Why the fascination with Kimmer? #15

[WildAngel6]

Originally Posted by Katinsac

wow, it was really quiet around her lastnight for a Friday night....guess all the excitement was in the morning, lol.

Guess so?

But when they said...

Originally Posted by samredman

I have read these threads with fascination after being introduced to this rather bizarre subject from a tabloid tv show video (tabloid, meaning a show which portentously appears to be investigative, but in this situation, as they do in many of their "revelations," was really only providing a forum for an opportunistic law firm trying to cash in with a possible class action suit).

ummmm... they weren't REALLY referring to Tiedt and Hurd, were they?? Ouch, cuz if they were, them's fighting words, for sure.

Ok, sorry ~ smoothing feathers back down~ I didn't meant to get so ruffled, but really folks.... opportunistic??

I can think of a lot of words to describe the fine folks at Tiedt and Hurd, but opportunistic is NOT one of them.

John and his team are definitely NOT trying to "cash in on" this, they are here to help and are doing a fine job of it.

But then, of course, one only has look at all the hard work that John has done so far, to see that.

Ok, back to the cause at hand, I just needed to say my piece about an unnecessary derogatory comment.

Recommended Reading:

Medusa: A JURY ACQUITS ITSELF WELL...

Kimkins Press Release « Kimkins And Other Affiliate Marketing Nightmares

[Mayberryfan]

WA6,

ITA! Sam didn't last long, though, huh? Wonder why that is??

[WildAngel6]

Originally Posted by Mayberryfan

WA6,

ITA! Sam didn't last long, though, huh? Wonder why that is??

Sam may be back... some day:

Originally Posted by samredman

Although I don't have the time to do it all now, I might pop in here now and then and give some of my conclusions about this situation.

[samredman]

I really don't have a position in your fray and I am only offering to you the unique perspective of someone who came from outside of it with just the interest of a brand-new reader doing a cursory study of the many documents about all of this, following link after link. Sometimes when you are involved in a legal fray it is beneficial to have that sort of unbiased viewpoint, in a way, like a judge (or maybe more like a jury member) might view the situation when all the facts are laid out in a courtroom. As they like to say in Texas (where I live), I don't have a "dog in this hunt," I am merely someone who enjoys a good internet story... so, to mix in yet a few more metaphors, "don't shoot the messenger, " and take what I offer with a "grain of salt" (if that's on your diet plan).

Here are some of the thoughts that come to mind which might be useful to you in your tactical planning:

1. It's not good to assume that just because your attorney hasn't advised you not to be taking any of actions you are pursuing that all is "ok." Often lead attorneys in cases have quite a few other cases and yours might not be up there on that front burner like you might imagine. A better plan is to contact him with a clearly written letter asking if what's being done is appropriate. Assumptions can get you into trouble... remember the old high-school football coach admonishment... to not assume, because it makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me." Show him a list what's being done and get his nod of approval before you continue. Avoiding tortious interference is a proper legal approach (don't be lulled into complacency by nonsensical rebuttals demeaning either the bearer of such information (me) or the internet link offered... look it up yourself, it's serious). And just because your attorney firm is "opportunistic" and motivated by merely trying to cash in on this (don't be naive, they are just like all the other class-action legal vultures... not doing this as an altruistic mission) doesn't mean they won't give you good sound legal advice on your tactics.

2. A judge providing a writ of attachment on certain assets (but, obviously not on others... because the business is still on-going) doesn't mean that this case has been decided (that's similar to people thinking that because an indictment or, merely an arrest, in a criminal case has been made that suspects are going to be convicted... doesn't always happen). Sometimes partial assets are held as a reserve, if there is a possibility of a judgement when the judge concludes that a business can go on without significant damage in the meantime... and he obviously made the right call on that, because the site is still up and running and evidently getting significant traffic and even an increase in business, which allowed them to be able to raise prices. Nor does a "writ of attachment" mean that that judge has been made totally aware of actions (especially current ones) by the 11 of so members of the lawsuit. Don't assume the judge approves of any tactics, because of that writ.

3. I think that actions to obtain material by surreptitious means by those given the trust of administration privileges on the Kimkins site won't be helpful in a courtroom. Anyone honored with the fiduciary position of being able to have access to private management conversations has been put into a position of trust. Anyone who grants that kind of access has a reasonable expectation of loyalty and protection of privacy from those who have been made confidants and who have previously represented themselves (by conduct or words) to the management of the site as people who were trustworthy.

4. A current tactic which seems questionable is joining her site now (after all has been exposed) under the guise of being a person seeking help and then working to disillusion and discourage her current members. If she has "legally corrected" previous shortcomings... then continuing actions like those (while participating in a legal action) appear quite vindictive and malicious. To keep doing that (and encouraging others to do that) seems risky.

