12-31-2017 My lawfully owned private wealth and My name in People's Republic of China (关于我合法拥有的财产以及我方敏在中华人民共和国的名誉）

12-31-2017 My lawfully owned private wealth and My name in People's Republic of China (关于我合法拥有的财产以及我方敏在中华人民共和国的名誉）

Heard this morning's talk about being a Mistress.
My response: Exactly, Why would a wealthy Miss P ever need to fight for the acknowledgment of a "true birth mother" of another wealthier person's child without a marriage through a radio program producers' help? Why would a Military breed need to hide a marriage with another enlisted from the possible ex? That is if she is a wealthy Miss P and a Military breed.

That is the reason I said who need her to hide her marriage? And why anyone would assume the wife, the possible ex, did not know anything at all?

The money she claimed she born into is the money I born into by the laws, that is the reason I inherited it in 2004 and I am the person kept calling laws' help when she kept on insisting to request other people's favor to have some money transferred to her.

Exactly, if the Fund in "her disputes only" is the money she born into, why would she need to request people outside of the fund to do her some favors to have some money transferred to her? Why can't she call laws' help like I did?

I was called into an attorney's office without a clue about money and effectively inherited my trusts my birth grandfathers set up for me before I was even born, I could effectively spend money by saying "I want this"  and decide my providing as I wish over the phone in an attorney's office in Connecticut, and I am complaining to the laws where is my money currently after she "requested some favors" successfully. All because it is my money.

Heard this morning's talk about what is wrong with her having her own money.
My response: It would be wrong if that money she called her own money is actually my own money. If that is my money by Laws, I refuse to enjoy this female sexually and I refuse to let this female to fancy my own money can be called her own money. I insist on calling that is my own money.
----published on Dec. 29th, 2017

Argument about Jessica Petroves(Pejoves) money (Second item)

----Dec. 31st, 2017

听说了今天早上的广播提到了海外华裔社区的很多传言。
我的回应：我也是认为是真是假都应该让中国人民共和国国内的中国公民们听到然后再予以核实，否则实在是太吓人了。

今天早上提到的一些传言我也有听说，但没在此博客公布。我确实是唐太宗李世民的继承人，但我已经是美国公民了，不适合就中国内政畅言，或因为过度关心而引发一些“企图利用唐太宗李世民继承人身份干涉中国政府或者中国内政”的指控。

就美国公民阿尔贝特·高尔及其华人妻子（或者孩子妈）通过广播剧制作声明进行针对我方敏个人的羞辱谩骂及财产掠夺，我已求助美国警方，一切按照美国法律已在处理当中。

就传言阿尔贝特·高尔的妻子（或者孩子妈）以中国政府名义针对我方敏的私人合法利益及私人合法权益所做声明全部是无效的假声明，我已求助美国警方，一切按照美国法律已在处理当中。

就传言阿尔贝特·高尔的华人妻子（或者孩子妈）以中国政府名义宣布一些中国政府的决定，包括通过广播剧宣布的不准我方敏入境中华人民共和国就因中国国家领导人有的是女人奶子屁股，在中国政府没有任何否认即予以全部默认的情况下，我方敏认为一切都是中华人民共和国政府的正式声明。我方敏保留一切追究以中华人民共和国政府名义破坏我方敏名誉的行为的法律责任，只要中华人民共和国有一天能够恢复法治国家信誉， 只要中华人民共和国的政府有一天恢复中国政府是一个领导13亿人口的国家职能机关而非一些个别人的私家妓院的理解，我方敏一定寻求在中华人民共和国司法保障下的，在中华人民共和国960万平方公里领土领海和领空，中国政府海外各领事和中国政府各驻外机构，以及中国政府在公共海域及公共空域的机构和设施，全面恢复我唐太宗李世民继承人方敏的名誉。

我重复我今天早上所言， 我不清楚阿尔贝特·高尔的华人妻子（或者孩子妈）是否已是美国公民，但我已是美国公民，就中华人民共和国政府是否是在美国公民阿尔贝特·高尔或其华人妻子（或者孩子妈）的实际领导之下，我方敏没有任何看法也没有任何想法。

*已经听说中国各入境港口已在当天接到广播剧制作团队中方国内广播电台宣传团队人员的最高指示，所有中华人民共和国的边防军警人员必须执行广播剧制作团队里中国广播电台的中方工作人员所下达的不准方敏入境的命令。

----2017年12月31日。

12-30-2017 Is radio company's CEO the person who understand this "I am his real woman to deserve that unwanted woman's money"

12-30-2017 Is radio company's CEO the person who understand this "I am his real woman to deserve that unwanted woman's money"


Heard this morning's talk about how my computer technology achievement was evaluated by a radio CEO.
My response: This is the typical PRC80 style. Throwing a universal comment in a tone that is authoritative which certainly promoted commenter a superior role in judging the matter to audience group who are not aware what is going on.

I heard it was the CEO of IheartRadio made that comment to say that I am impossible can have computer technology achievement by stating in an assertive tone:" I say ....". But the problem is he can't be assertive with any reasonable grounds on matters if I have computer technology achievement or if I have my own inherited wealth from my own birth grandfathers.

His insider knowledge of who is truly David Petraeus' wife is not the the knowledge of anything about who the Chinese woman Min Fang in Boston is, which includes authentication knowledge about my trusts I inherited from my birth grandfathers or the authentication evaluation of my own intelligence as well as my education, just because all of these have nothing to do with David Petraeus or his relatives or his marriage status. It is rumored that announced child is the child registered in David Petraeus' family business' capital accounts registry as announced on the radio program.

I did hear some rumors that his split with his ex-wife may be the reason how he thinks about my wealth's deservedness. The problem is I was never married to all these so deserved males but announced as never wanted by every one of them which is unlike whatever his own experience might be.

Regarding the question that has been used as the reason to rob Min Fang's money "If I have a child with that Chinese woman Min Fang, will I be able to have some money", the answer is absolutely NOT. Becuase Chinese woman Min Fang made it very clearly in 2004 that during entrust time, only Min Fang's biological own born children (each of them) can have Min Fang's money as inheritable or provided for by Min Fang's money. Min Fang is famous for not willing to let anyone just seed some children to take the money and throw the children out,  and Min Fang is famous for very well protected on this matter that no one can take Min Fang's money without violating laws to commit some crimes.

And it is rumored that his wife's cousin, the famous rape-alike victim of a rumored F families-gathering-sex, actually mothers a child from a Mr. P. who wants to own my inheritance Fund from my own birth grandfather (my third year's providing fund) may be another reason.

Also it is rumored that Albert Gore illegal appended his name next to the second biggest investor of the radio company in computer registry system internally at the time when the radio company was renamed to reflect this "I heart radio" desire*, so hidden that this record can only be seen by a computer person or only be seen with a computer person's help.

My first year's providing officially started from Christmas of 2014. Of course, I had been provided for to cover some of my expenses before Christmas of 2014.

Also, about that my father's fake first born Beijing woman. It is rumored that my father was in Beijing on a business trip a week before she was conceived in 1965 or so is the reason for the argument that "she may be born a week after due-date". But according to the satellite-image records, my father did not even visit her mother nor visit her mother's office at all during that entire business trip.

*It is rumored the appended name was not authorized by the valid legal documentation of lawful ownership of the registered investment share. I did tip the law enforcement's about similar rumors over a year ago.


Reference on PRC80 style.
2-29-2017 What is PRC80 Style and Background of P.R.China in the 1980s

----Dec. 30th, 2017

12-29-2017 "True Beggar" is the PRC80 Scheme Style and background of P.R.China in the 1980s

12-29-2017 "True Beggar" is the PRC80 Scheme Style and background of P.R.China in the 1980s (中文附后）




Heard this morning's "body and life (including every penny and all benefits) with the wife, but soul.."
My response: Who needs that invisible, and untouchable big huge SOUL that resides in the body and represented by the life (including every penny and all benefits) to afloat somewhere else? Definitely not my any place. I reject this announced idea completely.

It only sounds creepy considering the female, who owns the announcer's body and life, has been minded so hugely about any association. The announcer must have been infected from the hard-earned PSYCHO titled female.

I heard that this whole week's featured episodes reflected a lot of people's frustration for the past 10 years "Are they (featured patrons) Alzheimer patients?" And my frustration has been: "That is a hard-earned psycho title". The theme should be called:"Do you hear what I hear? Alzheimer or psycho?"
the PRC80 Scheme practicing on Smartphone invention money (first and third item)

----Dec. 29th, 2017

Heard this morning's talk about what is wrong with her having her own money.
My response: It would be wrong if that money she called her own money is actually my own money. If that is my money by Laws, I refuse to enjoy this female sexually and I refuse to let this female to fancy my own money can be called her own money. I insist on calling that is my own money.

Argument about Jessica Petroves(Pejoves) money (Second item)

----Dec. 29th, 2017

Heard this morning broadcasted "I would rather advise you to call yourself a true beggar".
My response: This is the advice I gave according to PRC80 Scheme style that was out of being so annoyed with the non-stop harassment that "she is the one have The Money". I was like "why took my money and tried to paint me a beggar?"

This is obviously to shit somebody. Some PRC80 Scheme style advises are not this obvious. Example: Everyone is curious if I have money under entrust, why do I choose to be homeless? I said I didn't choose but advised, and I did call law enforcement's help to find out who advised me. I heard recently that it was advised by a Chinese male,  I heard he was featured a possible heir from Zu's family on the radio program this year. His last name is also Fang(方) but he has no blood association with me at all.

That advise he gave sounds malicious who knew what this advise means, but not a bit to someone like me who know nothing about what it would be like to be a "homeless". It was sound like an adventure to me.

The key is if you know what the advise means. For example, if the advice of "just amputate the entire leg" is given when one is complaining about own leg pain, the one being advised certainly know immediately that is malicious. But if the same effect advises is given as "just stop local blood circulation completely to lower the sensitivity of the nerves", it may be taken without any guards.

