How Bricks & Minifigs Allegedly Stole an Old Man's Star Wars LEGO Collection

There is a story circulating right now that has everything: a family’s decade-long labor of love, a corporate franchise machine that may have steamrolled a vulnerable old man, a YouTuber who started a fake LEGO cult and got arrested trying to get justice, and a criminal investigation that has grown from two pages to thirty. It involves LEGO — of all things — and it is one of the most enraging, surreal, and legally instructive corporate accountability stories of 2026.

This is the story of Bryan Mansell, his 83-year-old father, and the alleged theft of one of the largest privately held Star Wars LEGO collections in the Pacific Northwest. I have read everything I can find on this. The original family post that went viral. The full Salem Business Journal investigative report with primary documents. The Kotaku write-up. The Dexerto piece. The official BAM corporate blog response. I have watched what I can of Reckless Ben’s videos. I have also dug into the Oregon statutes and case law that frame what happened.

What follows is the most complete summary I can put together. This is a long post. It needs to be.

Part One: Building Something That Mattered

Bryan Mansell and his father started collecting Star Wars LEGO sets around the year 2000. Over the following fifteen years, they invested roughly $30,000 and assembled a collection of more than 780 sets and 1,200 minifigures, each item sealed in its original packaging. According to Kotaku, Mansell estimates the full collection is worth $200,000. The Salem Business Journal, which reviewed supporting documents directly, puts the sets alone at a low-end value of approximately $60,335 and a high-end of approximately $98,480, with the 1,200 minifigures tracked separately bringing the total to between $150,000 and $200,000. Some individual sets, including the highly prized Cloud City, are valued at more than $10,000 each. Some individual minifigures in the collection are valued at more than $1,300 apiece.

This wasn’t merely a financial investment. It was a shared project built across generations. LEGO was a toy both father and son had grown up with. The Star Wars line, launched in 1999, became a medium for them to stay connected. The plan was always to sell the collection one day to help fund the grandchildren’s college education. As Mansell’s father’s health began to decline, Bryan made the decision to consign the collection.

Part Two: The Consignment Agreement

On November 22, 2023, Bryan Mansell and Chrystal Law-Gorman — the business owner of Bricks and Minifigs Salem-Keizer LLC — signed a formal consignment agreement. The Salem Business Journal reviewed this document in full. The terms are not ambiguous.

The key provisions:

Section IV: The consigned merchandise remained Mansell’s property in full until the moment of sale. Full stop. This is standard consignment law — the consignor retains title until the moment of sale to an end purchaser. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 1 (defining a consignment as a bailment for sale in which title remains with the consignor). Oregon courts have long recognized that a consignee holds consigned goods in a trust-like capacity on behalf of the consignor.
Section V: The store was required to maintain insurance covering the full replacement value of the collection against fire, flood, theft, or vandalism, and was responsible for all shortages, losses, or damage while the sets were in its possession.
Section X: The agreement was binding on any successors of the parties, but neither party could assign their interests without the prior written consent of the other. This clause is the one that blows up BAM Corporate’s entire defense, as I will explain.
Section XI: Automatic termination on January 31, 2025, with all unsold sets to be returned to Mansell within 10 days.

The store received a 35% commission on gross sales; Mansell received 65%, paid monthly on or before the 15th. He came in every month to collect receipts and checks.

The arrangement was publicly celebrated. The Bricks and Minifigs Salem-Keizer Facebook page posted on November 7, 2023 that the store would be displaying “one of the largest, most valuable privately held collections of Star Wars LEGO in the world,” calling the collection “estimated to be worth well over $200,000.” According to Dexerto, the store confirmed the inventory’s presence in Instagram posts as well. There was a line out the door on unveiling day. Local media covered it.

This was not a secret arrangement. BAM’s own branded franchise store used the Mansell collection as a marketing asset and a public draw.

For nearly a year, the arrangement ran smoothly. Law-Gorman maintained a detailed spreadsheet tracking every sold and unsold item, layaways, storage locations, and sale prices for each set.

Part Three: Everything Goes Wrong — The Competing Narratives

In November 2024, the Gormans initiated contact with BAM Franchising — the corporate parent, formally BAM Franchising, Inc., an Oregon corporation with its principal business address in Orem, Utah — about the future of the store. The Gormans were planning to leave the country.

What happened next is the subject of sharply divergent accounts.

What BAM Corporate Says

According to BAM Franchising CEO Ammon McNeff (on the record with the Salem Business Journal), the Gormans reached out to inform corporate they had received a job offer overseas and wanted to know how to close the store. McNeff says BAM told them closing was not an option. He says the Gormans owed approximately $200,000 in unpaid obligations — including the original purchase price of the store and accumulated unpaid royalties — and that they became uncooperative, ultimately requiring BAM to fully terminate the franchise agreement. He says the franchise agreement allowed BAM to offset store assets against money owed, “similar to an asset seizure in a bankruptcy proceeding.” He maintains that consignment was explicitly prohibited under company policy and that corporate had no knowledge of the Mansell arrangement at the time of the seizure.

