I remember watching this when it was released and thinking, "Oh. They're just going to arrest her until they figure out what's going on. That's pretty illegal."

It turns out that this is Officer Hawkins, of American Fork Police. The same officer who conducted the hour-long traffic stop and search of the car containing Tyler Shaw and Ben Schneider. Before even telling the driver what the stop is about, he says "What's your name? Are you Ben?.... What are we doing boys?"

In this 2023 event, Officer Hawkins claimed there is a warrant for the Pam Bodtcher, but there is not. There is just a warrant to take the kids she is watching into DCFS custody for protection. After seeing one of the children is safe he says, "I'm just going to put you temporarily under arrest." He puts her in handcuffs and immediately starts questioning her without reading her rights before putting him in his car. She asked why she is in handcuffs, and he said "I have to detain you momentarily while I figure out which charges are going to go with that." In the moment, it seems like an understandable mistake given the horrific circumstances. But Officer Hawkins confirms on the phone there is no warrant a few minutes into her detention. He is asked by the other department to continue to detain Pam and says they've been cooperative and confused. The officer then tells her to hold her or keep an eye on the house.

"I'm not here to argue the logistics," he tells her as she sits in his car in handcuffs. He later tells her she is not under arrest, just detained. But there does not seem to be probable cause for either. Officer Hawkins explains part of what is going on to Bodtcher, and she asks "so you just want [Minor 1] and [Minor 2]?" He says, "It's not my case," while holding her in handcuffs.

The underlying case is pretty horrific. Two children were found severely abused and malnourished. Police found that Bodtcher had picked up two siblings of the abused children and brought them home to American Fork. But the detention continued long after they were found to be safe.

I think given the Franke case, and the race to find the other children this is an understandable mistake on its own. They were getting information from another department. But the detention was called out as unlawful at the time. After he got got more information from the other department on the phone, he still had no reason to believe Bodtcher had committed a crime. And with some of the other bodycam coming out of American Fork, it may indicate a practice to arrest first and figure out the reason later.

Back in Ben's case, on another day, it was a Lieutenant who cut down the sign and told an officer to keep looking for a reason to seize it. A Lieutenant is right under chief in the American Fork Police.

Extended Bodycam via KSL

I've obtained new bodycam video from three reports from police in Orem, Utah.

A personal plea: If you take the time to watch the ones that make you feel angry, please also take the time to watch the ones that make you feel sad or empathetic. Even if you think a story is a "hero versus villain" story, remember that most people don't fit neatly in either category.

The most significant is an hour-long video showing Bricks & Minifigs CEO Ammon McNeff talking to an officer at the Orem store on March 11, shortly before the police raid. Earlier in the day, "Reckless Ben" Schneider made an appearance at the Orem store, shortly after being released from jail for his first stalking arrest in American Fork.

The second and third reports are both from after the first video was released. The second one was heartbreaking. On May 29, a brother who said he keeps his distance from his brother's businesses called police for advice after his 13-year old son began receiving unsolicited phone calls and text messages. He sounds tired and legitimately afraid. On May 30, Matt McNeff and his wife called police to report threats to them and their children. An officer followed up on May 31 on another instance of a sibling unaffiliated with BAM Franchising receiving threats.

Do not harass or threaten people's families. Do not harass or threaten anyone. If you are the type of person to want to cause people to fear for their safety, you do it because you are a weak little garbage person who likes to cause fear. You are not helping anyone. This is merely an excuse.

Orem Police redacted all civilian names, including the name of the county jail, from the reports. I think that is excessive. All redactions were done under a public records exemption that allows an agency to withhold release of "data on individuals the disclosure of which constitutes a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." They also declined to waive the fee, charging $125 in staff time to make the redactions.

On the other hand, they provided a log of each video redaction, none of the audio was muted by officers at any time, the request was processed very quickly, and the timestamp was visible through the entirety of each video.

The videos and reports seem to show officers responding to things in a pretty typical way. They show empathy for the complainants, but acknowledge the limits of the law and the need to review the evidence before acting. It does not appear that police in Orem ever encountered Ben directly, or pursued any charges. Only one report includes him as a suspect, and it is from shortly before the police raid.

I think these videos undercut the "Mormon Mafia," theory, where people suggest that Utah police and judges are at BAM's beck and call. In the first video, you can see Ammon flip between strategies to try and get traction with the police. There is even a "can I speak to your manager" moment where he complains about how unresponsive Detective Dore has been.

