BAM’s own words, fact-checked

#BAM’s filings, fact-checked against themselves

The other side of the ledger. Sixteen material statements in BAM’s own sworn RICO complaint and its regulated Franchise Disclosure Document that its own filings or the official record contradict.

A verified complaint is signed under oath; an FDD is a regulated disclosure a CEO certifies as factually true. So these are not arguments — each is a documented self-contradiction in the very papers BAM is suing on. Both the statement and the contradicting source are linked, and each carries its grade.

What this is and is not. Self-contradiction is what the law calls a judicial admission when sworn, and a regulator’s business when filed — hard to wave away, but whether any omission was knowing is a question for a franchise examiner or a fact-finder, not something the paper settles by itself. This section does not assert proven fraud; it sets out the impeachment that powers the defense. The dollars implicated are documented but modest and state-law (the Mansell consignment loss is roughly $10,000–$20,000 net, principally a Salem-franchise accounting dispute, never the “$200,000” BAM pleaded); fraudulent transfer is not a federal-racketeering predicate, and the cross-victim throughline is H.J. Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989)^⌖ pattern evidence, never a summed recovery.

1. CONTRADICTED Its one affiliate, Bricks by the Box, is “a Utah limited liability company.” FDD Item 1
   ↳ BAM’s own audited financials (Note 1, Organization) call the same entity “a Virginia Limited Liability Company.” FDD financials, Note 1
2. CONTRADICTED The Exhibit J franchise-seller forms name one set of sellers. FDD Exhibit J
   ↳ The FDD’s own receipt names a different set: three people with seller forms (Carson Bird, Ernesto Olaza, Ashley Wells) aren’t on the receipt; three on the receipt (Conover, Brakemeier, LaBonte) have no form. FDD receipt
3. CONTRADICTED “We have registrations … on the principal register” of the USPTO. FDD Item 13
   ↳ The only registration the Item then lists is on the supplemental register, and the same Item concedes “we do not have a federal registration on the principal register” for the mark. FDD Item 13 table
4. CONTRADICTED The “BAM” standard-character mark (SN 98706031) is something it has merely “applied to register.” FDD Item 13
   ↳ The USPTO had already registered that mark on the Principal Register (Reg. 8,046,031) on Dec 2, 2025 — four months before the April 2026 FDD — to BAM Franchising, Inc. itself (not to the BAM IP Holdings vehicle). USPTO Reg. 8,046,031 ↗
   Confirmed against the case file: the mark registered 2025-12-02 to BAM Franchising, Inc., and no USPTO assignment into BAM IP Holdings exists — the IP carve-out is built but unfired. See the legal element below.
5. CONTRADICTED The 2025 revenue quartiles (Table 2) cover the same 153 units as the revenue total (Table 1). FDD Item 19
   ↳ The four quartiles sum to $77,976,942 — $301,252 more than the filing’s own stated 153-unit total of $77,675,691. FDD Table 1
6. CONTRADICTED The combined 159-unit revenue quartiles (Table 8) cover all franchise and corporate units. FDD Item 19
   ↳ They sum to $78,737,962 — $1,842,285 short of the filing’s own 159-unit total of $80,580,247. FDD Table 7
7. CONTRADICTED 906,500 shares issued and outstanding (balance sheet, 12/31/2025 and 12/31/2024). FDD Item 21 financials
   ↳ The equity statement in the same audited set reports 926,500 shares at every balance date — a 20,000-share discrepancy. FDD equity statement
8. CONTRADICTED 906,500 shares “issued” equal 906,500 “outstanding.” FDD Item 21 financials
   ↳ The same balance sheet discloses 52,270 treasury shares, so outstanding would have to be 854,230, not 906,500. FDD balance sheet
9. CONTRADICTED Zero Oregon outlets were reacquired from franchisees in FY2024. FDD Item 20
   ↳ BAM’s own verified complaint swears it terminated and repossessed the Salem store from its franchisee on 11/14/2024. Verified complaint ¶27
10. CONTRADICTED The audited financials disclose no related-party sale of the Salem store. FDD Item 21
    ↳ BAM’s complaint swears it sold that store in Q1 2025 to Josh Johnson and Brandon Best — who its own FDD shows are a corporate franchise-seller and its repossession inspector. Verified complaint ¶¶46, 50
11. CONTRADICTED The Salem buyers were “bona fide third-party purchasers” at arm’s length. Verified RICO complaint
    ↳ BAM’s own 2026 FDD lists Josh Johnson as its “Franchise Development Recruiter, May 2023–Present,” and the Oregon registry shows Best, BAM’s repossession inspector, incorporated the buyer entity the day after the seizure — not arm’s-length third parties. FDD Item 2 + Oregon registry
12. CONTRADICTED Johnson and Best acted “without actual knowledge” of Mansell’s consignment claim. Verified RICO complaint
    ↳ The complaint’s own narrative places their knowledge of that exact claim in November 2024 — months before the Q1-2025 sale. Verified complaint
    The contradiction stands; what it implicates is this. The consignment liability here runs principally to Chrystal Law / the Salem-Keizer franchise (the consignment agreement is signed “by Chrystal Law, Owner”), not BAM corporate; and the converted-goods loss is modest (~$10,000–$20,000 net, after the consignor’s own offsets), never the “$200,000” BAM pleaded. Documented, contested, unadjudicated.
13. CONTRADICTED A $300,000 “damaging videos” extortion demand, sworn at ¶90 (a 2/5/26 call, by Chrystal and Benjamin). Verified RICO complaint ¶90
    ↳ The identical word-for-word threat is sworn a second time at ¶172 with a different date (“early 2025”) and different speakers (Bryan and Chrystal) — the same quoted demand pleaded two irreconcilable ways on a core racketeering predicate, and neither version names the critic. Verified complaint ¶172
    Why this row is load-bearing. This is the contradiction that powers the defense. On an anti-SLAPP special motion BAM must put competent evidence on every element; a predicate sworn two irreconcilable ways binds as a judicial admission, not proof. Lose this extortion episode and the racketeering claim cannot reach its required three-episode pattern — and a claim that fails the threshold is dismissed with prejudice. See “What this impeachment proves” below.
14. CONTRADICTED The audited financials carry one set of figures for the 12/31/2024 year-end. FDD Item 21 financials
    ↳ The 2026 FDD bundles three audited statement sets covering that same 12/31/2024 close, and they report its share and treasury figures inconsistently — the same year-end stated more than one way. FDD bundled audits
15. CONTRADICTED BAM is “a Delaware corporation, formed October 11, 2023” (Item 1), and its audited financials agree (“now recognized as a Delaware Corporation”). FDD Item 1 + Exhibit H, Note 1
    ↳ The franchise agreements, the signature blocks, and the notarized consent-to-service in the very same document describe an Oregon corporation — and Oregon’s registry shows that Oregon entity dissolved in June 2024. A franchisor that does not state consistently what it even is, in the filing a buyer relies on. FDD consent-to-service vs. Item 1
    This is a facial filing inconsistency, graded CONTRADICTED — it is not the “undisclosed parent” theory, which is REFUTED (the move was a routine DGCL §252 redomestication, not concealment). Keep the two separate.
16. CONTRADICTED (ADMITTED) Every FDD 2018→2026 states “we have no parents.” FDD Item 1
    ↳ The CFO’s own bio in the same filing calls him “CFO of the Franchisor and the Franchisor’s Parent since June 2016.” BAM’s audited financials consolidate at BAM Franchising as the top entity, so the likeliest reading is a contradictory filing, not a concealed parent — the documentable point is simply that the filing contradicts itself. FDD Item 2 (CFO bio)

