June 3, 2026 • 27 mins
On the Monsters Attorney "Friendly" Ray Traendly of TK Law discusses the arrest of YouTube-er Reckless Ben for a series of confrontations in connection to a dispute over a valuable Star Wars LEGO collection.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, friend with us.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
He's going to be with us on Friday, and he
brought a blast from the past.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
I forgot last year when.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We did the Monsters Live at Night and then Ryan
had his stand up bit like I got cloud noses
for everybody.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
Cloud noses for everybody, and you kept your clown nose.
I kept my cloud nose. That's aound's not here. But
uh yeah, we're still thinking about him. He's getting his
colon oscary today.
Speaker 4 (00:23):
He needs it. He needs to clear something.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Guy.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
He was so worried about it. I mean, I mean
he was all.
Speaker 5 (00:28):
What if I die? And I was like, well, then
I get to run your segment.
Speaker 4 (00:32):
That's so sweet of you.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Yeah, so the show is basically over now Amber is
going to be taken over there.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Well, yeah, segment.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Instead of the King of Denmark today it's the Queen
of the Ring will be doing a segment.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
Could she still be a queen without a belt? Is
that how that works?
Speaker 1 (00:46):
I don't.
Speaker 4 (00:47):
I don't know the rules.
Speaker 5 (00:48):
The champion and we have a new belt coming yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
Yeah, yeah, but the belt that I'm the auctioning off
on Friday.
Speaker 5 (00:55):
We're going to have it.
Speaker 6 (00:56):
Ryan's just Ryan's He's a thief and there's something fishy
going on here, and I think he took it.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Right if there's no I mean right, if there's no
proof and she's calling him a fief, that.
Speaker 4 (01:08):
Could be defamation. She should be opening herself up to
a lawsuit right now.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
Yeah, you don't, do you know that he took it?
Speaker 6 (01:15):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (01:15):
I do. I don't know. It seems like wild speculation
to me. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Yeah, because for those who don't know Ambernova's wrestling belt,
I'm supposed to be auctioning off on Friday and she,
for whatever reason, doesn't have it.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Normally you have it.
Speaker 6 (01:30):
I left it here in studio in a very secure building.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
It wasn't here yesterday.
Speaker 4 (01:35):
That's secure.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
Yeah, you have to let you in, right, You've got
weapons on you and.
Speaker 6 (01:42):
Everything, security codes and stuff to get in the through
front door.
Speaker 5 (01:45):
I'm through the elevator to the fourth floor. Come on, like,
this is a secure building.
Speaker 6 (01:50):
We we know Ryan took it, and I'll tell you
why we know.
Speaker 5 (01:54):
I have probable cause.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
What's your probable cause? I want to hear that. Yeah,
I love.
Speaker 6 (01:58):
I'm talking to a professional, a lawyer right now. So
the last time the belt was seen was with me.
This is like playing the game Clue, guys, Monday on
Monday on Monday with me, Angel and and and Ryan
and the three of us were in studio right here,
(02:19):
and we and we were all here together. It was
the championship belt, the last ones. So this is like
the game of Clue. And it was Ryan with the
championship belt in the studio.
Speaker 5 (02:31):
Okay, he did it?
Speaker 4 (02:32):
Is there anybody in the studio?
Speaker 6 (02:33):
Angel was here, Yeah, and Angel Angel knew I was
leaving the title here because I was coming back Wednesday morning.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Well, okay, Monday the Colbert Show was here like after Yeah,
but Jim, people come through it.
Speaker 5 (02:46):
But here's the thing.
Speaker 6 (02:47):
If Jim didn't want it on camera during his show,
he would have just tucked it underneath right in the desk.
Speaker 5 (02:51):
He would have left it.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
Someone so could so that might have happened. So but
Jack said he didn't touch it.
Speaker 5 (02:56):
Right, So I've already now you're blaming Jimmy.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
Now you're you're blaming Jimmy.
Speaker 5 (03:01):
No, I've already checked. Jimmy's on the clear.
Speaker 4 (03:05):
Jim, that's professional legal talker.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
Jimmy's on the clair.
Speaker 4 (03:11):
Okay, So what about Dad?
Speaker 6 (03:13):
I don't know I've already gone through the office. I
even talked to some promo girls just now so we
know where it was last scene and Ryan did it?
Speaker 3 (03:22):
Was there anybody here before you? Or who comes in
first on Tuesdays us Tuesday morning? Yeah, I'm the first
one in here. He why why isn't Rest on the
suspect list?
Speaker 5 (03:35):
Rust didn't take it?
Speaker 4 (03:36):
It's that means really his belts.
Speaker 5 (03:38):
It's his championship, champion, and he needs it.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
I need it for Friday.
Speaker 4 (03:42):
It's true.
Speaker 5 (03:43):
So why would he play the whole where is it game?
That's just annoying.
Speaker 6 (03:46):
We have other things we have we have better things
to do.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Actually, we have better things to do right now, that's
the question.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Right have you been paying attention to There's a new
documentary out and it's about the murdal has that how
he's saying murdal trot. Remember the murder murder where he
was convicted of murdering his daughter, his wife and his son. Yeah,
but they're during the whole case, right, the clerk of
the court was talking to all the jurors and saying
(04:16):
stuff like, hey, you gotta watch that guy, he's shifty,
or you can't trust that guy. And we're gonna ask you,
I don't know exactly what the clerk of the court does.
You know, for like like here in Orlando, do we
have one person that's the clerk of the court. Is
it a man, is a woman? What's their responsibility? What
do they do?
Speaker 3 (04:34):
Depends on the county, depends on whether it's a man
or a woman. It can be both. We have a
woman in Orange County. We have a man in Semnal County. Yeah,
and their job is to handle all things court house administration,
so everything from website to HR and personnel, to budgets
and funding to ideas on how to open the courts
(04:57):
and get more access to courts.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
So how many times is it allowed for the clerk
of the court to go, oh, there's a case. I'm
going to write a book about this case. Is that normal?
Is that normal?
Speaker 1 (05:06):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (05:06):
Not normal?
Speaker 3 (05:08):
You know, i'd have to go back into the anals
of time to see, you know, with like the Casey
Anthony or you know, the George Zerman trials. I mean,
I know the clerks who were clerk at that time.
I don't remember seeing any books, but I guess conceptually
it could be possible.
Speaker 7 (05:24):
This was common for like the judge, or there are
attorneys that are associated with a sensational case like that to.
Speaker 4 (05:30):
Write a book.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Yeah, I mean sometimes so, I mean there are some
circumstances with some of these really high profile cases. We
saw a bunch after O. J. Simpson's trial and stuff
like that. So if it's not terribly uncommon for people
to have this idea that they want to write a book.
But you know, so the clerk court, it's an elected position, right,
so they're a politician, and it's just kind of weird
(05:53):
that you try to jump on the fame train.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Well, this was a small South Carolina in.
