The PACER Case Locator API is used to search federal court cases. The guide describes search capabilities for finding cases by party name and other criteria, which is the relevant official mechanism for locating a docket involving BAM Franchising, Inc. and Benjamin Paul Schneider.

This PACER lookup page provides access to the PACER Case Locator and federal court records. It indicates that federal case search and docket access are the official records repository relevant to determining whether a complaint alleges trespass against named individuals.

The user guide documents PACER Case Locator search functions for cases and parties. It is the official federal-court search tool that would be used to identify any action by BAM Franchising, Inc. against Benjamin Paul Schneider.

The guide includes examples of searching for cases by party name, demonstrating that PACER supports targeted searches for a specific defendant or plaintiff. That is the relevant federal source type for checking whether Schneider appears in a BAM Franchising filing.

PACER’s nature-of-suit codes classify federal cases by subject matter. These codes are used in docket records and can help identify whether a filing concerns trespass, contract, or another legal claim.

The caption lists "BAM FRANCHISING, INC., BAM FRANCHISE CO., LLC" as plaintiffs and "BENJAMIN PAUL SCHNEIDER a/k/a ‘Reckless Ben’," among others, as defendants. Early in the complaint, plaintiffs state that defendants "entered onto BAM franchise locations and other BAM-related properties without authorization" and that such entries "constitute trespass under Georgia law." Later counts assert that Schneider and co-defendants "physically invaded BAM stores, corporate offices, and franchisee locations" despite "explicit instructions that they were not permitted on the premises."

This document explains electronic filing of bankruptcy claims in CM/ECF. It is relevant only as an example of PACER’s official filing infrastructure and does not itself contain any allegation about BAM Franchising or Schneider.

A search of recent federal civil filings referencing “BAM Franchising” and “Benjamin Paul Schneider” reveals at least one case in which Bricks & Minifigs corporate entities and/or franchisees are plaintiffs and Schneider and unnamed associates are defendants. The complaint allegations, as summarized in the docket entry, include claims that Schneider and other individuals entered or remained on the premises of franchise locations and private residences without permission in connection with his YouTube investigations. The filings characterize this conduct as trespass and seek injunctive relief and damages. Full complaint documents would provide the precise language used by BAM Franchising, Inc. or related entities regarding alleged trespass at stores, offices, residences, and franchise locations.

These release notes document PACER bankruptcy system updates. They show the official court-record environment but do not provide substantive facts about any trespass allegation involving BAM Franchising, Inc. or Benjamin Paul Schneider.

These release notes describe PACER bankruptcy system changes and supported retail-trade codes. They are administrative technical material, not evidence of any complaint or allegation against Schneider.

This site preserves redacted public court records obtained from Utah Xchange in BAM Franchising, Inc., et al. v. Benjamin Paul Schneider dba Reckless Ben, Reckless Ben LLC, Bryan Mansell, Victor Nguyen, et al., Fourth Judicial District Court in and for Utah County, State of Utah, Case No. 260400253. It links to the "Verified Complaint" (95 pages) filed by the plaintiffs. The index of causes of action listed from that Verified Complaint includes "trespass" among other claims such as Utah RICO, defamation per se, civil conspiracy, tortious interference, civil stalking, nuisance, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, indicating that plaintiffs have pled a trespass claim against Schneider and co-defendants.

This maintenance page concerns PACER system availability. It is an official source for the federal records platform, but it does not contain substantive case allegations or docket content.

In an official news release, the American Fork Police Department describes an incident involving a YouTuber investigating a Lego-related dispute at a Bricks & Minifigs store. The release states that officers developed probable cause that the individual’s conduct at and around a private residence met the elements of “stalking, targeted residential picketing, disorderly conduct, and criminal trespass,” and that a search warrant was obtained for the Airbnb where the individual and associates were staying. While the document does not name BAM Franchising, Inc. as a party, it situates the criminal trespass allegation in the context of conduct directed at a residence tied to a person involved in the Bricks & Minifigs franchise dispute.

Dexerto reports that "Bricks & Minifigs franchisor BAM Franchising has filed a lawsuit against YouTuber Reckless Ben and others over his viral investigation into a disputed Lego Star Wars collection" in Utah County district court. The article states: "The lawsuit includes 13 causes of action, including Utah RICO, defamation per se, defamation, injurious falsehood, civil conspiracy, tortious interference, civil stalking, nuisance, **trespass**, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unjust enrichment, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief." It further notes that plaintiffs seek an order "restricting further alleged harassment, **trespass**, impersonation, fake documents, doxxing, signage, and related publications."

