03-31-2018 Pass down the Family Wealth ----The Husband's Financial Support to All His Wives & The Father's Love to All His Children（分家产的时候----是丈夫在提供对他所有妻子的财务保障，同时也是父亲在表达对他所有孩子的爱）

从2015年中国北京政府的态度公开化开始，就一点都不奇怪当初我爷爷决定留在中华人民共和国是否有可能让我爷爷，我父亲和我成为了中国北京政府的监视对象，很明显我们家从来不受中国北京政府欢迎。如果这是事实，我也不需要躲躲闪闪的而是直接公开指出这一点事实。如果任何人认为有需要向北京政府告知方敏对此事实的态度，我方敏不会阻拦。

我方敏是唐太宗李世民的血脉传承的继承人是真实，我方敏是1996年离开中国的，我现在已经是美国公民了。我方敏是否有政治立场已经和中华人民共和国及海外华裔社区没有任何关系， 请不要以任何借口认为我方敏没有中华人民共和国或者海外华裔社区就难以生存以避免不必要的误会。我方敏会捍卫我方敏自己作为美国公民的合法权利和利益，我方敏也绝不会就此犹豫妥协。如果任何人认为有需要向北京政府或海外华裔社区广为告知我方敏对此事实的态度，我方敏不会阻拦。




03-31-2018 Pass down the Family Wealth ----The Husband's Financial Support to All His Wives & The Father's Love to All His Children（分家产的时候----是丈夫在提供对他所有妻子的财务保障，同时也是父亲在表达对他所有孩子的爱）



Heard about this morning's broadcasting of the family story (中文附后）
My response: That is what I heard of too.

Every generation is similar to this. At the time when the Senior was about to go, the dying Senior would call in family accountants (账房先生）to make the financial arrangement. My family has been long history polygamist family, the dying Senior knew multiple wives with clustered children would mean big fights if he did not make financial arrangement before the time he had to leave. So, the family wealth inheriting has always been done by each generation's dying Senior himself, the proof is there hasn't been any family story about this kind fights happened in any generation.

I certainly would believe the dying Senior would allocate enough money for each of his wives to financially support his wife for the life. I certainly would believe he would allocate enough money to raise all his children from each of his wives, he would allocate some father's love to bless every one of his young daughters' marriage, and a son's share for each of all his sons. This morning's story was about how the dying Senior protected his younger son's share by setting up a Trust for the younger son. I can certainly believe this is the same father's love in every generation. None of my grandmothers had remarried.

My family has been long historically rich, and there has been a family tradition (祖制) of how to decide a son's share and an heir son's share. Every generation's dying Senior had been advised to follow the tradition to avoid too many arguments and I would assume every generation's dying Senior would have no problem to follow the family tradition to shower the father's love to all his children.

I heard this morning's broadcasting also mentioned I had been "the extra son" of each generation caused a lot of agitation that my share is from the dying Senior's other sons allot at the time when each son's share was decided. I doubted my share eat into theirs because even my grandmother (the Senior's wife) would fancy doing that but my family's tradition (祖制) is not what my grandmother could disregard or ignore, plus the dying Senior would not think that would be necessary.

The first grandfather who blessed me was an ancient Emperor grandfather of 1200 years ago, what he decided how to calculate my share has been the family tradition (祖制) for my other grandfathers to follow. This grandfather was a very rich and well-beloved Emperor when he passed away, so I think he must have made a very appropriate family tradition. What I mean is when he decided the total share for all his non-heir sons, he decided the appropriate share size with me in his mind as an extra son already. If the non-heir sons' total share has been allocated by percentage, I would be more or less blessed by the Senior of each generation according to how many sons that dying Senior fathered from how many wives.

Conclusion: 
1: The trusts my grandfathers set up for me before I was born are the loves showed me from my grandfathers that no one can take away.

2: The shares I got never eats-in other non-heir sons' share in any generation.

3: In 2004， I was asked to make inheriting arrangement.  That discussion was never an arrangement because I was(am) not a dying person as well as there was no such biological child(ren) from me who need to have such arrangement. The Chinese who asked to have arrangement never have associated with me romantically or biologically. This Chinese was the same person who "predicted" that my father "can only live a year" if I dare to reunite with my father, this Chinese was the same person who suggested it was necessary for me to be a homeless on that same day in 2004. It was rumored that he had been the person who monitored me when I was in China as a Chinese secret service.

4: It is nothing surprising ever since 2015 when it has been so public that my grandfather's decision to stay in the People's Republic of China may have made him, me and my father the objects being monitored which certainly means my family was never welcomed in the People's Republic of China. If this is the truth, well, it is the truth I have no reason not to publicly point this out. It is the fact that I am the heir of Tang dynasty Emperor （唐太宗李世民 ）by blood, I left the People's Republic of China in 1996 and I am a U.S. citizen now. 


----March 31st, 2018



听说了今天早上广播提到的家里故事。
我的回应：那也是我听说的。

每一代分家产的故事都和这个故事类似。每一代的老人要走的时候，垂危老人都会叫上家里的账房先生来做家里的财务安排。我们家是有很长历史的一夫多妻家庭，每一房的妻子也都有她自己一窝的孩子，每一代的垂危老人都很清楚如果他在走之前没有把家里的财产分配好的话，家里各房是会为家里财产的分配而闹成一团的。所以每一代分家产的事宜都是由那一代的垂危老人自己决定的，证据就是家里从来就没有任何为了分家产各房打成了一团的故事。

我当然会相信每一代的垂危老人一定会给他的每一房妻子安排一份让他的每一房妻子可以安居养老的终身财务保障。我当然会相信每一代垂危老人会给他的每一房婚姻安排一份养育他自己每一个孩子的钱，会给他的每一房婚姻里他自己每一个尚未婚嫁的女儿安排一份父亲的祝福嫁妆，会给每一房婚姻里他所有的儿子每人一份应得的家产。今天早上的故事讲的就是那一代的垂危父亲是如何通过设立信托保护了年幼儿子那一份应得的家产。我当然会相信每一代的父爱都是如此。我所有的奶奶都没有再婚过。

我家自古就一直很富裕，家里也有如何安排继承人和非继承人所应得份额的规矩，也就是分家产的祖制。每一代的垂危老人也都是会参照建议严格按照祖制分配家产以减少不必要的争执，我也相信每一代的垂危老人也都是会愿意遵照祖制来分家产以表达他作为父亲对他所有孩子的宠爱。

我听说今天早上的广播也提到每一代分家产的时候我都被算成一个多出来的儿子来“瓜分”这些非继承人儿子们的应得的总份额所引发的气愤。就这种说法，我是不太相信我会吃进他们的应得的总份额里，因为就算是我那一代的奶奶愿意，家里的祖制可不是我的奶奶可以不理不睬的，何况垂危的老人也不会认为有这个需要。

第一个给我设立信托的爷爷是1200年前的一个皇帝祖爷爷，他当时就我的份额怎么算的决定就是我后面的其他爷爷们必须要遵循的祖制。我的这个爷爷去世的时候是个很富裕也很受爱戴的皇帝，我相信他所做的如何计算我的份额的决定一定是很恰当的。我的意思就是当他决定把给我作为非继承人儿子的那一份算进他的所有非继承人儿子的总份额时，他一定是算好了怎样才不会让我的份额吃进了他的非继承人儿子们的应得的总份额里（即如果是百分比，也就是额外加多少到非继承人的总额里来达到什么比例才是合适）。如果非继承人的总应得的份额是按百分比来确定的，我的那一份的多少也就是看那一代一共有多少房妻子生了多少个儿子了。

结论：
1：我爷爷们在我出生之前给我设立的那些信托是爷爷们对我的爱也是谁都抢不走的。

2：我所收到的那些财产份额从未吃进其他非继承人儿子的份额。

3：2004年的时候，我曾被人要求做财产继承的安排。但因为我当时及现在都不是垂死的状态，而且我2004年的时候也没有什么亲生的小孩需要做财产继承的安排，所以当时那个讨论从来就不是什么财产安排或者财务决定，就只是我就我会如何让我的亲生孩子继承财产随便说了几句而已。当时提要求的那个中国人和我从未有过任何恋爱婚姻或孩子父母关系，和我也从来没有任何血缘关系。就是这同一个华人“2004年预言”说要是我敢和我父亲团圆，“我父亲就只能活一年”，就是这同一个华人在2004年的同一天提议我“有必要”做一个街边讨饭的。据说他以前是中央警卫局里负责监视我的工作人员。

4：从2015年中国北京政府的态度公开化开始，就一点都不奇怪当初我爷爷决定留在中华人民共和国是否有可能让我爷爷，我父亲和我成为了中国北京政府的监视对象，很明显我们家从来不受中国北京政府欢迎。如果这是事实，我也不需要躲躲闪闪的而是直接公开指出这一点事实。如果任何人认为有需要向北京政府告知方敏对此事实的态度，我方敏不会阻拦。

5： 我方敏是唐太宗李世民的血脉传承的继承人是真实，我方敏是1996年离开中国的，我现在已经是美国公民了。我方敏是否有政治立场已经和中华人民共和国及海外华裔社区没有任何关系， 请不要以任何借口认为我方敏没有中华人民共和国或者海外华裔社区就难以生存以避免不必要的误会。我方敏会捍卫我方敏自己作为美国公民的合法权利和利益，我方敏也绝不会就此犹豫妥协。如果任何人认为有需要向北京政府或海外华裔社区广为告知我方敏对此事实的态度，我方敏不会阻拦。

----2018年3月31日。

03-29-2018 "this company is 100% owned by a British Company"

I am a registered online MBA student, and I appreciate this morning's broadcasting of truthful report to reflect my current life focus which is my health and fulfilling my longtime dream of being an MBA student. Other than my wish to be reunited with my family as soon as possible, I am happy with where I am now. I just wish my school and the cohort team won't be harassed till pissed off.

*I have arranged the same great health care for my parents on July 1st of 2004 is the reason there are tons of rumors about my parents. The medical health arrangements include general care on anxiety and on malnutrition, etc. which certainly means my parents' anxieties over housing and food providing have been covered together with other anxieties over unknowns or uncertainties. I do not know my mother's story yet, but the broadcasted "cremated story" was not her story.

---- March 30th, 2018


03-29-2018 "this company is 100% owned by a British Company"


Heard confusion of  "this company is 100% owned by a British Company", exactly what this means?.
My response:

It means the CEO of this company can't issue any stock or Initial Publis Offering (IPO).
It means this company never had an Initial Public Offering (IPO).
It means nobody can demand any dividend from this company.

