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 kimkins diet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kimkins diet. Show all posts
Monday, August 1, 2011
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Official Notice of Pendency of Class Notice
Here is the notice that has now been approved by the Court. I will post a copy of the notice including the Judge's signature as soon as it is provided to me.
Please pass this on - forward it to every party you might think remotely interested, including media outlets you think may have an interest in sharing this information. If you are familiar with anyone who joined Kimkins, please direct them to this notice so that as many of the 40,000 people affected by Heidi's little scam as possible will have the opportunity to know they are part of the class and can opt out, preferring instead to allow Heidi to keep their money, or, perhaps, retaining their right to sue her independently.
If you previously posted this on your blog, please replace the pending version with this official one. Thank you!
Hear that banging sound? Just another handful of nails ...
NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
TO: EVERYONE WHO PURCHASED A MEMBERSHIP TO KIMKINS.COM THROUGH THE KIMKINS.COM WEB SITE (www.kimkins.com) FROM JANUARY 1, 2006 TO OCTOBER 15, 2007
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT THAT IS CURRENTLY PENDING IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, IN RIVERSIDE, CALILFORNIA.
INTRODUCTION
1. On May 20, 2009, the Riverside County Superior Court, located in Riverside, California, issued an order certifying this case to proceed as a class action.
2. The plaintiffs are six individuals who bought memberships to kimkins.com through the kimkins.com Website (www.kimkins.com) from January 1, 2006 to October 15, 2007. The defendants are Heidi Diaz, an individual, and Kimkins (also known as Kimkins.com), a business entity that conducts business in Corona, California.
3. The plaintiffs contend that Diaz and Kimkins.com induced them into buying memberships for kimkins.com through false and misleading information provided on the Kimkins.com Web site. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants violated California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq., which authorizes courts to provide relief from unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices. The plaintiffs also contend that Diaz and Kimkins.com violated common law prohibitions against fraud and negligent misrepresentation.
4. This notice provides you with information regarding the litigation, including the plaintiffs’ claims against the defendants and the current status of the litigation. This notice also provides you with information regarding the court’s class-certification order.
THE LITIGATION
The Plaintiffs’ Claims
5. This lawsuit is based on the plaintiffs’ claims that Diaz and Kimkins used unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practices to induce them into buying memberships to Kimkins.com. This lawsuit is also based on the plaintiffs’ claims that the false and misleading information contained on the kimkins.com Web site constituted fraud or negligent misrepresentation by Diaz and Kimkins.
6. Here’s a list of the kinds of misconduct that the plaintiffs have alleged:
• that Diaz and Kimkins concocted a false persona, “Kim Drake” or “Kimmer” to sell memberships to Kimkins.com
• that Diaz and Kimkins misled potential members into believing that “Kim Drake” was real by using photos of real women and then falsely claiming that the photos depicted “Drake”
• that Diaz and Kimkins posted lied about “Drake’s” purported weight loss
• that Diaz and Kimkins provided false or misleading information to Women’s World magazine
• that Diaz and Kimkins fabricated 41 “success stories” and published on the Kimkins.com Web
• that Diaz and Kimkins made up celebrity endorsements
• that Diaz and Kimkins misused labels and metatags to steer Internet traffic to the Kimkins.com Website, in violation of the law
• that Diaz and Kimkins misled potential members into believing that they were buying lifetime memberships, when in fact Diaz and Kimkins.com terminated memberships at their whim
• that Diaz and Kimkins intended to mislead potential members and assumed that potential members would rely on her misrepresentations.
The Defendants’ Position
7. Diaz and Kimkins have denied all allegations of wrongdoing and liability, and they continue to deny that they have done anything wrong. Diaz and Kimkins also have asserted various affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs’ claims.
THE COURT’S CLASS-CERTIFICATION ORDER
8. In an order filed May 20, 2009, the Court granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. The Court certified for class treatment the plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief, including disgorgement of the subscription fees paid to Diaz and Kimkins by the plaintiffs and the members of the class.