Speaker 5 (06:00):
The town right actually my area where I grew up.
Speaker 4 (06:03):
How small is it.
Speaker 5 (06:06):
That's decently small.
Speaker 6 (06:06):
It's very close near So it was in like Walterborough
and over in that area. But his son was in
that major boating accident with the young girl that died
in Beaufort, South Carolina, where all the young kids were
out like drinking on the boat. Yeah, and she ended
up dying. So his that's the son that was killed,
that was shot. And I believe that his son was
getting into a lot of trouble and causing problems for
(06:29):
the family and that's why he shot his son.
Speaker 5 (06:31):
Well, along with other reasons.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
But yeah, I'm not I'm not sure what the reason was,
but I think, you know, depending you know, it could
be the biggest story, kind of going back to the reasons
the size of the town matters. It could be the
biggest story that's ever come out of that town. It is,
that's what they said on this documentary. And the clerk
could be just trying to you know, take some of
that fame.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
So what happens, So it's the clerk of the court.
She is talking to the jury and she's saying things
that could sway them. So now the conviction.
Speaker 4 (07:01):
Gets thrown out.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
It gets thrown out. So but they don't let him
out of prison, right, it's a judge decision. The judge
could make the decision to release him pending really trial. Yeah,
so they could let him go for a while and
then try him again.
Speaker 4 (07:14):
And they could try him again.
Speaker 3 (07:16):
Wow, and so, uh, you know, the problem is obviously
that that has a possibility of tainting the jury's decision
on the evidence. Right when when when there's a you know,
you think of it almost like a mayor. I mean,
it's not the mayor, but like think of like a
like that kind of power position.
Speaker 4 (07:35):
You know, they're.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
They normally here, here's the clerk of courts involvement. Normally
for a jury trial. They say, welcome to jury duty.
We're going to ask you a bunch of questions. There's
cookies and coffee in the back. Have a great day.
Speaker 4 (07:47):
And then they don't. You don't ever see them again.
They disappear.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
She was all in their business because she's writing this
book right right, and and and what the what the
I think a prosecuting attorney thought, is he thought, hey,
she it's in her best interest for him to be
guilty because it makes the book better.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
Yes, that makes sense. Yeah, I mean I guess logically
it makes sense. Right taking down this big town or
big time lawyer in this small town, you know, sounds
like a sensational book to me. But it's just it's
really unfortunate. And you know, I think she has him
explaining to do as to why she thought that that
(08:23):
was appropriate.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
So if you had to try that again, do you
use all the same evidence, do you try to do
it the exact same way?
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Or as a lawyer, do you have like, okay, we
have to take.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
A different approach this time, because hey, man, we he
was guilty.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
Last time, we flubbed it, and you know they didn't
really flub it.
Speaker 3 (08:40):
I mean there was another error, right, you know that
the oh you're talking about the defense attorney, Ye slubbing it.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Yeah, the defense attorney like, Okay, we get another shot
at this. Now we got to come up with a
different angle because last time we lost, and we get
another shot at trying to get him off.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
Yeah, you know, I think that that definitely has to
be a part of the conversation, right, you know, maybe
how some of the testimony was handled because he testified
in his own defense.
Speaker 4 (09:05):
He did, and it was it was not good now.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Not for sure, because he in his entire life, he
was always able to, you know, win people over. He's
a likable guy. Like even when I'm watching him talk,
I'm like, I'm a dumb dumb I was believe in him.
I'm like, oh, he could have done it, and he
seems so sweet, but but he did it.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Imagine going on a first date and trying to impress
the girl and meanwhile, like her friends in the corner
saying like, you can't trust that guy, he's a liar.
Speaker 4 (09:30):
Watch this he's lying.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
It taints it.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
It taints it, and so so you know, I don't
even know. I don't even know if the defense did
a poor job, because you know, part of what we
don't know is how much of an effect effect that
had on the jury, how much of an impact those
statements and comments made on the jury saying don't believe
anything that guy said. So, going back to your question,
(09:53):
I don't know if you do change your strategy. I
think they did a decent job, but I think you
definitely have to kind of re goo back to the
drawing board and reassess, you know, how they handled some
of the evidentiary issues.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
Okay, I have another question for it, and basically what
you're doing as you're helping me with my documentary TV watching.
Speaker 1 (10:11):
The next one I.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
Watched yesterday was called the Crash. I don't know if
angel I don't know if you've seen this all. Oh yeah,
this is making it a brutal all kinds of news.
It's an eighteen year old girl that questionable when it
comes to her sensibilities. I mean, you know, and she
is in the car with her boyfriend and some other
person and they've got the video and Basically, she goes
(10:34):
one hundred miles an hour, never puts on the brakes,
and goes runs right into a wall and kills the
two guys and she lives through it. And so here's
my question for you. So they're going to going to trial,
and she has the ability to choose to have a
jury or.
Speaker 3 (10:52):
Just have the judge decide, even though you could do
that for a murder trial. Yeah, I mean it's your
right to wave through your right to a jury.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Why would you pick just one person to make the
decision over a jury, Like, well, what if it were
you and you were her attorney, which would you have gone? Well,
tell me the different philosophies, because she went with having
just the judge decide and the judge that threw the
book at her.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Yeah, And that's that's the danger, right, because you're having
the judge be the judge and the jury in that situation.
And so conceptually, what a jury's doing is they're taking
all the testimony, they're hearing it all, and they're making
a decision on whether or not somebody is guilty or not. Right,
So there what we call the finders of the facts, right,
So you know, the whole idea of the legal system
is is you present on your side, presents their side,
(11:39):
and then somebody figures out whether or not somebody's guilty
or not.
Speaker 7 (11:42):
Well, a part of it also in regards to that right,
is the fact that the bias of the jury it's
a small town.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Well, and so when you're picking the judge as your jury,
essentially that's a big factor. Is that you want somebody
who's going to be unemotional, somebody who's not going to
be easily swayed by public opinion, and somebody who's going
to stick to the law in what the legal standards
are in determining whether or not you're guilty or not.
(12:12):
And so for me, where I've where I've asked for
a bench trials what it's called, it's just a judge.
When I've asked for a bench trial, one of the
things that I'm concerned about is that there's such a
level of nuance that we're trying to argue that I'm
not sure if a jury who's who's not properly educated
(12:33):
the law, if they'll fully understand. And so I had
a complex business case where we were arguing these very
fine points in an operating agreement on whether or not
there was this breach of fiduciary duty. And we asked
for a bench trial instead of a jury trial and
that issue because we wanted somebody who had the legal
(12:55):
acumen to look at it and say, here's what the
reasonably forced the able scope of that duty was, and
here's how they breached it. And I was concerned that
a jury may not fully understand, yeah, you know how
jury happened.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
A jury of the peers might not all know everything
they needn't know about the law.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
And if it's in a small town, people developed their
opinions very fast.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
So she killed two people, yea.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
And they determined that she did it on purpose because
of the premeditation, because she never was.
