How to help friends that have fallen for it? (Bernard Yankson)

[sir]

I have a couple dear friends who I have learned for the past few years have been working with a man they called "B".

The subject matter was confusing and I didn't pay much attention to it at first as they are a bit on the eccentric side. However, recently we had discussed going into a partnership together buying real estate. They are quite excited (read adamant) to create a "private trust and an entity that functions as the charitable association. The key point here is that it is not a person. It is unincorporated. Kind of like an un-person. " as they put it.

My red flag alarms started ringing and after asking some questions they linked me to this

I then did a quick search on Bernard Yankson and found this message board.

I am worried for my friends as they have drank Mr. Yanksons kool-aid and I fear any attempt to show them logic and reason may be met with fierce resistance.

Hoping to arm myself with the most concise and pertinent information in an attempt to sway their judgement. One of them has been at this for 12years so it is deeply ingrained.

Perhaps I should just let it play out for them as it may but if anyone has any words of advice I would appreciate it!

[JamesVincent]

Welcome to Quatloos, sorry you found us with a situation like that. There really isn't much you can do to help people when they get in deep. There's plenty of information on here about Yankson, at least 5 threads that I recall deal with him or his buddies. You can use that information to help show them the light but it is entirely up to them to see it. If you think they can be talked to link them to Quatloos itself, plenty of stories in here of the suffering caused by Freeman.

You can try using examples of real life situations to show them what can happen if they continue on. My memory isn't what it used to be but wasn't Yankson the one that declared himself dead or am I thinking of a different weirdo?

[sir]

I read that on here ya. Ok I will dig into the threads, I fear they might get in trouble.

[Burnaby49]

Bernard is an old and valued friend here at Quatloos. He was my first face to face experience into the world of sovereign crazies. Long-time Quatloos readers know that I have a very extensive history of postings of court cases that I’ve attended and written up. Bernard was my first, the opening shot in my trial reporting. It was simultaneously my first attendance at a sovereign court hearing and Bernard’s last since he was declared a vexatious litigant as a result of the hearing. This is his main thread where I posted it over seven years ago.

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9597

We also have a discussion on his brother Eugene, also crazy as a bedbug;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9595

Apart from that there are only peripheral references to Bernard on Quatloos. He’s been active since his 2013 court loss but nothing I could get enough info on to justify a posting. I’ve got vague memories of some scheme he had maybe five years ago regarding Vancouver real estate but I couldn’t get a handle on it.

You’re far from the first person to arrive on Quatloos after an internet search on a scammer or nutcase that friends or family are following. They all had the idea that if they could show their deluded acquaintances actual objective evidence about what was going on they could pry them out of the grip of their lunatic or criminal leader. The ones who came back to report on their attempts all failed. So I’d say if your friends are committed Bernard acolytes forget about trying to help them, they have to find disillusionment the hard way.

You wrote;

They are quite excited (read adamant) to create a "private trust and an entity that functions as the charitable association. The key point here is that it is not a person. It is unincorporated. Kind of like an un-person."

That may actually be part of that scheme I referred to in the prior paragraph. I seem to recall something about a private trust and headquartered in a home in South Vancouver. Their mailing address was a post box in a photocopy shop by the downtown central branch of the Vancouver Public Library.

I couldn’t tell if this remark meant that they are trying to get you to join their real estate venture;

However, recently we had discussed going into a partnership together buying real estate

Or if it just relates to their own plans to set up one of Bernard’s scam trusts. If it’s you they’re inviting into Bernieworld I’d strongly recommend keeping far, far away from it. Just ask yourself, from what little you know about Bernard and what you know about your friends, if you want to put significant money at risk under the control of Bernard and the demented theories of a lunatic cult.

I spent 35 years as a CRA auditor, a lot of it involving trusts, and I can guarantee that a “private trust and an entity that functions as the charitable association” is just Bernard’s fantasy bullshit and will be nothing but trouble. If Bernard’s selling it as a way to avoid taxes and regulatory issues, it won’t work, people can’t just cook up fictitious trusts not known to law. Hiding money in fake trusts is tax evasion pure and simple.

[Burnaby49]

I may wander through that video and see what Bernie's promoting now. But it's an hour and a half of BernieBabble so it might take a while. Nice to see that he's keeping up his sartorial standards. Most Canadian sovereigns dress like hobos.

