally only targeted schools, but the first amending of the bill expanded its coverage to all government entities, state and local. Here’s the Salt Lake Tribune’s original reporting that managed to anger Rep. Lee so much he demanded a retraction:
The bill, HB77, originally applied only to schools. But an update to the bill released ahead of Thursday’s House Education Committee hearing expands the ban to all government buildings or property. The updated bill was favorably recommended by the committee, with the committee’s two Democrats — Reps. Sahara Hayes and Carol Moss — casting the only “nays.” It will now be heard on the full House floor.
Approved flags for display in government buildings and schools would include the Utah state and U.S. flags, military flags, flags for other countries, flags for Native American tribes and official flags for colleges and universities. The bill also allows for the flying of a “historic version of a flag … that is temporarily displayed for educational purposes,” which Lee, R-Layton, said would include the Confederate and Nazi flags.
Shortly after this was published, the bill was amended to make it exactly as bad as Trevor Lee’s defense of his original bill in its un-amended form. While this was happening, Rep. Lee was going after the Salt Lake City Tribune, claiming it was spreading lies by publishing direct quotes of things he said while trying to push his bill forward.
“There are instances where in classrooms, you have curriculum that is needed to use flags such as World War II, Civil War,” he said. “You may have a Nazi flag. You may have a Confederate flag, and so you are allowed to display those flags for the purpose of those lesson plans if it’s part of the curriculum, and that is okay.”
And here’s what he said after the Tribune posted its report with a headline that said (completely truthfully) that the bill would ban displays of the pride flag in schools but allow the display of Nazi and Confederate flags.
In an interview that night, Lee denied that he ever said there would be instances where a teacher could “display” a Nazi flag, and expressed displeasure that The Tribune would publish his testimony about displaying Nazi and Confederate flags in classrooms.
“There is a difference between displaying flags in curriculum when you’re teaching on them,” he said. “You don’t censor history here. That’s not what we’re doing.” When asked to further explain his remarks, Lee hung up the phone.
Well, a pride flag is also a historical flag, but there appears to be no exception specifically written into the law to allow its use “in curriculum.” And when Lee’s extended explanation was [checks notes] hanging up the phone, it’s completely fair to categorize the bill as a ban on pride flags, while allowing exceptions for symbols of hate, provided any teacher with the temerity to insist the only way to teach history is to display these symbols of hate in their classrooms, rather than just rely on depictions contained in textbooks or presentations.
Hanging up on Tribune reporters wasn’t enough for Rep. Lee. He insisted on having the last, insipidly incoherent, word.
Asked Friday morning about the amended bill, Lee commented only on the headline of the previous story on his bill. “Redact your ridiculous headline,” he wrote in a text message, before adding that The Tribune should “apologize for sowing divide and spreading hate to the general public.”
Sowing divide and spreading hate is pretty much Rep. Lee’s day job. The representative prefers the reporting of another Utah News source, touting its article on the preferred platform for sowing divide and spreading hate: xTwitter.
A ban on MAGA and Pride flags? GOP lawmakers say yes for cities, counties and classrooms
While it’s true the bill would (perhaps accidentally) forbid displaying the MAGA flag, there was literally no one mentioning their opposition to government workers displaying MAGA flags. That might be because no government employee has. It also might be that several have done this but no “concerned citizen” has bothered to complain about it during comment periods.
In fact, the only incident described in public testimony about the law is something that probably never happened, at least not in the way it’s described here.
Two years ago, Lehi resident Aaron Bullen’s 10-year-old son came home upset from elementary school because a rainbow flag had been placed in his computer lab, he told the committee.
The rainbow, or pride, flag, which represents LGBTQ acceptance, was taken down after a complaint was made to the principal, but it temporarily allowed the school to promote a symbol that was offensive to his son, Bullen said.
“This message conflicts with my family’s religious beliefs. It tells my son that his faith, his parents and his values are wrong,” Bullen said. “That is not neutrality; that is religious discrimination at a public institution.”
Aaron Bullen is a ridiculous person and is telling a ridiculous story. I cannot imagine a ten-year-old coming home distraught because they saw a flag in a classroom. I can certainly imagine them mentioning it and their parents getting all shitty about it because of their own ingrained bigotry. And a flag does not “conflict” with “religious beliefs,” no matter what’s on it. You still get to keep your religious beliefs. No flag can take that away from you. And calling it “religious discrimination” is especially stupid and inadvertently hilarious because, as far as I can tell, sexual orientation is not a religion.