Speaker 6 (13:24):
They said that she scouted the area prior to the crash.
They have footage of her scouting the area prior to
the crash. I remember all of this story. I actually
just looked it up to remember.
Speaker 1 (13:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
And so they found her guilty of killing both of
the guys in the right and they gave her fifteen
years to life. So how does that work?
Speaker 1 (13:43):
So does that mean?
Speaker 2 (13:44):
Okay, so she get fifteen years of life for this
murder and fifteen years to life for this murder. So
that means you got to spend at least thirty years
in prison. Is that how that works?
Speaker 4 (13:51):
It depends on whether they're running concurrently or not.
Speaker 3 (13:54):
Okay, so conception they could overlap, so fift two to
fifteen year bids would be just fifteen years. Yeah, they
could be consecutive, right, so then's fifteen and fifteen.
Speaker 4 (14:03):
That was thirty years.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
Yeah, and that'll be something that the judge determines at
the sentencing hearing is exactly how those two things will run.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
So since then, this was just on TMZ like this
week or whatever. They have the audio of her talking
to a friend who is, you know, out in the
world or whatever, and she's joking around and making kind
of jokes, not about the two guys that died, but
like talking about all that's kind of music dom and whatever,
like like she's bringing them up and making them part
(14:31):
of like kind of goofing on them a little bit,
showing remorse, not showing remorse. And I'm curious if when
they go to say we were thinking about giving you know,
what's that called when you go in front of a
bunch of people, ask if you get out early.
Speaker 4 (14:44):
That's a parole boy.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Yes, So when you go up for parole, will they
use conversation like that against her when it comes like, look,
she has no remorse at all, She's goofing on these
guys that she murdered.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
Yeah, So the concept of whether or not they're going
to give you early release or or not a lot
of time h on this idea of like, have you rehabilitated.
Speaker 4 (15:03):
Yourself while you're incarcerated?
Speaker 6 (15:05):
Right?
Speaker 1 (15:06):
Right?
Speaker 3 (15:06):
So you know, let's just say you were just really
bad person who punched babies, and you went to prison
and you did a bunch of therapy and you realize
this is where all my feelings come from, and I'm
no longer to punch babies. Like that's a big factor
that he considers that you've changed. And so you're not
wrong in to say that they'll assess all these all
the evidence they have, including these videos and these recordings
(15:27):
from the Joe House phones, and determine whether or not
she is actually rehabilitated.
Speaker 4 (15:33):
Is she a danger to society anymore?
Speaker 1 (15:35):
Right?
Speaker 3 (15:36):
And when you when you say things like not showing remorse,
uf you kill two people and I think when was
her boyfriend again?
Speaker 7 (15:41):
I I mean, and then another one of their peers,
one of their best friends. Yeah, of that group of friends.
And that's almost like I'm not I'm not categorizing. I'm
just telling you, like in my mind, what it sounds like,
not say this is the case. I mean, it's almost
like a sociopathic type mentality of like I don't really
care that I just killed this person who I claimed
that I loved in this other person who I claimed
(16:02):
was my friend.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
Yeah, that's what it seemed like because while when she
was waiting to go to trial, she was still going
to parties and dressing up and having fun and shooting
the bird and smoking dope and all kinds of stuff
like she could care less, like her life was just great.
Speaker 3 (16:17):
So if I'm her attorney, then what I'm gonna do
is I'm gonna go get an expert to come in
and say, you know, she doesn't have the cognitive ability
to show those emotions the way a normal person would,
but that doesn't mean she's a bad person, right, So
I do think that evidence has come in and I
think there's a way to attack it.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
But well it's right now.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
It's the number one thing on Netflix is called the crash,
and I say I enjoyed it, like it was interesting.
I wouldn't say I enjoyed it because two guys got
killed and she was frustrating eighteen year old dumb dumb.
Speaker 7 (16:47):
But from the perspective of a parent, it's the most
terrifying thing that you can imagine.
Speaker 1 (16:50):
Yes, yeah, for sure, because the.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
Parents are like, well, I mean we knew she was smoking,
but we didn't know.
Speaker 7 (16:56):
Like they think that they're all friends. You think that
they're all, you know, carrying on. You know, it's all
just innocent, let's say, quote unquote innocent teenage growing up.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
You know.
Speaker 7 (17:06):
Yeah, the last thing that you think is that your
kid's gonna get in the car with one of their
friends or their boyfriend or girlfriend and intentionally and intentionally
driving into the side of a building.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Yeah, it's hard to believe anyone would do that because
I mean, she would have to think she was gonna
die too. And they said she was so narcissistic they
didn't think that she would actually kill herself. Interesting, it
was interesting, Right, we got to take a break. When
we come back, you I want to tell us about
the Lego dispute, right, Yes, that with some legos. Okay,
we'll talk about that when we come back. Friendly Ray
Trendley here with is listen. If you need any help
(17:37):
with any kind of whether it's divorce or family law
or anything like that, is TK Law, one firm forlife
dot com. That's one firm forlife dot com. Don't go anywhere.
You're listening to the machas the morning. Ray Trendley will
be with us on Friday. You want to get a
selfie with Ray, say hi to Ray, shake his hand,
Meet and greed. That's what the whole meet and greed
is about. I'm excited about Friday. I'm excited about Friday too.
(17:59):
It's cool to get it buddy from the Monster Universe
in there and and and the people can say hi
and get to meet you and all that stuff.
Speaker 4 (18:05):
It was fantastic last time.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
I don't know if you know, we've got new people coming,
but uh, it was such a good time last time.
Speaker 4 (18:11):
I had to be there.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
Yeah, good, well, I appreciate it.
Speaker 4 (18:12):
Thank you for inviting me.
Speaker 1 (18:13):
Yeah, yeah, of course. Man.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
And uh and you're a you're a monster of vip
u and so okay, one of the cases you have
here is the Lego dispute, and I don't remember what
this is.
Speaker 1 (18:23):
What is the lego dispute?
Speaker 3 (18:25):
So this is actually I didn't know anything about this.
Ryan sent me a text message on Monday and said, hey,
have you followed this story? So I did a little
bit of a deep dive and say a little bit
of deep dive. There's this guy, Reckless Ben. Are you
familiar with him?
Speaker 4 (18:37):
Angel? Are you familiar with Reckless Ben at all?
Speaker 1 (18:39):
I'm not.
Speaker 6 (18:40):
Man.
Speaker 3 (18:41):
So he's this YouTuber I don't know, gotta be twenty
something kid, young man, and like when you go to
his YouTube channel, he plays like a lot of like
pranks and things like that. The kids obviously intelligent, very clever.
