Bricks & Minifigs Still Hasn't Learned Anything They Continue To Lie In New Article
Credibility score: 47/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "Bricks & Minifigs Still Hasn't Learned Anything They Continue To Lie In New Article" and rated it 47/100 for credibility (a BS score of 53/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-06-29. Its weakest claim — "Bricks & Minifigs' statement uses hedging language like 'believes and alleges' and 'may be relevant'." — scored 45/100 and was flagged as volume game. 16 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 16 claims analyzed: 0 scored under 40, 15 between 40 and 69, and 1 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Citing an article about Bricks and Minifigs seeking an 'amicable resolution' with the Mansel family. — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:00
They're just quoting the article title here — no spin yet, just setting the scene. 📰
Why this score: The speaker is simply relaying information from a BusinessWire article, including its title, which states Bricks and Minifigs is looking for an 'amicable resolution.' This is presented as direct reporting, not a claim of truth or falsehood from the speaker.
Original quote: “As you can see, it says here, BusinessWires posted an article based on a new BAM franchising statement on the Grand Theft Lego case. The title is confusing, but it reads as Bricks and Minifigs is resolved to find an amicable resolution with the Mansel family.”
Bricks & Minifigs' statement uses hedging language like 'believes and alleges' and 'may be relevant'. — Volume Game (45/100)
At 0:30
They're 'believing and alleging' facts 'may be relevant' — that's a lot of words to say 'we're not really sure, but here's some stuff.' 🤷♀️
Why this score: The statement from Bricks & Minifigs uses cautious, legalistic language ('believes and alleges,' 'may be relevant') which allows them to present information without fully committing to its factual certainty. This is a classic 'volume game' where a claim is made, but immediately softened with caveats, giving the impression of transparency while maintaining plausible deniability.
Original quote: “Subject to its ongoing investigation, Bricks and Miniigs believes and alleges the following facts, among others, may be relevant to claims made in recent weeks.”
Speaker quotes Bricks & Minifigs statement using 'believes and alleges' and 'may be relevant'. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:30
B&M's statement uses 'believes and alleges' and 'may be relevant' to sound official while committing to nothing. Legal speak for 'we're just saying stuff' 🤷♀️
Why this score: The speaker is quoting Bricks & Minifigs' statement, which uses cautious, non-committal language like 'believes and alleges' and 'may be relevant.' This phrasing allows Bricks & Minifigs to introduce information without fully asserting its truth, creating an impression of carefulness while avoiding definitive claims that could be easily disproven. It's a classic legal maneuver to present a narrative without taking full responsibility for its factual accuracy.
Original quote: “Subject to its ongoing investigation, Bricks and Miniigs believes and alleges the following facts, among others, may be relevant to claims made in recent weeks.”
Dismissing a $200k valuation as a 'promotional' figure for a sales event. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 2:30
Calling the $200k a 'promotional higher value' without explaining *why* it's not a 'praised value' is a classic move. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker is downplaying the $200,000 valuation by labeling it 'promotional' and linking it to a sales event, implying it's not a 'true' or 'confirmed' value. However, they don't provide any evidence or reasoning for *why* it wasn't confirmed or why a promotional value can't also be a realistic one. It conveniently dismisses a higher figure without fully explaining the discrepancy, leaving out context that might make the $200k seem more legitimate.
Original quote: “A so-called promotional higher value of $200,000 is is believed to have circulated publicly in 2023, but was apparently not confirmed or praised value. Bricks and minifigs believes this was an amount Brian Mansel and Law Gorman used to create excitement for Log Gorman November uh for a Log Gorman…”
Citing an estimate for retail value that 'seems to align' with public statements and alleged requests. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 2:30
They're saying an estimate 'seems to align' with public statements and alleged requests. That's not a hard confirmation, just a soft vibe check. 🤷♀️
Why this score: The speaker presents an estimate of the retail value and then states it 'seems to align' with other information. The phrasing 'seems to align' and 'allegedly sought' introduces a degree of uncertainty, yet it's presented as a supporting detail without concrete verification. It's a confidence mismatch because the alignment isn't definitively proven, just suggested.
