Monday, September 10, 2007

A Kimmer Comment

UPDATE - Martin answers the false claims made by Heidi in her rant at You can see his full reply HERE.

Here is a teaser:

Heidi said:
Catherine received all payments and paid me (late each month, but she paid).

Martin's reply:
Not a single payment to Heidi Diaz was ever late and Catherine has the PayPal receipts to prove it. This statement is libelous. (Please note that Kimmer says “paid me” — the money went to Heidi Diaz, and they are clearly one and the same.)

Posted by Kimmer at Kimkins - a copy of her comment left at Slamboard.

Kimmer (Admin) Re:Better Business Bureau Reviews 2 Hours, 56 Minutes ago

The PI was a friend of a friend of a Kimkins member.

So... a Kimkins member hired the PI through a friend? Why would a member of your site do that? Hmm.

This is all about is $. If this was a free site nobody would care.

People cared when you were at LCF and raised a stink about it there BEFORE you had your pay site, have you forgotten that already?

This was initiated by a banned Kimkins member who contacted my former partner (she had her email because she contacted her about doing a website).

This was initiated by your own lies and deceptions being discovered. Don't try to put the blame for your actions onto another.

My former partner, Catherine McDonald, and her husband, Martin Higgins, left Nova Scotia due to tax matters

Nice slam! Gotta get those digs in where you can, eh? Also, better be prepared to back that up with factual evidence.

to live in Malta (tiny island off of Italy).

Oh, because Kimkins members are.. how did you say.. oh right.. "too stupid" to know where Malta is.

She approached me at LCF about doing an eBook when I posted I was leaving LCF (6 years of anti-Kimmer was enough LOL).

Wait.. anti-Kimmer at LCF? The FREE site? So.. it's not about money then, is it?

Instead we did a website with forums for Kimkins members who were also being persecuted at LCF.

The members were not being persecuted, Heidi. YOU were.

Catherine wrote the Kimkins partnership contract (complete with typos)

Again with the "gotta get a little stab in there where I can" thing..

giving herself a 50% cut.

Doing 50% of the work generally entitles someone to 50% of the profits.

We had steady membership sales and a few months later wanted to revise the contract to her advantage -- including a buyout of 10 times previous month's gross sales. Considering I didn't even have the $175 it took to start the website and had to borrow from everyone I knew to comply with the existing $5K buyout clause when she left, I couldn't agree to something as nebulous as 10X an undefined future figure -- and I'd have no way to raise that kind of money anyway.

Except ...the income from the site... (note that this is an important statement as it pertains to Heidi's income and the SSI fraud allegations.)

Catherine's part of the partnership was technical and customer service and she wanted to subcontract both of those duties with me paying 50% of those costs! Huh? Now, maybe I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but if someone else is doing Catherine's work, refresh me on why I need a partner? But I stayed silent ... except to say I wasn't going to help pay anyone to do her job.

Ooo brother. I thought you said you had some kind of business degree?

The banned member (who has also been banned 10,000 times at LCF)

Another personal slam, another erroneous statement. La de da.

contacted Catherine who is now kicking herself that she wasn't a 50% partner when we got the magazine cover. Well, actually she's kicking me.

Well, actually she's thanking her lucky stars that she got out when she did and is not legally liable for the SNATT that's about to come back and bite you.

Catherine received all payments and paid me (late each month, but she paid).

Ok... lets think about this statement. Aside from the OBVIOUS personal slam AGAIN.. Heidi, no wait, Kimmer.. no.. well, whoever she is says that she WAS paid monies from Kimkins income. That will be useful when presenting information to the Social Security office.

She paid all the bills and computed affiliate payouts. I'll leave out the part about the financial irregularities when she turned over records and that I had to borrow more $ to make restitution to the affiliates (what was with all those declined commissions?) I'll also leave out that she withheld $ for future expenses that was to be released after 6 months. That's OK, she can keep it.

I believe the problem was the other way around, Heidi dearest. Catherine has complete bookkeeping logs that show every payment in and every payment out. You sure you want to go there?

