On 5-19-05 we received another of a number of unwanted phone calls from Channelbind (Gay Peden) begging us to buy more product. We had asked them in the past to stop emailing and calling with sales pitches, and we found this last call over the proverbial top. We fired off our last email to this company, as shown below:
On 5-19-05 we received YET ANOTHER call from you folks asking if
we wanted any channelbind covers. We have delivered this message
to you in the past, but apparently you did not understand it. Let
us try to be more succinct: CEASE AND DESIST. If we want your
product, WE will contact YOU. We receive emails from you all the
time which we consider SPAM; we receive actual phone calls from
you as well, all asking if we want to order something from you.
When we run low on covers, we'll order more. It's just that
simple. Your continued contacts are bothersome, they are
irritating in the extreme, they are obnoxious and outrageous. We
find them inappropriate in the extreme. Again, CEASE AND DESIST.
When we
need your product we will order it, not before.
DO NOT REPLY! That will only cause us to repeat this message
through our attorney, the cost of which you may be liable for.
Now most semi-intelligent folks in the world today would GET THAT. Not so, Channelbind execs: At roughly 13:45 Pacific, on 5-23-05, we received another call from a male voice which was obviously agitated, angry, and in our view, belligerent. He demanded to know who he was speaking to. We replied that it was HE who was calling US, and that it was customary if not polite for the caller to identify themselves first as a point of courtesy. This seemed to miff the caller but he then blurted out that he was the president/owner of Channelbind and that he was directing us to stop sending nasty emails to his company (referring to the specimen above). By this time we'd had more than enough, and we replied with obscenities advising this man to once again STOP CALLING US(!) and promptly hung up.
(1) We have notified Channelbind repeatedly over the past year or two to cease and desist contacting us [for purposes of sales solicitation]. They have refused to comply.
(2) We advised Channelbind specifically and pointedly on 5-19-05 to cease and desist contacting us or face possible legal action, as we considered their unwanted contacts to be intentionally irksome. Channelbind refused to comply but instead immediately called us directly and were told to cease and desist again, and a short time later actually sent us a fax! These are documented events.
We then submitted a formal police complaint against Channelbind to the Spartanburg police department.
We’ve had Channelbind’s dealers tell us that every time they try to perform the simplest of tasks with their supplier, such as ordering more covers, they end up slamming down the phone and screaming for five minutes. We’ve had ex-Channelbind dealers tell us that they stopped interacting with Channelbind for the very same reasons. It’s as if this company’s official policy is to stay awake nights trying to find ways of pissing off its customers. Even today, dealers and ex-dealers who've read this page have emailed to say THANK YOU. That's a sad state of affairs.
UPDATE 6-8-05
We've received a call from one "Alan Wood" of the Spartanburg, S.C. Sheriff's office. Alan has personally contacted Channelbind (he actually drove over there) and has spoken with a "Todd". Channelbind has assured the Sheriff's office that they do not spam, that they never spam, and that they only send emails to existing customers, and only make sales calls to existing customers. Well, many people call that SPAM! Of course the minute one of those customers advises the company that its emails and phone calls are unwanted, the spams become even more unsolicited and the continued phone calls may be considered criminal harassment, depending on the content and the prosecutor's interpretation of local laws. The professionalism and competence of Alan Wood of the Spartanburg S.O. was, in our view, above and beyond the call of duty. --If only the Northwest had law enforcement officers of this caliber.
The reader should realize that virtually every interaction we've ever had with Channelbind was, in our view, bizarre. Their ordering process was in our view amazingly, astoundingly backwards, cumbersome and counter-productive. For instance, if a company wanted to make its products available to the widest possible customer base, how might one do that? You might erect a simple web page with a listing of your products and a BUY button next to each. Unfortunately, Channelbind told us that they will "never" adopt that system. So to order covers from Channelbind -- and it's been this way for years -- one must figure out the product numbers of the items you want; then call or fax the company and give them your request. A day or so later you'll receive a fax which quotes a price. Then you must receive another fax of the waiver shown above, promising to give up your easiest and most effective mode of recourse should Channelbind ship you a bad batch. Once you've also completed that and faxed it back, you can review Channelbind's quote. If you accept the price, you must complete more blanks on that form and fax it back. When Channelbind receives it, they'll fax you back with an estimate of when your order might be ready -- usually three or more weeks in the future. This is in our view one Hell of a lot of nonsense for an order of a few hundred bucks. But Channelbind vehemently disagrees and steadfastly stands by this ordering method, at least as of our last interaction with them. How many more covers might a company sell if all the customer need do was click a button and be done with it?
Their business practices and policies are just plain nuts in our view, and in our view, dealing with Channelbind was like trying to do business with the Addams Family-- except that the Addams Family was at least entertaining. Every interaction with Channelbind was unpleasant---nearly painful, and this precise sentiment is in our experience widespread. That means that subsequent unwanted contact was even more irritating. We wanted to buy their products because they're the only company offering this particular product, but we frankly hated their guts and sure as Hell didn't want to interact with them or hear from them in any capacity except to buy the product and then wash our hands afterward. Many companies seem to think that once you've purchased something from them, they have carte blanche to pester and harass you to buy more. These companies need to finally begin to understand that this practice generally dissuades far more customers than it creates. Customers simply want to buy the products they need, and then to be LEFT ALONE unless they specifically indicate otherwise.
Our customers should know that we have several years worth of Channelbind covers in stock, all of which we modify heavily before we'll use them or send them out to customers, but that when they're gone, we'll find another method of binding. We'll never interact with Channelbind again.
The above text was probably to be the end of this web page. We had no interest or intention of posting anything further here. Unfortunately, Channelbind has forced us to append their latest shenanigans. Our research as a result of the continuing unpleasant problems with Channelbind (below) have convinced us that the interest in this product (or lack of the product) and the need for a competing product is far greater than we ever realized. Therefore, the review continues:
UPDATE 9-15-05:
One might suppose that the brilliant minds at Channelbind would have gotten the message and LEFT US ALONE after the above exchange. Not so. These folks seem to be utterly incapable of learning.
On 9-15 (exact time is pending as we await our phone records), the ex-wife received a call at her place of work from a man who, she said, grudgingly reported his identity as "Tim Sheedy". His manner was, she said, gruff. He would not tell her what he wanted except that he wished to speak with the [author of the document(s)]. So why was he calling an unrelated business across town which the [author of the document(s)] has never worked for but which employs the owner's ex-wife?
