More Details

Authorized short report from the scene by my friend Sandy:

The Court found in favor of the plaintiffs on all points.

We have a judgement based on fraud for $1.8 Million.

We have punitive damages for $500,000

We have injunctive relief, which includes she can not further lie to promote her diet. She can not use fake photos, success stories or testimonials to promote her diet.

While we won't see a court ordered 404 message we got something even better.

Heidi must put a notice on ANY website she starts for any purpose, diet or otherwise, that explains that she lied, used fake success stories and testimonials, that she mislead, that she used deceptive practices. She is going to have to post a notice that explains that low calorie diets can be dangerous, with a list of possible adverse side effects (the wording of the notice is to be worked out between the lawyers and the judge). There is NO expiration of these notices.

The Judge included a PERMANENT restraining order wherein Heidi (or any of her socks) are prohibited against contacting in ANY form with any/all class members, class plaintiffs, lawyers, their families, their staffs (which includes me, Laura) for the rest of our lives.

Oh, all of her assets have been frozen until the judgement is entered and served.

This may be appealed, of course, but today, WE WON!!!!!

Note: Sandy and Laura (also mentioned above) are two anti-Kimkins crusaders who got involved and ended up working officially with attorney John Tiedt in the preparation of this case.




ETA: Sandy has posted the statement here

VICTORY!!!!!

The judge handed down the ruling in the Kimkins case class action lawsuit.

Justice prevails!

Details to follow.

Kimkins Class Action Official Legal Notice

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

TO: EVERYONE WHO PURCHASED A MEMBERSHIP TO KIMKINS.COM THROUGH THE KIMKINS.COM WEB SITE (www.kimkins.com) FROM JANUARY 1, 2006 TO OCTOBER 15, 2007

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT THAT IS CURRENTLY PENDING IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, IN RIVERSIDE, CALILFORNIA.

INTRODUCTION

1. On May 20, 2009, the Riverside County Superior Court, located in Riverside, California, issued an order certifying this case to proceed as a class action.

2. The plaintiffs are six individuals who bought memberships to kimkins.com through the kimkins.com Website (www.kimkins.com) from January 1, 2006 to October 15, 2007. The defendants are Heidi Diaz, an individual, and Kimkins (also known as Kimkins.com), a business entity that conducts business in Corona, California.

3. The plaintiffs contend that Diaz and Kimkins.com induced them into buying memberships for kimkins.com through false and misleading information provided on the Kimkins.com Web site. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants violated California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq., which authorizes courts to provide relief from unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices. The plaintiffs also contend that Diaz and Kimkins.com violated common law prohibitions against fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

4. This notice provides you with information regarding the litigation, including the plaintiffs’ claims against the defendants and the current status of the litigation. This notice also provides you with information regarding the court’s class-certification order.

THE LITIGATION

The Plaintiffs’ Claims

5. This lawsuit is based on the plaintiffs’ claims that Diaz and Kimkins used unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practices to induce them into buying memberships to Kimkins.com. This lawsuit is also based on the plaintiffs’ claims that the false and misleading information contained on the kimkins.com Web site constituted fraud or negligent misrepresentation by Diaz and Kimkins.

6. Here’s a list of the kinds of misconduct that the plaintiffs have alleged:

• that Diaz and Kimkins concocted a false persona, “Kim Drake” or “Kimmer” to sell memberships to Kimkins.com
• that Diaz and Kimkins misled potential members into believing that “Kim Drake” was real by using photos of real women and then falsely claiming that the photos depicted “Drake”
• that Diaz and Kimkins posted lied about “Drake’s” purported weight loss
• that Diaz and Kimkins provided false or misleading information to Women’s World magazine
• that Diaz and Kimkins fabricated 41 “success stories” and published on the Kimkins.com Web
• that Diaz and Kimkins made up celebrity endorsements
• that Diaz and Kimkins misused labels and metatags to steer Internet traffic to the Kimkins.com Website, in violation of the law
• that Diaz and Kimkins misled potential members into believing that they were buying lifetime memberships, when in fact Diaz and Kimkins.com terminated memberships at their whim
• that Diaz and Kimkins intended to mislead potential members and assumed that potential members would rely on her misrepresentations.

The Defendants’ Position

7. Diaz and Kimkins have denied all allegations of wrongdoing and liability, and they continue to deny that they have done anything wrong. Diaz and Kimkins also have asserted various affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs’ claims.

THE COURT’S CLASS-CERTIFICATION ORDER

8. In an order filed May 20, 2009, the Court granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. The Court certified for class treatment the plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief, including disgorgement of the subscription fees paid to Diaz and Kimkins by the plaintiffs and the members of the class.

9. The certified class is defined as all individuals who purchased the Kimkins.com diet membership on-line from the Kimkins.com Web site from January 1, 2006 through October 15, 2007.

THE COURT HAS NOT EXPRESSED ANY OPINIONS
REGARDING THE MERITS OF THE PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS

10. The Court ordered that this notice be provided to advise class members that this case is pending and that the Court has certified the case to proceed as a class action. You should not consider this notice or its mailing to be a statement by the Court that the plaintiffs are right or that their claims will prevail.

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLASS MEMBERS

11. You do not need to do anything to remain a member of the class. If you bought a Kimkins.com diet membership on-line from the Kimkins.com Web site from January 1, 2006 through October 15, 2007—including either of those dates—you are automatically included in the class. Your rights will be represented by the plaintiffs and their attorneys. You will not be personally responsible for any attorney fees or for the any of the costs of this litigation.

OPT OUT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT

12. You have the opportunity to opt out of the class action lawsuit as detailed herein. If you incurred a personal injury as a result of using the Kimkins.com aka Kimkins Diet, you have a right to opt out. Notices to opt must be sent to jtiedt@tiedtlaw.com or mailed to Tiedt & Hurd at 980 Montecito Drive, Suite 209, Corona, California 92879.

WHERE TO GO & WHOM TO CONTACT
SHOULD YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION

13. This notice provides only a brief summary of this litigation. For further details, you should take one or both of the following steps:

• Review the documents in the Court’s file for this lawsuit. Many of these documents may be viewed or obtained on-line at the following URL: http://public-access.riverside.courts.ca.gov/OpenAccess/ . You also may review the Court’s file in person by going to the Office of the Clerk of the Court for the Riverside Superior Court, during regular business hours. The Clerk’s office is located at 4050 Main Street, Riverside, California 92501.

