PRIMARY SOURCEUtah County property and land records, the Provo search-warrant affidavit, and Bricks & Minifigs’ own corporate filings
In December 2025, Bricks & Minifigs had Reckless Ben criminally charged with trespassing at its Provo office. The whole case turns on one small thing: which side of a glass door he was standing on. On the office side, the charge is simple. On the hallway side, it runs into a question nobody has answered, which is whether BAM could order anyone out of a hallway it does not own. Because BAM owns neither the hallway nor the office. Its landlord is a law firm, the McNeff brothers put a company of their own inside that firm’s suite, and the same firm runs the building. The police affidavit places Ben in the office. BAM’s own video places him in the hallway. Readers on r/RecklessBen pulled the records and the LUS channel argued the law; this site adds the one thing they did not have, which is what the building’s own recorded rules say about who controls that hallway.
BAM Franchising gives its address, on its LinkedIn page and in its franchise disclosure document, as 4844 North 300 West, Suite 202, Provo. That is one suite in a four-unit office condominium called Riverview Plaza Office Condos #2. BAM rents it. It owns nothing in the building.
The county’s property records name the owner of Suite 202, where BAM sits, of Suite 201 next door, and of Suite 300, the entire top floor: “MHM COMMERCIAL II LLC.” One company holds three of the building’s four units, and BAM’s office is one of them.
MHM is MacArthur Heder & Metler, the law firm on the top floor it owns. The recorder’s own deed signatures tie that owner back to the firm: the ownership chain runs through a family trust to K. Paul MacArthur, a name partner. So BAM’s landlord is a law firm.
And the firm does more than own three suites. It runs the building. Riverview Plaza’s recorded declaration, the document that governs the condominium, puts every shared space (the hallways, the lobby, the stairs) under an owners association, and gives that association’s board “exclusive management and control of the common areas.” The board of record is three people: Heder, MacArthur, and Metler, the firm’s three name partners. The landlord and the body that governs the building’s hallways are the same three lawyers.
And the tie runs past the lease. In July 2025, in the middle of the franchise litigation, Ammon and Mathew McNeff formed a new company, BAM IP Holdings, to hold the Bricks & Minifigs trademarks, and gave its address as Suite 300, inside that same law firm’s office. Ammon signed the certificate himself. This site cannot prove the firm is the McNeffs’ lawyer, and their counsel of record in court is a different attorney. But the public shape is plain: the family rents its office from a law firm that governs the building, and keeps a company of its own inside that firm’s suite.
On December 10, 2025, Ben Schneider spoke with Ammon McNeff at that building. That conversation is the trespass charge. Detective Medina Dore’s sworn affidavit, which this site holds, tells it as an indoor story: Ben, it says, “only left the office once the owner went into a different room away from the front office,” and BAM “provided video footage of the suspect entering the office.” The affidavit attributes that account to “the complainant,” which is to say BAM. On the strength of it, the same warrant reached into the contents of Ben’s entire Google account.
But the footage shows the other side of the glass. In Ben’s published video, the two men are standing in the building’s common corridor: marble floor, elevator lobby, and the drinking fountain a reader matched to a 2016 leasing flyer for this exact building. BAM’s glass door, holiday clings and all, is right beside them. The “different room” the owner retreats into is the office itself, back through that door.
And the corridor is nobody’s suite. The building’s plats and its declaration draw the hallway, the lobby, and the alcoves outside every unit. They are common area, and the declaration puts the common area under the owners association, not under any single tenant.
The notice is thin in the affidavit, too. For December 9, the first visit, it says only that “the males were asked to leave.” By whom, it does not say. Provo officers “attempted to contact the male” and “were unsuccessful,” so no warning came from police. No sign, no fence, no letter. Whatever warning there was, someone at the business spoke it, one day before the charged return.
The charge is “criminal trespass after notice.” The charging document quotes the statute: the warning has to come from “the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner,” or from a fence, or from a posted sign. There was no fence and no sign. So the whole thing reduces to authority. Inside Suite 202, BAM speaks for itself, and its warning is good. In the corridor, it does not, because the building’s own recorded rules put that space under the owners association and give the power to remove people from it to the association’s board, not to a tenant.
We read the declaration. Nothing in it, and nothing else on the public record, hands BAM authority over the common area. A board can delegate that power by a private agreement that never gets recorded, so we cannot rule one out, and the question stays open. But on the record as it stands, the authority to clear that hallway belongs to the board, and the board is Heder, MacArthur, and Metler.
