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!

Mooyah!

As an former San Diegan, I miss In-N-Out Burger. *sigh*

Here in Texas, I've tried Sonic and Steak 'n Shake, which are probably fine establishments in their own right (or not), but nothing has come close to In-N-Out to me. Especially on a low carb diet, (or any kind of diet, for that matter), the breaded and fried fare at Sonic or the larger-than-life menu illustrations of mega-deluxe milkshakes at Steak 'n Shake are just about deal-breakers that make those difficult places to dine wisely.

This week I tried something that almost --- but not quite --- comes close. Mooyah is a small local chain that seems directly modeled after In-N-Out. Same concept of a small menu of burgers, fries, shakes, and soft drinks; same emphasis on fresh beef and hand cut fries; even the same red and white color scheme.

On the plus side, Mooyah offers a bigger list of condiments to add for free to customize your sandwich. They offer a choice of American, cheddar, or swiss cheese, and also have whole wheat buns for the asking. The atmosphere when we were there seemed calmer and friendlier than In-N-Out, and the service was speedy.

What I went for was the very aptly-named Iceburger, which is the burger of your choice nicely done up in a generous wrapping of cool crisp iceburg lettuce leaves instead of a bun. In-N-Out offers this under the prosaic label of "Protein Style" on their 'secret' menu, but I think Mooyah may do a better job with the lettuce wrapper, and the name is more clever. (In my opinion, this may be the world's only legitimate use for iceburg lettuce.)

On the negative side, Mooyah costs more than I remember paying at In-N-Out. The thing that really aggravated me, though, is that they do not list or publish any nutrition info that I could find. They do not make it easy to know exactly how many calories, carbs, fat, sodium, sugar, points, or anything people on various diets or with certain health issues might want or need to track. That seems pretty backwards to me.

Plus, well, it's just not In-N-Out.

Nice enough, though --- I'll be back.

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.

THE DEPOSITION OF HEIDI DIAZ, PART ONE

SUMMARY OF THE DEPOSITION OF HEIDI DIAZ, PART ONE

Who is Heidi Diaz?
Heidi Diaz has been known by the following names: Kimmer, Jennifer Dancer, Brad Curtis, Kimberely Stewart, and Kimberely Drake. She also testified that she was known on the Kimkins.com website as Vanessa, an affiliate manager. She had used the email Vanessa2lucky@yahoo.com. She also used Brandon Diaz name without his permission to receive an affiliate payment. She registered Brandon Diaz as the owner of the Kimkins website without his permission. She then switched the name of the owner to Renee Drake who was the mother of Ms. Diaz. Ms. Drake died in 1970. She has also used her niece’s name, Vanessa Romero.

How did Heidi Diaz Deceive Kimkins.com Members?

Heidi Diaz admitted that she has used false testimonials to promote the Kimkins.com website. Exhibit 2 to her deposition transcript revealed a picture of the alleged founder of Kimkins.com. This picture is the well-known photograph of the Russian woman in a red dress. She admitted that the woman featured in Exhibit 2 as Kimmer is not Heidi Diaz. It is a picture that she obtained from the internet. The text adjacent to the photograph was also false. “Kimmer” did not lose 198 pounds in 11 months as promoted on the website. She also admitted that the woman featured in the picture did not receive a graduate degree in public administration and was not a volunteer court appointed special advocate for abused children.

Exhibit 3 featured another screenshot from the Kimkins.com website that contained the image of the infamous woman in the red dress that was identified as Kimmer. Again, she claimed that the adjacent text was partially false and that the photo of Kimmer was in fact the same photo that she obtained off the internet. On that same page, she admitted that the featured story of Bambi, who purportedly lost 122 pounds was in fact false. She did claim that a company known as Clexus New Media employed an individual known by the name of Aliyar Firat. Mr. Firat reportedly supplied Heidi Diaz with a picture of the woman in the red dress. Mr. Firat stated that he would rather use an actual photo of Heidi Diaz, but Ms. Diaz purportedly did not want to reveal her identity.

Exhibit 4 is another screenshot from the Kimkins.com website. She admitted that the “before” picture was actually Heidi Diaz taken years before the start of Kimkins.com website. She again confirmed that the “after” photo was not her and was a picture she had taken from the internet. The text provided in Exhibit 4 was also false in that she had not gone from 318 pounds to 118 pounds in 11 months.