It means this company only has the British company as its one and only owner (Aka investor).
It means this company is never a publicly listed company (Aka stockholders' company).
It means there is no stock share (common or preferred) has ever been issued by this company.
It means no stock share of this company can be publicly or privately tradeable in any market.
It means no stock share of this company at all.

It means only the British company's investor (Aka owner) can be this company's investor (Aka owner).
It means no individual patron nor any private family can be the owner (Aka Investor) of this company.
It means nobody can demand any providing from this company.

----March 29th, 2018


How about my providing from this company?
My response: I have explained that my providing is paid by my trust who is the Organizational Investor of the British company.

Explanation: What I have inherited are trusts that my birth grandfathers set up for me before I was born.

My name (Min Fang) is in my trust (Example 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 ABC-1, the company ABC-1 only has the company ABC as its investor in its capital account which means ABC-1's owner is the company ABC, etc. that there are these company ABC-1-1, company ABC-1-1-1, company ABC-1-1-1-1, etc. My named account (Min Fang) is only in my trust XYZ, but my providing can be paid by the company ABC-1-1-1-1 that later deducted from the company ABC-1-1-1's profiting share, and subsequently deducted from company ABC-1-1, company ABC-1, company ABC, and then deducted from my named capital account ( Min Fang's capital account) in my trust XYZ.

Another way to get my providing is to let my trust wire that money directly to me which is seldom used by investors because of inconvenience caused by tedious procedures. Also, the Investor's tax for each providing check is paid to the country according to its signing local company's geographic location.

----February 27th, 2018

----March 29th, 2018


听说了“这家公司是100%被一家英国公司A所拥有”的声明引起很多困扰，这究竟是什么意思？
我的回应：

这句话是说这家公司的总经理既没有权利发行集资性质的公司股票，也没有权力将这家公司通过一个首次公开募股（IPO）变成一个上市公司。
这句话是说这家公司从来就没通过任何的首次公开募股（IPO）而上过任何股票市场。
这句话是说就没有任何机构或者个人可以从这家公司拿到任何股票利息。

这句话是说这家公司只有英国公司A是其唯一的投资人即唯一的拥有者。
这句话是说这家公司从来不是一家上市的股份公司。
这句话是说这家公司从来就没有发行过任何股票，没有任何发行过任何公共股或优先股的股票。
这句话是说这家公司从来就没有任何可交易的股票在公开或私下的市场进行交易。
这句话是说这家公司从来就没有任何股票。

这句话是说只有英国公司A的拥有人即投资人才是这家公司的投资人即拥有人。
这句话是说没有任何个人或者任何私人家庭可能是这家公司的拥有人即投资人。
这句话是说就没有任何个人可以要求这家公司支付任何的非经营业务开销及私人开销。

----2018年3月29日。


那这家公司支付给我的生活费用是怎么回事？
我的回应：我已经解释过我的生活费用是有我所继承的信托所支付的，我所继承的信托是英国公司A的机构投资人。

Explanation: What I have inherited are trusts that my birth grandfathers set up for me before I was born.

My name (Min Fang) is in my trust (Example 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 ABC-1, the company ABC-1 only has the company ABC as its investor in its capital account which means ABC-1's owner is the company ABC, etc. that there are these company ABC-1-1, company ABC-1-1-1, company ABC-1-1-1-1, etc. My named account (Min Fang) is only in my trust XYZ, but my providing can be paid by the company ABC-1-1-1-1 that later deducted from the company ABC-1-1-1's profiting share, and subsequently deducted from company ABC-1-1, company ABC-1, company ABC, and then deducted from my named capital account ( Min Fang's capital account) in my trust XYZ.

Another way to get my providing is to let my trust wire that money directly to me which is seldom used by investors because of inconvenience caused by tedious procedures. Also, the Investor's tax for each providing check is paid to the country according to its signing local company's geographic location.

----February 27th, 2018

----2018年3月29日。

03-28-2017 Cheung Kong Holdings is not Hong Kong Chung(长江实业不是香港长实）

03-28-2017 Cheung Kong Holdings is not Hong Kong Chung(长江实业不是香港长实）



Heard this morning's anger of Hong Kong Chung.
My response: My sincere apology. The company my Hong Kong trust has been investing is the parent company of Cheung Kong Holdings(长江实业）, not the Hong Kong Chung（长实公司). The $500 Million check that lady account payable specialist signed in 2004 was from Cheung Kong Holdings(长江实业).

Cheung Kong Holdings is now a restructured public trading company has a new name Cheung Kong Group.
 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheung_Kong_Holdings )

I used abbreviated Chinese name's(长实） English translation caused this confusion. So sorry I have not visited Hong Kong yet.

The Hong Kong Trust was set up by Zhiren Fang(方智仁). I am the sole beneficiary person "Female Palm" of this Hong Kong trust according to Zhiren Fang's(方智仁) will.

----March 28th, 2018



听说了今天早上有关香港长实的愤怒。
我的回应：很抱歉。我的香港信托所投资的公司是香港长江实业的母公司，不是长实公司。那个付款账簿女士于2004年开具的5亿美金是香港长江实业的支票。

香港长江实业于2015年已重组成长江集团。
( https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%95%B7%E6%B1%9F%E5%AF%A6%E6%A5%AD )

困扰是因为我是用了其中文简写（长实）做的英文翻译造成的。很不好意思我还没去过香港。

该香港信托由方智仁设立。按照方智仁遗嘱，我是该香港信托唯一受益人“女掌”。

----2018年3月28日。

03-26-2018 All about that $500 Million ---- Cheung Kong Holdings(长江实业) never did money laundry （都是有关五亿美金的--长江实业从未涉入任何洗钱行为）

03-26-2018 All about that $500 Million ---- Cheung Kong Holdings(长江实业) never did money laundry （都是有关五亿美金的--长江实业从未涉入任何洗钱行为）


Heard this morning's talk about HongKong's $500 Million.（中文附后）
My response: I heard the accountant wrote the check from Hong Kong Cheung (香港长实) company's operating account instead of my Hongkong Trust's capital account in the company caused money laundry confusion.

That is the reason there were arguments you heard on the radio about the money should be from the piles after-registry-closed. The piles after-registry-closed mean the money is the profiting from the business operation.

Operating account means the money in business operation which is the money in the registry. Capital account means the investor's profiting share which is the piles after-registry-closed.

So, what the accountant stated this morning was that she had signed that $500Million check upon my Hong Kong Trust's request from the registry instead of the piles after-registry-closed.

I assume she must have expected that would be a very high return investment opportunity to miss for the company. Well, you heard the argument from Mr. Walton to clarify that is the unlikely situation. And the legal documentation prepared by my Hong Kong Trust made a verify appropriate specification which was "to invest this $500 Million at an average yield".

I heard this $500Million had been adjusted to the capital account is the reason Mr. Walton cannot return this money back to the company. *The $500Million was owned lawfully by my Hong Kong Trust in its capital account after the accounting adjustment and transferred to the United States afterward,  this $500Million should be given to me as the transferring legal documentation specified.


Conclusion: Cheung Kong Holdings (长江实业) never did money laundry.


The reason I requested this $500Million from my Hong Kong Trust to the United States was that all the hostilities I felt regarding how I did my inheriting day shopping spree. I did not know that shopping spree was either understood "the female butts money I was demanding" or understood "the female butts money I was given". But I felt the pressure of pushing me to reveal the account numbers with the saving amount to prove that I do have some money, and I wanted to gift some to my father-side relatives as part of my inheriting shopping spree, so I asked Hong Kong Trust to transfer some money to the United States to invest that everyone know I do have the money I inherited and that is it. And I told my father-side relatives I would gift them ￥500Million RMB when I go home.

I had no intention to reveal my private savings in any way, that includes this Hong Kong Trust. But the pressure I felt was from the China community or the Chinese government was the reason I requested this money to be transferred from the Chinese run Hong Kong Trust.

I heard in that legal documentation accompanied with the $500 Million transfer from Hong Kong, it is specified that Mr. Walton should give the $500 Million with the investment return to me. And that is the legal issue that I have with Mr. Walton after he announced his giving of $700 Million to Albert Gore on the radio.

I have to clarify that Mr. Walton does have a lot of his own money to spend, but Mr. Walton is not the authorized and/or privileged person to spend my money.

I heard rumors that my father-side relatives only willing to let Albert Gore or his representative(s) handle my gift-giving related matter. Well, if this rumor* is true, I would need legal documentation of their willingness, and I understand that is their free wishes to reject my gifting.

On July 1st of 2004 when that money-pool was announced, I made myself very clear that I would not take any money from the money-pool of other people's donation-deposit and I would not put a penny (or more) into that money-pool as well. I have called laws help on legal issues related to this money-pool.

Albert Gore was never the authorized and/or privileged person to receive money on my behave.
Albert Gore is not the authorized and/or privileged person to receive money on my behave.
Albert Gore will never be the authorized and/or privileged person to receive money on my behave.

* The rumor I heard is Mr. Walton would not give me that $500Million with its investment return, Albert Gore willing give $400Million to my father-side relatives from the $700Million he had received from Mr. Walton on the same day Mr. Walton announced on the radio. So, he can keep a $300Million. I reject this unauthorized arrangement of my money of the $500Million transferred from Hong Kong together with its investment return. I called law enforcement's help.


