Josh Johnson verified BAM’s complaint. His text: “I’m getting the prosecutor to drop Ben’s charges.” Reckless Ben’s lawyers filed it. Their memorandum: “Plaintiffs stole LEGOs from the Mansells.”
Johnson is one of six plaintiffs suing Reckless Ben for racketeering, one of the two men who verified the complaint, and the complaining witness in the State’s criminal case against Benjamin Schneider. On November 3 the defense filed the ten-page supplement Judge David Barlow allowed: Johnson’s 27 recorded lines, his texts to the YouTuber who recorded him, and a second call in which he counts “about 30 sets” in the Salem store’s back cupboards, where the complaint he verified counts “approximately 20.” The memorandum asks the court to throw out the racketeering count and every defamation claim with prejudice, or to let the defense question the plaintiffs about their own statements. BAM has until December 1 to answer.
PRIMARY SOURCEBAM Franchising, Inc. v. Schneider, No. 2:26-cv-00593, District of Utah: docket entry 50, the defendants’ supplemental memorandum, ten pages and a certificate of service, filed November 3, 2026, with five exhibit slip sheets; reproduced in part below and linked in full. Johnson is quoted as the memorandum quotes him; the texts and the second call are quoted from Matty AppleSeed’s videos.
CONFIRMEDBoth texts are on screen in the October 3 video the memorandum cites as Exhibit 4; the cupboard line is on the October 20 video it cites as Exhibit 5, at 9:54. The October 13 order, docket entry 49, allowed up to ten pages within 21 days and restarts BAM’s 28 days from the filing (the order).
ASSERTEDThat the plaintiffs “stole LEGOs” and that the criminal accusations “cannot constitute unlawful activity” are the defense’s arguments, and the court has ruled on none of them. Whether a charge is dropped is the Utah County Attorney’s decision, and no dismissal is on any record this site has reported.
UNRESOLVEDWhat BAM says about Johnson’s statements when it answers, due December 1, and whether the court dismisses, orders discovery under the Utah act, or neither.
BAM’s racketeering lawsuit against Reckless Ben has six plaintiffs. Since October 1 the defense has been using one of them as its evidence (as reported).
BAM’s lawyers, who also represent Johnson, agreed to let his words in on October 9, for a fresh 28 days to answer (as reported). Judge David Barlow signed the order on October 13. On November 3, the last day it allowed, R. Scott Young, Melinda K. Bowen and Hailey Winn of Spencer Fane filed the supplement for Benjamin Schneider, Reckless Ben LLC and Victor Nguyen.
BJC read it first. She went live on YouTube at 9:30 a.m. MST on November 4, opened on the memorandum and read it from 2:29 to its conclusion.
Three new exhibits
The October 1 motion had two exhibits: Matty AppleSeed’s cut of the call and the full hour for his patrons. The memorandum keeps all 27 quotations and adds three exhibits. Exhibit 3 is the same full call as later posted to YouTube for the channel’s members, 65 minutes, the length of the Patreon version.
Exhibit 4 is a text thread. On October 3 Matty AppleSeed posted a three-minute video with his messages with Johnson on screen. The memorandum quotes two of Johnson’s lines: “I’m getting the prosecutor to drop Ben’s charges,” and, later, “I told the prosecutor to drop the charges.”
The rest of the thread is on screen too. Johnson’s last line: “I just want out of the circus.”
He is not out. The caption filed November 3 lists him as the fourth plaintiff, and BAM’s September disclosure document still lists him among the people who sell its franchises (as reported).
Exhibit 5 is a second call. On October 20 Matty AppleSeed posted twelve minutes of it. Asked how many sets were in the store, Johnson says: “Well, I could tell you what I saw in the back after Brian the next day or whatever, there was like these black cupboards, like one and a half of them were full. And it looked like there would be about 30 sets in there.”
