Archive for the ‘WICR’ Category

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

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…

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.


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! 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 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.


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.


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…


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.


When your largest applicator of your product walks away from your product, it can cause problems to your bottom line. When your largest applicator, who is actually only 1 of 2 known applicators, walks away from your product, you’re pretty screwed.


Unless Dave has an ace up his sleeve, Granite Deck is essentially dead. Considered a joke in the industry, Dave’s schtick in selling this crap got zero traction.

Industry joke Nevada Coatings System, owned by David Mazor, aka David Krubinski appears to be for all intents, “Dead Man Walking”. For a few years in the San Luis Obispo area, DeckTech Inc was a large applicator of his crap. They sold the hell out of it, claiming it was the answer to all things wrong with competing systems. They claimed it was Class A fire rated, (I can’t find any proof of that from any reliable sources), it encapsulated all flashing and nailing details, blah blah blah…puke.

NCS-GRANITE II SYSTEM   Decktech-081901

Old Decktech webpage saying this is the best crap in the world


2010-04-29 10 46 41 (3)

DeckTech claims this…see next photo for reality check


Reality-the product is separating at the edge. Reality, you can’t effectively protect a hard 90 degree edge. Coatings adhere well to rounded edges


I, from the very beginning, upon hearing that Krubinski was behind the product, had strong doubts. DeckTech sprayed the crap everywhere-onto condo’s decks in Avila Beach, single families in Grover Beach, luxury homes in Cayucos, commercial jobs in Pismo Beach, roofs in Paso Robles, you name it, the crap was being applied everywhere.

Fast forward a few years-DeckTech has 200+ Granite Deck jobs done and now the devil wanted his due-despite the maintenance agreements and the money made selling the stuff, go backs for “warranty work” is the bane of waterproofing contractors. I’ve personally consulted on a half dozen + Granite Deck failures and became aware of many others from other sources.  I’ve seen one lawsuit against DeckTech settled over Granite Deck problems.

Simply put, despite all the hype and showmanship, Granite Deck isn’t performing for Decktech as envisioned. There’s multiple condo decks in Avila that are failing, single family decks that are failing, commercial buildings too. They have been having a nightmare of go back issues, from paperwork I obtained, at least 24 go back jobs are on a list from October for DeckTeck. That’s a ton of money being hemorrhaged out. First on labor and materials to fix the problems, then the loss of income on new work that can’t get done.

Decktech recently put up a new website design and it’s content is quite different than from a couple years ago. Decktech then extolled Granite Deck, now one can’t find nary a mention of it at the new website. Before DeckTech trashed metal lath decking systems, now it’s what they install from Westcoat, Life Deck and Mer-Ko.

DeckTech manufacturers 1 14 16

No more talk about Nevada Coatings at DeckTech, they smartened up after a few years of eating failures. 

Interestingly, Krubinski/Mazor’s own company WICR, which is last man standing it appears as an applicator of Granite Deck, has zero pictures at their website showing it being applied. Indeed, their blog discusses how great Dex-O-Tex is (a true, bonafide deck system) but there’s no mention of Granite Deck. Really the only way you’d know they were an applicator is by looking at their manufacturer affiliations where Nevada Coatings is mentioned.

By all appearances, NCS is down the toilet as a product. Long live the king!


Hola Para los empleados de WICR-

Parte de nuestra misión, es asegurarse de que usted conozca sus derechos como empleados.

El estado de California trata a todos los empleados por igual, si usted está indocumentado o tener una residencia (verde) tarjeta. Eso significa que incluso si usted está trabajando ilegalmente en California, usted todavía tiene los derechos, el Estado no le informará y tratará de recuperar el dinero legítimamente que debía. Si usted ha sido despedido o dejado voluntariamente, aún puede presentar un reclamo también.

Hay una oficina de la División Cumplimiento de Normas Laborales en San Diego donde puede informar anonomously quejas sobre robo de salarios, las tarjetas de tiempo están cambiando, no se paga por las horas extraordinarias, que no reciben descansos pagados, debajo de la mesa, lesiones de los trabajadores o cualquier violación de la legislación laboral . 7575 Metropolitan, Sala 210 San Diego, CA 92108 619-220-5451

La razón es por qué usted debe presentar una queja si usted cree que sus derechos fueron violados son muchos, pero la mayor razón por la que debiera es porque usted puede, con la ayuda de California, recuperar sus salarios y te será recompensado todos los salarios caídos, además de interés. Así que si usted trabajó para un empleador durante 10 años y que no lo hizo horas extras salarios a usted, o que no daré descanso rompe, usted conseguirá que todos de vuelta en forma de dinero en efectivo.

Le animamos a difundir la palabra a cualquier empleado últimos que conoces y presentar quejas si usted cree que fue aprovechado. Si usted tiene razón, usted puede obtener una gran cantidad de dinero que se paga a usted.