No one knew who this guy was for a day or two, which was perplexing because the owner's ex-wife had been struggling through a stalker situation at her place of work -- seems a nut-job who had kidnapped her at age 14 was back after thirty years, making calls to her workplace, saying he was going to "get her again".
Mr. Sheedy finally showed his hand, however, when he delivered to the owner's ACTUAL address the following letter. The letter was written BEFORE the phone call was made -- so one might inquire, if this attorney knew the actual address of the owner, then why did he pester the man's ex-wife at her place of work across town? This kind of nonsense is representative of all our experiences with Channelbind, and it seems this peculiar behavior has been transferred to their attorney.
In any case, Sheedy's letter to [the author of the document(s)] appears below, and below that, the response.
Our standing message to this firm is below:
Tarbell Professional Association
"Attorneys" at Law
45 Centre Street
Concord, NH., 03301
In receipt of yours of 9-12-05.
First, we are prepared to supply at trial, emails Channelbind sent to us over the years, ALL of which were UNSOLICITED and as such, UNWANTED and irritating in the extreme. Just because someone buys a product from a company, does NOT automatically give that company the legal (or moral) right to send unsolicited emails (spams) to that customer. This is doubly and triply true when that customer specifically and pointedly contacts the company and asks, nay DEMANDS that the contacts cease, as they are unsolicited, unwanted and intrusive. The former may be deemed spam; spam may be illegal in some states (like Washington), regardless of the point of origin. But when that unwanted contact continues even in the face of repeated demands that it stop, as in the latter, it transcends the anti-spam laws and may be construed at trial as actual criminal harassment. In addition, it is ALSO illegal, at least it used to be and we believe it still is, to make sales calls to cellular phones. Channelbind has done all of the above, and that is a fact. If you'd like us to prove it in court, we'd be absolutely delighted to do so. Channelbind even continued contacting us by fax after being told pointedly and in no uncertain terms that we considered their contacts to be unwanted and possibly illegal. This, to us, represents an arrogance that is out of control.
But be all that as it may, you have less than no grounds for demanding that we remove our editorial opinion and product review from public view. Our content, including the Channelbind document, falls squarely and securely within our First Amendment rights. To wit: The content is newsworthy; we, as an Internet business, are painfully aware of the public's appraisal of Internet sellers. The public's assessment of the relative trustworthiness or lack thereof of Internet businesses is central to our ability to attract sales and make a living. The public, as well, needs and requires a means of collecting accurate assessments of Internet businesses, so as to be in a position to decide whether or not they want to do business with any particular company or, indeed, do business on the Internet at all, with anyone. There are hundreds of site which offer this service; perhaps the largest and most well known is Epinions. Go sue them, if you like, and see how far you get. The Internet is rife with opinions regarding our business and every other business on the net. It would be beyond absurd on an order of magnitude for us to threaten to sue those posters unless they lie. The public not only wants to know how "safe" the Internet is to shop on, they need to know, they deserve to know, and if America is to continue to reap the benefits of an active Internet marketplace, the public MUST know how they might fare by doing business online. The Internet and the reality and prospect of Internet commerce is unarguably the hottest thing going today. The public needs to know that when their transactions online don't go well, there is the availability of recourse. The public needs to know that they can freely and publicly exchange opinions and facts with others regarding their experiences with ANY company doing business on the net. And that's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg with regard to this issue.
The First Amendment, according to our First Amendment attorney, gives us the right to state our opinions in a public forum regarding events and situations that are of public interest. We feel that it is more than a right -- it is a moral obligation. Whether or not the Internet will survive as a viable means of conducting business is one of the most central issues facing Americans and the American and world economy today. We'd love to hear you argue to the judge that the issue is not newsworthy. We'll post the transcript right here on this web page.
We suggest you refer back to the document in question. The document clearly states that it contains and represents our opinions. The document clearly states that it is an editorial commentary. Throughout the document we clearly and repeatedly state that we are voicing beliefs and opinions.
Your energies are so far displaced in this endeavor as to make us embarrassed for your lack of competence -- and you should be ashamed of yourself for taking Channelbind's money. We imagine that Channelbind's reputation will end up far worse off than it is today, as a direct result of your interference here. We imagine you've told Channelbind great tales about how you can get this content removed from public view. We call your bluff. Of course, attorney's will be attorneys.
Your ridiculous call to the owner's ex-wife on 9-15 was unwanted, it served no purpose, and we cannot believe that you could possibly think it would serve any purpose except to intimidate , scare, and/or annoy [the author of the document(s)]. You could not have thought it could have served any legitimate purpose. The apparent fact that you refused to state your business caused her concern, and possibly even fear, given her recent difficulties with a stalker. You clearly knew the address of the owner BEFORE you decided to call his ex-wife. You knew you had mailed the attached letter to the owner's address because it was postmarked well before the date you made the call, yet you STILL took it upon yourself to later call the ex-wife, even before you knew whether the letter had been received! What's wrong with you? We consider this, since it had no legitimate purpose and no possibility of having a legitimate purpose, an instance of behavior that will elicit from us a police complaint. At trial, this behavior may be considered a crime by the court. You will cease and desist in this activity.
We note, also, that you have sent another letter to the owners of the San Francisco server-farm where our server resides. Exactly what did you hope to accomplish with that stunt, beyond merely annoying the server owners? They would respond to no contact from you short of a court order to remove the page in question -- which has been mirrored on another server anyway. We consider your contact with Serve-Path to be a second instance of behavior which serves no purpose other than to annoy, pester, bother -- which may at trial be proven to be a crime, since it served no legitimate purpose, and had no chance of serving a legitimate purpose. Your intent was obviously to pester and intimidate [the author of the document(s)], if not Serve-Path itself.
You state that we have posted statements which are "false and misleading". We've gone through the document with a fine-tooth comb (even, again, after receiving your letter). We can find no statement which cannot be backed up with documentation, or which is clearly represented as opinion.