Original quote: “uh highest retail value at approximately 95,000 to 100,000. That estimate seems to align with Brian Mansel's public statements as of April 2025, collecting weekly podcast and with the roughly 80,000 in products or cash he allegedly sought when he believed to have visited the store around November…”
New owners found few Star Wars products, company suggests most were sold/removed before takeover. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 4:30
The article's claim about 'small number' and 'suggests most may have been sold' is vague AF. Where's the audit? 🕵️♀️
Why this score: The article's statement that new owners found 'only a small number' of products and that the 'company's investigation suggests most... may have been sold or removed' is presented without specific evidence or details of the investigation. This lack of transparency and reliance on a vague 'suggestion' creates a significant gap in context, making the claim hard to evaluate independently. It's a classic move to shift blame without showing the receipts.
Original quote: “It says, uh, when the new owners, Brandon Best and Joshua and Josh Johnson took over the Salem location, they discovered in the store only a small number of Star Wars products with an estimated at cost value between 2,000 and 5,000. The company's investigation suggests most of the rain collection…”
Dismissing the article's claim that most inventory was gone before new owners took over. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 4:30
The article says 'suggests' but the speaker's 'I don't believe this' is pure gut feeling. No evidence, just vibes. 🤷♀️
Why this score: The speaker is directly contradicting a claim from an article (which itself uses hedging language like 'suggests') with a strong personal disbelief ('I don't believe this'). This is a confidence mismatch because the speaker offers no counter-evidence at this point, only a differing opinion, yet states it with certainty.
Original quote: “It says, uh, when the new owners, Brandon Best and Joshua and Josh Johnson took over the Salem location, they discovered in the store only a small number of Star Wars products with an estimated at cost value between 2,000 and 5,000. The company's investigation suggests most of the rain collection…”
Doesn't buy it, but can't say with 100% certainty. The classic 'I'm just asking questions' dodge. — Volume Game (45/100)
At 6:30
Starts with a strong doubt, then immediately backpedals with 'can't say with 100% certainty.' It's a rhetorical dance.
Why this score: The speaker expresses strong skepticism ('I don't necessarily buy this') but then immediately qualifies it with 'can't say with 100% certainty' and 'until we see some evidence.' This allows them to voice a strong opinion while simultaneously shielding themselves from needing to provide definitive proof, playing both sides of the fence.
Original quote: “So, I I don't necessarily buy this. Again, can't say with 100% certainty, right? Until we see some evidence to back that up, right?”
Doesn't buy it, but can't say with 100% certainty. The classic 'I know, but I can't prove it' move. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 6:30
Starts with 'I don't buy this' then immediately hedges with 'can't say with 100% certainty.' Pick a lane, chief! 🤷♀️
Why this score: The speaker expresses strong doubt ('I don't necessarily buy this') but then immediately undermines that confidence by stating they 'can't say with 100% certainty.' It's a rhetorical dance where they want to cast doubt without fully committing to a definitive statement, creating an impression of skepticism without the full burden of proof.
Original quote: “So, I I don't necessarily buy this. Again, can't say with 100% certainty, right?”
B&M says it's an isolated incident, pushing blame to one franchisee. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 8:30
Calling it 'isolated' while ignoring the broader systemic issues being raised. Conveniently narrow focus. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker is highlighting that Bricks & Minifigs is trying to frame this as a one-off issue with a single franchisee, deflecting from potential systemic problems or corporate oversight, which the video implies is a pattern.
Original quote: “We also want to reinforce this is an isolated unfortunate incident related to a single franchise franchisee who did not obtain an approval for any consignment agreement.”
