SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 COMPLAINT UTILIZES EVIDENCE MADE AVAILABLE IN 2008
COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY AGAINST
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE ALAN J. BAVERMAN
This complaint includes supported allegations of cognizable misconduct against Judge Baverman under one or more of the following and as defined by Rule 3 of the above-referenced Rules:
Rule 3(h)(1): conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts;
Rule 3(h)(1)(A): using the judge’s office to obtain special treatment for friends or relatives;
Rule 3(h)(1)(B): accepting bribes, gifts, or other personal favors related to the judicial
office;
Rule 3(h)(1)(C): having improper discussions with parties or counsel for one side in a case;
Rule 3(h)(1)(D): treating litigants or attorneys in a demonstrably egregious and hostile
manner;
Rule 3(h)(1)(G): violating other specific, mandatory standards of judicial conduct, such as
those pertaining to restrictions on outside income and requirements for
financial disclosure;
Rule 3(h)(2): conduct occurring outside the performance of official duties if the
conduct might have a prejudicial effect on the administration of the
business of the courts among reasonable people;
And possibly,
Rule 3(e): Disability is a temporary or permanent condition rendering judge unable to
discharge the duties of the particular judicial office…includ[ing, but not
limited to]…a severe impairment of cognitive abilities.
Rule 3(h)(1)
1. Judge Baverman personally, and judicially, involved himself in acts (both after he was selected for the bench in 2000, and after he actually took the bench on February 1, 2001) prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts which include, but are not limited to, acts of extortion and then additional acts of obstruction of justice, tampering with one or more witnesses, facilitating potential retaliation against one or more witnesses, and using his connections to make real and implied threats against the safety and security of this Complainant and others in order to save the Baverman-Morochnik family from criminal scrutiny.
2. Attorney Paul Morochnik (“Morochnik”), who is the nephew of Judge Baverman, and Complainant were involved in various real estate transactions structured under the direction of attorney Morochnik which provided both personal and professional financial benefit to Morochnik. These transactions became the subject of FBI inquiry. In July 2000, Morochnik requested Baverman provide criminal law direction in regards to this FBI investigation (Baverman was a federal criminal attorney selected for the bench, but awaiting his clearance, to start as a federal magistrate judge on February 1, 2001). Baverman provided direction about the FBI investigation to Hintz and Morochnik in a way designed to hide Baverman’s personal involvement to protect the Baverman-Morochnik family.
3. In December 2000 and into early 2001, Judge-select Baverman believed Morochnik could be indicted. As a result, Baverman and Morochnik directed Complainant’s actions to short-circuit the FBI investigation (regarding all transactions involved in Compainant’s related proceedings), to use attorney Mark Kadish, and to provide approximately $1,000,000.00 worth of extorted assets from the Complainant’s family. Baverman’s alleged ties to organized crime and the power and influence of his selection to the bench were used to coerce Complainant into compliance. Complainant complied with their demands to save his minor children from harm. Judge Baverman continued his personal, and later judicial, involvement in these activities after he took the bench on February 1, 2001.
4. In order to protect his long-time friend Alan Baverman, attorney Mark J. Kadish falsely stated, under oath: “To my knowledge, Judge Baverman, personally or professionally, had nothing to do with Mr. Hintz’ case prior to his appointment of Lynn Fant as appellate counsel…I can only say that I never heard anything whatsoever about the Bavermans, Morochnik and Ms. Fant throughout the entire period of my representation of Mr. Hintz” (see, and herein incorporate, US v. Hintz, USDC N.D.GA #1:03-CR-131, Doc.259-14 ¶5).
5. THE FACTS SHOW:
Paul Morochnik mailed a check to Mark Kadish dated “08/23/02” after Mark Kadish told Paul Morochnik to close out Petitioner’s account at Paul Morochnik’s law office; (see, and herein incorporate, US v. Hintz, Doc.260 pgs.28-29).
Morochnik gave Mark J. Kadish’s name and number to Complainant after getting it from Alan Baverman: “After inquiry, I provided Mr. Hintz…names and telephone numbers – Mark Kadish…I understand he retained Mr. Kadish” (Paul J. Morochnik’s March 25, 2005 letter; see, and herein incorporate, US v.Hintz, Doc.253-4 pgs.35-36).
