Wikipedia Sarch Link

Search results

Friday, July 20, 2012

ADDENDUM TO CONSERVERY BASIS FOR LOCATION/SELECTION EXCLUSION - UPDATED 11/7/2013

The process for selection of the appropriate location is strictly followed to ultimately determine the location selected in this addendum to the post CONSERVERY BASIS FOR LOCATION/SELECTION EXCLUSION:

  1. ANY EMAIL INQUIRY MADE WILL NOT BE FOLLOWED-UP WITH PHONE INQUIRY PRIOR TO WRITTEN RESPONSES AT ANY PHASE OF THE REVIEW AND EVALUATION PROCESS. NOTE: THIS CRITERION IS INTENDED TO REINFORCE THE FACT THAT VERBAL COMMUNICATION IS NOT USED TO CIRCUMVENT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION BY THIS PROPRIETORSHIP TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY.
  2. ONLY A SINGLE EMAIL ADDRESS IS USED FOR CONSISTENCY AND TRANSPARENCY TO AVOID MISREPRESENTATION BY ANY INDIVIDUAL/ENTITY REGARDLESS OF STATUS.
  3. LACK OF WRITTEN RESPONSE WILL BE ASSUMED TO BE UNAVAILABLE AND; WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THIS MANNER. 
  4. ANY LOCATION EVENTUALLY SELECTED DOES NOT CONVEY EITHER THAT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF PERSONS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPRIETORSHIP (Ex. 8 BDR, 9 BTH RESIDENCE ETC) OR THAT ANY "VIRTUAL" IMPOSTORS ARE ASSOCIATED.
  5. IF THE PLACE EVALUATED REPRESENTED UNRECONCILED PAST ISSUES/LOCATION CONCERNS, IT WAS EXCLUDED.
  6. IF THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT WAS EXTENDED AND THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH SPECIFIC LOCATION DISPLAY UNETHICAL CONDUCT THAT RENDERED IT UNWORKABLE; IT WAS EXCLUDED
  7. IF ANY LOCATION COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED, IT WAS EXCLUDED (EX. IF MY IDENTITY IS MISREPRESENTED BY ANYTHING IN THE SPECIFIC LOCATION/LISTING, AND
  8. THE LOCATION(S) SELECTED WILL BE FOR THE STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROPRIETORSHIP'S INTERESTS ONLY.
  9. The purpose of this update is to point out that THE SPECIFIC FOCUSED LOCATION CONTACTED AND IDENTIFIED BY ME ON THESE PAGES ALONE IS THE FINAL RELOCATION DESTINATION SELECTED BY THE REVIEW AND EVALUATION PROCESS CARRIED OUT BY THIS PROPRIETORSHIP. Any other unauthorized contacts carried out and/or commitments made in support of a different location (whether previously contacted by me or otherwise) and “validated” by individual(s) conferring upon themselves de facto authority to act in a manner contrary to the OPERATING GUIDELINES; using methods such as “spoofing” electronic “induced”wire fraud etc. will not be upheld and/or legitimized by Conservery (see the posts ANOTHER REASON FOR EXCLUDING LOCATIONS FROM CONSIDERATION as well as ELECTRONIC NETWORKING RECORDS FRAUD ON A SIGNIFICANT SCALE). In this regard, let me take the time to apologize to any Party (Parties) who may have been so deceived by the actions of “Society’s” types, whose motto is “the end justifies the means”, (see the post TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN).
  10. FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, THE FOLLOWING LISTING OUTLINES AREAS RULED OUT AS A NATIONAL/ INTERNATIONAL BASE LOCATION IDENTIFIED FOR THE (PROPRIETORSHIP'S THE WAY FORWARD METHODOLOGY) FOR VARIOUS IRRECONCILABLE, INCOMPATIBILITY, AND/OR INCONSISTENCY WITH THE REVIEW & EVALUATION CRITERIA, TYPE ISSUES AS NOTED ON THIS BLOG PAGES: ALABAMA, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, MARYLAND, MICHIGAN, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, OREGON, TEXAS, WASHINGTON STATE AND WISCONSIN. 
  11. For additional criteria not listed on this post, see the listing of the comparable posting on the Conservery Blog, link CONSERVERY' RELOCATION  REVIEW/SELECTION PROCESS GUIDELINES.
  12. When follow-up is made with any selected location documented in this post, it will be documented here, since there are those that make a practice of using technology to mimic and other unethical practices in an effort to demonstrate legitimacy where NONE EXISTS, since they are protected by Arbiters, Titans and other “Society’s” type Moguls (as documented in the Conservery Challenge Video - on the CONSERVERY CHALLENGE Page). IF THERE IS NO DOCUMENTED NOTATION MADE HERE ABOUT ANY SELECTED LOCATION BEING CONSIDERED; THEN IT IS UNAUTHORIZED AND NOT AUTHENTIC WITH REGARDS THIS PROPRIETORSHIP'S INTERESTS, BECAUSE CONTACTS MADE BY THOSE OF THE "FREE LOADER'S CAUSE" TYPES HIDING IN VARIOUS IDENTITIES REGARDLESS OF HOW FAR OR N-E-A-R, WHO CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THEIR ORIGINS) DON'T COUNT TOWARDS "CREDIBILITY", WITH REGARDS THIS PROPRIETORSHIP, IRREGARDLESS OF WHOSE SUPPORT SUCH AN INDIVIUAL(S) MAY HAVE. THE FOLLOWING LOCATION(S) HAS(HAVE) BEEN SELECTED FOR ITS(THEIR) LOGISTICAL VALUE, BECAUSE IF IT DOES NOT SHOW UP ON THIE PAGES OF THIS BLOG, ITS NOT VALID
  13. IT NUST BE NOTED THAT THIS PROPRIETORSHIP IS IN NO WAY ASSOCIATED WITH ANY EFFORT TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY IN ORLANDO, IN THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA. I HAVE TAKEN STEPS TO INFORM THE KNOWN INDIVIDUAL OF THIS AND TO BE ADVISED ACCORDINGLY THAT SUCH EFFORTS ARE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH CONSERVERY. THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO ENSURE THAT MY PROPRIETORSHIP IS NOT DEFRAUDED BY THOSE OF THE "FREE LOADERS CAUSE" AND THEIR SUPPORTERS. A SIMILAR CASE CAN BE MADE FOR THE EFFORTS ON-GOING IN NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA, WHICH AS OF 10/3/2013, THIS PROPRIETORSHIP IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH IN ANYWAY. IN ADDITION, ANY PROPERTY PURCHASE(S) THAT IS (ARE) BEING OR MAY BE CARRIED OUT IN THE IRVING, AREA OF THE STATE OF TEXAS IS NEITHER ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPRIETORSHIP NOR CAN ANY ARRANGEMENTS TAKING PLACE, PLACE ANY FINANCIAL, LEGAL OR ANY TYPE OF BURDEN ON THIS PROPRIETORSHIP, AND/OR ITS LEGITIMATE RESOURCES, PERIOD.   THE LOCATION CHOSEN  IS IDENTIFIED BELOW:

