Why the fascination with Kimmer? #15

[Mayberryfan]

Thanks for the update, 2Big!

That makes sense. Some of Florida's laws are very different from the rest of the country, so that accounts for the confusion.

If you can make things clear on a Monday, my hat's off to you!

Oh wait, I don't want to be like Heidi. I'm not really wearing a hat. But, if I were, it WOULD be off to you!!

[daisyrat]

Originally Posted by 2big4mysize

okay I reinterviewed TT about that insurance policy and it was as previously said her rental properties. The reason TT's financial situation caused the insurance policy to be higher is because FL law only exempts a person's homestead from lawsuits and TT owned rental property which would not be exempt so it needed coverage, but Brian and Heather do not. They can only be sued for the value of the website per FL law based on their assests.

Okay, that makes more sense. Personally, I never thought there was anything "wrong" with this in the sense that she was trying to hide anything, or something like that. It just seemed weird, and more like she might have been told the wrong thing or something.

[Magicsmom]

Originally Posted by SMP

Thanks so much, 2Big. (But I still don't see how TT's high-risk ownership of rental properties could have the slightest bearing on an online forum. Colour me Dumb, eh?)

Oh, look at that, you got TWO Canuck-isms in one sentence!

Originally Posted by Nady

You know, I understand that Heidi has a thing for cabana boys~ you don't suppose she and the Captain had a spat?
Attachment 12211


~~~N

[samredman]

Thanks for the various responses to my "musings." You should understand that my interest here is merely similar to any typical reader's reactions to interesting events covered by the news media, really only just looking at it with the usual skepticism and the curiosity for more details. At this point from all I have read (and that includes the interesting followup comments made to my postings) it still doesn't look like much of a case. Taking remedial action after after transgressions does go a long way to make things right in the eyes of the law (and the public). Three things are obvious about this subject, first, low-carb dieting really does work for many and second, for many years there has been no shortage of "experts" saying low-carbing is a health hazard and third, the distribution of information and advice about it still goes on unabated everyday. People writing and speaking out about the entire cadre of low-carb programs being unhealthy fill the library shelves and the internet (just do a Google search for ( atkins dangerous health ) and see what some have been (and still are) saying for years. Typical comments by various very authoritative people range from "pseudo-science" to causing such ailments as "kidney damage" and "bone loss." But, yet in spite of all the experts... there are probably thirty or more drastic "low-carb" ketosis generating methods being touted from myriad sources without restriction. Diaz didn't invent this diet discipline (or even the "Kimkins" version of it --it's in the books she quotes... or the name... that was done by a poster called "photogurl" on this site), but really did nothing more than compile existing materials.

As far as being an expert is concerned (or holding herself out as one)... she really didn't do anything more than "cite" the works of her literary mentors, Atkins and Stillman and she quotes them often. In effect, she is a literature researcher (which means you don't have to be "qualified" to be able give information you have derived from credentialed "experts"), and there is quite a distinction between selling a physical product by making false claims (which is blatantly fraudulent) and offering information, because information distribution is protected under the First Amendment. Recently, Kevin Trudeau (the scammer turned New York Times best selling author), a well-known infomercial crook, who was shut down by the FTC for marketing several misleading products proved the strength of the First Amendment legal stance by becoming a "literature researcher," who without being an expert is permitted to offer medical advice and to publish and sell his book about medical cures "they don't want you to know," with total impunity (they can't touch him... and they tried).

And as far as the phony pictures, it could be argued that virtually every product sold, from those by razor companies (where they use carbon smudge to simulate whiskers in shaving ads) to cereals with models showing how trim you can get eating their special blend, all use a practice called "verisimilitude" (merely the appearance of being real or true) in their marketing, a business promotional technique which has withstood many legal challenges. And of course, that's all in the past for Diaz, so this really becomes again... more about history. And I think that jury members will have a similar reaction to what I had upon reading from the thousands of helpful advisory postings made by "Kimmer"... she comes off as quite lovable, a likable unselfish contributor (sorry... but that's just how it appears to me).