Look, Tim: Channelbind is, in our view, one of the most bizarre companies doing business on the Internet today. We can supply emails from almost every company representing their products that we've spoken to [in the US], attesting to the very same assessments and opinions, and the very same experiences we've endured. The Channelbind folks are, in our humble opinions, whacked. They're counter-productive. They're just plain stupid. They run that business so unprofessionally as to be absolutely shocking to us, and, documentably, to almost every dealer they have out there who we've spoken to or heard from over the years. Our suggestion to Channelbind is to hire a competent, professional firm to take over the business for them in its entirety. Their sales would increase by 20-100 times in three years. They make a usable product (after mods and refinements) -- but trying to EXTRACT that product from those bozos is simply too difficult, maddening and time-consuming for most of us who would otherwise have used it. Assuming Channelbind continues as it is now, they're going to find themselves paying you, or other attorneys, every week or month to try (unsuccessfully) to put out these fires. Our advice to them is to stop giving everyone so much fuel for the fires, and they'll go out on their own.
We're utterly confident in our legal position here, Tim. We've researched our approach thoroughly, under the guidance of our dedicated First Amendment attorney. If you feel as though you can file a suit and win, we suggest you go for it. Of course the filing of such a suit would result in the instantaneous filing of a counter suit seeking damages against Channelbind for attempting to strip us of our civil rights of free speech and for specifically unwanted contact which may be proven in court to be of a criminal nature.
It's up to you.
Since you have no legitimate reason to contact us again (you had no legitimate reason to contact us this time either and as an "attorney" you should have known that), and since you had and have no legitimate reason to contact the owner's ex-wife (good freaking grief), and since we see your contact as unwanted, unwarranted and of no legitimate value whatsoever , and since we see this ploy by Channelbind as simply another instance of "pestering by proxy" (you), we're going to strongly suggest that all of you simply f--ck off. Enough is enough. Cease and desist.
We’ve watched a thousand times as attorneys just like you take their clients’ small problems and turn them into huge problems, all the while knowing they have no hope of winning the case for the clients, but also knowing they'll make money either way. This is a disgusting work ethic, Tim. We would hope that Channelbind seek more competent representation. Or not. You have no legitimate grounds here. Do your First Amendment homework. Then back off.
[signature]
9-15-05
This page reviewed & OK'd on 9-15-05 by Elena Garella, attorney, Seattle, Washington.
New developments will be appended here:
UPDATE 9-21-05:
At 14:50 on this date we received further unwanted telephone contact directly from Tim Sheedy. Sheedy had been advised to cease and desist. Sheedy was also made aware that we are represented by council (he acknowledges in writing reading the document which advised of that fact!) and as such we may not be contacted by him. Sheedy has now, in our view, engaged in specifically unwanted contacts which may be proven in court to be of a criminal nature. Sheedy's latest communication is posted below as a .gif. The following procedures are being instituted at this moment:
(1) A formal complaint is being filed with Seattle Police and Concord police.
(2) An additional complaint is being re-filed with Spartanburg police against Channelbind Corporation (Sheedy is acting on their instructions).
(3) A restraining order is being filed against Sheedy and Channelbind.
(4) A bill is being prepared for the time we are investing in this matter. It will be presented to Sheedy and to Channelbind. Neither will pay. One or both will be sued by Proxy in small claims court in their locale for this (and any future) amounts.
(5) A complaint to the New Hampshire BAR is being prepared re Sheedy's actions to date.
Spartanburg police told us that Channelbind had informed them they were going to purge their files of our records, so that there was no possibility of them "accidentally" contacting us again. Unfortunately Channelbind didn't do that. Instead, Channelbind supplied our private fax number to a slippery attorney so HE could begin pestering and annoying us, and even the ATTORNEY won't stop when instructed to cease and desist. Our fax machine is password protected. It's set up that way to eliminate fax-spams. Channelbind was given an access code exclusive and specific to them, and that is the code they passed to this "attorney". Unsolicited faxing is protected by its own specific laws. But even if that were not the case, unsolicited faxing AFTER you've been told to cease and desist, can constitute an activity which may be deemed a criminal act by the courts.
We did state flatly and clearly that we believed Channelbind was nuts. We believe they have sought out the service of an attorney of the very same ilk. This attorney continues to dig a hole for himself and his client. So be it.
We continue to receive emails from Channelbind's dealers in support of our efforts.
This most recent stunt by Sheedy at the direction of Channelbind serves to lend credibility to our appraisal and assessment of Channelbind.
We'll post a short response to Sheedy's amazing document shown above. We'll not mail it to Sheedy as we simply don't care if he reads it -- he seems clearly incapable of understanding it if he did. We do log his Internet connections to this page daily.
The page above is only page #1 of however many sheets Sheedy fed to our fax machine. After one sheet printed, it ran out of paper. Sheedy was told in no uncertain terms to cease and desist, yet, as with Channelbind, he did not. The above fax is considered a third instance of specifically unwanted contact by Sheedy, which may eventually be proven in court to be of a criminal nature. The first was his first fax, the second was his unwanted phone call to the owner's ex-wife (which Sheedy now denies making, but more on that later), and the third is the fax immediately above. Most prosecutors won't actually go ahead and file a charge until there have been three instances of unwanted contact. It could be that a prosecutor would see the first instance as a gray area, and might hold off until there were actually four. Is Tim Sheedy of the "Talbott Professional Association" a liar with regard to his written statement that he did not call the owner's ex-wife's place of work? The documentation will tell the story. Will that be enough to sway the prosecutor right back to going with just these three instances of unwanted contact? Perhaps. The owner's ex-wife did, in point of fact, receive a disturbing call from a man who identified himself as Tim Sheedy. This occurred in late morning or early-afternoon (Pac time) of 9-15-05. Unless Sheedy has someone going around impersonating him, and we'd stake our lives on the high probability that he does not, then it would seem Sheedy engaged in unwanted and inappropriate contact with a person not connected in any way with this case -- then lied about it in the above fax. We realize that Sheedy comes from a kind of backwoods area of the country. Perhaps Sheedy is not aware of the tools available for rooting this kind of thing out. So here's how it's going to work: The owner is filing a complaint against Sheedy with two law enforcement agencies (SPD and in Sheedy's home town). The owner's ex-wife is filing her own complaints to both agencies asking that Sheedy not be allowed to contact her again for any reason. The owner will request a case number from each agency. Either case number, if supplied, will enable his attorney with subpoena authority. He will then subpoena Sheedy's home, office, and cell phone records to look for the call placed to the 206 area code on 9-15. If it's there, he will proceed with several new complaints, not the least of which will be to the BAR Association. If it's not there, it will be assumed that the call was made from a phone not registered to Sheedy, and he will subpoena a thing called an AMA Dump. That will show the origin of every single call that came into the business in question on that date. That data will then be supplied to the New Hampshire BAR, and to both involved law enforcement agencies as possible documentation of the belief that Sheedy has lied about this contact because he knows full well the contact was unwanted and inappropriate and is trying to cover it up. We have actually gone through this exact same procedure with a stalker who had once kidnapped the owner's ex-wife, and we're well versed in the implementation of it. We can have it done within a week of obtaining a case number and for a few hundred bucks, all of which will be sought as re compensation from Sheedy and Channelbind. Remember, Sheedy is Channelbind's legal representative, and Channelbind may share some of the liability for any ms-deeds. We're only "pretty sure" that having an open case number in a criminal complaint will give us "subpoena authority". What will allow us to subpoena the needed phone records is the filing of any kind cause against us regarding this web page, by Sheedy or his sheedy client. Another situation which will allows us to subpoena Sheedy's phone records is our filing of an application for a restraining order against Sheedy. That will be done hopefully by 10-1-05.
