So is the LDS church apparently. The franchise owner has been removed from a leadership position according to a Mormon influencer on X.

This Mormon influencer has a source that says as of June 2nd 2026 Joshua Johnson has been released as a High Council Member of the Mormon Church!

She is speculating that Reckless Ben’s youtube Saga was more than likely the cause. Get wrecked Joshua!#JusticeforBen #MormonMafia pic.twitter.com/n9aIQilJsH

— eBuck (@activistJ741) June 5, 2026

Burdizzo said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

Gotta think LEGO corporate is ****ing pissed about this situation as their name gets thrown into controversy without immediate context.

---

Lego has a very strong brand and is very protective of their image. You can bet they are involved in the damage control right now

---

Their damage control should be finding any place B&M uses their brand in advertising.

TexasRebel said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

Who was the consignment with?

Was the contract between BAM and Mansell?
Or the franchisee that got booted and Mansell?

Did the franchise pay for the consigned items in the buyout? If so, wouldn't the items belong to the store now and the ex-franchisee owe Mansell?

If not, why do people keep trying to get free stuff?

---

If the Franchisee sold the items in the buyout, and then skipped town without paying the owner, then the items are stolen and corporate has no right to ownership of them.

---

p

Yes they do, if the consigner sold them. At that point the ex-franchisee would owe Mansell.

---

If you buy a stolen gun at a pawn shop, you don't own it. The owner gets the gun back, and the pawn shop owes you money.

TexasRebel said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

Gotta think LEGO corporate is ****ing pissed about this situation as their name gets thrown into controversy without immediate context.

---

Lego has a very strong brand and is very protective of their image. You can bet they are involved in the damage control right now

---

Their damage control should be finding any place B&M uses their brand in advertising.

---

The independent guy I mentioned in my earlier (SAPB) response was really intentional about making sure Lego was nowhere in his business name or description. I didn't know much about BAM, but ingot the feeling they were not taking the same amount of effort .

Burdizzo said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

Gotta think LEGO corporate is ****ing pissed about this situation as their name gets thrown into controversy without immediate context.

---

Lego has a very strong brand and is very protective of their image. You can bet they are involved in the damage control right now

---

What are those Danish wimps going to do? Hit you with a pickled herring?

BusterAg said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

Who was the consignment with?

Was the contract between BAM and Mansell?
Or the franchisee that got booted and Mansell?

Did the franchise pay for the consigned items in the buyout? If so, wouldn't the items belong to the store now and the ex-franchisee owe Mansell?

If not, why do people keep trying to get free stuff?

---

If the Franchisee sold the items in the buyout, and then skipped town without paying the owner, then the items are stolen and corporate has no right to ownership of them.

---

p

Yes they do, if the consigner sold them. At that point the ex-franchisee would owe Mansell.

---

If you buy a stolen gun at a pawn shop, you don't own it. The owner gets the gun back, and the pawn shop owes you money.

---

But the items were on consignment between the ex-franchisee and Mansell to be sold. They weren't stolen.

The franchise comes in and takes the store back (possibly) buying the inventory from the ex-franchisee. Did this include the consigned items? If so, the sale was legal, and it's up to the consigner (ex-franchisee) to fulfill the consignment contract by giving Mansell the proper percentage.

Unless the owner got paid, the legos were stolen. You cant take something from someone without paying for it, because that is stealing. You have to return stolen property, even if you legally bought the stolen property.

Its pretty simple.

Minute 23 and onwards really sums it up

Consignments muddy the waters.

The property is for sale. The consignee wants money for the property, but pays the consigner to do the work of selling the property.

The consigner isn't selling stolen property. It's not a fencing operation.

In this case, the franchise (may have) purchased the inventory from consignment. Which is a legal sale. Now the consigner owes the consignee money… not the property.

TexasRebel said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

Who was the consignment with?

Was the contract between BAM and Mansell?
Or the franchisee that got booted and Mansell?

Did the franchise pay for the consigned items in the buyout? If so, wouldn't the items belong to the store now and the ex-franchisee owe Mansell?

If not, why do people keep trying to get free stuff?

---

If the Franchisee sold the items in the buyout, and then skipped town without paying the owner, then the items are stolen and corporate has no right to ownership of them.

---

p

Yes they do, if the consigner sold them. At that point the ex-franchisee would owe Mansell.

---

If you buy a stolen gun at a pawn shop, you don't own it. The owner gets the gun back, and the pawn shop owes you money.

---

But the items were on consignment between the ex-franchisee and Mansell to be sold. They weren't stolen.

The franchise comes in and takes the store back (possibly) buying the inventory from the ex-franchisee. Did this include the consigned items? If so, the sale was legal, and it's up to the consigner (ex-franchisee) to fulfill the consignment contract by giving Mansell the proper percentage.

---

The new franchisee could not legally buy the consigned items from the outgoing franchisee because they didn't own the items. They could absorb the contract for consignment sales but neither of them ever held ownership

If the items were on consignment with the outgoing franchisee, yes they could be purchased with the rest of the inventory.

…at which point they are no longer under consignment.

TexasRebel said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

Who was the consignment with?

Was the contract between BAM and Mansell?
Or the franchisee that got booted and Mansell?

Did the franchise pay for the consigned items in the buyout? If so, wouldn't the items belong to the store now and the ex-franchisee owe Mansell?

If not, why do people keep trying to get free stuff?

---

If the Franchisee sold the items in the buyout, and then skipped town without paying the owner, then the items are stolen and corporate has no right to ownership of them.

---

p

Yes they do, if the consigner sold them. At that point the ex-franchisee would owe Mansell.

