PonyStation4
Member
Unredacted police cams are being backed up here
https://archive.org/details/american-fork-bodycam-unredacted
Compilation of all documents is being updated here
Last edited:
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Bricks and Minifigs scandal w/mob boss attitude.
- Thread starter rochet
- Start date
Unredacted police cams are being backed up here
https://archive.org/details/american-fork-bodycam-unredacted
Compilation of all documents is being updated here
MrRibeye
Member
so true, I wanted my son to get into LEGO but those prices are retarded
we play Minecraft instead
newtypepilot
Gold Member
they are definitely hiding something huge if they are willing to go this far.
It's not about legos anymore. This is blatant police corruption in a heavy church state.
It's not about legos anymore. This is blatant police corruption in a heavy church state.
PonyStation4
Member
The cop on camera got told by Josh that he was already served papers and the current one the cop is holding is fake, and so Ben was simply harassing him for youtube content. The cop then called the courts and confirmed that the lawsuit was real and Josh wasn't served with papers yet, so Ben was required to attempt to give them to him. The Cop then went to Ben and said that he confirmed the papers and lawsuit were fake.
Then there's also ignoring a federal crime in not investigating stolen items of a state approved lottery. There's also the judge approving a SWAT style raid with rifles, because an AirBnB host said he heard them talking about lego being stolen. Also illegally censoring police cams that have been proven not to protect a victim or confidential information, but instead to hide the cops talking about making up investigations to find something to pin on Ben. Even the Heroin stop, the police cam shows the cop saying he doesn't have charges and is looking to pin something on Ben to scare him, because he finds him annoying.
Last edited:
The_hunter
Gold Member
That one scene were the guy hands over his phone to the corrupt police officer, but it unlocks with face ID and the cops snatch it.
Face ID is not safe.
Face ID is not safe.
Last edited:
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
I watched the first video and don't want to read the thread until I've seen the second. What a great bit of filmmaking.
I'm hoping that Bricks and Minifigures go out of business thanks to this.
Also, I feel slightly bad for the manager of the store who got so much screentime, presumably doing a job she hates but has no power in this situation. But damn if her scowling face staring at her phone isn't about the worst welcome a retail store can offer
I'm hoping that Bricks and Minifigures go out of business thanks to this.
Also, I feel slightly bad for the manager of the store who got so much screentime, presumably doing a job she hates but has no power in this situation. But damn if her scowling face staring at her phone isn't about the worst welcome a retail store can offer
kpopSuperstar
Member
He just goes up to people and just say "Uh, well, I need to collect these legos." "Uh, you are just lying uhh."
He's pretty unprofessional and ridicules in his approach. And Youtube videos are always tinted and angled, I would want to hear the other side of the story.
He's pretty unprofessional and ridicules in his approach. And Youtube videos are always tinted and angled, I would want to hear the other side of the story.
Trilobit
Absolutely Cozy
Seller: "Hey can you sell these?"
Store: "Sure thing!"
Seller: "So, it's been a while, where's my money or Lego?"
Store: "Dunno"
kpopSuperstar: "I need both sides"
Avid Reading Horse
Member
Not only is he ridicules, but for all intensive purposes he's also pretty bias. I could care less, it's a mute point as the video really peaked my interest in this caper. Irregardless, they should of given the LEGOs back.
kpopSuperstar
Member
I need a proper explanation from the stores side, maybe there is some legal thing about delivering to the store we don't know. It looks bad but just buying into Youtubers content farm is not good enough.Seller: "Hey can you sell these?"
Store: "Sure thing!"
Seller: "So, it's been a while, where's my money or Lego?"
Store: "Dunno"
kpopSuperstar: "I need both sides"
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
I don't agree. This is a guy who is a young filmmaker, has clearly recorded lots of footage and edited it really well. He knows how to lay out a story, and despite the content seeming quite easy to be quite uninteresting (a bunch of motel room conversations, visits to a couple of business locations and phone calls recorded in a car) he has managed to make an hour and a half long film that works.
I think it's an incredibly professional product given the limited resources that have gone into it.*
Your reservation about him going to the store and asking for the return of the Lego is a bit off mark. He HAS to do that to explain the position of the store to the viewer and to show the audience that he has done the basics. Later on I think he does some things that show he's a smart guy who is prepared to do his research.
As for the balance of the film, it seems pretty clear to me that the bad guy is indeed the bad guy - the things that are said later in the film are pretty indefensible. 100% a case of fuck those guys, imo.
