Source: A Judge Ordered Reckless Ben To Delete Everything Channel: America's Attorney Published: June 19, 2026 | Archived: June 20, 2026
Video: A Judge Ordered Reckless Ben To Delete Everything
Channel: America's Attorney
Published: June 19, 2026
Duration: 15:23
Views: 122,017
Category: People & Blogs
Video ID: bG5nep833dw
Description
Need a lawyer? Check out americasatty.com
Reckless Ben has officially gone dark after a Judge granted a restraining order requested by Bricks and Minifigs. America's Attorney breaks down what they told the Judge and a surprise new party to the lawsuit.
@RecklessBen @LawAndCrime @LegalEagle @LegalMindset @LegalBytesMedia @CLRBruceRivers @NateTheLawyer @ClearlyEstablished @lawfulmasses @BenSchneider-b6v @LegalEagle @LEGO @thecivilrightslawyer
#lawyer #unlawfularrest #corruptcops #excessiveforce #lawsuit #policecorruption #policeofficer #police #bricksandminifigs #recklessben
Follow us on social media for more content: Facebook: www.facebook.com/americasatto... Instagram: www.instagram.com/americasatty Twitter: twitter.com/americasatty Tiktok: www.tiktok.com/@americasattorney
Attorney Josh Sanford is licensed in Arkansas, Colorado, and Texas. He is admitted to practice in many federal courts throughout the United States.
We can often help anyone with any kind of good case. WE WANT TO HELP IF WE CAN. When we talk to a potential client, the communication is always FREE AND CONFIDENTIAL. If you need help, email contact@eksm.com.
Website: www.eksm.com
Fair Use: All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015). I do not own the music or unoriginal underlying graphics in this video.
DISCLAIMER:
This content is the property of Josh Sanford Media, LLC. Anything stated on ANY form of media, either expressly or implied, is not legal advice, nor can attorney Josh Sanford, or EKSM LLP, give you legal advice via YouTube. Obviously! Unless otherwise stated in the specific video referenced, EKSM LLP, is not advertising the services and products it offers. This content, unless otherwise disclaimed, was not prepared to secure paid professional employment.
Tags
reckless ben lego part 3 reckless ben lego part 1 reckless ben lego part 2 reckless ben scientology reckless ben lawyer reckless ben part 3 reckless ben update reckless ben reaction bricks and minifigs lawsuit bricks and minifigs bricks and minifigs ceo bricks and minifigs ben bricks and minifigs update bricks and minifigs explained
Transcript โ YouTube panel (human-authored)
0:00 Over 17.3 million views on YouTube. That's how many people have watched the reckless bin videos about bricks and mini figs before and since the judge ordered those videos taken down. Not flagged, not age restricted, taken down. Section 5K of this temporary restraining order signed on May 28th, 2026 orders Reckless Ben to immediately remove every video, podcast, and post related to this dispute from every platform that he's on. ban franchising filed this lawsuit on a Wednesday. A judge signed the restraining order the next day. Ben had no idea it was coming and he had no chance to respond before it was signed.
0:38 Hey, I'm America's attorney. I've been a lawyer for 25 years. I've helped over 12 million people. I'm going to break down the judge's restraining order and the lawsuit that caused it. Because buried inside is a RICO claim, a $200,000 extortion allegation, and a First Amendment problem that goes all the way to the top. But before we get into that story, I have a favor to ask. Can you bless me with something?
1:00 I really enjoy breaking down these legal issues and we are experiencing great growth on the channel this year. And now is a great time for you to join the team. You don't even need to pause the video while I'm talking. You can let your finger drift down to the subscribe button. And you barely need to touch it to activate it. We turned up the sensitivity. Just tap it and you're in and boom, channel keeps growing. On one side you have BAM franchising, the corporate franchiseor behind the bricks and mini figs chain along with Ammon McNe, Matthew McNeff, Josh Johnson, Brandon Best, and Baker Bricks LLC, all plaintiffs, all represented by the same three attorneys from Dentons. On the other side, Ben Schneider, Reckless Ben, his LLC, Brian Mancel, Victor Wyn, and 14 unnamed doe's. No attorney listed for any of these on the docket as of the filming of this video. That power imbalance matters. Dentons has offices
1:54 in over 80 countries. Dentons is one of the most expensive law firms out there. I cannot imagine how much they are charging per hour to sue Ben. Holy cow. They filed a 333page complaint with 11 exhibits, a motion for a temporary restraining order, and a proposed order all on the same day, May 27th, 2026. And the judge signed the TTRO the following afternoon at 5:25. That's less than 24 hours from filing to signed order. And here's the part that matters most about that timeline. It was exparte. That is a very fancy Latin term that just means one side only. BAM's attorneys presented their case to the judge without Ben in the room. without Ben's attorney in the room and without Ben having any opportunity to respond to a single allegation before the order was signed, restricting his speech and ordering his videos removed. Exparte restraining orders are legal. They're designed for genuine emergencies, situations where giving the other side notice would cause immediate and irreparable harm before the court can
2:58 act. The question of whether this situation actually met that standard is one of the things that Ben's attorneys if and when he gets them will be arguing at the preliminary injunction hearing. Speaking of which, that thing is scheduled for June 22nd, which is just 3 days from right now. And there's one more thing about that hearing that's worth flagging. On June 16th, just earlier this week, three new parties filed to intervene in the case. Crystal Gorman, Benjamin Gorman, and BAMF Salem 1 LLC. Those are the franchise owners, the people at the center of the original consignment dispute with Brian Mancel.
