SHOOT FIRST & ASK NO QUESTIONS ATERWARDS! - UPDATED 11/19/2014

Introduction:
This experience, which is the subject of this post has never happened to me in all the years that I have spent in this Country of my long-time residence that is why it is being given such “distinction”. Namely an entire Blog post devoted to the events associated with it. At this point it must be emphasized that even though it bears some similarity to events associated with my encounter at the then Community National Bank in VT, in the summer of 1990, (as documented in the paragraph beginning with "The scenario involved a then... " in the post IDENTITY SWITCHING OVER THE YEARS COMPACTED FOR THE RECORD),  the actual underlying details are completely different, which is perfect opportunity to point out that there are always two sides to any situation and any entity serving the public should always be careful to thoroughly evaluate ALL the facts before reaching any premature conclusions because the decisions made by those representing the enterprise could well open the business complex legal actions that could be devastating to their ability to conduct business as usual. The developments that are the subject of this post occurred between November 6, 2014 and culminated on November 15, 2014. Please follow to determine the facts, which the representatives of the enterprise involved FAILED to obtain before the very FLAWED decision at, which they arrived was reached and implemented before conducting any type of fact-finding.

Here is the Set-up of the Events in Question:
On the early evening of November 6, 2014 I took the opportunity to visit the establishment known as Stuff, which is located at 252 Blairs Ferry Road NE, Suite B, Cedar Rapids around sunset, (which was approximately between 5:15 pm and 5:30pm). One worker, (whose name I did not know at the time), was working at one of the floor stations and as I sometimes do on occasion, the opportunity was taken to introduce myself and businesses being contemplated and in the conceptual stages as indicated on the Pages of the applicable Blogs, Cosvry Investments and ClCh’s Bakery and even encouraged her to check out the details on my Blog Pages and gave her the associated details on a sheet of paper that she supplied to me. My aim at the time was to determine if she would open to working in such establishments when they were ready to be implemented and moved from the conceptual stage. This encounter took about 1 minute at most and then I left the worker after passing by her station again to point out that, I would most likely be following-up with her later that week and asked if she was working, and she replied in the affirmative (at this point she was attending to the needs of another customer and I asked the question about her work schedule for later in the week in passing, in order to avoid disrupting her from her duties). At this time, I indicated that I would be back later most likely on
Saturday to provide her with further details and left.
Since I was in the area again on the evening of November 7, 2014 around 6:00 pm I decided to stop in and provide the worker with the follow-up details promised. However, instead of parking in the front of the building as I usually do, I decided to make my way to the back to park. On approaching the rear, there was a dark colored (either dark blue or black) sporty type shaped vehicle (with unusual pattern halogen headlights), with a driver in the vehicle and an individual (female, dressed in a (Stuff’s) worker’s attire, whose identity I could not determine from the location of my vehicle’s position, scurrying back into the building), and as my vehicle approached the parking area closer to that area where individual in the vehicle was sitting in the idling car he pulled off and left). After parking I entered the vehicle and could not locate the worker whom I had encountered the previous evening even though I stayed there for approximately 1 hour and left after examining the floor area to determine if there were any specific items on, which savings could be gained via purchasing as I do on occasion when such merchandise is available for purchase as I am a customer who have found very useful items there on occasion as the below photo excerpts of the included receipts indicate.

 

    

 

My next occasion to visit this establishment was on the evening of November 15, 2014 around 5:45 pm, it was snowing and the worker was in place this time at the check-out register and after selecting 1 roll of tape to purchase since the type of tape I was looking for was unavailable, I made my way to the register. Upon reaching the register, the photo included below indicates I greeted the worker whose name I still did not know and I stated as much in pointing out that I had visited the next night rather than on the 8^th as indicated and had I known her name I would have left a message for her.  Anyway, I proceeded to point out additional details to this worker whose responses were now very curt and insincere as opposed to her manner on the first night when I encountered her. Before, I was able to relay any great deal of information to the worker now known as Elizabeth (from the receipt included below), an entourage approached me and inquired if I was finished with my purchase and I replied affirmatively and attempted to continue my conversation with the insincere worker but was again interrupted my the leader of this entourage who indicated that the register was being shut down and proceeded to relay to me that Manager was asking me to LEAVE their establishment to “avoid anyone feeling uncomfortable”.