9. The certified class is defined as all individuals who purchased the Kimkins.com diet membership on-line from the Kimkins.com Web site from January 1, 2006 through October 15, 2007.
THE COURT HAS NOT EXPRESSED ANY OPINIONS
REGARDING THE MERITS OF THE PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS
10. The Court ordered that this notice be provided to advise class members that this case is pending and that the Court has certified the case to proceed as a class action. You should not consider this notice or its mailing to be a statement by the Court that the plaintiffs are right or that their claims will prevail.
INSTRUCTIONS TO CLASS MEMBERS
11. You do not need to do anything to remain a member of the class. If you bought a Kimkins.com diet membership on-line from the Kimkins.com Web site from January 1, 2006 through October 15, 2007—including either of those dates—you are automatically included in the class. Your rights will be represented by the plaintiffs and their attorneys. You will not be personally responsible for any attorney fees or for the any of the costs of this litigation.
OPT OUT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
12. You have the opportunity to opt out of the class action lawsuit as detailed herein. If you incurred a personal injury as a result of using the Kimkins.com aka Kimkins Diet, you have a right to opt out. Notices to opt must be sent to jtiedt@tiedtlaw.com or mailed to Tiedt & Hurd at 980 Montecito Drive, Suite 209, Corona, California 92879.
WHERE TO GO & WHOM TO CONTACT
SHOULD YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION
13. This notice provides only a brief summary of this litigation. For further details, you should take one or both of the following steps:
• Review the documents in the Court’s file for this lawsuit. Many of these documents may be viewed or obtained on-line at the following URL: http://public-access.riverside.courts.ca.gov/OpenAccess/ . You also may review the Court’s file in person by going to the Office of the Clerk of the Court for the Riverside Superior Court, during regular business hours. The Clerk’s office is located at 4050 Main Street, Riverside, California 92501.
• Write a letter to the attorneys who are representing the plaintiffs and whom the Court has appointed to represent the class. Here are their names and their contact information:
John E. Tiedt & Marc S. Hurd
Tiedt & Hurd
980 Montecito Drive, Suite 209
Corona, California 92879
Michael L. Cohen
Michael L. Cohen, a PLC
707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4100
Los Angeles, California 90017
Ray Moore
Moore Winter McLennan LLP
701 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 200
Glendale, California 92103-4232
If you decide to contact one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, please do so in writing. To make it easier for them or one of their staff members to respond, however, your letter should include both your e-mail address and your telephone number.
There are estimated to be as many as 40,000 members in the class. So please, DO NOT CALL THE COURT OR ATTEMPT TO CONTACT THE COURT BY E-MAIL.
DATE: ___________________________, 2009
____________________________________
Hon. _________________________,
Presiding Judge
Please pass this on - forward it to every party you might think remotely interested, including media outlets you think may have an interest in sharing this information. If you are familiar with anyone who joined Kimkins, please direct them to this notice so that as many of the 40,000 people affected by Heidi's little scam as possible will have the opportunity to know they are part of the class and can opt out, preferring instead to allow Heidi to keep their money, or, perhaps, retaining their right to sue her independently.
If you previously posted this on your blog, please replace the pending version with this official one. Thank you!
Hear that banging sound? Just another handful of nails ...
NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
TO: EVERYONE WHO PURCHASED A MEMBERSHIP TO KIMKINS.COM THROUGH THE KIMKINS.COM WEB SITE (www.kimkins.com) FROM JANUARY 1, 2006 TO OCTOBER 15, 2007
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT THAT IS CURRENTLY PENDING IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, IN RIVERSIDE, CALILFORNIA.
INTRODUCTION
1. On May 20, 2009, the Riverside County Superior Court, located in Riverside, California, issued an order certifying this case to proceed as a class action.
2. The plaintiffs are six individuals who bought memberships to kimkins.com through the kimkins.com Website (www.kimkins.com) from January 1, 2006 to October 15, 2007. The defendants are Heidi Diaz, an individual, and Kimkins (also known as Kimkins.com), a business entity that conducts business in Corona, California.