“In late 2000…Paul Morochnik…asked me…for the names of criminal defense lawyers who were capable of representing a client of his” (Affidavit of Alan J. Baverman; see, and herein incorporate, US v. Hintz, Doc.259-15 ¶2).
“12/18/00 Paul Morochnik….all from Alan Baverman” (Morochnik’s handwritten notation from December 18, 2000 meeting of Hintz, Morochnik and Baverman; see, and herein incorporate, US v. Hintz, Doc.253-4 pg.39).
“Attorney Paul J. Morochnik was giving my ex-husband ,Scott Hintz, legal advice and direction regarding an FBI investigation…Scott Hintz was scared and intimidated by attorney Paul Morochnik…Any visit Elida Baverman may have made to my residence on/in mid-January 2001 would have been to evaluate mortgaged real estate for Paul Morochnik…In late February, or early March, 2001 Paul Morochnik brought his relatives, Alan & Elida Baverman, to my previous residence at 1110 Vintage Club Drive, Duluth, GA to receive personal property including various items not just a “mirror”; to the best of my knowledge they did not pay any money.” (A. Zwolak Affidavit; see, and herein incorporate, US v. Hintz, Doc.260, pg.24).
“I saw Judge Alan Baverman at the home of Scott Hintz on at least one occasion before a public estate sale was held there in March 2001.” (L. West Affidavit; see, and herein incorporate, US v. Hintz, Doc.260, pg.26).
“Between January and March 2001, Paul J. Morochnik, Alan J. Baverman and Elida Baverman (Judge Baverman’s wife) visited my home in early 2001 to take real and personal property from my family with the use of their power and influence.” (S. Hintz Affidavit; see, and herein incorporate, US v. Hintz, Doc.258, p.14).
“Mark J. Kadish informed me that he and U.S. Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman had some very strong power and influence with allegedly-violent criminal organizations, law enforcement, politicians and judges. I was told to remain silent about the questionable, and likely illegal, activities of the Baverman family or they (Baverman & Kadish) would find out through their connections rendering my minor children unsafe.” (S. Hintz Affidavit; see, and herein incorporate, US v. Hintz, Doc.258, pg.14-15).
“I remember Mark Kadish was angry about Scott Hintz telling the government about the real estate transfers between Scott Hintz and the Morochnik family. Scott Hintz stated he could not lie about the transfers because they were in county records. Mark Kadish…directed Scott Hintz to make certain statements to correct this problem before Scott Hintz’s sentencing hearing.” (J. Jensen Affidavit; see and herein incorporate, US v. Hintz, Doc.260, pg.25).
“On various occasions before Scott Hintz’s sentencing, Mark Kadish told Scott Hintz to present incomplete or misleading statements to protect the Morochnik and Baverman family.” (L. West Affidavit; see, and herein incorporate, US v. Hintz, Doc.260, pg.26).
Herein incorporate, the evidence and sworn testimony included in the Atlanta U.S.D.C. record of U.S. v. Hintz, #1:03-131-CC and its related appeals; see especially district court Doc.253-3, Doc.253-4, Doc. 257, Doc.258, Doc.260 pgs.24-29, Doc.265, Doc.266, Doc.268, and Doc.269.
Rule 3(h)(1)(A)
6. Judge Baverman, both as a judge-select in 2000 and after he took the bench as a U.S. Magistrate on February 1, 2001, used the power, influence, and position of his judicial office to obtain special treatment for friends or relatives. Judge Baverman utilized his selection to, and position on, the bench to intimidate and coerce Complainant into complying with his demands for approximately $1,000,000 worth of real and personal assets, and actions aimed at short-circuiting criminal investigation(s) into the Baverman-Morochnik family (and later to include friends of the Baverman-Morochnik family who later became involved with their illegal acts to obstruct justice).
