CONFIRMEDthe company’s own posts, saved by the Internet Archive, against its own filed agreement
This is the plain-language version of the cited update, written to be read out loud. Everything in it is public: the saved web pages are on the Internet Archive and the agreement is in the court file. Nothing here is a court ruling, and everyone named is presumed to have acted lawfully.
When a company puts out a statement, you expect it to stay put. You post it, it has a date, and that is what it said. Bricks & Minifigs quietly went back and rewrote two of its own statements about the Salem store after posting them. One rewrite slipped the main part of the company’s defense into a post dated weeks before. The other left the company’s official timeline disagreeing with a paper the company itself gave the court. Four of the changes were never marked. And the company clearly knows how to mark a change, because it marked one.
Most of the posts are clean. Of thirty-two, twenty-six were never touched after posting. Two of the four edits are tiny: one dropped a link, one fixed a spelling. Nobody made up a source from the future. This is not the whole company secretly rewriting everything. It is two posts, and one plain contradiction, and that is plenty.
On May 21 the company posted a note about the store. On May 27 it sued, and it attached that same note to the lawsuit. Then, within a day, the note on the website quietly got longer. The new lines said the company had checked the store’s inventory, learned about the consignment deal “a few days later,” offered items back, and found from the receipts that a lot of the sets had already sold before the store changed hands. That last part is the heart of the company’s public defense, and by its own wording it happened after the handover, yet it now sits in a post dated May 21. The copy in the court file does not have it. This is also the one edit the company actually marked, with a little line that says the post “was updated for additional clarity.” Remember that line.
On June 4 the company put out a timeline of what happened. Its own press release that same day tells people, in these words, “An official public timeline can be found here.” Over the next month that official timeline was changed four times, with no note on any of them. The collector’s father is called “Eric” in the first version and “Ed” later. The collection gets built in the “early” 1990s in one version and the “late” 1990s in another. And the date the consignment agreement was made moves from October 2023 to November, and then back to October. The company that marked one edit for “clarity” left all four of these unmarked, including changing a date and then changing it back.
That last one is the sharpest, because there is a real answer, and the company itself supplied it. The consignment agreement it filed with the court says right at the top that it is “made effective as of November 22, 2023.” But the company’s live timeline says October 2023. For about a day the timeline actually said November, which is correct, and then someone changed it back to October, which is where it sits now. So the page the company points the public to disagrees with the paper the company gave the judge, about the date of the main agreement, and the company’s own edit history shows it fixing that and then un-fixing it.
The point is small and it is the company’s to answer. A statement you can quietly rewrite later, after you have already filed a version of it in court, is not the settled account it looks like. The company kept the power to label its edits and used it exactly once, on the edit that helped it most, and skipped it on the four that changed names and dates on the record it calls official. The one fact anyone can check on their own, the date on the filed agreement, is the one the live timeline gets wrong. This does not settle who is right about the collection. It is only about whether the story held still. On these two posts, it did not.
You do not have to take anyone’s word. Every version is a saved, dated copy of the same page on the Internet Archive. Open any two and read them next to each other.
The May 21 note: before and after the edit.
The June 4 timeline, in order: June 4 (Eric, October), then June 5 (changed to November), then June 6 (back to October), then July 4 (Ed, still October).
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