08-31-2018 Anger of "You can't state you own this money if you don't own the paying company."

08-31-2018 Anger of "You can't state you own this money if you don't own the paying company." (updated)

I have been claiming my Trust owns the company as an upstream investor, this either has been acknowledged by the company's lawfully ownership-registered owner or nor contradicted by the company.

To avoid confusion if what I have claimed is inherited money or flirting-taking-over-fees, this is to clarify all four American Fund companies, each has $200Billion-size in 2004, which I have claimed on my web blog that,

1. Each of these four $200Billion-size(2004) American Fund companies have never carried Rockefeller families Holding, nor Ford families Holding, nor Walton families holding as its official name nor its nickname
2. Each of these four $200Billion-size(2004) American Fund companies have never been considered officially or customarily as part of the Rockefeller Families Holding, nor Fold Families Holding, nor Walton Families Holding.

----updated on Sept 2nd, 2018

If you can't validate if I inherited any Trust or if it has been the lawful upstream investor of this company, well, I have to say it is never your privilege to insist on me to prove myself to you or probe into the matter.

I am comfortable that you can't validate my claim, please respect my claim as long as the company I claimed does not contradict my saying as well as not owned by you.

If you are concerned about what you would do as a complete outsider of the matter, I would say as long as you keep in mind you have not been able to validate the claim yet.

If you are concerned about what you need to react if you are associated with the company that I claimed, I would say you should be able to validate my claim if necessary.

If you are concerned about what should be the expectation if I inquiry you for possible financial arrangement has made for me by the company I claimed, I say I am the person respect your honest reply.

I have stated I changed the strategy of my inquiry to ask if there has been any pre-paid arrangement that is lawfully for my exclusive usage, and this change was because of the above argument. The reasons for this change are the following:

1. I am a private person who is not forbidden by law to accept any payment from any company,
2. The paying company is a privately owned company and paying is for my exclusive usage with proper lawful instructions,
3. Then, as long as the company is not avoiding the company-tax and I am properly taxed, the payment arrangement from the company should be understood as lawfully for my exclusive usage.

My experience of inheriting some Trusts from my own Chinese birth grandfathers' has been real but I am not the person knows a lot as well, so, I am comfortable to wait for the help currently.

----August 31st, 2018

1. None of these firms carries Rockefeller Holding, nor Ford Holding, nor Walton holding name.
2. None of these firms could be considered as part of the Rockefeller Holding, nor Fold Holding, nor Walton holding.

----August 31st, 2018


Inheriting references and explanations:

1: I never stated I heard I inherited money. I have been stating I experienced inheriting by going to a law firm to participate teleconferences with identifications and an attorney's accompanying. 
Note: My original statement has been that I participated in the teleconferences at my green card application attorney's office on these three days (which can be verified by the U.S. satellite records).

2: On July 1st of 2004, I entrusted what I have inherited on June 30th of 2004.  Ever since this day, I have been kept saying it is my own money I am spending. 
Note: Well, if you inherited a saving account from your great-grandfather, which was finalized after you received the will-executing attorney's formal informing letter or signed some legal documentation, you would call it your own money instead of "your deceased great-grandfather's money you are expecting", right? My Trust-inheriting was finalized when I was asked on June 30th of 2004 if I was willing to pay willingness-based inheriting related voluntary taxes. After my Trust-inheriting finalized, the lawful owner of the money is lawfully transferred to me. Of course, I lawfully own the money is the reason for me to lawfully claim "my own money".

3: My inheriting day big $4Billion - $6Billion shopping spray of "what I want" was on July 1st of 2004. 
Note: It is very common for any newly inherited to spend a big chunk of money who normally leave the inheriting will-executing law firm with a check that can be cashed immediately.

There has been a huge problem regarding whose money I was spending on July 1st of 2004, from some confused American rich. And I have been angry that these American rich took advantage of my shopping spray's investment opportunities to make money but shit me all over.

If I knew my claim of "my own money" on July 1st of 2004 was misunderstood as taking over their family wealth, I would explain my own money is from my deceased Chinese birth-grandfathers' blessing as every newly inherited would enjoy doing. It was only the next day and if I knew "I am not paying for it" was from real frustration instead of joking for the facts they were(are) still enjoying the limited allowances while watching me having their family seniors' size of spending budget.

I heard this only last year (2017) that youngsters who don't know their family seniors' wealth details confused so severely. None of my claimed companies have ever been owned by any major rich houses which can be validated easily because the size of the companies I claimed was $200Billion each in 2004, all have been on America's soil over 400 years, and could afford to donate "$200Million each" to Olympic related events between 2004-2008.

4: Somebody was sitting there the entire time on June 30th or July 1st of 2004 but did not hear me inheriting.
Note: It was teleconference and inheriting event has always been exclusive which means no irrelated person should be in my inheriting teleconference which was easily achievable by:

1. Telephone's multiple channels technology for the privacy purpose. (Telephones has Line 1, Line 2.. features for different groups of people).
2. Internet meeting software, such as Skype, has different chatrooms available for different groups of patrons as well, for the same privacy purpose.

----August 31st, 2018

08-30-2018 I refuse to adopt any child who does not carry my blood.

08-30-2018 I refuse to adopt any child who does not carry my blood biologically.

I refuse to adopt any child who does not carry my blood biologically.  I have no problem to have nothing to do with this morning's each announced child's entire father-side relatives at all.

I heard both mothered by a Chinese or an Asian, both born in 2010 but not in June of 2010. I heard this entire "plot" is called "the smartest strategy" to take over my own handsome wealth.

It is so disgusting when the entire broadcasting of this morning, as if, is to present how the possible British Nobility or an American Rich both have nothing for each's own biological daughter to call her inheritable.

----August 30th, 2018


Reference about my own handsome wealth:

I never stated I heard I inherited money. I have been stating I experienced inheriting by going to a law firm to participate teleconferences with identifications and an attorney's accompanying. My statement has been that I participated in the teleconferences at my green card application attorney's office on these three days (which can be verified by the satellite records).

On July 1st of 2004, I entrusted what I have inherited on June 30th of 2004.

----August 28th, 2018

My inheriting day big $4Billion - $6Billion shopping spray of "what I want" was on July 1st of 2004. *I had a huge panic attack in 2017 on 96.9 FM Boston, when I heard for the first time that Rockefellers accused me spent their $4-6 Billion money on July 1st of 2004 because I never contacted anyone of them to ask their money or their permission to spend their money all my life.

----August 30th, 2018

08-28-2018 Exactly, what are the confusions related to my inheriting on June 30th of 2004?

08-28-2018 Exactly, what are the confusions related to my inheriting on June 30th of 2004?


1: The confusion of how can I expect to own any wealth by announcing so on a public channel or by bilking government? My Answer: This is totally a misunderstanding. 

A lot of public anger associated with how I could possibly fancy I could own O'Connors family-wealth by announcing so on the radio? This is totally a misunderstanding. Let me illustrate it a bit.

There is a property or a company which has been lawfully owned, and there is a manager who has been looking after this property or this company. O'Connors' confusion was that they have been the boss of this manager over almost two centuries, of course, it is because they own this property or this company. My confusion was "but this is the same property or the same company I was told I inherited from my birth Chinese grandfather on my inheriting day".

It turned out that the company has been owned by its British Investor company which has been on its ownership registration-license record since it was established over 400 years ago. The Trust I inherited has been its British investor company's upstream investor.

----August 28th, 2018


2: The confusion that I can't say I have inherited money by stating "I heard of". 
My Answer: This is a misunderstanding. 

I never stated I heard I inherited money. I have been stating I experienced inheriting by going to a law firm to participate teleconferences with identifications and an attorney's accompanying. My statement has been that I participated in the teleconferences at my green card application attorney's office on these three days (which can be verified by the satellite records). I need to reference what I possibly inherited, which are the companies I have stated provided for me since 2015, is because I was inquiring where the paid-out money could possibly be. I stated I heard what I had possibly inherited but not inheriting itself.

