Complaint Review: Maritime M.A.D. Inc.

Job Lazar and Johan Schild are directors of Maritime M.A.D., Inc. in Daphne, Alabama. Mr. Lazar was suspended by the Oregon State Bar Association and both Mr. Lazar and Mr. Schild have been involved in questionable business activities. If you are dealing with Maritime MAD, Job Lazar or Johan Schild you should be warned of their past business activities.


Maritime MAD - Where we are
www.maritimemad.com/whoweare.html - 18k - Cached - Similar pages



Home

What we do

Who we are

Where we are

Contact Us


Central Office
9786 Timber Circle #A Daphne, Alabama 36527
Office:
Cell:
Fax: (251) 626.0713
(504) 650.5000
(251) 447.0423

E-mail: info@maritimemad.com


Who we are

Maritime M.A.D., Inc. has a number of representatives and consultants in the USA, Europe and is presently recruiting associates in Asia.

Maritime M.A.D., Inc. Directors of the Company:
Johan Schild
C.R. "Kip" Kane
Mike Vaughn
Leonard Allen
Eugene J. McDonald
Captain John Cox
Job Lazar
Rudy Mateka




Welcome to the Oregon State Bar Online
Job B. Lazar of West Linn, Bar No. 88253. Mr. Lazar is seeking ... Mr. Monahan has been working as a patent attorney for a Baton Rouge law firm, ...
www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/05apr/barnews.html - 38k - Cached - Similar pages

Oregon State Bar Bulletin FEBRUARY/MARCH 2005

Job B. Lazar of West Linn, Bar No. 88253. Mr. Lazar is seeking reinstatement from a 120-day disciplinary suspension which commenced on December 12, 1995. (In re Lazar, SC S42848, 9 DB Rptr 245 [1995].) Since 1995, he has been employed primarily in real estate sales. Mr. Lazar has no specific plans upon reinstatement, but states he may pursue a legal career focusing on real estate law.

Milberg Weiss Indicted for Allegedly Paying Kickbacks
Oct 31, 2006 ... She identified her attacker as James "J.J." Little, an attorney ..... Job Lazar, Seymour's son and a lawyer himself, also got a piece of the ...
www.rgm.com/articles/MilbergWeiss.html - 62k - Cached - Similar pages


Milberg Weiss Indicted for Allegedly Paying $11.4M Kickbacks

By Peter Elkind
Fortune Magazine
October 31, 2006

Job Lazar, Seymour's son and a lawyer himself, also got a piece of the action. In March 1995, after Milberg received a $969,000 fee in a United Airlines class action (Job's half-brother Adam had served as plaintiff), it sent a $250,000 check to Job, identifying the money as "your participation in our fee" in the United suit. Over his 20 years as a Milberg plaintiff, Seymour Lazar repeatedly denied under oath that he was getting paid.


Dear Mr. Schild:

It has come to my attention that you have had various communications with management in which you demanded immediate payment for services you claim were performed, under threat of disclosing your experiences with management either to potential customers contacted for management benefit or to other potential customers.

Please be advised that those communications rise to the level of extortion, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 875(d), which provides in pertinent part, that:

(d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate. . . . commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another. . . or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Because your communications were via e-mail, the threats have been transmitted in interstate commerce, thus invoking federal jurisdiction. Because any amounts that are owed to you are apparently in dispute, your communication demanding the full amount under threat of injury to reputation satisfies the elements of extortion under federal law.

The amount that you are owed is apparently in dispute. While you may have legal recourse if the company is not reimbursing you in the amount and timeframe that you seek, making threats is not one of them. Govern yourself accordingly.

Management

Johan Schild was employed by IIG Management in early February 2008 with responsibilities that included overseas transportation for the company. In the course of performing those duties, it was required that Mr. Schild spend a considerable amount of time in the corporate office in Atlanta and be in frequent communication with the corporate office.

After a few weeks, Mr. Schild tendered his resignation as he felt this position created too much pressure that he could not cope with. To help alleviate the perceived pressure and to utilize his expertise, Mr. Schild was offered a consultant's position, which he accepted. The terms of his consulting role were that he was paid on a fixed daily rate for his time spent in the Atlanta office in addition to mutually agreed upon travel and hotel expenses. At the time of his acceptance of the consultant's position, he was instructed to submit his invoice for consulting services and expenses on a monthly basis and that they would be paid in thirty days, which was corporate policy and industry standards.

Several days before the end of February, Mr. Schild submitted his February invoice and requested immediate payment. He reiterated this request for immediate payment several times in the ensuing weeks, despite being reminded that payment for his services were not yet due. During the month of March, Mr. Schild accompanied another employee to a concrete plant. His involvement with the concrete plant was outside the scope of his consulting agreement and was not authorized by Mr. Schild's supervisor.

On March 28, we received an e-mail from Mr. Schild that he was submitting his March invoice for immediate payment and that unless both the February and March invoices were paid immediately, he was suspending his services. As of the date of this e-mail, although his February invoice had been processed for payment, it was not yet due. With regard to the March invoice of $4,710 that he submitted and demanded immediate payment, 75% of the invoice amount, or $3490, was for services that were outside the scope of his employment and were not authorized.

Mr. Schild received payment for his February invoice on March 31, in accordance with company policy and, as he was told back in February. He contacted our bank and was told that there were no funds in the account, as the account is maintained as a zero balance account (i.e., funds are transferred into the account as checks are presented for payment). Mr. Schild then contacted another former, disgruntled employee, informed him of what the bank stated, and sent an e-mail to the company, threatening to inform the company's business partners, employees, investors, and a local television station of his perceived wrongdoings by the company. We responded by informing Mr. Schild to deposit the check and that we would not be intimidated or threatened. On April 3rd, Mr. Schild acknowledged that payment for his February invoice had, in fact, cleared the bank.

In late April, Mr. Schild was informed that we did not agree with his March invoice and would be in contact with him to discuss it. On May 7th, Mr. Schild sent an e-mail that he was coming to the Atlanta office to pick up his check. We responded that he was not welcome in the office. He responded that he was coming to the office anyway, with or without an invitation. We then again informed Mr. Schild that he was not welcome in our office, that we have notified the police of this threat, and that he would be arrested if he attempted to enter our office. We reiterated that while we disagreed with his invoice, we would pay him what we felt was authorized and that we would not tolerate his attempts at extortion.

On May 9, in a telephone conversation with Mr. Schild, we offered $1,750 in full settlement of his March invoice. The amount offered represented his agreed upon time in the Atlanta office in addition to some limited time on the telephone concerning business on behalf of the company. This offer, which was generous and included payment for time not authorized, was rejected by Mr. Schild.

Mr. Schild continues to threaten the company and its employees, insisting on receiving payment for services that were outside the scope of his consulting services and not authorized. He has continued to threaten to inform business partners, employees, investors, and has even involved the name of a well known controversial television reporter who specializes in scandalous reporting. Our offer of payment of $1,750 remains on the table. The size of this dispute is only $2,960. This summary of the relationship between Mr. Schild and IIG Management is being publicized so that others may be informed of Mr. Schild's conduct. Please refer to the addendum sent to him by our attorney.

Jh atlanta, ga
Atlanta, Georgia
U.S.A.