Here is the content of the Notice of Class Action Judgement against Heidi Diaz and Kimkins. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS YOU NEED TO READ THIS AND FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS.
A PDF copy of the Judge's decision and order against HEIDI DIAZ and KIMKINS is available. I will send it to anyone/everyone who requests one.
John E. Tiedt [State Bar No. 134667]
Marc S. Hurd [State Bar No. 130667
TIEDT & HURD
980 Montecito Drive, Suite 209
Corona, California 92879
Telephone: (951) 549-9400
Facsimile: (951) 549-9800
Michael Lee Cohen (SBN 206253)
MICHAEL L. COHEN,
Cohen McKeon, LLP
1910 West Sunset Blvd., #440
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Telephone: (213) 413-6400
Facsimile: (213) 403-6405
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, RIVERSIDE COURT
JEANESSA FENDERSON; TRISTA ESSEX; KATHLEEN ROGERS; DIANA SHERBY; ANN MARIE WOOD; NANCY MCGREGOR, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HEIDI DIAZ; KIMKINS, an unknown business entity, and DOES 4 through 100, Inclusive,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No. RIC 483005
CLASS ACTION
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION JUDGMENT
[Assigned to Judge Mark E. Johnson, Dept. 5]
Action Filed: October 15, 2007
Trial Date: October 25, 2010
A STATE COURT AUTHORIZED THIS NOTICE. YOU HAVE NOT BEEN SUED.
YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS NOTICE BECAUSE YOU MIGHT BE ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE RECOVERY FROM A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST HEIDI DIAZ AND THE WEB SITE KIMKINS.COM.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE IS TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION REGARDING THE COURT’S JUDGMENT IN JEANESSA FENDERSON, ET AL. V. HEIDI DIAZ, ET AL, CASE NO. RIC 483005, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
YOU MUST ACT PROMPTLY IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE ANY PORTION OF THIS JUDGMENT.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.
THE CONTENTS OF THIS NOTICE
WHY SHOULD I READ THIS NOTICE?
The purpose of this notice is to provide you with information regarding the Court’s judgment in Jeanessa Fenderson, et al. v. Heidi Diaz, et al, Case No. RIC 483005, in the Superior Court of the State of California, Riverside County, California. This notice also will provide you with the information you need to determine whether you are a member of the class and to obtain your share of the recovery as a member of the class.
WHY AM I GETTING THIS NOTICE?
You are receiving this notice because you might be a member of the class—that is, someone who purchased a Kimkins.com diet membership on-line from the Kimkins.com Web site from January 1, 2006 through October 15, 2007.
WHAT WAS THIS CASE ABOUT?
This lawsuit was based on the plaintiffs’ claims that Heidi Diaz and her Web site, www.kimkins.com, used unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practices to fool them into buying memberships to Kimkins.com. This lawsuit also was based on the plaintiffs’ claims that the false and misleading information contained on the kimkins.com Website constituted fraud or negligent misrepresentation by Diaz and the other defendants.
WHAT IS A “CLASS ACTION”?
A class action is a special type of lawsuit in which one person or a few people bring suit for all members of a similarly situated group to recover money for all members of the group, without each member of the group having to file his or her own lawsuit or appearing in the court. A class member is a person who participates in the class action and will be bound by any judgment or settlement in the case. Class actions may be used by courts when the legal claims and evidence appear to raise issues of law or fact that are common to all members of the class, this making it fair to apply any order, settlement, or judgment in the case to all class members.
WHO WAS INCLUDED IN THE CLASS?
In an order dated 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 www.kimkins.com by the plaintiffs and the members of the class. The Court defined the class 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.
WHAT HAPPENED AT TRIAL?
In late October 2010, the Court held a trial. After hearing and reading evidence presented by both sides, the Court concluded that the defendants had committed unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent acts in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code § 17200. The Court also concluded that the defendants had engaged in acts of negligent misrepresentation and fraud.
WHAT WAS THE COURT’S JUDGMENT?
On December 17, 2010, the Court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. The Court ordered the defendants to post a notice on www.kimkins.com warning members and potential members that Diaz had used fraudulent and deceptive advertising to sell memberships for her diet plans and diet support system. The Court ordered the defendants to pay restitution to members of the class in the amount of $1,824,210.39, less any amount for memberships paid by members who previously had acted to opt out of the class. The Court also ordered the defendants to pay punitive damages in the amount of $500,000.
WHAT IF I WANT TO READ A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT FOR MYSELF?