But he gets involved in this dispute between a gentleman
(19:02):
or his family, the last named Manzelle, and they give
their his father's Star Wars collection. It's like worth two
hundred thousand dollars, it's the largest Star Wars lego collection
in the world. Gives it to this uh uh consignment
consignment store called Bricks and Minifigs, and through a series
(19:27):
of events where the franchisees basically give up their store
and there's some dispute as to.
Speaker 4 (19:34):
Exactly what was happening.
Speaker 3 (19:36):
On one hand, from the legal documents, you can see
it seems like the franchise owners were behind them payments
and this looks like the franchise took over the franchise
ease store. But from their perspective, they're basically locked out
and kicked out, and there's some facts that I think
maybe cut against that a little bit. But you know,
(19:58):
fast forward over the course of like a year, this
YouTuber gets involved. He's trying to bring social awareness to
the fact that they are not returning this guy's uh
legos and the Star Wars legos are worth how much
two hundred thousand dollars thousand dollars and they're on consignment
at this store, right and then the store is shut
down or allegedly refusing to turn them over, and so
(20:21):
this this YouTuber shows up to the store and is
secretly recording them and and then there's like a series
of pranks where you know, he pretends to be a
delivery driver and says, here, you're signed for this package.
And then apparently that was a contract that you know,
waives their right to trespass him or sue him, and
(20:42):
they to pay him five thousand dollars every time they
ask him to leave or something like that.
Speaker 1 (20:46):
Yeah, it's not legal. Oh, it's definitely not legal.
Speaker 4 (20:49):
And then it just kind of grows from there. And so.
Speaker 3 (20:53):
You know where we're at today is reckless Ben has
been arrested. His friends have been arrested for a number
of different things, including fraud and impersonating a delivery driver
and stalking. And now there's competing civil lawsuits. So the
(21:17):
franchise or is doing the franchise e and vice versa.
Reckless Ben is doing many figs and vice versa, and
and it has exploded out to this dispute.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
I don't trust consignment stores at all, and I'll tell
you why because my dad had a fifty six Chevrolet
and he took it to a local consignment place and
they basically stole his car, sold it to someone else,
never gave him the money for it. It was on
the it was on the news here locally.
Speaker 7 (21:51):
Yeah, like we we kind of know where it's at
in California, but because of the way that they stole
the title of it and everything, can't get it back. Yeah,
it was a father's son operation. Did they do like
repairs on it or something like that.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
No, they just shipped it out and told it told
somebody in California, and he kept telling my dad, oh,
it'll be back, I mean and basically lying to him,
And turned out there was nothing really anyone could do.
I mean, they basically just stole his car.
Speaker 4 (22:17):
I don't ever believe.
Speaker 3 (22:18):
And there's nothing you can do now, I mean, now
there might not be anything you can do, but I
don't know.
Speaker 4 (22:23):
Uh, well, we end up ended up.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
We somehow got insurance to pay like half of it
or whatever. But he basically it was something that he
had rebuilt and everything in order for to have some
savings as he got older, and he got ripped off.
If it did suck, it was on it was on
who was the guy? Todd Todd Ulrich did it on
Channel nine and my dad was on.
Speaker 4 (22:45):
TV and all investigative news.
Speaker 1 (22:46):
Yeah yeah, yeah yeah, but basically got ripped off.
Speaker 4 (22:49):
That sucks.
Speaker 3 (22:50):
Yeah, And that's kind of what happened to the Manzell family,
at least according to the story. You know, I think,
you know, here's me being my lawyer self hedging bets.
I think there's supply some facts that have not been
as highlighted as they should be. Some things that the
Manzell family could have done differently that maybe would have
(23:11):
avoided some of this, some things that you know, you know.
Here's the conclusion that I want like everybody to kind
of hear, is when you try to use self help,
right where you directly involve yourself into a dispute trying
to solve it without getting lawyers or the courts or
(23:31):
the legal system, you get yourself in a lot of trouble.
And and this kid is obviously very bright, and I
keep calling him a kid. He looks like a kid.
I have no idea ho hell he is, but he
can't be more than twenty three. You set yourself up
for long term life problems. And I see it in
family law. I see it in business disputes or people
(23:53):
just say, look, this is the right thing to do,
so I'm gonna do it, and and the law actively
discourages you from doing that. There's a reason why we
have laws, and we have judges, we have the legal system,
and it's to avoid people using self How that happens, though,
Ray can he'll get frustrated.
Speaker 7 (24:11):
Yeah, this kid, well, not only not only do they
get frustrated like in real life, right in real life.
This is because I remember when we were going through
that with Russ and his dad and everything in real life.
That was frustrating. What this is though, this kid is
capitalizing on a new kind of genre of YouTube clicks.
And there's a bunch of guys like him. Right, he's
thirty years old. What, Yeah, he's thirty. I'm with you.
(24:32):
He looks like he's a baby, but he's thirty years old.
But there's this whole genre of YouTube clicks where similar
kind of stories. Because there's another guy something Diesel, and
what he started doing was parachuting in for people that
he felt were getting scammed on truck repairs. And so
he's a videotape and everything like he'll get you your truck.
(24:54):
But he's like he's pushing the envelope of being borderline
with local law enforcement and harassment and everything here.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
But at the end of the day, it's all.
Speaker 7 (25:06):
Content for him, right, And so he's getting like he's
getting the clicks, he's getting the YouTube use, he's getting
all that seems like that's very similar to what this kid.
The reason why he parachuted in for this, and like
I said, there's a whole world of YouTubers that are
doing this kind of thing where you know, I would agree, Hey, man,
this sucks. This guy got scammed out of a Star
(25:27):
Wars collection, Russ's dad got scammed out of his car,
and so people get frustrated, and then they sign over
everything to a guy like this, thinking all the hopes
and that that the social media pressure don't solve it
will get the person that's doing the bad thing here
to respond to it. But legally they really don't have
(25:47):
a leg to stand on. All they're doing is hoping
that the social media will be the reason why someone
starts acting right.
Speaker 1 (25:53):
Right.
Speaker 2 (25:53):
And one last question we got limited time is just
a quick answer. If you give somebody like a fifteen
hundred dollar wrestling belt and they lose it, ye, who's
responsible it? Would it be the person that gives the
belt or the is the person that has who has? Uh?
Speaker 7 (26:11):
It seems very specific.
Speaker 3 (26:12):
So it's called a bailment when you let somebody borrow
something and uh, and they're supposed to return it back
to you. And if they don't do that, you can
send them a letter and then sue them for the
full value of the belts. Okay, I think send value
all right, thank you friendly Ray.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
We'll see Ray well on Friday. You come say hi
to him, take selfies with him and say hello. Uh.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
He'll be out there with us on Friday for the
A Big Monster event, which is gonna be at the
Mountain Dora. Get your tickets by going to Real Radio
Monsters dot com. Thank you, right, I appreciate you. All Right,
we come back. It's time for the Queen of the
Ring instead of the King of Denmark, and Amber says
she's really gonna give it to Ryan.