3. The plaintiffs contend that Diaz and Kimkins.com induced them into buying memberships for kimkins.com through false and misleading information provided on the Kimkins.com Web site. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants violated California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq., which authorizes courts to provide relief from unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices. The plaintiffs also contend that Diaz and Kimkins.com violated common law prohibitions against fraud and negligent misrepresentation.
4. This notice provides you with information regarding the litigation, including the plaintiffs’ claims against the defendants and the current status of the litigation. This notice also provides you with information regarding the court’s class-certification order.
THE LITIGATION
The Plaintiffs’ Claims
5. This lawsuit is based on the plaintiffs’ claims that Diaz and Kimkins used unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practices to induce them into buying memberships to Kimkins.com. This lawsuit is also based on the plaintiffs’ claims that the false and misleading information contained on the kimkins.com Web site constituted fraud or negligent misrepresentation by Diaz and Kimkins.
6. Here’s a list of the kinds of misconduct that the plaintiffs have alleged:
• that Diaz and Kimkins concocted a false persona, “Kim Drake” or “Kimmer” to sell memberships to Kimkins.com
• that Diaz and Kimkins misled potential members into believing that “Kim Drake” was real by using photos of real women and then falsely claiming that the photos depicted “Drake”
• that Diaz and Kimkins posted lied about “Drake’s” purported weight loss
• that Diaz and Kimkins provided false or misleading information to Women’s World magazine
• that Diaz and Kimkins fabricated 41 “success stories” and published on the Kimkins.com Web
• that Diaz and Kimkins made up celebrity endorsements
• that Diaz and Kimkins misused labels and metatags to steer Internet traffic to the Kimkins.com Website, in violation of the law
• that Diaz and Kimkins misled potential members into believing that they were buying lifetime memberships, when in fact Diaz and Kimkins.com terminated memberships at their whim
• that Diaz and Kimkins intended to mislead potential members and assumed that potential members would rely on her misrepresentations.
The Defendants’ Position
7. Diaz and Kimkins have denied all allegations of wrongdoing and liability, and they continue to deny that they have done anything wrong. Diaz and Kimkins also have asserted various affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs’ claims.
THE COURT’S CLASS-CERTIFICATION ORDER
8. In an order filed May 20, 2009, the Court granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. The Court certified for class treatment the plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief, including disgorgement of the subscription fees paid to Diaz and Kimkins by the plaintiffs and the members of the class.
9. The certified class is defined as all individuals who purchased the Kimkins.com diet membership on-line from the Kimkins.com Web site from January 1, 2006 through October 15, 2007.
THE COURT HAS NOT EXPRESSED ANY OPINIONS
REGARDING THE MERITS OF THE PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS
10. The Court ordered that this notice be provided to advise class members that this case is pending and that the Court has certified the case to proceed as a class action. You should not consider this notice or its mailing to be a statement by the Court that the plaintiffs are right or that their claims will prevail.
INSTRUCTIONS TO CLASS MEMBERS
11. You do not need to do anything to remain a member of the class. If you bought a Kimkins.com diet membership on-line from the Kimkins.com Web site from January 1, 2006 through October 15, 2007—including either of those dates—you are automatically included in the class. Your rights will be represented by the plaintiffs and their attorneys. You will not be personally responsible for any attorney fees or for the any of the costs of this litigation.
OPT OUT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
12. You have the opportunity to opt out of the class action lawsuit as detailed herein. If you incurred a personal injury as a result of using the Kimkins.com aka Kimkins Diet, you have a right to opt out. Notices to opt must be sent to jtiedt@tiedtlaw.com or mailed to Tiedt & Hurd at 980 Montecito Drive, Suite 209, Corona, California 92879.