Don't get me wrong. Causing an armed police raid, an email search warrant, and a prior-restraint TRO is real power. But I've long said they boxed themselves in by overstating their case. This seems like more evidence of that flailing.

I reached out to both Reckless Ben and Bricks & Minifigs in advance to offer an opportunity to view the videos in advance of release, suggest additional redactions, and comment. Bricks & Minifigs did not respond. Schneider did view the videos and provide comment, but did not respond to more detailed questions.

March 11, 2026 Bodycam - Report 26OR04733

Bricks & Minifigs CEO Ammon McNeff calls Orem Police. There is a lot here. In the middle of it all, Josh Johnson calls multiple times while the GoFundMe banner is being hung.

It is the most complete statement that I've seen of Bricks & Minifigs' version of events from before the first video. They were still piecing together a lot. I don't even think they knew Ben's middle name.

At one point, Ammon says he believes Ben was sexually abused as a child, causing him to become a sociopath. He attributes this to a search that they've done finding a sex offender from Ohio with the same name.

This was a serious ethical question for me. There is an ethical duty to protect the identity of a minor victim of a sex crime that has to be balanced against other factors. I reached out to Schneider, who told me that it is untrue.

Schneider said in a written statement:

Anyways, I would like for this to be my official response to the police bodycam footage if you're going to include one for me:

"Goo Goo Gaa Gaa. Goo Goo Gaa Gaa."

(I just feel like this is the most appropriate way to respond to someone acting like a baby.)

Schneider clarified that this response is specifically directed at Ammon and the first video. He said he found the bodycam videos about threats to family members sad. He did not respond to more detailed questions.

Other notable things:

• The officer confirmed there was not a no-contact order from the first arrest.
• Ben's photo was distributed to stores with instructions to call police and corporate.
• The BAM incident log in the civil suit says "trespass ordered" for this case. But the report and video reflect that none was ever ordered.
• Ammon is frustrated with Provo Police and American Fork Police for not doing enough.
• There is a mention of fraudulent gift certificates that I have not seen before. Maybe that is connected to the raffle?
• McNeff talks twice about arming staff.
• Ammon met the officer at the local store near BAM Franchising Headquarters.
• This was one of Detective Dore's first cases as a detective.
• No charges ever emerge from Orem.
• BAM did know at this point that Ben's glasses recorded.
• An earlier draft of BAM's evidence for the civil lawsuit exists as part of this case file. I would imagine if any of the lawsuits or hearings go to trial, the lawyers will pick through that. (I still doubt the civil lawsuit will go to trial. I don't think that would be good for Ben or Bryan or BAM.)
• At this point, they had not identified Sheldon Norcross.
• One thing that has always driven me nuts: There is no detail on the death threats supposedly from Ben or his co-conspirators to employees of the Salem/Keizer store. Ammon says they said "Hey, we're going to kill you if you don't give this guy his money back." Maybe there will be more once I get the Provo reports.
• He says, [Chrys Gorman] "leaves and then she's like, 'Oh, by the way, I've got this consignment thing.' And we're just like, 'Okay, we don't know what you're talking about.'" I'm not sure at this point if he has seen the video.
• The Orem officer tells Josh not to go out and confront anyone. Josh goes out and confronts people. Then yells at his neighbor about letting them hang up the sign.
• The Orem officer repeatedly tells them how to apply for protection orders. That would define limits on what contact Ben could have with the named people. From what I can tell from the records, they never apply for such an order.
• The officer says in the video he is going to file for commercial obstruction. It does not appear in the report. I'm unsure if the American Fork arrest or other facts change that.
• The report states that he did later hear from American Fork Police that they got a "warrant for the individuals involved." That sure sounds like American Fork Police described the goal of that search warrant as arrests.
• Ammon asks about getting in touch with a supervisor for Detective Dore and also name-drops a Lindon, UT officer, Matt Barlow. (Who appears to be retired.)

May 29, 2026 Bodycam - Report 26OR10603

This one is heartbreaking. Please watch it and sit with it. The impact is more in the voice than the content. There are no true threats made. But it's a person who has sought distance from his family having that distance taken by some random person sending messages to his 13 year old son. He just sounds sad, and tired, and legitimately fearful.

