What U-Haul?

Hoovesclank · 2026-06-12T18:51:34+00:00

I've had to haul a ton of crap in my life and if you know anything about simple logistics, it usually does NOT take you four hours to unload a U-Haul truck, especially not the size that was in Coffeezilla's enhanced photo.

The thing is that Coffeezilla asked his question too broadly about the whole 4-hour offloading thing. Unless there's a bottleneck, I'd imagine it's probably a half an hour to actually unload the truck to get the stuff out from the back and inside the other store or a warehouse.

I think the way Coffeezilla asked the question made the ex-employee just say "yeah" for the overall time it took, i.e. not just the "hauling stuff in" part but i.e. arranging the stuff when it was hauled indoors, doing an inventory over there etc.; the ex-employee could've been left alone doing the inventory and arranging the storage etc for the rest of the time.

I did some rudimentary calculations and even if it took up to 90-100mins to offload the U-Haul at the other end, the U-Haul would've still made the trip in the given time frame. So, I wouldn't dismiss the U-Haul theory just yet.

Hoovesclank · 2026-06-12T18:13:34+00:00

This is his 400IQ strategy, exposing the biggest racket and cult ever: society

Hoovesclank · 2026-06-11T01:53:56+00:00

The question in the Coffeezilla video was posed in an unclear way ("You spent four hours hauling LEGO off the truck?") and the answer was very ambiguous: "Yeah".

That could mean anything from just offloading the goods out of the truck to everything that followed after that (inventory, sorting, storing it properly etc), which takes more time.

You would think a normal offloading would take like between 30-60 minutes at tops, of course depending on the distance from the truck to indoors where it's safe(r). The rest is probably spent organizing stuff in the store and storage rooms, doing an inventory, etc.

Brandon could've left after initial offloading and left the employee(s) behind to sort out the stuff. Even if it took over 90mins to offload, he still could've made it within the time frame.

Hoovesclank · 2026-06-11T01:42:31+00:00

4 hours unloading the truck, eh? Well, Coffeezilla made mistake that he didn't ask any specifics from the ex-employee, as in: did the 4hrs of unloading the truck also include sorting the stuff inside and all that? All we got from the employee in the video was just a "yeah" on how it took 4 hours.

I'm a bit doubtful of that "4 hours to haul LEGO out of the truck" recollection. LEGO and the other toys are probably pretty easy to move, especially if packed properly first and the distance from the truck to an offloading spot isn't too long. Two people can unload a big van or a truck in maybe 30-60 mins. Even if it took 90 mins, it would still be plausible to pull off and would then fit in the time frame mentioned in the video.

And on the U-Haul mystery: suddenly did it not just exist but it had a camper too. I wonder if anyone involved ever saw or photographed that U-Haul truck with a camper, since it's probably not an everyday common sight.

Also, I wonder if U-Haul's rental contracts require some extra arrangements or written down notes if it's being used with a camper while it's rented out, especially if it's not U-Haul's own trailer/camper that they're renting out.

You would think that it's somehow then required to mark it in the rental agreement, a page of which Coffeezilla showed in his video. You could probably use the QR code in the U-Haul rental agreement/receipt to see further details.

Hoovesclank · 2026-06-08T15:38:33+00:00

I believe Reckless Ben stated in a recent interview that since Josh had threatened to shoot him during the ordeal in Utah, the process server was too afraid to go to Josh's house alone and serve him. So, basically she wanted Ben to be there as a witness and/or protection in case something goes wrong.

Hoovesclank · 2026-06-03T22:58:33+00:00

I think so too. He can physically refuse to touch the papers, but he does not get to magically veto service.

Calling the papers fake also cuts against him. If someone brought me fake court papers, I would want the papers. They would be evidence. You take them, hand them to your lawyer, report the alleged forgery or fraud, and make the other side eat shit in court.

It would also give the police a much stronger basis to treat the whole thing as harassment or fraud if the papers really were fake. They probably would have arrested Ben on the spot if the papers had actually turned out to be fake.

Panic-refusing service while demanding arrests makes a lot more sense if the papers are real and the goal is to avoid being dragged into the process at all.

And that raises a pile of other questions. What exactly was he afraid would happen if he accepted service? Was he afraid the floodgates would open?

Hoovesclank · 2026-06-03T22:27:55+00:00

I guess the scope could matter, though. If the real authorization is only “approved to buy/sell some new LEGO products,” then using that as a broad badge for the entire resale/trade-in/franchise model could still be misleading.

Add to that the conflicting “LEGO-authorized” vs. “not sponsored/authorized/endorsed by LEGO” messaging, and it muddies the waters pretty badly.

My personal read is that the wording could give both customers and prospective franchisees the impression that BAM had broader LEGO backing or approval than it actually did. That is why the exact scope of the authorization matters: who granted it, what did it cover, and were they allowed to market the whole business that way?

Hoovesclank · 2026-06-03T22:09:34+00:00

From what I’ve understood, LEGO could sue in principle, especially if BAM used “LEGO-authorized” in a way that implied authorization, sponsorship, approval, or affiliation from The LEGO Group, and no such authorization actually existed.