WHERE TO GO & WHOM TO CONTACT
SHOULD YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION
13. This notice provides only a brief summary of this litigation. For further details, you should take one or both of the following steps:
• Review the documents in the Court’s file for this lawsuit. Many of these documents may be viewed or obtained on-line at the following URL: http://public-access.riverside.courts.ca.gov/OpenAccess/ . You also may review the Court’s file in person by going to the Office of the Clerk of the Court for the Riverside Superior Court, during regular business hours. The Clerk’s office is located at 4050 Main Street, Riverside, California 92501.
• Write a letter to the attorneys who are representing the plaintiffs and whom the Court has appointed to represent the class. Here are their names and their contact information:
John E. Tiedt & Marc S. Hurd
Tiedt & Hurd
980 Montecito Drive, Suite 209
Corona, California 92879
Michael L. Cohen
Michael L. Cohen, a PLC
707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4100
Los Angeles, California 90017
Ray Moore
Moore Winter McLennan LLP
701 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 200
Glendale, California 92103-4232
If you decide to contact one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, please do so in writing. To make it easier for them or one of their staff members to respond, however, your letter should include both your e-mail address and your telephone number.
There are estimated to be as many as 40,000 members in the class. So please, DO NOT CALL THE COURT OR ATTEMPT TO CONTACT THE COURT BY E-MAIL.
DATE: ___________________________, 2009
____________________________________
Hon. _________________________,
Presiding Judge
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth
Too bad Heidi Diaz doesn't have to take that oath before she types any comments regarding the status of the Class Action Lawsuit filed against her and her infamous diet website, Kimkins.con.
Heidi, you continue to claim that the Motion for Summary Judgment was DENIED by the court on August 24, 2009. True to form, if your fingers are typing, you are lying ...
To read this ruling, click here: Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment, Kimkins Class Action Lawsuit as filed by the Court August 27, 2009
Surely there is going to come a point at which you will realize that the truth will always come back to bite you in the rear end as long as you keep trying to run away from it.
Heidi, you continue to claim that the Motion for Summary Judgment was DENIED by the court on August 24, 2009. True to form, if your fingers are typing, you are lying ...
To read this ruling, click here: Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment, Kimkins Class Action Lawsuit as filed by the Court August 27, 2009
Surely there is going to come a point at which you will realize that the truth will always come back to bite you in the rear end as long as you keep trying to run away from it.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Justice Delayed, Not Justice Denied
Contrary to what Heidi Diaz would have her loyal followers believe, the Judge in this case did NOT deny the Motion for Summary Judgment. Rather, he delayed hearing any of the argument until he is satisfied that the class members have an opportunity to removed themselves from the lawsuit - or what they call "opt-out".
He absolutely did NOT deny the Motion. He did NOT determine that there was no monetary loss, nor did he determine that there are no grounds to proceed.
Heidi lied, once again. Imagine that.
Here is the latest from our reporter on the ground, Gran to Angels:
Yes, Heidi - enjoy your moment. It will be as a blink of the eye in the big scheme of things.
John's interveiw as he exited the courtroom can be found here.
He absolutely did NOT deny the Motion. He did NOT determine that there was no monetary loss, nor did he determine that there are no grounds to proceed.
Heidi lied, once again. Imagine that.
Here is the latest from our reporter on the ground, Gran to Angels:
Hi everyone!
Well….either Heidi is lying again or her lawyer is lying to her…you decide!
Posted by Heidi at Kimkins…..
“Ladies, for those of your following the ridiculous class action lawsuit, there was a hearing this morning where the opposing attorney, John Tiedt, had filed a motion for Summary Judgment. It was DENIED. The judge stated the SJ motion was premature, that the class hadn’t been defined nor damages proven.
The 2 year old saga continues…”
Well Heidi…you were not there….I was so looking forward to seeing you again but did not show up….I was there! The Summary Judgment was not “DENIED”….nope….another lie but you are good at them aren’t you? The Judge did say that the Summary Judgment was premature but what the Judge wants done is already in the works….premature simply means John is breathing down your neck! The class action against you is indeed certified and we don’t have to prove damages…this is not about damages it’s about fraud!
Yes the 2 year old saga continues….enjoy your freedom while you can!
