OPORTUN, INC. PROGRESSO FINANCIERO, LOAN AGENCY, DIVERSIFIED FINANCIAL SERVICES, FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY, FINTECH, LA PLACITA TROPICANA SHOPPING CENTER SAN JOSE CA, MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, MEXICO, US GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID, FOREIGN PASSPORTS OR CONSULAR ID DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, DEFAMATION, WORKPLACE INJURY, WORKERS COMPENSATION FRAUD, CLAIMS ADJUSTER FRAUD, MEDICAL PROVIDER FRAUD, ATTORNEY FRAUD San Jose CA

"I went in a couple of months ago with a friend. She needed help and a ride to get to this spot. She was applying for a loan and was approved, thankfully. The thing is........... I HAVE NEVER BEEN TO A SPOT WHERE SOMEONE HOLDS YOUR PERSONAL DOCUMENTS UNTIL THEY GIVE THEM A 5-STAR REVIEW ON GOOGLE! This is pathetic. THE LADY AT THE COUNTER WOULD LITERALLY NOT GIVE FRIENDS HER PAPERWORK UNTIL SHE WALKED HER THROUGH THE STEPS ON HOW TO GIVE THEM A 5-STAR. I didn't want to be rude, especially because it was not even my business. Believe me, right when we walked out of the store, I gave them a 1 star and was detailed on explaining why. The customer service was horrible!! My friend used me as a reference but beware if you do the same because ether will call you every other day to see if you would like to apply for a loan. Block block block!!!!"

 

 

Also see: Personal Loan Co. Touts Its Mission Statement As Providing Credit to Those Without A Credit Score. What They Are Doing Now Will Shock You.

 

A lender sued thousands of lower-income Latinos during the pandemic. Now it wants to be a national bank. Credit: THE TEXAS TRIBUNE AND PROPUBLICA  

Working for Oportun Inc., identity Politics and U.S-Mexico relations have put me at a severe disadvantage. Ever since USMCA (with bipartisan support) was entered into force, Mexico and the United States are seemingly drawn to investigations and litigation on a number of Free-Trade Agreements.

 

A. President Donald Trump's vision is to ensure low prices of imported goods for consumers.

 

B. President-Elects Joe Biden's vision is to implement an American worker centered trade-policy.

 

As of November 2018, following the United States, Mexico and Canada Agreement, Mexico (Guatemala, Honduras El Salvador and Ecuador) has used its United States Consular Network to investigate the United States by interviewing 610,000.00 workers remotely, in cities such as Oregon, Salt Lake City and San Jose. Mexico plans to use this collected data against the United States.

 

President-Elect Joe Biden admits President Donald Trumps USMCA is 'better than NAFTA.'

Militarized youth schools are how Chávez started with his National Guard. President Andrés Manuel López Obrador elected to use the elements his military police to repress Mexican citizens in Chihuahua. Farmers in the parral region of Chihuahua ran to the locality of the national guard and destroyed their camps where two civilian deaths were confirmed. Farmers who were attacked by the national guard in Chihuahua attest to that among the soldiers they heard masked guards with Central and South American accents.

 

The Mexican Authorities allegedly did an excellent job at breaking up the Caravans to please the White House. Cubans, Central and South Americans who entered Mexico in Migrant Caravans for the last 15 months illegally were imprisoned and are now being given naturalization papers to join the Mexican Military. The military is patrolling the streets daily killing dissidents and anyone who is against an authoritarian Government; blocking roads and communications to contain civilians despite heavy internal criticism while the narco boasts its power in social networks. The pandemic covertly introduced a Mexican spy operation. Nothing else screams for attention more than to copy the tyranny of the Bolivarian National Guard or the Cuban and Venezuelan fashion to the likes of the Dictatorship under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro's rule.

 

The end dates and settlement amounts for a pre-dominant industrial cumulative trauma injury exist as moving a target. Oportun Inc. executives may well understand that if the lack of disability benefits doesn't don't destroy me, the coronavirus will, to the likes of authoritarian rudeness. To the similarities, the Mexican Government plans to impose a ban on the sale of junk food to minors as a pretext to close 1,200,000 Mexican small businesses and street vendors nationwide, to inflate the poverty level and keep the revolutionary masses under economic control.

 

And to the dangerous degree to which the militarization of the country is serving its Mega political projects, such as 2,700 branches of EL Banco del Bienestar, which seek to meet the demands of specific groups such as migrants. The Mexican Army's recent acquisition of 57 Hospitals, guarding the Santa Lucia Airport and the seat of the Mexican President at The National Palace.

 

Besides the human trafficking of persons and minors, coyotes doing business at the border, the presence of Islamic subversives like Hezbollah Hamas and other terrorist organizations like al Qaeda that operate in Mexican Territory; what transpires when you research Weapons Latin American Terror Operations in the ports of Mexico?

 

One of the external agents of the Mexican politicians who are pushing for the fourth transformation is a man under the alias of Katu Arkonada. Isreal Arconada Gomez, who is active in Mexico, changed his name in Latin America after feeling Spain and has worked as an informant to Nicolas Maduro and member of the ETA terrorist group. Katu Arkonada portrays a Basque journalist on a Visa working against The Fourth Transformations political rivals in the face of the 2021 elections. Before that, he served Bolivian President Evo Morales who was forcibly removed as narco dictator who had links to the Mexican Sinaloa Cartel Transnational Criminal Organization where he was guided to the Morena Political Party to advance Nicolas Maduros Agenda.

 

We know this very well, Mexico has an agreement since 1944 to be delivering a substantial amount of water to the US and part of their contracts. As a pretext, any Mexican who disagrees with the government policies get cut from the vital resource of water. Mexico is already a kind of Narco Paramilitary Government hoisted with integrated elements. The dictatorship brings in new voters for their regime, and grow the military with foreigners to attack its people. For 29 Months, my employer, Oportun Inc. and its executives continue to hold their opinions that my claims about workplace safety are both "Vague and Bizzare."

 

Many emerging companies in the fast-growing fintech sector, by contrast, view financial services for immigrants as an untapped source of revenue. They include remittance apps, such as Xoom along with companies such as Lendup and Oportun Inc., which lend to "high-risk borrowers."

 

The increase in the remittances to Mexico that are occurring in months of the pandemic is something very unique. Of course, there are a limited number of those who send their family money, but the narco is using and taking advantage these times of pandemic to push money in the form of remittances. Remittances, to Mexico, therefore, have increased by 13 per cent since the previous year. An exchange house in Morelia Michoacán, the third city with the highest amount of remittances sent by migrant workers in the United States, recognized that the number of money transfers had increased considerably since the beginning have pandemic began, just like in the cities of Tijuana. Puebla, Guadalajara, Culiacan Oaxaca, Leon, Zapopan, Monterrey and San Luis Potosi as seen on the Banxico website https://www.banxico.org.mx/SieInternet/ . An increase between 7 and 10 per cent from March to August increased considerably going from an average $ 500 to $ 800. There is something that does not match the logic of macroeconomics.

 

How is this achievable in the face of the economic tightness that faces the labour market of the migrant sector of the United State's? The Mexican president boasts in his daily briefings that the economic recovery for Mexico will come in the form of remittances. This sector disseminates the relevant data of the contracts derived from the contracting procedures reported on CompraNet by the Purchasing Units of the Dependencies and Entities of the Mexican Federal, State and Municipal Governments. https://sites.google.com/site/cnetuc/ contrataciones

 

Mexico acknowledges the only the viable hypothesis is that the cartels are employing the financial system under the guise of economic support to family members, and employing strangers to sweeten the deal. The current exchange rate continues to be an attractive option when the seizure of drug money continues to happen at the points of entry at our southern border. Working for Oportun Inc., I saw its tough to track remittances. They are not taxed by the government, which makes them hard to regulate. The more troublesome it becomes to send money through the alternatives, the more tempting legal channels such as DolEx Dollar Express, OXXO and Elektra become.

Congressman Devin Nunes,

There is not much to distract me from the thoughts of hard times and traumatic experiences that lie ahead due to an egregious employer and the strain on community resources in Santa Clara County. Oportun Inc. and multi-national corporation serve in your district at three locations. Working for Oportun Inc., identity Politics and U.S-Mexico relations have put me at a severe disadvantage. Ever since USMCA was entered into force, Mexico and the United States are seemingly drawn to investigations and litigation on a number of issues. I want to raise the following matters.

The Mexican Government has come to realize that it cannot remain financially solvent for much longer. Political anarchy in Mexico threatens to promote the most radical tendencies of Mexicos Government to benefit the left-wings agenda known as the Fourth Transformation. Poisoning, pollution, and the illegal extraction of minerals and water are representations of inadequate supervision. From the Maduro regime in Venezuela to the risk of China developments in Mexico, a shift to a more politically chaotic and radicalized administration, in time, will weaken Mexicos commitment to the United States in a variety of regional issues.

Hutchison Whampoa, a Hong Kong-based logistics company, has a notable occupancy in the states of Ensenada, Manzanillo, Lázaro Cárdenas and Veracruz, Mexico. China Communications Construction Company Limited, a Chinese state construction company, may play a vital role in the manufacturing and solidification of the Mayan Rail Project in the State of Hidalgo. The oil company, CNODC, CNPC Exploration and Development Company, operates in the Perdido Basin of the Gulf of Mexico.

The Mexican Lithium deposit is considered the largest in the world. In the Sonora mine, of a total of 243.8 million tons of mineral reserves, there is an estimated 4.5 million tons of Lithium Carbonate. In the port of Guaymas, Sonora, The mining company, Ganfeng Lithium, takes significant lithium deposits from the English company Bacanora Lithium. At the time of its acquisition, it is then passed to Hanwa and Ganfeng, who then ships the product by sea to their clients. Envision Energy, headquartered in Shanghai is a 90-megawatt wind farm offshore from the port of Progreso on the Yucatan Peninsula.

Oportun Inc. has denied me the right to take my deposition for PTSD via skype or other electronic means and has further advised me that they plan to take it once stay in place orders are lifted. The recent actions, such as arrest and criminal charges brought against a labour advocate, sent a chilling message to all workers and activists, including Americans in Mexico. As an American born worker, I presume Oportun Inc., which also has over 1000 employees in Mexico will never pay benefits owed since 2018, due to its bonds with organized crime.

As of November 2018, following the United States, Mexico and Canada Agreement, Mexico (Guatemala, Honduras El Salvador and Ecuador) has used its United States Consular Network to investigate the United States by interviewing 610,000.00 workers remotely, in cities such as Oregon, Salt Lake City and San Jose. Mexico plans to use this collected data against the United States.

Yesterday, the US celebrated the election of Mauricio Claver-Carone as head of the Inter-American Development Bank. As the declarations of commitments and goodwill grow, the "Fourth Transformation" is indeed the process of a "Silent Recolonization" in our own backyard, backed by George Soros, Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador's leading commercial ally.

Regards,

Adrian Quirarte

 

CC:

The Honorable
President Donald J. Trump 

 

The Honorable
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo U.S Department of State

The Honorable:

U.S Rep. Kevin McCarthy

U.S Sen. Marco Rubio

U.S Sen. Ted Cruz

U.S Sen. Tom Cotton

U.S Sen. Marsha Blackburn

U.S Sen. John Cornyn

U.S Sen. Lindsey Graham

U.S Sen. Josh Hawley

U.S Sen. David Perdue

U.S Sen. Mitt Romney

In recent weeks news has been published worldwide that Mexico is being forced to live under a strict dictatorship under its current administration. It was announced on Thursday that Mexico had been added to the travel ban list, based on a rapid spread of coronavirus, which has been aggravated by surging numbers in organized crime.

To be more specific, it is cartel territory where Oportun Inc. has call centers and over one thousand of its employees. It is not an unexpected move, given the nation’s inability to control the rapid spread of corruption and the coronavirus side by side. 

This puts Mexico on par with ”War-torn Nations,” something which is highly detrimental to its tourism industry and economy.

Subject: RE: Quirarte, Adrian: 0214212: 2010347675: Do you know if depositions be taken this year or the next?

Date: Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:25 AM

Mr. Thorndal, 

I received your response. I just wanted to be sure you were aware of that. Oportun Inc. ( formerly known as Progresso Financiero) uses identity politics to push its rhetoric as serving the victims of economic discrimination while boosting an" anti-American" message. What does a multi-national Corporation such as Oportun Inc. have in common with the UnidosUS (formerly known as National Council of La Raza non-profit social, activist groups)? The exciting prospect of nurturing, cultivating, and encouraging the populous Hispanic forces in America. La Raza has been called "a Radical, Pro-Illegal Immigration Lobbying Organization that supports racism." In other words, a Terrorist Organization. You can do a google search yourself.

Comparable to the BLM (Black Lives Matter) Movement, La Raza ideology is even more hateful: "The Black could be redeemed. Step by step by voluntary extinction, the uglier stocks will give way to the more handsome. Inferior races, upon being educated, would become less prolific. In a few decades of aesthetic eugenics, the Black may disappear. With the mystery of his slanted eyes, the Mongols see everything according to a strange angle. The mission of the cosmic race "cannot be fulfilled either by the peoples of Asia, who are exhausted, or at least, lacking in the necessary boldness for new enterprises."

La Raza or UnidosUS is anti-European in the sense that it opposes European Americans (whites). La Raza is notorious for supporting causes like amnesty, illegal immigration, birthright citizenship, chain migration, striving to censor white journalists, and removing white authors from schools to be replaced by mestizo authors.

Also known to many is the sort of “radicals” attracted to La Raza. Just look at the statements of pro-immigration activist Jorge Sanchez:

"Around the year 2040, whites will become a minority in the United States and, believe me, it will be payback time."

Or this the quote of La Raza Unida Party (RUP):

"Our devil has pale skin and blue eyes…We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him."

It must be obvious that Oportun Inc. continues to deny my workers compensation claim for Cumulative Trauma to keep a “clean record.” If Californians and other states find this disturbing they might consider the openly racist material their tax dollars have been funding for decades.

UnidosUS and Oportun Launch National Expansion of Financial Coaching Program. The innovative program improves financial outcomes for low-to-moderate-income people. Coaching Programs typically consist of a business model that recruits members via a promise of payments or services for enrolling others into the (pyramid) scheme. 

Also, see:

THE TEXAS TRIBUNE-PROPUBLICA INVESTIGATIVE UNIT "Oportun Inc. has filed nearly 10,000 lawsuits this year against lower-income Texans. Here's how ProPublica and Texas Tribune reporters got around it to reveal one company's aggressive tactics. This loan company was founded to help Latino immigrants. It has sued thousands of low-income Latinos during the pandemic. A months long investigation revealed that Oportun Inc. routinely uses lawsuits to intimidate a vulnerable population into keeping up with high-interest loan payments — even amid COVID-19."

POINTS OF INTEREST: 

IMPERSONATION FRAUD AT THE POLLS: Voting in the name of other legitimate voters and voters who have died, moved away, or lost their right to vote because they are felons, but remain registered. 

FALSE REGISTRATIONS: Voting under fraudulent voter registrations that either use a phony name and a real or fake address or claim residence in a particular jurisdiction where the registered voter does not actually live not entitled to vote. 

DUPLICATE VOTING: Registering in multiple locations and voting in the same election in more than one jurisdiction or state. 

FRAUDULENT USE OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS: Requesting absentee ballots and voting without knowing the actual voter, or obtaining the absentee ballot from a voter and either filling it indirectly and forging the voter's signature or illegally telling the voter who to vote for. 

BUYING VOTES: Paying voters to cast either an in-person or absentee ballot for a particular candidate. 

ILLEGAL "ASSISTANCE" AT THE POLLS: Forcing or intimidating voters—particularly the elderly, disabled, illiterate, and those for whom English is a second language—to vote for particular candidates while supposedly providing them with "assistance." 

INELIGIBLE VOTING: Illegal registration and voting by individuals who are not U.S. citizens, are convicted felons, or are otherwise not eligible to vote. 

 

May 28, 2018

United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions
U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001

 

U.S. Department of Justice and U.S Attorney General Jeff Sessions,

 

I hope this letter reaches the U.S. Department of Justice. An investigation will find criminal links to a larger population of illegal immigrants and criminals engaging in organized crime, fraud, and several immigration law violations while perpetrating crimes against U.S. citizens (s). My employer Oportun Inc. ( Progresso Financiero), is located in a "flea-market style" shopping center, 1690 Story Road Ste. C+D, on the East Side of San Jose, CA. To conceal racketeering crime, my employer utilizes me as a form of distraction. One would need to get creative.

 

I have observed Employees, executive management, and in most cases, complicit clients watching me closely while I work with clients. The process from start to finish takes about 1 hour to 1 hour 45 minutes. 

 

After taking clients' information, a Caller ID or email address can be spoofed to appear as if the call, text or email was routed from any number so they may be perceived to be coming from a Mexican Intelligence Agency, Private Protection Firm, or one of the many call center employees in Mexico. I have observed the sale of fake or stolen identity documents, while workers allowed such papers to apply for a loan.

 

Oportun Inc. recently changed its verification policies and application requirements ordering employees not to photograph a client with loan documents upon disbursement or keep clients photos in their profile in case of a surprise audit by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement Raids.)

 

It has been brought to my attention that working with any small business or enterprise affiliated with providing loans, cashing, personal checks, taking payments from individuals with No SSN ( Social Security Number), ITIN ( Individual Tax Payer Number), or the deliberate use of fraudulent identification documents is a severe risk to one's safety. My employer is holding on to all my identification documents. I live alone. I am forced to lie daily and not speak about the activities occurring at my workplace, including the neighboring businesses that operate similarly to prevent retribution.

 

Another notice was sent to employees out, announcing they have identified a criminal fraud ring using fake I.D.s and Fake Bank Statements in C.A. This was about five days after I reported Oportun Inc. to an anonymous third party agency for employees paid by the employer. Big mistake. Still, news began to circulate through the community that ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), or vans with DHS license plates, were spotted in local areas and would start targeting employers suspected of breaking federal immigration laws.

 

This puts me in a situation dire situation. I am either forced to accept fake identification documents to meet my quota, receive a paycheck, retain my employment, keep the customer happy, or be linked to the activities in a surprise audit by Federal Authorities witnessing our application requirements. All of which can lead to serious criminal convictions for willfully colluding in document fraud. One incident of document fraud by any of the shopping center patrons at any given time can lead up to 5 years in prison and a 250,000.00 fine.

 

As mentioned above, the statement should serve as proof that I am at considerable risk for witnessing an extensive list of federal crimes:

 

Section 1028 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents), section 1029 (relating to fraud)section 1344 (relating to financial institution fraud), section 1351 (relating to fraud in foreign labor contracting), section 1425 (relating to the procurement of citizenship or nationalization unlawfully), section 1426 (relating to the reproduction of naturalization or citizenship papers), section 1427 (relating to the sale of naturalization or citizenship papers), sections 1461–1465 (relating to obscene matter), section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1542 (relating to false statement in application and use of passport), section 1543 (relating to forgery or fraudulent use of passport), section 1544 (relating to misuse of passport), section 1546 (relating to fraud and abuse of visas, permits, and other documents)

 

I appreciate the United States Department of Justice bringing attention to this matter.

 

Sincerely,

Adrian Quirarte

Tue, Apr 21, 2020, at 2:27 PM Re: Quirarte, Adrian: 0214212: 2010347675: OPORTUN INC. COVID-19 NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF DEPOSITION INCORRECT START DATE OF INJURY ON CANCELLATION NOTICE 042120

 

Mr. Thorndal,

 

In your letter dated April 6, 2020, you advised the tribunal and me that Oportun Inc. considered issuing an amended deposition notice with a new deposition date in late May or June to give my testimony. But, to avoid possibly echoing this scheme, Oportun Inc. would preferably wait until the "Shelter in Place Order" had been lifted.

 

 

If I had told Dr. Allan C. Sidle M.D during the evaluation(s) in 2018, that a coronavirus pandemic would produce a global economic crisis, tough times would hit a city like San Francisco, where every homeowner was a paper millionaire only a year ago moreover, that tens of thousands of people had died all over the world; would Oportun Inc. continue to personally attack me with a "laundry list of excuses" such as filing for Social Security Disability Benefits in 2016 to get around paying past due workers compensation benefits? I know that times are tough, Mr. Thorndal.

 

 

Only a few weeks ago, rumor had it that a joint national guard task force was being created and positioned at the capital area with the "secret" mission of enforcing martial law in Washington DC and assisting lawmakers and top government officials in leaving town if things got out of hand. Oportun Inc. won't use that justification to get around paying past due workers' compensation benefits as well, will they?

 

 

Last year, I brought it to your attention that I never received TTD benefits because of Dr. Allan C. Sidle's error of not putting an end date of TTD benefits on record.

 

 

Furthermore, when speaking on the phone, you never allowed me to meet with Dr. Allan C. Side a third time so that Dr. Sidle, who is part of Oportun Inc. MPN (Medical Provider Network) to fix the error so that I could commence receiving benefits.

 

 

You have also hung up on me after accusing me of "Communicating Ex-Parte" with Dr. Sidle. However, Zurich American Insurance and the DEU Unit at the WCAB advised me that speaking to Dr. Allan C. Sidle for Administrative Purposes is allowed.

 

 

For the record, can you please specify in detail why Oportun Inc. has denied my claim of Cumulative Trauma from the start date of January 1, 2018, to July 22, 2019.

 

 

Oportun Inc. continues to hold its opinion that the date of injury started before Oportun Inc employed me. April 4, 2017. Mr. Thorndal, as Oportun Inc fourth representing attorney, can you clarify this further?

 

 

Do you have an estimate of how much time should pass before you decide to take Dr. Allan C. Sidle's deposition? Last year, I had expressed concern about your party utilizing my own deposition transcript to “Coach Your Witness.”

 

 

Mr. Thorndal, keep in mind that the “End Date" for a Cumulative Trauma claim as a result of Serious and Willful Misconduct by the employer, Oportun Inc., can convert to a “Moving Target."

 

 

Best,

Adrian Quirarte

Date: Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:52 PM

 

Mr. Thorndal,

 

 

I spoke to the WCAB this afternoon concerning the letter sent out to both parties on March 27, 2020. It appears the Judge had been misinformed. I filed the Amended Application of Adjudication on July 30, 2019. 

 

 

 

I reminded the WCAB that when I had filed the amended application of adjudication, the defendants did not respond to the declarations of the amended application. 

 

 

 

The defendants should have provided an Answer or Rebuttal using the form: State of California Division of Workers Compensation Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Answer to Application for Adjudication of Claim and alternatively opened up a new claim under an unknown subsidiary "La Placita Kiosk" to restart the claim.

 

 

 

Oportun Inc. has requested an Order Compelling Deposition announcing that I had provided a “Laundry List of Excuses” (see link) while all non-essential business has been suspended through the COVID-19 Pandemic and keeping the courts open puts the public safety at risk.   

 

 

 

Health Experts are recommending adherence to social distancing guidelines, and several state governments and Federal Agency Officials have ordered workers to stay home and despite this, the you have refused to allow me to take my deposition via Skype or other electronic means. 

 

 

 

Mr. Thorndal, you have asserted via e-mail that the deposition on April 24, 2020 11:00 am will proceed as planned, and looks as if your client perceives the advantage of taking my deposition during a global pandemic, is burdened by the the risk to public health. 

 

 

 

I told the WCAB that I have agreed to keeping that date because you have used the COVID-19 Outbreak as a means to take control of the case, pay your attorney fees and overall deny my claim for workplace injury.

 

 

Best, Adrian Quirarte

“Where we go one, we go all,” which is often abbreviated to “WWG1WGA." QAnon: The Craziest Theory of the Trump Era, Explained.

OPORTUN INC.: "The forward-looking statements speak only as of the date on which they are made, and, except to the extent required by federal securities laws, Oportun disclaims any obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which the statement is made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

 

In light of these risks and uncertainties, there is no assurance that the events or results suggested by the forward-looking statements will in fact occur, and you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements.

 

Statements by "TERMS” such as: "EXPECT,” "PLAN,” "ANTICIPATE,” "INTEND,” "TARGET,” "PROJECT,” "PREDICT,” "POTENTIAL,” "EXPLORE,” OUTLOOK,” "CONTINUE,” "MAY,” "SEEK,” "APPROXIMATELY,” "BELIEVE,” or "ESTIMATE” and similar expressions or the negative versions of these words or comparable words, as well as future or conditional verbs such as "WILL,” "SHOULD,” "WOULD,” "LIKELY” and "COULD.”

 

These statements are subject to certain RISKS and UNCERTAINTIES that could cause actual results to differ materially from those included in the forward-looking statements. 

 

Oportun has based these forward-looking statements largely on its current expectations and projections about future events and financial trends that it believes may affect its business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

These risks and uncertainties include those risks described in Oportun's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including Oportun’s most recent quarterly report on Form 10-Q or annual report on Form 10-K and include, but are not limited to, Oportun’s future financial performance, including trends in revenue, Net Revenue, operating expenses, net income, and free cash flow; changes in market interest rates; increases in loan delinquencies and charge-offs; Oportun’s ability to operate successfully in a highly regulated industry; the effect of management changes; cyberattacks and security vulnerabilities in Oportun's products and services; and the Oportun’s ability to compete successfully.”

Mario Greco, CEO of Zurich Insurance and Oportun Inc. Insurance Provider, talks about the company’s revenue and the impact of the recent Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak in China in the video below.

IS OPORTUN INC. PLAYING POLITICS?

 

UNFAVORABLE OUTCOMES IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS MAY HARM OUR BUSINESS AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS.

 

"Statutes, regulations and Policies affecting Lending institutions are continually under review by Congress, State Legislatures and Federal and State regulatory agencies.

 

We are, and may in the future become, subject to litigation, claims, investigations, legal and administrative cases and proceedings, whether civil or criminal, or lawsuits by governmental agencies or private parties, which may affect our results of operations.

 

If the results of any pending or future legal proceedings are unfavorable to us or if we are unable to successfully defend against third-party lawsuits, we may be required to pay monetary damages or fulfill our indemnification obligations or we may be subject to fines, penalties, injunctions or other censure that could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. 

 

Even if we adequately address the issues raised by an investigation or proceeding or successfully defend a third-party lawsuit or counterclaim, we may have to devote significant financial and management resources to address these issues, which could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

 

A failure to comply with any applicable laws or regulations could result in regulatory actions, loss of licenses, lawsuits and damage to our reputation, any of which could have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition and our ability to originate and service loans and perform our obligations to investors and other constituents. 

 

It could also result in a default or early amortization event under our debt facilities and reduce or terminate availability of debt financing to us to fund originations. Furthermore, judges or regulatory agencies could interpret current rules or laws differently than the way we do, leading to such adverse consequences as described above. 

 

The resolution of such matters may require considerable time and expense, and if not resolved in our favor, may result in fines or damages, and possibly a materially adverse effect on our financial condition."

 

 

 

Mr. Thorndal,

I recall on Oct 7, 2019, Judge Dora Padilla citing that you had told her Oportun Inc. had held its own opinion that my place of employment did not develop into Cumulative Trauma. 

 

• Oportun Inc. had felt that reported activities such as ICE RAIDS we're both "Vague and Bizarre." I can tell you the activities do not appear to be " Vague and Bizarre" from an outsider's perspective. 

 

• The news, for example, has been at my place of employment several times. This cannot be any more obvious that there is, in fact, an activity that draws THE MEDIA to that particular location regularly. 

 

• As the defense attorney, you further declared that my claim remained denied, but you have not specified the reasons why. 

 

• The claims specialist(s) did not investigate the injury or my place of employment when determining the status of my claim. 

 

• The claims specialist(s) could not even investigate "remotely" since there were no cameras or footage provided by Oportun Inc. 

 

• As a financial institution, there should be. However, if patrons of the shopping center don't want to be on camera or photographed with their loan documents due to privacy concerns, that should not be done at my expense. 

 

• Can you clarify in your own words why either you or your client continue to hold that my claim about the activities reported has "NO MERIT?"

 

• To what degree should I expect for you to continue to request Medical Records. You do not keep me updated on the status of my claim.  (21 MONTHS SINCE DATE OF INJURY)

 

• Due to the length of time you have taken to respond, my deposition perceives to be more like the testimony of a Human Trafficking Victim (Cumulative Trauma) rather than an industrial injury ( Cumulative Trauma).

 

• Mr. Thorndal, do you have adequate experience understanding the Psychological effects of Human Trafficking and Fraud Victimization?

 

• As the defense attorney for Oportun Inc., are you competent or certified (e.g., Health and Human Services) as someone who can screen or depose someone who is suffering from Cumulative Trauma? 

 

Here are some examples I answered on my own:

 

1." Sometimes lies are used to trick people into

accepting a job that doesn't exist, and they get trapped in a post or situation they never wanted."

A: YES

 

2." Sometimes people are told to lie about their situation, including the kind of work they do. Has anyone ever told you to lie on the type of work you're doing or will be doing?"

A: YES

 

3. "Sometimes people are not allowed to keep or hold on to their own identification or travel documents. Have you ever experienced this, or are you in a situation where you think this could happen?"

A: YES

 

The person deposing the witness should be both respectful and use empathetic language.

 

ï‚· Examples include:

 

ï‚· "This appears to be a bit uncomfortable for you. Please let me know if there is anything you need or if you need to take a break. I will do whatever I can to make this process as comfortable and as brief as possible for you."

 

ï‚· "I am going to ask you eight questions. You can answer each question in one of three ways: 'yes,' 'no,' or 'I don't know.' You do not need to provide any specific details, and you may also decline to answer any question if you prefer not to answer."

 

ï‚· Choose your words carefully and avoid conveying judgment. Be prepared to respond to a potential trauma reaction.

 

ï‚· Using a calm and steady voice, be ready to coach a client/patient having a trauma reaction through some simple stress management exercises that will help take the focus off a traumatic memory, flashback, or anxiety/panic attack.

 

4. A lifetime history of trauma is not uncommon for survivors of trafficking. Understand that cumulative lifetime trauma occurs on a continuum rather than as isolated incidents. 

 

5. However, be prepared to handle a trauma reaction in case a question triggers a memory of abuse or violence and causes a flashback or panic attack. 

 

6. Mr. Thorndal. Are these depositions required to be taken in a private setting of your choosing? 

 

7. You give me the impression that you may hold deposition(s) in Secret behind Closed-Doors. 

 

8. And do you have an approximate date of when to expect to take both Dr. Allan C. Sidles and my Depositions? 

 

9. Mr. Thorndal, understand that when employees settlement or award is withheld or denied for an improper purpose, it would be reasonably deemed as holding somebody hostage to control their victims financially. See The Impact of The Government Shutdown.

 

10. The employer, Oportun Inc., who caters to the underserved Hispanic Community, should know better. 

 

I am merely letting you know because Human Trafficking is commonly known as "HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT." 

 

Furthermore, this is facilitated and obscured by a "CIVIL CONSPIRACY" when the victim ( or injured worker) is suffering from Memory Loss, Neurological Impairments, or Cumulative Trauma. In simpler terms, think of those who scam the elderly.  

 

 

 

 

Republicans Introduce Terrorism Sanctions for Drug Cartels

The bill, which would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, would be the most dramatic action taken against organized crime south of the border in recent years.

 

Read the full text of the bill here. A summary is below:

 

Background:
• The Significant Transnational Criminal Organization Designation Act enables the Federal Government to impose on the most significant Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) the same Sanctions that apply to FTOs including: 

o Barring Organization Members and their immediate families from admission to the United States.

o Freezing Assets.

o Seeking Civil and Criminal Penalties against Individuals providing Material Assistance (Material Support) or Resources to the Organization.

• The bill also requires the President to submit a report to Congress with the government's findings on the November 4, 2019 attack on U.S. citizens in northern Mexico once the investigation is completed, including whether the organization responsible should be designated a Significant TCO.

SEE: VIOLENT ACTS, THREATS, and ADVOCACY of VIOLENCE AGAINST TRUMP SUPPORTERS

 

 COERCED SELF-PUBLICATION:

 

[ADRIAN QUIRARTE] claims that [OPORTUN INC.] is responsible for [his/her] harm even though [OPORTUN INC.] did not communicate the statement(s) to anyone other than [ADRIAN QUIRARTE]. To succeed, [ADRIAN QUIRARTE] must prove all of the following:

 

1. That [OPORTUN INC.] made the statement(s) to [ADRIAN QUIRARTE]; 2. That [ADRIAN QUIRARTE] was under strong pressure to communicate [OPORTUN INC.]’s statement(s) to another person; and 3. That when [OPORTUN INC.] made the statements, [he/she] should have known that [ADRIAN QUIRARTE] would be under strong pressure to communicate them to another person. If [ADRIAN QUIRARTE] has proved all of the above, then you must find that [OPORTUN INC.] was responsible for the communication of the statement(s).

 New September 2003 Sources and Authority

 

The general rule is that “[A] plaintiff cannot manufacture a defamation cause of action by publishing the statements to third persons; the publication must be done by the defendant.” [B]The exception to the rule occurs “when it [is] foreseeable that the defendant’s act would result in plaintiff’s publication to a third person.” (Live Oak Publishing Co. v. Cohagan (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1277, 1284 [286 Cal.Rptr. 198].)

 

[A] “Self-publication of the alleged defamatory statement may be imputed to the originator of the statement if ‘the person defamed is operating under a strong compulsion to republish the defamatory statement and the circumstances which create the strong compulsion are known to the originator of the defamatory statement at the time he communicates it to the person defamed.’ 

(Davis v.Consolidated Freightways (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 354, 373 [34 Cal.Rptr.2d438], quoting McKinney v. County of Santa Clara (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 787, 797–798 [168 Cal.Rptr. 89].)

 

[B] This exception has been limited to a narrow class of cases, usually where a plaintiff is compelled to republish the statements in aid of disproving them.”(Live Oak Publishing Co., supra, 234 Cal.App.3d at p. 1285.)

 

[C] To determine if the coercion exception applies, the test is “whether ‘because of some necessity he was under to communicate the matter to others, it was reasonably to be anticipated that he would do so.’

 

 

Note: Culture shock is an experience a person may have when one moves to a cultural atmosphere which is distinct from one's own; it is also the personal disorientation a person may feel when experiencing an unfamiliar way of life due to an unexpected transition between foreign environments or shift to another type of life. 

 August 8, 2019

 

U.S. Department of Labor

Acting Secretary of Labor Patrick Pizzella 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY S-252

200 Constitution Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20210

 

 

Mr. Secretary,

I am aware that you have been assigned as the acting Secretary of Labor since July 20, 2019, following the resignation of Alexander Acosta.  In the preceding weeks, I have been trying to investigate the best way to go about this matter. 

My place of employment located in La Tropicana Shopping Center has been deemed to be a blight on San Jose, a breeding ground for illegal trades moreover the sale of fake immigrant documentation. It has been labeled as "Anti-American" as counterfeit social security numbers and IDs have been allowed to be marketed and sold for years.  It has been an "open secret," the trade of fake and counterfeited identities marketed daily outside La Placita Tropicana Shopping Center, that had been operating much longer before I began my employment.

My employer, Oportun Inc., is CDFI Certified. MetaBank and Member FDIC issue Oportuns Ventiva prepaid Visa Card. Oportun Inc. fails to acknowledge that the trade of counterfeit goods of all levels is a threat to National Security.  Mr. Secretary, it was not my intention to be permanently associated with National Security affairs when seeking employment with Oportun Inc., commencing by only asking questions on Oportuns in-house policies on unpaid wages to support other employees who had also not been paid. 

Making inquiries to Oportuns Executive Management and Oportuns Payroll Department concerning the location of Federal Labor Law and Employee Rights Posters, I was not given a trustworthy explanation.  There is no "Kitchen Area" at my place of work inside La Placita Shopping Center.  

Oportun employees who worked inside the shopping center were asked to eat in their vehicles, while employees at other Oportun locations were not. Furthermore, there is no exterior signage for Oportun Inc. outside La Placita Shopping Center. I had suggested to Oportuns Executive Management that not having cameras inside provided by the employer or outdoor signage to let others know our exact location in the event of an emergency formulated a "Manufactured Crisis." Oportun, with the help of outside counsel, disputed this. 

August 1st, 2018, Oportun Inc. responded to the Department of Industrial Relations as taking "no adverse employment actions" against me for reporting such activities. A qualified executive would be fit to describe an adverse action as an action that would dissuade any rational employee from raising concerns about a possible violation, and because an adverse employment action can be subtle, it may not always be easy to spot.

Oportun Inc., with the help of outside counsel, managed to persuade the California Department of Industrial Relations that I had no reason to believe that an adverse employment action against me had taken place. Oportun Inc. further commented that due to the nature of my complaints, I "was easily identifiable.” Expanding on Oportuns sense of adverse employment actions, The U.S Department of Labor defines retaliation including the various types of adverse employment actions as the following:

 

• Firing or laying off 
• Demoting  
• Denying overtime or promotion 
• Disciplining 
• Denying benefits 
• Failing to hire or rehire  
• Intimidation or harassment
• Making threats 
• Reassignment to a less desirable position or actions affecting prospects for promotion (such as excluding an employee from training meetings) 
• Reducing pay or hours 
• More subtle actions, such as isolating, ostracizing, mocking, or falsely accusing the employee of poor performance 
• Blacklisting (intentionally interfering with an employee’s ability to obtain future employment)
• Constructive discharge (quitting when an employer makes working conditions intolerable due to the employee's protected activity)

Oportuns Executive Management has firmly maintained its position that I had not undergone any adverse employment actions. If I had not been Suspended or Terminated from my employment, Oportun Inc., in "good-faith," had presumed I was actually was treated more favorably than other workers by giving me a raise of .28 cents. This was all done following my leave of absence. 

Oportuns lack of response and disregard to my grievances continue to be an element of malice, recklessness, and insensitivity to obstruct any future compensation owed by the employer for a workplace injury. Oportun never took into account how their strategies would affect both my health and employment opportunities in the future. 

 

Oportun has forced me into self-publication and self-defamation having to disclose to third parties, case-managers, housing specialists, doctors, therapists the details leading to unemployment, which remain in Oportuns view "Vague and Bizarre.” From an outsider's perspective, Big Government would deem this reasonably as "silencing a witness." This should not happen to American Workers who are simply innocent bystanders witnessing illegal activities. 

Oportun and it's executive management have failed to acknowledge "Anti-Retaliation" provisions that an employer, such as Oportun, can effectively retaliate against an employee by taking specific actions not directly related to his or her employment and cause him or her harm outside the workplace. 

My workers' compensation claim for cumulative psychiatric injury as a result of the uncommon working conditions at my place of employment is still pending. Most importantly, it is a common strategy for insurance carriers to delay or deny claims which can then be used as an excuse that loss of housing or other unexpected phenomena was the main contributing factor in causing psychiatric disturbances in their defense to deny payments and overall liability. In 3 months I am potentially facing homelessness.

Mr. Secretary, I ask if you can forward my concerns to the right departments within the U.S Department of Labor, I would be forever grateful, as I may not be able to do so myself with such limited resources and limited time. If you could forward this letter to Mr. Trump, that would also give some relief. As a Young Hispanic Conservative, a strong Trump supporter, a strong supporter of The Administration & Living in Californias 19th Congressional District; one could guess how dangerous it could be going up against egregious employers who cater to the underserved Hispanic community. 

My Employer, Oportun Inc., has made contributions to both California Governor Gavin Newsom & The California Secretary of State, Alex Padilla. My foreknowledge of the activities that took place at my place of work leading to a leave of absence following the complications going through the California Workers Compensation System, I do not perceive this to be merely coincidental or  "bad luck." 

I understand WHD targets low-wage industries because of its geographic area, high rates of egregious violations, the employment of vulnerable workers, and the rapid changes in an industry such as growth or decline. The biggest problem my employer is now facing. ICE raids.

I have already made a complaint to my employer, Oportun Inc., that reckless publications of ICE Raids should not be motivated by an employer's improper desire to manipulate a pending labor dispute, retaliate against employees for exercising their labor rights or otherwise frustrate or obstruct the enforcement of labor laws. 

I have also suggested to Oportuns Defense Attorney, Mark Thorndal, that my employer had an obligation to address the forms they had submitted to the OMB ( Office of Management & Budget) accurately. I added, that if there is NO "kitchen area" at my place of employment ( La Placita Tropicana Shopping Center 1690 Story Road Suite C+D), the employers Senior Benefits Manager, should not fill that space with a false location and send it off to a Federal Agency. 

My employer, Oportun Inc., continues to be preoccupied with its opinion that my concerns about safety at my place of work being unsafe to have "no merit" to further deny my claim for cumulative injury, which you can see in the records provided. 

As the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor, I am most certain that Mr. Trump has made an exceptional nomination to advance the rights and interests of all people including American workers.

SINCERELY,                                                                                

ADRIAN QUIRARTE

 

AUTHOR: ADRIAN QUIRARTE - (United States) FOUR MONTHS after beginning employment with Oportun Inc. is when I had started to write to Executives that I was observing a lack of support by one of Oportuns highly ranked senior employees while in COACHING. I had raised my ANXIETIES having inquiries about Oportun clients' IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS (e.g., ISSUE and EXPIRATION DATE, NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS) that were presented to me; DRIVERS LICENCES, STATE ISSUED IDENTIFICATION CARDS, BIRTH CERTIFICATES, SOCIAL SECURITY CARDS, GREEN CARDS, FOREIGN PASSPORTS, CONSULAR IDENTIFICATION CARDS, and other UNSPECIFIED DOCUMENTS that may be ACCEPTED or REJECTED.

WHEN EXAMINING THE VALIDITY OF IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS that had been presented to me, such as MISMATCHING or COUNTERFEIT identification documents, I was given VAUGE and UNRELIABLE ANSWERS, although Oportun employees were highly aware that many of these identification documents had been FOREIGN to me before working for Oportun Inc.

ON THE DAYS that I worked alone with a separate Oportun Loan Officer, Cesar Lopez, he would ask me every morning starting our shift, "HOW was your day with Nadachelli?" ( the discussions I had with both employees had been PREDOMINANTLY IN SPANISH, and the CRITICISM I RECEIVED made practice more COMPLICATED.)

AFTER THE QUESTION became a routine every morning, Cesar Lopez then suggested that after reaching my monthly QUOTA then pass all future loans to the other Loan Officer, Nadachelli Davalos; more specifically the applicants with whom I had already gone through the entire loan process, had been approved and waiting to pick up their method of payment, a check issued by a Mainstream Bank or an Oportun Prepaid Debit Card. With this approach, it would BOOST both the highly ranked senior employees and store PRODUCTIVITY, reaching the HIGHEST TIER possible for both senior employees and HIGHER PAYCHECKS.

