Draft llepard to Union Leader

[parke]

The powers at be are going to make this war.. arent they? I cant help but to think of JFK. I mean it as in who he was. questions he posed.

I dunno. This entire thing sucks. FOX pulling this *crap* too.

I dont know what is going to happen.. but I have a gut feeling *crap* is going to hit the fan in 2008. With the war.. the economy.. our rights.. something is going to blow a gasket.

Ill be honest. Im scared shitless of our next leader. None of them are addressing the economy, the war or our rights. Its as if they are all from Mars.

No wonder they want to stop Ron Paul. He is the most patriotic American Ive ever seen. His ideas of what America represents is so close to American hearts. Freedom is powerful. Ron Paul inspires people.

This campaign has been a positive boost to my life. Ive never felt prouder to be an American. There is so much on the line...

.....

Could they use this against us? Remember how the Dem's are suing Nader?

Be careful. Youve got more than money invested. Im sure you will make the best move.

 

[Lord Xar]

Can someone confirm the status of the OTHER NEW HAMPSHIRE PAPERS that Lawrence paid for.

What is the status of those?
What is the result of those?

Any emails lawrence from those other papers?

 

[Mr. White]

Your letter looks like blackmail to me.

 

[freelance]

I agree the first action is contact the paper and try to reach a agreement that will remedy this. But, do not agree to anything less than what you have in the letter.

Second action if that fails is contact a lawyer, and then send the letter.

Yes, that's the correct order, but send the letter only after a lawyer looks it over, because non-lawyers don't understand nuances that could have unforeseen consequences. Taking legal action and consulting a lawyer is not the same thing. Legal action isn't going to work to accomplish the goal--immediate (and now, repeated) exposure.

 

[joenaab]

In any undertaking of this magnitude procuring legal advice BEFOREHAND is the only prudent course of action. Do not send this communique before you consult with an able team of lawyers.

One of the things they will advise against is to express a determination of entering into yet another contract with that same organization. What does this say about your dissatisfaction with the current arrangement? Please I urge you to act in accordance with wisdom.

Cool heads prevail, especially with regards to money and the law.

Yes, Lawrence, I agree with this. Always talk with an attorney first and let them write all correspondence. They will do research to know for certain what rights/laws may have been violated, how you are to proceed, and what remedies might be available to you. Further, they know how to phrase a letter to really scare the shit out of someone, but they do it from a position of strength in knowing the law.

Make a polite inquiry as to why the ad didn't run and try to work something out. Also, no need to offer to run it every day at your expense. If they deliberately didn't run it the first time, they won't run it at all.

Good luck to you. These things are bound to happen. These newspapers have owners with private agendas. I'm not sure if they can legally refuse to run ads, but I don't see why they can't and then simply refund your money.

 

[The Good Doctor]

Do not send this letter. You will tip them off as to what you want to do. Simply have your lawyer bring the suit upon them.

Frame a different letter that contains a portion of this with the option of pursuing legal action if they won't run the ad for the whole week at their expense. Claim your lawyer is ready to drop the hammer.

If they don't take them to task and contact all media outlets that will pick up this story. This will bring further attention to the fact that media outlets are not giving candidates coverage, even PAID coverage.

That way you are in a win win situation.

You are the man BTW!

I am contemplating sending this letter.

I haDRAFT


Dear Sirs and Madams:

My representative, Linda Lagana contracted verbally with your representative, xxxxxxx, to run an advertisement supporting Ron Paul in your newspaper today, Sunday, December 30, 2007. Payment was made in full in advance. My representative received several verbal assurances that the ad would run.

However, the ad did not run. I do not know why. Perhaps it was an honest mistake, but I cannot help but wonder if you would have made an honest mistake if the ad was for John McCain who you have endorsed. Either way, I expect to be compensated for this contractual breech on your part.

The value of the publicity on this day is literally irreplacable. We will never catch the NH voter on a better day than today was.

Your decision is very simple. You can choose either of the two following paths.

1. You run the ad every day between now and the NH primary at no cost to me and insert the following text above the advertisement. "The Union Leader is running this advertisement for free because we made a mistake and did not run it as promised on 12/30/2007".

or

2. I will purchase a page in your paper every day between now and the primary and run the ad at my expense. Furthermore, I will file suit against you for breach of contract and the damages figure will be huge. I will then depose every single one of your employees and make them testify under oath as to whether or not they received any instructions to not run the adv. I may find nothing, but who knows. I may find something. But be sure of this, I will do this.

I hope you will choose to make the right decision and try to correct the greivous wrong. If not I will be prepared to meet you face to face in court.

Sincerely,

Lawrence W. Lepard


Ive not sent it yet. Paying for the ads will be tough.

Thoughts?

 

[The Good Doctor]

LOL. Ok Romney!

Consult with your attorneys.

 

[Johncjackson]

I would stop short of making legal threats if you are not an attorney and/or at least not make any specific legal intentions known. I think "take appropriate legal action" or something like that. Do not get into specifics. Or just let the attorney deal with it.

 

[The Good Doctor]

I'm sorry, but this was 85 grand pre-paid for a full page ad. They F'ed up bad. This is terribly unprofessional on their part.

Go Lawrence!

If you threaten them they will stop doing anything at all to work with you. They will clam up, shut down, and not accept any money from you at all. The words lawyer and lawsuit will be enough to get them to stay as far away from you as a nuclear weapon.

I sent you a contact number. Try calling that person, be very polite and see what you can work out. Assume they made an honest error and you just want to figure out a way to make it right. They might help you.