The complaint he verified says the cupboard sets turned up “In late 2025” and counts “approximately 20” (¶ 82). The police file has them set aside by May 2025 (as reported). Johnson now puts his own look at the cupboards the day after Mansell came in, and counts about 30.
The complaint he verified, against his words
Three of the complaint’s positions, beside what the file now holds from the man who verified it.
| The complaint he verified | His words, as filed November 3 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| The cupboard | The sets were found “In late 2025”: “a few (approximately 20) Star Wars LEGO sets in a back office lockable cupboard” (¶ 82) | “after Brian the next day or whatever” … “about 30 sets in there.”9:54 on the October 20 video. The timing was graded REFUTED on the police file (as reported). | CONTRADICTED |
| The consignment | No “contractual duty or obligation regarding” the consignment (¶ 212) | “I’ll buy it from you or I’ll continue the consignment.”33:51 on Patreon, as the memorandum quotes it; graded September 26 (as reported). | CONTRADICTED |
| The charges | The racketeering count’s “predicate acts,” pages 58 to 65: fourteen lettered paragraphs under Utah’s criminal code | “I’m getting the prosecutor to drop Ben’s charges.”His text, as shown in the October 3 video. A request to a prosecutor; no dismissal is on any record this site has reported. | UNRESOLVED |
The complaint’s words on the left, Johnson’s on the right. CONTRADICTED: the man who verified the line says otherwise. UNRESOLVED: what he asked for, and whether anything came of it, is on no record this site has reported.
“Plaintiffs stole LEGOs from the Mansells”
The memorandum’s first move is to say who is talking.
Mr. Johnson is not only a named plaintiff in this case; he is one of the two individuals who verified the Complaint. Yet he has now confirmed facts and supported arguments on which the Motion turns.
Its truth argument, in plain terms: a statement that is true in substance cannot be defamatory, and Johnson has supplied the substance. The sets “were left at the store,” “Brandon had showed me the LEGOs in the cupboards,” and Mansell was told to come and get them. Then, on page 8:
The complaint calls “took the LEGOs” a lie. The defense now writes “stole,” and cites the man who verified the complaint.
Among the lies the complaint charges Reckless Ben with is saying that BAM’s chief executive “took the LEGOs” (¶ 135(e); as reported). The defense now puts the accusation in a federal filing, in its own name, and adds that BAM conceded the point itself: “BAM’s acknowledgment of the Mansells’ ‘genuine loss’ and its unqualified apology” (as reported).
On racketeering, the argument is that Johnson’s words dissolve the enterprise BAM pleads. “Got done dirty by my boy” and “washing my hands of Bricks and Minifigs” become “a conspiracy between the Plaintiffs to defame Reckless Ben and Mr. Mansell and deflect their own misconduct, or at the very least discord among the Plaintiffs.” The summary line: “Truthful reporting of a property dispute is not racketeering.”
The prosecutor
The complaint’s racketeering count lists its “predicate acts” on pages 58 to 65, fourteen lettered paragraphs under Utah’s criminal code. Predicate acts, in plain terms, are the crimes a racketeering claim is built from. The memorandum answers those pages with the text:
To the extent Plaintiffs have also relied on criminal charges against Mr. Schneider to establish the requisite predicate acts for RICO purposes, see Compl. at 58-65, Mr. Johnson also acknowledged that he wants the criminal charges against Mr. Schneider to be dropped and has asked the prosecutor to take the necessary action to do so. Requesting that criminal charges should be dismissed also confirms that the same underlying criminal accusations cannot constitute unlawful activity to support a RICO claim.
Johnson is not a party to the criminal case. The charges are the State’s; he is the complaining witness and the protected person under the court’s May 20 order (as reported). A complaining witness does not dismiss a charge; the prosecutor decides, and the preliminary hearing is set for December 16 (as reported).
So the file holds both halves. The complaint Johnson verified pleads criminal conduct by Reckless Ben as the foundation of its racketeering claim. Johnson’s text, filed by Reckless Ben, says he is trying to get the charges dropped.