----March 26th, 2018



听说了今天早上提到的香港那五亿美金。
我的回应：我听说会计开5亿美金支票的账户是公司的营运账户而不是公司的股东账户是造成香港长实公司是否有涉及洗钱传言的原因。

这也是为什么你们听到了“那钱应该是从银箱锁了以后的那一堆钱里拿出来”的争执。银箱锁了结账以后的那一堆钱指的就是公司营运的利润。

公司营运账户指的是公司做生意所使用的账户也就是收银员的收银箱。公司的股东账户就是公司投资人的利润分成也就是收银员锁了收银箱结账以后要交给老板的钱。

所以，那个会计今天早上所陈述的就是她是从收银员的收银箱里拿的那五亿美金，而不是从收银箱锁了结账以后要交给老板的那一堆里拿的。

我估计那个会计师肯定是以为那是个好的不得了的投资机会应该要让公司来赚这笔投资利得的钱。可惜你们听到沃顿先生澄清这是不太可能的。而且我的香港信托所准备的五亿美金转账所需的法律文件上也只是非常恰当的标明了“用这五亿美金进行平均利得的投资”。


结论：长江实业从未涉入任何洗钱行为。



我听说这五亿美金已经被调整成了股东账户的支出是沃顿先生不能把钱退回公司的原因。*经过账目调整之后，这五亿美金是转入了我的香港信托所合法拥有的香港长实公司的上级总公司里的公司股东账户并从这个账户里转账美国的，这个五亿美金应该按照当时转账所附的法律文件的规定交付我使用。

我提出要我的香港信托转账五亿美金到美国的原因就是因为我感受到对我那天大把花钱的敌意。我当时还不知道我做我的“继承了大血拼”是被理解成了“我在要女人的屁股钱”或者是“有钱男人在发放女人的屁股钱”。但我能感觉到要搜了我的银行来查我的银行账号和存款来看我到底有没有钱有多少钱的那份压力，而我本人也想给乘着我正好是在做“继承了大买东西”，就顺便送我父亲那边的几个亲戚一些礼物，所以我就让我的香港信托转账五亿美金到美国以示我确实有钱，我有已经继承了的财产，对我花钱的敌意应该到此为止。我还告诉了我父亲方面的那几个亲戚，等我回家的时候我会送给他们每家五亿人民币。*转账五亿美金的法律文件上所注明的投资时间已结束。

我没有任何意愿公布我的私人财务情况以及这家香港信托的财务。但当时那份到来自华裔社区或者中国政府的莫名压力是我要求从华人经营的这家香港信托转账钱财的原因。

我听说在这五亿美金转账时所附的法律文件里有明确指明沃顿先生应该把这五亿美金以及投资利得都交付我方敏。沃顿先生在广播上擅自宣布他已交付给阿尔贝特·高尔其中的七亿美金引发我和沃顿先生之间的法律纠纷。

我必须澄清沃顿先生自己确实有很多钱，但很遗憾沃顿先生不是一个得到授权或者是有特权可以花我的钱的人。

我听说有传言我父亲那边的几个亲戚表态只愿意由阿尔贝特·高尔或者阿尔贝特·高尔的代表处理我送礼物给他们的事宜。如果是这样的话，我要求他们出示表达他们明确意愿的法律文件，我认为他们这是在表达他们拒绝我的礼物的自由意愿。

在2004年7月1日宣布那个蓄钱池的时候，我就已经明确表态我不会从这个蓄钱池里拿别人捐得一分钱，也不会往这个蓄钱池里放一分（或更多) 钱。我已经就我的一些智慧产权收入被存入这个蓄钱池里被瓜分的传言报警处理。

阿尔贝特·高尔过去从来不是一个得到授权或者是有特权可以替我接受钱财的人。
阿尔贝特·高尔现在不是一个得到授权或者是有特权可以替我接受钱财的人。
阿尔贝特·高尔永远不会是一个得到授权或者是有特权可以替我接受钱财的人。

*我听到的传言是沃顿先生是不会按照转账所附的法律文件所规定的将五亿美金及利得交付我方敏。阿尔贝特·高尔愿意从他已经在沃顿先生宣布当天就收到的其中的七亿美金里支付我父亲方面的那几个亲戚共四亿美金。也就是他自己留下那三亿美金。我拒绝这种未经授权擅自处理我的香港信托所转出的5亿美金及其利得的做法。已报警处理。


----2018年3月26日。

03-25-2018 Hong Kong is not money laundry and Where is the comfortableness come from? ( 香港从来没有洗过钱以及哪来的这份理所应当啊？）

03-25-2018 Hong Kong is not money laundry and Where is the comfortableness come from? ( 香港从来没有洗过钱以及哪来的这份理所应当啊？）


Heard confusion about Hongkong's $500 Million(中文附后）.
My response: I heard HongKong investment's management called Hongkong police on July 2nd of 2004 about the possible money laundry regarding my request to transfer this $500Million to the United States on July 1st of 2004.

What I heard is it has already been verified that Hongkong investment's management had transferred this $500Million to the United States as I requested, around July 10th of 2004 or so, after Hongkong law enforcement clarified the money laundry confusion. American Mr. Walton had already verified he had received this $500Million in July of 2004 and he had invested this $500 Million according to what was specified in the legal documentation that accompanied with this money transfer.

My trust was set up as an entity which means the capitals from the trust was the investment instead of a loan.

The conclusion: My request to transfer $500Million from the Hong Kong trust I inherited to the United States was never a money laundry.

----March 25th, 2018


Heard this morning's talk about why the comfortableness to make claims when there's no ground(中文附后）.
My response: Let me share some of my frustration and some rumors I heard of to help everyone to analyze why.

I had met that three notorious Chinese guys in 1988, 1989 and 1991, just met once each (two in-person) and that is it. All three were in a 1989's meeting when I was a college student in Shanghai that all three had heard I have huge wealth to inherit abroad, all three had moved on with their own life after that "met incidence", but they all have developed this comfortableness of being the master of me. In 2004, they played this same trick, and you already heard this comfortableness on the radio so loudly.

I recently heard my father's college romance story was similar. I heard my father invited his college girlfriend to visit his family in Shanghai around 1960, and my grandfather treated her well. I heard she can't forget the luxury places (of that time) she had chances to go to even after all these years. Well, after all these unforgettable experiences, she left my father and married someone else in Beijing very easily after just a year of her college graduation. And I heard after she became the mother of three children who all have nothing to do with my father biologically, she took my mother's wedding gift sent by my grandfather's friends so comfortably and kept declaring she got that was because she is the "true love" of my father. I heard her children are now demanding to have a share of my inherited wealth because they are the true beloved of their mother who is the "true love" of my father.

On the radio, you must have heard so many denouncing statements with a master's tone just because "met in a 2004's meeting and there was a matrimony discussion in the meeting" incidence. And they all deserve to have a saying over my lawful wealth, it is obviously not just saying over my wealth but the decision power.

Who empowered them? Who is in what position to empower them? How can they be empowered over my finance without their own access to it? Obviously, the person or the group who has been empowering them has no valid access to my lawfully inherited lawful wealth.

How about my grandfather's wealth? My father did not get a penny from my grandfather when my grandfather passed away in 1965, and there are tons of rumors about that. One of the rumor is that that college ex-girlfriend in Beijing had received my father's share. If this rumor is true, I doubted that giving was from my grandfather because my grandfather should have known that my father did not visit Beijing at each time when she was conceived of her children as a married woman since 1961.

The Chinese government has this strong argument how could I possibly have inheritable if I grew up no money in China. Well, if you heard my mother did not receive any wedding gifts from my father's siblings or my grandfather's friends, and only used one (switched from the new by her eldest sister) from her maiden family, why you think I could possibly receive anything from abroad? Till now, my family has not heard what else has been taken so comfortably or by whom other than the foreign-made-watch taken by that ex-girlfriend from Beijing.

Exactly, who is the person supporting all these ridiculous unlawful confusion to have this comfortableness to trigger all these impacted such anger?

----March 25th, 2018


听说了有关香港那个5亿美金的困扰。
我的回应：我听说香港企业的管理层在2004年7月2日就我于2004年7月1日提出要转5亿美金到美国的要求是否是在洗钱通报了香港警方。

我听说已经证实的事实是，香港企业的管理层在香港警方澄清洗钱怀疑后，已于2004年7月10日前后将这笔5亿美金的钱款按照我的要求转入美国交付沃顿先生进行投资。美国人沃顿先生也已经证实他已于2004年7月收到这笔由香港转入的5亿美金款项并已经按照这笔5亿美金转账时所附法律文件的要求进行了投资。

我爷爷替我设立信托时是将我的信托注册登记为法人机构的，也就是说我的信托所放出的钱款是投资项目而不是贷款项目。

结论：我所要求的从我所继承的设在香港的信托里转入美国进行投资的5亿美金从来不是洗钱行为。

----2018年3月25日。



听说了今天早上所提到的“这些态度要求根本就没有任何理由，哪来的这份理所应当？”
我的回应：让我也来投诉投诉，再听听我都听说了些什么，大家一起来分析分析怎么回事啊。

我是在1988，1989 和1991年认识了那三个臭名昭著的中国名流男子，每个人都是只交往过一次（就是认识的那一次），只见过其中两个，仅此而已。三个都参加了1989年的全国高校会议，我当时是上海一所大学的学生，三个也都在那次会上听说了我会有大笔在海外的钱可以继承，三个也都是在认识我之后都活的各自各精彩都有他们自己的私人生活，但都有一种他们已经是我的主子的态度。2004年，他们好像玩的是同一种手法，你们现在也都在广播里听到这份理所应当的态度了。

我最近听说了我父亲大学时的恋爱经历也是类似。我听说我父亲在1960年前后邀请了他当时大学里的女友去上海见了我父亲的家人，我爷爷当时对这个女友招待的很好。我听说就是过了这么多年，那个女的都难以忘记我父亲带她去过的那些那个年代的奢侈地方。不过呐，在有了这么些难忘的经历之后，她大学毕业后的一年里就很轻易的离开了我父亲并在北京和别人结婚了。我听说在她有了三个和我父亲没有亲生血缘关系的孩子之后，她很理所应当的就把我爷爷的朋友们送给我母亲的结婚礼物给拿走了，她还到处说她是我父亲的“真爱”是她可以这么做的原因。我听说现在这个北京前女友的小孩们要求分我所继承的财产就是因为他们是他们母亲真正最爱的，而他们的母亲是我父亲的“真爱”。

在广播里，你们一定已经听到了那么一堆“和你从来没有任何关系”的声明，都是一副语气铿锵的主子态度，而这些都是因为"在2004年的一个会议认识了我而在那个会上我有过一些谈婚论嫁的讨论”的这么一个事件。而且，他们都是够资格对我的财产指手画脚，还很明确的不只是指手划脚而已，而是应该对我的财产的使用分配有决定权。

谁赋予他们的这份权力？是在什么位置上的什么人可以赋予他们这一份权力？他们是如何在他们自己拿不到我的钱的情况下可以有这么一份权力？很明显，这些赋予他们这份权利的一些人自己并没有所谓的渠道可以拿到我所合法继承的合法财产。

会不会是我爷爷的财产造成的？都知道我爷爷于1965年去世时，我父亲没有拿到我爷爷的一分钱财产，至于究竟怎么回事有很多的传言。其中的一个传言就是这个北京的前女友收到了我父亲的那一份。如果这个传言是真的话，我很怀疑这钱是我爷爷给的，因为我爷爷应该会知道在这个北京前女友1961年左右结了婚之后每一次的受孕前后，我父亲都没有从南京因公或因私到北京出差过。

中国政府说我假冒伪造的强有力依据就如果我有大笔财产可以继承，为什么我在中国长大的过程当中却是一分钱都没有。如果你听说了我母亲结婚的时候，就没有收到一份我父亲的弟妹们送的，我爷爷的朋友们送的，甚至她自己娘家姐妹兄弟给的新的都是被南京王博真用她自己家里用过的旧的给换过的，我妈妈是什么都没有就这么嫁进了我父亲的家。你要是听说了这些，你还认为我能收到国外送进来的任何东西啊？直到现在，我们家都还没听说除了那个外国造的手表被北京的那个前女友给直接拿走之外，还有哪些国外送进来的什么东西被谁给拿走了。

究竟谁是那个撑腰的？究竟什么原因可以以这些没有法律依据甚至没有正常思维逻辑的狡辩作为理直气壮的理由而让所有受害者的愤怒不已？

----2018年3月25日。

03-24-2018 Early investment is very important

03-24-2018 Early investment is very important


Heard this morning's talk about my girl's skincare annoyed a lot of girls' mothers.
My response: My skin-caring for my girl is because I was a girl. I want my girl to have what I did not have at her age.