His understanding is secondhand, forced to contact his family more than he seems comfortable with to find out what is going on. He starts by telling the officer:

My two brothers own a business called Bricks & Minifigs. And a YouTuber exposed them for something shady that went down and they've all received death threats from the online communities. My brothers, their wives, and their children. And it hasn't been until yesterday or the day before the online community started researching deeper and finding us siblings.

He says, "I don't associate with my brothers very often. I don't agree with a lot of the things they do." But his son has started getting calls and texts asking for messages to be sent to Ammon. He is fearful that now that his son's number is out there, he'll start getting threats. He is understanding with the officer when he is told that there is not much to be done. There is no allegation here that Ben was behind any threats.

May 30, 2026 Bodycam - Report 26OR10664

This is another significant one, but also heartbreaking. Bricks & Minifigs COO Matt McNeff and his wife talk with the police about death threats they and their children received. In giving background, he also gives more information on what is going on inside BAM Franchising after the TRO is granted.

• The tone of he and his wife are tired and sad and scared.
• Matt says that Bryan Mansell refused to provide documentation, continued to escalate, and then "hired" Reckless Ben.
• "Our lives have been nothing but hell since" Reckless Ben released the first video.
• He said his wife has had panic attacks after threats.
• He described a particularly disturbing one, "'Give that man his life savings back, you rat.' Then three emojis of a gun. And then he put a picture of my brother's Facebook profile with family members pulled up, and shows my sister, two of my cousins, my wife, and then my brother's brother-in-law."
• This was the day after American Fork Police chief put out their own statement, which Matt references. "And frankly, the American Fork Police video does a very good job of calling out his BS and you know, very calmly and factually stating that he's fabricating multiple facts in this case."
• They mention the TRO, which at this point is unserved.
• "YouTube is basically saying they won't take the videos down until he gets served and we have proof of service to him."
• "We feel like we've tried the whole way through to do the right thing here and had just been stonewalled by that guy who claims that his collection was stolen."
• "People are referencing Luigi Mangione."
• Says there are active FBI and US Postal Inspection Service investigations.
• Says the Utah County DA is asking Provo for the case file to pursue charges. This wound up not happening. Lesser charges were brought by the Provo City Attorney's Office.
• The officer does confirm that he sees in a Provo case file that it is being referred to the FBI.
• "This is speculation on my part. I feel like the former franchisee Chrystal Law.... was angry when we terminated her franchise, and I think that she's been colluding with [Redacted. I suspect it is Bryan Mansell] to essentially try to harm the brand and harm us directly.... I actually believe that they have all that inventory they're claiming is missing. I have some potential evidence to back that up, but that's..."
• They are genuinely concerned for their safety and that of their family.

May 31, 2026 Bodycam - Report 26OR10664

This is another sad one. In this case, another McNeff relative with no connection to BAM Franchising got explicit death threats. It is the same officer and case number as above. There is no allegation here that Ben was behind any threats.

One More Time

Don't threaten people. Especially don't threaten kids, spouses, or employees. Remember that people can only rely on the information they have at the time. Someone saying something that you now know to be false does not mean they knew it to be false when they said it.

EDIT: This is for people who want the raw videos. Take or leave my opinions. But before you assume I’m some sort of shill: Watch the videos themselves. Take a look at my post history. Take a look at the easy-to-read bulleted lists in this new post. Ask yourself: is this is something BAM, its PR team, or its lawyers would want out? Or just wait until later until content creators cut it into bite size pieces.

My Reporting

I do this in my spare time. I've always been a bit of a public records nerd. I've also always been more interested in finding information than writing about it. I may not be have time to check this much today after posting.

Go to my post history to see my reporting on this, and https://chrisreportsthings.com to see the documents I've obtained.

I've spent more than $1000 collecting documents and releasing them publicly. This request alone was $125 and many hours of time. If you would like to help offset that cost, you can do so at https://ko-fi.com/chrisreportsthings. As I get more police documents, it is becoming more expensive and less predictable.

If you have information that would be helpful, reach me via reddit DM, via email at yo@chrisreportsthings.com, or confidentially via Signal at chrisreportsthings.08.

Bricks and Minifigs published a new blog post. I just skimmed it. I haven't had time to read it. The change in tone seems significant.

Go to my post history to see my reporting on this and https://chrisreportsthings.com to see the documents I've obtained.

I've spent more than $600 collecting documents. If you would like to help offset that cost, you can do so at https://ko-fi.com/chrisreportsthings

If you have information that would be helpful, reach me here or on Signal at chrisreportsthings.08

I took all of the spyglass footage I could find from BAM Franchising HQ and put it in chronological order.