This is the PRC80 Scheme advise style. Most of the time, this kind advises are given to promote advisers to make some gains, sometimes, this kind advises are given purely just out of hatred.

----Dec. 29th, 2017

Background of the 1980s in the People's Republic of China
1980s time in the People's Republic of China was like a no-law country with a lot of issues. Due to the national economic system conversion from the planned economy to the market economy, the main economic system was spinning out workers without any possible chances for those been spanned out to find a way to survive (no pension, no social security and not a chance to find a job*).

A lot of people were, possibly, desperately trying to find some resources to support their families. Some took advantage of the government's policies of encouraging private business. And in this process, tons of people being taken advantages of without knowing what happened which may include college professors or Science Academy Scientists' inventions or patents, etc. 1989 student movement may be the outbreak of a lot of tensions but somehow missed the points.

* In the 1980s, there were not many foreign investments yet. Healthy business (factory or company) were selected to be kept in the main economic system, the less or no profiting ones were spanned out, either to be independent or up for sale. So if a worker was laid off, it was because the factory or company could not afford to pay the salary (wage), and those businesses in the main system only recruit newly graduated from junior high schools, high schools or colleges. So, for the laid-off workers, it means no retirement pension from the factory or the company that laid this worker off, no social security from the government and not a chance to find a job, the laid-off worker could invest some money to become a street vendor or could buy a for-sale factory (company), or this laid-off worker would just have no place to turn to have any income.

* I graduated from high school in 1985 and graduated from a 5-years' pharmacology major from a medical college in 1990. I came to the United States in October 1996. I was the person reported to the then Chinese central government in early 1989 that 1989 Student movement against some government officials' corruption was suspicious because there was no reported major corruption case at all in 1988-1989 that could cause such outbreak. I was the person participated 1989's government meeting and gave my advises as an in-college Communist Youth Party member student to the government that led by Chinese Communism Party which shaped government's handling of 1989 student movement.

* I was the person pointed out in that 1989 meeting, organized by the Chinese government, that students' marching and blocking the streets activities would drag some healthy business into less profiting situation that may further worsen already pretty bad economic situation and cause more workers to be laid-off into financial desperation. And I was the person reported that collection of the donations from the streets were suspicious.


----Dec. 29th, 2017


八十年代的中华人民共和国背景介绍：
八十年代的中华人民共和国就像是一个无法无制的国家有着很多的问题。当时是国家的主要经济体制是在由计划经济在向市场经济的转型阶段，国家的主要经济体制当时是在逐步释放一些经济效益不太的企事业单位的职工，但没有考量到下岗人员的再就业选择，造成下岗人员基本上就没有任何实质上的身存之道（没有退休金，没有社保金，更没有机会再去找一份工作）。

当时很多人估计真是拼了命的想办法找点钱来养家糊口，还有些一些人或是响应了或是利用了中国政府当时鼓励“让一些人先富裕起来“的政策。在这个过程当中，有很多的人是被某名其妙的占了便宜（甚至有可能是被无偿掠夺了），中间有可能包括一些大学教授或是中科院科研人员的研究发明及专利，等等。1989年的学生运动可能是由于这些矛盾所产生的愤怒爆发，但1989年的学生运动所表达的愤怒没有切题，而且离题很远。

* 在八十年代，当时没有什么台资或外资或合资企业。效益好的企业（工厂或者公司）都被政府选择留在了中国当时的主要经济体制内，效益不好的企业或者亏损的企业被选择为独立核算，自负盈亏企业，或者被标价出售，属中国的主要体制外企事业单位。所以当时如果一个职工下岗的话，那是因为企业无钱支付这个职工的工资，而中国的主要经济体制内企业当时只招收应届或者前一年毕业的初高中及大学毕业生。所以，对于被下岗的职工来说，这就意味着没有退休金，没有政府保障的社保金，更是没有任何机会可以再找一份工作。这个下岗人员当时是可以投资做个个体户，或者买下一家标价出售的工厂公司，或者就是没有任何地方可以求助有一份养家的收入。

* 我是1985年高中毕业后于1990年自五年制的医学院药理专业毕业。我是1996年10月移居美国。是我1989年向当时的中国政府举报1989年反贪污反腐败学生运动很可疑。在1988年-1989年期间根本就没有任何重大贪污腐败案件的报道会引发如此大规模的愤怒表达。是我在1989年参加当时中国政府组织的全国高校会议并在会上以在读共青团员大学生的身份向中国共产党领导下的中国政府提出了一些处理89年学运的建议。 这些建议被中国政府参考并据此产生了1989年中国政府对当时学生运动的处理办法。

*是我在1989年中国政府组织的高校会议上指出学生游行阻街行为会造成一些效益好的企业也变成效益不好企业，进一步恶化当时已经很糟糕的经济环境从而造成更多的职工下岗而陷入家庭经济绝境。是我在会议上汇报说街上收集的捐款下落可疑。

----2017年12月29日。

12-28-2017 Who is "the United States Government" and the PRC80 Scheme practicing on Smartphone invention money

12-28-2017 Who is "the United States Government" and the PRC80 Scheme practicing on Smartphone invention money


Heard yesterday and today that messages both impressively were from the United States government.
My response: I heard about it yesterday late in the day, so I explain it here today.

Yesterday's reason was Albert Gore, he very politely addressed himself "was a Vice President of the United States for a reason", but his current "decision" that I don't deserve to be acknowledged as part of smartphone creator group is still the "decision from the United States government". Otherwise, this is purely U.S. intellectual properties related laws matter, not the United States' national matter that needs the United States government decision.

This morning's "government decision" is from treasure department conversation that some Chinese government representatives conclusion of the discussion became "the United States government decision". This recording technique was helped by the David Petraeus' family name. This family name has been the name of a lot of this type "helping hands" on radio program producing and beyond.

It was announced by a Mr. Lewis from Treasury Department that I do not qualify for disability which is a true statement. In 2004's meeting, I did say I may qualify to apply taxpayers' money of disability help. Thanks to my great psychologist, I won't be qualified to apply for taxpayers' help on disability.

There was some confusion if that conversation means I need to be disabled to be provided for by my own money, my clarification on that is certainly untrue. I own my own money is the reason I am already qualified to be provided by it. And by the legal documentation attached to the providing that is appended to the regular donation, there certainly has no such conditions that I have to be a "psycho" to be qualified for providing.

I did provide some references related to my inheritance together with my social security assistance application to the Social Security Administration.

----Dec. 28th, 2017

Heard this morning's argument about Jessica Petroves'(Pejoves?) money.
My response: She is the announced mother of David Petraeus' child.

The money in this morning's disputes was never owned by this Jessica Petroves'(Pejoves?) birth mother or this Jessica Petroves (Pejoves?) birth mother's family.

The money in this morning's disputes was never owned by this Jessica Petroves'(Pejoves?) birth father or this Jessica Petroves (Pejoves?) birth father's family.

If this Jessica Petroves(Pejove?) has a birth father who is(was) not this Jessica Petroves (Pejoves?) birth mother's lawful husband, the money in this morning's disputes was never owned by this Jessica Petroves'(Pejoves?) birth mother's lawful husband or this Jessica Petroves (Pejoves?) birth mother's lawful husband's family.

The money in this morning's disputes was never owned by this Jessica Petroves'(Pejoves?) at the time this Jessica Petroves(Pejoves?) was born.

The money in this morning's disputes was never owned by this David Petraeus' family or any of his relatives.

The money in this morning's disputes is my providing money lawfully provided for my exclusive usage.

----Dec. 28th, 2017


How a law professional Albert Gore can be the Computer Science professional-evaluation eligible?
My response: Just because he declared himself "was a Vice President that led the United States for a reason".

By rumor, Albert Gore has fathered a Chinese diplomat's child and married her in P.R.China recently (registry marriage). That Chinese diplomat is the Chinese wife that Albert Gore announced he is married to on the radio program.

And if you ask around in Chinese Mainland Community, what he did is a typical and famous 1980s Chinese Iron-Steel business style: squeeze himself into the smartphone contributing group by crediting his contribution of pointing out I am being the fake one in order to take some money from Smartphones' business contributing shares.

The illustration of typical 1980s Chinese Iron-Steel business style is: whenever and wherever and whoever, as long as there is a conversation talking about a possible money-making business, a complete irrelevant person would seek chance to be in the conversation either by throwing a universal applicable commenting line to "contribute" or to exclude someone already in the conversation group. This is to ensure to have a good reason to have some money share and to reduce possible sharing parties.

Now, trying to remember what was broadcasted yesterday, and analyze the points that Albert Gore pointed out: I am a commenting party that is a fake contributor. He knew this was because he was a Vice President that led the United States for a reason.

I was the person initiated the conversation of smartphones by alerting everyone that there were some new inventions of mini-computer hardware from Intel company. And the conversation continued on how to use these new inventions to make a cellphone a smartphone. I am the original in-conversation group that Albert Gore trying to exclude, and I already accused him took my share of smartphone invention fee deposited into his own possession or gave out as he wished since 2007 or so.

Almost every one of my intellectual income, I earned it by initiating the conversation of having the business and also earned it by contributing on how to make it a good business.

Now, trying to remember what the Taiwanese woman, Wang, Xuehong*(王雪红),  said yesterday about her contribution in there: She was an MBA graduated, and her husband is electronic engineering professional that knew cellphone chips. It was a smartphone invention that was discussed, not some computer software programming, it is impossible that I can contribute anything in there. It is obviously the same technique.

And if you heard she, by rumors, was the famous person known for "deserved to be in any smartphone conversation with a camcorder to record everyone's discussion", you knew this is the same the People's Republic of China Iron-Steel business style: "I already heard your information, I do not need your any contribution." which implies you are ousted from any possible profiting from what has been recorded. Her father was known for having some investments in the People's Republic of China since 1980 or so.

*Not certain if the name is correct. The father is Wang, Yongqing(王永庆），I am not certain which daughter.