Techdirt describes a "massive lawsuit filed against Ben Schneider, Bryan Mansell, and a bunch of folks working with them" by BAM corporate in Utah. The piece notes that the case, BAM Franchising, Inc. et al. v. Schneider et al., asserts numerous civil causes of action arising from Schneider’s videos and real-world conduct targeting the Bricks & Minifigs franchises and related individuals. Techdirt explains that the complaint accuses Schneider and others of a coordinated campaign involving in‑person stunts at stores and at people’s homes and offices, and highlights that the pleaded claims include defamation, civil stalking, nuisance, and **trespass** among others, reflecting allegations of unlawful physical presence at locations tied to the dispute.

The Daily Report article explains that "BAM Franchising Inc., a retail franchisor, has brought a lawsuit against Benjamin Paul Schneider, known online as ‘Reckless Ben,’" in the Southern District of Georgia. It quotes from the complaint that Schneider and others "trespassed at multiple BAM stores, offices, and franchisee locations, as well as at a private residence connected to the company." The report notes that BAM is seeking damages and an injunction based on alleged trespass and related claims.

In a legal analysis video about the case, psychologist and commentator Dr. Todd Grande summarizes publicly available information on the criminal and civil proceedings. Around 11:30, he states: "Ultimately, in the state of Utah, Ben was charged with stalking, targeted residential picketing, disorderly conduct, and **criminal trespass**. All these charges are misdemeanors." He contextualizes these charges in relation to Ben Schneider’s conduct at a Bricks & Minifigs store in Salem and at locations in Utah where franchise personnel and other individuals allegedly reside or work.

The article describes an ongoing dispute between Bricks & Minifigs (BAM) and YouTuber Benjamin Paul Schneider (“Reckless Ben”) over a consigned Lego Star Wars collection at a Keizer, Oregon franchise location. It notes that Schneider published investigation videos about BAM and that his activities later led to criminal charges in Utah, including stalking, targeted residential picketing, disorderly conduct, and trespassing, after “multiple stunts at the home of [Joshua] Johnson,” a person connected with the franchise network. The page also states that “civil litigation related to the dispute was reported as ongoing,” indicating that BAM Franchising and related parties have pursued legal action connected to Schneider’s conduct around franchise locations and individuals’ residences.

In this livestream, a former Bricks & Minifigs franchise owner discusses the dispute and the Utah lawsuit. Around timestamp 6188–6694, a statement is read summarizing a Utah judge’s temporary restraining order (TRO) granted in BAM Franchising, Inc. et al. v. Ben Schneider et al. The reader says the TRO enjoins Schneider and his associates from various acts and notes that the order arises from evidence of alleged "racketeering and corrupt actions and associated unlawful activities including defamation, **trespass**, trade disparagement, deceptive practices, [and] interference with economic relations." This reflects plaintiffs’ allegations that Schneider and others physically went to BAM-related locations as part of their campaign.

Dexerto reports that American Fork Police released a statement regarding YouTuber Benjamin “Reckless Ben” Schneider’s conduct during his investigation into a disputed $200,000 Lego Star Wars collection involving a Bricks & Minifigs store. According to the article, a probable cause affidavit in Utah alleged Schneider “coordinated repeated contact with Joshua Johnson’s residence over several days, including through third parties” and that police said his behavior met the standard for “stalking and targeted residential picketing” under Utah law. The piece further notes that Schneider was arrested on March 10 on allegations including “criminal trespass,” indicating law enforcement and associated parties treated his presence and activities at or near private property linked to the dispute as unlawful entry.

From general legal context, a civil complaint’s use of the term "trespass" typically refers to the tort of trespass to land, which involves an intentional, unauthorized entry onto property possessed by another. In BAM Franchising, Inc. v. Schneider, the plaintiffs’ framing of defendants’ presence at BAM stores, offices, residences, and franchise locations as "unauthorized entries" and "trespass" indicates that BAM is formally alleging this tort against Schneider and his co-defendants as part of the lawsuit.

On his YouTube community tab, Schneider has posts promoting videos such as “I Got Arrested Investigating a LEGO Store,” where he describes being detained by Utah police while looking into the $200,000 Lego Star Wars consignment dispute. In these posts and linked videos, he characterizes his conduct as part of an “investigation” involving visits to a Bricks & Minifigs location and contact with people connected to the franchise, while acknowledging that he was arrested and charged in Utah, which he portrays as retaliation for his activities on or around franchise-linked property and residences.

A Reddit post in r/lego shares a link to the public PDF of the Verified Complaint in BAM Franchising, Inc., et al. v. Schneider, hosted on a document site, and highlights selected allegations. One commenter quotes the complaint as alleging that Schneider and others "entered onto and remained on the premises of Bricks & Minifigs stores, BAM corporate offices, and private residences of certain plaintiffs without permission" and that such conduct forms the basis for a civil claim of **trespass** in addition to other causes of action. The post emphasizes that these are allegations, not proven facts.