Surveillance Pics of Heidi Diaz (Kimmer) at the Kimkins.com Post Office Box
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Read more Heidi Diaz (Kimmer) and the Kimkins diet saga here and here.
Riverside County, California private investigator Robert Charlton of Alliance Investigative Services took these surveillance pictures of Heidi Diaz outside of the Kimkins.com post office box rental facility on N. McKinley Street, Corona, California. This is the address on the Kimkins.com domain registration.
As you can see, Heidi enters the post office box rental facility and then comes back out carrying some mail. Once again, please note that Mr. Charlton ran the plates on the minivan and it belongs to Heidi Diaz.
September 5th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
I don’t care who you are that is HER!!!! Look at kimkins dangers for the side by side. It’s her. And I’ll bet she was picking up her ssi check at the pobox. Wow!
September 5th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
i am now a believer. Thank you
September 5th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
The mailbox address is the same as the one published on her site, the van is registered to her, she looks like the old photos, yet there are some who will still not believe.
September 5th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
oooo what’s the mailing address listed on her website? Does it have a 104 in it???? Say yes.
September 5th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
oops I forgot to read before I posted…my bad. I get it now
September 5th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Yup, it does.
Heidi Diaz/Kimkins (make the money order out this way)
Suite 104-309
529 N. McKinley Avenue
Corona, CA 92879
September 5th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Then that’s why she was smiling with the checks in hand. What a dirtbag!
September 5th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Grr.Very dirtbaggish. I cant believe her.
September 5th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
[…] Wednesday, September 5th, 2007 in kimkins fraud, Kimkins Diet, kimkins controversy, kimkins dieting, kimkins admins, Kimkins.com, Heidi Diaz, Diet, lies, Kimkins, Kimmer, pictures Slamboard has released more pictures of Heidi Diaz. They were taken outside of the Postal Annex address used for Kimkins mail. […]
September 5th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Side by side picks are also at Kimkins Exposed!
Damn she is such a LIAR
September 5th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
That face looks pretty young. Relative maybe, not a 50 year old. Keep trying.
September 5th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
“Daisy Says:
September 5th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
That face looks pretty young. Relative maybe, not a 50 year old. Keep trying. ”
But are you one of the ones that were convinced the the “red dress” picture could have been a 50 year old?? LOL!! So, the red dress woman was 50 but this woman isn’t? LMAO!!!
September 5th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
How can you see her face well enough to determine that she may or may not be 50 years old?? But those short upper arms are quite distinctive, regardless of other features that can change with age or cosmetics.
September 5th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
smp Says:
September 5th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
How can you see her face well enough to determine that she may or may not be 50 years old?? But those short upper arms are quite distinctive, regardless of other features that can change with age or cosmetics.
Try your zoom feature. Also, relatives often have same body style.
September 5th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Delusional, party of one. Investigators don’t get paid to track near relatives. Keep grasping at those straws on the banks of that river in Egypt.
September 5th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
I just looked up to see if there’s an Asian restaurant like on N. McKinley Ave. next to the Kimkin’s PO box listed on her Web site.
There is, so this is clearly the place in the picture:
http://www.mytravelguide.com/restaurants/profile-31677305-United_States_California_Corona_Pho_Long_Vietnamese_Restaurant.html
September 5th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Actually Stephanie, you’ve got the wrong street address. The Postal Annex is 529 N. McKinley #104. The restaurant at #103 there is Magic Wok (Chinese). I’d already figured this out and posted it under the original photo’s comments before this series was posted.
Look at the last picture in this series. It clearly says Magic Wok, not Pho Long Vietnamese.
September 5th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
My bad, you’re right. Got excited when I saw Suite #103…
September 5th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Okay, the pictures are taken from a distance, and from behind or the side. the only frontal face picture has photoshopped black circles that are supposed to be sunglasses…the shapes are wrong, do not sit on the face like an actual object/ glasses would, do not reflect any light despite it being sunny…and they forgot to put the arm in one of them. they will most likely want to change these things with more photo shopping now.
Any one could have staged these, they just needed an overwieght woman with brown hair to shoot from a distance. All proof has been blurred out so it cannot be checked on, under the guise of protecting her. They sure have not shown that concern before, so why now? We are just supposed accept what is told to us without any real proof and in suspicious conditions.
September 5th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Grain, did you read the part where this woman getting in the car lives in Heidi Diaz appartment, that the car is registered to Heidi Diaz?
September 5th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
doh sez: “Grain, did you read the part where this woman getting in the car lives in Heidi Diaz appartment, that the car is registered to Heidi Diaz?”
Not to mention picking up mail at the very Postal Annex store where Kimkins.com is registered?
