You know who this is directed to. 

Advertisements

Update, an email sent to wicr resulted in the photographs removal from their blog. 

I was browsing WICR Inc’s website/blog today and came upon a blog post about plywood vs OSB substrate. “Written” by Chris Swanson, he discusses why OSB isn’t a suitable substrate and why plywood is…well and good.

However, as I scrolled through to the end, I noticed a photograph that was very familiar to me since I took it on January 18th of 2008.

stolen image of deck pic by Bill Leys

As seen at WICR’s website/blog, this is an image that I took in 2008.

stolen image original pic from 2008

The original image in my Dropbox folder from 2008.

Jeez, you’d think a company that’s been around as long as they have might have a few pictures of their own…but apparently not and stealing pics without giving attribution is low, but that’s what WICR is about, being snakes in the grass. The head snake is David Mazor aka David Krubinski, second snake in command is Sean Krubinski, the “protege/progeny” of Mazor. Tool in Chief is Fred Wanke, who does what he’s told and shuts the fuck up when he’s told too. Fred is trotted out as the figurehead of WICR when necessary.

Well, looked at another way, WICR must secretly admire our work, stealing is a form of flattery after all.

Leave your own review of WICR at YELP! Here https://www.yelp.com/biz/wicr-inc-san-diego-2

WICR, Inc Yelp Review 3 19 17

Suzanne R wrote a review of WICR that includes a picture, always helpful to provide when writing negative reviews. Lets see what happens if Mazor gets involved…

Reactamine at job by DeckTech

Carboline Reactamine product as found by DeckTech client on job in Morro Bay.

2012-08-21 12.56.51

NCS pinholed at pool deck in Orcutt

Two lying peas in a pod were caught again lying to save their friends ass, only it didn’t work. The Contractors State License Board has rejected a Administrative Law Judge’s decision in CSLB/CA Attorney General vs DeckTech Inc.

The case in question can be found at CSLB’s License Portal where you can read the Accusation against DeckTech along with the Decision and Notice of Non-Adoption.

In the case of CSLB Vs DeckTech, who is a Nevada Coatings applicator, Nevada Coatings being owned by Mazor, Decktech has been accused of abandoning a job, taking to much money on a deposit, failing to provide lien releases and several other violations of the Business & Professions Code.

The case finally had hearings last year and a decision was posted this week at the CSLB website. The decision contains testimony from Mark Marsch who was a public WICR owner before going underground.

Marsch is found lying in testimony he gave regarding tile work. Read it below in the screen shot

Mark Marsch testimony DT tile job

Mark Marsch lies his ass off by testifying “in his opinion” the grout joints “met industry standards”. No Mark, they don’t. And the grout joints were one of the first things the Smith’s complained to me about. I’m not a tile expert, but I can see with my own eyes and so can everyone else.

mark marsch DT testimony 2

Learn more about grout joint standards  here Mark Marsch

Then Davis Mazor got on the witness stand and swore to tell the truth ( I know, right, stop laughing…)

Mazor is the mind behind Nevada Coatings System, a polyurea product that to my knowledge, no one has ever seen a can of in their life. Photo’s I have from various jobs DeckTeck has done have all shown Carboline Reactamine ET on the labels or a red can covered over with a Decktech label.

Mazor then went on to opine-

mazor DT testimony carboline NCS

The reason Mazor says Carboline would be an acceptable substitute is because NCS is Carboline. There aren’t any products labeled NCS I’ve ever seen. Carboline does not have any spec for applying their products to plywood substrates.

Mazor testimony DT 2

Carboline would beg to differ. No membrane “absorbs” into the wood substrate as the wood substrate is primed first with epoxy. See DeckTech pic below. As of 3/13/17, the NCS spec for NCS6000 UVS says it is applied at 45 mils to 125 mils. This is written information that contradicts Mazor’s testimony. Again, IMO he’s a liar here.

Carboline Rep Says “Based on what I can tell… (Reactamine ET on decks) not the right application for these products”

I spoke with Paul at Carboline Technical Service (314-219-1707) who tells me that based on the pics I have of their Carboline’s Reactamine ET being put on plywood decks by DeckTech that  it’s not an approved application by them.

He also said they would not approve it if asked to. What bothered him is that if Nevada Coatings System is the “private label” that is supposed to be what’s being put down, it should be in a can marked as such as it is deceiving the client of they think it’s Carboline “approving” the application over plywood.

