Josh Johnson verified BAM’s RICO complaint. Reckless Ben’s lawyers have now filed his own words against it: “Ammon didn’t want to give Bryan his LEGOs back.”
Johnson is one of the six plaintiffs suing Reckless Ben and one of the two men who verified the complaint. On October 1 the defense put 27 quotations from his recorded call with Matty AppleSeed in front of Judge David Barlow and filed the recordings with the clerk as Exhibits 1 and 2. On who refused to return the collection: “Brandon never said no.” On his co-plaintiffs: “I don’t have anything to do with Matt and Ammon.” On the company: “I’m completely walking away and washing my hands of Bricks and Minifigs.” On the man he is suing: “I really like Ben.”
PRIMARY SOURCEBAM Franchising, Inc. v. Schneider, No. 2:26-cv-00593, District of Utah: ECF 43, the defendants’ “Motion to Supplement Their Special Motion for Expedited Relief and for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint with New Evidence,” six pages, filed October 1, 2026, and ECF 44, the notice that its two exhibits went to the clerk on a flash drive. Johnson is quoted here as the motion quotes him, with the motion’s times; a linked time opens the YouTube cut a few seconds ahead of the line. The bold italics in the excerpts are the lawyers’.
CONFIRMEDJohnson is a plaintiff and, with Ammon McNeff, one of the complaint’s two verifiers (its caption and verification pages). The recordings are Matty AppleSeed’s: a cut on YouTube and the full call for his patrons. This site reported the call and set it against the complaint line by line.
UNRESOLVEDwhether Judge Barlow allows the supplement, what BAM answers, and whether Johnson stays a plaintiff beside the company he says he is walking away from
BAM’s racketeering lawsuit against Reckless Ben has six plaintiffs. On October 1, one of them became the defense’s evidence.
The lawsuit is over Reckless Ben’s videos about a Salem, Oregon store BAM seized and the Star Wars LEGO collection Bryan Mansell had on consignment inside it. On September 18, his lawyers asked Judge David Barlow to throw out the racketeering and defamation claims under Utah’s anti-SLAPP law. After that motion was filed, Matty AppleSeed published a phone call he had recorded with Josh Johnson, one of the plaintiffs. On October 1 the same lawyers, Melinda K. Bowen, R. Scott Young and Hailey Winn of Spencer Fane, asked the judge to let them add it.
Their motion lists 27 quotations from the call, each with its time: nine from the 25-minute cut on YouTube and eighteen from the full hour on Patreon. It calls them “admissions” and says they “further show Plaintiffs cannot prove their claims.” The recordings themselves are now in the clerk’s office, on a flash drive, as Exhibits 1 and 2.
DFJ broke the news. She went live on YouTube at 4:34 p.m. PDT on October 1, the day it was filed, put the motion on screen and read from it. Her description of the stream as it went out: “Last minute reading this live.”
“Ammon didn’t want to give Bryan his LEGOs back”
Two men verified BAM’s complaint: Ammon McNeff, its chief executive, and Johnson. Each vouched for its allegations “to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.” Its first claim is racketeering, and one of the frauds it charges Reckless Ben with is saying that BAM’s CEO “took the LEGOs” (¶ 135(e)).
What the defense filed from the YouTube cut:
The fourth line is in the Patreon list too, at 35:17. So is what Johnson says came next: “Brandon had showed me the LEGOs in the cupboards,” and then a call to Mansell, “Bryan, come get your stuff. Brandon showed me where it was.” Later in the call, Matty AppleSeed asked why Brandon Best had said no.
Best is a plaintiff. So are Ammon and Matthew McNeff. All four men bring the same complaint, and three of its lines now sit in the court’s file beside Johnson’s own account:
| The complaint he verified | His words, as filed October 1 | |
|---|---|---|
| A lie that Ammon “took the LEGOs” (¶ 135(e)) | “Ammon didn’t want to give Bryan his LEGOs back.” 8:38 on YouTube · 35:17 on Patreon · fact check | CONTRADICTED |
| The cupboard sets were found “In late 2025” (¶ 82) | “Brandon had showed me the LEGOs in the cupboards.” On the recording he places it at the takeover, a year earlier, and the police file has the sets set aside by May 2025. 35:28 on Patreon · fact check | REFUTED |
| No “contractual duty or obligation regarding” the consignment (¶ 212) | “I was responsible for Bryan’s sets that were left at the store, right?” And: “those sets that were left in the store that I was personally responsible for.” 33:08 and 1:03:45 on Patreon · fact check | CONTRADICTED |
The complaint’s words on the left, the motion’s quotations on the right. REFUTED: the record disproves the line. CONTRADICTED: the man who verified it says otherwise.
The motion states its point in two sentences:
He verified the complaint. His voice is now Exhibit 1 against it.