I am a medical college pharmacology major graduated that I always pay attention to health professionals' advise. Skin-care professionals are skin healthcare professionals. The advice I listen to is advice given to mothers of girls, not riches. And I did not discuss how expensive it has to be to make my skin-care wish for my girl effective.

I am sorry to my son that I am a girl and I don't know what can be beneficial to a boy for his lifetime if special attention paid at his early ages, other than regular attentions have paid on health and interests-developing to both of them.

Another thing I know paying attention to at early time makes a huge difference in a child's life is the Education saving advise from financial professionals.

If the parents can jointly save $500/month between the time after the child was born and before entering elementary school, and find an educational account that has the yield of 5%, only 4 years saving like this can make $40,000 for the child's college education.

----March, 24th, 2018

03-22-2018 Let your disgusting whore wives read this aloud to ease your concerns of me stuck-on you :"David Petraeus, E. Ford, James Walton, you are psychos, you are pigs, you are the disgusting unwanted leftover human waste"

03-22-2018  Let your disgusting whore wives read this aloud to ease your concerns of me stuck-on you: "David Petraeus, E. Ford, James Walton, you are psychos, you are pigs, you are the disgusting unwanted leftover human waste"

Heard this morning's talk about why I still think I have money after I been publicly loudly denounced.

My response: That is my anger about who is the prostituting party in this argument. 

Why "no marriage has been verified" by the same group of people after intentionally and illegally "set up" all those efforts of announcing children identifiable on a public channel radio, knowing "no marriage means no child at all" was said loudly on July 1st in 2004, is this just to trash those children as "never wanted or never should exist children", how can this be publicly supported as freedom of speech? Isn't this child abuse?

Are these efforts to say that "No marriage means no maiden family" is to deny my lawful inheriting of my trusts that set up for me by my own maiden birth grandfathers?

----March 22nd, 2018

Heard this morning's talk about how dare I can insult a wife knowing that is a woman who has a husband.

My response: Is that means any single woman deserves to be smashed as long as that is done by a female who has a stick gets into her body, even if the issue is purely initiated from that stick-in female's efforts of performing a criminal law defined crime publicly?

----March 22nd, 2018


For those agitation caused by the anger that I could get into fights with this or that person's wife is only because I intend to stuck-on to the husband.
My response: I have to ask why I need to? Does not matter if you are convinced that I have factual inheritances or not, you must have convinced that I truly believe I have my own inheritances. Because of the famous fights that I got into with O'Connors' family, you must have convinced that I truly believed my inheritances were not from my underwear department because that Fund was never owned by any Rockefeller, or any Ford, or any Walton.

Why you are so convinced that I need to fight over this or that Old knowing I am, at least, the same rich? That Fund I got into fights with O'Connors is owned by the British East India Company Financier, this is already obvious that I am wealthier than all that three big names I had met, why I need to stuck-on them to cause such anxiety from their pig-fuckable wives? If these males are not pig alike, why would they ever fancy I would ever want any human wife's left-over?

it seems it is the efforts from their psycho psychologist, this non-stop harassment on public radio and in my glass house cancer session, that I need to acknowledge they are married now no matter how clearly I have made myself on this web blog, so I have to say this aloud on my web blog this way to tell everybody this is sexual harassment from organized criminals whence you read this necessary & must announcement in this one-and-only possibly understandable way as following:

It seems there is no other way your disgusting pig-fuckable wife can realize you are such a trash leftover to me, so I say this aloud to let you hear this clearly:

David Petraeus, you are a psycho, you are a pig, you are the disgusting unwanted leftover human waste. Don't ever fancy your disgusting finger can ever touch me. Don't ever fancy your disgusting whore wife can touch my money.

E. Ford (Charles Ford/Charles Schnieberg ), you are a psycho, you are a pig, you are the disgusting unwanted leftover human waste. Don't ever fancy your disgusting finger can ever touch me. Don't ever fancy your disgusting whore wife can touch my money.

James Walton, you are a psycho, you are a pig, you are the disgusting unwanted leftover human waste. Don't ever fancy your disgusting finger can ever touch me. Don't ever fancy your disgusting whore wife can touch my money.

Why not a young and handsome male for myself just for the sake of wealth I can share with? Isn't that make you so convinced that is the reason this or that rich name deserves a young female? why not a young male for myself just because I am the same rich? Why being the same rich, I need to stuck on their old and malfunction-possible agitations? isn't this is your points of anger about oldness this entire time? why would you assume that I would need oldness for no money reason at all?

----March 22nd, 2018


I know I am protected by laws, and I know my freedom of speech is protected by laws as well.

----March 22nd, 2018


I heard this morning's talk about my five fingers.
My response: Following is what I said:

I heard there are some confusion regarding if I indeed have inherited money and why so many people who were informed to attain the meeting are not having any inheritance at all. I heard the confusion is so severe that Chinese government assumed I was paid to swear a lot about Chinese government since 2015.

I remembered it was either on June 30th or July 1st of 2004, I was happy telling everyone I had inherited my grandfathers' blessing. I did not know what I inherited, and I did not know which grandfather. I started to count my fingers to calculate how many greats needed to be the prefix to address the grandfather who had given me such handsome inheritances when I was asked which grandfather I inherited from. I remembered I was interrupted before I figured which one when I counted number 5, and I was asked if that is enough number already, I said possibly not (because the fund is indeed very good sized), I was told someone already announced no romance at all with me but I did not pay attention to since I was still trying to calculate. But somehow, Chinese government figured the inheritances I was talking about was actually meant that I got some "female butts" money.

Also, I heard some Chinese diplomats had contacted a lot of people to have some money from the meeting after that incident. Only one of those was my first cousin who is mothered by my father's sister. I heard a lot of them are very angry that they were informed to attain the meeting, why there is no money for them at all. I have to clarify I did not have any butts’ money and I have no money for them.

----March 22nd, 2018

03-20-2018 Two different Accounts & Why my lawful private wealth’s inheriting is Chinese government's Sovereign Issue?(两个账本&我私人财产继承怎么成了中国政府的主权问题了？）

03-20-2018 Two different Accounts & Why my lawful private wealth’s inheriting is Chinese government's Sovereign Issue?(两个账本&我私人财产继承怎么成了中国政府的主权问题了？）


Heard the arguments about why I echo R's claim on romance but reject Pejoves' saying of my money.
My response: The difference is who has the ownership or privilege or authority to announce what.

Any R does have the authority and privilege in his own private compartment.
A Jessica Pejoves recruited actressing "law enforcement" does not have the authority to state anything about my lawful money or may lawful blood association.

I heard this morning's arguing parties were some O'Connors and some Pejoves. Only one line "Min Fang has her money in the United States" was said by the law enforcement who is investigating my case.

The entire time, it has been these O'Connors and these Pejoves arguing if I possibly truly have any biological children.

I assumed the reason that these Pejoves and these O'Connor kept trying to have sayings over my matter is that my yearly providing ($400 Million medical and rumored $400 Million living ) was misunderstood as the increase of their agreed-upon providing.

Their agreed-upon providing is part of local American companies' expense which is deducted from the local American companies' yearly earnings before the local American companies paying their American business tax.

My yearly providing is paid from the business profit of the local American companies that needed to be handed-in to their British parent companies. The business profit is the remaining of local American companies' yearly earnings after local American companies paid their American business tax.

My yearly providing has nothing to do with their agreed-upon providing. My yearly providing cannot be confused with their agreed-upon providing.

----March 20th, 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. 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.

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.

Explanation: What I have inherited are trusts that my birth grandfathers set up for me before I was born.

My name (Min Fang) is in my trust (Example 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 ABC-1, the company ABC-1 only has the company ABC as its investor in its capital account which means ABC-1's owner is the company ABC, etc. that there are these company ABC-1-1, company ABC-1-1-1, company ABC-1-1-1-1, etc. My named account (Min Fang) is only in my trust XYZ, but my providing can be paid by the company ABC-1-1-1-1 that later deducted from the company ABC-1-1-1's profiting share, and subsequently deducted from company ABC-1-1, company ABC-1, company ABC, and then deducted from my named capital account ( Min Fang's capital account) in my trust XYZ.

Another way to get my providing is to let my trust wire that money directly to me which is seldom used by investors because of inconvenience caused by tedious procedures. Also, the Investor's tax for each providing check is paid to the country according to its signing local company's geographic location.

----February 27th, 2018

Heard there is a French name now that is so confusing to his girlfriend for the similar speculation.
My response: I am on that French Fund's Spanish Investor's spending account. I have nothing to do with the French young and handsome who I have not heard of yet or met in person yet.

A lot of people are speculating how long it will take the deserved to have some money group to discover a confused girlfriend of a Spanish name to miserable everybody.

----March 17th, 2018

Albert Gore has nothing to do with me for him to say anything on my 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



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


Heard this morning's talk about Chinese Premier's Sovereign talk regarding the trust my birth grandfather set up for me in Hong Kong.
My response: Even according to People's Republic of China's laws, the matter is a private wealth inheriting matter, why it becomes such a Chinese Sovereign issue? Is this imply that current administration of Chinese government is the government that "sharing one wife already that so should share everybody's wealth as well"?

I do not have any association including no sexual association with this administration of China's sharing one wife government.
I refuse my lawful private wealth to be "shared".