What the Gormans Say

Chrystal Law-Gorman tells a dramatically different story. She says the Gormans approached corporate about selling the store — not closing it — to recoup their investment before moving abroad. She says that same day, corporate sent a representative to the Keizer location and seized the store immediately, without the notice or process she claims is required under the franchise agreement. She says they were threatened, denied the opportunity to conduct a full inventory, and forced out that night. The alleged $200,000 debt, she contends, is disputed and was used as a pretext to take the store and deny the Gormans any proceeds from a legitimate sale.

The Gormans are now suing BAM Franchising on multiple grounds: breach of contract, conversion, defamation, and civil conspiracy. Their conversion claim is significant and I will return to the legal theory behind it below.

The Critical Dispute About Policy

On the question of whether consignment was prohibited under franchise policy: Law-Gorman told the Salem Business Journal there is no such language in the franchise agreement, and that corporate was made aware of the arrangement near the very beginning and raised no objection. The Salem Business Journal asked BAM Franchising to provide documentation supporting the claimed prohibition. No such documentation had been provided at the time of publication. This matters enormously. BAM’s entire public defense rests on the assertion that consignment was prohibited. If they cannot document that prohibition, the assertion is not a defense — it is a talking point.

Part Four: The Night of the Seizure

The date was November 14, 2024. Law-Gorman has stated that as corporate was in the process of seizing the store, she informed the corporate representative — who was simultaneously on speakerphone with someone the Gormans identify as Ki McAllister, then BAM’s Director of Operations — about the outstanding Mansell consignment arrangement and the fact that Mansell had not been paid out for remaining sets.

According to the Gormans, McAllister acknowledged the consignment on that call and stated that since the new operator was taking over the business, he would be taking over the consignment as well.

The Gormans say this exchange was captured on the store’s security camera. That footage has been provided to the Keizer Police Department.

Law-Gorman took photographs that night as she was being removed, trying to document as much of the remaining inventory as possible. Those photographs, reviewed by the Salem Business Journal, show Star Wars LEGO boxes with yellow dot stickers on the UPC barcodes — Mansell’s identifying marks — still on the store shelves. The photo metadata places them on November 14, 2024, between 7:50 and 7:55 p.m., with set numbers consistent with items on Mansell’s inventory list.

McNeff declined to address the specific contents of the security video, citing ongoing litigation.

When the Gormans were removed, Law-Gorman was not permitted to print or take a copy of the inventory spreadsheet she had been maintaining — the document tracking every sold and unsold item in the consignment. That spreadsheet stayed in the store, accessible to whoever controlled it afterward.

The Gormans left with a single box of personal belongings. A small number of sets in their vehicle from a recent Rose City Comic-Con appearance were returned directly to Mansell shortly after.

Part Five: The Cover-Up — New Operators, Removed Stickers, and a Test Purchase

Following the seizure, BAM engaged a third-party entity — identified by McNeff as Baker Bricks LLC — to conduct an inventory of the store. That same entity later expressed interest in purchasing the location at 3670 River Road N in Keizer. BAM sold the store to Baker Bricks LLC. The new operators are identified as Brandon Best and a second operator named Josh, both believed to now reside in Utah. Neither responded to the Salem Business Journal’s requests for comment.

The timeline raised immediate concerns. The same individuals who conducted the post-seizure inventory on corporate’s behalf became the store’s new owners within approximately a month.

On November 22, 2024 — one year to the day from the consignment agreement — Mansell sent a formal notice of cancellation and termination to Brandon Best, via email and certified mail. It cited two specific breaches: failure to deliver the November monthly installment payment, and a refusal on November 21, 2024 to allow Mansell to inspect the remaining inventory.

The new operators responded by denying any knowledge of any consignment arrangement.

BAM Corporate, in written correspondence Mansell shared with the Salem Business Journal, allegedly told him the evidence was insufficient and directed him to pursue the Gormans instead.

Then Mansell made a move that proved they were lying: he sent a buyer into the store. After the new operators claimed to have removed his sets, that buyer walked in and purchased one of Mansell’s consigned sets. The identifying yellow dot sticker had been removed from the UPC barcode. The collection was still being actively sold — without Mansell’s consent, without payment to Mansell — by people who claimed to know nothing about it.

The removal of identifying markings is not an incidental detail. Under Oregon case law addressing theft by receiving under ORS 164.095, courts have held that “belief or knowledge that goods are stolen may be inferred from facts showing defendant had reason to believe goods were stolen.” See State v. Thomas, 13 Or App 164, 509 P2d 446 (1973) (holding that knowledge of stolen nature of property may be inferred from surrounding circumstances). The deliberate removal of ownership markings before continuing to sell the property is precisely the kind of circumstantial evidence courts have recognized as supporting an inference of guilty knowledge.