Call Carboline up at the number above and ask Paul yourself.

Seems with this information, if you saw this bucket as shown below on your job, but were told on our contract Nevada Coatings, you may ask yourself, have I been a victim of a bait and switch? And after you talk to Paul at Carboline, you might want to talk to CSLB? An attorney? DeckTech’s Bonding Company? General Liability insurance carrier? All of the above? You decide.

Tuft project_edited-1

Screen shot taken from DeckTech’s website when they promoted Granite Deck. Here they discuss primer on the deck first then the membrane. So any absorption of product into the substrate would be the primer, not the membrane.

I’ve reported on this site several cases where Mazor (Krubinski) has been caught lying.  He was found by a Judge to be “less than credible”. Well I am going to make sure CSLB knows of your unsavory history in lying under oath.

photo-13-375x500

Here at a DeckTech job we see familiar looking red buckets with a “DeckTech” label over the mfg’s label. I’m not saying these are Carboline buckets, I’m saying the red color looks familiar. 

I tried sending a message to Dave’s email but got an error msg, but this is what I tried to send-

3 scum bags

Telling Dave he’s a liar to his face will be very satisfying when I get that chance.

Income of 80,550 for 2015

$10,000 In Expenditures for Professional Fees, Printing & Miscellaneous Expenses BUT No Money Apparently Spent on/for “The Poor”!

The 2015 tax tax returns for the non-profit entity Vascular Care Foundation signed by David Mazor aka David Krubinski have been posted and we got a copy.

The return shows that the non-profit received apx $80,000 in revenue/donations/grants and only spent money on professional fees (accounting/attorney type fees) printing costs and miscellaneous expenses. Schedule O, which shows specifics, showed zero funds paid for “helping the poor” as they claim on their tax exempt form.

The calendar at their website shows nothing for events in 2017 that I could find, but at least the website is cleaned up finally. Read the 2015-tax-return that places the same officers in this endeavor in business in for profit companies as well.

Have to wait til 2016’s filing to see if these guys could find any money to actually perform their stated mission.

 

We’re receiving pics of David Krubinski at his home at 1146 La Canada Blvd in La Canada, with WICR employees working on the property.

download_20170109_092413

WICR employees in front of Irina & Davey Mazor’s house with banner thanking them for the pool work they did…

Krubinski, aka Davey Mazor, denies he owns WICR, and so does his attorney/wife Irina Mazor.

Sources tell us he has WICR employees work on his house and pays them under the table with funds from his company’s checking account under ICR Services.

These pics show that WICR employees are clearly on his and Irina’s property working.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

HOA Manager Stumbles Upon WICRLEAKS, Discovers WICR’s Secrets!

Suit Alleges Fraud, Damage to Property, Illegal Use of License!

Allegation That Company Attorney Wrote “Unconscionable Clauses” in WICR’s Contract & Illegally Withheld Information Upon Legal Demand as Agent for Service of Process 

Suit Claims “Erratic Irrational & Aggressive Behavior” By Mazor Frightened His Clients, So They Barred Him From Entering Their Property!

WicrLeaks.com has received a copy of a 30 page suit filed against David Mazor, aka David Krubinski & WICR Inc of San Diego & Palm Springs that alleges that WICR defrauded the Association, caused severe property damage to both exclusive use common areas, the interior of a condominium and then attempted to deny the damage claims after admitting to being at fault.

Attorney Joesph Watson filed a suit several weeks ago, and then amended the complaint after discovering further causes of action after speaking with WICRLeaks.com about WICR and the secret ownership of it by David Mazor aka David Krubinski. Our invaluable assistance in providing reams of documents to the plaintiff’s attorney was the reason for the amended complaint.   YOU CAN READ & DOWNLOAD THE COMPLAINT HERE first-amended-complaint

A frightening aspect of this suit is the allegations by the plaintiff’s of erratic and irrational Behavior and aggressive behavior being exhibited by David Mazor, aka David Krubinski. See the pic below highlighting that assertion. Attempts to gain a comment or reply from WICR remain unanswered at time of publication.

mazors-erratic-behavior

A second highlight of the complaint comes with this gem, (see pic below) an allegation that Fred Wanke is a “tool” used by Mazor and his son Sean Krubinski for hiding behind Wanke’s license. Filings we found from Riverside County clearly show Mazor, then known as Krubinski, registering WICR Inc as partners. The official storyline was that Krubinski/Mazor left WICR when he was a salesperson at Mer-Kote. The allegations are that he maintained the ownership illegally while getting his own D-12 Synthetic Products contractors license.

fred-is-a-tool

Deliberately using unconscionable clauses in a contract is unethical at the least and may be illegal as well.

wicr fbn filing

This filing in Riverside County clearly shows that Wanke and Krubinski/Mazor were partners in WICR despite denials from Irina Mazor.