5. There is such a long history now with low-carb dieting that to win this might mean putting all of that history on trial. Sure, some say that the more severe techniques are harmful to health... but how much proof is there that what Kimkins plan suggested (or recommended) would cause (and did cause) anyone any real and, perhaps more significantly, "permanent" damage? I think that is going to take some scientific studies (double blind they call them)... to prove those points. Those studies will be very hard to produce.

6. If the case is going to hinge on whether the Kimkins plan didn't include vitamins or consume enough calories, that will be easily disproved. One of the criticisms of one of the "experts" on the tabloid tv show "exposé" was that a program like this caused the body to not get enough vitamins and minerals. However, Kimmer was advising people, even on this site back in 2004, to take a vitamin mineral supplement (Centrum) with the program.. and her advice has never had any caloric restrictions (the method's allowance of unlimited amounts of some proteins keeps caloric limitation from being a valid criticism).

7. Did any of the people claiming medical damages actually have them inflicted by following the Kimkins plan ... from doing low calories? Or, did they have them prior to joining? ... Did they go to their doctor prior to doing the plan (like the disclaimer on the site suggested) and get his or her advice about the safety? There would need to be a lot of documentation and very convincing test results displayed in order to prove those assertions.

8. An example of a weak health claim is the clamor about "hair loss.". Any deprivation program can cause temporary hair loss. There are many, many postings on this very board about this phenomenon... and they are unrelated to the Kimmer approach. There are many references on other boards and sites about (even expected) hair loss associated from other deprivation diets which are not low carb. The "hair loss" claim won't hold water.

9. My guess is these complainants have been "chronic dieters" for many years and their brief sojourn as Kimkins followers was not really contributory to any of their real (or imagined) miseries. Grossly overweight chronic dieters don't usually have the discipline to stick long enough on a low calorie plan to do themselves much damage from that. They generally get their bad health from the harmful things they ate prior to dieting, and the condition of being overweight, not from eating too little.

10. Heidi Diaz's multi-year history of posting her program (for free) on this board and literally making thousands of helpful posts and having friendly exchanges with many of the very people now conducting the vendetta against her... speaks more to Heidi's good intentions than those waging the campaign. Hard to say you are shocked by the program when you have been reading about it (and discussing it) in open forums on this board prior to her business even being started. Hard to say the program actually causes any difficulties... because it was really tested for years right here without complaint.

11. As far as the ongoing Kimkins business is concerned, I think she has gotten some good legal advice and has taken actions to "cure" the shortcomings in her cautionary information and the severity of the recommendations. If what she is offering now is within generally acceptable diet advice guidelines... and goodness, all diets have their detractors, then the chances of the site being shutdown as a "scam" or heath hazard are "slim" (if you excuse the pun). All of the phony photos have been removed so... as far as the continuing business is concerned all of that history is irrelevant.

12. The vendetta nature of the campaign seems to be, at least partially, centered around jealousy, stemming from various individuals not wanting someone else to have a successful business and to make large amounts of money (millions of dollars in someone else's pocket can motivate a lot of jealousy). Those nasty attacks on the entrepreneurial couple, who are doing their MagicChickenDiet site (wow, what a diet success story she has), are quite revealing.

13. The case will come down to who really got damaged and by how much. Ongoing satisfied customers (people who merely don't complain after purchase are defined generally as meeting that classification) serve to indicate that people were (and are) getting something of value. People who decided to buy after seeing phony pictures probably have a legitimate claim for a refund... this seems to be the most valid claim in the case (probably best "cured" by refund offers). Medical injury from this diet seems to be a rather difficult position to prove... too much history with low-carb diets and no real scientific studies which are probative (google it) to them causing any real and lasting health problems (especially if you aren't doing the program any more). To single this one out as really much different in risks than can be had from any intake deprivation program is probably a very weak argument.

So, there you have my musings. Realize that one of my hobbies is to launch polemics, such as this one, on internet forums... I do it for fun and I have posted on every subject imaginable and on multiple sides of the political spectrum (I'm often called an equal-opportunity offender). I love pursuing the the art and practice of disputation and debating in forums where controversy exists. So, either take what I have to say to heart, ignore it or respond if you like (and in any way you like). And yes, as one poster pointed out... I am the same Sam Redman, who is a writer of light (sometimes called "pulp"), hopefully entertaining, fiction (but, that doesn't mean everything I write is fictional). I'm honestly happy with any reaction anyone has... hey, I'm just doing it for the fun of internet conversation.