Yes, Heidi - enjoy your moment. It will be as a blink of the eye in the big scheme of things.
John's interveiw as he exited the courtroom can be found here.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Kimkins - Proposed Notice of Pendency of Class Action
Note: REPLACED WITH OFFICIAL VERSION 11/1/0/09
Regarding the Kimkins Class Action Lawsuit: This is NOT an official notice. This notice is proposed to the court by plaintiffs’ counsel June 26, 2009. If you choose to duplicate this notice on any blog or website, this notice MUST be included.
Fen Notice
Regarding the Kimkins Class Action Lawsuit: This is NOT an official notice. This notice is proposed to the court by plaintiffs’ counsel June 26, 2009. If you choose to duplicate this notice on any blog or website, this notice MUST be included.
Fen Notice
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Late Breaking Lawsuit News
A Motion for Summary Judgment has been filed with the Riverside Courts by John Tiedt, attorney for the Plaintiffs in the Class Action Lawsuit pending against Heidi Diaz, founder of Kimkins, a diet site which was established based on fraudulent claims made by Ms. Diaz, namely that she had lost 198 pounds over a 11 month period of time, had maintained that loss for 5 years and was qualified to advise and assist others in mirroring her success. As we know, she supported her claims with fraudulent before and after pictures of both herself and her many claimed success stories. We also know that she did NOT lose 198 pounds in 10 months, or over any period of time, for that matter. She didn't lose 100 pounds. She might have lost 50. There is not 5 years of maintenance, there are no after photos.
A Motion for Summary Judgment basically appeals to the court to save the tax payers the cost of a trial as the admitted facts of the case are clear enough to render a decision. The Motion that John filed is many, many pages long and, as usual, is filled with a plethora of indisputable facts to support the request. A hearing has been set to hear the motion on August 24, 2009 at 8:30 am in Riverside County. The State of California requires an 80 day waiting period before such a hearing to allow the court and all parties involved to properly prepare for the hearing.
This is not simply a routine procedure. In fact, it is rather unusual in a case of this nature. However, John believes strongly that the facts in this case warrant this action. He has proven to us time after time just how strong a case has been built, thanks to the tireless work done by so many people to bring the facts to light.
A Motion for Summary Judgment basically appeals to the court to save the tax payers the cost of a trial as the admitted facts of the case are clear enough to render a decision. The Motion that John filed is many, many pages long and, as usual, is filled with a plethora of indisputable facts to support the request. A hearing has been set to hear the motion on August 24, 2009 at 8:30 am in Riverside County. The State of California requires an 80 day waiting period before such a hearing to allow the court and all parties involved to properly prepare for the hearing.
This is not simply a routine procedure. In fact, it is rather unusual in a case of this nature. However, John believes strongly that the facts in this case warrant this action. He has proven to us time after time just how strong a case has been built, thanks to the tireless work done by so many people to bring the facts to light.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Is the SLAPP Back - Take Two
If you recall, just a couple of days after Heidi Diaz, founder and fraudulent promoter of the dangerous, nutritionally bankrupt Kimkins Diet, had her calculated attempt to derail the Class Action lawsuit, better known as her bankruptcy case, dismissed her attorney, Mr. Peabody (in the Library with the Candlestick), posted a scathing comment (try to keep a straight face here, k?) on Melting Mama’s blog, threatening dire consequences if she didn’t cease and desist in publishing the God’s honest truth about his client on her blog and impeding his client’s attempts to lure even more people into her snare, er, website. (If you missed it the first time, read about it here.)
Well, here we are, just a couple of short days after the court gave a resounding spanking to Heidi and her divorce lawyer – okay, maybe not a spanking but certainly a defeat, when they granted the petition by the plaintiffs – in English, they certified the Class Action status of this lawsuit. Anyway, Mr. Peabody (in the Kitchen with the Rope) has sent another confrontational comment to another blogger.