I've also moved this discussion to the Canadian sovereigns forum so that Bernie can reside with his brother and his previous discussion.

[eric]

Nice to see that he's keeping up his sartorial standards. Most Canadian sovereigns dress like hobos.

I beg to disagree... gentlemen do not wear a full - windsor knot in their tie.

"Bond mistrusted anyone who tied his tie with a Windsor knot. It showed too much vanity. It was often the mark of a cad."

[Burnaby49]

I beg to disagree... gentlemen do not wear a full - windsor knot in their tie.

I don't recall saying that Bernard was a gentleman, I said that he was keeping up his sartorial standards.

It showed too much vanity. It was often the mark of a cad.

Vanity? Cad? If you judge a man by his attire I'd say that he's made a perfect choice.

[notorial dissent]

Ah, fair's only fair, Bernie has ALWAYS been a sartorial moving violation.

[Pottapaug1938]

Nice to see that he's keeping up his sartorial standards. Most Canadian sovereigns dress like hobos.

I beg to disagree... gentlemen do not wear a full - windsor knot in their tie.

"Bond mistrusted anyone who tied his tie with a Windsor knot. It showed too much vanity. It was often the mark of a cad."

I've been using a Windsor knot since my freshman year at a military college; and indeed, I've forgotten how to tie a tie any other way. I use the Windsor knot simply because it looks better, anyway.

[eric]

I beg to disagree... gentlemen do not wear a full - windsor knot in their tie.

I've been using a Windsor knot since my freshman year at a military college; and indeed, I've forgotten how to tie a tie any other way. I use the Windsor knot simply because it looks better, anyway.

We're getting way off topic here, but many eons ago in the Canadian Military an officer could be identified by the fact that he wore a half-windsor or four-in-hand and thus knew how to tie his own tie. Somebody tied a full windsor in a recruit's tie and he could wear it forever and remove his tie by just loosening it.

[Burnaby49]

OK, I've been going through Bernard's video. not finished, that pig's an hour and a half and its straight babbling from the starting gun to where I stopped for the moment. But below is my progress to date.

First off a few comments;

1 – Interviewer is incredibly annoying. Constantly interjecting, yes, right, um, ok, whatever while Bernie is speaking. As I noted in my court write-up Bernard’s a very fluent speaker even if he's, as always, spouting pure gibbersh.He doesn’t need prodding. At one point Bernard told him to stop but he didn’t.

2 – A very obtrusive mike setup. Two full sized mikes on swiveling stands clamped to a coffee table. The stands are exactly like swivel light stands and may be a modification of them. They do a very effective job of covering the speaker’s face.

3 – This isn’t exactly your prime-time YouTube channel. It has a total of three videos to date and fifteen subscribers.

Bernie said he has various businesses but the one he’s talking about today is (I think) Land and Interest For Estates Foundation also known as Life foundation which he says is a registered society. He said its purpose is to help businesses understand how to structure their businesses and what different types of business structures are available. Suspecting that I was about to be hit with a shitload of gibberish I decided to do things the hard way and go back and check out his file and see if it notes any schemes since his 2013 court case. Yes indeed, the one I had vague memories of from four years ago;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9597&start=60#p239112

He started rambling on about incorporation vs. unincorporation and how it’s all supported in the “tax code” without getting into specifics what he was on about. We were at the six minute mark and the moderator couldn’t contain himself any longer with just constant pointless interjections and stopped Bernard so that he could have a turn at babbling. He said they didn’t have time today to cover this (whatever this was) even though the video is an hour and a half with only a few minutes already on the clock. The guy asked what the Landing Interest For Estates Foundation (I’ll call this LIFE from now on) was (you can see the foundation’s seal at 6’51). So Bernie tried to define every word in the title separately without reference to whatever the hell the foundation actually is. “The totality of all your accounts is your estate”, your “accounts” being whatever records the government has of you. Maybe he’ll explain that nonsense later. He did talk about birth certificates for a moment.

He said your estate is all the government social programs but LIFE offers social programs the government doesn’t have the time and is not in their interest to do. Then this shocking revelation “The government’s job is to manage abandoned property”. No doubt fully explained by Bernard but the interviewer was, quite literally, saying “right” or “OK” or “That’s true” or whatever every two or three seconds, it was constant and so irritating I had a hard job following Bernie. He used an analogy of an abandoned car. Government has to come and get it o it sits as trash. But the government has to make a public notice before it can take it then they have a legal reason to make a claim for that car. Why? Because it’s been abandoned.

