01-03-2019 the U.S. Treasury Department's Christmas bonus is not from my money

01-03-2019 the U.S. Treasury Department's Christmas bonus is not from my money


Heard this morning's broadcasting of U.S. Treasury Department's Christmas bonus.
My response: I don't know yet why it is so confused to be associated with my money. I heard it is not some intellectual income nor any paid-out for my exclusive usage money. So, I know that is definitely not my money

I only have two sources of cash-money, intellectual incomes, and paid-out living expenses. My inherited Trusts are in-entrusting which means all payments are strictly followed what was decided on July 1st of 2004's entrusting teleconference, and not easy for myself as the sole beneficiary person to increase the decided amount of each's yearly payment. So, the U.S. Treasury Department's Christmas bonus is nothing to do with me money.

Remember the pattern whoever's changed heart is so confusing if associated with me? Is this seems the same pattern about whoever's money now? Is this to arouse anger how dare TS employees to take whoever's lawful money? Or to confuse the public if I possibly have any lawful money? Is this the same expectation as all those confused romances broadcasting?

Also, I heard about rumored IRS internal broadcasting of the statement "known reason for income-depositing substitution & unchangeable permanently" without any further explanations. So, I asked this question to the laws: why being the person most impacted by this intellectual-income depositing substitution, I am not part of the informed group even after I filed complaints about this substituting my name titled on the check when depositing? Why the lawful ownership of some money can be so confusing in the media industry?
----Jan. 3rd, 2019

I heard the saying how I speak up on the Boston radio can actually get myself some money and change the ownership of an American company that has been historically owned by O'Connors?
I have explained this already that no lawful-ownership has ever changed no matter how long O'Connor have been confused, or how loudly I spoke my side stories. The confused company still owned by its historically lawfully registered owner which is that American company's British investor-company for over 400 years.

I heard: O'Connors have been confused because of their family's over 50 years hard savings. Their two generation stubborn grandfathers insisted on to invest in this not-for-sell American company by refusing to take salary payments or by refusing to sign the salary-receipts of each's 6-months-salaries per year for over 50 years. These two generations of O'Connors' families lived on thrift half-salary for over 50 years has been the reason for their confusion and all their anger in their yearly meeting with the American company. The arguments have been "We are the investors" from O'Connors replied with "This is the company never for sale" from the American company; and "Why you took the money" from the O'Connors replied with "Because you refused to sign the salary receipts" from the American company. I heard all these 50 years salaries had been saved in the bank, and all the savings had given to the O'Connor family with the first installment of their agreed upon providing from the American company.

I was confused because everybody says O'Connor families own the 100% of the American company I thought I inherited in 2004, my anxiety was where would be my inherited share if so? It turned out what I inherited is a Trust that has been investing for centuries in this American company through its upstream investors. The company I confused is this American company's American investor-company. My expected money is the yearly providing from the Trust I inherited in 2004 as its sole beneficiary person. I have not received the expected money because of all these confusion.

Why the government didn't stop both parties real owning efforts on the media? I assume because nobody knew which American company I was confused but my inheriting experience in 2004 is real, or this assumption is applicable to both parties? Both parties stopped arguing after this American company's British investor-company explained about this American company's investing history and about my expected paid-put-already is upon its upstream investor's instruction.

The media can certainly verify the commercial registry record of this American company's ownership which should have not been changed by all these confusion.

----Jan. 3rd, 2019


I was asked why I haven't say Merry Christmas or Happy New Year to my biological children? Currently, I am eligible to choose to protect their privacy over my needed public explanation. Currently, in their associated matters, it is very clear that they do have a resourceful mother who can protect them no matter how confusing it can be about if they have a father care about them at all.
----Jan. 3rd, 2019