 
                            
TBA




  
 
THE COMPLETED FINAL ANNOUNCEMENT IS DEPICTED BELOW:





TBA




















James F. Brazant
Founder/Owner
Conservery
November 7, 2013
 


THE SPECIFIC AREA/LOCATION SHOWN WILL BE THE BASE AND IT WAS EVALUATED USING THE PROPRIETORSHIP'S CRITERIA ABOVE, FOR CONSISTENCY AND/OR TRANSPARENCY.

 
PLEASE NOTE: STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE AS DOCUMENTED ABOVE DOES NOT RELATE TO POLITICAL INCLINATION, CONSISTENT WITH MY PROPRIETORSHIP’S GUIDELINES (see CONSERVERY INDEPENDENT POLITICAL SERVICES FRAMEWORK/GUARANTEE POLICY SUMMARIZED & OTHER CONSIDERATIONS) BUT RATHER OTHER FACTORS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO:
  • GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION WITH RESPECT TO BUSINESS INTERESTS ACTIVITY
  • RELATIONSHIP INTEREST (OF IMPORTANCE)
  • COMMUNICATION FACTORS
  • TRANSPORTATION FACTORS WITH RESPECT TO BUSINESS ACTIVITY ETC. 


 

29 comments:

J_F_Brazant said...

