THE ONE THAT WAS OVERLOOKED, OR WAS IT (EDITED AND UPDATED 5/28, 8/11, 11/22 & 12/30/2013 as well as 2/15, 2/19, 3/3, 3/18, 4/22, 7/12, 7/24, 7/29, 8/5, 8/21 & 8/27/2014)?

Please note: this post (as well as all others relating to this matter) have been replaced by THE TIME FOR THE "OVERLOOKED" PAYMENT IS HERE, MR BUFFETT - EDITED as well as THE TIME FOR THE "OVERLOOKED" PAYMENT IS HERE, MR BUFFETT - EDITED as the central locations for details about this subject from a "big picture" perspective.

Introduction:
In developing those industries selected for being considered among the top ten (10) as described in this Blog’s post on this subject entitled “THEN AND NOW!” the Selectors for some reason did not include Advertising. This was and still is a very interesting and curious development since, less than three (3) months later an article was carried in that same Daily/Weekend Business Street Publication in its April 21, 2005 edition (B1/4) dealing with the adaptation of digital technology in the Advertising industry. This industry that is very critical to product manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers, conglomerates, those of ill-repute and even “shadow” society types alike because it’s the medium that determines how to “capture” the public’s attention and it was embarking on the notable use of digital technology (obviously known to those at this Publication and yet the Industry was not included among the honorees). This description examines the potential reasons why a bona fide contender was NOT included in the selected industries [for Top Ten (10) Billing].

Here are the Background Details:
This referenced article cited groundbreaking digital technology adaptation for application in the Ad industry to be applied at this fourth to be considered among the standard broadcast networks (SBNs); in a move that was slated to revolutionize the “time-honored” 30-second television ad. This process involved “tweakable” ads, which would enable marketers the option to alter certain elements relevant to particular viewers, scripts, graphic elements or other images. For example, an advertiser could make an ad appeal to teens in one instant and seniors in another.
Ad tailoring of commercials was being considered as the wave of the future in the industry due to increasing viewer fragmentation. While cable TV was already using the technology to target audiences even by zip code, such a feature had not been yet attempted by the SBNs because of inherent limitations. However, with this technology then being considered by this fourth to be classified as an SBN, which could allow advertisers to modify a sales pitch in various ways, just minutes before it aired, would be a significant modification over the practice of creating different spots for each area targeted (the practice up to that point). It was indeed a “game-changer” and the then question to be considered was, would it be embraced by advertisers en masse, with that Network’s reportedly imminent decision to team up with VWI of New York to move ahead with this new methodology, (especially in the fierce battle for advertising revenue in an era of increasing audience erosion but ever increasing network ad rates? One factor driving this shift was cable TVs ability to target ads to various demographic groups, and while the process that was being considered by this Network could not target by household, it could change its message for different shows, time slots or even day of the week and avoid the same ads day in and day out, no matter, which program was selected by viewers. This was where the industry (Ad) was headed and “it’s kind of archaic to think that one message is going to hit our entire target,” the article reported as being the industry’s outlook for the future.

The Implications and Considerations Involved:
Since such revolutionary uses of digital technology was being considered for an industry via a medium that either directly or indirectly impacts all households, yet why was it not considered among the Top Ten (10) by the Selectors? Why was it not considered as industry #3 for example (to choose a random number)? Why was the Video Game Industry given such a high ranking even though it only had and still has a very “narrow” product audience? As it turned out, nothing predicted about this Industry even remotely materialized as noted in the previously referenced post. Furthermore, if a “legitimate” industry is either not considered or omitted for “unknown” reasons, when making such selections, how much validity do such predictions even have? Maybe there was an “unknown” bias against this Industry among the Selectors, or maybe there was a dispute over whether or not to attribute the innovation to the Ad or television industries but this is only an after-the-fact examination to determine as far as possible the basis for excluding Advertising among the Top Ten (10) industries. Was there some quid pro quo arrangement involved in this Industries exclusion from receiving a fair consideration? 

These are the known facts:

1. Advertising was an area chosen for inclusion in my Proprietorship’s Root Cause as a randomly selected and typical area in its accompanying Flowchart by example.
2. The Chart was made available to selected Individuals/Entities for marketing and to demonstrate one of the types of services offered by the Proprietorship as a purely business decision ONLY, as I had no reason to provide any material to any other business entity as a give away type gesture and nothing in the communication reflected that it could be used without permission.
3. Shortly after it was provided to a certain Mogul via facsimile in 9/2003, an article about the method depicted in the Flowchart was carried in the same Business Street Publication (only days after), showing its application in an identical manner to that applied in the Flowchart at a business in, which this Mogul is known to hold significant interest and at the time of the incident was a member of its Board of Directors.
4. The methodology followed by the Entity in question (that was the focus in Publication’s article), turned out to be identical to the example used in my Flowchart was made known by me (see QUESTIONABLE USE OF CONSERVERY'S ROOT CAUSE?, below photo inserts and BREAKDOWN OF FEES OWED THE PROPRIETORSHIP FOR USE OF ITS MATERIAL WITHOUT PERMISSION) are intended to show that
5. the material was indeed sent to the Mogul via facsimile,
6. it was the same business I had initially submitted tax returns on in my filings for the year 2000,
7. the article was consistent with the business details transmitted and included in my tax returns and submittals as appropriate, up until its closure as documented in the post CONSERVERY FINAL STATUS UPDATE REGARDING STATE CRITERION - UPDATED (& EDITED) but, which has since reopened at its NEW PMB ADDRSS,
8. the article was identical and consistent with the methodology used in the Conservery Flowchart example.
9. In 2005, this Publication Selectors omitted this “genuine” industry’s consideration from among those considered for their Top Ten (10) ranking and even if there was a dispute over industry classification it would have revolutionize the Ad industry as it was then being implemented.
10. Shortly after the Top Ten’s (10’s) Publication, an article depicting ground breaking use of digital technology in the Advertising industry being considered for use at the Nation’s 4th Network was published and
11. The parent Company of the Network (involved in considering the use of ground breaking digital technology in advertising) eventually purchased that Daily/Weekend Business Street Publication for approximately $5 billion.

The Finale:
Was there a quid pro quo agreement involved here? All that can be said is that the facts “speak” for themselves and the apparently "deliberate" exclusion from consideration of certain industries, suggests that the Publication as an entity was "factually" aware that the material in question was from a questionable source, otherwise it's due consideration would have been given when appropriate, as warranted (but it was not), and that is highly questionable on the part of a "storied" Publication. Furthermore, it’s highly unprofessional, dishonest, unethical and blatantly unfair to use another’s ideas and NOT reimburse that individual from whom the material was obtained while then pretending that other “shadow” society types are the “credible” rightful owners of the identity/heritage, history, accomplishments and qualifications simply because this  "mogul's" fantasy and another empire built around my identity/heritage, etc. as well as those in my sphere of acquaintance remade and provided to all types of "

free loaders" who are then assigned positions of authority in this fictional "organization" (empires) that can't be passed on to anyone else realistically (as documented in the Conclusion section of the post THE FATE FOR THE METHODS OF DICTATORS WHO HOLD ON TOO LONG - UPDATED), because they have "no origins" and are using the "borrowed" solid "foundations" of an unsuspecting individual as documented in the post GARBAGE IN, (SWEET SMELLING ODORS), GARBAGE OUT - UPDATED as documented in Comment # 1 from 2/13/2014 on the COMMENTS 2014 Page and the referenced post, which in reality has been hidden behind an unsuspecting individual as described in the post THOSE WHO WOULD BE "god" - EDITED AND UPDATED, clearly demonstrating my main point (that none, including those who are the main "free loaders cause" supporters, thought enough of their "methods" for deriving income from man's oldest profession to want to publicly OWN such OPENLY, without masking their true intentions leading them to hide it). As a result, some (who) were thought no better of than to be sacrificed for

the cause of "empires" built on such "methods" without

"real" foundations were relied on to provide identities, etc. for their cause. How noble of such types to be in positions to select those of their choosing to "front" for their "questionable" income generating "methods". WHO GAVE SUCH INDIVIDUALS THE RIGHT TO MAKE SUCH DECISIONS IN THE LIVES OF OTHERS? Position and status regardless of the "heights" such have "attained", does not. JUST AS SUCH TYPES DON'T WANT TO BE THE PUBLIC OWNERS OF SUCH, NEITHER AM I DESIROUS OF HAVING MY IDENTITY/HERITAGE, HISTORY, ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND QUALIFICATIONS (or my solid "foundations") ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH ACTIVITIES. MY IDENTITY/HERITAGE, HISTORY, ACCOMPLISHMENTS, QUALIFICATIONS (OR SOLID "FOUNDATIONS") AS WELL AS THOSE IN MY SPHERE OF ACQUAINTANCE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN CONNECTED WITH IT BY ANY ACTING IN THEIR OWN SELF INTERESTS IN MY PERSONAL CAUSE AS WELL AS IN THOSE OF MY SPHERE OF ACQUAINTANCE. SINCE IT WAS IMPLEMENTED, IT HAS BECOME MY CAUSE, WHICH IS NO SURPRISE TO THE GOD OF CREATION, BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT THIS CHOSEN SERVANT WOULD BE ABLE TO OVERCOME THE "HINDRANCES", WITH HIS HELP ALONE.