Exhibit 5 contained four photographs. The first photograph on the top was actually Heidi Diaz, but the subsequent photographs, used in various advertisements for Kimkins.com and designated as Kimmer, were in fact models. She had taken said photographs from other internet sites to be used on Kimkins.com.

She claimed the sole reason for not disclosing her identity prior to November 12, 2007 was to preserve her privacy. However, she admitted that at the time she made the subject misrepresentations, she did not feel her customers, who signed up for lifetime memberships, were entitled to the truth about her personal weight loss success with the Kimkins diet. In retrospect, she did put her privacy rights over that of her customer’s rights to know the truth about the weight loss results of the Kimkins diet.

She also admitted that she used numerous pictures of women from other websites and put these pictures adjacent to fictionalized Kimkins weight loss success stories. She admits that the women featured in the photos marked in Exhibit 50 were not in fact members of the Kimkins.com website and were not on the Kimkins Diet. She stated that the adjacent texts were false, but were predicated on success stories from the Low Carb Friends website that predated the Kimkins.com site. However, she has absolutely no documentation of any of the alleged success stories that were used as a basis for the fraudulent testimonials that were attached as Exhibit 50. Further, she has no witnesses to back up her explanation.

She admits that she knew that potential Kimkins.com customers would rely on her false representations. As a consequence, she claimed that she had offered a full refund for those people who relied on her past misrepresentations.

Official Update on Kimkins Case from John Tiedt

[Note: I haven't blogged in a while, but when John Tiedt sent this and asked us to help get it out where potential class members might see it, I was happy to post it here. If I can learn how to post the PDF link here, I will, but for now this is the best I can do. This is a 44 page document in total, 9 pages of summary of Heidi Diaz' two depositions, plus the referenced exhibits, so I will be posting it in segments. I do not want to try to condense it or explain it, because it is best left as John Tiedt wrote it. So, stay tuned for much more.]

March 13, 2008

VIA EMAIL
To Plaintiff Class Representatives and Potential Class Members
Re: Fenderson, et al. v. Diaz, et al.

Dear Friends:

We have been quite busy with the discovery process and several law and motion issues. The purpose of this letter is to bring you up to date. We were granted authority by the court to take an early deposition of Heidi Diaz concerning limited issues relating to documents, witnesses, and assets. The first deposition was conducted on November 12, 2007 at my office in Riverside, California. The second deposition was taken on January 23, 2008. Some of the testimony and documents produced at the second deposition are subject to a protective order and cannot be revealed to the public at this time. However, it is my intent to file a motion to make certain documents public. At this time, we have no set trial date. A Case Management Conference is set for July 15, 2008. Defendant Heidi Diaz filed a Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint for Damages. A demurrer is a tactic used by defendants to challenge the validity of the complaint. We have already prepared our opposition to the demurrer and we are confident that it will be overruled by the presiding judge. The hearing on the demurrer is scheduled for April 28, 2008. On March 21, 2008, the Court will hear the defendant’s motion to set aside the writ of attachment order. As you may recall, on November 16, 2007, the court entered an order to issue a writ of attachment on certain assets held by Heidi Diaz. Accordingly, the court effectively “froze” certain assets held by Heidi Diaz, such as her home and PayPal account. Our opposition to defendant’s motion to set aside the writ of attachment was filed under seal because it contained confidential information. However, I can reveal that it is our contention that the defendants do not have statutory authority to have the court reconsider its original order to issue a writ of attachment.

Kimkins, via Admin Gary, Still Recommending Very Low Calories

This was just posted at Kimkins this morning, December 11, 2007, by Admin Lasttime4me (Gary).

Note my math and comments below.


Lasttime4me (Admin)

CARBS, FAT and PROTEIN TOTALS/PERCENTAGES

Kimkins a low-carb diet and our goal is to eat 20 or less total carbs each day. The percentage of Carbs will be low compared to Fats and Proteins you eat each day. This should not alarm you in any way.

If you eat almost no carbs or low-carbs, protein and fat will naturally be a very high % of calorie intake, since that is all you are eating. If you added carbs, the protein and fat % would go down, even though the amounts didn't. So, don't worry about ratios.

As for overall totals to shoot for, no exact guidelines. Eat from the food lists, to appetite, no more, keeping carbs always below 20, and fats are low as you reasonably can. This IS NOT a fat-free diet so use fats to make your recipe work for YOU!

Now, once you are well on your way, feeling strong and confident, with good appetite suppression working for you, and just looking to make tweaks, the fastest losses seem to be around 800-1200 cals, 30 - 40 grams fat, 60 - 100 grams protein, 8-12 grams (or less) carbs. But, that is NOT an official rule, nor can everyone want to or need to do that.