My guess is that the Diaz site now is about as "normal" as the new South Beach site (it's amazingly similar.. looks like South Beach took some pointers from Kimkins on how to do an internet dieting community). And to anyone putting up any argument that she was fraudulent because she "really never lost weight"... I don't know about that. Reading her postings in the light of my own multi-year low carb dieting experience tells me she most likely has gone through it all and knows about losing from first hand experience. Gaining weight back is very common (I know about that) and I could see her as being in that embarrassing situation (but, being overweight now doesn't mean she hasn't done it in the past). It wouldn't surprise me if she isn't going to surprise everyone (maybe in court) with a "blow-away" drastic makeover. That would have been my advice to her... show everyone it really can be done.

So, if health isn't going to be an issue... and the case comes down people being falsely cajoled into buying her (actually quite detailed and informative) tutelage because of misleading testimonials... I just wonder if that is strong enough to have a successful class action suit over. But, who knows? Those are just my thoughts after considering all I've seen. It will be interesting to watch.

[cleochatra]

Good thing I put my hip waders on this morning. No reason in particular. Or anything.

[MomToEli]

Originally Posted by 2big4mysize

mom to Eli

website content providers which is what forums are do qualify for it and are being urged to buy it on several sites I looked at after TT mentioned it since I wanted to discover what it was. O and D is seperate policies from liability accorrding to several sites i looked at that are run by major insurance companies.

I've carried E&O - I know what it is. As a computer consultant I needed it. As a loan closer I needed it. Even as a notary it was available - questionable as to whether or not I "needed" it - but at $20 (yes, twenty dollars) a year, I figured I couldn't lose. I never spent anywhere remotely close to $700 a year for large amounts of it.

She is not selling advice. She is selling a safe haven from Ducks. Hardly insurable. As a forum, where's the risk?

Here is the definition as presented by a common law dictionary website ...
"errors and omissions
n. short hand for malpractice insurance which gives physicians, attorneys, architects, accountants and other professionals coverage for claims by patients and clients for alleged professional errors and omissions which amount to negligence."

And this from another site:
"If you provide professional services that involve getting paid for advice, you should check to see whether or not provincial legislation requires you to carry errors and omissions insurance.

Other types of business professionals who might need errors and omissions insurance include computer consultants, software developers, planners, architects, accountants... In other words, if your clients might sue you for damages resulting from faulty performance of your services, you should consider carrying errors and omissions insurance."


She is not professional in even the remotest form of the word - what error could she make or information could she omit that would lend itself to negligence? Unless there is much more to the Camp Carbaway website than meets the eye. There is no product for sale. There is no advice being dispensed. It is a place for people to hang out, chat, encourage each other and get their fill of hugggiiieesss and the like. That's it.

I'm sorry, but my bs meter is way off the scale here. And I really shouldn't care one whit about it, but for some reason this is really sticking in my craw. Blame it on menopause.

So, I'm just going to go back to doing what I do now.

[jo2621]

Originally Posted by cleochatra

Good thing I put my hip waders on this morning. No reason in particular. Or anything.

Hey Cleo, you got a shovel too? Because it shore is gettin deep (and smelly too).....

[MomToEli]

Originally Posted by 2big4mysize

Maybe Brian doesn't have business assets he wants to protect from any lawsuit but TT did.

Then they should incorporate their rental business. I'm surprised they haven't done that anyway if they own as many properties as she makes it sound like they do. Just for the tax benefits. But E&O isn't going to solve her problem.

[jo2621]

Can somebody tell me why I have PeeWee Herman's voice in my head screeching over and over again........

"Well, if you love her so much why don't you marry her?"

[jeanessa]

Originally Posted by samredman