Also of great interest is the allegation that Mazor’s wife Irina Mazor of Mazor & Drill in Glendale, inserted unconscionable clauses into the WICR contract that are unenforceble.

According to the Drill & Mazor website, Mazor’s practice is primarily devoted to the representation of owners, contractors, developers and construction managers in all facets of construction law, including the litigation and mediation of construction and commercial claims, business litigation, real property-related matters and the counseling of clients in claims avoidance and mitigation techniques.

According to a paper published here by Marquette University             “Section 2-302 of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) deals in a straightforward manner with the unenforceability of unconscionable clauses in contracts.”

The article continues to say

“It is unlikely that the party with inferior bargaining power will recognize and enforce his right to avoid an unconscionable contract. Conversely, the attorney hired to draft the unconscionable clause by the party with superior bargaining power should recognize that the contract is unenforceable. Therefore, the best and most overt way to minimize the occurrence of unconscionable contracts is to forbid a lawyer from drafting them. This article proposes a new disciplinary rule prohibiting the attorney from drafting unconscionable clauses. This prohibition is based on two notions. First, the profession has an interest in regulating this behavior because, as in litigation, the attorney is performing a public function when drafting contracts. The current rules of professional conduct, which prohibit assisting with baseless lawsuits, should be extended to prohibit the drafting of baseless contracts. Second, courts already have begun to use “covert tools,” such as the doctrine of fraud, to regulate this behavior. “

Since Mazor specializes in contracts and mitigating claims (something she worked very hard at to do in this case), she would have a duty to know that clauses she inserted are unconscionable and therefore MUST NOT be inserted. Even of she didn’t write the contract, she would have reviewed it as WICR’s counsel and would need to advise them to remove said clauses. Does this place her license to practice law in jeopardy  or at least raise ethical questions? Possibly. Further along in the suit’s allegations is another gem, alleging Irina illegally denied  that DavidMazor is the owner of WICR. If true, this most certainly would…

irina-illegally-represented-mazor-doesnt-own-wicr

The main focus of the suit lies in claims of fraud by Mazor along with the damage claims to the interior and exterior of the property, loss of use, recovery of attorney’s fees etc. The suit alleges that Sean Krubinski originally took responsibility for the incident where a employee was installing flashing along a wall and a nail pierced a pipe behind the wall.  Water flooded the unit and damaged walls, ceilings and floors along with personal belongings of he occupant. Later on, David Mazor took over and attempted to exert himself onto the occupant as not being responsible and making the plaintiff so uncomfortable with bullying tactics that Mazor and WICR was subsequently barred from entering the property.

Removal of walls and stucco to repair the pipe subsequently revealed alleged defective work where flashing and stucco paper was improperly installed. Construction consultant Jerry Acker was retained to inspect and document the findings. His reports and pictures detail the open flashing, improperly lapped paper and improperly installed stucco WICR repaired.

WICR and Mazor maintained that a clause on their contract that placed responsibility for making claims of damage on the owners insurance policy, not theirs, despite WICR carrying a liability policy against damages they caused. This is the clause that the plaintiff’s allege is illegal and unconscionable. Attorney Joe Watson advises any parties contemplating contracting with WICR to not sign anything unless their attorney has reviewed it first.

“8. INSURANCE AND DEPOSITS. Contractor shall maintain General Liability Insurance in the amount of 1,000,000. Contractor shall also carry Worker’s Compensation insurance for the protection of Contractor’s employees during the progress of the work. Owner shall obtain and pay for insurance against injury to Owner’s own property and employees including persons under Owner’s direction and persons on the job site at Owner’s invitation.”

We are waiting to hear about any dates set for conferences, pre-trial hearings etc. Joe Watson tells WICRLeaks that he has also filed a complaint with the Contractor’s State License Board against WICR with the same allegations as in the suit.

If you have any issues/problems questions about work done by WICR, Inc we advise you contact the Law Offices of Joesph Watson at 323-333-6286.  We’d also like to hear about them as well to help publicize the problem and bring public scrutiny to bear on WICR and Mazor.