What I'd really like to say about Andrew Pinard would probably get this thread closed so I'll tone it down. But I invite the reader to "read between the lines."

What everybody needs to know about Pinard is how he pays back friendship.

When Pinard was getting ready to release his shells Whit Haydn & Chef Anton allowed him to purchase their Perfect Peas to include with his product. I thought this was a very kind gesture since his release was a competing product. Without their peas his shell set would have been incomplete. I doubt many other businessmen would have sold him the peas.

So what has Pinard done to return the kind gesture. The above posts tells some of the story, certainly enough to let the reader make their own decision to Pinard’s real motivation.
The Bush story is only one chapter in Pinard’s saga against Whit Haydn. It’s not my place to give you all of the gory details. I’ll leave that to Whit.

My reaction to Pinard’s actions is this: REMOVE THE QUOTE ON THE FRONT PAGE OF YOUR WEBSITE FROM ME!

If Pinard has any ethics he will remove it immediately. You know he’s reading this thread since his reputation is on the line.

I also think he should take down the quote he has on the same page from Bob Sheets. To leave it up after what he’s down would be astounding.

I’ve smashed my set of Pinard’s shells to little tiny pieces…boy, did it feel good!
I did keep the Perfect Peas…

It's always nice when the big kids play so nicely together...it makes me know the world is in good hands.
Peace Beth

This thread is getting nuts...

going to shells in a hand basket...

Peas Out...

He knew the initial low end offer would be turned down with no counter offer. I’ll even guess, to insure Mr. Bush turned him down, he offered a mere $100.00 which would certainly afford him the opportunity to say “Oh by the way, there’s someone I know using your stuff”. He did say Mr. Bush was quite irritated by the initial offer.

The rest of the letter was merely an exasperated insult. This guy manipulates words as well as I do cards - and that’s *** good! He knew what he was doing, had an objective, the ambush site had Whit’s name all over it, but in the end, the claymores went off in his face, his weapons jammed, and enemy caught HIM.




Whit, I believe, in most cases, the unscrupulous - unethical product manufacturer will not change their ways. However, the ethical consumer is supportive and loyal to businesses that share the same good views. May you and others deserving of victory see it soon and always!

As unpleasant as all this airing of dirty laundry may seem, Andrew brought it on himself.

We offered him the chance to make a general apology on the Café, accepting responsibility for all the confusions, hurt feelings and difficulties that were a result of his actions alone, and naming Steve Pellegino, Doug Bush, Bob Sheets and School for Scoundrels in that apology.

In turn, we said we would drop the matter and accept his apology, and that would be the end of everything. We wanted to give him a way out that would save face and his business.

Otherwise, we told him we would present all the facts in the case, which at that point--because Steve had changed positions, and Doug Bush had accepted our offer--I had in my hand, detailing everything that he did.

He could then defend himself as best he could.

Andrew chose to present the facts in the case himself, and to give his own explanations and descriptions of his motives and thinking by way of a defense for his actions. He claimed to have nothing to apologize for, that he did nothing wrong morally, or legally. His motives, according to him, were pure and high-minded.

Well, that is not the same thing as an apology. He put his case up for the judgement of the community. He thought that he could spin his actions in a way that would make him seem like what he did were only the fair and decent things. He asks the people on this board to accept that he acted out of best intentions, and offered the facts and his explanation for them to judge.

Normally our community can't really judge these sorts of confrontations, because we rarely have all the facts in any particular case. But here we have heard from all the relevant positions. The facts are stipulated on all sides.

We don't have any relevant disagreements with the facts as presented by Andrew. But we do not believe his explanations are true at all, and we think both his explanations and his motives are transparent to all who look objectively at what he acually did.

We are convinced that Mr. Pinard tried to stop the sales of our DVD by tying us up in a lawsuit, so that he would have a clear shot at the market with his new product. But tarring our reputations, he could publish Bob's acquitment move and call anyone who questioned that a "hypocrite"--Look what Whit did! That is the clear interpretation of the whole history from where we sit.

The result was an expensive, intentional interference in our business relationships and possible serious long term damage to the reputations of Bob Sheets, Chef Anton, and myself. We had real out of pocket expenses in trying to protect ourselves.

We also chose to pay for Doug Bush's legal expenses as well since he was an innocent victim in all these shenanigans, and we are both embarrassed and upset at the insulting treatment and cynical manipulation that he experienced.

This is not a game. It is my business and only livliehood. I can not tell you how defensive a person can get when his house and business are on put on the line by unseen forces and unknown enemies.

Andrew claims that all this is just good business practice. His closest advisors agreed with him. We think he should get classier advisors.

We want to ask the Magic Community here on this forum--where the evidence is undisputed and all they have to do is decide who acted honorably in the traditions of our community and who didn't--to let their voices be heard.

Should craftsmen honor and respect each other's work and support each other, or are the machiavellian manipulations of those who want to succeed at the expense of the real creators going to be accepted among us?