I couldn't do any better than a 50% deal for Catherine. She got greedy and lost her cash cow.

She realized that she had to get out and wanted to broker a good deal for herself. Not a bad plan and certainly no worse than you yourself are doing.

She was betting on me being a computer idiot who couldn't do it without her and that I'd curl up in the corner sucking my thumb begging her to come back.

Perhaps it seems that way to you, Narcissa.

But Kimmer don't roll that way.

We will generously decline to comment on that sentence, hard as that is.

BTW, think nice thoughts for the tech guys today. When Catherine left we had no idea what to do with the tech side. She only gave us a few days (I suppose part of the pressure plan). Joomla expertise at the level a site this size needs isn't easy to come by and there were amateur errors that needed modification. The new tech team worked 12 hours a day for free for the first 3 months.

"Tech team" is a grossly exaggerated term for your "web guy". The same guy that supposedly ran out of the hospital in his gown, across the street to Starbucks to access their WiFi and went online to SAVE KIMKINS... we are laughing at you, yes we are.

I think Catherine meant well initially, although she and her husband support themselves with subscription sites and Google ads (this is why each hot item about Kimmer is broken into several parts so they get more clicks).

Oh, so you have a problem with people that make money off the internet?!?!?!

They probably expected Kimkins to be an 'absentee partner' endeavor. But she was also in over her head. A former secretary, Catherine taught herself web design.

Good for her. You don't work at all, you collect disability. You have plenty of time to teach yourself web design. Why haven't you?

This is the website she created when she left:

That's a very nice website. We will be sure to advertise it here for Catherine (since we do get a lot of traffic!)

It does make me wonder whether her existing clients are aware that she has bashed a former partner and published not only details of a business agreement

I'm sure if her current clients knew that her former business partner was a liar and a fraud, they'd congratulate her good sense on getting the heck out of there! Not to mention, you are doing the same thing that you condemn her for......... lol

-- but what she believed to be personal information about that partner? Hmmm.

Again, trying to weave the web that you aren't Heidi Diaz.. Foolish, foolish move. We know better.

Raise your hand if you want to be partners with Catherine

::: Hand Raised :::::


Anonymous said...

You said:

""The PI was a friend of a friend of a Kimkins member.""

"So... a Kimkins member hired the PI through a friend? Why would a member of your site do that? Hmm."

Not disagreeing with the point of your post, but just want to point out some clarification may be needed here - the person who happens to be a friend of the investigator's wife isn't necessarily the person who hired the investigator. The logic didn't follow for me - likely because I'm missing info?

Kimkins Dangers said...

Kimmer's words are confusing here. The person that hired the PI was Martin, Catherine's husband and Heidi's ex business partner. But.. a Kimkins member knows the PI in real life, friends with the wife of the PI but had NO role whatsoever in the hiring of the investigator.

For Kimmer to say that the PI was a friend ... of a Kimkins member implies wrongly that someone from Kimkins had something to do with the hiring of said PI.

I was just trying to point out how she bends things with her words to give impressions that are not accurate. :)

KimPossible said...

I was reading but all I saw Kimmer say was "LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE."

Stephanie said...

Fabulous job, as usual, of pointing out the extreme narcissism of Heidi 'Kimmer' Diaz. Not to mention discrepancies in her memory and her 'spin doctoring' of events.

It's obvious that, in her arrogance, she believes her Kimkins supporters are not wise enough to read between the lines.

A fool's mouth is his destruction, and his lips are the snare of his soul. Prov. 18:7

Lisa said...

Funny how in all of that, she didnt mention "Heidi" being a partner or anywhere else, since she claims that Heidi is another person. I hope everyone copied and screen printed that comment because its pretty clear that it is HER company that she started with Catherine, and continues to run.

Anonymous said...

She said the money always went to Heidi, but that she didn't get her five partners until after Catherine left.

OhYeahBabe said...

Kimmer is a fraud.

Stop the fraud! Join the Kimkins lawsuit!

1 comment:

Anonymous said...