WHEN BOTH Nadachelli Davalos and I worked together, on almost every occasion, I would hear the senior employee, Nadachelli Davalos, guide consumers through the SCREENING PROCESS; moreover, she would instruct her clients not to provide their PERSONAL BANKING INFORMATION over the TELEPHONE due to ILLEGAL and SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES including FRAUD and IDENTITY THEFT since some of Oportuns CALL CENTERS are located in MEXICO. 

OVERHEARING THIS INFORMATION established an uneasy feeling as an Oportun employee, given that "IN THE HISPANIC COMMUNITIES, RUMORS TRAVEL FASTER THAN FACTS." I have NEVER worked for an employer, where the exchange of that kind of information for PURPOSEFUL SABOTAGE or FRAUDULENT MANIPULATION of our operations had been so CASUAL.

I MADE EFFORTS to raise my concerns to Oportuns Executives using reasonable judgment. Oportun Loan Officers who engaged with consumers the most, could suffer direct losses from that TYPE OF ACTIVITY, SUFFER SERIOUS HARM OR VIOLENCE by taking the blame for the Corporation's reliability and our FIRST IMPRESSION with clients.

THE FAILURE to follow protocol when interacting with customers for any purpose by other Oportun representatives that were not as skilled under the company's standards; would be expected to result in immediate employment termination, and quite the contrary, those who had involved themselves in QUESTIONABLE ACTIVITIES ADVANCED TO LEADERSHIP positions who have a notable PAY INCREASE.

AUTHOR: ADRIAN QUIRARTE - (United States) I RAISED MY CONCERNS to Oportuns Company Trainer, Banessa Felix, concerning the ACTIVITIES I had WITNESSED at the Oportun Almaden (201 Willow Street San Jose) Store.

I HAD EXPLAINED that when both Nadachelli Davalos and I worked together, on nearly every occasion, I would overhear the senior employee, Nadachelli Davalos, guide consumers through the SCREENING PROCESS; moreover, she would INSTRUCT her clients not to provide their PERSONAL BANKING INFORMATION over the TELEPHONE due to ILLEGAL and SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES including FRAUD and IDENTITY THEFT since some of Oportuns CALL CENTERS are located in MEXICO. 

I HAD OBSERVED this strategy as an everyday habit so that the SENIOR LOAN OFFICER could TRICK Oportun Clients into giving her their PERSONAL BANKING INFORMATION so that she could enroll each one individually in AUTOMATED CLEARING HOUSE (ACH) PAYMENTS, moreover that this Senior Employee was VERY COMPETITIVE, UNWILLING to support new employees in training. 

I HAD ALSO SUGGESTED to the company trainer and other employees, that when working for past employers in the telecommunications industry; an extremely COMPETITIVE MARKET that any ILLEGAL or SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES by their OUTSOURCING PARTNERS OVERSEAS was unheard of.

THE CALL CENTERS who may be in other places such as the Philippines, and who act on behalf of THE COMPANY, I had never heard stories of an incident that could subject that CORPORATION, to MONETARY LOSS, SIGNIFICANT LEGAL LIABILITY, REGULATORY SCRUTINY, and REPUTATIONAL HARM.

Banessa Felix answered my concerns that "THEY KNEW WHO IT WAS AND THAT THEY WERE LOOKING INTO IT BECAUSE THEY HAD ALSO HEARD IT FROM ANOTHER EMPLOYEE." Although the Misconduct reported adversely effected the BUSINESS REPUTATION, the employee quickly PROMOTED TO A LEADERSHIP POSITION.

WHEN I INQUIRED about the OPORTUNS COMPANY POLICY on UNPAID WAGES for other employees who had also not been paid, Maria Aranda, in the PAYROLL DEPARTMENT, praised me by answering, "I WAS VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE AND WAS IMPRESSED WITH MY WILLINGNESS TO HELP OTHER EMPLOYEES." Maria Arranda further suggested that I apply for the LEADERSHIP POSITION and that I could use both Maria Arranda, from the Payroll Department, and use a CORPORATE EXECUTIVE, Jaziel Velez as REFERRALS. 

FOR SOME OBSCURE reason, I never received a response from the payroll department, who had also urged me to INVESTIGATE OPORTUNS LABOR LAWS BINDER AT MY WORK LOCATION, after Maria Arranda had claimed: "THAT ALTHOUGH SHE DOES PAYROLL, SHE IS UNAWARE OF ALL THE STATE LAWS REGARDING PAYROLL BECAUSE SHE HAS MANY JOB DUTIES."

I DISCOVERED from another Oportun employee, Lina Mejorado, that Maria Arranda in Payroll had PRIVATELY told her that "SHE WAS RELUCTANT TO SPEAK TO ME REGARDING THE COMPANIES POLICY ON UNPAID WAGES BECAUSE I COULD GET HER OR THE COMPANY IN TROUBLE." 

EXPRESSING DISAPPOINTMENT with my place of work and choosing to TAKING A LEAVE OF ABSENCE, Oportun made a STATEMENT on RECORD that I had been "PAID A BONUS I DID NOT DESERVE", moreover that I was paid the Bonus TO PROVE that I WAS TREATED MORE "FAVORABLY" THAN OTHER EMPLOYEES, by also giving me a RAISE OF .28 CENTS. 

HAVING AN EXTENSIVE WORK HISTORY, PAYING EMPLOYEES OUT OF "FAVORITISM" can easily be SEEN BY OTHER EMPLOYEES as a FORM of DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT, or any "ILLEGAL BEHAVIORS (INSIDE OR OUTSIDE OF EMPLOYMENT)", besides VIOLATING COMPANY POLICIES or EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS — all which OPORTUN INC DENIES.

FOLLOWING MY LEAVE of absence from Oportun Inc. on APRIL 4,2018 from CUMULATIVE STRESS, I got an FMLA Form from Oportuns Human Resources Department. The FMLA FORM had specified that the FMLA NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES was located in the "KITCHEN AREA." 

THE HUMAN RESOURCES Senior BENEFITS Manager for Oportun Inc., Alberto Trejo, had named the BLANK SPACE with a FALSE LOCATION and sent it ELECTRONICALLY to a FEDERAL AGENCY (OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET).

THE BUREAU OF FIELD ENFORCEMENT OFFICE was also able to confirm that the LEGAL REQUIREMENTS of the NOTICE I had been asking about (DWC-7) was also to be placed in a CONSPICUOUS PLACE where "ALL EMPLOYEES COULD SEE IT." 

THE BFE had advised me to CONTACT my workers' compensation claims examiner, inform her that the ABSENCE of FORM DWC-7, there are ADDITIONAL RIGHTS to employees who have filed a claim for WORKPLACE INJURY. 

THE NOTICES FOR EMPLOYEES I have inquired with various agencies UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW are as follows:

• Employee Rights Under the Fair Labor Standards Act
• Equal Employment Opportunity Is The Law
• Employee Rights and Responsibilities Under the Family Medical Leave Act (employers with 50 or more employees only)
• Your Rights Under USERRA (Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act)
• Employee Rights: Employee Polygraph Protection Act
• California employers must also post the following notices specific to California law:
• Official Notice: California Minimum Wage Order
• Payday Notice
• California Law Prohibits Workplace Discrimination and Harassment
• Notice A: Your Rights and Obligations as a Pregnant Employee (employers with five to 49 employees only)
• Notice B: Family Care and Medical Leave and Pregnancy Disability Leave (employers with 50 or more employees only)
• Safety and Health Protection on the Job
• Notice to Employees: Injuries Caused By Work
• Emergency Phone Numbers
• Whistleblowers Are Protected
• Healthy Workplaces Healthy Families Act of 2014: Paid Sick Leave
• Time Off to Vote
• Notice to Employees (unemployment compensation, disability insurance, paid family leave)

STANDARD AREAS for posting include a BREAK ROOM, near the employee entrance, near a copier, vending machines, or near the HR office; moreover, STATE and FEDERAL EMPLOYEE NOTICES in a SAFE, FILE CABINET, LOCKER, SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES, OR any LOCKED CONTAINERS capable of holding items such as:

BOOKKEEPING/ ACCOUNTING RECORDS, EXPENDITURE RECORDS, CHECK REGISTERS, BILLS, RECEIPTS, INVOICES, LEDGERS, NOTES, RECORDS DISCLOSING IDENTITIES and for DEPOSITS, WITHDRAWALS, DEBIT and CREDIT MEMOS, and any other DOCUMENT type DOES NOT meet the first criteria.

Overhearing this information established an uneasy feeling as an Oportun employee, given that "IN THE HISPANIC COMMUNITIES, RUMORS TRAVEL FASTER THAN FACTS." I have NEVER worked for an employer, where the exchange of that kind of information for PURPOSEFUL SABOTAGE or FRAUDULENT MANIPULATION of our operations had been so CASUAL.

 

AUTHOR: ADRIAN QUIRARTE - (United States) BETWEEN THE MONTHS OF JANUARY TO APRIL 2018, there had been a severe drop in both foot-traffic and store productivity, following the ANNOUNCEMENT that California was TARGETED for workplace raids by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. COMMUNICATIONS were DISTRIBUTED informing Small Business Owners" THAT AS OF JANUARY 1st, 2018 NEWS HEADLINES AND THREATS HAD EMPLOYERS WORRIED ABOUT HOW TO MANAGE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS REQUESTS.”

I BEGAN TO RAISE MY ATTENTION to executives and the company trainer as a result of OPORTUNS POOR FRAUD DETECTION, and as a result of declining productivity the company trainer then became the most appropriate person to speak to IN PRIVATE, where I hinted that perhaps I was "NOT FIT FOR THE COMPANY CULTURE."

I SIGNIFICANTLY DECLINED IN PERFORMANCE during this period and gave a number of my OPPORTUNITIES to other LOAN OFFICERS, cautious of potential SECRET SHOPPERS or FEDERAL AGENTS OBSERVING our APPLICATION PROCESS. OBEYING FEDERAL LAW was more critical than COLLUDING in DOCUMENT FRAUD, no matter how LOW (or how HIGH) the RISK.

OPPOSITE TO FRAUDULENTLY COLLUDING with DOCUMENT FRAUD should WORKPLACE RAIDS occur as had been advised by La Placita Shopping Centers in-house PUBLICATIONS and as a result of the SECRECY of the flyer DISTRIBUTED to all SMALL BUSINESSES within La Placita Shopping Center, CONSEQUENTLY I discovered FEDERAL WORKPLACE RAIDS may result in:

CONFISCATION of UNITED STATES or FOREIGN PASSPORTS, VISAS, PAPERS, TICKETS, NOTES, SCHEDULES, RECEIPTS, and OTHER ITEMS RELATED TO INTERNATIONAL OR DOMESTIC TRAVEL...LABOR and EMPLOYMENT RECORDS, including SERVICE AGREEMENTS, I-9s, VOLUNTEER WORKER AGREEMENTS, and STATEMENTS, LISTS OF WORKERS (PAID or UNPAID), JOB ASSIGNMENT SHEETS, DUTY ROSTERS, EMPLOYMENT APPLICATIONS, PERSONNEL FILES, WORKER IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS, and ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS related to the same.

EVIDENCE of who USED, OWNED, CONTROLLED a COMPUTER at the time that the ITEMS SOUGHT had been CREATED, EDITED, or DELETED, such as LOGS, REGISTRY ENTRIES, CONFIGURATION FILES, SAVED USERNAMES AND PASSWORDS, DOCUMENTS, BROWSING HISTORY, USER PROFILES, EMAIL, EMAIL CONTACTS, "CHATs," INSTANT MESSAGING, LOGS, PHOTOGRAPHS, and other CORRESPONDENCE... DESKTOP COMPUTERS,NOTEBOOK COMPUTERS, MOBILE PHONES, TABLETS, SERVER COMPUTERS, and NETWORK HARDWARE, SOFTWARE that would authorize others to command THE COMPUTER REMOTELY.

EXAMINATION of EXTERNAL STORAGE DEVICES containing ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE, and EVIDENCE of the TIMES, the COMPUTER was USED. ROUTERS, MODEMS, and NETWORK EQUIPMENT used to CONNECT COMPUTERS TO THE INTERNET...HOW and WHEN a workstation was ACCESSED OR USED to determine the order of COMPUTER ACCESS, USE, and EVENTS linking to CRIMES UNDER INVESTIGATION and the COMPUTER USER. Oportun has failed to recognize this TYPE of WORKING ENVIRONMENT creates "ABNORMAL WORKING CONDITIONS."

CONCURRENTLY, I began to notice that the CONTACT CENTERS in MEXICO could ERASE NOTES on CUSTOMERS ACCOUNTS; moreover, the NOTES that I had put on CUSTOMERS ACCOUNTS asking those DEPARTMENTS that OPERATE OFF-SHORE to REVIEW the DOCUMENTATION submitted.

THE INTENTIONAL REJECTION of APPLICANTS DOCUMENTATION by the CONTACT CENTERS OFF-SHORE would result in POOR PERFORMANCE REVIEWS and DISCIPLINARY ACTION to LOAN AGENTS who OPERATE DOMESTICALLY.

Should a note be put on record QUESTIONING the first agent who reviewed the documents or asking for a SECOND EVALUATION, the note on the customers' account would be ERASED. As a result of this SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY, customers in-store needed to call the CONTACT CENTERS for more INFORMATION resulting in a LOSS of OPPORTUNITIES.

 

AUTHOR: ADRIAN QUIRARTE - (United States) FOUR MONTHS AFTER beginning employment with Oportun Inc. is when I had STARTED to write to Executives that I was observing a lack of support by one of Oportuns highly ranked senior employees while in COACHING. 

I HAD RAISED ANXIETIES having inquiries about Oportun clients' IDENTIFICATION and ADDRESS VERIFICATION DOCUMENTS and (e.g., ISSUE and EXPIRATION DATE, NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS) that could be presented to me; DRIVERS LICENCES, STATE ISSUED IDENTIFICATION CARDS, BIRTH CERTIFICATES, SOCIAL SECURITY CARDS, GREEN CARDS, FOREIGN PASSPORTS, CONSULAR IDENTIFICATION CARDS, HOME UTILITY BILLS, CELL PHONE BILL, MEDICAL RECORDS, CAR REGISTRATION, EMPLOYMENT RECORDS, INSURANCE RECORDS, BANK or FINANCIAL INSTITUTION RECORDS, CHANGE OF ADDRESS CONFIRMATION BY THE U.S POSTAL SERVICE, RENTAL or LEASE AGREEMENT(SIGNED by OWNER and TENANT), IRS or CALIFORNIA TAX RETURNs, DOCUMENTS issued by a GOVERNMENT AGENCY(LOCAL, STATE, or FEDERAL), LETTER ATTESTING APPLICANT LIVES AT A CA SHELTER or NOT FOR PROFIT ENTITY. ON OCTOBER 7, 2017, The Regional Manager Rene Gracia RESPONDED ELECTRONICALLY, " CONTINUE TO DO THE BEST I CAN.”

 

AUTHOR: ADRIAN QUIRARTE - (United States) AUGUST 1ST, 2018, OPORTUN INC. RESPONDED to the Department of Industrial Relations as taking "NO ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS" against me for REPORTING "SUCH ACTIVITIES." A QUALIFIED EXECUTIVE would be FIT TO DESCRIBE an ADVERSE ACTION as an action THAT WOULD DISSUADE ANY RATIONAL EMPLOYEE FROM RAISING CONCERNS about a possible violation. BECAUSE an ADVERSE employment ACTION CAN BE SUBTLE...it may NOT ALWAYS BE "AS EASY" TO SPOT.

A. IT IS NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR what claims COMPLAINANT is ALLEGING against Oportun, but it APPEARS he is ALLEGING claims for FAILURE TO PAY WAGES DUE and RETALIATION FOR REPORTING SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES.

B. IF YOU HAVE A CONCERN about Oportuns ACCOUNTING PRACTICES, INTERNAL CONTROLS, or AUDITING MATTERS, you should REPORT YOUR CONCERNS to the same persons. 

C. THE PENALTIES are INAPPROPRIATE under the DLSE REGULATIONS, EVEN IF Oportun was INCORRECT REGARDING ITS DETERMINATION that complainant had NOT EARNED incentive compensation." 

D. CONFUSION regarding the CALCULATION of the LOAN DISBURSEMENTS led to MISCOMMUNICATION by MANAGEMENT.

E. THE EXCEPTION of the DISTRIBUTION of the GOAL was ORIGINALLY REJECTED BECAUSE it was NOT PROPERLY FILED within the REPORTING SYSTEM. 

F. EVENTUALLY, the EXCEPTION was APPROVED, and THE LOAN DISBURSEMENT GOAL WAS ADJUSTED among three employees who worked in the store in December, and the GOALS were ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY.

G. ONCE, THE DISTRIBUTION EXCEPTION was APPROVED in MARCH 2018, Gracia COMMUNICATED with the team that the INCENTIVE COMPENSATION WOULD BE PAID on MARCH 23, 2018.

H. AT THE TIME GRACIA SENT THIS MESSAGE, he DID NOT KNOW that the complainant HAD NOT MET the INDIVIDUAL or STORE GOAL such that HE WAS NOT ENTITLED to the INCENTIVE COMPENSATION. 

I. ONLY AFTER, HE SENT THE COMMUNICATION did HE REALIZE that the COMPLAINANT STILL DOES NOT QUALIFY for ANY INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PAYMENT." 

J. NEITHER COMPLAINANT nor HIS STORE MET the MONTHLY loan disbursement GOALS FOR DECEMBER 2017. 

K.COMPLAINANTS WAGE WAS INCREASED in 2018 DESPITE receiving a "LESS THAN STELLAR REVIEW" for 2017. 

L. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE or any CASUAL LINK between THE PROTECTED ACTIVITY and the NONEXISTENT ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION.

M. ON THE OTHER HAND, there is AMPLE EVIDENCE to SUGGEST that THE COMPLAINANT has been TREATED MORE FAVORABLY by having been PAID INCENTIVE COMPENSATION that HE DID NOT EARN and for RECEIVING A PAY INCREASE despite PROBLEMS with his work PERFORMANCE. 

N. OPORTUN HAD A VALID and BONAFIDE REASON for CONCLUDING that it owed complainant NO INCENTIVE COMPENSATION.

O. COMPLAINANT was, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE for the INCENTIVE PAYMENT until AFTER it had ADVISED HIM that HE WOULD RECEIVE IT. 

P. THIS PAYMENT was VOLUNTARILY made by OPORTUN DUE to the CONFUSION surrounding THE COMMUNICATIONS related to the DISBURSEMENT ALLOCATION. 

Q. HE WAS BEING PAID THE INCENTIVE compensation BECAUSE he had BEEN ADVISED that HE WOULD RECEIVE IT. 

R. BECAUSE of the DESCRIPTION of the complainant's CONCERNS, "HE WAS EASILY IDENTIFIABLE.”

S. COMPLAINANT SUBMITTED additional CONCERNS on MARCH 24, 2018, namely that HE BELIEVED FRAUDULENT IDENTIFICATION SOLD OUTSIDE his store was USED TO OBTAIN FRAUDULENT LOANS.

T. COMPLAINANT DID NOT ENGAGE IN ANY PROTECTED ACTIVITY because HE DID NOT have a REASONABLE BELIEF of ANY UNLAWFUL CONDUCT. 

U. OPORTUN POLICY, specifically MANDATES, that employees REPORT ANY SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR. 

V. IN SUM, complainants BARELY DECIPHERABLE CLAIMS COMPLETELY LACK MERRIT and SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 

W.COMPLAINANT HAS NOT PROVIDED and CANNOT PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE that OPORTUN took any ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION AGAINST HIM, let alone any action, BECAUSE OF HIS NATIONAL ORIGIN.

X. COMPLAINANT APPEARS TO EQUATE being HANDED A FLYER by someone "OUTSIDE OF HIS WORKPLACE" who was "UNASSOCIATED" WITH OPORTUN.

Y. HE WAS ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT RECENT ACTIVITY related to IMMIGRATION RAIDS that have BEEN PUBLICIZED in the area AT THE TIME and THE ALLEGED SALE of FRAUDULENT IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS that he said he had OBSERVED. 

Z. COMPLAINANT DID NOT ENGAGE in any PROTECTED ACTIVITY because HE DID NOT have a REASONABLE BELIEF of ANY UNLAWFUL CONDUCT.

AA. COMPLAINANTS CLAIM FAILS because HE IS UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE that OPORTUN ENGAGED in any RETALIATORY CONDUCT.

OPORTUN INC., with THE HELP of outside counsel, HOLDS IT OPINION I HAD NO REASON TO BELIEVE that an ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION AGAINST ME HAD TAKEN PLACE and EXPANDING on OPORTUNS SENSE of ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS, The U.S DEPARTMENT OF LABOR defines RETALIATION, including ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS as the following:

 

• Firing or laying off 
• Demoting  
• Denying overtime or promotion 
• Disciplining 
• Denying benefits 
• Failing to hire or rehire  
• Intimidation or harassment
• Making threats 
• Reassignment to a less desirable position or actions affecting prospects for advancement (such as excluding an employee from training meetings) 
• Reducing pay or hours 
• More subtle operations, such as isolating, ostracizing, mocking, or falsely accusing the employee of poor performance 
• Blacklisting (willfully intervening with an employee's ability to obtain future employment)
• Constructive discharge (quitting when an employer makes working conditions intolerable due to the employee's protected activity)

Furthermore, "It is a CRIME to MAKE OR CAUSE to be made A KNOWINGLY or FRAUDULENT STATEMENT concerning THE ENTITLEMENT TO BENEFITS with the INTENT to DISCOURAGE an INJURED WORKER from CLAIMING BENEFITS or PURSUING a CLAIM."

 

AUTHOR: ADRIAN QUIRARTE - (United States) USING OPORTUN INC AS A MODEL EMPLOYER, PROVING SERIOUS AND WILLFUL MISCONDUCT IS A "NO-BRAINER" WHEN THE EMPLOYER DIRECTLY BENEFITED (e.g., PROFITED FINANCIALLY) FROM THE ALLEGED "QUASI-CRIMINAL" ACTIVITIES.

AGGRAVATING FACTORS: DIRECT or INDIRECT SOLICITATION by EMPLOYER and INSURANCE COMPANY to DISMISS MY CLAIM in HOPES that EVIDENCE WOULD DISSIPATE or REACH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, EMPLOYER MISLEAD INVESTIGATIVE AGENCIES to DISMISS my COMPLAINTS for "HUMANITARIAN PURPOSES" (PROFIT) REGARDLESS OF THE LONG TERM IMPACT of A PERSON or PERSONS WELLBEING, INVOLVEMENT by EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT, PERVASIVE MISCONDUCT, SIGNIFICANT PROFIT from MISCONDUCT, REPEAT OFFENDERS. TO PROVE those as mentioned above, OPORTUN STATES THE FOLLOWING: 

A. "NEGATIVE PUBLICITY or PUBLIC PERCEPTION of our INDUSTRY or our COMPANY COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT OUR REPUTATION, BUSINESS, and RESULTS of OPERATIONS."

B."SECURITY BREACHES of CUSTOMERS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT WE STORE MAY HARM OUR REPUTATION, ADVERSELY AFFECT our RESULTS OF OPERATIONS, and EXPOSE US TO LIABILITY."

C."IF WE or our competitors RECEIVE NEGATIVE PUBLICITY MAKING LOANS TO UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS, IT MAY DRAW ADDITIONAL ATTENTION from regulatory bodies or consumer advocacy groups, ALL WHICH MAY HARM OUR BRAND AND BUSINESS." 

D."OPORTUN POLICY, specifically MANDATES, that employees REPORT ANY SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR." 

E."COMPLAINANT DID NOT ENGAGE in any PROTECTED ACTIVITY because HE DID NOT have a REASONABLE BELIEF of ANY UNLAWFUL CONDUCT."

F."COMPLAINANT has NOT PROVIDED and CANNOT PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE that OPORTUN took any ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION AGAINST HIM, let alone any action, BECAUSE OF HIS NATIONAL ORIGIN."( PROTECTED STATUS)

G."COMPLAINANTS CLAIM FAILS because HE IS UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE that OPORTUN ENGAGED in any RETALIATORY CONDUCT."

EXPANDING ON OPORTUN INC SENSE OF PROTECTED ACTIVITIES: SEEKING INFORMATION or LEGAL ADVICE on your WORKPLACE RIGHTS, NOTIFYING ANYONE about a POSSIBLE VIOLATION of LEGAL RIGHTS in YOUR WORKPLACE, COMPLAINING that YOU or SOMEONE ELSE IS OWED UNPAID WAGES, COMPLAINING about HARASSMENT or DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT ON THE JOB, COMPLAINING ABOUT UNSAFE WORKING CONDITIONS, TALKING WITH YOUR COWORKERS ABOUT YOUR WAGES or WORKPLACE CONCERNS, FILING A WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM, FILING or PARTICIPATING IN A COMPLAINT with a GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY, FILING a LAWSUIT AGAINST YOUR EMPLOYER, or SUPPORTING coworkers, WHO HAVE FILED a LAWSUIT, WHISTLEBLOWING (ALERTING GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES about your EMPLOYERS UNLAWFUL PRACTICES)...

RETALIATION, including ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS, INCLUDE: FIRING or LAYING OFF, DEMOTING, DENYING OVERTIME OR PROMOTION, DISCIPLINING, DENYING BENEFITS, FAILING to HIRE or REHIRE, INTIMIDATION or HARASSMENT, MAKING THREATS, REASSIGNMENT to a LESS DESIRABLE POSITION, ACTIONS AFFECTING PROSPECTS FOR ADVANCEMENT, REDUCING PAY OR HOURS, ISOLATING, OSTRACIZING, MOCKING or FALSELY ACCUSING OF POOR PERFORMANCE, BLACKLISTING, and CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE.

 

AUTHOR: ADRIAN QUIRARTE - (United States) AS AN OUTCOME of the increasing documents that reflect poorly on Oportun Inc's lack of experience with EMPLOYMENT LAWS, I have been further incentivized to INVESTIGATE THE TERMS ON "AGREEMENTS OF NON-DISCLOSURE." 

THE LANGUAGE IN THE CONTRACT when departing from an employer, SHOULD BE QUITE LONG and THE DIRECTOR should strive to COVER: "ANY AND ALL" LIABILITIES, COMPLAINTS, PROMISES, and CAUSES OF ACTION IN LAW AGAINST THE COMPANY and its OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, SHAREHOLDERS, EMPLOYEES, SUBSIDIARIES, PARENT COMPANIES, AFFILIATES, SUCCESSORS...CLAIMS RELATED TO DISCRIMINATION, DISCRIMINATION BASED ON DISABILITY, VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS, VIOLATIONS OF THE FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT, WRONGFUL TERMINATION, all which Oportun failed to provide. (e.g: SOCIAL MEDIA)

I HAD BEEN SENT A NOTICE OF TERMINATION to THE INCORRECT MAILING ADDRESS JANUARY 23,2019. Following receiving the NOTICE OF TERMINATION 30 DAYS LATER, THE ONLY ANSWERS I RECEIVED FROM OPORTUNS HR was that THE CHECK FINAL CHECK noted IN THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION had BEEN DONE IN ERROR, moreover, OPORTUNS DECISIONS to TERMINATE MY EMPLOYMENT had NOTHING TO DO WITH MY WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM (LC 132a). 

A PRIOR LAWSUIT AGAINST OPORTUN alleged that OPORTUNS DIRECTORS BREACHED THEIR FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS by ORGANIZING SEVERAL ROUNDS OF FINANCING — IN WHICH OPORTUNS SHAREHOLDERS WERE WIPED OUT.

HAVING PRIOR MISTRUSTS with OPORTUNS EXECUTIVES ACCOUNTING PRACTICES, INTERNAL CONTROLS, and AUDITING TROUBLES when considering SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES such as DUPLICATING RECEIPTS, ALTERING, BACKDATING FUTURE DATING DATES or FORMS and CASES WHERE THERE ARE SIGNS OF COLLUSION by OPORTUN EMPLOYEES and its ADMINISTRATORS; the FINAL PAYCHECK NOTED BY OPORTUNS HR DEPARTMENT DONE IN ERROR triggered me to consider SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES such as TIMEKEEPING, AUTHORIZING OVERTIME, CHECK PREPARATION, DISTRIBUTION, CHECK SIGNING, BANK RECONCILIATIONS. FURTHERMORE WHEN THE OPORTUN PAYROLL EMPLOYEE HAD NOTIFIED ANOTHER OPORTUN EMPLOYEE and me:

1." I WAS VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE AND WAS IMPRESSED WITH MY WILLINGNESS TO HELP OTHER EMPLOYEES.”

2." THAT ALTHOUGH SHE DOES PAYROLL; SHE IS UNAWARE OF ALL THE STATE LAWS REGARDING PAYROLL BECAUSE SHE HAS MANY JOB DUTIES.”

3. " SHE WAS RELUCTANT TO SPEAK TO ME REGARDING THE COMPANIES POLICY ON UNPAID WAGES BECAUSE I COULD GET HER OR THE COMPANY IN TROUBLE." 

4. THE DUPLICATE CLAIM FOR "LA PLACITA KIOSK" (1690 STORY ROAD SUITE C+D SAN JOSE CA) FILED "IN ERROR" BY THE CLAIMS EXAMINER, INVITING ME TO ENROLL in DIRECT ACH PAYMENTS for an INSURED/EMPLOYER THAT DOES NOT EXIST.

5. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR ( ON "PERSONAL TIME OFF" SIMULTANEOUSLY OPENING TWO DUPLICATE CLAIMS IN MY NAME?) and HER DEFENSE ATTORNEY; SEVERAL INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE DEFENDANT PARTY ENCOURAGED ME TO LOOK FURTHER INTO WHAT ARE COMMONLY KNOWN AS " GHOST PAYROLL EMPLOYEES and MONEY MULE SCHEMES."

 

AUTHOR: ADRIAN QUIRARTE - (United States) The public statements made in Oportuns interest concerns the Directors' and Officers' Insurance Liability Coverage and is directly associated with my claim of Serious and Willful Misconduct by my employer under LC 4553. 

1."No public market for our common stock currently exists, and an active public trading market may not develop or be sustained following this offering." "The lack of an active market may impair your ability to sell your shares at the time you wish to sell them or at a price that you consider reasonable. The lack of an active market may also reduce the market price of your shares of common stock."

2."The price of our common stock may be volatile, and you could lose all or part of your investment."-"The trading price of our common stock following this offering may fluctuate substantially and will depend on a number of factors, including those described in this "Risk Factors" section, many of which are beyond our control and may not be related to our operating performance. These fluctuations could cause you to lose all or part of your investment in our common stock because you might be unable to sell your shares at or above the price you paid in this offering.

We also expect that being a public company will make it more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced coverage, incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage or only obtain coverage with a significant deductible." 

3. "Changes in immigration patterns, policy or enforcement could affect some of our customers, including those who may be undocumented immigrants, and consequently impact the performance of our loans, our business and results of operations."- "Some of our customers are immigrants and some may not be U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens. We follow appropriate customer identification procedures as mandated by law, including accepting government issued picture identification that may be issued by non-U.S. governments, as permitted by the USA PATRIOT Act, but we do not verify the immigration status of our customers, which we believe is consistent with industry best practices and is not required by law. While our credit models look to approve customers who have stability of residency and employment, it is possible that a significant change in immigration patterns, policy or enforcement could cause some customers to emigrate from the United States, either voluntarily or involuntarily, or slow the flow of new immigrants to the United States. 

Immigration reform is a legislative priority of the current administration, which could lead to changes in laws that make it more difficult or less desirable for immigrants to work in the United States, resulting in increased delinquencies and losses on our loans or a decrease in future originations due to more difficult for potential customers to earn income. 

In addition, if we or our competitors receive negative publicity around making loans to undocumented immigrants, it may draw additional attention from regulatory bodies or consumer advocacy groups, all of which may harm our brand and business. 

There is no assurance that a significant change in U.S. immigration patterns, policy, laws, or enforcement will not occur. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature, or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action. Any such change could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flow.”

SOME OF THE ATTACHMENTS ARE RELATED TO A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY THAT INVOLVES: SUSPECTED CORPORATE FRAUD AND IDENTITY THEFT, EMPLOYING UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS, LABOR VIOLATIONS, OFF-SHORE ACCOUNTS, TAX EVASION, FALSE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, GHOST EMPLOYEES, GHOST PAYROLL, BANAMEX (CITIBANAMEX), BBVA MEXICO BANK, HSBC BANK MEXICO, LA PARRILLA EL DIAMANTE COCINA MEXICANA XALAPA VERACRUZ MEXICO http://laparrilladiamante.com.mx .  

I WAS NOT EMPLOYED OR RECEIVED WAGES FROM THE BUSINESS BALDERAS JALAPEÑOS MEXICAN KITCHEN AND GRILL INC. STONESTOWN GALLERIA SAN FRANCISCO CA and FOUND OUT MUCH LATER THAT MY NAME HAD BEEN FRAUDULENTLY USED TO OPEN AN LLC AS PART OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. THE BUSINESS CLOSED AND THE PERPETRATORS RELOCATED.

I presume that the Defendants in action ( Oportun Inc.) will continue to want to take my deposition and interrogate me about my personal history and prior relationships; however, I would like the Defendants to take into account that I do not know where any of the individuals involved are residing other than in The Mexican States. I ask that moving forward, the defendants please acknowledge receiving my correspondence.

WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 27, 2019

 

Hello Mr. Thorndal,

I have not received a reply from you in quite some time. I did, however, receive a letter from Zurich American informing me that a new (third) claims specialist has been assigned to my claim. 

Because my employer, Oportun Inc., continues to hold its personal opinions and oppose the merits of my claim, it is unclear if the newly appointed case-manager with Zurich will continue to play a key role in denying my claim and past-due benefits as well.

The last time you filed a petition with the WCAB, you declared that I had omitted pages from form DHCS 6247. 

Reasonably, there was no way for me to prove what you had alleged was false. You could have easily omitted those pages yourself to buy you more time at my expense. 

You had made a request of two thousand dollars towards your salary for "wasting your time", to be exact. 

On the morning of October 7, 2019, I told you over the telephone that I had the forms digitally scanned and that I would be re-sending them to you the very same day. You never answered when I had asked you if you had received them. 

I received your letter dated November 15, 2019, asking me to please sign the enclosed Protected Health Information Authorization release forms from Santa Clara County Behavioral Health Services. 

I have done as you had asked. I have signed, dated, and initialed the PHI Authorization form and will be mailing it to you via USPS this afternoon. Please let me know when you receive it. 

I presume you will continue to want to take my deposition and interrogate me about my personal history and prior relationships; however, I would like you to take into account that I do not know where any of the individuals involved were residing until recent news headlines began to appear October 5, 2019, identifying 2 of the individuals that have been mentioned in PHI reports you possess.

 

Please see the attachments, as they do provide me with credibility referencing both my employer and past relationships. I ask that moving forward, you please acknowledge receiving my correspondence.

 

Regards,

Adrian Quirarte

Hello Mr. Chicoine,   I have understood, that many landlords rely on the assumption that tenants do not know their legal rights. Harassment of the tenant is pursued in order to avoid costly legal fees and the hassle of a legal eviction and, most importantly, the landlord typically has no actual cause to evict the tenant other than their bad faith motivation to substantially raise the rent.  

Furthermore, I have read that It is important for tenants to be extremely diligent in notating each harassing event. Tenants should maintain a log with dates and times. If possible, they should also get pictures and recordings.    I wanted to provide a transcript in support of landlord harassment.

Harassment endlessly continued day and night until the landlord was able to file a 3-day pay or quit notice and get his attorney involved. After that communication stopped.   Mr. Chicoine, does it seem fair for a landlord to compel me to write statements via phone calls and text to benefit the landlord while intentionally wasting a disabled tenants' resources and time to win an eviction lawsuit in order to maintain a good reputation with your organization? ( If the landlord's repetitive demands seem hard to follow, that’s because they were!)   

I had asked the landlord over the course of 2 years to inspect the electrical wiring in the unit, fix the windows, replace the lock on the rear door because it was both dangerous and damaged my electronics.    I had mentioned to my landlord that just because I had renters insurance, it was not a good enough reason to ignore the problems and assume that my renters' insurance policy would cover property in the event it was damaged.  

And Based on this transcript alone, if each instance (even when driving) I was threatened, pressured or compelled to write statements, each time I was harassed by asking if I was going to pay or vacate the premises immediately, how many landlord violations would that be?       

Alfio John Ragonesi 2017-12-18 21:34:39 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Hey Alfio. I just wanted to tell you I had several bulbs burn out on different sockets so maybe there’s an electrical problem. Almost all my lighting in the living room and bedroom burnt out simultaneously. I’m concerned for my electronics. You may want to ask the other tenants if they have experienced electrical problems or some sort of interference    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2017-12-18 21:36:00 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Thanks for letting me know  I will check with other tenants    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2017-12-18 21:44:33 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   I have a surge protector so I believe that has helped but it’s not grounded. The other outlets room and living room  that weren’t protected, including the ceiling burnt out almost simultaneously. So if you could keep me posted. Thanks    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2017-12-18 21:45:56 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   I will. The previous tenants never had an issue. But I will check with other tenants    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2018-03-23 22:00:07 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I asked someone who knows someone from pge. They said it would be best if both look at the situation. But we can talk tomorrow. I'll probably miss Work so if you can get in touch with me early. Thx    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2018-03-24 09:47:41 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   I am home now. I called into work so the earlier the electrician can come the better.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2018-03-24 10:19:34 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Not sure when he can come out. He is busy all day. I will try to get him out later.   If he cannot make I will stop by. I will update you this afternoon   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2018-03-24 10:30:49 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Ok. If you could as soon as possible if the electrician can't make it because I missed work and they want to know if I can come in late.    But I think it might be a more serious problem since I had told you in December that the lights in both the living room and bedroom burnt out and I had to replace them and they burnt out again.    My priority right now is to see if there was any damage to my electronics or if they power on, I won't know this until power is restored.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2018-03-24 10:40:28 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Like I told you yesterday. He would be busy all day and I would try to get him out later today. I will keep you updated   Alfio John Ragonesi 2018-03-24 12:49:35 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Ok.

Well I'm not sure, but the guys that came to repair the floors are next door.    I could have them take a look at it since they might know more about it, if that's ok with you.    Or If the electrician is going to be a problem, I can try to find one myself and just deduct it out of the rent which is a standard procedure.   

I have an urgency because I need to know if any of my electronics were damaged due to the power surge, however I believe that having the surge protectors in place wouldn't have caused reversible damage to the electrical system, and shutting down half of the apartment.    This is very important because I can't wait around I indefinitely if this is going to get fixed today or not, I depend on the electrical outlets working and my electronics working and I can't miss work, if nothing happens today I'll have to miss another day tomorrow.   

I had already told you about the lights in December and showed you a picture of the door on the side of the rear entrance that looked tampered and you said that it was just the old telephone lines. This is an on-going issue.    

Please excuse my frustration. But understand that if I don't have anyone look at this tonight the lights or other side of the apartment could go out too, it would be a second night staying out and not going to work.    Alfio John Ragonesi 2018-01-21 17:26:03 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   I am ok with your friend staying.  I will talk to Abode, they owe me $200. I will investigate   Alfio John Ragonesi 2018-01-21 17:28:21 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   200 for what?

And what about reimbursement for security cameras? They seem necessary. I will Be meeting with her tomorrow after work so I can discuss anything you may want to know about I can ask her tomorrow.   Alfio John Ragonesi 2018-01-21 17:29:46 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   They owe me from unit 5 garage door Being open. I have a fine they have to pay   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2018-01-21 17:30:39 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Oh ok. I can bring it up to them, since I have photos and witnessed them. They actually just drove in right this second. I thought they were gone.    Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 19:07:30 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Hey Alfio, ”It's not my people” or mob as you had suggested, I simply knew that VMC ( Valley Medical Center) engages in discriminatory practices yet alleges that they provide high-quality healthcare at competitive prices.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 20:31:01 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Please send me your email address.  Thank you    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 20:50:42 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   What did you need my email address for? You have never asked for it before.   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 20:51:36 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   I need to send you document via email    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 20:55:24 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   You can send it to my P.O Box. When I goes through the system it scans and sends me an image to my email.     ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 20:57:23 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   I need to give you the document before the 31st. If I mail it will get there on the 31st.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 21:01:20 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Don't really feel comfortable giving out my email. It's  not even the first of November?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 21:01:55 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   How can you send me a document if I'm the rent is still paid?   Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 21:59:42 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   At this point it does not matter. You already acknowledge you received it. I just need answer so I can schedule my Thursday night and my Friday night.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 22:00:54 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   If you're just making a general statement ok. But I haven't even been late on my rent 1 day as of today.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 22:02:10 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   That has nothing to do with the letter you just read. I need to know what you are going to do so I can make plans on the unit.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 22:03:22 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Ok    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 22:04:19 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   What is your answer, do I come Thursday to pickup keys or do I come Friday to pickup rent?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 22:05:21 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Why do you continue to ask me?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 22:06:53 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I was very clear that I do not have a plan. You also said that you would not write in your petition to file an eviction or to a judge that you tried to assist me with HomeFirst but it didn't work out.   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 22:07:23 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Because I need to know what to do? You have not given me any answer if you are moving out Thursday or staying.   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 22:08:34 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   How do you reasonably expect me to have an answer for you at this moment.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 22:08:54 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Your last day is Thursday, I would like to pickup the keys to the unit.  If you want to stay then you are on a month to month contract.  I just need to know your decision so I can move forward one way or another.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 22:09:24 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Let me know Thursday what you decide.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 22:09:41 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   How do landlords usually handle evictions? You are making it seem as if you can't go one day without one months rent.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 22:10:57 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I have not read anywhere that a landlord must force you to move out if he cannot cover the rent  in the event the tenant is unable to pay due to lack of a subsidized payment.   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 22:11:23 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   I cannot speak for other landlords    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 22:14:35 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I understand but the fact that you make it seem like you are sincerely unable to afford any type of emergencies or delay in rent, would give anyone probable cause to think that you will take matters outside of the law or through fair legal proceedings.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 22:15:50 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   This is a tenant based rental agreement not a master rental agreement.