• Write a letter to the attorneys who are representing the plaintiffs and whom the Court has appointed to represent the class. Here are their names and their contact information:

John E. Tiedt & Marc S. Hurd
Tiedt & Hurd
980 Montecito Drive, Suite 209
Corona, California 92879

Michael L. Cohen
Michael L. Cohen, a PLC
707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4100
Los Angeles, California 90017

Ray Moore
Moore Winter McLennan LLP
701 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 200
Glendale, California 92103-4232

If you decide to contact one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, please do so in writing. To make it easier for them or one of their staff members to respond, however, your letter should include both your e-mail address and your telephone number.

There are estimated to be as many as 40,000 members in the class. So please, DO NOT CALL THE COURT OR ATTEMPT TO CONTACT THE COURT BY E-MAIL.


DATE: ___________________________, 2009


____________________________________
Hon. _________________________,
Presiding Judge

Third Time's a Charm?

I am getting a little peeved that SOMEONE has tried to hack my old abandoned weight loss blog 3 times now in the past 8 days.

In most circumstances, I admire determination and persistence. For example, if someone actually intended to lose weight instead of "FAUX Dieting", then persistence would be an excellent commodity.

I guess that when it comes to scheming and conniving, some people really just don't know when (or how) to quit.

Putting Kimkins on Notice

Kimkins - Proposed Notice of Pendency of Class Action

Regarding the Kimkins Class Action Lawsuit: This is NOT an official notice. This notice is proposed to the court by plaintiffs’ counsel June 26, 2009. If you choose to duplicate this notice on any blog or website, this notice MUST be included.








(Many thanks to Prudentia for originally posting this. I don't know how to make the document images bigger, so you can read the full content on Prudentia's blog here.)

Hacking Attempt?

NEW UPDATE:
The hits just keep on comin', folks! That's right, someone has made ANOTHER attempt to hijack my other abandoned blog. That is the third try in a little over a week.

Desperate much?


UPDATE:
It has been a week since the previous hacking attempt. I just got notification from WordPress that a second attempt by someone else seeking to take over my blog was made today. That is a lot of interest in a 2-and-a-half year old blog with only 3 posts.

-----------------original post-----------------


OK, sometimes coincidences are just coincidences. Sometimes, they are more. Which is which?


A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, I started a WordPress blog to chronicle and hold me accountable for my weight loss. Pretty good idea --- except I couldn't figure out all the ins and out of WordPress at the time and eventually forgot my password. When I decided to renew blogging, it was easier to start all over here on Blogger than to retrace my steps on a barely-begun blog.

Two and a half years passed. I almost forgot I ever had another blog attempt. Then I just now got this email from WordPress (and yes, it is legit --- I checked that already).

Someone has asked to reset the password for the following site and username.

http://WordPress.com/

Username: xxxxxx (redacted)

To reset your password visit the following address, otherwise just ignore this email and nothing will happen.

What is up with that? It's not like it was ever a big deal blog. I think I had maybe 3 entries in all, and hardly ever any views. Why would someone want to hijack it?

Who would do that? Anyone have any ideas?

I do.

Quick Summary of the Kimkins Debacle

A 'real life' friend found this blog via a post made elsewhere and left a comment on my previous blog post, knowing nothing of the Kimkins lawsuit. Oh, my --- where to even BEGIN to describe everything that has happened in that strange sage over the last few years?! I attempted to give her a quick rundown within the limits of the 4,096 characters that Blogger allows in a comment. In case other people ask the same in future, I decided to copy my response into its own post. This is that attempt:

As for catching up on the lawsuit: Let me 'splain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.

An obese but clever sociopathic narcissist gained footage at a popular established low carb diet site, where she claimed to have lost 198 lbs. in a year and to have maintained for 5 years. Her drastic claims and caustic passive-aggressive personality sparked flame wars which ultimately provided excuse to stomp off and open a paid membership site with impressive success stories and before/after photos.

All seemed wonderful at first. People were happy and losing weight. In June, 2007, a magazine featured the diet, 40,000 people joined, and the owner made a million+ dollars in a month. But to validate her marketing claims of "No faster weight loss, none" she pushed lower and lower calories, fasting, and even daily laxative use. People began having problems, for which she ALWAYS had an explanation (usually with a little dig at the complainant.) The gloss began to wear off and the spell was broken.

People questioned things, including photos. When her responses were unsatisfactory, some of us left. Things blew up completely when, about a month later, she was photographed at 300+ lbs, with NO resemblance to her supposed 'after' photos. The site boiled with protest and she summarily banned any "lifetime" members who dared to speak up.

Various online sites and personalities got involved in internet battles. Her supporters wanted to cling to their addictively fast weight loss and the site that enabled it, though many switched sides as evidence emerged.
Her detractors/victims felt used and abused, crushed, betrayed, defrauded, and outraged.

A fiesty woman named Jeanessa stepped up and found a brilliant health-crusading attorney named John Tiedt, who believed in the case enough to take it on contingency.

Discoveries were made which revealed that Heidi Diaz lived in a labyrinthian world of her own making, a convoluted web of deviousness and deception. She never lost any significant amount of weight, even with gastric bypass surgery. Most of her success stories were complete fabrications, with photos stolen from Russian mail-order bride sites.

She has hidden behind false identities, claimed someone else owned the site, spitefully dissipated assets to keep them from her victims, and launched vengeful campaigns, legal and otherwise, against some of the principle witnesses in the case.

She tried to countersue us; the court threw it out. She tried to file bankruptcy to halt the suit; the court threw it out. She has tried threats and intimidation; it backfires.

Meanwhile, John Tiedt and associates have scored victory after victory. John has won unprecedented rulings from the court. The case has been granted class action status, and John has petitioned the court for summary judgment. Since the defendant already admitted under oath in deposition to everything in the suit, we hope the court sees it our way. We should know soon.

. . . I clearly need to tighten up my summaries and use fewer words. But, believe me, this barely scratches the surface.