Interviewer – Technically a lot of things have been abandoned.
Bernie – A lot of property has been abandoned but we have to know what property is.

I know where this is going. I’d hoped for better, something, if not new, then at least interesting. But it’s just going to be a unilateral contract scam, the ancient, creaking tacit agreement. That explains those newspaper notices. He’s making a claim to real estate he claims is abandoned. However, apart from tacit agreement being bullshit there is no abandoned real property in Vancouver. Real property is enormously expensive here and nobody abandons it. Wife and I paid $69,500 for our house, admittedly four decades ago. It’s nothing much, just a 65 year old small-medium sized house, but it’s now appraised at $1,550,000. Based on that how much chance do you think there is that Bernie’s somehow finding abandoned real property? But he’s posting gibberish like this in local rags;

NOTICE UNDER THE LAND ACT
(s.33(3) and s.56 and 99 (2));

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT; Bernard Bedu Yankson, Private Canadian in trust, non statutory citizen of Canada, hereby claim all right title and interest of the property described herein as parcels; 1. RN082 663 715CA-001 thru RN082 663 715CA-999; 2. RN082 663 777CA-001 thru RN082 663 777CA-999; 3. RN082 663 750CA-001 thru RN082 663 750CA-999; 4. RN082 663 879CA-001 thru RN082 663 879CA-999; 5. RN082 663 882CA-001 thru RN082 663 882CA-999; 6. . RN082 663 817CA-001 thru RN082 663 817CA-999; 7. RN082 663 763CA-001 thru RN082 663 763CA-999; 8. RN082 663 732CA-001 thru RN082 663 732CA-999; 9. RN082 663 848CA-001 thru RN082 663 848CA-999; whereby all Legal interests by nature and by characteristic in Public Nominee; BERNARD BEDU YANKSON and YANKSON, BERNARD BEDU YANKSON, including its property is evidenced and CONVEYED said Legal interests by nature to the Trustee(s) described in; RN057 314 151CA-000 thru RN057 314 151CA-999, while retaining and holding all Equitable interests by nature in Public Nominee (or, potentially under R.S.C., 1985, c. C-44), BERNARD BEDU YANKSON and YANKSON, BERNARD BEDU YANKSON, etc. I; Bernard Bedu Yankson am without notice of any bona fide or would be bona fide purchasers for value or bona fide adverse claimant either by nature or characteristic by legal or equitable rights of claim and that Bernard Bedu Yankson is without notice of any Superior prior, equal, equitable or legal right, title or interest competent to suspend or confuse my equitable and/or legal interest by nature or characteristic, to said property.

All written objections on the ownership or superior claim of trust(s) and estate(s), should be directed to trustee(s) for the Bernard Yanskon Trust, no later than 30 days from the date of publication of this notice, please contact: covenantor: private canadian in trust (of union of counties, regions, provinces, territories of Dominion of Canada), mail in care of: 1545 - 55th avenue, county of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Covenantor/grantor in trust expressly reserves all rights and liberties.

While stuffed with far more gibberish than most it’s just a standard worthless unilateral contract.

Anyhow I digressed here;

Interviewer – Technically a lot of things have been abandoned.
Bernie – A lot of property has been abandoned but we have to know what property is.

So what is property? Bernard rambles on a bit but finally gets to real estate. Real estate is only land and whatever building is on it is a fixture. Not my understanding but Bernie’s obviously been thinking about this a lot. Then he said that personal property is intangible property and intangible property is moveable property. Burnaby49 knows a lot about intangible property and its definition, I dealt with it in depth at my work so I can say with some Authority that Bernie, while sounding convincing to the fool interviewing him, is just making things up now to fit into his world-view. But why believe me? Let’s go to the dictionary;

An intangible asset is an asset that is not physical in nature. Goodwill, brand recognition and intellectual property, such as patents, trademarks, and copyrights, are all intangible assets. Intangible assets exist in opposition to tangible assets, which include land, vehicles, equipment, and inventory.

So how can an asset (property) not physical in nature, be moveable or immovable? Tangible properties can move. I can move my wine glass from the left of my computer to the right (just did with a swill on the passage in front of me) but intangibles have no location to move from.