It did help me understand how the whole interaction went down. I'd like to see the full video.

There are some parts, specifically around the trespassing and extortion allegations, that I really want to see.

Based Ben's statements, court documents, and police reports, it looks like Ben went to BAM HQ on three days: Dec. 9, 2025, Dec. 10, 2025 and March 9, 2026.

Let me know if I missed anything that is publicly available or made any errors.

I asked Provo PD, Reckless Ben, and BAM if they could provide what they have. Provo PD declined. Neither Reckless Ben nor BAM have responded. I didn't expect anyone to give it to me, but I want to be transparent about my process.

See the police reports and court documents I've collected at https://chrisreportsthings.com

There is a Webex hearing today for the misdemeanor trespassing and disorderly conduct charges out of Provo today at 11 a.m. Mountain Time.

It is a pre-trial hearing. So it will likely be a little boring. Court is not like TV. This will mostly be procedural stuff. There are other hearings schedule for the same time. It may not start with that one.

You can join the Webex here:
https://utcourts.webex.com/utcourts/j.php?MTID=m50ade32d281cdc6d53c5742cff7cbace

You have to register. Make sure you keep your microphone muted, your camera off, and your display name neutral and appropriate. Court rules forbid broadcast or recording of the proceedings. Disruptions help no one and threaten access to future proceedings. They're not secret, though. You are free to discuss it.

I did file a request for Electronic Media Coverage to allow broadcast and recording of proceedings, but it was denied for lack of proof that I met Utah's definition of a news reporter. I filed a renewed request demonstrating that I did on Thursday morning, but the courts were closed Friday so I have not yet heard back. This does not affect your ability to join the Webex and watch live. It just affects whether audio and video can be publicly rebroadcast. If I get approved, anyone would be allowed to rebroadcast.

If it is approved: I will re-stream it so that you do not have to register and join on Webex to view. Then I will release a video and audio recording immediately afterwards. I will post the link here. It will probably be Twitch, as I don't yet have access to YouTube Live.

If it is not approved: I will post a summary and transcript here after the fact. I have also requested a copy of the audio. That can take anywhere from hours to weeks to receive. I will also push to get approved for future hearings. You can still watch live via the Webex link above. I will probably also post a separate story about that, since I think the denial itself would be itself reportable.

The next hearing scheduled for any case is August 12 for the misdemeanor Stalking and Targeted Residential Picketing charges out of American Fork. I have a summary of the different cases and information about viewing them here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/RecklessBen/comments/1u7ymf3/viewing_the_hearings_online/

Documents and audio of previous hearings are here:
https://drive.proton.me/urls/F7M4041WVR#tpZekJz4T5wx
This is Provo v Schneider. Case 261000376.

If you'd like to help offset my expenses following these cases, you can do that here: https://ko-fi.com/chrisreportsthings

He saw the return time. He found it inconclusive, based on how U-Haul checks in returns.

Both parties again filed their joint request to modify the TRO and issue a preliminary injunction in BAM v Schneider, this time in front of a different judge. The changes are the same as requested by the parties jointly in State court. Utah District Judge Tony Graf had not yet signed it when defendants filed for federal removal Friday evening. Federal removal freezes all state proceedings in a case.

The order would, when signed, remove the extraordinary speech restrictions from the TRO. It would replace it with a more standard Preliminary Injunction.

For more, see my previous post when the joint motion was first submitted: Breaking: BAM Backs off of Ben Ban

The documents (11-0 and 11-1) are on RECAP and in my Proton Drive.

As this is the same order that was initially proposed days ago, there is a lot of analysis on what it would mean from people who know much more about the law than I do. I am not a lawyer. I am just a public records nerd.

EDIT: It appears BBQ Counselor caught this before me. He is a civil litigator, so his analysis will be much better than my summary.

EDIT 2: I will be hanging out with my nephew today. So I won't be able to check for new documents regularly. But the case should be updated on RECAP anytime someone with the RECAP extension checks the case on PACER. And that can be you! PACER is free if you spend less than $30 in a quarter. Today is the end of the quarter.

I received some responses to additional audio requests from the court.

The only two new things are: (1) His income was way too high for a public defender. And (2) The prosecutor requests to put limits on his access to discovery.