#The disclosure that wasn’t true

What this impeachment proves — each legal element tied to the rows that establish it.

The most powerful use of all this is defensive. On an anti-SLAPP special motion under Utah Code 78B-25-101 et seq. (UPEPA), UT ST 78B-25-101, -107^✓, the plaintiff must come forward with competent, admissible evidence on every element — not allegations. Mackey v. Krause, 2025 UT 37, 575 P.3d 1162^✓ A verified complaint that swears its core $300,000 extortion predicate two irreconcilable ways (row 13) cannot clear that bar; a sworn contradiction binds as a judicial admission. Lose that episode and the racketeering claim cannot reach its three-episode pattern, and a claim that fails the threshold is dismissed with prejudice — the exposure runs toward Bricks & Minifigs, not toward its critic. This is impeachment of BAM’s own papers, analysis on the public record — not a finding of fraud, and not legal advice.

Discipline note (firewall). Self-contradiction is impeachment, not proof of fraud. The dollars are documented but modest, state-law, and non-summable; fraudulent transfer is not a federal-racketeering predicate and contributes $0 to any RICO figure; the only adjudicated victim dollars anywhere (Peterson $7,800, satisfied; FTC/iMall $4M, 1999, a different enterprise) are stated individually, never combined. The cross-victim “same method” throughline is H.J. Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989)^⌖ pattern/relatedness evidence, never a recovery. RICO predicate acts are NOT established. Allegations stay allegations; the criminal matter carries the presumption of innocence.

Discipline note. The “$200,000” that appears in BAM’s own Exhibit C description is the critic’s promotional headline number (“$200,000 of LEGO”), not a documented loss; Ben has conceded it was an eyeball figure for reach. The figures the record actually supports are the point-of-sale and inventory numbers (on the order of ~$107K gross and ~$61K POS), and the “$200,000 stolen” framing stays REFUTED. This update is impeachment of BAM’s own filing, not a finding of fraud, and not legal advice.