Conclusion:
FREEING MY SOLID "FOUNDATIONS" FROM THE "SHACKLES" OF THE "FREE LOADERS CAUSE", WILL BE ACHIEVED WITH THE HELP OF THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN BRING IT ABOUT. Even though, it may be a little late for those who were ruthlessly sacrificed, as depicted in the post WHEN SACRIFICING IS IMPLEMENTED BY DECREE - UPDATED, assistance will be offered to deserving "qualified" types and their connections (where appropriate while ensuring that none so deserving is overlooked), as the new organization is staffed consistent with the conceptual organizational chart depicted in the stand-alone Page THE NEW COSVRY CONCEPTUAL INVESTMENT BUSINESS PLANNED.
In this way, freedom will gained for those who were considered to be worth no better than to be subjected to sordid lifestyles and others simply assigned OUTCOMES THAT THOSE WHO PLACED THEMSELVES IN THE UNENVIABLE POSITION OF DETERMINING OUTCOMES FOR OTHERS CONSIDERED TO BE WORTHY OF BEING "EXTERMINATED", WHICH RESULTED IN THEIR BEING PLACED ON THE PARTIAL LISTING OF THOSE SACRIFICED AND INCLUDED IN THE POST WHEN SACRIFICING IS IMPLEMENTED BY DECREE - UPDATED, including my dear friends both LOIS AND CAROL, as depicted in the Conservery Dedication, to have their contributions finally documented as is the right of all as appropriate. As previously discussed on the Pages of this Blog in the post WHEN TOO MUCH OF A "GOOD" THING IS BAD!), these conditions only help to underscore the type of treatment meted out to those whose "rights" are considered worthless by those Supporters and Backers (as described generally in the post HOW TO IDENTIFY THOSE WHO CONTROL THE "FREE LOADERS" - UPDATED), of their "shadowy virtual society" types (who don’t have to be legally reimbursed because of their lack of meaningful skills); all in a “free” society.  

 

 



See the Conservery root cause principal depicted below pictorially

The Conservery root cause principal revealed that the causal factors for the unclear lines of responsibility was the overlapping decision-making assigned to various departments over the years and recommended the elimination of this redundancy (namely, multiple departments with the same responsibility), in order to speed decision-making and eliminate excessive costs as the Coke three-to-one plan copied (in my opinion) and stated by the soft drink giant (in the referenced article) was intended to do. If there wasn't unauthorized use here, there would be no need to OVERLOOK ADVERTISING as a bona fide area for making significant strides and be included among the years top ten (10) as documented in the list of KNOWN FACTS identified specifically as nos. 5 - 7 in this post. 

  

 

 

Schedule C Submitted as Part of Tax Filings for Tax Year 2000 the Start of the Proprietorship

 

 

Call received from Police Officer in charge of competing

Danielle's "accident" investigation, while here at 8263

140th Ave  Olin, IA on the date and time in question,

inquiring about her status,  (just as all others such

calls were received and made, including data

transmissions). 

The Conclusion:
BREAKDOWN OF COMPENSATION OWED CONSERVERY FOR USE OF ITS ROOT CAUSE MATERIAL BY COKE WITHOUT PERMISSION 
The amount owed is based on a percentage of the savings realized, or 15% of what was saved as a result of going from three (3) agencies to one (1) agency.
In addition, the news article indicated that Coke was on track to spend approximately $275,000,000.00 on advertising for the year 2003.

Therefore, if Coke ad costs dropped from $275,000,000.00 to approximately $230,000,000.00, realizing a total of $45,000,000.00 the savings, (which can be verified), Conservery is owed $45,000,000.00 x 15%

Or approximately $6,750,000.00. 

In addition, since payment has been owed since 2003 a duration of 10 years, approximately, a 3% annual interest fee is being applied.

As a result, this totals $6,750,000.00 x 3%,
Or approximately $202,500.00 and over the course of the 10 years, this has now reached $2,025,000.00

Bringing the amount owed Conservery to a grand total of $6,750,000.00 + $2,025,000.00
Furthermore, since this debt has not been paid since now for a total of 3, 937 days (or 167 days past the ten year mark as of 2/15/2014 for, which this penalty was calculated, this 3% penalty over this duration of approximately 0.458 years past the 10 year period shown above amounts to:

$2,117,745 for a grand total of:

$6,750,000.00 + $2,117,745


= $8,867,745
This in my updated estimation is a fair approximation of what is owed me as this debt is now in its 11th year, based on my conclusions drawn, however this is a matter of fairness to settle the on-going saga as this should not be dragged any further into this eleventh year (2014).


James F. Brazant
Proprietor
Conservery
February 15, 2014