You signed the rental agreement to pay rent on the first of every month. You are responsible for the rent and health trust had made it clear when they sent you the letter on September 26th that your subsidy had ended on October 31st   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 22:17:40 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Ok. I am clear on HealthTrust not making the next subsidized payment.    You said you were going to take out 68.33 per day. Then you said it violates the contract because you can't take money from the deposit but that you were being nice.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 22:18:31 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Let me know your decision Thursday.  Thank you    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 22:19:49 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Ok. But you are making me extremely concerned that you don't have the finances to cover landlord emergencies . Not just with me, but tenants in general.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-29 22:35:27 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Ryan said it would take you 3 weeks to give me the deposit back. I don't know how long you had in mind to return the deposit should I have gone with your suggested eviction plan?   ——————————————————————————   Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-30 13:22:58 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I told him the soonest possible date to look for a storage unit and supplies to move and look for movers would be when I get my social security payment next week.   

lfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-30 14:31:10 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   What is your zip code for your P.O. Box    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-30 14:31:28 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   I am overnighting it. You will receive it tomorrow    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-30 14:31:31 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   95155   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-30 14:32:09 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Based on your text you will not be out tomorrow.  Do you have a date you will be out?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-30 14:32:17 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   When I receive it. It send me an image    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-30 14:32:36 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I do not. I'm filling out applications right now.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-30 14:59:35 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   You will receive the letter tomorrow by noon!   lfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 10:31:23 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Hey Alfio.

Is that your tracking number    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 10:33:13 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   I am not home now. It could be    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 10:36:26 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Did you receive the letter?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 10:41:27 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   It says it's scheduled by 12:00pm    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 10:41:36 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I am not at the post office    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 10:42:53 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   But what is that letter, other than telling me that you tried to assist me with health trust through the month of October but it didn't work out?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 10:45:55 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I just want to make sure if you do something it's a real unlawful detainer and not an altered, future-dated, back-dated copy from another unlawful detainer because I've seen that happen before to save money.  

Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 10:48:25 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Is this an unlawful detainer? Or what is this letter called?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 10:49:26 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   The letter is what I sent you the other day. I just need you to tell me when you are moving out or staying.  If you are moving I am putting the unit on the rental market. If you are staying I will stop by tomorrow to pickup rent.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 10:50:58 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I imagine whatever is required by law needs to have a true and factual statement to be signed by a judge and not an altered copied or digital signature to appear as the real thing, to give to police and expedite an unlawful eviction.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 10:52:05 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Ok. Tomorrow when you ask me what time I will be home to pick up the rent, I'm going to have to reply that I don't have this month's rent and specify the reasons why.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 10:54:56 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   You said could be ”sooner” than expected meaning that depending on whatever statements you provide your petition.    Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 10:57:38 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   It's the 31st   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 11:03:29 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   It is illegal for a landlord to try to force a tenant to move out of a rental unit. The tenant can only be removed after the landlord has successfully won an eviction lawsuit.

Even then, the only person who can legally remove the tenant from the rental unit is a sheriff.     If you are evicting a tenant from a month-to-month lease, you will need to give the tenant a 30-day notice to move out. If the tenant has lived in the unit for more than one year, the notice must be extended to 60 days.    In government-subsidized housing, the notice must be 90 days.   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 11:05:10 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Is this considered government subsidized housing?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 11:07:11 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   This is not an eviction notice!  I need answer if you are moving out today or are you staying?     ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 11:07:55 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Ryan doesn't know if this is government subsidized housing. If he doesnt have the answer how can I?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 11:08:48 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   This is not government subsidized housing.  I am an independent landlord    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 11:09:05 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Now you have the answer.  You can move forward now!   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 11:14:04 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I will write you a letter in response to the one I receive this afternoon.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 11:16:32 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   That way there's a formal response concurrent with the last 30 days.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 11:21:50 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I'd have to look at statistics and see how common it is to wrongfully expiditie an eviction from supportive housing and/or use police or any other type of force, threats or fear to be removed and withhold (or dispose )property so that negative credit, an eviction on record, the loss of property, the loss of deposit further assists individuals living in poverty transition into gaining independence.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 11:23:44 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   It says subsidized housing is ”find your own place and use the voucher to pay for all or part of the rent. ”    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 11:36:15 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   If I am not being truthful then I should have no merit that all of the above are true.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 12:05:45 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   In any case, I will start to look for storage once I get my SSI for November. That way I can begin to move the items I deem to have the most value out of the apartment.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 12:17:44 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   That way for whatever reasons you decide to provide, its is clear that I never planned on abandoning my property which is 15,000 more or less and just purchased in 2018 when I was working. 

  Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 12:26:56 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   It's wouldn't be reasonable whatsoever for me to abandon my property.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 12:31:36 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   After a tenant moves out of a unit how many days or weeks does it take before you make an inspection of the unit and the deposit is returned to the tenant?    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 12:45:36 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   I have up to 21 days to return deposit. It can be less    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 12:45:59 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   I would do inspection the day you move out    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 12:46:47 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   If you are evicted that changes everything.  I can use the deposit for the eviction attorney fees.

You probably would get nothing back    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 12:47:37 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   That is why I am trying to tell you. It is better to move out than get an eviction    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 12:51:01 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   How long do you reasonably think I would need to move out and find a safe and stable living place to put my property in given the current situation I am currently in? Reasonably.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 12:51:49 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Also the subsidy payments to you are made from government grants. You said I am not in government subsidized housing.  

You are an independent landlord    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 12:54:19 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   All I can tell you the rent is due on the first and late after the 3rd. Work with Ryan.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 12:54:47 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   You have had more than 4 weeks to figure that all out   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 12:57:37 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Ok. I will write an answer to the letter that you sent to my P.O Box to clarify any history or future misconceptions about what happened in the last 30 days.

How many days do you require to have that in hand?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 13:00:17 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Work with Ryan.  Rent is due on the first and late after the 3rd.  If you do not pay the rent I will start the eviction process.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 13:01:08 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Where are unlawful detainers filed in SCC?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 13:02:58 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   I turn everything over the eviction attorney.  It will then be out of my hands    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 13:03:03 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I need to make sure if I recieve a formal notice and what venue.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 13:03:29 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   You said you would hold back information from your attorney to benefit your complaint.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 13:03:32 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Work with Ryan to move out as soon as possible.   

Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:26:11 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Did you overnight your response?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:26:24 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   How?? I just picked it up!   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:26:33 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Send me the tracking number   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:26:36 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Why would I overnight it?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:27:37 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   What you text me earlier on the day.

 The response to my letter I emailed you today. You received it at noon today    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:27:45 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Yes?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:27:53 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   *mailed   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:27:57 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I still need to go to the post office to pick it up    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:28:16 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   What is the tracking number so I can pick it up tomorrow    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:28:21 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I didn't get it exactly at noon    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:28:40 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I didn't send you any response    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:28:44 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Ok.

You received it earlier    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:28:48 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   ??   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:28:54 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   You told me you would    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:29:31 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   No. You sent me a letter you said I would get today by noon. I just recieved it.

I have not read It or opened it yet.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:29:46 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I can't even tell you if it's the same letter you sent me a photo of   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:29:55 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Because it's not open yet.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:30:18 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Then why did you tell me earlier you would send me a response today!!   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:30:38 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I did not say I would respond today.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:31:08 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I am responding to your letter so it does not go unacknowledged.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:31:29 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Please respond ASAP!    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:32:01 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   I am waiting to know if I should pickup keys tonight or you are staying month to month.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:32:09 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   But it's not any type of legal document. You wanted to send me a letter expressing your concerns about not getting assistance from health trust. I found it was a good idea to respond. But i don't think I'm required to respond and overnight it the very same day.   

Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:32:37 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I just recieved it. How would you expect a response.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:33:33 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   You are supposed to be moved out today and I am waiting to find out what you are doing?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:35:00 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Why do you need to know what I am doing?    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:35:32 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Because you are supposed to be moved out today    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:35:35 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I am going to respond to your letter. But I just recieved it just now. I don't think I'm legally required to overnight it since I just got it just now.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:35:51 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I thought you wanted me to write you a response.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:36:09 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I am planning on writing you a response to your letter I just recieved.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:36:23 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   If you are staying past today which you have not told me anything    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:36:51 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I said I am going to write you a response.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:38:07 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Tell one thing. Are you going to be out tonight?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:38:36 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   You seem to act as if you're hiding something?!   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:38:44 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   How can I be out by tonight?!   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:38:51 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Ok    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:39:34 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   I want to stop by tomorrow to pickup rent, what time will you be home?    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:40:02 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I did not tell you I would be out by tonight, using your judgement do you reasonably think I can be out with all my property and find a stable place to live with all my property and put a deposit down by midnight?!   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:41:15 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   You knew since September 26th that October 31st was your last day. You had plenty of time to prepare for this day.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:41:29 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Do you have that letter from September 26   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:42:06 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Because Ryan said he sent mail to me, but all I got was a letter saying HealthTrust was moving to a new location.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:42:11 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Heath trust sent it to you.     ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:42:35 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   We discussed it back on the 26th   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:43:05 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   It does not say that I need to be out of the unit anywhere on that letter.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:43:59 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   The text on that letter does not say I need to be out of the unit or else I will face certain repercussions for staying.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:44:11 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Ok. Since you are planning on staying. I will be by tomorrow to pickup the rent.  What time will you be home?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:44:34 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I have concerns you will copy or alter prior notices to past tenants to get your way.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:44:56 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Or use that with police or manufacture electronic evidence to get your way.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:45:35 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   You aren't using reasonable judgement. As if you have something to hide, completely unrelated to me being in that unit.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:46:04 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   I will be by tomorrow to pickup rent.  What time will you be home?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:48:39 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I will let you know if I can come up with the rent. Remember, you had planned to take out 68.33 just a few days ago. That was something you had suggested.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:48:50 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I did not come up with that number on my own.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:49:04 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   How did you come up with 68.33 per day?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:49:33 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Let me know what time and I will be by tomorrow to pickup rent    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:51:28 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Ok but why did you tell me you were going to charge me 68.33 per day a few days ago. I didn't even know that you couldn't do that and I had agreed to it.   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:52:27 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   The rent is $2,050. Text me tomorrow when I can stop by.  Thank you    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:52:29 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Then you told me that you were willing to violate the contract to be nice, but I am guessing that clause is in the contract for a reason.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:52:36 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Ok   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-10-31 18:53:03 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   See you tomorrow.  Thank you    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 09:22:48 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   I would like to stop by and pickup the rent.  What time are you home today.  Thank you    Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:20:18 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I remember that you offered for me to put stuff in the garage and I responded ”how and where”...    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:23:02 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   There is no way that this place would be secure and safe to put my property in. Someone can easily come in through the garage doors if left open.    I did see signs that say that the garage is being surveillanced but David said the signs are fake so I cannot take that chance.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:27:53 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I could give you my subsidized portion of the rent like I always but it seems you won't take my regular payment. Keep in mind, I have never been late or had any problems paying my rent for two years.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:30:16 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   I can stop by and pickup the $352.00.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:30:36 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Are you home now    Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:35:33 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Would you be able to give me receipts for the rents I have paid. Just so that I have proof that I have paid always on time and what amounts. I always got receipts anywhere I have paid rent.    I think it's a good idea to have since I did not expect that this would become incredibly difficult, and I would like a history of the dates and payments I have made over the past 2 years.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:38:05 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   I will give you a receipt for this months payment when I pick it up    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:38:09 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   If you have a history of payments saved. I have no problem if you put it on a cd-rom. I can export them and put them into a flash drive to print them out at a later time.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:38:17 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   What about the past rents?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:38:46 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I need proof that I have always paid on time and the amounts I have paid.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:38:46 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   You are all paid in full.   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:39:03 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I know but I need receipts for the past 2 years.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:39:22 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   I can give you a letter that says you are all paid in full since you have moved in.   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:41:11 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   A letter? But I want dates and amounts the to show that I have never been late.   Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:44:52 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Give me the dates you have paid me since you moved in and I will put it on the letter.  Otherwise you have been paid in full. You do not need to worry about past months. You are paid in full. You need to worry about this month.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:45:26 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   You have not been late.  Let's keep it that way for the future    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:46:33 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   You don't have record of the dates and the amounts I paid you?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:47:18 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   ”Many states require landlords to give tenants a receipt for the rent. This protects tenants who pay in cash, who would have no other way to prove that they did indeed pay the rent if they are challenged by the landlord.”   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:48:18 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   I just stated you are paid in full up until October 31, 2019 and I will give you a letter stating that fact.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:49:02 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   You need to be concerned about this month.  That is what we are both working on   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:49:37 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Many states require landlords to give tenants a receipt for the rent. This protects tenants who pay in cash, who would have no other way to prove that they did indeed pay the rent if they are challenged by the landlord.   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:50:02 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   You need to be concerned about this month.  That is what we are both working on   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:50:55 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Let me know what time I can stop by today. Thank you    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:54:43 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I have to work on both my work and the rent on this month and get a history of the dates and amounts I paid.    I always get receipts, and they had always offered when I pay.    You should have a record if you are doing your accounting for your business? What I am asking for is in addition for my own records while I work on getting you the rent and look for storage etc and go to appointments etc. You have plenty of time to get those to me.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:57:57 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Please overnight me a letter stating exactly what you need. Be very specific on dates and times and sign it.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:58:30 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   My address: PO Box 41184 San Jose ca 95160.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:58:36 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Overnight costs 25.00   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:58:42 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Send me the tracking number once mailed   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:58:55 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Why do you need it overnight when it's still in San Jose?    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:59:25 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Because you need to pay the rent today. I do not want any delays    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 11:59:51 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I use the post office  all the time. I have a good idea how much it costs to mail correspondence.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 12:00:29 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Send me tracking number once mailed. I will need it by tomorrow. Thank you    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 12:02:53 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Ok, I'll look into it. I simply asked if you could give me receipts for the past two years to have proof I paid on time each time. While I do whatever additional tasks I need to do for both my work and my current living situation.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 12:05:17 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   I need everything in writing now. Remember you told me text messages are not good and that is why I had to over night you the letter you received yesterday.     ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 12:06:49 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Ok.  Receipts are just common when paying in cash. I could look into my bank account history, but that's not typically how it works.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 12:07:28 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   More importantly.  What time can I stop by for the rent today?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 12:07:36 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   But I will work on responding to your letter to let you know I have acknowledged receiving it. I don't know what the letter is for exactly but I will respond to it.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 12:08:55 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   More importantly.  What time can I stop by for the rent today?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 12:10:34 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I will keep you updated with everything. I need to run errands. I cannot text and write your responses on a computer  simultaneously. I also told you that I am working seeking a storage unit, address whatever needs to be addressed regarding my work and my current living situation.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 12:11:05 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Thank you    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 14:52:04 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I am at the post office. At this time it's not to send you the letter you asked me to overnight you.    I just need to ask what it is that you want me to write in that letter.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 14:52:49 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Answer my questions    Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 15:08:21 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   1. Answer my letter about staying past October 31   2 how long are you staying. You are on a month to month with rent of $2,050 per month    3. Separate letter asking me for receipts. Be specific with dates and times and amounts you want receipts for   There needs to be 2 separate letters. Signed and dated. Also over night them to me with tracking numbers.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 15:13:51 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   When we speak on the phone you say I hurt your feelings and you feel I let you down because health trust didn't provide me with another subsidy,    1.I got a call from Michelle 1 time.   2. I went got the documentation from a clinical case manager and social worker as she had told me to do.    3. I went in person to HealthTrust to give it to Michelle   4. Juan didn't call me back until last Wednesday on the way to the airport.    5. You asked me on Thursday if I could go to scared heart on the following Friday to get emergency fund relief. Which I told you I did.    6. You then told me you would take out 68.33 from my rent per day   7. About 7 of 8 days later Juan Guel called me back and that's was where you started changed your behavior. Which was this week.    8. You said the 68.33 was breaking the contract you were doing it to be nice but you changed your mind.    9. You asked me to write a response to your letter I just received declaring all of the above.      ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 15:16:30 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Please answer the question I sent you in the letter.  Thank you    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 15:17:20 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I have like 8 or more voicemails I left asking various places for immediate assistance to cover the rent because you really needed it as you had kept asking me to do.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 15:18:31 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Is that the first notice to pay or quit that you sent me?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 15:19:06 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   It's neither   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 15:19:41 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   What is the letter I received called?    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 15:20:29 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I thought it was the pay or quit 3 day notice. I told you it was too early for you to give me that letter since I was still paid through the month.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 15:20:33 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   There is no name.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 15:20:48 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   It's not a 3 day notice    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 15:21:11 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Never said it was and it does not state that on the letter   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 15:21:43 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Then what is the letter called? And what is it for?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 15:22:28 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   I wanted an answer on what your plans are.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 15:22:32 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   In writing    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 15:22:53 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Do you plan to stay or move.  Very simple    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 15:27:38 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I should wait until Monday to ask someone what to write. Right now it's Friday afternoon and I don't want to write statements under duress without first asking someone.    Also if you already told me that you are giving this to your attorney and moving forward with litigation, so it seems you have already started some kind of process while I was still paid through the month, if paid my subsidy portion of 352.00 to be in good standing it seems as I would just be losing that in the process also.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 15:30:01 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Can I stop by today to pickup the rent?  I will be over around 4:30. Thank you    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 15:33:45 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   I have not stated anything. I just need to know what you are staying or moving    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 15:34:05 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Will you be home around 4:30 today    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 15:55:29 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I am going to have to wait until Monday to give you an answer.    I am going to need extra money to move. I need to look for a storage unit and at the very least move all the items that I can move on my own and items of value to the storage unit.    This is reasonable, because if I don't start moving my property it my appear as if I have no plan on moving or it may appear that I am abandoning my property which I have told you time and time again I am not.    I had told you I planned to start moving my personal property around September 28 or 29 or maybe even a little bit after that.   Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 20:10:35 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I jotted down most of what has become of the last 30 days for the response you had asked me to write in regards to homefirst but I just needed to let you know I'm working on it, but I need to wait until Monday to look for answers.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-01 20:16:29 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I can't take any chances with what has taken place this past week so I had to immediately bring it by you.   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 16:03:19 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   What time tomorrow can I stop by and pickup rent and how much will you be paying?  Thank you Al   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 16:33:02 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I will provide you an answer tomorrow. On Friday afternoon, you had asked me to write you two letters signed and dated by me and overnighted on Friday.    This was around 3:08 or so. Most post offices close at 5:00 pm.    You also never explained to me why you wanted it overnighted and send you the tracking number.    You pressured me to write statements and sign under duress and expedite it overnight giving me less than a 2-hour window.    I told you I would need to wait until Monday to write you those letters.    Should I have any type of question regarding what you had asked me to do, it would be practical for me to wait until after the weekend to get those answers should I need to ask.   I will also look into options to move personal property that I can move on my own.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 16:33:58 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   If I can't get you an answer tomorrow I just provided you the reasons why.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 16:39:38 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   My CPAP machine requires me to use it daily. It is prescribed by a doctor and It's part of my treatment. It needs to be used to normalize daily functioning. This is life-threatening if I don't have a power source to use it.        ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 16:44:25 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Going to the ER in one day can average 7,400.00 billed to my insurance. That is more than 3 times 1 months rent.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 16:45:13 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   The question was when I can pickup the rent?  Let me know tomorrow what time I can stop by.  Thank you    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 16:46:32 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Ok I will provide you with an answer tomorrow. How much are you asking me to pay?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 16:47:54 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   $2,050 is what due. You said you can pay me $352.00.  Let me know what amount so I know what to expect.  Thank you    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 16:51:42 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Ok because that's 1.5 times more than what I get from my SSI for the entire month.    Take into account that paying my normal subsidized payment of 352.00 isn't going to to prevent you from giving me a pay or quit notice, file an eviction or pressuring me to come up with the money or move daily, am I correct?    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 16:54:14 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   If I pay the 352.00 you will still move forward with a pay or quit notice. The same or following day.    I have always paid my rent on time in the past two years otherwise.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 16:55:35 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   What is due is $2,050.00 and you have known about this since September 26th to either move out on October 31st or go to a month to month rent.  You have not given me anything in writing on your last day.  I have no idea if I can rent my property or are you staying.  I have asked and sent you a letter and still to this day I have no idea what you are doing!  Per the contract you signed you are supposed to give me a 30 day notice.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 16:56:40 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   When we speak on the phone you say I hurt your feelings and you feel I let you down because health trust didn't provide me with another subsidy,    1. I got a call from Michelle 1 time.   2. I went got the documentation from a clinical case manager and social worker as she had told me to do.    3. I went in person to HealthTrust to give it to Michelle   4. Juan didn't call me back until last Wednesday on the way to the airport.    5. You asked me on Thursday if I could go to scared heart on the following Friday to get emergency fund relief. Which I told you I did.    6. You then told me you would take out 68.33 from my rent per day   7. About 7 of 8 days later Juan Guel called me back and that's was where you started changed your behavior. Which was this week.    8. You said the 68.33 was breaking the contract you were doing it to be nice but you changed your mind.    9. You asked me to write a response to your letter I just received declaring all of the above.      ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 16:57:27 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   The question was when I can pickup the rent?  Let me know tomorrow what time I can stop by.  Thank you    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 16:58:22 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Ok. I will do my best to answer all your questions tomorrow.   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 16:58:40 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Thank you. See you tomorrow    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 16:59:08 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Ok. I will do my best to answer all your questions tomorrow.   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 16:59:51 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Thank you. See you tomorrow    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 16:59:52 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   This is what you had asked me to do on Friday afternoon.    1. Answer my letter about staying past October 31   2 how long are you staying. You are on a month to month with rent of $2,050 per month    3. Separate letter asking me for receipts. Be specific with dates and times and amounts you want receipts for   There needs to be 2 separate letters. Signed and dated. Also over night them to me with tracking numbers.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 17:01:53 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Check number 3. As a landlord you should have a detailed record of what dates and times and amounts I have paid in the last 24 months for you personal accounting purposes.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 17:06:56 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   I am only going by what you told me.  Overnight any questions in writing and sign it.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 17:07:36 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I have a question when they Home First and Health Trust did inspections, they told me they are HUD guidelines.    The inspections are mandated by the HUD correct? It said it on the notice.     ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 17:07:43 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   You told me not to ask any questions by texting that is why I over nighter that written letter    Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 17:30:21 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Your keep pressuring me to answer questions but I have only asked you if the HUD mandates the inspection requirements and if you keep an accurate itemized report of the rents other clients or myself pay in cash.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 17:32:03 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Tax credits    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 17:32:12 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Please overnight any questions in writing.  Thank you    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 17:42:07 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   It's 5:41 pm. I cannot overnight questions to you. The post office is closed.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 17:46:27 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I think you for the most part answered the questions, but I'll do my best to get questions regarding the HUD and getting receipts for the past 24 months  and answers you asked me to provide to you tomorrow. I'll do my best.    Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 17:58:34 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I but I will upload any type of document in reference to the eviction online should I need to reference to it later at any given time.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 18:04:22 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Just so there's a history of what was exchanged between the two of us in the event I don't have the physical copies of what was said.       ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 18:19:42 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   You told me that you spent ”hours” talking to people trying to get me to stay.    Until this past Monday. How many hours did you spend reaching out to people for 3 weeks and what did you tell them?         ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 18:27:13 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   Because you should have included all that information in the document you decided to mailed me last week.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 18:47:12 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read    "Just to let you know. I am working on getting rid of him!  I am working with his case worker to get him out. He is to much trouble. Do not say anything"     ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-03 18:48:44 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   "I am going monitor him"   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-04 09:06:55 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Good morning Adrian, I would like to stop by today to pickup the rent. What time are you home.  Thank you    ———————————————————   Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-04 09:10:10 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I do not know what time I will be home.    I have an appointment with my primary care doctor today and I have a number of things I need to prepare for our visit. I was just called by his care team.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-04 09:11:17 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Will you have the rent today?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-04 09:19:41 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Can I put the unit up for rent?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-04 09:20:09 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Please let me know the following 2 texts.  Thank you Adrian    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-04 09:22:23 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I told you I would respond to your letter.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-04 09:22:51 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   That way you wouldn't have to be asking by text    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-04 09:24:26 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   You said- Please overnight any questions in writing.  Thank you    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-04 09:25:16 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   You said -You told me not to ask any questions by texting that is why I over nighter that written letter    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-04 09:26:31 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I prefer to answer your questions or respond in writing.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-04 09:26:49 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   Ok I will see your response tomorrow when you will move out. Thank you.    ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-04 09:27:04 from Alfio John Ragonesi - Read   As far as the rent will you have it today?   ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-04 09:28:20 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   If I pay the 352.00 you will still move forward with a pay or quit notice. The same or following day.    I have always paid my rent on time in the past two years otherwise.    ————————————————————————— Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-04 19:00:24 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   I just got home and got the notice on the door. The notice specifies that it is being served in ”good faith.”    Please keep in mind that Good faith is defined as an abstract and comprehensive term that encompasses a sincere belief or motive without any malice or the desire to defraud others.    I will follow the instructions as suggested.         ---------------------------------------------------- Alfio John Ragonesi 2019-11-04 19:03:30 to Alfio John Ragonesi - Sent   You warned me on the telephone that you would hand everything over to your lawyer and that you were not going to be entirely honest with him.     ------------------------------------------------     Regards, Adrian Quirarte

November 6, 2019

 

HONORABLE JUDGE DORA PADILLA

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

100 PASEO de SAN ANTONIO, SUITE 241

SAN JOSE, CA 95113-1246

 

RE: ADRIAN QUIRARTE VS. OPORTUN INC & ZURICH AMERICAN  

WCAB:  ADJ11768432

CLAIM NO. 2010347675

DOI: 01/01/2018- 07-22-19

 

Your Honor,

For months the initial claims examiner, Lorrie Peek, had informed me that I would receive copies of "any and all" medical records once she had them in hand. 

On November 21, 2018, the claims examiner sent me correspondence electronically stating she had received Medical Records from Geoffrey Yoon, M.D., Manpreet Singh Sangh M.D., Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Regional Medical Center of San Jose, Good Samaritan Hospital and Valley Health Center Downtown. 

Furthermore, Ms. Peek requested that these records be expedited to Dr. Sidle and myself. I would be receiving them Monday or Tuesday the following week. I never received them. 

After receiving Dr. Sidles, QME Report dated 11/28/2018 in the mail, I followed up with the claims examiner. I asked Ms. Atamanyuk, how the QME was able to declare in his report under penalty of perjury that he had spent three hours reviewing medical records (which he billed the insurance carrier at two-hundred-fifty dollars an hour).

The second claims examiner, Karoline Atamanyuk, replied that I did not receive any medical records due to "liability reasons” for the insured. Ms. Atamanyuk added that the information I had received from the previous claims examiner in regards to receiving copies of any and all medical records as she received them was wrong. 

Ms. Atamanyuk never offered to provide me with any clause that showed any liabilities to the insurer for providing me with copies of my medical records, as the previous claims examiner had suggested.

Your Honor, it has been approximately 350 days since I was given this information; moreover, that I am just receiving copies of those medical records from the copy service. Both the information and assistance officer and the clerk at the WCAB advised me that this constitutes ex-parte communications between the QME and the claims examiner.

I wanted to close this letter by further mentioning, QMEs are required to treat all injured workers in the same way—that is, not to discriminate against or be biased against anyone because of race, sex, national origin, religion, or sexual preference or because of whether the worker is represented by an attorney. (See, e.g., Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 41(c)(1).) Please see the exhibits.

Regards,

Adrian Quirarte ( Applicant)

 

CC: MULLEN & FILIPPI LLP SAN FRANCISCO ATTN: MARK THORNDAL

255 CALIFORNIA STREET STE. 1150 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111

OCTOBER 31ST, 2019

 

 

HONORABLE JUDGE DORA PADILLA

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

100 PASEO de SAN ANTONIO, SUITE 241

SAN JOSE, CA 95113-1246

 

RE: ADRIAN QUIRARTE VS. OPORTUN INC & ZURICH AMERICAN LAW 

WCAB:  ADJ11768432

CLAIM NO. 2010347675

DOI: 01/01/2018- 07-22-19

 

 

Your Honor,

 

I did as you had ordered and looked into Labor Code 5412 in association with Cumulative Trauma. Also, I found some reliable sources that establish an Employer's Liability for Serious and Willful Misconduct under CA Labor Code Sections 4553 and 4553.1.

 

Labor Code Section 4553 denies the workers' compensation judge any discretion to adjust the amount of the award. The terms under this labor code are quite simple; the employer pays nothing. If there is substantial evidence that my place of employment was the main contributor to my cumulative injuries within the Start and End dates on record for my claim for Cumulative Trauma, the employer pays the full amount. 

 

This is all well within Mr. Mark Thorndal's areas of practice. Leaving my employers' own judgments aside, please take into account that neither the California Workers Compensation Appeals Board nor the Appellate Courts have determined precisely what establishes “Serious and Willful Misconduct."

 

I can tell you from experience to expose an employer for Serious and Willful Misconduct, one that is said to be the conduct of a "Quasi-Criminal Nature"; the Serious and Willful activities I have published, and those in my petition benefitted employer, Oportun Inc, for both Commercial Advantage and Financial Gains (e.g., Profit and Public Relations).  Furthermore, under CA Labor Code 3202, a Judge is compelled to interpret evidence in the light most favorable to the injured worker. I have done as you had ordered me to do.

 

My employer publicly declares the following: "The price of our common stock may be volatile, and you could lose all or part of your investment. We also expect that being a public company will make it more expensive for us to obtain Director and Officer Liability Insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced coverage, incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage or only obtain coverage with a significant deductible." 

 

It appears that the Defenses Cumulative and Quantitative requests for Billing Statements and Medical Records have triggered an inquiry into Post-Payment Insurance Audits at the facility where I receive Mental Health Treatment, Family and Children Services of Silicon Valley.

 

I tried to do as you had suggested during the status conference held on October 7, 2019 and at this time, I will not be able to have my Clinical Treating Therapist or my Psychiatrist further assess whether or not my condition has improved. Some clients at that facility will now need to be relocated to other agencies in order to continue to receive Mental Health Services. Consequently, my Psychiatrist within the Organization has also given her notice to clients that she is separating from Family and Children Services of Silicon Valley and retiring.

 

Please accept this letter as informal communications between Mr. Mark Thorndal and yourself. In any case, I will include a cover sheet and a divider sheet as the Information and Assistance Officer had suggested. Thank you, your Honor.

 

Regards,

 

 

 

Adrian Quirarte ( Applicant)

 

 

CC: MULLEN & FILIPPI LLP SAN FRANCISCO ATTN: MARK THORNDAL

255 CALIFORNIA STREET STE. 1150 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111

 

 

 

 

Judge Adoralida "Dora" Padilla, “Open My Eyes, Open My Soul: Celebrating Our Common Humanity.” McGraw-Hill Books, 2004.

WHILE THE DEFENSE CONTINUES TO STONEWALL COMMUNICATIONS AND FURTHER VENTURE INTO "ANY AND ALL" AREAS OF MY PERSONAL HISTORY; OPORTUN INC DECLARES THE FOLLOWING TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS( OPORTUNS DIRECTORS PREVIOUSLY BREACHED THEIR FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS by ORGANIZING SEVERAL ROUNDS OF FINANCING) IN A PUBLIC STATEMENT: 

 

1."No public market for our common stock currently exists, and an active public trading market may not develop or be sustained following this offering." "The lack of an active market may impair your ability to sell your shares at the time you wish to sell them or at a price that you consider reasonable. The lack of an active market may also reduce the market price of your shares of common stock."

 

2."The price of our common stock may be volatile, and you could lose all or part of your investment."-"The trading price of our common stock following this offering may fluctuate substantially and will depend on a number of factors, including those described in this "Risk Factors" section, many of which are beyond our control and may not be related to our operating performance. These fluctuations could cause you to lose all or part of your investment in our common stock because you might be unable to sell your shares at or above the price you paid in this offering.

We also expect that being a public company will make it more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced coverage, incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage or only obtain coverage with a significant deductible." 

 

3. "Changes in immigration patterns, policy or enforcement could affect some of our customers, including those who may be undocumented immigrants, and consequently impact the performance of our loans, our business and results of operations."- "Some of our customers are immigrants and some may not be U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens. We follow appropriate customer identification procedures as mandated by law, including accepting government issued picture identification that may be issued by non-U.S. governments, as permitted by the USA PATRIOT Act, but we do not verify the immigration status of our customers, which we believe is consistent with industry best practices and is not required by law. While our credit models look to approve customers who have stability of residency and employment, it is possible that a significant change in immigration patterns, policy or enforcement could cause some customers to emigrate from the United States, either voluntarily or involuntarily, or slow the flow of new immigrants to the United States. 

Immigration reform is a legislative priority of the current administration, which could lead to changes in laws that make it more difficult or less desirable for immigrants to work in the United States, resulting in increased delinquencies and losses on our loans or a decrease in future originations due to more difficulty for potential customers to earn income. 

In addition, if we or our competitors receive negative publicity around making loans to undocumented immigrants, it may draw additional attention from regulatory bodies or consumer advocacy groups, all of which may harm our brand and business. 

There is no assurance that a significant change in U.S. immigration patterns, policy, laws, or enforcement will not occur. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature, or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action. Any such change could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flow."

 

DEFENDANT(S) PURSUING A CRIMINAL JUDGEMENT TO OBTAIN A FAVORABLE RESULT (SERIOUS AND WILFUL MISCONDUCT) :THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT PROHIBITS A DEFENDER FROM "PRESENT[ing], PARTICIPAT[ing] in PRESENTING, or THREATEN[ing] to present CRIMINAL CHARGES PRIMARILY TO OBTAIN AN ADVANTAGE IN A CIVIL MATTER." (AVOID SANCTIONS FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ETHICAL MISCONDUCT, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND "TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE CASE.")

 

 

 

IMAGES ARE FROM A PREVIOUS MATTER THAT INVOLVED : SUSPECTED CORPORATE FRAUD AND IDENTITY THEFT BY FOREIGN NATIONALS DOMESTICALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY( LA PARILLA EL DIAMANTE XALAPA VERACRUZ MEXICO), EMPLOYING UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS, LABOR VIOLATIONS, OFF-SHORE ACCOUNTS, TAX EVASION, FALSE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, GHOST EMPLOYEES, GHOST PAYROLL, BANAMEX (CITIBANAMEX), BBVA MEXICO BANK, HSBC BANK MEXICO, WHICH THE DEFENDANT PARTIES IN ACTION (OPORTUN INC & ZURICH AMERICAN) ARE CURRENTLY "INVESTIGATING" IN AN ATTEMPT TO HINDER, DELAY AND OVERALL DENY MY CLAIM FOR WORKPLACE STRESS & CUMULATIVE TRAUMA. 

As an outcome of the increasing documents that reflect poorly on Oportun Inc's lack of experience with EMPLOYMENT LAWS, I have been further incentivized to INVESTIGATE THE TERMS ON "AGREEMENTS OF NON-DISCLOSURE." 

THE LANGUAGE IN THE CONTRACT when departing from an employer, SHOULD BE QUITE LONG and THE DIRECTOR should strive to COVER: "ANY AND ALL" LIABILITIES, COMPLAINTS, PROMISES, and CAUSES OF ACTION IN LAW AGAINST THE COMPANY and its OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, SHAREHOLDERS, EMPLOYEES, SUBSIDIARIES, PARENT COMPANIES, AFFILIATES, SUCCESSORS...CLAIMS RELATED TO DISCRIMINATION, DISCRIMINATION BASED ON DISABILITY, VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS, VIOLATIONS OF THE FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT, WRONGFUL TERMINATION, all which Oportun failed to provide. (e.g: SOCIAL MEDIA)

I had been sent a NOTICE of TERMINATION to THE INCORRECT MAILING ADDRESS JANUARY 23,2019. Following receiving the NOTICE OF TERMINATION 30 DAYS LATER, THE ONLY ANSWERS I RECEIVED FROM OPORTUNS HR was that THE CHECK FINAL CHECK noted IN THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION had BEEN DONE IN ERROR, moreover, OPORTUNS DECISIONS to TERMINATE MY EMPLOYMENT had NOTHING TO DO WITH MY WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM (LC 132a). 

A prior lawsuit against Oportun alleged that OPORTUNS DIRECTORS BREACHED THEIR FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS by ORGANIZING SEVERAL ROUNDS OF FINANCING — IN WHICH OPORTUNS SHAREHOLDERS WERE WIPED OUT.

Having prior MISTRUSTS with OPORTUNS EXECUTIVES ACCOUNTING PRACTICES, INTERNAL CONTROLS, and AUDITING TROUBLES when considering SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES such as DUPLICATING RECEIPTS, ALTERING, BACK-DATING or FUTURE-DATING DOCUMENTS, LACK OF SIGNATURES UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY and CASES WHERE THERE ARE SIGNS OF COLLUSION by OPORTUN EMPLOYEES and its ADMINISTRATORS; the FINAL PAYCHECK NOTED BY OPORTUNS HR DEPARTMENT DONE IN ERROR TRIGGERED ME to consider SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES such as TIMEKEEPING, AUTHORIZING OVERTIME, CHECK PREPARATION, DISTRIBUTION, CHECK SIGNING and BANK RECONCILIATIONS....FURTHERMORE, when the OPORTUN PAYROLL EMPLOYEE HAD NOTIFIED ANOTHER OPORTUN EMPLOYEE and myself:

 

1." I WAS VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE AND WAS IMPRESSED WITH MY WILLINGNESS TO HELP OTHER EMPLOYEES."

2." THAT ALTHOUGH SHE DOES PAYROLL; SHE IS UNAWARE OF ALL THE STATE LAWS REGARDING PAYROLL BECAUSE SHE HAS MANY JOB DUTIES."

3. " SHE WAS RELUCTANT TO SPEAK TO ME REGARDING THE COMPANIES POLICY ON UNPAID WAGES BECAUSE I COULD GET HER OR THE COMPANY IN TROUBLE." 

4. THE DUPLICATE CLAIM FOR "LA PLACITA KIOSK" (1690 STORY ROAD SUITE C+D SAN JOSE CA) FILED "IN ERROR" BY THE CLAIMS EXAMINER, INVITING ME TO ENROLL in DIRECT ACH PAYMENTS for an INSURED/EMPLOYER THAT DOES NOT EXIST.

5. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR ( ON "PERSONAL TIME OFF" SIMULTANEOUSLY OPENING TWO DUPLICATE CLAIMS IN MY NAME?) and HER DEFENSE ATTORNEY; SEVERAL INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE DEFENDANT PARTY ENCOURAGED ME TO LOOK FURTHER INTO WHAT ARE COMMONLY KNOWN AS " GHOST PAYROLL EMPLOYEES and MONEY MULE SCHEMES."( SEE III. "STONEWALLING")

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT IDENTITY THEFT?  https://youtu.be/eRnz9lUgiLs 

The correspondence I received on JULY 11, 2019, electronically by OPORTUNS DEFENSE ATTORNEY for SERIOUS and WILLFUL MISCONDUCT L.C. 4553 ( MARK WILLIAM THORNDAL #215437) affirms the following: "EVEN IF the additional records SOMEHOW ANSWERED EVERY QUESTION WE COULD CONCEIVABLY ASK about your ALLEGED INJURIES and THEIR CAUSES, I WOULD STILL HAVE QUESTIONS TO ASK YOU about YOUR CLAIM OF SERIOUS & WILFUL MISCONDUCT."

USING OPORTUN INC AS A MODEL EMPLOYER, PROVING SERIOUS AND WILFUL MISCONDUCT IS A "NO-BRAINER" WHEN THE EMPLOYER DIRECTLY BENEFITED (e.g., PROFITTED FINANCIALLY) FROM THE ALLEGED "QUASI-CRIMINAL" ACTIVITIES.

AGGRAVATING FACTORS: DIRECT or INDIRECT SOLICITATION by EMPLOYER and INSURANCE COMPANY to DISMISS MY CLAIM in HOPES that EVIDENCE WOULD DISSIPATE or REACH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, EMPLOYER MISLEAD INVESTIGATIVE AGENCIES to DISMISS my COMPLAINTS for "HUMANITARIAN PURPOSES" (PROFIT) REGARDLESS OF THE LONG TERM IMPACT of A PERSON or PERSONS WELLBEING, INVOLVEMENT by EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT, PERVASIVE MISCONDUCT, SIGNIFICANT PROFIT from MISCONDUCT, REPEAT OFFENDERS. TO PROVE those as mentioned above, OPORTUN STATES THE FOLLOWING: 

A. "NEGATIVE PUBLICITY or PUBLIC PERCEPTION of our INDUSTRY or our COMPANY COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT OUR REPUTATION, BUSINESS, and RESULTS of OPERATIONS."

B."SECURITY BREACHES of CUSTOMERS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT WE STORE MAY HARM OUR REPUTATION, ADVERSELY AFFECT our RESULTS OF OPERATIONS, and EXPOSE US TO LIABILITY."

C."IF WE or our competitors RECEIVE NEGATIVE PUBLICITY MAKING LOANS TO UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS, IT MAY DRAW ADDITIONAL ATTENTION from regulatory bodies or consumer advocacy groups, ALL WHICH MAY HARM OUR BRAND AND BUSINESS." 

D."OPORTUN POLICY, specifically MANDATES, that employees REPORT ANY SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR." 

E."COMPLAINANT DID NOT ENGAGE in any PROTECTED ACTIVITY because HE DID NOT have a REASONABLE BELIEF of ANY UNLAWFUL CONDUCT."

F."COMPLAINANT has NOT PROVIDED and CANNOT PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE that OPORTUN took any ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION AGAINST HIM, let alone any action, BECAUSE OF HIS NATIONAL ORIGIN."( PROTECTED STATUS)

G."COMPLAINANTS CLAIM FAILS because HE IS UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE that OPORTUN ENGAGED in any RETALIATORY CONDUCT."

EXPANDING ON OPORTUN INC SENSE OF PROTECTED ACTIVITIES: SEEKING INFORMATION or LEGAL ADVICE on your WORKPLACE RIGHTS, NOTIFYING ANYONE about a POSSIBLE VIOLATION of LEGAL RIGHTS in YOUR WORKPLACE, COMPLAINING that YOU or SOMEONE ELSE IS OWED UNPAID WAGES, COMPLAINING about HARASSMENT or DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT ON THE JOB, COMPLAINING ABOUT UNSAFE WORKING CONDITIONS, TALKING WITH YOUR COWORKERS ABOUT YOUR WAGES or WORKPLACE CONCERNS, FILING A WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM, FILING or PARTICIPATING IN A COMPLAINT with a GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY,FILING a LAWSUIT AGAINST YOUR EMPLOYER, or SUPPORTING coworkers, WHO HAVE FILED a LAWSUIT, WHISTLEBLOWING (ALERTING GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES about your EMPLOYERS UNLAWFUL PRACTICES)...

RETALIATION, including ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS, INCLUDE: FIRING or LAYING OFF, DEMOTING, DENYING OVERTIME OR PROMOTION, DISCIPLINING, DENYING BENEFITS, FAILING to HIRE or REHIRE, INTIMIDATION or HARASSMENT, MAKING THREATS, REASSIGNMENT to a LESS DESIRABLE POSITION, ACTIONS AFFECTING PROSPECTS FOR ADVANCEMENT, REDUCING PAY OR HOURS, ISOLATING, OSTRACIZING, MOCKING or FALSELY ACCUSING OF POOR PERFORMANCE, BLACKLISTING, and CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE.