So, if health isn't going to be an issue... and the case comes down people being falsely cajoled into buying her (actually quite detailed and informative) tutelage because of misleading testimonials... I just wonder if that is strong enough to have a class action suit over. But, who knows? Those are just my thoughts after considering all I've seen. It will be interesting to watch.

"Falsely cajoled" is hardly what happened to us. Fundamentally lied to and deceived for monetary gain further fits the bill.

Consumer fraud is serious enough that millions of dollars are spent every year fighting it...and is so important that the US government and state governments have used tax dollars to set up legal agencies and committees to combat it. Based on the perspective you've presented so far, consumer fraud is not an important enough legal offense to warrant litigation.

Lucky for us, the California government considers it - and this particular instance of it, by the way - important enough to fight that the Attorney General has opened an investigation into the Kimkins matter (and has an entire department devoted to consumer fraud, in general).

Essentially, what you are saying as well is that because we were lied to nicely and in a knowledgeable manner, that makes it better?

I'm Jeanessa by the way. Principal #1 in the Kimkins Class Action Lawsuit.

[MomToEli]

Originally Posted by jo2621

Can somebody tell me why I have PeeWee Herman's voice in my head screeching over and over again........

"Well, if you love her so much why don't you marry her?"

Oh, and ....

[MomToEli]

Originally Posted by jeanessa

"Falsely cajoled" is hardly what happened to us. Fundamentally lied to and deceived for monetary gain further fits the bill.

Consumer fraud is serious enough that millions of dollars are spent every year fighting it...and is so important that the US government and state governments have used tax dollars to set up legal agencies and committees to combat it. Based on the perspective you've presented so far, consumer fraud is not an important enough legal offense to warrant litigation.

Lucky for us, the California government considers it - and this particular instance of it, by the way - important enough to fight that the Attorney General has opened an investigation into the Kimkins matter (and has an entire department devoted to consumer fraud, in general).

Essentially, what you are saying as well is that because we were lied to nicely and in a knowledgeable manner, that makes it better?

I'm Jeanessa by the way. Principal #1 in the Kimkins Class Action Lawsuit.

Get him, Jeanessa

Sam has a reputation for stirring it up on various sites, just so you know ...

[MissMerize]

Originally Posted by samredman

So, if health isn't going to be an issue... and the case comes down people being falsely cajoled into buying her (actually quite detailed and informative) tutelage because of misleading testimonials... I just wonder if that is strong enough to have a class action suit over. But, who knows? Those are just my thoughts after considering all I've seen. It will be interesting to watch.

???

So Sam, can you flip for a second here? What if you were in our shoes.

Let's say the product is a new fuel. XYZfuel is promoting a product. They tell you that the product is safe, efficient, and they have been using the fuel for 10 years and there have been no issues or problems. They show you pictures of happy customers with testimonials who have used XYZfuel. There is no "this is a dramatization" under the pictures.

A bunch of people sign up to get XYZfuel in their homes. In the beginning, it works just as it said it would. But a few months down the road, people are getting sick from being exposed to the fuel. People who use the fuel as their only source of fuel are getting the sickest. After investigation, it is found out that no one has actually used XYZ fuel for 10 years, and the pictures and testimonials are all faked. People are losing hair as a side effect of the dangerous fuel.

A couple of real testimonials were submitted, but those people were happy about the money they were saving - and didn't realize how sick they were getting from using it.

Now, everything is exposed and we know that the founder of XYZ fuel has not been using the product on a regular basis themselves. We also learn that the founder is a 50 year old bald man - and so even if he had used the product all along, he never would even have a clue that it could cause hair loss.

Turns out our bald man has no proof of using XYZ fuel. He was a member of a forum, and bragged about this new great fuel he came up with, and he even knew a lot about fuels, but never checked out the chemistry of his own fuel to see how toxic it was - and went based on "guess work" that it should be fine.

Sam - lets say you had even purchased this fuel. And maybe you lost some hair too - but you were so excited over the money you were saving that you wrote it off as something else. But now you see there are many people - all having side effects from the same product. You bought XYZ fuel because you believed people had been using it for 10 years. You had even witnessed the advantages of the fuel yourself, so you really believed it was a good thing.

