The asset-protection machine

#The machine

As the litigation peaked and the cash-advance lenders closed in, the family that sold asset protection ran the same creditor-frustration playbook on its own collapsing franchise, and left the paperwork behind.

▶ ON THE RECORD · DAN McNEFFCONFIRMED

“I want you to never own anything of significant value in your name, because as soon as you do you become a target for the lawsuits.”

▾

Watch (5:34) ▶

“Your Presenter — Dan McNeff” — the seminar’s own 00:09 intro slide, beside the Legally Mine logo, is the attribution: a source-context identification, not a biometric match. “Garrett Soelberg” is only the channel that uploaded the video, not the presenter. Quoted accurately; this is the product as sold, in the principal’s own words, not an admission of any crime.

For two decades the product was a sentence, repeated at dental conventions and on glossy seminar slides: put the thing the creditor wants out of the creditor’s reach. A preserved Legally Mine sales video lays out the machinery in plain terms, an Alaska holding company 23:33 on top, a charging-order shield underneath, a “non-prorata” distribution clause 25:41 and a so-called revenge clause to make a judgment creditor’s victory worthless. The recording’s own intro slide names the presenter as Dan McNeff. The same purpose is set out in cold print in Legally Mine’s own handout, which teaches that high-risk assets must be placed in separate entities “in order to shield them from lawsuits,” that a properly built entity “cannot be pierced,” and that the charging order is the tool “to get assets out of the entity”, structured “non-prorata” and “controlled by the general partner” so that “no distribution can be forced” on a judgment creditor. (quoted from Legally Mine’s own printed asset-protection handout) Daniel McNeff is the firm’s chief executive and, by its own count, has “conducted hundreds of seminars” on lawsuit protection, so the design is not one its principal could plausibly have misunderstood.

▶ ON THE RECORD · DAN McNEFFCONFIRMED

“He names it the “Revenge clause” — a plaintiff can win the judgment but be unable to collect.”

▾

Watch (32:46) ▶

“Your Presenter — Dan McNeff” — the seminar’s own 00:09 intro slide, beside the Legally Mine logo, is the attribution: a source-context identification, not a biometric match. “Garrett Soelberg” is only the channel that uploaded the video, not the presenter. Quoted accurately; this is the product as sold, in the principal’s own words, not an admission of any crime.

The pitch had already drawn a regulator’s order. On February 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of Ohio entered a consent decree enjoining Legally Mine and Daniel McNeff from the unauthorized practice of law and imposed a civil penalty, a binding order based on admitted conduct rather than a trial. Final Order, Ohio Bar v. Legally Mine Final Order, Ohio Bar v. Legally Mine By then the asset-protection business was no longer just teaching the technique. It was using it, on the family’s own assets, while its creditors lined the hallway.

Some of that wiring is visible from outside the courthouse. The flagship Legally Mine site and its companion legallymineusa.com are one operation, not two: both pages serve the identical Google Tag Manager container (GTM-WF4875VX) and the same Meta advertising pixel, the signature of a single team administering both. And legallymineusa.com — together with legallymine.us and a stray baileyssandwiches.com — was registered through Ammon McNeff’s own ammon@legalkeep.com account. The firm’s email runs through the family’s back office, too: legallymine.com authorizes the Microsoft mail tenant of Alakazam IT — the in-house computer shop formerly trading as PCM Professional Computer Management — to send messages in Legally Mine’s name. Those are the links that hold. The ones that don’t are just as telling: the genuinely separate shops in this story — the Comer/Centra side, the Mitton-lineage law firms — each sit on their own isolated mail tenants, with no shared tracker or pixel bleeding across, which is exactly what a deliberately compartmentalized operation is built to look like. (live page-source and mail records, re-verified June 2026)

#Same-name discipline — what we did not merge

A shared name is never a shared identity without a document. Restraint here is the credibility of everything else.

The record is full of look-alikes, and the temptation in an investigation this size is to collapse them. We did the opposite: each pair below stayed split until a primary document forced the merge, and several never merged at all. This is the discipline that lets the rest of the page be trusted.

• SHIELLD LLC ≠ a generic “Shield LLC.” The McNeff entity is the double-L SHIELLD on the Connecticut Swiss docket and the chain-9 Utah UCC; we did not fold in unrelated “Shield” filings.
• The 2026 Centra-owned “Legally Mine” assumed names ≠ the old operating entity. Centra Wealth Solutions LLC registered the “Legally Mine LLC” and “Legally Mine Tax and Accounting LLC” DBAs in 2026; that is a separate node from the litigated operating company, and no official bridge has yet surfaced. Afraid OF Lawsuits, LLC - Summary of Online Changes (2019-11-12)
• Daniel J. McNeff ≠ the look-alike “Jesse Daniel” / “Brian Daniel” McNeff strings; we matched on entity-role and asset-protection profile, not surname alone.
• BAM Products Inc. (Brian Mayes, Texas) ≠ BAM Franchising. They are TTAB adversaries with no common control; the Texas Comptroller and USPTO records tie BAM Products to Brian Mayes, not the McNeffs.
• Veil Corporate & Guardian Law ≠ McNeff. They share only the Jay Mitton asset-protection lineage, never ownership.
• The Alaska “Fortress Management LLC” ≠ McOmber’s Las Vegas Fortress.
• Driven Capital LLC ≠ BAM’s parent — it is a Boise lender the CFO separately serves.
• John Masek (the BAM seller) vs. a same-name 2011 Canby filer = an inference, not a fact; we left it unmerged.
• “Veil Corporate / 2016 Build Summit RICO” = a same-name dead-end, not this enterprise.

Two of these required a correction since the first build, and both tightened the discipline rather than loosening it:

Josh Johnson (BAM) ≠ the Alaska “Joshua Johnson” of Wasilla — now resolved and excluded. An earlier pass left this collision open, leaning toward a match. The county record closes it: BAM’s Josh Johnson resolves to 374 S Storrs Ave, American Fork, Utah (parcel 13:044:0158), the same home address carried on the American Fork PD mobile-data terminal — not the Wasilla, Alaska person. The two are different people, and we publish them as separate.

Mark Comer = the iMall figure — held at strong corroboration, deliberately not upgraded. The Centra organizer Mark Comer is corroborated across multiple cross-record identifiers as the Mark R. Comer named in the FTC’s 1999 iMall action, but we hold the identity at roughly 95% FTC v. iMall, Inc., No. 2:99-CV-03650 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 1999)^✓ — short of the single-document confirmation a signed affidavit would supply (FTC FOIA File 972-3224, FOIA Case No. FOIA-2026-00892, is pending). Order And the scope qualifier travels with the claim: the held court paper confirms only the caption and a 9/9/1999 order to show cause; the headline judgment terms ($4M in redress, a $500,000 bond) come from the FTC’s own press release, and the “lifetime ban” was on Internet and pay-per-call business opportunities — the franchise-sales bar was ten years and expired around 2009.

Three findings folded in from the June 23 sweep, each carried at the grade the record supports and no higher.

The separateness this section documents is not a dead end for the enterprise reading. It is the shape the enterprise takes. The operators are separately owned, but the people, the method, and the referrals run across them. That is the association in fact, not a single hidden owner.