----Dec. 28th, 2017

12-27-2017 Why entertainment professionals deserve to evaluate non-entertainment achievement on this radio program?

12-27-2017 Why entertainment professionals deserve to evaluate non-entertainment achievement on this radio program?

Heard this morning's Taiwanese woman's comment on how could I possibly have intellectual income from smartphones.
My response: A lot of people were there with her knew she was the one never contributed a bit but accused by me of attempting to steal the intellectual contributions from everyone else. Being a non-computer or non-electronics professional-background person, how she can possibly evaluate if I contributed into the discussion when Bill Gate (DOS system Inventor), Paul Ellen (Window system  Inventor), and Steve Jobs(Mac system Inventor) were the ones in that same discussion on June 30th, 2004.

Please check following related blog article:

why the People's Republic of China's government insist on I am a fake (Second and Fourth Items in the post)

I have this huge problem with this radio program's producing efforts. They are the group can relate a creator's role in movie making, but how they can be eligible to evaluate if anyone is a creator's role in other industries?

Please check following related blog article:

Second Item: Heard about confusion how intellectual contributions can be appropriately acknowledged and rewarded.

----Dec. 27th, 2017

Heard this morning's broadcasting of a private hearing that happened in 2006 or 2007.
My response: It has been understood worldwide including my own that Albert Gore, David Petraeus and British Prince William are the ones that have huge problems with me, and plus that announced mothers of each of all three's young children want my money to be called their own money.

Kate Middleton announced in 2015 or in 2016 time that my inheritance Fund, the British East India Company Financier Fund, should be called hers to own. I refused.

Jessica Petroves (Pejoves?), announced mother of David Petraeus' child, announced in 2017 time that she deserves my another inheritance Fund which a Ford Holding's investor Fund. I refused.

A Chinese former or current diplomat who mothers an Albert Gore's younger child announced tons of owner deservedness in People's Republic of China government's name and/or in her own name, plus tons of ownerships announced by Albert Gore himself. I refused all.

"What will happen if a wife or a Mistress is not getting along with a Dowager or an heiress? It is understood as the husband or the gentleman lover who is the person that does not get along with the Dowager or the heiress. So it is the same as a Dowager or an heiress does not get along with the husband or the gentleman."
----Published on Dec. 26th, 2017

----Dec. 27th, 2017

How my inheritance Fund, the British East India Company Financier Fund, can be announced as Kate Middleton's wedding gift?
My response: By rumor, it was announced by Kate Middleton's romantically involved ex-boyfriend Albert Gore. But the Fund was never owned by Albert Gore. So it was just the illegal and invalid announcement.

What happened was a producer or two invited Albert Gore to the radio program's recording studio and provided him the radio program's microphone to announce such announcement. It was never from anyone that my trust related or the British East India Company Financier Fund's management related. It was purely an announcement made by Kate Middleton's romantically involved ex-boyfriend Albert Gore for her then-upcoming public wedding with some of the radio program's producers' help. And I refuse to consider to make it real.

 The British East India Company Financier Fund was never a no-owner fund even with a mandatory law in 1900 time that said any trust over 500 years without a known owner should be a no-owner Fund, because the British East India Company Financier Fund has been famously owned by a French parent Fund entire time since the British East India Company Financier Fund has been set up. And this French fund is owned by another Fund in another country since the French Fund has been set up.

Petroves or Pejoves family's story related Fund is the same that it has been famously owned by another French Fund the entire time since that British Fund has been set up. And the French Fund is owned by another Fund in another country since the French Fund has been set up.

Tons of radio program's announcements have been announced in such invalid way. Rumored Boston's Magic 106.7FM radio station's female manager was announced by a Jessica Lopez this same way that actually effectively ousted radio station's then in-office male CEO and promoted the female a CEO in 2014 time.

Since 2014, it has been rumored that this radio program has been argued why its featured stories have to be real stories. And it is well-known I have not been to Britain yet, not to mention seduce a British Prince as featured on the radio program. I know how much shits threw at me by "no need to be really my stories", but I do not know how many "radio program's announcements to gain ownership" have to be effective since this radio program went on-air in 2005.

I refuse to acknowledge any of all those radio program's never-authorized-announcements that is related to who I am or what I own or what I have achieved. I did call law enforcement's help on those announcements that have been illegally transacted.

My clarification on my participation in radio program producing (Second item)

----Dec. 27th, 2017

About my daily providing that announced this morning "No American should support my living cost".
My response: I am not supposed to be supported by anyone but myself.

Rumored Jessica Lopez, a resident New Haven of Connecticut is the person has some huge sayings over my housing and my cash or food providing by being so influential to Boston Housing Authority and Boston Transition Department. The husband she announced on the radio has nothing to do with me, and the real reason of her power is because she is the person "radio program announcement promoted" Boston's Magic 106.7FM radio station's female manager.

Currently, those providing whereabouts from my trusts are still being "investigated". I only received housing arrangement paid for years from my first year's providing, no food or cash received yet. Rumored, my second year's transferred to Tina O'Connor and my third year's transferred to Jessica Petroves(Pejoves) by a Hispanic Treasure Department employee who never heard of any stories about these two famous British Royals most wanted British Funds. Both transferred after radio program's announcement of "Chinese woman does not deserve any O'Connor money or any Petroves(Pejoves) money."

I am currently having Food stamps and some SSI help other than housing. Food Stamps I received is because of "poverty" and SSI I received is because I have been really "agitated".

*My second year's providing American Fund is owned by the same French Fund that owns the British East India Company Financier Fund, never O'Connors' money.\
*My third year's providing American fund is owned by a French Fund that also owns the other famous British Royals most wanted Fund, never Pejoves' or Petroves' money.
*My fourth year's providing American Fund, currently has not paid out my living expense yet, is owned by a French Fund that never owned by David Petraeus' family nor any of his relatives.

----Dec. 27th, 2017

12-26-2017 Pants-off prostituting group is not the authenticating power of my matter

12-26-2017 Pants-off prostituting group is not the authenticating power of my matter

Heard this morning's confusion who is eligible to have a saying over what.
My response: What else would one expect when saying over another person's business, other than "I told you I refuse to fxxx you..." from another person. It is purely another person business, not this or that person to say at all unless...

----Dec. 26th, 2017

Heard the confusion of exactly what is a Dowager.
My response:

A dowager is not just a widow, but a widow has a noble title and handsome financial arrangement from the late husband that is not very shabby compare to her own born heir of her husband's share. A Dowager is privileged because of her senior age, her noble title and her influence in her late husband's house including her other children's households.

What would happen if a widow is not willing to tolerate a Dowager or an heiress? Well, the same if a gentleman is not willing to tolerate another gentleman, let's say how well resourceful a widow does mean a lot in this kind of situation. It is the same when a Dowager is not getting along with an heiress. It is the same when a Dowager or an heiress does not get along with a gentleman.

What will happen if a wife or a Mistress is not getting along with a Dowager or an heiress? It is understood as the husband or the gentleman lover who is the person that does not get along with the Dowager or the heiress. So it is the same as a Dowager or an heiress does not get along with the husband or the gentleman.

The "not getting along situation" between a Dowager or an heiress, or a gentleman is understood as between the head of different houses.

What is the difference between an heiress with a noble title and an heiress without a noble title? Purely just how resourceful an heiress can be.

----Dec. 26th, 2017

Heard this morning's presentation of the frustration over my biological children.
My response: This is ridiculous that all these "pants-off for money" groups can be supported on the public channel to insult everyone who is never one of them, who is never their business and never intend to fxxx them.

I am never such a cheap a person that needs to have some money through child-bearing that is resulted from pants-off to demand money desire. My children are well-known through pregnancy mothers.

I am the heiress, the well-known Asian owner of the British East India company Financier, who also owns its almost $400 Billion American brother Fund that I call O'Connor's family wealth confusion. I am never the person in need of financial security through pants-off.

Who the fxxx are those prostitutes-borns to say if I am allowed to have a child or children authentic enough as if their pants-off only knowledge can be the authentication power? How many they have fxxx-ed that can make them so knowledgeable about everybody's underwear matter is none of my business, I refuse to fxxx any of them. My matter is none of their business because I refuse to fxxx them no matter how whorely & prostituting experienced they are.

----Dec. 26th, 2017

Heard this morning's noise is the confusion of "get money from pants-off experience" and "get inheritance as the result of parents' mating experience."
My response: "Get money from pants-off experience" is sexual activities between money giver and money recipient that emphasized on providing sexual coitus experience in exchange for getting money provided.

Having inheritance means there is no sexual activity at all between the money giver and money recipient. The money recipient is the mating result of the money giver's parenting efforts.

Who does not know the difference between a child's relationship with birth parents' mating experiences and sexual partners sexual intercourse relationship?

----Dec. 26th, 2017

12-25-2017 Merry Christmas

                                       12-25-2017 Merry Christmas

To the well-known my own biological children:

                                       Merry Christmas!
            You are well-known my own biological children the same as well-known "An Asian Owner" in British East India Company Financier's story. Your mother is never the person that needs you to have some financial security. Do not listen to any nonsense if you are good enough to your mother or your father, and tell those who doubt your mother's unlady-like behavior that mother is an heiress from a 2000-years-long polygamist family. That is that.

           *The "An Asian Owner" is well-known to entire Britain and entire France for over one or two centuries. A lot of people from India aware of these "An Asian Owner" stories too.

To my own children's grandparents and their father:
                   
                                      Merry Christmas!

To everyone I owe my big thanks for their love and caring towards my biological children:
                         
                                      Merry Christmas!

To my own father:
                  
                                      Merry Christmas!

             I wish with all my heart I can say Merry Christmas to my own birth mother. I hope the rumors about my mother may still alive is true. I am the person providing for both of my biological and lawful parents as decided on July 1st of 2004.