Sheedy states above that our product review of the Channelbind covers isn't newsworthy. We're glad Sheedy has an opinion and he is entitled to disseminate it. In fact, by posting his counter-productive letter, we've disseminated his opposing opinion for him. We certainly didn't have to post Sheedy's laments, which consist of little more than threats and insults, and we don't have to maintain them now, but we want the reader to know Channelbind's position. Sheedy complains that our opinions harm his client. In fact, his and his client's opinions harm us -- but this is an important discussion and all sides should be aired, as we've done. Too bad Sheedy doesn't think anyone else has a right to disseminate THEIR opinion, but, as we've said before, attorneys will be attorneys, and we're not surprised Channelbind has chosen an attorney who appears to mirror their own sense of morality and competence. We don't for a New York second believe any attorney, anywhere in the land, is actually dumb enough to believe the nonsense Sheedy has spouted forth to date. As an "attorney" he's a hired gun, without morality or conscience; attorney's do what they can to keep the money flowing from their clients even if and when those clients are idiots, and in this lawyer's case, even when his ham fisted efforts only dig his clients a deeper hole. We don't believe Sheedy is doing what he thinks is best for Channelbind (their position is imbecilic and Sheedy's handling of the matter is counter-productive in the extreme), we believe Sheedy is probably actually telling his client he can win something on their behalf. We suggest that Channelbind's antics, through Sheedy, are doing more to prove our point than to help Channelbind's or Sheedy's cause.
Sheedy has suggested we find another (better) attorney. Elena Garella has fought all of our First Amendment battles over many years, and won every single case, sometimes against adversaries far more powerful than the likes of Channelbind. We'll stick with her, if Sheedy doesn't mind.
Even if our content up to this point was NOT of interest to the public (which it clearly is -- just peruse any of the thousands of blogs and pages dedicated to trying to find a reasonable method to bind books one at a time), it has become so, through Sheedy's own actions. The American public has a right to know what constitutes protected speech, and what does not. This is all the more important on the Internet, since the Internet is absolutely alive with product reviews and opinions about companies and services. To the framers of the Constitution the concept of free speech was utterly fundamental -- that's why it's called the FIRST Amendment, not the eighth or the twenty ninth.
Sheedy has challenged our right to review a product that is of the utmost importance to all the people of the world, not to mention to the livelihoods of just about every book binder in the world, and he has challenged our right to voice our opinions about the makers of that product. Imagine the global ramifications if a dimwit like this were to win. Trust us -- he won't.
Shortly we'll set up a form to solicit YOUR opinions of Channelbind, its products, other quick-binding methods and products, Sheedy and his antics, and your concept of the First Amendment and what it should protect and what it should not. We may also solicit contributions to be used in the upcoming fight. We're in this for the long haul, and we ask that anyone who values the United States Constitution link back to this page.
We understand that Xerox was at one time the parent corporation of Channelbind. Assuming that's still the case our advice to Xerox --a respected company making good products (which we hope someday usurps HP)-- would be to send a trusted employee into the field to research the undocumented opinions of Channelbind's dealers and customers. Then make changes. Big changes. And for the good of the literary world, fix the problems with these covers, and bring the manufacturing and ordering process up into the 20th century (forget about the 21st for now). Get these covers flowing to all those who want them. Make them available UPON REQUEST. Make them no more difficult to order than any other cover. Make it at least a neutral experience to interact with the company, if not even pleasant. Realistically price the Channelbind binding presses (more on that later). Provide an instructional CD that doesn't look like it was produced by fourth-graders with an 8mm film camera, give it a sound track (ours has NO sound), and don't charge $10 plus shipping for something that's worth $4 ($1 without sound). Provide a professional catalog, without typos, errors, and unclear descriptions, and show the customer base better images of what they're getting if they buy some covers. All this seems like basic, elementary stuff to us, so why isn't it being done? It frankly drives us nuts to see a product with potential, which is needed and wanted by the entire books-on-demand community, go for years essentially un marketed and poorly represented.
We confess: We're actually beginning to entertain vague thoughts of incorporating our changes and improvements to a cover design and applying for a competing patent. We don't have time for this. We don't want to do it. We'd far rather Channelbind (or, better yet, Xerox itself) do it. But we need covers. The world needs covers. And someone, somewhere should be supplying them in a professional manner.
Stay tuned! This is just the beginning...
We've told Sheedy to put up or shut up -- seems he won't do either.
The experiences we've had with Channelbind over the years, and most especially the stunts that have been perpetrated against us by Channelbind's "attorney", Tim Sheedy", at the bequest and presumably under the direct supervision of Channelbind over the past few weeks, have lead us to believe -- and we do believe this wholeheartedly and 100% -- that just about anyone who tries to do business with this company will wind up having trouble of one kind or another, sooner or later. That's a sad loss for the flow of printed information around the world.