*I have no idea how big his channel was before this blew up, I can imagine he may be better resourced than I'm giving him credit for, but if he has done most of the edit alone he's done a great job. Edit: actually even if he has a couple of full time professional editors on staff, it's still good work.
Last edited:
Doczu
Member
The problem is that the store/corporate change their story all the time. We are about 6 months in the story, the owner of the lego did try to get it back on his own but was told to sue them, but they will ruin him in the proceedings, so that statement alone is fucking evil. And while we don't have the ceo/corporate telling the owner to sue them we do have corporate on call with a previous shop owners using the same scare tactic.
They have the sets in their posession, claimed they would honor the contract after shop owners changed (on video!) and now are holding their hands on (effectively) stolen goods.
This shit will destroy the brand, other affiliates are feeling the heat for shit they didn't do.
InterMusketeer
Member
As I understand it, the store claims the previous owner of the store (a franchisee) sold most of the consigned collection and took the profits for herself. They have since gathered what remains of the collection (about 5k worth of lego) and offered it to the owner and claim they're trying to help the profits back from the franchisee.
However there's various evidence that there was still a sizable amount of sets from the collection in the store's inventory after the franchisee left. There's also a Ring recording that reveals the franchisee was concerned with handling the consignment properly. She talked about it with a representative of the company and took various pictures of the sets to record them. The representative then ensured her the company would take on the consignment and thus be responsible for it.
The only uncertainty here is what sets remain, which ones were sold and how much money the owner of the collection is due. It gets tricky because the collection was in that store since like 2023. But regardless it's the company's responsibility to figure that out and be honest about it. And if they can't get to the bottom of it they should just take that loss and compensate them generously. That's not the position they took though.
Trilobit
Absolutely Cozy
His calmness when dealing with the cops is also remarkable. Clearly has everything in order in his head. Guy is a pro.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Agreed, if he didn't know that he was 100% in the right and hadn't checked every detail you'd think he'd be panicking.
The truth be told, I think the way the police deal with him in the second film is absolutely terrifying.
Idleyes
Gold Member
I think a court could reasonably view the papers as having been served based on the police footage alone. The officer confirmed to Josh that the documents were tied to an active case, and the process server was physically present. Whether Josh personally believed she was a legitimate process server is largely irrelevant if the court already knows she is.
At that point, Josh had notice of the case, the server was present, and the documents were being served. Refusing to take the papers doesn't necessarily undo any of that.
At that point, Josh had notice of the case, the server was present, and the documents were being served. Refusing to take the papers doesn't necessarily undo any of that.
Idleyes
Gold Member
I do agree with Josh that it's unusual for a process server to be accompanying the plaintiff, especially when the plaintiff is a YouTuber documenting and publicizing the whole case.
A process server's job is to complete service as efficiently and professionally as possible with minimal drama. Bringing the plaintiff along may not be illegal, but it does seem unprofessional since it creates a foreseeable risk of confrontation, harassment allegations, and unnecessary complications.
A process server's job is to complete service as efficiently and professionally as possible with minimal drama. Bringing the plaintiff along may not be illegal, but it does seem unprofessional since it creates a foreseeable risk of confrontation, harassment allegations, and unnecessary complications.
Brazen
Member
Well Reckless Ben had the police officer, who offered to serve Josh as a mediator as shown here:
But the franchise owner, Josh, didn't accept them and the officer completely went along with that scenario? Even after Josh "wanted to take a peek" at the papers because you know, just to see how fake the documents really were? I mean once you're served it's a done deal whether the defendant agrees not to take it, thinks whatever about it, or whatever... the officer could have left the papers at his feet and there's nothing Josh could've done that would matter.
Nothing about this whole ordeal makes any sense.
The CEO risking his multimillion-dollar corporation by not even cooperating? Instead being outright dismissive/threatening? That's not a mistake; that's complete willful suicide. Even if Bryan/(lego customer) completely made the whole thing up about his collection being stolen/lost by the company the CEO at the very least should have maintained the appearance of being cooperative in trying to get to the bottom of it all. Most CEOs would just pay the single penny off to keep the $100 dollar bill printing machine going no matter the outcome/circumstance. That's literally the scale between Bricks and Minifigs annual revenue versus this one-time $200k collection... That CEO would literally have to have the intellect of a prideful gnat in order for it to make a lick of sense because the risk just doesn't math. Well he's paying for it now...
