Why the fascination with Kimmer? #11

[**Lola**]

Originally Posted by Princess Dieter

I wish I could use Retin-A or some of the others for my acne. I still get some breakouts, even at 47, and especially at certain times of the cycle. But I can't even wear eye-makeup , my skin is soooo sensitive and prone to dermatitis. The few times I tried using something for zits (three times prescribed, others like ProActiv, OTC, etc), I ended up with itching, redness, scales, swelling, and pain. So, I have to live with the break-outs.

Fortunately, I have Latina coloring, so at 47, the only lines i have are those creases you get between your eyebrows. Probably all that arrogant frowning I do in my royal duties. Heh. Hate those, but not enough to even go near a Botox needle. SHUDDER!!!! (Plus someone as gorgeous as Nicole Kidman started looking seriously mean and weird when she started Botoxing. IF it does that to a beautiful woman, I didn't even want to think what it would do to an ordinary looking one like me.)

I also envy y'all who can wear eyeshadow and eyeliner and mascara. Sigh. But most of all, I am so envious of people with gorgeous, zitless complexions. You lucky ducks.

Have you tried Jojoba oil for your acne breakouts. It's supposed to work well. I'm trying it on my teenage daughter now so we'll see how that goes.

[anipomoni]

Originally Posted by Awakened

What you may not realize is that this whole discussion is only making her words seem more true to anyone who isn't "one of you".

.......

I know you all only want to look at her "angry" words... but I don't think it's fair to only look at someone's anger when they are trying to express themselves in a fair and balanced way. She isn't one sided and mean here.. she is pointing out the negatives AND the positives at LCF.

..................

I (and BEcky too for that matter) appreciate all the exposing that you have done. I know how hard you all have worked... I've watched it play out right here on this board. But some of you may not realize that sometimes things need to stay BEHIND the scenes in order to actually accomplish things legally. Tipping of the enemy is not always the best game plan.
And when someone points out that you (the Fascination thread heros) aren't above reproach yourselves.. the first reaction is to poke fun at them and laugh at the idea that she might have a tiny bit of truth in her statements.

I hate to say it like this, but in the grand scheme of things, you guys really didn't do much. Nothing positive anyway. You lent credibility to a fraudulent and unhealthy diet (unintentianally of course), you drove business into Heidi's pocket. If it wasn't for people here, you would probably still be on kk.
Actually, if people here stopped searching for the truth every time someone wrote something negative about LCF in their journal, we probably wouldn't have gotten 5 pages in on the #1 Fascination thread.

I even remember one of you complaining of not getting all the $$ you were entitled to for affiliate leads. This was AFTER the fraud. Uhhh...hello? It's money from a fraud, why would you want it? Is that the Christian thing?

But no one brings this stuff up, because everyone here is truly not as mean as they are portrayed. Umm...except me I guess.

And don't count me as one of the "you" here. Because I am not. I am way too blunt and don't do much but lurk here (and sit on my fingers), so my views and especially the way I say them, should in no way reflect anyone here. They are all much nicer than me.

Originally Posted by Tooter

The problem was that we were all called haters by you guys Before your eyes were opened and Becky's post re-enforces that she still feels the same way about "Us/They".

Don't forget that people here were attacked at every single, solitary point on this journey. From the very beginning we were haters because we were questioning the pictures. If we (I am including myself here even though I did nothing) just backed away b/c someone said something nasty in her journal.....well, a lot of people would still be following (and working for) kimkins.

[and now I really have to catch up]
ETA: Ok I really should read on before I respond. Just read cleo's post and she totally said what I meant...but much better

[MissMerize]

Looks like my video put the rest of you to sleep! LOL

I'm off to slumber.

[Magicsmom]

Originally Posted by Tooter

Well, I just checked Kimkins Exhausted and it looks like that can't find out why the MCD was shut done for awhile. GoDaddy can't/won't say anything about it.

So, we will never know for sure What happened (If it was a payment thing or just to comply with copyright thing. or both).

The only thing we do know is that Kimmer didn't/couldn't shut them down and ruin their website. They are back up.

Which means We/They Didn't do Kimmer's dirty work.

That's good enough for me.