Speaker 1 (26:58):
All right, you're listening to the Marx of the Morning.
Hey, friend with us.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
He's going to be with us on Friday, and he
brought a blast from the past.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
I forgot last year when.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We did the Monsters Live at Night and then Ryan
had his stand up bit like I got cloud noses
for everybody.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
Cloud noses for everybody, and you kept your clown nose.
I kept my cloud nose. That's aound's not here. But
uh yeah, we're still thinking about him. He's getting his
colon oscary today.
Speaker 4 (00:23):
He needs it. He needs to clear something.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Guy.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
He was so worried about it. I mean, I mean
he was all.
Speaker 5 (00:28):
What if I die? And I was like, well, then
I get to run your segment.
Speaker 4 (00:32):
That's so sweet of you.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Yeah, so the show is basically over now Amber is
going to be taken over there.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Well, yeah, segment.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Instead of the King of Denmark today it's the Queen
of the Ring will be doing a segment.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
Could she still be a queen without a belt? Is
that how that works?
Speaker 1 (00:46):
I don't.
Speaker 4 (00:47):
I don't know the rules.
Speaker 5 (00:48):
The champion and we have a new belt coming yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
Yeah, yeah, but the belt that I'm the auctioning off
on Friday.
Speaker 5 (00:55):
We're going to have it.
Speaker 6 (00:56):
Ryan's just Ryan's He's a thief and there's something fishy
going on here, and I think he took it.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Right if there's no I mean right, if there's no
proof and she's calling him a fief, that.
Speaker 4 (01:08):
Could be defamation. She should be opening herself up to
a lawsuit right now.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
Yeah, you don't, do you know that he took it?
Speaker 6 (01:15):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (01:15):
I do. I don't know. It seems like wild speculation
to me. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Yeah, because for those who don't know Ambernova's wrestling belt,
I'm supposed to be auctioning off on Friday and she,
for whatever reason, doesn't have it.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Normally you have it.
Speaker 6 (01:30):
I left it here in studio in a very secure building.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
It wasn't here yesterday.
Speaker 4 (01:35):
That's secure.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
Yeah, you have to let you in, right, You've got
weapons on you and.
Speaker 6 (01:42):
Everything, security codes and stuff to get in the through
front door.
Speaker 5 (01:45):
I'm through the elevator to the fourth floor. Come on, like,
this is a secure building.
Speaker 6 (01:50):
We we know Ryan took it, and I'll tell you
why we know.
Speaker 5 (01:54):
I have probable cause.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
What's your probable cause? I want to hear that. Yeah,
I love.
Speaker 6 (01:58):
I'm talking to a professional, a lawyer right now. So
the last time the belt was seen was with me.
This is like playing the game Clue, guys, Monday on
Monday on Monday with me, Angel and and and Ryan
and the three of us were in studio right here,
(02:19):
and we and we were all here together. It was
the championship belt, the last ones. So this is like
the game of Clue. And it was Ryan with the
championship belt in the studio.
Speaker 5 (02:31):
Okay, he did it?
Speaker 4 (02:32):
Is there anybody in the studio?
Speaker 6 (02:33):
Angel was here, Yeah, and Angel Angel knew I was
leaving the title here because I was coming back Wednesday morning.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Well, okay, Monday the Colbert Show was here like after Yeah,
but Jim, people come through it.
Speaker 5 (02:46):
But here's the thing.
Speaker 6 (02:47):
If Jim didn't want it on camera during his show,
he would have just tucked it underneath right in the desk.
Speaker 5 (02:51):
He would have left it.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
Someone so could so that might have happened. So but
Jack said he didn't touch it.
Speaker 5 (02:56):
Right, So I've already now you're blaming Jimmy.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
Now you're you're blaming Jimmy.
Speaker 5 (03:01):
No, I've already checked. Jimmy's on the clear.
Speaker 4 (03:05):
Jim, that's professional legal talker.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
Jimmy's on the clair.
Speaker 4 (03:11):
Okay, So what about Dad?
Speaker 6 (03:13):
I don't know I've already gone through the office. I
even talked to some promo girls just now so we
know where it was last scene and Ryan did it?
Speaker 3 (03:22):
Was there anybody here before you? Or who comes in
first on Tuesdays us Tuesday morning? Yeah, I'm the first
one in here. He why why isn't Rest on the
suspect list?
Speaker 5 (03:35):
Rust didn't take it?
Speaker 4 (03:36):
It's that means really his belts.
Speaker 5 (03:38):
It's his championship, champion, and he needs it.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
I need it for Friday.
Speaker 4 (03:42):
It's true.
Speaker 5 (03:43):
So why would he play the whole where is it game?
That's just annoying.
Speaker 6 (03:46):
We have other things we have we have better things
to do.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Actually, we have better things to do right now, that's
the question.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Right have you been paying attention to There's a new
documentary out and it's about the murdal has that how
he's saying murdal trot. Remember the murder murder where he
was convicted of murdering his daughter, his wife and his son. Yeah,
but they're during the whole case, right, the clerk of
the court was talking to all the jurors and saying
(04:16):
stuff like, hey, you gotta watch that guy, he's shifty,
or you can't trust that guy. And we're gonna ask you,
I don't know exactly what the clerk of the court does.
You know, for like like here in Orlando, do we
have one person that's the clerk of the court. Is
it a man, is a woman? What's their responsibility? What
do they do?
Speaker 3 (04:34):
Depends on the county, depends on whether it's a man
or a woman. It can be both. We have a
woman in Orange County. We have a man in Semnal County. Yeah,
and their job is to handle all things court house administration,
so everything from website to HR and personnel, to budgets
and funding to ideas on how to open the courts
(04:57):
and get more access to courts.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
So how many times is it allowed for the clerk
of the court to go, oh, there's a case. I'm
going to write a book about this case. Is that normal?
Is that normal?
Speaker 1 (05:06):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (05:06):
Not normal?
Speaker 3 (05:08):
You know, i'd have to go back into the anals
of time to see, you know, with like the Casey
Anthony or you know, the George Zerman trials. I mean,
I know the clerks who were clerk at that time.
I don't remember seeing any books, but I guess conceptually
it could be possible.
Speaker 7 (05:24):
This was common for like the judge, or there are
attorneys that are associated with a sensational case like that to.
Speaker 4 (05:30):
Write a book.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Yeah, I mean sometimes so, I mean there are some
circumstances with some of these really high profile cases. We
saw a bunch after O. J. Simpson's trial and stuff
like that. So if it's not terribly uncommon for people
to have this idea that they want to write a book.
But you know, so the clerk court, it's an elected position, right,
so they're a politician, and it's just kind of weird
(05:53):
that you try to jump on the fame train.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Well, this was a small South Carolina in.
Speaker 5 (06:00):
The town right actually my area where I grew up.
Speaker 4 (06:03):
How small is it.