Things got goofy with Bernie going on about a hypothetical equation for time travel. If it’s just in your head it’s personal property but if you put it on paper it’s tangible property. But what do you do if the paper is stolen by pirates? Damn good question. How do you get it back? How do you prove that invention on the paper is yours? Easy, the government steps in with programs to help people secure their property in a legal fashion! So you have to secure your rights. You have to secure your possession of that thing. But there’s a difference between legal and lawful. That had the interviewer and I both totally confused. Bernard did not clear it up. His example was if a man owns a business he is the legal owner but he does not have possession of it. I’ll transcribe his next sentence to show you what I’m dealing with. It’s like trying to make sense of his court hearing yet again;

They (I assume the business owners) have a duty to go and make a claim lawfully, which is to take a specific procedure to become the owners of the thing that they possess.

Interviewer gave a nervous laugh.

As best I can make out of this Bernie is claiming that business owners are the legal owners of their businesses but not the lawful owners, he keeps saying the two are different but without explaining how. Still, this seems to be a critical part of whatever he’s babbling about. Again, instead of directly explaining anything he went into another example, he loves stories. Pirates! Time Machines! Now it’s his hat. “Let’s say I have this hat on (he doesn’t need to say it, he does have a hat on). I bought the hat, I have the receipt for the hat, I am the owner of the hat and currently I possess the hat. If I give you the hat I’m still the owner of the hat but you have possession.” He went on and on about responsibility if the hat was damaged and how it affected the “arrangement”. I have no idea how this was supposed to relate to the pirates and time machine discussion or how either related to whatever he’s trying, futilely in my case, to explain. Then he said “We don’t want to confuse people”. Bernie, when you make comments like “The reign of anything legal is all based on presumption” it’s way too late to avoid confusion.

Back to the hat. Bernie said that if the interviewer, after being freely given the hat by Bernie, said “thanks” when someone said “nice hat” he (interviewer) has committed a criminal offense because he’s only the “registered” owner while Bernie is the legal owner. This has got to be leading to those newspaper notices but it’s a long bizarre trudge. This is the kind of thing I was facing when trying to record proceedings at his trial. Good dynamic speaker, spoke in full sentences and some sentences even made sense, but overall just batshit crazy. You can see why he was declared a vexatious litigant after one court hearing.

“The law has provided people the opportunity to perfect their claim to what they registered.”

I thought for a moment he was finally zeroing in on his real estate scam but it was a false dawn. Just more lunacy followed. I didn’t bother transcribing anything for the next ten minutes, just senseless drivel without any apparent continuity or connection to anything. Things like “The definition of ‘believe’ is ‘be the lie’.” Then a third voice chimed in for the first time asking him “what do you mean that you want the people to take extra steps to secure the business?” It was the guy offside handling the camera. Bernard's response was some gabbling about how everything is leased from the government which is the real owner of your “entity”. Then on about that fucking hat again.

I’m at 29:00 and he’s currently making no sense at all. It’s like he’s throwing essentially random words in sentences with a verb or two. Second interrogator, who foolishly seems to think Bernie can explain all of this sensibly if asked sensible questions asked, “Is that the same as, like, copyright? You know when you copyright something it’s legally yours, right?” But slippery Bernard can’t be pinned down with so shallow a trick! The master equivocator replied that copyright is a government program and it’s great if you don’t know how to secure your property in any other way. What way would that be? Whatever gibberish Bernie’s promoting which none of us, his two interviewers or me, seem to be making any sense of, at least I’m certainly not.

And then it was back to time travel again and he took us right back to where he started this idiocy with the comment “what people need is to understand the difference between lawful and legal”. Well if we need to understand it to make sense out of any of this garbage WHY THE FUCK DON’T YOU TRY AND EXPLAIN IT TO US? Sorry, but he’s never bothered to explain that supposedly foundational concept even if just obliquely through more verbal diarrhea.