**BTW, Mr. Peabody, I know that it is Mrs. Peacock in the game of Clue, but I just can’t help myself. It is just how my mind works. It is no way an implication that you run around with revolvers, candlesticks or rope! This case is sort of like a whodunit, except we know whodunit, the culprit has confessed and all that. So, you see, saying things like she is a liar, she is a shyster, she is a con artist, and … well, the list is long, but saying those things is an expression of one’s First Amendment rights because those statements are TRUE statements. In case you aren’t quite up to speed yet on all that, I’d invite you to simply read chapters one, two, three and four of the Heidi Diaz Deposition Compilation.**
First of all, it is very apparent that Mr. Peabody isn’t nearly as familiar with this case as are the rest of us. If he was he would know that the information he keeps demanding (name, address, etc.) is right in front of him. In this case it is actually in the court documents. In fact, his predecessor served this most recent person not once, but TWICE. Surely he knows that, right? If not, his client sure does. So, the threats of contacting IPs and all that are simply that – threats. Empty threats but threats just the same.
And when has anyone ever heard of a lawyer – one who HAS the name and address of the party he is trying to intimidated into surrendering their First Amendment rights of free speech – delivering a Cease and Desist letter … via a blog comment … Let that thought just sink in a moment. A blog comment. Not a certified letter. Not even an email. But a blog comment. Was that enough to compel Heidi Diaz to cease and desist in the matter of using before and after photographs of some of the witnesses in this case in her advertising? No. Come to think of it, the certified letters to her and her attorney weren’t effective either.
Just as with the last blog comment he posted, this one also threatened that if the blog posts didn’t cease immediately that he had been instructed by his client to vigorously pursue this person in a court of appropriate jurisdiction. Now, I have a pretty good idea how much of a retainer Heidi paid him, and I’m really sure that it isn’t enough for him to go hiring lawyers licensed to practice in different states and working with them to bring these flagrant bloggers to justice. We all realize that he isn’t able to practice law anywhere other than California. I doubt he is foolish enough to attempt to sue all these folks in the State of California after it was shot down when Mr. Cottle tried it. Heidi certainly could be paying him more money, of course. I’m just thinking that he likely has a whole lot of work to do on this case right there in Riverside County. And we all know that with lawyers, time is money! So, Mr. Peabody, are you simply doing this to satisfy the whims of your client? You do realize that you wouldn’t be the first person she has led down the path that doesn’t end anywhere good, right? We all know she is VERY convincing, with her sweet voice that belies the cold, calculating person she really is. We know how she can make the most absurd statements and spin them in such a way that you actually start to believe it – you really WANT to believe it, in fact. We KNOW how she can tell bold faced lies all while being shown the proof that she is lying – and how once she realizes that you aren’t buying into what she is saying she will turn on a dime and suddenly be telling a completely different story. I assure you, Mr. Peabody – you will never know when she is telling you the truth and when she is not.
Ah, well. Obviously he recognized the risks in going forward with Heidi’s last efforts to send the witnesses in the case against her scurrying into the shadows. This new tactic is interesting, to say the least, but I’m pretty certain it will be just as likely to backfire. I promise you that the witnesses are totally committed to seeing this thing all the way through. They are not going to go away.
You want to know what is really funny? This blogger, just like the last one, really doesn’t blog much about Heidi Diaz, Kimkins or the lawsuit. This one doesn’t blog much, period. This one certainly is a very big thorn in Heidi’s side, but still is not very active online.
I have to wonder just what Mr. Peabody, or Heidi, hopes to accomplish with these types of tactics? Surely there isn’t a class on legal bullying at whichever fine law school Mr. Peabody attended. And that’s what this boils down too. Legal bullying. Eventually one of those blog post comments might find themselves in the inbox of someone from the California Bar Association. While there was no class on legal bullying, I bet there was a class (or two) on ethics. As my really good friend, John Tiedt, likes to say – there is SO much good that can be done with that law license. So much good. Like pretty much everything else it is all about choices, isn’t it? May we all choose wisely.
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...
Thursday, May 14, 2009
I've Been Thinking ...