You can read a copy of the judgment at Kimkins.com
Kimkinsblog.com
Kimkinslawsuit.com
Kimkinsscam.wordpress.com
Kimkinscontroversy.com
Kimkindangers.blogspot.com
Lowcarbfriends.com
Livinlavidalocarb.com
Kimkinsexposed2.wordpress.com
Saynotokimkins.wordpress.com
Kimkinssurvivors.wordpress.com
Tiedtlaw.com
prudentiablog.blogspot.com
affiliatescams.wurdmess.com
simpledietchoices.com
amyb1569.wordpress.com
kimkinsclassactionlawsuit.blogspot.com
mariasol-mariasol.blogspot.com
kimkinsdiettruth. blogspot.com
2medusa.com
kimkinsdiettruth.wordpress.com
kimkinsdangers.blogspot.com
honeybeesblog.wordpress.com
kimkinsnightmares.blogspot.com
stumblingtobethlehem.blogspot.com
kimtanicwordpress.com
kimorexia.blogspot.com
notmakingnicetokimkins.blogspot.com
thekimkinslie.blogspot.com
livinlocarbandlovinit.blogspot.com
apinchofhealth.com
pinchof.blogspot.com
cindysIowcarblife.blogspot.com
weight-in.blogspot.com
mayberryfan.blogspot.com
dietwhoas. blogspot.com
weighingthefactsblogspot.com
magicsmomsmusings.blogspot.com
the-journey-on.blogspot.com
wifezillasway.blogspot.com
sockittome.info
mariasols.com
campcarbaway.com
eatinglow.com
atkinsdietbuIletinboard.com
examiner.com
helpfindthemissin.org.
WHAT RIGHTS DO I HAVE?
If you purchased a Kimkins.com diet membership on-line from the Kimkins.com Website between January 1, 2006 and October 15, 2007, you may send in a claim for your pro-rated share of the proceeds that the attorneys are able to collect from the defendants. Since we do not yet know how much money the plaintiffs’ attorneys will be able to collect from the defendants, we cannot know at this time how much each member of the class will recover.
If you wish to receive your pro-rated share of these proceeds, you must send in a signed copy of the form provided at the end of this notice. You must send it to the following address:
Mr. John E. Tiedt
Tiedt & Hurd
980 Montecito Drive, Suite 209
Corona, California 92879
To be eligible to receive your share of the recovery, the envelope with your signed form must be postmarked no later than midnight on November 7, 2011. So we urge you to act promptly.
HOW DO THE ATTORNEYS GET PAID? AND WHO PAYS THE COSTS FOR THIS LAWSUIT?
Class counsel—John E. Tiedt, Michael L. Cohen, and Ray Moore—represented the plaintiffs and the class members on a contingency-fee basis. After they have recovered what money they can from the defendants, they will file a request with the court for attorney fees and for reimbursement of the costs that they paid in bringing this lawsuit. The Court then will decide how much to pay them for their fees and how much they will be reimbursed for costs.
WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE IS ANY MONEY LEFT OVER?
By order of the Court, any money recovered that is not paid out to class members, to attorneys for fees, or to reimburse the attorneys for costs will be distributed to the Health Fraud Task Force of California.
WHAT IF I NEED MORE INFORMATION?
If you need more information, 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
Tiedt & Hurd
980 Montecito Drive, Suite 209
Corona, California 92879
Michael L. Cohen
Michael L. Cohen, a PLC
1910 West Sunset Blvd., #440
Los Angeles, California 90026
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.
Showing posts with label SLAPP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SLAPP. Show all posts
Monday, August 1, 2011
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.
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...
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...
Monday, May 4, 2009
16 Days and Counting ...
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 ..."
"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 ..."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
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.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Important Lawsuit Information
Edited to add: Several folks have asked if they had to have joined Kimkins to be able to help with this. The answer is NO! If you were simply on the Low Carb Friends board and saw her building her fake life in real-time then you can help! Contact me if you have any questions! Thanks, folks! Let's all join together in giving Heidi one great, big SMACK!
Dear Fellow Crusaders,
John is working diligently on the Certification Brief for the class action lawsuit against Heidi Diaz and Kimkins. The following is the information we are pulling together for him as he is finalizing the brief. If you can provide any of this information, please forward it either to PrudentiaBlog@aol.com, or to KimkinsCase@gmail.com. If you are concerned about becoming involved, please contact me and I will be able to discuss this further with you.
1. We are compiling a list of people who saw the person known as Kimmer, including the avatar of herself, on the Low Carb Friends board during the actual period of time she was there – during 2002 through mid 2006. You can simply send an email stating that you saw her and your name will be added to that list.
