We built a calendar. Every dated thing in this whole story, pulled from four separate places that have no reason to run on the same schedule: the family’s LEGO consignment, the company’s paperwork and stores, the police and court cases, and the videos and public filings. Eighty-seven dated events, every one sourced. Then we looked for the days when more than one of those clocks went off at once. There are nine. And on three of them, the machinery aimed at the man documenting the seizure moved on the very same day as the paperwork of the thing he was documenting. On one of those three, it all happened inside a single hour.
Start with that hour, February 10, 2026, because the records are precise enough to show it to the minute. Utah and Oregon are an hour apart, so line them up on one clock. At about 2:15 in the afternoon Oregon time, a Keizer detective is recording the company’s executives, and the chief operating officer is explaining that all the store’s assets could be seized, and that even if the family’s LEGO was sitting in the store, it does not belong to them anymore. At almost that same minute, in Utah, a Provo detective is swearing out a search warrant for the critic’s Google and YouTube accounts. A few minutes later the critic files a routine motion in his own small-claims case in Oregon. And then, back in Utah, a judge signs that warrant and orders Google not to tell him for ninety days. Four events, two states, one person in the middle of all of them, inside about sixty minutes.
That warrant was signed at 4:16 in the afternoon by Judge Christine S. Johnson of Utah’s Fourth District Court. And it was not the only fast warrant against this person. Three weeks later, a different Utah judge, a magistrate named Roger W. Griffin, signed the second search warrant, the one behind the raid on the house where the critic was staying. The first warrant went from sworn to signed in thirty-eight minutes; the second in twenty-six. Two warrants against the same man, three weeks apart, each cleared a judge in well under an hour, and the second one went looking for “stolen Lego” under a stalking law and came back saying no items were seized.
The second aligned day is March 27, 2026. In one Utah court that afternoon, the county attorney files the criminal case against the critic, stalking and picketing charges with bail set, and when his hearing is called at three o’clock he is in Los Angeles and does not appear, so a warrant issues for him. In another Utah court that same day, the former Keizer owners, the Gormans, file their own twelve-count lawsuit against Bricks & Minifigs. The critic gets charged the same afternoon a franchisee sues the company.
The third is June 2, 2026, and it is the cleanest. In the morning, at sixteen minutes past ten, a Utah judge signs the order that gags the critic, including a clause requiring his existing videos to be taken down. That same day, in Oregon, the district attorney reviews the property case, the one the detective had concluded the company knew about, and declines it as a civil matter. Case closed. The morning shuts one door in Utah; the afternoon shuts the other in Oregon.
Here is what a calendar can show and what it cannot. Nine days out of two years carry more than one clock. Three of them put the case against the documentarian on the same day as the paperwork of the thing he was documenting, and one of them squeezed it into a single hour. That is the finding, and it is a finding about timing, built entirely from public and produced records. It is not, by itself, proof that anyone coordinated anything. Calendars can line up by chance, busy stretches pile events together, and lawsuits and criminal cases often move in the same season for perfectly ordinary reasons. What the calendar does is put the question on the table where anyone can check it: here are the dates, here are the sources, and here is what they look like laid side by side.
To be fair, and it matters: a shared date is not a conspiracy. Every event on this calendar has an innocent explanation available to it. Courts sign warrants quickly all the time, and a fast turnaround is not misconduct. The people named here, including the two judges, are owed the presumption that they did their jobs properly, and nothing here is a finding against any of them. We have not proven that a single one of these alignments was arranged. What we have done is gather the public record into one timeline, source every line, and show where the clocks struck together, so that you, and anyone with the power to subpoena an answer, can look at the same thing we did and ask the same question: is this what coincidence looks like, or is it what a coordinated effort looks like once it is written down?
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