老爸爸：圣诞节快乐。查一下你的每月现金是否有收到。我收到的是$735 加上$30. 你现在的生活是由我负担的， 一切都是依照2004年7月1日我信托财产时所决定的， 着重健康及基本生活保障。支出是由我的信托支付，目前已支付的几个信托都不是方智仁爷爷设的信托，更不是其他人的支出。所以你的生活是由你女儿我负担的。如果妈妈还在，她的待遇和你是一样的。😀😀

还有，如果有人问如果中国有继承税，我继承财产是否欠中国税收，你就说不欠。
我已查询，如果我是一个法国公民（或英国公民）在美国领土上以美国康州居民身份继承财产（英国法国是有继承财产的税收的），我是不用缴纳针对财产征收的遗产税（因为爷爷们都是在1949年10月1日解放以前就已办理境外信托，即将财产信托在中国领土以外地区，爷爷们也都不是法国公民或英国公民或美国公民）， 我也不用缴纳针对我个人的继承税（因为我是在法国或英国境外的美国领土上继承的财产，不用向法国或英国缴纳任何继承说，而美国康州在2004年6月30日这一天孙子女继承祖父母财产是100%免继承税的）。所以，就算中华人民共和国有继承财产相关的税收，我都没欠中华人民共和国任何应交税款。

还有，你所念的南京大学和我所念的上一医都是由爷爷们（方智仁的爷爷，方智仁的父亲和方智仁）捐的。

女儿

----Dec. 25th, 2017

12-24-2017 The difference between A Mistress, A Dowager and An Heiress.

12-24-2017 The difference between A Mistress, A Dowager and An Heiress

Heard this morning's question of "why she can't be a Mistress".

My response: The tone and the question normally would be expected from a special group of people called dowagers. A dowager is a dignified senior female who has a title or properties derived from her late husband.(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dowager).

The tone would be more haughty if a senior female has both a title and properties from the late husband, but normally won't address to a same-kind who won't tolerate a bit but respond fiercely by all means. A same-kind normally does have a lot of means to respond fiercely, right?

The following is my example response which is a very common one that can be responded immediately and publicly right to the faces of those who dare to ask this question and as my return of those "bathroom" radio program promotions organized by the couple. A very mild response indeed.

This question "why can't she be a Mistress" is definitely ridiculous from a Mistress only female with the seeder of her child still alive, and address to a well-known polygamist heiress. This haughty question, rumored, is from a Jessica P, the announced mother of James Rockefeller's child (David Petraeus' child). No wonder the saying is "His profession is in uniform which should stand for no-education already." And I add here that I can tolerate that person this much for the sake that his child does not have any title can inherit from him. A title does imply some class of taste, including the taste of choosing who can seed to produce an heir, right?

To those "bathroom" promotions that organized just to tell everyone that I am a female David Petraeus never intended to fuck with, I really have to say I do not know how this David Petraeus addressed his own birthmother to differentiate the category?

----Dec. 24th, 2017

What is the difference between a Mistress, a Dowager and an Heiress?
My response:

An heiress is a female who has who has inherited a title or properties from her birth family, not necessarily from the birth parents if the properties or title is from birth grandparent directly, but has to be the heiress of the birth parent from the side she inherited her title or properties from.

If a dowager is also an heiress of her own maiden family, the dowager has the saying of her owns plus what she got from her late husband.

A dowager is the head of her late husband's household but has no saying of her own-born inherited heir son, and her own-born inherited heir son has no saying of her, the same. An heiress is the head of her own house that having sayings of all her own-born blood together with the entire house.

I am the heir(heiress) of my own birthfather according to my family's ancient birthmark heir rule, but my inherited wealth and my titles are from my birth grandfathers directly.

I often address myself an heir to my grandfathers because I was brought up as a boy. I am an heiress of an almost 2000-years-long history polygamist family that has the male polygamist's privilege in my romance.

I was never a Mistress to anyone who I had dated, I did not even have some wild dating experiences. I just dated those prominent in a polygamist heir's style but as a girl. That is all.

My inherited titles are for my own heir is a true statement, but being me who is a Queen of what I own, I can create titles to entitle all my biological children upon their birth is also a true statement. That is a Queen do, right? I am blessed that I have tons of titles I had inherited to eligible me to create titles to hierarchy from.

*My grandfathers entrusted wealth together with some titles that created especially for me being an heiress. So, my birth lawful father does not have any title but I inherited a lot together with my trusts that set up by my grandfathers. I have over 10 grandfathers had been Emperors but I do not know how many titles I inherited. As the heir of this generation, I inherited all my family's titles plus some "entrusted" titles.

East Han Dynasty, 3-4 Emperors were my grandfathers.
Tang Dynasty, over 11 Emperors were my grandfathers, and one ruling Empress was my grandmother.
Southern Tang Dynasty, 3 Emperors were my grandfathers.


----Dec. 24th, 2017

Heard radio program's shit throwing is just some challenge that is all about "being a provided for or being a desire to be provided for should be the ruler of the provider or a potential provider".
My response: I refuse to hire anyone to rule me or govern me. I refuse anything this sort of.

Who should be the ruler of other people's private wealth or of another wealthy person is none of my business unless that has impacts on my own biological children's interests.

The supporting evidence of the challenge is "Government officials are paid by tax-payers to govern (rule) taxpayers", Royals are supported by tax-payers to be the Royals, etc. What is wrong to be the person that been provided for to rule the provider?

I am a tax-payer of the United States, I say I understand that the United States Government officials are paid by the United States' taxpayers to govern common interests of all U.S. citizens to ensure every U.S. citizen to have the lawful rights that granted by U.S. Constitution can be effectively same equal in front of U.S. laws and effectively protected by laws. What else?

---- Dec. 24th, 2017

12-23-2017 How the ownership can be "effectively changed" just by announcing an ownership on the radio?

12-23-2017 How the ownership can be "effectively changed" just by announcing an ownership on the radio?

Heard this morning's talk about who owns this radio company and this radio program it investing.
My response: Great to hear Board of Directors take the ownership back from the "announced to own claimer", is this enough to let public aware Board of Directors are the authoritative voice over radio company's management matter including this radio program it investing?

It has been horrible as if this radio company has no management at all just because its ownership was announced by whoever wants to own a radio company has access to this radio company's public channel microphone. How those joking-like announcements of radio company's ownership in June of 2007 could actually become "effective" in radio company's business operation like what had happened?

This entire time it has been my complaints why Albert Gore has the final saying of how radio program should produce about my stories? or if I have achievements, etc. ? Albert Gore got nothing to do with me and he is not the computer person or graduated from a medical school to evaluate if I have any achievements, why him? Oh, now I knew it was all because of that joke in June of 2007 that made him the voice of radio company's business decision, how about me related? How he became the authoritative voice about my anything?

All I heard yesterday about this was there was or were female voices have been used to mimic my voice, and I did write an email to law enforcement because I did not know what has been said to the public audience in my voice. If you have been pissed off about what "I" commented or "I" opinioned through this radio program or some other places, please contact law enforcement if the impact has been immense, or send me an email that was listed right below this blog's title about your complaints. There was an 1800 number that was published on May 16 of 2017, it was paid by the account that managing my $3Billion major featured person fee. I heard because of the disputes of those featured mimic voices deserve to share this $3Billion of major featured person fee between 2005 to Dec. 31st of 2012. (they already deposit this radio company paid-out $3Billion into their own bank accounts and currently in disputes), the phone receiver is uncertain. I refuse to let those unwanted and completely illegal activities to abuse my voice right and to share my major featured person fee.

* My understanding, even if out of the consideration that I do have my handsome inherited wealth that it should be alright to let somebody mimic my voice to make some money through their own mimicking talents, they should announce themselves instead of abuse my voice right. And it won't be entire $3Billion that much.

*如果中国政府有听说我在2007年前后通过广播剧或者其他媒体说中国政府是一个无政府组织，请向美国司法机关查询。我从未发表类似言论，我是从2015年一月开始因私人财产被凭奶子屁股无理强行索求还不给不行，才开始痛骂中国政府根本是个敲诈勒索犯罪团伙外加卖淫集团被取名为中国政府，我今天已经就广播剧使用声音演员以模仿我的声音通过广播剧发表一些言论报警美国联邦调查局。


----Dec. 23rd, 2017

12-22-2017 Strategy of Desperation and Strategy of Buy-Out-Everyone

12-22-2017 Strategy of Desperation and Strategy of Buy-Out-Everyone


Heard this morning's proud announcement of victory to own the entire 5 times more.
My response: Heard that is apparently announced as proud of victory win by the strategy of taking of pants in front of the husband's uncle and the husband's uncle's colleague. Is it possibly really broadcasted as such a proud on the public radio?

I thought she has been very proud she married to the money, why this desperation strategy is needed? Why I have a complaint about this? Because the similar demand is rumored about my already pre-paid medical expenses. She just can't bear that medical expense was paid by a check printed as "Company (Investor Fund)". Even with an investor clearly printed next to the company name, that check has to be destroyed, otherwise whatever left that has not been used in there has to be her money.

To destroy a check that was already cashed in October of 2017 or to own the money knowing that was never her husband's or her husband's any relatives' money? What kind of desperation is this? I have tons of similar complaints about this female that I have constantly called this female a psycho, I heard she publicly complained about this PSYCHO title she earned so hard on a lot of public media, so should I call her something else such as "fake rich but real beggar"?

*The check was paid from the company's investor's(Investor Fund) capital accounts (also called owner's account or each shareholder's account). That Investor Fund is my inheritance. Her husband or her husband's relatives' similar checks would be printed as "Company (Firstname Lastname)". My capital accounts that with my name on them are in my trusts.

----Dec. 22nd, 2017


If I am asked why she can be so desperate?
My response: That is never my curiosity.

But I assumed that has something to do with the saying that her husband's father does have a younger child. All these being victoried of "owned already" as well as myself may be the party that had supported the Mr. Senior's wife to have a child through pregnancy mother after almost over 50 years of marriage.