2. We are looking for more persons who dealt with Heidi while she was impersonating a consumer simply promoting the diet. For example, people who became involved in her free clothing give away. Particularly people who dealt with her as Vanessa2Lucky@yahoo.com.
3. We are looking for advertisements clearly stating that she was offering a life-time membership. These can be from between the dates of February 2006 and October 2007.
4. Heidi stated in advertisements that her diet is good for persons with Type II Diabetes. We are looking for people who read that advertisement and joined Kimkins based upon that claim.
5. We are compiling a list of those who have been banned from the Kimkins site. Please include whether or not you are “super banned” or if you can still access the front page but not the boards and membership only areas.
Again, please forward these items to PrudentiaBlog@aol.com or KimkinsCase@gmail.com so that we can compile the replies and sort out duplicates. Thank you very much for your assistance in these matters.
Dear Fellow Crusaders,
John is working diligently on the Certification Brief for the class action lawsuit against Heidi Diaz and Kimkins. The following is the information we are pulling together for him as he is finalizing the brief. If you can provide any of this information, please forward it either to PrudentiaBlog@aol.com, or to KimkinsCase@gmail.com. If you are concerned about becoming involved, please contact me and I will be able to discuss this further with you.
1. We are compiling a list of people who saw the person known as Kimmer, including the avatar of herself, on the Low Carb Friends board during the actual period of time she was there – during 2002 through mid 2006. You can simply send an email stating that you saw her and your name will be added to that list.
2. We are looking for more persons who dealt with Heidi while she was impersonating a consumer simply promoting the diet. For example, people who became involved in her free clothing give away. Particularly people who dealt with her as Vanessa2Lucky@yahoo.com.
3. We are looking for advertisements clearly stating that she was offering a life-time membership. These can be from between the dates of February 2006 and October 2007.
4. Heidi stated in advertisements that her diet is good for persons with Type II Diabetes. We are looking for people who read that advertisement and joined Kimkins based upon that claim.
5. We are compiling a list of those who have been banned from the Kimkins site. Please include whether or not you are “super banned” or if you can still access the front page but not the boards and membership only areas.
Again, please forward these items to PrudentiaBlog@aol.com or KimkinsCase@gmail.com so that we can compile the replies and sort out duplicates. Thank you very much for your assistance in these matters.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
It's So Hard to Say Goodbye for 40,000 Victims
I thank God in heaven that I never joined Kimkins, never followed Kimmer, never thought she was my friend, never believed she held the answer to my years long struggle with weight and eating issues. I never experienced the friendship - well, it appeared to be friendship. That sounds so odd, knowing that Kimmer never really existed. The betrayal that must come from knowing that someone you "talked" to every single day turned out to be nothing more than the seed flower of a dandelion that blows away with a strong wind. No, worse than that. Turned out to be an evil spirited sociopath who reveled in the struggling you endured trying to be all that she led you to believe she was.
I never experienced the camaraderie of the forums on the Kimkins board. Never grew those particular friendships. Never shared my secrets, my hopes, my fears, my failures and my successes with that particular group of people - only to have them willing to trade what I valued so highly - our friendship - for another lost pound on the scale because they weren't or aren't ready to accept that they, too, fell prey to this monster.
I've watched many people I've come to know, respect and care for walk through the normal grieving process, working hard to stand back up and believe once again that they CAN succeed, CAN trust, that it IS worth it.
I don't know if Heidi reads my blog or not. I truly don't believe she has a conscious to prick. She likely won't "get" this. But to those of you who have been harmed through this, I hope, if you aren't there already, that you are close to being able to let go of the dream of what it never really was but should have been, and embrace your today with hope, peace and surrounded by love.
I never experienced the camaraderie of the forums on the Kimkins board. Never grew those particular friendships. Never shared my secrets, my hopes, my fears, my failures and my successes with that particular group of people - only to have them willing to trade what I valued so highly - our friendship - for another lost pound on the scale because they weren't or aren't ready to accept that they, too, fell prey to this monster.
I've watched many people I've come to know, respect and care for walk through the normal grieving process, working hard to stand back up and believe once again that they CAN succeed, CAN trust, that it IS worth it.
I don't know if Heidi reads my blog or not. I truly don't believe she has a conscious to prick. She likely won't "get" this. But to those of you who have been harmed through this, I hope, if you aren't there already, that you are close to being able to let go of the dream of what it never really was but should have been, and embrace your today with hope, peace and surrounded by love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