7. Complainant incorporates paragraphs 1 through 5, above, herein as set forth at length.
Rule 3(h)(1)(B)
8. Judge Baverman, both as a judge-select in 2000 and after he took the bench as a U.S. Magistrate on February 1, 2001, not only accepted, but actually extorted, the receipt of approximately $1,000,000 worth of real & personal assets relating to his judicial office. Judge Baverman took the assets with use of extortion and attempted to launder the assets through members of his family including his wife, nephew, and niece. Judge Baverman’s wife evaluated, and selected, which assets were to be extorted from Complainant in late 2000, and 2001. Judge Baverman’s wife, at a minimum, received commissions from the subsequent sale of the extorted real estate. She could not have received these commissions had the properties not been extorted from Complainant. Additionally, Judge Baverman and his wife, received extorted property during their personal visit(s) to Complainant’s residence including visits made after Judge Baverman took the bench on February 1, 2001. All assets were extorted using the power and influence of his judicial office. Judge Baverman used his judicial office to gain favor (and cause conflicts of interest in favor of the Baverman-Morochnik family) with Complainant’s attorneys, involved judges, prosecutor(s), and law enforcement.
9. Complainant incorporates paragraphs 1 through 5, above, herein as set forth at length.
Rule 3(h)(1)(C)
10. Judge Baverman had improper discussions with Complainant and Complainant’s counsel in order to protect himself, and his family, from criminal scrutiny. It appears Judge Baverman (or someone working on his behalf) had improper communications with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and/or other involved judges to protect himself and others from criminal scrutiny (see, and herein incorporate, US v. Hintz, Doc.266, Doc.268 and Doc.269).
11. Complainant incorporates paragraphs 1 through 5, above, herein as set forth at length.
Rule 3(h)(1)(D)
12. Judge Baverman, both as a judge-select in 2000 (December 2000 interaction with Compainant) and after he took the bench as a U.S. Magistrate on February 1, 2001 (during visits to Complainant’s home and later through Morochnik and Kadish), treated this litigant Complainant in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner through a series of real and implied threats (made by Judge Baverman and others working on his behalf) intended to protect the interests of the Baverman-Morochnik family.
13. Complainant incorporates paragraphs 1 through 5, above, herein as set forth at length.
Rule 3(h)(1)(G)
14. Judge Baveman violated many mandatory standards of judicial conduct, such as (but not limited to) those pertaining to restrictions on outside income and requirements for financial disclosure. Judge Baverman received various financial benefit both personally (through the receipt of extorted assets he received himself) and through his family (the extorted receipt and related subsequent sale of real property both structured, and laundered, through Judge Baverman’s family – wife, nephew, and niece).
15. Complainant incorporates paragraphs 1 through 5, above, herein as set forth at length.
Rule 3(h)(2)
16. Judge Baverman’s conduct, occurring outside the performance of his official duties, has a prejudicial effect on the administration of the business of the courts among reasonable people. Judge Baverman’s personal and/or non official conduct obstructs justice with a prejudicial effect on Complainant’s case by suppressing and distorting the truth to save the Baverman-Morochnik family from criminal scrutiny at the expense of this Complainant.
17. Complainant incorporates paragraphs 1 through 5, above, herein as set forth at length.
Rule 3(e)
18. Judge Baverman has made statements to the 11th Circuit denying knowledge of and/or involvement in the supported allegations listed above. Judge Baverman is either delusional, or has a serious disability which negatively affects his ability to present true and accurate recollections. This problem calls into question his ability to discharge the duties of his judicial office.
19. Complainant incorporates paragraphs 1 through 5, above, herein as set forth at length.
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
20. Complainant has made the Atlanta U.S. District Court, the 11th Circuit, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office aware of U.S. Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman’s and attorney Mark Kadish’s claims to have significant power and influence over not only many of the local judges (at the state, district and circuit levels), but also with politicians, law enforcement, regulatory agencies and allegedly violent criminals. For this reason, coupled with the related threats & instances of retaliation this Complainant has experienced, Complainant respectfully requests a careful ‘open-eye’ examination of this complaint. Additionally, please consider the serious barriers created by the threats of retaliation by Judge Baverman (and by those individuals involved in helping him) against anyone pursuing Complainant’s valid, and supported, claims of judicial misconduct.