Google search results for "book binding methods":
The Natalee (Natalie) Holloway case in Aruba has been called by newscasters "The most covered missing persons case in the history of the world, second only to the story of Jesus Christ." Note the relative interest as shown by Google, below: 461,000 pages are talking about Natalee (Natalie) Holloway, yet over five million sites are discussing book binding methods. Still Tim Sheedy insists this discussion of book binding methods is not "newsworthy". We submit that Tim Sheedy is so out of touch with reality as to be an embarrassment to his firm....and a liability to his clients.
So how interested is the American public in the issue and definition of "free speech"?
Combine search results for "free speech" and "First Amendment" and you get nearly 200 million results. That's a web page for each and every adult in the United States of America.
Does Channelbind think that the owners and authors of all three hundred and sixteen million web pages that feature product reviews should be sued and prevented from voicing their opinions in public, or does Channelbind only object when their product is reviewed?
(Above) The Channelbind binding machine. Channelbind makes 2 sizes; the above is the larger of the two; the smaller version is limited to thin covers and as such is not really worth considering as a purchase. The larger machine binds all sizes and is actually a fairly well made device. In fact, one could say it's over-built. Unfortunately, while it may be somewhat over-built (a machine to accomplish the same thing exactly could be redesigned and built for far less money -- some people crimp these covers with a modified shop vise), it's also vastly over-priced at something approaching a staggering $1200 (versus the shop vise at $100 with mods). We have four such official Channelbind machines, all purchased in perfect condition on eBay from businesses abandoning The Channelbind Way; prices ranged from $91 to $295. --Not a lot of resale value here. Once our covers are gone, ours will be for sale too.
Do these contraptions work? Yes, they work pretty well. We've had trouble with a couple of ours, as the adjustable portion of the crimper is prone to getting cocked and sometimes binds. We've rebuilt two of the machines just for fun, and were impressed with their sturdy guts. They're well worth $300 new. $1200 is an insult to anyone's intelligence. Were we harnessed to the task of promoting a product such as Channelbind's hard covers, we'd offer the binding machines at the lowest possible price, at least at cost, maybe even a bit under cost. We'd want those machines in every nook and cranny of every office in the world, if possible. Our reasoning would be that those customers will only ever buy one (or two) binders, but, once set up with the machines, they'd be back for dozens or hundreds or thousands of covers. We'd want to get them hooked into the system as painlessly as possible, not insult them and make it difficult for them to get started. But that's just "our opinion". Why do you think incredibly high quality inkjet printers can be bought off any shelf for a lousy hundred bucks? Printer manufacturers make their money on inks. They'll just about give you the printers, because they know you'll be back for supplies. Channelbind doesn't seem to "get" this concept, and we have no doubt that when they read this, they still won't get it -- they'll only be pissed off. Indeed, the business world is a working model of natural selection.
Update 9-24-05:
We believe we now have our 4th instance of specifically unwanted contact by Tim Sheedy. We are beginning to suspect the man is mentally handicapped.
Update 9-26-05:
Sheedy apparently has finally figured out that he may not contact us directly without incurring a police and BAR complaint (something a smart guy like this should have already known), and so has contacted our attorney, as he should have done nearly from day one. Complaints are going out to the BAR and to Sheedy's city pd regardless of his change of heart at this late date. Among Sheedy's statements to our attorney on presumably this date was something to the effect of: Channelbind is really angry, especially since [this page] ranks #2 in Google.
We submit that if Channelbind is going to continue to treat people as they have, arrogantly and belligerently, anger's something they need to get used to, because we believe people have bloody-well had enough. We think it's likely that, sooner or later, if Channelbind continues to piss people off, they'll sooner or later run across someone who won't bother with police complaints and websites, but will deal with them straightforward, in person, decisively. We truly hope that never happens. But the news is full of such unfortunate cases.
Let's see.....just how angry were we when Channelbind spammed us and wouldn't stop when asked, then resorted to actually making telephone calls to our voice mail and wouldn't stop when asked, and then made actual phone calls to us live, and when told in no uncertain terms to cease and desist, commenced to faxing us!? Trust us when we say Channelbind's anger is a flickering G--damned ember compared to ours after being pestered and harangued in such a belligerent and continuing manner. We'll never, ever forget or forgive those unconscionable intrusions.
Sheedy said Channelbind wanted to sue us formally. Then why haven't they? We'll be happy to cover the trial in painstaking detail, right here on this website -- including our counter-suit. Sheedy inquired of our attorney what it was we "wanted". Again this man shows his stupidity. Merely because HE thinks in those terms, doesn't mean honorable people do. Were we looking for some type of "compensation" or "adjustment" from this arrogant company, we might like to see a written apology from Channelbind for spamming us, another one for making unwanted solicitation calls to our cell phones, another for calling us AGAIN after being told not to, and then yet one more for faxing us again after that! We might want to see a written apology for all the shoddy covers they've sent us; we might like to see a written apology for acting like ass holes to us and to all the other Channelbind dealers we've heard from and continue to hear from. We might want to see Channelbind simply turn the cover business over to a competent, professional company, so the world can actually start obtaining and using this product as it should. We might like to see them fire the man who has been jerking our collective chains for the past few weeks, Tim Sheedy -- but before they do that, we'd like a written admission from Sheedy that he did, indeed, call the owner's ex-wife, and that he lied when he said he didn't. We suspect it'll come out in the documentation after we've subpoenaed Sheedy's phone records anyway. Sheedy might be better served by standing up on his own two little cloven hooves right now and making the admission straight out. At least that would be one tiny spark of a thing we could respect him for -- as it stands we give him no more due than a cup of rotting worm meat. He is to us merely human scum, amoral, belligerent, and unprofessional. His clients are in far worse shape now than before they contracted with him. He's one of those guys who gives comedians mountains of ammunition for all the stupid lawyer jokes. We might want to see a written apology from Sheedy for repeatedly by-passing our attorney and contacting us directly, even though he was told repeatedly to cease and desist, simply hoping for some "intimidation points". What a low-class scum-bag. Even with an apology, the complaint still goes to the BAR, but at least Sheedy would have stood up and made some sort of show of being a man. Or maybe that's simply how people act in New Hampshire? And if we were in a mood to barter over this web page, which at the moment we most assuredly are not, what might we offer in return? Perhaps we'd agree not to post any new material to this site, and God knows there's plenty left to post. We haven't even begun to post our emails from Channelbinds existing and ex disgusted dealers. But to even agree not to post new material would go against any and every moral teaching we've ever taken to heart. To us, it would be like negotiating with terrorists, and all that accomplishes is to encourage more terrorism.