THE ABOVE LOCATION WAS SELECTED TO ENSURE THAT THOSE PRETENDING TO BE VALID REPRESNTATIVES OF THIS PROPRIETORSHIP, WHO ARE IN NEED OF OSTENTATIOUSNESS AS A MEASURE OF VALIDITY (AS A COVER FOR THEIR UNETHICAL PRACTICES), WHEN THEY ARE IN REALITY IMPOSTORS, ARE IN FACT SHOWN TO BE IN NO WAY ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPRIETORSHIP (see the link from the Stream on the COMMENTS & the Conservery Proprietorship's Pages for additional details)

J_F_Brazant said...

PLEASE NOTE: THE SELECTION OF THIS LOCATION WAS SYMBOLIC, IN THAT IT REPRESENTS THE TYPE OF FACILITY TO, WHICH RELOCATION WILL EVENTUALLY TAKE PLACE, EVEN IF THIS CURRENT SPECIFIC AREA DOES NOT WORK OUT AS INTENDED.

J_F_Brazant said...

Misrepresentation as described in the "Services Offering/Business Arrangements - Update" of 8/21/2012is defined in the post MISREPRESEMTATION DEFINED [(FOR THE RECORD) - link on COMMENTS Page)].

J_F_Brazant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J_F_Brazant said...

THIS PROPRIETORSHIP HAS ZERO INTEREST IN THE SUNNY ISLES, FLORIDA AREA AS A RELOCATION DESTINATION. THIS DECISION CANNOT BE REVERSED BY ANY INDIVIDUAL/ENTITY REGARDLESS OF STATUS; CONSISTENT WITH THE UPDATED AUTHORIZATION GUILELINE POLICY (link on COMMENTS Page).

J_F_Brazant said...

Earlier today (9/9/2012) an exploratory inquiry was submitted to Colorado Group Realty (see below photo – included on COMMENTS Page) about units at the Edgemont complex in Steamboat Springs, and consistent with the guidelines document in this review process, their lack of follow-up will signify that there is no interest on the part of this Proprietorship in these specific listings at this location and is being documented here in order that Conservery’s interests cannot be misrepresented by anyone/entity regardless of status.

J_F_Brazant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J_F_Brazant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J_F_Brazant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J_F_Brazant said...

This is an open apology to all those who received the link to my Proprietorship’s Site in emails after September 3, 2012 containing an infected link, which revealed “nonsense” when accessed. This link, which was inadvertently sent in emails to a number of individuals in communication involving the review of locations after the indicated date has now been corrected such that going forward either the offline link source will be used and/or other corrective measures will be employed instead of recopying online copies in order to ensure that an “infected” link will not be redistributed. However, it remains a “mystery” how the link suddenly became “infected” after the indicated date. Thanks for your understanding in this matter.

J_F_Brazant said...

THE EVENT DEPICTED IN THE PHOTO IN THIS POST (THE TIME HAS COME - link on COMMENTS Page) TOOK PLACE IN MARION, IA AND ANY LOCATION THAT BEARS ANY RESEMBLANCE TO THIS NAME IN ANY STATE, WILL NOT SERVE AS A RELOCATION DESTINATION. TO DO SO WOULD VALIDATE THIS FORM OF UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR THAT OCCURRED.

J_F_Brazant said...

INTERPRETATION IS VERY IMPORTANT, THEREFORE WHEN A MATTER SUCH AS A RELOCATION DESTINATION CONVEYS EITHER INTENTIONAL OR UNINTENTIONAL PARTISANSHIP (OR SUBTLE LEANING) BY ITS VERY NATURE, WITH RESPECT TO ME PERSONALLY; THEN FROM A TRANSPARENCY POINT OF VIEW, COMPLIANCE WITH MY OPERATING GUIDELINES FOR THIS OPERATING AREA CAN APPEAR TO BE CALLED INTO QUESTION. MY PROCEDURE CLEARLY CALLS FOR NON-PARTICIPTION IN POLITICAL MATTERS PERSONALLY, WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE OFFERING SERVICES AS APPROPRIATE (see the post CONSERVERY INDEPENTENT POLITICAL SERVICES FRAMEWORK/GUARANTEE POLICY SUMMARIZED & OTHER CONSIDERATIONS - link on COMMENTS PAGE). AS A RESULT, ANY EXPECTATION OF ME ASSOCIATING CONSERVERY WITH ANY OUTWARD LABEL(S) THAT CONVEY(S) EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF INCONSISTENCY IN THIS AREA ON MY PART, WILL NOT BE FORTHCOMING.