Maybe he gave it a shot with his next comment, I really can’t tell. He said people are the legal owners of their business but they are not the lawful owners of those businesses. In his world “business” can mean anything. Then back to rambling on about his hat but he ended up in a blind alley saying that he couldn’t think of a good example involving his hat. He spent three or four minute with stream of consciousness senseless lunacy that didn’t connect to anything at all that he’d spoken of then said “to get back to your question” but he couldn’t remember the question so he had to ask. So the interviewer repeated the copyright question but Bernie, who said he couldn’t remember the question denied he’d been asked about copyright. But he said he’d address it anyhow. Which he did by repeating the same comment that copyright is a government program to protect your legal interest but it’s not lawful. He said the government needing to manage abandoned property. “People are stuck in a legal structure but they have no way out to plug themselves into a lawful structure.”

I have no idea if Bernie thinks those last three sentences fit together as part of one topic, they sure don’t to me. Then, finally, a sentence that, no matter how tenuously, seemed to tie legal and lawful together! At least to Bernard. “The lawful structure is based on the same fundamental principles that create the legal structure. What is that? That’s understanding contracting.” He said the best way to secure property is what he called “the poor man’s copyright”. I’m going to report the next part as he said it because analyzing it is beyond me;

What a poor man’s copyright typically is, is that whatever your thoughts are you seal it and you transfer, you do a transfer, you do a delivery, you do a service, you mail it, you do a conveyance, you mail that to yourself. That’s the poor man’s copyright.

He hasn’t as yet gotten into unilateral contracts unless that quote alluded to it. But I’m still sure that’s where he’s going in his own inimitable way. We’re at 37:00 and I’m done with this for a while. Maybe I’ll get back to it in a day or two. Time for something I understand, a drink.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Poor Man's Copyright.

I presume he's referring, inappropriately, to the old practice of mailing a sealed copy of an item, be it photograph, written articles, recording of a song, to oneself. The postmark then gives an approximate date of creation.

However, the UK has no requirement to register copyright (it exists automatically as soon as it is put in physical form) so "poor man's copyright" is a moot practice and has no standing in law.

Not sure what the rules are in Canada but in the US, whilst a work is also copyright as soon as it is fixed in tangible form, to claim statutory damages and attorney's fees the work has to be officially registered, and Poor Man's Copyright is not admissible in such cases.

[notorial dissent]

Bernie must want to go back to jail awfully badly.

[Burnaby49]

Bernie's never been in jail. He's crazy, not criminal.

[notorial dissent]

Bernie's never been in jail. He's crazy, not criminal.

It looks like he's looking to do a stint then.

[Arthur Rubin]

Poor Man's Copyright.

I presume he's referring, inappropriately, to the old practice of mailing a sealed copy of an item, be it photograph, written articles, recording of a song, to oneself. The postmark then gives an approximate date of creation.

However, the UK has no requirement to register copyright (it exists automatically as soon as it is put in physical form) so "poor man's copyright" is a moot practice and has no standing in law.

Not sure what the rules are in Canada but in the US, whilst a work is also copyright as soon as it is fixed in tangible form, to claim statutory damages and attorney's fees the work has to be officially registered, and Poor Man's Copyright is not admissible in such cases.

The Berne Convention specifies most of that, and many countries follow that. The Buenos Aires Convention, a competing convention, is the reason you find "All rights reserved" on the copyright page of older 20th century books. "Poor Man's Copyright", IIRC, is still useful in patent cases outside the US.

[notorial dissent]

Arthur, I think you need to check your precedents, "Poor Man's Copyright" doesn't really exist, all you have with a postmarked envelope is a postmarked envelope. There is neither proof nor presumption that there was anything in the envelope when it was mailed. I think this comes under the heading of urban legend.

[Arthur Rubin]

"Poor man's copyright" could be used as proof of the date you wrote it, if opened in court. (Now, we all know envelopes can be resealed, but an expert witness could verify the seal.)

It's always been pretty much irrelevant for copyright prosecution; until the 70s, you needed to register the copyright before you could prosecute, and even now, you can only collect actual damages before registration. It's more useful in copyright defense; not having access to the material is a valid defense to copyright infringement, and having written it before the registered copy is generally considered a good defense.

It's was and still is more useful in patent cases; prior to the 90s, the actual date the invention was first written down was important to patents, both for prosecution and defense. Now, it has less significance.

[Wilma1969]

Dear sir,

I will first congratulate you on speaking up about Ben Yankson. I should have. But I didn't so thank you Quatloos for the classic forum, your reporting on this grown man, and all the comments. So many comments over the years.

I'm sure he loves the attention.