----August 28th, 2018


3: The confusion of who knows who was inheriting on June 30th of 2004 when it was so crowded. My answer: This is a misunderstanding.

 Inheriting only relates to what a deceased person's left behind which means the wealth should be lawfully owned by the deceased before the death, lawfully owned after the inheriting, and also cared for during the in-between time by the will-executing attorneys according to the Laws. My Trust-inheriting is much easier because there is no confusion of the legitimate-ownership in-between period.

So, it doesn't matter how many unintended people were presented in a place when someone is inheriting, the deceased person's wealth should be under will-executing attorneys responsibilities to ensure lawful distribution which leads to who lawfully owns what after the inheriting. Will-executing attorneys are the group oversee the wealth-ownership-transition from the deceased to the living according to the Laws during an inheriting, it is impossible to confuse who can inherit what no matter how crowded the inheriting place might be nor how many inheriting happening at the same geographic location at the same time.

All inheriting must associate with a death, a Family-inheriting is always sad because it associates with an inheriting-day-recent death.

Trusting-inheriting is always independent of the time of the deceased settlor's death. All my grandfathers passed away before I was born, so, my inheriting was a happy event.

On July 1st of 2004, I entrusted what I have inherited on June 30th of 2004.

----August 28th, 2018

My inheriting day big $4Billion - $6Billion shopping spray of "what I want" was on July 1st of 2004. *I had a huge panic attack in 2017 on 96.9 FM Boston when I heard for the first time that Rockefellers accused me spent their $4-6 Billion money on July 1st of 2004 because I never contacted anyone of them to ask their money or their permission to spend their money all my life.


----updated on August 30th, 2018

My anger of who is the person confused the sucking-fee with the inherited money?
My anger has been
1: When I was claiming I inherited since June 30th of 2004, it is obviously stating I have money but definitely not a living person's romance-fee, and even if there was someone else inheriting on that same day, the wealth should be under will-executing attorneys managing for lawful ownership transitioning purpose, how could anyone confuse my claim of inherited money with some living persons' family-wealth while knowing their entire family have been healthy living all this time?

2: With the will-executing attorneys overseeing the ownership-transition according to the Laws, how could possibly any lawful ownership be transferred to me if that was not my inheriting or not my inheritable? All those Trusts I have inherited have never been owned by anyone else other than myself since their establishments. What else is the confusion about the ownership of what I have inherited, other than the confusion similar to the confusion item 1?

3: I have been stating I inherited my birth Chinese grandfathers' money and all these companies I referenced have never been owned by those confused males, why all those who got joysticks-sucking-fees deserve to shit me all over? Who is the person doesn't know the difference between the inherited-money and the joystick-sucking-fee?

Why wouldn't I fight back by telling everybody that must be a public men's-toilet if the confidence is " being the most eligible one for the joyStick-sucking-fee as long as there is a joystick."

----August 28th, 2018

08-25-2010 My inheriting is never a joke

08-25-2010 My inheriting is never a joke

Heard about the talk of "scheduled to start at 10:30 AM EST on June 30th on 2004"?
My response:

I was called to have a meeting with my green card application attorney in his law firm located on Broad Street in Stamford, CT on June 30th of 2004 at about 9:30AM-10AM. It took me a bit time to take off because I did not remember this appointment at all. That was the meeting started off with "You are not allowed to contact a married U.S. Military officer until his retirement time." I did not remember how long it was but I did remember there was some friendly chat after this "opening note" before I was asked: "Do you wish (want) to be a rich person?" So, I was asked this question definitely after 10:30-11: 00 AM EST on June 30th, 2004.

I took this "Do you want to be a rich person?" as a social conversation, so I answered, "of course". I heard I was asked by a Federal Judge from New York State.

Sometime later, I was asked if I was willing to pay willingness-based voluntary inheriting related taxes which are a federal estate tax and state inheriting tax, I heard recently this was asked by an IRS tax officer and a Connecticut tax officer. I took this so not seriously and answered: "If I don't need to pay a tax, why would I ever pay any tax". I was asked again but I was still not getting the seriousness of taxing, so I said the capital and highlighted "NO" which I knew made the air still at the moment, I changed my mind about paying to inherit related taxes already and I expressed this to my entrusting attorneys already.

----August 25th, 2018


I heard there was a lot of confusion why a Federal Judge presented? and from New York State when I was a Connecticut State resident? 
My response:
First of all, a Federal Judge was presented may be because some Trusts I inherited are from my ancient grandfathers which are so ancient that the Trusts were set up by their wills but after their deaths when a Trust became a lawful item. These Trusts are testamentary trusts which need a probation Judge for inheriting. What I have announced on this blog are all from very ancient birth grandfathers of mine.

Second, Connecticut state, New York state and New Jersey State are a common tripod-states that attorneys often hold multi-states licenses in this area, but I don't know about Federal Judges.

----August 25th, 2018

08-19-2018 The confusion about who owns what money or who can spend what money.

08-19-2018 The confusion about who owns what money or who can spend what money.


Heard about the confusion of "donation" and "dividend".
My response:

On July 1st of 2004, I said donation plan of "200Million" each to Olympic Game related, the confusion has been why it became the invested company's donation instead of the investor's personal donation.

Any company's donation is the expenses before the company-tax which means any company's donation is:

1. the donation of hard working time from the company's staff who made the money, 
2. the donation of waived taxes from the government, state and federal.
3. the donation of dividend share from the company's investor.

And most importantly, any donation's recipient has its geographic location which is often the care of its local people so that a lot of donation ideas are supported by the local companies' local people to make such donations, which have never been against by the local state & federal government. This is my understanding of why an investor's donation idea often become the investor's investment company's donation.

The difference between a company's donation and an investor's private use of money lies on where this money paid from. If there is a spending paid by a company's check, it could be the company's donation if the expense is before the company-tax payment,  and it would be definitely the investor's private expense if the spending with the investor's instruction is after the company's tax payment.

听说了今天早上的广播让很多人感觉到一丝悲一丝凉，我就觉得还好啦。你想啊，那几个说这些话的人，如果他们自己要是有个三长两短的，虽说是他们有小孩会在乎他们，那他们的小孩子除了替他们报警之外，还能为他们做什么特别的吗？我的孩子还小还是我的责任义务要保护他们，所以我就自己替自己报警啦。

听说了有一堆以前和我在一个学校上过学的，一个单位上过班的，都纷纷上广播表态他们是打心眼里认为他们自己才是最优秀的，认为我方敏就是不知道自己姓什么而已，我方敏对他们这些人的态度也是一样：”你自己又算老几？你自己也不过就是个什么都不是的狗屎而已，政府雇员也就是个中国的公务员而已，吓死谁啦？我方敏什么情况都从未需要过你的任何狗屁，也永远不会需要认识你。”

----August 20th, 2018


Heard currently there is a lot of confusion about who owns what money or who can spend what money.
My response:

Money's ownership is by law.
The lawful owner of the money is the only authority to spend the money or deny the wrongful use of the money.
It is never whoever's privilege to deny the money's lawful owner's lawful right on how to spend the money.

If anyone wants to open a coffee shop, this person would be advised to apply for a commercial license (registration title or license title), a Tax license (tax id), and a food administrative license. Among this three, only food administrative license is specialized to a coffee shop or a restaurant, the commercial license and tax license are needed by all organizations.

It is by its commercial license and tax license, the paying company is 100% fully owned by its upper investor company such as a British company, and this British company is 100% fully owned by its upper investor company such as a French company.

It is by the paying American company's commercial license (registration title or license title), and by the paying company's IRS tax-id, the paying American company has never been directly owned by any individual in the U.S, nor in U.K.

It is by the paying American company's commercial license (registration title or license title), by the paying company's IRS tax-id, the paying company has never been owned by any Rockefeller Houses, nor any Ford Houses, nor any Walton houses.

I have been provided for by several American companies' paying checks, these paying checks have been confronted by individual Americans if these paying checks can be the lawful spending of the paying American companies.