Speaker 5 (06:06):
That's decently small.
Speaker 6 (06:06):
It's very close near So it was in like Walterborough
and over in that area. But his son was in
that major boating accident with the young girl that died
in Beaufort, South Carolina, where all the young kids were
out like drinking on the boat. Yeah, and she ended
up dying. So his that's the son that was killed,
that was shot. And I believe that his son was
getting into a lot of trouble and causing problems for
(06:29):
the family and that's why he shot his son.
Speaker 5 (06:31):
Well, along with other reasons.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
But yeah, I'm not I'm not sure what the reason was,
but I think, you know, depending you know, it could
be the biggest story, kind of going back to the reasons
the size of the town matters. It could be the
biggest story that's ever come out of that town. It is,
that's what they said on this documentary. And the clerk
could be just trying to you know, take some of
that fame.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
So what happens, So it's the clerk of the court.
She is talking to the jury and she's saying things
that could sway them. So now the conviction.
Speaker 4 (07:01):
Gets thrown out.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
It gets thrown out. So but they don't let him
out of prison, right, it's a judge decision. The judge
could make the decision to release him pending really trial. Yeah,
so they could let him go for a while and
then try him again.
Speaker 4 (07:14):
And they could try him again.
Speaker 3 (07:16):
Wow, and so, uh, you know, the problem is obviously
that that has a possibility of tainting the jury's decision
on the evidence. Right when when when there's a you know,
you think of it almost like a mayor. I mean,
it's not the mayor, but like think of like a
like that kind of power position.
Speaker 4 (07:35):
You know, they're.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
They normally here, here's the clerk of courts involvement. Normally
for a jury trial. They say, welcome to jury duty.
We're going to ask you a bunch of questions. There's
cookies and coffee in the back. Have a great day.
Speaker 4 (07:47):
And then they don't. You don't ever see them again.
They disappear.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
She was all in their business because she's writing this
book right right, and and and what the what the
I think a prosecuting attorney thought, is he thought, hey,
she it's in her best interest for him to be
guilty because it makes the book better.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
Yes, that makes sense. Yeah, I mean I guess logically
it makes sense. Right taking down this big town or
big time lawyer in this small town, you know, sounds
like a sensational book to me. But it's just it's
really unfortunate. And you know, I think she has him
explaining to do as to why she thought that that
(08:23):
was appropriate.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
So if you had to try that again, do you
use all the same evidence, do you try to do
it the exact same way?
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Or as a lawyer, do you have like, okay, we
have to take.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
A different approach this time, because hey, man, we he
was guilty.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
Last time, we flubbed it, and you know they didn't
really flub it.
Speaker 3 (08:40):
I mean there was another error, right, you know that
the oh you're talking about the defense attorney, Ye slubbing it.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Yeah, the defense attorney like, Okay, we get another shot
at this. Now we got to come up with a
different angle because last time we lost, and we get
another shot at trying to get him off.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
Yeah, you know, I think that that definitely has to
be a part of the conversation, right, you know, maybe
how some of the testimony was handled because he testified
in his own defense.
Speaker 4 (09:05):
He did, and it was it was not good now.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Not for sure, because he in his entire life, he
was always able to, you know, win people over. He's
a likable guy. Like even when I'm watching him talk,
I'm like, I'm a dumb dumb I was believe in him.
I'm like, oh, he could have done it, and he
seems so sweet, but but he did it.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Imagine going on a first date and trying to impress
the girl and meanwhile, like her friends in the corner
saying like, you can't trust that guy, he's a liar.
Speaker 4 (09:30):
Watch this he's lying.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
It taints it.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
It taints it, and so so you know, I don't
even know. I don't even know if the defense did
a poor job, because you know, part of what we
don't know is how much of an effect effect that
had on the jury, how much of an impact those
statements and comments made on the jury saying don't believe
anything that guy said. So, going back to your question,
(09:53):
I don't know if you do change your strategy. I
think they did a decent job, but I think you
definitely have to kind of re goo back to the
drawing board and reassess, you know, how they handled some
of the evidentiary issues.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
Okay, I have another question for it, and basically what
you're doing as you're helping me with my documentary TV watching.
Speaker 1 (10:11):
The next one I.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
Watched yesterday was called the Crash. I don't know if
angel I don't know if you've seen this all. Oh yeah,
this is making it a brutal all kinds of news.
It's an eighteen year old girl that questionable when it
comes to her sensibilities. I mean, you know, and she
is in the car with her boyfriend and some other
person and they've got the video and Basically, she goes
(10:34):
one hundred miles an hour, never puts on the brakes,
and goes runs right into a wall and kills the
two guys and she lives through it. And so here's
my question for you. So they're going to going to trial,
and she has the ability to choose to have a
jury or.
Speaker 3 (10:52):
Just have the judge decide, even though you could do
that for a murder trial. Yeah, I mean it's your
right to wave through your right to a jury.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Why would you pick just one person to make the
decision over a jury, Like, well, what if it were
you and you were her attorney, which would you have gone? Well,
tell me the different philosophies, because she went with having
just the judge decide and the judge that threw the
book at her.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Yeah, And that's that's the danger, right, because you're having
the judge be the judge and the jury in that situation.
And so conceptually, what a jury's doing is they're taking
all the testimony, they're hearing it all, and they're making
a decision on whether or not somebody is guilty or not. Right,
So there what we call the finders of the facts, right,
So you know, the whole idea of the legal system
is is you present on your side, presents their side,
(11:39):
and then somebody figures out whether or not somebody's guilty
or not.
Speaker 7 (11:42):
Well, a part of it also in regards to that right,
is the fact that the bias of the jury it's
a small town.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Well, and so when you're picking the judge as your jury,
essentially that's a big factor. Is that you want somebody
who's going to be unemotional, somebody who's not going to
be easily swayed by public opinion, and somebody who's going
to stick to the law in what the legal standards
are in determining whether or not you're guilty or not.
(12:12):
And so for me, where I've where I've asked for
a bench trials what it's called, it's just a judge.
When I've asked for a bench trial, one of the
things that I'm concerned about is that there's such a
level of nuance that we're trying to argue that I'm
not sure if a jury who's who's not properly educated
(12:33):
the law, if they'll fully understand. And so I had
a complex business case where we were arguing these very
fine points in an operating agreement on whether or not
there was this breach of fiduciary duty. And we asked
for a bench trial instead of a jury trial and
that issue because we wanted somebody who had the legal
(12:55):
acumen to look at it and say, here's what the
reasonably forced the able scope of that duty was, and
here's how they breached it. And I was concerned that
a jury may not fully understand, yeah, you know how
jury happened.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
A jury of the peers might not all know everything
they needn't know about the law.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
And if it's in a small town, people developed their
opinions very fast.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
So she killed two people, yea.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
And they determined that she did it on purpose because
of the premeditation, because she never was.