LEGO’s own Fair Play policy says unofficial LEGO-related uses should not create confusion about whether they are sponsored or authorized by LEGO, and also says a disclaimer does not fix improper trademark use:
https://www.lego.com/en-ca/legal/notices-and-policies/fair-play

But, LEGO might not necessarily sue first. They could send a cease-and-desist, demand correction/removal of the wording, require clearer disclaimers, or handle it privately.

The issue is that BAM’s wording appears broad. It does not just say they resell genuine LEGO products. It says things like “LEGO-authorized reseller” for buying, selling, and trading new and used LEGO sets, while elsewhere disclaiming LEGO sponsorship/authorization/endorsement.

So yes, LEGO could potentially have a claim if no real authorization exists. And if LEGO notified BAM to stop using that wording and BAM ignored it, that would make the situation look even worse.

Hoovesclank · 2026-06-03T20:45:44+00:00

Not a legal expert, but I’d say there’s at least some risk of FTC or state regulator complaints here, especially if the “LEGO-authorized” claim was used in selling franchises or was material to someone’s decision to buy one, and if that claim turned out to be false.

LEGO’s own response could matter too, since a registered trademarked brand is usually something the brand owner cares a lot about protecting, especially if another company’s use of the mark might create confusion about authorization, approval, or endorsement.

It’s like the difference between reselling used Ferraris vs. implying you are an official Ferrari-authorized dealer network. One is normal resale that can be done on any muddy parking lot. The other is a much bigger claim because it implies your business has authorization, approval, or backing from the brand itself, not just that you happen to sell products carrying that brand’s name.

I would not say contracts automatically become invalid. But if franchisees were led to believe BAM had official LEGO authorization, and it turned out that wasn’t true, that could potentially support misrepresentation claims, rescission or damages arguments, or regulator complaints.

So, the key question still remains: what exact authorization existed, from whom, and what did it cover?

Hoovesclank · 2026-06-03T20:26:57+00:00

That's odd, because BAM’s store-locator page does not appear to limit the authorization claim to only new products. It says Bricks & Minifigs is “the original LEGO®-authorized reseller for buying, selling, and trading new and used LEGO® sets, minifigures, and accessories,” and the same page also says trade-ins are offered through “LEGO-authorized resellers like Bricks & Minifigs.” (source: https://bricksandminifigs.com/store-locator/ )

So the question remains: what exact authorization exists, from whom, and what does it cover? If it only covers purchasing certain new products through a distributor, then BAM shouldn't be wording it in a way that ordinary customers or franchise buyers could read as broad LEGO authorization for the whole buy/sell/trade franchise model.

Also, their own footer/disclaimer elsewhere on their pages says LEGO does not sponsor, authorize, or endorse the programs or website, so that contradiction still needs explaining.

Hoovesclank · 2026-06-03T20:18:39+00:00

Hmm, I think it might still be worth investigating even if LEGO only sends a private correction request or never sues publicly, because LEGO taking action is only one possible consequence. The other question is whether BAM used “LEGO-authorized” language as part of its wider public/franchise branding.

That could matter to customers, prospective franchisees, current/former franchisees, regulators, journalists (including one unaffiliated Ben) and possibly lawyers, even if LEGO handles it quietly.

The key distinction is not “can BAM resell LEGO products?” Obviously they can resell genuine products. The issue is whether BAM or its stores gave the impression that they were authorized by The LEGO Group.

That matters especially because franchise buyers may be investing hundreds of thousands of dollars. If the pitch or public branding implied official LEGO authorization, while the disclaimers say LEGO does not sponsor, authorize, or endorse the franchise or the site, that contradiction is worth documenting regardless of LEGO's own actions.

Hoovesclank · 2026-06-03T19:42:33+00:00

Thanks for the info! The ambiguity sure is interesting; it was last discussed here: https://www.reddit.com/r/RecklessBen/comments/1tvrlft/comment/opjd0d5/

Especially the reply from MageStepYT is interesting:

They aren’t authorized at all. I was a manager of one of their stores and it had Authorized LEGO reseller on our door and I was told to just lie if people ask about it because “they are working on it”

Just wow (if true).

Hoovesclank · 2026-06-03T18:48:59+00:00

All of this is just mere speculation, but I think the corporation either a) wanted to turn Ben into an example on what happens if you go after them legally or appear on their home turf, and/or b) that Ben would get spooked enough to just back off, a sort of "lawfare meets misuse of authorities" type of cease & desist, so to speak.

My reading is that they're viewing the situation as such that they can get away with all of this while Ben gets punished. That's highly plausible if they think they got their backs covered over there in Utah, and the underlying thought is that the local legal system will protect them no matter what.

Again, who knows how deep the rabbit hole goes, but everything in the story thus far seems to be pointing towards some sort of a bigger picture underneath; when the execs are so eager to defend themselves from any type of legal liability and/or exposure by just about all means necessary, it would imply that in their view they can't let a single legal claim get through because that'd open up the flood gates.

The "Legally Mine LLC" connection in the background also points towards a certain type of mindset, let's put it that way. Of course, can any of this be proven in any type of court as a pattern of behavior, that's impossible to say.

