>Joshua Johnson and Brandon Best are, by public record and documented account, members of the LDS community. Ah there it is. Classic.
Mormon Mafia.
[dead]
Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection
311–320 of 704 posts
Re: Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection
#312Re: Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
They lost default judgements because they did not appear. Either they thought it was fake or they thought they'd lose, but they were served and did not appear.
Or they thought that the losses were acceptable to avoid having to make sworn statements about the series of events that are still at issue in the previous owner's case and some events that may very well still be charged by Oregon prosecutors.
So they chose to lose a case on merits related to the other case instead of making statements that would help (if they are in the right)?
Re: Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection
#314I'm really confused by this blog. There seems to be a large portion of the story missing. I can't figure out the correlation between the owner losing their franchise and the rest of the story. Why did they want to steal the sets? If they're really a $400M company (whatever that means), why would they do this over (at most) $200k? I couldn't figure out what is being claimed here. I'm not saying it's not true, I just c…
It's not that hard to understand. A man gave a store merchandise on consignment, signed a contract with the store manager. The manager lost control of the store to corporate. The goods were still there, still on display and being sold. Corporate says, "this is mine now" and refuses to honor the contract. "It wasn't our name on it, says right here that the previous store manager signed this, and she's no longer with u…
Sounds like theft to me.
Re: Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
There aren't obvious holes. Most or all of what's been claimed as holes have just been straight up lies from B&M
[flagged]
Well, yes, if someone doesn't care to look for the full story then there will be holes almost by definition.
The common accepted meaning of "holes in a story" is not "I don't know the facts", but "the story itself is misleading or incomplete".
Re: Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection
#316Could he take them to small claims court one Lego set at a time, get a judgment against the business then go in with the sheriff and start taking stuff to cover the judgement?
This is one of the stunts tried on the video. The original owner sold the sets to the crew members, and they presented 10 small claims. They won all of them because BAM did not went to court, the next day they closed the store permanently. This story is crazy.
And when they try to serve him they keep being told they need to do it the right way but the cops stop them every time. The system is totally broken.
Re: Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I have absolutely no doubts a court would consider it impossible to transfer goods under consignment to a different entity free of the burden of the consignment contract. Reminds me of the whole "disney must pay" debacle.
Was that the incident where they stole an artists tiki design?
No, they came up with some legal theory in which they’d bought the assets of some company, including the company’s ownership of some art, but not obligations like paying royalties.
Re: Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection
#318Can anyone explain WHY a 400M company would do this? This is just bonkers. They are destroying their reputation for $200k of legos???
400M value doesn't mean they have a big bin on the outskirts of town where they go swimming in 400M dollars of cash. It seems like their franchisee went bust, and they bailed him out to some $ value. Taking over shit like his lease and probably some other debts. 200K is maybe what they need to recoup their losses from rescuing this store, and they have enough local LDS enforcers to make it stick.
> It seems like their franchisee went bust, and they bailed him out to some $ value.
Not what happened, according to a legal commentator: https://youtu.be/14ktgvoH4Mc?t=590
> The seizure. November 14th, 2024. The [original franchise owners Crystal Law Gorman and her husband Benjamin Gorman] approach B&M about selling the store. They have an overseas job offer, they want to recoup their investment before they leave.
> The same day --- same day -- corporate dispatches a representative to the Kaiser store. By B&M's account, the Gormans owed approximately $200,000 in unpaid royalties. The transition negotiations broke down and B&M terminated the franchise agreement under what McNeff described as a clause permitting offset of store assets similar to an asset seizure in a bankruptcy proceeding. By the Gormans' own account, they had approached corporate about selling, not closing. And B&M's response was a same-day forced removal? No notice, no inventory, and a single box of personal belongings?
> That same evening, Law Gorman says she informed the B&M representative on site who was on speaker phone with the corporate director of operations, Key McAllister, that there was an active consignment in the store, that Mancel had not been fully paid, and that the property remaining in the store was not the store's to sell. According to Law Gorman, McAllister responded that the new operator would be "taking over the consignment as well."
> This is a critical factual claim. McNeff has refused to address it on the record, citing pending litigation. McAllister has not responded to media requests at all. The Gormans say the store's security camera footage captured this exchange and that it has been provided to Kaiser police.
This reads like B&M corporate are hardball-playing morons, and they choose intimidation as their first action. They clearly didn't know or care about what a fuckup they just made in effectively seizing consigned goods while taking over the franchise, even though they were told about it. And they've relied on the stacked-deck of civil proceedings costs to get away with stealing a guy's property, while they taunt the guy and lie about their actions. And the police, instead of prosecuting them for what looks like a criminal offence, are helping them get rid of the annoying guy publicising B&M's malfeasance.
Re: Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was that the incident where they stole an artists tiki design?
No, they came up with some legal theory in which they’d bought the assets of some company, including the company’s ownership of some art, but not obligations like paying royalties.
Oh yes, the incident with the star wars extended universe authors royalties. Disney is the worst.