[Magicsmom]

Miss M, I liked your video too. You did good, but I'm not registered there, so couldn't leave a comment.

[Kisal]

Originally Posted by MissMerize

Looks like my video put the rest of you to sleep! LOL

I'm off to slumber.

Me, too. But I did post a comment! I just used a different name.

[McLurkypants]

True to my name, I don't post all that much. But I am following along (and boy am I ready for that group hug!! ). I like to keep track of what's going on with the court case by watching the online docket. Here's something I don't remember seeing much (if any) discussion about here -

Did you know that Heidi had her case transferred to another judge? She complained that Judge Cunnison was biased against her, I presume, as evidenced by the fact that he issued the writ of attachment ex parte against her. All the pleadings are not online, so as yet there's no way to see Heidi's "170.6" motion to have him removed. In any event, there's a new judge on the case now.

Here's the entry from the Riverside Courts site:
12/04/2007 170. 6 FILED BY HEIDI DIAZ, KIMKINS AGAINST HONORABLE STEPHEN D. CUNNISON GRANTED.

OK I just did a little tiny bit of legal research and learned this:

...[A] wholesale revision of California's judicial disqualification scheme was undertaken in 1982. At that time, the state Legislature enacted C.C.P. Sec. 170.6, which guarantees to litigants the "extraordinary" right to disqualify a judge, or referee, without any showing of cause whatsoever.

Found that here.

Aha! So Heidi wasn't even required to show any reason to have the judge removed. All she had to do was file the request under 170.6.

Well, don't you know the judges LOVE that. I'm sure that bought her lots of goodwill from the judicial system <===sarcasm===

There are a few other tidbits to be seen on the court website, but I have learned that it's best not to report stuff from there to here tooooo quickly, because Heidi apparently watches THIS site much more carefully than she watches the court's online docket!

[Grizzy]

"Optional Martini"



Miss M that is priceless!!

[WOOFY]

Just dropping in to catch up....lots of reading to do. My grades posted today, all A's!! Woo hoo

Okay, I think I left off on page 55...LOL

[Katinsac]

MissM...loved the video, the cats and that martini looked more like a margarita, yummm...good job.

Woofy...Congrats on the good grades!! Happy reading today...lol

[Violet Skye]

WTG, Woofy!

MissM, great video! I want a Printer Sentinel Kitteh or two of my very own!

[Sheridan]

Originally Posted by McLurkypants

True to my name, I don't post all that much. But I am following along (and boy am I ready for that group hug!! ). I like to keep track of what's going on with the court case by watching the online docket. Here's something I don't remember seeing much (if any) discussion about here -

Did you know that Heidi had her case transferred to another judge? She complained that Judge Cunnison was biased against her, I presume, as evidenced by the fact that he issued the writ of attachment ex parte against her. All the pleadings are not online, so as yet there's no way to see Heidi's "170.6" motion to have him removed. In any event, there's a new judge on the case now.

Here's the entry from the Riverside Courts site:
12/04/2007 170. 6 FILED BY HEIDI DIAZ, KIMKINS AGAINST HONORABLE STEPHEN D. CUNNISON GRANTED.

OK I just did a little tiny bit of legal research and learned this:

...[A] wholesale revision of California's judicial disqualification scheme was undertaken in 1982. At that time, the state Legislature enacted C.C.P. Sec. 170.6, which guarantees to litigants the "extraordinary" right to disqualify a judge, or referee, without any showing of cause whatsoever.

Found that here.

Aha! So Heidi wasn't even required to show any reason to have the judge removed. All she had to do was file the request under 170.6.

Well, don't you know the judges LOVE that. I'm sure that bought her lots of goodwill from the judicial system <===sarcasm===

There are a few other tidbits to be seen on the court website, but I have learned that it's best not to report stuff from there to here tooooo quickly, because Heidi apparently watches THIS site much more carefully than she watches the court's online docket!

McLurky, you are AWESOME!

Originally Posted by WOOFY

Just dropping in to catch up....lots of reading to do. My grades posted today, all A's!! Woo hoo

Okay, I think I left off on page 55...LOL

Way to go, WOOFY!