I make my comment about this administration of the People's Republic of China's government according to their own logic. They swear my name in order to own my lawful private wealth illegally, I shit their names in order to protect my own lawful private wealth.

I am a such famous "fake talented" because my intellectual income deserved to be owned by whoever wants some easy money, I am such a famous unwanted "female" because my providing from my own birth grandfathers' blessing deserved to be understood as "some rich man's donation" that should be owned by whoever has a used female underwear.

I am sick of the shouts "As long as I am the one still in his bed and mother his child(ren), I won't be the one who is afraid".

I have no need to shout now but to make myself clear "as long as I have the same size and same quality level of attorney service as that him, why I need to be afraid? I send you both to the laws."

----03-08-2018


听说了今天早上所播出的中国政府总理所谈参与争夺我爷爷在香港替我设立的信托是在捍卫中国主权的说法。
我的回应: 即使是按照中华人民共和国的法律，我爷爷替我在香港设立的信托也是非常明确的私人财产继承事宜，为什么就变成了这一届中国政府的主权之争？这是在说这一届的中国共产党政府是个“既然已经共了一个妻当然应该共所有人的产”的政府吗？”

我1996年离开中国时的中国共产党政府没有共妻，我也没觉着当时的政府想共我的产。 我现在已经是美国公民，我和中国习近平李克强共妻政府的任何官员都没有任何因公因私关系或者性关系。
我拒绝我自己的私人合法财产被“共产”。

我就中国政府所发表的言论完全遵循中国政府的思维逻辑。中国习近平李克强的共妻政府为掠夺我的合法私有财产对我进行谩骂羞辱的所谓演出，我为捍卫我自己合法私有财产不被公然掠夺，我也是痛骂这届中国习近平李克强的共妻政府根本就是一群只有一个妓院妓女破鞋婊子才会肯让他们下种否则就是断子绝孙的一群婊子养的杂种烂货。我也是会痛骂这届中国政府就只是一群只会满嘴舔着“髀眼价值，髀眼知识，髀眼能力，髀眼道德，髀眼荣宗”的一群没有任何正经女人愿意替他们生儿育女的下三烂猪屎而已。

我现在成了一个这么有名的“假冒伪造”就是因为有些想拿容易钱的人“就是要定了”我的智慧产权收入，我是个这么有名的“没人要的女人”就是因为我自己亲生爷爷留给我的信托所提供的生活费用就是应该被理解成“什么有钱人的捐款”而被一些不知被哪个男人使用过的想要钱的髀眼所拥有。

真是烦，成天就听着一群人扯着嗓门的喊：”只要他的那张床我还能爬得上去，只要我是他孩子的妈，我就是不会怕。”

我现在已经不需要扯着嗓门喊了，我就只要把话讲清楚“只要我自己的律师团的规模质量和那个男的是同等级别的，那我怕什么呀？我把你们两个人一起送上法庭就可以啦。”

----2018年3月8日。

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。

在中华人民共和国大学毕业的应该意味着社么？
我的回应：中华人民共和国北京中央政府2015年-2017通过广播剧用中文及广播剧所播放国家的当地语言，向全世界正式宣布并强调：

1：中华人民共和国根本就没人要操方敏的髀眼，中华人民共和国永远不会需要方敏的任何才华。

2：中国政府最高权力机构中共中央政治局有多人和李克强总理的妻子程虹是事实上的真实男女交媾两性关系，所以程虹才是真正可以领导中华人民共和国经济发展的杰出人才。

3：中华人民共和国根本就没人要操方敏的髀眼，方敏就没有可能对中华人民共和国有过任何贡献，性交功能之内或者之外，方敏都是就只能是个假冒伪造。

4：中华人民共和国李克强总理的妻子程虹为中国政府最高权力机构中共中央多人育有现已成年儿子（海外传言每人一个，共6人，据说广播剧已由各男本人（中国现任高层官员）分别宣布3-4男共妻事实），所以中华人民共和国李克强总理的妻子程虹为防止中华人民共和国断子绝孙国家灭亡的所做杰出贡献绝不可以轻视。

----2018年3月3日。

03-17-2018 Two different Accounts & Why my lawful private wealth’s inheriting is Chinese government's Sovereign Issue?(两个账本&我私人财产继承怎么成了中国政府的主权问题了？）

03-17-2018 Two different Accounts & Why my lawful private wealth’s inheriting is Chinese government's Sovereign Issue?(两个账本&我私人财产继承怎么成了中国政府的主权问题了？）

Heard this morning's an adult R's birth father's(Mr. R Sr) announcement that I was never an R's woman. (中文附后）
My response: True Statement.
----03-06-2018

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. 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.

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.

Explanation: What I have inherited are trusts that my birth grandfathers set up for me before I was born.

My name (Min Fang) is in my trust (Example 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 ABC-1, the company ABC-1 only has the company ABC as its investor in its capital account which means ABC-1's owner is the company ABC, etc. that there are these company ABC-1-1, company ABC-1-1-1, company ABC-1-1-1-1, etc. My named account (Min Fang) is only in my trust XYZ, but my providing can be paid by the company ABC-1-1-1-1 that later deducted from the company ABC-1-1-1's profiting share, and subsequently deducted from company ABC-1-1, company ABC-1, company ABC, and then deducted from my named capital account ( Min Fang's capital account) in my trust XYZ.

Another way to get my providing is to let my trust wire that money directly to me which is seldom used by investors because of inconvenience caused by tedious procedures. Also, the Investor's tax for each providing check is paid to the country according to its signing local company's geographic location.

----February 27th, 2018

Heard there is a French name now that is so confusing to his girlfriend for the similar speculation.
My response: I am on that French Fund's Spanish Investor's spending account. I have nothing to do with the French young and handsome who I have not heard of yet or met in person yet.

A lot of people are speculating how long it will take the deserved to have some money group to discover a confused girlfriend of a Spanish name to miserable everybody.

----March 17th, 2018

Albert Gore has nothing to do with me for him to say anything on my 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



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


Heard this morning's talk about Chinese Premier's Sovereign talk regarding the trust my birth grandfather set up for me in Hong Kong.
My response: Even according to People's Republic of China's laws, the matter is a private wealth inheriting matter, why it becomes such a Chinese Sovereign issue? Is this imply that current administration of Chinese government is the government that "sharing one wife already that so should share everybody's wealth as well"?

I do not have any association including no sexual association with this administration of China's sharing one wife government.
I refuse my lawful private wealth to be "shared".

I make my comment about this administration of the People's Republic of China's government according to their own logic. They swear my name in order to own my lawful private wealth illegally, I shit their names in order to protect my own lawful private wealth.

I am a such famous "fake talented" because my intellectual income deserved to be owned by whoever wants some easy money, I am such a famous unwanted "female" because my providing from my own birth grandfathers' blessing deserved to be understood as "some rich man's donation" that should be owned by whoever has a used female underwear.

I am sick of the shouts "As long as I am the one still in his bed and mother his child(ren), I won't be the one who is afraid".

I have no need to shout now but to make myself clear "as long as I have the same size and same quality level of attorney service as that him, why I need to be afraid? I send you both to the laws."

----03-08-2018


听说了今天早上所播出的中国政府总理所谈参与争夺我爷爷在香港替我设立的信托是在捍卫中国主权的说法。
我的回应: 即使是按照中华人民共和国的法律，我爷爷替我在香港设立的信托也是非常明确的私人财产继承事宜，为什么就变成了这一届中国政府的主权之争？这是在说这一届的中国共产党政府是个“既然已经共了一个妻当然应该共所有人的产”的政府吗？”

我1996年离开中国时的中国共产党政府没有共妻，我也没觉着当时的政府想共我的产。 我现在已经是美国公民，我和中国习近平李克强共妻政府的任何官员都没有任何因公因私关系或者性关系。
我拒绝我自己的私人合法财产被“共产”。

我就中国政府所发表的言论完全遵循中国政府的思维逻辑。中国习近平李克强的共妻政府为掠夺我的合法私有财产对我进行谩骂羞辱的所谓演出，我为捍卫我自己合法私有财产不被公然掠夺，我也是痛骂这届中国习近平李克强的共妻政府根本就是一群只有一个妓院妓女破鞋婊子才会肯让他们下种否则就是断子绝孙的一群婊子养的杂种烂货。我也是会痛骂这届中国政府就只是一群只会满嘴舔着“髀眼价值，髀眼知识，髀眼能力，髀眼道德，髀眼荣宗”的一群没有任何正经女人愿意替他们生儿育女的下三烂猪屎而已。

我现在成了一个这么有名的“假冒伪造”就是因为有些想拿容易钱的人“就是要定了”我的智慧产权收入，我是个这么有名的“没人要的女人”就是因为我自己亲生爷爷留给我的信托所提供的生活费用就是应该被理解成“什么有钱人的捐款”而被一些不知被哪个男人使用过的想要钱的髀眼所拥有。

真是烦，成天就听着一群人扯着嗓门的喊：”只要他的那张床我还能爬得上去，只要我是他孩子的妈，我就是不会怕。”

我现在已经不需要扯着嗓门喊了，我就只要把话讲清楚“只要我自己的律师团的规模质量和那个男的是同等级别的，那我怕什么呀？我把你们两个人一起送上法庭就可以啦。”

----2018年3月8日。

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。

在中华人民共和国大学毕业的应该意味着社么？
我的回应：中华人民共和国北京中央政府2015年-2017通过广播剧用中文及广播剧所播放国家的当地语言，向全世界正式宣布并强调：

1：中华人民共和国根本就没人要操方敏的髀眼，中华人民共和国永远不会需要方敏的任何才华。

2：中国政府最高权力机构中共中央政治局有多人和李克强总理的妻子程虹是事实上的真实男女交媾两性关系，所以程虹才是真正可以领导中华人民共和国经济发展的杰出人才。

3：中华人民共和国根本就没人要操方敏的髀眼，方敏就没有可能对中华人民共和国有过任何贡献，性交功能之内或者之外，方敏都是就只能是个假冒伪造。

4：中华人民共和国李克强总理的妻子程虹为中国政府最高权力机构中共中央多人育有现已成年儿子（海外传言每人一个，共6人，据说广播剧已由各男本人（中国现任高层官员）分别宣布3-4男共妻事实），所以中华人民共和国李克强总理的妻子程虹为防止中华人民共和国断子绝孙国家灭亡的所做杰出贡献绝不可以轻视。

----2018年3月3日。

03-16-2018 What are the frustrations? （到底吵的是什么呀？）

03-16-2018 What are the frustrations? （到底吵的是什么呀？）


Heard this morning's talk about my SSI
My response：My providing through Social Security system was requested and agreed-upon on July 1st of 2004 in concern of issues that often happen when a private wealthy is under-entrusting. The Social Security Administration's office that granted this approval of my providing request which is the same office that has also received my providing-payments from my trusts, is the office that supervises the Social Security Welfare office which includes the SSI office.

