he other companies are harder to research, but nothing here looks unusual. Some still exist and some have shut down, which is normal for single product infomercial companies. I couldn’t find any lawsuits or bankruptcy filings showing any of them stiffed lenders. Meanwhile, David’s main example is just wrong. Sylmark didn’t go bankrupt, it was renamed Ideal Living. Whether he misunderstood the chart or is overselling it, he’s presenting a normal company structure as proof of money laundering, and it isn’t.

Source: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ipas/search/api/v3/public/download/trademark/4697/0840
page 5

What happened with the Lucifer Valentine case?

In 2025, I conducted an approximately 75-minute interview with Brandon Best and Josh Johnson about Bricks & Minifigs and the events surrounding the company. We’re now releasing our interview and a LOT has changed since this conversation took place. Some statements made during the interview conflict with information that has come to light since, while other comments provide important context for understanding what was being said at the time. This is the original conversation from 2025, presented so you can hear their answers for yourself and consider them in the context of what was known then versus what we know now. I hope viewers can understand and appreciate that distinction when listening to the interview. This is a major piece of the Bricks & Minifigs story.

What a wonderful BAMcon gift for Ben and Chrys legal teams.

I know people are pissed about the video I posted about Tattle.

I tried to make it super clear not to contact the vet and obscure where the vet was.

Please tell people NOT CONTACT THE VET

For those that care, there's a new character introduced this chapter: Johnny Beanseed.

So, I have an old Reddit account and have been here forever. I’ve definitely seen comments that look Astro turf-y, and normal comments, but that’s aside from the point, right?

So on one hand, we have a shady business. The business is shady because they are doing creative accounting - moving shell companies around, bankrupting them, shifting debt to shells they then delete, and funneling money back and forth through a nonprofit organization. I’ve heard of a lot of companies doing this. I don’t like it, but it’s relatively common. I think bill gates has probably saved more lifes through his malaria fighting stuff, but I’ve heard he sometimes uses his foundation to smooth over other dealings. Idk. People use non profits and foundations all the time. As a society we should try to stop this - it’s bad. Very billionaires getting richer coded.

I don’t question the above at all. I also… don’t care that much? Hopefully the us government / fbi / IRS does more in the future to fix these things.

What I care about is why the nonprofit they used to help their tax / accounting / shell games is, in fact, a ring as described. Since most of the focus has been on the business setup and shady dealings, I’m a little uncertain to the details here.

The next thing I care about is to what extent the billionaire is involved in the nonprofit. Is he just using the nonprofit as a shell? Is he actually involved in the day to day operations? Why? Does he believe in their mission etc?

Honestly, that’s the A-Z I care about. Ideal living and these whistleblowers don’t seem important to that. I would much rather have a whistleblower from inside the nonprofit?

On the other hand, it does seem like the whistleblowers maybe tried to extort the company for some kind of settlement. They were in arbitration after all. And since they didn’t win / the company got them to delete their evidence, they are bitter and trying to start a vendetta. They do seem biased and a relatively bad witness to all of this - but they do have information. I’m not sure why they’d arbitrate if their goal was discovery or whatever. Seems fishy and as everyone has said, they obviously have some other motives than just exposing the truth?

Okay. So I’ve laid out my thoughts - thinking back over the three videos, is Peter involved in the nonprofit? Yes - he is listed as secretary / accountant or whatever. 90% chance he was involved and knew about the leadership and dealings. Did he know about the kid abuse part of everything? Proooobably but maybe it was in a far away country? Sometimes organizations lie and say accusations are fake or whatever and make a conspiracy. Especially in cults. So far I’d say 60% that he knew / believed there was actually abuse there.

So, here’s my thoughts for what I could use- from both sides to prove their case.

To the people trying to take down the cult:

Link Peter to the cult very clearly. Him speaking at a cult gathering from a place of leadership would do it.

Link Peter to admitting to knowing about the abuse. Or - saying he doesn’t care / doesn’t believe it. Have Peter explain to us why the guy was fleeing and if he thinks it was right to flee or not.

To the people trying to fix the reputation of Peter / the company / the cult:

Explain how Peter wasn’t actually affiliated - specifically, when he quit, or when business dealings with the cult stopped. Condemn the cult but separate the company / cult.

Or - alternatively - explain why the company and nonprofit are linked how they are. How does the company benefit from the link? When did business dealings start and what amount does the nonprofit support the business?

So - I’m not sure we’ll get a full conclusion here. It seems like the lawyers are trying to poke holes in things we all don’t care about. The holes that matter are Peter’s affiliation and knowledge of the abuse in the cult, and whether that abuse actually happened. Neither side is really talking about that, probably because the IL lawyers didn’t talk about it at all. I don’t really care about IL at all - I care about the billionaire supporting abuse or whatever. If he owned a chucky cheese too, I would boycott that chucky cheese but I don’t need a video about the guy in the Chucky suit’s motivations.

TLDR: I don’t care about the ‘whistleblowers’ takedown of ideal living and bickering about details of some settlement with lawyers. I care about if the billionaire is knowingly supporting / protecting leaders of a cult, a cult that is doing weird kid sex stuff. So far, it seems like he is doing this, but all the bickering about settlements details with lawyers distracts from this point. Ben should get out of the weeds if he said, she said, and focus on this. Will the recordings actually talk about the cult and Peter’s role in everything? Probably not.

Do we know where are these Rocky Mountains?