This story really ought to be a book or movie.

I guess I can add that several televison news shows and newspapers have covered this.

Here is a fuller explanation from Laura Dolson of about.com:
http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/populardietplans/a/kimkinsdiet.htm
(I might quibble with a couple of minor points, such as when I actually left Kimkins vs. when 'Kimmer" admitted I had left, but this is overall a thorough, well-researched report.)

I hope this helps pull the highlights into one place.j

Some People Just Don't Learn

OK, I know I have a lot of blogging to do to catch up. Let's see . . I need to post about:

- weight loss, low carbing, good food, some recent victories in that area, etc. --- the original purpose of this blog

- the Motion for Summary Judgment in the Kimkins case, filed by Tiedt and Cohen --- Go, John and Michael!

- the attempt by someone claiming to be Diaz' attorney Peabody to ask for my personal info via blog comment (as someone named Interested) so he/she/whoever could issue me a Cease and Desist order --- yeah, that's how most attorneys do it.

BUT, then, THIS just happened!

I recently joined Twitter and was trying to get that figured out and set up.
Part of that process allowed me to check my email accounts for contacts there who are already on Twitter.

Check out the first entry on that list:


In case you can't see that, it says:
mommy25boys
Leslie Spiegel
heidi.k.diaz@gmail.com

I remember getting an email from someone named mommy25boys a while back, at least several months now. It seemed to be from a former Kimkins member who had left, but needed to lose some weight and was thinking about going back. She wanted to know what was going on, what I knew about the whole deal, whether she could do the diet safely, and so on. I remember that it 'felt' a little odd, but I had known someone at the Kimkins site who, as I recall, was Momto5boys, or something like that, so it seemed plausible. (Someone help me out on this one.) I have gotten hundreds of similar emails and private messages at various sites since I left Kimkins (in fact, I got one today on Facebook), so it did not seem unusual, except that I did have a funny feeling about that one. Still, I answered it.

I guarantee I did not see a sender email address of heidi.k.diaz@gmail.com on the email, or I would not even have opened it. Nor did I see the name Leslie Spiegel. I thought Momto5boys was named Marcy.

So, I am wondering if Heidi.K.Diaz hid the correct address somehow, redirected it or something, but Twitter somehow discerned the correct account of origin.

That seems weird and maybe implausible --- but then, everything about this whole situation has been weird and implausible!

Anyway, it would seem that, during the course of this lawsuit, Heidi Diaz emailed me under a false identity to fish for ammunition to use against me.

Heidi/Kimmer/Vanessa/Nicole/Noelle/Jeri/etc./etc./etc. use a false identity? I'm shocked! I thought she swore she has turned over a new leaf and given up her evil ways!

Heidi Diaz come after me? Oh, yeah. This is not nearly the first time she has done mean and dishonest things to get to me. Hmmm . . . so she thinks I should roll over, be quiet, and pull my blog . . . while she pulls stunts like this?

I don't think so.

We've Got Class!

Results are in! Once again, the court quickly certified the case against Kimkins as worthy of Class Action status.

As always, John Tiedt rocks!

Apparently, Mr. Peabody's arguments didn't impress much.

Then again, how could ANYONE defend what Heidi Diaz has done? She did what she did, repeatedly, flagrantly, and has already admitted to the entire basis of the suit against her under oath during deposition testimony.

So now, officially, she is being sued not by a mere handful of individuals, as she has claimed, but by about 40,000 defrauded customers.

It's ON!

Court Hearing in Process NOW!

I haven't posted here or been online much in a while after all --- long story.

But I have access to a computer this morning, and had to hop on quickly to say that the motion to certify the lawsuit against Kimkins/Diaz as a Class Action should be underway NOW.

Many people have put enormous effort for countless hours into this, wanting to see Heidi Diaz held accountable for defrauding them. Attorney John Tiedt has valiantly done some amazing work, all without recompense so far.

Here's hoping the court sees things clearly, and certifies the case for class action today (AGAIN).

The best outcome would be if Heidi Diaz is NOT allowed to prosper for her lying, cheating, and fraud, but instead her ill-gotten gain goes to recompense the people she traded on, and especially to John Tiedt for his efforts to champion her victims.

When Social Networking is Social Contagion

OK. Those of us who have been part of the Kimkins saga have come to expect the unexpected. Once we got over the staggering shock of her shadiness and the depth of her duplicity, we came to see that Heidi Diaz simply knows no shame.

I think she really does believe her own stories.
I think that, in her own Etch-a-Sketch way of thinking, she has shaken the screen of her mind to erase and redraw the beginnings of Kimkins, so that all those years of painstakingly crafted and vociferously protected lies were just a tiny well-meaning marketing blunder from "just a housewife" with no business experience.

From her revisionist viewpoint, she was only trying to help poor fat people when she was viciously betrayed by a sinister cabal of jealous and greedy ingrates. Simultaneously, though, she considers herself a shrewdly superior businesswoman who will outsmart and outlast us all.

I'll say this much for her --- she's tenacious!

Most of us would have crawled away in mortification or just plain old good sense long ago. Not her! She has bluffed, blustered, barefaced lied, blogged, blamed everybody but herself, battled in court, and now she is blasting all the social media trying to trump up new business for as few bucks as possible.

She has had blogs on and off, as herself and under other identities, for some time now. She had her Kimkins newsletter, too.

She spammed Craigslist and Freecycle pretending to be a bunch of different people in a bunch of different towns.

She spammed Yahoo!Answers and Ask.com under different guises to plug Kimkins.

She plugged Kimkins at other kinds of forums under different names, too.

She wrote pro-Kimkins puff pieces under her own name for viral article sites. I guess she has been learning about branding.

Then, with action at Kimkins dropping to almost nil, she started beating the bushes by sending past and present newsletters out to what seems like everyone who had EVER been on her mailing list, including many she has already banned from her site. I get them. My husband gets them. He never even joined Kimkins. We've both unsubscribed --- it doesn't matter. We still get them.

Then she must have signed up for a course in marketing via social media or something. She has dabbled in MySpace before, but this time she seems seriously determined.