[Katinsac]

Sam...love your posts...very enlightening. Nice to have an outsiders point of view.

[Magicsmom]

Originally Posted by WildAngel6

ummmm... they weren't REALLY referring to Tiedt and Hurd, were they?? Ouch, cuz if they were, them's fighting words, for sure.

Fighting words for sure! I am sure that John reads this thread, so if I were Sam, I'd be careful what I say about them.

Originally Posted by Katinsac

Sam...love your posts...very enlightening. Nice to have an outsiders point of view.

Yes, very enlightening, but I can't understand why an "outsider" thinks he knows more about this case than the attorney handling it.

[Magicsmom]

Originally Posted by samredman

6. If the case is going to hinge on whether the Kimkins plan didn't include vitamins or consume enough calories, that will be easily disproved. One of the criticisms of one of the "experts" on the tabloid tv show "exposé" was that a program like this caused the body to not get enough vitamins and minerals. However, Kimmer was advising people, even on this site back in 2004, to take a vitamin mineral supplement (Centrum) with the program.. and her advice has never had any caloric restrictions (the method's allowance of unlimited amounts of some proteins keeps caloric limitation from being a valid criticism).

7. Did any of the people claiming medical damages actually have them inflicted by following the Kimkins plan ... from doing low calories? Or, did they have them prior to joining? ... Did they go to their doctor prior to doing the plan (like the disclaimer on the site suggested) and get his or her advice about the safety? There would need to be a lot of documentation and very convincing test results displayed in order to prove those assertions.

8. An example of a weak health claim is the clamor about "hair loss.". Any deprivation program can cause temporary hair loss. There are many, many postings on this very board about this phenomenon... and they are unrelated to the Kimmer approach. There are many references on other boards and sites about (even expected) hair loss associated from other deprivation diets which are not low carb. The "hair loss" claim won't hold water.

9. My guess is these complainants have been "chronic dieters" for many years and their brief sojourn as Kimkins followers was not really contributory to any of there real (or imagined) miseries. Grossly overweight chronic dieters don't usually have the discipline to stick long enough on a low calorie plan to do themselves much damage from that. They generally get their bad health from the harmful things they ate prior to dieting, and the condition of being overweight, not from eating too little.

13. The case will come down to who really got damaged and by how much. Ongoing satisfied customers (people who merely don't complain after purchase are defined generally as meeting that classification) serve to indicate that people were (and are) getting something of value. People who decided to buy after seeing phony pictures probably have a legitimate claim for a refund... this seems to be the most valid claim in the case (probably best "cured" by refund offers). Medical injury from this diet seems to be a rather difficult position to prove... too much history with low-carb diets and no real scientific studies which are probative (google it) to them causing any real and lasting health problems (especially if you aren't doing the program any more). To single this one out as really much different in risks than can be had from any intake deprivation program is probably a very weak argument.

Sam, the case is not about damages as a result of following the diet, it's about fraud. So the case will not come down to who got damaged and by how much. It is simpler than that. It will come down to 1) did Heidi Diaz lie about who she was and what she accomplished (yes, she did) and 2) did Heidi Diaz defraud members and potential members [via Women's World magazine] by publishing phony success stories and photos (again, yes, she did). That's it. You are superimposing facets to this case that, while they are interesting to think about, are not really issues for the court to decide. This action is about refunding to members because they were defrauded. Believe it or not, this attorney knows what he is doing.

ETA: Heidi has admitted in her depositions about the fraud mentioned above. It's not speculation, it's a fact.

[Mayberryfan]

12. The vendetta nature of the campaign seems to be, at least partially, centered around jealousy, stemming from various individuals not wanting someone else to have a successful business and to make large amounts of money (millions of dollars in someone else's pocket can motivate a lot of jealousy). Those nasty attacks on the couple, who are doing their Magic Chicken Diet site are quite revealing.

Sam,

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. Why would any of us be jealous of Heidi? She is NOTHING that I would ever want to be. I have more character, kindness, and intelligence in my pinky toenail than she's ever had or ever will have. Plus, I've actually lost weight, whereas Heidi NEVER has.

As for the the "nasty attacks" on the Magic Chicken folks - well you have a right to your opinion. But as one of the leaders of the information campaign about the tragic chicken I will be HAPPY to share my motivation with you. It's simply a DANGEROUS, starvation diet. It's no different than Kimkins in terms of nutrition. I don't know if there is more to those folks than meets the eye or not. I'm willing at this point to believe they are well-meaning but horrendously misguided folks. THAT is why I'm campaigning against them. Nothing more to it.

