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...
Showing posts with label Sam Redman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sam Redman. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Friday, July 25, 2008
A Message for Mayberryfan … Imagine
Sigh. I have intentionally ignored this entire situation because it just hasn’t been worthy of a response, nor worthy of the time it takes away from the real things I have going on. But, alas, now I must respond.
Imagine, if you would, a certain lawsuit principal receiving a private message asking her if she was aware of how her ex-husband happened to stick his nose into the whole KK mess, and how she would be very unhappy if she did know.
Now, imagine that principal receiving an email telling her that this blogger, as well as the Yucky blogger and the Medusa blogger had actually initiated contact with that same ex-husband while investigating HER (the principal). Imagine, just for a moment, that principal did not know this blogger he had dialoged with nor was she fully aware of all contacts this blogger had with her ex-husband in real-time. Imagine all she knew was that he tried to intimidate her and manipulate the people in this matter to meet his own ends. Imagine that lawsuit principal being told that this same ex-husband, whom at one time she actually feared, had likely been given personal information about her by these bloggers.
Imagine that this lawsuit principal had not been aware of her ex-husband’s real agenda in the whole affair, and imagine that her legal business with him had not come to the conclusion they both had sought and that the door to her relationship with him had not been closed forever. Imagine that he still wants something from her.
Can you imagine the fear that could potentially have gripped her heart? Can you imagine the angst and anger that would have boiled up in her, directed at these three bloggers who had intentionally contacted this man who held such a painful position in her past? Can you imagine how that fear might have driven her into hiding - and right OUT of the lawsuit?
Luckily for this particular lawsuit principal she DOES know this blogger. She DOES know all of the circumstances surrounding her ex-husband’s interjection into this whole affair. She is NOT any longer afraid of him. And she also knows that the lead attorney in the class action lawsuit of which she is a principal was fully apprised of the situation AS IT UNFOLDED, including the true identity of the blogger involved.
Mayberryfan, enough is enough. The fact you involved an innocent party in your vendetta speaks volumes about you. When you posted on various message boards, impersonating Kimmer, you likely crossed a legal line. This time you are really close to intimidating a witness. I HAVE the emails you sent to this particular lawsuit principal. I also have her replies. Other lawsuit principals have been alerted to this tactic that you now seem intent on employing. Your lies and manipulations are going to do nothing but continue to backfire on you. Your reputation is shot. Do you really believe anyone can trust you after what you have done, and continue to do? If they do, they certainly do so at their own risk. You not only tried to scare the wits out of this particular principal, you told bold face lies in your attempt to do so. I must say, reading that email made me immediately think of Heidi and how she so coolly and easily twists the truth and outright fabricates scenarios to suit her purpose.
You didn't lie? Well, here are just a few examples, all of which you can find in your own copies of those emails:
You have NOT left the Fascinated board. You log on there almost every single day.
The matter of Yucky’s blog post and conversations with Christin on her blog - that was not the result of any great investigation. It was a matter of public knowledge. On top of that, it wasn’t Christin’s fundraiser, it was Jimmy Moore’s for her benefit. And she wasn’t trying to put together the cruise. She was promoting the cruise that IS going to happen, btw (for more information, please check here.
Martina’s Martini showed up on the scene before any of us on LCF or anywhere for that matter were even aware this lawsuit principal HAD an ex-husband. Lucky for me this has all been established unequivocally. In fact, I learned who Martina’s Martini was from John T, via one of the other lawsuit principals. Too bad you didn’t believe Kat. She told you the truth. I guess she must be part of this big reckless pursuit of anyone even remotely connected to the Kimkins scandal, as you say.
You couldn’t possibly be referring to your own public treatment and ‘investigation” into the Luper family, or Sam Redman, could you? Oh, of course not. Calling people scammers and pedophiles without anything to substantiate those claims doesn’t count, right? There are others. Would you like me to point you to your own comments to prove my point?
The disagreement I had with you had nothing to do with Martina’s Martini showing up on the scene. It had to do with your public chastising of Yucky for her questioning of Christin and her motives - long after Martina’s Martini had faded into distant memory. It had to do with you being a hypocrite. It had to do with the fact that you have shouted down countless people on the FWK threads, you have slandered people way beyond the scope of any “investigation” or legitimate questioning as to whether they have any connection to the KK matter. And yet you had the unmitigated gall to call out Yucky for asking sincere questions. Those questions, by the way, lead to REAL dialog and a true friendship being forged between her and Christin. That must just torment you.