But the franchise owner, Josh, didn't accept them and the officer completely went along with that scenario? Even after Josh "wanted to take a peek" at the papers because you know, just to see how fake the documents really were? I mean once you're served it's a done deal whether the defendant agrees not to take it, thinks whatever about it, or whatever... the officer could have left the papers at his feet and there's nothing Josh could've done that would matter.
Nothing about this whole ordeal makes any sense.
The CEO risking his multimillion-dollar corporation by not even cooperating? Instead being outright dismissive/threatening? That's not a mistake; that's complete willful suicide. Even if Bryan/(lego customer) completely made the whole thing up about his collection being stolen/lost by the company the CEO at the very least should have maintained the appearance of being cooperative in trying to get to the bottom of it all. Most CEOs would just pay the single penny off to keep the $100 dollar bill printing machine going no matter the outcome/circumstance. That's literally the scale between Bricks and Minifigs annual revenue versus this one-time $200k collection... That CEO would literally have to have the intellect of a prideful gnat in order for it to make a lick of sense because the risk just doesn't math. Well he's paying for it now...
Last edited:
Idleyes
Gold Member
Apparently, Reddit user u/Chrysdelight is the previous owner whom Josh alleges took the LEGO sets without paying the owner before Josh took over the business. She seems to have a different opinion of how things went down. She also has a gofundme
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
Legally speaking, in the US, the cops can compel you to provide things like face scans, retinal scans, and fingerprints. This goes back to the "old days" when they needed these kinds of biometrics for stuff like DNA evidence or CSI shit. Nowadays, they can use these to unlock your phone.
The only locking mechanisms they cannot legally compel you to provide is either a password or PIN code, although you can be hit with obstruction charges if you don't. A lot of cops will try and trick you into unlocking your phone for them, using tactics like "if you tell me your PIN code I'll unlock your phone for you so that you can call your relatives" and if you provide it to them willingly then they can legally search it.
You want to make sure that your entire device is encrypted, and that the unlock password or PIN code is sufficiently long and complex - because most police agencies use an application now that can crack phone encryption easily by making a perfect disk dump then running brute force decryption on the dump to access the data. For example, if you use a 4 digit numeric PIN code on your phone, it can be cracked in about 90 seconds on average. Adding another digit adds an exponential amount of time to the process. Right now 8 is about the sweet spot for PINs. Using a longer alphanumeric password complicates the process for them significantly, though obviously can make your day-to-day usage of your phone a bigger headache.
Some devices also support a fail-safe PIN code. You configure this in the settings, and when that alternate PIN code is entered the device flushes your decryption keys and starts erasing the device. That way when the cop thinks they're being clever tricking you out of your PIN code, you can give them the fail-safe PIN and let them wipe your phone clean. Or you can set it to 1234 since that's what they try first 99% of the time. There have been a few... interesting... legal cases on this, but they generally fall under the same stuff as like the cops accidentally destroyed the evidence (happens all the time actually where they physically break people's phones) rather than having actual destruction of evidence charges stick against you. Your individual results may vary.
Stay safe out there everyone.
Portugeezer
Member
Too much corruption for me to believe anything will come from this.
I hope it goes well for them though.
I hope it goes well for them though.
Mistake
Gold Member
If true, he's fucked
My biggest take from this whole situation was that while ben is pretty crafty, he's not too bright. It was obvious something was going on with constant police engagements, and he STILL talked to them without a lawyer. Fellas, it doesn't matter how in the right you are, remain silent. Police will find some bs if you say anything wrong
bender
What time is it?
Dacvak
No one shall be brought before our LORD David Bowie without the true and secret knowledge of the Photoshop. For in that time, so shall He appear.
Yeah. And he's also done a few things that are verifiably illegal. Though it seems like it's not out of malice, but out of ignorance.
He's definitely gonna need a good legal team. But at least he's already won in the court of public opinion.
Complistic
Member
Pure cinema this has been.
Dacvak
No one shall be brought before our LORD David Bowie without the true and secret knowledge of the Photoshop. For in that time, so shall He appear.
Finished watching Legal Eagle's vid. It doesn't really reveal anything, other than the fact that the Lego collection isn't worth $200k (which is obvious, since we know that a lot of it was sold properly with money being paid out to Bryan before the new store owners took over). That, and going deep into the aspect of consignment.
Also, he sort of wraps up this video with "and this is why everyone should have gotten a lawyer from the start", despite also admitting that a lawyer would likely be too expensive and not worth it for this situation, AND acknowledging that Bryan did initially consult lawyers in the beginning.