The evidence if all these paying checks are lawful are the facts that all these paying-checks were instructed by these paying American companies' lawfully registered lawful owners.

All these paying checks lawfulness should not be the subject for any individual American to deny.

----August 19th, 2018


Heard the confusion in China is if all these "taking over the money" is lawful in the United States, the same taking over should be lawful in China as well.
My response:

My personal experiences are: I am eligible to call U.S. laws to help and I am protected by laws in the United States.

Regarding the saying that my money is already well-known can be taken by whoever: This is untrue saying.

1: Intellectual Incomes: Rumored it has been taking over by denying my lawfulness of ownership, but I heard it has been officially under law-investigation now.

2: My inherited Trusts: It has been obviously ownership by Laws and valid inheriting by Laws.

3: The money from the American companies paying-checks: Rumored it has been taking over by doubting my lawfulness of using the money. But it is obviously in process of clarifying confusion of who owns what money by Laws, and who can spend what money by Laws.

My personal experiences are: All these taking over the money is never lawful in the United States.

----August 19th, 2018

08-16-2018 THE DTA money-taken story was in 2007

08-16-2018 THE DTA money-taken story was in 2007


Heard this morning's broadcasting that the same glamor European Spanish took money from DTA.
My response:
I heard it yesterday.

If anyone wants to open a coffee shop, this person would be advised to apply for a commercial license (registration title or license title), a Tax license (tax id), and a food administrative license. Among this three, only food administrative license is specialized to a coffee shop or a restaurant, the commercial license and tax license are needed by all organizations.

It is by its commercial license and tax license, the paying company is 100% fully owned by its British investor company, and the British company is 100% fully owned by its French investor company.

It is by the paying company's commercial license (registration title or license title), by the paying company's IRS tax-id, the paying company has never been owned by any individual in the U.S, nor in U.K.

It is by the paying company's commercial license (registration title or license title), by the paying company's IRS tax-id, the paying company has never been owned by any Rockefeller House, nor any Ford Houses, nor any Walton houses.  

I have been angry that when the husband's family never owns the paying company, and when the glamor wife took the money paid by the paying company's company-check, but the husband keeps telling everyone he is such a family man. What this suppose to mean when my providing money from the company-check been taken by the couple who I never had any romance association with?

Let me illustrate what I mean. There is a restaurant and its lawful owner is a couple by the restaurant's license registration & tax id. The owner-wife paid to a hospital her maiden parents' medical care by a restaurant's check. Well, there is a glamor wife went to the hospital and tells the hospital she is a wife and she dislikes her husband's family's money to pay for the owner-wife's maiden parents, so she took the money from the hospital. And the glamor husband went on telling everybody he is such a family man.

But the glamor couple is not the co-owners of the restaurant, the glamor husband's family does not have the restaurant's ownership either. And the glamor husband is never the lover of the owner-wife. The two couples know each other but never co-own the restaurant nor romantically ever associated.

I am the maiden parents equivalent as the restaurant's upstream investor. The BTD and DTA are the hospital equivalent. The seriousness is the money was paid in 2004 but taken from BTD and DTA in 2007.

----August 16th, 2018

08-15-2018 My current lodging situation (我现在的居屋）

08-15-2018 My current lodging situation (我现在的居屋）


I remembered my current residence was reserved on July 1st of 2004, and I am 80% certain the unit I am currently living in is the unit reserved because it fits the discussion that I had participated. I heard the rent was paid on the same day of July 1st of 2004 to HUD and locked in BHA by HUD. I moved-in in February of 2013.（我记得我现在所住的房子是2004年7月1日就预定的，我有八成的把握我现在住的这个套房就是所预定的那套，因为周围环境符合我当时所参与的讨论。我听说这房租在2004年7月1日那天就已经付掉了，并由HUD锁定在其BHA的账户里。我是2013年2月搬入。）

I heard the glamor European Spanish who took the money from BHA in 2007 is the wife of the featured person in the Virginia-Washington Regional Hyatt's bar story in 2003, who was also the 30-years old featured person in the Tokyo Airport's romance story in 1980.（我听说从BHA把钱给拿走的那个漂亮的欧洲西班牙人是做老婆的，丈夫就是2003年维吉尼亚州--华盛顿州交界处的凯悦酒店酒吧故事的那个男主角，和八十年代的东京机场罗曼故事的那个30多岁的男主角是同一个人。）

I heard the female featured in the Tokyo airport romance story currently works for the Chinese Foreign department is possibly the reason the Chinese government is so angry regarding the benefits I received as if all these benefits have ever been from the Chinese government.（我听说东京机场罗曼故事的那个女主角目前是中国政府外交部的工作人员，有可能是中国政府对我享受美国政府福利愤怒至极的原因，我感觉这愤怒的程度就好像我拿到的每一分钱的美国政府福利都是由中国政府在付钱似的。）

I heard that in Boston city, the driving force to evict me from all these government agency's help is the Boston Chinese community, it is rumored all these "I don't give shits to" is organized by the C-Mart supermarkets' owners who are affiliated with the $10,000 per month since 1967 story.（我听说，在波士顿本地闹得天翻地覆，就是要把我从美国政府的福利系统赶出去的组织者就是波士顿的中国城超市的股东们，就是他们是和那个自1967年起每月一万美金寄中国的故事有密切关系的。）

I heard the $10,000 per month story shares the same Spanish investor company with the glamor European Spanish's husband's family story（我听说每月一万元的故事和那个漂亮的欧洲西班牙人的丈夫家里的故事是由同一家西班牙投资公司所投资的。）.

I don't know if my food and cash expenses had been paid on July 1st of 2004 as well, and I don't know if all these what I heard could be real, so I have contacted the Authority agencies about my current situation and the pressure I am facing. Yeah, exactly, have I been someone who intends to live on other people's money that deserved to be evicted, or I am just someone who got stuck in a legal situation that needs government agencies' reaching-out help?（我不知道我的食品现金给付是否也在2004年7月1日那天就已经支付，我也不知道我所听到的这些是否都是真实，所以我已经联络相应的美国政府机关提及我现在的情况以及我所面临的压力。是啊，我究竟是一个想赖着花别人的钱，就是应该被从福利机构给赶走的人？还是一个莫名其妙被困在法律事物当中需要美国政府援助的一个人？）

----August 15th, 2018

08-14-2018 I never bilked into my success in 2004.

08-14-2018 I never bilked into my success in 2004.


Heard this still has been an issue regarding how I could be the major featured person of the radio program.
My response:

I heard how I was invited into the meeting has been the serious issue for the reasons that I don't deserve the major featured person fee because I "bilked" this opportunity to make $3.5 Billion + more from a radio program without a bit of appreciation showed towards the group I "bilked".

I thought this has been cleared but I realized it probably has not because yesterday I received a letter obviously don't take me as the person in need of financial help because of some legal situation but have the credential to pay off any debt easily with this $3.5Billion income. I still don't know what has been the confusion because my side story has been a very simple inheriting case that expanded to chatroom talks which sparked the creation of this radio program.

I worked for Janus Associated since September of 1999 and I had finished the Window login replacement project sometime before August of 2003. This is the project I expected to pay me off handsomely because of its no-password login module and secure encrypted data-transmitting module. I requested to move up to Boston of Massachusetts for the reason I could work with the Boston team on this project if they had any issues with the prototype I handed in.

It was after this relocation to Boston of Massachusetts, I  attended a seminar n the Biometric industry with Janus Associates colleagues in Washington area where I met David Petraeus in a Hyatt hotel's lobby area which was in September or October of 2003. I relocated back to Stamford of Connecticut in November of 2003.

I was called into a conference meeting in January of 2004 by my green card application representing attorney. I heard earlier that this was organized by a lady attorney who I had received a phone call from in the year 2000 which was about if I need immigration sponsorship. I heard recently the attorney stated that he was asked by an investor to David Petraeus' family business to schedule this meeting. This investor of David Petraeus' family business has been a French company's American investment. This is the same company I claimed has [aid for my this year's living expenses currently.