In fact, the big brouhaha, as you called it, that you “left” Fascinated over had to do with a post that you swear I plagiarized of someone you happen to call a friend (who’s pleas to let this drop you have simply refused to honor, in true friend fashion of course). Do you not see the hypocrisy, once again? The post that I “stole” was “stolen” from Kimkins.con. It wasn’t your friend’s, nor her “mole’s” property to start with. So you have been busy trying to discredit me for stealing stolen material. I’m not real sure why you don’t GET THAT. Oh, and the little so many hours and minutes ago tags at the top of those posts? They are put there by the Kimkins.con server, not your friend. And for the record, your friend NEVER attempted to contact me in regards to this matter. Nor did anyone else, for that matter. Your cryptic comment on my blog was just too clever. I didn’t get it.
You seem to reserve your ire over “copying” material for special circumstances, eh? Only those cases that don’t involve one of your favorite personalities. To quote someone I read recently, “Geez, there are some real nit-pickers in this world.” Oh, I guess that was you.
Oh, and I can’t speak for Medusa or Yucky, but I’ll tell you what I told Sam Redman. I’m not interested in writing a book about all this, though I do think it would be an interesting read.
You want to expose my identity? Go for it. If it is all that important to you, try. Of course, you will have to prove it, too. And Lord help you if you are wrong. But before you do, ask yourself this question: Just who, besides Heidi, would benefit from knowing that information? If helping Heidi doesn’t matter to you - or is your goal - then you just go for it.
Whose side are you on in this matter, anyway? From where I sit, it looks like you are on YOUR side.
For the sake of this lawsuit - STOP.
Imagine, if you would, a certain lawsuit principal receiving a private message asking her if she was aware of how her ex-husband happened to stick his nose into the whole KK mess, and how she would be very unhappy if she did know.
Now, imagine that principal receiving an email telling her that this blogger, as well as the Yucky blogger and the Medusa blogger had actually initiated contact with that same ex-husband while investigating HER (the principal). Imagine, just for a moment, that principal did not know this blogger he had dialoged with nor was she fully aware of all contacts this blogger had with her ex-husband in real-time. Imagine all she knew was that he tried to intimidate her and manipulate the people in this matter to meet his own ends. Imagine that lawsuit principal being told that this same ex-husband, whom at one time she actually feared, had likely been given personal information about her by these bloggers.
Imagine that this lawsuit principal had not been aware of her ex-husband’s real agenda in the whole affair, and imagine that her legal business with him had not come to the conclusion they both had sought and that the door to her relationship with him had not been closed forever. Imagine that he still wants something from her.
Can you imagine the fear that could potentially have gripped her heart? Can you imagine the angst and anger that would have boiled up in her, directed at these three bloggers who had intentionally contacted this man who held such a painful position in her past? Can you imagine how that fear might have driven her into hiding - and right OUT of the lawsuit?
Luckily for this particular lawsuit principal she DOES know this blogger. She DOES know all of the circumstances surrounding her ex-husband’s interjection into this whole affair. She is NOT any longer afraid of him. And she also knows that the lead attorney in the class action lawsuit of which she is a principal was fully apprised of the situation AS IT UNFOLDED, including the true identity of the blogger involved.
Mayberryfan, enough is enough. The fact you involved an innocent party in your vendetta speaks volumes about you. When you posted on various message boards, impersonating Kimmer, you likely crossed a legal line. This time you are really close to intimidating a witness. I HAVE the emails you sent to this particular lawsuit principal. I also have her replies. Other lawsuit principals have been alerted to this tactic that you now seem intent on employing. Your lies and manipulations are going to do nothing but continue to backfire on you. Your reputation is shot. Do you really believe anyone can trust you after what you have done, and continue to do? If they do, they certainly do so at their own risk. You not only tried to scare the wits out of this particular principal, you told bold face lies in your attempt to do so. I must say, reading that email made me immediately think of Heidi and how she so coolly and easily twists the truth and outright fabricates scenarios to suit her purpose.
You didn't lie? Well, here are just a few examples, all of which you can find in your own copies of those emails:
You have NOT left the Fascinated board. You log on there almost every single day.
The matter of Yucky’s blog post and conversations with Christin on her blog - that was not the result of any great investigation. It was a matter of public knowledge. On top of that, it wasn’t Christin’s fundraiser, it was Jimmy Moore’s for her benefit. And she wasn’t trying to put together the cruise. She was promoting the cruise that IS going to happen, btw (for more information, please check here.