MOREOVER, "An Employer GUILTY OF SERIOUS AND WILLFUL MISCONDUCT MUST KNOW of the DANGEROUS CONDITION, know that THE PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES of ITS CONTINUANCE WILL INVOLVE SERIOUS INJURY TO AN EMPLOYEE, and DELIBERATELY FAILED TO TAKE ACTION."

"IT IS A CRIME to MAKE OR CAUSE to be made A KNOWINGLY or FRAUDULENT STATEMENT concerning THE ENTITLEMENT TO BENEFITS with the INTENT to DISCOURAGE an INJURED WORKER from CLAIMING BENEFITS or PURSUING a CLAIM."

FURTHERMORE, "It occurs IN HOMES and WORKPLACES and IS OFTEN PERPETRATED by TRAFFICKERS WHO ARE THE SAME CULTURAL ORIGIN and ETHNICITY OF THE VICTIMS, which allows THE TRAFFICKERS to USE CLASS HEIRCHY and CULTURAL POWER TO ENSURE THE COMPLIANCE of their VICTIMS."- United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions, JANUARY, 31, 2018.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hello Mr. Thorndal,

I needed to ask if you could provide me with the ORIGINAL APPLICATION for ADJUDICATION ON RECORD THAT WAS SERVED on December 14, 2018, by Susan Chin (SUSAN S. CHIN #269887) with THE LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. BURNS.

A. The DOI on THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION I received by HARD-COPY via USPS was FOR A SPECIFIC INJURY with the DOI BEING THE LAST DAY I PHYSICALLY WORKED FOR OPORTUN (STORE #268 "LA PLACITA KIOSK" -1690 STORY ROAD SUITE C+D SAN JOSE CA), the DAY BEFORE TAKING A LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

* (PQME DR. ALLAN C. SIDLE EVALUATION REPORTS WERE "MISTAKINGLY" FOR SPECIFIC INJURY AND USING HIS "EXPERT" JUDGEMENT IT WAS DETERMINED THE EVENTS DID NOT ACCUMULATE OVER THE A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT (05-27-17-01-23-19). USING HIS REASONABLE JUDGEMENT ALL THE EVENTS I REPORTED TO BOTH OPORTUN AND PQME COULD NOT HAVE ALL HAPPENED IN "ONE" DAY.)

* Mr. Thorndal, I ask that you RE-SEND me A COMPLETED COPY of the DWC-1 (2010347675) claim form FOR OPORTUN INC. The DWC-1 form YOU SENT ME ELECTRONICALLY IS INCOMPLETE. ( NO EMPLOYEE SECTION or SIGNATURE FROM OPORTUNS HR DEPARTMENT.) This DWC-1 form is INCOMPLETE and for my ORIGINAL CLAIM.

B. Oportun Inc. HR SENT ME A FULLY COMPLETED COPY of the "LA PLACITA KIOSK" DWC-1 claim form via USPS MAIL, BUT NOT A FULLY COMPLETED CLAIM FORM for 2010347675. ( WITH BOTH THE EMPLOYEE SECTION and SIGNATURE from OPORTUNS HR.)

THIS COMPLETE DWC-1 is for the DUPLICATE CLAIM "LA PLACITA KIOSK" that had been OPENED IN "ERROR" BY THE CLAIMS EXAMINER.

C. Mr. Thorndal, should you have any QUESTIONS REGARDING THE MERITS OF MY CONCERNS, Ms. Wright (ANASTASIA WRIGHT# 202980) with MULLEN & FILIPPI SAN JOSE LOCATION, PROVIDED ME WITH SOME ASSISTANCE.

1.I KNOW YOU HAVE ALOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT A DEPOSITION IS, WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE ASKED, WHO CAN AND CANNOT BE THERE. I FOUND THIS HELPFUL ARTICLE FOR YOU: https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/workers-compensation/b/workers-compensation-law-blog/posts/california-depositions-anyone

2.HERE IS A PROCESS FOR REQUESTING A REPLACEMENT PANEL. WE CAN ADDRESS THIS WITH THE JUDGE ONCE WE GET A HEARING DATE. https://www.dir.ca.gov/t8/31_5.html

3.WE NOTICED THE DEPOSITION OR DR. SIDLE AND I WILL BE CONDUCTING IT. THIS WILL BE A QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD AND ADDRESS THE CONTENTS OF HIS REPORT AND HIS EXAMINATION OF YOU. "ZURICH WILL PAY HIS FEE.”

4. I AM WILLING TO CONDUCT YOUR DEPOSITION VIA SKYPE.

5. I CHECKED THE EAMS AND FOUND THE FOLLOWING.

6. LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

EAMS ACTIVITY AFTER SPEAKING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE SERVICE AS I HAD INFORMED YOU VIA EMAIL ON 10-09-19:

Regards,

Adrian Quirarte

TO DWCADA:

Hello,

Monday, October 7th, 2019 I appeared by TELEPHONE for a status conference petitioned by the DEFENDANTS REPRESENTING ATTORNEY, Mr. Mark Thorndal.

In his LAST PETITION, Mr. Thorndal DECLARED that I failed to fill out the DHCS release OMITTING pages 2 and 4. As a result, Judge Dora Padilla SIDED with Mr. Thorndal.

Moreover, Judge Dora Padilla WARNED me that if Mr. Thorndal did not have the full release BY THIS AFTERNOON (FRIDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2019) that I would be ORDERED to PAY PENALTIES in the amount of 2,000.00. (USD or UNITED STATES DOLLARS)

I had a DIGITAL COPY with a date of August 6,2019 of the DHCS releases in Mr. Thorndals petition; which I sent to BOTH Judge Howard Levin & Mr. Mark Thorndal on the SAME DATE. Furthermore, I did as Judge Dora Padilla had SANCTIONED by court order. (JUDGE HOWARD LEVIN IS NOW RETIRED.)

I have SENT Mr. Thorndal BOTH a HARD-COPY and DIGITAL COPY of the RELEASES I was ORDERED TO RE-SEND, HOWEVER, Mr. Thorndal has NOT ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIVING EITHER ONE.

As of Friday, October 11, 2019, I have the urgency to confirm that Judge Dora Padilla is MINDFUL of Mr. Thorndal's QUANTATIVE REQUESTS and I have done as Judge Dora Padilla has asked me to do; so that PENALTIES in the amount of 2,000.00 are NOT COMPELLED by the WCAB.

Judge Dora Padilla advised me to ANTICIPATE Mr. Thorndal DELAYING A RESPONSE to my inquiries about CRITICAL ISSUES, still, the matter at hand REQUIRES A PROMPT RESPONSE as it involves a PENALTY that could FRAUDULENTLY result in moving forward with DISMISSING MY CLAIM.

Should the INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE OFFICER/ ADA COORDINATOR GET INVOLVED on this matter AT A LATER TIME, I am PROVIDING PROOF that I reached out to Mr. Mark Thorndal and HAS NOT ACKNOWLEDGED my email as of OCTOBER 7, 2019. If you could please acknowledge receiving this correspondence. There are 2 attachments included.

 

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019, at 2:26 PM:

Hello Mr. Thorndal,

I got your Minutes of Hearing Notice for the Status Conference held on October 07, 2019, including the PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN you had requested Judge Padilla to ORDER. I wanted to let you know that as of October 07, 2019, I RE-PRINTED and sent you a HARD-COPY of DHCS 6247 via USPS. I then sent you a copy ELECTRONICALLY (the same day) o that you may re-examine DHCS 6247 or INSPECT ANY OF THE ERRORS you had ALLEGED IN YOUR PETITION.

 

A. At Oportun, I worked as a Loan Officer, which required me to serve clients when filling out forms and validating that all the information given to me was correct. Should you find any errors, I ask that you PLEASE LET ME KNOW AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

 

B.I received a call yesterday from the Department of Healthcare Services concerning the details of the information obtained from the EAMS, and fortunately, DHCS asked me about the Application of Adjudication filed on December 14, 2019, by Zurich.

 

C. I Informed DHCS that I WAS NOT THE APPLICANT FOR THAT APPLICATION; the INSURANCE CARRIER FILED IT. The DHCS also had some questions about INCONSISTENCIES with the person WHO PAID FOR A PROVIDED MEDICAL TREATMENT and the body parts listed in that ORIGINAL APPLICATION.

D.I advised DHCS, from what I've been told, that Application for Adjudication YOU HAD SENT ME ELECTRONICALLY MAY NOT BE AUTHENTIC since application you sent me ELECTRONICALLY was for CUMULATIVE TRAUMA; the ORIGINAL Hard-Copy I got in December 2018 by POSTAL SERVICE from Zurich San Francisco had been for SPECIFIC INJURY moreover, that it was of concern that they BOTH have the same filing date and NO SIGNATURE?

 

E. I HAD NEVER RECEIVED ANY PRIOR NOTICE from the WCAB, telling me that the application you had filed had been AMENDED. I sent DHCS the Amended Application of Adjudication that I recently filed with the WCAB so that there would be no further confusion as requested.

 

F. I have understood that Dr. Allan Sidle STILL needs to provide an EXPERT OPINION if my claim of "CUMULATIVE TRAUMA" is IN SOME WAY LINKED TO OPORTUN. Next Thursday, October 17, 2019, will be ONE YEAR meeting with Dr. Allan C. SIdle for the first time.

 

G.If either you or your clients DISPUTE that my claim for workplace injury WAS NOT LINKED TO OPORTUN in any way, I can promise you that ALL OF THE ACTIVITIES I WITNESSED could NOT have happened ANYWHERE but WHEN EMPLOYED BY OPORTUN INC.

 

Mr. Thorndal, Please respond when you have received either the HARD COPY or the DIGITAL COPIES of DHCS 6247 and if you have any questions regarding either of the two.

Regards,

ADRIAN QUIRARTE

FOUR MONTHS AFTER beginning employment with Oportun Inc. is when I had STARTED to write to Executives that I was observing a lack of support by one of Oportuns highly ranked senior employees while in COACHING. 

I had raised my ANXIETIES having inquiries about Oportun clients' IDENTIFICATION and ADDRESS VERIFICATION DOCUMENTS and (e.g., ISSUE and EXPIRATION DATE, NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS) that could be presented to me; DRIVERS LICENCES, STATE ISSUED IDENTIFICATION CARDS, BIRTH CERTIFICATES, SOCIAL SECURITY CARDS, GREEN CARDS, FOREIGN PASSPORTS, CONSULAR IDENTIFICATION CARDS, HOME UTILITY BILLS, CELL PHONE BILL, MEDICAL RECORDS, CAR REGISTRATION, EMPLOYMENT RECORDS, INSURANCE RECORDS, BANK or FINANCIAL INSTITUTION RECORDS, CHANGE OF ADDRESS CONFIRMATION BY THE U.S POSTAL SERVICE, RENTAL or LEASE AGREEMENT(SIGNED by OWNER and TENANT), IRS or CALIFORNIA TAX RETURNs, DOCUMENTS issued by a GOVERNMENT AGENCY(LOCAL, STATE, or FEDERAL), LETTER ATTESTING APPLICANT LIVES AT A CA SHELTER or NOT FOR PROFIT ENTITY. On October 7, 2017, The Regional Manager Rene Gracia RESPONDED ELECTRONICALLY, " CONTINUE TO DO THE BEST I CAN."

AUGUST 1ST, 2018, OPORTUN INC. RESPONDED to the Department of Industrial Relations as taking "NO ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS" against me for REPORTING "SUCH ACTIVITIES." A QUALIFIED EXECUTIVE would be FIT TO DESCRIBE an ADVERSE ACTION as an action THAT WOULD DISSUADE ANY RATIONAL EMPLOYEE FROM RAISING CONCERNS about a possible violation. BECAUSE an ADVERSE employment ACTION CAN BE SUBTLE...it may NOT ALWAYS BE "AS EASY" TO SPOT.

A. It is NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR what claims COMPLAINANT is ALLEGING against Oportun, but it APPEARS he is ALLEGING claims for FAILURE TO PAY WAGES DUE and RETALIATION FOR REPORTING SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES.

B. If you have a CONCERN about Oportuns ACCOUNTING PRACTICES, INTERNAL CONTROLS, or AUDITING MATTERS, you should REPORT YOUR CONCERNS to the same persons. 

C. The PENALTIES are INAPPROPRIATE under the DLSE REGULATIONS, EVEN IF Oportun was INCORRECT REGARDING ITS DETERMINATION that complainant had NOT EARNED incentive compensation." 

D. CONFUSION regarding the CALCULATION of the LOAN DISBURSEMENTS led to MISCOMMUNICATION by MANAGEMENT.

E. The EXCEPTION of the DISTRIBUTION of the GOAL was ORIGINALLY REJECTED BECAUSE it was NOT PROPERLY FILED within the REPORTING SYSTEM. 

F. EVENTUALLY, the EXCEPTION was APPROVED, and THE LOAN DISBURSEMENT GOAL WAS ADJUSTED among three employees who worked in the store in December, and the GOALS were ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY.

G.ONCE, the distribution EXCEPTION was APPROVED in MARCH 2018, Gracia COMMUNICATED with the team that the INCENTIVE COMPENSATION WOULD BE PAID on MARCH 23, 2018.

H.AT THE TIME Garcia SENT THIS MESSAGE, he DID NOT KNOW that the complainant HAD NOT MET the INDIVIDUAL or STORE GOAL such that HE WAS NOT ENTITLED to the INCENTIVE COMPENSATION. 

I. ONLY AFTER, he sent the COMMUNICATION did HE REALIZE that the COMPLAINANT STILL DOES NOT QUALIFY for ANY INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PAYMENT." 

J. NEITHER COMPLAINANT nor HIS STORE MET the MONTHLY loan disbursement GOALS FOR DECEMBER 2017. 

K.COMPLAINANTS WAGE WAS INCREASED in 2018 DESPITE receiving a "LESS THAN STELLAR REVIEW" for 2017. 

L. There is NO EVIDENCE or any CASUAL LINK between THE PROTECTED ACTIVITY and the NONEXISTENT ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION.

M. ON THE OTHER HAND, there is AMPLE EVIDENCE to SUGGEST that THE COMPLAINANT has been TREATED MORE FAVORABLY by having been PAID INCENTIVE COMPENSATION that HE DID NOT EARN and for RECEIVING A PAY INCREASE despite PROBLEMS with his work PERFORMANCE. 

N.OPORTUN had a VALID and BONAFIDE REASON for CONCLUDING that it owed complainant NO INCENTIVE COMPENSATION.

M. COMPLAINANT was, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE for the INCENTIVE PAYMENT until AFTER it had ADVISED HIM that HE WOULD RECEIVE IT. 

N.THIS PAYMENT was VOLUNTARILY made by OPORTUN DUE to the CONFUSION surrounding THE COMMUNICATIONS related to the DISBURSEMENT ALLOCATION. 

M.HE was being PAID THE INCENTIVE compensation BECAUSE he had BEEN ADVISED that HE WOULD RECEIVE IT. 

N.BECAUSE of the DESCRIPTION of the complainant's CONCERNS, "HE WAS EASILY IDENTIFIABLE."

O.COMPLAINANT SUBMITTED additional CONCERNS on MARCH 24, 2018, namely that HE BELIEVED FRAUDULENT IDENTIFICATION SOLD OUTSIDE his store was USED TO OBTAIN FRAUDULENT LOANS.

P.COMPLAINANT DID NOT ENGAGE IN ANY PROTECTED ACTIVITY because HE DID NOT have a REASONABLE BELIEF of ANY UNLAWFUL CONDUCT. 

Q. OPORTUN POLICY, specifically MANDATES, that employees REPORT ANY SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR. 

R.IN SUM, complainants BARELY DECIPHERABLE CLAIMS COMPLETELY LACK MERRIT and SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 

S.COMPLAINANT has NOT PROVIDED and CANNOT PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE that OPORTUN took any ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION AGAINST HIM, let alone any action, BECAUSE OF HIS NATIONAL ORIGIN.

T.COMPLAINANT APPEARS to equate being HANDED A FLYER by someone "OUTSIDE OF HIS WORKPLACE" who was "UNASSOCIATED" WITH OPORTUN. 

U.He was ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT RECENT ACTIVITY related to IMMIGRATION RAIDS that have BEEN PUBLICIZED in the area AT THE TIME and THE ALLEGED SALE of FRAUDULENT IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS that he said he had OBSERVED. 

V. COMPLAINANT DID NOT ENGAGE in any PROTECTED ACTIVITY because HE DID NOT have a REASONABLE BELIEF of ANY UNLAWFUL CONDUCT.

W.COMPLAINANTS claim FAILS because HE IS UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE that OPORTUN ENGAGED in any RETALIATORY CONDUCT.

OPORTUN INC., with THE HELP of outside counsel, HOLDS IT OPINION I HAD NO REASON TO BELIEVE that an ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION AGAINST ME HAD TAKEN PLACE and EXPANDING on OPORTUNS SENSE of ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS, The U.S DEPARTMENT OF LABOR defines RETALIATION, including ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS as the following:

 

• Firing or laying off 
• Demoting  
• Denying overtime or promotion 
• Disciplining 
• Denying benefits 
• Failing to hire or rehire  
• Intimidation or harassment
• Making threats 
• Reassignment to a less desirable position or actions affecting prospects for advancement (such as excluding an employee from training meetings) 
• Reducing pay or hours 
• More subtle operations, such as isolating, ostracizing, mocking, or falsely accusing the employee of poor performance 
• Blacklisting (willfully intervening with an employee's ability to obtain future employment)
• Constructive discharge (quitting when an employer makes working conditions intolerable due to the employee's protected activity)

Furthermore, "It is a CRIME to MAKE OR CAUSE to be made A KNOWINGLY or FRAUDULENT STATEMENT concerning THE ENTITLEMENT TO BENEFITS with the INTENT to DISCOURAGE an INJURED WORKER from CLAIMING BENEFITS or PURSUING a CLAIM."

Between the months of JANUARY TO APRIL 2018, there had been a severe drop in both foot-traffic and store productivity, following the ANNOUNCEMENT that California was TARGETED for workplace raids by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

COMMUNICATIONS were DISTRIBUTED informing Small Business Owners" THAT AS OF JANUARY 1st, 2018 NEWS HEADLINES AND THREATS HAD EMPLOYERS WORRIED ABOUT HOW TO MANAGE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS REQUESTS."

I began to raise my attention to executives and the company trainer as a result of OPORTUNS POOR FRAUD DETECTION, and as a result of declining productivity the company trainer then became the most appropriate person to speak to IN PRIVATE, where I hinted that perhaps I was "NOT FIT FOR THE COMPANY CULTURE."

I significantly declined in performance during this period and gave a number of my OPPORTUNITIES to other LOAN OFFICERS, cautious of potential SECRET SHOPPERS or FEDERAL AGENTS OBSERVING our APPLICATION PROCESS. OBEYING FEDERAL LAW was more critical than COLLUDING in DOCUMENT FRAUD, no matter how LOW (or how HIGH) the RISK.

OPPOSITE to FRAUDULENTLY COLLUDING with DOCUMENT FRAUD, should WORKPLACE RAIDS occur as had been advised by La Placita Shopping Centers IN-HOUSE PUBLICATIONS and as a result of the SECRECY behind the flyer that had been DISTRIBUTED to all SMALL BUSINESSES within La Placita Shopping Center, CONSEQUENTLY I discovered FEDERAL WORKPLACE RAIDS may result in:

CONFISCATION of UNITED STATES or FOREIGN PASSPORTS, VISAS, PAPERS, TICKETS, NOTES, SCHEDULES, RECEIPTS, and OTHER ITEMS RELATED TO INTERNATIONAL or DOMESTIC TRAVEL...LABOR and EMPLOYMENT RECORDS, including SERVICE AGREEMENTS, I-9s, VOLUNTEER WORKER AGREEMENTS, and STATEMENTS, LISTS OF WORKERS (PAID or UNPAID), JOB ASSIGNMENT SHEETS, DUTY ROSTERS, EMPLOYMENT APPLICATIONS, PERSONNEL FILES, WORKER IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS, and ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS related to the same.

EVIDENCE of who USED, OWNED, CONTROLLED a COMPUTER at the time that the ITEMS SOUGHT had been CREATED, EDITED, or DELETED, such as LOGS, REGISTRY ENTRIES, CONFIGURATION FILES, SAVED USERNAMES and PASSWORDS, DOCUMENTS, BROWSING HISTORY, USER PROFILES, EMAIL, EMAIL CONTACTS, "CHATs," INSTANT MESSAGING, LOGS, PHOTOGRAPHS and other CORRESPONDENCE... DESKTOP COMPUTERS
NOTEBOOK COMPUTERS, MOBILE PHONES, TABLETS, SERVER COMPUTERS, and NETWORK HARDWARE, SOFTWARE that would authorize others to command THE COMPUTER REMOTELY.

EXAMINATION of EXTERNAL STORAGE DEVICES containing ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE, and EVIDENCE of the TIMES, the COMPUTER was USED, ROUTERS, MODEMS, and NETWORK EQUIPMENT used to CONNECT COMPUTERS TO THE INTERNET...HOW and WHEN a workstation was ACCESSED OR USED to determine the order of COMPUTER ACCESS, USE, and EVENTS linking to CRIMES UNDER INVESTIGATION and the COMPUTER USER. OPORTUN has failed to recognize this TYPE of WORKING ENVIRONMENT creates "ABNORMAL WORKING CONDITIONS."

Concurrently, I began to notice that the CONTACT CENTERS in MEXICO could ERASE NOTES on CUSTOMERS ACCOUNTS; moreover, the NOTES that I had put on CUSTOMERS ACCOUNTS asking those DEPARTMENTS that OPERATE OFF-SHORE to REVIEW the DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED.

The INTENTIONAL REJECTION of APPLICANTS DOCUMENTATION by the CONTACT CENTERS OFF-SHORE would result in POOR PERFORMANCE REVIEWS and DISCIPLINARY ACTION to LOAN AGENTS who OPERATE DOMESTICALLY.

Should a note be put on record QUESTIONING? the first agent who reviewed the documents or asking for a SECOND EVALUATION, the note on the customers' account would be ERASED. As a result of this SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY, customers in-store needed to call the CONTACT CENTERS for more INFORMATION resulting in a LOSS of OPPORTUNITIES.

 

I raised my concerns to Oportuns Company Trainer, Banessa Felix, concerning the ACTIVITIES I had WITNESSED at the Oportun Almaden (201 Willow Street San Jose) Store.

I had explained that when both Nadachelli Davalos and I worked together, on nearly every occasion, I would overhear the senior employee, Nadachelli Davalos, guide consumers through the SCREENING PROCESS; moreover, she would INSTRUCT her clients not to provide their PERSONAL BANKING INFORMATION over the TELEPHONE due to ILLEGAL and SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES including FRAUD and IDENTITY THEFT since some of Oportuns CALL CENTERS are located in MEXICO. 

I had observed this strategy as an everyday habit so that the SENIOR LOAN OFFICER could TRICK Oportun Clients into giving her their PERSONAL BANKING INFORMATION so that she could enroll each one individually in AUTOMATED CLEARING HOUSE (ACH) PAYMENTS, moreover that this Senior Employee was VERY COMPETITIVE, UNWILLING to support new employees in training. 

I had also suggested to the company trainer and other employees, that when working for past employers in the telecommunications industry; an extremely COMPETITIVE MARKET that any ILLEGAL or SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES by their OUTSOURCING PARTNERS OVERSEAS was unheard of.

The CALL CENTERS who may be in other places such as the Philippines, and who act on behalf of THE COMPANY, I had never heard stories of an incident that could subject that CORPORATION, to MONETARY LOSS, SIGNIFICANT LEGAL LIABILITY, REGULATORY SCRUTINY, and REPUTATIONAL HARM.

Banessa Felix answered my concerns that "THEY KNEW WHO IT WAS AND THAT THEY WERE LOOKING INTO IT BECAUSE THEY HAD ALSO HEARD IT FROM ANOTHER EMPLOYEE." Although the Misconduct reported adversely effected the BUSINESS REPUTATION, the employee quickly PROMOTED TO A LEADERSHIP POSITION.

When I inquired about the OPORTUNS COMPANY POLICY on UNPAID WAGES for other employees who had also not been paid, Maria Aranda, in the PAYROLL DEPARTMENT, praised me by answering, " I WAS VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE AND WAS IMPRESSED WITH MY WILLINGNESS TO HELP OTHER EMPLOYEES." Maria Arranda further suggested that I apply for the LEADERSHIP POSITION and that I could use both Maria Arranda, from the Payroll Department, and use a CORPORATE EXECUTIVE, Jaziel Velez as REFERRALS. 

For some OBSCURE reason, I never received a response from the payroll department, who had also urged me to INVESTIGATE OPORTUNS LABOR LAWS BINDER AT MY WORK LOCATION, after Maria Arranda had claimed: " THAT ALTHOUGH SHE DOES PAYROLL, SHE IS UNAWARE OF ALL THE STATE LAWS REGARDING PAYROLL BECAUSE SHE HAS MANY JOB DUTIES."

I discovered from another Oportun employee, Lina Mejorado, that Maria Arranda in Payroll had PRIVATELY told her that " SHE WAS RELUCTANT TO SPEAK TO ME REGARDING THE COMPANIES POLICY ON UNPAID WAGES BECAUSE I COULD GET HER OR THE COMPANY IN TROUBLE." 

Expressing disappointment with my place of work and choosing to TAKING A LEAVE OF ABSENCE, Oportun made a STATEMENT on RECORD that I had been "PAID A BONUS I DID NOT DESERVE", moreover that I was paid the Bonus TO PROVE that I WAS TREATED MORE "FAVORABLY" THAN OTHER EMPLOYEES, by also giving me a RAISE OF .28 CENTS. 

Having an extensive work history, PAYING EMPLOYEES OUT OF "FAVORITISM" can easily be SEEN BY OTHER EMPLOYEES as a FORM of DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT, or any "ILLEGAL BEHAVIORS (INSIDE OR OUTSIDE OF EMPLOYMENT)", besides VIOLATING COMPANY POLICIES or EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS — all which OPORTUN INC DENIES.

Following my leave of absence from Oportun Inc. on APRIL 4,2018 from CUMULATIVE STRESS, I got an FMLA Form from Oportuns Human Resources Department. The FMLA FORM had specified that the FMLA NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES was located in the "KITCHEN AREA." 

The HUMAN RESOURCES Senior BENEFITS Manager for Oportun Inc., Alberto Trejo, had named the BLANK SPACE with a FALSE LOCATION and sent it ELECTRONICALLY to a FEDERAL AGENCY (OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET).The BUREAU OF FIELD ENFORCEMENT OFFICE was also able to confirm that the LEGAL REQUIREMENTS of the NOTICE I had been asking about (DWC-7) was also to be placed in a CONSPICUOUS PLACE where "ALL EMPLOYEES COULD SEE IT." 

The BFE had advised me to CONTACT my workers' compensation claims examiner, inform her that the ABSENCE of FORM DWC-7, there are ADDITIONAL RIGHTS to employees who have filed a claim for WORKPLACE INJURY. 

The NOTICES FOR EMPLOYEES I have inquired with various agencies UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW are as follows:

• Employee Rights Under the Fair Labor Standards Act
• Equal Employment Opportunity Is The Law
• Employee Rights and Responsibilities Under the Family Medical Leave Act (employers with 50 or more employees only)
• Your Rights Under USERRA (Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act)
• Employee Rights: Employee Polygraph Protection Act

California employers must also post the following notices specific to California law:

• Official Notice: California Minimum Wage Order
• Payday Notice
• California Law Prohibits Workplace Discrimination and Harassment
• Notice A: Your Rights and Obligations as a Pregnant Employee (employers with five to 49 employees only)
• Notice B: Family Care and Medical Leave and Pregnancy Disability Leave (employers with 50 or more employees only)
• Safety and Health Protection on the Job
• Notice to Employees: Injuries Caused By Work
• Emergency Phone Numbers
• Whistleblowers Are Protected
• Healthy Workplaces Healthy Families Act of 2014: Paid Sick Leave
• Time Off to Vote
• Notice to Employees (unemployment compensation, disability insurance, paid family leave)

STANDARD AREAS for posting include a BREAK ROOM, near the employee entrance, near a copier, vending machines, or near the HR office; moreover, STATE and FEDERAL EMPLOYEE NOTICES in a SAFE, FILE CABINET, LOCKER, SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES, OR any LOCKED CONTAINERS capable of holding items such as:

BOOKKEEPING/ ACCOUNTING RECORDS, EXPENDITURE RECORDS, CHECK REGISTERS, BILLS, RECEIPTS, INVOICES, LEDGERS, NOTES, RECORDS DISCLOSING IDENTITIES and for DEPOSITS, WITHDRAWALS, DEBIT and CREDIT MEMOS, and any other DOCUMENT type DOES NOT meet the first criteria.

Overhearing this information established an uneasy feeling as an Oportun employee, given that "IN THE HISPANIC COMMUNITIES, RUMORS TRAVEL FASTER THAN FACTS." I have NEVER worked for an employer, where the exchange of that kind of information for PURPOSEFUL SABOTAGE or FRAUDULENT MANIPULATION of our operations had been so CASUAL.

 

 

 

 

 

FOUR MONTHS after beginning employment with Oportun Inc. is when I had started to write to Executives that I was observing a lack of support by one of Oportuns highly ranked senior employees while in COACHING. I had raised my ANXIETIES having inquiries about Oportun clients' IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS (e.g., ISSUE and EXPIRATION DATE, NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS) that were presented to me; DRIVERS LICENCES, STATE ISSUED IDENTIFICATION CARDS, BIRTH CERTIFICATES, SOCIAL SECURITY CARDS, GREEN CARDS, FOREIGN PASSPORTS, CONSULAR IDENTIFICATION CARDS, and other UNSPECIFIED DOCUMENTS that may be ACCEPTED or REJECTED.

 

When Examining the validity of IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS that had been presented to me, such as MISMATCHING or COUNTERFEIT identification documents, I was given VAUGE and UNRELIABLE ANSWERS, although Oportun employees were highly aware that many of these identification documents had been FOREIGN to me before working for Oportun Inc.

 

On the days that I worked alone with a separate Oportun Loan Officer, Cesar Lopez, he would ask me every morning starting our shift, " HOW was your day with Nadachelli?"( the discussions I had with both employees had been PREDOMINANTLY IN SPANISH, and the CRITICISM I RECEIVED made practice more COMPLICATED.)

 

After the question became a routine every morning, Cesar Lopez then suggested that after reaching my monthly QUOTA then pass all future loans to the other Loan Officer, Nadachelli Davalos; more specifically the applicants with whom I had already gone through the entire loan process, had been approved and waiting to pick up their method of payment, a check issued by a Mainstream Bank or an Oportun Prepaid Debit Card . With this approach, it would BOOST both the highly ranked senior employees and store PRODUCTIVITY, reaching the HIGHEST TIER possible for both senior employees and HIGHER PAYCHECKS.

 

When both Nadachelli Davalos and I worked together, on almost every occasion, I would hear the senior employee, Nadachelli Davalos, guide consumers through the SCREENING PROCESS; moreover, she would instruct her clients not to provide their PERSONAL BANKING INFORMATION over the TELEPHONE due to ILLEGAL and SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES including FRAUD and IDENTITY THEFT since some of Oportuns CALL CENTERS are located in MEXICO. 

 

Overhearing this information established an uneasy feeling as an Oportun employee, given that "IN THE HISPANIC COMMUNITIES, RUMORS TRAVEL FASTER THAN FACTS." I have NEVER worked for an employer, where the exchange of that kind of information for PURPOSEFUL SABOTAGE or FRAUDULENT MANIPULATION of our operations had been so CASUAL.

 

I made efforts to raise my concerns to Oportuns Executives using reasonable judgment. Oportun Loan Officers who engaged with consumers the most, could suffer direct losses from that TYPE OF ACTIVITY, SUFFER SERIOUS HARM OR VIOLENCE by taking the blame for the Corporation's reliability and our FIRST IMPRESSION with clients.

 

The failure to follow protocol when interacting with customers for any purpose by other Oportun representatives that were not as skilled under the company's standards; would be expected to result in immediate employment termination, and quite the contrary, those who had involved themselves in QUESTIONABLE ACTIVITIES ADVANCED TO LEADERSHIP positions who have a notable PAY INCREASE.

This evening I called Mr. Mark Thorndal at his office concerning the email that I had sent him on October 1, 2019.

When explaining to Mr. Thorndal, the PQME had inconsistencies with the Disability Evaluation Unit at the Workers Compensation Appeals Board; Mr. Thorndal did not seem to acknowledge that he has repeatedly insisted that all communication must go through him.

Ignoring the importance of the call and hesitating for a second ( I thought he had hung up on me) Mr. Thorndal gracefully changed the conversation and attempted to intimidate me by claiming that I had engaged in ex-parte communications with the PQME.

I replied that I had done as the Disability Evaluator had advised me to do, which request copies of Dr. Allan Sidle's reports so that I could compare the copies sent to the originals I had in my possession; and Mr. Thorndal dispute the merits of my affirmations, he could call the Disability Evaluator directly on Friday, October 4, 2019.

Although it was Dr. Allan Sidle who had suggested that "WE MEET AGAIN FOR A FEW MINUTES," Mr. Thorndal seems to hold his opinion that making a basic request to the QME for "administrative purposes" violates ex-parte communications.

Automatic e-mail footers are not just annoying. They are legally useless. The Economist: " Spare us the e-mail yada-yada"

 

 

OCTOBER 1, 2019. 3:15 PM

Hello Mr. Thorndal,

I spoke briefly with the PQME concerning the disagreements by both the PQME and the DEU Evaluator at the WCAB. 

The DEU Record (File No. J42300) lists two PQME reports submitted by Dr. Allan Sidle dated October 31, 2018. The disability evaluator confirmed this. Dr. Sidle disputes that the disability evaluator is incorrect, there are no PQME Reports he submitted with a date of 10/31/2018. Mr. Thorndal, If you could please look into this and get back to me.

A. The DEU unit declares that Dr. Sidle's two reports dated October 31, 2018, identify Permanent Disability at 53%. Dr. Sidle disputes that he never submitted 2 PQME reports dated October 31, 2018, to the DEU evaluator. Could you please look into this?

B. Dr. Allan Sidle did send me proof of a letter dated October 31, 2018 ( not a PQME report) finding me at MMI (Maximum Medical Improvement ) where he also cc's the claims administrator, Lorrie Peek. It does not appear that the DEU was listed as an additional recipient. Could you please look into this?

C. The DEU offered to make some accurate calculations based on Dr. Sidle's findings of 53% Permanent Disability. The results were calculated minus the increased benefits for Serious and Willful Misconduct. 

D. It is unclear why Dr. Sidle had asserted during the start of our first QME evaluation, "That there is NO MONEY to be made by filing a workers compensation claim."

E. Mr. Thorndal, after speaking to the DEU, it appears that Dr. Sidle's statement is a direct and knowingly false or fraudulent statement with regard to entitlement to workers' compensation benefits with the intent to discourage an injured worker from claiming those benefits or pursuing a claim. Could you please look into this?

F. The DEU evaluator instructed me to contact Dr. Sidle concerning the period Dr. Allan Sidle recommended I receive TTD benefits. 

G. Dr. Sidle informed me via telephone that he did specify in his reports the start date he recommended that I start to receive TTD benefits; moreover, he also mentioned that he did not enter an end date because we needed to have a third meeting, but it appears that never happened. 

H. I have understood that if Oportun or the claims examiner contested my TTD determination, the insurance company would require the evaluation of a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The QME would then perform an examination and provide his opinion. 

I. I wanted to ask the reason why either you or your client(s) have denied paying TTD benefits for the past 545 days under Workers' Compensation Law and not under Zurich's Policy? In California, workers' compensation insurance is a no-fault system. Injured employees need not prove an injury was someone else's fault in order to receive workers' compensation benefits for an on-the-job injury. 

J. Mr. Thorndal, there is no doubt that any of the events I have presented to either you or the QME did NOT occur while employed by Oportun Inc. between the dates of May 29, 2017- January 23, 2019.

K. Furthermore, some records suggest they have been altered, backdated, future dated, or remain unsigned. I have been informed that if a document is not signed, it can be signed at a later time. ( such as a signature for the DWC-1 claim form for Oportun Inc. (2010347675) and a signature for the original application for adjudication filed on December 14, 2018 (2010347675). 

L. You provided me with our own Declaration Pursuant to Labor Code Section 4906(h). 

M. There is No Declaration or signature for Susan S. Chin, the original applicant for the application for adjudication you had sent me via email on July 12, 2019.

N. Dr. Sidle and I have met on October 17 and October 31, 2018. On-Page 9 of Dr. Sidle QME report dated November 28, 2018, it appears that Dr. Sidle has also listed the first date of the evaluation as October 1, 2018. Consequently, he sent me a copy of the Zurich billing statement, and I still a bit unclear on this. 

Mr. Thorndal, I understand that you wish to "litigate" all of the above before a Judge. Using my judgment, I have realized that we only have about five minutes to resolve any disputes before a Judge as there are other cases to be heard. Mr. Thorndal, It would take at the very least 5 minutes to dispute the merits of your cover sheet alone ( Type and Dates) if you could please acknowledge receiving my emails and respond within a reasonable amount of time.

GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION DRAFT 1:

1. ”Regarding Family and Children Services of Silicon Valley, Applicant signed and returned the release, but he negated the release by personally intervening with this provider and instructing them to not release any records, not withstanding the signed release.” Grounds for Objection 1: Hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200); lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code, § 702(a))        

A. Mr. Thorndal cannot allege that I have tried to interfere with his suggested discovery plan. I have spoken with Family Children Services of Silicon Valley after receiving Mr. Thorndals “Exhibit A.”(see image)

B. I have never spoken to the Custodian of Records from Family and Children Services. It seems as if  Macro-Pro has misinformed Mr. Thorndal. Mr. Thorndal is getting this information his copy-service.

C. On the afternoon of May 31, 2019, a call was made to Family Children Services of Silicon Valley by a representative from Macro-Pro. 

D. The caller from Macro-Pro did not want to give her title and terminated the call after being denied the fax number to the facility requesting Mental Health Records. This had been done without my knowledge. Both my Clinical Treating Therapist and I found this to be quite INVASIVE. 

E. Prior to that incident on the morning of Feb. 6, 2019, I gave recorded statements during a Conference call WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE by the first representing Defense attorney, Susan S. Chin, and the claims examiner, Karoline Atamanyuk. 

F. The Second defense attorney, Anastasia Wright, who is also with Mullen and Filippi, also validated that the conversation call had NOT BEEN RECORDED. The provider for the conference was able to confirm that I had been recorded; moreover, information that I was also given constitutes "SPOILIATION OF EVIDENCE."

G. I have been going to therapy weekly for the last 18 months around the approximate date I began to have symptoms related to my employer, Oportun Inc. 

H. There is no legitimate reason that I have sought to OBSTRUCT Mr. Thorndal from obtaining PHI ( Protected Health Information).

I. The AUTHORIZATION FORM sent to the Medical Records Department of Family and Children Services of Silicon Valley had been rerouted to my Clinical Treating Therapist. The authorization forms had specified the following: “LEGAL VIOLATION! Please Respond Immediately. The LEGAL TIME for a response has passed, and you are now in "VIOLATION OF THE LAW." 

J. My Clinical Treating Therapist had raised concerns that the Authorization Form declared the following: "YOU MUST RESPOND IMMEDIATELY BY EMAIL, FAX OR MAIL TO AVOID THE “SANCTIONS PROVIDED BY LAW" FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH A LEGAL DOCUMENT.” A SANCTION is a "THREATENED PENALTY FOR DISOBEYING A LAW OR RULE."

K. The Authorization Forms from Macro Pro did not appear to be a LEGITIMATE Court-Ordered Subpoena. Moreover, I did my best to alleviate my clinical treating therapists concerns, that she had not VIOLATED THE LAW or had been in contempt of a court charge, either PUNISHABLE by JAIL, A FINE, or BOTH as the pre-printed authorization form sent on behalf of Mr. Mark Thorndal had "SUGGESTED." 

L. Both my Clinical Treating Therapist and I called Macro Pro from her office and had a representative from that agency explain why the wording on the authorization document appeared to be a legal document, furthermore, it appeared to be a worded in a "THREATENING" manner. 

M. The representative at Macro-Pro was able to explain that the "WORDING" on the notice had been done as a courtesy to ensure that Macro Pro received a response within the specified time period, Five Days. He added that there was NO LEGAL VIOLATION, it is just the way their forms are pre-printed. 

N. I had sent an email to Mr. Mark Thorndal upon receiving his Petition to Compel Discovery on 09-11-19, that my clinical treating therapist had already begun working on Mr. Thorndals request. I was advised that Mr. Mark Thorndal would receive those records by secure download after the 18th of September. Consequently, Mr. Thorndal should have prior knowledge that under FEDERAL LAW, HIPPA serves to protect the privacy of Mental Health Records.

O. Mr. Mark Thorndal fails to acknowledge following this Law is important because it helps protect confidential mental health treatment records. It is Mr. Mark Thorndals QUANTITIVE demands using the incorrect forms, notices and INTENTIONAL lack of communication that have caused unnecessary delay.

 

It seems as if the Defense attorney for Oportun Inc., Mark Thorndal, has NO INTEREST in "Litigating" via email, mainly when identifying the type of injury recorded (SPECIFIC) on his most recent declaration of readiness to proceed, moreover the start and end dates of Cumulative Trauma. As a defense attorney, it is highly debatable whether Mr. Thorndal will be capable of admitting errors such as those listed in his most recent declaration of readiness to proceed and distortion of the facts Mr. Thorndal presented in his Petition. (see image)

I have already informed Mr. Thorndal a number of times, that the start date for Cumulative Trauma is January 1, 2018. However, the Defendant parties inaction continue to be "PREOCCUPIED" with a date of injury that Oportun Inc had NOT yet employed me. The exact start date of employment with Oportun Inc is May 29, 2017, and not April 4, 2017. For this reason, I had even suggested to Mr. Thorndal that Cumulative Trauma when working for Oportun Inc. may have started as far back as October 2017, but DEFINITELY NOT April 4, 2017.

FOUR MONTHS after starting my employment with Oportun Inc. is when I had begun to write to management, that I was witnessing a lack of support by one of Oportuns highly ranked senior employees while in training. I had raised my anxieties after having inquiries about Oportun clients Identification Documents that had been presented to me; including but not limited to: Drivers licenses, State-issued Identification Cards, Birth Certificates, Social Security Administration Cards, Lawfully admitted Permanent Resident Cards, Foreign Passports, Consular Identification Cards, or any TYPE of Identification Document that may be used to live, enter and remain in the United States.

