Video summary

They Tried to Throw Me in Jail Before This Documentary Came Out

Main summary

Key takeaways

News and Commentary

Overview

The video is presented as Reckless Ben (Ben Schneider) going to court while claiming he is being targeted in a Lego-business dispute involving Bricks and Minifigs and its CEO, Aimon (Aamon) McN, to prevent him from releasing and speaking publicly about a documentary.

Court, gag/protective order, and alleged “mystery charges”

  • Ben says he is not being told what he’s accused of because of a pre-trial protective order and redacted body-cam/discovery footage.
  • He argues the state of Utah claims the secrecy is to prevent him from using the allegations as YouTube content, calling it an unusual rationale.
  • Ben says the court signed the protective order before the judge substantively considered the evidence he offered.
  • He expresses additional concern about the defendant (or a key accused person) representing himself, arguing it could create opportunities for content that could harm alleged victims.

The core dispute: stolen Legos vs. obstruction/false reporting

  • The story begins with Ben claiming he tried to help a family whose Lego collection was allegedly stolen by Bricks and Minifigs.
  • Ben alleges the CEO’s position shifts over time—e.g., denying prior knowledge of people/collections, then changing the narrative.
  • Ben claims the company made false statements to police.
  • After Ben produced security camera footage he believes shows inconsistencies, Ben says police still pursued the company’s/CEO’s claims.
  • Ben repeatedly frames the CEO’s conduct as lying and obstruction of evidence, while arguing his own evidence should have been taken seriously.

“Uno reverse”: Ben says he tries to pursue the CEO instead

  • Ben describes what he believes is a strategy where Bricks and Minifigs tries to get him arrested first, while he attempts a counter-investigation targeting the CEO/Bricks and Minifigs.
  • He claims police ultimately chose to pursue one side’s case instead of his, despite what he calls “overwhelming evidence.”
  • He says when he couldn’t reach a specific Provo officer, he later received mail confirming police were taking the CEO’s case—something Ben interprets as ignoring his evidence.

Evidence disputes and police skepticism

  • Ben argues raw footage contradicts the CEO’s claims, but authorities consider his submissions “not credible” or incomplete about what allegedly happened.
  • He cites an example where police supposedly told the CEO that a charge like extortion didn’t fit Ben’s situation, but later suggested another possible charge.
  • Ben says the footage shows multiple warnings to leave, while the CEO/Bricks and Minifigs reportedly presented a different version to police.

Company communications: “inventory list” refusal

A major theme is Ben’s claim that Bricks and Minifigs refuses to provide a complete inventory list needed to verify what was taken or stored.

Ben portrays a recurring pattern:

  • promises to provide inventory,
  • delays or non-responses,
  • eventually a message stating Ben should not request information intended for media or “provocation/harassment.”

He claims Bricks and Minifigs effectively barred him from getting the inventory list, preventing resolution for months/years.

Legal/media backlash: defamation, lawsuit, and “silencing”

  • Ben says Bricks and Minifigs is suing him, including defamation claims.
  • He says the company portrays him online as a harasser/keyboard warrior/extortionist (and in his telling, more severe allegations as well).
  • Ben claims a judge issued a temporary restraining order preventing him from speaking about the company—effectively gagging him.
  • He argues the restraining order was granted without a meaningful opportunity for his side/evidence to be considered.

“Freedom of speech” aftermath and Ben’s proposed resolution

  • After prolonged silence, Ben says the restriction is lifted and he can speak again.
  • He frames this as regaining First Amendment rights and claims legal experts suggest he could pursue major damages.
  • Instead, he proposes a symbolic resolution: Bricks and Minifigs should apologize via doing a “chicken dance,” which Ben says would demonstrate sincerity through actions matching words.
  • He ends by promoting additional Lego-related content and merchandise for his ongoing media project, including Patreon and future parts.

Presenters / contributors (named in subtitles)

  • Ben Schneider (Reckless Ben)
  • Aimon / Aamon McN (CEO of Bricks and Minifigs)
  • Josh (referenced in court/protective order context; first name only)
  • Brandon Best (appears in communication quoted to Ben)
  • Nick Miel (prosecutor)
  • Sheldon (friend mentioned in an obstruction story)
  • Sheldon’s officer interaction (police officer referenced indirectly; not named)
  • Detective / Provo Police officer (named only as “officer friend from Provo Police”; not named)
  • Jerome (protest supporter)
  • Crystal Law (former franchisee mentioned)
  • Brian Mancel (referenced as someone whose Lego collection was allegedly at issue)
  • Joshua Johnson (referenced in merchandise/context; first/last name provided)

Original video