the consignment was between BAM franchise and Mansell. When BAM took over the store the consignment went with the store. The video of them being informed of the consignment and the outstanding obligation is clear. they said "we'll take care of it"

There's your misunderstanding.

BAM didn't do the consignment. The franchisee did.

have you watched any of the videos? the franchise agreement allows them to do consignment. the was not a side deal outside of what was allowed. when BAM took over they saw a chance to steal 200k of a consignment and Stonewall any objection.

Yes

Allows the franchisee to offer consignment. That consignment doesn't involve BAM.

and BAM/their crony new "franchisee" took responsibility for that consignment on video

Per the clauses of the consignment, Mansell is still the owner of the Legos. They were never and will never be owned by BAM corporate or the following franchisees. The consignment survives until all the units are sold or until they are returned to the owner (Mansell) because they could not be sold within whatever time limit there was on the consignment.

All the units sold when BAM bought out the items in the store.

TexasRebel said:

---

All the units sold when BAM bought out the items in the store.

---

Why wouldn't the consignment contract have sold? The purchase of the member units of an LLC or stock of a corporation is different from the purchase of the assets of the business. Do we know how the franchise was acquired? It seems like it would have had to go first to the franchisor and then to the new franchisee. That will be important to figure out who is liable for what and what duties each party had.

TexasRebel said:

---

The consignment was between the former franchisee and Mansell.

The items on consignment got purchased along with the rest of the items in the store with a check to the former franchisee/consignor. That's not "both ways".

---

Even stranger, there was no check. It was a transfer pursuant to the franchise agreement as I understand it. If the original franchisee didn't own the items, the only thing that could be transferred would be owned inventory and contracts. If the units of the LLC were transferred, none of the assets themselves were transferred. Hard to argue they also sold everything in the store if title doesn't transfer.

TexasRebel said:

---

All the units sold when BAM bought out the items in the store.

---

Nope

There's a store inventory buyout clause if you can find it.

I'm on a runway, so good luck.

You aren't following what he's saying.

He's saying when the Brand took over the store, they "purchased" the consignment goods from the original franchisee. That franchisee was then responsible for paying the consignor which didn't happen.

That's entirely plausible, but I haven't heard anyone from the Brand, or the new franchisee, make that statement. If that was the case, I would have expected the Brand to have said so in one of their many press statements.

TexasRebel said:

---

There's a store inventory buyout clause if you can find it.

I'm on a runway, so good luck.

---

Problem with that is the consigned goods weren't regular store inventory. The consignee may have had possession of the goods, but they didn't have title to them, so they wouldn't have been considered inventory. I posted the inventory on buyout provision earlier in the thread.

But they did have the ability to sell them.

Remember, the franchisee owns the inventory. When corporate comes in all they own is the building.

https://salembusinessjournal.org/2026/06/04/bricks-minifigs-lego-theft-records-salem-keizer/

The franchisee lawsuit against BAM Franchising:
https://salembusinessjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Copy-of-Lawsuit-viewable-link.pdf

Quote:

---

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Conversion
118. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs.
119. Before November 14, 2024, BAMF Salem 1, LLC and/or Ms. Law and Mr. Gorman personally owned personal property comprising the Salem store's business assets, including all inventory of LEGO products and merchandise, store fixtures and furniture, computer systems, cash on hand, and store equipment.
120. Plaintiffs also had lawful possession and physical custody of certain high-value LEGO sets on consignment from a third-party collector, Bryan Mansell, under a written consignment arrangement.
121. As consignees and bailees of the consigned goods, Plaintiffs held a possessory interest in that property and a right to immediate possession sufficient to maintain a conversion claim. BAM's seizure of the consigned goods has directly exposed Plaintiffs to threatened legal action by Mansell for the loss of his collection, compounding Plaintiffs' damages.
122. On November 14, 2024, and thereafter, Defendant BAM, acting through its agents, intentionally took dominion and control over all this property (See Ex. D). BAM physically secured the property by changing locks, denied Plaintiffs access, and has retained it continuously, refusing to return it or compensate Plaintiffs for it.
123. Even if BAM had a contractual right to terminate the franchise, it had no right to seize ownership of the franchisee's personal property without paying for it. As a secured creditor under the Security Agreement, BAM's remedies upon default were limited to commercially reasonable disposition under UCC Article 9not unilateral confiscation without notice, valuation, or accounting.
124. As to the consignment goods owned by Mr. Mansell, in which BAM had no security interest whatsoever, BAM's seizure constitutes conversion.
125. As to Plaintiffs' own inventory and equipment, even if BAM's security interest entitled it to repossess collateral upon default, BAM was required to dispose of the collateral in a commercially reasonable manner under Utah Code Ann. 70A-9a-610, provide reasonable notice under 70A-9a-611, and account for any surplus under 70A-9a-615.
126. BAM did none of these thingsit seized all property without notice, provided no accounting, conducted no commercially reasonable sale, and remitted no surplus.
127. BAM conducted no commercially reasonable sale, gave no notice, and provided no accounting giving rise to a claim for statutory damages under Utah Code Ann. 70A-9a-625.
128. The value of all property seized exceeds $100,000 for inventory and equipment alone. Additionally, the consigned collection worth approximately $100,000 to $125,000 was converted from Plaintiffs' possession. Plaintiffs seek restitution, consequential damages, prejudgment interest, and punitive damages.

---

The way I read that, Mansell only has a complaint with the franchisee since the items were "converted"

Somewhere I thought I saw that the franchisee owed BAM, but that doesn't mean BAM gets to take everything without a paper trail (if the alleged actually happened).

