Why the fascination with Kimmer? #13

[Tom]

Welcome to: Why the fascination with Kimmer? #13

Why the fascination with Kimmer?
Why the fascination with Kimmer? #2
Why the fascination with Kimmer? #3
Why the fascination with Kimmer? #4
Why the fascination with Kimmer? #5
Why the fascination with Kimmer? #6
Why the fascination with Kimmer? #7
Why the fascination with Kimmer? #8
Why the fascination with Kimmer? #9
Why the fascination with Kimmer? #10
Why the fascination with Kimmer? #11
Why the fascination with Kimmer? #12

[Tooter]

#13!!!







I wonder what this one has in store for us?

[CarolynF]

Thanks, Tom..This is an ominous number #13..

[Mayberryfan]

Brady Bunch photos you say?

Here's the story, of an ugly lady
Who used faked weightloss stories with Russian broads.
She told members they could eat
and lose weight just like she did.
But it all turned out to be a big fraud!

Then one day this lady met the duck squad
Who knew her fraud was much more than a hunch.
Now these ducks are on a mission; to keep anyone
else from joining the Kimmer Bunch.

The Kimmer Bunch!
The Kimmer Bunch!

[susique333]

Oh my god it seemed like we JUST hit #12, 13 already??

[Ilpirata]

LADIES!
I just want to tell you that I am reading ALL of the fascination threads from the very beginning. I'm on #3. All I can say is WOW, WTH, and WOW. I remember Kimmer from when I used to lurk on here years ago... My work thought they'd increase productivity by blocking Myspace - HA! This is the most engrossing thing I've EVER found online. Hands down. Of course I'd love to know just where things stand now but following this from the very beginning with Cheryl posting those pictures etc... Yeah, back to #3.
~K

[SMP]

Friday, and the thread is the 13th! Now is that bad for Heidi or for the ducks? Only time will tell. (But I'm favoring it being bad for Heidi.) Isn't Brandon's deposition next week?

[2big4mysize]

I am way behind but just wanted to let y'all know if you haven't already seen it Tippy has changed her mind and has sent Kimmer a C and D regarding her success story and pictures on kimkins.con

now off to catch up in 12 please don't write too much here before i get back

[marnaewilson]

Could it be that Heidi's funds were only frozen up to the date of the suit or the date the photos were removed? The site now does not have fraudulent photos and stories, so maybe the focus of the case is previous fraud, not current bad diet advice. Just a question

[LINC]

My reading of the court documents gave the receiving company the right to impound her Paypal, Citibank and ANY OTHER bank accounts in her name up to the amount of $1.6 million dollars. At the time, she had only a couple hundred thousand left, and the order extended to future deposits. (If she doesn't have moolah to keep the site open, too bad. That was kind of the idea, to shut her down.)

I haven't gone back and read the documents again, but of this is the case, I would think anything that exceeds $1.6 million would be free for her to take. Any NEW money coming in would be available to her once she hits $1.6 million. Did the documents say how much was in the accounts at the time they were impounded? Is it possible that they've reached that $1.6 million limit? Does that include the value of any of her property?

Lou

[dlslds]

Originally Posted by SMP

Friday, and the thread is the 13th! Now is that bad for Heidi or for the ducks? Only time will tell. (But I'm favoring it being bad for Heidi.) Isn't Brandon's deposition next week?

I think it's on the 9th.

[wifezilla]

Is anyone else having trouble with marisol's blog? That thing locks up my browser every time I try to access it. I have used 2 different computers with different operating systems and different browsers....doesn't seem to matter. It crashes them.

[dlslds]

I just went to check Wife, I am having no trouble.

[2big4mysize]

Originally Posted by wifezilla

Is anyone else having trouble with marisol's blog? That thing locks up my browser every time I try to access it. I have used 2 different computers with different operating systems and different browsers....doesn't seem to matter. It crashes them.

when you visit click the area between the go back arrows on your browser. some blogs have a goggle review thing before their name and they lock me in. medusa has one and the only why I can navagate way is to click a link. wonder if we could figure out a way to do the reverse to kimkins.con and lock everybody out of it.

[ixtapacheryl]

Originally Posted by Ilpirata

LADIES!
I just want to tell you that I am reading ALL of the fascination threads from the very beginning. I'm on #3. All I can say is WOW, WTH, and WOW. I remember Kimmer from when I used to lurk on here years ago... My work thought they'd increase productivity by blocking Myspace - HA! This is the most engrossing thing I've EVER found online. Hands down. Of course I'd love to know just where things stand now but following this from the very beginning with Cheryl posting those pictures etc... Yeah, back to #3.
~K

I agree - it's addicting! You'll be at it for a few weeks and then depending on what info it found you'll find yourself still pages behind. If I miss one or two days I'm hopelessly behind. My husband is so happy when I'm behind because I'm quiet and he can read.

