PRIMARY SOURCE Keizer Police Department incident report KZP25005441, obtained under Oregon public records law, and the associated 2024 report it names; Bricks & Minifigs’ own published timeline.
A family consigned a LEGO collection to a Bricks & Minifigs store. Sets were not returned. The son who took up chasing them started calling the store to ask whether they were still on the shelves, and the people who answered began hanging up on him. In April 2025 the store called the police on him, warning that he might be leading an attack on it. The officer looked, found no threat, and warned the man to stop calling. The case was closed. The collection was still not returned, and the man told the officer what the alternative would cost him: seventy thousand dollars.
The dispute is not new to the Keizer Police Department, and the April 2025 report says so in its own words. Officer Jorge Miranda writes that the man, Bryan Mansell, “is upset over the previous store owner scamming him,” and that he found an earlier Keizer case, KZP24020132, in which another officer had investigated a matter involving Mansell and the store’s previous owner. The subject of that investigation, in the report’s own summary:
“There is history with Bryan and the previous store manager, where some of Bryan’s consignment LEGO sets were not returned to him.”Keizer Police Department report KZP25005441, describing the associated 2024 investigation KZP24020132.
The collection at the center of this was his father’s, placed with the store in 2023; the police report refers throughout to “Bryan’s consignment LEGO sets,” because Bryan is the one who chased them. So the record is now explicit, in a police file, about what sits underneath all of this: sets went in on consignment, and they did not come back. The store then changed hands. What did not change hands was the problem, and he kept calling the store that had the collection to ask where it was.
PRIMARY SOURCEThe consignment non-return is recorded in Keizer PD’s own file and carries its own 2024 case number. This is the first police-domain record of the consignment injury; the underlying 2024 investigation has not yet been released.
On April 11, 2025, the store’s operator, Brandon Best, called Keizer police to report that Mansell was making threats against the store by phone and on social media. And he passed along something more alarming, which had not come from Mansell and had not come from him:
“Brandon stated he was contacted by loss prevention personnel from the company stating that Bryan was possibly going to be leading an attack on the store tonight.”Keizer Police Department report KZP25005441. “The company” is the franchisor; the report describes its loss prevention team sending the store a screenshot.
That sentence is worth reading twice. The franchisor runs a loss prevention function, that function was watching a private LEGO group on Facebook, and it escalated what it saw there into a warning to a store owner that a specific named consignor might lead an attack on his shop that night.
Then the officer looked at the actual artifact. The post was in the private Facebook group. There was no set time. And the line about the store had not been written by Mansell at all:
“There was no set time and an unknown person had replied to a post made by Bryan about the location stating something to the effect of, ‘Lets get the store tonight.’”Keizer Police Department report KZP25005441.
Mansell’s own account, given to the officer eleven days later, matched: he had posted asking what he should do about getting his LEGO sets back, and an unknown person had replied that he should just go take his belongings from the store. He said he never intended to do that, because he likes his job too much. Officer Miranda’s conclusion, written the night of the call:
“I advised Brandon that I would do some area checks on the store tonight but there did not appear to be a direct threat that something was going to happen.”Keizer Police Department report KZP25005441.
PRIMARY SOURCEEvery quotation in this section is the reporting officer’s own narrative. The escalation came from the franchisor’s loss prevention team; the “get the store” comment was written by an unidentified third party, not by Mansell; and the officer recorded no direct threat.
A corporate security function warning a store about a perceived threat is a normal and defensible thing to do. What the record shows is what happened to the claim on contact with an officer: a stranger’s comment under a consignor’s post became “leading an attack on the store,” and then became nothing.
What remained was the phone calls. Mansell told the officer he had never threatened anyone, that he called the store the way any customer might, to ask about his own inventory, and that the calls went the way they had been going:
“Bryan said that when an employee finds out its him calling, they hang up on him.”Keizer Police Department report KZP25005441.
He asked what the police were doing to get his LEGO sets back, saying they had been stolen from him through the store. He was told to take that up with the officer on the 2024 case. He said his own attorney had tried to contact the store several times and was hung up on too. And when the officer told him the remedy was civil court, he gave the number that ends the conversation:
“Bryan further explained that it would cost him $70,000 to go through a civil proceeding.”Keizer Police Department report KZP25005441. Mansell’s own estimate, recorded by the officer.
The case closed like this: “Case inactive. Bryan has been warned for Telephonic Harassment and was told to no longer call the business line.” The offense recorded on the report is Telephonic Harassment under Oregon law. The listed victim is the business. The listed suspect is the man whose collection the store did not return.
Put the sequence in one line. His property does not come back. The criminal door is closed to him, because police call it civil. The civil door costs seventy thousand dollars. The store hangs up when he calls. And the one channel he had left, calling to ask, is now the thing he has been formally warned to stop doing.
PRIMARY SOURCEOffense code, disposition, victim, and suspect fields are as recorded on the face of the report. Mansell was warned, not charged; no criminal case followed.
One more thing about this report, and it is about the calendar rather than the contents. It is dated April 11, 2025.
Bricks & Minifigs has published its own timeline of this saga, and that timeline cites, as one of its sources, the Collectors Weekly podcast of April 16, 2025. By the company’s own dating, that is when this story first reached the public. The documentary that the company has blamed for the harassment of its stores went online on May 21, 2026, thirteen months after this report.
So the earliest documented report of threats against this store predates the first public coverage the company itself points to, by five days, and predates the documentary by more than a year. And its subject is not a stranger stirred up by anything online. It is a consignor asking a store for his own property back.
INFERENCEThe two dates are documentary: April 11, 2025 on the police report, April 16, 2025 on Bricks & Minifigs’ own cited source. Reading them together as a limit on what later public attention can explain is our analysis, not a statement by anyone. We make no claim about any other report, and none about threats the company has described from other periods.
To be fair, and this matters. A warning is not a conviction and not a finding; Mansell was never charged with anything, and nothing here says he committed a crime. Nor does anything here say Brandon Best did. A store owner who is told by his own franchisor’s loss prevention team that someone may attack his shop that night has every reason to call the police, and the officer treated the call seriously and drove by the store. The company’s loss prevention function warning a franchisee about a perceived threat is a legitimate safety practice, and the fact that this particular warning dissolved does not make it improper. Mansell denies making any threats; Best reported that he had; the officer recorded no direct threat and closed the case inactive without resolving that disagreement, and neither do we. This is also not the only police report in this story, and we are not presenting it as one: it is a telephonic harassment report about phone calls and a Facebook comment, nothing more, and we draw no connection between it and any other report anyone has described. What the document does establish is narrow and it is on the face of the record: a consignor’s LEGO sets were not returned, a police file has said so since 2024, and by April 2025 the man asking about them had been warned to stop asking, with a seventy thousand dollar civil door as his remaining option.
Sources: Keizer Police Department Offense/Incident Report KZP25005441 (offense: Telephonic Harassment, ORS 166.090; event April 11, 2025; reporting officer Jorge Miranda, supervising officer Jeremy Darst), released under Oregon public records law, and the associated report KZP24020132 named within it; the Bricks & Minifigs published timeline citing the Collectors Weekly podcast of April 16, 2025. The report was obtained and published by Chris Reports Things Sometimes, who paid the records fee and released the file publicly on r/RecklessBen. Personal information in the report, including home addresses and telephone numbers, is withheld here. Related: what the consignment rules actually say, where the stores get their inventory, and the vendors they are required to use. Plain-language edition: read it here.
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