The trustees of the Michael J. Miske Jr. Revocable Living Trust have filed their answer to the government’s complaint for forfeiture of Miske’s personal and business property.

The government filed its original forfeiture complaint on January 22, and followed with an amended complaint on May 7. The government has identified a long list of properties consisting of cash and checks, real estate, a commercial longline entry permit issued to a fishing vessel Miske previously owned, along with several vintage cars and miscellaneous art work. Estinates of the overall value range from approximately $13 million to as much as $28 million.

The 13-page answer was filed in Honolulu’s Federal District Court on behalf of the trustees by San Francisco attorney Edward M. Burch, a criminal defense attorney who specializes in forfeiture defense.

Burch serves notice that the Trust “demands trial by jury of the issues and defenses raised by its claim and answer.”

The full document is attached below.

Burch generally “denies that the properties are subject to forfeiture…and denies that any violations of the listed statutes occurred with regard to the properties.”

Burch also asserts that he “lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein, and on those grounds, denies each and every allegation contained therein.”

In addition, Burch raises seven affirmative defenses, arguing that forfeiture of some or all of the property “is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and that Miske’s properties “were derived from legitimate
activities and were otherwise unconnected to any violations of law….”

He asserts “some or all of the Defendant properties is not subject to forfeiture because it constitutes that of an innocent owner as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 983(d),” apparently a reference to the status of the trust’s primary beneficiary, Miske’s granddaughter, who is not named in the court filings. She was the daughter of Miske’s late son, Caleb Miske, who died in March 2016.

He then argues the civil forfeiture provisions of federal law “are unconstitutional and unenforceable, in that they constitute a denial of claimant’s due process and equal protection rights under the United States Constitution – the procedures used to adjudicate the seizure of the property should require the government to carry its burden by either beyond a reasonable doubt or by clear and convincing evidence rather than by a preponderance of the evidence.”

Answer to the government's civil forfeiture action by the Miske Revocable Living Trust by Ian Lind