Part Six: The Legal Framework — What Oregon Law Actually Says

This is where I want to spend some real time, because the reflexive dismissal of this as a “civil matter” by police fails badly when you apply Oregon law to the documented facts.

Theft by Deception — ORS 164.085

Under ORS 164.085, a person commits theft by deception when, with intent to defraud, they:

(a) Creates or confirms another’s false impression of law, value, intention or other state of mind that the actor does not believe to be true; (b) Fails to correct a false impression that the person previously created or confirmed; (c) Prevents another from acquiring information pertinent to the disposition of the property involved; (d) Sells or otherwise transfers or encumbers property, failing to disclose a lien, adverse claim or other legal impediment to the enjoyment of the property…

Apply each subsection to the alleged facts here:

(a) The new operators told Mansell they had no knowledge of his collection. If the security footage shows them being informed otherwise — and it reportedly does — that is the creation of a false impression.

(b) The new operators continued this false impression through ongoing denials, even as they continued to sell the sets. Under subsection (b), the failure to correct a false impression you have already created is itself sufficient.

(c) The refusal on November 21, 2024 to allow Mansell to inspect the remaining inventory — documented in his termination letter — is a textbook example of preventing the owner from “acquiring information pertinent to the disposition of the property.”

(d) Most powerfully: selling property while “failing to disclose a lien, adverse claim or other legal impediment to the enjoyment of the property” is explicitly listed as theft by deception. The consignment agreement created exactly such an adverse claim. The new operators sold the property — to the test buyer and presumably to others — without disclosing Mansell’s ownership interest.

Oregon courts have interpreted the intent element of ORS 164.085 to require “conscious objective to take property from another person by deception.” State v. Clermont, 9 Or App 141, 495 P2d 305 (1972), Sup Ct review denied. The deliberate removal of ownership stickers before selling consigned property, after having been informed of the consignment arrangement on video, is evidence from which a jury could infer exactly that conscious objective.

Theft by Receiving — ORS 164.095

Under ORS 164.095:

A person commits theft by receiving if the person receives, retains, conceals or disposes of property of another knowing or having good reason to know that the property was the subject of theft.

The statute defines “Receiving” broadly to include “acquiring possession, control or title, or lending on the security of the property.” Oregon courts have consistently held that this section “required actual knowledge or belief by the defendant that the property was stolen,” State v. Redeman, 9 Or App 329, 496 P2d 230 (1972), but have also held that “belief or knowledge that goods are stolen may be inferred from facts showing defendant had reason to believe goods were stolen.” State v. Thomas, 13 Or App 164, 509 P2d 446 (1973).

Critically, Oregon courts have also held that selling stolen property is a distinct criminal act under this framework. In State v. Farmer, 44 Or App 157, 605 P2d 716 (1980), the court held that where an indictment alleged that a defendant sold an automobile manifold knowing it was stolen, the charge was properly brought as theft by sale under ORS 164.015 and ORS 164.095. The act of disposition — selling the property — is itself sufficient to constitute the offense once guilty knowledge is established.

Baker Bricks LLC took over a store they had just inventoried, containing property bearing ownership markings consistent with a third-party consignment arrangement, after receiving at minimum constructive notice of that arrangement through the transition process. The subsequent sale of that property to at least one confirmed buyer — a fact documented by Mansell’s own test purchase — is precisely the “disposal” contemplated by ORS 164.095.

Aggravated Theft in the First Degree — ORS 164.057 and ORS 164.061

Here is the provision that should concern everyone involved in this matter most directly.

Under ORS 164.057, aggravated theft in the first degree applies when the value of property stolen in a single or aggregate transaction is $10,000 or more. It is a Class B felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison.

That would already apply here given the value of the collection. But ORS 164.061 provides an additional mandatory sentencing enhancement that is directly applicable to this case:

When a person is convicted of aggravated theft in the first degree under ORS 164.057, the court shall sentence the person to a term of incarceration ranging from 16 months to 45 months, depending on the person’s criminal history, if: (1) The victim of the theft was 65 years of age or older at the time of the commission of the offense; and (2) The value of the property stolen from the victim… is $10,000 or more.

Mansell’s father is 83 years old. The collection is valued at between $150,000 and $200,000. If charges are ultimately filed and the DA establishes that the elder Mr. Mansell is a victim of this alleged theft, ORS 164.061 mandates incarceration of 16 to 45 months — a prescribed prison term, not a discretionary range. This is not a slap on the wrist. This is a mandatory, non-suspendable prison sentence, and it was specifically crafted by the Oregon legislature to protect elderly Oregonians from exactly this kind of financial exploitation.