Speaker 6 (13:24):
They said that she scouted the area prior to the crash.
They have footage of her scouting the area prior to
the crash. I remember all of this story. I actually
just looked it up to remember.
Speaker 1 (13:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
And so they found her guilty of killing both of
the guys in the right and they gave her fifteen
years to life. So how does that work?
Speaker 1 (13:43):
So does that mean?
Speaker 2 (13:44):
Okay, so she get fifteen years of life for this
murder and fifteen years to life for this murder. So
that means you got to spend at least thirty years
in prison. Is that how that works?
Speaker 4 (13:51):
It depends on whether they're running concurrently or not.
Speaker 3 (13:54):
Okay, so conception they could overlap, so fift two to
fifteen year bids would be just fifteen years. Yeah, they
could be consecutive, right, so then's fifteen and fifteen.
Speaker 4 (14:03):
That was thirty years.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
Yeah, and that'll be something that the judge determines at
the sentencing hearing is exactly how those two things will run.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
So since then, this was just on TMZ like this
week or whatever. They have the audio of her talking
to a friend who is, you know, out in the
world or whatever, and she's joking around and making kind
of jokes, not about the two guys that died, but
like talking about all that's kind of music dom and whatever,
like like she's bringing them up and making them part
(14:31):
of like kind of goofing on them a little bit,
showing remorse, not showing remorse. And I'm curious if when
they go to say we were thinking about giving you know,
what's that called when you go in front of a
bunch of people, ask if you get out early.
Speaker 4 (14:44):
That's a parole boy.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Yes, So when you go up for parole, will they
use conversation like that against her when it comes like, look,
she has no remorse at all, She's goofing on these
guys that she murdered.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
Yeah, So the concept of whether or not they're going
to give you early release or or not a lot
of time h on this idea of like, have you rehabilitated.
Speaker 4 (15:03):
Yourself while you're incarcerated?
Speaker 6 (15:05):
Right?
Speaker 1 (15:06):
Right?
Speaker 3 (15:06):
So you know, let's just say you were just really
bad person who punched babies, and you went to prison
and you did a bunch of therapy and you realize
this is where all my feelings come from, and I'm
no longer to punch babies. Like that's a big factor
that he considers that you've changed. And so you're not
wrong in to say that they'll assess all these all
the evidence they have, including these videos and these recordings
(15:27):
from the Joe House phones, and determine whether or not
she is actually rehabilitated.
Speaker 4 (15:33):
Is she a danger to society anymore?
Speaker 1 (15:35):
Right?
Speaker 3 (15:36):
And when you when you say things like not showing remorse,
uf you kill two people and I think when was
her boyfriend again?
Speaker 7 (15:41):
I I mean, and then another one of their peers,
one of their best friends. Yeah, of that group of friends.
And that's almost like I'm not I'm not categorizing. I'm
just telling you, like in my mind, what it sounds like,
not say this is the case. I mean, it's almost
like a sociopathic type mentality of like I don't really
care that I just killed this person who I claimed
that I loved in this other person who I claimed
(16:02):
was my friend.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
Yeah, that's what it seemed like because while when she
was waiting to go to trial, she was still going
to parties and dressing up and having fun and shooting
the bird and smoking dope and all kinds of stuff
like she could care less, like her life was just great.
Speaker 3 (16:17):
So if I'm her attorney, then what I'm gonna do
is I'm gonna go get an expert to come in
and say, you know, she doesn't have the cognitive ability
to show those emotions the way a normal person would,
but that doesn't mean she's a bad person, right, So
I do think that evidence has come in and I
think there's a way to attack it.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
But well it's right now.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
It's the number one thing on Netflix is called the crash,
and I say I enjoyed it, like it was interesting.
I wouldn't say I enjoyed it because two guys got
killed and she was frustrating eighteen year old dumb dumb.
Speaker 7 (16:47):
But from the perspective of a parent, it's the most
terrifying thing that you can imagine.
Speaker 1 (16:50):
Yes, yeah, for sure, because the.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
Parents are like, well, I mean we knew she was smoking,
but we didn't know.
Speaker 7 (16:56):
Like they think that they're all friends. You think that
they're all, you know, carrying on. You know, it's all
just innocent, let's say, quote unquote innocent teenage growing up.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
You know.
Speaker 7 (17:06):
Yeah, the last thing that you think is that your
kid's gonna get in the car with one of their
friends or their boyfriend or girlfriend and intentionally and intentionally
driving into the side of a building.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Yeah, it's hard to believe anyone would do that because
I mean, she would have to think she was gonna
die too. And they said she was so narcissistic they
didn't think that she would actually kill herself. Interesting, it
was interesting, Right, we got to take a break. When
we come back, you I want to tell us about
the Lego dispute, right, Yes, that with some legos. Okay,
we'll talk about that when we come back. Friendly Ray
Trendley here with is listen. If you need any help
(17:37):
with any kind of whether it's divorce or family law
or anything like that, is TK Law, one firm forlife
dot com. That's one firm forlife dot com. Don't go anywhere.
You're listening to the machas the morning. Ray Trendley will
be with us on Friday. You want to get a
selfie with Ray, say hi to Ray, shake his hand,
Meet and greed. That's what the whole meet and greed
is about. I'm excited about Friday. I'm excited about Friday too.
(17:59):
It's cool to get it buddy from the Monster Universe
in there and and and the people can say hi
and get to meet you and all that stuff.
Speaker 4 (18:05):
It was fantastic last time.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
I don't know if you know, we've got new people coming,
but uh, it was such a good time last time.
Speaker 4 (18:11):
I had to be there.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
Yeah, good, well, I appreciate it.
Speaker 4 (18:12):
Thank you for inviting me.
Speaker 1 (18:13):
Yeah, yeah, of course. Man.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
And uh and you're a you're a monster of vip
u and so okay, one of the cases you have
here is the Lego dispute, and I don't remember what
this is.
Speaker 1 (18:23):
What is the lego dispute?
Speaker 3 (18:25):
So this is actually I didn't know anything about this.
Ryan sent me a text message on Monday and said, hey,
have you followed this story? So I did a little
bit of a deep dive and say a little bit
of deep dive. There's this guy, Reckless Ben. Are you
familiar with him?
Speaker 4 (18:37):
Angel? Are you familiar with Reckless Ben at all?
Speaker 1 (18:39):
I'm not.
Speaker 6 (18:40):
Man.
Speaker 3 (18:41):
So he's this YouTuber I don't know, gotta be twenty
something kid, young man, and like when you go to
his YouTube channel, he plays like a lot of like
pranks and things like that. The kids obviously intelligent, very clever.
But he gets involved in this dispute between a gentleman
(19:02):
or his family, the last named Manzelle, and they give
their his father's Star Wars collection. It's like worth two
hundred thousand dollars, it's the largest Star Wars lego collection
in the world. Gives it to this uh uh consignment
consignment store called Bricks and Minifigs, and through a series
(19:27):
of events where the franchisees basically give up their store
and there's some dispute as to.