We'll be working with our attorney over the next days. We're going to sit down and talk at length -- we owe her a lunch or two anyway. Perhaps she'll advise us to advise Sheedy to advise Channelbind to go piss up a rope. Perhaps she'll have some other advice. In the meantime we'll continue onward with complaints to the police and to the BAR. Our efforts to go after Sheedy for his outrageous misconduct in this matter aren't negotiable, regardless of any arrangement we might or might not ever come to with Channelbind. We want Sheedy's ass for what he's done, and there's a fair or better chance we can have it on a stick. We don't LIKE seedy attorneys, no one does, and we've had a belly full of them, like everyone else, enough to last several lifetimes, especially ones who threaten us with nonsense, who repeatedly contact us after being told to cease and desist, who contact our relatives or friends for absolutely no logical reason except to intimidate and pester, who should have learned by now that there are people in the world who really do believe in principle and the outdated concept of right and wrong and who will, by God, stand up and fight to their last dollar and, literally, to their dying breaths, literally to their dying breaths, to protect virtually the last right they have left in this dubious Democracy -- the right to voice their opinions and state the facts. If we truly no longer have that right, then we have nothing left, and we may as well go out swinging. The Sheedys of the world, and the Channelbinds of the world can go f-ck themselves. If we no longer have the right to voice our opinions and state facts as facts, then we truly have nothing left to lose. We're betting we DO still have that right, at least for now. Does a dirty little New Hampshire attorney and the likes of Channelbind really want to try to take it away from us? Our statement at this particular moment would be for them to bring it on. Stop threatening, stop annoying, stop pestering, stop trying to wheel and deal your ways out of the mess you've brought on yourselves through years of stupid business practices, and take your best shot. And then we'll take ours. Is that position likely to change in the near future? Who can say.
Update 10-4-05:
We've asked our attorney to ascertain from Sheedy exactly, specifically and verbatim what his client's objections are to this web page. We need to see an actual transcript of the precise words, phrases or sentences that Sheedy believes are actionable. All we've heard from Sheedy to date have been vague references to things that are not actually contained in this page, and complaints about our opinion of Channelbind. Nothing, to date, that Sheedy has griped about has been actionable in even the most liberal interpretation of the law. We're unable to appropriately respond to Sheedy's complaints without knowing exactly what it is he and/or his clients are complaining about. We've not yet received a reply.
Rumor is coming to us, unconfirmed (we'll try to obtain a written verification from the messenger), that Channelbind (and "counsel") are threatening to sue us for something said on this page but subsequently edited out days, weeks or months ago (they haven't specifically said what, therefore we are unable to address it or even respond) but will graciously forgo any such suit if this current page is removed from public view. This is a common tactic of sleazy attorneys everywhere. Channelbind and suckerfish (Sheedy) do not yet seem to comprehend that intimidation is a tactic we react to badly. We offer the following purely for entertainment purposes:
Extortion: ex·tort (¹k-stôrt“) tr.v. ex·tort·ed, ex·tort·ing, ex·torts. To obtain value from another by coercion or intimidation. [Latin extorqure, extort-, to wrench out, extort : ex-, ex- + torqure, to twist; see terkw- below.] --ex·tort“er n. --ex·tor“tive adj.
Update 10-5-05:
Our First Amendment attorney, Elena Garella, has gone over our material for a second time on this date. Neither she or us can find a single line, sentence, reference, phrase or paragraph that could even remotely be construed as actionable. We have purposely omitted a good deal of material which may have even approached actionable content, however we are beginning to wonder what the point of such a conservative approach is, if we're going to continue to endure threats and at the hands of Channelbind's minion, Tim Sheedy.
Complaints to the New Hampshire BAR and to both police departments in question are moving forward. Our application for a restraining order against Sheedy will allow us to subpoena his phone records, and we look forward to posting the results.
While we do not respond to intimidation and threats, we do respond to honor, logic, decency and straightforwardness. It's too bad neither Channelbind or Sheedy seem to have any of those qualities at their disposal.
Update 10-6-05:
Our attorney sent out the following letter to Sheedy and his response appears below that image:
Elena Luisa Garella, P.C.
Attorney at Law
927 North Northlake Way, Suite 301
Seattle Washington 98103
(206) 675-0675 Fax: (206) 632-7118
law@garella.com
October 5, 2005
Timothy G. Sheedy
Tarbell Professional Association
45 Centre Street
Concord, NH 03301
Fax: 603/225-5398
Dear Mr. Sheedy:
I have communicated with my client with respect to his statements about ChannelBind on [the author of the document(s)] web site. As you suggested, I asked him what he wants. Apparently, he wants nothing other than to maintain his commentary on the web page as it now exists and for ChannelBind representatives to cease contacting him.
I have handled many First Amendment cases and am well-aware that there is civil recourse for defamation. If you point to any particular statement on the current site that is defamatory, I will advise my client to remove it. It appears to me that the critical statements on the page are either clearly opinion or simple, verifiable, facts.
With respect to allegedly defamatory statements in the prior incarnations of the page, I suggest the following: First, the page is clearly opinion and it is unlikely that any reasonable person would construe any particular statement as other than opinion given the context. Second, establishing damages for statements that are on the web for a few days will be virtually impossible.
Again, if your client has concerns about any particular content, I will certainly pass them on.
Yours truly,
Elena Luisa Garella
Sheedy responded as follows; we understand the image quality is horrible; it's the best copy we have at present:
And our response to Sheedy:
Sheedy asks that we remove references from this site which allege criminal acts on the part of himself or Channelbind. We can find no such allegation on this page. We have merely pointed out that a court of law may find certain acts to be of a criminal nature. Or maybe it won't! Take, for instance, the OJ Simpson trial. It appears an entire nation was wrong on that one.
In the next paragraph Sheedy complains that "some other" allegations made on this website against or about him are "unfounded and untrue". Unfortunately, again, Sheedy does not tell us exactly what statements he's referring to, so it's not something we can address.
In Sheedy's third paragraph he states, "If your client really believes my client and I have engaged in criminal misconduct then he should press charges".
Done. The complaints are on the way to the appropriate agencies.