[Diana]

Originally Posted by McLurkypants

True to my name, I don't post all that much. But I am following along (and boy am I ready for that group hug!! ). I like to keep track of what's going on with the court case by watching the online docket. Here's something I don't remember seeing much (if any) discussion about here -

Did you know that Heidi had her case transferred to another judge? She complained that Judge Cunnison was biased against her, I presume, as evidenced by the fact that he issued the writ of attachment ex parte against her. All the pleadings are not online, so as yet there's no way to see Heidi's "170.6" motion to have him removed. In any event, there's a new judge on the case now.

Here's the entry from the Riverside Courts site:
12/04/2007 170. 6 FILED BY HEIDI DIAZ, KIMKINS AGAINST HONORABLE STEPHEN D. CUNNISON GRANTED.

OK I just did a little tiny bit of legal research and learned this:

...[A] wholesale revision of California's judicial disqualification scheme was undertaken in 1982. At that time, the state Legislature enacted C.C.P. Sec. 170.6, which guarantees to litigants the "extraordinary" right to disqualify a judge, or referee, without any showing of cause whatsoever.

Found that here.

Aha! So Heidi wasn't even required to show any reason to have the judge removed. All she had to do was file the request under 170.6.

Well, don't you know the judges LOVE that. I'm sure that bought her lots of goodwill from the judicial system <===sarcasm===

There are a few other tidbits to be seen on the court website, but I have learned that it's best not to report stuff from there to here tooooo quickly, because Heidi apparently watches THIS site much more carefully than she watches the court's online docket!

Heidi has nothing better to do..... Oh Heidi.....

[MomToEli]

Wow. Being gone from here for one single day can really cause one to be totally out of the loop here ...

Originally Posted by marnaewilson

I am still wondering why it was so bad to criticize and question the Magic Chicken diet, which is really all that happened here. It's still low fat, low carb, low cal, just like Kimkins, and it tried to use the same marketing and web approach. Yes, the major difference was that Bonnie was a real person and used real pictures, but so were Christin and Deni. Why is that diet getting a pass while Kimkins is totally killing people? What's wrong with looking into a questionable Kimkins look alike?

I haven't finished reading the thread, which may be my undoing here, but I just have to pause to ask this very question myself. And as one of those who jumped right on the "What's wrong with this picture" bandwagon, I guess I'm not just an interloper butting in ...

From time to time I hear someone complain that this thread is about KIMMER, and shouldn't be about anyone else. Unfortunately (or fortunately) thread creep happens everywhere. But turning a bit of attention to other Kimmer-like websites really IS on point. Unless, of course, this whole thing is really about Heidi Diaz personally, and NOT about the dangerous diet she is promoting.

Another thing is really bothering me ... please tell me just what has made the MCD lady all so sweet and innocent and cuddly all of a sudden? Did she start to disclose just what her diet entails BEFORE some schmuck has to fork out $60 or $100 or however many non-refundable dollars? And is her diet, or is her diet NOT safe? Has she produced a medical expert suddenly? Frankly, all I've seen has been a illwritten post from her sil - and that is questionable, as the information in it may well be proven false anyway - sort of like her addresses. Oh, and the other thing is we were told she is a cancer survivor. Well now, THAT should give her a free pass.

Oh, and I've seen the copy floating around of her "diet". I've read her comments about "if you want this BAD enough, you'll stick to this, and if you don't you must not want it BAD enough" comments. Wow. Sounds just like what you all have said Heidi says ... You all are convinced she is true and who she says she is ... Why is that? Wasn't there a time you ALSO believed Heidi was who she said she was and that her story was true and she was the lady in the lawn chair?

Gals, the MCD lady uses addresses that don't exist. Phone numbers that don't belong to candle companies. Uses the same exact pay me before I show you my secrets tactics. Is promoting low carb/low fat/ low calorie/based on her say so dieting.

Hello? Anybody home?

[MomToEli]

Originally Posted by Magicsmom

ITA! We cannot go after everyone out there who is touting what we consider to be a dangerous diet program. There are too many of them. It's a shame, but people are free to join these plans if they want. The difference I see with Kimmer is that her entire plan is based on fraud. It was not tried and found to be true in that she didn't lose weight on it as she claimed to. While the MCD lady is doing something we don't agree with, it's not up to us to take her out.