September 5th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
doh sez: “Grain, did you read the part where this woman getting in the car lives in Heidi Diaz appartment, that the car is registered to Heidi Diaz?”
Not to mention picking up mail at the very Postal Annex store — the VERIFIED LOCATION — where Kimkins.com is registered?
September 5th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Still…they have only ” told” us these things…oh, she lives at her place, the car is registered to her, she’s bald, there was a reciept, but none of it was shown or prooven…everyone is just instantly believing and not questioning. Anyone wanting to stage something could have gone to the location and told the woman they were using to hold an envelope. It would not be hard to do at all. Especially with the pictures being all taken from a distance and wierd angles, and the one frontal face picture not being clear, having the “glasses” etc…the bald claim followed after people were talking about the hair looking different.
If you were on trial for something, would you want a jury that just instantly believes what they are told without being shown any direct evidence other then distant pictures that could be anyone? I doubt it.
September 5th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
um GrainofSalt…these pictures aren’t any “weirder angles” or less “clear” than her own before and after shots!!!
September 5th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Yes, and everyone questioned those for that reason, but are not these despite no real evidence. Everyone is so quick and excited to think the worse they just are soaking up everything they are told without question.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Grain Kimmer could solve all of this with a quick web cam show. Guess its not that important to her eh?
September 5th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
So why would a seemingly respectable private detective put his livelihood on the line with fake undercover pics?
September 5th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
She looks like rolls and rolls of fun! I want to get me some of that!
September 6th, 2007 at 6:20 am
[…] SEPTEMBER 2007 UPDATE: We now have real pictures of Kimmer. As many people suspected, she is a morbidly obese woman — not the svelte 118-pound diet success she has claimed to be. See the pictures here: Kimmer surveillance picture, Kimmer at the Kimkins.com mail box, more surveillance Kimmer photos. […]
September 6th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Anyone else notice that the envelope she is holding is the frontside…meaning no closure flap ( I magnified it )…..yet there is no writing on it, no print, postage…..I sure do not receive blank mail like that.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Grain of Salt sez: “Anyone else notice that the envelope she is holding is the frontside…meaning no closure flap ( I magnified it )…..yet there is no writing on it, no print, postage…..I sure do not receive blank mail like that.”
LOL Any other straws you’d like to try and grasp?
September 6th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Demand a media investigation!
Contact:
NBC’s Chief Consumer Correspondent Ms. Lea Thompson
datelineconsumer@hotmail.com
September 6th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Not straws. Look for yourself…that envelope is blank.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
“Grain of Salt Says:
September 6th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Not straws. Look for yourself…that envelope is blank.”
Martin said he was removing identifiable things in the photos before publishing, perhaps that is why. Or, it is a white envelope…glare can obliterate things like that in a photo. Your assertion that the envelope is “blank” doesn’t really mean squat.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
you just do not want it to mean anything…want to ignore the holes or anything that does not fit.
why photoshop out a postage stamp? you can see how the light reflects on it etc..which would have been whiped out with photoshopping.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
“Grain of Salt Says:
September 6th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
you just do not want it to mean anything…want to ignore the holes or anything that does not fit.
why photoshop out a postage stamp? you can see how the light reflects on it etc..which would have been whiped out with photoshopping.”
Whatev. Frankly it does look like the back of an envelope to me when I magnify it. I am very familiar with photoshop as I am a graphic design artist.
It doesn’t really matter because the original photos are in safe hands and can be verified through means that neither you nor I are capable of.
Cut me a break. Throw doubt toward those who are more gullible than we are here, k?
September 6th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Grain of Salt Saz: “Look for yourself…that envelope is blank.”
Who says it’s an envelope she’s holding? Could just be the back of a folded piece of paper?
September 6th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Yes, it could be a folded piece of paper! OR…Heidi is a shape shifter (see all “after” pics) and has powers to erase at will. Hmm…LOL
Sorry, but I have to laugh. The ones still defending Heidi Diaz just blow me away. Matter of fact, I wouldn’t doubt if some of the supporters are Heidi herself, or sock puppets. I have to think that because these supporters really have to make a huge stretch to think that this is a conspiracy against an innocent diet guru. Puhleeeze people! Get a clue!
September 6th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Heads up — Even as we speak (Thursday evening 06 September 2007) Heidi is frantically posting deranged praises to herself over at the BBB Kimkins.com Reviews page:
http://tinyurl.com/ywwdbl
Please, everyone who hasn’t already done so, please hop on over there and let your voice be heard.
Do it for your fellow desperate dieters — past, present, and future.
September 7th, 2007 at 3:23 am
Link to the national Better Business Bureau page for Kimkins.com:
http://tinyurl.com/ywwdbl
Please note that there’s a difference between posting a REVIEW and filing a COMPLAINT.