Sheedy states it is his understanding that [we] have purchased very few covers from Channelbind. In fact that's exactly what we said! We purchased perhaps a few hundred directly from Channelbind, perhaps not even that many. We stopped buying from Channelbind because we simply couldn't stand to interact with them. We then approached several of Channelbind's dealers, all of whom related to us their disgust with Channelbind (actually this is a little backwards -- we had approached Channelbind dealers long before we ever purchased through Channelbind, but couldn't find any who were allowed to sell in our region by Channelbind, so we then began buying directly from Channelbind. After only a few miserable interactions we dumped Channelbind and went back to trying to find dealers who could serve us, though we found none). We stated previously that "most" dealers we had spoken with related to us their disgust with Channelbind -- that was in error. We've looked back over the list and the number is ALL. None of the dealers we spoke with at that time could sell to us because Channelbind had limited the customers they could sell to, either by geographic region or by the customers' type of business. Consequently, there were NO DEALERS at that time from which we could purchase Channelbind covers. We have no idea if there are dealers who could sell to us now or not; it's moot in any case. Hence, we began buying out disgusted Channelbind ex-dealers on eBay. We did NOT raise quality issues with Channelbind because we simply could not stomach even the smallest, slightest, quickest interaction with them, and because, after having signed their rather bizarre release (see image near top of this page) we felt there probably wasn't any point in trying to extract relief from them. It was less painful to simply repair or rebuild the covers ourselves. A waiver like the one at the top of this page pretty-much signals to customers, "You're on your own -- don't even TRY to make us make good on bad products". And so we did not.
Sheedy states that quality problems with Channelbind covers is "extremely rare". Again, as stated previously, the glue issue runs to about 60% of all covers we have in stock, and we have many (too many) hundreds. We are currently working our way through several cases of "F" size in which every single cover is faulty. This requires that we repair the cover, then wait while the glue dries before we can use the cover. --So much for Channelbind's 30 second binding claim, or whatever it is. Sometimes we repair covers in batches so they'll be ready for use hours or days later if we get a rush order. We'll be happy to post a picture of every single faulty cover if that's what Sheedy wants. But we submit Channelbind has been hammered enough by this guy. We're actually beginning to feel a little sorry for Channelbind, considering how their attorney has hamfistedly mishandled and stirred up this case. We had never intended to post 85% of this page, but each and every time Sheedy comes at us with more and more and even more nonsense, we are compelled to respond.
Lastly, Sheedy states that if [we] will not correct or retract our "false and misleading" statements, Channelbind reserves the right to "post its own" opinion and response. --Again, a stupid, stupid comment by Sheedy. We will aggressively defend Channelbind's right to post its opinion and response! Another page regarding this disgusting problem will bring more light to bear upon it. Why would we post Sheedy's opinions and responses above, if we were not willing to also defend and uphold Channelbind's right to post? If Channelbind lies, they'll be sued. We don't lie -- in fact we have, on this page, backed so far away from a couple dozen comments and observations we'd LIKE to make public that we feel we've only told a half-truth about this company as it is. It remains in question whether it would be in Channelbind's best interests to post a response, especially since we've already posted their "attorney's" opinions and rebuttals, but if Channelbind wants to post a page, we say go for it -- we can always use the traffic. Certainly the smart folks at Channelbind realize that we, also, reserve the right to respond to their response. Who knows, maybe this will be become a National Debate!
We might caution Channelbind in one last way. Here's a paraphrased comment from one of their dealers (this dealer asked us not to publicly post their opinions, fearing retaliation by Channelbind (whoa! why would they fear that?)):
"We have never seen a company with such an amazing talent for pissing off its customers."
Our point is that Channelbind's dealers and customers already know what they're dealing with. A page posted by Channelbind to the contrary is going to elicit little more than laughter.
Still, we absolutely promise, if Channelbind wants to post a page, we'll be happy to post a great big red link to it at the top of this one.
With the exception of posting Sheedy's phone records once we've obtained them by subpoena, and with the possible exception of posting our complaints to the Spartanburg Sheriff, Sheedy's local PD and Sheedy's BAR association, we end this commentary here. That is to say we hope we're allowed to end it here. We actually wanted to end it a long time ago, but this guy Sheedy simply wouldn't stop digging open the wound. With attorneys like Sheedy, does Channelbind need enemies?
We have to say that it is true we've hated and detested Channelbind since our very first interaction with them. But we don't believe we hate them as much as Tim Sheedy seems to. We can think of people in this world who we consider to be nothing short of evil and who would absolutely deserve the attentions of the likes of Sheedy. But we don't consider Channelbind to be evil, just pompous and arrogant and misguided and incompetent....and we don't believe they deserved this guy. A competent, intelligent attorney could have resolved this matter to everyone's satisfaction with one or two polite communications -- not threats and intimidation and pointless calls to ex-wives. Those are the tactics of a mad dog. We like mad dogs and wannabe bullies, in the same way we like the rats at the county dump, the rattlesnakes that used to strike our horses on rustler patrol in Nevada, and the pit bulls who go after children. If Channelbind doesn't extract one other damned thing from this entire experience we would hope they and their attorney get this: When someone tells you to leave them alone, leave. them. alone. It's a simple concept that most humans learn by about the age of five.
We herewith (lawyers just love to say herewith) make one last offer to Tim Sheedy, and it is this: We are willing to pay for polygraph testing of Tim Sheedy regarding the issue of the "mysterious" call to the owner's ex-wife on the condition that Sheedy pass it. If he fails, he pays. Pass or fail, we'll post the results right here. We'll make a list of all examiners within, say, a 100 mile radius of Sheedy and allow a neutral party to draw one from a hat. This is a legally binding, bona fide offer. What better way for Sheedy to exonerate himself and show us to be utter baboons? No honorable man could possibly turn down such a challenge. Sheedy need only contact our attorney to set the matter in motion.
Our response to Sheedy's statement (see his latest letter above) that he has made no further contact with us is below, a certified letter sent to the owner's home address by Sheedy. We'll post his phone records if and when available.
Future developments, if any, will be, as always, appended here.