“On various occasions before Scott Hintz’s sentencing, Mark Kadish told Scott Hintz to present incomplete or misleading statements to protect the Morochnik and Baverman family.” (L. West Affidavit, Doc.260, pg.26).
“It was clear from what I heard and seen that Scott Hintz was using attorney Mark Kadish only because Scott Hintz was very afraid of Mark Kadish and worried someone would harm Scott’s kids if he did not follow Mark Kadish’s direction…Immediately before Scott went to his first criminal proceeding with Mark Kadish, Scott Hintz told Mark Kadish the criminal allegations against him were false and told Mark Kadish he did not want to plead guilty to false statements. Mark Kadish responded by instructing Scott Hintz to plead guilty anyways and by telling Scott it was the only way to keep Scott’s kids safe.” (J. Jensen Affidavit, Doc.260, pg.26).
“Just before Scott Hintz’s first appearance…on March 6, 2003, I heard Scott Hintz very specifically state he did not want to plead guilty and heard Mark Kadish clearly threaten Scott Hintz and tell Scott Hintz he had to plead guilty or Mark Kadish would ensure retaliation against Scott Hintz.” (L. West Affidavit).
“Just before Scott Hintz’s first appearance…Mark Kadish specifically told Scott Hintz he would definitely only be held accountable for one loan in his name and would definitely only eventually serve 0-6 months of incarceration so long as Scott kept his mouth shut about the Morochnik and Baverman family, kept quiet in court about these agreements, and let Mark Kadish handle everything with the judges… I am certain this is what Scott Hintz believed during his plea hearing because I, myself, heard Mark Kadish say it to Scott Hintz. Scott and I talked about Kadish’s statements before Scott’s plea hearing of March 2003 and were both led to believe the statements were true by Mark Kadish” (L. West Affidavit, Doc.260, pg.26).
“In 2002, Scott Hintz contacted me for help…Scott stated he was intimidated by Mark Kadish” (Attorney S. Weizenecker Affidavit, Doc.258, pg.39).
“in 2002…I remember many discussions with Mr. Hintz regarding his representation by Mr. Kadish. Scott explained his concern about the quality of representation. Scott had paid Mr. Kadish a substantial sum as a retainer…After many attempts at communication, Mr. Kadish contacted me and spent most of his time telling me that he did not recognize my name. I informed Mr. Kadish that I am not a criminal defense attorney and that I was only inquiring on Scott’s behalf as a friend and general legal counsel. I requested that Mr. Kadish release the funds and return the retainer so that Scott could hire other counsel. He refused.” (Attorney S. Weizenecker Affidavit, Doc.#55-1, pgs.5-6).
“Between 2001 and 2003, I heard Mark Kadish lose his temper with Scott Hintz many times…Mark Kadish threatened Scott Hintz with retaliation for attempting to replace him.” (L. West Affidavit, Doc.260, pg.26).
“I heard Scott Hintz very specifically tell Mark Kadish he did not want to plead guilty and heard Mark Kadish clearly threaten Scott Hintz…Mark Kadish would ensure retaliation against Scott Hintz…[but ensure he] eventually only serve 0-6 months of incarceration so long as Scott kept his mouth shut about the Morochnik and Baverman family, kept quiet in court about these agreements, and let Mark handle everything with the judges…Mark Kadish said the plea hearing was just a formality and specifically told Scott Hintz to keep his mouth shut in court…so the judge would not become upset. Mark Kadish led Scott Hintz to believe a back-room agreement had been made because Judge Alan Baverman was a judge in the same court and Mark Kadish was a good friend of Judge Cooper.” (L. West Affidavit, Doc.260, pg.26).
For any and/or all of the reasons above, Complainant prays the 11th Circuit will find in favor of this Complainant and will seek the removal of Magistrate Judge Baverman from his judicial office and his criminal prosecution.
Sincerely,
_<signed>______________________ _September 8, 2008________________
Scott Hintz Date
Attachments: Exhibit ‘A’: US v. Hintz #1:03-131-CC Doc.260 pgs.24-29; Affidavits and items of evidence. [from Atlanta U.S.D.C.]