3:34 They just filed a motion to dissolve or modify the TTRO, the people BAM used as the foundation of this entire lawsuit, are now in the same court asking for the order against Ben to be walked back. That changes the picture that Bam presented to the judge when no one else was in the room. and it sets up June 22nd as the first time all of these parties will be heard at the same time.
3:56 We'll come back to that in just a second. First, let's talk about what BAM is actually claiming. Here's the story as told through BAM's really long lawsuit. And believe me, I'm consolidating like 40 million pages down to just a minifigure. A woman named Crystal Law ran a bricks and minigs franchise location. She racked up approximately $175,000 in unpaid obligations like royalties, purchase payments, and lease amounts.
4:22 And in November of 2024, she told BAM she was closing the store. Bam said no. And they terminated her franchise agreement and repossessed the location and everything in it. Around the same time, a man named Brian Mancel showed up at the store claiming he had a consignment deal with Crystal. His very ill father had a Star Wars Lego collection. Brian says it was worth $1 million. There's no no you guys know it was worth around $200,000 and he'd arranged for Crystal to sell it through the store. Bam says that they never knew about that arrangement. It was never disclosed to them, never approved by them and under their franchise agreement, it never should have happened. That's a lot of nevers. Josh Johnson and Brandon Best then bought the repossessed store from BAM in early 2025. They say they also had no knowledge of any consignment claim. As far as they were concerned, they were buying a clean asset from a corporate seller. That's Bam's legal position in three sentences. Crystal made an
5:14 unauthorized private deal. Crystal's the one who owes Brian, not us. Ben's position, at least based on his videos, is that Bam took the Legos. They know about it. And they've been using the cops to cover it up. Here's what's important to understand. That central question, whose legal responsibility the missing Legos actually are, has never been decided by any court. No judge has ruled on it. No jury has heard it. The entire premise of Ben's videos is based on an allegation that remains legally unresolved. And the entire premise of BAM's lawsuit is that Ben treated an unresolved civil dispute as an adjudicated fact and built a harassment campaign around it. And that's the core of what we're dealing with. Now, let's talk about how BAM chose to fight back.
5:56 BAM didn't just file a defamation lawsuit. They filed a RICO claim. Utah code section 7617401, the same legal framework used to prosecute organized crime. And the reason that matters is what it does to the damages. If BAM prevails on that RICO claim, Ben isn't just liable for the damages that he's caused. He's liable for three times those damages. For some reason, lawyers call those triple damages treble damages. Look, we make the big bucks. We get to make up words. So why RICO? Well, RICO requires only two things. an enterprise and a pattern of unlawful activity. And BAM's complaint is built around the argument that what Ben was doing wasn't journalism. It was a coordinated criminal operation running since early 2025 with a specific financial motive.
6:46 And here's what they're pointing to. In December of 2025, Ben and an associate entered BAM's corporate offices in Utah, filmed without permission, refused to leave, and Ben demanded $200,000. The complaint says he told BAM that failure to pay would result in reputational harm and that things would get very bad. BAM reported it to the Provo PD that investigation, at least according to the complaint, is still ongoing. On camera in his own video, Ben tells Amean McNev, BAM CEO, that there's an easy way and a hard way. And the complaint includes a screenshot from that video showing what they say the hard way looks like. Also on camera, Brian Mancel and Ben sitting together saying, and this is a direct quote from the complaint, "We have to do something illegal." Beyond those moments, BAM is pointing to a documented pattern over a month. Fake USPS and UPS impersonations, someone impersonating a church member to lure
7:40 Josh outside. That person told police that Ben paid him to do it. A fake Lego club, a fake Guinness World Records award for most Legos stolen. I did like that one. Fake raffle tickets distributed outside a store. A website we steal from oldpeople.com selling merchandise using BAM's branding. And on camera, Ben directing a colleague wearing identical clothing to take his place when police arrived so he couldn't be identified. Bam also says this wasn't just harassment, it was profitable harassment. Ben monetizes YouTube and Patreon. The complaint says the enterprise generated substantial compensation for the Schneider Group.
8:17 That's the argument that transforms it from a media dispute into racketeering. the claim that the unlawful activity was the business model. A back of the envelope calculation is that these videos could have generated roughly $50 to $60,000 for Ben. Now, Ben's counternarrative based on his videos and what we have covered in our previous breakdown is that the police activity against him was itself unlawful. The search warrant used as an arrest warrant, the drug search with no charge, the arrest immediately after an officer verified his court papers were real. If that account is accurate, it reframes every incident on BAM's list as a target being harassed by law enforcement on behalf of a connected local party, not a criminal running an enterprise. Both of those things can't be fully true at the same time. And that's exactly what the June 22nd court hearing is for. Let's go through what this order actually says because some of it is exactly what you'd
9:09 expect and some of it is um not. Section five is where the restraints live. There are 11 of them. The first few are straightforward. No death threats, no bomb threats, no doxing, no approaching within a thousand yards of any BAM store, office warehouse, franchise location, or employee home. Side note, 1,000 yards is a big circle, and I don't know where any of those employees live, and I doubt Ben does either. That language is absurd. You could just drive through town and violate it over and over without ever even getting out of your car. No impersonating law enforcement. No impersonating delivery services, court officers, or customers to obtain signatures or access. Nobody's going to argue with those on their face.
