Daniel (gold checkmark)

@michaeljknowles I am thoroughly convinced that every topic in today’s political lexicon has been covered in a Monty Python skit.

@DanFriedman81 I don’t see how it can be unambiguous, we don’t have nearly enough facts to decide that yet

I am going to go long on this later, but my conclusion is that Bricks & Minifigs unambiguously has the law on their side, but nonetheless deserves every single bit of hate they are getting from the internet. The law clearly allows them to take this guy’s Legos and I hope they go bankrupt.

@TheEverymanTake @theObscurityv @TheBrancaShow That’s why I said I don’t think piercing the corporate vail applies, although he would need to do that to get the Oregon judgments to apply to Josh instead of suing him again, but I don’t think Ben actually cares about getting the $100k at this point

@drmc0628 @theObscurityv @TheBrancaShow That’s not at all what piercing the corporate veil means. That refers to holding a person behind a corporation accountable for the actions of a corp. Also the franchisee makes direct payments to the corp. so that wouldn’t apply even if it were and it was part of the takeover…

The Lego Store CEO Did A 3-Hour Livestream About This Lawsuit And Destroyed His Own Case x.com/TheBrancaShow/…

@pipkinpippa The peak, cars never got better after

debate

@IanRunkle @ZeddyBrightside @JKBallin55 Second question I know you aren’t an American lawyer but, do you think his current lawyers plan to get the civil case out of state court and into federal court is a good legal strategy

@IanRunkle @ZeddyBrightside @JKBallin55 I watched your livestream and agree with you that what made the best content was not what was best for his legal defense. That’s why my question wasn’t about is he in trouble but about the situation with the corrupt cops which I think has been answered.

Spoiler for future video: The problem for Bricks and Minifigs right now is that they can destroy Reckless Ben and it will only make their problem worse. The problem for Reckless Ben is that they can destroy Reckless Ben.

@ZeddyBrightside @JKBallin55 @IanRunkle If Ben is a threat, someone hired by Ben is also a threat is also a reasonable line of logic. It wouldn’t matter who it was if Ben was in the same neighborhood they were going to get the cops called on them.

@drmc0628 @JKBallin55 @IanRunkle Again, Josh isn’t reasonable, but you’re suspending reason to make that argument. If Ben is a threat, people acting on his behalf are also threats. That’s a reasonable line of logic.

@IanRunkle @ZeddyBrightside @JKBallin55 That being said, in the contest of dumb, dumb and dumber, Kaiser and AF PD are taking it by a county mile. I have learned that I cannot go to American Fort because I am a critic of the LDS church.

@IanRunkle @ZeddyBrightside @JKBallin55 Of course if the government wants to spend enough money they can convict a ham sandwich, and color me surprised that a guy calling himself reckless Ben isn’t careful, I think if he’s going to continue doing these documentaries he should get a defense lawyer on retainer.

@ZeddyBrightside @JKBallin55 @IanRunkle It’s actually irrelevant if they had been dating for 6 years or met that morning, if she hadn’t been trespassed before, she is legally allowed to try and serve Josh.

@JKBallin55 @drmc0628 @IanRunkle The process server is Ben’s friend that was involved with the videos, whom Josh probably also recognized. A reasonable innocent would justifiably find Ben’s actions aggressive and threatening. WE know Josh isn’t reasonable, the COURT does not on this.

@ZeddyBrightside @JKBallin55 @IanRunkle Ben definitely has some legal issues coming his way, but I don’t see any reason at this point to believe the AFPD’s account over Ben’s at this point in time. When they have violated every rule of law and decorum in their pursuit of him, clear case for jury nullification.

@JKBallin55 @drmc0628 @IanRunkle Well good thing Ben’s videos are all the proof they need that he was bare minimum accessory. Also, during discovery the information about organizing the vandalism will be subpoenaed. Further proving at minimum accessory, and possibly proving Ben was there.

@ZeddyBrightside @JKBallin55 @IanRunkle If he has permission from the property owner to be on a property he isn’t trespassing regardless of what some manager thinks, he would need to be retrespassed at that point.

@JKBallin55 @drmc0628 @IanRunkle Do you know that Ben wasn’t sitting just outside BAM when he had that call with Josh? Did Josh even get time to communicate that Ben was to be allowed in? See how Ben blurred that line? If Ben walked in right after, (especially given the contract) it’s entrapment too.

@theObscurityv @TheBrancaShow Which would have previously been almost impossible except BAM is now suing him and so he gets to discover that in discovery, reminder everyone involved in this is an idiot. Ben is just an idiot with good intentions

@theObscurityv @TheBrancaShow I don’t see a legal win for Ben in this situation he already has the win in small claims court, so he can’t sue the franchise again for the same tort. The next step I think would be to find conspiracy to commit fraud.

@theObscurityv @TheBrancaShow If I were Johnson or Best that is exactly the argument I’d be throwing against the wall, because then I could get corporate to pay the judgements that already exist against them, and the current ones thrown out, and potentially be reimbursed for the cost of the franchise

@TheBrancaShow @drmc0628 Wait, so corporate just sold this store to a new franchisee without checking the inventory or history of the business? So by this logic, if something isn't within eye sight, then it must not exist right? If BAM corporate really didn't know, then why are they acting like this???

@Kyle_Gredt @bingocardfull @TheBrancaShow If the people on Ben’s side are telling the truth and the sets were marked and tagged then the acknowledgement of the consignments is all the court needs to bring that statement in and its adverse so it’s definitely not hearsay.

@bingocardfull @TheBrancaShow @drmc0628 You’re assuming they are talking about the Star Wars collection but it’s never specifically mentioned. She says, “these are consignments he hasn’t been paid for yet”, but doesn’t specifically mention the value, or whose consignment, this clip won’t hold up in court sadly.

@Dr_Pat_Riarchy @Brooky31 @TheBrancaShow I can’t think of a reason they would. But they are responsible for what they did with the sets, whatever that is including mixing it in with the stores regular inventory or anything else that they chose to do with them.

@drmc0628 @Brooky31 @TheBrancaShow Why would they do that?

@Brooky31 @TheBrancaShow But according to Andrew’s theory, if the dealership loses track of which fords are theirs and which one is yours. The dealership gets to keep everything and there’s nothing you can do about it.

@drmc0628 @TheBrancaShow Either way everything was logged and corporate took on the consignment. They should know where everything is and how much he’s owed. It’s like sending your car to a garage to be sold. You still own the car. Now if ford takes your car apart and sells it separately it’s still yours

@TheBrancaShow @brucebanana92 @Ducktuggins I know that if I rip up the rental agreement I don’t actually get to keep this Lamborghini mphclub.com/lamborghini-re… unlike you apparently, how you pass law school without learning about civil theft is beyond my comprehension.

@brucebanana92 @Ducktuggins @drmc0628 I KNOW the facts. You only PRETEND to know them. That's the difference.