Speaker 4 (19:34):
Exactly what was happening.
Speaker 3 (19:36):
On one hand, from the legal documents, you can see
it seems like the franchise owners were behind them payments
and this looks like the franchise took over the franchise
ease store. But from their perspective, they're basically locked out
and kicked out, and there's some facts that I think
maybe cut against that a little bit. But you know,
(19:58):
fast forward over the course of like a year, this
YouTuber gets involved. He's trying to bring social awareness to
the fact that they are not returning this guy's uh
legos and the Star Wars legos are worth how much
two hundred thousand dollars thousand dollars and they're on consignment
at this store, right and then the store is shut
down or allegedly refusing to turn them over, and so
(20:21):
this this YouTuber shows up to the store and is
secretly recording them and and then there's like a series
of pranks where you know, he pretends to be a
delivery driver and says, here, you're signed for this package.
And then apparently that was a contract that you know,
waives their right to trespass him or sue him, and
(20:42):
they to pay him five thousand dollars every time they
ask him to leave or something like that.
Speaker 1 (20:46):
Yeah, it's not legal. Oh, it's definitely not legal.
Speaker 4 (20:49):
And then it just kind of grows from there. And so.
Speaker 3 (20:53):
You know where we're at today is reckless Ben has
been arrested. His friends have been arrested for a number
of different things, including fraud and impersonating a delivery driver
and stalking. And now there's competing civil lawsuits. So the
(21:17):
franchise or is doing the franchise e and vice versa.
Reckless Ben is doing many figs and vice versa, and
and it has exploded out to this dispute.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
I don't trust consignment stores at all, and I'll tell
you why because my dad had a fifty six Chevrolet
and he took it to a local consignment place and
they basically stole his car, sold it to someone else,
never gave him the money for it. It was on
the it was on the news here locally.
Speaker 7 (21:51):
Yeah, like we we kind of know where it's at
in California, but because of the way that they stole
the title of it and everything, can't get it back. Yeah,
it was a father's son operation. Did they do like
repairs on it or something like that.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
No, they just shipped it out and told it told
somebody in California, and he kept telling my dad, oh,
it'll be back, I mean and basically lying to him,
And turned out there was nothing really anyone could do.
I mean, they basically just stole his car.
Speaker 4 (22:17):
I don't ever believe.
Speaker 3 (22:18):
And there's nothing you can do now, I mean, now
there might not be anything you can do, but I
don't know.
Speaker 4 (22:23):
Uh, well, we end up ended up.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
We somehow got insurance to pay like half of it
or whatever. But he basically it was something that he
had rebuilt and everything in order for to have some
savings as he got older, and he got ripped off.
If it did suck, it was on it was on
who was the guy? Todd Todd Ulrich did it on
Channel nine and my dad was on.
Speaker 4 (22:45):
TV and all investigative news.
Speaker 1 (22:46):
Yeah yeah, yeah yeah, but basically got ripped off.
Speaker 4 (22:49):
That sucks.
Speaker 3 (22:50):
Yeah, And that's kind of what happened to the Manzell family,
at least according to the story. You know, I think,
you know, here's me being my lawyer self hedging bets.
I think there's supply some facts that have not been
as highlighted as they should be. Some things that the
Manzell family could have done differently that maybe would have
(23:11):
avoided some of this, some things that you know, you know.
Here's the conclusion that I want like everybody to kind
of hear, is when you try to use self help,
right where you directly involve yourself into a dispute trying
to solve it without getting lawyers or the courts or
(23:31):
the legal system, you get yourself in a lot of trouble.
And and this kid is obviously very bright, and I
keep calling him a kid. He looks like a kid.
I have no idea ho hell he is, but he
can't be more than twenty three. You set yourself up
for long term life problems. And I see it in
family law. I see it in business disputes or people
(23:53):
just say, look, this is the right thing to do,
so I'm gonna do it, and and the law actively
discourages you from doing that. There's a reason why we
have laws, and we have judges, we have the legal system,
and it's to avoid people using self How that happens, though,
Ray can he'll get frustrated.
Speaker 7 (24:11):
Yeah, this kid, well, not only not only do they
get frustrated like in real life, right in real life.
This is because I remember when we were going through
that with Russ and his dad and everything in real life.
That was frustrating. What this is though, this kid is
capitalizing on a new kind of genre of YouTube clicks.
And there's a bunch of guys like him. Right, he's
thirty years old. What, Yeah, he's thirty. I'm with you.
(24:32):
He looks like he's a baby, but he's thirty years old.
But there's this whole genre of YouTube clicks where similar
kind of stories. Because there's another guy something Diesel, and
what he started doing was parachuting in for people that
he felt were getting scammed on truck repairs. And so
he's a videotape and everything like he'll get you your truck.
(24:54):
But he's like he's pushing the envelope of being borderline
with local law enforcement and harassment and everything here.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
But at the end of the day, it's all.
Speaker 7 (25:06):
Content for him, right, And so he's getting like he's
getting the clicks, he's getting the YouTube use, he's getting
all that seems like that's very similar to what this kid.
The reason why he parachuted in for this, and like
I said, there's a whole world of YouTubers that are
doing this kind of thing where you know, I would agree, Hey, man,
this sucks. This guy got scammed out of a Star
(25:27):
Wars collection, Russ's dad got scammed out of his car,
and so people get frustrated, and then they sign over
everything to a guy like this, thinking all the hopes
and that that the social media pressure don't solve it
will get the person that's doing the bad thing here
to respond to it. But legally they really don't have
(25:47):
a leg to stand on. All they're doing is hoping
that the social media will be the reason why someone
starts acting right.
Speaker 1 (25:53):
Right.
Speaker 2 (25:53):
And one last question we got limited time is just
a quick answer. If you give somebody like a fifteen
hundred dollar wrestling belt and they lose it, ye, who's
responsible it? Would it be the person that gives the
belt or the is the person that has who has? Uh?
Speaker 7 (26:11):
It seems very specific.
Speaker 3 (26:12):
So it's called a bailment when you let somebody borrow
something and uh, and they're supposed to return it back
to you. And if they don't do that, you can
send them a letter and then sue them for the
full value of the belts. Okay, I think send value
all right, thank you friendly Ray.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
We'll see Ray well on Friday. You come say hi
to him, take selfies with him and say hello. Uh.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
He'll be out there with us on Friday for the
A Big Monster event, which is gonna be at the
Mountain Dora. Get your tickets by going to Real Radio
Monsters dot com. Thank you, right, I appreciate you. All Right,
we come back. It's time for the Queen of the
Ring instead of the King of Denmark, and Amber says
she's really gonna give it to Ryan.
Speaker 1 (26:58):
All right, you're listening to the Marx of the Morning.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.