I was talking about me possibly having a pregnancy-unfriendly womb and was having some anxiety health situation, I was in my late 30s and I may need to wait for another 10 years to consider helped nature pregnancy. And when I was talking about being a mother through pregnancy mother with the help of very common medical technology IVF (In-vitro Fertilization), it interested a lot of females who have not been a mother for a lot of reasons. One of them is the Mrs. Senior.

I felt bad for Mrs. Senior not being a mother after almost 50 years marriage. You can say I was easy about that person's inheritable because I inherited my own grandfathers' handsome blessing the day before, that is if I am considered a "fake female in interest". Or you can say I just didn't care the impacts to that person's inheritable at all by just being an outsider. Either way, I just did not think it was inappropriate to say Mrs. Senior can have a child through pregnancy mother in her 70s. I was not set up the Mr. Senior with a 20s to intentionally impact that person's inheritable. It was Mr. Senior's wife after almost 50 years marriage.

The female who I often called a psycho may beyond boundary felt uncomfortable about the impacts of her announced child's inheritable. Regarding this, I announce here I do not care a bit. I won't tolerate her taking my money as if  I owe her. I never owe her a bit. I take legal action every time if she tries. I called law enforcement's help regarding my $3Billion radio company's income.

I repeat what I said in the morning, "David Petraeus has made his own announcements loudly and quiet out his harshness through promotions in reality, but he has thrown shits at me even louder and promoted those shits 100 times fold louder in my reality life as well as quite out any efforts of reporting that I have my own very handsome wealth. That is the reason I sue them both for severe sexual harassments."

*When that person's marriage was announced in June of 2007 on the radio program, I was in a health situation that I did not even remember I had met that person. I have no need to demand financial providing from that person or his related because I have been well provided for since Christmas of 2014 and there is no confusion that I never demanded anything before Christmas of 2014.

----Dec. 22nd. 2017

Heard the rumor of the saying that his grandfather can kill my great-grandfather, he can kill me.
My response: By rumored, this is a 3rd or a 4th cousin to me or my great-grandfather and once worked for the couple mentioned above.

By rumor, the confidence came from the same repeated strategy: Buy all the way through. I was like "Oh, no wonder this time this family need The Money to participate, otherwise not enough money to buy everyone".

By rumor, the strategy repeated to be used on my great-grandfather and my grandfather.

My great-grandfather and my great-great-grandfather were known for supported almost entire Chinese College Education system in early 1900 time.

I heard my great-grandfather was an over-night sudden death caused by poisoned food in 1930. And the money my great-grandfather entrusted was claimed owned by a cousin of my great-grandfather's and some of it was donated to both the Chinese National Party and the Chinese Communist Party after his death. It was in 1930 when the Chinese Communist party was in need of money time.

My grandfather passed away by natural death in 1965, the People's Republic of China was just after 3 years of hardship or three years famine time which may be the reason that money could achieve a lot to have the confidence of buy-way-out is a strategy.

----Dec. 22nd, 2017

12-21-2017 A public microphone can only report Lawful Ownership

12-21-2017 A public microphone can only report A Lawful Ownership

Heard this morning's talk about David Petraeus decision on me.
My response: David Petraeus had announced he has nothing to do with me at all on this same radio program and elsewhere.
I repeat what I said in the morning: David Petraeus decision does not represent my decision or my opinion unless authorized.

What I own is never his to decide. Who I am is never his to decide. I am the owner of British East Indian Company Financier Fund by inheriting according to its centuries well-known entrusting "An Asian" person's will. I am the cash provider for Lehman Brother's Subprime Mortgage loans.

My wealth has nothing to do with David Petraeus or his family wealth or his relatives' family wealth. My current financial providing has nothing to do with David Petraeus or his family wealth or his relatives' family wealth.

12-20-2017 British East India Company Financier Fund

I heard there was a media interview broadcasted yesterday that his beloved females declared I do not even have a resume which is certainly an untrue statement. The following link is for anyone who has received education to check out if that expression is out of human reproduction-function-only organ to insult the fact that a human does have a brain for any non-sexual related resume. I am sick of his beloved females' shits out of their sexual activities. They have been one of the major reasons for all these shits threw at me on the radio.

Archive Section of My Web Blog-- My Proud Achievements

----Dec. 21st, 2017


Heard this morning's arguments about who should own this radio program.
My response: I am the creator and major featured person of the radio program, and I am the investor to both radio company and radio program. I own above shares lawfully.

I heard Chinese government's representative had announced on the radio program some "announced ownership of this radio program" is the reason for this morning's arguments. I announce here that those "announced ownership on the radio" has nothing to do with me and has nothing to do with my lawful ownership shares. I did call law enforcement's help on tons of these similar "announced ownership" through producing an entertainment company's microphone that intended to own my lawful wealth.

My lawful shares are represented by radio company IHeartMedia's Board of Directors. My investment in this radio program and IHeartMedia is through an American Fund which is a brother Fund to British East India Company's Financier Fund.

I heard IHeartMedia's Board of Directors has no saying over this radio program producing or anything about IHeartMedia is because it was announced that Albert Gore is "the real biggest announced owner of IHeartMedia" by his (Albert Gore's) own joking tone announcement on the radio program before 2010 time. I heard this same person also announced himself is "the real president of the United States" in the same joking tone earlier this year.

I heard since then anything this Albert Gore decided has been announced as United States government's decision. I did call law enforcement's help on announcement's I accused as "public kill attempted". Those announcements that I heard rumored everywhere are " the United States' government decided the Chinese woman in Boston won't get any appropriate medical treatment", " or "the United States' government decided that law enforcement won't investigate on anything that the Chinese woman in Boston had called possible crimes", as well as some clear instructions on how to remotely harm or kill the Chinese woman in Boston through some technology. I am the "Chinese woman in Boston" that public audience understood.

I am protected by the United States' Government under President Trump's leadership.
I am protected by the United States' Military under President Trump's leadership.
I am protected by the United States' law enforcement that under President Trump's leadership.

*IHeartMedia is the former Clear Channel Media.
*The American Fund mentioned above is the O's family wealth confusion.

----Dec. 21st, 2017

12-20-2017 British East India Company Financier Fund

12-20-2017 British East India Company Financier Fund

Heard this morning's broadcasting sworn protection of lawful interests.
My response: I heard the issues are caused by what an immigration country the United States is.

For my own experiences, almost everybody but in very limited numbered countries like Britain, France and India know that the British East India company financier Fund has been historically known entrusted by an Asian.

And tons of similar confused stories of never heard of from worldwide immigrants.

----Dec. 20th, 2017

Heard the question why nobody doubted if it possible I am eligible to be the mother of the British Crown Prince's children.
My response: Maybe everybody had heard from their British friends, or French friends, or Indian friends that the British East India Company Financier Fund would be the reason for the British Crown Prince to consider.

And I was willing because only a British Crown Prince (junior) who also carry my blood can claim this fund to be owned by the British Royals from him on.

I was heartbroken when I heard the British Crown Prince chose not to have such a child which left me tons of greatest opportunities to wear the most pretty possible every time I need to introduce I am the owner of the British East India Company financier fund, as well as the reason that the British Royals feel OK in unison not to own the British East India Company financier fund from the next generation on.

I am OK that there is no such child and there are no such children to remind me that I am unwanted. And I feel relieved that I do not need to struggle if I should make my own heir cry for at least one title I inherited.

----Dec. 20th, 2017

Some updates on CEOs being dragged out stories.
My response: One dragged-out American Fund's CEO has been pissed off since the day, and I heard the reason was he insisted on its parent Fund's CEO to contact his home phone number, and the parent British fund's CEO insisted on him went back to the office to pick up the phone there. The Big question from British was "Why can't he just get up and go back into the building from a rear entrance?"

The mystery that caused some misunderstanding in this dragged-out story was the American Fund's CEO never heard of such treat till experienced it while the British parent fund's CEOs have already well familiar with these treats for a couple of hundred years. The historical stories are if the CEO was butts-on-the-ground threw out, the CEO would just get up and find a door that could re-enter the building, or just moved the entire company to another building if the British Royals ordered the CEO not allowed to come back to the building.

----Dec. 20th, 2017

12-19-2017

**I have not heard one single episode of this radio program myself for a lot of reasons. To do a radio program majorly featuring me was discussed on 07/01/2004 conference call. The radio program has been produced by United States 106.7FM or Clear Channel and on air since 2005??suppose??. I am a Chinese, the major featured person(suppose). Following are what I gathered from impacts of being the major featured person and may not correct. Please contact me at somebodyinMA@gmail.com if the content is seriously incorrect and please provide references including broadcasting channel and time, thanks forward.

----Copied from somebodyinBoston.blogspot.com


12-19-2017

Heard this morning's talk about who has not enjoyed whom or who did check out tattoo.
My response: All are none of my business.

The only one that may be my business is I need to dress pretty the most was laughed out hysterically by the interpretation of "rather be a mother-fucker". I heard those are Chinese females who never heard of British East India Company financier fund's historic stories.

It is none of my business other than to say I heard the reason for the laugh did clarify this morning he never enjoyed the mother image in the laugh.

----Dec. 19th, 2017


My clarification on my participation in radio program producing:
I have not heard any broadcast episodes of this radio program I have been complaining since it on-air in 2005.

I have not yet in studio-participating the producing of this radio program since its pilot time.

I do not know what has been announced on this radio program since 2005 other than some rumors concerning my own lawful interests, and I did call laws' help on a lot of things that concern my lawful interest.

I refuse my own lawful rights to be stepped on in the name of producing this radio program or promoting this radio program.

I refuse my own lawful interests to be stepped on in the name of producing this radio program or promoting this radio program.

I refuse my own financial belonging be given out by announcing gifting on a public media without my own wish.

I did call law enforcement's help to get back every penny I own that has been given out illegally by the radio program's producing team together with its local promotion teams.