Civil Liability for Elder Financial Abuse — ORS 124.100

Beyond criminal exposure, Oregon’s Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities Abuse Prevention Act, codified at ORS 124.100, provides a powerful civil remedy. Under ORS 124.100, a victim of financial abuse who is 65 years of age or older may recover triple damages plus attorney’s fees in a civil action.

The practical effect of this provision is significant. If the Mansells prevail in civil litigation, a court could award not merely the value of the stolen collection — already $150,000 to $200,000 — but three times that amount, plus full attorney’s fees. This provision exists precisely because the legislature recognized that financial exploitation of the elderly frequently goes unredressed when victims cannot afford litigation. The treble damages create an incentive for plaintiffs’ attorneys to take these cases on contingency.

Civil Conversion — Mustola v. Toddy

The Gormans’ civil lawsuit against BAM Franchising includes a conversion claim. This is well-grounded in Oregon law.

Under Oregon’s established common law doctrine of conversion, an actor commits civil conversion through the “intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel.” Mustola v. Toddy, 253 Or 658, 663, 456 P2d 1004 (1969) (adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 222A(1) (1965)). This formulation was subsequently adopted and applied by the Oregon Court of Appeals in Morrow v. First Interstate Bank, 118 Or App 164 (1993).

The classic conversion scenario at common law is exactly what allegedly happened here: property lawfully held by a party (the consigned LEGO collection, held by the franchise) is exercised over in a manner inconsistent with the owner’s rights — specifically, sold, with the proceeds retained, after the owner’s claims were rejected. A plaintiff who proves conversion in Oregon is entitled to the full value of the chattel at the time of conversion. For a $200,000 collection, that is a substantial civil judgment — before any multipliers for bad faith or elder abuse.

Critically, conversion is also an available cause of action against BAM Corporate directly, not merely against the new franchise operators. The Gormans allege that corporate seized the store — taking physical dominion over its contents, including the consigned collection — without Mansell’s consent and without providing any mechanism for him to retrieve his property. That act of corporate seizure is arguably the initial conversion, with the subsequent sales by Baker Bricks LLC constituting ongoing conversion.

Part Seven: The Franchisor Liability Problem — BAM Cannot Simply Walk Away

BAM’s core public defense is the standard franchisor’s playbook: we are not responsible for the acts of an independent franchisee. This defense has legal merit in many contexts — but it collapses under Oregon case law when the franchisor directly participated in the acts that caused harm.

The foundational Oregon case on franchisor liability is Viado v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 230 Or. App. 531, 217 P.3d 199 (2009). In Viado, the Oregon Court of Appeals established that franchisors may be held vicariously liable for the acts of their franchisees under the common law “right to control” test — specifically, where the franchisor controls “the day-to-day operations” of the franchisee, or more precisely, “the specific part of its business that allegedly resulted in plaintiff’s injuries.” The court cited Miller v. McDonald’s Corp., 150 Or. App. 274, 945 P.2d 1107 (1997), which distinguished between a franchise agreement that “could only be read as providing standards” versus one that “could be read as retaining the right to exercise control over the franchisee’s daily operations.”

The Viado test is about control. The more control a franchisor exercises over the relevant operations, the more exposed it is to liability. BAM Franchising did not merely provide standards and walk away. According to the Gormans’ account — which corporate has not refuted with counter-evidence — BAM:

Sent a representative to the physical store location to execute the seizure
Terminated the franchise agreement unilaterally
Took physical control of the store and its inventory (including the consigned collection)
Engaged Baker Bricks LLC to inventory the store — on corporate’s behalf
Sold the store and its contents to Baker Bricks LLC

This is not a case of a rogue franchisee doing something unauthorized while corporate looked the other way. This is a case of corporate directly executing each step of the transaction that displaced the Mansell collection. Under the Viado/Miller framework, the question is whether BAM controlled “the specific part of its business that allegedly resulted in plaintiff’s injuries.” BAM was the actor in the relevant transaction. The independent contractor defense becomes unavailable when the alleged wrong was committed by the franchisor itself.

Furthermore, the consignment agreement’s Section X — which makes the agreement binding on successors but prohibits assignment without the other party’s written consent — provides a contract law basis for holding BAM responsible independent of tort liability. BAM facilitated the assignment of the franchise (and its obligations) to Baker Bricks LLC without seeking Mansell’s consent. If that assignment was unauthorized under the consignment agreement, BAM is in breach for engineering it.

Part Eight: Enter Reckless Ben

While local Facebook posts had riled up the community, they hadn’t produced results. Enter Ben Schneider, known online as Reckless Ben — a YouTuber with a track record of creative, escalating confrontation.