Going off like this will get you no where. I promise. I have done it many times and it is the worst of all possible tactics. Never threaten to sue, it is useless. If you have to sue later, then do so, but I would bet all you would be able to get at most is your money back.

It appears to me you are making threats without having any idea what your legal remedies are and believe me, they know what trouble they can get into, and I would bet a lot it is very little. So, they will laugh at you, ignore you, and never run the ad again.

Try honey, not vinegar.

The bottom line: I know you are angry and want justice, but I doubt any is available to you, if it is, it will take you a ton to hire attorneys to try to get any justice and you will get nothing done for months. By then it is way too late. See what you can get as far as them running the ad a few times. Perhaps ask for this Tuesday, Friday and Sunday. If not that, then Tuesday and Sunday. It will still be run right before the primary and that will be great.

 

[Cyclone]

Did you all see what Chicago Lawyer said? It is possible all he can get back is what he paid for the ad. I am sure they are giving him that back already. You are only entitled to certain things when you sue, not anything you want or demand.

And consulting with attorneys is the only way to find out what you are entitled to. So why would that be silly? Dave Pedersen made a lot of sense.

 

[Mark]

Yes, Lawrence, I agree with this. Always talk with an attorney first and let them write all correspondence. They will do research to know for certain what rights/laws may have been violated, how you are to proceed, and what remedies might be available to you. Further, they know how to phrase a letter to really scare the shit out of someone, but they do it from a position of strength in knowing the law.

Make a polite inquiry as to why the ad didn't run and try to work something out. Also, no need to offer to run it every day at your expense. If they deliberately didn't run it the first time, they won't run it at all.

Good luck to you. These things are bound to happen. These newspapers have owners with private agendas. I'm not sure if they can legally refuse to run ads, but I don't see why they can't and then simply refund your money.

I think Larry showed great restraint and wisdom in coming here to post for suggestions
in spite of natural instincts to respond immediately in anger. Cool heads will prevail.

 

[The Good Doctor]

People don't spend that kind of money on an ad if they didn't expect to have an ROI. And in this case it is to get voters attention to Ron Paul as a candidate.

If it was Company XYZ, they would expect a return on their investment in terms of product sales.

And to ChicagoLawyer! The value of the ad is not "priceless" (although we might all agree with that) -- the value of the ad is what you paid for it. So, if they offer to return your money (which, of course, they will) they will have conducted business with you in good faith and fairly compensated you for damages by returning your money.

I do think that the value of the ad on this Sunday exceeds the value of the ad on days later in the week, but I'd imagine that their ad rates reflect that already and are less expensive during the week.

I'd suggest you try getting them to run the ad a few more times for free, in addition to running it next Sunday.

Good luck, and thank you. I know this must be terribly frustrating for you, and the timing coming right with the upsetting Fox issue only compounds emotions...

 

[tsetsefly]

Can someone confirm the status of the OTHER NEW HAMPSHIRE PAPERS that Lawrence paid for.

What is the status of those?
What is the result of those?

Any emails lawrence from those other papers?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[ErikBlack]

Contracted verbally? Really? Verbally?

That's a shame. You should have gotten the terms and conditions in writing. Looks like your representative screwed the pooch on this one. I find it hard to believe that the paper would even operate using verbal agreements for an ad of this size. What was the price? If it was more than a couple hundred bucks I'm pretty sure they would normally employ a written agreement of some sort.

Here is my theory as to what happened:

The paper received your request verbally. The employee who took the order followed the normal procedure for referring the account to the department who would normally dispatch a contract in order to finalize the sale. The powers that be at the paper got wind of your purchase and conveniently "forgot" to send out the contract. The employee, not knowing any better, confirmed with your agent that the ad was set to run as agreed. Your check may have been received but was never cashed. As far as anyone outside of the process is concerned, the deal never existed. Unless you have taped phone conversations, written email confirmations or a canceled check with the terms written on it, a verbal agreement is going to be nearly impossible to prove.

If you raise a stink they will probably just blame it on the employee who took your order, claiming that he did not process it correctly. They'll offer to re-run your ad at a later date or return your money (if the check was cashed). They might fire the employee as a symbolic gesture of appeasement.

 

[Joby]

They picked the wrong candidate to try and screw over.

anyway, llepard you are awesome.

 

[jointhefightforfreedom]

The point i was trying to make is hammer them hard!!!
and let us know when you want them to feel the wrath of all of us?

 

[jointhefightforfreedom]

and Mr llepard i don't think there are words to express our support and applaud for your efforts! YOU ROCK !!!!!

 

[llepard]

Your letter looks like blackmail to me.

Blackmail?

Based upon what?

This is just business. They have a choice.

Nothing personal, just business.

They can do what they have to do and I will do what i have to do.

As of now we now believe it will run tomorrow for starters. But, this is just the beginning.

 

[szczebrzeszyn]

In any undertaking of this magnitude procuring legal advice BEFOREHAND is the only prudent course of action. Do not send this communique before you consult with an able team of lawyers.

One of the things they will advise against is to express a determination of entering into yet another contract with that same organization. What does this say about your dissatisfaction with the current arrangement? Please I urge you to act in accordance with wisdom.

Cool heads prevail, especially with regards to money and the law.

This is a very good advice IMHO.

 

[wfd40]

The bolded part may be a little much only in the sense that if it goes to trial you don't want to tip them off ahead of time about what questions will be asked. I would definitely leave in the "under oath" part.

Also, I suggest putting a timeline -- you have until XX/XX/XXXX, X:XX am/pm to respond before I pursue legal action.

By the way, I'd also be willing to chip-in.

No man.. the bolded part is EXACTLY what is needed. This Aggression will not stand!

The Squeaky wheel gets Greased my friend..