[LINC]

I was just reading up on exactly what a writ of attachment is. I found this here:

California Prejudgment Attachment Law And Procedure

Exemptions From Attachment

Certain items of property are exempt from attachment (below). But these exemptions are available only to individual defendants. The attachment exemptions do not apply to corporations, partnerships and other entities. [See Ca Civ Pro §§ 487.010, 487.020, 703.020(a)]

Property exempt from attachment should not be levied upon. An authorized levy might result in liability for "wrongful attachment"

The following property of individual defendants is exempt from attachment:

Property Not Subject To Attachment: Property described above (i.e. property outside California, etc. is, in essence, exempt.

Property Exempt From Enforcement Of Judgment: Property exempt from enforcement of a money judgment is also exempt from attachment. This includes the exemptions under the Enforcement of Judgments Law, as well as any other exemptions provided by state or federal law. [Ca Civ Pro § 487.020(a)]

Property Necessary For Individual's Support: Also exempt is property necessary for the support of a natural person defendant, or such person's family if defendant supports the family in whole or in part. [Ca Civ Pro § 487.020(b)]

Earnings: Earnings (as defined by the Wage Garnishment Law) are exempt from attachment. [Ca Civ Pro § 487.020(c)]

Homestead Exemption: An individual's principal dwelling may be attached, but only to the extent of the surplus over the total amount of:

* All liens and encumbrances on the homestead at the time the attachment lien is created; plus
* The amount of the dwelling exemption. [See Ca Civ Pro § 487.025(b)]

According to the court documents, Heidi is being sued as an individual, not a corporation, so the exemptions above apply to her. Hmmmm....

Lou

[ixtapacheryl]

Honeybee2: I LOVE your new picture. Wow you had all of us fooled (or at least me). I pictured you with an apron on - grandmotherly type. You are soooo cute! Now I have to show you more respect!

[ixtapacheryl]

Originally Posted by LINC

I was just reading up on exactly what a writ of attachment is. I found this here:

California Prejudgment Attachment Law And Procedure




According to the court documents, Heidi is being sued as an individual, not a corporation, so the exemptions above apply to her. Hmmmm....

Lou

But remember - if she set up a corporation to avoid a lawsuit - you can't hide behind the "corporate veil". Nope - won't protect her.

[JustKim]

where did you guys read about TT and the C&D?

[LINC]

Originally Posted by ixtapacheryl

But remember - if she set up a corporation to avoid a lawsuit - you can't hide behind the "corporate veil". Nope - won't protect her.

I think it works the other way. If she was being sued as a corporation (and the box naming the defendant as a "Natural Person" rather than the corporation box is what is checked) these exemptions wouldn't apply to her. But since she is a "natural person", certain things are exempt from the writ of attachment. At least that's the way I read it. I'm not talking about what she can be sued for. I'm talking about what assets can be seized in this writ of attachment. It looks to me like she does have access to certain assets - her earnings, for one and any property necessary for her "support" is another.


Lou

[Barbara B]

Originally Posted by JustKim

where did you guys read about TT and the C&D?

Kimkins Follow-up | Diets in Review Blog

Baitinger
Jan 4th, 2008 at 11:43 am
I believe I have made an error as to the author of the “Kimmer” post. I believe the above post was from Heidi Diaz… As a result I no longer will allow her to use my success story or pictures. This Cease and desist letter has been sent to webmaster@kimkins.com as well as a copy to John Teidt. A hard copy will follow.
Jeannie Baitinger
xxxxx XXXXX XXXX
Zephyrhills, Florida, 33541
Re: Cease and desist demand
Dear Sir/Madam:
This letter serves as notice to cease and desist using the name of Jeannie Baitinger, success story, and any image of Jeannie Baitinger, for advertising, marketing and selling of the Kimkins.com program and website. Ms. Baitinger is convinced the owner and operator of Kimkins.com AKA Heidi Diaz and any assigns obtained the release fraudulently, under false pretenses, now subject to criminal and civil fraud allegations. Therefore, it is null and void. This cease and desist applies (but is not limited to) the following:
Success story rotation including Jeannie Baitinger
Front page images or write ups of Jeannie Baitinger
Affiliate links obtaining images of Jeannie Baitinger
Any and all use of Jeannie Baitinger’s name, image, or story in promotion of kimkins.com or anything related to Kimkins.com.
This will serve as your legal notice to cease and desist all further actions described above.
Further usage of Jeannie Baitinger’s images or name may be subject to inclusion within a civil class action lawsuit.