Martina’s Martini showed up on the scene before any of us on LCF or anywhere for that matter were even aware this lawsuit principal HAD an ex-husband. Lucky for me this has all been established unequivocally. In fact, I learned who Martina’s Martini was from John T, via one of the other lawsuit principals. Too bad you didn’t believe Kat. She told you the truth. I guess she must be part of this big reckless pursuit of anyone even remotely connected to the Kimkins scandal, as you say.
You couldn’t possibly be referring to your own public treatment and ‘investigation” into the Luper family, or Sam Redman, could you? Oh, of course not. Calling people scammers and pedophiles without anything to substantiate those claims doesn’t count, right? There are others. Would you like me to point you to your own comments to prove my point?
The disagreement I had with you had nothing to do with Martina’s Martini showing up on the scene. It had to do with your public chastising of Yucky for her questioning of Christin and her motives - long after Martina’s Martini had faded into distant memory. It had to do with you being a hypocrite. It had to do with the fact that you have shouted down countless people on the FWK threads, you have slandered people way beyond the scope of any “investigation” or legitimate questioning as to whether they have any connection to the KK matter. And yet you had the unmitigated gall to call out Yucky for asking sincere questions. Those questions, by the way, lead to REAL dialog and a true friendship being forged between her and Christin. That must just torment you.
In fact, the big brouhaha, as you called it, that you “left” Fascinated over had to do with a post that you swear I plagiarized of someone you happen to call a friend (who’s pleas to let this drop you have simply refused to honor, in true friend fashion of course). Do you not see the hypocrisy, once again? The post that I “stole” was “stolen” from Kimkins.con. It wasn’t your friend’s, nor her “mole’s” property to start with. So you have been busy trying to discredit me for stealing stolen material. I’m not real sure why you don’t GET THAT. Oh, and the little so many hours and minutes ago tags at the top of those posts? They are put there by the Kimkins.con server, not your friend. And for the record, your friend NEVER attempted to contact me in regards to this matter. Nor did anyone else, for that matter. Your cryptic comment on my blog was just too clever. I didn’t get it.
You seem to reserve your ire over “copying” material for special circumstances, eh? Only those cases that don’t involve one of your favorite personalities. To quote someone I read recently, “Geez, there are some real nit-pickers in this world.” Oh, I guess that was you.
Oh, and I can’t speak for Medusa or Yucky, but I’ll tell you what I told Sam Redman. I’m not interested in writing a book about all this, though I do think it would be an interesting read.
You want to expose my identity? Go for it. If it is all that important to you, try. Of course, you will have to prove it, too. And Lord help you if you are wrong. But before you do, ask yourself this question: Just who, besides Heidi, would benefit from knowing that information? If helping Heidi doesn’t matter to you - or is your goal - then you just go for it.
Whose side are you on in this matter, anyway? From where I sit, it looks like you are on YOUR side.
For the sake of this lawsuit - STOP.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
The Devil's Advocate
Polemic
–noun
1. a controversial argument, as one against some opinion, doctrine, etc.
2. a person who argues in opposition to another; controversialist.
I have had reports of several people who have expressed concern that Sam Redman was somehow wresting control of the LCF Fascination with Kimmer threads away from the long time residents and making it his own personal soapbox. As a result people were retreating into their corners, vowing not to post so long as he darkens our doorstep.
Part of me finds that very funny and part of me simply shakes my head in disbelief. I am not shaking my finger at anyone here, so try not to take offense. I find this reaction quite amazing, though.
Sam stated his agenda very clearly early on. He told us exactly what he is about.
“So, there you have my musings. Realize that one of my hobbies is to launch polemics, such as this one, on internet forums... I do it for fun and I have posted on every subject imaginable and on multiple sides of the political spectrum (I'm often called an equal-opportunity offender). I love pursuing the the art and practice of disputation and debating in forums where controversy exists. So, either take what I have to say to heart, ignore it or respond if you like (and in any way you like). And yes, as one poster pointed out... I am the same Sam Redman, who is a writer of light (sometimes called "pulp"), hopefully entertaining, fiction (but, that doesn't mean everything I write is fictional). I'm honestly happy with any reaction anyone has... hey, I'm just doing it for the fun of internet conversation.”
His hobby is polemics. That is a controversialist - not a conversationalist. He seeks out emotionally charged topics and enters into the conversation with the express intent of stirring it up and creating lively debate.
Unfortunately for Sam, rather than find the well reasoned debate he was thirsting for, he was met with steadfast conviction that the case against Heidi Diaz is cut and dried, safely placed into the very trustworthy hands of the very capable John Tiedt. I doubt he realized he was walking into the gathering spot of the very people Heidi Diaz had defrauded. He has come face to face with the victims themselves. Who can debate the victims, if for no other reason than they are too emotionally involved to give him the type of debate required to satisfy his passion.