And reading. Heidi Diaz filed her Opposition to Motion for Class Certification, and John T. has filed his response. She really doesn’t get it, does she? And obviously, neither does Mr. Peabody (it is so hard to say that without adding in the Conservatory with the Knife, but I digress…).
You know how you can be talking to someone and they say one little thing and all of a sudden light bulbs start turning on and you see something so clearly that has been right in front of you all along? Well, I had one of those moments this morning. My mind just flew to all sorts of possible scenarios. Here’s how it went …
A good friend and I were talking about Heidi’s essay contest. You can read all about it here, but basically she wanted all sorts of folks vying for $500 in cash prizes, plus Kimkins gift baskets and gift certificates by writing in and telling why they simply LOVE Kimkins. If you notice, the date that contest ended was May 11. Suddenly I realize WHY she is doing that. She has to support the claim Mr. Peabody made in her Opposition – that she has “a substantial number of current active and satisfied clients”. Those essay entries should be safely in the hands of those “blind” judges by now. And the hands of Mr. Peabody, I would add. She has to be able to produce those satisfied clients.
She promised that their names would not be published. Of course, she forgot to mention that once they are submitted to the court as “proof” that their real names will have to be produced as well. She will have to produce those testimonials as exhibits. Don’t forget the fact that they are real people and not sock puppets or paid endorsements will have to be validated. In other words, they will become witnesses for the defense. I’m sure she will try to claim that their identities are somehow privileged. She may be able to hide their name from the public, but the question of whether or not they are real people will still have to be proven to the satisfaction of the court. Given her pattern of fictionalizing, shall we say, that is a genuine and significant question. If they are real people, they have been gathered up by the guise of a “contest”. Another deception. Surprise!
Anyone want to bet that they won’t be published on her site at all? She will claim she is not doing so to protect them, or her attorney advised her not to or some such thing. How about this – the Class Certification hearing is May 20. She is announcing the winners on June 1. She will say the court won’t let her publish that information. Or maybe the “blind judge” is THE judge and she will pick the one he seems to like the best or the one that she believes gets her off the hook. But either way she will say she awarded the money. I wonder if she realizes that to NOT pay those prizes out to real people would be yet another fraud? If a single person submitted their entry via the US Mail that would be a special type of fraud.
I wonder, too, about the testimonials that are popping up on her LiveExpert site (assuming they are real people). She obviously has all of their contact info – whether it is just via their bank or Paypal account or actual address, or her sock drawer. Are they going to pop up as some of her satisfied clients?
Well, this is all just speculation on my part, of course. I have no crystal ball. I just hope that those folks who thought they saw easy money don’t find themselves unwittingly in the middle of her legal messes. Not that she would care, as so many can attest to.
Awhile back this blog post was published in which Heidi supposedly wrote an email to someone addressing the scam involving her and her website. In that email she wrote that two years ago she admitted to making errors in the promotion of her website but immediately corrected those errors when she got caught. Two years ago. That part is certainly a lie, though it is apparent that she is going to try to hang her hat on that hook, judging by her filing.
She made another statement in that email, though, that bears some focus. She said, “What didn't change is Kimkins: a very inexpensive weight loss plan that allows members very quick weight loss. Kimkins is a lean low carb diet with up to 6 servings of leafy greens daily. Less fat than Atkins, fewer carbs than South Beach, low glycemic with superior blood sugar control. This is why our members often report losing 5% of their TOTAL body weight in 10 days or less.”
She is sure right about that. Kimkins has NOT changed. It is STILL a dangerously low calorie diet. It is STILL perpetuated by misleading statements and representations. She is STILL morbidly obese – a fact she fails to list in her “credentials” on her LiveExpert page - proving she STILL isn't able to follow the very diet she cheerfully accepts payment for and promotes. She STILL represents that she has many active members, when, in fact, her numbers have dwindled to a couple of handfuls of fairly regular posters – even lower when you omit the sock puppets. Heidi STILL lies about all sorts of things germane to this case. Yes, indeed. She is sure right that Kimkins has not changed.