If you want him to stay out of jail, listening to this will probably make you happy that he now has lawyers in all of his cases. It doesn't appear that there has yet been a response from the Prosecutor about discovery in this case.

These are both for hearings in the American Fork case. (Stalking and Targeted Residential Picketing. The next hearing for this case will be August 12.

April 8
https://voca.ro/19liwjLdgTeV

May 20
https://vocaroo.com/1eyVHg7rot5f

They're also available in a downloadable format in the Proton Drive at https://drive.proton.me/urls/F7M4041WVR#tpZekJz4T5wx

April 8 Transcript (AI Generated)

Judge Low: Our last 8:30 is Benjamin Schneider. I don't know that he's here. I haven't seen his name, but I'd just like to make sure he's not waiting. Okay, Mr. Schneider, are you there?

Ben Schneider: Yeah, I'm here.

Judge Low: Thank you. You've been charged with stalking, a class A misdemeanor, and targeted residential picketing, a class B misdemeanor. The class A is up to a year in jail, the class B is up to six months. You have the right to a lawyer, and if you can't afford one, we'll appoint one. What are your plans regarding an attorney?

Ben Schneider: Uh, I've called some lawyers and they said just do this first court case, and then meet with them after and see what... uh, yeah, I sent... here, yes.

Judge Low: All right, so you intend to try to hire your own?

Ben Schneider: Yes.

Judge Low: All right, your next court date with me will be on May 20th at 9:30 in the morning. That'll give you time to meet with an attorney, hire them, and make sure that you and he or she are with you on May 20th at 9:30, okay?

Ben Schneider: Okay.

Judge Low: Can I ask you how you got the link for today's hearing?

Ben Schneider: How did I get the link? Through... uh...

Judge Low: Okay. All right, I just want to make sure we had your email address. My clerk just told me we do. So you're good. Have a good day.

Ben Schneider: Okay, thank you so much.

Judge Low: You're welcome.

May 20 Transcript (AI Generated)

Judge Low: And Mr. Benjamin Schneider, if you could unmute and let me know that you're there?

Ben Schneider: Okay, I'm here.

Judge Low: Okay, thank you. Um, I don't see that you've hired an attorney either. Any progress on that front?

Ben Schneider: So, I have been looking for attorneys and calling them, and basically every single one has just recommended that I take on this case myself and don't hire them. They said it should be a pretty easy case for me to do. I think there's a lot of misunderstandings and that I can clear up, so.

Judge Low: All right. Are you asking to represent yourself or would you prefer that I see if you qualify for a public defender?

Ben Schneider: Oh no, I just want to represent myself.

Judge Low: Alright, you do have that right, and I won't deny it of you unless I find that there's a reason why you can't. Uh, tell me what schooling you've completed.

Ben Schneider: So some of the um lawyers I've talked to, they actually requested that I request the public defender just to get the footage of the body cams, because um, right now I kind of don't even know what I'm being charged for because all of the body cam footage has been redacted, and they say it's to protect the victims. However, he's... I think there are some redactions that maybe don't make sense and that weren't to protect the victims, and there's some things being said in the redactions that I don't know about.

Judge Low: Sure. Let me follow up on that, Mr. Schneider. Do you have any income currently?

Ben Schneider: Uh, yes.

Judge Low: How much do you earn?

Ben Schneider: Uh, it varies month to month, but about 20k a month.

Judge Low: Well, then you don't qualify for a public defender. Did you finish high school?

Ben Schneider: Uh, yes.

Judge Low: Did you complete any college?

Ben Schneider: Yes.

Judge Low: Do you have any mental health diagnoses?

Ben Schneider: Uh, no.

Judge Low: Have you ever represented yourself previously in a criminal case?

Ben Schneider: Um, uh this is my first time in court, never been in trouble before.

Judge Low: Have you ever represented yourself in a civil case?

Ben Schneider: Um, I did one time, yes.

Judge Low: What kind of case was it? What was the case?

Ben Schneider: Um, I was doing a documentary on this guy who was torturing people, and so I sued him and won.

Judge Low: All right. Was it a small claims case then?

Ben Schneider: Uh, yes.

Judge Low: All right. In small claims cases, there's uh very relaxed rules of procedure. Here in district court, the rules are tighter, stiffer, more uh or less lenient, I guess, more strict. So uh I just need to let you know that you'll be required to abide by the same rules and statutes as a lawyer would, and you might be at a disadvantage because you don't know what those rules and statutes say unless you do some really good research. Do you understand that disadvantage inherent in representing oneself?