She's all over MySpace. *yawn*

Then, she invited me to add her as a friend on Facebook and join her new Kimkins group.
*Yes, me --- you know, one of the ones she tried to sue for a million dollars a few months ago? Right!*
No way! Stay outta my Facebook, lady!

Yesterday, she sent an email saying she was following me on Twitter.
*So, you know, follow her back by clicking on the button? Sure, like that is going to happen!*
Please, lady, back off! Don't follow me on Twitter, or anywhere else for that matter.

So, tonight, my HUSBAND gets a LinkedIn notice that Heidi Diaz has joined LinkedIn and is looking to make connections.

Heidi Diaz

Owner, Kimkins

Location
Greater Los Angeles Area
Industry
Health, Wellness and Fitness

Current

* Owner at Kimkins

Connections

7 connections
Websites

* My Website
* My Blog
* My Blog

Public Profile

http://www.linkedin.com/in/kimkins

Interested In

* consulting offers
* new ventures
* job inquiries
* expertise requests
* business deals
* reference requests
* getting back in touch

Somehow, that was the last straw for my husband. He reported her avatar to LinkedIn as misrepresentation, and told them to do a Google search about the Kimkins law suit.

Yep, she's tenacious!

Back At It

I guess it's time for me to get back to my blog in some fashion, so this is a post just to get me back in the groove.

I started this as a weight loss blog, mostly menus and recipes, along with some observations about my discoveries along my journey. I had never quite reached the goal I had set for myself, which may have been an unrealistic one for me anyway, but I looked and felt pretty good, and just needed to shape up and rearrange things more than I needed to lose much more weight.

Then the Kimkins bubble burst, and dominated my life for a long time. Too long, really, but such is the way of the legal system.

For me, it was never about "getting Kimmer", at least not in the sense of revenge, though I am not sure I will ever "get" her in the sense of understanding her. I am still amazed by her utter gall, her callous disregard of others, and her complete disdain for the truth. It is as if pesky minor things like reality, morality, and authority are there for timid little mortals to obey and superior beings such as Herself to either ignore or twist to their advantage. I think that the part of the human soul that houses natural affection and conscious is missing or broken in her. It seems her heart is without feeling for others and full of regard for herself. Whether one calls that sociopathic or reprobate, I don't know. I just know she is not 'normal', as she herself admitted in email to some of us as well as under oath in deposition, when she said she just doesn't think like other people do. Truer words were seldom spoken --- at least not by her!

Anyway, when I began to realize she was . . . well, whatever she is, I was hurt, confused, angry, ashamed, afraid, bewildered, all of that and more, for how she had lied to all of us, including me, and used me to deceive and possibly harm others. It was a lot to sort out and process through, and it weighed heavily on me. I wanted to understand, to uncover the truth, and to reach out to those still at Kimkins with what I was finding out. I made it my mission to try to undo the harm I had done, to UNsupport Heidi Diaz and Kimkins with as much energy as I had supported it before. I had been placed in a position of responsibility, and I wanted people who had trusted me to hear from me that I was wrong, that "Kimmer" was a fraud, and that the diet had no safeguards built in and was harming people.

I knew and cared for the people at Kimkins. I respected them, understood them, shared their hopes and dreams and fears. As I spoke out in various ways, a great many heard and received what I had to say, and many left Kimkins, and some started blogging and being activists against Kimkins.

It was a crazy time with lots of strong personalities involved, and emotions ran high. I vehemently disagreed with the approach some anti-Kimkins people were taking, considering it counterproductive to getting people out of Kimkins, as well as just plain wrong, and said so, poorly. For my frustrated criticism, I was slammed, slandered, and mocked severely, like someone had declared it open hunting season on Becky. I don't suppose there is much point in rehashing all that now, though I desperately wanted to defend myself at the time. It really hurt to read so many mean and false things about myself, with mistaken timelines, miscribed motives, misdirected suspicions, and a lot of maliciousness. The whole thing created a rift in the anti-Kimkins movement, and a lot of people dropped out of posting and blogging after that. I acknowledged my error, took my medicine, kept my mouth shut, and dropped out of the public eye pretty much, in hopes that things would settle down and move forward. I felt that my reputation and credibility had been undermined too much for me to continue to speak out effectively to the people of Kimkins. Too bad --- I had lined up some good stuff for my blog before this happened. Since then, I have blogged only a few times, mostly when John Tiedt has called with important news for public distribution. I did feel regret that Heidi Diaz might think that her stupid counter-suit silenced me, when it really just made me want to say even more, but our own side had already shut me out and shut me up before that. It eventually got to the point where I felt as if every word I posted anywhere was so scrutinized that I just gave up posting online altogether.

I am an open person; I have not lived a secret life. I have been well known in real life by hundreds, actually thousands of people, many for decades, and am liked by most of them, respected by many. I am flawed, sometimes foolish, but well-intentioned, caring, and honest. I took comfort in realizing that the people who REALLY knew me didn't believe the accusations about me. I heard from many who were completely supportive of me and upset by some of the tactics of a few outspoken anti-Kimkins forces, but were afraid to speak out, lest they be the next target. I also took comfort in assurances that those most deeply in the know about the Kimkins case, including John Tiedt, knew every detail about everything, and still believed in me and trusted me.

It was rough being targeted by Heidi Diaz, having her lie about me to her members and slander me in her fakey blogs, having her admins dig up every post I ever made anywhere, having her try to sue me for a million dollars. With good reason, I believed her to be dangerous and capable of almost anything. It hung over me all day every day as I was working to undo Kimkins and helping to build the case against her, knowing I could be called to testify against her in court, and that attacking me and my credibility during cross-ex was her likeliest tactic. Having some of the anti-Kimkins people also attack me and accuse me was even rougher. It not only stung, it also curtailed my effectiveness and had the potential to undercut my credibility in court.

The odd thing I found most disconcerting is that both Heidi Diaz and those leading the attack on me (and also on some of my good friends) went out of their ways to target Christians and to mock us for our Christian faith. In fact, many of the people in the big middle of this who got slammed by both sides ARE Christians. I have to wonder --- Why? What drives that? Why all the scorn and anger? Speaking for myself, I feel like I did not go around preaching my faith to everyone everywhere, and I did not claim to be perfect; however, my beliefs shape who I am and how I think and what I say and do, and I certainly am not ashamed of and will not deny being a Christian. Why was that even made an issue?