You know how you can be talking to someone and they say one little thing and all of a sudden light bulbs start turning on and you see something so clearly that has been right in front of you all along? Well, I had one of those moments this morning. My mind just flew to all sorts of possible scenarios. Here’s how it went …
A good friend and I were talking about Heidi’s essay contest. You can read all about it here, but basically she wanted all sorts of folks vying for $500 in cash prizes, plus Kimkins gift baskets and gift certificates by writing in and telling why they simply LOVE Kimkins. If you notice, the date that contest ended was May 11. Suddenly I realize WHY she is doing that. She has to support the claim Mr. Peabody made in her Opposition – that she has “a substantial number of current active and satisfied clients”. Those essay entries should be safely in the hands of those “blind” judges by now. And the hands of Mr. Peabody, I would add. She has to be able to produce those satisfied clients.
She promised that their names would not be published. Of course, she forgot to mention that once they are submitted to the court as “proof” that their real names will have to be produced as well. She will have to produce those testimonials as exhibits. Don’t forget the fact that they are real people and not sock puppets or paid endorsements will have to be validated. In other words, they will become witnesses for the defense. I’m sure she will try to claim that their identities are somehow privileged. She may be able to hide their name from the public, but the question of whether or not they are real people will still have to be proven to the satisfaction of the court. Given her pattern of fictionalizing, shall we say, that is a genuine and significant question. If they are real people, they have been gathered up by the guise of a “contest”. Another deception. Surprise!
Anyone want to bet that they won’t be published on her site at all? She will claim she is not doing so to protect them, or her attorney advised her not to or some such thing. How about this – the Class Certification hearing is May 20. She is announcing the winners on June 1. She will say the court won’t let her publish that information. Or maybe the “blind judge” is THE judge and she will pick the one he seems to like the best or the one that she believes gets her off the hook. But either way she will say she awarded the money. I wonder if she realizes that to NOT pay those prizes out to real people would be yet another fraud? If a single person submitted their entry via the US Mail that would be a special type of fraud.
I wonder, too, about the testimonials that are popping up on her LiveExpert site (assuming they are real people). She obviously has all of their contact info – whether it is just via their bank or Paypal account or actual address, or her sock drawer. Are they going to pop up as some of her satisfied clients?
Well, this is all just speculation on my part, of course. I have no crystal ball. I just hope that those folks who thought they saw easy money don’t find themselves unwittingly in the middle of her legal messes. Not that she would care, as so many can attest to.
Awhile back this blog post was published in which Heidi supposedly wrote an email to someone addressing the scam involving her and her website. In that email she wrote that two years ago she admitted to making errors in the promotion of her website but immediately corrected those errors when she got caught. Two years ago. That part is certainly a lie, though it is apparent that she is going to try to hang her hat on that hook, judging by her filing.
She made another statement in that email, though, that bears some focus. She said, “What didn't change is Kimkins: a very inexpensive weight loss plan that allows members very quick weight loss. Kimkins is a lean low carb diet with up to 6 servings of leafy greens daily. Less fat than Atkins, fewer carbs than South Beach, low glycemic with superior blood sugar control. This is why our members often report losing 5% of their TOTAL body weight in 10 days or less.”
She is sure right about that. Kimkins has NOT changed. It is STILL a dangerously low calorie diet. It is STILL perpetuated by misleading statements and representations. She is STILL morbidly obese – a fact she fails to list in her “credentials” on her LiveExpert page - proving she STILL isn't able to follow the very diet she cheerfully accepts payment for and promotes. She STILL represents that she has many active members, when, in fact, her numbers have dwindled to a couple of handfuls of fairly regular posters – even lower when you omit the sock puppets. Heidi STILL lies about all sorts of things germane to this case. Yes, indeed. She is sure right that Kimkins has not changed.
Monday, May 4, 2009
16 Days and Counting ...
Just a reminder since Heidi has a tendency to forget these things:
"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 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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