The dangers of Bernard Yankson. The games of Ben Yankson. He is manipulative underneath the charming smile, jokes, ability to laugh, dance, and have fun. Inside he's like any old bum but on the outside he's so COOL and SMART and dare I say... VULERABLE. If it was real it'd be fantastic but it's his song and dance to get what he wants. So he's first disarmed your friends, gained their trust with his 'innocence' and 'secret underlooked-by-the-world intelligence' which of course is pure shtick and he knows it. Seemingly he's a hidden gem, they think. An innocent small weak unassuming little man who is BRILLIANT AND NO ONE KNOWS! But no. Not a hidden gem. Not a secret vessel of knowledge. No original ideas. It SOUNDS SMART. When he starts. He even acknowledges his limits. He asks for help. So this also seems 'smart.' But no. A lot of words, no substance.

These sentences, that he believes sound 'great,' do indeed sound great. But they don't actually mean anything and he wastes his time and he wastes the time of the listener. It's not harmless either - in fact he's destructive, abusive, wastes other people's money, and is so careless it's dangerous. He thrives on attention. Not innocent. Not harmless. That's his game - to make himself seem harmless and innocent. He pleads. He's different. He's special. Everyone ELSE has had it so easy in life. Not like him. He's the victim. So he's entitled to take. Right? No harm done?

He's uneducated, careless and lazy so cannot see the impacts of his behavior. Or chooses to ignore that part. And fortunately for others, we have courts and we have police and we have the law. We have forums like this. Google. Search Bernard Yankson. Ben Yankson. And the law protects against obvious asshat con men liars like Ben Yankson. Bernard. Bernie.

He knows though. He knows very well, deep down, that he's full to the brim of trash. It's all gibberish/breaking the victim down with exhaustive 'word salads' a technique used by other con men besides Bernard Yankson. It's not brilliant.' It's deflection. It's avoidance. It's farts through his mouth. Disgusting. Stink. It's arrogance. Gross. Narcissism. When he's called out, he might laugh or misinform you more or might yell at you. Or hit you. Or he might get beaten up. He's a small guy. He has little issue with hitting a woman or a kid. If they deserve it! So is he a victim or the perpetrator?

Ben's also the first 'child' to run to the 'teacher' and tell on 'the bully.' That's the dynamic that's always worked for him, so that's the MO he sticks to. And if he must embellish the tale, then fine. All's well that ends well. For his own personal benefit, that is.

He's also found wonderful success, albeit not lasting, 'making up false 'logic' and talking garbage.' Because a person, even an intelligent one, can be taken off guard, and can be confused or intrigued by (what first may sound like a) complex sentence. The first part of the sentence makes sense. Then he pauses. Looks at you as if to say, "are you even ready for this you dimwit." And then he says something so incomprehensible that only the most intelligent, a judge for example, can take it for what it really is: garbage. Rubbish. Crap. Zero meaning. The sort of stuff that makes sense only when you're as high as a kite (literally - on drugs - as he usually is .. on drugs.) The incomprehensibility is like a smoke screen for idiocy. The lack of clarity is meant to advantage Yankson. It's selfish behavior. It's not fair. In sports it'd be a foul. It's not considerate. It's meant to confuse and many people who surround him shake their heads and think, 'I just don't get it. He's so smart. He's at a higher level." No guys. He's not on a higher level unless you mean he's done more drugs than you.

Sort of like the animal who stings it's prey and freezes it momentarily before he eats it? Sort of like the deer in the headlights, frozen by the shock of the light, before it's hit. He shocks. He uses humor. He uses 'false confidence.' He looks innocent. Young. Harmless. Frail. Truth is, he's a chump. And he's dangerous. And he's abusive. He's only in to serve himself. Ben isn't a good guy. He's a selfish person. He enjoys spending time with people weaker than he is, people who he can be leader of, people who think he's smart. If he was, smart that is, he would be at least financially independent. He'd afford to buy a home without having to be the hyena or vulture waiting for someone to hopefully make a mistake and he can try to steal and not be put into jail for it. Waiting, hoping, for someone to drop some money so he can (rightfully!) pick it up! Cuz finders keepers loooooserrrsss weeeeperrrzzz maaan.

I am worried for my friends as they have drank Mr. Yanksons kool-aid and I fear any attempt to show them logic and reason may be met with fierce resistance.