Over the last 15 months or so since then, I have seen more than a few anti-Kimkins people attacked by other anti-Kimkins people. I have seen good people who had been valuable and effective allies completely silenced by infighting. I have seen things splinter and then splinter again into factions and eventually almost peter out. That is a pity for those driven apart or offline or underground, who have lost the comraderie they once enjoyed, and also a shame in the fight to keep anti-Kimkins info out in front of the public. Our loss --- Heidi's gain.

In the end, though I do not suppose the people involved meant it for good, I am thankful for the harsh attacks on me, because they helped me examine my heart, repent of my wrong focus, and redirect my priorities. I placed what I had been doing in the Kimkins case into more capable hands. It turned out to be a good thing for me. I have a sweet and rich life, happy and fulfilled and full of wonderful friends and family.

Like many people, I gained a little weight when I left Kimkins, mainly because I was freaked out and didn't know what to do. It bothered me a little but it wasn't too bad. I stepped up the exercise, stated drinking more water (you know, all the things Kimkins told us we didn't need) and I was doing fine. Then, due to muscle weakening, I had surgery in October, and my recovery did not go as well as expected. It's no big deal, and I am returning to full function finally, but between the starchy diet I had to follow at first, plus the meds, plus the limited mobility, I regained some more weight. I am still not nearly as big as I once was, thank God. but I have no intention of remaining this big, now that I can return to exercising.

So, I may return to blogging about life and weight loss again, as I originally intended, since I need to lose this regained flab.

I may even, from time to time, blog about the Kimkins mess, for two reasons:
1) I am in this until the end, whether I want to be or not; I cannot walk away yet.
2) The world still needs to know to Say NO to Kimkins.

Heidi Diaz Bankruptcy Dissed and Dismissed

John Tiedt called with some fabulous news! Once again, Heidi Diaz has lost in court --- not just lost, but lost RESOUNDINGLY! The court not only emphatically dismissed her motion for bankruptcy, but also, acting on its own accord, the court forbade her from filing for bankruptcy again for 180 days.

That's a little like being paddled in public by the judge.

This seems to be the pattern with her legal troubles lately, doesn't it? One wonders if she is getting nervous about the way these rulings have gone against her time and time and time again. Frankly, things don't look likely to turn around for her any time soon, either, so she might as well get used to losing --- her legal battles, anyway. Ah, well, she can't say she was not warned.

In the eyes of many, Diaz' bankruptcy proceedings were the latest in a series of ploys to forestall the civil case against her. After all, she filed it mere days before the hearing to grant class action status to the suit against her. Think about it: she hid and then denied her identity; she tried to evade service of subpoena; she filed demurrers to get the case against her dismissed as being without merit (though the court obviously disagreed!); she resisted and failed to fully cooperate with the process of legal discovery; and then, her coup de gras, she filed a countersuit/SLAPP suit (malicious prosecution) to silence and punish her special foes (a group of which I am apparently a member). Each effort bought her time to work her shenanigans by diverting John Tiedt's time and effort from the primary case against her to deal with these distractions. The SLAPP suit bought her time for the bankruptcy filing, and the bankruptcy bought her time against class action.

Both of her latest tactics had the potential added benefit, had the court not quickly seen through her scams, of allowing her to line her pockets with the hard-earned money of others. From all accounts, considering her decades-long history as a con artist, her prior felony conviction, her documented instances of tax fraud (at federal, state and local levels) her admitted Social Security fraud, her several previous bankruptcies, etc., etc., etc., trying to get over on other people's money is her long-standing pattern. It's 'how she rolls'.

Both delays also had the effect of buying time for her to try to keep the Kimkins machinery cranking out money while she and her sons tried to start up other diets sites, like her ill-conceived Miracle Lemonade crashdiet/detox/fasting site or her knock-off Simple Choices diet site.

One thing is obvious ---- for someone supposedly on the brink of bankruptcy, Ms. Diaz has managed to continue spending some significant money on massive advertising! She must have resources she failed to mention in her motion for bankruptcy. In fact, in spite of all her disingenuous claims to have "corrected" her evil ways, Ms. Diaz continues to lie, even to the extent of perjuring herself in her legal filings in federal court.

Perhaps that is why Ms. Diaz and her lawyer did not fight the bankruptcy proceedings any harder than she did. After all, every time she had to make a statement under oath or produce more documentation of her financial history, she dug herself in deeper and deeper. A civil proceeding is one thing, but crimes against the government (via tax fraud and Social Security fraud, at the least) are quite different matters altogether.

High praises go to Scott Clarkson and his team, whom John Tiedt brought in to refute Diaz' bankruptcy claims. Clarkson is one of the very top-tier bankruptcy attorneys in practice, whose knowledge and expertise were invaluable in defeating Diaz' phony bankruptcy case. Scott Clarkson is a legal genius who completely outclassed the opposition. Way to go!

John Tiedt and team also benefitted from inspired and untiring aid by some behind-the-scenes legal sleuths who are amazingly gifted at ferreting out the truth behind Ms. Diaz' lies. (You know who you are. Thanks for what you do!)

John Tiedt has worked tirelessly and in a principled manner to bring this case to the best possible conclusion. He has been busy already with all the hearings, depositions, and document production these proceedings have required. Now he will be even more busy for a time, pressing his current legal advantage to move the civil suit rapidly forward now that the bankruptcy is out of the way. One expects he will press hard for immediate class action certification, quick judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, and expeditious disposition of the defendants' assets. Go, John! You rock! Have a great time celebrating this victory!

The civil matter should be resolved soon. We may shortly see criminal charges follow.

It's a bad day for Heidi Diaz, but a very good day for justice!

Insider Exclusive Features Kimkins Scandal

The Insider Exclusive TV show with host Steve Murphy has aired a 30-minute feature episode exposing the Kimkins diet scandal. This news program is the longest and arguably the best coverage of this diet scam so far. This in-depth report features clips from the excellent surveillance work of private investigator Robert Charlton, as well as previously aired clips from the KTLA news reports with Chip Yost, Fox TV's The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet, and ABC's Good Morning America. This exclusive report also features interviews with lead attorney and health fraud expert John Tiedt, co-counsel and class action expert Michael Cohen, cardiologist Dr. Americo Simonini of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and former Kimkins member Terry Lind, who articulately related her own negative experiences with Kimkins.