I do not know the criteria for approving this type of request. I know the concerns of entrusting wealth related can be helped by food stamps and housing projects to ease pressures of working for food while entrusted-wealth can afford all these expenses.

----March 16th, 2018


Heard saying "It is only the government's Justice Department says this or that is my lawful money."
My response: Not only the government's Justice Department who represents the United States laws stating this or that is my lawful money but also the money-paying companies testified that the paid-out money is for my lawful exclusive usage according to their acknowledged & known lawful money-owners' lawful instructions.

----March 16th, 2018


I am asked, "if someone deserved to be poor is the reason I refuse to give out money".
My response: My answer to the question if that person deserved to be poor depends on if I am swearing about that person or not.

But the reason I refuse to give out my own money is that I do not owe that person any money.

And I think if that person in need of help, charities and the government's welfare agency are the places that have the standard to decide if that is a person in poverty.

----March 16th, 2018


I am asked, "if someone is willing to reach out to help people in needs, why it has to be this someone's  own money?"
My response: I think it may not need to be this someone's own money ---

If this someone is hired by a charity or the government's welfare agency, but this someone has to follow the standard that is defined by the charity or the government agency this someone works for because the funding is not from this someone's own money.

Or if this someone is authorized to represent the owner who lawfully owns the money on this giving-out money matter. This someone has to follow the conditions that decided by the lawful owner of the money on this giving-out money matter as well.

I am saying it is by laws that only this someone's own money can be given out as this someone's own free-wish.

----March 16, 2018



听到了所谓“只要她的丈夫是我同父同母的弟弟，她就是够资格吵闹骂砸。”
我的回应：我很清楚我的父母才是在我同父同母的弟弟饿的时候管饭，冷的时候添衣的人，从来不是我。我很清楚我自己只是一个和他一起长大的姐姐，从来就没为他的头疼脑热不能安眠。

在我得知我弟弟支持我的父母年迈后是不需要有人在乎是否冷了饿了，更不需要有人知疼问病之后，在我知道了生我养我的父母是被我弟弟的婚姻家庭因为要我父母的房子或被气的一病不起或被公然赶走，我就已经表明了立场是我选择在乎生我养我的我自己父母，我不会幻想我弟弟或者我弟弟的婚姻家庭会在乎我的死活，更不用说他们是否会在乎我的生活起居或者我的情绪跌宕。我也决不会去幻想我的生活会需要他们的小孩来过问照顾。我的生活里永远都不会需要他们。我很习惯没有他们的生活。

我不会要求他们以及他们背后那些人的改变，我也不在乎他们是否改变，就因为他们对我父母及我方敏自己的立场是我父母及我方敏自己在这世上留个骨灰都多余，从未给我父母留有第二次机会可以享受我作为女儿可以提供的舒适生活。我只会永远祝福那些真正造凶的人可以灰飞烟没永世不得翻生。

我相信我的父亲很好，我也在找我母亲的故事。我不会允许我自己及我自己婚姻家人的生活被他们所吵闹骂砸，我更不会允许我自己及我自己婚姻家人的法律权益被他们所践踏。该报警该采取法律行动时，我从未犹豫过，我也永远不会犹豫。

我不会允许我自己及我自己婚姻家人的生活被他们所吵闹骂砸，我更不会允许我自己及我自己婚姻家人的法律权益被他们所践踏。该报警该采取法律行动时，我从未犹豫过，我也永远不会犹豫。

----2018年3月16日。


听到了所谓"这是你妈妈嫡亲娘家的亲戚，你为什么不给钱?"
我的回应：就算他们和我的母亲是血缘上的同父同母，他们也从来不是我母亲的亲生兄弟姐妹。

否则，他们就不会明知他们自己从我母亲11岁起就没有和我母亲在同一个城市工作生活的情况下，居然到处宣传说我母亲是个偷人的婊子而已，就算我和我母亲的丈夫有同样的家族胎记也只能是一个婊子养的不配继承我亲生父亲家的亲生爷爷们给我的财产。

何况，自从我的母亲被我母亲的亲妈一生下来就扔出去又被我的亲外公（我母亲亲妈的丈夫）捡回来以后，我的母亲就是由我的亲外公王怀迎一个人养大的。我母亲的亲妈对我母亲是不闻不问，如果我亲外公不在家也没带着我母亲一起出门，我母亲的亲妈从来没有不准我母亲吃饭，但是我母亲必须帮忙家里干活包括照顾弟弟妹妹，我听说的就是这样。

而且，我也不清楚这些人和我母亲是否同父。他们自己才是长的不像爹不像妈更不像其他同母的兄弟姊妹。没错，我确实是在说他们自己才有可能是婊子生的，婊子养的，怪不得弄得这么一副婊子嘴脸，婊子腔调。

----2018年3月16日。

03-15-2018 Great Music or Impossibly Perfect Sound of Music

03-15-2018 Great Music or Impossibly Perfect Sound of Music


Heard of a lot of anger regarding if I know anything about music.
My response: The accurate saying should be I know what can be the impossible music called "sound of perfection"
I graduated from a medical college, a pharmacology major with 3-years Basic Medial System(BMS) education. That medical college I enrolled was established by my 3-generations grandfathers' donation may be the reason that I had this great opportunity to learn medical as I had so wished but not "the opportunities" to work in a messy and busy state-run public hospital.

But I learned human's muscle, neuron, vocal system that I know what the possible restrictions or limits of perfect human vocals might be.

I had worked as a research and development computer programmer in a company that my own inheritance may have invested that I had this great opportunity to work on great projects without performance reporting issue or project's budgeted time running-out concerns. But we did finish our project in only 4 years’ time.

I was a kernel operating system security programmer that on a login replacement project. One of the approaches I had tried was to load a logged-on user's profile as a remote object because I did not think using a cached password could make the login replacement project a good project.

In order to correctly load a network user's profile remotely, I looked into almost all aspects of how to map a user's profile to the far pointers including a logged-on user's default sound and image settings.

This work experience made me learned a lot about sound & images recording and handling technology that I have some very good concept of what would be "a perfect sound" theoretically.

Plus, I did have a high-school music teacher who was an old-colleague to my mother and taught me some basic piano-playing that I know what makes some sound a music song. And I do enjoy singing a lot and I do have some sing techniques I have developed myself. And I do have the ears I inherited from my ancient Emperor & famous composer grandfather (作曲家爷爷唐玄宗李隆基).

With all these together, I am a very picky vocal lover who knows the value if a singer can sing the impossible "song of perfection", and I am a picky music lover who knows the value of the perfect sound-mix.

This was actually what I had contributed to the conversation that had agonized so many musicians on July 1st of 2004.

----March 15th, 2018

03-14-2018 About Strategic Vision and Strategic Mission

03-14-2018 About Strategic Vision and Strategic Mission

"We provide - directly and through partnerships with other innovative companies - hardware, software, consumables and services to customers in graphic arts, commercial print, publishing, packaging, electronic displays, entertainment and commercial films, and consumer products markets." 

----Kodak's Vision Statement

My understanding: I think Vision and Mission should be in line with the company's Longterm development objectives and should be adjusted according to internal and external environmental changes.

I think Kodak's mission statement is from their understanding of what their possible Markets are in the digital era. Kodak now has the digital camera & display products together with their original advantages in graphics printing, publishing, and filming, etc.

----March 14th, 2018

" We will use leading-edge, proprietary technologies to provide top-quality products and services that contribute to the advancement of culture, science, technology and industry, as well as improved health and environmental protection in society. Our overarching aim is to help enhance the quality of life of people worldwide." 

----Fuji's Mission Statement

My understanding: Vision and mission are formed based on information gathered from the internal and external analysis.

The Information is the ground to form the Vision of how the company is doing in an industry or in an economy as well as where the company's position is in the ever-changing environment.

The analyzing of the information is the foundation to form the Mission of what the company wants to become.

----March 14th, 2018

Image Display technology and Image Projecting Technology
My response: Image Technology that Fuji and Kodak using are signals receiving related, it doesn't matter if signals are received from a camera glass need to be accurately recorded on a film or image records from a film need to be truthfully displayed on a print. I think Fuji and Kodak have expanded their expertise from Chemical oriented image recording and displaying technology to the electronic and computer-oriented image recording and displaying technology.

The Image technology that Kodak and Fuji have used is different with the imaging technology used in the Television industry. The television technology is similar to the camera's glass technology in comparison with Kodak and Fuji's technology.

The Television technology is similar to a projector technology that is centered on how to accurately projecting electron beam translations of received wireless TV program signals to the display devices. The Television image technology's excellence is measured by the projecting images' color resolution, projecting images' sharpness' definition, and projecting images' displayable screen size.

----March 14th, 2018

03-13-2018 About Managing or Governing （有关管理或者治理 ）

03-13-2018 About Managing or Governing （有关管理或者治理 ）


Heard this morning's talk about if I am the heir of my ancient Emperor grandfather.(中文附后）
My response: I am truly the heir of Tang dynasty Emperor Taizong （唐太宗李世民) by blood and family inheriting rule. I did inherit trusts that set up for me with titles and wealth.

Confusion of Charity and Providing

Two different Accounts & Who has a personal first-last named capital account everywhere?

Why my lawful private wealth’s inheriting is Chinese government's Sovereign Issue?


----March 13, 2018


Heard a lot of saying if I know anything about managing.
My response: Well, certainly I do. I learned managerial skills through my work experiences of being an employee and being an independent researcher.

In China, we have a saying that you need to know how to be beaten up before you learn how to beat in Kongfu.

This saying never means that a Kongfu beginner deserves to be beaten up but to say that learn to protect oneself and learn to defend oneself is the beginner's class for kungfu or marshall arts.

It is the same about knowledge on managing or governing.

If a shool-graduated person is never employed as an employee that has been managed, this person may never know there are so many issues in any business or non-business operation that need some managerial skills to identify, to sooth and to resolve.

If an employee has not changed any employer in this employee's work experiences, this employee may never know there are so many different styles of managerial skills or what is effectively managing that is welcomed by those being managed.