Thanks for responding to my earlier blog, Sam, and for answering the question. At this point in time I'm willing to accept that you are telling the truth about not being in contact with Heidi when I evaluate your comments in light of your stated objective. I also see where you can and do change with the wind - that transition was apparent when you started posting about her fraudulent business practices re: lifetime memberships and ongoing staff expenses. That trait is very consistent with your stated agenda. I recognize it because I do it myself, though not in this particular case. Nothing like a good fight to get the blood pumping, eh?
As much as you have been around, however, it is unlikely that you don’t get the interest in Sam Redman. You have to be aware that much of this case focuses on the fact that Heidi Diaz has assumed many different personalities, both male and female, over long periods of time. Many of her staff members and several forum members have been conclusively proven to be nothing more than creations of her twisted imagination. She certainly has the basic skills to be a writer herself, though in her drive to deceive she is sloppy and inconsistent. She has made appearances on the boards and blogs of all of us likely at one time or another. It is very conceivable that she would take on the persona of Sam Redman and make yet another grand appearance. (As a side note, one of her admins, known as SingingLass, appears to be her understudy. Unfortunately for her, it will likely be to her own detriment.) For the record, I do NOT think you are her - you are far too articulate and your writing belies the fact that you have likely penned those many articles you lay claim to, many of which I have read. You also stay on a very even keel emotionally - something she is simply not capable of doing for any sustained period of time.
Additionally, she has manipulated others into doing her bidding for her. She has proven herself capable of being very charming and credible sounding, as well as very persuasive even while that very writing is fraught with unbelievable claims. I could easily understand someone like yourself taking a literary interest in this ordeal, and can imagine her approaching someone to write "her story", if you will… or to act as editor of her own attempt to immortalize the Kimmer.
Sam, should you decide that the entertainment value of this particular exercise has waned for you and you move on, I’d like to say it has been stimulating. In another setting, you would make a most worthy opponent.
–noun
1. a controversial argument, as one against some opinion, doctrine, etc.
2. a person who argues in opposition to another; controversialist.
I have had reports of several people who have expressed concern that Sam Redman was somehow wresting control of the LCF Fascination with Kimmer threads away from the long time residents and making it his own personal soapbox. As a result people were retreating into their corners, vowing not to post so long as he darkens our doorstep.
Part of me finds that very funny and part of me simply shakes my head in disbelief. I am not shaking my finger at anyone here, so try not to take offense. I find this reaction quite amazing, though.
Sam stated his agenda very clearly early on. He told us exactly what he is about.
“So, there you have my musings. Realize that one of my hobbies is to launch polemics, such as this one, on internet forums... I do it for fun and I have posted on every subject imaginable and on multiple sides of the political spectrum (I'm often called an equal-opportunity offender). I love pursuing the the art and practice of disputation and debating in forums where controversy exists. So, either take what I have to say to heart, ignore it or respond if you like (and in any way you like). And yes, as one poster pointed out... I am the same Sam Redman, who is a writer of light (sometimes called "pulp"), hopefully entertaining, fiction (but, that doesn't mean everything I write is fictional). I'm honestly happy with any reaction anyone has... hey, I'm just doing it for the fun of internet conversation.”
His hobby is polemics. That is a controversialist - not a conversationalist. He seeks out emotionally charged topics and enters into the conversation with the express intent of stirring it up and creating lively debate.
Unfortunately for Sam, rather than find the well reasoned debate he was thirsting for, he was met with steadfast conviction that the case against Heidi Diaz is cut and dried, safely placed into the very trustworthy hands of the very capable John Tiedt. I doubt he realized he was walking into the gathering spot of the very people Heidi Diaz had defrauded. He has come face to face with the victims themselves. Who can debate the victims, if for no other reason than they are too emotionally involved to give him the type of debate required to satisfy his passion.
Thanks for responding to my earlier blog, Sam, and for answering the question. At this point in time I'm willing to accept that you are telling the truth about not being in contact with Heidi when I evaluate your comments in light of your stated objective. I also see where you can and do change with the wind - that transition was apparent when you started posting about her fraudulent business practices re: lifetime memberships and ongoing staff expenses. That trait is very consistent with your stated agenda. I recognize it because I do it myself, though not in this particular case. Nothing like a good fight to get the blood pumping, eh?