[amadeus4313]

Originally Posted by Barbara B

Kimkins Follow-up | Diets in Review Blog

Glad she posted this. There was a comment in the camp that maybe some birds were responsible.

As she said to Christin: "I believe you signed a contract." I wonder if Tippy did also.

[Barbara B]

I believe this post from Thinny at dietsinreview had something to do with making her change her mind:

I believe Jeannie as far as her severing all ties. She’s just too scared of losing what she owns to satisfy a million dollar lawsuit. But her head is screwed on backwards if she thinks someone other than Heidi wrote that expose. Wake up, TT! That’s Heidi’s version of sharing the blame and discrediting any testimony you may give or have given. It’s too bad she never praised you when you were on her site. Why now? THINK!

TT, are you starting to *get it* now?

[CarolynF]

Good for TT..glad she did the right thing and is finally realizing who Kimmer is really and would love to "take TT down with her" if possible..TT you should listen to the "ducks" more.

[BamaGal]

Originally Posted by LINC

I think it works the other way. If she was being sued as a corporation (and the box naming the defendant as a "Natural Person" rather than the corporation box is what is checked) these exemptions wouldn't apply to her. But since she is a "natural person", certain things are exempt from the writ of attachment. At least that's the way I read it. I'm not talking about what she can be sued for. I'm talking about what assets can be seized in this writ of attachment. It looks to me like she does have access to certain assets - her earnings, for one and any property necessary for her "support" is another.


Lou

but you have to look at this way too Lou---if she deliberately bought all that stuff to hide assets, hoping to claim the exemptions you posted---they can and will be seized---they will not be exempt---and that is just what Teidt is showing with the timeline of when she bought the house, cars, the plumbing business, etc---

[Magicsmom]

Originally Posted by amadeus4313

Glad she posted this. There was a comment in the camp that maybe some birds were responsible.

As she said to Christin: "I believe you signed a contract." I wonder if Tippy did also.

I'm glad too. It's just too convenient to blame the quackers. I never thought for a moment that anyone other than Heidi Diaz wrote the piece claiming SWSNBN is still her right hand. I sincerely hope SWSNBN is coming out of the coma. Been there, done that, and glad to be seeing clearly what Heidi Diaz really is.

[susique333]

Oh Heidi, Heidi, Heidi....when will the lies stop?


Quote from Kimmer Jan 1st, 2008 at 6:21 pm

Please be advised that Jeannie continues to follow and support the Kimkins Plan today.

She simply left Kimkins in order to help spread the word via her own Kimkins-based website. She has my blessing and full support for her Kimkins CTF Diet.

Jeannie is still a very strong Kimkins supporter, and she remains my right hand here at Kimkins. Kimkins would not be the success it is today without all the hard work and support that Jeannie has given me and continues to give me on a daily basis.

If your life has been benefitted by the Kimkins Diet, you owe a great debt to Jeannie and all her hard work.

I couldn’t have achieved all that I have achieved without the monumental contributions made by Jeannie.

She is a fine testament of the proof that the Kimkins Diet is working miracles for thousand of obese men and woman every day. End Quote

Quote from TT:
Baitinger
Jan 4th, 2008 at 11:43 am
I believe I have made an error as to the author of the “Kimmer” post. I believe the above post was from Heidi Diaz… As a result I no longer will allow her to use my success story or pictures. This Cease and desist letter has been sent to webmaster@kimkins.com as well as a copy to John Teidt. A hard copy will follow.
Jeannie Baitinger
xxxxx XXXXX XXXX
Zephyrhills, Florida, 33541
Re: Cease and desist demand
Dear Sir/Madam:
This letter serves as notice to cease and desist using the name of Jeannie Baitinger, success story, and any image of Jeannie Baitinger, for advertising, marketing and selling of the Kimkins.com program and website. Ms. Baitinger is convinced the owner and operator of Kimkins.com AKA Heidi Diaz and any assigns obtained the release fraudulently, under false pretenses, now subject to criminal and civil fraud allegations. Therefore, it is null and void. This cease and desist applies (but is not limited to) the following:
Success story rotation including Jeannie Baitinger
Front page images or write ups of Jeannie Baitinger
Affiliate links obtaining images of Jeannie Baitinger
Any and all use of Jeannie Baitinger’s name, image, or story in promotion of kimkins.com or anything related to Kimkins.com.
This will serve as your legal notice to cease and desist all further actions described above.
Further usage of Jeannie Baitinger’s images or name may be subject to inclusion within a civil class action lawsuit.