I did call my own attorneys to check why and how there have been so many outside saying-over power on my lawful interests that have been created by some producers of this radio program's announce-to-own efforts.

----Dec. 19th, 2017

12-18-2017 Horrifying to know this Announced-to-own scheme has been since 2006 or 2007

12-18-2017 Horrifying to know this Announced-to-own scheme has been since 2006 or 2007


Heard this morning's talk about why O'Connors are so supported to announce-to-own.
My response: Exactly.

The Fund caused O'Connors' confusion is the brother Fund to British East India Company's Financier and both owned by a French Fund.

Since Queen Victoria time in 1800, British Royals efforts to own this Fund have made so many British know that Fund was not any O'Connor'ss family wealth, and so many French know that Fund was never any O'Connor's wealth.

The other one of my inheritance Fund that caused a Jessica Pejoves'(Petroves?) severe confusion is similar to this fund, so many British know this was never Pejoves'(Petroves?) family wealth, and so many French know that Fund was never any Pejoves'(Petroves?) wealth.

Heard the big names are either sharing O'Connors' confusion or sharing this Jessica Pejoves' (Petroves?) confusion by marriage, rumored 4 Miss Pejoves (Petroves?) (2 twins from the same Pejoves (Petroves?) mother) and 4 MissO'Connors (from the same mother) married to the big names from the same great grandfather's line (fathered by or mothered by).

Since 2015, Worldwide people knew British Crown Prince chose not to wish to have this British East Indian Company Financier Fund by publicly addressed he never had anything to do with its U.S. citizen Chinese Owner.

There is no such child and no such children that shared between any British Prince with British East India Company's financier fund's U.S. citizen Chinese Owner.

I am truly impressed by the Lawful Country the UK has been since the Queen Victoria time. And I am aware I have to dress the most pretty possible whenever I need to introduce myself as U.S. citizen Chinese owner of the British East India Company Financier.

----Dec. 18th, 2017

I was asked why I have to make it so public like this?
My response: Not my preference. I have no choice but to make this whole story public.

Since 2015, so many people have verified this Fund is the brother Fund to British East India Company's Financier Fund. And today, some O'Connors still insist on to claim on the public channel radio to own this Fund, and they took every penny of the money I was lawfully provided by this fund for my exclusive usage to cover my daily living. I have been shitted a beggar and have been living in poverty because of this radio program's promotions. I have no choice but to make this whole story public.

It was constantly announced on the radio that O'Connors deserve to own this Fund, and some O'Connors insist on making phone calls to the Fund to demand money per their request just to prove O'Connors truly own this Fund, and insist on to at least to own over 100 Billion of this Fund, by rumor, because this is a over $300 Billion Fund and I published $200 Billion on my web blog. They claim this has to be owned by them because they announced it on the radio already.

I refuse to let my lawfully owned inheritance Fund to be illegally announced-to-owned just by some public channel radio program's announcement.

What they cannot own if they can own this Fund just by holding on to a public channel microphone?

As far as I heard of, rumored Albert Gore announced himself to be the biggest investor of this radio company before 2010 which caused Board of Director has no saying over who should be the CEO.

Heard rumored currently, Board of Directors support current CEO but public denounced the same CEO on the radio by saying he has been ousted about 2-3 months ago. And I heard he is still the CEO currently.

SInce 2007, rumored Albert Gore announced the first time that one of intellectual income to be called his own money to give out or to keep as he wishes and every penny of all my intellectual income since then. All these money has been transferred to announced patron's bank account as announced on the radio. I called law enforcement help on this. I accused Albert Gore committed public robbery or public theft.

Beyond my money, I knew I have to address that my Ingonyama title that I lawfully inherited from another birth grandfather of mine cannot be owned by just announced want-to-own on the radio. And I refuse to let anyone own my own titles including this Ingonyama title.

Beyond my money and my titles, I heard some other private employment promotion(s), public post(s), etc. have been announced, and I am not certain if those were announcements only or announced to be promoted etc.

Beyond my money and my titles, my own achievements have all been denied to be mine because some people do not know why those have to be my achievements, even though by hard evidence those are my achievements. And almost all my achievements have been announced-to-own on this radio program by whoever desire to have some achievements.

I did call laws' help on my own matters that I am certain of.

----Dec. 18th, 2017

12-17-2017 Why my exclusive usage lawful cash providing can be "disagreed" by whoever?

12-17-2017 Why my exclusive usage lawful cash providing can be "disagreed" by whoever?

Heard this morning's talk about my cash providing.
My response: I feel I can finally breathe now. Thanks very much.
It will be my exclusive providing, no split. I heard 2 confusing number of the cash amount that was broadcast this morning so I will let my attorneys know what is the number when I receive.

I also hear complaints of "too much" for the big number, I say that are ridiculous complaints. That is the amount I am lawfully provided for my exclusive usage and that's that. It is none of anyone else's business how much I should use or can use. These complaints are from those who want money just by being money-wanters. I refuse to provide for them. Who the Fxxx they think they are. It was never their money for them to have such complaints.

My inherited wealth is either my trusts set up by my own birth grandfathers or my own birth grandfather's wealth I inherited. It was never a shared family wealth. My trusts are owned by me ever since the day those trusts were set up for me. My own birth grandfather's wealth (方智仁）was owned by my own birth grandfather(方智仁) before my inheriting, and was never owned by anyone else after my birth grandfather's own inheriting in 1930 or so. I inherited my own birth grandfather's（方智仁）wealth according to my own birth grandfather's will in 2004.

----Dec. 17th, 2017

Heard this morning's confusing number was supported by big names.
My response: That has been my anger the entire time. My inherited wealth has nothing to do with their names no matter how huge their names are. Why they can have this illusion I will let them have this saying power over my money? They are the ones telling everybody I have nothing to do with them, why they have this illusion that they can have this saying power over my money just by having nothing to do with me? I know a lot of people already said they want to let me have some of their own money by creating opportunities for me to file lawsuits against them. I just do not understand since they knew I never demanded a penny of their money, why would they willing to let me have some so voluntarily? The experience is the big names seemed just won't stop till see you in courts.

I am not complaining that the radio program does some reporting to reflect some issues, but reporting should never mean saying over power, right?

Like the other day, New Jersey Senator O'Connor stated on the radio program, I heard, that my inheritance fund (the O'Connors confused one) is not their family wealth. Well, some big names insist on to broadcast a People's Republic of China's citizen's announcement "but that fund is" immediately after it. Which Fund? Why this American Fund's lawful ownership is a People's Republic of China's citizen's to "correct"? This almost 400 years old American fund that causes O'Connors' confusion was confused by a 200-years-ago's letter, and this entire time that Fund has a British parent Fund, and a French grandparent Fund, and another great grandparent Fund that registered in a country has no records of any O'Connor ancestors. Why some big names, by rumors, insist on to let a People's Republic of China's citizen have this opportunity to make everyone doubts who should own the money, what is the purpose?

I have to express myself that I do not know if the rumors can be true, and I am not willing to participate any efforts to send big names to courts for financial gain, but I will sue big names if my own lawful interests and my own lawful rights have been impacted by their rumored efforts.

12-10-2017 My Capital accounts are in my Trusts, not in the State of Massachusetts

12-12-2017 Heard this morning's confusion from P. R. China how that is my Fund.

----Dec. 17th, 2017

Heard some big names still confused if I spend their money by saying I want this or that publicly in front of them.
My response: How could I possibly spend their money just by saying publicly that I want this or that when they were presented at the same meeting? At least one of their own (David Petraeus) never felt humiliated when yelling "Not going to pay" publicly when they were presented as well as everybody else in the same meeting whenever I said I want this or that.

And there were people answered publicly in front of them that they would cover my spending whenever I said I want this or that every time cause David Petraeus' angry yelling "Not going to pay". One of those who claimed to cover my spending is the person I have called my own accountant.

Why would any of other big names feel any humiliation to say "not going to pay" when they were approached privately after the meeting?

12-16-2017 I refuse what I own to be announced given out and I refuse to be harassed by none of my business rumors

----Dec. 17th, 2017

12-16-2017 I refuse what I own to be announced given out and I refuse to be harassed by none of my business rumors

12-16-2017 I refuse what I own to be announced given out and I refuse to be harassed by none of my business rumors

Heard this morning's talk about Lehman Brothers' investment.
My response: I refuse to give anything related to Lehman Brothers' investment to anyone, as a gift or not as a gift at all.

Heard this morning confirmed that I have spent total $45 Billion in cash from my allowances to help Lehman Brothers' cash reserves. I wish Mr. R-s and Mrs. R-s could know this is the reason they had been approached to ask if they would be willing to financially support those "what I said" on July 1st of 2004.

I wish Mr. R-s and Mrs. R-s could understand I never intended to spend their money and I never spent their money is a true statement.

----Dec. 16th, 2017

Heard some scary rumors about Dwarfs and Inmans.
My response: I am a resident of Boston, Massachusetts. Dwarf and Inman are just two geographic locations in Boston, MA.

Inman Square is located near Central Square, I heard it has a lot of law school students' residents near-by.

The dwarf is located near Boston Aquarium area, I do not know who Dwarfs possibly are.

----Dec. 16th, 2017

Heard rumors about I am being a bad luck to a wedding because I am known for no-wedding.
My response: Heard it is so severe that I should not even be allowed to be near to any place that having a wedding going on. This is through some malicious harassment promotions.

The truth is I only have children from marriage, as I decided on July 1st of 2004.

I was never a person in need of a child or children for financial providing or titles & privileges reasons. I was never that cheap could have my children to be called illegitimate children.

----Dec. 16th, 2017


Heard this morning's broadcasting of a Chinese who is or isn't a real one.
My response: Either case is none of my business.

If any Chinese could remember there was a published article in Chinese magazine World Journals Weekends about the war in Afghanistan and about deployed U.S. military there. That article was published before 2010, and I remembered it mentioned a newly wedded wife of the most senior U.S. Military commander in Afghanistan.