As much as you have been around, however, it is unlikely that you don’t get the interest in Sam Redman. You have to be aware that much of this case focuses on the fact that Heidi Diaz has assumed many different personalities, both male and female, over long periods of time. Many of her staff members and several forum members have been conclusively proven to be nothing more than creations of her twisted imagination. She certainly has the basic skills to be a writer herself, though in her drive to deceive she is sloppy and inconsistent. She has made appearances on the boards and blogs of all of us likely at one time or another. It is very conceivable that she would take on the persona of Sam Redman and make yet another grand appearance. (As a side note, one of her admins, known as SingingLass, appears to be her understudy. Unfortunately for her, it will likely be to her own detriment.) For the record, I do NOT think you are her - you are far too articulate and your writing belies the fact that you have likely penned those many articles you lay claim to, many of which I have read. You also stay on a very even keel emotionally - something she is simply not capable of doing for any sustained period of time.
Additionally, she has manipulated others into doing her bidding for her. She has proven herself capable of being very charming and credible sounding, as well as very persuasive even while that very writing is fraught with unbelievable claims. I could easily understand someone like yourself taking a literary interest in this ordeal, and can imagine her approaching someone to write "her story", if you will… or to act as editor of her own attempt to immortalize the Kimmer.
Sam, should you decide that the entertainment value of this particular exercise has waned for you and you move on, I’d like to say it has been stimulating. In another setting, you would make a most worthy opponent.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Who is Sam Redman?
NOTE: First, an important message regarding the status of the lawsuit - if you live in San Diego County, please read this!
Google the name and the links seem endless. Some are obviously not the poster who is making his splash on the LCF Fascination with Kimmer threads. Like many of us, Sam seems to be complex - more than initially meets the eye.
Being a big country music fan myself, I decided to check out the music of the No Account Man Band. This song, along with all of the others on their album, Two Faces, credit the lyrics and music to Sam Redman. Is it the same Sam Redman, as the LCF poster claims? The jury is still out on that, but in the meantime, enjoy the music.
Speaking of Sam's entrance into LCF, his first entry into the fora was not into the FWK thread, but rather into Low Carb Testimonies thread. This comment in particular interests me:
"So, yes, I have been a successful dieter and low carb is my kernel (or base), but would what I do work for others? I don't know... I'm almost of the opinion that what works for me isn't a prescription for everyone else. Lots of friends have tried my "program" and they just didn't have the results I get. And even though what I do is "working," I still am learning and picking up ideas. That's why I'm here... lots of good concepts and menu ideas are on these pages and I might have a tip or two myself (although... I'm not a medical person at all, so anything I tell anyone should be taken with a grain of salt)."
On the FWK threads you have said:
"Well, like my first post on this thread said... I was intrigued when I first saw a video on one of the tube sites about the Kimkins fiasco and so, I began doing some Google searches."
So, which came first? Did you discover LCF as a result of finding the video referencing the Kimkins fiasco, or did you find the fiasco as a result of coming to learn more about the low carb way of eating?
Not trying to be rude, but after reading all that has occurred, I'm sure you can understand healthy skepticism.
Google the name and the links seem endless. Some are obviously not the poster who is making his splash on the LCF Fascination with Kimmer threads. Like many of us, Sam seems to be complex - more than initially meets the eye.
Being a big country music fan myself, I decided to check out the music of the No Account Man Band. This song, along with all of the others on their album, Two Faces, credit the lyrics and music to Sam Redman. Is it the same Sam Redman, as the LCF poster claims? The jury is still out on that, but in the meantime, enjoy the music.
Speaking of Sam's entrance into LCF, his first entry into the fora was not into the FWK thread, but rather into Low Carb Testimonies thread. This comment in particular interests me:
"So, yes, I have been a successful dieter and low carb is my kernel (or base), but would what I do work for others? I don't know... I'm almost of the opinion that what works for me isn't a prescription for everyone else. Lots of friends have tried my "program" and they just didn't have the results I get. And even though what I do is "working," I still am learning and picking up ideas. That's why I'm here... lots of good concepts and menu ideas are on these pages and I might have a tip or two myself (although... I'm not a medical person at all, so anything I tell anyone should be taken with a grain of salt)."
On the FWK threads you have said:
"Well, like my first post on this thread said... I was intrigued when I first saw a video on one of the tube sites about the Kimkins fiasco and so, I began doing some Google searches."
So, which came first? Did you discover LCF as a result of finding the video referencing the Kimkins fiasco, or did you find the fiasco as a result of coming to learn more about the low carb way of eating?
Not trying to be rude, but after reading all that has occurred, I'm sure you can understand healthy skepticism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