9:45 the allegations in the complaint are true. Those restraints are reasonable responses to documented conduct. But then it gets more complicated. Section 5E prohibits any signage or communication, including social media, that implies that BAM stole from elderly people, stole life savings, lost in court, or closed to avoid paying a judgment. That's not just restraining conduct at a physical location. That's restraining a specific message on the internet. The message that is the entire premise of Ben's reporting. Section 5G of the order prohibits soliciting BAM employees to act as undercover agents, leak information, record inside stores, or participate in stage confrontations.
10:22 This seems like overkill since he's not allowed to be around a store or any employee. But whatever. The complaint references Ben saying on camera he needs to take the entire corporation down and ask employees to help him do it. Whether that constitutes solicitation or journalism is a line that courts are going to have to draw. Section 5H prohibits using fabricated contracts, raffles, lotteryies. And this is the specific language or court papers to manufacture confrontations or deceive personnel. That language is a direct reference to Ben's paper serving attempts in March that resulted in his arrests. BAM is asking a civil court to retroactively validate what the police did to Ben. Section 5i requires Ben to preserve everything. every video, every outtake, every text, every email, every Discord post, every Patreon post, YouTube comments, that's you guys.
11:10 Analytics, phone records, call logs, police communications, all of it. That's a broad litigation hold. And it cuts both ways. If Ben has raw footage that contradicts Bam's account of any incident, that footage now has to be preserved and will be discoverable. And honestly, I don't have a problem with this section of the order because people shouldn't destroy evidence. And then there's section 5K. And this is the one that has no parallel in the rest of the order. It doesn't restrain future conduct. It orders the removal of content that already exists. Every video, every podcast, every post that in any way relates to this dispute with BAM, immediately removed from every online streaming platform. The court found in section six that Ben would suffer no legitimate harm from this order. that BAM doesn't even need to post a bond because nothing of value is being taken from Ben by restraining him.
12:02 17 million views, but he's not entitled to a single additional view. And the court said there's no legitimate harm. That finding is going to be at the center of everything that takes place in the courtroom on June 22nd. Let's talk about why section 5K is legally um extraordinary. Look, there are two kinds of speech restrictions. Consequences for speech that has already happened. We're talking about defamation lawsuits, damages claims, and then there's orders suppressing speech before or after publication called prior restraints.
12:31 Courts treat these completely differently. The US Supreme Court established in Near versus Minnesota back in 1931, the year I was born, that prior restraints carry a heavy presumption against constitutional validity. The bar is extraordinarily high, and defamation lawsuits exist specifically, so prior restraints aren't necessary. Look, if someone publishes something false that damages you, you get to sue for money after the fact. You don't get a court order erasing the speech. BAM arguably has a damages claim. Not sure if they can win it, but they have a claim. And they also got section 5K of the order. The no bond finding in section 6 makes this worse.
13:13 BAM is a private party, not the government, but the TTRO is a court order, and court orders are state action. That means the first amendment applies to this order regardless of who filed for it. And when a court issues a prior restraint and gets it wrong, the bond is how the restrained party, that's Ben, gets compensated while the unlawful order was in effect. But the court found Ben suffers no legitimate harm from this order. Being ordered to delete over 17 million views of published journalism, your primary work product, your income, your firsthand documentation of events is somehow no harm. That finding is going to be challenged directly. And then there's the intervention. Crystal Gorman, Benjamin Gorman, and BAMF Salem 1 LLC filed to intervene and separately move to dissolve the TTRO. They have their own attorneys. They're in this case, and they're asking the court to undo the order that BAM obtained when no one else was in the room. BAM told one story, exparte. The people at the center
14:08 of that story are now showing up to tell their own. Section 5K may not survive June 22nd intact. I mean, I don't think it should. Here's where things stand. The TTRO is temporary. That's what the T is for. June 22nd is the first time every party will be in the same room. Bam. Bin. And now the Gormans. And that's next Monday. Unfortunately, I'm heading out on the road, not to Utah.
14:31 So, I will not be able to cover it on Tuesday. But if you're extra nice to me in the comments and liberal with your use of the like button, I may be able to make an update video later in the week. And by may, I mean people, I do know how to do this. So, drop your prosay opinion down below in the comments. And let me know what are your thoughts on the exparte TTRO. What are your predictions for the June 22nd hearing? Let me know what you think. And don't forget while you're down there to lawyer up with me, America's attorney by hitting the subscribe button just as hard or as soft as you like. And I'll be back very soon.
15:06 And you don't want to miss it. See you. Look, if someone publishes something [music]