                                                             

The Outcome:
None of my actions described included anything that would have cause anyone to “feel uncomfortable” and if Elizabeth did not want to hear any additional details about my proposed businesses all she had to do was to say I am not interested and I would not have spent any additional time in this regard. On the contrary, she wanted me to convey information, in my opinion to prove some point she was desirous of conveying “for the cameras” (or for some larger ulterior motive). After having given additional thought to these developments that at their core, make no sense, I have concluded that the vehicle incident on the previous week involved this worker and the individual who was observed scurrying into the establishment in the worker’s attire was one and the same Elizabeth, (in my opinion attempting to get away from the individual in the idling vehicle). All I can state for certain, is that on entering the establishment and making a sweep of the visible premises, she was nowhere to be found.
I can only conclude that some development must have taken place afterwards involving this worker and in her attempt to get herself out of a very uncompromising situation I was used as a “scapegoat” for those involved in the Establishment to risk placing themselves in the very unwarranted position of VIOLATING MY CIVIL RIGHTS and not even affording me the opportunity to address the “wrong”, I am supposed to have committed. Simply providing detailed information to an individual who wanted such, (but only for her own self interest), not even taking the time to consider the very sensitive situation she was placing her Employer in by their action in violating my civil rights in public accommodation, granted though my purchase at that time was completed, demonstrates the type of individual this worker is.

The Conclusion and Future Outlook:
Until the evening of 11/15/2014, I had considered this establishment to be a very well run operation, however with the events that have taken place that conclusion has been changed and I now have no plans to ever visit, make or recommend that anyone conduct business at an establishment that does NOT openly consider the rights of its customers in arriving at its very questionable decision-making. I had been considering purchasing some furnishings from that location in the near future as I am awaiting my relocating plans to be completed but that has all been erased by the actions of a very insincere female worker, who may have manipulated her Employer into violating my civil rights in order to avoid taking responsibility for some other action(s) she may have carried out either in panic or acting out of fear and chose to implicate me (an innocent but convenient bystander).

A properly implemented root cause evaluation of the type that can be provided by me as depicted in the Conclusion section of the post THE ONE THAT WAS OVERLOOKED,OR WAS IT - EDITED AND UPDATED would have:

1. gotten to the core of the details first,
2. avoided violating the civil rights of any individual including those of the insincere worker,
3. prevented the establishment from placing their operation in a position to be at the center of a civil rights in public accommodation scenario,
4. led to the worker “fessing” up and seeking assistance if involved in any type of “personal” arrangement where she felt really threatened by any thuggish type individual driving a vehicle with “loud” halogen headlights and the matter would have been all kept internal and
5. avoided any potential fallout from negative public reaction to sensitive events of such a nature.

It is when we take the rights of selected individuals in our society for granted that such developments take place. None involved stopped for a second and considered what if I am accusing an individual unfairly but thought it inconsequential whether I was receiving “proper" treatment in their rush to judge without facts basing their decision squarely on what I appeared to be whether or not, their conclusions were accurate, while giving scant regard to whether or not any action in their part was being properly implemented. The one at the center who was (in my opinion manipulating all to get out of her “messy” predicament, was carrying out her manipulative scheme at my expense and not for one minute considered that she who was acting "for the cameras" and making a mockery out of those whom she could convince to achieve her objective at my expense. The lesson leaned from the Tiger Swallowtail Butterfly should be borne in mind that (depicted below), things are




The picturesque Tiger swallowtail butterfly shown “on a mission” to the prized “pollen” is taking the alternate path to get to its objective by slowly making the way up the lily to the flower in its sights. In addition, this species is unique in that all the males only have these brightly colored appearances, while only some of the females are so colorfully adorned. They (the females) tend to be darker, mostly black with spots of blue, orange and yellow along the edges of the wings due to the subtle evolution of this variety to adapt to their environment surroundings as a form of protection similar to the manner in, which most of God’s creation have from man down to even butterflies. The dark form of the tiger, for example is similar to the pipevine swallowtail, which creates a chemical in its body that's distasteful to birds. In addition, eggs of the tiger and several other swallowtails look like birds droppings. Furthermore, after awhile, the eggs turn green to blend with the leaves that the larvae will feed on. These larvae then curl the leaves over themselves with silk, and develop large fake eyespots that make them look like small snakes.