Make sure you take your multi-vitamin and drink at least 8 glasses of water or MORE!

I do understand the bind Gary is in. During my time at Kimkins, Kimmer repeatedly ignored and refused requests to elaborate on the diet plans or offer more info to answer the many newbie questions for help and specifics. She repeatedly stated that the diet was simple, and she could not understand why anyone would have trouble figuring it out or need more explanation. She directed the moderators to answer the lost and confused 'newbies', for whom she showed little patience.

(I now wonder whether her refusal to elaborate was because she was too busy marketing for new 'sales' to care about the existing members, or because she deliberately wanted to put her Mods and Admins out on the line for her.)

So, I understand that Gary, Singling Lass, and the other experienced members field the same questions over and over and over, that Kimmer should have answered in her published guidelines and ebook. As they have run into those same frustrations, they have begun to do what previous Admins did, which is to compile a bank of "stickies", permanent posts at the tops of the main forum categories that fill in the gaps and answer the questions that come up all the time. It is helpful for members --- but creates a convenient buffer between Heidi Diaz and her dangerous advice. She can then try to blame the Admins for creating the poor advice she is passing along through them.

Now, let's do the math:

Gary advices 800 - 1200 calories, because that is the latest 'Admin-safe' party line, though NOWHERE in the published diet rules has Heidi/Kimkins changed the actual guidelines to say this. If Heidi REALLY believed and wanted to say that, she could write exactly that into her 'simple' bullet-point paragraph guidelines.

Then Gary goes on to give a fairly generous interpretation of the macro-nutrient levels Kimmer has advised. I (and many others) specifically recall Kimmer saying in a scheduled all-site chat one time that the ideal amount of fat for Kimkins was 20 grams a day, 30 tops, but Gary has bumped that up to 30 - 40 grams of fat.

Likewise, over time, I watched as Kimmer revised her recommended protein intake down, from the "at least 70 - 90 grams" she listed at LCF, to the 60 - 80 she first published at her own site, to no officially listed amount, but frequent posts mentioning 60 g and later 50 g. So, Gary's 100 g of protein is quite extravagant by traditional Kimkins standards.

Similarly, Kimkins states 20 or fewer carbs, but Kimmer has always promoted the idea of even lower carb levels for 'deep, real ketosis' and maximum appetite suppression, with 8 - 12 being a commonly mentioned level.

Gary even advises drinking ample water, which Kimmer herself never did.

So, how does his math add up?
Each gram of protein or carbohydrate has 4 calories. Each gram of fat has 9 calories.

Thus, on the high side, Gary's ideal recommendation has 808 calories:
40 g fat x 9 = 360 calories
100 g protein x 4 = 400 calories
12 g carb x 4 = 48 calories
TOTAL: 808 calories

On the low side, Gary's ideal recommendation has 542 calories:
30 g fat x 9 = 270
60 g protein x 4 = 240 calories
8 g carb x 4 = 32 calories
TOTAL: 542 calories

People can try to bump Kimkins up to higher levels all they want, but the actual guidelines, the math, and the culture Kimmer has created just don't support it. She always intended Kimkins to be very low calorie levels, mainly achieved through very low fat levels. She taught it that way, people learned it that way, and that is the only way to get the fast weight loss results she boasted about in her claims (along with the negative health consequences she denied). That is what Kimkins is, and what it will always be as long as it is Kimkins. That is Kimmer's way.

Frankly, that is the way MANY people at Kimkins (or doing the diet elsewhere) STILL do it, in spite of Jeannie Baitinger's recent efforts to raise the calorie levels. That is why so few post FitDay links anymore --- they do not want it known how little they actually eat.

The only way to meet Gary's stated ideal calories, which are still considered low by safe medical standards, would be to raise fat to 60 - 85 grams. After all, Kimkins cannot raise carbs too much and still be a low-carb diet that claims an extra-deep level of appetite suppression. Kimkins also cannot raise protein too much higher without triggering gluconeogenesis, the conversion of excess protein to glucose.

Adding good healthy fats is the only way to make Kimkins safe, healthy, and adequate.

It also makes it Atkins.

KTLA News, Part 4

Heidi Diaz, the founder of the popular internet diet, Kimkins, admitted under oath in sworn deposition that her diet was based on a lie, KTLA investigative reporter Chip Yost reports.


Click here to watch the video of the newscast.