----------------------------------------------
UPDATE 7-6-06
----------------------------------------------
Back in early 2006 Channelbind apparently teamed up with Hewlett Packard in yet another sleazy, underhanded attempt at shutting down this page and a page we maintain about HP's follies as well. Channelbind had tried every legal trick in the book, including intimidation, threats, smears, you name it, to get this page off the web, and was obviously unsuccessful, so they thought they'd try something new. They sent a letter to our host (at that time) informing the host that this page was in violation of that host's "acceptable use policy" (AUP). This is one of the common tactics corporations and dishonest attorneys use to circumvent the First Amendment, and if the host isn't too bright, and in this case Serve-Path was anything but bright, the ploy will work. Serve-Path was using an AUP which stated that no content on their servers could, essentially, be disliked by anyone else. All Channelbind had to do was serve Serve-Path with a letter saying they didn't "like" the content of this page, and Serve-Path would be in violation of their own published AUP if they didn't remove the content. It might have worked, too, if HP hadn't pulled the very same stunt the day before. Serve-Path fell for that ploy from HP, and as a result lost us as a customer. But by the time Channelbind got around to trying their luck the next day, Serve-Path was probably angry at having been so easily duped, and apparently told Channelbind where to shove it. The content remained posted. In order to circumvent this crap we then posted both the Channelbind and HP pages on a handful of new servers, all of which are intelligent enough not to fall for such a childish trick. If HP or Channelbind now tries to trick one of our servers and succeeds, the content will be instantaneously available on another server. And another. And another. Ad infinitum. The HP page was also re-written to include the latest stunt by HP, which made the page that much larger, which resulted in it being ranked that much higher in the search engines, which means it attracts that much more traffic. Because of this idiotic stunt by Channelbind THEIR page is that much larger as well. --Seems these folks just never learn.
We're going to paste in a paragraph we wrote in reply to an email from a company who has a keen interest in Channelbind's shenanigans. The clip is self explanatory, as shown below:
We've received a carton of documents from Europe. Seems Channelbind had been bullying some guy over there who was also selling a Channelbind cover clone, but was perfectly legal as Channelbind's patent didn't extend to that country. Channelbind put him through the wringer for YEARS with low-down, dishonest, illegal bullying stunts, and took him to court maybe a dozen times, all of which Channelbind lost. We're undecided as to whether to post the docs on Channelbind's website. Channelbind continues to pull stunts designed to shut down our web page, but so far they are unsuccessful. They have even teamed up with HP, who we maintain a far larger page about. HP was temporarily successful in using a sleazy, back-handed stunt to shut down our website about them, but the host realized what HP had done, and when Channelbind tried the exact same stunt the following day the host apparently told them to go ---- themselves, so their page remained posted on that server until we changed hosts. Seems they could save a lot of money and trouble by just treating ppl better in the first place, but that's too much of an intellectual stretch for Earth's lower life forms.
We receive communications like the following on a regular basis. Some are legitimate, some are obvious, ham-fisted attempts to set us up to say something Channelbind could use against us. Unfortunately we are unable (and unwilling) to help you with ANY Channelbind questions or problems:
Sue ----------
12:31
ip: 86.133.215.96
Hi I live in the UK, and have recently acquired a small Channelbind system secondhand on ebay. It was bought to do one specific job (bind copies of mother-in-laws life story for the family!), and looked as if it would be easy to use, and even if it wasn't we assumed that we would be able to find instructions on the internet to download just like you can for almost everything now.......but we have searched and searched with no luck. And it seems there almost none of these in the UK, so it's taken a while to even get supplies in English paper sizes. Then this evening (whilst hubby had the machine in bits, trying to work out how it worked, and discovering in the process that it had been misassembled, presumably at manufacture) I tripped over your truth or consequences page, which have kept me alternately entertained and horrified as I read through it. Perhaps their attitude explains why these machines have not taken off over here. Now to my request, is there any way that you could give us any advice on the 'mods' that you have made to improve it, a scan of the instructions, and particularly any info on what the two metal bits that slide out of the base are for. We can get it to pinch the cover, but not crush it and have no idea if it us, the machine's design, or a fault with the machone. If you can help we would be extremely grateful. Best regards Sue -------
Hi Sue,
We receive emails once or twice per week wanting to know what our "secret mods" are -- presumably from people also having trouble with Channelbind's method, or perhaps from Channelbind itself. Usually these are companies wanting to produce a useable cover with Channelbind materials. We don't reveal our secrets. We have also run across Channelbind machines that were misassembled, presumably at the factory. But since we don't use the small machines, we can't really advise you [on yours]. We, also, are not aware of any printed docs for the use of these machines. We've asked Channelbind for them (back in the days when we were still speaking to them) and they didn't reply. We've never found anything on their website except a link to BUY a cd or dvd which supposedly shows how to use the machines. We bought one directly from Channelbind for the ridiculous price of $10, but the video quality was so bad you could hardly tell what the people were doing, and there was no sound (at all). We asked Channelbind for a replacement -- never received a reply. There is at least one manufacturer in Europe who produces the covers because the Channelbind patent didn't extend to their country. You can locate that company in the European search engines. There are rumors of several more. We don't have their names at our fingertips. And we don't know if any of them make the machines. We realize we're being of virtually no help, and we apologize. We try to think about that company and its products as little as possible. Our advice is to put the machine back on eBay and find a nice thermal binder system.
NOTE: We see that the sender's IP is owned by "RIPE.NET".
------------------------------------------------------------
Further reading
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/bounddet.pdf (watch Channelbind try to sue this guy too)
Pertinent contact information:
NH Bar Association
112 Pleasant Street
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 224-6942
Fax: 224-2910
NHBAinfo@nhbar.org
Concord City Police Dept
(603) 225-8600
35 Green St
Concord, NH 03301
ATTEN: Jerome Madden, Chief of Police
Spartanburg County Sheriff
(864) 596-2540
366 N Church St
Spartanburg, SC 29303
ATTEN: Alan Wood
County Courthouse (Spartanburg)
3rd Floor
180 Magnolia St.
Spartanburg, SC 29306
Trey Gowdy, Solicitor (prosecutor)
(864) 596-2575 (Phone)
(864) 596-2386 (Fax)
mglenn@spartanburgcounty.org
Concord - District Headquarters (court)
Warren B. Rudman U.S. Courthouse
55 Pleasant Street, Suite 207
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 225-1632 Fax: (603) 225-1633
Copyright © 2005
