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
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。