For all of Rep. Lee’s claims that this is about preventing the display of “divisive” flags (which may include MAGA flags), the real point of this bill is exactly how it’s described in the Tribune article that turned Lee into a corncob. He has admitted as much on ExTwitter:
If you can’t see the embed, it says:
My bill specifies which flags can be displayed in classrooms. It would ban Pride flags from schools. Parents could sue the school district if it’s violated.
His private ExTwitter account (which was public until journalists started digging into his hateful posts during his election run) is even worse than his official one. A long article detailing his social media activity shows Rep. Lee spent years using anti-LGBTQ+ slurs, insulting the looks of female politicians and judges he didn’t agree with, spreading 2020 election conspiracies, and engaging with others as an avid supporter of a Latter Day Saints splinter group that advocates against the perceived “wokeness” of the religion’s current leadership.
So, when Lee says (before acting like yelling and hanging up on people is some form of rebuttal) he will outlaw pride flags but provide exceptions for Nazi and Confederate flags, it’s best to take him at his word. And if he doesn’t like the headlines it generates, maybe he should do something to stop generating them… like dropping the bill or just not being the sort of asshole who prefers Nazi flags to rainbows.
We’ve talked repeatedly how one way to boost lagging U.S. broadband competition is the support of “open access” fiber networks that allow numerous ISPs to compete over a centralized fiber network. In ideal implementations, like Ammon, Idaho or in parts of Utah, residents have the option of switching between multiple, competing ISPs, sometimes in a matter of moments via a web portal.
We talked extensively about this model in a 2022 report on U.S. broadband competition.
Big telecom giants like AT&T and Verizon have traditionally hated this model because it brings competition to bear on their captive markets, forcing them to compete on coverage, price, speed, service quality, and customer service. But last year AT&T began making noise that it was considering changing its tune and would now be supporting open access under what it’s calling its “Gigapower” joint venture.
What changed AT&T’s mind? One motivator may be the record $42.5 billion in taxpayer subsidies that will soon start flowing to U.S. states as part of the 2021 infrastructure bill. Groups like the EFF have argued that if taxpayer money is going to be spent on fiber expansion, it should be open access fiber networks that not only expand access, but also boost competition and drive down costs.
That’s not in line with AT&T shareholder value, which benefits from the company’s relentless efforts to crush both regional competition and federal and state oversight,
Community owned ISPs that have been building open access networks for decades, like Utah’s massive UTOPIA project, say they believe that AT&T’s dedication to open access is a head fake. UTOPIA Fiber CEO Roger Timmerman says AT&T is building what it promises will be open access infrastructure, then ensuring that it’s the only provider that can actually use it:
“I would not describe AT&T’s Gigapower as open access. Once an end user can subscribe to multiple operators on that system then it’s open access. Right now, it’s not even really wholesale. AT&T is the only end user on it.”
UTOPIA’s network, for example, offers residents in its 20 partner cities access to fiber (at speeds up to 10 Gbps) from nineteen different ISPs. What AT&T appears to be doing is building more traditional wholesale fiber access, then dressing it up as open access to better position itself for billions in taxpayer subsidies. It’s a very AT&T move from a company historically criticized for misleading its subscribers.
Timmerman is quick to note that AT&T wants the kudos and subsidies that come from building open access networks, but it doesn’t want the actual competition:
“They don’t want 10 local providers competing,” he said. “They specifically said in conversations I’ve had, they don’t want the little guys. It’s too much of a hassle.”
Enter Republicans, who voted against the infrastructure bill in question, yet routinely take credit for its benefits. They’re going to spend much of this year taking credit for state broadband deployments they tried to prevent, while redirecting money away from smaller, community-owned open access fiber networks, and toward Trump earlobe nibblers like AT&T and Elon Musk.
So whereas a lot of that money could have been used to dramatically scale up U.S. broadband competition, history suggests it will instead be used to line the pockets of telecom companies that express suitable fealty to MAGA authoritarians. Money that could go to useful community owned ventures with a local, vested interest in the communities they service, will be redirected to monopolies like AT&T, or expensive options that don’t scale like Starlink.
This will, as certainly as the sun sets, be then portrayed by Republicans (and a lazy, broken press) as everything from “populism” to “innovation,” when cronyism would be a far more fitting term.
