I have never been more convinced of guilt than the COO's actions in this live stream.

reading through the court documents now:

1. BAM expresses that the original franchise owner (Chrystal) was heavily in debt to BAM ($175,000 ) owed to BAM

2. When Chystal told BAM of her intent to sell, BAM 'repossessed' her store and her inventory to help cover her debt (really, it was the her LLC's debt, but I'm using Chrysal as a shorthand). There is a clause in the franchise agreement that says everything IN the store will be repossessed. Afterwards BAM characterizes Chrystal's actions as 'abandoning' her store

3. BAM valued the repossessed inventory at $38,000 and subtracted that amount from her $175,000 debt.

4. BAM then sold the repossessed inventory to another franchisee who took over the store location (Baker Bricks, LLC).

5. BAM argues that this agreement and rules only provide consignment IFF BAM receives a request in writing and approves the consignment.

6. BAM says they never were informed of the agreement and disallows consignment.

7. BAM says the consignment was a PRIVATE agreement between Chrystal and Mansell.

8. BAM questions the veracity of the agreement as they claim the only version they have is unsigned.

9. BAM completes the sale to Baker Bricks, LLC and claims "Baker did not at any time acquire, take over or assume any obligations of Chrystal or Salem LLC"

Then things go off the rails as Mansell is trying to figure out what happened to his LEGO.

Isn't that bad for BAM?

IF:

1. it's a PRIVATE agreement between Mansell and Chrystal

2. The agreement state Mansell is the owner of the lego until sold

3. Mansell's legos were repossessed by BAM

THEN:

What legal right do they have to 'repossess' and then sell the Lego to Baker?

Chrystal, in one of her posts, made a case that they were in debt to BAM because of misconduct from BAM who were not honoring their side of the franchise agreement.

oh for SURE there is more to what the documents say. This is 100% BAM's cherry-picked side that is leaving some stuff out. They're mostly focused on Ben's actions to justify their complaints

There's a thread starting here to discuss BAM vs. Chrystal:

https://www.reddit.com/r/RecklessBen/comments/1trarbh/bam_ac...

The VERY first mention of Mansell's in person actions are "Bryan showed up later that day and began yelling at personnel..."

really? Bryan Mansell is SO unhinged and deranged that he started the interaction with yelling at personnel?

I think BAM's ultimate claim is that Chrystal either stole Bryan's inventory OR already sold it all before BAM's repossession.

Since BAM claim's the store's inventory at time of repossession was only $38,000 and when Mansell was able to audit Baker's inventory there was none of Mansell's lego in the store.

BUT THEN, in in late 2025 Baker "...located a few (approximately 20) Star Wars LEGO sets in a back office lockable cupboard, on which they noticed stickers not previously recognized"

BAM also claims the small-claims court victories in the video aren't real.

I will say Reckless Ben did a lot of stuff that does NOT look good in a legal document

BAM is not to be trusted in anything they say that isn't under oath. They've repeatedly made statements which are easily and provably false, and have also made false criminal complaints against Ben in order to harass him, and potentially have him injured or killed.

That said, a lot of this would wash out in discovery where both sides can put forth their evidence, followed by some in-person testimony under oath.