This French company's American investment has been an investor to Lehman Brothers was the reason that my outrageous "ideas" about "a Lehman brothers investor" on July 1st of 2004 was not a criminal activity after Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008. I have explained on this blog publicly to Lehman Brothers management as well as its staff after I heard I myself have been its investor that it was never because I had any issue against its management nor its board of directors, nor I insisted on to make troubles. It is true that CDC or subprime mortgages related issues had been the real reason. Now I am apologizing to all the impacts because of confusions related to this.

I was called by this same attorney to his office on June 30th of 2004. The meeting started off with forbidding to contact David Petraeus" because he was a married U.S. military officer then. I was told it was the official order from the U.S. Military.

I was called by this same attorney to his office on the next day which was July 1st of 2004. This meeting was based on my request of entrusting my inherited wealth. I inherited on the same day on June 30th of 2004, but it was sometime after that U.S. Military's order I mentioned above.

This radio program was created on July 1st of 2004, in the same meeting I entrusted my inherited wealth.

I was never invited into any of all these 2004's telemeetings by David Petraeus or his Rockefeller relatives. I never bilked myself as a Rockefeller associated to be in any of 2004's teleconferences. I was invited by my own name Min Fang because of my own matters. The only reason that associated with David Petraeus and how I was invited into all 2004's meetings was the U.S. Military order which forbade me to contact David Petraeus before his retirement from the U.S. Military.

----August 14th, 2018

08-13-2018 Any thought or research can be expressed in a couple of lines if thoughtfully refined,

老爸爸：你可以用图书馆的电脑，注册一个电邮地址，只要你觉得在网上发表这个电邮地址很安全，你就可以用这个电邮地址和我联系，我可以申请让你搬来麻州波士顿(Boston) 亨廷頓大道上的(Huntington Avenue)的东北大学(North Eastern University）以及温特沃斯理工学院(Wentworth College)的附近和我同住, 再远一点就是Museum of Fine Arts, Boston( 地址：465 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115)，波士顿地铁: Orange Line (Ruggles Station),走出这个地铁站收费处之后，你要么下了楼梯就在东北大学里，要么下了楼梯你就不知该往哪走，要么你就走着走着就已经知道我大概住哪里了，就只是哪栋楼了，我住的是公屋（BHA)。


我的电邮地址：SomebodyInMA@gmail.com
注册电邮地址的网站：gmail.com



08-13-2018 Any thought or research can be expressed in a couple of lines if thoughtfully refined, 



听说了今天早上提到的“为什么一个中国公民身份的演员在广播上对美国的智慧产权疑问做权威发言？”
我的回应：
我也是和这一拨人有很大的矛盾。他们就是1967年开始扣留了我每月的一万美金生活费的于家。据说是北京人民艺术剧院的老演员于是之的一，二等亲之类的。所以全是一些中国的演员在吵啊闹啊，他们就是什么都够资格。什么都是这一群中国公民（演员）在广播剧上指手画脚，对所有一切事物当权威。

谁给他们的广播公司话筒？据说是：中国政府的外交部，阿尔伯特·高尔及其曾任中国外交部工作人员的于姓女友，以及那六个"自己乐意就算是美国的广播公司董事会”的美国人。广播公司的地址就在纽约洛克菲勒中心的其中一栋楼里。

----2018年8月13日。


Heard this morning's Viagra argument.
My response:

I heard the first one of my intellectual income checks from the Viagra patent was taken by a couple of court police officers after that morning's "I rule" broadcasting. I heard no 911 call was made because another phone number was given as a 911 substitute which was understood as a precinct's direct line, I heard this was the reason why no 911 police officer responded the call.

I was asked what would happen if a 911 call was made? I heard the 911 police officials would ask the court police officials to present the court ruling in-prints. A U.S. judicial court ruling in-prints have the ruling district court and this Viagra check's legal case references for the 911 police officers to verify the lawful validation of the court police officers' check-collecting.

As I said some time ago, the Viagra's company acknowledged my contribution to the Viagra, and I never complained about the reward size and I am very happy with the reward size I have been granted by the Viagra company. So, there has been no such legal case in any district court ever that's regarding the reward of my intellectual contribution to the Viagra. So, if a 911 call was made on the day when the first check was issued, this confusion, if radio program's performing "Judge ruling" broadcasting could possibly be a valid Judge's ruling, would have been clarified already.

I was asked if the reward of my contribution was fairly evaluated because it was only "one line speech". This confusion is definitely ridiculous enough. Any thought or research can be concluded and expressed in a couple of lines of speech or a couple of pages of papers if thoughtfully refined to put into a speech or on papers. A politician's campaign speech possibly have one theme to be expressed clearly in just one word such as "change" in 2008, but it definitely never worth only 6-alphabets as its value.

I was asked how about those who had worked in the lab research or clinical research but did not receive any recognition in the reward format of patent-income reward. Well, all Viagra-research participants have received recognition of their contribution in the reward format of their researchers' salaries, all their hard-working research hours, their efforts and their successes, together with their salary-recognitions they already have received would all have been part of the evaluation for the recognition in the format of the patent-income, theoretically. But I was never part of the Viagra's lab or clinic research efforts, so I don't know anything more than what I had joked about which was I had contributed an increased-portion of reward size to the clinical research team as a team member.

As I joked almost a year ago, if my contribution was evaluated individually, the financial number will be much greater than any researchers who have worked for years because Viagra was just on-market when the contribution-evaluation was conducted. I have helped the company to save a lot of money on research and to make the sales early than expected which would definitely put into an advantageous position in the evaluation. The Viagra company's research team rejected me to be their evaluation-team member was the reason the Viagra company decided to put me into the team-evaluation with the Viagra's clinical research team. That was what I joked about. I have been very happy I had caught the opportunity to contribute to the Viagra. My contribution was made on a June's Sunday in 2004 which was received by the Viagra company on the same day.

----August 13th, 2018


About the confusion of the board of directors room.
My response:

First of all, only a stock-company has a board of directors. Board of directors' room is a room-space which is dedicated to hosting the board of directors' meetings. Board of directors is a group of investors' representatives which should not be grouped on the voluntary basis because the room-space is limited to host a certain amount of people only while a public trading company may have over 5 digits of public investors.

It needs the qualified investor's lawful valid authorization to eligible a person to be a member of the board of directors.

----August 13th, 2018

08-11-2018 I refuse to provide for whoever's ex-marriage partner（我拒绝向别人的前妻前夫支付离婚生活费）

老爸爸：你可以用图书馆的电脑，注册一个电邮地址，只要你觉得在网上发表这个电邮地址很安全，你就可以用这个电邮地址和我联系，我可以申请让你搬来麻州波士顿(Boston) 亨廷頓大道上的(Huntington Avenue)的东北大学(North Eastern University）以及温特沃斯理工学院(Wentworth College)的附近和我同住, 再远一点就是Museum of Fine Arts, Boston( 地址：465 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115)，波士顿地铁: Orange Line (Ruggles Station),走出这个地铁站收费处之后，你要么下了楼梯就在东北大学里，要么下了楼梯你就不知该往哪走，要么你就走着走着就已经知道我大概住哪里了，就只是哪栋楼了，我住的是公屋（BHA)。


我的电邮地址：SomebodyInMA@gmail.com
注册电邮地址的网站：gmail.com


08-11-2018 I refuse to provide for whoever's ex-marriage partner（我拒绝向别人的前妻前夫支付离婚生活费）



Heard this morning's talk sparked confusion about my advice on July 1st of 2004.（听说今天早上的播出内容触发了对我2004年7月1日所建议内容的一些困扰。）
My response:（我的回应：）