Highlights include John Tiedt explaining that having a defendant's assets frozen via Writ of Attachment in a proposed class action suit prior to certification is virtually unprecedented, simply never done. Yet due to the unusual circumstances of this case, the writ to freeze Heidi Diaz' assets was granted. (In fact, the writ was granted by one judge and even upheld by another judge.)

Michael Cohen stated that certification of class action status is expected soon, and that in addition to the return of class members' fees, the suit will be seeking injunctive relief, which, if granted, means that the site will be shut down.

John Tiedt also reported that evidence in this case has been turned over to the FTC, the District Attorney, and the Attorney General, and criminal prosecution in the near future is a very real possibility.

Click the Insider Exclusive image to watch the full report in another window:





A shorter version (the first 10 minutes or so) is also available through YouTube:


Things are not going well for Ms. Diaz of Kimkins, and they do not look to get any better any time soon.

An Obvious Comment

So much more can and will be said about Heidi "The Kimmer" Diaz's prodigious use of falsehood as a "creative outlet".

For now, let's just take one recent example, from the new blog of former Kimkins member amyb.

In early November, while discussing with SingingLass some possible success stories to showcase on the upcoming Kimkins scam exposure on the Mike and Juliet Show, Heidi Diaz said of Amy:

Kimmer wrote:

Hmmm, unsure on AmyB since I’m not sure she’s an actual Kimkins supporter. She has some medical concens that may not help our case.

Amy was soon banned, and she asked to be reinstated shortly thereafter. In a response message (a saved copy of which the attorney will have, along with many similar documents)Heidi Diaz told her:

Original Message —–
From Kimmer
To answer your question, you are banned.
I am done dealing with the issues on the group. I will let you back in group but you will follow what I say.
No more talk about your hair. You have hair so stop talking about it. IT can not be falling out that much.
I do not want any talk about your Dr telling you to add foods back in. That will just make you gain weight . NO talk of vitamins .No medical issues at all.
You do not mention Jimmy Moore on my site. You need to reconsider a lunch meeting. I am very upset that you would consider this after the UTube video he made making fun of Kimkins. Just do not meet him.
Enough of the fake niceness. No one can be that nice. You pop in and out with fake nice post. Stop it. It seems you do this to make me mad.
I gave you a membership, use it wisely. Or Else.

So here it seems that Heidi Diaz was fully aware that Amy B was reporting health complications from Kimkins. Yet, instead of being concerned, Heidi was annoyed and angry. The owner of Kimkins not only failed to acknowledge the harm caused by the diet, she chose to squash all truth to the contrary, completely forbid all discussion of the matter, and even countermanded the advice of Amy's doctor.

(Your doctor says you are suffering from starvation and malnutrition and need more healthy food? No way! "That will just make you gain weight.")

For that matter, the original admins brought up health concerns being reported by some members back in late July- very early August 2007. Her response at that time, paraphrased, was something like It isn't happening, and if it is, it's not Kimkin's fault, and even if it is, they can't prove it, and even if they do, I'm too smart for them and they won't get my money.

Yet, even after all the very public discussion of health issues on the Kimkins forums and elsewhere, with copies of posts and PMs and emails to prove it, STILL, on January 23, Heidi Diaz swore under oath upon penalty of perjury that she

" . . . never received any complaints of injury from anyone who tried the Kimkins diet. She never reviewed complaints such as irregular heartbeat, hair loss or failure to have menstrual cycles. To her memory, she states that she never received an email concerning a single complaint or injury. She did not collect any adverse event reports."

As Little Red Riding Hood might say,
Why, Heidi, what very big CREATIVITY you have!

THE DEPOSITION OF HEIDI DIAZ, PART TWO, concluded

DECLARATION OF HEIDI DIAZ FILED WITH MOTION TO SET ASIDE WRIT OF ATTACHMENT

Before signing her declaration, she did not determine whether or not her bank accounts were attached. In paragraph 3 of her declaration, which was attached to the deposition as Exhibit 69, she explained that she had severe family hardship, which means that she could not buy the things she needed to conduct household repairs, purchase earthquake insurance and make car payments. She said her son was sleeping on the floor. However, she admitted that her son was an adult who never had a job and is the only family member currently living at her home. She testified that Brandon Diaz had a broken bed when she moved into the Calhoun home and that despite the fact that she had $1 million in the bank, she did not order a new bed for her son, as it “didn’t occur to her.” Even though she had $1 million in the bank when she purchased the home, she did not purchase earthquake insurance.

She also complained that the writ of attachment interfered with her ability to earn a living because she could not issue refunds to her members and she could not use traditional vendors. However, during the course of her deposition, she cannot confirm a single person who had been terminated as a result of the writ of attachment. She also complained that she did not have medical insurance. She could not apply to Medicare because she makes too much money. Her SSDI benefits were terminated two months prior to part two of her deposition which was taken on January 23, 2008.


FINAL COMMENTS

We have sent out an initial set of written discovery in preparation for our motion for certification. The defendant’s responses were unsatisfactory, and therefore we will send additional discovery and seek further responses. It is our expectation that we will have a Motion for Certification on file within the next 30 days. We will soon be taking the deposition of Delaney Deaver and other former administrators of Kimkins.com.

The District Attorney’s office in San Diego will be reviewing the non-confidential documents of this file. A decision by the California Attorney General’s office concerning criminal prosecution is purportedly pending.



Very truly yours

TIEDT & HURD
John E. Tiedt

THE DEPOSITION OF HEIDI DIAZ, PART TWO, continued

She also admitted to lying about representations that she made to members that she had to borrow to buy out her former partner. She also admitted to using the name Brad Johnson with regard to Kimkins.com business. She said that Brad Johnson is actually her little brother that died. She provided the following explanation as to why she uses false names.

Q. “Don't you foresee that by using other people's names, you're giving the false impression that your company is staffed with a number of people rather than just you?”

