02-21-2018 Two different Accounts & Who has a personal first-last named capital account everywhere?
02-08-2018 Two different Accounts
My response: I got into the fight with O'Connors about who owns that American Fund. If my providing has not been taken by some O'Connors as rumored, I have no reason to get into this fight. The rumored providing paid for my living cost in 2016 was paid expense from its British parent fund's (owner's) equity account as instructed by its British parent fund. Theirs is from local American Fund's operating expense.
----February 8th, 2018
This American Fund's British Parent Fund is owned by the same French Fund that owns the British East India Company Financier.
----February 11th, 2018
This above accounts issue is also the issue between some Pejoves names in the U.S with me by rumor. My providing, by rumor, that a Miss Pejoves took is from a Ford's Holding investor Fund's British parent Fund's French grandparents Fund's Capital Account. Their agreed-upon providing is from their shared account with their British relatives as operating expenses in the British Fund which is the parent fund of this local American fund, so the American Pejoves' agreed-upon providing is booked in local American Fund's British Parent's Fund's capital account in the U.S that would be deducted as operating expense in Britain together with British Pejoves.
----February 21st, 2018
In the U.S, my providing and theirs providing both deducted from local American Fund's parent British Fund's capital account.
But in Britain, my providing is paid by the British Fund's parent French Fund so that my providing is deducted from the British Fund's parent French Fund's Capital Account, and theirs is deducted from the local British Fund's operating expense accounts.
But in Britain, my providing is paid by the British Fund's parent French Fund so that my providing is deducted from the British Fund's parent French Fund's Capital Account, and theirs is deducted from the local British Fund's operating expense accounts.
Conclusion: Their providing is paid by the British Fund, My providing is paid by the British Fund's parent French Fund. Nothing to do with each other.
----February 27th, 2018
My name (Min Fang) is in my trust (Name: XYZ), this trust XYZ has invested a company ABC, this company ABC only has the trust XYZ as the name of its investor in its capital account (owner's account which means company ABC's owner is the trust XYZ). The company ABC further invested a company CDE, the company CDE only has the company ABC as its investor in its capital account which means CDE's owner is the company ABC, etc. My named account (Min Fang) is only in my trust XYZ, but my providing can be paid by the company CDE that later deducted from the company ABC's profiting share, and subsequently deducted from my trust XYZ's profiting share, and then deducted from my account ( Min Fang's account).
----February 27th, 2018
Albert Gore has nothing to do with me for him to say anything on any matter. And I refuse to let Albert Gore have any saying over my any matter. Please contact 911 police if he insists on you to listen to his saying about my matter which certainly would put you into legal troubles, or call his psychiatrist daughter or any psychiatrist about his severe illusion that he can have any saying over my any matter. He is probably having some sever psychiatry medical situation called Delusional disorder if he indeed just won't stop insisting on having saying over not-his-to-say my any matter, please call 911 or the psychiatrist daughter who will certainly help Albert Gore.
----February 1st, 2018
This above item certainly applicable to everyone who has so publicly/privately announced "having nothing to do with" me. I have no recommendation of a psychiatrist but 911 would be the number that you can try if you are in the situation of being the subject of those "insist-on" from those announcers who ask you to do what they are insist-on telling you to do over any of my matter.
----February 21st, 2018
Compare to most of those who insist on having a saying on the radio to shit my name, at least, I have my capital accounts in my trusts that is in this investing chain to claim myself an investor of the radio company.
If my name is not listed as the capital account's name is the reason I have no saying over this radio program producing, so is every one of those almighty prominent persons who insist on to shit me on the radio. This is precisely the reason I sent them to courts, criminal or civil.
The rumored implanting cancer is not concerning since most of the cancers can be treated or even cured completely nowadays. Rumored cancer implanting is a mechanism to simulate cancer's formation from healthy cells which means it is a very early stage in cancer formation that defects healthy cells. It is well-known that modern cancer diagnosis is the mechanism of recognizing those defected cells. The treatment mechanism, I assume, can be simple as remove those defected cells upon its discovery. This treatment mechanism is already available nowadays.
----February 14th, 2018
Rumored the reason I should not be acknowledged as the Creator of Beijing Olympic Opening is that if FBI did not record, then my creative ideas won't be produced.
My response: This is a true statement that obviously and definitely would results in Beijing Olympic Game opening would never be presented as it was.
The 2008 Beijing Olympic Game Opening is what it was is because that is produced by my creative ideas. The creator of 2008 Beijing Olympic Opening is Min Fang is a matter of fact that no decent lawful person can deny, not to mention those claimed talented enough to lead a Nation. The opportunity to lead a Nation to serve the people is not the same meaning of being the driving force to violate laws to rob the people. I am an individual and this is my individual case but I won't be the only individual as part of the people's definition that being robbed if government official position means the power to perform the robbery to the people.
-----February 10th, 2018
听说了我不应该被承认是北京奥运会创意的原因是如果当时没有被FBI所录影，也就不会有我这份创意。
我的回应：如果这样也就明确一定会造成北京2008奥运会开闭幕式就永远都不会是2008年北京奥运会所向世界呈现的那份制作。
2008年北京奥运会开闭幕式之所以会被制作成2008年时中国向全世界所呈现的那样，就是因为北京2008年奥运会开闭式是采用了我的创意。我方敏是2008北京奥运会开闭幕式的创意是没有任何一个遵纪守法有良知责任的人所能够抵赖的，更不用说那些号称有才华可以领导一个国家的人。能够领导一个国家可以为人民服务的机会绝不应该意味着可以用政府的权利带头破坏法律掠夺老百姓。我是一个个体，这事是牵涉到我的一个个别案例，如果政府职权就只意味着掠夺百姓的便利权利。我方敏绝不会是人民这个定义中唯一被掠夺的一个老百姓。
-----2018年2月10日。