A Valentine’s Day motion filed by federal prosecutors asks that Michael Buntenbah, also known as Michael Joseph Buntenbah Malone, forfeit his $250,000 bond, after his release on bond was revoked following an assault in a Waikiki bar last month. The bond is secured by a mortgage on his Kaneohe residence, which is now at risk.
Buntenbah, one of the original 10 co-defendants in the racketeering case targeting former Honolulu busines owner, Michael J. Miske Jr., pleaded guilty in March 2022 and had been released on bond pending his sentencing.
According to the government’s motion:
For the reasons set forth below, the Court should find that the conditions of the bond in this case were breached when the Defendant instigated and committed a violent and unprovoked assault on an innocent victim who was peaceably drinking with friends in a public restaurant – stomping on the victim’s back while he lay helpless and passive on the ground – and order that bail be forfeited pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 46(1)(1). The Court should not set aside the mandatory forfeiture of the bond pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 46(1)(2) because the Defendant cannot demonstrate “that justice does not require bail forfeiture.”
The assault, which took place in the Moani Waikiki Island Bistro and Bar in the International Marketplace on January 20, was described here in a February 5 post (“Defend Hawaii owner back in federal custody after instigating a Waikiki brawl“).
According to the new government motion:
On January 30, 2024, the Defendant was arrested for assaulting an individual at a local restaurant on January 20, 2024. The Defendant, his two sons (including the son appointed as his third-party custodian), and several other men approached the victim’s table while the victim was seated with friends having drinks. The Defendant called the victim a “rat” due to the victim’s past history with co-defendant Michael Miske. The victim remained seated as the Defendant initiated a verbal altercation with the victim, and the Defendant’s associates then began to beat the victim, who remained seated, as well as a second individual who was sitting at the table with the victim. The Defendant began hitting that second individual, while the Defendant’s associates grabbed the victim and dragged him to the floor. The Defendant then proceeded to stomp on the victim, who was curled up on the ground. The assault was captured on security camera video footage and further corroborated by the victim. The victim stated that he initially did not report the incident because he did not want to be involved, have further issues, or be viewed as a “rat,” and he knew the Defendant was on federal probation and would return to prison if he reported the assault. [citations omitted]
Prosecutors argue that forfeiture is mandatory “where a defendant breaches a condition of his bond,” although the court may decline to order a forfeiture if “it appears that justice does not require bail forfeiture.”
“The deliberate nature of the Defendant’s violent conduct and the lack of any mitigating factors strongly weigh against setting aside the mandatory forfeiture,” the government argues.
“The Defendant, knowing he was released on a secured bond and subject to clear conditions of release, nonetheless attacked a defenseless victim while he was seated in a chair, along with a second individual. What is perhaps more galling for the Court is that the Defendant’s brutal attack on the victim is analogous to the beatings he inflicted on others on behalf of the Miske organization, the very conduct for which he was on conditions of release.”
The prosecution memo accuses Buntenbah of a “blatant and egregious disregard of this conditions of release,” one of which was that he not violate any federal, state, or local law while on release.
“Moreover, there are no mitigating factors to suggest justice does not require forfeiture. The video footage of the assault speaks for itself. The Defendant (bringing with him numerous associates as backup) instigated a violent and unprovoked assault against a victim, who did not fight back even as the Defendant stomped on the victim’s back while he was curled up on the ground,” the motion argues.
Buntenbah had been released from custody on October 9, 2020, after providing a secured $500,000 mortgage on a Popoki Street residence in Kaneohe, currently valued for real property tax purposes at $1,703,400. Property records show Buntenbah has claimed an owner-occupant tax deduction since 2015.
The amount of the secured bond was later reduced to $250,000.
The mortgage, filed in the Bureau of Conveyances, explicitly authorizes the government to file a foreclosure action “if the terms and conditions” of the bond are not met.
But if the terms and conditions of the aforementioned Appearance Bond are not observed and performed by the aforesaid MICHAEL J. BUNTENBAH, the Mortgagee may foreclose this Mortgage by civil action, with the immediate right to a receivership pending foreclosure, or, as now provided by law, either by entry and possession, or (with or without entry and possession) by advertisement and sale of the mortgaged property or any part or parts thereof at public auction, and may in its own name or as the attorney-in-fact of the Mortgagor, for such purpose hereby irrevocably appointed, effectually convey the property so sold to the purchaser or purchasers absolutely and forever, and any foreclosure shall forever bar the Mortgagor and all persons claiming under the Mortgagor from all right and interest in the property, at law and in equity; and out of the proceeds of any foreclosure sale, the Mortgagee may deduct all costs and expenses of foreclosure and/or suit, and retain or be awarded all sums then payable by or chargeable under the terms of the aforementioned Appearance Bond rendering to the Mortgagor the surplus, if any. If such proceeds shall be insufficient to discharge the same in full, the Mortgagee may have any other legal recourse against the Mortgagor for the deficiency.