So Sam, do you have a case with the others against the XYZ fuel company?

They misrepresented their product, there was no research, and you were a guinea pig. Oh, and when you tried to express your concerns to the company, they dropped your account.

You also find out this is not the first time the 50 year old bald man has pulled something like this.

[OhYeahBabe]

Originally Posted by samredman

Thanks for the various responses to my "musings." You should understand that my interest here is merely similar to any typical reader's response to interesting events covered by the news media, really only just looking at it with the usual skepticism and the curiosity for more details. At this point from all I have read (and that includes the interesting followup comments made to my postings) it still doesn't look like much of a case. Taking remedial action after after transgressions does go a long way to make things right in the eyes of the law (and the public). Three things are obvious about this subject, first, low-carb dieting really does work for many and second, for many years there has been no shortage of "experts" saying low-carbing is a health hazard and third, the distribution of information and advice about it still goes on unabated everyday. People writing and speaking out about the entire cadre of low-carb programs being unhealthy fill the library shelves and the internet (just do a Google search for ( atkins dangerous health ) and see what some have been (and still are) saying for years. Typical comments by various very authoritative people range from "pseudo-science" to causing such ailments as "kidney damage" and "bone loss." But, yet in spite of all the experts... there are probably thirty or more drastic "low-carb" ketosis generating methods being touted from myriad sources without restriction. Diaz didn't invent this diet discipline (or even the "Kimkins" version of it --it's in the books she quotes... or the name... that was done by a poster called "photogurl" on this site), but really did nothing more than compile existing materials.

As far as being an expert is concerned (or holding herself out as one)... she really didn't do anything more than "cite" the works of her literary mentors, Atkins and Stillman and she quotes them often. In effect, she is a literature researcher (which means you don't have to be "qualified" to be able give information you have derived from credentialed "experts"), and there is quite a distinction between selling a physical product by making false claims (which is blatantly fraudulent) and offering information, because information distribution is protected under the First Amendment. Recently, Kevin Trudeau (the scammer turned New York Times best selling author), a well-known infomercial crook, who was shut down by the FTC for marketing several misleading products proved the strength of the First Amendment legal stance by becoming a "literature researcher," who without being an expert is permitted to offer medical advice and to publish and sell his book about medical cures "they don't want you to know," with total impunity (they can't touch him... and they tried).

And as far as the phony pictures, it could be argued that virtually every product sold, from those by razor companies (where they use carbon smudge to simulate whiskers in shaving ads) to cereals with models showing how trim you can get eating their special blend, all use a practice called "verisimilitude" (merely the appearance of being real or true) in their marketing, a business promotional technique which has withstood many legal challenges. And of course, that's all in the past for Diaz, so this really becomes again... more about history. And I think that jury members will have a similar reaction to what I had upon reading from the thousands of helpful advisory postings made by "Kimmer"... she comes off as quite lovable, a likable unselfish contributor (sorry... but that's just how it appears to me).

My guess is that the Diaz site now is about as "normal" as the new South Beach site (it's amazingly similar.. looks like South Beach took some pointers from Kimkins on how to do an internet dieting community). And to anyone putting up any argument that she was fraudulent because she "really never lost weight"... I don't know about that. Reading her postings in the light of my own multi-year low carb dieting experience tells me she most likely has gone through it all and knows about losing from first hand experience. Gaining weight back is very common (I know about that) and I could see her as being in that embarrassing situation (but, being overweight now doesn't mean she hasn't done it in the past). It wouldn't surprise me if she isn't going to surprise everyone (maybe in court) with a "blow-away" drastic makeover. That would have been my advice to her... show everyone it really can be done.