Leaving would not be free. If Johnson wants out of the civil case as well, Utah’s act has a section for that: a dismissal without prejudice of a claim “that is the subject of a motion under Section 78B-25-103 does not affect a moving party’s right to obtain a ruling on the motion and seek costs, attorney fees, and expenses,” and one with prejudice “establishes for the purpose of Section 78B-25-110 that the moving party prevailed on the motion” (the section). Whether those sections bind in federal court is one of the questions the motion puts to Judge Barlow (as reported).
What the defense asks, and the clock
Dismissal with prejudice, meaning the claims could not be brought again, of seven: “RICO violations, defamation per se, defamation, false light, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unjust enrichment.” And fees and costs for the motion and the supplement.
In the alternative, discovery: the act says the court “may allow limited discovery,” and the defense asks for enough “to explore the various statements made by Plaintiffs” (the section). In plain terms, if the judge is not ready to dismiss, the defense wants to question the plaintiffs about what Johnson said.
The clock is the October 13 order’s. BAM’s answer had been due October 16; the joint motion moved it to 28 days after this filing (as reported). The defense used all 21 of its days, so BAM’s response is due December 1. The docket as mirrored on CourtListener, last updated October 30, 2026, ends at entry 49; this memorandum is entry 50, and the plaintiffs’ only filing since August 27 remains the joint motion of October 9.
How it got here
The fair reading, and its limit. A supplemental memorandum is one side’s argument, written by the lawyers who chose the lines, and the court has ruled on none of it. BAM has until December 1 to answer, and agreed to this filing without conceding the “veracity, relevance, or admissibility” of any of it (as reported). A call and a text thread with a YouTuber are not testimony, the memorandum itself asks for discovery to lay a foundation for the texts, and much of what Johnson says is that Mansell was paid and made whole, which BAM can cite too. The limit: the words are a plaintiff’s, on facts his own verified complaint pleads the other way, and his count for one cupboard is not the complaint’s. BAM denies wrongdoing in this litigation and everyone named is presumed to have acted lawfully. The right of reply is open to BAM, its counsel, Mr. Johnson and the Utah County Attorney.
The record
The supplemental memorandum, docket entry 50, November 3. The five exhibit slip sheets. The order of October 13, docket entry 49 (the same order in the RECAP archive). The docket on CourtListener. October 9: the joint motion. October 1: the motion to supplement. September 18: the anti-SLAPP motion. September 26: the call against the complaint. September 26: the call. The verified complaint. October 5: the preliminary hearing. September 23: the criminal case. October 24: Johnson’s emails. Matty AppleSeed on October 3 and October 20, the full call on Patreon and for members on YouTube. BJC, November 4.
Sources. BAM Franchising, Inc. v. Schneider, No. 2:26-cv-00593 (D. Utah): docket entry 50, the defendants’ supplemental memorandum, filed November 3, 2026, quoted verbatim, with its five exhibit slip sheets; docket entry 49, the order of October 13, 2026; docket entries 37, 43, 44 and 48 as reported on this site; the docket as mirrored on CourtListener, last updated October 30, 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 pages 58 to 65. Matty AppleSeed, “@RecklessBen | Josh Johnson Told Me He Dropped The Charges,” YouTube, October 3, 2026, the texts transcribed from the screen; “The Franchise Confession Ammon Didn’t Want You to See,” YouTube, October 20, 2026, transcribed from the recording and quoted as spoken; the call of September 2026 as cited in the memorandum and as reported here September 26; the thumbnails shown are the creators’ own. BJC Live Show, live November 4, 2026. Utah Code 78B-25-103, 104(4), 106, 107(2) and (3) and 110, as published by the Utah Legislature. State of Utah v. Schneider, Fourth District No. 261401094, as reported here September 23 and October 5. Everyone named here is presumed to have acted lawfully; a memorandum is one party’s argument, and this page reports one.