J_F_Brazant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J_F_Brazant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J_F_Brazant said...

Specific numbers just as labels convey and/or represent certain nationalities and/or individuals, remember the post THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LABELS AND NUMBERS IN TODAY'S "VIRTUAL" SOCIETY, (link on COMMENTS Page), therefore I cannot associate with any number even the price of a facility, which is representative of either the nationality of or specific individuals who are misrepresenting my identity in any way, whether state sponsored or otherwise (see the post SUMMARY OF HIDDEN DANGERS/UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES & OTHER ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH HAVING "VIRTUAL" IDENTITIES - UPDATED link on COMMENTS Page), because the former are largely represented and can get way with it at my expense, and I am suppose to accept it/them in their fictional identities. This Proprietorship will not associate with any place that conveys such, even by its price, because ultimately it will be stated, by those who are benefiting financially from such “Society’s” type arrangements, “if that was not representative of the individuals involved in the Proprietorship, why would he go there?, as their basis for ensuring that others are involved in the selected location at my expense.”

J_F_Brazant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J_F_Brazant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J_F_Brazant said...

After giving much consideration to my discoveries of the past few days involving, locations, labels and numbers as well as the significance they represent, it is clear to me that my first address in this Country to start my studies (346 E. 9th Street, Brooklyn, New York), is being manipulated (by those “Society’s” types trying to legitimize their presence in this Country at my expense), to convey much more than it ever meant. The nine (9) in this address was and is just a street number in Brooklyn, New York where my cousin Althea, resided at the time when I resided with her initially in 1978. Those who cannot justify their actual entry point (whether west coast or otherwise) in this Country and the subsequent path taken in this country to justify their present location in the Midwest, and resort to such tactics as: diverting selected mail to locations with zip codes ending in 9 (ex. 52329), (see comment # 1 from 9/29/2012 on the COMMENTS Page - link on COMMENTS Page) as well as attempting to predetermine whom the successful Open Position candidate will be, by attempting to show association to this Proprietorship where none exists and in turn using this selectively named restaurant that identifies with the name of a Coastal State’s Beach Town with a specific zip code, which can be correlated to a definite individual’s identity with four of the five zip code numbers but beginning with the number 9, (see Open Position Update Details From 9/28/2012 - link on COMMENTS Page); have made it clear to me that if this Proprietorship were to relocate to this west Coastal State with zip codes starting with the number 9, this action would in effect vindicate those using their private alter egos and other names publicly and provide them with a measure of legitimacy. As a result, California is being ruled out “openly” as a relocation destination for the stated reason. Similar efforts were undertaken to justify New York in a limited manner in spite of some questionable actions (see comment # 1 on the post NUMBER ONE (1) AT ALL COSTS - link on COMMENTS Page), and a similar limited justification is being extended to this State if reviews determine any spcific clearly defined locale to be an appropriate destination for Conservery and any prior “open” consideration stated on this Blog’s pages is no longer valid as of 9/30/2012. It is being pointed out that only the very immediate/specified area selected for any potential relocation destination would be associated with this Proprietorship’s activities in both these referenced States if it is so determined and this in turn is not intended to vindicate any “Society’s” types seeking justification carte blanche in any other areas of these States via this Proprietorship, as the case may be.

J_F_Brazant said...

Consistent with comment # 3 on the COMMENTS Page, this reprint of a posting from the Facebook Wall from 8/30/2012 (When the Proprietorship Still Had Such a Presence, Now Closed); the point being emphasized is that Relocation was Conservery's objective, as follows: Relocation Basis on Facebook:
by Conservery on Tuesday, August 30, 2011 at 4:12pm
"The decision to relocate, outside Iowa, has not been made lightly, but in the interest of unimpeded growth, it is essential, after all, Conservery has been in existence since 2000, and as the Founder & Owner, I am in the best position to understand these details and this decision should be respected. Everyone is entitled to decide what is in their best interest business-wise and personally and relocating as indicated in the relocation plans published on the Wall is what is best for this Proprietorship even if it is not popular in those locations, which were not chosen".

J_F_Brazant said...

The object of the previous comment is to focus on the fact that relocation "generally" has been under consideration for sometime, and not a specific destination; as emphasized here, the location chosen will be documented here.

J_F_Brazant said...