Ben Schneider: Uh, yes, sorry the Wi-Fi cut out for a couple seconds, can you repeat what the disadvantage is?

Judge Low: Just that you may not know the rules that are applicable to your case, but you'll be responsible for knowing them even if you don't, meaning I can't excuse your non-compliance just because you don't know what the rules are. Do you understand that?

Ben Schneider: Yes.

Judge Low: Also, any statements you make in court are um recorded and could become evidence to be used against you later on. An attorney's statement on your behalf isn't any sort of evidence that could be used against you. But anything you say could later on be used against you. Do you understand your right to remain silent and the necessary waiver of that right should you represent yourself in this case?

Ben Schneider: Yes.

Judge Low: All right. You still want to represent yourself?

Ben Schneider: Yes.

Judge Low: The court will allow it. We'll set this matter over to July 1st at 8:30 in the morning. We'll put you on the earlier morning calendar and give you time to request discovery. And uh before I move on though, uh Mr. Farr, I do see a proposed protective order in the file. Did you want that signed?

Prosecutor Farr: Yes, Your Honor, and then I do have some concerns um in this case with the defendant representing himself. The allegations here um relate to the fact that the defendant um he's a person who uh he's a YouTuber um creates videos, publishes them online, and um has been uh uh trying to communicate with our alleged victim here, JJ. Um there's been attempts to go to his home. I think there's attempts to film him. Uh there's some you know the allegations are some harassment of this person at his home. If this defendant were to represent himself and we were to provide body cams and discovery, we would be now providing additional um information and fodder for this defendant to create videos from which he could profit by placing them on YouTube at the expense of our victim. I have serious concerns for that to this person's rights. Um and so you know and I what we have here is a defendant that is out of state and I don't know how well we're going to be able to assert jurisdictional authority over him if he were to violate any of the court's orders on um disseminating further the discovery. Uh and so I mean you know I I'm happy for us to provide the written discovery with the redactions of the of the victim's um addresses. But as far as body cams and such I would prefer that the court allow us to state that our records are open, he can come and he can arrange for a time to go to the police station or somewhere else to watch those videos to gain the information that is necessary, but that he would not be getting a copy of them because of the potential that those would be used to further harass our victim. This is a stalking case.

Judge Low: Mr. Farr, do you mind if I just interrupt, we're so far behind. There's not even a request for discovery filed yet. Would you mind addressing that after a request is filed?

Prosecutor Farr: Understood. Yes.

Judge Low: Okay, thank you. For today we're just going to allow Mr. Schneider to represent himself. Now Mr. Schneider, you may file a request for discovery. Uh the court's inclined to sign this pretrial protective order unless you have an objection to it, Mr. Schneider, and it's uh supportable. It would require you to have no contact with Joshua Johnson. Any objection to such an order?

Ben Schneider: Uh, yes, I think there's a bunch of misunderstandings in this case. I think there have been lots of basically uh the prosecutor's correct when he says that I am a YouTuber, I make documentaries on YouTube. I basically look at cases that of people doing really bad things and I expose them. And so this person doesn't want to get exposed, so he's making up a lot of lies about me to order to like get me arrested before he gets exposed. So that's what this whole thing's about, and so I would like to object and clarify everything.

Judge Low: Okay, so you think it shouldn't be entered because you're innocent. Really what the court's looking at is to see if there's any need you may have to have contact with Mr. Johnson, any prejudice that would occur to you if the court signed it.

Ben Schneider: Yes.

Judge Low: What's your prejudice?

Ben Schneider: Um, that I have done nothing to warrant it being signed.

Judge Low: Alright, thank you. Mr. Farr, I guess the concern for you is this is a pretrial protective order under the domestic violence act and this is not a domestic violence case. Do you have a legal basis for its entry?

Prosecutor Farr: Uh, I think that pretrial protective orders are also allowable under 78B. Let me pull up the statute. Um 78B protective orders chapter 7 criminal protective orders part 8 pretrial protective orders um qualifying offense under oh...

Judge Low: If you're just reading 78B-7-803 then yeah, the qualifying offenses are domestic violence offenses, aren't they?

Prosecutor Farr: I thought that Your Honor, I I we we I mean optically look at the stuff that I believe that the these are available we get them in sex offense cases all the time any any case where we have a victim who is being um... oh I just saw it. Never mind. It includes stalking.