If anyone insists on saying I am a stuck-on to that commander, I have to call that person a psycho because that is just ridiculous while knowing I had been in no contact with that commander for any reason at all since July of 2004. I did call the person who has minded it very much beyond boundary a psycho and I did call laws' help on possible severe sexual harassment case through this radio program and through the promotions of this radio program.

----Dec. 16th, 2017

Heard this morning's talk about I said I would give David Petraeus money.
My response: It was on July 1st of 2004. That conversation was about how I would share my wealth with my possible biological children. David Petraeus made it very clear he has his own excellent family wealth and his child would not need any of my money, that was even if he shares a child with me. Later he asked me if I would be willing to give his child who also carry my blood some of my own money if he changes his mind about this, I said of course. And he asked me to promise that I won't change my mind about this. And I did promise it.

He did change his mind about this totally by having his biological child with another person as he already publicly announced. And I did not change my mind a bit about how I only willing to give my own money to my own biological children.

I won't give any of my own money to any of David Petraeus' associated romance or non-romance relationships. I refuse to give a penny to any of his real or rumored romances, in the past, at present, or in the future.

David Petraeus publicly announced he has nothing to do with me.

I announce here that any of his romance, rumors or real ones, is none of my business.

The end.

----Dec. 16th, 2017

12-15-2017

12-15-2017

Heard this morning's broadcasting about un-controllable chuckles.
My response: I heard the feeling felt was cold at the moment.

I heard in most of the cases that chuckle was a response to the question "Why that Chinese woman's words mean anything at all?" I am truly sorry for all the hurts that caused by cold feeling felt, but they were never the group who liked to see me have financial losses that may further impact on so many people's life. CDC related subprime loans were the real reason.

----Dec. 15th, 2017

Heard this morning's broadcasting about a Chinese female who was a former producer of this radio program in 2016 time.
My response: She was the person, by rumor, insisted on to broadcast my stories as she preferred. She was the person called a Chinese male Germany resident who has the exact same Chinese name as mine to state Min Fang has nothing to do with 2008 Beijing Olympic Games Opening Ceremony to confuse public audience who I am.

By rumors, she was the major person in Chinese producing team in 2016 time that insisted on producing radio program in such a way to confuse the public if I have any non-sexual professional or academic achievements. I did call law enforcement's help on Chinese producing team's efforts in 2016,

Rumored, she is a relative by DNA to a Chinese female diplomat who has demanded financial providing for her own biological child from me. I refuse if rumors about demanding are true.

----Dec. 15th, 2017

Heard there is some confusion about the Fund that causes O'Connors' confusion.
My response: The confusion I heard was why now if it was not appropriate since Senators became paid public posts.

That fund was set up by a trust that my ancient grandfather set up for me. It has a British parent fund, a French grandparent Fund, and a great-grandparent Fund that has been registered in a country that has no known records of O'Connor family's ancestry.

As currently well known, O'Connors' family has been agreed of providing for over six generations that most of them do have huge confusion about this fund's ownership. The confusion was the same when Senators became paid public posts.

It won't be easy to explain to them from entrusting groups as well as from everybody else including those who may not understand why they could be confused, and these explaining efforts may be interpreted as attacks from ill-wishers. I was born in 1967 and this stopping process started after I inherited on June 30th of 2004. It has been lengthy because the confusion has been real and because it is not everybody clear about the details of this agreed-upon providing.

One of the evidence that the confusion has been real was how so annoying my inheriting was to O'Connors' on June 30th of 2004.
The evidence of possible misinterpreting can certainly be seen from how I complained about Tina O'Connor.

----Dec. 15th, 2017

12-14-2017 I am not a "egging" victim and I may need to continue my "not enough cash" song

12-14-2017 I am not an "egging" victim and I may need to continue my "no cash song"

Heard this morning's broadcasting about three possible Charles Schnieberg.
My response: None of them has anything to do with me in the past.

One is over 60 years old, one has a twin(elder children) only 6 years old, the third one is public wedding married in 2007.

My children were born in 2010 when I was a "homeless" over a year already. I am not the person having the sexuality and was "not in good shape ( a homeless already)" in 2009. My children were born through pregnancy mothers in 2010.

My biological children are not from any of that three people who were featured in this morning's broadcasting. Being their mother, I am also providing for my biological children as well as my biological lawful parents as what I decided on July 1st of 2004.

----Dec. 14th, 2017

Heard this morning's broadcasting talk about my housing and my food stamps.
My response: I heard it was broadcasted the other day that Tina O'Connor took her father's money via taking my providing of my housing and my food stamps, etc.. She took that money from my second year's providing which was provided by my inheritance fund that causes O'Connor family confusion, every penny of my second year's providing.

This morning's broadcasting was about I may still need to continue my "not enough cash" song, but my apartment and my food stamps have already been paid-in-full for years already from the first year's providing.

I have been provided by a different inheritance fund each year for four years now. I am hoping that my other two years' providing (both already paid in full) can increase my cash providing instead of being routed out like Tina O'Connor's story.

I do not remember if my cash ($300/month) would be in yearly providing, or if there are some other arrangements. There were some talks about welfare providing if I would still be anxious enough, but that was about social security disability. I am certain I won't be qualified, thanks to my great psychologist. This is the reason I have not complain about no cash from social security yet.

----Dec. 14th, 2017

Heard this morning's talk about seeding program.
My response: I also heard some rumors about some egging program. I am certain I am not a victim if there is such a psycho scheme.

THere were tons of rumors about my romance. I am the heir from a long history polygamist family may contribute to my easiness when more than one husband matrimony was discussed. But I am not the person in need of a marriage or children for financial providing and tons of decent people do(did) not like any wife to get hurt by some nonsense rumors, especially those who already mothers her husband's child or children.

I do not have any child or children from those who are already being a father in 2004 and those who moved on after the meeting in 2004. I only met few of them before 2004.

----Dec. 14th, 2017

12-13-2017 Invention was Never Easy -- About Smartphones and Wipes

12-13-2017 Invention was Never Easy -- About Smartphones and Wipes

Heard this morning's broadcasting about the discussion of how to make cleaning wipes.
My response: I heard what broadcasted this morning was the replay of the original discussion on July 1st of 2004. I am the living testimony of body wipes "one application can clean as a good shower".

I tried out when I was a "homeless" at Boston Logan Airport. It was one application full body clean resulted like had a good shower, as discussed.

I pass along the information that I heard some mothers want this good-shower-clean for baby wipes.

----Dec.13th, 2017


Heard the reason that Smartphone Discussion on June 30th of 2004 has more issues about "my lack of confidence in Chinese".
My response: I heard the issue is why I did not believe that Chinese could do smartphones without any known invention of a computer operating system.

This was the "discrimination vs intellectual property" argument happened on June 30th of 2004. The Taiwanese female was pissed off because I refused to privilege Chinese to be the first to invent smartphones. And I was pissed off when she took off saying that she got all the necessary information to spin all in-discussion group out. I came from the People's Republic of China and I was very sensitive to this once very popular "1980 trading style of the People's Republic of China".

It was not that I refused to privilege Chinese or I was discriminating Chinese intelligence. It was out of the consideration that there were known existing operating system's inventors in the discussion group, and the discussion was all about the possible technique concerns of "converting" their existing laptop or desktop operating system source codes to use not-sable-yet newly invented mini hardware to make a cellphone a smart one that is equivalent to a laptop computer without a keyboard and a mouse. How could anyone who never had operating system invention experience can finish this project as fast as possible?

The argument started after we almost finished the entire discussion. Taiwanese group was not the discussion contribution group, they participated by listening to our discussion. I was pissed off seriously when she stated she got all the necessary information and her company did not need us at all. The argument started after we almost finished the entire discussion. Taiwanese group was not the discussion contribution group, they participated by listening to our discussion. I was pissed off seriously when she stated she got all the necessary information and her company did not need us at all. We were the discussion contributed group, I was the annoying talker always cut-in with the correct answers before the other three people whenever there was a concern need to be addressed, I was not intentionally to be so annoying and I contributed a lot. It was our intellectual contribution that has huge financial values, it was never that Taiwanese' to claim or to take away like that. *Heard the other three people were Mr. Bill Gates (DOS), Mr. Paul Allen (Window) and late Mr. Steve Jobs (Mac).

About the "discrimination anger", how could it possibly reasonable to expect those who could do the job wait for the Chinese to learn how to do it? or if the expectation was those who could do the job should sacrifice their own business opportunities but teach Chinese how to do it? Why or how or who could be so privileged to have this kind of expectation?

That Taiwanese owns an electronics technology company but she was not a computer programmer. I understood she did not understand that I was not the reason if Chinese can invent a computer operating system or not, and I will never be the reason. Why? No Chinese need my approval to sit in front a computer or a desk to write up some operating source codes that can make any computer that is assembled from every single piece of hardware to operate with.

I heard some Chinese from the People's Republic of China were also pissed off because of similar reasons. And plus why I discriminate Chinese while knowing Bill Gates who invented DOS was not even college graduated, and Steve Jobs invented Mac only in one year time after his college graduation.

I can only answer these kinds of accusations with "I do not know why no Chinese has invented any computer operating system yet. I really do not know."

Now I am wondering why People's Republic of China's government kept saying I am so fake because it is impossible that I could have any achievement in Computer Science because I worked full time in a restaurant for my 2 years graduate study on Computer Science and worked for Janus Associates on the Biogate project for only 4 and half years.

Exactly, what is the issue?

----Dec. 13th, 2017

12-12-2017 Heard about three classic pieces of "Perform to spend money or Fake to make Intellectual Income"(听说了三段经典"表演就可以花别人的钱及假装就可以挣到智慧产权")

12-12-2017 Heard about three classic pieces of "Perform to spend money or Fake to make Intellectual Income"(听说了三段经典"表演就可以花别人的钱及假装就可以挣到智慧产权")

Heard this morning's broadcasting caused confusion of if it is a quoted salary.(中文附后）
My response: It is not a quoted salary.