---

If you buy a stolen gun at a pawn shop, you don't own it. The owner gets the gun back, and the pawn shop owes you money.

---

But the items were on consignment between the ex-franchisee and Mansell to be sold. They weren't stolen.

The franchise comes in and takes the store back (possibly) buying the inventory from the ex-franchisee. Did this include the consigned items? If so, the sale was legal, and it's up to the consigner (ex-franchisee) to fulfill the consignment contract by giving Mansell the proper percentage.

---

Its been discussed here and covered in the videos.

The old franchisee claim Corporate never gave the old franchisee any inventory list, and never paid them for anything. Corporate claimed they owed money and werent getting anything. They have shown recordings of talking with Corporate where Corporate rep says "this is going to be bad for you to sue us" ... essentially if you dont like it, sue us, and we will drag it out and cost you money.

This isnt a case of misunderstanding or them not having the information. Its all intentional. Corporate has repeatedly bullied people in the same manner.. its not an error or accident, its a game plan.

Tree Hugger said:

---

Like some others have said above, I also have friends that own a Bricks and Minifigs store here in TX. They are good Ags and have nothing to do with any of this but they are definitely worried about how it will affect their business. This is pretty much an early retirement project for them.

---

It sucks that corporate has put them in this position.... but its entirely due to corporate (and their lackeys) actions.

I would be concerned that corporate acts this way with its franchises. Actually, I would be pissed and messaging corporate.

Hell of a stupid thing to burn down a company for.

If the old franchisee owed 90% of the value of the merchandise (10% stocking fee), then the franchise paid them by accepting the merchandise.

Now the consigner (outgoing franchisee) owes the consignee (Mansell).

TexasRebel said:

---

If the items were on consignment with the outgoing franchisee, yes they could be purchased with the rest of the inventory.

…at which point they are no longer under consignment.

---

They could not be legally purchased with the other inventory. Title on the items could not be transferred because neither side had ownership to convey. One of the attorney response videos covers that in depth.

The consigner absolutely did.

TexasRebel said:

---

If the old franchisee owed 90% of the value of the merchandise (10% stocking fee), then the franchise paid them by accepting the merchandise.

Now the consigner (outgoing franchisee) owes the consignee (Mansell).

---

Im not sure exactly what your point or question is? Yes, there are many legal ways this could have been handled, but BAM chose the we steal it and force you to spend money on lawyers route.

TexasRebel said:

---

The consigner absolutely did.

---

Did what? It was a consignment arrangement. The original franchisee paid zero dollars for the Star Wars items when they were added to her store inventory.

They wouldn't even be able to calculate a price to use in a sale from one to the other because there was no cost information only a retail asking price.

BusterAg said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

Gotta think LEGO corporate is ****ing pissed about this situation as their name gets thrown into controversy without immediate context.

---

Lego has a very strong brand and is very protective of their image. You can bet they are involved in the damage control right now

---

What are those Danish wimps going to do? Hit you with a pickled herring?

---

Or sue the everloving bejeezus outta you…

What method did they use for the other used sets in the store?

Receipt price or current market?

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

Gotta think LEGO corporate is ****ing pissed about this situation as their name gets thrown into controversy without immediate context.

---

Lego has a very strong brand and is very protective of their image. You can bet they are involved in the damage control right now

---

What are those Danish wimps going to do? Hit you with a pickled herring?

---

Or sue the everloving bejeezus outta you…

---

Quietly, too, with excellent lawyers who don't f-up.

Correct. Just stolen.

Sounds like they traded debt for inventory.

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.

TexasRebel said:

---

What method did they use for the other used sets in the store?

Receipt price or current market?

---

You never pay retail selling price when you transfer inventory in an ownership change. If you did the new owner would have a zero margin when the item is sold. For a business like this I assume they have a record of the purchase price when the used item was acquired and that is what the new franchisee would pay.

In the businesses I have done this where you have tens of thousands of pieces of inventory that isn't feasible so you count at retail and multiply by .30.

This is all moot though because the items were consigned. The franchisees could have counted them and paid for them but legally they still wouldnt own them. The consignment contract specifically stated the old man would retained ownership of the items at all times until the were sold to a customer.

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.

The franchise was the customer.

TexasRebel said:

---

The franchise was the customer.

---

That's not how it works at all. I'm not sure you understand the difference between cost and retail.

This Lego drama has been a blessing to that fat lolcow The Quartering. Something finally took a little heat off the sorry @$$.

What did he do? I have seen his content here and there and he usually is poking fun at libs. Did he get in another Nerd fight?

Wouldn't that be the seller's responsibility to say, no, you're lowballing me on these items instead of accepting the offer?

bonfarr said:

---

What did he do? I have seen his content here and there and he usually is poking fun at libs. Did he get in another Nerd fight?

---

Publicly threatened to flag a bunch of other YouTube channels, which then got nuked by YouTube. Then bowed up against channels like Nerdrotic, Geeks + Gamers, and Side Scrollers. He then got exposed for stealing other posters content shamelessly. People started digging through older posts that showed him to be a pervert creeper in public, which led to him being banned from Ren Faires across the Midwest. Random other stuff like deeper looks into his coffee company essentially being a scam/drop ship white label operation, and more disturbing stuff like him talking about urinating on his dog. Whole Nerdoshpere has been lined up against him since late April, but he's been defiant. The Lego thing and Ethan Ralph's meltdown have finally taken some of the heat away from him.

Apparently false flagging in the YouTube community is akin to snitching in prison.

TexasRebel said:

---

Wouldn't that be the seller's responsibility to say, no, you're lowballing me on these items instead of accepting the offer?

---

I'm not sure what this question is. By seller are you referring to the old man that owned the legos?

No, the consigner.