You need to FILE A COMPLAINT:
__If you personally have been defrauded or deceived by Heidi
__If you personally have been verbally and/or emotionally abused by Heidi
__If you personally have donated any money to her to help her fictional foster children or for any other cause in which the money was accepted by her or on her behalf
__If you personally have been banned from Kimkins.com and/or denied access, and/or denied a full refund of your membership fee
__If you personally have experienced or are experiencing any ill health effects because of the Kimkins diet (either the Politically Correct version or the Plan Behind The Plan)
__If you personally have experienced or are experiencing hair loss, dizziness, “SNATT”, cardiac arrythmia, weakness, fainting, or any other problems because of the Kimkins diet
__If you personally received from Heidi medical advice including advice about weightloss and nutrition
__If you are the spouse, relative, or caretaker/guardian of anyone who personally fits any of the above criteria
You need to POST A REVIEW:
__If you personally witnessed any of the above while a member of Kimkins.com, LCF, ALC, or any other online venue including email and Private Messages
__If you have factual information and/or honest opinions about Heidi, the Kimkins diet, and/or Kimkins.com
September 8th, 2007 at 5:26 am
You’re a bunch of crazy stalkers. Get off your fat asses and get some exercise. You’re all gigantic tub o’ lards because you sit on your fat ass all day surfing the internet.
Get a life, lard asses. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
September 9th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
You have no proof positive. I drive my mom’s car and that doesn’t make me her. It sounds like this couple has a case of the bad sour grapes because they are not on the money train anymore. Believe you me if they were getting compensated they wouldn’t be complaining. This is no worse than TV evangelists fooling old & sick people into sending their lifesavings to them-I don’t see you people rushing to protect those who could really use the help. Let the buyer beware-if you’re stupid enough to buy into it then face the music. I haven’t seen one teenager story that speaks out against Kimkims or who has been damaged by it-so I agree-get off your high horses and champion people who really need the help such as the infirm or elderly.
September 12th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Barbie FatAss says:You’re a bunch of crazy stalkers. Get off your fat asses and get some exercise. You’re all gigantic tub o’ lards because you sit on your fat ass all day surfing the internet.
Get a life, lard asses. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
Barbie, the only way you would know if we are all sitting on our “fat asses” wasting our time, is if you were sitting on YOUR “fat ass” doing the same.
Pot…meet kettle.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
[…] In case you haven’t noticed, there has been a mass exodus of Kimkins members recently. Some of them voluntary, but many were banned for airing their opinions or asking questions that were uncomfortable for Kimmer. They are also not haters, nor are they jealous. They were paid, lifetime members that had concerns that Kimmer would not answer. They wanted to know, from Kimmer’s own words, if the bloggers and forum posts about Kimkins were true. They wanted to know if those pictures posted on slamboard really are of Kimmer now. They just wanted to know. Instead of answers, they were banned from accessing the site that they paid for. Why is that? […]
September 18th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
The reason Kimkins doesn’t have any complaints on the BBB is because when you ask for your money back, you get it back immediately as least I did. I was one of those people who frantically tried to join after the WW article. I do believe that those are pics of her. Because in this day & age if she wanted to claim her innocence she could EASILY go on tv. I think you guys need to bring this out! Call Nancy Grace, Montel Williams. Hell, Star Jones would tear her ass apart! You guys need to bombard the media with this story especially since apparently reputable magazines like WW lack fact checkers on thier staff! If you go on Montel Williams page he has a link called teen fat challenge let him know how Kimkins is targeting teens!!!!!
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:10 pm
[…] September 22nd, 2007 Heidi Kimberly Diaz aka Kimmer of kimkins.com has misrepresented herself in the form of a 118 lbs woman as seen here and here in order to gain money for the “secret” of her plan (viewable for every body at LCF) and her personal support. […]
September 26th, 2007 at 6:36 am
[…] Those of you who’ve been low carbing for years have probably run into her in your trek through the LC communities. Kimmer (aka, Heidi Diaz). That crazy broad who kept telling people to ‘eat less’ - regardless of how little they were eating to being with. Some of you may have seen the Woman’s World cover article on her and her crazy diet, Kimkins. What you may not be aware of is the scandal that’s ensued because of it. Charges of fraud, intimidation, and blackmail to name only a few. A private investigator was hired to track her down and photograph her; it seems her before and after pictures don’t look much alike. […]
September 26th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
[…] Remember, we now know that Kimmer (Heidi Diaz) did not lose weight with the diet plan(s) she sells unsuspecting visitors to her website. All you need to do is look at the pictures to see this woman hasn’t dieted for years! […]
October 10th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Hello,
Please note the kimkins article has been changed on diets in review. You can view the changed article here: http://www.dietsinreview.com/diets/Kimkins and also has been cross posted on our blog: http://www.dietsinreview.com/diet_column
Sorry for the delay!
