201–210 of 704 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a gofundme I would gladly donate to. Fight the power for what's right.
Yeah, but you don't know the whole story. There was a young motorcyclists who ran from the police and killed in a crashed. His family has a go-fund me still just to collect money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this thread you have admitted to not knowing basic facts about this case. Yet here you are pontificating on the merits. Are you affiliated with B&M? Maybe an employee or franchisee? Why do you feel so strongly you need to defend them?
[flagged]
I haven't watched part 2 yet, but he absolutely is affiliated with the person who lost the LEGOs. He's explicitly working with the son, who was the previous person that was running point on trying to get the sets back until it ruined his life.
Earlier 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.
A default judgement is still a loss. Why would not they not fight back small claims cases, which would be trivially easy for someone with their resources, if they could win?
Without being able to run up Ed/Ben's legal costs, trying to defend these suits at all is just a further loss for B&M for no benefit.
I don't think it was the deciding factor, but Ben also sent a fake Guinness award to the store around the same time they were being served. It is within the realm of possibility that they thought Ben was bluffing with the lawsuits and tried to call his bluff just to find out it was all real after they failed to appear.
The part 2 video where the police harass and falsely arrest ben is even more shocking.
If this the same Ben in YouTube then omg was he annoying. I couldn't even get throught the first quarter of the video. The dude shows up at a store. They ask him to leave multiple times. They call on the police on him. Then he says "the police are in on it" because they trespassed him. Like wow shocking that the police won't get involved in a civil matter. Then they manipulate a store employee that had nothing to do…
It's explained multiple times in the video that Mansell has considered suing, but the most likely outcome of that is he pays a lawyer upwards of $60k to get https://youtu.be/14ktgvoH4Mc?t=1029 talks about the distinction between civil and criminal here (and the whole video is good, worth a watch). There's not exactly an either-or distinction like it's commonly presented. The police can+probably should have investigated the initial refusal to return the legos as criminal theft.
I'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…
This guy tried to resolve a legal dispute without a lawyer. Any competent business lawyer should have been able to straighten this out within days. He even tried to do process service himself, which nobody does. You pay a process server $100 or so for that.
[flagged]
Legally, it's one of those Uniform Commercial Code things that was worked out many decades ago - the rights of a consignor in a business transfer.[1] This is a routine problem with standard answers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You'd think that if there was a side of the story where the details exonerated the company, you'd think they would share those details. If they moved someone else's property out of the store, then surely they would be able to share evidence supporting this. All we have to go by is the blogger's account, so that's the story. Just saying "there must be more to it" without evidence that there is more to it, is just vagu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They already have a judgement against the business for the full amount. But the business chose to close rather than pay
I dont understand how that works: The entire $400M business decided to close over $200K judgment? Or just the single store? If just the store, why did they sue the store and not the underlying business?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The store (as managed by the second group) lost the suit, if they were negligent they still owe the consigner. What's missing is the relationship between the second group and the corporate parent. This does seem like a very key point that keeps getting ignored for the sake of a simpler story. Everyone keeps talking about this lawsuit loss, but what lawsuit? Against whom? The article doesn't even explain, but it's s…
The lawsuit was *from* the previous owners against the new owners that kicked them out of the store. Here's a video from the previous owners explaining their story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zedmOopRTm0
Now as for the previous question of who was at the pointy end of those default judgments, I haven't been able to find that answer. I assume they should have named the local franchise as an entity and it's owners individually. Closing the store to avoid paying is arguably a fraudulent transfer of assets, but that would need to be taken to court in an enforcement action.