It is confusing because of the editing results of broadcasting an immediate appended next line that was said by a People's Republic of China's citizen. I heard this was helped by the Jessica who is the announced mother of a Mr. R's child(ren).

Normally, an investor only willing to take out limited amount each year from the investment in order to keep investment going for the next year. This is the reason it is a quoted "salary" in-jokes.

Agreed-upon providing need to be agreed by the representative of an investment because it is from a special reason spending for the investment's owner's capital account that needs to be agreed by the owner or by the owner's representative.

It was broadcasted this morning that O'Connors families agreed-upon providing has been agreed by this Fund's parent investor Fund, but it is in process of stopping.

----Dec. 12th, 2017


Heard this morning's confusion from P. R. China how that is my Fund.
My response: It was by my ancient grandfather's own specification. Let me explain.

My ancient grandfather (my grandfather A), the person who set up the trust, specified in his letter (will) that the daughter born with family heir birthmark from his which son's(my grandfather B's) heir birthmark line would be the sole beneficiary person of this trust. The specified son in the will letter (my grandfather B) is the son having family heir birthmark.

My grandfather B, the heir-son of this grandfather A that was specified in this grandfather A's letter(will), did not have a girl but a boy(my grandfather C) born with a family heir birthmark. So, my grandfather B informed those who have been taking care of the trust that his heir birthmark boy(grandfather C) would be the line that this heir-birthmark beneficiary girl would be born from.

And so on for my grandfathers till my grandfather Fang, Zhiren's(方智仁) generation. My father Fang, Wenhai(方文海) is my grandfather's (方智仁) heir birthmark boy. My grandfather Fang, Zhiren(方智仁) informed those who have been taking care of the trust that the beneficiary heir birthmark girl would be from his heir birthmark son Fang, Wenhai(方文海).

I was born in 1967 with the same family birthmark palms almost identical to my father's(方文海) birthmark palms.

This is how I say I inherited this trust that was set up by my ancient grandfather(my grandfather A) according to my ancient grandfather's(grandfather A's) will. That Fund was set up by the trust I inherited is the reason that is my Fund.

It was broadcasted this morning that this trust was set up for Fang, Zhiren's granddaughter(方智仁的孙女）who is from Fang, Wenhai, the eldest son of Fang, Zhiren(即方智仁的长子方文海所出的女儿）.

----Dec. 12th, 2017


Heard the People's Republic of China's relentless efforts of performing art to spent whoever's money presentation was inspired by performing art teaching materials imported from the U.S.
My response: I heard about these 2-3 "classic pieces of my performing skills" from 2004's meetings' records. I informed law enforcement's about this over a year ago.

The "classic" piece was "how I performed to spent famous R's family wealth" no matter how I was objected strongly every time I was expressing how to spend some money. It was a classic piece how I was not a bit flinched or concerned if I would get caught in any trouble.

Why would I flinch or concerned?  I was spending my own money I inherited from my own birth Chinese grandfather who was definitely not any Mr. R. I was happy everytime I was objected because I thought I was congratulated that I have my own handsome money to spend.

I never even contacted R's anybody after July 1st of 2004's meeting, how could I possibly spend R's family wealth by just saying it in my green card application representing attorney's office in Stamford, Connecticut?

----Dec. 12th, 2017


Heard why the People's Republic of China's government insist on I am a fake was also related to this performing art teaching materials.
My response: That is possibly some Chinese firmly believe that perform can claim Intellectual Incomes even those are even not performing art related.

That was another "classic" piece of June 30th, 2004 presents how I could fake some computer comments regarding smartphones without a flinch that fooled those top-notch computer professionals like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Paul Ellen.

Why would I flinch? I had been a computer operating system programmer. That three people had written operating systems' source codes. I had worked on operating system source codes that related to computer security component. I wrote a software piece that can login to any window’s computer without a password. Of course, I know operating system on source codes level very well. I am the top notch computer security professional, at least that's who I was in 2004. Why would I need to perform or fake my comments on what might be the issues of writing a new operating system's source codes?

Those comments I made about computer operating system would be like a medical school graduate's comments on a baby wipes' formula. Why would any medical school graduate need to fake any comment what possible ingredients that can be used in a baby wipe? It is correct that a pharmacist is the person that can produce a formula, but I am a pharmacologist who is profession-ed between a pharmacist and a medical doctor. Of course, I know some formula basics more than a medical doctor. why I need to fake or perform?

I do not know what is the third "classic performing piece" yet.

----Dec. 12th, 2017



听说了今天早上的广播所造成的那是不是打了个引号的工资的疑惑。
我的回应：那不是什么打了个引号的工资。

造成这个疑惑的原因是因为制作编辑的时候在原话后面添加上了一句由中华人民共和国的一个公民所说的一句话。我听说这份制作编辑的努力是由那个R先生已经宣布的孩子妈做的。

一般来说，一个投资人业主为了永续投资，都是每年只从投资实体里拿一部分的钱出来提供家用和零花。这也是为什么会开玩笑说那就是从投资实体领的“工资而已”。

“同意供给”需要由一个投资实体的投资人业主代表的同意才可以就是因为这是一个特殊原因的支出，不是投资实体的经营性支出， 所以需要投资人业主代表的签字从投资实体的投资人业主账户里支出，

今天早上的播出播出的是O'Connor家里的“同意供给”一直都是由该基金的上级投资公司同意的，现在已在逐步停止过程当中。

----2017年12月12日。


听说了今天早上的广播谈到来自中华人民共和国的困扰说为什么那是我的基金。
我的回应：那是根据我自己祖爷爷的界定。让我来解释一下。

我的祖爷爷（我爷爷A），也就是设立这个信托的那个人在他的信里（遗嘱里）界定了一个由他自己的哪个儿子（我爷爷B）所出的家族继承胎记一支的一个有着家族继承胎记的女儿是这个信托的唯一受益人。遗嘱信中所界定的那个儿子（我爷爷B）是一个有家族继承胎记的儿子。

我爷爷B，也就是我爷爷A在他自己所立遗嘱里所界定的继承人儿子，没有生出一个有继承胎记的女儿而是生了一个有继承胎记的儿子（我爷爷C）。所以，我爷爷B就通知了那些照看着这个信托的人，这个信托的继承胎记女受益人将是由他这个有继承胎记的儿子（我爷爷C）这支所出的。

就这样一代又一代，直到我爷爷方智仁这一代。我的父亲方文海是我爷爷方智仁所出的有继承胎记的儿子。所以我爷爷方智仁就通知了那些照看着这个信托的人，这个信托的继承胎记女受益人将是由他这个有继承胎记的儿子方文海这支所出的。

我是1967年出生，我的家族胎记掌纹和我父亲方文海的胎记掌纹几乎是一摸一样的。

这是为什么我说我是按照我祖爷爷（我爷爷A）的遗嘱继承了我祖爷爷（我爷爷A）所设立的这个信托。那个基金是由我所继承的这个信托所设立的，所以我说那是我的基金。

今天早上的播出的是”信托是为方智仁的孙女即方智仁的长子方文海所出的女儿方敏所设立的。“

----2017年12月12日。

听说了中华人民共和国这份用表演艺术来花别人钱的不懈努力是受到了从美国进口的表演艺术教材的启发。
我的回应：我是听说了有这么两三段从2004年的会议记录里截取的所谓”我的表演才华的经典片段“。我大概在一年多以前就已经通知了美国警方。

这一段“经典”是关于我如何花了赫赫有名的R家族的钱财，完全不管我是如何一次次被别人试图强力阻止，就只是一直表达我就是要花这些钱。这是一个经典片段呈现了我是如何一点都不打楞, 还一点都不担心自己惹上麻烦，我就这么成功的当众把别人的钱给花了。

我打愣干嘛，担心干嘛？我是在花我自己所继承的我自己亲生爷爷的钱，我花的是我所继承的我自己方家的华人爷爷的钱，我所有的爷爷就从来没姓过什么R。每一次“别人的强力阻止”都让我很开心，就因为我以为这个别人是在祝贺我有我自己的大把钱可以花。

我在2004年7月1日会议之后就没和R家的任何人联系过，我哪有可能在康州斯坦福我自己绿卡申请律师的办公室里说说话就把R家族的钱给花了？

----2017年12月12日。


听说了中华人民共和国政府坚持说我是假的也和这个表演教材有关。
我的回应：这可能造成了一些华人坚定的认为表演表演就可以拿到和表演艺术完全无关的智慧产权。

这另一个“经典片段”是2004年6月30日那天的。呈现的是有关我如何可以眼睛眨都不眨一下的装腔作势谈论一些有关智慧手机的话题，还把顶级的电脑专家史蒂夫·杰布斯，比尔·盖茨，鲍尔·艾伦都给糊弄闹懵了。

我眼睛眨巴干嘛呀？我是电脑运作系统程式的程序员。那三个人是写过电脑运作系统程式的原始码的，我是做电脑运作系统程式里的保安系统程式的原始码的。我写的程式是可以不用任何密码缓存(no cached password) 就可以登录视窗系统的。我当然很熟悉电脑运作系统程式的程序码。我在2004年是顶级的电脑保安专家。当我谈论写一个新的电脑运作系统的程序可能会碰到那些问题的时候，我为什么需要表演或是装模做样的来谈论？

我对写一个新的电脑运作系统程式的评论，就像一个医学院校的毕业生会对婴儿擦巾应该有些什么成分会做的谈论一样的。为什么一个医学院校的毕业生需要在谈论婴儿擦巾的可能成分配方时装模做样？确实，一个药剂师才有可能会是这个成分配方的产生着，但我是介于医学和药学之间的药理专业毕业的，当然在配方合成上会比医学系毕业的要懂得多一些了。我装腔作势表演什么呀？

我还不清楚那第三段“表演经典”是什么。

----2017年12月12日。