Fact is, there is nothing anyone on this site can do that can prevent other people from joining any plan. Don't have the power. KK is a case in point. For all the exposing, its still ticking along. And I have no doubt whatsoever that if/when KK gets shut down, the backup plan will be in full swing.

All anyone here can do is question and proclaim against something. And be vigilant. There is nothing wrong with looking for dangerous diet plan - picking them apart, even -- and exposing them for what they are.

[MomToEli]

Originally Posted by wifezilla

Just because you can't bring them all down doesn't mean you sit on your hands when you find one. I AM willing to take on the diet world. Those idiots, liars and downright thieves have taken mine as well as other people's money, ruined our health, and perpetuated bad information. All of this has meant 20 years of health damage to me, not to mention millions of others fighting obesity.

You all know the star fish story, right?

Hey, maybe we could start our own website ... Duck Detectives ... the Diet Police ... we get all quacked up about fraud ....

[MomToEli]

Originally Posted by Nady

Attachment 9496

My God, that looks obscene
~~~N

Never would have seen it without help ... thanks!

[jimzgrl]

Originally Posted by MissMerize

Cinnamon vodka and eggnog. YUM

OOH, can't wait for 5 o'clock somewhere!!

[MomToEli]

Originally Posted by jeanessa

I like LosingtoLive. I really do. She's my girl, so I am just going to pretend like I didn't see anything and move on.

You know what suprised me the most about this whole entire thing? Is that Heidi didn't take the money and run. I never thought she wouldn't do that. I mean, she could have gotten away with so much more had she just taken the money and disappeared. Why didn't she?

In a word? Greed.

[gibster]

Originally Posted by cleochatra

After seeing Heidi in those tight pants, who needs Retin-A on the eyelids? I done went blind at that moment.

Originally Posted by ketosis

Cleochatra you have kept me in all day!

ITA!

[Tooter]

anipomoni, Thank you, for your post!

[MJR]

Whoo Hooo!
Here's my "Ripoff Report" Rip-off Report: Kimkins - Heidi Kimberly Diaz - Kimmer Low Carb Diet Scam, VLCD, Starvation Diet, Laxative Abuse, Anorexia, Eating Disorders, Kimkins, Diet Fraud Corona California

We are up to 9 now.
Come on guys - we need some more.

I found over 700 "weight control" ripoff reports on that site - we don't want Kimkins to be hidden from innocent victims should they be investigating that site before signing up. Every entry counts.
A short and sweet (or not) entry is just fine. Please take a minute to file a report.

[Tooter]

Originally Posted by BamaGal

HB---hope I'm not stepping on your toes here babe---but these need posting again---there are some updated links here too---

Sign the petition
Request for Kimkins Investigation Petition
This petition goes to the Federal Trade Commission, Better Business Bureau, and the California Attorney General.

Contact the Federal Trade Commission
Federal Trade Commission - Offices and Bureaus
The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel®, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies worldwide.

Internet Crime Complaint Center
Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)
The IC3 is co-sponsored by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C)

Lawsuit
Kimkinslawsuit’s Weblog

IRS tax fraud
To make a report to the IRS that Heidi Diaz may be committing tax fraud-
How Do You Report Suspected Tax Fraud Activity?

BBB
To do a review at the Better Business Bureau
Company Report
If you feel that Kimkins/Kimmer/Heidi Diaz has not been truthful in advertising and is dangerous. You may also wish to file a complaint (after posting a review) if it is appropriate to your situation.

California Department of Consumer Affairs
https://app.dca.ca.gov/cru/gencomplaint.asp

Office of the Inspector General
To Report Possible Social Security fraud
Report Fraud to the Hotline

ConsumerAffairs.com
To report any type of consumer fraud or scams
Complaint Form

Complain to Woman’s World
Ms. Stephanie Saible, Editor-in-Chief
Woman’s World
270 Sylvan Avenue
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
DearWW@aol.com
wwfeatures@bauerpublishing.com

National Consumers League’s Fraud Center
Use this form to report suspected telemarketing or Internet fraud.
Online F