← Back to context

Comment by usehand

18 hours ago

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

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.

  • 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.

  • 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?

    • 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.

      1 reply →

    • 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.

      4 replies →

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.

  • [flagged]

    • > 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!

      1 reply →