We were intentionally held up to judgement and ridicule by the manipulations of Mr. Pinard. Many here and on the various blogs rushed to judgement before the facts and called me a thief, a criminal, and many other names that I can not reprint on this forum. It hurt, especially since I could not respond for a week or more because of our ongoing negotiations.

It kept me busy for a week, answering e-mails, talking to all my friends and letting them know that we had not done the terrible things of which we were accused.

I am a new grandfather, and this has taken my time and attention away from my new granddaughter--a week that I won't have back again. This awful chain of events cramped the buzz I should have been enjoying, and interfered with my setting up our new Scoundrels Forum and attending to other more productive endeavors.

Until he was forced to either apologize or try to explain himself, Andrew Pinard remained silent and let everyone else, including his friend Steve Pellegrino, on their own to twist in the wind.

Well, many were quick to come to judgement before the facts were in.

Now that they have the undisputed facts and can attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff in the various accounts, where is the rush to judgement now--now that it is truly appropriate and in fact required by all fair-minded people?

Where are those who pretend to be fearless arbiters of taste and morality now when they should be taking a stand?

As far as I am concerned, I will accept nothing less from Andrew than an admission and apology. Until that time, he deserves whatever rebuke the members of the community wish to give him.

If we have a law for magicians that is above the law of copyright and patent, then how else do we enforce it, except right here within the community by the proper exercise of the reasoning and judgement of its members.

What else can bring Andrew Pinard to apologize and make things right if not the weight of opinion of his peers?

Interesting and a relief to see that some good opinions formed of Bob from a quick meeting in person, and Whit from some PM's on the Café were bourne out when a tough situation came to pass. No regrets sending Whit a story to go with his favroite trick.

Not sure what to think when someone's business dealings are not congruent to their ethical or artistic stance. I guess wary is the right response to that for now. Also saddened.

I have known Bob Sheets since he first moved to the Washington, D.C. area many years ago. I have also known Whit since he was a theological student in Northern Virginia which was also more than a few years ago. In all this time, I have always regarded both of these gentlemen as being highly ethical in their presentation of magic both in performance and in what they have offered for sale to the magic community. Both are extremely knowledgeable, crative professionals who have struck me as always being careful to credit other magicians for any inspiration or influence on the magic they performed or sold.

For the record, Bob Sheets asked me over a year ago if I knew anything about Doug Bush, if he was alive and, if so, his whereabouts. I had perviously acquired the Dr. Beaumont manuscript and knew that Bush was the author but did not know his current status. I inquired of a number of my knowledgeable magician acquaintances in the Southeast and found they most of them had already been approached by either Bob or Whit with the same request. I could not find anyone who knew how to contact Bush or if he was still alive.

While I have purchased his shells from him, I do not personally know Andrew Pinard.

While my personal knowledge of Bob and Whit is sufficient to make me believe they could have only behaved properly in this manner, had I never met either of them, my reading of what both they and Mr. Pinard have posted here offers the strongest of reaffirmations of my original opinion. After reading Mr. Pinard's posting, I can understand why lawyers are reluctant to allow defendants to testify for themselves.

Bob and Whit, your reputations are certainly unblemished in my viewpoint. My recommendation is to move forward with your other works in progress on The Three Shell Game. I can only expect a continuation of the same high standards you have consistently displayed in the past. I will certainly support your efforts.

Bill Wells

There was nothing peaceful or loving about Andrew Pinards behind the scenes work here.

IT WAS CALCULATED TO CAUSE SERIOUS DAMAGE TO THE BUSINESS AND REPUTATION OF ONE OF OUR OWN!

IT WAS NOT PEACEFUL AND IT WAS NOT LOVING!

I watched for a week as the bloggers, supplied with information designed to do one thing, beat Whit Haydn with a much harsher whip than any of you have heard here. Those boys know how to dish some pain.

Once the real story was revealed they apologized. Something else you don't see those folks do. Everyone of them get big kudo's from me for being STAND UP GUYS. It takes a real man to take the good with the bad. I think they were more embarrassed at being duped by someone with an agenda beyond the truth.

If they can admit too making a mistake, why can't THE ARCHITECT Andrew Pinard? Justify. Justify. Justify. It's too late. We've read your story Andrew. NOW WHAT?

Still waiting. bob.

What Andrew is trying to say is:

What I did here was business and in a business-like way.






Reminds me of Kokomo, 1901

The debit collector?
http://illusionata.com/mpt/view.php?id=194&type=articles

The Andrews Defence, you might call it.

Well put Paul. For those who don't know Paul, he is a stand-up guy without hidden agenda. Paul will call a spade a spade.

Bob is one of my closest friends. He has a key to my house. I would trust Bob with my life.

Whit is also a valued and trusted friend.

These guys are old school. They play by the rules and have no tolerance for those who don't.

I am not a fan of those who cause pain for no reason.

I know more about this situation. But, it is not my place to put it into cyber space.

Karma is a wonderful thing. This is one tab I would hate to pay.

-Stetson