According to Kotaku, Schneider took up the Mansell cause and over multiple feature-length videos launched what can only be described as a Nathan For You-style grievance campaign against the Keizer Bricks and Minifigs franchise and BAM corporate management. The tactics were unconventional:

Set up a parodying rival business adjacent to the store
Held lottery raffles to draw attention and funding
Tricked staff into signing concessionary statements
Established a LEGO “cult” designed to start a revolt within the existing staff
Dressed as Marvel villain Arcade for confrontations
Traveled to Utah to confront CEO Ammon McNeff directly

The strategy was not chaos for its own sake. Schneider’s stated goal was to bait corporate into suing him — to drag BAM into a courtroom, where theft allegations could be presented before a judge, rather than forcing the Mansell family to come up with money for attorneys to initiate litigation themselves. It is, when you understand the legal and financial landscape, not an irrational approach. Civil litigation over a $200,000 consignment dispute could cost tens of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees before trial. BAM has corporate counsel. Mansell does not.

The campaign produced partial results. McNeff eventually agreed to return the LEGO sets — on the condition that Mansell apologize. Schneider’s team believed this was an attempt to get Mansell to sign something that could be characterized as a waiver of liability. When legal summons were served, the franchise appeared to treat them as pranks, running out the clock.

Then the Keizer store shuttered. Closed until further notice. The Statesman Journal photographed signage on the door.

Schneider headed to Utah, where McNeff and corporate are based, to continue his investigation. He was raided by local police — in what he described in his video as a more organized and coordinated response than he had encountered in Oregon.

“I am in some serious legal trouble right now,” Schneider says in one of his videos. “Just know that I will not stop this mission until we get every single LEGO back to its rightful owner.”

The videos have gone viral. The Dexerto report notes that Schneider’s investigation has been independently confirmed in its key factual claims — the Statesman Journal photographed the closed store, the Salem Business Journal confirmed the police investigation, and the collection’s existence and value have been documented. The allegations of police corruption and coordinated protection of those involved remain unproven in any official proceeding.

Part Nine: BAM Corporate Responds — And Gets It Wrong

On May 21, 2026, with the story going viral across gaming, LEGO, and mainstream outlets, BAM Franchising published a statement on their corporate blog titled “A Note to Our Community about the Bricks & Minifigs® Salem, OR Store.”

The statement warrants a careful reading — and an equally careful response.

What They Said

“To be absolutely clear: Bricks & Minifigs does not condone, tolerate, or participate in the exploitation of anyone, especially older adults or vulnerable members of our community.”

“BAM Franchising, Inc. was not a party to this alleged agreement, nor were subsequent franchisees who took on the ownership of the Salem location. Corporate did not sign, approve, or authorize this arrangement. In fact, such consignment deals are expressly prohibited under our franchise agreements.”

“The company was not party to the unauthorized Salem consignment agreement and bears no responsibility for obligations arising from it.”

“Serious claims require serious evidence. We have repeatedly asked for the original documents and undoctored recordings that support these accusations.”

The statement also raised concerns about harassment of store staff, unauthorized filming, and doxxing — framing the community response as an attack on innocent employees rather than an accountability campaign targeting the corporate entity that made the decisions.

Where It Falls Apart, Point by Point

1. The “unauthorized” prohibition is unsubstantiated. The Salem Business Journal asked BAM to provide documentation of the claimed consignment prohibition. None was produced. Law-Gorman directly disputes the claim, saying no such language exists in the franchise agreement. BAM is asserting this prohibition as a legal defense while refusing to produce the documentary evidence that would support it. In any legal proceeding, the burden of proving a contractual prohibition lies with the party asserting it.

2. BAM’s own franchise publicly marketed the collection for months. The Bricks and Minifigs Salem-Keizer social media accounts — operating under the BAM brand, featuring BAM branding and trademarks — spent months publicly promoting the Mansell collection as “estimated to be worth well over $200,000” and using it to drive foot traffic and media coverage. If corporate had no knowledge of the arrangement, how did their branded store spend months publicly marketing it? If they knew and raised no objection, the “unauthorized” defense is further undermined.

3. The security footage. The Gormans allege that BAM’s own Director of Operations, Ki McAllister, acknowledged the consignment on a phone call the night of the seizure — captured on the store’s security camera, now in police possession. BAM’s public statement contains no response whatsoever to this allegation. The silence is telling.

4. BAM engineered the ownership transition. Per Kotaku’s reporting, the original franchise owner was planning to sell the store — not close it. BAM corporate intervened, abruptly terminated her contract, seized the location, inventoried it through a third party, and then sold it to that same third party. BAM created the ownership vacuum that displaced the Mansell collection. The independent contractor defense is unavailable to a party who directly caused the harm.