When Examining the validity of IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS that had been presented to me, such as MISMATCHING or  COUNTERFEIT identification documents, I was given vague and unreliable answers, although Oportun employees were highly aware that many of these identification documents had been FOREIGN to me before working for Oportun Inc.

I wrote my concerns to the Regional Manager Rene Garcia via email," That it was very important that this employee support me while in training and provide me a second opinion when having to explain to customers that there was a problem with the Identification Documents they had provided." Furthermore, even during our busiest moments, there were no other Oportun Loan Officers available to provide immediate assistance. On October 7, 2017, The Regional Manager Rene Gracia Responded via email, " CONTINUE TO DO THE BEST I CAN." (see image)

 

Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 5:01 PMHello Mr. Thorndal,

I spoke to the DEU office at the WCAB this afternoon concerning how Dr. Sidle had calculated Permanent Disability.

A. I was informed that at the time the rating determination was made February 13, 2019, Dr. Sidle had concluded that I had been at 53% Permanent Disability. Furthermore, I was advised that there were two PQME Reports on record for October 31, 2018.

B. In that DEU record, the Consultative Rating had been recorded as a "Specific" Injury with a date of injury of April 4, 2018.

C. The events leading to Cumulative Trauma did not all happen on one specific date — moreover, NOT a period when Oportun Inc had not yet employed me.

D. Mr. Thorndal, the Application for Adjudication that you had sent me via email on July 12, 2019, has the dates of Cumulative Trauma recorded as April 4, 2017, to April 4, 2018. The filing date is recorded on that report is December 14, 2018.

 E. Mr. Thorndal, how is it that the type and dates of injury on Application for Adjudication filed by Zurich's in-house counsel on 12/14/2019 different than that on the consultative rating report which is recorded as February 13, 2019? If you could please explain this further.

On July 22, 2019, via email, you stated the following:

“Regarding your questions pertaining to the date of injury, when dealing with a cumulative trauma the date of injury is not always straight-forward.”

F. I was advised by the DEU unit to contact Mr. Allan C. Sidle directly for"administrative purposes" and ask for copies of the 2 PQME reports with a date of October 31, 2018. This is coming directly from the Disability Evaluation Unit.

G. Furthermore, since you represent Oportun Inc in a separate case, I was also given information that the liability for SERIOUS AND WILLFUL MISCONDUCT in the State of California is "UNINSURABLE". An S&W award must be paid out of Oportun Incs OWN POCKETS rather than their insurance carrier or THIRD PARTY. Furthermore, the amount of the award CANNOT be adjusted by the judge – if the employer is liable, they must PAY IN FULL, NO EXCEPTIONS. If you could please acknowledge receiving this email, it would be highly appreciated.

                                                                       September 24, 2019

 

HONORABLE JUDGE DORA PADILLA

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

100 PASEO de SAN ANTONIO, SUITE 241

SAN JOSE, CA 95113-1246

 

RE: ADRIAN QUIRARTE VS. OPORTUN INC & ZURICH AMERICAN LAW & MOTION CONFERENCE SET FOR 10/07/2019 8:30a

WCAB:       ADJ11768432

Claim No.   2010347675, 2010389198, 2010389764

DOI:            01/01/2018- 07-22-19

 

Your Honor,

I'm writing to you because I have remained unable to work for the last 1 Year, 5 Months, and 20 days due to workplace injury. Throughout this time, I never received any TTD Benefits from my employer, Oportun Inc., the Defendant party to my Petition for Increased Benefits due to Serious and Willful Misconduct. Within the past weeks, I have been offered job training and certifications to sustain a steady income and open up opportunities for housing by Santa Clara County agencies (e.g Department of Rehabilitation).

I have replied to multiple parties that at this time, I am not allowed to explore the possibility of applying for unemployment benefits, actively seek light work, or generate additional income due to my pending workers' compensation case. Moreover, I have not yet recovered from my workplace injury, and doing so would constitute Workers Compensation Fraud. 

Consequently, my emergency savings during the rejection of my claim have been exhausted due to the need to make emergency repairs to my vehicle, and the number of hardships that have accumulated within the last ten months. Moreover, Mr. Mark Thorndal's intentional lack of communication has made this further unmanageable.

My clinical treating therapist, doctors, case managers, and myself have all been notably overwhelmed by Mr. Thorndal’s cumulative requests all while trying to find solutions to my hardships so that I can continue to move forward with both Mr. Thorndals demands and my workers' compensation claim. I want to be clear that I do not plan on dropping my claim due to the lack of a reliable vehicle, housing, and income.

Your Honor, I have understood that under Labor Code 10416 a party shall be deemed to have waived any and all objections to a proceeding on the issues specified in the opposing parties declaration(s), absent extraordinary circumstances. 

I had considered moving my case to The United States Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit ever since the Fourth Representing Defense Attorney, Mark Thorndal, has told me that he “does not understand why I am espousing benefits to him at this point. My claim remains denied.”

I have contemplated on how to go about formally submitting a hardship letter. Reading reviews for the San Jose Workers Compensation Appeals Board it appears that other unrepresented injured workers have the same experience; which seems to be a common pattern of being treated in an impersonal and condescending manner. This may cause some delay in getting the right information when seeking assistance and may need to do so by going through other channels. 

Information and Assistance Officer did, on the other hand, inform me that Mr. Thorndals order to restrain me from communicating did not involve police or arrest and questioned if I was certain that the Notice to Appear was a Law and Motion Conference.

Both the Information and Assistance Officer and I had agreed, that Mr. Thorndals request to fully cooperate with the discovery process, complete and return the 5-page release for the records of Department of Health Care Services, take “WHATEVER” Action is necessary to secure the release of records by Family and Children Services of Silicon Valley; and Cease and Desist from Direct Communications about my claim with individuals at Oportun & “Zenith”; all while involving Police Activity or an Arrest was a bit unusual as a Plaintiff or Injured Worker simply seeking acknowledgment of receiving emails by the defendant party containing Time-Sensitive Material related to a Workers Compensation Case.

I ask that you grant me leniency moving forward and allow me to continue with my workplace injury despite the difficulties I mention above. I fully intend to make material objections to Mr. Thorndals inaccuracies noted in his most recent Declaration of Readiness to Proceed, any misrepresentations listed in Mr. Thorndals Order to "Cease and Desist" and clarify any misunderstandings due to Mr. Thorndals lack of personal knowledge and those that he may present in future petitions.

 

Sincerely,

Adrian Quirarte

 

CC: MULLEN & FILIPPI LLP SAN FRANCISCO ATTN: MARK THORNDAL

255 CALIFORNIA STREET STE. 1150 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Centering on the PERVASIVE history of EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS by the Defense Parties (PQME, CLAIMS EXAMINER, ETC), carefully evaluating every word in Mr. Mark Thorndals most recent Petition and the SINGLE EMAIL EXHIBIT Mr. Thorndal incorporated as EVIDENCE; it further triggered me to look into the use of "Fake Emails and Electronic Evidence in Litigation." 

Reliving the TYPE of events that had transpired throughout my employment working for Oportun Inc. (MAY 29, 2017-JAN 23 2019), I suspected with reasonable probability, that it was possible to "MANUFACTURE ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE" ( PHONE CALLS, EMAILS, TEXT MESSAGES, SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS, PHOTOGRAPHS, MEDICAL RECORDS, DOCTORS NOTES) to SECURE that the merits of my case be "DISMISSED?"---AND Using Oportun Inc. as a MODEL EMPLOYER; all of which can be facilitated by STONEWALLING EMPLOYEES ( BEFORE THE CASE BEGINS, DISCOVERY, DURING THE CASE AND AFTER THE CASE HAS CONCLUDED) an UNREPRESENTED INJURED WORKER.

( GLASSDOOR REVIEWS: "WORST HR, FAVORITISM AND BACKSTABBING AMONG CORE VALUES, BE VERY CAREFUL, RIP-OFF, RUN FROM THIS PLACE DONT EVEN APPLY HERE THERE ARE BETTER PLACES THAT WILL HAVE YOUR BACK, LACK OF FRIENDLY STAFF, APPRECIATE YOUR EMPLOYEES, SMOKE AND MIRRORS RUN DONT APPLY, HORRIBLE PLACE TO WORK AT, HORRIBLE PLACE,TOO MUCH TOO LITTLE, VERY COMPETITIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND HOSTILE, STRUGGLING, STRESSFUL."- INCLUDED IN MY DOR)

On the subject of STONEWALLING, Unethical, and Professional Misconduct by Defense Attorneys in Litigation, I found types ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE that can be utilized to cheat vulnerable people out of their Money:

A. A WEBSITE CALLED fakeababy Medical records, Ultrasounds, Pregnancy tests, DNA tests INTENDED to be used as "PRANKS." 

B. FAKE TEXT MESSAGES TO PROVE adultery, PROVE Family Violence, PROVE the best interest of a child, to send or receive messages from ANYONE ( CALLER ID SPOOFING), sending PHOTOGRAPHS and CREATING the IMAGE of a text that "failed" to send.

C. FAKE PHONE CALLS: A spouse making harassing phone calls, ORGANIZE PROOF they are on a business trip, PRODUCE EVIDENCE of infidelity that one spouse is calling their "Mate."

I had already been WARNED that typically, for this purpose, Workers Compensation Attorneys DO NOT engage in representing BOTH THE INSURED and THE INSURANCE CARRIER as they are both SEPERATE CASES and conflict can arise at some point and create an even "BIGGER PROBLEM."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THIS AFTERNOON I LEFT A VOICEMAIL FOR MR. MARK THORNDAL ASKING HIM TO PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIVING MY EMAILS AFTER BECOMING AWARE THAT MR. MARK THORNDAL HAD NEVER READ MOST EMAILS ("READ RECEIPTS").; YET MOVING FORWARD WITH MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATIONS TO ENSURE THAT THE BEST INTERESTS OF BOTH HIS CLIENTS ARE BEING MET.

EMAIL FRIDAY SEPT 20, 2019:

Mr. Thorndal,

There seems to be a lot of confusion when referring to the start date of employment with Oportun Inc. On several occasions, I have informed multiple individuals involved with the claim that I did NOT work for Oportun Inc BEFORE May 2017.

A. Your most Recent DOR Cover Sheet indicates that the injury is both "SPECIFIC" and happened April 4, 2017. Mr. Thorndal, this is incorrect.

B. The "TYPE" injury is CUMULATIVE with a START DATE of January 1, 2018, although I had reported employee misconduct to the Regional Manager Rene Gracia as far back as October of 2017.

C. I am providing a statement from Oportun Inc. that serves as evidence that Oportun Inc. is fully aware that the START DATE of my employment was NOT on April 4, 2017.

 

D. Furthermore, I am also providing a sample taken from Oportun's Employee Handbook to serve as "EVIDENCE" that Oportun Inc. "MANDATES ALL OPORTUN INC. EMPLOYEES TO REPORT ANY SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR," which I had done as part of my Job Duties. Please reply when you have read this email.

 

1. A Document from The Disability Evaluation Unit, Disability Evaluator, recorded as of March 4, 2019, declares the following: 

" DEU ALSO RECEIVED TWO PQME REPORTS DATED 10/31/2018, IN WHICH IW's ( INJURED WORKER) WAS NOT PERMANENT & STATIONARY, AND IN THE OTHER REPORT DATED 11/28/18 THE PHYSICIAN PROVIDED RATINGS, BUT THE CONDITION WAS STILL NOT PERMANENT OR STATIONARY." 

 

 

WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 17, 2019:

 

Mr. Thorndal,

The Information and Assistance Officer had previously informed me at the WCAB that filing unnecessary petitions and motions that could have been resolved without Judicial Intervention is a waste of the Workers Compensation Appeals Board time and resources. 

Mr. Thorndal, you filed a Petition to "Cease and Desist" communications with the parties involved with the claim and that all communication in regards to Oportun Inc or Zurich American moving forward must first pass through you.

In the absence of giving your attention to the second claim for "La Placita Kiosk" done in error by the claims examiner, Karoline Atamanyuk, I had no other option but to make reasonable inquiries with multiple individuals as to why this Duplicate claim had been opened under an unknown insured/employer name and what it meant for my current case.   

Furthermore, you have recently filed a Petition to "Restrain" me from Communicating, yet you ask that I "Fully Cooperate" with your suggested "Discovery Process." 

Your request that an Injured Worker suffering from a workplace injury be "Prohibited" or "Restrained" from Communicating on behalf of Oportun Inc. yet "Fully Cooperate with Discovery," to outside parties this seems to be Highly Unethical. 

In the absence of Ms. Karoline Atamanyuk, who had taken personal time off and Oportuns inability to communicate Professionally and Effectively; consequently, I "Discovered" the following: 

A. The claims adjuster put my information to another employer and policy number.

B. The claims adjuster made up my current case under the wrong policy number.

C. What may need to be done by the claims examiner to delete the new case in itself, or the adjuster needs to call their attorney if she wants a proper application for that insured/ employer, if she has not yet opened up the case.

D. I had enrolled my banking information as Ms. Karoline Atamanyuks letter had suggested, the claims adjuster cannot deduct money from my bank account and can only make direct deposit ( ACH) payments.

E. The Payments owed to me "should" be coming from Oportun Inc.

F.  Even if Oportun Inc. (The Parent Company) is now DBA as a Subsidiary "La Placita Kiosk" after replacing their old policy. Oportun Inc. Insurance Carrier can still pay me.

G. Many employers have different Aliases they go under, and the mistake made is going to affect Oportun Inc, not the injured worker.

H. Corporations or Businesses at times change Insurance Companies or policies semi-annually, comparable to Vehicle or Renters Insurance.

I. Since the injury is Cumulative, Oportun may have more than one insurance company or policy covering my claim for a workplace injury.

J. Some Injured Workers may receive payments from another Business or Corporations Insurance Policy (e.g., Taco Bell); when the Victim Business or Corporation finds that their Premiums have increased, adjustments by the claims examiner, who opened up the claim need to be reimbursed to the victim company.

K. When large Corporations or Businesses don't want to report or disclose any losses or expenses to the public, they may pay out claims from their subsidiaries.

L. The claims examiner or broker that opened up the claim under La Placita Kiosk may have arranged to get the all Small Businesses at La Placita Tropicana Shopping Center looking for Small Business Insurance.

M. The claims examiner needs to transfer my the new claim to my actual employer, Oportun Inc.

N. Since the Start Date of Cumulative Injury on the initial Application for Adjudication is incorrectly entered by your client as 04-04-17( a date before working for Oportun Inc.), Oportun Inc. may not admit liability for an injury date before Oportun Inc had employed me.

O. I had filed an Amended Application for Adjudication, and the insurance carrier may have opened it up for question and upon examination, decided to open a new claim with "La Placita Kiosk" to delay the original application with Oportun Inc. further.

I have been advised that the judge does not have time to hear all the issues at hand; and it is expected that we resolved any misunderstandings, as other cases also need to be heard to that day. Mr. Thorndal, as you have suggested in your most recent email, an attempt to resolve ALL matters mentioned above and in previous communications may not be proper in an open and public setting. Most of the claims you do wish to discuss in front of a Judge are to ensure that the interests of both your clients are met. 

Mr. Thorndal, I do NOT have the leisure to E-file (EAMS) documents and found posting my archive publicly to be useful should I need to refer to particular events or dates at any given time (it is also included in my DOR). You can see my archive publicly posted by doing a Google Search:

Ripoffreport.com Oportun La Placita Tropicana

Regards, 

Adrian Quirarte

 

 

 

Subject: RE: Urgent Declaration of Readiness to Proceed/ Petition to Compel 09-17-19

Date: Tue, Sep 17, 2019, at 12:47 PM

Hello Mr. Thorndal,

I last sent you an email on September 11, 2019. It is September 17, and I have yet to receive a reply.In your petition, you declare the following:

" Applicant has maintained a regular practice of communicating by email with multiple individuals within both Oportun and Zurich despite being told repeatedly that Oportun and Zurich are represented by counsel, and that all communication must pass through their attorney- the undersigned."

I am making further efforts to communicate directly with you, the defense attorney, once more in hopes that I will receive an answer within a reasonable amount of time. I wanted to address the following issues in your petition because I firmly believe you have been misinformed.

 

1. I spoke to Liberty Mutual once again in regards to your concerns that I have possibly tried to file workers compensation claims with multiple employers; thus undermining my credibility for a workplace injury when working for Oportun Inc.

A. The 2012 Psychiatric Injury Claim you had mentioned in your most recent Petition is WC608-A24029. I stated in a prior email that you did not provide any exhibits in your most recent Petition (LAW & MOTION CONFERENCE SET FOR 10/07/19 8:30a WITH JUDGE DORA PADILLA) rather you had included an email from your copy service management team. (see EMAIL MACRO PRO M THORNDAL EXHIBIT 082219)

B. I never filed a claim for Psychiatric Injury, Comcast Corporation had submitted information to Liberty Mutual in the event I had a desire to file a workplace injury; that is just Comcast Corporations duty to act responsibly. Moreover, Comcast has strong policies against sexual and other forms of harassment allegation of harassment is taken very seriously.

C. I was further informed by Liberty Mutual that MOST employers in CA, including Comcast Corporation, immediately report any injury to their Insurance Carrier since Comcast Corporation is a "fast-paced" environment and may at times require moderate "physical activity." (see IMAGE EMAIL REGIONAL RENE GRACIA 100717) 

D. I did not pursue a Psychiatric Injury claim in 2012; therefore, there is nothing in my claim file, and I never sought to receive compensation from Comcast. I have made personal statements which can be seen in my complaint to the DWC Audit Unit, that I have no prior experience going through the Workers' Compensation system.  

E. That department advised me that a copy of my complaint could also be sent to the Claims Administrator, Karoline Atamanyuk. Sometimes this helps to resolve a problem( This can be seen in my 94 Page Declaration of Readiness to Proceed dated March 12, 2019). 

F. Ms. Atamanyuk had initially informed me that I was NOT to contact her Paralegal when making inquiries on the Application for Adjudication filed by Zurich's "in-house" counsel, Susan S. Chin December 14, 2018. 

G. Ms. Anastasia Wright with Mullen & Filippi LLP SJ later clarified that she was NOT Ms. Atamanyuks Paralegal, she represents her company. It appears that when Defending both Oportun Inc. & Zurich, you are also defending multiple individuals associated with the claim, not the merits of my claim for a workplace injury. 

H. Oportun Inc. responded to my concerns concerning my employment to have NO merit, which I had first deemed an attempt to deny my claim for a workplace injury to prevent an increase in Insurance Premiums.

I. Nevertheless, Oportun Inc. states the following: "If we or our competitors receive NEGATIVE PUBLICITY AROUND MAKING LOANS TO UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS, it may draw additional attention from regulatory bodies or consumer advocacy groups, all of which may harm our brand and business. "

J.Furthermore, It is highly questionable that your clients would seek a Restraining Order on an Injured Worker who has filed a "Mental Stress" claim, without providing any exhibits of the "illicit" emails in your Petition. Illicit usually refers to something that is NOT Morally Proper or acceptable. (see IMAGE OPORTUN INC YEARLY REVIEW 123117)

Mr. Thorndal, there is no assurance that there will be a significant change in your communications; however, I ask once again that moving forward if you could please acknowledge receiving my emails.

 

 

Thu, Sep 19, 2019, at 3:44 PM

Hello Mr. Thorndal,

I just spoke with the Information and Assistance Office, and I just had a few things I wanted to address after terminating the phone call.

The Department of Healthcare Services had advised me that if the Defense Attorney representing my employer for a workplace injury had requested that I send Personal Identifying Information in an attempt obtain PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION (PHI); it was highly suggested that I first send the forms you had filled out to the DHCS so that they can first be inspected. 

This is merely procedural to ensure that I don't send PHOTOCOPIES of PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION such as Medi-Cal ID, Photo ID, Home and Mailing Address to UNKNOWN INDIVIDUALS. 

( There had been heavy confusion with the agency as to why the PERSON/ORGANIZATION TO RECEIVE INFORMATION was listed as ZURICH DEPOSITION OFFICER P.O BOX 93010 Long Beach CA; furthermore that the form specifies in bold print “RECORDS WILL NOT BE SENT TO PHOTOCOPY SERVICES ( Macro Pro)."

I had further explained to the DHCS that you had recently filed a Petition to requesting that I fully cooperate with the discovery process, complete and Return the 5-page Release for the Records of Department of Health Care Services and that you wish to take “WHATEVER” action is necessary to secure the release of records by Family and Children Services of Silicon Valley.—You believe that I have not been cooperative or have been trying to obstruct your SUGGESTED DISCOVERY PLAN.

A. The Department of Health Care Services advised me that if you wish to call the Third Party Liability Division, that you may do so so that they can explain that when opening up a Claim for workplace injury with the Department of Health Care Services Liability and Recovery website, it takes 30 days before any further actions can be taken.

B. DHCS had also informed me that I revise the application using another web browser since Safari or Google Chrome tend to have issues when entering a (New Case)

C. I used the Firefox Browser again on September 6th and DHCS informed me that they could also give you ( Mr. Mark Thorndal) that information over the phone should you wish to inquire about the browsers compatibility on the DHCS website.

D. DHCS mentioned you would need to provide them with the Medical ID and Start Date of Cumulative Injury, January 1st, 2019. ( I had asked if the Defense Attorney for Oportun Inc. would have the ability to change any of the information on the New Case, having Personal Identifying Information such as NAME, DOB, SSN, MAILING ADDRESS, WC CLAIM NUMBER, MEDI-CAL ID NUMBER, etc.)

E. I wanted to ask if you could investigate and send copies of the 2 QME Report(s) submitted by Dr. Allan C. Sidle dated 10/31/18 that the DEU had received, before addressing apportionment. Speaking to the Information and Assistance Officer, this seems to be very important.

It appears to be a basic strategy to drive issues further when a mistake has been made on the Defendant parties behalfs. Mr. Mark Thorndal has requested that I be further compelled to Cooperate with the Discovery Process, moreover, take Whatever Action is necessary to secure the release of records by Family and Children Services of Silicon Valley. 

I have explained in my Notice of Motion for Protective Order ( see: III. WCAB), that, I had some reasonable concerns that the "Wording" on some of the "Authorization Notices" was carefully designed to "Trap" the recipient(s) of such notices into making mistakes ( such as releasing those records mistakingly) which the Defendants can later Exploit or use as a tool for further Harassment. ( see image: Oportun Macro Pro Legal Violation 072919)

For this reason, Mr. Mark Thorndal cannot insist that I have either obstructed and or have failed to acknowledge authorization forms (which can at times resemble a court-ordered subpoena) and should be compelled to do so, taking "WHATEVER" action is needed. I have not received a reply to my email dated September 11, 2019. ( see image: LC 132a OPORTUN INC ZURICH)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Mark Thorndals Declaration of Readiness to Proceed and Petition to Compell received via USPS September 11, 2019; identifies "Incessant Communications." I have not heard from Mr. Mark Thorndal since.

In the past, I have written to Mr. Thorndal that "Stonewalling" an injured worker seems to facilitate the issue of contacting other parties involved with the case; moreover the case involves Serious and Willful Misconduct by Oportun Inc. On several occasions, I have already specified that I had mentioned to each person involved with the claim that I did NOT work for Oportun Inc. before May 2017. ( see IMAGE BUREAU OF FIELD ENFORCEMENT PG 1)

Mr. Thorndal has sought an Order with the Workers Compensation Appeals Board, that all communication must first pass through him. Mr. Thorndal has rejected almost every topic to secure that the best interests of both defense parties are met.

Mr. Thorndal has ignored, that DOL ( US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR) requires that employers post specific notices in their workplaces to ensure their employees have access to information about their rights, that Corporations, including Oportun Inc., have to follow. "Safekeeping" State and Federal Labor Laws Posters in a locked space are permitted after the first requirement is met. The Bureau of Field Enforcement Office further advised me that I inform the claims examiner handling my workplace injury claim, that my employer, Oportun Inc., failed to provide the Notice required (DWC-7). 

I have made several attempts to inform the defense attorney for both Oportun Inc. and Zurich that when an employer fails to provide the required DWC-7, an injured worker may be treated by his/her physician for any injury during the period of non-compliance. 

All parties ( Oportun Inc. HR & the claims examiner) that Mr. Thorndal identifies in his recent petition should be informed that the lack of following requirements, gives injured employee(s) added rights, such as being treated by the injured workers' personal physician for any injury during the period of non-compliance, rather than going through Oportun Inc. MPN ( Medical Provider Network).

Furthermore, a civil penalty of up to $7,000 for each violation and the tolling of the statute of limitations for filing claims by injured workers only further creates the image that Mr. Thorndals clients may have done what has been being alleged.

Mr. Thorndal continues to declare that I am pursuing a DENIED claim of Mental Stress/Psychiatric Injury and Serious and Willful Misconduct. I had already made Statements that when Mr. Mark Thorndal was appointed as the Defense Attorney for both Oportun Inc. and its Workers' Compensation Insurance Carrier, it created an atmosphere that allowed "Legal Intrusion" by Oportun Inc. What would be deemed "Ex- Parte Communications" otherwise. 

It is apparent, that as an unrepresented injured worker suffering from Stress-Induced Neurological Impairments, Mr. Mark Thorndal may be trying to create the image that I have either sought to pursue Workers Compensation Benefits from multiple employers or due to the nature of the injury, or that I may not have been suitable to work for Oportun Inc for being "Inattentive", "Dreamy", or "Absent-Minded."

Opposite of what Mr. Thorndal may think, a fundamental principle of Workers' Compensation law is that The Company "takes the employee as he finds him or her." 

Oportun Inc's attempt to avoid liability for a Cumulative Workplace Injury by alleging that the damage would not have occurred if the injured worker (the applicant) had been in a "different" physical or emotional state before the exposure; will reflect poorly on Oportuns Corporate Values of Service. 

Oportun Inc. caters most to the Underserved Hispanic Community. Oportuns Incs loans are "Targeted" to individuals who find themselves in a Financial Crisis; Car Repairs, Home Repairs, Rental Assistance, Medical Bills and Immigration Attorneys.

Oportun Inc. should reasonably be aware that ANY of its Employees who may be in Moderate to Poor Physical or Mental Health or does not get enough Physical Exercise is still entitled to Workers' Compensation benefits for occupational injuries. 

The afternoon, September 11, 2019, I received correspondence from Mr. Mark Thorndal. The Declaration of Readiness to Proceed, Mr. Thorndal asked that I cooperate in the "discovery process"; moreover Mr. Thorndal asked that I Cease and Desist communicating with represented parties. Mr. Mark Thorndal blatantly distorted facts in his petition to compel with the following:

" Applicant has maintained a regular practice of communicating by email with multiple individuals within both Oportun and Zurich despite being told repeatedly that Oportun and Zurich are represented by counsel, and that all communication must pass through their attorney- the undersigned."

Mr. Mark Thorndal has dismissed the contents of my emails. In those emails, I informed Mr. Thorndal that I was advised by Ms. Atamanyuk via telephone to forward all further communication to Mr. Thorndal; an attorney represents her.

Mr. Thorndal fails to acknowledge in his petition, that I received two letters from Ms. Karoline Atamanyuk, the claims specialist. Both letters produced in error were asking me to keep an open line of communication with the claims examiner, Karoline Atamanyuk (see images).  I politely asked the Zurich claims examiner, Karoline Atamanyuk, via email the following ( see: STONEWALLING III):

"I do not know if this claim was made in error, as your cover letter advised that I keep an open line of communication, which I have tried to do. 

You added that you would be conducting an "initial" assessment and evaluation. I was advised this could all be a misunderstanding since the letter was issued right before you had taken personal time off. ( see images)

I had been advised that even if your insured, the "Parent Company", Oportun Inc., opened up a new policy under a "Dummy Name" La Placita Kiosk; the claims adjuster who opened up the new policy will be required to make all the necessary adjustments should payments be issued from the wrong policy."

Mr. Thorndal fails to write in his Declaration that both parties, Oportun Inc. and Zurich have previously sent me correspondence to my mailing address; following the error for the duplicate claim for La Placita Kiosk, erroneously made by claims examiner, Karoline Atamanyuk. 

The evening of September 11, 2019, I wrote Mr. Thorndal the following via email after receiving both his Declaration of Readiness to Proceed and Petition to Compel.

Subject: RE: Declaration of Readiness to Proceed/ Petition to Compel 09-11-19

Date: Wed, September 11, 2019, at 11:24 PM

From: "Adrian Quirarte" 

Hello,

Could you please forward my concerns to Mr. Mark Thorndal? I received correspondence from Mr. Thorndal this afternoon; however, Mr. Thorndal listed 13 dates he is unavailable for a Status Conference. There are several inaccuracies in Mr. Thorndals Applications.

1. The Cover Sheet in your most recent Declaration Of Readiness to Proceed served 09-09-19, the injury type is noted as "Specific" rather than "Cumulative." 

(Cumulative trauma is contrasted with a Specific Injury, which is ONE SINGLE INCIDENT and because it is not a Single Incident, an Employee may not know he or she has a Cumulative Trauma until a doctor tells him or her.) 

2. The date of Specific Injury is 04/04/2017. On several occasions, I have already specified that I had mentioned to each person involved with the claim that I did NOT work for Oportun Inc. before May 2017.

3. I began my employment with Oportun Inc. on the approximate date of May 27, 2017. Mr. Thorndal, how could a workplace injury happen before being hired by Oportun Inc? In your Prayer, you also ask that I "cease and desist" from contacting "Zenith."

4. In your Petition to Compell, you declare that I had filed for Psychiatric Injury with Comcast Corporation in 2012. I Spoke with the company DBA Liberty Mutual, and they assured me that I never filed a claim for Psychiatric Injury, Comcast Corporation had submitted information to them in the event I had a desire to file a workplace injury; that is just Comcast Corporations duty to act responsibly. You did not present any evidence of such a claim in your exhibits.

5. Your Declaration also exhibits an email that Macro Pro sent you, stating that the Custodian of Records for Family and Children Services of Silicon Valley had informed Macro Pro that I made a request that records not be released.

6. My Therapist has been working on your subpoena request; however, the problem lies with Macro Pros practices, not the Custodian of Records or the facilities. Your claim that I am NOT cooperative is misleading.

7. Your Declaration also states that I have sent "Illicit" emails. Mr. Thorndal, "Illicit" usually refers to something that is not morally proper or acceptable. I have written to you that I received correspondence from Oportun Inc; moreover, that is a form of communication. Oportun Inc. has formerly been involved in Personal Injury litigation for causing harm, including aggravation, nuisance, emotional distress, and invasion of privacy to its consumers. (and its shareholders)

8. Stonewalling seems to facilitate the issue of contacting other parties involved with the case. Furthermore, you did not include exhibits of those emails in your petition; and I do not know if you were given legally validated information. I have understood that "Hearsay Evidence" is not relevant in a courtroom setting.

9. Should you wish to see those emails, I have publicly posted them online, following Ms. Anastasia Wright, and I agreeing to take my deposition via Skype, Remote or Electronic means. I do not have the leisure to E-file (EAMS) documents and found it to be beneficial should I need to refer to particular events or dates at any given time.

You can see my archive publicly posted by doing a Google Search:

Ripoffreport.com Oportun La Placita Tropicana

Regards,

Adrian Quirarte

 

 

 

 

This afternoon, September 11, 2019, I received correspondence from Mr. Mark Thorndal. The Declaration of Readiness to Proceed, Mr. Thorndal asks that I cooperate in the "discovery process"; moreover Mr. Thorndal asks that I Cease and Desist communicating with represented parties. 

 

In Mr. Thorndals Prayer Statement, Mr. Thorndal requests the following on behalf of his clients:

 

1. Fully Cooperate with the Discovery Process
2. Complete and Return the 5-page Release for the Records of Department of Health Care Services.
3. Take Whatever Action is necessary to secure the release of records by Family and Children Services of Silicon Valley; and
4. Cease and Desist from Direct Communications about my claim with individuals at Oportun & "Zenith." 

A. This would a second time; a foreign defendant has been listed in the parties' production of documents — the first occurrence listed Gallagher & Basset Insurance as a defendant party by Ms. Anastasia Wright the second defense attorney inside the same law firm.

B. In the most recent event, I do not know if Mr. Mark Thorndal is referring to Zenith- Swiss Luxury Watches & Manufacture or Zenith Electronics.

C. The Cover Sheet for Mr. Thordals most recent Declaration of Readiness to Proceed 09-09-19, the injury type is noted as "Specific" rather than "Cumulative." 

D. The date of Specific Injury is 04/04/2017. On several occasions, I have already specified that I had mentioned to each person involved with the claim that I did NOT work for Oportun Inc. before May 2017.  

E. I began my employment with Oportun Inc. on the approximate date of May 27, 2017. How could a workplace injury happen before being hired by Oportun Inc?

D. Mr. Thorndal seems to have requested the incorrect form to request medical records in his two last petitions (DHCS 6247). It appears to be a common strategy to press issues further when a mistake is made on the defendant parties behalfs. The information I am given by the State or Federal Agencies is much more credible than the statements provided by Mr. Mark Thorndal, who is a Defense Attorney for both Workers Compensation and Serious and Willful Misconduct by Employers.

Medical Authorization Release Forms sent to billing and appeals Departments "worded" to resemble a court-ordered Subpoena; considerably comparable to opening up the third claim for Progress Financial Corp/Oportun Inc.( 2010389764) to mitigate opening up the Second Claim in Error by the claims examiner ( 2010389198 ), La Placita Kiosk.

E. Mr. Thorndal has either willfully missed out or ignored critical information sent via email that further allows Mr. Thorndal to misconstrue facts at his advantage to take control of the case. With this approach, Mr. Thorndal, under sworn testimony, can declare, "To tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Mon, September 9, 2019, at 4:05 PM, I sent yet another email to Mr. Mark Thorndal. September 9 is the same date that Mr. Thorndal served his Declaration of Readiness to Proceed.

"Mr. Thorndal,

I received your notice asking me to "cease and desist."

I understand that a cease and desist letter is a document sent to an individual or business to stop purportedly "illegal activity" ("cease") and not to restart it ("desist").

I donʼt know if you were informed, but Oportun Inc. HR did send me correspondence via USPS recently. That would be considered a form of communication.

Furthermore, I was trying to advise Oportuns HR that I did not leave Oportun on bad terms for employee misconduct. I was terminated during Workers Compensation proceedings for a workplace injury.

It seems as if Oportun has mishandled the communication regarding my departure internally and externally. I have a right to clear my name. The attachment provided is from an employee claiming that there is "Fraud" being committed within Oportun Inc.

This should suffice that I was simply taking the initiative to do the "right thing" by reaching out to Oportuns Inc. HR department. It seems as if Oportun Inc. does not take Fraud seriously."

A. I have made suggestions, starting with Oportuns Executive Management that Not having Cameras, Panic buttons, On-Site Management or Corporate Security inside La Placita Shopping Center or Failure to have Outdoor Signage for Oportun Inc. to let others (such as an emergency dispatch) know our exact location in the event of an emergency formulated a "Manufactured Crisis." 

I added that Oportun Inc. should have been more aware that as a Financial Institution, Oportun Inc. employees have an increased risk of violence and endangerment in all locations, notably in retail locations that located in areas with high levels of criminal activities, yet Oportun Inc., remains preoccupied with its opinion that my concerns about safety at my place of work being unsafe to have "No Merit."

B. However, to its Shareholders, Oportun Inc. States the opposite: 

"Because we receive a significant amount of cash in our retail locations through customer loan repayments, we may be subject to theft and cash shortages due to employee errors."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

August 26, 2019, I had notified the representing attorney for both Oportun Inc. & Zurich American, Mark Thorndal, via email that I had spoken to the Information and Assistance Officer concerning the third claim (2010389764) and that I was further advised by the Information and Assistance officer that there must be a lack of communication between the claims examiner, Karoline Atamanyuk, and her representing attorney.

In that email, August 26, 2019, I state the following: "This third claim has been done in error and needs to be closed as well."

September 9, 2019, I receive a letter from the claims examiner, Karoline Atamanyuk, dated September 3, 2019. In her NOTICE DENYING WORKERS COMPENSATION BENEFIT letter, Ms. Atamanyuk states the following:

"After careful consideration of all available information, we are denying liability for your claim of injury. Workers Compensation Benefits are being denied because this claim is duplicative of existing claim for cumulative trauma psychiatric injury from 4/4/17 4/4/18. You were no longer employed with insured as of 1/24/19 as noted in the newly alleged periods of injurious exposure of 1/1/18 to 7/22/19."

On several occasions, I have already specified that I had notified each person involved with the claim that I did NOT work for Oportun Inc. before May 2017.

Furthermore, I was advised by the Information and Assistance Officer that the end date of injury could be tricky since it could go well beyond my time of employment and that I should set the last date of "treatment received" as the end date of cumulative injury.

 

 

Date: Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 12:55 PM
Subject: RE: Duplicate Claims: La Placita Kiosk, Progress Financial Corp./ Oportun - Application for Adjudication 12/14/18
To: Stacy Newton 

Hello Stacey,   Could you please forward my email to the right personnel within Oportuns HR Department? I do not understand why Oportun Inc. HR has chosen to ignore my concerns regarding my workers' compensation claim.  I did not leave Oportun on bad terms for employee misconduct. I was terminated during Workers Compensation proceedings for work-place injury.  It seems as if Oportun has mishandled the communication regarding my departure internally and externally. I am not able to effectively communicate with Oportuns HR. 

My concerns are directly related to my employer ( such as requesting documentation, forms, paystubs, etc) and would normally require the employer to be more proactive during the claims process. Furthermore, the attorney for Oportun handling my claim for  Serious & Willful Misconduct does not respond to my concerns in a responsible manner.     

When asking the Representing Attorney about specific documents that could assist with my entitlement to any type of past-due benefits Mr. Thorndal has responded with the following:

"Be advised that many claims examiners have Fridays off, or every other Friday off. In general, whenever I need to reach a claims examiner there is always a good chance they are not in the office that day, or they are in meetings, or on another call, or their computers are down. And when I request a document, the task is often assigned to an overworked assistant who has many other things to do." 

If you could please forward my concerns to the right personnel. I find if Mr. Thorndal and the claims examiner may have a case-overload and cannot effectively respond to my concerns within a reasonable amount of time, I should be given alternatives to resolve the ongoing issues presented in the documents attatched. 

 

                                                                            AUGUST 28 2019

 

The Honorable Judge Howard Levin

Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board

100 Paseo de San Antonio, Room 241

San Jose, CA 95113-1402

 

RE:   ADRIAN QUIRARTE vs. OPORTUN INC & ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

WCAB:       ADJ11768432

Claim No.   2010347675, 2010389198, 2010389764

DOI:            01/01/2018- 07-22-19

 

Your Honor:

 

August 13, 2019, I wrote a letter validating that I had filed and served an Amended Application for Adjudication of Claim on August 2, 2019. Furthermore, I added that it was unclear if the Defendant parties in action further sought to provide an acknowledgment of receiving or an answer to that request, rather than open up a new claim.

 

I wrote:

"Your honor, I was not hired by "La Placita Kiosk." Oportun Inc. hired me. Additionally, the claims examiner has asked me to maintain an open line of communication during the initial assessment and evaluation. This has clearly been done in error.”

I had asked that Mr. Thorndal, please respond to the concerns and exhibits in that letter. It did not appear that Mr. Thorndal had acknowledged that letter until my employer, Oportun Inc., reached out to him." 

Mr. Thorndal then forwarded me the DWC-1 claim form; he received from my past employer Oportun Inc. The DWC-1 claim form given to Mr. Thorndal was intended for the second claim, "La Placita Kiosk" (2010389198). 

I had asked Mr. Thorndal why Oportuns HR Department had identified the date the insured "La Placita Kiosk" first knew of the injury as of August 15, 2019.August 16, 2019, Mr. Thorndal replied via email with the following response:

"Mr. Quirarte:

The DWC-1 Workers Compensation Claim form that you submitted references the date of injury as 1/1/18 to 7/22/19. This is not the date of injury for your existing claim so unfortunately whether it was your intention or not, you have indeed just filed a new claim and therefore the date the employer first knew of the injury is correctly reflected on the form. You will receive a new acknowledgment in the mail from Zurich of this new claim within the next few days. “

August 26, 2019, I replied to Mr. Thorndal with the following:

Hello Mr. Thorndal,

I was advised by Ms. Atamanyuk to forward all further communication to you, as she is represented by an attorney.

1. I do not know why I received a letter from Ms. Atamanyuk asking me to keep an open line of communication, which I have done.

2. Form DWC-1 for the insured La Placita Kiosk was not included with her initial acknowledgment letter with a date of 08-08-19. This was confirmed by the information and assistance officer.

3. I was further advised that form DWC-1 opens up the workers' compensation case/claim and starts the process of getting all the benefits I may qualify under state law.

4. Could you provide me with Form DWC-1 for the insured La Placita Kiosk? This is for claim 2010389198. It does appear that both "La Placita Kiosk" & Oportun Inc. are on the same policy.

 

Mr. Thorndal responded with the following:

 

"Mr. Quirarte:

There is no claim against La Placita Kiosk (and therefore no DWC-1 Claim Form). Zurich erroneously set up a claim and sent that 8/8/19 acknowledgment letter to you after receiving your amended application. Your amended application should not have triggered a new claim. This was an error which was explained to you in Zurich's subsequent letter dated 8/16/19. I have attached a copy of that letter as a reminder."

Your Honor, Due to Mr. Thorndals lack of response, I had to visit the Information and Assistance Office and make a number of calls, although reasonably the information and assistance officer could not answer questions on behalf of Mr. Thorndal or his clients. The claims examiner handling the claim failed to respond since she had taken personal time off. 

You can see by the details in the attachments provided that the letter with a date of August 16, 2019, from the claims specialist, has advised me that the claim for “La Placita Kiosk” with a Date of Injury of 01-01-2018 was set up in error and was created after the receipt of my Amended Application for Adjudication. 

A. I do not know why Mr. Mark Thorndal would assume that I had received Zurich's' subsequent letter dated August 16, 2019, if the claims examiner had taken personal time off during that period.

B. The claims Examiner, Karoline Atamanyuks, auto-reply stated the following:

"Thank you for contacting Zurich Claims. Please note I will be out of the office for jury duty and PTO until 8/20/19. I will respond to your email as soon as possible upon my return.”

C. I received yet another initial acknowledgment letter for a Third claim (2010389764) under the same policy for Oportun Inc or La Placita Kiosk from Ms. Karoline Atamanyuk, with a date of August 19, 2019, which I have asked via email to be closed immediately. The claims examiner had also taken personal time off during this period. 