If this school-graduated but never employed person think this person self can manage without being managed experience, well, this person may never know what is effective managerial skills or even lawful managerial skills.

If an employee who does not know how to learn managerial skills from being managed experiences, the promotion of this employee who has rich being managed experience won't benefit the business as well as the employees of the business.

There are a lot of issues between me and some of the 1989 group abroad related to this. I say they do not have the work or social experiences to be the real 1989 group and they feel their proved managing talents have been ignored.

----March 13th, 2018


听说了今天早上提到的我是否是唐太宗的继承人。
我的回应：我确实是唐太宗李世民的血脉传承的继承人。我的继承是按照唐太宗李世民家里的血脉传承继承规则。我确实是继承了一些为我设立的托付了丰厚财产及古老头衔的信托。

慈善和供养的混淆

不是同一个帐本以及谁会用本名来作为投资账户的名字来到处投资啊？

我私人财产继承怎么成了中国政府的主权问题了？

----2018年3月13日。


听到了很多有关我是否知道什么是管理的说法。
我的回应：我当然知道啊。我是通过做工的经历以及做了独立研究人员的经历学到的管理。

在中国有种说法就是如果你想学武打功夫，你就先得学会如何挨打。

这种说法可不是说武打功夫的初学者就是应该被人打的鼻青脸肿的，而是说如果想学武打功夫的话，就得先学会如何保护自己以及如何进行有效的防御。

有关管理或者治理的知识也是如此。

如果一个受过学校教育的毕业生从来没有一份替人做过工的经历，这个人可能永远都不会知道在任何一个企事业单位日常营运中会有那么多的问题需要管理技能来予以识别，来予以轻重缓急，来予以处理。

如果一个替人做过工的人从来就没有换过老板的工作经历，这个做过工的人可能就永远都不会知道世上有很多很多不同的管理方式以及什么是有效的并且受到雇员欢迎的的管理方式。

如果一个受过学校教育但从来没有替人做过工的人认为可以凭着自己的理解来管理，那么这个人可能永远都不会知道什么是有效的管理方式甚至说是合乎法律的管理方式。

如果一个替人做过工的人不知道如何从被别人管理的工作经历里学习一些管理技能，那么提拔了这个有着丰富的被人管理经历的人并不能够让任何一个企事业单位以及单位里的员工受到任何益处。

我和海外的一些1989年学运人士的矛盾在很大程度上都和这有关。我说他们根本就没有任何工作或者社会经验说他们自己是真正的89年学运组织者，他们就觉得他们自己那份已经在1989年的学运中得到证实的管理组织才华及能力在海外被忽视了被轻蔑了。

----2018年3月13日。

*还有，就是有些华人因为很喜欢某一家企业或者某一个职位，经常会想一些办法来保障自己的这个职务的“安全性”。其实这种理解很不安全。因为一但有意识地想把这份职务的安全感掌握在自己手里，往往就会采取一些让管理人员“没有办法管理”的做法，而这做法一旦开始就已经将自己放在了管理人员的对立面上。管理人员的能力是通过是否有能力对员工进行管理来体现的。其实在工作中学到的知识以及经验才是职场安全的保障，只是工作地点或者说只是在那里拿工资而已。

----2018年3月13日。

03-11-2018 Confusion of Charity and Providing (慈善和供养的混淆)

03-11-2018 Confusion of Charity and Providing (慈善和供养的混淆)



Heard confusion about how I could possibly entrust my parents on July 1st of 2004.（中文附后）
My response: I entrusted caring for my parents to be provided on my behave since July 1st of 2004.

----March 11th, 2018


Heard this morning's talk about "as long as my name not in each business' capital account, I can not say I have money".
My response: This is possibly a criminal effort of blocking me to spend my own money but attempts to transfer my own lawful money for illegal usage.

This saying is equally saying that if I have used a pseudo name(a company name) to open a bank account(capital account), even with bank employees testifying that is lawfully my bank account by internal instructions as well as by supporting legal documentation, as long as my name(Min Fang) is not printed or stamped on each single paper dollar bill that has been saved in that bank account, I should not be allowed to spend any money that is saved in that bank account.

Two different Accounts & Who has a personal first-last named capital account everywhere?

----March 11th, 2018


Heard this morning's talk about deserved providing as charity.
My response: Charity means to help to survive, charity never meant to privilege free and easy luxury living.

If you listen to what has been demanded in this morning's talk, you would recognize that is not from any sort of surviving needs. I refuse any of these demands.

The People's Republic of China also has its own government-run welfare system (民政局) and Non--Government Organization provide charities.

If anyone needs charity to survive, please feel comfortable to go to any charity because that is what charity is about, you will be helped if you are qualified. My trusts have been supporting charities through local investments.

---- March 11th, 2018

If a business is my investment and this business is supporting charity, what that got to do with me?
My response: The charity expense is deducted from a Business' operating expenses.

This means
The government is supporting this business doing charity by freeing tax on this charity expenses.
Investors support this business doing charity by freeing investors' profit-share of this charity expenses.
Business management and employees support this business doing charity by earning this much money to do charity.

If a business is my investment that has supported local charities, it certainly means I have supported local charities from my profit-share that has used as the charity expenses.

----March 11th, 2018


Heard this morning's talk about these from the People's Republic of China are the ones who truly know what is the true meaning of Communism.
My response: I gathered from rumors I heard about the radio program that the Communism in the People's Republic of China means "Sharing one wife to share everyone else's wealth."

I gathered this is absolutely from the Communism concept that everybody should do the best everybody can and everybody deserves to get what everybody needs, and I gathered it  is interpreted as what all this person can do is to have sexual intercourses and this person indeed works very hard on it daily if not hourly, isn't this person deserves to get what this person truly needs which is an easy luxury life that should be provided by everybody else?

I came from the People's Republic of China, I am a U.S. citizen now and I was never a Communist party member, but I have my different understanding I learned through my growing up years in the People's Republic of China about what motivated Chinese Communist party to be such an overwhelmingly popular party ever since it was established in 1921: To serve the people, to create a better life through hard working with protected fair pay ensured by the government.

I refuse to be a provider of this "communism-style" providing on whoever's sexual intercourses work-experiences.

----March 11th, 2018


听说了有关我哪有可能信托了我的父母的疑问。
我的回应：我是诚信托付了从2004年7月1日起替我照顾我的父母。
----2018年3月11日。


听说了今天早上所提到的"只要我的名字没有出现在每一家投资企业的资本账户的户主名册上，我就不能说那是我的钱"。
我的回应：这有可能是企图不准我花我自己合法钱财而把我的合法钱财转为非法用途的一项犯罪行为。

这种说法也就是等同于在说如果我用一个假名（公司名字）开了一个银行账户（投资人主家资本账户），就算是银行的工作人员证明根据内部指示我方敏是那个银行账户的合法主人，就算同时也有相关的法律文件来证明我是这个银行账户的合法主人，只要我方敏的名字没有被打印或者是像盖章一样的盖在那个银行账户所存有的每一张美元面值的美金纸币上，我方敏就不准花这个银行账号里所存有的任何一张美金纸币。

不是同一个帐本以及谁会用本名来作为投资账户的名字来到处投资啊？

----2018年3月11日。


听说了今天早上所谈的"理应得到的慈善供养"。
我的回应:慈善是提供基本生存所需的帮助，慈善从来不是高规格优越供养免费奢侈生活。

如果你听一下今天早上的诉求谈论。应该可以听出那不是什么基本生存所需的诉求。我拒绝这类诉求。

中华人民共和国也有由国家政府的民政系统以及由非政府机构提供的以慈善目的帮助。

如果有人需要慈善帮助生存所需，请直接向当地的慈善机构提出申请，没有什么不好意思的，慈善的目的就是帮助解决生存所需的一些问题, 只要符合条件，你是会得到你所需要的帮助的。我的信托一直都有通过当地的投资支持当地的慈善机构。

----2018年3月11日。


如果一个企业一直都有支持慈善，就算这个企业是我的投资，可这慈善和我有什么关系?
我的回应：慈善支出是作为公司的一个营运项目支出的。

这也就是说
政府支持这个企业在当地做慈善是通过对这一笔慈善支出不收税的方式进行的。
投资人支持这个企业在当地做慈善是通过对这一笔慈善支出所需的金额不算做营业利润来进行投资利润分成的方式进行的。
企业管理层和员工支持这个企业在当地做慈善是通过努力工作挣出这一笔慈善支出所需的钱来做慈善的方式进行的。

如果我的一个投资企业一直都有支持当地的慈善事业，当然也就是说我已经有通过我在这个投资企业的利润分成在支持当地的慈善事业了。

----2018年3月11日。


听说了今天早上所提到的从中华人民共和国来的才是真正知道什么是真正的共产主义的。
我的回应：我从我听说的一些有关广播剧的传言中已经听出来这共产主义在如今的中华人民共和国就是指“先共妻（共一个女人做老婆），再共产（共其他人的财产过富裕日子）。”

我也听出来这说法绝对是从共产主义的定义和理念”尽其所能，按需分配”而来的。我也听出来对这定义理念的解释就是：其人所能就是男女性交，其人也已经尽其所能的就算没有时时男女性交也是竭尽所能日夜都在男女性交，难道其人就不应该得到其人真正所需要的舒适奢侈不用自己挣钱花的生活吗？

我从中华人民共和国来的，我现在是美国公民，我也从来就不是共产党员。但我在中华人民共和国成长过程中所学到的中国共产党之所以从1921成立伊始就成为在中国最受欢迎的政党的原因是：中国共产党主张国家政党政权是为人民服务的，是鼓励勤劳勇敢，独立自主地创建美好幸福生活的政党政权，全体公民有权充分享受在国家政党政权保障下的平等权利及按劳分配。

我拒绝成为这么一个有着”共产主义风格“而为其他人的”性生活工作经历“而付费的供养人。

----2018年3月11日。

03-10-2018 About my trust my grandfather set up for me in Hong Kong (有关我爷爷替我在香港设立的信托)

03-10-2018 A bit more About my trust my grandfather set up for me in Hong Kong (有关我爷爷替我在香港设立的信托)

Heard this morning's talk about what my father should do.
My response: Both my younger and I are in our late 40s now. My father has raised me and my younger brother with all he had.

----March 10th, 2018

Heard this morning's talk about my grandmother's “fight” with my great grandmother.
My response: I heard that was when my uncle, my father's youngest sibling, was only several years old.  That "fight" was because my grandmother wanted my great-grandmother took my uncle with her(my grandmother's) other children for an outing. My great grandmother just completely ignored the "fact" my uncle was crying hysterically non-stop.

