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:
- the donation of hard working time from the company's staff who made the money,
- the donation of waived taxes from the government, state and federal.
- the donation of dividend share from the company's investor.
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。”
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
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