Tag Archives: David Krubinski

David Mazor-Krubinski V Parex LaHabra 2007 Lawsuit

We have many of the documents filed during a lawsuit David Mazor filed against Parex-LaHabra after he was discharged from the firm after they took over Mer-Kote Systems. There are tons of filings, many hundreds of pages long, one is 1700+ pages, the second amended complaint filed by Krubinski.

These filing provide a great insight into Dave’s activities and involvement with WICR, indeed, one highlight as seen below is that Krubinsk was and may still be been a partner of Fred Wanke’s since 1997 and received monthly consulting fees every month since 1997.

Another highlight is the inference that Irina Drill (now Irina Mazor) may have tampered with witnesses.

Despite David Krubinski David Mazor and his company ICR Services sued Parex, Dave didn’t seem to want to submit to a deposition and neither did Fred…wonder why? The defense attorney opined in one email or filing that it seemed that David had no intention of going to a trial, instead he sought to bully, threaten and delay everything in hopes of extracting a settlement.

Shockingly as well, Drill accuses the defense attorney of perhaps orchestrating a break in of WICR’s offices as well as David Mazor, in which the only things taken were documents belonging to Parex…

Head on over to our All of WICR’s Litigation page and I’ll be posting all the documents I have downloaded there for viewing and your reading pleasure.

Mark Marsch is Now Useless to WICR

While the proposed decision of the court after a bench trial in WICR v Arceneaux didn’t come out in financial favor for the Arceneaux’s, it did serve to bury Mark Marsch from ever again being thought of as credible when it comes to being a consultant or expert witness for WICR.

Mark Marsch’s use to David Mazor should be about over with the finding of him having “an implied bias in favor of Plaintiff”

It also taught me a lesson too, I won’t be working for anyone as a witness, even though my testimony was found credible, my bias towards WICR was found to be problematic to the Judge. Lesson is, work with clients in the background encouraging them to file complaints with CSLB. WICR clients reading this, don’t even waste time arguing with WICR, just file if you have problems. CSLB loves dealing with repeat offenders and metes out harsh penalties to them.

Anyway, back to Mark; he’s basically as good as done at WICR. While WICR’s attorney got the Judge to look at this website, the Judge probably also saw information about Mark Marsch that was troubling…his status as an owner of WICR and relationship with David Mazor. And the Judge also found that Marsch’s testimony that the deck was sloped was wrong.

Most damning of all; the Judge found Marsch to have an “implied bias in favor of the plaintiff” (WICR/Mazor). Below is a screen shot from the proposed judgement

Even more troubling for Marsch is that any attorney researching opponents expert witnesses will see this information and be able to question Marsch’s ethics and impartiality. Time to put poor Mark out to pasture as his usefulness is over to WICR.

Congratulations Dave, your pride and arrogance have destroyed Mark Marsch’s name!

Catching Up With Mazor’s Non-Profit “Vascular Care Foundation”

Non-Profits are supposed to help people; at least, that’s the stated objective usually right?

The strange Non-Profit known as Vascular Care Foundation is apparently doing nothing at all, at least from what we can see by their tax returns at Pro Publica.

From 92128 Magazine, this fluff piece quotes one founder, Dr Anatoly Bulkin

Dr. Anatoly Bulkin is the founding VCF board member. “In 2014 I started the Vascular Care Foundation because the majority of patients we treat for vascular disease present with late stages of the disease,” reflected Dr. Bulkin. “Through our efforts we are able to find disease earlier and save people’s lives.” He was born in the Ukraine, moved to the states, and graduated from USC Medical School in 1993. He moved to Rancho Bernardo 12 years ago after training at Baylor College of Medicine. Here his family enjoys the open space and proximity to work and outdoor activities. Dr. Bulkin is a surgeon at the San Diego Vascular Center in Escondido.

And from Dr Moldovan “It is also our goal to raise money in order to be able to treat people with vascular problems that do not have the financial capability of obtaining the medical care they need,” added Dr. Moldovan. Approximately 95% of all donations go toward educating people about lifestyle changes and screening efforts. As the program grows VCF can pursue clinical research and advance pioneering technologies in early diagnosis and treatment.”

From the Foundations tax return from 2016, the last filing we can find, they’ve spent $0.00 on anything except expenses including $1695 in legal fees. Guess who their agent for service of process is? Irina Mazor, David Mazor’s wife. Care to take a guess on who probably got that legal fee? Yeah that’s mine too.

So from what we can see, there are zero expenses paid out towards their goal of treating people with Vascular problems.

More mysteriously, who gave the 50k donation and why isn’t that revealed on their tax return?

Who knows, but with no website active that I could find, (VCF did have a cheesy website up before, it still exists at the Way back Machines archives  https://web.archive.org/web/20161103202458/http://vascular-care-foundation.org/our-mission/

and no information on the website anywhere, this operation stinks of a scammy dubious non-profit. We continue to watch for any information and certainly welcome the directors input on what their non-profit is doing exactly. 

With Mazor and Mazor at the helm, not likely we’ll find out. They like their secrets.

2016 expenses

 

2016 tax return officers

2016 tax return income and expenses

Sleazy Awards Bought By a Sleazy Law Firm? Lindborg & Mazor LLP Lists Awards From Dubious Sources On Their Website

Is Lindborg & Mazor paying for “awards” to make themselves look good to clients?

It sure looks like it…a look at their website at https://www.lmllp.com/ has a list of “awards” that they have bought…err, received, after paying money apparently.