A. I -- I don't see it that way. I understand what you're saying, but I don't see it that way.”

Q. “When you use false names, aren't you giving the impression that the company is much bigger than it really is, as far as staff?

A. I see it as a creative outlet. I get tired of seeing my own name.

Q. You don't see that as dishonest or deceptive?

A. No.” 2

She contends she never received any complaints of injury from anyone who tried the Kimkins diet. She never reviewed complaints such as irregular heartbeat, hair loss or failure to have menstrual cycles. To her memory, she states that she never received an email concerning a single complaint or injury. She did not collect any adverse event reports.


2 California Penal Code Section 529 states: Every person who falsely personates another in either his private or official capacity, and in such assumed character either: 1. Becomes bail or surety for any party in any proceeding whatever, before any court or officer authorized to take such bail or surety; 2. Verifies, publishes, acknowledges, or proves, in the name of another person, any written instrument, with intent that the same may be recorded, delivered, or used as true; or, 3. Does any other act whereby, if done by the person falsely personated, he might, in any event, become liable to any suit or prosecution, or to pay any sum of money, or to incur any charge, forfeiture, or penalty, or whereby any benefit might accrue to the party personating, or to any other person; is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

THE DEPOSITION OF HEIDI DIAZ, PART TWO

[Note: The second deposition of Heidi Diaz was taken on January 23, 2008.]

SUMMARY OF THE DEPOSITION OF HEIDI DIAZ, PART TWO

Assets and Income of Heidi Diaz

Heidi Diaz stated that her sole source of income in 2007 was income generated from Kimkins.com, benefits from SDI, alimony, and income from foster care. Although she announced that Halcyon Web, LLC was the new owner in October 2007, she claimed at the time of her deposition that Halcyon did not have any cash. She claimed that her Kimkins business did not have any assets other than its computers. She claimed that Halcyon Web LLC does not own other websites. She does own a number of domain names related to Kimkins.com. She owns no other corporation, limited liability company, or interest in any partnership. Other than her corporate assets, she merely has her house and her car. She never checked to see if her assets were actually attached prior to her deposition. She does not keep track of her money and does not balance her checkbook. Since her PayPal account was frozen, she did open a CCBill account. She now accepts checks. She said that she had her Medicare benefits terminated and cannot afford medical insurance at this time. She filed a tax return in 2006, but did not pay federal taxes.

Heidi Diaz did produce financial records, which were marked as confidential and cannot be discussed in this document at this time.


Additional Acts of Fraud and Asset Concealment

Heidi Diaz was shown additional screenshots of individuals who were featured on the Kimkins.com website as success stories. She admitted that she took pictures of various women on the internet and placed said picture on the Kimkins.com website along with text on how these women purportedly lost weight as a result of the Kimkins diet. Models who were provided names such as Destiny, Raquel, Jasmine, Gretchen, and Petr were not users of the Kimkins diet and their photos had been misappropriated from other websites.

She also admitted to passing a rumor that Jessica Alba was using the Kimkins diet and she knew that was a false statement. She admitted that repeating the rumor that Jessica Alba originally used the Kimkins diet to lose weight was deceptive.

She admitted making certain false statements to administrators and members of Kimkins.com. As an example, Exhibit 57 falsely revealed that Kimmer and Heidi Diaz were best friends since high school. She also stated that in October of 2007, Kimkins.com did not have any money despite the fact that the company had $1 million in assets in the bank. Also in Exhibit 57, she misrepresented the fact that she had partners.

In an email response regarding this case, Kimmer made the following statement: “before I left, I thought I would share with you my thinking. I won’t know for sure until Monday until I talk to an attorney, but if worse comes to worse, we can close Kimkins.com and a lawyer can fight over the carcass. He probably thinks it is a large company.”

In connection with the email marked as Exhibit 57, she admitted to implying to Jeannie Baitinger that the company did not have any money despite the fact that the company had $1 million in liquid assets. In the same email, she stated that the database would be moved to a new domain name, “www.???.com and move the forums, members and everything there.”

She was aware that Jeannie Baitinger, Delaney Deaver, and Christin Sherburne were going to be on the Mike and Juliet Show on Fox TV on November 12, 2007.

Q: “Did you view this particular program as an opportunity to get new members for Kimkins?”
A: “No. actually, I thought it would have the opposite effect.”

Exhibit 65 is an email from Heidi Diaz to Jeannie Baitinger and Delaney Deaver dated November 9, 2007 that discussed the Mike and Juliet Show. Ms. Diaz said in the email: “I expect we will get many new members from the TV exposure,“...”Shhh, the lawyer is sniffing around for money $$$”

Heidi admitted that she wasn’t lying to Ms Baitinger and Ms. Deaver, but was actually giving a motivational speech in an email for their benefit. Finally, she admitted she was not telling the truth.

THE DEPOSITION OF HEIDI DIAZ, PART ONE, concluded

How Did Heidi Diaz Profit From her Deception?

Heidi Diaz testified that her gross income for Kimkins.com for 2006 was approximately $50,000. Her best estimate of income earned by Kimkins.com from January through November 2007 was $1.5 million. She claimed $878,000 in profit, and from that, she purchased a home for cash in the amount of $444,000. She also stated that she paid $700,000 in taxes to the federal government and $100,000 to the State of California for the Franchise Tax payment. She claims Clexus New Media, the computer programmer/web designer, received approximately $400,000.00 in income.

She planned to pay refunds through an account at Bank of America, which totaled approximately $38,000.00. She claimed that the total members who subscribed to Kimkins.com as of November 12, 2007 ranged between 37,000 and 40,000. She claimed affiliates were paid a total of $55,000.00. Up until the date of her first deposition, all payments to Kimkins.com were made by PayPal.


Were the Representations Made By Heidi Diaz On November 12, 2007 on the Kimkins Website Truthful?

Heidi Diaz admitted that she did not lose 198 pounds in 11 months, but claimed to lose 100 pounds in six months. However, when pressed on this issue, she admitted that she had no photographic evidence of said weight loss. She never used her own website to record the alleged weight loss. She made no written record of the weight loss referenced in her website. She also claimed that there are no witnesses that will testify to her alleged weight loss. Incidentally, the deposition of Brandon Diaz revealed that he did not witness his mother losing 100 pounds at any time. She last weighed herself on November 11 and at that time she weighed 294 pounds. She claimed to have lost 23 pounds in the last two weeks as of November 12, 2008.