All my grandmother's children are from my great grandmother. All my father's siblings share "the same birth mother, the same birth grandmother".

----March 10th, 2018

A bit more about my trust that my grandfather set up for me in Hong Kong.
My response: I heard it was said on the radio the total that received from my grandfather was "5 Million Chinese Silver Doller". I also heard that "10,000 Chinese Silver dollar in 1949 = ￥10 Million RBM in 2004".

If so, "500,000 Silver Dollar = ￥500 Million RMB".  Compare to the total of "5Million Silver Dollar", the size of the gift "50,000 Silver Dollar" I was willing to give to my father's and my grandfather's siblings is not shabby at all.

No wonder Chinese community abroad who know the price of the Silver Dollar never commented if "￥500 Million RMB" is shabby.

----March 10th, 2018


听说了今天早上所提到的我父亲应该怎么做。
我的回应：我和我弟弟现在都已经40多岁了。我父亲当年是倾其所有养大了我和我的弟弟。

----2018年3月10日。


听说了今天早上所提到的我奶奶和我曾祖母的一场“争执”。
我的回应：我听说了那是我父亲兄弟姊妹中最小的我叔叔只有几岁大的时候。那场“争执”是因为我奶奶要我曾祖母带着我的这个叔叔和我奶奶的其他几个孩子们一起出去玩。我曾祖母当时是”完全不理”我的这个叔叔当时已经是哭的“歇斯底里”的嚎啕不止。

我奶奶的所有孩子都是由我曾祖母所出。我父亲的兄弟姊妹们都是出自同一个亲妈，同一个亲奶奶。

----2018年3月10日。

有关我爷爷替我在香港设立的信托。
我的回应：我听说广播上讲的香港一共是收到了我爷爷所托付的五百万（大洋）。我也听说了“1949年时候的1万大洋 = 2004年时候的1千万人民币”。

如果是这样的话，“50万大洋= 5亿人民币”。和我收到的一共就只有5百万大洋相比，我最初愿意给我爷爷及我父亲的兄弟姊妹的·那份“5亿元人民币一家”的礼物规模可是一点都不寒碜。

怪不得海外华裔社区那些知道“大洋”价钱的从来就没说过我方敏给的礼物拿不出手。

我爷爷家里1949年解放前后是住在上海愚园路上的连栋6个三层单户的”人民小区“， 就在上海静安寺一个武警中队招待所的对面。当时是和我爷爷的一个朋友两家分租（各三个单户）。我爷爷奶奶和我的叔叔姑姑们一个三层单户，我曾祖母和我的父亲一个三层单户，另一个是杂用。我父亲从出生就一直是和我的曾祖母一起生活的，我父亲的叔叔姑姑未婚前也都很喜欢我的父亲。这是我愿意给我父亲的叔叔姑姑一家一份礼物的原因。

***现在我要降到“一家2千万人民币”的说法是因为他们六家（我爷爷和我父亲的兄弟姊妹）可能违反了“别闹腾”的条件。

----2018年3月10日。

03-08-2018 Why my lawful private wealth’s inheriting is Chinese government's Sovereign Issue?(我私人财产继承怎么成了中国政府的主权问题了？）

03-08-2018 Why my lawful private wealth’s inheriting is Chinese government's Sovereign Issue?(我私人财产继承怎么成了中国政府的主权问题了？）

Heard this morning's talk about Chinese Premier's Sovereign talk regarding the trust my birth grandfather set up for me in Hong Kong.（中文附后）
My response: Even according to People's Republic of China's laws, the matter is a private wealth inheriting matter, why it becomes such a Chinese Sovereign issue? Is this imply that current administration of Chinese government is the government that "sharing one wife already that so should share everybody's wealth as well"?

I do not have any association including no sexual association with this administration of China's sharing one wife government.
I refuse my lawful private wealth to be "shared".

I make my comment about this administration of the People's Republic of China's government according to their own logic. They swear my name in order to own my lawful private wealth illegally, I shit their names in order to protect my own lawful private wealth.

I am a such famous "fake talented" because my intellectual income deserved to be owned by whoever wants some easy money, I am such a famous unwanted "female" because my providing from my own birth grandfathers' blessing deserved to be understood as "some rich man's donation" that should be owned by whoever has a used female underwear.

I am sick of the shouts "As long as I am the one still in his bed and mother his child(ren), I won't be the one who is afraid".

I have no need to shout now but to make myself clear "as long as I have the same size and same quality level of attorney service as that him, why I need to be afraid? I send you both to the laws."

----03-08-2018

听说了今天早上所播出的中国政府总理所谈参与争夺我爷爷在香港替我设立的信托是在捍卫中国主权的说法。
我的回应: 即使是按照中华人民共和国的法律，我爷爷替我在香港设立的信托也是非常明确的私人财产继承事宜，为什么就变成了这一届中国政府的主权之争？这是在说这一届的中国共产党政府是个“既然已经共了一个妻当然应该共所有人的产”的政府吗？

我1996年离开中国是的中国共产党政府没有共妻，我也没觉着当时的政府想共我的产。 我现在已经是美国公民，我和中国习近平李克强共妻政府的任何官员都没有任何因公因私关系或者性关系。
我拒绝我自己的私人合法财产被“共产”。

我就中国政府所发表的言论完全遵循中国政府的思维逻辑。中国习近平李克强的共妻政府为掠夺我的合法私有财产对我进行谩骂羞辱的所谓演出，我为捍卫我自己合法私有财产不被公然掠夺，我也是痛骂这届中国习近平李克强的共妻政府根本就是一群只有一个妓院妓女破鞋婊子才会肯让他们下种否则就是断子绝孙的一群婊子养的杂种烂货。我也是会痛骂这届中国政府就只是一群只会满嘴舔着“髀眼价值，髀眼知识，髀眼能力，髀眼道德，髀眼荣宗”的一群没有任何正经女人愿意替他们生儿育女的下三烂猪屎而已。

我现在成了一个这么有名的“假冒伪造”就是因为有些想拿容易钱的人“就是要定了”我的智慧产权收入，我是个这么有名的“没人要的女人”就是因为我自己亲生爷爷留给我的信托所提供的生活费用就是应该被理解成“什么有钱人的捐款”而被一些不知被哪个男人使用过的想要钱的髀眼所拥有。

真是烦，成天就听着一群人扯着嗓门的喊：”只要他的那张床我还能爬得上去，只要我是他孩子的妈，我就是不会怕。”

我现在已经不需要扯着嗓门喊了，我就只要把话讲清楚“只要我自己的律师团的规模质量和那个男的是同等级别的，那我怕什么呀？我把你们两个人一起送上法庭就可以啦。”

----2018年3月8日。

03-07-2018 The trust my grandfather(my father's father) set up for me in Hong Kong -- 我爷爷（我父亲的父亲）替我在香港设立的信托

03-07-2018 The trust my grandfather(my father's father) set up for me in Hong Kong -- 我爷爷（我父亲的父亲）替我在香港设立的信托

Heard this morning's talk about the trust that my grandfather (my father's father 方智仁）set up for me.
My response: I heard the trust was set up in Hong Kong before 1949, It should be set up and have been investing according to British Laws.
----March 7th, 2018

致大娘娘（大姑)家人，小娘娘(小姑)及家人，叔叔及家人：
如果你们就方智仁爷爷在香港替我设立的这个信托有疑问，请委托律师查询。但请不要先假设香港那些受方智仁爷爷委托的律师们不认为你们也是方智仁亲生子女。

我听说方智仁爷爷1965年在上海去世前也确实有把遗言遗嘱（信件）和遗产（银行存折）当面交给你们（两女一子）每一个人。
----2018年3月7日。

老爸爸方文海：如果你就方智仁爷爷在香港替我设立的这个信托有疑问，也请委托律师查询。
----2018年3月7日。

03-06-2018 Two different Accounts & Who has a personal first-last named capital account everywhere?(不是同一个帐本以及谁会用本名来作为投资账户的名字来到处投资啊？)

03-06-2018 Two different Accounts & Who has a personal first-last named capital account everywhere?(不是同一个帐本以及谁会用本名来作为投资账户的名字来到处投资啊？)

Heard this morning's an adult R's birth father's(Mr. R Sr) announcement that I was never an R's woman. (中文附后）
My response: True Statement.
----03-06-2018

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. 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.

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.

Explanation: What I have inherited are trusts that my birth grandfathers set up for me before I was born.

My name (Min Fang) is in my trust (Example 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 ABC-1, the company ABC-1 only has the company ABC as its investor in its capital account which means ABC-1's owner is the company ABC, etc. that there are these company ABC-1-1, company ABC-1-1-1, company ABC-1-1-1-1, etc. My named account (Min Fang) is only in my trust XYZ, but my providing can be paid by the company ABC-1-1-1-1 that later deducted from the company ABC-1-1-1's profiting share, and subsequently deducted from company ABC-1-1, company ABC-1, company ABC, and then deducted from my named capital account ( Min Fang's capital account) in my trust XYZ.

Another way to get my providing is to let my trust wire that money directly to me which is seldom used by investors because of inconvenience caused by tedious procedures. Also, the Investor's tax for each providing check is paid to the country according to its signing local company's geographic location.

----February 27th, 2018

Albert Gore has nothing to do with me for him to say anything on my 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

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。

在中华人民共和国大学毕业的应该意味着社么？
我的回应：中华人民共和国北京中央政府2015年-2017通过广播剧用中文及广播剧所播放国家的当地语言，向全世界正式宣布并强调：

1：中华人民共和国根本就没人要操方敏的逼眼，中华人民共和国永远不会需要方敏的任何才华。

2：中国政府最高权力机构中共中央政治局有多人和李克强总理的妻子程虹是事实上的真实男女交媾两性关系，所以程虹才是真正可以领导中华人民共和国经济发展的杰出人才。

3：中华人民共和国根本就没人要操方敏的逼眼，方敏就没有可能对中华人民共和国有过任何贡献，性交功能之内或者之外，方敏都是就只能是个假冒伪造。

4：中华人民共和国李克强总理的妻子程虹为中国政府最高权力机构中共中央多人育有现已成年儿子（海外传言每人一个，共6人，据说广播剧已由各男本人（中国现任高层官员）分别宣布3-4男共妻事实），所以中华人民共和国李克强总理的妻子程虹为防止中华人民共和国断子绝孙国家灭亡的所做杰出贡献绝不可以轻视。

----2018年3月3日。