Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Official Notice of Pendency of Class Notice

Here is the notice that has now been approved by the Court. I will post a copy of the notice including the Judge's signature as soon as it is provided to me.

Please pass this on - forward it to every party you might think remotely interested, including media outlets you think may have an interest in sharing this information. If you are familiar with anyone who joined Kimkins, please direct them to this notice so that as many of the 40,000 people affected by Heidi's little scam as possible will have the opportunity to know they are part of the class and can opt out, preferring instead to allow Heidi to keep their money, or, perhaps, retaining their right to sue her independently.

If you previously posted this on your blog, please replace the pending version with this official one. Thank you!

Hear that banging sound? Just another handful of nails ...





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 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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth

Too bad Heidi Diaz doesn't have to take that oath before she types any comments regarding the status of the Class Action Lawsuit filed against her and her infamous diet website, Kimkins.con.

Heidi, you continue to claim that the Motion for Summary Judgment was DENIED by the court on August 24, 2009. True to form, if your fingers are typing, you are lying ...
To read this ruling, click here: Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment, Kimkins Class Action Lawsuit as filed by the Court August 27, 2009

Surely there is going to come a point at which you will realize that the truth will always come back to bite you in the rear end as long as you keep trying to run away from it.

Monday, August 24, 2009

Justice Delayed, Not Justice Denied

Contrary to what Heidi Diaz would have her loyal followers believe, the Judge in this case did NOT deny the Motion for Summary Judgment. Rather, he delayed hearing any of the argument until he is satisfied that the class members have an opportunity to removed themselves from the lawsuit - or what they call "opt-out".

He absolutely did NOT deny the Motion. He did NOT determine that there was no monetary loss, nor did he determine that there are no grounds to proceed.

Heidi lied, once again. Imagine that.

Here is the latest from our reporter on the ground, Gran to Angels:

Hi everyone!

Well….either Heidi is lying again or her lawyer is lying to her…you decide!

Posted by Heidi at Kimkins…..

“Ladies, for those of your following the ridiculous class action lawsuit, there was a hearing this morning where the opposing attorney, John Tiedt, had filed a motion for Summary Judgment. It was DENIED. The judge stated the SJ motion was premature, that the class hadn’t been defined nor damages proven.

The 2 year old saga continues…”

Well Heidi…you were not there….I was so looking forward to seeing you again but did not show up….I was there! The Summary Judgment was not “DENIED”….nope….another lie but you are good at them aren’t you? The Judge did say that the Summary Judgment was premature but what the Judge wants done is already in the works….premature simply means John is breathing down your neck! The class action against you is indeed certified and we don’t have to prove damages…this is not about damages it’s about fraud!

Yes the 2 year old saga continues….enjoy your freedom while you can!

Yes, Heidi - enjoy your moment. It will be as a blink of the eye in the big scheme of things.

John's interveiw as he exited the courtroom can be found here.

Friday, June 26, 2009

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.

Fen Notice

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Late Breaking Lawsuit News

A Motion for Summary Judgment has been filed with the Riverside Courts by John Tiedt, attorney for the Plaintiffs in the Class Action Lawsuit pending against Heidi Diaz, founder of Kimkins, a diet site which was established based on fraudulent claims made by Ms. Diaz, namely that she had lost 198 pounds over a 11 month period of time, had maintained that loss for 5 years and was qualified to advise and assist others in mirroring her success. As we know, she supported her claims with fraudulent before and after pictures of both herself and her many claimed success stories. We also know that she did NOT lose 198 pounds in 10 months, or over any period of time, for that matter. She didn't lose 100 pounds. She might have lost 50. There is not 5 years of maintenance, there are no after photos.

A Motion for Summary Judgment basically appeals to the court to save the tax payers the cost of a trial as the admitted facts of the case are clear enough to render a decision. The Motion that John filed is many, many pages long and, as usual, is filled with a plethora of indisputable facts to support the request. A hearing has been set to hear the motion on August 24, 2009 at 8:30 am in Riverside County. The State of California requires an 80 day waiting period before such a hearing to allow the court and all parties involved to properly prepare for the hearing.

This is not simply a routine procedure. In fact, it is rather unusual in a case of this nature. However, John believes strongly that the facts in this case warrant this action. He has proven to us time after time just how strong a case has been built, thanks to the tireless work done by so many people to bring the facts to light.

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Is the SLAPP Back - Take Two

If you recall, just a couple of days after Heidi Diaz, founder and fraudulent promoter of the dangerous, nutritionally bankrupt Kimkins Diet, had her calculated attempt to derail the Class Action lawsuit, better known as her bankruptcy case, dismissed her attorney, Mr. Peabody (in the Library with the Candlestick), posted a scathing comment (try to keep a straight face here, k?) on Melting Mama’s blog, threatening dire consequences if she didn’t cease and desist in publishing the God’s honest truth about his client on her blog and impeding his client’s attempts to lure even more people into her snare, er, website. (If you missed it the first time, read about it here.)

Well, here we are, just a couple of short days after the court gave a resounding spanking to Heidi and her divorce lawyer – okay, maybe not a spanking but certainly a defeat, when they granted the petition by the plaintiffs – in English, they certified the Class Action status of this lawsuit. Anyway, Mr. Peabody (in the Kitchen with the Rope) has sent another confrontational comment to another blogger.

**BTW, Mr. Peabody, I know that it is Mrs. Peacock in the game of Clue, but I just can’t help myself. It is just how my mind works. It is no way an implication that you run around with revolvers, candlesticks or rope! This case is sort of like a whodunit, except we know whodunit, the culprit has confessed and all that. So, you see, saying things like she is a liar, she is a shyster, she is a con artist, and … well, the list is long, but saying those things is an expression of one’s First Amendment rights because those statements are TRUE statements. In case you aren’t quite up to speed yet on all that, I’d invite you to simply read chapters one, two, three and four of the Heidi Diaz Deposition Compilation.**

First of all, it is very apparent that Mr. Peabody isn’t nearly as familiar with this case as are the rest of us. If he was he would know that the information he keeps demanding (name, address, etc.) is right in front of him. In this case it is actually in the court documents. In fact, his predecessor served this most recent person not once, but TWICE. Surely he knows that, right? If not, his client sure does. So, the threats of contacting IPs and all that are simply that – threats. Empty threats but threats just the same.

And when has anyone ever heard of a lawyer – one who HAS the name and address of the party he is trying to intimidated into surrendering their First Amendment rights of free speech – delivering a Cease and Desist letter … via a blog comment … Let that thought just sink in a moment. A blog comment. Not a certified letter. Not even an email. But a blog comment. Was that enough to compel Heidi Diaz to cease and desist in the matter of using before and after photographs of some of the witnesses in this case in her advertising? No. Come to think of it, the certified letters to her and her attorney weren’t effective either.

Just as with the last blog comment he posted, this one also threatened that if the blog posts didn’t cease immediately that he had been instructed by his client to vigorously pursue this person in a court of appropriate jurisdiction. Now, I have a pretty good idea how much of a retainer Heidi paid him, and I’m really sure that it isn’t enough for him to go hiring lawyers licensed to practice in different states and working with them to bring these flagrant bloggers to justice. We all realize that he isn’t able to practice law anywhere other than California. I doubt he is foolish enough to attempt to sue all these folks in the State of California after it was shot down when Mr. Cottle tried it. Heidi certainly could be paying him more money, of course. I’m just thinking that he likely has a whole lot of work to do on this case right there in Riverside County. And we all know that with lawyers, time is money! So, Mr. Peabody, are you simply doing this to satisfy the whims of your client? You do realize that you wouldn’t be the first person she has led down the path that doesn’t end anywhere good, right? We all know she is VERY convincing, with her sweet voice that belies the cold, calculating person she really is. We know how she can make the most absurd statements and spin them in such a way that you actually start to believe it – you really WANT to believe it, in fact. We KNOW how she can tell bold faced lies all while being shown the proof that she is lying – and how once she realizes that you aren’t buying into what she is saying she will turn on a dime and suddenly be telling a completely different story. I assure you, Mr. Peabody – you will never know when she is telling you the truth and when she is not.

Ah, well. Obviously he recognized the risks in going forward with Heidi’s last efforts to send the witnesses in the case against her scurrying into the shadows. This new tactic is interesting, to say the least, but I’m pretty certain it will be just as likely to backfire. I promise you that the witnesses are totally committed to seeing this thing all the way through. They are not going to go away.

You want to know what is really funny? This blogger, just like the last one, really doesn’t blog much about Heidi Diaz, Kimkins or the lawsuit. This one doesn’t blog much, period. This one certainly is a very big thorn in Heidi’s side, but still is not very active online.

I have to wonder just what Mr. Peabody, or Heidi, hopes to accomplish with these types of tactics? Surely there isn’t a class on legal bullying at whichever fine law school Mr. Peabody attended. And that’s what this boils down too. Legal bullying. Eventually one of those blog post comments might find themselves in the inbox of someone from the California Bar Association. While there was no class on legal bullying, I bet there was a class (or two) on ethics. As my really good friend, John Tiedt, likes to say – there is SO much good that can be done with that law license. So much good. Like pretty much everything else it is all about choices, isn’t it? May we all choose wisely.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

And the Decision Is ...

We won the Motion for Class Certification! You ROCK, John!

I do hope some of those who so firmly believed that we have no foundation for a lawsuit here will now realize that we are NOT just a bunch of bored housewives...

Thursday, May 14, 2009

I've Been Thinking ...

And reading. Heidi Diaz filed her Opposition to Motion for Class Certification, and John T. has filed his response. She really doesn’t get it, does she? And obviously, neither does Mr. Peabody (it is so hard to say that without adding in the Conservatory with the Knife, but I digress…).

You know how you can be talking to someone and they say one little thing and all of a sudden light bulbs start turning on and you see something so clearly that has been right in front of you all along? Well, I had one of those moments this morning. My mind just flew to all sorts of possible scenarios. Here’s how it went …

A good friend and I were talking about Heidi’s essay contest. You can read all about it here, but basically she wanted all sorts of folks vying for $500 in cash prizes, plus Kimkins gift baskets and gift certificates by writing in and telling why they simply LOVE Kimkins. If you notice, the date that contest ended was May 11. Suddenly I realize WHY she is doing that. She has to support the claim Mr. Peabody made in her Opposition – that she has “a substantial number of current active and satisfied clients”. Those essay entries should be safely in the hands of those “blind” judges by now. And the hands of Mr. Peabody, I would add. She has to be able to produce those satisfied clients.

She promised that their names would not be published. Of course, she forgot to mention that once they are submitted to the court as “proof” that their real names will have to be produced as well. She will have to produce those testimonials as exhibits. Don’t forget the fact that they are real people and not sock puppets or paid endorsements will have to be validated. In other words, they will become witnesses for the defense. I’m sure she will try to claim that their identities are somehow privileged. She may be able to hide their name from the public, but the question of whether or not they are real people will still have to be proven to the satisfaction of the court. Given her pattern of fictionalizing, shall we say, that is a genuine and significant question. If they are real people, they have been gathered up by the guise of a “contest”. Another deception. Surprise!

Anyone want to bet that they won’t be published on her site at all? She will claim she is not doing so to protect them, or her attorney advised her not to or some such thing. How about this – the Class Certification hearing is May 20. She is announcing the winners on June 1. She will say the court won’t let her publish that information. Or maybe the “blind judge” is THE judge and she will pick the one he seems to like the best or the one that she believes gets her off the hook. But either way she will say she awarded the money. I wonder if she realizes that to NOT pay those prizes out to real people would be yet another fraud? If a single person submitted their entry via the US Mail that would be a special type of fraud.

I wonder, too, about the testimonials that are popping up on her LiveExpert site (assuming they are real people). She obviously has all of their contact info – whether it is just via their bank or Paypal account or actual address, or her sock drawer. Are they going to pop up as some of her satisfied clients?

Well, this is all just speculation on my part, of course. I have no crystal ball. I just hope that those folks who thought they saw easy money don’t find themselves unwittingly in the middle of her legal messes. Not that she would care, as so many can attest to.

Awhile back this blog post was published in which Heidi supposedly wrote an email to someone addressing the scam involving her and her website. In that email she wrote that two years ago she admitted to making errors in the promotion of her website but immediately corrected those errors when she got caught. Two years ago. That part is certainly a lie, though it is apparent that she is going to try to hang her hat on that hook, judging by her filing.

She made another statement in that email, though, that bears some focus. She said, “What didn't change is Kimkins: a very inexpensive weight loss plan that allows members very quick weight loss. Kimkins is a lean low carb diet with up to 6 servings of leafy greens daily. Less fat than Atkins, fewer carbs than South Beach, low glycemic with superior blood sugar control. This is why our members often report losing 5% of their TOTAL body weight in 10 days or less.”

She is sure right about that. Kimkins has NOT changed. It is STILL a dangerously low calorie diet. It is STILL perpetuated by misleading statements and representations. She is STILL morbidly obese – a fact she fails to list in her “credentials” on her LiveExpert page - proving she STILL isn't able to follow the very diet she cheerfully accepts payment for and promotes. She STILL represents that she has many active members, when, in fact, her numbers have dwindled to a couple of handfuls of fairly regular posters – even lower when you omit the sock puppets. Heidi STILL lies about all sorts of things germane to this case. Yes, indeed. She is sure right that Kimkins has not changed.

Monday, May 4, 2009

16 Days and Counting ...

Just a reminder since Heidi has a tendency to forget these things:

NOTICES IS HEREBY GIVEN that the MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION, filed by Plaintiffs, ...,filed on or about April 10, 2009, has been set for hearing on May 20, 2009, at 8:30 am in Department 4 of the Riverside County Superior Court ..."

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Heidi and Focused Thinking

One of my dear friends called me last night during swimming practice to rant a bit about the king sized ones of Heidi Diaz. She has just gotten her latest unwelcome and undesired Kimkins newsletter. She wonder just how Ms. Diaz, having only a few weeks ago been so destitute to have filed for bankruptcy could now be flush enough with cash to sponsor an essay contest. Good point, Christin.

So, this morning, my dear friend Avenue Girl calls me. “Read this!” she said. “It’s my essay entry!”

Well, for the first time I actually read the newsletter article. I was going to ignore this whole thing, but some things are just TOO good to pass up.

“Entries will be judged on originality, sincerity and how well your message is conveyed.” I think AG is pretty sincere here, don’t you? She gets her point across. It is an original take on things, too. I bet there won’t be a single other submission quite like it. Since she is on the move a lot maybe Heidi could just send her winnings in c/o John Tiedt.

“Before/after photos may be included to demonstrate your message.” First thing that comes to my mind – take a photo of how much food you ate while doing Kimkins and put it alongside a photo of how much food you eat doing Atkins. Mariasol already has done lots of those before and after shots. Maybe she’d resurrect them.

“Entries will be blind judged. Personal identifying information will be removed before forwarding to the Selection Committee.” Now, this is one of my favorite parts. Selection Committee - who could that be? The sock drawer? Oh, no, not them. They have to be able to enter and win. Brandon and Dennis maybe. I have a feeling this is something like that massive staff she had before she was busted. Oh, I know! It must be those blind followers. That will make the blind judging part easy. (I would never make fun of people conned by Heidi Diaz. At this point, those still devoted to her are fully aware and I don't consider them victims at all.)

“Winning essays may be published at Kimkins.com and personal information removed.” So we will never “know” if a real person or a sock won? Well, I don’t blame her for this one. She is, after all, still being sued. Why drag another person in to the middle of it all like she did Singinglass and Gary?

“Kimkins staff members, vendors and consultants are ineligible to enter or judge entries.” Remember – socks , Brandon and Dennis are not paid so I’m sure they aren’t staff members any more. I guess John T. can’t enter, since she gave him credit for giving her such good business advice in her first deposition. That would make him a consultant.

“Submit entries by email to webmaster@kimkins.com or mail at Kimkins, 575 Calhoun St., Corona, CA 92879.” Better be really careful now, Heidi. Fraud committed via the US Mail system is very serious, indeed.

$500 in cash prizes plus 5 gift baskets and Kimkins gift certificates? Christin is right. That is quite a chunk of change for someone who is bankrupt. I wonder – did you run this all by Mr. Peabody first?

I won’t be making an entry of my own because I like the same things Avenue Girl does so my entry wouldn’t be unique enough. I’m a bit worried about her, though – hasn’t Medusa taught us facial hair and stick legs are not a good thing?

I do have a few of my own to add, I guess. I like that I’ve been able to fine tune investigation skills and how easily those skills translate to the airy environment of the internet.

I’ve learned a whole lot more about human nature. Sociopaths really feel no remorse for the harm they do to others. They believe the rules that govern society as a whole simply don’t apply to them, especially in the case of a particular sociopath who tells herself she is simply trying to help people lose weight. They believe they hold the truth and the answers and the fact that they are not able to apply that truth to themselves and help themselves is totally irrelevant to the issue.

I like Kimkins for entertainment that has lasted for a year and a half now. It must make you proud, Heidi, to know that you have caught and kept the attention of so many people for so long. If what you were doing wasn’t so despicable we wouldn’t give you the time of day. I imagine you count on that, eh? Makes me think of what we know about delinquent children. Bad attention is better than no attention. Is that what it is for you, Heidi? You deserve to get attention face to face – not via the internet. I know a place where you can have a captive audience. You will look good in orange. Good thing you used that Rentin-A all those years.

The thing I like best about Kimkins is that I’ve met some incredible people. Actually, everyone I’ve “met” is incredible in one way or another. Quite a mix of characters.

Thank you, Heidi, for keeping in the forefront of our minds exactly what kind of person you are. Thank you for calling on us to reflect on what it is we like about Kimkins just days before we all head back into court with you. Your timing, as always, is impeccable.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Is the SLAPP back?

Ah, it is nice to be back to business, now that the attempt to thwart the class action lawsuit with an ill advised bankruptcy has failed. We all know Heidi will have to attempt *something* to keep things stirred up. Of course she fails to realize that John and team will not be thwarted no matter the depths she attempts to attack from.

The latest is the attempt to intimidate the blogger known as Melting Mama, aka Beth. You can read the details here. Be sure to scroll to the bottom to get the really interesting part - though the part where her blog was hit many, many, many times is interesting in itself.

Not to take anything away from Melting Mama, but I have to wonder - why her? Looking around her site she has made mention of KK a couple of times, but she certainly isn't in the category of dedicated anti-KK blogger whose main focus is bringing down the Kimpire. So I ask again - why Beth? Does anyone believe for one nanosecond that Mr. Peabody is going to find someone in the fine state of MA to represent Heidi Diaz (or Dias, if you prefer)? Is he foolish enough to believe her pockets are that deep? Is he tipping her hand - allowing that she really has far more assets than she claims? Is he reckless enough to threaten legal action that he actually has no intention of taking?

The entire incident with NancyElle is brought to mind. Could it be that Beth is expected to react in a certain way to arouse the anti-KK crowd in a particular fashion? Is he counting on her to send waves of fright throughout a community he has neither the resources nor the legal grounds to take on?

Do you suppose he, being a competent (I'm guessing - I have no knowledge) divorce attorney, has researched the issue of retaliatory lawsuits? Is he ready to stick himself out there? Does he realize that if this little move of his backfires on him (which it surely will) that not only his client but he, himself, would be held financially liable?

We've all seen Heidi batting her little eyes, pulling the awe, shucks, I'm just a simple little housewife act. Do you suppose that is really mesmerizing in person?

Well, time will tell all, won't it? In the mean time, thank you, Mr. Peabody, for giving us something to contemplate while we all await May 20.

Oh, and HI! Heidi! I see you are online at the moment at LivePerson - dishing out even more of your made up advice. Lucky for you starvation really causes weight loss, eh? I wonder - do you show your before and after photos to your new "clients"? Do you tell them your own personal story? Do you still believe it is okay to deceive people because all you are trying to do is "help" them lose weight? Wonder with each and every one of those contacts just who really IS on the other end of the line ... you never know when you'll have to face those words again.

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Sometimes the Wheels of Justice Aren't So Slow ...

May 25, 2009 --- The US Bankruptcy Court has dismissed the bankruptcy petition filed by Heidi K. Diaz.

Initially Heidi filed for protection under Chapter 11 - a reorganization plan for businesses. Between the efforts of John Tiedt, lead attorney for the Class Action lawsuit against Ms. Diaz, and Scott Clarkson, the bankruptcy attorney representing the interests of the Class Action participants, they were able to demonstrate to the trustee that Ms. Diaz did not qualify to file Chapter 11, resulting in her stating her intention to refile under Chapter 13. What is not clear is if she ever actually did that.

What is clear is the trustee has determined that the case should be completely dismissed at this point. This could be for a variety of reasons. The documents don't specifically state, but it is my speculation that Heidi was not being cooperative with the requests of the trustee. She certainly didn't want to be forthcoming with honest answers to legitimate questions, nor did she want to surrender further information as she was soon to be compelled to surrender.

Regardless of the reason, the end result is that the bankruptcy is dismissed, Heidi is prohibited from refiling for 180 days (6 months), and a judgment was entered against her in the amount of $325 for costs.


Attention will once again turn to the main lawsuit. I, for one, do not believe that Heidi is going to suddenly turn cooperative. Surely she will attempt to thwart John's efforts at every turn as she has previously. Do you suppose she will finally "get it" that her adversary is NOT going to back down? Can the end to this madness be far from sight? Several of us have invested months in this case. I have to say, moments like today when my phone rang make it oh, so worth it :)

Jeanessa has often marveled that in her quest for a lawyer she managed to find John. This case most certainly would not be where it is today without him. Thank you, John!

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

New Defense Idea for Kimkins Founder

Hey, Heidi - here is a new tactic for you. Maybe you can use this as your defense for not being 118 ...

Personal trainer Paul “PJ” James of Australia decided he needs to fatten up to be able to relate to his obese clients so he is on a quest to intentionally gain 85 pounds. He figures doing this will put him in the right frame of mind to understand the struggles of the overweight souls he is trying to help. In his fit state, apparently, he isn’t able to do that.

The tools he is using to reach his new goal weight of 265 pounds are Krispy Crème donuts and deep-fried chocolate bars, along with other widely accepted foods that pack on the weight. Of course, he has also ditched the healthy veggies and other nutritious alternatives, because apparently he believes that overweight people don’t eat those. He started at 180 in January, and by the time of this ABC News story at the end of February he had already packed a bunch of it on to reach 233 pounds. He plans to be at his goal weight by the end of March. Wow. That is any day now.

I wonder if Mr. James has entertained the possibility that he may actually be creating an eating disorder? Could he develop an intolerance for or addiction to carbs like so many of us have? Will all the muscle mass he has hidden under all that fat deprive him of the experience he craves – that of being just like his fat clients?

This gives new meaning to what someone is willing to do for a buck. I sort of doubt some hunk gaining weight rapidly and losing it just as rapidly is going to be much inspiration to anyone. Maybe he will maintain his new weight for 4 or 5 years and THEN lose it. That might inspire me. Or not.

Look here for Mr. James’ success photo gallery. (Obviously the before pic at ABC was from his modeling days and Day 3 – well – wasn’t. Not that he doesn’t look good on Day 3 but I sure don’t see that lovely six pack …)

Sunday, March 15, 2009

What We Asked For ... God Help Us.

I implore you, my fellow citizens, pay attention to what is happening in our government.

... Before "we" get what we voted for ...

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

It's aWonderful Day in the Neighborhood!

Just in from John Tiedt:

All seven of our motions to quash were granted today. Heidi lost. Heidi’s new attorney showed up today and tried to get the court to continue the matter but the judge emphatically denied that request. The court decided to hear all 7 since Mr. Peabody showed up.

Do you hear that noise, Heidi? It's the sound of the other shoe getting ready to drop ...

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Allow me to introduce …

As is well known, Heidi Diaz, founder and owner of the fraudulent business known as Kimkins, filed a petition for bankruptcy a mere two days before she was required to appear in court for a hearing on the motion to certify the class in the civil case pending against her. Those of us who have been closely following this case, as well as the lead council for the plaintiffs, John Tiedt, fully believe this action taken by Heidi Diaz is a blatant attempt on her part to manipulate the court system in her latest attempt to side-step the civil action being taken.

John has promised us that he will diligently fight any attempts on the part of Ms. Diaz to expand her fraud into the bankruptcy courts. One of the trademarks of a true expert is they recognize their areas of expertise and when they encounter a need beyond their own scope of practice they eagerly seek out wise counsel. John Tiedt is truly an expert. In this case, John has secured the services of one of THE top lawyers in the field of bankruptcy law in the State of California. This gentleman served as the Chair of the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s Bankruptcy Committee from 2005-2007. Currently he is vice chair of the Executive Committee of the Commercial Law and Bankruptcy Section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. Among his many other affiliations he is a former Local Bankruptcy Rules Committee Chair for the Los Angeles County Bar Association Bankruptcy Law Committee. In other words, he is incredibly qualified to deal with this matter.

Friends – and Heidi – please meet Mr. Scott C. Clarkson, of Clarkson, Gore and Marsella.

Mr. Clarkson, thank you so very much for catching the vision that John shares with so many of us – the vision of holding Heidi Kimberly Diaz accountable for the devious actions that have brought harm to so many people.

Once again, Heidi … Game On.

No Gifts?

This question is asked on the bankruptcy documents that Heidi filed:

Q: List all gifts or charitable contributions made within one year immediately preceding the commencement of this case except ordinary and usual gifts to family members aggregating less than $200 in value per individual family member and charitable contributions aggregating less than $100 per recipient.

A: None

You mean to tell me that on the heels of a year of making almost two MILLION dollars (that you reported) that you didn't buy your children gifts? During the year you made over $100,000 - in which you had NO house payment - you didn't buy gifts for your children? Your grandchild? You claim both Dennis and Brandon as dependents on your bankruptcy, but you didn't gift either one of them? No car? No bed? No clothes? Oh. Maybe you consider all those things just like maintenance. You know, expenses. But you didn't list those things as expenses. I mean, $25 a month for clothing won't clothe 3 adults. If you DID ever buy Brandon a bed (I would certainly hope you did) it couldn't have been much of one, as your entire household goods is only valued at $1500 (are you sure you didn't leave at least one zero off that number?). Short of buying a used mattress (you can't sell used mattresses around here) you surely spent more than $200 on a bed. Maybe you just bought him an air mattress. Maybe you didn't include it in your household goods because it is, after all, HIS bed. Oh, but then you would have gifted it to him, wouldn't you?

I'm not buying it. And I bet the court won't, either.

Friday, January 16, 2009

And They Said It Couldn't Be Done

Hi, Heidi! Just in case you missed it ...

01/14/2009 - 8:30 AM DEPT. 04


Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Setting the Record Straight

Not being one unable to say they are mistaken, I would like to address this statement in my last post:

"Question: A petition under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 or the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 has previously been filed by or against the debtor, his/her spouse, an affiliate of the debtor, …yada, yada, yada …
Answer: NONE

She must have forgot those two other times, eh?"

I've been doing some studying. This particular question on the bankruptcy forms that Heidi filed falls under Local Rule 1015-2. Local rules apply to - well, local areas. They are rules specific to a particular jurisdiction.

This particular rule is asking about Related Cases - is this case related to any other bankruptcy proceedings, either current or within the three years prior to this current filing.

Heidi answered that question as none, which is correct. Her prior bankruptcies do not fit the criteria.

I apologize if any of you followed me down this bunny trail. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa

Finer Points

Edited below - see note

I see that I need to clear a couple of things up and answer some questions here.

Her "here is the money I get to live on each month" income is not $11,666. That is her gross monthly income, before her business expenses. And the other is factored in to it all. After all her business expenses that she claims she has is taken out and all her living expenses that she claims she has are taken out, she STILL has over $1,000 a month. Call that go to town money. Blow money. Retirement fund, except she doesn't have one of those. Still far more than most people have at the end of the month.

Next thing, those taxes, I assume, are for 2007 AND 2008. I wonder if she has even gotten around to filing her taxes for 2007? Time will tell. At some point she will be required to produce her returns.

That $4,500+ in other expenses are broken out below that question - all those various business expenses, including bunches to Clexus. Wasn't the $400,000 she sent them just before the lawsuit was filed enough?

Didn't she claim repeatedly on her website for sure and in her depo as I recall that she had paid all those expenses in advance for like 2-3 years? Maybe it was in private emails and such. To Tippy maybe? Jeannie, if you're reading, send me a note and let me know, would you? Thanks.

Here is some more from my notes written during my first read through of the docs:

More stuff ….

This is just some of my notes that I’ve jotted down during the first reading.

She filed as an individual
Chap 11
Debts are mostly business debts
Largest Debt: State of CA Franchise Tax Board: $154,832
Student Loans
Dental Bill – wow – massive work - $9,200
Small credit cards
Large unsecured loan, with $4000 worth of collateral … total $26,724 – 22,724 unsecured (Edited to add: They have apparently reversed the numbers on here, as it has been documented that she put $4,000 down and the rest is on a note. In that case, the $22,724 would be secured. Maybe that's how she is going to defend against any "errors" in this paperwork - her lawyer is unfamiliar with matters of bankruptcy law)

Now is when it gets interesting …

Question: A petition under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 or the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 has previously been filed by or against the debtor, his/her spouse, an affiliate of the debtor, …yada, yada, yada …
Answer: NONE

She must have forgot those two other times, eh?

She signed that specific piece of paper declaring under penalty of perjury that it was true and correct. Oops!

She claims her household property has a value of only $1,500. Good thing she never bought Brandon a bed. That figure would have been MUCH higher then. I suppose it is possible if she has really old and beat up stuff. I’d think that flat screen television that hangs on the wall of her office would be worth more than that, but what do I know?

Personal wearing apparel is $200.00. She does say in the documents that she hasn’t had a fire, flood or other major event like that. I guess stretch pants and spandex are really cheap in California.

No money. Serious. $100 cash. $200 PayPal. $4 in another bank. She has definitely fallen on hard times here.

Here it says Halcyon is a joint venture or partnership – non-viable – value $1…

Of course there is the $52,698.01 in that trust account that is frozen and attached.

Doesn’t know the value of her Kimkins customer list … let me help you with that one, Heidi. You’ve burnt most of those folks and they are likely not candidates to join yet another diet scam, so I’d put that one at zero. I’m sure some other scammer would be willing to pay you a bit more than that, though, for that list …

A 2006 Toyota Corolla worth $4,000 – is that what the collateral is on the above note?

We need to check property values in her neighborhood – have they really declined 50% plus?

That’s it for now. The next section starts dealing with the creditors and I need to reread that slowly to make sure I get it right.

It's That Pesky Lawsuit, I Tell You!

Some details from Heidi's bankruptcy filing. I see what sticks out to me, but what sticks out to you?

Heidi claims $11,666 a MONTH in income from KK, and $8915 a month in operating expenses (sorry, have to wipe off my computer screen), minus $1748 in living expenses, leaving her $1003 a month. Now, this is AFTER her taxes and insurance on her house, her food, her $25 a month clothing allowance, her utilities, everything. I think most folks would WISH for that sort of monthly excess, don’t you?

And she swears, once again, that this is accurate information. We’ll see.

Now, this is the fun stuff. Her business statements.

Monthly gross income: $11,666
Office supplies: 167.00
Legal, Accounting and other Professional Fees: $4,166 - Cottle made his money for the year, I see. That might include her CPA and bookkeeper (or whatever that other guy did) from January until September.

$4,582 in other? I can’t wait to see what that is, can you?

Here it is!
Web Hosting: $583.00
Advertising: $667.00
Clexus: $833.00
Tech Support Services: $750.00
Forum Support Services: $416.00
Refunds: $167.00
Google Adwords: $1,166.00

Someone asked specifically about her California taxes ... according to Becky's blog, in Part One of her deposition she said she sent them $100,000. She either underestimated it by $$154,832, or she lied about sending the $100,000, or she is lying on her bankruptcy filing. I wonder which one it will turn out to be ...

I would like to invite any experts in bankruptcy to comment on this matter.

There is much more in these documents. Stay tuned.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Can a Leopard Change Spots?

Apparently not, at least if that leopard's name happens to be Heidi K. Diaz.

I find myself in possession of a full copy of her bankruptcy filing from yesterday. It is very enlightening. I have only a few moments at this minute to get this up, but for now I will give you a glimpse into what I see ...

1. Cottle is NOT listed as a creditor, so she has paid him in full.

2. Heidi, Heidi, Heidi ... when you were sending off that tax check to the IRS just before the lawsuit was filed, why, why, why did you ignore the State of California? Didn't you realize that they were gonna want a whole big giant chunk of money from you?

3. The drop in the housing market must have hit her pretty hard. Or so she thinks. She estimates her house to be worth $200,000. Didn't she pay something like $400,000 for it? Oh, and there's that little tax thing again. It would be awful for that place to be sold at a tax sale ...

4. Her divorce lawyer (who isn't known in any bankruptcy lawyer circles in CA apparently) who subspecializes in bankruptcy DID get a pretty good sized retainer. And is pretty pricey to boot. Of course, $5,000 is a drop in the bucket for a successful business owner such as herself.

I've check with my own legal counsel on this - ALL of this information is public record now that it has been filed. Gosh, Heidi - do you really think it was wise to LIE on a document we all were gonna see and have enough documentation to put you away?

Or, I bet you didn't bother to read the fine print at the bottom - right by where you signed you name. You signed a statement that says, "I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in this statement is true and correct." You remember that part?

Well, how about the part that says, "Penalty for making a false statement: Fine up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years or both. 18 U.S.C. Sections 152 and 3571."

Bless your heart. Have you forgotten that you have now moved yourself up into FEDERAL court?

Later tonight I will detail some of those lies ...

Out of the hat comes ...

There is lots of new Heidi news ... like, NEWS FLASH news. I really thought I needed a song or a strong photo to set the stage for this, so I went hunting. Before I get to the really big news ... serious stuff, folks! ... I want to share what I found. Not exactly what I was looking for, but it does sort of remind me of the last year I've spent on this thing. From the looks of things, I'm not done yet, either. Be sure to see below for the Heidi news ...

Ok. On with the news.

By now, most of you have heard that Heidi made a really underhanded move yesterday. TWO DAYS before the hearing for the class certification of our lawsuit, Heidi filed for bankruptcy. What's the big deal you may ask? Well, it puts the breaks on everything real fast. All court proceedings against her are halted. Dead in the water? Hardly. Though I'm quite certain Heidi thinks so. Stalled? Most definitely. Of course, as Deedlyn pointed out at LCF ... fraudulent filings of bankruptcies to avoid other lawful court action is not taken lightly. Heidi may very well have put herself in that orange jumpsuit we have been waiting for her to model for us.

Oh, but there's more.

A new diet website has popped up on the scene. Simple Choices Diet. It is a diet that appears to work on exchanges, rather like the diet the American Diabetes Association publishes. Each recipe on her site breaks out the nutritional data in exchanges (so many starches, so many fats, so many fruits, and so many proteins). Here is how she is positioning it: "Simple Choices is a fresh alternative to dieting and permanent weight loss. The focus is on fast weight loss using real food with no carb or calorie counting. Members receive flexible portions, expert help, delicious recipes and community forum support. Dieters will be treated to an easy to follow way to lose weight fast." Oh, yes. All of those tags that we have come to know and love are all there still: lose weight fast,fast weight loose,low carb diet,low fat diet,low glycemic diet,gastric surgery diet,lose stomach fat,lose weight after baby,online diet,cheap diet,easy diet,loose belly fat,lose 100 pounds,lose belly fat,quick weight loss. There is an extensive Google store that makes it very clear that she is turning her back on the diet plan that made her millions, in a deluded attempt to go more mainstream.

So, how do I KNOW this is Heidi Diaz at work, and not just some soul who is trying to make a buck - sort of like the Magic Chicken Diet? Heidi, you may want to listen up to this ... I hold in my hand absolute proof this is you. You think you are so smart, but you really aren't. I have a piece of paper - one from a very legitimate financial organization.

Heidi is quickly going to face problems on several fronts. First and foremost she is going to have to convince a judge that she is broke and can't pay her bills. Of course, she will have to explain to that judge why she just realized that two days before our hearing. And days before her court date with the City of Corona. She will also have to explain how she is so broke that she set up this website, has started paying for Google Ads for that site, and is still spending thousands of dollars a month on advertising for Kimkins.

Of course, she is also going to have to deal with that pesky little matter of trademark violation. The company who owns the trademark on your name, Heidi, was VERY interested in all the little details. That piece of paper I have will make sure that you can't claim it isn't you. Every photograph, every paragraph, every article you put up on that site are being scrutinized, too. You have such a propensity to lift things that aren't yours and use them for your own financial gain. did I say that company? I meant the general counsel of that company.

Hopefully this one won't take a year ...