Conozca sus derechos! Usted puede leer el orden del salario mínimo de los derechos de los empleados aquí en Inglés el orden del Deptarment de Relaciones Industriales de ser pagado 2 veces el salario mínimo al proporcionar sus propias herramientas . Asegúrese de que sus salarios son 2x salario mínimo si se le requiere para comprar y llevar sus propias herramientas.

Varios passges de las leyes laborales se muestran a continuación, junto con las sanciones para los empleadores que violen estas leyes.

Sanciones (A) para Violaciónes de las disposiciones de la presente Orden. Cualquier empleador o cualquier otra persona que actúe en nombre del empleador
que viole, o haga violado, las disposiciones de la presente orden, serán objeto de sanciones civiles y penales previstas por
ley. Además, la violación de cualquier disposición de esta orden estará sujeta a una sanción civil de la siguiente manera:
(1) Violación inicial – $ 50.00 por cada empleado mal pagado para cada período de pago durante el cual fue mal pagado al empleado
además de la cantidad que es suficiente para recuperar los salarios no pagados.
(2) Violaciónes posteriores – $ 100.00 por cada empleado mal pagado para cada período de pago durante el cual el empleado fue
mal pagados, además de una cantidad que es suficiente para recuperar los salarios no pagados.
(3) El empleado afectado deberá recibir el pago de todos los salarios recovered.The comisionado de trabajo también pueden emitir citaciones
conforme a la Sección Código Laboral de California 1197.1 por falta de pago de los salarios de las horas extraordinarias en la violación de esta orden.
(B) Las sanciones por Violaciónes de Niños leyes laborales. Cualquier empleador u otra persona que actúa en nombre del empleador está sujeto a
multas de entre $ 500 a $ 10.000, así como a las sanciones penales por violación de las leyes de trabajo infantil. (Ver Código de Trabajo Secciones
1285-1312 y 1390-1399 para las restricciones adicionales sobre el empleo de menores de edad y para las descripciones de penal y civil
sanciones por violación de las leyes de trabajo infantil.) Los empleadores deberían informarse en los distritos escolares locales sobre los permisos de trabajo necesarios
requerida para los menores que asisten a la escuela.
(Además, ver Código Laboral de California, Sección 1199)


(A) Las horas extraordinarias Diario – Disposiciones Generales
(1) Las siguientes disposiciones sobre horas extraordinarias son aplicables a los empleados de 18 años de edad o más y para los empleados de 16 o 17 años
de edad que no están obligados por ley a asistir a la escuela y no están prohibidos por ley de participar en la obra objeto.
Dichos empleados no podrán ser empleadas más de ocho (8) horas en cualquier día de trabajo o más de 40 horas en cualquier semana de trabajo a menos que
el empleado recibe uno y un medio (11
Tarifa normal / 2) veces de tal empleado de pago por todas las horas trabajadas de más de 40 horas de la
semana de trabajo. Empleo más de ocho (8) horas en cualquier día de trabajo o más de seis (6) días en cualquier semana de trabajo es permisible siempre
el empleado se compensa tales horas extras en no menor a:
(a) Uno y medio (11
/ 2) veces la tasa regular de pago del empleado por todas las horas trabajadas en exceso de ocho (8) horas
hasta e incluyendo 12 horas en cualquier día de trabajo, y durante los primeros ocho (8) horas de trabajo en el séptimo (7 º) día consecutivo de trabajo
en una semana de trabajo; y
(b) Doble tasa regular de pago del empleado por todas las horas trabajadas en exceso de 12 horas en cualquier día de trabajo y para todos
las horas trabajadas en exceso de ocho (8) horas en el séptimo (7 º) día consecutivo de trabajo en una semana de trabajo.

(A) Todo patrono debe pagar a cada empleado no menos de nueve dólares ($ 9.00) por hora salario por todas las horas trabajadas,
el 1 de julio de 2014, y no menos de diez dólares ($ 10.00) por hora por todas las horas trabajadas, efectiva 01 de enero 2016

(A) Cuando el empleador requiere uniformes para ser usados ​​por el empleado como condición de empleo, tales uniformes serán
proporcionado y mantenido por el empleador. El término -uniform‖ incluye prendas de vestir y accesorios de diseño distintivo o
(B) Cuando el empleador requiere el uso de herramientas o equipos o que son necesarios para el desempeño de un puesto de trabajo, este tipo de herramientas
y se proporcionará el equipo y mantenido por el empleador, excepto que un empleado cuyos salarios sean por lo menos dos (2) veces
el salario mínimo puede proporcionar y mantener las herramientas y equipos habitualmente requerido por el tráfico específico o nave en mano
conformidad con la Sección 2802 del Código Laboral.

We found this review of WICR on Yelp! Here you can see that the reviewer has complained about their work and problems…and he claims he was threatened with a lawsuit by the owner when his review came to their attention…that’s good business huh?

Well here is the review for everyone to read…

Leave WICR  a Bad Review and They'll Sue?

Reviewer says WICR owner threatened to sue