On July 1st of 2004, I was making the financial arrangement about my possible biological children from pregnant mothers. I was asked by someone who was having a headache if considering some more children from his current marriage a good idea when he already has some adult children. I was asked what my advice would be as a female polygamist having a male's privilege.
（2004年7月1日那天，我是安排我自己可能会由代理孕母生出的亲生小孩的财务相关事宜。有人说他现在为了是不是在有了成年子女后应该再有几个小孩很头疼。这人就问我这样一个一妻多夫者是如何看待这个问题的，会如何建议？）

I spoke out of my understanding from a polygamist marriage as a traditional polygamist: "A marriage partner is for life and there should be no legal reason for a divorce". I also understand that biological children from any non-polygamist marriage are all life-long relationships as well, but the marriage partner is purely from the willingness. *An unfaithful marriage female partner in a traditional multi-wives‘ polygamist marriage would face a denounce never a divorce.
(我作为传统观念的一妻多夫者，我对传统一夫多妻婚姻的理解是：“婚姻是终身的，没有什么离婚的”。我也理解对一个一夫一妻的婚姻来说，婚姻所出的亲生孩子们统统是终身的血脉相连，而婚姻伴侣则是谁则是完全个人的自由意愿。*传统的一夫多妻婚姻中出轨的女方只会面对废除从来不是什么离婚。）

Based on my own understanding of the non-polygamist marriage, I said if the future family inheriting is the only concern about more children, why not make the financial arrangement for the younger children at the time when each would be born?
(出于我自己对于一夫一妻婚姻的理解，我对那人说如果担心家里如何分家产是造成头疼是否该多要几个孩子的原因，那为什么不在每一个新的孩子将出生的时候就为这个孩子做好财务安排？）

There was someone else asked at this time that he was having the headache of a possible financial settlement for a divorce but he did not do the financial arrangement when his not-same-mother children were born, I said he could just separate children's settlement with the mother's if he would be in the situation to consider such financial arrangement, he would feel much comfortable this way to take very good care of his children who are his blood no matter what his marriage situation would be.
（那时又有一个人问他现在可能会离婚但他没给不同母亲的小孩在其出生时就做财务安排，我就说如果你真是要离婚，你就把你想给孩子们的钱和你准备给孩子母亲的钱分开安排。这样不管你婚姻选择如何，你都会很乐意好好照顾你自己的亲生小孩。）

I was not taught but this separating the mother's financial arrangement with the child(ren) has been my family's tradition. My family has been a long history polygamist family that till my grandfather's generation had first-ever one mother's children's family inheriting in 1930 or so. My great grandmother was the first ever dowager of my family who got a very good financial arrangement from my great-grandfather that was the best ever.
（没人教过我这些，但这种把妈妈和孩子们的财务安置分开处理的做法一直都是我家的传统。我家一直都是一妻多夫，直到1930年左右我爷爷那代分家产时才是第一次是由同一个母亲所出的孩子们分家产。我曾祖母是我家历史上第一个从去世丈夫那里收到很好财务安置的dowager贵妇。dowager 贵妇就是指遗孀从她去世丈夫那里收到的头衔及财务安排是可以和去世丈夫的亲生小孩所分到的家产相比的。）

In my family, the tradition has been the wives got lifetime financial arrangements from the dying husband but family inheriting belongs to his biological children only. The wives could have lifetime financial arrangements was because there was no such imagination before 1907 that a wife would be expected to re-marry. And I can totally imagine that possibly there is no divorcee would love to see the divorced partner to move on to a new romance happily by the divorce settlement.
（在我家，家里的传统一直都是做妻子的从临终丈夫那里拿到终生的财务安置，分家产就是只有临终丈夫自己亲生的孩子们才有的。在1907年以前，做妻子的可以从丈夫那里拿到终生的财务安排就是因为遗孀是没有可能再婚的。而我本人是很可以想象可能没有一个离了婚的人会愿意看着离婚的另一方收到丰厚的离婚安置费后再快乐找一个“更年轻英俊漂亮的”。

I heard there are a lot of in-marriage partners have been participating in this fight of having a better financial settlement. I don't know if those who talked them into participating in this fight are actually cursing their own marriages because a divorce settlement only exists for a divorced marriage. Their own wealthy marriage partners won't understand their participation in any other way.
（我听说有很多在富裕婚姻中很幸福的另一方也在参与这场要求要有好一点离婚财务安置的争执。我不知道劝说他们参与这场争执的那些人是不是因为出于对这些人婚姻的嫉妒，都知道啊，只有快离婚的人或者想离婚的人才会闹着要好一点的离婚财务安置啊。他们婚姻中的富裕方对他们参与这场闹着要好一点的离婚财务安置很难会有其他不同的看法。）

I myself is wondering who need to fight this "better divorce settlement" against me or my money? I have been living alone all this time to eligible nobody. Is this fight actually to ask me to pay for whoever's ex-marriage partners? Is it the similar scheme as the intellectual income should be re-assigned to some sexual partners?
（我本人也在奇怪谁够资格和我闹着要好一点的离婚财务安置啊？我一直都是一个人住着的，就没人够资格和我“闹离婚”。这场争执是不是又是在闹着让我替别人支付离婚钱？类似智慧产权应该属于性交关系的伎俩？）

I refuse to provide for whoever's ex-marriage partner.
我拒绝向别人的前妻前夫支付离婚生活费。


----August 11th, 2018

08-09-2018 Why this radio program is all about the Public Armed Robbery or the Public Armed Abducting?（为什么这个广播剧的制作宗旨好像不是抢劫就是绑架？）

老爸爸：你可以用图书馆的电脑，注册一个电邮地址，只要你觉得在网上发表这个电邮地址很安全，你就可以用这个电邮地址和我联系，我可以申请让你搬来麻州波士顿(Boston) 亨廷頓大道上的(Huntington Avenue)的东北大学(North Eastern University）以及温特沃斯理工学院(Wentworth College)的附近和我同住, 再远一点就是Museum of Fine Arts, Boston( 地址：465 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115)，波士顿地铁: Orange Line (Ruggles Station),走出这个地铁站收费处之后，你要么下了楼梯就在东北大学里，要么下了楼梯你就不知该往哪走，要么你就走着走着就已经知道我大概住哪里了，就只是哪栋楼了，我住的是公屋（BHA)。


我的电邮地址：SomebodyInMA@gmail.com
注册电邮地址的网站：gmail.com


08-09-2018 Why this radio program is all about the Public Armed Robbery or the Public Armed Abducting?（为什么这个广播剧的制作宗旨好像不是抢劫就是绑架？）


Heard this morning's broadcasting about inheriting related tax（听说了今天早上所播出的继承税）.
My response:（我的回应：）

I am very happy I am the person eligible to donate Estate tax to the Federal and inheriting tax to Connecticut. According to the United States tax laws, it is absolutely my freedom to decide how much I feel comfortable to donate or when to donate. Currently, I feel comfortable to donate according to my intellectual tax contribution. The taxes would not be paid by my living expenses budgeted nor those paid-outs of my living expenses.
(我很开心我是够资格捐联邦继承税及捐康州继承税的一个人。按照美国的税法，什么时候捐税及捐多少税就是完全按照我自己的意愿了。目前我是愿意参照我应缴纳的智慧产权税来捐遗产税。这些税收既不会从我的生活费用预算里支付，也不会从那些已经支付给我的（但还未收到的）我的生活费用里扣除。）

In early 2015, I was in the situation that I could not receive scheduled living expenses providing had prompted me to call law enforcement's help to check out if I did inherit anything. Later I heard the living expenses were all paid out as scheduled, but there have been soo many doubts if I inherited was because the attorney who informed me to the teleconference meetings don't remember anything other than he did schedule both meetings on June 30th of 2004 and July 1st of 2004.
（2015年1月，我当时就是因为受不到预期的生活费用给付而报警处理希望警方调查一下我的继承究竟是真是假。后来听说我的生活费用给付都已经按时付出，但因为通知我参加2004年6月30日及7月1日电讯会议的律师除了记得有安排我开会之外就什么都不记得，所以有很多人不相信我的继承是真实的而造成我收不到生活费用给付。）