So, if health isn't going to be an issue... and the case comes down people being falsely cajoled into buying her (actually quite detailed and informative) tutelage because of misleading testimonials... I just wonder if that is strong enough to have a successful class action suit over. But, who knows? Those are just my thoughts after considering all I've seen. It will be interesting to watch.

Thank you for sharing your opinion, Sam.

If your arguments are about the lawsuit, then it would make sense to separate the other 'noise' from the actual complaint. Have you read it? It appears that you have, though you persist in muddying up your legal opinions with other Kimkins matters. Kimmer was wrong about a whole lotta things and did a whole lotta damage to people, but the lawsuit is intentionally about something simple & easily provable. It's about the fraud. Only the fraud. Heck, probably only PART of the fraud.

Kimkins is not a low carbohydrate plan, by the way. It's only low in carbohydrates by virtue of being low in everything.

(Did I really use virtue and Kimkins in the same paragraph? )

[jo2621]

Originally Posted by MomToEli

Get him, Jeanessa

Sam has a reputation for stirring it up on various sites, just so you know ...

I thought it was just us "bored housewives" who have nothing else to do ........

[Katinsac]

Sam, I think you should take your concerns up with John Tiedt...maybe he can make you see the light and he is always willing to discuss this matter where he can.

MissM...just love how you put things!!

[Katinsac]

I think Sam is looking for a book deal...

[Mayberryfan]

Sam can do as he likes elsewhere. But here, he'll have NO effect.

It takes more than a sizeable load of bull....to stop the Ducks!

In fact, we CANNOT be stopped. No way, no how, not ever.

[mrsmenopausal]

Originally Posted by jo2621

Can somebody tell me why I have PeeWee Herman's voice in my head screeching over and over again........

"Well, if you love her so much why don't you marry her?"

what I hear is WHUA WHUA WHUA WHUA WHUA ... the teacher's voice in Charlie Brown.

[LoraJR72]

Originally Posted by cleochatra

Good thing I put my hip waders on this morning. No reason in particular. Or anything.

Uh, I can't find mine, Cleo!

[mrsmenopausal]

Originally Posted by MissMerize

???

So Sam, can you flip for a second here? What if you were in our shoes.

Let's say the product is a new fuel. XYZfuel is promoting a product. They tell you that the product is safe, efficient, and they have been using the fuel for 10 years and there have been no issues or problems. They show you pictures of happy customers with testimonials who have used XYZfuel. There is no "this is a dramatization" under the pictures.

A bunch of people sign up to get XYZfuel in their homes. In the beginning, it works just as it said it would. But a few months down the road, people are getting sick from being exposed to the fuel. People who use the fuel as their only source of fuel are getting the sickest. After investigation, it is found out that no one has actually used XYZ fuel for 10 years, and the pictures and testimonials are all faked. People are losing hair as a side effect of the dangerous fuel.

A couple of real testimonials were submitted, but those people were happy about the money they were saving - and didn't realize how sick they were getting from using it.

Now, everything is exposed and we know that the founder of XYZ fuel has not been using the product on a regular basis themselves. We also learn that the founder is a 50 year old bald man - and so even if he had used the product all along, he never would even have a clue that it could cause hair loss.

Turns out our bald man has no proof of using XYZ fuel. He was a member of a forum, and bragged about this new great fuel he came up with, and he even knew a lot about fuels, but never checked out the chemistry of his own fuel to see how toxic it was - and went based on "guess work" that it should be fine.

Sam - lets say you had even purchased this fuel. And maybe you lost some hair too - but you were so excited over the money you were saving that you wrote it off as something else. But now you see there are many people - all having side effects from the same product. You bought XYZ fuel because you believed people had been using it for 10 years. You had even witnessed the advantages of the fuel yourself, so you really believed it was a good thing.

So Sam, do you have a case with the others against the XYZ fuel company?

They misrepresented their product, there was no research, and you were a guinea pig. Oh, and when you tried to express your concerns to the company, they dropped your account.

You also find out this is not the first time the 50 year old bald man has pulled something like this.

But, but.. I'm sure the bald guy was really nice about it so what's the problem? sigh.