Apart from that however is my demand:   that the censorship which occurred during the last $700 dollar ad/ was not a mistake.  It was a clear decision to bury the ad by placing inside someone else’s ad.  It was done with the clear intent to sabotage my own efforts to buy the same service as anyone else would expect.  That did not occur, and in fact placing the ad within another ad for the express and real purpose of censorship is against the law.  It is a first amendment violation/ and I will not tolerate it again under any circumstance or excuse.  You shall not do so/ or you shall open the door to legal consequences; and should you think that impossible; do look at my sites again.  Lawyers can be found, for first amendment censorship cases/ national news can occur as a consequence with this paper expressly in the middle of that conversation and lawsuit.  That is not a threat, unless you choose to bury the ad again.  That is not a threat unless you do not put my ad in the environment or national news as was bought and paid for.  That is not a threat, it is a demand for the same treatment as any other customer would expect.  And if you refuse to put it in the environment or national sections/ then you will return the money:   with an explicit reason why it cannot go in environmental or national news as any other customer would expect/ or I will seek to sue you for censorship, and denial of first amendment rights.  I will not accept anything less.  If you place my ad ANYWHERE else/ I will charge you with theft, as well, because I did not agree to purchase that.  I have purchased a specific ad within one or the other sections of your newspaper and you will deliver that to me, or legal consequences are very likely to ensue.  If you wish to establish WHY this particular ad cannot go in these sections/ you may do so: but do understand that this is a constitutional law case in the supreme court: and censoring it is unlikely to be an easy charge to support.  I DO NOT tell you where to put it in either section/ I tell you to put it in one section or the other;   OR return my money, and attach a very specific reason why you chose to deny this method of “paid for/ free speech”.   BE AWARE, your answer will or could be used in court.  BE AWARE your failure to answer with an adequate reason why this ad could not be placed where it was bought: will or could be used in court.  Not a game/ you stole my other ad by choosing to make it a deliberate part of another ad/ which is fraud.  The upper half of that page was entirely text/ and that means YOU COULD HAVE put my ad anywhere on the page.  INSTEAD you chose to commit fraud.  You sold me a personal ad/ and failed to deliver it.  Because you deliberately incorporated it into another large ad for the express purpose of burying that ad from view.  The common eye would have called it one in the same with the large ad/ and did.  As you well know and clearly expected would happen.  When you take my money, but fail to deliver the contract, which is my own personal ad/ NOT the subterfuge of combining into an alternative ad: because that is not the agreement made.  Nor would it have been the agreement ANY OTHER CUSTOMER would have made in my stead.  You stole the money/ you censored the words/ and you denied my right of free speech.  A right I paid you for a specific service to reproduce; as any other customer would have.  You chose to steal it instead.  The price for that is today:   YOU SHALL NOT DO THAT AGAIN/ without legal consequence.  There will be legal trouble. 
Treat me as any other customer that demands fair and equitable treatment.  Establish my ad properly in the sections that are environment or national:   and I will forget the fraud/ theft/ intentional denial of first amendment rights/ and failure to uphold your contractual duties.  It’s a choice.

James Frank Osterbur
7/ 21/ 11

this is a letter directed at upper management/ owner;   whosoever that is.

 

THEIR REPLY;