5. Section X of the consignment agreement. Under the plain language of the agreement, no assignment of the agreement’s obligations could occur without Mansell’s written consent. BAM sold the store and its contents to Baker Bricks LLC without seeking that consent. Under Oregon’s general contract principles, the transfer of obligations under a contract without the obligee’s consent is itself a breach. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 317 (assignment of rights and delegation of duties).

6. The test purchase. After the new operators denied all knowledge of the collection, Mansell sent a buyer into the store who successfully purchased one of the consigned sets, with the identifying sticker removed. This is not disputed in BAM’s public statement. Sets were sold. Stickers were removed. The collection was being actively disposed of after express notice of Mansell’s ownership interest.

7. “Serious claims require serious evidence.” This line deserves particular scrutiny given that the Salem Business Journal published its investigative report after reviewing: (a) the signed consignment agreement, (b) email chains establishing the arrangement, (c) the inventory spreadsheet, (d) the formal termination letter, (e) timestamped photographs with metadata placing them at the store on the night of the seizure, and (f) social media posts by BAM’s own franchise confirming the collection’s existence and value. The documentary record here is substantially stronger than in the vast majority of “civil matters” that nonetheless result in criminal charges.

BAM’s blog post is polished corporate public relations. It is the statement of a company hoping the internet moves on before the Marion County DA files charges.

Part Ten: The Criminal Investigation — 30 Pages and a DA Referral

The Keizer Police Department initially told Mansell this was a civil matter. That assessment has been thoroughly revised.

According to Mansell, confirmed by the Salem Business Journal, the investigation has grown from a two-page initial report to approximately 30 pages of documented findings. Detectives are now working with the Marion County District Attorney’s office to determine whether criminal charges are warranted. If the DA moves forward, warrants could be issued for Brandon Best and the second operator Josh, with the possibility of extradition from Utah if they are no longer in Oregon.

The Keizer Police Department confirmed to the Salem Business Journal that the matter is under active investigation but declined to provide additional detail, consistent with standard procedure in active criminal investigations.

The charging landscape, if the DA proceeds, is significant:

Theft by deception (ORS 164.085): For each instance of selling a consigned set after denying knowledge of ownership claims
Theft by receiving (ORS 164.095): For acquiring, retaining, and disposing of property with knowledge or good reason to know it was the subject of theft — particularly given the removed identifying stickers and the denied inspection request
Aggravated theft in the first degree (ORS 164.057): Given that the total value exceeds $10,000, this is a Class B felony
Enhanced sentencing under ORS 164.061: If the elder Mr. Mansell is established as a victim, mandatory incarceration of 16 to 45 months applies

On the civil side, if the Mansell family pursues claims under ORS 124.100 (elder financial abuse), the treble damages provision could result in a judgment of $450,000 to $600,000 plus attorney’s fees — sufficient to attract competent plaintiffs’ counsel on contingency.

Part Eleven: What Bryan Mansell Actually Wants

Mansell has said publicly that he no longer expects to recover the physical collection. Too much time has passed. Too many sets have been sold, their identifying marks removed, absorbed into the secondary LEGO market at storefronts across the country. The Cloud City sets, the individual minifigures worth $1,300 apiece — they are gone.

What he wants now is financial restitution and public accountability.

In his words, published by the Salem Business Journal: “At the end of the day, I just want either a fair payout for the collection, the collection back, or the store itself run out of town if they don’t want to do what is right.”

He filed charges against everyone involved because, as he told the Salem Business Journal, “I didn’t know who to believe — but I can prove for a fact that my sets are still in that store and these guys are lying about it.”

Chrystal Law-Gorman expressed something beyond financial injury. “When you purchase a store that’s aimed at children and something that is supposed to be fun and joyful,” she said, “it’s unfortunate that bad actors can spoil that sense of community.” She built something in Keizer. She built it around a collection that belonged to an 83-year-old man and his son. She was forced out the same night she asked corporate for a way forward.

Mansell’s father — the man who started collecting Star Wars sets in the year 2000, who invested fifteen years and a shared love of George Lucas’s galaxy far, far away into something he hoped would outlast him — has watched it disappear into a franchise dispute that the police initially dismissed as someone else’s problem.

Part Twelve: LEGO as a Serious Asset Class

If you’re not deep in the collector world, you may be wondering why any of this involves numbers like $200,000. The answer is that the secondary LEGO market has become a serious alternative asset class, with all the complexity and vulnerability that implies.

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated what was already a robust collector economy. According to the Los Angeles Times, homebound collectors drove prices significantly upward and attracted increasingly sophisticated criminal activity. LEGO sets — particularly retired Star Wars sets in original packaging — appreciate reliably over time. Some sets have outperformed traditional investments. Cloud City, for instance, retailed for under $300 when released. It now trades for over $10,000 sealed in box.