[SMP]

Sam, your POV makes a lot of sense. But in the ducks' behalf, I'd like to point out that the scam IS the case. Health issues are side issues, the gilding of the lily. I long ago mentioned the difficulty of proving health issues that accompany chronic dieters who joined Kimkins. For that matter, since Bonnie Luper, the Magic Chicken Lady, has obviously lost the weight she claims, with pix to prove it, she falls outside my radar, just not everyones.
And while I think of it, trust issues are part of the lawsuit. Admins and others trusted Heidi - at least till the evidence of her duplicity became overwhelming. She caused reliable people to become scapegoats in her chicanery, and that is why some of these decent people were highly offended enough to reveal what should, under normal laws of privacy, remain private. But that was all based on lies; so Heidi broke faith with them first.
Nor did John Teidt just jump on the bandwagon out of the blue. Jeanessa Fenderson, the voice of the defendants, contacted John and continues to relay his advice and questions in the case to us here.
So regardless of Heidi's massive cleanup of her site; so that today it is no better nor worse than several other diet sites, the scam was committed; Heidi's flouting of the legalities continues; and so does the drive for a class action suit. Simple, eh? (Otherwise, we'd all say "And I promise never to do this no-no again, Yer Onner; so you have to let me off the hook.")

[Mayberryfan]

Right on, SMP!

And, yes, Bonnie Luper has lost weight. Her pictures are genuine. But, did she do it with her own created plan, or did she have WLS? As someone who has struggled with weight for many, many years, I know how unrealistic it is to believe that someone who was over 300 lbs. could SUDDENLY discover her own diet and make it work for her. Not impossible, but definitely improbable.

Even if Bonnie created her own magic chicken program and it worked for her, that in NO way qualifies her to advise others on how to lose weight. She's no doctor, nutritionist, or dietician. But, the fact that she has a website running and is charging a hefty price to join, gives people a subliminal idea that she's selling something worth their $70. It's like seeing something in print gives people the idea that it has merit. It may be a total crock, but seeing something in print, or in electronic media lends credibility. I can't quote the exact studies off the top of my head, it's been too long since I took that mass media 101 class.

Bonnie Luper is taking advantage of people. Is she just trying to help them? I don't know and I don't care. What she's selling is dangerous. That's the bottom line for me!

[Nady]