Judge Low: Yes. So there is a statutory basis for it. Mr. Schneider, the court's going to sign this order and serve it upon you and require that you comply with it in the meantime. The address I have for you is on [removed] in Los Angeles, is that a correct address?

Ben Schneider: Yes.

Judge Low: Alright, if you see a deputy uh come to your porches just to give you a copy of that order uh they're not there to arrest you at least not from me anyway. It's just to give you a copy of this order. If you violate this order, not only will new charges be filed but there's a possibility that you'd be held in the county jail without possibility of bail because you've demonstrated you can't follow pretrial orders. So make sure you read it, comply with it, have no contact with Mr. Johnson and uh your next hearing will be on like I indicated July 1st at 8:30. That'll give you time to file your request for discovery with the state. For the state to file any opposition they may have. You've already been given a preview that they may object to you having physical copies of uh the body camera or the videos if that's what you're going to be seeking. But we can address those issues at a later date if you'd like. Okay?

Ben Schneider: Alright, yes.

Judge Low: See you July 1st at 8:30, have a good day.

Ben Schneider: Great, thank you.

I'm curious where things will go in federal court.

I'm not yet sure that BAM is against this move. Both sides had de-escalated and come to a stipulated agreement to avoid an evidentiary hearing that I don't think either of them wanted. There were signals that Judge Graf was going to force the hearing, and possibly tear into both parties.

I think there were some indications that the removal may have been put together in a rush. So, my two theories are: (1) BAM and Ben's teams both wanted the removal to freeze the proceedings and give them room to negotiate; or (2) Ben's team realized the deal was going to fall apart and that the coming fight would be more friendly in federal court.

I think we'll know more today. A judge should be randomly assigned shortly after the court opens. The filings will tell if this is a mutual delay tactic or the start of a new fight. (Or something else, entirely. I am not a lawyer.)

You can find out more on RECAP. It updates when someone with a PACER account and the RECAP extension updates it.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73542292/bam-franchising-inc-v-schneider/

I will also continue to host the documents at https://chrisreportsthings.com so you can view everything in one place and save their servers.

PACER = The antiquated government website to purchase and view federal court filings. Pay by the page, but fees are waived if you spend less than $30/quarter.
RECAP = The Free Law Project's project to make PACER information accessible and FREE to all on courtlistener.com. But it is only updated when a person with the extension views the case.

Help Keep RECAP Up to Date

You can help keep this up to date for free! Anyone can get a PACER account and buy documents. If you have the RECAP extension, the updates you receive are automatically shared on RECAP for everyone to view, download, and track for free. The extension does seem to slow down your downloads. I'm fine with this, as it is hosted as a non-profit public service.

If you spend less than $30/quarter, the fees are waived. PACER is somewhat antiquated, making it difficult to track your spending. This quarter actually ends on Wednesday. It's $0.10/page with a limit of $3.00 per document. (Transcripts and audio are separate.) Just keep track of what you spend, since PACER doesn't update your count right away. I did once accidentally spend $94.50 one quarter tracking this case. They didn't send anyone to my house; they just locked me out of PACER.

To update the docket in a case, go to the blue "View on PACER" button in RECAP. It will charge $0.10 from your PACER quota. The "last updated" time is in the local time of the court. In this case, Mountain Time.

Use Your Quota Before Wednesday, July 1

This quarter ends June 30. If you have extra quota, there is a "Pray and Pay" project to help make documents accessible for others with your extra quota before the quarter ends. (The top one, CLIN v. Rubio, is not available on PACER, so don't try that one.) I am also curious for updated documents on this case and this one. Just be careful, because there is not a good way to check your spending in real-time if you're not actively tracking it.

If I have time, I'll try to make an instructional video on this. Maybe I can get someone from the Free Law Project to talk to us about what to expect in the federal courts.

With that, I'm going to go touch some grass.

Someone said that they were interviewed by a Wall Street Journal reporter at the American Fork protest. (WSJ = Bananas editorial page. Terrific reporters.)

I'm sure someone will post the text when it comes out. But check out if you get free digital access to the Wall Street Journal with your library card! For example, my local library gives out three day digital passes to both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal on their website.

Increased use of library resources helps libraries. And increased actual readership of stories about something other than the DOW incentivizes newsrooms to do more stories about things outside of Wall Street.

Stories that actually get read also get promoted more on newspaper websites and social channels.

The reporter was Joe Barrett.