Bricks & Minifigs, as a franchise chain with more than 100 locations nationwide, occupies a unique market position. Unlike official LEGO stores, which sell only current production sets, Bricks & Minifigs locations carry valuable retired sets and figures no longer in production, some in unopened original packaging. This makes them both valuable to collectors and attractive targets for theft and fraud.

Oregon itself has been at the center of multiple high-profile LEGO theft cases, which speaks to both the value of the merchandise and the active criminal ecosystem around it. In 2024, Springfield police executed a search warrant at Brick Builders in Eugene and recovered more than $200,000 in allegedly stolen LEGO sets — the result of a three-month investigation into a retail theft fencing ring. Separately, two men in Texas were charged in 2024 with stealing more than $400,000 worth of LEGO sets from Walmart and Target locations across four states.

The Mansell case is categorically different. This is not smash-and-grab retail theft. The allegation is that a corporate franchise structure was used to absorb third-party property, strip ownership markings, and sell it through retail channels without accountability — with the franchisor claiming jurisdictional immunity through the independent-contractor fiction. If that is what happened, it is in some respects more sophisticated and more damaging than street-level theft, because it exploits legal complexity that ordinary people cannot navigate without expensive professional help.

Part Thirteen: The Franchise Structure Problem — The Shield That Should Not Apply Here

This case illuminates a broader issue with how franchise liability works — and how it is routinely weaponized to deny accountability.

Every large franchisor faces the same accountability question: when a franchise location causes harm, who is responsible? The standard answer from corporate counsel is always the same: the franchisee is an independent contractor; the franchisor sets standards but does not control day-to-day operations; therefore corporate bears no liability.

This defense is legally legitimate in many circumstances. But Oregon case law provides clear limits on when it applies.

As established in Viado v. Domino’s Pizza, 230 Or. App. 531 (2009), and the earlier Miller v. McDonald’s Corp., 150 Or. App. 274 (1997), the key question is whether the franchisor exercised control over “the specific part of its business that allegedly resulted in plaintiff’s injuries.” In Miller, the court found McDonald’s potentially liable because it exercised extensive control over food handling procedures — the specific area where harm occurred. In Viado, the court remanded for further analysis of the extent of Domino’s control over its delivery drivers’ operations.

In the Mansell case, BAM corporate did not merely provide brand standards and training materials. BAM corporate:

Sent its own representative to physically seize the franchise location
Exercised direct dominion over all store inventory (including the consigned collection) during and after the seizure
Retained Baker Bricks LLC to conduct the post-seizure inventory
Negotiated and executed the sale of the location to Baker Bricks LLC

Every relevant act was performed by BAM directly. There is no independent franchisee to hide behind for the acts BAM itself committed on November 14, 2024. The independent contractor defense protects franchisors from liability for the independent acts of their franchisees. It does not protect a franchisor from liability for its own direct acts.

The Gormans’ civil lawsuit against BAM on conversion grounds is therefore well-positioned. BAM exercised dominion and control over the consigned collection when it seized the store. Under Mustola v. Toddy, 253 Or 658 (1969), that is the definition of civil conversion — the intentional exercise of dominion over a chattel that so seriously interferes with another’s right to control it that full value must be paid.

What makes this case particularly egregious — and legally interesting — is the timing of BAM’s knowledge. If the Gormans’ account of the McAllister phone call is accurate and corroborated by the security footage, BAM had actual notice of Mansell’s ownership claim at the moment of seizure. They did not acquire the collection and later discover they had a consignment problem. They were told, on video, that the collection belonged to a third party — and they proceeded anyway.

That fact, if proven, transforms this from a conversion into something more deliberate, and potentially satisfies the “intent to defraud” element required for theft by deception under ORS 164.085.

Part Fourteen: Where Things Stand Right Now

As of this writing — May 25, 2026 — here is the complete state of play:

The Criminal Investigation: The Keizer Police Department, in collaboration with the Marion County District Attorney’s office, has a 30-page investigation. Charges against Brandon Best and Josh — who would face potential extradition from Utah — are under active consideration. The DA has not yet announced a charging decision.

The Gormans’ Civil Lawsuit: Chrystal and Benjamin Gorman have retained counsel and are pursuing claims against BAM Franchising on grounds of breach of contract, conversion, defamation, and civil conspiracy. They contend they have never received the post-termination inventory of the store from corporate, which they say the franchise agreement requires.

The Mansell Family’s Claims: Mansell has pursued criminal charges. Civil claims under ORS 124.100 (elder financial abuse, treble damages) remain available as a parallel avenue.

The Keizer Store: Shuttered. Closed until further notice, with signage photographed by the Statesman Journal.

BAM Corporate: Has issued one public blog post expressing concern for the community and directing people to proper legal channels. No documentation of the claimed consignment prohibition has been produced publicly. CEO Ammon McNeff is presumably in close contact with his legal team.

Reckless Ben: In his own words, facing serious legal trouble from his Utah investigation. He has pledged to continue making videos.