Furthermore, acknowledging I have an open case number with the WCAB, I would like to ask that Mr. Thorndal respond to the concerns I present in this letter. Please see the attachments.

Sincerely,

Adrian Quirarte (Applicant)

 

CC: MULLEN & FILIPPI LLP SAN FRANCISCO ATTN: MARK THORNDAL

255 CALIFORNIA STREET STE. 1150 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

February 16, 2019, I filed a grievance report with the DWC AUDIT UNIT on the claims examiner, Karoline Atamanyuk, after getting advice from the staff at Division of Workers Compensation Appeals Board.

1. The chief complaint had been that the newly assigned claims examiner, Karoline Atamanyuk, had informed me much later in the claims process that whatever information that I had been told by the former claims administrator managing my claim was incorrect.

2. Lorrie Peek, the claims specialist, had assured me from the start of the claim that when obtaining any medical documentation or forwarding correspondence (related to my workers' compensation claim) to their Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME), Dr. Sidle; I would always receive a print of those documents.

3. Ms. Karoline Atamanyuk mailed me a letter ( November 12, 2018) informing me that she had newly been appointed as the professional best equipped to handle the demands of my claim moving forward.

4. I was further advised that whatever, the previous claims examiner, Ms. Lorrie Peek, had told me about receiving copies of any communication or medical records between the claims administrator and the QME was incorrect or wrong, "Due to liability reasons."

5. Should a claims examiner decide to communicate "ex-parte," or choose to engage in questionable activities such as altering documents, backdate records, reports or hold on to personal data to support an unfair dismissal of my claim, it would be difficult to dispute the merits of the injured workers' case. I expressed to Zurich various times that this had been a very intimidating experience.

6. My suspicions started on the last week of November 2018, upon getting Dr. Allan C. Sidles QME report completed on November 28, 2018. Dr. Sidle specified in his report "that he had spent 3 hours reviewing the submitted medical records." ( which he billed for).

7. Not sending me copies of medical records, delaying medical records moreover sending records days before the QME report due, in my opinion very misleading. Furthermore, I never received copies of any medical records of medical records or documents as Lorrie Peek had suggested.

8. I did not become aware that "Ex Parte" communications by any three parties involved with the claim, violated the Labor Code until being told by the Workers Compensation Appeals Board to use FORM QME 37 to make factual corrections to Dr. Sidles QME Report formally.

9. I had explained, the claims examiner, Karoline Atamanyuk, ordered me to send my factual corrections to Dr. Allan Sidle and herself ("ASAP") all without giving me a specific date or using the designated form from the DIR Website.

10. Had I taken Ms. Atamanyuks advice, there would have been no record of that request on file with the Workers Compensation Appeals Board.

11. The claims examiner, Karoline Atamanyuk, also made a request via telephone that I send her my Oportun Inc. annual review for 2017. I found this odd since I had already met with the QME Doctor on two separate occasions.

12. I had advised Ms. Atamanyuk via phone that my yearly review was a "private matter." Oportun Inc. had given me many adverse remarks based on my performance. Oportuns executive management, with the help of outside counsel, denied that there had been a damaging effect on my employment.

13. I suggested Ms. Karoline Atamanyuk if a privative yearly report, using Oportun Inc. as an example, could be applied in any manner to determine the outcome of injured workers eligibility for workers compensation benefits. Moreover, for some obscure reason, Oportun Inc. did not approve of its distribution.

14. An Application For Adjudication of Claim was later filed on December 14, 2018. by the Zurich American on behalf of Ms. Karoline Atamanyuk and her personal conclusions with the Workers Compensation Appeals Board.

 

 

On January 28, 2019, I notified Dr. Allan C. Sidle via telephone that I had a desire to make factual corrections to the narrative in his QME Report; yet, I felt it was best to wait for Dr. Sidle's supplemental report to make those revisions.

The supplemental report ( at the request of the claims examiner, Karoline Atamanyuk) had been expected on or before February 3, 2019, following Dr. Sidles primary QME report that had been completed on November 28, 2018.

Dr. Allan Sidle went on to explain that "He is not perfect" and "He is aware he does make mistakes."  He did not debate the need to make factual corrections to his narrative; still, he was not sure why the claims examiner, Karoline Atamanyuk, had failed to notify him.

Ending our telephone conversation, Dr. Sidle asked me, when reaching out to Zurichs Secretary, if I could forward his concerns in respect to the miscommunication given to him by the claims examiner, Karoline Atamanyuk; circling the issue of the supplemental report for almost 60 days.

The previous month ( December 21, 2018), I wrote to the claims examiner, Karoline Atamanyuk, the following:

"I spent 6 1/2 hours face to face, where Dr. Sidle also states in his report that he had spent 3 hours reviewing the submitted medical records and spent 5 hours preparing his report." 

"Although I believe Dr. Sidle's judgment that the Pre-dominant cause of psychiatric injury was industrial at 60% and Pre-existing to be 40% is "fair," some of the narrative in his report regarding personal details I find to be incorrect or inaccurate, which I find still needs to be addressed.

In Dr. Sidles Letters dates: 10/31/18, 11/28/18, /1/28/19 Dr. Sidle had determined that the Pre-dominant cause of injury is Industrial. 

In Dr. Sidle's letter dated 10/31/18, Dr. Sidle states: "that it is his opinion, also with reasonable medical probability, that I need both psychiatric and psychological treatment. The Psychiatrist would be able to address medication issues; the Psychologist would be able to conduct CBT." 

 

 

During the first hour of our meeting, Dr. Allan C. Sidle asked: "Why I was looking to file for workers compensation." Additionally, Dr. Sidle asserted "that there is no money to be made by filing a workers compensation claim.” Dr. Sidle further suggested if "I had considered working from home." 

Moving on, Dr. Sidle proposed, "Why I did not just quit my employer? If I had witnessed activity that I felt was illegal, dishonest, or inappropriate and made me feel unsafe or uncomfortable, why did I not just quit?" 

I responded, "That the Job Description for 'Oportun Inc. did not indicate abnormal working conditions when I applied. I had no immediate plans to terminate my employment."

Furthermore, “ I dropped in performance and passed on my opportunities to other employees, afraid of potential secret shoppers who could be federal agents observing our application process, since the flyers had warned employees of Workplace Raids and Audits at the Federal Governments' request starting January 1st, 2018.” ( AB450)

Dr. Sidle’s peculiar line of questioning concerning the abnormal and unusual working conditions at my place of employment and working for Oportun Inc; I had asked Dr. Sidle "What he would do in a situation where he was aware that he had been presented stolen identities, wherewith past employers working in telecommunications and offering services similar to my current employment, I had never been subjected to that type of activity or environment. 

Dr. Sidle responded "that in the past, he too has had clients who have filed for workers compensation using social security numbers that belonged to another individual."In short, Dr. Sidle continued 'that he wouldn't report them, because he was not above the law and that his clients could be represented by an attorney should they wish to sue.”

On the subject of meeting our monthly goals and explaining to Dr. Sidle that I had been subjected to miscommunication by both management and employees; Dr. Sidle asked "If I had felt that at times employees could tell customers when to come in or when not to come in depending on my work schedule." I replied, "Yes."

Dr. Sidle clarified that,”It was common for employees that were Foreign-Born Mexican Nationals to be harassed or discriminated against by Mexican-Americans in the workplace.” I  replied that,”I felt the same; however, I was born in the US, and with previous employers, my place of birth had never made me feel less than other employees.”

Dr. Sidle reassured me that he understood many of the points I made, due to familiarity with "Mexican Culture." Dr. Sidle momentarily brushed on the subject of "Mexican Superstitions and Mexican Witchcraft” and reflected on playing a part in an "Exorcism" with the Catholic Church some time ago.

Requesting factual corrections to be made to Dr. Allan Sidles QME Report completed November 28, 2019, I drafted the following corrections:

1. I had planned to work for Oportun helping "Latinos" for a year to gain experience and then apply at a mainstream bank." This was incorrect.

A. I had been looking for employment in different areas, since applicants were required to speak both English and Spanish as well as have experience in Customer Service and Sales, I applied for the position. I took two interviews during their job fair with Jaziel Velez and David Flores and was hired on the same day.

B. I had shown no desire to change employers. I had begun the application process for the store-lead position, a new position that became available in February or March in 2018 after a co-worker Lina Mejorado and Maria Aranda in the Payroll Department had encouraged me to apply.

 2. "He has stated he had not worked since 4/4/18, the date of injury at Oportun." This was incorrect. 

A. The date of injury was not 4/4/18. April 4, 2018, is when I no felt I could no longer return to work due to "abnormal working conditions, a combination of the ongoing treatment I had been receiving by employees, management and the circumstances surrounding my employment." 

B. I had reached out to the Regional Manager, Rene Gracia about my concerns. The regional manager answered via email, "That I do the best that I can." 

C. I communicated to Dr. Sidle many times, ”I don't share any information on the activities surrounding my workplace inside and out or my daily activities following my leave due to the embarrassment and circumstances surrounding my employment and the way Oportun Inc. had chosen to respond to my concerns. It was clear that I was not welcomed returning to work.

3. ”One day, when his car wouldn't start, he actually got into a car accident, he was so anxious." This was incorrect. 

A. I explained to Dr. Sidle that anxiety manifested itself when my vehicle had been vandalized, after a co-worker, Lina Mejorado, had mentioned that ”It was likely that the individuals who patrol the parking lot on a daily basis, tampered with my car battery to open the windows and make an attempt steal my recently purchased car equipment. 

B. Dr. Sidle asked, "Why I just couldn't take the bus to work if I was afraid of my vehicle being vandalized at my place of employment?”

I responded that "Other options such as walking or taking the bus to work presented the same if not more risks in an area that has a reasonably high crime rate," where I specified that the time I normally left work was around 7 pm.

4. ”He said his first audit was positive." This is incorrect. 

A. I reported to Dr. Sidle that "my very first audit experience with Oportun was extremely negative." The District Manager, David Flores, had ordered me to "wait in my car" during my first store audit and "not to come back to the store until he instructed me to." 

B. Having The Regional Manager, David Flores, ask me to wait in my car starting my shift during a company audit made me "feel very insecure about how Oportun Inc. viewed me as a new employee without giving me any explanation.,”

C. The embarrassment and circumstances surrounding Oportun Inc., has made it extremely difficult to discuss personal information with any individual who asks about my work status and daily activities." Furthermore, I commented to Dr. Allan Sidle that it was not an ideal "Icebreaker" in conversation. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EMAIL TO DEFENSE ATTORNEY MARK THORNDAL MULLEN & FILIPPI LLP AUGUST 19 2019:

 

Mr. Thorndal,

Due to all the confusion, it was suggested that it would be best for Ms. Atamanyuk to call her attorney if she wants the proper application filed for that insured/employer ( “La Placita Kiosk”).

1.Ms. Atamanyuk had not yet opened up the case when Ms. Atamanyuk when I had recieved the new letter of a knowledgement for the new claim. Ms. Atamanyuk did not include form DWC-1. Ms. Atamanyuk took personal time off after that.

2. The claims adjuster may need to transfer this case to my real employer, however since the injury was Cumulative, I was advised it was possible that more than one insurance policy or insured buisness is covering my claim.

3. Unless the Parent Company ( Oportun Inc.) did not want to disclose any loss or payout any claims under their current policy from my open workers compensation claim, it may be possible that my employer insured a new subsidary as “La Placita Kiosk.” That May be also another indication as to why it was decided by your party to open up a new claim.

4. The Information & Assistance Officer had been told about by your secretary that she knew nothing about the new claim. She informed the Information & Assistance Officer that I had submitted the application.

5. Luckily, I was present. The Information and Assistance Officer was able to clarify that the only claim I had submitted was the one through Oportun Inc.

6. When you sent me a copy of the Application for Adjudication via email, You told me that it absolutely makes no difference what the Application for Adjudication says.

7. What I understand is that if the incorrect start date of injury was determined to be a date when I was not employed then the Application for Adjudication is in some way void. However this was done by your defendants in-house Counsel. I had asked you about this but I never got a response.

8. Once again, you stated that it makes no difference what the application of Adjudication says.

9. When I decided to amend the application due to a number of very incorrect details which I did not feel comfortable with, it seems as if either you or your client have decided to open up a new claim under a new insured/employer to re-start the claims process.

10. I believe an Answer may still be needed using the correct form, if your party is in dispute on any of the details that needed to be changed in my amended application.

11. If it absolutely makes "no difference" what the Application for Adjudication of claim says, why would the either you or your client file a new or duplicate claim? Please respond when you receive this message

Sincerely, 

Adrian Quirarte

 

EMAIL TO DEFENSE ATTORNEY MARK THORNDAL MULLEN & FILIPPI LLP AUGUST 26 2019:

 

Hello Mr. Thorndal,

I was advised by Ms. Atamnyuk to forward all further communication to you, as she is represented by an attorney.

1. I do not know why I recieved a letter from Ms. Atamanyuk asking me to keep an open line of communication, which I have done.

2. Form DWC-1 for the insured La Placita Kiosk was not included with her initial acknowledgment letter with a date of 08-08-19. This was confirmed by the information and assistance officer.

3. I was further advised that form DWC-1 opens up the workers' compensation case/claim and starts the process to getting all the benefits I may qualify under state law.

4.Could you provide me with Form DWC-1 for the insured La Placita Kiosk? This is for claim 2010389198. It does appear that both “La Placita Kiosk” & Oportun Inc. are on the same policy.

Sincerely,

Adrian Quirarte

 

RESPONSE FROM DEFENSE ATTORNEY MARK THORNDAL AUGUST 26 2019: 

Mr. Quirarte:

There is no claim against La Placita Kiosk (and therefore no DWC-1 Claim Form). Zurich erroneously set up a claim and sent that 8/8/19 acknowledgment letter to you after receiving your amended application. Your amended application should not have triggered a new claim. This was an error which was explained to you in Zurich’s subsequent letter dated 8/16/19. I have attached a copy of that letter as a reminder. ( See Attatchment)

 

A. I do not know why Mr. Mark Thorndal would assume that I had recieved Zurichs' subsequent letter dated August 16 2019 if the claims examiner had taken personal time off.

 

B. The claims Examiner, Karoline Atamanyuks, auto-reply stated the following:

"Thank you for contacting Zurich Claims. Please note I will be out of the office for jury duty and PTO until 8/20/19. I will respond to your email as soon as possible upon my return.

 

C. I recieved yet another initial knowledgement letter for a Third claim (2010389764) under the same policy from Ms. Karoline Atamanyuk, with a date of August 19 2019, which I have asked via email to be closed immediately.

 

 

EMAIL TO ZURICH CLAIMS EXAMINER KAROLINE ATAMANYUK AUGUST 17 2019:

Hello Ms. Atamanyuk,

Your in-house counsel filed the Application for Adjudication on December 14, 2018, following 2 QME evaluations. You objected to Dr. Allan C. Sidles findings, where it had been determined by your QME 11/28/18 that the Predominant cause of injury was Industrial.

On August 2, 2019, I served my Amended Application of Adjudication, acknowledging that this report that was filed by your in-house counsel opened up my case with the Workers Compensation Appeals Board. 

Notably, when naming your QME Doctor as the person who "Paid for or Provided Medical Treatment" and the "Last Date Treatment Was Received," I did not feel satisfied with answers that had been provided. 

The "Start Date" of Cumulative Trauma, according to the Application for Adjudication filed by Susan S. Chin was declared as April 4, 2017.

On several occasions, I had notified each person involved with the claim that I did not work for Oportun Inc. before May 2017.

Susan S. Chin, your first defense attorney, classified the time and how the injury occurred on the application for adjudication as "ALLEGED STRESS DUE TO WORK DUTIES,"  I Amended the petition August 2, 2019, with the following:

“WORKING INSIDE LA PLACITA TROPICANA SHOPPING CENTER PROCESSING LOAN APPLICATIONS & PAYMENTS, CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE TO HIGH LEVELS OF STRESS, PUBLICIZED ICE WORKPLACE RAIDS, DHS ACTIVITY, ARMED ICE AGENTS ENTERING THE WORKSITE TO CONDUCT COLLATERAL ARRESTS, VANDALISM, NO CAMERAS OR MANAGEMENT ON-SITE, EMPLOYER COMPELLED DEFAMATION." I had been expecting DWC/ WCAB Form 10: ANSWER TO APPLICATION FOR ADJUDICATION OF CLAIM.

Instead, I received a letter from you, Karoline Atamanyuk, six days later (08-08-19), confirming initial acceptance of a new claim with a date of loss of January 1, 2018. I then found that you will not be in your office until August 20, 2019.

 

A. The name of your New Insured/Employer is listed in the new policy "La Placita Kiosk." 

 

B. The claim number 2010389198 is different from that of my current Workers' Compensation Claim 2010347675. 

I do not know if this claim was made in error, as your cover letter advised that I keep an open line of communication, which I have tried to do. 

You added that you would be conducting an "initial" assessment and evaluation. I was advised this could all be a misunderstanding since the letter was issued right before you had taken personal time off.

I had been advised that even if your insured, the "Parent Company", Oportun Inc., opened up a new policy under a "Dummy Name" La Placita Kiosk; the claims adjuster who opened up the new policy will be required to make all the necessary adjustments should payments be issued from the wrong policy.

Is there any Insurance Certificate or any proof of workers compensation insurance that can you can legally provide me as an injured worker/employee for "La Placita Kiosk?" 

Sincerely, 

Adrian Quirarte

 

EMAIL TO ZURICH CLAIMS EXAMINER KAROLINE ATAMANYUK AUGUST 17 2019:

Hi Karoline,

The Information & Assistance Officer advised me to resend all previous communication, including medical invoices & requests for reimbursement to you.

1.The Information & Assistance Officer added that I also include the previous claim number, which is already in the file name of the attachments and subject line.

2. I had been advised that even if your insured, the "Parent Company", Oportun Inc., opened up a new policy under a "Dummy Name" La Placita Kiosk; the claims adjuster who opened up the new policy will be required to make all the necessary adjustments should payments be issued from the wrong policy.

3. I have enrolled my banking information as your letter had instructed; however, I would like to ask how will these payments be calculated?

4.You had asked me via telephone if I was getting EDD SDI Benefits, where I had responded that I was.  I have understood that when a case is settled, SDI payments would need to be reimbursed to the EDD.

5. I had filed the Amended Application for Adjudication on 08-02-19 was because this was not checked off in the Original Application for Adjudication filed by your in-house counsel on December 14, 2018, with the WCAB. 

6 Another issue I found incorrect with the original Application for Adjudication filed by Zurich was that Cumulative Injury was identified with a start date of 04-04-2017 and end date of 04-04-2018.  

On several occasions, I had notified each person involved with the claim that I did not work for Oportun Inc. before May 2017. 

7. In addition to Body Part 842, Body Part 841 Nervous System- "Stress" was added in my Amended Application for Adjudication considering the cumulative injury was related to aggregate Stress at my place of employment. I recognize Stress itself is not a body part, but Stress is a condition that impacts various parts of the body and body systems.

8. I have been advised that I should not worry about enrolling my banking information as instructed, as it can only be used to deposit ACH payments to my personal banking account.  Please respond when you have recieved this message. 

Sincerely,

Adrian Quirarte

 

 

 

EMAIL TO OPORTUN INC. BENEFITS TEAM AUGUST 15 2019:

Hello Benefits Team,

I have been advised by the Workers Compensation Appeals Board that Oportun Inc. may have decided to secure a separate workers compensation policy for Oportun Store #268 ( La Placita Kiosk) located inside La Placita Tropicana Shopping Center ( 1690 Story Road Suite C+D). 

I seldomly hear from the defense attorney, Mark Thorndal, and please understand these issues are time-sensitive.

I have submitted Form DWC-1, which you have received; still, I would like to ask if Oportun would also like me to send a New Employee Accident Form? 

Additionally,Would you be able to provide me with any proof of insurance? I was paid by Oportun Inc. and the employer name on the your new policy identifies Oportun Inc. as “La Placita Kiosk.” This has been very confusing. 

The letter of acknowledgment from the Claims Examiner for Zurich American, Karoline Atamanyuk, declares that if I am entitled to lost time benefits as a result of injury, Zurich is pleased to offer direct deposit (ACH) as a payment option.  

I have enrolled my banking information as Ms. Atamanyuk has instructed; however, I would like to ask how will these payments be calculated and who will submit that information to the claims examiner?

I have been advised that I should not worry about enrolling my banking information as instructed, as it can only be used to deposit ACH payments to my personal banking account.  

The claims examiner will not be in her office due to Jury Duty & PTO until August 20, 2019. Please understand this is time-sensitive. 

Sincerely,

Adrian Quirarte

 

EMAIL TO EDWARD MARQUEZ OPORTUN INC. HR DEPARTMENT AUGUST 16 2019:

 

Hello Mr. Marquez,

I don't know if you remember me, but I am the employee that was issued a "Notice of Termination" that was mailed to the incorrect mailing address Jan 23, 2019, and I got it a month later; You later replied that the decision made by Oportun had nothing to do with my open workers' compensation claim and that the final paycheck cited in that letter was done by error.

Mr. Marquez, I wanted to reroute you this email I sent to the benefits team. I received a response from the benefits team as you can see in the thread below.  I received an email from the benefits team yesterday morning.

Because the employer has one business day from receipt of form DWC-1, speaking to the WCAB, I would like to know if Oportun will be returning that form via email or by regular mail. 

I do not know who filed this claim under a different buisness/employer name ( Oportun or Zurich American), and the forms seem to be made for employees that are still employed by the employer in mind. 

I had been asked if it was possible that Oportun Inc. may have recently decided to secure a separate workers compensation policy for Oportun Store #268 ( DBA “La Placita Kiosk”) located inside La Placita Tropicana Shopping Center ( 1690 Story Road Suite C+D). For the moment, I cannot get an answer to this question. I still have an open Workers Compensation claim under your old insurance policy. 

My claims examiner will not be in her office until August 20 2019. I am not sure if she will have the answer to this question either. 

Please see the thread below. If you could get some answers for me by the end of the day 08-16-19, I would highly appreciate it. 

Sincerely,

Adrian Quirarte

August 13, 2019, I addressed a letter to Judge Howard Levin and Mr. Mark Thorndal, that I had filed and served an Amended Application for Adjudication of Claim on August 2, 2019.

( SEE: 'GHOST' COMPANY OR 'GHOST' INSURANCE POLICY?)

Furthermore, it was unclear if the Defendant parties in action further sought to provide an acknowledgment or an answer in their defense, which would be the moral thing to do rather than "re-start" a new claim.

I wrote:

"Your honor, I was not hired by "La Placita Kiosk." Oportun Inc. hired me. Additionally, the claims examiner has asked me to maintain an open line of communication during the initial assessment and evaluation. This has clearly been done in error."

 

1. The Defendant parties had opened the case with the Workers Compensation Appeals Board; I asked in my letter that Mr. Thorndal, please respond to the concerns I presented in that letter. 

 

2. It did not appear that Mr. Thorndal had acknowledged that letter until my employer, Oportun Inc., reached out to him.

 

3. Mr. Thorndal then forwarded me the DWC-1 claim form; he had received from my past employer Oportun Inc.

 

4. Furthermore; I had asked Mr. Thorndal why Oportuns HR Department had identified the date they first knew of the injury as of August 15, 2019. The claim form submitted to Oportun Inc. HR was for the Duplicate Claim opened by the claims examiner, Karoline Atamanyuk, where the insured/employer had been identified as "La Placita Kiosk" not Oportun Inc. 

 

August 16, 2019, Mr. Thorndal replied via email with the following:

 

"Mr. Quirarte:

The DWC-1 Workers Compensation Claim form that you submitted references the date of injury as 1/1/18 to 7/22/19. This is not the date of injury for your existing claim so unfortunately whether it was your intention or not, you have indeed just filed a new claim and therefore the date the employer first knew of the injury is correctly reflected on the form. You will receive a new acknowledgment in the mail from Zurich of this new claim within the next few days. "

 

I replied:

 

"Mr. Thorndal.

That is false. If that was the case, someone could have easily reached out to me and given me that information. For all I know, this new policy could be a "ghost Insurance policy" or "ghost business/ insured." I see where you are going here, but I have NO way of knowing that. I am NOT a small business owner or a claims adjuster.

 

The I&A Officer spoke to your secretary yesterday, and she was told that you had NO knowledge of the new claim for the employer/insured location known as "La Placita Kiosk."

 

Furthermore, it was discussed even the "possibility" of Zurich American insuring all the small businesses inside the shopping center under one new policy. ( "La Placita" 1690 Story Road San Jose CA 95122)

 

I did as the I&A officer had instructed me to do. The form itself does not seem to be for reporting a Cumulative Injury. Could you provide form DWC-7 or proof of insurance for the new employer/insured? 

Sincerely,

Adrian Quirarte

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When seeking answers about the Material Misrepresentations made in the Application for Adjudication by the defendants' "in-house" attorney, Susan S. Chin, Mr. Mark Thorndal disputed that "it absolutely makes no difference what the application for adjudication of claim says."

The application was filed by the Defendants on December 14, 2018 following 2 QME evaluations.

As the claimant and injured worker, it unquestionably made a difference if the Defendant parties in the action held their own opinions that the injury did not happen during the course of employment.

I chose to file an Amended Application of Adjudication acknowledging that this report opened up my case with the Workers Compensation Appeals Board in an attempt to dispute and question their own QMEs ( Qualified Medical Evaluators) findings that my place of work was the Predominant cause of industrial injury.

With the insurance carriers "in-house" counsel making any further distortions, notably, when naming their QME Doctor as the person who paid for or provided Medical Treatment and the last date treatment was received, I did not feel satisfied with Mr. Thorndals answer.

The start date of Cumulative Trauma, according to the defendants' was declared as April 4, 2017 on the application.

On several occasions, I had notified each person involved with the claim that I did not work for Oportun Inc. before May 2017.

Furthermore, Mr. Thorndal asserted that "Dr. Sidles Medical Report could not be relied upon by the Workers Compensation Appeals Board."

While Susan S. Chin, the first defense attorney classified the time and how the injury occurred on the application as "ALLEGED STRESS DUE TO WORK DUTIES," I Amended the petition with the following:

"WORKING INSIDE LA PLACITA TROPICANA SHOPPING CENTER PROCESSING LOAN APPLICATIONS & PAYMENTS, CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE TO HIGH LEVELS OF STRESS, PUBLICIZED ICE WORKPLACE RAIDS, DHS ACTIVITY, ARMED ICE AGENTS ENTERING THE WORKSITE TO CONDUCT COLLATERAL ARRESTS, VANDALISM, NO CAMERAS OR MANAGEMENT ON-SITE, EMPLOYER COMPELLED DEFAMATION."

Waiting on Defendant parties to render any answer or acknowledgment in their defense, I received a letter from the claims examiner, Karoline Atamanyuk, six days later ( 08-08-19 ), confirming initial acceptance of a new claim with a date of loss of January 1, 2018.

A. The name of their New Insured/Employer is listed in their new policy " La Placita Kiosk ."

B. The claim number 2010389198 is different from that of my current Workers' Compensation Claim.

C .If it absolutely makes "no difference" what the Application for Adjudication of claim says, why would the insurance carrier (or their “insured”) file a new or duplicate claim?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                  August 13 2019

The Honorable Judge Howard Levin

Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board

100 Paseo de San Antonio, Room 241

San Jose, CA 95113-1402

 

Dear Judge Levin,

I filed and served an Amended Application for Adjudication of Claim on August 2nd, 2019. I do not know if the Defendant parties in action further seek to provide an answer or response in their defense.

This morning I got a letter from the claims examiner, Karoline Atamanyuk, confirming initial acknowledgment of my claim with a date of loss of January 1st, 2018. 

The name of their Insured/Employer is "La Placita Kiosk." The claim number is different from that of my current workers' compensation claim. 

Your honor, I was not hired by "La Placita Kiosk." Oportun Inc. hired me. Additionally, the claims examiner has asked me to maintain an open line of communication during the initial assessment and evaluation. This has clearly been done in error.

The Bureau of Field Enforcement has also suggested that I inform the claims examiner handling my claim, that my employer, Oportun Inc., failed to provide the Notice required (DWC-7). The Bureau of Field Enforcement was able to confirm that the legal requirements of this Notice is that it be posted in a conspicuous place where all employees can see it. Keeping it in a guarded place does not meet those requirements. 

I am providing copies of the letter I received from Zurich American Insurance this afternoon should there be any further confusion with duplicate claim numbers or errors identifying my employer.

Furthermore, acknowledging I have an open case number with the WCAB, I would like to ask that Mr. Thorndal respond to the concerns I present in this letter. 

Sincerely,

Adrian Quirarte ( Applicant)

 

CC: MULLEN & FILIPPI LLP SAN FRANCISCO ATTN: MARK THORNDAL

255 CALIFORNIA STREET STE. 1150 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111

 

 

                                                                 August 8, 2019

 

U.S. Department of Labor

Acting Secretary of Labor Patrick Pizzella 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY S-252

200 Constitution Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20210

 

Mr. Secretary,

I am aware that you have been assigned as the acting Secretary of Labor since July 20, 2019, following the resignation of Alexander Acosta.  In the preceding weeks, I have been trying to investigate the best way to go about this matter. 

My place of employment located in La Tropicana Shopping Center has been deemed to be a blight on San Jose, a breeding ground for illegal trades moreover the sale of fake immigrant documentation. It has been labeled as "Anti-American" as counterfeit social security numbers and IDs have been allowed to be marketed and sold for years.  It has been an "open secret," the trade of fake and counterfeited identities marketed daily outside La Placita Tropicana Shopping Center, that had been operating much longer before I began my employment.   

Also See: CBP: Fake Goods, Real Dangers

My employer, Oportun Inc., is CDFI Certified. MetaBank and Member FDIC issue Oportuns Ventiva prepaid Visa Card. Oportun Inc. fails to acknowledge that the trade of counterfeit goods of all levels is a threat to National Security.  Mr. Secretary, it was not my intention to be permanently associated with National Security affairs when seeking employment with Oportun Inc., commencing by only asking questions on Oportuns in-house policies on unpaid wages to support other employees who had also not been paid. 

Making inquiries to Oportuns Executive Management and Oportuns Payroll Department concerning the location of Federal Labor Law and Employee Rights Posters, I was not given a trustworthy explanation.  There is no "Kitchen Area" at my place of work inside La Placita Shopping Center.  

Oportun employees who worked inside the shopping center were asked to eat in their vehicles, while employees at other Oportun locations were not. Furthermore, there is no exterior signage for Oportun Inc. outside La Placita Shopping Center. I had suggested to Oportuns Executive Management that not having cameras inside provided by the employer or outdoor signage to let others know our exact location in the event of an emergency formulated a "manufactured crisis." Oportun, with the help of outside counsel, disputed this. 

August 1st 2018, Oportun Inc. responded to the Department of Industrial Relations as taking "no adverse employment actions" against me for reporting such activities. A qualified executive would be fit to describe an adverse action as an action that would dissuade any rational employee from raising concerns about a possible violation, and because an adverse employment action can be subtle, it may not always be easy to spot.

Oportun Inc., with the help of outside counsel, managed to persuade the California Department of Industrial Relations that I had no reason to believe that an adverse employment action against me had taken place. Oportun Inc. further commented that due to the nature of my complaints, I "was easily identifiable.” Expanding on Oportuns sense of adverse employment actions, The U.S Department of Labor defines retaliation including the various types of adverse employment actions as the following:

 

• Firing or laying off 
• Demoting  
• Denying overtime or promotion 
• Disciplining 
• Denying benefits 
• Failing to hire or rehire  
• Intimidation or harassment
• Making threats 
• Reassignment to a less desirable position or actions affecting prospects for promotion (such as excluding an employee from training meetings) 
• Reducing pay or hours 
• More subtle actions, such as isolating, ostracizing, mocking, or falsely accusing the employee of poor performance 
• Blacklisting (intentionally interfering with an employee’s ability to obtain future employment)
• Constructive discharge (quitting when an employer makes working conditions intolerable due to the employee's protected activity)

Oportuns Executive Management has firmly maintained its position that I had not undergone any adverse employment actions. If I had not been Suspended or Terminated from my employment, Oportun Inc., in "good-faith," had presumed I was actually was treated more favorably than other workers by giving me a raise of .28 cents. This was all done following my leave of absence. 

Oportuns lack response and disregard to my grievances continue to be an element of malice, recklessness, and insensitivity to obstruct any future compensation owed by the employer for a workplace injury. Oportun never took into account how their strategies would affect both my health and employment opportunities in the future. 

Oportun has forced me into self-publication and self-defamation having to disclose to third parties, case-managers, housing specialists, doctors, therapists the details leading to unemployment, which remain in Oportuns view "vague and bizarre.” From an outsiders perspective, Big Government would deem this reasonably as silencing a witness.’ This should not happen to American Workers who are simply innocent bystanders witnessing illegal activities. 

Oportun and it's executive management have failed to acknowledge "anti-retaliation" provisions that an employer, such as Oportun, can effectively retaliate against an employee by taking specific actions not directly related to his or her employment and cause him or her harm outside the workplace. 

My workers compensation claim for cumulative psychiatric injury as a result of the uncommon working conditions at my place of employment is still pending. Most importantly, it is a common strategy for insurance carriers to delay or deny claims which can then be used as an excuse that loss of housing or other unexpected "phenomena" was the main contributing factor in causing psychiatric disturbances in their defense to deny payments and overall liability. In 3 months I am potentially facing homelessness.

Mr. Secretary, I ask if you can forward my concerns to the right departments within the U.S Department of Labor, I would be forever grateful, as I may not be able to do so myself with such limited resources and limited time. If you could forward this letter to Mr. Trump, that would also give some relief. As a Young Hispanic Conservative, a strong Trump supporter, a strong supporter of The Administration & Living in Californias 19th Congressional District; one could guess how dangerous it could be going up against egregious employers who cater the underserved Hispanic community. 

My Employer, Oportun Inc., has made contributions to both California Governor Gavin Newsom & The California Secretary of State, Alex Padilla. My foreknowledge of the activities that took place at my place of work leading to a leave of absence following the complications going through the California Workers Compensation System, I do not perceive this to be merely coincidental or  "bad luck." 

I understand WHD targets low-wage industries because of its geographic area, high rates of egregious violations, the employment of vulnerable workers, and the rapid changes in an industry such as growth or decline. The biggest problem my employer is now facing. ICE raids.

I have already made a complaint to my employer, Oportun Inc., that reckless publications of ICE Raids should not be motivated by an employer's improper desire to manipulate a pending labor dispute, retaliate against employees for exercising their labor rights or otherwise frustrate or obstruct the enforcement of labor laws. 

I have also suggested to Oportuns Defense Attorney, Mark Thorndal, that my employer had an obligation to address the forms they had submitted to the OMB ( Office of Management & Budget) accurately. I added, that if there is NO "kitchen area" at my place of employment ( La Placita Tropicana Shopping Center 1690 Story Road Suite C+D), the employers Senior Benefits Manager, should not fill that space with a false location and send it off to a Federal Agency. 

My employer, Oportun Inc., continues to be preoccupied with its opinion that my concerns about safety at my place of work being unsafe to have "no merit" to further deny my claim for cumulative injury, which you can see in the records provided. 

As the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor, I am most certain that Mr. Trump has made an exceptional nomination to advance the rights and interests of all people including American workers.

 

 SINCERELY,                                                                                   DATE: 08-04-2019

 

ADRIAN QUIRARTE

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                         JULY 21, 2019

 

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DEPOSITION OF ADRIAN QUIRARTE

 

HONORABLE JUDGE HOWARD M. LEVIN 

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

100 PASEO de SAN ANTONIO, ROOM 241

SAN JOSE, CA 95113

 

RE:   ADRIAN QUIRARTE vs. OPORTUN INC & ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

WCAB:       ADJ11768432

Claim No.   2010347675

DOI:            01/01/2018- N/A

 

Dear Judge Levin,

The Defendant has filed a PETITION TO COMPEL and MSC Scheduled for 07-30-2019 on the following disputed issues:

 

 “APPLICANT HAS FAILED AND REFUSED TO SIGN AND RETURN RELEASES. DEFENDANT SEEKS ORDER COMPELLING PRO PER APPLICANT TO FILL OUT AND SIGN RELEASES.”

I had recently been given a tip by two attorneys at the WCAB that Judge Howard Levin views debated evidence in a light most favorable to unrepresented injured workers and suggested that I write you a letter.

I find that its best to present this petition in early proceedings, should defendant parties or their representing outside counsel object to the timeliness to my requests. I am not represented and I have done all to the best to my ability.

The defendant parties in action have tried to restrict the type and nature of the injury within the boundaries of their insureds location, minimize symptoms and have sought to dissuade the tribunal from making declarations on a full account of events. Your Honor, I ask the following: 

 

1. For a protective order: THAT IT IS REQUIRED THE REPRESENTING ATTORNEY FOR BOTH DEFENDANT PARTIES CERTIFY THAT THE DISCOVERY REQUEST IS NOT BEING INTERPOSED FOR ANY IMPROPER PURPOSE, SUCH AS TO HARASS, INTIMIDATE OR CAUSE UNNECESSARY DELAY. THAT THE DEPOSITION BE TAKEN ONLY ON SPECIFIED TERMS AND CONDITIONS. THAT THE TESTIMONY BE TAKEN INSTEAD OF AN ORAL EXAMINATION. THAT CERTAIN MATTERS BE NOT INQUIRED INTO, THE SCOPE OF THE EXAMINATION BE LIMITED TO CERTAIN MATTERS. THAT THE TESTIMONY BE RECORDED OR TAKEN IN A MANNER DIFFERENT THAN THAT SPECIFIED IN THE DEPOSITION NOTICE. THAT THE DEPOSITION BE TAKEN AT A PLACE OTHER THAN THAT SPECIFIED IN THE DEPOSITION NOTICE. THAT THE METHOD OF DISCOVERY BE INTERROGATORIES TO A PARTY INSTEAD OF AN ORAL DEPOSITION. THAT DESIGNATED PERSONS OTHER THAN THE PARTIES TO THE ACTION AND THEIR OFFICERS AND COUNSEL BE EXCLUDED FROM ATTENDING THE DEPOSITION. THAT ALL OR CERTAIN OF THE WRITINGS OR TANGIBLE THINGS IN THE DEPOSITION NOTICE NOT BE PRODUCED, INSPECTED, COPIED, TESTED, SAMPLED. THAT I CANNOT BE RECORDED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT MY CONSENT, THAT EVIDENCE OF SUCH IMPROPRIETIES NOT BE FURTHER CONCEALED OR DESTROYED. THAT THE DEPOSITION IF TAKEN BE SEALED AND THEREAFTER OPENED ONLY ON ORDER OF THE COURT. THAT MEDICAL RECORDS BE SEALED, AND AT YOUR DISCRETION THAT THE DEPOSITION OF THE DEPONENT BE TERMINATED. 

 

1. On the grounds that: THAT DISCOVERY NOT BE FURTHER UTILIZED FOR IMPROPER PURPOSE. THAT THE LIKLEY BURDEN OR EXPENSE OF THE PROPOSED DISCOVERY OUTWEIGHS THE LIKLEY BENEFIT TO THE MOVING PARTY. THAT THE DEFENDANT PARTY WHO SERVED THE DEFECTIVE NOTICE OF DEPOSITION FAILED TO ATTEND OR PROCEED WITH IT. THE LIMITED RESOURCES OF THE APPLICANT PARTY. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUES IN THE LITIGATION. THE TYPE OF INJURY OR BODY PART BY THE APPLICANT PARTY BEING DEPOSED,   THE IMPORTANCE OF REQUESTED DISCOVERY. THE DISCOVERY SOUGHT IS UNREASONABLY CUMULATIVE. THE DEFENDANT PARTY HAS HAD AMPLE TIME AND OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN THE INFORMATION SOUGHT AND UNLESS A PROTECTIVE ORDER IS ISSUED THE APPLICANT PARTY WILL SUFFER FURTHER DISCRIMINATION, OPPRESSION, HUMILIATION, EMBARRASSMENT, ANNOYANCE, UNDUE BURDEN AND EXPENSE.

 

This motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.420 et seq., on the grounds that unless a protective order is issued the moving party will suffer further unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.420(b)

This motion is made upon the grounds that the applicant, the moving party, has made reasonable good-faith efforts to reach an informal resolution of this matter without the need for Judicial Intervention however the defendant party and its representing attorneys have rebuffed all efforts.

 

 

                                      MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

                                                                              I.

                                                              STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

A.  The defendant parties in action have tried to restrict the type and nature of the injury within the boundaries of their insureds location, minimize symptoms and have sought to discourage from making declarations on a full account of events. 

 

B.  Declarant stated under penalty of perjury that (1) he is presently ready to proceed to hear on the issues below and has made the following specific, genuine, good-faith efforts to resolve the dispute(s) listed below:

 

"Applicant has failed and refused to sign and return the releases. Defendant seeks order compelling pro per applicant to fill out and sign releases."  

 

This is false. I have tried to resolve all misunderstandings, so that Mr. Thorndal, including his clients, do not further entangle the tribunal with false statements or misleading statements to advance both his clients interests. 

 

C.  I was served a NOTICE OF REPRESENTATION with a service date of July 18, 2019, by Mr. Mark Thorndal who has chosen to represent my employer, Oportun Inc. for Serious & Willful Misconduct, which I firmly believe is to ensure that the best interests of both defendant parties are being met. This creates an atmosphere that allows legal intrusion by my employer in what would be deemed “ex-parte communications” otherwise. 

 

2332. BAD FAITH ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE—FAILURE TO PROPERLY INVESTIGATE CLAIM—ESSENTIAL FACTUAL ELEMENTS

 

ADRIAN QUIRARTE claims that ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE acted unreasonably, that is, without proper cause, by failing to conduct a proper investigation of its claim. To establish this claim, ADRIAN QUIRARTE must prove all of the following:

 

1. THAT APPLICANT suffered an injury covered under OPORTUN INCs  insurance policy, issued by ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE;

 

2.  THAT APPLICANT properly presented the claim to OPORTUN INC. & ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE to be compensated for the injury;

 

3.  THAT ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE, failed to conduct a full, fair, prompt, and thorough investigation of all the bases of INJURED WORKERS CLAIM;

 

4.  THAT APPLICANT was harmed; and

 

5.  THAT ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE’s failure to properly investigate the if the claim claim is “work-related” was a substantial factor in causing APPLICANTS harm.

 

When investigating APPLICANTS claim, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE had a duty to diligently search for and consider substantial evidence of OPORTUN INCs responsibilities that supported coverage of the claimed injury as “work-related”, not deny it.