FOR CLARIFICAION PURPOSES, THE FOLLOWING LISTING OUTLINES AREAS RULED OUT AS RELOCATION DESTINATIONS FOR VARIOUS UNRECONCILABLE REASONS AND/OR INCONSISTENCY WITH THIS REVIEW & EVALUATION CRITERIA, AS NOTED ON THIS BLOG PAGES: ALABAMA, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, ILLINOIS, MARYLAND, MICHIGAN, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK (CONDITIONAL CONSIDERATION ON CASE BY CASE BASIS), NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, OREGON, WASHINGTON STATE AND WISCONSIN.


James F. Brazant
Founder/Owner
Conservery

J_F_Brazant said...

Comment # 1 from 10/28/2012 on the COMMENTS Page, directly relates to the Wolverine State, ruling out its possible selection as a base of ANY type for Conservery!

J_F_Brazant said...

The location selection details included on this Blog’s Pages is not to be altered, removed or tampered with in anyway by any unauthorized person(s) because such authority has not been transferred to ANY INDIVIDUAL/ENTITY/ETC. This Proprietorship is in no way responsible for those “Society’s” types that chose to support “two-faced” individuals as a means of perpetual wealth generation regardless of whose rights they trampled on. Intimidation, vandalism and your other similar techniques typically used will not alter this decision made in the best interest of Conservery, which neither “Your types”, nor Your Supporters are in anyway associated with. Please respect it, even though respecting the rights of others (not part of your pyramid schemes) comes with much difficulty!

J_F_Brazant said...

As previously stated on this Blog’s comments, intimidation of any type (regardless of the subtlety used), will NOT alter the announced relocation plans of this Proprietorship.

J_F_Brazant said...

When information about the relocation's details are ready to be released, they will be announced, as appropriate.

J_F_Brazant said...

They are those Mogul types who are known for their “awesome” reputations (as documented in the August 1, 2003 edition of the WSJ, on page C5) with the potential to “intimidate” likely competition and/or opponents unless the (# 14) “way” of certain of such Mogul types is agreed with. This snippet from that Publication questioned the “safety” of dealing with such a Mogul type. In spite of this reputation (whether “fairly” or unfairly earned), it is being requested that the various communications with him over the years beginning on September 9, 2001 (just two days prior to an infamous attack in this Country, and previously documented in the post on this Blog, COINCIDENCES AND OTHER THINGS); be set aside and the relocation decision of this Proprietorship described in the follow-up communication dated September 9, 2003 be respected as much has changed since those communications took place (see the post STRATEGIC LABELS AND NUMBERS - THE FINALE and the CONSERVERY AUTHORIZATION PAGE). The question occurred to me had I known then that my identity was mangled in quid pro quo deal making, would I have followed the same course of action? Honestly, I cannot say with any degree of certainty, but the advice of my Mother serves as a reminder, “I can trust you” (to do what’s right in spite of the “hindrances”). Standing up for the preservation of my Father’s and Mother’s individual identities is definitely worth the effort (even though the counsel of a wise lady was overlooked when certain decisions were made as documented in the post MY FATHER’S TRADITIONAL LEGACY, WHO FULLFLLED IT?) knowing her, the type of advice she would give would be, “stay strong on traveling the road least traveled”. (NOTE: links to all posts shown are on the COMMENTS 1 Page).

J_F_Brazant said...

Missouri has now been added to those locations excluded from consideration as a relocation destination. Furthermore, the locations included in this exclusion “Club” (included any with a conditional/case-by-case designation) will require a very STRONG case to be made for the serious consideration of any such area in any of these locations so classified on this post and even then, there is no guaranty that such an effort will result in a change of status. PLEASE NOTE: ALL OTHER LOCATIONS SHOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY BE ASSUMED TO BE SERIOUS RELOCATION DESTINATIONS.

J_F_Brazant said...

This included mailing (shown below - on COMMENTS 1 Page), contins details to help understand the reasons why California generally remains an unworkable location for relocation purposes for the Proprietorship.

J_F_Brazant said...

IF ANY LOCATION/LISTING CONTACTED IS NOT SHOWN ON THIS PAGE (IF AT LEAST BEING IN ANYWAY CONSIDERED THEN), IT'S NOT IN ANYWAY CONNECTED TO CONSERVERY, REGARDLESS OF WHOSE SUPPORT IS BEING PROVIDED, WHETHER "SOCIETY'S" OR SOME OTHER CLUB TYPE!