CONFIRMED documents & conduct · INFERENCE intent · damages alleged, not adjudicated
In the statement we fact-checked and in the complaint it filed, Bricks & Minifigs says the Mansell consignment at its Salem store was unauthorized. Set that against BAM’s own disclosure document and it does not hold. Look at how BAM is litigating the rest of the Salem story, and a pattern shows: again and again, its position rests on a document, or a body, that only BAM controls and has not put in front of anyone.
Every franchisee receives a Franchise Disclosure Document, and BAM files it with the states; it is the one description of the business BAM cannot disown. Item 1 lists the services a store may provide, and after the approved products it reads, in BAM’s own words:
“Additionally, Franchisee may also offer: consignment services …”
That language is in the 2023 and the 2024 editions alike, and consignment sits in the “may also offer” clause, not behind the “approved by us” gate that governs the products. Consignment is not a forbidden act a franchisee smuggled in. It is a service BAM’s own disclosure says the store may offer.
BAM’s answer is that whatever the disclosure says, its Operations Manual required approval for this consignment. The Operations Manual is BAM’s confidential document, and BAM does not publish it. In its public statement and in its filing, BAM has not quoted the provision, attached it, or pointed to the page it says was broken. Its “unauthorized” claim rests on a document no one outside BAM has seen.
The same shape repeats one step later. BAM told the court the Salem store was resold to new, independent owners in an arm’s-length sale. As the fact-check showed, those “new owners” are BAM’s own franchise recruiter and the inspector who ran the repossession, who incorporated the buyer the day after the takeover. The one document that would show whether the sale was actually at arm’s length, the purchase agreement and the price, BAM has never produced. The buyers’ identity and the next-day incorporation are confirmed on the record; the price is the number BAM has kept back.
The same pattern shows in how the company is run. BAM’s FDD discloses a Franchisee Advisory Council that advises on its advertising fund, and by its own terms it is captive: the franchisor “retain[s] all operational and decision making authority,” the council “serve[s] only in an advisory capacity,” its members are “determined by appointment by us,” it has no charter (it “will not have any written documents”), and the franchisor keeps “the power to select and approve the members and to form, change, dissolve or merge” it. Even the body meant to represent owners is one the franchisor appoints and can dissolve.
The Salem repossession is one instance of a recurring shape: a franchisee falls behind, BAM repossesses under its security interest, and the store is resold through a single-purpose “Baker Bricks” entity. The same form appears at Keizer, Eugene, and Wesley Chapel, sharing one Sandy, Oregon mailing address. Another owner is in her own suit against BAM: Christina Cooper’s Plastic Palette store in Clackamas County, Oregon (case 24CV06902, filed February 2024), which pleads $1.45 million and an elder-financial-abuse claim. Those dollar figures are the parties’ allegations, not adjudicated, and in fairness at least one franchisee bankruptcy, a Texas owner’s, a court treated as an ordinary good-faith accommodation and not part of any pattern. And it is not only critics who say the Salem handoff went badly: BAM’s own chief executive, Ammon McNeff, has said on camera that the transition “did not” go smoothly and that “it’s understandable how people can be angry.”
The fair counterpoint. BAM can end every one of these questions the same way, by producing the documents. If the Operations Manual forbids this consignment, BAM can show the provision. If the Salem resale was at arm’s length, BAM can produce the purchase agreement and the price. If the Advisory Council is more than advisory, BAM can show a charter. None of this finds anyone liable: the damages in the franchisee suits are unproven allegations, BAM has filed a sworn denial, and the McNeffs are presumed innocent. The point is narrower, and harder to answer. A case built on records can be checked. A case built on documents the other side is never allowed to read cannot. So far, on the pieces that matter most, BAM has chosen the second kind.
Sources, separated by kind. Documents: BAM’s Franchise Disclosure Document, Item 1 and Item 11 (2023-03-31 and 2024-04-06 editions); the verified complaint in Utah 4th Dist. 260402353; the Oregon docket 24CV06902 (Cooper / Plastic Palette). Statements: BAM’s June 29 statement, “Determined to find amicable resolution with Mansell family”; the Ammon McNeff video interview. The claim-by-claim comparison is in the June 29 fact-check; BAM’s statements are collected at BAM’s own words. Damages figures are the parties’ allegations and are unadjudicated.
The BAM Map is independent reporting on matters of public concern. Nothing here is a finding of any person’s guilt; the criminal charges referenced are unadjudicated and every defendant is presumed innocent. Sources are linked so readers can check the record. · Home · Map · The law · Bodycam