The court set a February 21 deadline for a response by Buntenbah’s attorneys. A hearing on the forfeiture motion is then scheduled before Federal Judge Derrick Watson on the afternoon of February 27.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Such an ugly person, this guy. And a coward to enlist thugs for a personal vendetta. Who is safe? That downtown Honolulu sounds like Tombstone, AZ c: 1800s, This person and his loinfruit belong behind bars forever.
I am not an attorney but I follow matters about pretrial release.
I will be surprised if Federal Judge Derrick Watson forfeits an appearance bond for someone now in custody for breach of a condition while out of custody on pretrial release. It is possible at the federal court level but I’ve only seen it done once. https://casetext.com/case/us-v-vaccaro-3
Does the Buntenbah bond have the break no condition clause?
Rule 46. Release From Custody
(a) Release Prior to Trial. Eligibility for release prior to trial shall be in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §§3142 and 3144.
(b) Release During Trial. A person released before trial shall continue on release during trial under the same terms and conditions as were previously imposed unless the court determines that other terms and conditions or termination of release are necessary to assure such person’s presence during the trial or to assure that such person’s conduct will not obstruct the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial.
(c) Pending Sentence and Notice of Appeal. Eligibility for release pending sentence or pending notice of appeal or expiration of the time allowed for filing notice of appeal, shall be in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §3143. The burden of establishing that the defendant will not flee or pose a danger to any other person or to the community rests with the defendant.
(d) Justification of Sureties. Every surety, except a corporate surety which is approved as provided by law, shall justify by affidavit and may be required to describe in the affidavit the property by which the surety proposes to justify and the encumbrances thereon, the number and amount of other bonds and undertakings for bail entered into by the surety and remaining undischarged and all the other liabilities of the surety. No bond shall be approved unless the surety thereon appears to be qualified.
(e) Forfeiture.
(1) Declaration. If there is a breach of condition of a bond, the district court shall declare a forfeiture of the bail.
(2) Setting aside. The court may direct that a forfeiture be set aside in whole or in part, upon such conditions as the court may impose, if a person released upon execution of an appearance bond with a surety is subsequently surrendered by the surety into custody or if it otherwise appears that justice does not require the forfeiture.
(3) Enforcement. When a forfeiture has not been set aside, the court shall on motion enter a judgment of default and execution may issue thereon. By entering into a bond the obligors submit to the jurisdiction of the district court and irrevocably appoint the clerk of the court as their agent upon whom any papers affecting their liability may be served. Their liability may be enforced on motion without the necessity of an independent action. The motion and such notice of the motion as the court prescribes may be served on the clerk of the court, who shall forthwith mail copies to the obligors to their last known addresses.
(4) Remission. After entry of such judgment, the court may remit it in whole or in part under the conditions applying to the setting aside of forfeiture in paragraph (2) of this subdivision.
(f) Exoneration. When the condition of the bond has been satisfied or the forfeiture thereof has been set aside or remitted, the court shall exonerate the obligors and release any bail. A surety may be exonerated by a deposit of cash in the amount of the bond or by a timely surrender of the defendant into custody.
(g) Supervision of Detention Pending Trial. The court shall exercise supervision over the detention of defendants and witnesses within the district pending trial for the purpose of eliminating all unnecessary detention. The attorney for the government shall make a biweekly report to the court listing each defendant and witness who has been held in custody pending indictment, arraignment or trial for a period in excess of ten days. As to each witness so listed the attorney for the government shall make a statement of the reasons why such witness should not be released with or without the taking of a deposition pursuant to Rule 15(a). As to each defendant so listed the attorney for the government shall make a statement of the reasons why the defendant is still held in custody.
(h) Forfeiture of Property. Nothing in this rule or in chapter 207 of title 18, United States Code, shall prevent the court from disposing of any charge by entering an order directing forfeiture of property pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3142(c)(1)(B)(xi) if the value of the property is an amount that would be an appropriate sentence after conviction of the offense charged and if such forfeiture is authorized by statute or regulation.
(i) Production of Statements.
(1) In General. Rule 26.2(a)–(d) and (f) applies at a detention hearing held under 18 U.S.C. §3142, unless the court, for good cause shown, rules otherwise in a particular case.
(2) Sanctions for Failure to Produce Statement. If a party elects not to comply with an order under Rule 26.2(a) to deliver a statement to the moving party, at the detention hearing the court may not consider the testimony of a witness whose statement is withheld.
(As amended Apr. 9, 1956, eff. July 8, 1956; Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; Apr. 24, 1972, eff. Oct. 1, 1972; Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §209(d), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 1987 ; Mar. 9, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987; Apr. 30, 1991, eff. Dec. 1, 1991; Apr. 22, 1993, eff. Dec. 1, 1993; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330003(h), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2141 .)
Emphasis #(2) .
(2) Setting aside. The court may direct that a forfeiture be set aside in whole or in part, upon such conditions as the court may impose, if a person released upon execution of an appearance bond with a surety is subsequently surrendered by the surety into custody or if it otherwise appears that justice does not require the forfeiture.
Yes, his bond does have the “break no conditions” clause.