 

6.  My employer, Oportun Inc., has formerly been involved in Personal Injury litigation for causing harm, including aggravation, nuisance, emotional distress and invasion of privacy to its consumers. ARBALLO v. OPORTUN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ. (TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT) 

See: https://www.classaction.org/media/arballo-v-oportun-financial-corporation.pdf

 

7.  INVESTORS ACTION AGAINST OPORTUN CORP.:

“CPM has filed an action on behalf of shareholders of Oportun Financial Corporation and the venture capital funds which dominated and controlled Oportun. The plaintiffs allege that defendants disregarded their fiduciary duties owed to Oportun’s common shareholders by maximizing their personal ownership interests. It’s alleged that Oportun orchestrated and approved of several rounds of highly dilutive financings, which essentially wiped out the Company’s common shareholders’ ownership interest, and correspondingly increased defendants’ ownership interest in Oportun. CPM attorneys Mark Molumphy, Brian Schnarr and Tiffany Wong are handling the case.”

See: CPM Obtains Relief for Common Shareholders of Oportun, Inc.

 

D.  Furthermore, I ask that you require the defendants to certify that the discovery request is not being interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass, intimidate or to cause unnecessary delay. 

 

E.  Through these motions, the defendant party to this action continue its pattern of making incorrect and misleading statements to this court in an attempt to win proposals.

 

 

F.  Obtaining additional medical records is part of an on-going strategy concerning the further delay in payments and overall denial of the claim. 

 

 

G.  Since the date of injury that was reported by my employer, Oportun Inc. as 06-15-18 for Mental Stress, I have only received one check in the amount of 25.00 to reimburse me for milage expense.

 

 

H.  The Status Conference, April 30, 2019, there was no further outline by the defendant party that additional medical records would be needed or required to take both the IW and QMEs deposition. 

 

 

Ms. Anastasia Wright suggested that if I did not accept her clients' settlement offer, that she would then like to take depositions to pay the right type of benefits.

 

 

I.  Mr. Mark Thorndal, (who is now Zurich's fourth representing attorney) has responded that Zurich "needs" or "requires" further release of medical records.

 The need or requirement of further medical records came after the defendants third representing attorney, Anastasia Wright, withdrew from taking my deposition via Skype on May 29, 2019. I had not been served the proper deposition notice to appear by remote or electronic means. I was given less than 24 hours notice. 

I tried to explain to Ms. Anastasia Wright the following:

 

1. Give Clear Notice: This may seem simple, but the notice to take the deposition should clearly state the time, time zone, and location where the witness will appear. It should also note the time, time zone, and location at which the attorneys will be attending. The way to achieve clarity is to break this out as separate paragraphs on the notice.

 

1. Plan Ahead for Exhibits: It is best to have a plan for an exhibit marking and sharing. If you want to go old school, emailing them and having them printed beforehand is a simple solution. The reporter could have them with him/her to show the witness. It is done all the time, and for just a few exhibits, that is simple and easy. However, for a larger quantity, we encourage our clients to use electronic exhibits. With any computer or mobile device and the right platform, attorneys can introduce, manage, and collaborate on exhibits. This can be done using either a mobile videoconference or at a videoconferencing suite. However, when booking the deposition with the reporting firm, be sure to address this as it will help determine how they proceed on setting up your deposition.

 

J.  I had a right to be informed of the conditions in writing, in which Ms. Wright had planned to take my deposition and whether I had found them to be acceptable or unacceptable. I had the right to object or to seek a protective orders given that I was served the proper deposition notice.

 

      1. “Upon the request of any party or any party’s attorney attending a deposition, any party or any party’s attorney attending the deposition shall enter in the record of the deposition all services and products made available to that party or party’s attorney or third party who is financing all or part of the action by the deposition officer or by the entity providing the services of the deposition officer.” 

 

     2.  “If the Deposition Notice or Subpoena is Defective, or if the conditions under which the deposition is to be conducted aren’t acceptable, first try to resolve the problem by informal agreement (see CCP §2023.010(i)), and if that doesn’t work, consider serving written objections, moving to quash the deposition notice or subpoena, and/or moving for a protective order.”

 

    3. 2025.430.  

“If the party giving notice of a deposition fails to attend or proceed with it, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against that party, or the attorney for that party, or both, and in favor of any party attending in person or by attorney, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstance make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

 

 

K.  Linda A. Hertzburg, the third representing attorney, had informed me by letter dated May 31st 2019 “that full and timely compliance with the release of medical records could alleviate the need to take depositions.” Ms. Hertzburg added “that scheduling my deposition was to make sure that the case kept moving forward. If any special accommodations are to be requested, please secure a doctors note confirming what is needed and the rationale behind it.” 

 

L.  Mr. Mark Thorndal does not accept to take depositions via Skype, remote, or electronic means. Further, he added that he would be happy to discuss deposition arrangements "after" I have signed the releases and has have received the records. 

 Mr. Mark Thorndal practices Workers Compensation Law in San Francisco. However, he has objected to taking my deposition via remote or electronic means. By far, the most significant advantage of engaging in remote depositions is the ability to save the client thousands of dollars as remote depositions cost only a fraction of the amount that a traditional out-of-town deposition charges. It would make more sense for my deposition to be taken, if necessary, remotely. Do to the nature of the injury; I firmly believe that this has been carefully thought out. 

 

M.  These tactics have been utilized as plan or exit strategy and there is no guarantee that Mr. Mark Thorndal will not use the records he has requested in a way that will hurt my application, other than giving me his word.  It is obvious to outside parties that the defendant party has continued to change from one defense attorney to another, changing their story, without any explanation. 

 

N.  I have explained to Mr. Mark Thorndal, I had some concerns that the "Wording" on some of the “authorization notices” are carefully designed to trap the recipient(s) of such notices into making mistakes ( such as releasing those records mistakingly) which the defendants can later exploit or use as a tool for further harassment.

 

O.  I have explained to Mr. Mark Thorndal, that not all parties understand what they mean, what their effect is, the scope or duration of their usage and whether or not they are in fact "legal" forms. For this reason Mr. Mark Thorndal cannot claim that I have refused and failed to sign such releases.

 

P.  The fact that these "releases" may be legal now, does not alleviate the fact that all the previous professional and unethical violations by the last three representing attorneys for the defendants should not be reviewed by a court of competent jurisdiction. 

 

Q.  It is undeniable that Mr. Mark Thorndal has expedited a petition to compel the release of medical records to "take control of the case.”

 

R.  When I had asked about the incorrect details in the application for adjudication of the claim filed by the defendant, Mr. Mark Thorndal has responded that "it absolutely makes no difference what the application for adjudication of claim says.”  I am never given a trustworthy explanation.

 

S.  Mr. Mark Thorndal has responded that “He does not understand the importance I place on making payments from this allocation to Medi-Cal.” He does not dispute the importance of "exercise," but he does not understand why I am espousing its benefits for recovery to him at this point. “

 

I had to clarify with Mr. Mark Thorndal that physical therapy is not merely exercise and crucial to an injured workers recovery.

What I believe what Mr. Thorndal is saying is that if State or Federal funded Programs paid for medical treatment, then it should not be reported.

 

T.  Mr. Mark Thorndal has not gained my trust and fails to acknowledge or delay a response to critical details about my case.

 

U.  I have written to Mr. Thorndal, that ignoring my requests only further creates the image that his clients may have done what is being alleged and that I believe there is more harm than good by alienating other parties involved with the case.

 

1.  I had been advised by a professional that typically, for this reason workers compensation attorneys do not engage in dual-representation as they are both separate cases and conflict can arise at some point and create an even bigger problem. Often, the employer will need to hire a separate attorney from their workers' compensation attorney to handle their S&W claim.

 

2.  Applicants or their attorneys should be informed which attorney is covering the S&W claim to ensure proper service of all documents, to avoid any possible violations of due process, and ultimately sanctions for that violation.

 

3. When asking about specific documents that could assist with my entitlement to any type of past due benefits Mr. Thorndal has responded with the following:

"Be advised that many claims examiners have Fridays off, or every other Friday off. In general, whenever I need to reach a claims examiner there is always a good chance they are not in the office that day, or they are in meetings, or on another call, or their computers are down. And when I request a document, the task is often assigned to an overworked assistant who has many other things to do." 

 

V.  Defendants’ repeated, prearranged, deceptive, and misleading statements to the court at my disadvantage have caused considerable hardship to my claim and should not continually go unpunished. 

 

W.  These improprieties have ranged from blatantly false statements to incomplete statements, to manipulated quotes, with all such conduct being highly inappropriate for officers of the court or a public setting. 

 

X.  I plead to the court to address defendants' unethical conduct so that it does not continue to persist unchecked. 

 

Y.  This Motion is made upon the grounds that as unrepresented applicant, the moving party has made reasonable good faith efforts to reach an informal resolution of this matter and the defendants Petition To Compel without the need for judicial intervention but the defendant parties have rebuffed all efforts. 

 

Z.  Mr. Thorndal and any future representing defense attorneys should not be allowed to create pre-texts and further conceal or suppress evidence that could result in sanctions or disciplinary action. I ask that Judge Howard Levin or Presiding Judge Steven Tuan use their own discretion when imposing those sanctions. Further unethical and professional misconduct by the defendant parties and those recently added to this action should be reprimanded by a court of competent jurisdiction. 

 

                                                                                       II.

 A.         THE COURT IS AUTHORIZED TO GRANT THIS PROTECTIVE ORDER ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE MOVING PARTY WILL SUFFER UNWARRANTED ANNOYANCE, EMBARRASSMENT,  OPPRESSION, OR UNDUE BURDEN AND EXPENSE UNLESS THE COURT ISSUES A PROTECTIVE ORDER

 

2025.420 (a) Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

 

(b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions:

 

(1) That the deposition not be taken at all.

 

(4) That the deposition be taken at a place other than that specified in the deposition notice, if it is within a distance permitted by Sections 2025.250 and 2025.260 .

 

(5) That the deposition be taken only on certain specified terms and conditions.

 

(6) That the deponent's testimony be taken by written, instead of oral, examination.

 

(7) That the method of discovery be interrogatories to a party instead of an oral deposition.

 

(8) That the testimony be recorded in a manner different from that specified in the deposition notice.

 

(9) That certain matters not be inquired into.

 

(10) That the scope of the examination be limited to certain matters.

 

(11) That all or certain of the writings or tangible things designated in the deposition notice not be produced, inspected, copied, tested, or sampled, or that conditions be set for the production of electronically stored information designated in the deposition notice.

 

(12) That designated persons, other than the parties to the action and their officers and counsel, be excluded from attending the deposition.

 

(16) That examination of the deponent be terminated.  If an order terminates the examination, the deposition shall not thereafter be resumed, except on order of the court. 

 

A. Emotional impacts

B. Feeling violated

C. Feeling unsafe

D. Emotional impacts

E.  Feeling hopeless

F.  Feeling lack of trust

G. Impacts engagement w/online banking & shopping 

H. Feeling giving Personal Information over the phone/internet is a high risk of fraud/identity theft

I.  Feeling unsafe about interception of a persons telecommunications

J.  Feeling unsafe about interception or misdirecting of persons personal mail

K. The Institution ( Oportun Inc.) that was to protect me and my privacy failed me as an employee

L. Emotional impacts in regard to unauthorized access or tampering of a persons computers, computer systems & computer data

M. Had I been more satisfied with the way my employer ( Oportun Inc.) responded to my complaints/concerns, I would not feel so disengaged from society and daily living activities

N. Hope that employer ( Oportun Inc.) would have been more proactive admitting/admission

O. Employer ( Oportun Inc.) did not offer solutions/remedies so that it did not happen again

P. Employer ( Oportun Inc.) did not protect, investigate, discipline individuals, terminate suspected individuals remediate the situation or protect the corporation

Q. Felt like concerns were ignored by employer ( Oportun Inc.) because individuals ( employees, clients) were not “high profile”

R. Employer ( Oportun Inc.) did not voluntarily disclose complaints or provided evidence that it consented to investigation 

S. Employee retaliation, harassment for witnessing unusual, abnormal, violent & extreme working conditions during course of employment

T.  Being complicit w/Federal Law was more important than meeting quotas given by employer ( Oportun Inc.), receiving paycheck or monthly bonus. No matter how high the risk.

W.  Employer ( Oportun Inc.) disregarded reports of vehicle vandalism, personal safety, possible “Hate Crime”.

 

• For over one year I have not been able to get repairs done to my vehicle. 

In the last two weeks my vehicle has had further problems with engine overheating possibly resulting in a serious accident and/or fatalities when running errands such as medical appointments , etc. 

 

X. Notification of Murder on premises ( La Placita Tropicana Shopping Center) during employment prior to taking a leave of absence.

 

• Careless & Reckless Publications/Warnings of Ice Raids

 

Y.  Acts of Tampering w/Medical Evidence in regards to industrial injury

 

Concerns of direct or indirect solicitation by employer ( Oportun Inc.) & insurance carrier ( Zurich American Insurance) to dismiss complaint in hopes that evidence would dissipate or reach the statute of limitations.       

 

Z.  Aggravating factors: involvement by executive management, pervasive misconduct, significant profit from misconduct, repeat offenders

 

 

B.    THE COURTS ARE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE PROTECTIVE ORDERS TO  PROTECT LITIGANTS FROM DISCOVERY ABUSE 

1.  Declarant stated under penalty of perjury that (1) he is presently ready to proceed to hear on the issues below and has made the following specific, genuine, good-faith efforts to resolve the dispute(s) listed below:

 

"Applicant has failed and refused to sign and return the releases. Defendant seeks order compelling pro per applicant to fill out and sign releases."  

 

This is false. I have tried to resolve all misunderstandings, so that Mr. Thorndal, including his clients, do not further entangle the tribunal with false statements or misleading statements to advance both his clients interests. ( see supporting documents in this Response to Petition to Compel)

 

C.     THE MOVING PARTY MAS MET THEIR BURDEN OF SHOWING GOOD CAUSE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER

 

The Court is respectfully, yet earnestly, urged to grant this motion for protective order, and to make orders on any of the following: Past Due Temporary Disability Payments, Medical Treatment, Medical Milage Expenses, Supplemental Job Displacement Voucher and Penalties under LC 5814, LC 5813 at your discretion.

 

 

          APPLICANT                                                           DATE:

          ADRIAN QUIRARTE                                           JULY 23 2019

 

CC: MULLEN & FILIPPI LLP SAN FRANCISCO ATTN: MARK THORNDAL

255 CALIFORNIA STREET STE. 1150 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111

 

ZURICH SAN FRANCISCO ATTN: KAROLINE ATAMANYUK 

P.O BOX 968002 SCHAUMBURG IL 60196

 

                                                                         June 3 2019

 

Hon. Judge Steven Tuan

Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board

100 Paseo de San Antonio, Suite 241

San Jose, CA 95113-1402

 

RE: ADRIAN QUIRARTE vs. OPORTUN INC & ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, THE LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J BURNS, MULLEN & FILIPPI LLP & DR. ALLAN C. SIDLE

WCAB:       ADJ11768432

Claim No.  2010347675

DOI:           01/01/2018- N/A

 

Your Honor,

I last addressed correspondence via USPS Priority Mail which was signed and affirmed at The San Jose Division of Workers Compensation by C. Christ M, May 24, 2019.

In that letter, I presented myself as an Injured Worker suffering from Stress Induced Neurological Impairments where I had also stated that I am not represented and furthermore I have done all that is required the best to my ability.

I have shown on several accounts to multiple parties that I have some reasonable concerns as to whether the insurance carrier and its representing attorneys can make a factual production of documents.

As The President Judge who presides over sessions and deliberations and supervises the Administration of the court, I had asked for your intervention to dictate the benefit of honest disputes and settlements between parties. I am not sure if you had received my letter in time.

In my previous correspondence, I had expressed to you with reasonable probability that the request of the defendants' "Substitution of Attorneys" on such short notice should not be used to dissolve previous ethical breaches by her client(s) in hopes that compromising evidence would dissipate or terminate the statute of limitations. 

In that letter I had also stated that the proof presented reflects on the lawyers ability to discriminate in the quality of evidence I have provided and thus impairs Ms. Wrights effectiveness to advocate for both parties, specifically when speaking on behalf of her client(s), taking deposition(s), & the inability to professionally address the practices on behalf of her client that would be deemed unethical and undermines the integrity of the adjudication process.

Most of the issues I present to you in this second letter, your Honor, began after the defendants representing attorney, Anastasia Wright withdrew from taking my deposition via Skype on May 29, 2019.

 I was given less than 24 hours notice.

I had asked Ms. Wright via email on the afternoon of May 29, 2019, if she had still intended to move forward with her request of taking my deposition via Skype as we had both agreed.

In addition, I had told Ms. Wright that I was willing to take the deposition for further discovery as she had suggested to pay the right type of benefits.

Putting all past unethical and professional misconduct aside, I was willing to fulfill her request since it would make no sense to hinder or delay my workplace injury claim further at my expense.

I asked the following questions:

Are there any special instructions I need to follow to take my deposition via Skype?

How many people will be joining the conference?

It would be helpful to write or type my answers so that there is no confusion.

I have stress induced neurological impairments and a minor speech disability and would prefer to type my answers.

I am aware during regular proceedings under the ADA real-time captioning is available.

I have updated my report publicly posted online with all my concerns I had wished to bring up to Judge Levin. 

( Cumulative Trauma Labor Code 5412 & 3208.3)

I expressed that I had some reasonable concerns that I ask all the appropriate questions since we had been communicating in regard to :

Labor Code Violations, Invasion of Privacy, Professional & Ethical Misconduct and expressing to Ms. Wright that I had some concerns in regard to Expert Evaluators employed by Insurance Companies may be under pressure to conduct evaluations in favor of the insurance company which can be supported by the documents in my Declarations of Readiness to Proceed.

May 29, 2019, 1:45 pm Ms. Wright responded via email:

"Hello, Mr. Quirarte:

Regarding your deposition set for tomorrow: As I am sure the I&A Officer has advised you, you will need to be placed under oath by a court reporter.

Therefore we have to arrange for the court reporter to come to you and be there with you in person.

Please confirm our physical location tomorrow so we can arrange it."

She will be with you for the duration of the deposition. And it must be given orally.

Ms. Wright became rather amazed after informing her that I was not given the proper deposition notice to appear by remote or electronic means.

I tried to explain to Ms. Anastasia Wright the following:

 Give Clear Notice. This may seem simple, but the notice to take the deposition should clearly state the time, time zone, and location where the witness will appear. It should also note the time, time zone, and location at which the attorneys will be attending. The way to achieve clarity is to break this out as separate paragraphs on the notice.

Plan Ahead for Exhibits. It is best to have a plan for exhibit marking and sharing. If you want to go old school, emailing them and having them printed beforehand is a simple solution. The reporter could have them with him/her to show the witness. It is done all the time, and for just a few exhibits, that is simple and easy. However, for a larger quantity, we encourage our clients to use electronic exhibits. With any computer or mobile device and the right platform, attorneys can introduce, manage, and collaborate on exhibits. This can be done using either a mobile videoconference or at a videoconference suite. But when booking the deposition with the reporting firm, be sure to address this as it will help determine how they proceed on setting up your deposition.

The basics on the notice of deposition: Serve a written notice on all parties who have appeared in the action, identifying (CCP §2025.220(a))

 

• The date, time, and location (address) of the deposition;
• The name of the deponent;
• The address and telephone number of a nonparty deponent, if known;
• Any intention to audio or video record the testimony, in addition to using the stenographic method;
• Any intention to record the testimony by stenographic method through the instant visual display of the testimony;
• Any intention to take the deposition by telephone, video conference, or other remote electronic means; and
• Any intention to reserve the right to use a video recording of the deposition of a treating or consulting physician or other expert at trial in lieu of live testimony

 I had explained to Ms. Wright, that as unrepresented applicant, I had a right to be informed of the conditions in writing, under which Ms. Wright had planned to take my deposition, whether I had found them to be acceptable & that I had a right to object or seek a protective order should I have been given the proper deposition notice.  Ms. Wright made no effort to informally resolve the issues in question.

 “If the Deposition Notice or Subpoena is Defective, or if the conditions under which the deposition is to be conducted aren’t acceptable, first try to resolve the problem by informal agreement (see CCP §2023.010(i)), and if that doesn’t work, consider serving written objections, moving to quash the deposition notice or subpoena, and/or moving for a protective order.”

(d) Upon the request of any party or any party’s attorney attending a deposition, any party or any party’s attorney attending the deposition shall enter in the record of the deposition all services and products made available to that party or party’s attorney or third party who is financing all or part of the action by the deposition officer or by the entity providing the services of the deposition officer. 

A party in the action who is not represented by an attorney shall be informed by the noticing party or the party’s attorney that the unrepresented party may request this statement.

(f) Violation of this section by any person may result in a civil penalty of up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction.

As a result, Ms. Wright (Anastasia Wright # 202980) informed me that she had chosen to immediately withdraw & end representation in the middle of the case and told me that she would be transferring my case to another attorney, without specifying the reasons for terminating representing her client. She had asked me not to contact her again.

Following Ms. Wrights desire to terminate representation of her client, I never received a notice of substitution of attorneys.

Ms. Wright did not specify if she had previously gotten permission to withdraw for the tribunal, or if her withdraw had become mandatory due to the possibility of becoming a crucial witness on a contested issue or if she could no longer continue to represent her client without further violating the rules of professional misconduct. 

I received a Notice of Minutes of Hearing for the status conference for May 28, 2019, 8:30a, which had been served by Ms. Wright.

The Notice of Minutes of Hearing for May 28, 2019, was Defective as it did not include Zurich American Insurance as the second defendant party. 

Ms. Wright had also served a Defective Notice of Minutes of Hearing for April 30, 2019, 1:30p, where the notice had included an unknown defendant third party, Gallagher & Basset Insurance. 

Following Ms. Anastasia Wrights withdraw from the case May 29, 2019, I received a letter this week from Linda A. Hertzberg dated May 30, 2019. 

Ms. Linda A. Hertzbug is also with Mullen & Filippi, LLP San Jose CA.

Ms. Linda Hertzburg notified me that she had taken responsibility for the defendants' case; however, the letter did not include a proof of service or notice of substitution of attorney to the San Jose Division of Workers Compensation Appeals Board similar to what had been done previously between The Law Offices of Thomas J Burns and Mullen & Filippi LLP on short notice.

Ms. Linda A. Hertzburg has informed me by letter, that she has taken over the handling of the case, and has not yet completed a full review of my file, but she plans to do so quickly. 

Her main objective seems to be to collect further personal information on behalf of her client. I expressed my concerns to both Mullen & Filippi & Ms. Linda A. Hertzburg that although she has not yet fully reviewed my file, she has decided go with with her suggested “Discovery Plan.” 

Failure to comply with Ms. Hertzburgs suggested "Discovery Plan," would be subject to findings of awards and fees and costs to the defendant associated with efforts to obtain that information.

 Ms. Hertzburg has threatened to file a “Motion to Compel” or file a “Motion to Dismiss” my case since Ms. Hertzburg feels that “there is no logical reason why a Judge would not order me to provide those releases.”

I responded to Ms. Hertzburg that I respect her opinion; yet, it would be best first to have a Judge intervene and address whether it's acceptable to continue conversing with the defendants representing attorneys ex-parte.

I have also informed Mullen & Filippi & Ms. Hertzburg that I wish to first review Article 4. Objections, Sanctions, Protective Orders, Motions to Compel & Suspension of Depositions Sec. 2025.410-2025.480, which I plan to do by using this document.

In the past I have also written to Mullen & Filippi LLP in regards to severe errors made by the Defendants Previous Representing Attorney, Susan Chin (Susan S. Chin #269887), indicating that I had received:

1. Medical Treatment

2. Date of Last Medical Treatment: 11/28/18

3. Treatment was provided/paid by: Dr. Allan C. Sidle

4. I asked Ms. Linda Hertzburg to please explain what establishes “Treatment."

5. I informed Ms. Hertzburg that "Expert Consultants typically do not engage an injured workers treatment, because it can potentially create a conflict of interest.

6. I informed Mullen & Filippi & Ms. Linda A Hertzburg via email that I had some concerns that Dr. Allan Sidles QME report stated that "He had no assistance" writing his QME report dated 11/28/2018 under penalty of perjury.

7. I informed Mullen & Filippi & Ms. Linda A. Hertzburg upon turning in my request for Factual Corrections to be made using Form QME 37 dated 02/02/19; I had been informed by the DEU Unit & I&A Officer that Dr. Sidles QME report dated 11/28/18 had not been filed. ( see attachment 02-05-19)

8. I informed Mullen & Filippi & Ms. Linda A. Hertzburg that I told Dr. Sidle via voicemail that his QME report dated 11/28/18 had not been filed with the DEU Unit. 

9. I informed Mullen & Filippi & Ms. Linda A. Hertzburg that Dr. Sidle responded via voicemail, that although he has a "typing specialist" that my information remained confidential and that I should not worry. 

However, this disclosure was made by Dr. Sidle 3 months after our last evaluation meeting 10/31/2018.

10. I had informed Mullen & Filippi that this violates that Confidentiality of Medical Records Act. (CMIA)

11. I informed Mullen & Filippi & Ms. Linda A. Hertburg that although Dr. Sidle had asked me to file his QME report, I didn't think it would be a good idea for me to submit his QME Report since I'm aware that late QME reports are subject to non-payment and certain disqualifications.

(b) If an evaluator fails to prepare and serve the initial or follow-up comprehensive medical-legal evaluation report within thirty (30) days and the evaluator has failed to obtain approval from the Medical Director for an extension of time pursuant to this section, the employee or the employer may request a QME replacement pursuant to section 31.5 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations.

 Neither the employee nor the employer shall have any liability for payment for the medical evaluation which was not completed within the timeframes required under this section unless the employee and the employer each waive the right to a new evaluation and elect to accept the original evaluation, in writing or by signing and returning to the Medical Director either QME Form 113 

(Notice of Denial of Request For Time Extension) or QME Form 116 (Notice of Late QME/AME Report - No Extension Requested)

12. I informed Mullen & Filippi & Ms. Linda A. Hertzburg that when calling my Treating Clinical Therapist in an effort to obtain personal information on the afternoon of May 31, 2019, My Clinical Treating Therapist found the call to be very unusual since the person who had called on behalf of the defendant wanted a fax number to send a request for medical records and did not want to provide a name.

It is reasonable that this solicitation tactic on behalf of the Defendant Party ( where the caller had wished to remain anonymous after being denied the fax number to the facility and terminated the call), in an attempt to obtain personal or medical information without my consent, not authorized by law or without a court ordered subpoena could have potentially involved coercion, duress or harassment to my Clinical Treating Therapist or should any of the staff have released those records w/o prior consent at the defendants request. 

13. I informed Mullen & Filippi & Ms. Linda A. Hertzburg that if her client had believed that I had not signed a release of medical records, why would someone call June 1, 2019, on their clients' behalf to obtain that information without my consent.

 I recieved Ms. Hertzburgs request for release of that information the following week. 

 

14. I informed Mullen & Filippi & Ms. Linda A. Hertzburg that this also violates The Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA).

 

       A.  Ms. Hertzburg has warned to move ahead with notifying the tribunal that I have not been accommodating to                   her clients' advantage and has threatened to file a motion to compel and file a motion to dismiss my case.

 

       B.  Ms. Hertzburg especially feels that there is no logical reason why a Judge would not order me to provide those                releases. 

 

      C.   Nothing Limits the Defendant party from attempting to acquire private information from my treating doctors or               the QME.

 

      D.   A valid subpoena requires that an injured worker be copied with the subpoena to allow the injured worker or                   their attorney to file an objection with the WCAB if they believe the information demanded is "too broad" and                 consequently violates the injured workers right to privacy.

 

      E.   Nothing prevents Ms. Hertzburg ( Linda Ann Hertzburg #173208) or her client from further venturing to                        acquire personal information not relevant to the particular injury or illness considered. 

 

      F.   In cases where the defendant party and its representing attorneys have attempted to collect information that                    may be particularly sensitive without respecting patient confidentiality or the confidentiality of medical                            information act, I ask the Presiding Judge to order this information to be sealed. 

 

I have asked Mullen & Filippi LLP that moving forward the information and statements presented on my behalf be Legally Validated. 

In addition I informed Ms. Hertzburg that I would be sending a copy of this letter to her office as she requested, Mullen & Filippi LLP 100 West San Antonio Ste. 500 San Jose CA 95113.

Your Honor, As the President Judge engages in appropriate oversight of the administration, I fully understand the purpose of retaining independent counsel is more than simply to explain just how “unfair” a given proposed contract may be; it is for the primary purpose of assisting the subservient party to negotiate an economically fair contract.

However, a common rule for defendants attorneys’ when dealing on behalf of a client with a person who is not represented by counsel, a lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer is disinterested. When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the unrepresented person misunderstands the lawyer’s role in the matter, the lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding.

I ask that you understand and please communicate to all parties involved that as humans we have a universal need to be listened to, to be understood and to be validated.

I ask President Judge Tuan that he no longer give free passes on future unethical, professional & deposition misconduct to the defendant party and their serving attorneys. 

 

Sincerely, June 14, 2019

 

Adrian Quirarte

Applicant

 

Cc: Mullen & Filippi -100 W San Fernando St. Ste. 500, San Jose CA 95113

Cc: DIR DWC Supervising Workers Compensation Consultant, Tristian Juan- 6150 Van Nuys Blvd., Ste. 105 Van Nuys, CA 91401-3370

                                                                   MAY 22 2019

 

Hon. Judge Steven Tuan

Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board

100 Paseo de San Antonio, Suite 241

San Jose, CA 95113-1402

 

RE: ADRIAN QUIRARTE vs. OPORTUN INC & ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, THE LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J BURNS, MULLEN & FILIPPI LLP & DR. ALLAN C. SIDLE, INFORMATION & ASSISTANCE OFFICER & ADA COORDINATOR LETICIA ROSALDO WCAB: ADJ11768432 Claim No. 2010347675 DOI: 01/01/2018- N/A

 

Your Honor,

First and Foremost I would like to introduce myself as an injured worker suffering from Stress Induced Neurological Impairments, I am not represented and I have done all that is required the best to my ability. In support of this request I am including letters requesting disability accommodations from my treating clinical therapist.

Judge Levin had instructed Ms, Wright following the Status Conference held on April 30 2019, to call me by telephone right after the hearing. 

Ms. Wright responded the following day that she would not be contact me by phone as Judge Levin had suggested, and that she would prefer to communicate in writing to ensure there are no misunderstandings and that our communications were clear.

Following expressing my concerns to “Coaching A Witness” by giving Ms. Wright evidence that specified the intent of giving my deposition transcript to the witness (QME) in addition to demonstrating to Ms. Wright that she had given false statements to Judge Levin on behalf of her Client(s), she has since failed to respond.

I expressed to Ms. Wright that Ms. Chins request for Substitution for Attorney on such short notice should not be used to dissolve previous ethical violations by her client(s) in hopes that compromising evidence would dissipate.

I also informed Ms. Wright giving false information to Judge Levin (either previously or during the conference call) had unfairly cut the status conference short, leaving me at a disadvantage. 

I had told her that as an Officer of the Court and as an injured worker that is not represented, she had an obligation to inform the Tribunal, should she have prior knowledge that her client(s) had intended to lie.

Ms. Wright responded that she no longer felt comfortable answering my questions, as they should be answered by a Judge or Information & Assistance Officer.

As the Defendants Representing Attorney, Ms. Wright should be fully aware that an Information and Assistance Officer does not have the authority to address my concerns on behalf of her client, specifically on issues such as “coaching a witness” and giving false information to Judge Levin.

Such proof reflects on the lawyers ability discriminate in the quality of evidence I have provided and thus impairs Ms. Wrights effectiveness as an advocate for both parties, specifically when speaking on behalf of her client(s), taking deposition(s) & the inability to professionally address the practices on behalf of her client that would be deemed unethical and undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process.

I explained to Ms. Wright, that these type of practices would have lead to disciplinary actions or sanctions should I have had prior knowledge that the defendant was required to pay my attorney fees and had retained an attorney under Labor Code 5710.

The I&A Officer I have been working with is Leticia Rosaldo. 

Ms. Rosaldo has informed me that as an injured worker suffering from stress induced neurological impairments without representation, I am expected to know the law. 

Ms. Rosaldo has also instructed me during our last telephone conversation that her position as an ADA officer is strictly limited to her jurisdiction to file applications for disability accommodations within the San Jose Division of Workers Compensation and has advised me to seek an ADA Advocate under the ADAAA should my concerns not be resolved with either the defendant or in-house within a reasonable amount of time. 

As the President Judge who presides over sessions and deliberations and overseeing the administration of the court, I ask for your intervention, your honor, to dictate the benefit of honest disputes and settlements between parties.

Thank you for your prompt attention to the foregoing.

Sincerely,

ADRIAN QUIRARTE

CC: PLEASE SEE DOCUMENTS 

I informed Ms. Wright, the outside representing counsel for Zurich American Insurance, that giving false information to Judge Levin (either previously or during the conference call) had unfairly cut the status conference short, leaving me at a disadvantage.

 An officer of the court giving False information to both a Judge and Myself on behalf of her client(s) is no different than a “deposed witness” who makes different representations in a Deposition & Trial Conference to show that the injured worker is lying.

I had filed a request for a second case conference in hopes that we could resolve the following issues in this rebuttal.

Unfortunately, this morning there was a "Clerical Error" when filing my application to appear by phone and thus was taken off calendar as a "No Show."

 Due to  "Clerical Error", The Draft in this rebuttal was unable to be addressed and heard by Judge Howard Levin this morning.

Although this practice is purley "Unethical", The Defendants Representing Attorney has decided to proceed with taking my Deposition at her clients request otherwise.

I am aware that the insurance carrier has tried to limit the nature of the injury that occurred to minimize my symptoms and has tried to prevent me from making declarations on a full account of events. 

The insurance carrier improperly made a request for Adjudication and request for production of documents based on their observations that I had "allegedly" in their  own words, claimed workplace stress.

This is purely subjective. 

The insurance carrier has pursued a request of further production of documents by taking my Deposition, however it had been reported when filing the adjudication, that I had received medical treatment and the "last date of treatment" was 11/28/2018 by Dr. Allan Sidle.

This was incorrect.

I never received any further medical treatment by Dr. Sidle following our evaluations on 10/17/18 & 10/31/18, although Dr. Sidles QME Report indicates the first evaluation had taken place on 10/01/18.

That was also Incorrect.

Oct. 28 2018, is the day Dr. Sidles QME report was "complete."  It was not in any way the date of my last medical treatment.

Expert Consultants typically do not engage in a injured works treatment, because it can potentially create a conflict of interest.

I believe this reflects poorly on the insurance carrier and their representing counsels inability to make a "factual" production of documents.  

As an insurance carrier, it is expected that they understand a highly traumatic or series of events may include injuries to multiple body parts, although Ive been told different.

The insurance carrier & Defendant Party have denied a Recorded Conversation had taken place without my consent, and this is an invasion of privacy. 

Should the Defendants of taken this opportunity to utilize the call as a tool to hurt my workers' compensation claim further, I would not have never known I was being recorded.  

I was somewhat fortunate that both Ms. Chin and Ms. Atamanyuk (who are both Zurich Employees), for the most part, were speaking over each other, ultimately ending the call.

There is no difference that the recorded statement, conversation, or conference call was taken by a third party or service.

However, Should the insurance carrier have retained recordings when I have called my claims specialist at her direct line on a minimal number of occasions or have left voicemails, I would welcome if they wished to share those recordings in my presence. 

I expressed to Ms. Wright that Ms. Chins request for Substitution for Attorney on such short notice should not be used to dissolve previous ethical violations by her client(s) in hopes that compromising evidence would dissipate.

In addition, I explained that these type of practices would have lead to disciplinary actions or sanctions should I have had prior knowledge that the defendant was required to pay my attorney fees and had retained an attorney under Labor Code 5710.

It seems that the date of injury for Mental Stress filed initially by my employer, Oportun, was noted as June 15, 2018. This was done in error.

By June 15 I had already been on a leave of absence following the series of events that caused me to take an unpaid leave of absence on April 5 2018.

The date of injury was changed by Expert Consultant, Dr. Allan Sidle to April 5, 2018; however, at that time Dr. Allan Sidle made the error of listing the injury as "Specific."

The series of events we discussed during our two evaluations on October 17 and October 31, 2018, had been over the course of a specific period of my employment leading to a leave of absence and did not happen on one specific date.

I clarified this using the correct FORM QME 37 with the request that Factual Corrections be made to his QME Report that specific injury for Mental Stress "is one single accident or incident."

On February 13, 2019, Dr. Allan Sidle sent out a Second Report after reviewing my corrections, stating that "he welcomed my clarifications" and that he had understood that he had made the mistake of listing the Injury as Specific, then determined that perhaps filing a claim for Cumulative Trauma "would have been more appropriate."

Cumulative Injury is contrasted as" repetitive mentally or physically traumatic activities and extending over a period of time." Whereas a Specific Injury for mental stress is one single exposure or incident.

The statute of limitations is extended to one year from the date of the last treatment for cumulative trauma; therefore, this discrepancy could have had long-term effects on the types of benefits I'm entitled to.

Although Dr. Sidle had suggested amending the dates for Cumulative Trauma through April 5, 2018, the dates of Cumulative Injury under Workers Compensation Guidelines shall be the Dates determined under section 5412 as I had expressed in my second DOR Petition. 

January 1, 2018, would be the best date to identify as a start date of Cumulative Trauma.

In addition to amending the dates for Cumulative Injury Violent Acts serve to a lower causation threshold of 35-40% under Labor Code 3208.3. Ms. Wright and I had discussed via email if Dr. Allan Sidle was clear on this issue. 

I did tell Ms. Wright via email that I have a number of reason(s) to believe that Dr. Allan Sidles Testimony may involve some prejudice, which could essentially cause me irreparable harm, however it would be unreasonable for me to have the need to make a request for another QME based on a number of errors that I  have had to correct, only to delay the claim further at my expense. 

One theory for an evaluation to work is that the client must first be able to trust the Expert Consultant.

I had been discouraged from pursuing my claim for Mental Injury since the start of my expert evaluation due to the line of questioning that presented it self during the first stages of the evaluation process.

" Why are you looking to file for workers compensation?"

 

"What are you trying to get out of this?"

 

"There is no money to be made in filing a workers compensation claim."

 

"Have you considered working from home?"

 

"Why did you not just quit?"

 

"I'm trying to make this go as quickly as possible."

 

"Why can't you just take the bus to work, if I was afraid of driving to work as a result of my vehicle being vandalized?"

 

Due to his line of questioning, which I had taken very offensively, I had asked him:

 

"What he would do in a situation where he was aware that he had been presented stolen identities?"

 

I had to ask him a number of times if he could please focus on the purpose of the visit.

 

He added:

 

"Who owns Oportun?"

 

"Is it one person or is it a family?"

 

"Who is the owner of CEO of Oportun?"

 

"How do ou submit or what is the process to submit an application for a customer who wants to apply for a loan?"

 

"What is an audit?"

He had also asked me if I was superstitious and if I believed in "Mexican Witchcraft", and that he had taken a part in an "Excorcism" sometime ago, which I found to be quite strange for a workers compensation claim.

Every so often he would look at the clock and count the hours, where he also commented that "When I see a Psychiatrist in the future, not to expect to have 4 hour visits each time." I found this to be very offensive.

Dr. Sidle questioned me about my "Political Affiliation", since I had mentioned to him that I became very interested in Politics following my leave of absence from my employer.

He added, that if I was aware that  "contributions" were made to the republican party on behalf of buisnesses.

I responded it DOES happen, but it was very unlikely that my employer, Oportun, would be making donations or contributions to the Republican Party.

As a result, I had the need to request a second meeting.

However, Dr. Sidle did ask me via telephone late Janurary 2019, if I had yet started to receive benefits ( where I responded, "NO.") upon informing me that the second report that was expected on or before February 3, 2019, was never written due to my claims specialist, Karoline Atamanyuk, never sending him any additional medical records for review, although she had some conerns that Dr. Sidles report was "Incomplete" and that he needed to write an additional report within 60 days which never happened. 

During our the Status Conference on April 30 2019, the defendants outside representing counsel, informed the Judge that they had felt that Dr. Sidles report was not yet complete.

It is May 30 2019, and the last time I met with Dr. Sidle last was on October 31 2018. 

 

 

 

Oportun States:  “Everything we do reflects our Corporate Values of Service, Care, Innovation, Courage, Excellence, and Empowerment.”

In this case, Defamed and Injured Workers should expect Intentional delays of response(s) by the employer in hopes that evidence would dissipate or reach statute of limitations, running the risk of harming the very people they purport to support.

An Employer should also know, that it cannot "Shift the Blame" of Serious and Willfull Misconduct on Third Parties. ( see images below)

Jensen v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 14 Cal.App.4th 958, 964 (1993). In Jensen, the court held that: 

Unless an employer's performance evaluation falsely accuses an employee of criminal conduct, lack of integrity, dishonesty, incompetence or reprehensible personal characteristics or behavior, it cannot support a cause of action for libel.  ( see image below)

Oportun,  Executive Management and its Managing Representatives have failed to acknowledge “anti-retaliation” provisions that an Employer, such as Oportun, can effectively Retaliate against an Employee by taking specific actions not directly related to his or her employment and cause him or her Harm outside the workplace.

Oportun fails to recognize that these types of events would naturally be expected to cause Psychological Harm and Disturbances even in the most Dilligent and Honest employees, regardless of the Personal Characteristics of any of its employee(s). 

An Employer may not dispute "self-publication" if an employee or plaintiff can show evidence that "self-publication" was forseeable.

An Employer should also know, that it cannot "shift the blame" of Serious and Willfull Misconduct on Third Parties.

When Contacting Oportuns Legal Department regarding the contents of their position statement ( who was only Identified as "Respondent", Oportuns Legal Department responded that none of Oportuns Executive Management or its Managing Representatives had any knowledge about the statements made.

Oportun added, "that their Executive management did not prepare the response and that had been prepared by outside counsel on their behalf."

March 1 2018, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE) Officers arrested 232 people in Northern California during a Four-Day Operation, while I was still working for Oportun.

An Employer may also be liable for Serious and Willfull Misconduct if:

An Employers Performance Evaluation Falsely accuses an employee of criminal conduct, lack of integrity, dishonesty, incompetence or reprehensible personal characteristics or behaviors. 

In response to Oportuns statements from September 2018 and most recently March 2019, I have provided Recent Footage to raise awareness that these types of events would naturally be expected to cause Psychological Harm and Disturbances even in the most Dilligent and Honest employees, and constituted an Intentional and Reckless disregard for the probable consequences thereof.