Jim @ Diets in review
October 11th, 2007 at 3:12 am
[…] LINKS MENTIONED IN EPISODE 94 - Original Kimmer interview Part 1 - Original Kimmer interview Part 2 - Original Kimmer interview Parts 3-5 - Private investigator photos of a morbidly obese Heidi Diaz - The true dangers of a low-fat, low-calorie diet like Kimkins - Dr. Mark Brinson joins Kimkins as a nutrition counselor - The infamous “red dress” photo belongs to a Russian model - Heidi’s own son reveals she’s a scam artist - Kimmer/Heidi’s ex-husband chimes in about her devious schemes - Fake success story pictures galore at Kimkins - Kimmer allegedly “sells” Kimkins.com - For FREE low-carb weight loss support, come to LowCarbDiscussion.com - Jimmy Moore’s apology for supporting Kimkins - An invitation to former Kimkins members - Official statement over PI investigation photos - Related blog post: “Kimkins Calamity: From Merely A Raw Business Deal To A Really Big Danger” - Related blog post: “Kimkins ‘Cover Girl’ Passionately Declares Diet ‘Dangerous’ After Health Issues Emerge” - Related blog post: “KTLA-TV Unmasks Fraudulent Kimkins Diet Founder, Promises Continued Investigative Series” […]
November 13th, 2007 at 12:12 am
kimmer’s fat ass should be sued. She intentionally, knowingly, misled consumers in order to induce people to purchase the diet program. She violated the Consumer laws and she knew that posting fake pictures and success stories would entice people to pay for the program, otherwise why else she would do it. WW should check theirs facts better because they are just as liable as Kimmer.
I was unsure about the after picture in WW but I knew the picture on her website was not HER!! My question to Ms. Diaz is why she isn’t she on the diet. Why? She know it’s difficult and dangerous and besides, she probably is eating really well now that she’s bringing the big bucks off of desparate dieters. She should be sued and prosecuted for defrauding the public.
November 23rd, 2007 at 11:12 am
grain works for her cant u tell
December 31st, 2007 at 9:56 am
first of all people all this diets are gimmicks if you sue one sue them all. I do not think that it is fair to single KimKins out. There are alot of fakes out there. She is not the first and certainly not the last. When you see a diet you should always check with your own personal physician. Every diet scam as fakes with before and after photos, Kimkins just happen to get caught. Just beware of all diet programs.
February 13th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Take care of it and keep it on the road![url=http://what-is.w8w.pl/?what-is-a-veterinarian]what is a veterinarian[/url]
February 20th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
wow now thats what i call fit!
February 20th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
she should sue her own fat ass for fraud.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
hey g o s, you are supposed to click on the thumbnails, then you get big pictures, one of which clearly shows her face.
March 10th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I don’t understand the beef with Kimkins…..most diets are dangerous…have you ever looked at them? What about Atkins…He would have been sued if he hadn’t died. Look at all the silly things people do…cabbage soup diet, fasting with cayenne pepper??? Oh, yeah, those are safe. People are dumb. They should do their own research. Why do we keep wasting tax payers money because people can’t think for themselves and are like little kids who need constant supervision? It’s Jr. high health that eating less than 1200 for most people will put your body into starvation mode…Most people should eat at least 1500 or 2000. Come on PEOPLE. Take some responsibility for your actions and stop suing people cause you’re dumb!
March 11th, 2008 at 7:55 am
I am not suing anyone, and IMO I am not dumb, but I am going to address this anyway. The key facts of the Kimkins fiasco are that she lied about her success on the diet plan. Her success was a primary selling point and it was used both explicitly and implicitly as evidence that the diet was safe and effective as a long term weight loss solution. This is a pretty clear case of fraud. Atkins was a real person who followed his own advice consistently.
March 13th, 2008 at 7:27 am
The folks at Low Carb Friends are trying to find out if Heidi might have set up an emergency backup site in the form of the Magic Chicken Diet. magicchickendiet.com was registered on 05/02/07, about a month before the Woman’s World article came out.
The owners of the site are David and Bonnie Luper of Fort Worth, Texas. Bonnie claims to have lost 160 pounds in ten months on a diet that is very similar to Kimkins. Do you have any way of knowing whether Bonnie was a member of Kimkins while Catherine was still in business with Kimmer? It would be helpful in establishing a Luper-Diaz connection. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.
March 16th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Waiting… Waiting…
Do you have an e-mail address?