So take the two readings, and watch where each one lands. If BAM had no authority over the hallway, there was no valid warning to disobey out there, and the affidavit’s “inside the office” put the event in the one room where BAM’s authority is beyond doubt, the room the company’s own video says it did not happen in. If BAM did have that authority, it could only have come from the building’s board, which is the same law firm that rents BAM its office, governs its building, and houses the McNeffs’ trademark company. Either way, the answer runs straight through the landlord.
Which makes one absence worth noticing. Read the sworn account end to end and the landlord is nowhere in it. BAM’s people ask the men to leave. BAM hands police the video. BAM’s “company owner” calls the detective to press charges. The one party the records put in charge of that hallway, the association board, the three partners, never appears, on a set of facts where the ordinary path runs straight through it. Maybe the power was delegated off the record. Maybe the step was skipped. In this building, the landlord and the tenant are not strangers, and nobody seems to have asked.
One last thing. The McNeffs’ other business, Legally Mine, sells a single product: the separation of control from ownership, arrangements built so that no one can say cleanly who controls a given asset. They run the same play on themselves. BAM holds an office it does not own, in a building governed by the firm that houses its trademark company. And now their trespass charge needs a court to say, cleanly, who controlled a hallway. This site does not know how that comes out. It knows who built the question.
The fair counterpoint. None of this has been decided by a court, and Ben Schneider is presumed innocent of the charges, which is a separate matter from whether they should have been brought. A tenant can sometimes be given authority over shared space, and a person can hold “apparent” authority they were never formally granted; the building’s recorded declaration shows no such grant to BAM, but a board can delegate by a private agreement that is never recorded, so this is raised as an open question, not a conclusion, and a court may yet find the warning valid. It is common and lawful to rent rather than own an office, and for a law firm to own its building, rent the other units, and sit on the owners’ board; none of that is improper by itself. This report does not assert that the McNeffs directed the police or the prosecutor, only that the building the charge arises in is owned and governed by the same law firm they rent from and keep a company inside, and the charge’s framing disclosed none of it. The detective’s “inside the office” is reported as a discrepancy between the sworn affidavit and the video, not as proof of intent. Every ownership and governance fact here is drawn from public county and state records, which any reader can pull. Credit for the first public-records digging belongs to the r/RecklessBen posters who assembled it.
Sources. Ownership: Utah County property records, serials 51:748:0201, 51:748:0202, and 51:748:0300, each returning owner “MHM COMMERCIAL II LLC” and legal description “RIVERVIEW PLAZA OFFICE CONDOS #2” (utahcounty.gov land records, retrieved 2026-08-04); Suite 100 is separately owned. Governance: the recorded Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of RiverView Plaza Office Condominiums #2 (Utah County recorder entry 32859:2023, re-recorded 33590:2023) defines the hallways and lobby as common area and vests “exclusive management and control of the Common Areas” in the owners association’s board; the board of record, Heder, MacArthur, and Metler, is from the association’s Utah nonprofit registration; no recorded instrument delegates common-area authority to a tenant. That MHM Commercial II is the MacArthur Heder & Metler firm’s building, held through a MacArthur family trust, is from this site’s prior reporting off the recorder’s deed-signature chain (trust deed 55224:2023); the same firm is BAM’s landlord. BAM IP Holdings, LLC (managers Ammon and Mathew McNeff, formed July 2025, signed by Ammon McNeff as organizer) gives its principal address as Suite 300 per the Utah business registry. The office placement, the notice account, and the “complainant” attribution are from Det. Medina Dore’s search-warrant affidavit (warrant 3327741); the statutory notice element is recited in the criminal information (Provo Justice Court case 261000376). The building identification and the plat and ownership analysis were first assembled by r/RecklessBen users, notably u/Scribblyr, whose water-fountain match to a 2016 leasing flyer this site relied on to locate the common corridor in Reckless Ben’s own published video (the corridor exchange runs from about 5:28); the Canby media thread was surfaced by u/chaosink and is reported in this site’s Canby report, and the questions were prompted on air by the independent BJC broadcast. Whether BAM could warn anyone off the shared hallway was argued at length on the LUS channel’s August 4, 2026 broadcast, “Reckless Ben NOT Guilty of Criminal Trespass?” (about 31 minutes in), which worked through the common-area and delegation questions on air and stressed, as this post does, that the answer is not settled. The McNeff family’s wider pattern of holding property and brand assets through separate entities is laid out in The shells and on the connection map.
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