As a result of the ongoing Serious & Willfull Misconduct caused by my Employer, Oportun, I have sent a Petition ( see below) to Oportuns Legal Department, Oportuns Insurance Carrier Zurich American, its Representing Attorney and The San Jose Division of Workers Compensation asking for intervention to dictate the benefit of good settlements between parties.

April 3rd 2019: Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials conducted a surprise operation at a tech company in Allen on Wednesday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWT_QIefTcc

 

APRIL 25 2019

 

Dear Judge Levin,

I am filing a petition for benefits for serious and willful misconduct of my employer, Oportun Inc, pursuant to labor code section 4553. I find that it best to present this petition in early proceedings, should Oportun or their representing outside counsel object to the timeliness of my request. 

As an individual with Stress Induced Neurological Impairments bearing the risk of a poor settlement offer, I ask for your intervention to dictate the benefit of good settlements between parties. 

 

Serious & Willfull Misconduct is defined as follows:

“An Employer guilty of serious and willful misconduct must know of the dangerous condition, know that the probable consequences of its continuance will involve serious injury to an employee, and deliberately failed to take action.”

My Employer, Oportun Inc, Executive Management and it's Managing Representatives failed to address my concerns regarding Safety in a Professional Manner, although the events at my place of employment were the cause of my industrial injury. 

In the absence of my employers more proactive engagement with my internal complaints and employment location, Oportun's Executive Management and it's Managing Representatives have responded to my complaints so inadequately that the response(s) given by Oportun and its employees have not only manifested indifference, but also intentional despite providing Oportun concrete evidence that personal safety was of concern due to the abnormal, unusual and violent activity that presented itself over the course of my employment, leading to an unpaid leave of absence after feeling my place of employment was no longer safe to work.

Between January-April 2018, I reported:

Publications regarding ICE (Immigration Customs Enforcement) Raids ( see image above)

Witnessing Street Crime within the boundaries of my place of employment, where Oportun has two of its locations opposite from one another. (see images below)

Vandalism to my vehicle at my place of employment ( see images below)

 

Sudden Miscommunication by Employees, Managing Representatives and Executive Management 

Saturday, Mar 3 2018: I was notified about a “Rally”( see in the images below) against ICE ( Immigration and Customs Enforcement) Operations that took place within the boundaries of my place of employment on Friday, March 2 2018, that appeared on “CNN” by a co-worker, Lina Mejorado.   

This same coworker, Lina Mejorado, had informed me weeks prior to taking a leave of absence that a Murder had also been committed on one of the Business Owners outside of our place of employment, 1690 Story Road San Jose CA ( in areas that all employees, including Oportun Employees have access to) while I was still employed. ( see images below)

Oportun, Executive Management and it's Managing Representatives have failed to acknowledge that these types of events would naturally be expected to cause psychic disturbances even in the most diligent and honest employees, and constituted an intentional reckless disregard for the probable consequences resulting thereof. 

In the months following my leave of absence 04/05/18 and expressing my desire to file for workers compensation, I was severely criticized on my personal job performance.

 Following my complaints I was criticized directly and indirectly by my employer, although Oportun Policies strictly “Mandate that all Employees Report any Suspicious Behavior.” 

Although The employer, Oportun, Executive Management and it's Managing Representatives knew of the dangerous conditions, knew the probable consequences of the “abnormal and unusual” working conditions in that environment prior to being hired by Oportun, its representatives failed to acknowledge the possibility of serious injury and failed to take action. 

 I was never asked by the employer what I would consider being an acceptable resolution to my complaint(s) or at the very least considered. 

Oportun Employees, Managing Representatives and Executive Management failed to acknowledge that personal safety was of concern and failed to acknowledge with reckless disregard that Federal Agents entering the workplace without any warning could be armed. 

Under CA Privacy Code 1152, Oportun with the help of outside counsel disputed this.  

Oportun has also failed to recognize that ICE ( Immigration and Customs Enforcement) Workplace Raids that are “conducted-at- large” increases the incidence of “collateral arrests” which could recklessly result in an innocent employees arrest, should an employee try to obstruct or failure to comply with the demands of an ICE Official under Federal Law.  

Under CA Privacy Code 1152, Oportun with the help of outside counsel disputed this.

Although Oportun and the neighboring businesses may respond that such publications at my place of employment, where Oportun leases its kiosk may be a moral obligation to protect people, by federal law it would be deemed an “irresponsible decision” by Federal Law. 

A Memorandum states ICE ( Immigration and Customs Enforcement) can make an assessment on whether tips and leads to employees concerning workplace enforcement raids are "motivated by an Employers improper desire to manipulate a pending labor dispute, retaliate against employees for exercising labor rights or otherwise frustrate or obstruct the enforcement of labor laws.” 

Also See: https://www.dol.gov/asp/media/reports/dhs-dol-mou.pdf

By Fact, The “Unauthorized” Publication of Potential ICE Raids or Surprise Audits by Federal Agents within the boundaries of my place of Employment is “Reckless” for alerting potential criminals and puts innocent peoples lives at risk including ICE Agents and Law enforcement. This poses the same risks and dangers to anyone as any Law Enforcement Officer or ICE Agent in the field.

Under CA Privacy Code, Oportun with the help of outside counsel disputed this.

Your Honor, Please take into account that the integrity and morality of disputes by employers, such as Oportun, be maintained. 

Oportun with the help of outside counsel offered a confidential position statement protected by CA Privacy Code 1152 that was “not intended” to be given to me by the DLSE in September of 2018. These are strong disincentives against being reasonable and done in “good-faith.”   

Of all Oportun locations, La Placita Tropicana Shopping Center, posed a threat to personal security much more than other locations due to the fact that not only does it not have the Business Name or Logo outside of the Shopping Center to inform a dispatch in the event of an emergency, there was no security cameras or panic buttons that were provided by the employer, although reasonably Oportun should of been more aware that as a financial institution, employees have an increased risk of violence and endangerment in all locations. 

Oportun has demonstrated on many occasions that the best “solution” to resolve internal complaints is to "constructively" terminate an employee. 

The context of the respondents report protected by CA Privacy Code 1152, expressed a number of fallacies, that were not be “distributed” according to the respondents statements, although the respondent(s) claim that Under CA Evidence Code Section 1152:

“ Although the statements are believed to be true and correct, it doesn’t not constitute an affidavit or admission in all respects.”

If Oportun responses were not supported by an affidavit of admission or evidence other than write negative performance reviews and job attendance reports ,it should be taken into account that the response provided by the employer was an element of Malice, Recklessness, and Indifference to obstruct any future compensation owed by the employer for workplace injury, that has caused stress induced neurological impairments. Oportun never took into account how their strategies would affect both my health and employment opportunities in the future.

According to The State of California Department of Industrial Relations:

“ It is a crime to make or cause to be made a knowingly false or fraudulent statement concerning the entitlement to benefits with the intent to discourage an injured worker from claiming benefits or pursuing a claim.” 

Oportun, management and its employees have failed to acknowledge “anti-retaliation” provisions that an Employer, such as Oportun, can effectively retaliate against an Employee by taking specific actions not directly related to his or her employment and cause him or her harm outside the workplace. 

This has unfairly extended and facilitated the denial of my workers compensation claim and has been determined by physicians to be one of the main contributing factors leading to stress induced neurological impairments and permanent disability. 

 

October 9, 2018, Oportun made 2 "Late Contributions" for 21,500.00 USD to Ex-San Francisco Mayor, Gavin Newsom and Alex Padilla who are both LGBT Rights Activists following the request that "My claim be settled as Expeditiously as possible." by both Oportun and Seyfarth Law LLP in September 2018.

The Full Report can be found below:

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/PDFGen/pdfgen.prg?filingid=2304224

On April 10, 2018, I received an email from The Regional Manager, Rene Gracia, informing me that I was paid the Bonus Incentive for the Month of December (175.00) that had been promised to all affected employees, although "I did not deserve it."

The correspondence was sent 6 days after taking a leave of absence on 4/4/18.

For over 60 days it had been communicated to all affected employees that issues surrounding a delay on Unpaid Wages or the Inaccurate Reports of employee productivity were as a result of Oportuns "Internal Accounting Practices", not the employees.

 See Also: https://www.thebalancesmb.com/giving-employee-bonuses-know-the-tax-implications-397631

According to the United States Department of Labor, Federal Workplace Posters must be exhibited or posted in conspicuous places where they are visible to all employees, the intended audiance.

The Family Leave and Medical Act (FMLA) Poster must be displayed in a conspicious okace where employees and applicants for employment can see it. If an employer is covered by the FMLA, a poster must be displayed at all locations, even those where there are "No FMLA eligible employees."

See:     https://webapps.dol.gov/dolfaq/go-dol-faq.asp?faqid=532&faqsub=Location&faqtop=Posters&topicid=17

On April 5 2018, Alberto Trejo, the Sr. Benefits Manager for Oportun, informed me by email that the FMLA Poster for employees of Oportun was posted "In the Kitchen Area" at my place of employment although I was not eligible.

Oportuns HR Department failed to properely address the correct location of the FMLA Poster and should have apprehended prior to sending the notice on 4/5/2018, that the DOL can impose a penalty on an employer for failure to display an FMLA Poster.

The Act of Workers Compensation Fraud can be expedited by  The Employer, The Employers Insurance Carrier, Medical Provider(s) and both The Employers and Insurance Carriers Representing Attorneys.

Factually, An Employer, The Insurance Carrier, The Medical Provider(s), and their representing Attorneys can assist and facilitate the denial of an Injured Workers Claim.   

Since Employers Insurance rates can be affected by a Workers Compensation Claims, many Employers dislike these issues and some even attempt to retaliate against employees who pursue workers compensation.

 

SEE: RETALIATION FOR FILING A WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM IN CALIFORNIA

 

https://www.worklawyers.com/workers-compensation-retaliation-california/

According to The State of California Department of Industrial Relations:

“It is a felony to make or cause to be made a knowingly false or fraudulent statement concerning the entitlement to benefits with the intent to discourage an injured worker from claiming benefits or pursuing a claim.” 

March 4 2019

When inquiring to Oportuns Legal Department in regards to their response to my complaints filed in 2018 with the DLSE regarding Discrimination, Retaliation, Harassment and concerns about personal safety at my place of employment Julie Nelson responded that "Rene Gracia, the district manager, did not prepare the response and that the response to my complaints was prepared by outside counsel on their behalf."

March 5 2019

When I contacted Oportuns Representing Attorney Eric Steinert ( Seyfarth Shaw LLP) in regards to the response I recieved in September 2018, Eric Steinert responded that Oportun felt that my claims "lacked merit", where I was also informed that the response prepared on Oportuns behalf (protected by CA Evidence Code 1152)  was a "confidential" position statement to the DLSE, where Eric Steinert also added that "Oportun did not give consent to the DLSE that they provide me with that document."

When I had Eric Steinert asked why Oportun decided to respond to my complaints under CA Evidence Code 1152, Eric responded that " the position statement could have been used to facilitate settlement discussions and thus would be made inadmissible in court." Adding that Oportun does not approve of its "distribution."

March 11 2019

When I contacted the DLSE and asked Josh Carter, the Investigator Assigned to my complaints, why I had been told  by Eric Steinert ( Seyfarth Shaw LLP) that "Oportun had not consented to the DLSE providing me with that response", he responded that " When a respondent responds to a claim that has been filed against them, that response is generally provided to the complainant." However he could not speak on Mr. Eric Steinerts behalf." 

 

 

A Memorandum states ICE ( Immigration and Customs Enforcement) can make an assessment on whether tips and leads to employees concerning workplace enforcement raids are "motivated by an Employers improper desire to manipulate a pending labor dispute, retaliate against employees for exercising labor rights or otherwise frustrate or obstruct the enforcement of labor laws.” 

Also See: https://www.dol.gov/asp/media/reports/dhs-dol-mou.pdf

Labor Code 6311: There is a reasonable and good faith belief that a condition in the workplace poses an immediate and substantial risk of serious physical injury or death as a prime target for crime is protected.

Oportun disputed my claim.

Labor Code 1102.5: Protects against retaliation for disclosing information or because the employer believes that an employee has disclosed information to a government or law enforcement agency.

Under Labor Code 1102.5, An employee who refuses to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of a State or Federal Statute, or violation of noncompliance with a local, state or federal rule or regulation is protected.

Oportun disputed my claim.

Labor Code 98.6 Protects an employee filing a claim with the Labor Commissioner, complaining orally or in writing about unpaid wages, for exercising (on behalf of oneself or other employees) or the exercise of any other right protected by the Labor Code. 

Oportun disputed my claim.

The response from Oportun prepared by outside counsel on Oportuns behalf ( Seyfarth Shaw LLP) indicated that all or part of my complaints filed in 2018 were disputed. 

Oportun has also failed to recognize that ICE ( Immigration and Customs Enforcement) Workplace Raids could result in an employees arrest, should an employee try to obstruct or failure to comply with the demands of an ICE Official under Federal Law.

 

 

Warning the public about "ICE" (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) puts peoples lives at risk including Law Enforcement. Oportun with the help of outside counsel responded to complaints about safety at La Placita Tropicana as "minor issues."  

Oportun is represented by Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

October 7, 2017, I received a response by the Regional Manager, Rene Gracia, after informing him via email that "I was feeling a lack of support by one of their highly ranked senior employees, Nadachelli Dávalos."

I raised my concerns due to her rude demeanor and failure to assist when asking questions about the ”validity” of Clients Identification Documents. 

I communicated to Mr. Gracia, ”that it was critical that Nadachelli Davalos, as a senior employee that had been with Oportun much longer than I, to be able to provide a second opinion when having to explain to Oportun customers that there was a problem with the Identification Documents they had submitted.” 

Rene Gracia replied to my concerns much later, that if I had any questions in regards to the validity of Identification Documents that I reach out to him or Banessa Felix via email for assistance.

Reaching out to Management or The Employee Trainer via email was not a reasonable solution when working with one other employee due to the length of time it would take to get a response, (which at times could take days) while both the client and myself waited for an answer to proceed with the client's application.

I had expected a much more professional approach since with all past employers; there was a manager on duty at all times with expert knowledge that would be able to resolve any type issue his or her employees and respected and treated every employee equally.  

A good manager is trained to resolve workplace conflict.

Being told by Mr. Gracia to "send emails" to either management or the company trainer, working with a single employee at our busiest times was much less effective at resolving the conflict between employees and disputes with clients.  

As a single employee working with a Nadachelli Davalos, I would be directed to take customer payments while this employee would receive all new clients who were making an inquiry on how to apply for a loan or to finish already pending applications.

( A common rule between employees was that if the employee had begun an application for a client, that employee should be the one to finalize the application since each employee is rated on their performance and productivity at the end of the month.) 

After contacting Management on more than one occasion, Nadachelli Dávalos asked one of my applicants to move out of line. 

The customer got very insulted at the Senior Employees' request that he moves out of line, went around the counter to reach for an Oportun Brochure and asked the applicant to call Oportuns Customer Service Number (servicio al cliente) and request that his application be canceled in front of other customers waiting in line.

At the time I had been working at Oportuns Almaden Location- 201 Willow Street San Jose CA as a substitute employee there was no formal ”process” for canceling an application, where an incomplete application would cancel out in the system automatically after some time.

An incomplete application gives the call centers further incentive to do telemarketing solicitations to the client until they return to finish their application and take the loan; therefore it was evident that the suggestions Nadachelli Davlos made would result in disciplinary action towards me. I reported this.

When I asked a different Oportun employee at that same location ( Cesar Lopez) "If that type of treatment was typical behavior from that employee or if I was doing something wrong.", Cesar Lopez suggested that it was best that after reaching my monthly goal, to give Nadachelli Davalos my future applicants ( after personally taking the time to go through the entire loan process and just have it count towards her Metrics in our system), because it would help her reach her monthly goal much faster and that she would perhaps then change her behavior towards me.

I did as told because the Oportun highly valued the Senior Employee ( Nadachelli Davalos), as one of the top performers in the district. 

I raised further concerns to the Employee Trainer, Banessa Felix, that when working with this employee, I had overheard Nadachelli Dávalos asking Oportun clients on several occasions while on the phone with the call centers in Mexico "to deny or mention they did not have their banking information” when asked if they would like to enroll their bank account in automatic payments or (ACH) and later informing clients "that the Call Centers were located in Mexico and that by giving their personal banking information over the phone there was a high risk of fraud and identity theft."

Reasonably, giving that type of "tip” to Oportuns clients for personal gains was damaging the business reputation much more than building the customers trust with both the employees and the business; in addition was also an unfair practice to other employees who were trying to meet their goals who were not engaged in that type of activity.

Had this information been reported by the call centers or investigated by the company on other employees who were not ranked as high or valued by Oportun, this type of exploitive activity could have resulted in immediate termination and reasonably an internal investigation since the employer, Oportun, claims to be a Financial Institution to have "No tolerance for Money Laundering or Fraudulent Activity.”

 

 

PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF OPORTUN COMMUNICATIONS AT ALMADEN AND LA PLACITA TROPICANA

Call Center Fraud is REAL and creates a transnational problem that targets Americans from inside our borders and abroad.

The DOJ Report from July 20, 2018, identifies a Call Center Fraud Scheme Overseas where the names of US Government Agencies were used to perpetuate the fraud and to victimize Americans.

"We will simply not stand by and allow criminals to use the names of legitimate government agencies to enrich themselves by victimizing others," said US Attorney Ryan Patrick.

The Call Centers and it's Criminal Associates allegedly called Victims while impersonating Officials from the IRS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The full details on the indictment of 61 individuals and entities in both the US and Overseas can be seen in the YouTube video link.

 

To see the full report from the Department of Justice July 20, 2018:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/24-defendants-sentenced-multimillion-dollar-india-based-call-center-scam-targeting-us-victims

 

 

Oportun is a Transnational Corporation that discriminates against US citizens by having a "preference” to hire or promote foreign workers. 

In litigation, Courts will reject the ”Idea” that a Person or an Employer cannot Discriminate against other individuals of the ”same” ethnic group or class in their defense. Nothing prevents acts of ”Discrimination” against a person of a particular group or class of which he, she or they also belong to. 

During my time of my employment I had noticed preferential treatment of employees based citizenship ( I had seen favoritism for employees who are foreign-born due to the fact they speak native Spanish and can connect with Oportuns target customers on a more personal level), although the application and job requirements when applying ask that you are fluent in both English and Spanish.

Strong indications about the discrimination of US Born Citizens was due to working daily with clients or potential clients who apply for a loan, where at times provided us with personal identifying information that belonged to another individual.

 ("Can I apply with the Social Security Number I work with?")

When I applied for the Oportun, there was no disclosure or warning that I would come across these types of situations; however, one of the things I did learn as an account executive from past employers was to protect the identity and personal information of the customer. 

February 19, 2018, the first flyer distributed inside La Placita Tropicana,( where Oportun leases its kiosk) informed  employees that there would be a "Mandatory” Security Meeting with SJPD educating employees on workplace safety, pepper spray training, protocol during emergencies and non-emergencies and questions about "ICE”, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

March 13, 2018, a second flyer was distributed inside the shopping center which warned businesses of potential ICE activity at the Federal Governments request in the wake of Californias newly enacted AB450 Immigration laws.

After businesses had made claims of feeling threatened by federal investigation(s) of employers and employees, I dropped in performance,  engaging the least possible with individuals who could not provide a US Government Issued ID and passed those individuals to other employees.

 CA AB450 Immigration Laws began on January 1, 2018. 

The Workshop handouts to employers, employees and representatives were to learn how to answer questions such as:

 " How to handle U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),”  "What to do in the event of Immigration Officials Arrival” and "What does the employer need to do if Raided?” 

My place of employment inside La Placita Tropicana was the location that Oportun management was the least involved with and caused a considerable amount of anxiety sometimes working as a single employee in that environment.

 

 I decided to raise my concerns after speaking to a co-worker after returning to the Oportun Kiosk at La Placita Tropicana about the activity I had witnessed while working as a substitute at The Oportun Almaden Location.

I had expected Oportun to respond in a more professional manner when I brought up the issues surrounding the verification of Identification Documents and overhearing that the Call centers in Mexico were a "risk" to clients giving their Personal or Banking Information over the phone.

 Banessa Felix, the company trainer, responded to my concerns: "that they had already known about the activity" and at the time of my disclosure they had been "looking into it” because they had also heard it from another employee. 

 Oportun expressed indifference in regards to mistreating new employees and their customers, comments made about the Call Centers in Mexico being a "risk" of Identity Theft to Clients and most importantly failed to acknowledge that this damaged both the employees and the business reputation.

 With previous employers in telecommunications, I had never heard that call centers or any of its employees were a potential risk of Identity Theft, even when some of the Call Centers were offshore in places like the Philippines.

 After my disclosure, Nadachelli Davalos was promoted to Store Lead, a much higher paying position that opened up in March. 

 Taking the initiative to make an inquiry to the Payroll Department regarding the companies policy on unpaid wages, Maria Aranda in Payroll, complimented me by saying "I was very knowledgeable and that she was impressed by my willingness to help other employees." 

 As a result, she offered to list herself, and another highly ranked corporate employee, Jaziel Velez, as referrals for the store lead position. 

 Maria Aranda asked me to research Oportuns Policies in the Labor Laws Binder and to get back to her upon finding the right information, due to her mentioning "that although she does payroll, she is unaware of all the state laws regarding payroll because she has many job duties.” 

 I never received a follow-up to my e-mails. 

 Much later, Lina Mejorado informed me that Maria Aranda had personally told her that " she was reluctant to speak to me regarding the companies policy on unpaid wages because I could get her or the company in trouble." 

 I knew that Lina Mejorado had been truthful since she had  told me that she and Maria Aranda were good friends, after expressing to Lina Mejorado that I had found it highly unprofessional that Maria Aranda had not answered me after asking me to research Oportuns Policies separately because she was too busy to know all of Oportuns Policies.

 These were further suggestions any questions or concerns to Oportun would go unresolved or ignored like in previous situations. After being told that Maria Aranda was reluctant to speak to me because I could get her or the company in trouble, I began worrying about retaliation by the employer, starting with the silent treatment.  

 Employees later mentioned that they decided that they would instead not get paid the bonus, due to fear of retaliation. 

 I contacted a third- party investigative agency for Oportun employees " Light-House” provided by the employer which I had found in the Labor Laws Binder that Maria Aranda had asked me to review.

 Due to the nature of the way Management had decided to address concerns or complaints, I had reasonable suspicions that investigative agency provided to employees, "Light-House,” who was paid by Oportun to investigate internal employee complaints was likely to ignore complaints.

I had reasonable suspicion that my identity had been disclosed to my employer. The employer later confirmed that after taking a leave of absence, that my identity was easily identifiable by the nature of my complaint. 

I found this to be very unprofessional, yet I was never asked by the employer what I would consider being an acceptable resolution to my complaint(s) or at the very least considered.

 

IN MANY CASES, "THE WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT" IS THE "SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY" FOR CLAIMS AGAINST AN EMPLOYER WHEN AN EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN INJURED.

THIS MEANS THAT EMPLOYEES IN DIFFICULT FINANCIAL SITUATIONS MIGHT HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO FILE A WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM AGAINST THEIR EMPLOYER, ALTHOUGH SUPERVISIORS OR MEMBERS OF MANAGEMENT HAVE CONDONED, TOLERATED, OR ENCOURAGED THE ACTS OF RETALIATION "OR HAVE RESPONDED TO THE EMPLOYEES COMPLAINTS SO INADEQUETLY THAT THE RESPONSE MANIFESTS INDIFFERENCE OR UNREASONABLENESS IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS THAT THE EMPLOYER KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN."

FOR EMPLOYERS:

A. NEVER EXPRESS DISSAPOINTMENT OR CRITICIZE THE EMPLOYEE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, FOR ENGANGING IN PROTECTED ACTIVITY.

B. THE EMPLOYEE SHOULD ALSO BE ASKED WHAT HE OR SHE WOULD CONSIDER TO BE AN ACCEPTABLE RESOLUTION TO THE MATTER.

C. THE OBJECTIVE FOR EMPLOYERS IS TO DO THE RIGHT THING FROM THE START.

 

INJURED WORKERS CAN SEEK COMPENSATION WITHOUT REGARD TO WETHER THE EMPLOYER WAS AT FAULT TO THEIR INJURY. THIS GIVES EMPLOYERS AN "INCENTIVE TO MAINTAIN A SAFE WORKPLACE", AND ASSURES THE EFFICIENT COMPENSATION FOR THOSE INJURIES.

"PAPERING" OCCURS WHEN AN EMPLOYER DELIBERATELY PACKS AN EMPLOYEES PERSONNEL FILE WITH UNJUSITIFIED WRITE-UPS AND NEGATIVE JOB PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION OR AN ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION.

 OTHER EXAMPLES:

"THE EMPLOYER MAY CREATE A HOSTILE WORK ENVIORMENT THAT INTERFERES WITH THE EMPLOYEES ABILITY TO DO THEIR JOB."

"AN EMPLOYER MAY SOLICIT CRITICIZM OF THE EMPLOYEE FROM THEIR CO-WORKERS AND SUPERVISIORS."

'AN EMPLOYER MAY INCITE EMPLOYEES CO-WORKERS AND SUPERVISORS AGAINST THEM."

"AN EMPLOYER MAY DELIBERATELY GIVE THE EMPLOYEE FALSE-WRITE UPS AND NEGATIVE JOB PERFORAMNCE REVIEWS.'

 

 

 

THE IMAGES PROVIDED ARE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE ABNORMAL AND UNUSUAL WORKING CONDITIONS, VIOLENT ACTS AND EXTRODINARY CIRCUMSTANCES THAT OPORTUN HAS FAILED TO AWKNOWLEDGE.

Between January-April 2018 there was a significant decline in productivity like mentioned in previous rebuttals this may have been in part to a number of factors:

La Placita Tropicana spread information to all businesses, including Oportun, that as of January 1st, 2018 that News Headlines and threats had employers worried about how to manage the Federal Governments requests in the wake of Californias newly enacted AB50 laws, which would allow ICE ( Immigration and Customs Enforcement) Officials to Audit Employers and Employees at the Federal Government requests.

Around the same time, I began to notice that the call center and credit departments had the ability to erase employee notes on customers accounts upon using the notation system to inform the agents who began to disapprove clients applications upon submitting identification documents for approval on a clients behalf.

The rejection of identification documents by these departments would result in poor performance reviews and disciplinary action to the employee(s) who improperly submitted the required documentation.

If a note were placed on the account asking the agent to review the documentation or get a second opinion, the report on the account would be erased.

This activity by the call center or credit departments would result in customer dissatisfaction, loss of opportunities, an agitated applicant, who may likely choose to go to another location to finish their application and overall reflect a poor performance and productivity.

Factually, a call center or its employees can be used to retaliate against employees.

At the same time management had informed employees that there were problems with the companies internal reporting system to accurately measure our individual and store productivity.

Later it was confirmed that the inaccuracy was due to improperly filing exceptions in the reporting system.
The issues surrounding a delay on unpaid wages or inaccurate reports of employee productivity were as a result of Oportun internal accounting practices, not the employees.

After making a complaint on the issues with Oportuns internal reporting system, the Regional Manager, Rene Gracia called my place of work after 2 months to inform another employee that we would not get the bonus owed.

He had advised the employee over the phone that we did not deserve the bonus that had been promised because our store only generated 1,000,000.00 in revenue, calling the employee and myself “stupid” and “idiots” since we had been ranked as the store with the least productivity in his region. (communication between employees is typically in Spanish.)

I reported this to their internal reporting system, “Light-House” since our clients who also spoke spanish had overhead the conversation between the employee and Rene Gracia where the incident resulted in embarrassment to both the clients and the employees.

The co-worker was so upset with Rene Gracia that upon hanging up the phone she had to explain to the customers the purpose of the call since it had made everyone present extremely uncomfortable.

** In no way has the Oportun apologized or accepted accountability for creating a hostile work environment.

Rene Gracia, who was appointed as Oportuns respondent to my complaints has denied without providing any evidence that working at Oportun at 1690 Story Road Suite C+D San Jose CA under "abnormal working conditions" had both mental and emotional consequences thereof.

 

 

On several occasions, I raised my concerns to multiple managers due to Oportuns poor fraud detection.

Banessa Felix, was the most appropriate person to speak to in private since she was a significant influence should upper management seek her personal opinion on my performance and productivity.

I explained to the employee trainer when feeling insecure that I was not fit for the companys culture, “ that although Oportun may see that overlooking document fraud may be helpful to reach monthly goals and beat its competitors in other regions, the long term losses to the company would be much higher should the client decide to default on their loan due to minor mistakes done during the application process by either the employee or the credit department, which the client could then dispute in litigation.

I had my first store audit sometime in the last weeks of March 2018. The company auditor (unknown) asked Alejandro Betancourt ( a district manager), Banessa Felix ( employee trainer) and Lina Mejorado ( co-worker) how long I had been with the company because he had never seen me before. I remained quiet, while they answered.

Since I never got a response to any of my inquiries surrounding several issues surrounding my employment, it was reasonable that the "surprise audit" may have been an attempt to put pressure on me, observing me during our application process and find a reason to terminate me.

Our first customer during the audit was a white male in his 20s. ( This caught my attention since secret shoppers or federal agents could be observing our application process.)

I was lucky that while being observed, the employee whom the customer went to for assistance did not speak fluent English and he was passed on to me to answer his inquiries on how to apply for a loan. ( Passing potential customers to other employees due to language barriers typically would not be accepted when observing our application process since Oportun is advertises itself as a bi-lingual organization.)

The client asked me what the requirements were to apply for a loan. I explained to him we would need a valid CA ID, proof of income and proof of residence. ( This can all be found on Oportun Website)

The client responded he was paid under the table, and he had no check stubs from his employer.

When the client mentioned he was paid under the table, I felt uncomfortable being observed by management and the company auditor physically present since the company would generally accept getting a loan if being paid under the table ( although not openly discussed).

For obvious reasons, I was fully aware that being paid under the table would mean that his income did not have legitimate paystubs that would indicate the clients' name, the clients' employer, the clients' rate of pay, failure to report wages for state taxes and other personal identifying information.

Although we had been trained to not accept a personal check as proof of income for obvious reasons, Banessa Felix intervened and said we could allow it to apply.

A personal check does not reflect a steady income or a guarantee that the applicant will be able to make future payments after getting approved. Oportun had trained us that a personal check is not an acceptable proof of income, however the company auditor and management observed that it was "acceptable" to work under the table and provide a personal check to apply for a loan yet there was no intervention.

Starting my employment with Oportun, my first store audit with Oportun was extremely suspecting.

Upon arriving to work, I was told by Lina Mejorado that the Oportun was doing store audits that day.

David Flores, the district manager, communicated to Lina Mejorado that when he got a notified by other employees that the company auditor was on his way to our work station, to instruct me to go to the nearest Oportun Location 1636 Story Road (also located in La Placita Tropicana Shopping Center) and work there until I was cleared to return, without an explanation.

David Flores made the mistake of sending me to his desired location while the company auditor was still present and overheard me telling other employees that I had been told by management to work there temporarily until I was instructed to return to my work station.

Lina Mejorado reached out to me and asked me that I leave the store immediately and wait in my car under David Flores instructions until further notice, which the company auditor noticed.

 

Following the news that California was being targeted for workplace raids at the Federal Governments requests, the company trainer, Banessa Felix came to my place of employment more often than usual due to declining productivity.

The surrounding businesses inside the shopping center also seemed to have usually low traffic.

Between January and April, I significantly dropped in performance and passed my opportunities to other employees afraid of potential secret shoppers or federal agents observing our application process, due to the fact that complying with Federal Law was more important than engaging in document fraud, no matter how high the risk. 

Although it was an "open secret” that the sale of fake and stolen identities were being sold outside La Placita Tropicana Shopping Center on a daily basis that had been operating long before I began my employment, Oportun failed to acknowledge that, although there are plenty of indications that Oportun Employees at La Placita Tropicana were subjected to “abnormal working conditions.”

Oportun fails to acknowledge the safety risks employees run working for a financial institution like any other financial institution and has demonstrated that they put their financial Interests before the safety of its employees, without taking into account the liabilities involved should a robbery occur or one of Oportun employees get hurt on the job;  Oportun has demonstrated that the best “solution” to resolve internal complaints is to "constructively" terminate the employee. 

Oportun, management and its employees have failed to acknowledge “anti-retaliation” provisions that an employer can effectively retaliate against an employee by taking actions not directly related to his employment and cause him or her harm outside the workplace. 

 

 

 

After Lina Mejorado had told me that Maria Aranda in the payroll department told her in private that she was “reluctant to speak to me because I could get her or the company in trouble”, after making an inquiry on the companies policy on unpaid wages for other and employees and myself; Banessa Felix, the employee trainer, informed Lina Mejorado “also in private” that she and I were no longer to work together and that there would be a change in our scheduling for allegedly “causing problems in the workplace.” 

This was ultimately never communicated to me personally by Banessa Felix, therefore the lack of professionalism by management presented itself more and more daily while noticing an increase in delayed responses and avoidance at all costs. 

Later Indirect communication from management and gossip lead to strained relationships between co-workers and myself  shortly after being accused of “causing problems in the workplace” for the simple fact that I had decided to make simple inquiries on our rights as employees, which I soon realized was something that Oportun Management was unfamiliar with.

With past employers, I had never been in a position where I had to be concerned of getting the “silent treatment” or even consider any form retaliation for making an inquiry on company policies, especially when reporting suspicious activity on customer accounts. 

The employee accused of creating problems in the workplace, was attacked by an unknown individual on her lunch break outside of our place of employment. 

Personal security at my place of employment started to become a concern after vandalism was also done to my vehicle where it was suggested by Lina Mejorado “that it was likely that the vandalism to my vehicle had occurred as a result of the outside individuals who patrol the parking lot and run a business daily selling identification documents, in an effort to break into my vehicle to steal my recently purchased stereo equipment.” 

Prior to this disclosure, I had no reasonable suspicions that the individuals who ran a business in the parking lot daily selling identification documents, who I saw daily, would be capable of vandalizing the vehicle of an employee. 

Instead of running the risk of another attempted break in to my vehicle, I gave my co-worker a printer that I had recently purchased as a gift. 

Of all Oportun locations, La Placita Tropicana Shopping Center, posed a threat to personal security much more than other locations due to the fact that not only does it not have the Business Name or Logo outside of the Shopping Center to inform a dispatch in the event of an emergency, there was no security cameras or panic buttons that were provided by the employer, although reasonably Oportun should of been more aware that as a financial institution, employees have an increased risk of violence and endangerment in all locations.

 

In addition, constant hostility and harassment from management regarding our productivity, as employees we were pressured to do things that were “dishonest” or “inappropriate” to meet unreasonable workloads or demands. 

As a result of these demands, as employees we were trained to pressure or deceive customers on each encounter into giving us referrals ( at the time it would be phone numbers of family and friends), while misleading the victim that  “We only want to call your contacts to “offer them information on how to build credit.” without properly informing the customer that they give us their personal contacts to send them telemarketing solicitations by mail and phone to apply for a loan, which result in several complaints daily asking us that we please stop soliciting and harassing them. 

In many of these cases, the victims of Oportuns telemarketing come in to complain that they keep receiving calls from the call centers although they have told them time and time again, to stop calling because they are on a “DO NOT CALL LIST. 

As employees who have no direct access to the call centers in Mexico when complaints are made, however we were instructed to tell the person making the complaint that perhaps one of our applicants, may have put them down as a reference when applying for a loan and that “the applicant gave us permission to send them telemarketing solicitations by phone or mail.”

Another predatory tactic to lure individuals to give us their personal contacts is by having an seasonal incentive or raffle, where we inform the victims that  each contact provided is a chance to enter to win 300.00, where the winner will be announced at the end of the week. Again, the victims of telemarketing and DO NOT CALL LISTS, get rather upset because someone other than themselves have gave Oportun permission to call them, in order for that person to enter to win a prize. 

In some extreme cases, the victims of constant harassment and unwanted solicitations come in to one of the many locations and say “I don’t care if I’m approved, I don’t need the loan. I’m just applying because I was called constantly and wanted it to stop.”

One of the most dishonest practices that I have learned from another employee ( Kelin Sierra who also got promoted to store lead) working for Oportun is to encourage customers to apply for a loan, ( It will only take 5 Minutes to get pre-approved!) without informing the customer than once we run their credit, their credit score is lowered and thus the incentive to apply for a loan is to take the loan to bring their credit score back up. 

In many cases, although Oportun promotes its product as a “credit-building loan” many of the clients don’t realize or take the time to monitor their credit to ensure that their credit score went up. 

One particular case presented itself when an Asian client came in to apply for a loan, to both his and my own surprise, his application had been denied due to personal identifying information being linked to another account. 

When I had asked the applicant if he had ever applied for a loan with Oportun, he was certain that he had never applied for a loan. 

After searching for the applicant by several methods, it was determined that he had never applied and that some of his personal identifying information was linked to another account. 

Due to the embarrassment that presented itself as an employee working for Oportun who  mainly serves the “Underserved Hispanic Community” as best described by the CEO, Raul Vasquez, I had no ulterior option but to ask another employee ( Kelin Sierra) 

“How do I explain to the applicant that his personal identifying identification is linked to another account, without upsetting him further?”

In many cases it’s not until much later (sometimes after multiple loans) clients come in to ask why their credit score had not changed, upon applying for a credit line elsewhere and not being approved. 

Typically there is no answer or resolution we can provide to the customer at that very moment. 

 

When I decided to raise my concerns after speaking to a co-worker about the activity I had witnessed at another store, I spoke to Banessa Felix, the company employee trainer. Although I had expected that Oportun would take my concerns regarding the verification of identification documents and overhearing that the call centers in Mexico were a risk to clients giving their personal or banking information over the phone, Banessa Felix, the company trainer, responded that they had already known about the "activity” and at the time of my disclosure they were already "looking into it” because they had also heard it from another employee.

I had already informed Oportun, that as senior employee, Nadachelli Dávalos, was not only treating new employees and their customers unfairly, she was also damaging both the employees and the business reputation, mentioning that Oportun Employees are a potential risk of identity theft. The employee reported was soon promoted to Store Lead, a position that opened up in March. Making an inquiry to the payroll department regarding an inquiry on the companies policy on unpaid wages, the point of contact( Maria Aranda) informed me and another employee who was present on the phone who had the same inquiry regarding the unpaid bonus ( Lina Mejorado), Maria Aranda complimented me by saying "I was very knowledgeable and that she was impressed by my willingness to help other employees, where she also offered to list herself and another highly ranked corporate employee,Jaziel Velez, ( one of the two corporate employees that had both taken my interview and hired me on the same day) as referrals for the store lead position. "

After not receiving a response from the payroll department in some time( Maria Aranda), who had asked me to the research Oportuns policy in the Labor Laws Binder at my place of employment, instructed me to get back to her with a response upon finding the right information, because as Maria Aranda had stated "that although she does payroll, she is unaware of all the state laws regarding payroll because she has many job duties.” Much later, upon never receiving a followup to my e-mails to ( Maria Aranda) it was later communicated to me by the same employee (who had also inquired about the wage laws, Lina Mejorado), Maria had told her personally that " she was reluctant to speak to me regarding the companies policy on unpaid wages because I could get her or the company in trouble”, indicating that my question or concern regarding the company policy was to go unresolved and ignored, which I had found to be highly unprofessional giving such information to a third-party, where I then began worrying about retaliation by the employer.

Employees later mentioned that they decided that they would rather not get paid the bonus, due to fear of retaliation. After not receiving a response, I contacted a third- party investigative agency for Oportun employees " Light-House” provided by the employer. I had my own suspicions, that since the investigative agency provided to employees, "Light-House”, was paid by Oportun to investigate internal employee complaints, it was likely that the investigative agency would dismiss my complaint. Although I had asked that I remain anonymous while investigating my complaint, I later suspected that my identity had been revealed to my employer. The employer later confirmed this after taking a leave of absence, that my identity was easily identifiable by the nature of my complaint.

October 7 2017, I received a response by the regional manager, Rene Gracia, due to correspondence sent informing him that I was feeling a lack of support by one of their ”highly ranked” senior employees, Nadachelli Dávalos. I felt the need to address my concerns due to her rude demeanor and failure to assist when asking her questions about the ”validity” of clients Identification Documents where I expressed in my email to the Regional manager, Rene Gracia, ”that it was very important that this employee support me while in training and provide me a second opinion when having to explain to customers that there was a problem with the identification documents they had provided.

Shortly after addressing my concerns with management, Nadachelli Dávalos, asked one of my applicants to move out of line, so that I could process payments, so that she could take all new clients who were there to inquire on how to apply for a loan or to finish their pending applications. When the customer got insulted by her request to move out of line in the middle of an application process, Nadachelli Dávalos went around the counter, reached for an Oportun Brochure, handed it to him and asked my applicant to call the customer service number (servicio al cliente), make a complaint and ask that the pending application be cancelled if he had been dissatisfied with the service provided, in front of other customers waiting in line.

(At the time I had been working at Oportuns Almaden Location- 201 Willow Street San Jose CA as a substitute employee, there was no formal ”process” for cancelling an application, where an incomplete application would cancel out in system automatically after sometime so that the complaint would result in disciplinary action towards me. I reported this.)

When I asked a different Oportun employee ( Cesar Lopez) if that type of treatment was typical behavior from that employee or if I was doing something wrong, Cesar Lopez suggested that it was best that after reaching my monthly goal, to give her my future applicants who I had already gotten approved for a loan ( after personally taking the time to go through the entire loan process and just have it count towards her Metrics in our system), because it would help her reach her monthly goal much faster and that she would perhaps then change her behavior towards me.

I did as I was told because the senior employee ( Nadachelli Davalos) was highly valued by the Oportun, as one of the top performers in the district. I later raised my concerns to the Employee Trainer at the time, Banessa Felix, that I had overheard Nadachelli Dávalos, asking clients on several occasions that while our clients were on the phone with the call centers in Mexico to ”deny” or ”mention they did not have their banking information” when being asked if they would like to enroll their bank account in automatic payments or (ACH) due to the fact that "the Call Centers were located in Mexico” and that by giving their personal banking information over the phone "there was a high risk of fraud and identity theft.

Reasonably, giving that type of "tip” to Oportuns clients for personal gains, was damaging the business reputation much more than building the customers trust with its both the employees and the business, which in addition was also an unfair practice to other employees who were trying to meet their goals who were not engaged in that type of activity.

Had this information been reported by the call centers or investigated by the company on other employees who were not ranked as high or valued by Oportun, this type of exploitive activity could have resulted in immediate termination and reasonably an internal investigation since the employer, Oportun, claims to be a Financial Institution to have "no tolerance for money laundering or fraudulent activity.”