I heard there were some people attained the meeting also had the same frustration that the person who informed them to attain the meeting did not know anything about inheriting related. Other than I can clarify my inheriting is the sole beneficiary Trust-inheriting, I really don't know anything about their possible stories at all. So, I advise them from my own experience: Contact the law enforcement with all the references you can provide, either your local law enforcement agency or also the informer's resident's local law enforcement agency.  It is unlikely anyone without any lawful authorization could help you to do the necessary search on any financial matter or if you had inherited anything.
（我听说还有一些人也有类似遭遇，就是通知他们参加某个讨论过什么继承话题的会议的人完全不知道他们有没有什么可以继承的。我除了强调我自己的继承是唯一受益人的信托继承之外，我就完全不知道他们这些人的故事可能会是什么了。所以，从我自己的经历，我建议他们报警处理，提供他们所知道的一切信息给他们自己所居住国家的当地警方以及通知他们参加什么继承会议的那个人所居住国家的当地警方。在没有正当法律授权的情况下，没有人可以帮助他们进行必要的财务调查或者是否有继承财产的调查。）

I can totally imagine what is like when all you know is you were informed to be in a meeting that inheriting was discussed while you have your own family stories about wealth as well. Please contact your local government agency with all the references you can provide. My inheriting is totally nothing to do with your possible inheritable.
（我很能想象那些家里有财产故事的人被通知参加什么谈论过继承话题的会议会是什么样一份焦虑心情。请通知你们当地的政府机关并提供你们所知道的一切信息。你们是否有什么财产可以继承和我信托继承完全没有任何关系。）

I figured that this morning's intention is to "donate" the paid-out $400Million a year living expenses without my own willingness in order to continue the abducting me in financial poverty efforts. I refuse to donate any taxes from the already paid-out $400Million a year living expense. I refuse to let my tax-donation willingness to become the excuses to make myself a victim of possible armed public abducting nor possible armed public robbery.
（我估计今天早上这集的目的就是要违背我本人的意愿“捐税了”我的每年4亿的生活费用给付，继续把我绑架在贫穷里。我拒绝从我每年的4亿的生活费用里捐税。我拒绝将我自己的捐税意愿变成让我成为武装绑架武装抢劫的受害者的借口。）

----August 9th, 2018


Regarding the confusion over why China's government representatives not presented in my inheriting meeting on June 30th of 2004.（有关为什么没有中国政府官员出席2004年6月30日我的继承会议的疑问）
My response: （我的回应：）

My Trust-inheriting on June 30th of 2004 was by Laws that neither the entrusting groups nor myself would need any authorization from the Chinese government even though I was a Chinese citizen, and I spoke fluent English myself which means I didn't need Chinese representatives to do any language translations. So, not a single Chinese government's representative attended to my inheriting meeting.
（我在2004年6月30日的信托继承是根据法律继承，所以虽然我当时是中国公民，但代表那些信托的律师团及我本人都不需要中国政府的任何授权，而且我本人可以用流利英语表达，也不需要中国政府代表作为语言交流的翻译。所以没有任何一个中国政府官员出席我的信托继承会议。）

----August 9th, 2018

08-08-2018 Exactly, what are the confusions about Shanghai Investments (究竟有关上海的投资有些什么困扰啊？）

08-08-2018 Exactly, what are the confusions about Shanghai Investments (究竟有关上海的投资有些什么困扰啊？）



Heard there are rumors in Shanghai that if I receive my living expenses providing, somebody dares to forcefully replace a CEO from a Shanghai investment（听说了上海在传说是只要我能拿到生活费用给付，就会有某人敢把某家上海外资企业的总经理给武力置换了）.

My response:（我的回应：）

I heard this somebody is not my blood associated and the investment is not from the Hong Kong Trust. I heard my father's sister's marriage issue is one of the confusion（我听说这某人和我没什么血缘关系，这个投资企业也和香港信托没有关系.我听说是我父亲妹妹的婚姻问题造成了这份困扰。）

1: Since 1989, it is well-known that one of my father's sister's children is not from her marriage. And I am ok with that.（从1989年起，很多人就听说了我父亲妹妹的一个小孩可能不是婚生子，而我好像不是很在意。）

Why shouldn't I? I am her maiden brother's child, why shouldn't say such things as "why not try to move on when the child was already 14 years old in 1989?” I heard the couples fought often on the child's possible birth-origin, and I heard my father's sister always emphasized she raised this child by her own money from her maiden father or her own (much higher) salary. Also, it is true that divorce was not an option in China for a marriage in their generation. She got married in her 30s after my grandfather's death, and her husband was not a college-graduated as herself. Why should I take her marriage issue beyond her private matter?

（1：从1989年起，很多人就听说了我父亲妹妹的一个小孩可能不是婚生子，而我好像不是很在意。）
我为什么会在意啊，我是女方娘家哥哥的小孩，我为什么不应该劝劝说些”你现在说这些，那你是想继续过日子还是想怎样啊？这孩子都已经14岁了”。我是有听说夫妻俩吵架时女方始终强调女方自己是用自己娘家给的钱或者自己的高工资自己养的这个小孩。更何况在中国，离婚在他们那一辈根本就是没有可能。她是我爷爷去世以后结的婚，结婚时都已经三十多岁了，她本人大学毕业，丈夫不是大学毕业生。哪里轮得到我把她的婚姻问题超越她自己的私事范畴？）

2: I don't have any bias against the children from or not from the marriage.
Why would I? I am their birth mother's maiden brother's child, as long as they both from her belly, why would I have any bias on who is from the marriage?
（2：我对是否婚生好像没有态度上的区别？
我为什么要有态度上的区别？我是女方娘家哥哥的小孩，只要两个孩子都是女方自己肚皮生下来的，我作为女方娘家亲眷，哪里会在乎是否婚生啊？）



3: I still missed a link here: I can definitely get my living expenses provided lawfully in the U.S. via the American companies, but how this becomes the eligibility to forcefully replace a CEO in Shanghai investments? These investments are obviously not from the Hong Kong Trust that was set up by my father's father.
(3： 我还是不明白：我是肯定可以在美国合法拿到我自己所继承的信托通过美国公司给付的生活费用的，可是这怎么就成了某人可以把一个外企的总经理给武力置换了的资格啦？这些外企都是很明确肯定不是我父亲的父亲所设立的香港信托所投资的。）

In my family's generational inheriting history, under-age children would each receive a Trust, which was the size of his inheritable share, from the dying father as a family tradition in family-inheriting. It is not unimaginable that some of my grandfathers from different generations would set up an additional Trust as a gift to the unborn-yet-me.（在我们家的继承分家产的家史上，每一代分家产时，未成年的儿子们每人都会收到一个由病危老父亲所设立的信托，所受到信托的大小规模也就是这个儿子所分到的家产份额。所以我有几代的爷爷们再额外设立一个信托作为礼物给还未出生的我并不是什么难以想象的事情。）

Hong Kong Trust as an example, it is obviously well-understood as being part of what my grandfather had been willing to give to my father, because the Hong Kong Trust was set up for me, and I was expected as a girl who would be from my father's line, which means the Hong Kong Trust I received was understood as the part of the heir son's share that my grandfather willing to give to my father. The Hong Kong Trust was set up in 1948, it was 17 years before my grandfather's death in 1965 so that my Trust-inheriting should not be understood as if taking advantage of my father's siblings. It should be the same for all other Trusts I inherited so that my Trust-inheriting should not be understood as if my inheriting means taking advantage of each settler's other offspring's inheritable share.（就以香港信托作为例子，就因为这个信托是为我设立的，而我应该是我父亲的小孩，所以很明显这个信托是我父亲的父亲愿意分给我父亲的财产的一部分。香港信托是1948年设立的，而我父亲的父亲是香港信托设立17年之后的1965年才去世的，所以我继承香港信托不应该被认为是我抢了我父亲弟妹所应该分到的我爷爷的财产。对于我所继承的其他信托来说也是一样，我继承了这个那个信托不应该被理解成我抢了信托设立人的其他子女的可继承份额。）

