If that's the case why did they lose the small claims cases?

shadefinale 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They lost default judgements because they did not appear. Either they thought it was fake or they thought they'd lose, but they were served and did not appear.

▲

jonlucc 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Or they thought that the losses were acceptable to avoid having to make sworn statements about the series of events that are still at issue in the previous owner's case and some events that may very well still be charged by Oregon prosecutors.

▲

usehand 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

A default judgement is still a loss. Why would not they not fight back small claims cases, which would be trivially easy for someone with their resources, if they could win?

▲

shadefinale 34 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I am not stating that I think B&M would win. B&M's original intent was to force Ed and Ben into a pyrrhic victory via dragging out one lawsuit, even if they lost that one suit.

Without being able to run up Ed/Ben's legal costs, trying to defend these suits at all is just a further loss for B&M for no benefit.

I don't think it was the deciding factor, but Ben also sent a fake Guinness award to the store around the same time they were being served. It is within the realm of possibility that they thought Ben was bluffing with the lawsuits and tried to call his bluff just to find out it was all real after they failed to appear.

	▲	usehand 23 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Nah, the whole Guinness thing was obviously just a bit for the video. Clearly the franchise would not fall for that, when you can easily check that you were summoned to small claims (and they also probably get some form of direct communication from the court I would guess). Legal costs for a small claims suit is tiny, and would be easily doable for them if they could win it. Again, there is a reason they lost those cases.

▲

rubyn00bie 38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They can't even serve papers because they're being relentlessly harassed by Police who have immediately banned them from serving them. In part 2, cops even verify the court case and he has a process server-- but they just refuse to. One of many different cops eventually took the papers to serve them, and ended up coming back saying "he didn't want them."

Additionally, the original business in Kaizer shutdown as soon as the default judgements went through.

▲

bishfish 25 minutes ago | parent [-]

Would it count as being served if bodycam shows that police handed him the papers and he gave them back or tossed them on the floor?

	▲	shadefinale 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		According to Ben, the bodycam footage of the officer's attempt to serve the papers is fully redacted, no audio/video at all.

▲

altairprime 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[retracted]

▲

usehand an hour ago | parent [-]

I don't know what point you're trying to make. But also please watch the video, they submitted multiple separate claims via different aggrieved parties, this totaled $100k, despite the low individual small claims maxima.

	▲	altairprime an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Ooh, I missed that! I thought I’d watched it a couple days ago but I might have dozed off due to unrelated life tired; will revisit, thanks.

▲

Aurornis 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Who is "they"?

Bricks and Minifigs? Or the previous owners?

Do you mind citing your sources at least? The linked article refers to a "lawsuit loss" but doesn't explain who it was against or what it was for.

▲

usehand an hour ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

Aurornis an hour ago | parent [-]

> You go around this post defending B&M with no knowledge of the basic facts of the case.

I'm not defending anyone. I'm saying the claims don't line up

> I will not do your work for you. Everything I said is true and easily searchable, feel free to look it up.

Everything I quoted was from me looking it up!

	▲	usehand an hour ago \| parent [-]
		You go around claiming the accusations are "just needless YouTube drama" and that you "wouldn't really trust the YouTube influencers for the whole story". If you think this is not defending the company, then you have some basic communications difficulties. Again, if this is your knowledge after looking it up, then refrain from commenting, as your intelectual limitations will inevitably lead you to make false claims.