Kimkins Sues

It is not that easy (for me, at least) to understand who is being sued for what. In addition to the named defendants, there are 100 Roes being sued, and just one of these have been named. It is assumed that these Roes are anti-kimkins bloggers and if the suit is not being thrown out, we surely will be seeing more of us being named as the time goes on.

The Kimkins Counter Suit claims:

Interference with contract
"By contacting Kimkins members and encouraging them to terminate their memberships, By contacting and harassing affiliates and agents and demanding and threatening them to stop working for or with Kimkins and further threatening members and affiliates with criminal persecution of civil suit."
I assume this refers to our "weed pulling". I don't see how informing people of fraud can be seen as "threatening" and "demanding". Everybody contacted had the option of making an informed decision of what action they wanted to take. If Kimmer hadn't committed fraud in the first place, there would have been nothing to inform them about.

Interference with economic advantage
The suit claims that we "disrupted the relationship between Heidi Diaz and the Kimkins members and affiliates telling each that Heidi Diaz was unsafe, unreliable and often failed to meet its contractual obligations and was continuing to defraud it members at their expense. Cross defendants made these statements and allegations at a time when they knew the statements to be untrue."
Economic advantage? As gained by fraud? And in my opinion, Kimkins was "unsafe" with its recommended 500 cals. They also did "fail to meet their contractual allegations" as I was banned without a refund.

Slander/libel
"publishing malicious and false posts regarding Heidi Diaz ". And, "the entirety of each message was and is false as it pertains to Heidi Diaz because said statements were made solely in an effort to humiliate, defame, infuriate and injure Heidi Diaz. The statement is slanderous per se in that it imputes to Heidi Diaz a dishonest and bad reputation in the business and Internet community."
Huh? Heidi wasn't dishonest? When she posted false pictures and claimed non-existent weight loss? Starting on LCF years ago? Stating the TRUTH is not slander or libel. Furthermore, it's up to the plaintiff to prove that the statements are false. How is Heidi Diaz going to do that? She will produce REAL pictures of herself from June 2007 showing that she actually was 118 lbs? I don't think so.

Invasion of privacy
Heidi is a public figure. She submitted her picture to a wide spread magazine (yes, the "after" picture was not her, but the BEFORE picture was). And a person can become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. This made Kimmer a public figure even long before she started Kimkins.con. She can not deny to willingly generate "publicity" with all her posts on Lowcarbfriends forum.
However, the counter suit seems to refer to a to me unknown issue of her ex husband disclosing some private information from a Family Law matter. It's not clear to me why this was bundled with the suit of the 1 - 100 Roes.

Civil conspiracy
"conspired to slander and defame Heidi Diaz" and "each of them acted despicably, willfully, wantonly, oppressively, fraudulently"
Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to accomplish a criminal act or a legal act through criminal means. I'm not aware of any "agreement" between the Ducks. I am an individual blogger and I don't take orders for what to blog about. If there is a "Duck in charge" he/she is unknown to me.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress
I'm sure it's stressful to being found out as a liar, especially when the lies have been told for years and the lies were the foundation of her business. I don't see how that can be blamed on the defendants.