The generational family inheriting at my father's father's generation was in 1930 which was the first time ever same mother's children family inheriting, this certainly means my Trust-Inheriting in 2004 should not have any confusion at all with all other lines' offspring generationally. The closest generational family inheriting was in 1965, my father's father had his own written letters which were his last wills handed in-person to each of his children who were my father and his siblings. So, my Trust inheriting in 2004 should have no confusion with my father's sibling as well.（我爷爷即我父亲的父亲那一代分家产是在1930年，这是我家有史以来第一次是由同一个妈妈生的孩子们在分家产，这当然是很清楚地表明我2004年继承信托是和我家历史上各房各代的其他所有子女都没有任何关系。我家历史上最近的一次分家产是1965年我爷爷去世时，我父亲的父亲是亲自给了他的每一个子女一份亲笔信也就是我爷爷给了我父亲及我父亲的弟妹每人一份他的亲笔遗嘱。所以，我2004年继承信托也不应该会让我父亲的弟妹们很困绕。）

I had expressed myself the reason why I was willing to gift to my grandfather's siblings was that if my father was not being "skipped" but inherited Hong Kong Trust, he would willing to gift to his uncle and his aunt, the same to his siblings. So, I do the gifting for my father. (我从2004年就一直有说，我愿意送礼物给我爷爷的弟妹是因为如果是我父亲继承了香港信托，而不是被“绕过去了”，我父亲是会愿意送给他的叔叔娘娘一份和他自己弟妹一样大小规模的礼物的。所以，我就替我父亲送了这个礼物了。）


----August 8th, 2018

08-07-2018 就是和你没有关系就得 （We Don't like this person very much")

08-07-2018 就是和你没有关系就得 （"We Don't like this person very much")



听说了今天早上提到的“希望还能有个自己亲生的小孩”(Heard this morning's talk about "Just hope to have a biological child.")

我的回应：(My response:)

谁家碰到这种事，都是挺烦心，要是再碰上个坚持就是乐意说这是自由意志所宣言的婚姻自由，那也就只能和我的态度差不多了，也就是"选择不闻不问了，就是和你没有关系就得”。(Whoever in this situation would make the entire family in turmoils, well, one can certainly imagine what it will be like if the one in this situation insisted on this is the free-willed marriage-freedom. Being a family to someone in this situation, what else can I do but state "I choose to have no contacts, I got nothing to do with this person.")

我也听说了今天早上的“We don't like this person very much."所表达“很不喜欢（方敏）这个人”的立场。（I also heard "We don't like this person very much" from this morning's broadcasting which means "We don't like this person (Min Fang) very much".）

----2018年8月7日。

08-06-2018 What is this morning's broadcasting? Oh, a comedy of black jokes (今天早上所播出的都是些什么呀？奥， 也就是一堆的黑色幽默相声啦）

08-06-2018 What is this morning's broadcasting? Oh, a comedy of black jokes (今天早上所播出的都是些什么呀？奥， 也就是一堆的黑色幽默相声啦）



In China, a standup comedy show type that can have one performer's which is called the Single Xiangsheng（单口相声), or more than one performers, called the Crosstalk Xiangsheng（多口相声). The crosstalk Xiangsheng（多口相声）normally grouped by one front talker plus the commenting or contradicting voices to make a show. I assume this crosstalk Xiangsheng（多口相声）is this morning's broadcasting artistic structure. (在中国，相声有两种，单口相声或者多口相声。多口相声一般是有一个讲故事的主寅演员再加几个对故事内容表达不同意见或者进行评论的配寅演员来进行演出。我估计多口相声是今天早上所播出内容的艺术表达形式。）

The U.S citizenship talks: Loud announcing voices and low mild contradicting voices are cousins, the technique is to let the "You won't be a citizen" impression to stay.
（有关美国公民的片段：响亮宣布的声音和那些很轻很柔的不同意见的声音是三四个堂兄妹一家子。技巧就在于让听众就只记得”你不会是个美国公民啦”）

Who are they, why legitimate process?
        Oh, they are O'Connors.
(说话的那几个都是谁啊？为什么说是通过立法程序后？
          奥，他们几个都是欧家的少爷和小姐啦。）

Why they are so emotional about your immigration status?
        Oh, my entry visa to the U.S. was a visitor's B1 visa. I was invited to the U.S. by an investment of the "O's confusion" fund company, the same "O's confusion" fund which has been the American investment from the French company which provides the lawful eligibility for me to claim: "I am the French Financier".
（为什么他们对你的移民身份这么在意啊？
          奥，我当初进入美国是持B1（短期访问参观）签证。我是被美国的“欧家困扰”基金公司所投资的一个美国企业所邀请来美国的，还记得我宣称我自己是“英国东印度公司的法国投资人”吗，我这么自我宣称自己投资了一家法国公司不是莫名其妙的而是有法律基础的，而这家美国的“欧家困扰”基金公司就是这一家法国公司所投资的。）

The Pardon announced in 2007 on the radio was addressed to the inappropriateness of how I was invited, not that I had a legal immigration case.
(那个2007年所播出的赦免令是针对我受邀来美国过程中的一些不恰当的地方，并不是因为我有一个移民官司需要赦免令才能结案。）

So, I am a U.S. citizen has been a True Statement. 
（所以，我是美国公民一直是真实陈述。)

----August 6th, 2018


The 2008 Beijing Olympic Opening Ceremony's creator talks: The "she is so annoying" announcement is the purpose of this talk, which is to express how awful I am to alert everyone who doesn't even have any kind of association with me.  I don't need to say a lot to fight against this saying on this blog because this saying is a serious criminal law matter in the United States that may take a trial to clear the public impression, the same seriousness as who is the authentic 2008 Beijing Olympic Opening Ceremony's creator.
（2008年北京奥运会开幕式创意的那一段：宣称“她得罪了太多人了”是这一段所想要表达的，目的就是想要提醒所有还不认识方敏本人并且和方敏本人没有任何交往关系的人知道方敏其实是个什么样的人。就像谁才是2008北京奥运会的创意人一样，在美国都是非常严肃的可能牵涉到美国刑事法律范畴的事情，可能会需要有刑事诉讼官司来彻底澄清事件真相的，所以我不需要在这博客上多费唇舌来反击来辩解这些故意恶意的行为所制造的恶劣影响。）

So,（所以,)
I am the 2008 Beijing Olympic Opening Ceremony's authentic Creator has been a True Statement. （我是2008北京奥运会开幕式闭幕式的创意人一直都是真实陈述。）

I was not "so annoying" to everyone before my Trust-inheriting in 2004 is a True Statement as well. （我在2004年继承信托之前从来没有如此招人讨厌也真实陈述。）

----August 6th, 2018

08-04-2018 My lawfully valid Trust-inheriting eligible me to claim I am the British East India Company's French Financier

08-04-2018 My lawfully valid Trust-inheriting eligible me to claim I am the British East India Company's French Financier

I am the sole beneficiary of the Trust that has been the upstream investor to the famous British East India Company's French Financer company. My lawfully valid Trust-Inheriting was on June 30th of 2004. 

The same as the Hong Kong Trust which was also set up before I was born, I am the sole beneficiary of this several hundred years ancient Trust because I am the "female family birthmark" clearly specified in the settler's letter with an illustration of the birthmark. The Hong Kong Trust entity's management has already explained on the radio program that the settler's letter has a birthmark illustration attached.

The accurate definitions of the word "Trust", the word "Inheriting", and the word "beneficiary" are according to the Merriam-Webster English Dictionary, the accurate definition of the word "sole "is according to the Merriam-Webster English Thesaurus.