Bryan Mansell: Has not recovered his collection. Has not received financial restitution. Is waiting on a DA decision that has been in process for months.

The Elder Mr. Mansell: 83 years old. His legacy — fifteen years and $30,000 invested in something beautiful for his grandchildren — is scattered.

Conclusion: Why This Matters Beyond LEGO

Let me be precise about what I am and am not saying. All allegations here are exactly that — allegations. The criminal investigation has not resulted in charges. The civil suits have not been adjudicated. I am not a lawyer, and nothing in this post constitutes legal advice.

What I am saying is this: the documented record in this case — a signed consignment agreement; timestamped photographs; email chains; security footage in police possession; a test purchase that confirmed ongoing sales after explicit denials; the absence of the promised documentation of a “prohibition” — paints a picture that is very difficult to explain in any way other than deliberate wrongdoing.

A family invested fifteen years and $30,000 into a collection they trusted a licensed, LEGO-branded specialty store to steward. A corporate franchise seized that store, was allegedly informed on video that a third party owned a significant portion of its inventory, sold the store and its contents without that third party’s consent, and has since denied responsibility at every turn. The collection has been sold off piece by piece. The identifying stickers have been removed. An 83-year-old man’s legacy is gone.

The internet found this story because a YouTuber in a costume started a LEGO cult. But the reason it is staying — the reason Kotaku is writing about it, the reason Dexerto is writing about it, the reason the Marion County DA is reportedly reviewing a 30-page investigative file — is because it touches something fundamental.

We build things. We invest in things. We trust institutions — stores, brands, franchise chains — to respect that investment. When those institutions exploit legal complexity to absorb what isn’t theirs and then hide behind corporate structure to avoid accountability, the stakes don’t have to be diamonds or real estate. The principle is identical whether the property is LEGO sets or anything else.

Oregon law provides the tools to hold the parties accountable: ORS 164.085, ORS 164.095, ORS 164.057, ORS 164.061, ORS 124.100. The case law from Mustola v. Toddy through Viado v. Domino’s provides the framework for civil liability. The documents exist. The security footage exists. The test purchase happened.

Bryan Mansell just wants what’s right. He’s not asking for anything he isn’t owed.

I hope he gets it.

Legal Citations Referenced in This Article

ORS 164.085 — Theft by deception. Oregon Legislature. See also State v. Clermont, 9 Or App 141, 495 P2d 305 (1972), Sup Ct review denied (defining “intent to defraud” under ORS 164.085).
ORS 164.095 — Theft by receiving. See State v. Redeman, 9 Or App 329, 496 P2d 230 (1972) (actual knowledge required); State v. Thomas, 13 Or App 164, 509 P2d 446 (1973) (knowledge may be inferred from circumstances); State v. Farmer, 44 Or App 157, 605 P2d 716 (1980) (selling stolen property constitutes theft under ORS 164.015/164.095).
ORS 164.057 — Aggravated theft in the first degree (Class B felony for property valued $10,000 or more).
ORS 164.061 — Mandatory sentencing enhancement (16–45 months) for aggravated theft when victim is 65 or older and loss exceeds $10,000.
ORS 124.100 — Oregon Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities Abuse Prevention Act; civil remedy providing treble damages and attorney’s fees.
Mustola v. Toddy, 253 Or 658, 456 P2d 1004 (1969) — Oregon Supreme Court establishing civil conversion as intentional exercise of dominion over chattel inconsistent with owner’s rights; plaintiff entitled to full value of chattel.
Morrow v. First Interstate Bank, 118 Or App 164 (1993) — Oregon Court of Appeals applying Mustola conversion standard; conversion occurs where actor exercises dominion and refuses to return property on demand.
Miller v. McDonald’s Corp., 150 Or. App. 274, 945 P.2d 1107 (1997) — Establishing right-to-control test for franchisor liability under Oregon law; distinguishing standards-setting from operational control.
Viado v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 230 Or. App. 531, 217 P.3d 199 (2009) — Oregon Court of Appeals holding franchisor vicariously liable where franchisor exercises control over the specific part of operations that caused harm; applying right-to-control test in franchise context.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 222A (1965) — Adopted by Oregon Supreme Court in Mustola; defining conversion as intentional exercise of dominion or control.
Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 317 — Assignment of rights and delegation of contractual duties; assignment without consent of obligee is ineffective.

Sources and Further Reading

Tony Guntharp writes at fusion94.org about technology, open source, and the things that matter. He is also a LEGO collector and knows exactly how much those Star Wars sets are worth.

Disclaimer: This article is journalistic commentary based on publicly available reporting and court documents. Nothing herein constitutes legal advice. All allegations described remain unproven in court. Readers seeking legal guidance regarding specific situations should consult a licensed Oregon attorney.