When a client looks at Lindborg & Drills web page, how the fuck are they to know that Lindborg & Drill paid for these awards? Answer, they don’t. Or rather, they didn’t know then but they know now. What kind of tiny ego’s must one have to buy oneself awards that are meaningless, except to perhaps defraud potential clients?

Is it legal? Apparently it is yes. But, for shits & giggles, and because it may be false advertising, I submitted an online complaint to the state bar association. Happy New Years to Lindborg & Mazor! (The countdown begins to see if they remove their scammy awards from their website, starting now at 11:45 am on 12/31/19)

Is it ethical? Depends on your ethics. For myself, I wouldn’t even consider it. Ask yourself, Do I want to deal with a firm that buys itself awards to try to impress clients?

Paid for awards
DON’T BE FOOLED! PAID FOR AWARDS ARE MEANT TO FOOL POTENTIAL CLIENTS

AI Business Intl
A bogus award at Lindborg & Drill’s website. Wikipedia terms these awards as “Vanity Awards” meaning pay to get them…

From Wikipedia –

In August 2018, the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint against AI Global Media to the effect that in two marketing emails they had implied an award had been given after a “meticulous and extensive” selection process involving significant voting by third parties, when in fact it appeared nominees were selected indiscriminately in bulk, large numbers of nominees could win awards not least because the categories for the awards were selected with a view to making as many awards as possible, and there were not a significant number of third-party votes. They also found that the first of these emails had misleadingly represented itself as being a legitimate email about an awards process not a marketing communication; they also noted that “Build”, the Al magazine in question, “did very little to promote the award winners who had not purchased the advertising packages”.[3]

 

A search on Google quickly turned up many sites calling these awards scams, fake, etc.

The link below lists every awards company and whether it’s pure scam or real.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1t4pV2YlMt5aFmdaXH7px0UFYn0sQTLiFgsaZZvxKJQk/edit#gid=976482508

How easy is it to get an award from Universal Media? Apparently as easy as writing a check. From https://premonition.ai/fake-law-firm-wins-legal-awards/

“Last week, up-and-coming firm FLF Abiola & Co. captured the highly coveted title of “Film Financing Law Firm of the Year in Nigeria” from both Finance Monthly and Corporate INTL, which claim a combined readership of nearly 300,000 per month. Netting this rare international two-for should’ve been a major coup for the (very) young African firm, yet the win was greeted with howls of laughter by the notoriously salty UK press. The venerable Guardian was even moved to note that Abiola’s “logo bears more than a passing resemblance to an ejaculating penis.” It’d be understandable if Abiola felt that the tenor of the coverage verged on bullying, even given such a  graphic design gaffe, but the only ones crying foul are the awards’ presenters. You see, FLF Abiola & Co., is not strictly speaking a real law firm, or even a particularly credibly faked one.

The firm was the invention of satirical law blog RollOnFriday, designed to lampoon purveyors of cash-for-credibility legal awards like Universal Media (the publisher of both Finance Monthly and Corporate INTL). After ROF revealed their ruse, a Corporate INTL spokesperson “concede[d] that there has been a breakdown in the due diligence/judging phase of our awards programme,” but that seems like a slight understatement. While the logo alone might not have been enough to erect a warning sign, there were other red flags. The photo purported to be of firm founder Dennis Abiola was, in fact, American actor Danny Glover. The Nigerian address provided did not exist. Even the FLF in FLF Abiola & Co. stands for Fake Law Firm. A cursory internet search would’ve been enough to cast doubt on the existence of the practice, but that might’ve obstructed the work of sending pre-drafted emails asking nominees and winners for £300 to fund an attractive sponsorship and promotional package.”

Hey, even dogs are getting in on the action, one dog became a member of “Lawyers of Distinction-read it below

https://mockingbird.marketing/lawyers-distinctions-new-top-dog/

Universal Media, the owner of several of these very dubious outfits, are being investigated for wrongdoing. https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/exclusive-legal-awards-company-investigated-wrongdoing

Bottom line is, if you as an attorney feel compelled to buy yourself awards, perhaps you should take a long hard look in the mirror and see why lawyers are regarded as scum. I’m left with the thought though that Irina won’t see a reflection in a mirror, like the rest of the vampires that exist in the law profession.

San Diego Area HOA’s Problems With WICR

We heard from a San Diego area HOA who told us of their problems with WICR.

WICR entered a contract with this HOA for 6 figures. The contract/bid was done by Fred Wanke last year before he had left.

The contract (which was signed nearly 9 months ago) with the Association did not apparently have a start date (read CSLB’s requirements for contracts here) or finish date. WICR has apparently failed to start the job.

The Association wanted out and told WICR that. Now WICR has sicced their lawyer, Irina Mazor onto them and is demanding “damages”.

We’ve advised the HOA to contact an aggressive and knowledgeable construction attorney to assist them and to file a complaint with CSLB about the tactics being employed. We also suggested that the State Bar Association might be interested if any ethical or legal issues from Mrs. Mazor’s work appear to be in violation of state law.

With David Mazor now at the helm and his dog (attorney) doing his bidding, Associations should be very wary of WICR. Insist on using YOUR contract, drawn up by YOUR attorney, don’t sign theirs. It is not going to protect you very well and is written to favor WICR.

In fact, we recommend that you just don’t put WICR on your bid list at all and save yourself a hassle. There’s much better contractors out there.