“I really like Ben”
Every plaintiff sues Reckless Ben for racketeering, for defamation and for “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.” The motion quotes this plaintiff on the man he is suing:
From the YouTube list: “Ben, I think in his heart he’s trying to do the right thing.” (3:16) From the Patreon list: “I wish Ben the best. I feel bad that I yelled at him and told him to F off.” (51:05)
Johnson is also the complaining witness, and the protected person, in the State’s criminal case against Benjamin Schneider. The day before its September 30 preliminary hearing, the county asked to postpone it.
“Washing my hands of Bricks and Minifigs”
Two lines from the YouTube list, twelve seconds apart by the motion’s clock: “I don’t have anything to do with Matt and Ammon.” (23:21) “And I’m completely walking away and washing my hands of Bricks and Minifigs.” (23:33) Two more, on Ammon McNeff: “I got done dirty by my boy (Ammon) in more than one way.” (16:45; the parenthesis is the lawyers’) “Between you and me, I love Ammon, but I got done dirty on all these things.” (21:16)
He has not walked away from the lawsuit. The caption filed October 1 lists him as a plaintiff, between Matthew McNeff and Brandon Best. The certificate of service lists one set of lawyers for all six: Wm. Kelly Nash, Justin T. Rich and Mina S. Ghobrial of Dentons Durham Jones Pinegar, “Attorneys for Plaintiffs.” BAM’s September disclosure document lists him sixth among the people who sell its franchises; the first two are the McNeffs. The same document tells regulators that this case and “the facts surrounding it” are “material to the decision to enter into a Bricks and Minifigs franchise agreement.” BAM also published a post saying it had parted ways with him and Best (fact-checked in July).
“Washing my hands of Bricks and Minifigs.” His name is still on the caption.
The exhibits
Exhibit 1 is Matty AppleSeed’s cut of the call. Exhibit 2 is the full call, which he posted for his patrons. Johnson was told at the start that he was being recorded, and near the end he asked that the call not be posted. They join the eight videos the defense filed with the anti-SLAPP motion.
What the motion asks
One thing: leave to file “a supplemental memorandum (limited to 10 pages)” on how these statements, “and others from the phone call,” bear on the anti-SLAPP motion. Judge Barlow has not ruled.
BAM has not answered. Its response to the anti-SLAPP motion is due October 16. As read the evening of October 1, the docket shows no filing by BAM since that motion went in on September 18. The order to show cause that Matt McNeff told franchisees would be filed on September 21 has not been filed.
CONFIRMEDThe motion’s words, its caption and its certificate of service; the notice of the exhibits; the docket’s forty-four numbered entries: the seven that follow the anti-SLAPP motion are the defense’s or the court’s.
The fair reading, and its limit. A motion is one side’s paper. The defense chose these 27 lines out of an hour, added the emphasis and the parenthesis, and the court has accepted none of it yet. A phone call with a YouTuber is not testimony. Much of what the motion quotes is Johnson saying Mansell got his LEGOs back and was paid, which BAM can cite too, and the lines that put the refusal on the McNeffs move the blame off Johnson. A verification “to the best of my knowledge, information and belief” is not a guarantee. The limit is whose words they are: a plaintiff’s, on the facts his own complaint pleads the other way, now on file with the recordings. BAM denies wrongdoing in this litigation and everyone named is presumed to have acted lawfully. The right of reply is open to BAM, to its counsel and to Mr. Johnson.
The record
The motion to supplement, ECF 43, October 1. The notice of the two exhibits, ECF 44, October 1. The docket on CourtListener. The anti-SLAPP motion, ECF 37, September 18, and the update on it. The verified complaint and its verification pages. September 26: the call. September 26: the call against the complaint. September 22: the order to show cause that was not filed. September 29: the criminal case. The Keizer police file. Matty AppleSeed on YouTube and on Patreon. DFJ, October 1.
Sources. BAM Franchising, Inc. v. Schneider, No. 2:26-cv-00593 (D. Utah): ECF 43 and ECF 44, filed October 1, 2026, quoted verbatim, including the motion’s caption, its list of quotations with their times and emphasis, and its certificate of service; ECF 37, filed September 18, 2026; the docket as read the evening of October 1, 2026. The verified complaint, filed May 27, 2026 in Utah’s Fourth District, No. 260402353, and removed to federal court, ¶¶ 82, 135(e) and 212, and its verification pages. Matty AppleSeed, “Josh Johnson Told Me His Side | BRICKS & MINIFIGS,” YouTube, and “1 Hour Call with Josh Johnson,” Patreon, as cited in the motion and as reported here September 26. Keizer Police Department case file KZP24020132, as published here. State of Utah v. Schneider, Fourth District No. 261401094, as reported here September 29. BAM Franchising, Inc., franchise disclosure document as amended September 2026, franchise sellers page. DFJ (DontFckwJustice), livestream of October 1, 2026, as published on YouTube. Everyone named here is presumed to have acted lawfully; a motion is one party’s request, and this page reports one.