It basically glosses over the weaponization of the legal system to maintain possession of Legos that don't belong to the current owners, and completely ignores any ethically or morally dubious aspects of their actions.
I'll be interested in hearing what he says in part 2, but gotta say I'm pretty unimpressed with the initial video.
Also, he sort of wraps up this video with "and this is why everyone should have gotten a lawyer from the start", despite also admitting that a lawyer would likely be too expensive and not worth it for this situation, AND acknowledging that Bryan did initially consult lawyers in the beginning.
It basically glosses over the weaponization of the legal system to maintain possession of Legos that don't belong to the current owners, and completely ignores any ethically or morally dubious aspects of their actions.
I'll be interested in hearing what he says in part 2, but gotta say I'm pretty unimpressed with the initial video.
bender
What time is it?
I think it's a great foundation to the reality of the situation and for why you should never do what will be covered in part 2 which should be far more entertaining.
Last edited:
Dacvak
No one shall be brought before our LORD David Bowie without the true and secret knowledge of the Photoshop. For in that time, so shall He appear.
Yeah, it's definitely going to be fun to get into all of Ben's missteps and antics. I believe he means well, but holy shit is he living up to the "reckless" moniker.
I really hope Legal Eagle dives deep into the American Fork Police, though. There's enough on bodycam to make a legitimate claim of collusion and corruption, especially with the unredacted footage that leaked yesterday.
Meanwhile, it's still clear and obvious that literally all of this could have been avoided if Josh, the owner of the store, has just made a good faith effort to give the Legos back and make Bryan whole. But you can hear him in a recorded call threatening with lawsuits, and essentially trying to bleed this out in court to where it wouldn't be worth it for Bryan to fight to get what he deserves.
For all of the faults throughout this whole situation, I feel like Josh is the primary catalyst in all of this. Maybe Brandon Best, as well. And the recently released unredacted bodycam footage of Ammon and Josh pleading with the police to get Ben arrested "by any charge necessary" is fuckin wild.
No one in this entire story is innocent. Maybe with the exception of Bryan.
bender
What time is it?
There are a lot of dumb people all around. I feel bad for Bryan as he seemingly exhausted all of his affordable options prior to engaging Ben. I'm not saying that was the right move either, but it is understandable. Doing the right thing seems out of grasp for every other party involved in this ordeal (the old owner, new owner, corporate, police, and Ben). As far as Ben is concerned, I give some grace for wanting to do the right thing, but that needs to be weighted against his urge to create content. He'll pay for his terrible decisions in more than one way. Hopefully the new owners do too. I'd say the same for the police, but that isn't likely. Afterall, they play differently here.
Last edited:
LegendOfKage
Member
If you're wanting to see someone do a good job looking into that aspect of things, I'd suggest this video:
Idleyes
Gold Member
Legal Eagle seems to be making several factual claims, including that some unsold LEGO sets were returned to their owner, that there is "obviously no dispute" regarding those sets, that the store either returned the sets or turned over the proceeds, and that the collection was not worth $200,000. He appears to be treating those points as established facts before even getting into the separate issue of sets that were allegedly sold, not paid for, and never returned.
My question is: how does he know any of this?
Is he relying on court filings, inventory records, receipts, accounting documents, sworn testimony, or some other evidence that supports those conclusions? If so, I'd genuinely like to see the source material. These statements are being presented with a level of certainty that seems difficult to justify unless there is documentation backing them up.
At the moment, it sounds like conclusions are being drawn about which sets were returned, which proceeds were remitted, and what the collection was actually worth, but I'm not aware of any publicly available evidence that definitively establishes those facts.
My question is: how does he know any of this?
Is he relying on court filings, inventory records, receipts, accounting documents, sworn testimony, or some other evidence that supports those conclusions? If so, I'd genuinely like to see the source material. These statements are being presented with a level of certainty that seems difficult to justify unless there is documentation backing them up.
At the moment, it sounds like conclusions are being drawn about which sets were returned, which proceeds were remitted, and what the collection was actually worth, but I'm not aware of any publicly available evidence that definitively establishes those facts.
Dacvak
No one shall be brought before our LORD David Bowie without the true and secret knowledge of the Photoshop. For in that time, so shall He appear.
Stealing Legos is bad, but the real crime is that mustache
Enlightenedfool
Neo Member
Wh
When you have enough money, you can do anything