It isn’t every day that I sit down to read through documents filed in Mike Miske’s federal racketeering case and discover that a post here at iLind.net was part of the story.
The government’s motion filed Friday afternoon seeking to disqualify Mike Miske’s two lead attorneys, Thomas Otake and Lynn Panagakos, focused on what prosecutors say were two fraudulent character reference letters included among seven such letters filed in Honolulu’s Federal District Court on August 7, 2020. The faked letters were attached to a memo opposing the government’s motion to keep Miske behind bars at the federal detention center until his trial.
The two letters are the basis of additional charges against Miske for obstruction of justice that were included in the third superseding indictment in the case filed last month. And now the government alleges that the attorneys have become potential witnesses to their client’s obstruction of justice, creating a serious conflict of interest.
Two day’s after the reference letters were filed in court back in August 2020, I reported on the arguments being made for and against Miske’s release pending trial in a post here, and included a link to the letters.
The arguments were considered in a court hearing on August 11, during which lead attorney Tom Otake repeatedly pointed to the letters as evidence of Miske’s good character.
The government’s motion to disqualify the attorneys tells what happened next.
The person they refer to only as “K.N.” was identified in my earlier blog post as Kurt Nosal.
On August 12, 2020, one day after the Mike detention hearing, K.N., an employee of a chemical supply company who served as the account representative for Miske, exchanged emails with two co-workers. The initial email, sent to K.N. by Co-Worker A, alerted K.N. that Lind had posted a letter filed with the Court purportedly authored and signed by K.N. attesting to Mike’s good character and asking the Court to release Mike on bail on his website. K.N. replied, “Absolutely, positively, 100% sure I did not write and sign that letter! Not even close to my signature! Thank you both!”
After learning of this email exchange in 2022, a federal agent interviewed K.N. K.N. said he never wrote a character letter for Miske, that he did not write the character letter filed by Mr. Otake and Ms. Panagakos, and that he did not authorize anyone to write it on his behalf. K.N. said that the K.N. character letter did not comport with his writing or spelling habits, and that the signature depicted was not his. K.N. also said he would not have written the K.N. character letter because he did not agree with its content….
The federal investigation included “a series of federal search warrants, federal grand jury subpoenas, and witness interviews” concluded the letters were, in fact, fraudulent.
Prosecutors allege that Miske directed “a longtime associate” to draft the K.N. letter. The associate, again at Miske’s direction, created a new Gmail account which was then used to mail an unsigned draft of the letter to Miske at another newly created Gmail account set up using the name “mmaloha808”.
Miske then forwarded the draft letter to the Gmail account of Delia Fabro-Miske, who was married to Miske’s late son, Caleb, and who is also a defendant in the ongoing criminal case.
Prosecutors allege Fabro-Miske “searched the internet for example’s of K.N.’s signature,” and then created a digital version of the letter with K.N.’s forged signature, which she then sent directly to Otake and Panagakos.
The second fraudulent letter, addressed “To whom it may concern,” was originally written by one of Miske’s employees, Larry Kapu, in 2018 in supporting the memorial to his son that Miske had set up along the ocean in a Hawaii Kai Beach Park. According to prosecutors, the letter was passed back and forth between the unnamed Miske associate and Fabro-Miske, was altered with a new salutation, “Dear Honorable Judge,” and a forged signature, before being given to the attorneys to be included with the other letters of reference.
One thing I should note here. A basic tenet of investigative reporting is that everything needs to be checked out and verified. Had I done that in 2020 by attempting to contact the purported authors of the reference letters submitted to the court on Miske’s behalf, the fraud might have been discovered more than two years ago. But I failed to go that extra step. My excuse is that I’m really a retired reporter, and not on anyone’s payroll, so in this case didn’t pursue the issue to the end. But, as a reporter chasing this case, paid or not, it’s an example of bad practice. My bad.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Not bad. It’s part of the deal. The retrospectascope has 20/20 vision. Good work in fact.
Okay. I didn’t chase down the people whose names were signed on the character references that were turned in. That was, in retrospect, a mistake.
However, I did report the story using the names of the signatories rather than just reporting their initials, which is what the legal memos did.
And I provided a link to the letters themselves, which I had downloaded from the court’s Pacer system and made publicly available.
Both of those reflect my attempts to provide more detail to readers.
And although I failed to follow through, it was enough to let co-workers of K.N. bring the matter to his attention, and eventually to the attention of the FBI.
I don’t think you should be too hard on yourself. Hindsight often shows us we could have or should have done things differently. The more important point is that you’ve been reporting on and sharing documents that others likely never would see otherwise.
You’re correct, but it’s also teaches a valuable lesson.
i recall that Katherine Kealoha’s appointment to a director position during the Lingle administration also included a submitted letter of recommendation by a fictious person, or at least that was the conclusion during her trial. anybody else remember that detail?
Civilbeat 2017 who is Alison Lee Wong
“During the confirmation process, testimony was submitted to the Hawaii Legislature in support of Kealoha’s nomination in the name of Alison L.Y.F. Wong.”
Question, why did Otake & Panagos not also verify information they were submitting?
Usually attorney file a true and correct affidavit with filings.
Could this issue jeopardize the entire trial?
Is this the perfect defense?
Completion of trial in 2023 in doubt.
The question of whether they had verified the documents is a good one.
The attorneys reportedly communicated with Delia Fabro-Miske and another unnamed person who solicited the letters and then doctored a couple of them, but I didn’t notice a document attesting to their correctness when the letters were filed in court. I’ll have to check the record on that.
Aloha, Ian
You have done excellent work here all around. I especially love when you print the actual documents filed in court. These documents provide a much clearer picture of what’s going on, separate from what the reporter THINKS is going on (excluding you — you have an uncanny and lawyerly understanding of our arcane rituals and language.)
I do have one correction. I am a retired criminal defense attorney with nearly four decades experience in federal court. Although I always review every word of letters in support of my client (either for pretrial release or sentencing), I’ve never filed an affidavit attesting to their ‘correctness.’ And I have never heard of a co-counsel or colleague doing that either. (When a defendant’s mother writes: ‘My son has never done a bad thing in his life,’ I’m not going to cross-examine her. It’s her own — understandably biased, opinion.)
What lawyer can follow up on every detail a friend, colleague, or family member submits? The purpose of the letters is to show that the accused is more than the sum of his alleged crimes: he is a parent, an employee or employer, he attends church, he was great in Little League, whatever. The letters are to show a fuller picture to the Court, and are always biased in the defendant’s favor. But, no, we don’t attest to the correctness of the content.
How refreshing to have someone stand up & take responsibility! You are a paragon of virtue in this regard & an example to all. Even a shining light dims occasionally when inundated with energy demands. You have & are doing the public a great service in providing insight into matters often overlooked. We are very thankful for your time & diligence.