I think Sam just gave us a pretty good idea of the defense Heidi will try to use~ Thanks! Too bad it doesn't address the actual charge of fraud~
~~~N

[Magicsmom]

Originally Posted by SMP

Sam, your POV makes a lot of sense. But in the ducks' behalf, I'd like to point out that the scam IS the case. Health issues are side issues, the gilding of the lily. I long ago mentioned the difficulty of proving health issues that accompany chronic dieters who joined Kimkins. For that matter, since Bonnie Luper, the Magic Chicken Lady, has obviously lost the weight she claims, with pix to prove it, she falls outside my radar, just not everyones.
And while I think of it, trust issues are part of the lawsuit. Admins and others trusted Heidi - at least till the evidence of her duplicity became overwhelming. She caused reliable people to become scapegoats in her chicanery, and that is why some of these decent people were highly offended enough to reveal what should, under normal laws of privacy, remain private. But that was all based on lies; so Heidi broke faith with them first.
Nor did John Teidt just jump on the bandwagon out of the blue. Jeanessa Fenderson, the voice of the defendants, contacted John and continues to relay his advice and questions in the case to us here.
So regardless of Heidi's massive cleanup of her site; so that today it is no better nor worse than several other diet sites, the scam was committed; Heidi's flouting of the legalities continues; and so does the drive for a class action suit. Simple, eh? (Otherwise, we'd all say "And I promise never to do this no-no again, Yer Onner; so you have to let me off the hook.")

Thank you, and ITA!

ETA: I could tell you were a Canuck without even looking!

[rebel]

Originally Posted by Mayberryfan

Right on, SMP!

And, yes, Bonnie Luper has lost weight. Her pictures are genuine. But, did she do it with her own created plan, or did she have WLS? As someone who has struggled with weight for many, many years, I know how unrealistic it is to believe that someone who was over 300 lbs. could SUDDENLY discover her own diet and make it work for her. Not impossible, but definitely improbable.

Even if Bonnie created her own magic chicken program and it worked for her, that in NO way qualifies her to advise others on how to lose weight. She's no doctor, nutritionist, or dietician. But, the fact that she has a website running and is charging a hefty price to join, gives people a subliminal idea that she's selling something worth their $70. It's like seeing something in print gives people the idea that it has merit. It may be a total crock, but seeing something in print, or in electronic media lends credibility. I can't quote the exact studies off the top of my head, it's been too long since I took that mass media 101 class.

Bonnie Luper is taking advantage of people. Is she just trying to help them? I don't know and I don't care. What she's selling is dangerous. That's the bottom line for me!

I'm 51 which is about the same age that Bonnie claims to be. I have lost about 60 pounds and need to lose about that much more. As of right now, my skin is hanging like socks on a rooster (or should I say a Magic Chicken), so I'm wondering where she's hiding all her extra skin?

[jo2621]

Originally Posted by samredman

4. A current tactic which seems questionable is joining her site now (after all has been exposed) under the guise of being a person seeking help and then working to disillusion and discourage her current members. If she has "legally corrected" previous shortcomings... then continuing actions like those (while participating in a legal action) appear quite vindictive and malicious. To keep doing that (and encouraging others to do that) seems risky.

Hey Sam, I don't know where you got that tidbit of information. That kind of unsubstantiated rumor in itself is "vindictive and malicious" against the well intended people on this thread.

You say it is current, it may have happened once or twice last year during the initial uproar but it is not something that is going on now.

And unless you can site just exactly where that info came from it's not wise to come in here and say it. Just where did you get that from? Did somebody tell you that? Did you find it on a "google" search or did you just fictionalize it?

Off the top of my head I'd say 2/3 to 3/4 of us on this thread are former or current members who actually joined the site; most of us paying $59 or so dollars last year. The fee has since risen to $79.95.

I'd say about 1/2 of that number have been banned and the other 1/2 of us haven't been and have still have access. So if there is anybody trying to discourage others from dealing with what we have gone through it's probably someone who maintained access through totally above board means.

I don't believe any of us is independently wealthy and has the means to plunk down the price of a tank or two of gasoline or a bag or two of groceries to go and "disillusion and discourage her current members." I know I don't.

Once again, please site your sources if you are going to make accusations.

[jo2621]

Originally Posted by rebel

I'm 51 which is about the same age that Bonnie claims to be. I have lost about 60 pounds and need to lose about that much more. As of right now, my skin is hanging like socks on a rooster (or should I say a Magic Chicken), so I'm wondering where she's hiding all her extra skin?

I keep seeing Foghorn Leghorn in a pair of "Gary's" signature argyles

[jo2621]

Member: "if we marinade something ( example If I marinade some chicken breasts in italian dressing overnight..how many carbs do I add does anyone know?? Or is this even allowed?"

Kimmer: "If it's a non-sweet marinade (and it better be!) I'd also go with 1 carb just to be safe. Marinating pounded chicken breasts in Kraft's Light Done Right Zesty Italian is fantastic (low cal AND low carb) and sprinkle with garlic powder & chopped rosemary ... TOO delicious!"

"However, for marinating carne asada I use beer. It's a must. And I still count 1 carb and figure the trace amounts of alcohol cook off in grilling. Ditto on Tequila Lime Chicken."


Ya'll forgive me, I just can't resist........

And for marinating a liver nothing beats the Capt'n!

[Mayberryfan]

Ohhhhh Jo, you just brought back a baaaaaaaaad memory for me. When I was going to UA, I used to live above a couple that grilled out nightly and about 3 times per week they grilled liver.

It was BADBAD!!!!

[jo2621]

Originally Posted by Mayberryfan

Ohhhhh Jo, you just brought back a baaaaaaaaad memory for me. When I was going to UA, I used to live above a couple that grilled out nightly and about 3 times per week they grilled liver.

It was BADBAD!!!!

Eww.. but hopefully it wasn't the same "species" of liver I was talking about unless Hannibal Lecter was doing the cookin

maybe I should have said the Capt'n was great for "stewin" or "picklin" a liver

[chocoholic1]

[quote=jo2621;10148878]Member: "if we marinade something ( example If I marinade some chicken breasts in italian dressing overnight..how many carbs do I add does anyone know?? Or is this even allowed?"

Kimmer: "If it's a non-sweet marinade (and it better be!) I'd also go with 1 carb just to be safe. Marinating pounded chicken breasts in Kraft's Light Done Right Zesty Italian is fantastic (low cal AND low carb) and sprinkle with garlic powder & chopped rosemary ... TOO delicious!"

"However, for marinating carne asada I use beer. It's a must. And I still count 1 carb and figure the trace amounts of alcohol cook off in grilling. Ditto on Tequila Lime Chicken."


I could be wrong here....but doesnt LIGHT dressing...especially italian....have tons of SUGAR? Corn syrup is like one of the first ingredients!!!
I guess if she can have beer and tequila it doesnt matter anyway huh...

[jo2621]

Sam~

In the spirit of your admonition about assumptions ("because it makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me.") let me give you some food for thought.

I take it from your ill