Definition of Inherit
2. a: to receive from an ancestor as a right or title descendible by law at the ancestor's death.
(source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inheriting)

Definition of Trust
3. b: a combination of firms or corporations formed by a legal agreement; especially: one that reduces or threatens to reduce competition
(source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trust )

Definition of Beneficiary
2 a law: the person designated to receive the income of an estate that is subject to a trust.
(source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beneficiary )


Synonyms and Antonyms of Sole
1: belonging only to the one person, unit, or group named.
(source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/sole )

----August 4th, 2018

08-03-2018 我选择捍卫我自己及我父母的人身财产安全

08-03-2018 我选择捍卫我自己及我父母的人身财产安全


听说了今天早上所播出的我父母的亲生儿子坚持婚姻自由坚决要求财务给付的立场。

我是方敏，我本人是亲身经历了我父母亲生的儿子为了他自己的婚姻自由，嫌我父母在我父母用我父母自己工资购买的房子里非常多余碍事，我认为我父母的亲生儿子是自己愿意为了他自己的婚姻自由让我父母“双亡”也没有任何悲伤，我甚至怀疑他本人是否参与谋杀我父亲。我方敏拒绝我亲生父母的亲生儿子所提出的任何财务要求，我方敏已经表达和我亲生父母的亲生儿子的婚姻家庭既没有任何法律上的责任义务关系，也没有任何意愿上的任何关联。

我本人也亲身了中国政府为了捍卫我父母亲生儿子的这一份婚姻自由，完全无视我父亲2013年时是中国公民的事实，中国政府在国际舆论上的立场表达就是中国政府为了捍卫婚姻自由就不会在乎所牵涉到的其他中国公民的人生财产安全。中国政府所持有的立场就是完全不会在乎中国是否还是法制国家，中国政府的一切立场言论就只有中国政府非常在乎性交女人奶子屁股利益的国际舆论表达，这一切都是我方敏亲身经历。

所以，我方敏不应该是愿意看着我亲生父母的亲生儿子为了他自己的婚姻自由而死绝拉到，但我方敏选择不过问我亲生父母的亲生儿子为了他自己的婚姻自由而如何生活。

我方敏选择捍卫我自己及我父母的人身财产安全，我方敏选择捍卫我自己的合法权益，我方敏选择协助我的父母捍卫他们的合法权益。

----2018年8月3日。

-----------------------------------------

M F	Mar 16
to 纽约中领管侨务, Pmoo, 兰兰

中国纽约领事馆，南京紫金山天文台, 方xx，你们好：

以下的博克文章可能是口气有点重，但确实是我作为方文海的女儿对于我父亲方文海”去世“及失踪事件的真实感受。

方敏

2018年3月16日。

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。

----2018年3月16日。

M F	Apr 22
to 纽约中领管侨务, 兰兰, ShanghaiACS

你好：

听说了和我同父同母的方xx以及他的婚姻家庭陈家相关人士担心我作为美国公民的生活财务支出会影响到他们的家庭经济，他们不愿意也不会支付一分钱给方敏的任何费用包括丧葬费用。

我的立场回应：请将你们的想法向特别在乎你们的立场，特别需要你们立场的表达，只特别在乎关心你们的利益的中华人民共和国北京政府中共中央政治局书面陈述你们具有法律效益的信件。我方敏的丧葬费用从来就没有在中华人民共和国北京政府的预算费用考虑当中。我方敏现在也已经是美国公民，我方敏从来不是也永远不会是中华人民共和国北京政府的责任义务。我方敏永远不会有男性睾具，我方敏也永远不会在乎失去陈家人士的奶子屁股的严重后果，我方敏自信在我方敏永远都不会有一条男性睾具的情况下，我方敏永远失去陈家的奶子屁股就意味着永远没有任何损失。

我方敏拒绝方xx的婚姻家庭以及他妻子娘家的陈家人士支付我的任何费用包括丧葬费用，我方敏拒绝支付方xx的婚姻家庭以及他妻子娘家的陈家人士的任何费用包括丧葬费用。这是我方敏就此立场的正式信函。

此致，

谢谢。

方敏

2018年4月22日在美国波士顿。

---------------------------------------------------------

08-02-2018 This morning's broadcasting of the anger related to the wealth I announced

08-02-2018 This morning's broadcasting of the anger related to the wealth I announced.


1: "Announce to own".
My response: This anger statement is ridiculous and untrue.

I announced them in 2017-2018 after they had provided for me according to their lawfully registered lawful owners' clear instructions. All four companies have acknowledged four Trust entities I inherited are their upstream investors. Two of these four companies' paying checks to my living expenses already have been verified as upon lawful instructions as well. The other two companies are in process of clarifying. All these four Trust entities I inherited are over 500 years ancient.

----August 2nd, 2018

2: "No such big sized company in New York city without a grand building"
My response: This anger statement is ridiculous and untrue.

These companies are all Fund companies which means they are all financial institutes but not banks which further means no crowded customers to need huge spaces for.

----August 2nd, 2018

3:"Why it has to be your money?"
My response: This anger statement is ridiculous, dangerous and unlawful.

In the United States, this anger means the intention of illegally taking over the lawful ownership of lawfully owned money, this is the anger may trigger the crime of larceny or the crime of robbery.

In the United States, any money's legal ownership is decided by U.S. laws, not by deservedness nor wishes.

In the United States, the legal ownership is what law enforcement protecting.

In the United States, if there are lawful doubts over money's ownership, a civil lawsuit or a criminal investigation are the lawful means to clarify money's ownership.

----August 2nd, 2018

4: "Why you refuse to bow to my wife?"
My response: This anger statement is ridiculous, pathetic, sick and psycho.

I am a female who never fancy your wife's sexuality nor your wife's reproductive function. When I don't eat on you, don't sleep on you, and don't intend to be around your sickness, I certainly have no obligation nor need to privilege your marriage.

----August 2nd, 2018

08-01-2018 This morning's theme is obviously to contradict who I am

08-01-2018b This morning's theme is obviously to contradict who I am



Heard this morning's talk about Roche Brothers' ownership.
My response:

Roche Brothers is a supermarket chain that has been very popular in Boston Massachusetts area, I assumed I may have "my enveloped money" provided by this Roche Brothers was what I had stated on this blog July 30th of 2018. My assumption does not involve any ownership confusion because I have the same question of "Do you have my money reserved at your place" for the Boston government agencies as well, and my assumption may only mean Roche Brothers' supermarket's store gift cards

I heard Roche Brothers chain is 100% privately owned. I heard this morning's anger was caused by the confusion who owns this Roche Brothers chain. I heard this confusion was sparked by a company which was registered in March of 2017 which has nothing to do with Roche Brothers at all, but the words of mouths caused severe confusion who owns the Roche Brothers.

----August 1st, 2018

Exactly, what was the theme of this morning broadcasting?
My response:

The theme of this morning's broadcasting was to contradict everything about who I am.

Example: I am a female resident who has well known lived alone for over 14 years without any social, but this doesn't evidently enough compares to the broadcasted comments from those males' authoritative saying on the matter of who I am. I accused this is an organized sexual harassment.

"Everyone in Boston, Massachusetts already know you don't have any money" because it was broadcasted on the radio program and on local radio to contradict everything of who I am.  And this does not include all these authoritative figures' public or private opinions on the matter or about who I am. Now, you can imagine what my situation has been. It has been all over the Boston area since 2016, even in a coffee shop of Dunkin Donuts.

Also, I heard there was some radio broadcasted announcement equivalent or promotion similar in Boston area about who owns the American "Pejoves" Fund company as well. Those broadcasting were jokingly mentioning the owner of a 2007-registered 10 years old company is the real person who owns the American "Pejoves" Fund's most upstream investor which wrongfully impressed the audiences as if this only 10 years old, 2007-registered company owns the 400 years old American "Pejoves" Fund company as well as its entire ancient investor chain.

I heard there is another announcement similar to this, by a different person on a national TV in Spain and by a different reason as well. The given-reason for the ownership in Spain was not because of a company registration but because she has commercially married to a huge Mr. American whose family name never associated with the American "Pejoves" Fund company nor its investor chain.

----August 1st, 2018