All people need people. Support. Community. Ben needs fans. Ben Yankson needs people, who are lesser than him, desperate, who lack community, who come from dysfunction like himself, who are at the end of their ropes in life. These people are alone, especially vulnerable to misinformation, like the kids Orphan Annie was singing with. But if those little girl orphans were abusing tax dollars trying to scam the government, purposely spreading misinformation, trying to steal property that isn't theirs, rather than mopping and singing with a fluffy dog, it'd be a less endearing movie.

Ben believes he is a victim. A hurt victim who is the victim of police brutality, a victim of the system, a victim of poverty, and so what to do? Get high. Let others pay property tax so he can go waste time in court. Try to get free stuff from THE MAN.

Racism is real. (Never mind the fact he or his brothers would never date or have children with a black woman.) By taking the lazy route, being abusive to good people, showing the world that black men are lazy and don't take care of their kids and are uneducated, poor jackasses with a total lack of empathy, a complete sense of entitlement, being arrogant, having a total lack of ambition, zero education, a disregard for other human beings - he adopted this and wasn't forced into it at all. He's giving a bad name to men, black men, who are responsible and work hard and provide for their wives and daughters and sons.

It is and always has been his repeated choice to adopt the teachings he preaches. He's a talker. That's what he does - talk - not do. He has had many positive successful caring people in his life to help poor Ben. But Ben. Bernard. Yankson. Nope. He's got a better way. Con the world, f#$k the world and sit down, head in your hands, cry and people will feel sorry for you. Then stab them in the back. Lie to them. Whatever. Then find new friends and stick it to them too. Do it again.

I hope this post helps a friend of his who needs a friend. A real friend. Not Ben. A good friend.

He's stubborn to change, could have used his intellect to gain a better life for himself but instead decided to do it the 'easy way' and invent bullshit throw it the wall and hope it sticks. Make up his own rules. Abuse others. Take from others.

Selfish and the worst of ... us. We, as human beings are like this.. Bernard Yankson is a mirror for us... when we are at our worst. He is a personification of this - the worst of a human being. The most sad, the most pathetic. He shows us what happens when we, ourselves, descend into pure ignorance, selfishness, avoidance, disrespect, hypocrisy, cons, scams and lies.

What would happen if we ALL just took what we wanted to and made up our own rules? Word salad, elementary magic tricks, narcissism and arrogance - this works on people. So good on you for speaking up sir. You motivated me to (finally) do the same. If it saves one person from him, good.

I should go back and edit my ramblings but I want to be as unconcise and repetitive as I can be so that when he reads this, and he will, he gets a taste of his own crappy unedited boring medicine. NO HOLD ON LET ME FINISH (lol, smh)

Hoping to arm myself with the most concise and pertinent information in an attempt to sway their judgement. One of them has been at this for 12years so it is deeply ingrained.

You can't. She/he has to learn for herself. Perhaps this person needs to believe in the fakeness for a while for some reason. Maybe they need to spend a while in jail. Avoid reality. Perhaps Ben's got this person to feel sorry for him. The weakness (I'm marginalized! I'm black tho! I'm so small and weak tho! I'm so POOR omg! I need love!) is also a game he plays. Usually with who he sees as "weaker" people; women, girls, ppl who don't know him yet, people who don't speak English well, children. People who are kind and generous and want to help - he loves those. So he knows who to ... let me just say this .. there's a saying in a certain area of the world ... 'a monkey knows which tree to climb.'

(Ben's the monkey. Your friend is the tree.)

It's a shame that at his age, middle age, he's done this with his life. So disappointing. Not a surprise but you want the best for people you know? Wearing a silly suit like he's trying out for the circus. Ridiculous. He's had decades to become a man. He's chosen this. To be a perpetual victim. Sad old Ben. Bernard. Bernie. Kwasi. Kwaiku. Numbnut. Asshat. Whatever you want to call him. B. Lol. I used to think, poor guy. Pity.

Now? No. He's not "poor guy." He knows what he's doing. In fact, he's doubled down on the stupidity.100%.

[wserra]

Welcome to Q, Wilma. But you don't need to hold back when you post here. Feel free to speak your mind.

On a more serious note: specifics help. For example, when you write that Yankson is "destructive, abusive, wastes other people's money, and is so careless it's dangerous" - how so?