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