Free loaders cause" with their borrowed lineages pretend to be anything that can give them the desired "credibility" they "A-L-L" lack due to origin issues. This is as true for those latest of comers, the more "refined" types of the "free loaders" discussed in detail on the pages of this Blog as it is for other types who came during the farm crisis of the late 70's and early 80's from eastern European countries. THEY ALL HAVE "ORIGIN ISSUES".

never always what they appear to be and many plunge headlong into long-term “business” arrangements without thought or consideration for whether what is being undertaken in indeed viable or worthwhile but mistakenly concluding that some action can be undertaken along the way to clean up mangled scenarios of their own creation at the expense of others who are made to pay a very high price for bad decisions some “entitled” types who possess the “networking” ability to override any process that establishes order for anything or anyone not to their liking in order to achieve their desired outcomes. Whether government agencies or institutions of higher learning (some of, which are filled with “free loaders” at the highest levels who give little thought to how much they are trivializing the reputations of such establishments but only relish in their ability to attract donations and contributions from any regardless of the price in lives, and similar "mundane" qualities), such types have long forgotten about doing what’s right even when unpopular and many follow the examples set by these "leaders" to obtain favors and an easy lifestyle. It is because such societal values such as these as documented in the post HONORING GOD AND RESPECTING OTHERS, PRACTICALLY - UPDATED are given little or no consideration that workers feel no qualms about violating the rights of an individual solely on word of an individual with questionable motivations and possessing no factual evidence but based solely on what appears to be whether manipulated or otherwise (but accepted by our society generally as being so). It must be remembered that God permits all things in the lives of His chosen and typically to test us all in the areas where our greatest weaknesses lay, to weed out the few from among the many. That's why none really know how God will work in any given situation while bearing in mind that that His will for those of His choosing can’t be impeded by anyone regardless of their amassed resources “fictionally” or otherwise.


Resolution Terms:
The following conditions would be considered an adequate settlement from the owner interests within a near-term time-frame considering the gravity of the conditions that occurred:

1. conducting root cause evaluation(s) at any of your business enterprises deemed appropriate to determine if the potential for similar developments exists within the establishments and implementing recommendations as appropriate as long as I am able to participate in the evaluation and appropriate terms can be agreed upon,
2. these evaluations should include an assessment, which determines why the City’s policies do not obviously more vigorously cover such criteria, and if such conditions exists, as occurs with Building and Zoning Regulations loopholes that enables “select” types to circumvent “cumbersome” criteria such as described in the post  “WHEN “CODIFIKAZIONS” AND “REGUGAZIONS” “RUN” FOR COVER!”; determine if the potential exists for businesses generally to circumvent adequately addressing the civil rights of individuals even those within their staff (for those types who would seek to violate such criteria), which I will be willing to conduct as Conservery’s Proprietor with appropriate terms,  

3. publishing a letter publicly indicating that your establishments have, through self introspection examined your processes and have concluded that your practices do not allow for violating the civil (or other) rights of any customer/individual who uses your places of business, and whom you are proud to serve (after conducting an outside review and the results indicate this to be correct), and

4. information to the effect that my activity as a customer of the establishment will be added to the pages of this Blog indicating that a settlement has been reached that will allow me to reverse my previously planned decision to curtail all business activity there.  

IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THESE CONDITIONS WILL ONLY BE CONSIDERED ADEQUATELY CARRIED OUT AS LONG AS THEY INCLUDE ME AS OWNER OF MY PROPRIETORSHIPS: Conservery, Cosvry and ClCh’s Bakery.


If on the other hand the above terms prove too challenging to implement, the following conditions would be considered a satisfactory alternative to achieving the desired outcome that would result in item #4 above being issued by me, appropriately, as follows:

1. making the equivalent of a guaranteed $20,000,000.00 loan available to me at zero percent (0%) interest rate for the first 5 years. After 5 years the repayment period starts at an interest rate of 3% for another 5 years at, which time a balloon payment for the remainder of the loan comes due or the loan is refinanced and the Owner interest (who guaranteed the original loan) paid out,
2. implementing ClCh’s Bakery first and then Cosvry Investments will be the purpose of the loan funds and no conditions on how the funds are to be used are to be made a part of the loan,
3. following the above being worked out, publishing information to the effect that a settlement has been reached between the Owner interest and me should be completed.