B&M calls it an 'isolated incident' — minimizing the scope 🚩 — Missing Context (45/100)
At 8:30
Calling it 'isolated' ignores the wider community sentiment and other alleged issues. Conveniently narrow framing. 🤏
Why this score: The speaker is reacting to Bricks & Minifigs' statement that this is an 'isolated unfortunate incident.' This framing attempts to minimize the impact and scope of the problem by suggesting it's a one-off, rather than potentially indicative of broader systemic issues or multiple complaints, which community comments often suggest. It's a classic move to control the narrative.
Original quote: “We also want to reinforce this is an isolated unfortunate incident related to a single franchise franchisee”
Corporate claims consignment wasn't authorized, but the speaker points to post-fact acceptance. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 10:30
Corporate says 'unauthorized,' but the speaker's like, 'Uh, you accepted it later, remember?' The timeline matters! 🕰️
Why this score: The speaker highlights a crucial piece of context: even if the consignment was initially unauthorized, the company's alleged acceptance of responsibility after the fact (via phone call and termination letter) changes the narrative significantly. Corporate's statement omits this subsequent action.
Original quote: “in some way or another, they were kind of notified at least even after the fact, right, with the consignment agreement as as we know when Crystal told him over the phone, hey, there's consignment here. So even even if it was quote unquote unauthorized beforehand, we have the problem of them…”
Claiming Bricks & Minifigs accepted responsibility after the fact, despite their current stance. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 10:30
Saying they accepted responsibility 'after the fact' but then denied it later. The goalposts are moving faster than a Lego race car. 🏎️💨
Why this score: The speaker highlights a discrepancy: Bricks & Minifigs allegedly accepted responsibility for the consignment arrangement via phone and a termination letter, yet now deny it. This implies a shift in their position, making their current denial seem disingenuous without full context of the timeline or specific wording of the 'acceptance'.
Original quote: “even after the fact, right, with the consignment agreement as as we know when Crystal told him over the phone, hey, there's consignment here. So even even if it was quote unquote unauthorized beforehand, we have the problem of them accepting responsibility for it after the fact on the phone and in…”
Bricks and Minifigs' claims of Log Gorman's unpaid debts and royalties. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 12:30
They're just repeating Bricks and Minifigs' side of the story without any counter-evidence or context. Convenient, isn't it? 🙄
Why this score: The speaker is presenting Bricks and Minifigs' allegations as fact without providing any context or counter-arguments from Log Gorman's perspective. This is a classic 'he said, she said' situation where only one side is being highlighted, leaving out crucial information that might change the narrative. It's like reading a police report from only the arresting officer. 👮♂️
Original quote: “So, Bricks and Mini Fig believes that as of November 2024, Log Gorman had stopped making payments on the purchase of the location, had not paid royalties for multiple months, and owed tens of thousands of dollars and other unpaid expenses.”
Believes Bricks & Minifigs would've screwed the Messers based on a template letter. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 14:30
Going from a 'belief' to a 'would have' based on a template letter is a leap of faith, not evidence. 😬
Why this score: The speaker expresses a strong belief about what Bricks & Minifigs 'would have' done, using a template letter as the basis. This is an inference, not a direct statement of fact or a confirmed action, yet it's presented with high certainty. It's a speculative conclusion based on circumstantial evidence.
Original quote: “I believe they would have based on the letter the termination letter that Relic received that we now know seemed to be a template that was actually meant for the Messers.”
Predicting a settlement in federal court, not a trial. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 16:30
Predicting a federal court outcome with such certainty? That's a bold guess, not a legal guarantee. 🔮
Why this score: The speaker expresses high confidence that the case will go to settlement rather than trial, especially now that it's in federal court. While this is a common outcome for many lawsuits, stating it as a near certainty without specific insight into the current negotiations or legal strategies of the parties involved is a confidence mismatch. It's an informed opinion, but presented with the weight of a foregone conclusion.
Original quote: “They still they're still suing him, right? He I think rejected whatever whatever offer they put on the table beforehand. I still think this this case, especially now that it's in federal court, is going to be is going to be one that goes to a settlement.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →