Just a reminder since Heidi has a tendency to forget these things:
"TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
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 ..."
Showing posts with label heidi diaz bankruptcy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label heidi diaz bankruptcy. Show all posts
Monday, May 4, 2009
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.
Sweet.
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!
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.
Sweet.
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!
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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
"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.
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 $$154,832, or she lied about sending the $100,000, or she is lying on her bankruptcy filing. I wonder which one it will turn out to be ...
I would like to invite any experts in bankruptcy to comment on this matter.
There is much more in these documents. Stay tuned.
Heidi claims $11,666 a MONTH in income from KK, and $8915 a month in operating expenses (sorry, have to wipe off my computer screen), minus $1748 in living expenses, leaving her $1003 a month. Now, this is AFTER her taxes and insurance on her house, her food, her $25 a month clothing allowance, her utilities, everything. I think most folks would WISH for that sort of monthly excess, don’t you?
And she swears, once again, that this is accurate information. We’ll see.
Now, this is the fun stuff. Her business statements.
Monthly gross income: $11,666
Office supplies: 167.00
Legal, Accounting and other Professional Fees: $4,166 - Cottle made his money for the year, I see. That might include her CPA and bookkeeper (or whatever that other guy did) from January until September.
$4,582 in other? I can’t wait to see what that is, can you?
Here it is!
Web Hosting: $583.00
Advertising: $667.00
Clexus: $833.00
Tech Support Services: $750.00
Forum Support Services: $416.00
Refunds: $167.00
Google Adwords: $1,166.00
Someone asked specifically about her California taxes ... according to Becky's blog, in Part One of her deposition she said she sent them $100,000. She either underestimated it by $$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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