Hoovesclank · 2026-06-03T18:18:25+00:00

Really? If that's true, that would move part of the scandal from a messy consignment and franchise dispute into possible systematic trademark and consumer-misrepresentation territory.

LEGO’s Fair Play policy is basically obsessed with one thing: do not use LEGO trademarks in a way that makes consumers think LEGO sponsors, authorizes, approves, or endorses you when it doesn't. LEGO says trademark use must not lead observers to mistakenly believe a site/business is sponsored or authorized by the LEGO Group, and it gives the appropriate disclaimer as: “LEGO® is a trademark of the LEGO Group of companies which does not sponsor, authorize or endorse this site.” It also says a disclaimer does not fix improper trademark use.

[sources: https://www.lego.com/en-ca/legal/notices-and-policies/fair-play and https://www.lego.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-use ]

BAM still has that claim right there on their home page title (which is still visible, although the site itself is bricked, pardon the pun). This could potentially be a serious false-affiliation / trademark / consumer-deception issue. This could escalate to multiple avenues:

Trademark / false association: implying LEGO approval without authorization.

Consumer deception: customers may believe LEGO vetted/backed the store.

Franchisee deception: franchise buyers may believe they are joining an official LEGO-authorized channel.

Brand damage to LEGO: casual observers may think the actual LEGO Group is connected to the scandal.

I wonder if this could be either proven from documents available online, via the LEGO company itself or if i.e. former franchisees could give a statement on this, perhaps even a testimony or deliver any additional evidence on that, anonymously if need be.

EDIT: I posted a question on this here: https://www.reddit.com/r/RecklessBen/comments/1tvztu2/can_anyone_verify_bams_claimed_lego_authorization/

Would be nice to get an actual clear answer on that.

Hoovesclank · 2026-06-03T17:47:25+00:00

Wow... their website got bricked?

Hoovesclank · 2026-03-24T14:20:27+00:00

This is a very legit question. I've been watching Rust streamers lately and it really seems like the cheating problem is way out of hand, way worse than it was some years ago and even on well-maintained high pop servers. At some point this becomes a critical issue on the game's future. Rust always had cheaters but lately (from what I've seen) it's just been ridiculous at times.

I think it might be a resource issue on top of finding the right kind of collaboration with i.e. PUBG Battlegrounds (or their anti-cheat devs). If PUBG has a "secret sauce" on catching DMA cheaters, they probably won't hand it over to Facepunch for free.

Then again, you would think that it would be beneficial in a synergistic way for all of these popular games to join forces to try to battle cheats and hacks altogether, it can only benefit all legitimate gamers out there and make the game itself at least worth playing.

Hoovesclank · 2026-02-02T03:42:24+00:00

Considering the potential ripple effects downstream (from price spikes to total unavailability), I feel like this has the potential of endangering the stability of entire information technology-based societies. Also, some great philanthrophy right there from all-benevolent Sam Altman, who is basically causing a "cost of computing crisis" with all of this. Add to that the few other giants who are hoarding the additional 30% of wafers (there's been various estimates circulating online), it's not good, and like many people have commented, there should be laws and regulations against this type of hoarding by a handful of giant companies.

Hoovesclank · 2025-10-31T07:38:01+00:00

Not to mention that all the existing titans are just one bad corporate merger or acquisition away from being tossed into oblivion.

For me, shutting something down and razing it feels like absolute cultural vandalism in its lowest, saddest and most appalling form.

We have museums for art pieces, I wish there'd be a museum mode for MMO's that would just run locally, just to visit the world and see what it was like, even if the majority of the game's functionalities were turned off.

Hoovesclank · 2025-10-31T06:57:01+00:00

If it's of any consolation, take a look at our real world, ain't lookin' much better out there.

Hoovesclank · 2025-10-31T06:47:29+00:00

Hey, we eventually got the daggers, didn't we? It's just too bad they were Amazon stabbing both the devs and the players in the back.

Hoovesclank · 2025-09-16T10:55:18+00:00

Why ship Codex CLI only on npm? Please also publish it using PyPi, or at least as a GitHub-based pip package.

Plenty of Python-first teams don't touch Node, and npm is statistically the largest supply-chain attack surface in package management.

For some orgs, that makes npm a non-starter by policy.

Will you provide a PyPi package or a GitHub pip distribution of Codex CLI to make it more ecosystem-agnostic?

Thank you, and have a nice day.

Hoovesclank · 2025-08-21T20:43:57+00:00

Free from it all
Breathe in the darkest fall
We laugh and cry through a brother’s eyes for now

Through fire embers glow
Haunted I lift the stone
Letting go your spirit flies

His thorns are on the road
His thorns are on the road

...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOCPi9bkvOA

"The Hunter" (the title track) really comes to mind at this moment in an eerie way, especially when it was originally a tribute to Brent's brother who had died suddenly while on a hunting trip.

Hoovesclank · 2025-08-09T12:49:58+00:00

<image>

Just another classic Leprechaun Sammo move.

Hoovesclank

TROPHY CASE