Was just reading through parts of the BAM lawsuit filed in Utah since I didn't read it earlier this week.
https://salembusinessjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/2026.05.28-Verified-Complaint-with-Exhibits8986792.1_SHarable.pdf

I think at the end of this I will be most annoyed with the Law/Gorman (BAMF Salem1) franchisee. At the beginning of November 2024 they were planning to move out of the country and had a consignment agreement that was ending at the end of January 2025. They should have given the unsold sets back to Mansell and work to end the consignment before doing anything else. This would have saved people a lot of money and time currently being wrapped up in lawsuits and social media posts/videos.

November 5, 2024 - Election Day with Trump winning
November 8, 2024 - Chrystal Law letting BAM corporate know her husband is accepting a job in Spain and intends to close the store

yeah. I can agree with that. but I dont think they ever imagined that it would go the way it did until they were forced out.

Does anyone have that notice they wrote to BAM?

Was it direct, or was it laden with politics?

TexasRebel said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

If I go to a pawn shop and find my stolen ring, the pawn shop owner cant hide behind the fact that he bought it legally from a dirty thief.

---

He can if you gave that thief the item to sell for a percentage.

---

In that case, who is the person that stole the ring?

Nobody. The ring wasn't stolen.

The thief stole the money he was supposed to give you after selling the ring.

I haven't seen anything posted about the notification on 11/8 besides about is mentioned in the lawsuit, and their discussions with BAM doesn't look like it includes anything about politics. What points to them panicking about moving out of the country after the election was a comment in one of their recent videos.

1:20

TexasRebel said:

---

The way I read that, Mansell only has a complaint with the franchisee since the items were "converted"

Somewhere I thought I saw that the franchisee owed BAM, but that doesn't mean BAM gets to take everything without a paper trail (if the alleged actually happened).

---

The original franchisee claims they never received an inventory, as required within 60 days based on contract.

Most likely corporate never paid them anything, they just said "you owed us more than we got in inventory, go kick rocks"

Also if you watch the legal eagle video (1-2 pages back, a legit lawyer), i believe it covers how they dont have the right to do buy out the consignment as inventory... and they certainly dont have a right to do it without clearly stating what they are doing, how much they paid, etc.

I respect your real world experience, and your gut feeling on what happened based on the little information you have researched... but I think youre missing too much of this story to make the assumptions youre making.

Edit to add: this also hasnt been corporates story from the beginning... if it was simple as you claim, then why not stick to that story and show evidence of the accounting.

tk for tu juan said:

---

LegalEagle discussion on the franchise turnover and the consignment. Can fast forward to 30 minutes to get to the meat of the summary. He will have a separate video on everything Reckless Ben did wrong and/or right

---

Like said in post, ffwd 30m mark.

Its a lawyer review, very little sensational stupidity...

Guy with driest sense of humor on the internet provides a kick to the crotch at 19:00, good ole qualified immunity. Enjoying the entertainment this week has provided, getting a nice education without learning the hard way first.

tk for tu juan said:

---

I haven't seen anything posted about the notification on 11/8 besides about is mentioned in the lawsuit, and their discussions with BAM doesn't look like it includes anything about politics. What points to them panicking about moving out of the country after the election was a comment in one of their recent videos.

1:20

---

Well damn. Great video

Martels Hammer said:

---

tk for tu juan said:

---

I haven't seen anything posted about the notification on 11/8 besides about is mentioned in the lawsuit, and their discussions with BAM doesn't look like it includes anything about politics. What points to them panicking about moving out of the country after the election was a comment in one of their recent videos.

1:20

---

Well damn. Great video

---

From the comments:

Quote:

---

We got Mormon Lego Mafia city before gta 6

---

If Rockstar would have released GTA6 on time, then all of us internet dorks would be too busy playing the game to care about this saga. BAM should sue Rockstar, too

TexasRebel said:

---

Nobody. The ring wasn't stolen.

The thief stole the money he was supposed to give you after selling the ring.

---

Where is Claude wrong?

Quote:

---

Yes, under Utah law this would likely constitute theft by fraud or theft by misappropriation not classic "stolen property" in the traditional sense, but still criminal theft.

**Utah Code 76-6-404** defines theft broadly: a person commits theft if they obtain property of another by deception with intent to deprive them of it. Deception includes creating a false impression about intentions like falsely implying you'll remit consignment proceeds.

There's also **theft by misappropriation ( 76-6-408)**: if you lawfully receive property (as a consignee) but then use it in a way that deprives the owner, that's theft regardless of how you got possession.

So the item itself becomes "property obtained by theft" under Utah law which triggers the stolen property statutes. Receiving, retaining, or disposing of property you know was obtained by theft is a separate offense under ** 76-6-408**.

**Practical answer:** Yes courts and prosecutors would treat the consigned goods as stolen property once the fraudulent intent is established, even though the original transfer was voluntary. The intent at the time of sale is the key element. If you can prove the seller never intended to pay, that intent converts the transaction from a civil breach into criminal theft.

The degree of the offense scales with value felony thresholds in Utah start at $1,500 (third degree) and climb from there.

---

Claude is wrong by existing.

You can't sell something you don't own.

If you buy stolen property from a pawn shop, or a stolen trailer from a dealer, the property will be returned to the owner, and you'll be stuck taking it up with who you bought it from.

Consigners sell things they don't own regularly.

So do realtors.

TexasRebel said:

---

Consigners sell things they don't own regularly.

So do realtors.

---

Are they the seller or the facilitator of the transaction?

You mean like a flea market?