Why Did Heidi Diaz Block Members?

She claimed that certain members were blocked from access to chat with other members because they were “troublemakers”. Troublemakers could retain access to the full website, diet, and food list, but were restricted from the community areas. She claims that the term troublemaker was defined by each administrator. Accordingly, administrators were given the power to block member’s access to the community areas. There were no written parameters for blocking members or any oral instructions by Heidi Diaz. She admitted to using moles on the website, which she defines as “somebody who operates quietly to go through the website to make sure everything is operating.”

THE DEPOSITION OF HEIDI DIAZ, PART ONE, continued

Asset Concealment

Heidi Diaz had a plan to conceal and dissipate her assets when she found out that a class action lawsuit was contemplated by the members of Kimkins.com. 1

On the date of the original writ of attachment hearing, October 16, 2007, Heidi Diaz had $878,252.79 in a mutual fund. A copy of the T. Rowe Price mutual fund account statement is attached to the deposition transcript of Heidi Diaz as Exhibit 39. On October 18, 2007, Heidi Diaz directed T. Rowe Price to close the account and send her a check for $878,252.79, which she placed in her Bank of America account. Heidi Diaz was then served with a deposition notice for November 4, 2007, but pursuant to her request, her deposition was rescheduled for November 12, 2007.

On Friday, November 9, 2007, the last business day before the deposition of Heidi Diaz, Heidi Diaz contacted an accountant referred to her by her lawyer. The accountant, Rahul Shaw, had not reviewed any of the financial documents of Heidi Diaz or of Kimkins.com. Nevertheless, Heidi Diaz stated that the accountant who had never examined or evaluated any financial document advised her to unilaterally write a check to the U.S. Treasury Department in the amount $700,000.

Heidi Diaz also testified at her deposition that on the afternoon of November 9, 2007, this same accountant advised her to write a check to the California Franchise Tax Board, without having reviewed a single document. Accordingly, on the afternoon of November 9, 2007, Ms. Diaz wrote check number 1501 to the U.S. Treasury for $700,000, and check number 1502 to the Franchise Tax Board for $100,000.

Heidi Diaz bragged on the internet about her efforts to conceal and dissipate assets. She prepared for the class action lawsuit and anticipated collection efforts. On August 14, 2007, Heidi Diaz and Kimkins.com member and administrator Christin Sherburne engaged in an internet conversation concerning anticipated lawsuits. Allegations of fraud and misleading advertising had been made and Heidi Diaz made the following, unsolicited statement to Mrs. Sherburne:

Heidi Diaz: Christin, have time for Law 101?

Christin: Sure

Heidi Diaz: In a nutshell, there can be no class action lawsuit or any lawsuit. ... If you had a bad car accident -- broken arm, concussion but hit a poor person with no insurance you COULD NOT get a lawyer. There is no ‘recovery’. There is no money to receive. It’s the same with Kimkins. There is no $$$. They don’t even have jurisdiction. No lawyer would touch it. do they even know who “kimmer” is. well, in a real class action suit the company is ordered to pay legal costs. but who will pay?... Anyhow, bottom line for today’s law lesson: No recovery, no lawyer.... You have to make allegations. They must be substantiated. Backed up with doctor’s reports, etc., not just that (1) prove their health before Kimkins; (2) prove that “but for” doing Kimkins there would not have been damages; (3) must have damages; (be hurt) all that takes $$$. they have to hire a doctor, get tests, deposition of doctors & whoever they can find at kimkins ;)”

Also on August 14, 2007 Ms. Diaz informed Mrs. Sherburne that “technically you can get a judgment and sue a person in court, but so what? How would you get your $$? can’t.” However, the exchange ends with an ominous statement by Heidi Diaz regarding possible future litigation. Heidi Diaz told Mrs. Sherburne, “If anything ever happened and you were involved, I am here for you $$$.”

Another attempt to evade collection was a statement publicly made by Heidi Diaz that she was no longer the owner of Kimkins.com. She now admits under oath that her statement was false. On October 4, 2007, Heidi Diaz told members that the Kimkins website was under new ownership. She claimed that she would not be the owner but would merely serve as an advisor. At her deposition, she stated that representation was false. A true and correct copy of the announcement prepared by Heidi Diaz revealing the change of ownership is attached to the deposition of Heidi Diaz as Exhibit 48.

Heidi Diaz admitted under oath to further testimony confirming her plan to dissipate assets. She admitted to making the following statement as “Kimmer” to one of her administrators:

“Unfortunately for this brilliant attorney, he is going to be disappointed to find that there is no pot of gold for recovery in the suit. Heidi collects the revenue, but does not keep it. You can imagine him telling the judge that wants to certify a class action against a housewife? Hehehe.”

Heidi Diaz has also recently formed other companies and a trust. For example, she recently paid a paralegal to form a family trust in which she intends to place assets. However, the family trust is misleading as it uses the name “Beauchamp” instead of Diaz. She formed a company known as Halcyon Web, LLC on September 24, 2007 with the specific intent of transferring all of the Kimkins assets to that company. She has also paid a paralegal to form a company known as Sharp Plumbing, LLC. She stated the company was for her son. However, upon examination she admitted that her son is not a licensed contractor and the address for the plumbing company is merely a P.O. Box. It is the same P.O. Box of Kimkins.com. She admitted that there is no physical business for Sharp Plumbing, but that company is on the internet.


1 California Penal Code Section 531 states: Every person who is a party to any fraudulent conveyance of any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, goods or chattels, or any right or interest issuing out of the same, or to any bond, suit, judgment, or execution, contract or conveyance, had, made, or contrived with intent to deceive and defraud others, or to defeat, hinder, or delay creditors or others of their just debts, damages, or demands; or who, being a party as aforesaid, at any time wittingly and willingly puts in, uses, avows, maintains, justifies, or defends the same, or any of them, as true, and done, had, or made in good faith, or upon good consideration, or aliens, assigns, or sells any of the lands, tenements, hereditaments, goods, chattels, or other things before mentioned, to him or them conveyed as aforesaid, or any part thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor.