A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a ruling requiring former MMA fighter and Defend Hawaii owner, Michael Buntenbah, to forfeit a $250,000 mortgage on his Kaneohe home.
Michael Buntenbah, 53, pleaded guilty in 2022 to conspiring with others to commit assault in aid of racketeering as part of the criminal organization directed by the late Michael J. Miske Jr.
Buntenbah was part of a shadow group of bouncers or security staff at Miske’s M Nightclub in downtown Honolulu who wore the same black uniforms as the official club staff, but worked off the books providing strong-arm services to Miske on request. He was involved in several assaults in and around the nightclub between 2012 and 2016.
Buntenbah was originally arrested along with Miske and nine other co-defendants in July 2020. He was released on a $500,000 bond in September 2020, but the amount was reduced to $250,000 by Judge Derrick Watson in May 2022.
However, Buntenbah was rearrested and his release on bond revoked in January 2024 after he led an unprovoked assault on several men in a Waikiki restaurant, which was captured on video. He was accompanied in the assault by several men, including one of his sons, who had been named the third party custodian responsible for assuring Buntenbah abided by the terms of his release.
Following the assault, Judge Watson ordered that Buntenbah forfeit the $250,000 mortgage that had been put as security when he had been released.
Buntenbah’s attorney, Michigan-based Gary Springstead, appealed Watson’s ruling to the 9th Circuit.
It was submitted on May 21, 2025 to a three-judge panel made up of Senior Circuit Judge Barry G. Silverman, and Circuit Judges Kenneth K. Lee and Lawrence VanDyke, who quickly decided the case was suitable for decision on the basis of the written court filings and without further oral argument.
In the appeal, Springstead argued that Watson “abused his discretion” when he refused to lift the bond forfeiture. The appeal argues that he gave to much weight to certain factors while minimizing those that might have weighed in Buntenbah’s favor.
However, in a brief 2-page ruling filed Wednesday, May 28, the panel unanimously rejected the appeal and affirmed Watson’s forfeiture ruling.
The substance of the ruling is brief enough to quote in full.
The record reflects that the district court considered and appropriately weighed the Nguyen factors, which were discussed extensively by the parties. The court’s focus on the willfulness and “egregiousness” of Buntenbah’s conduct was justified by Buntenbah’s arguments and the nature of the violation. Given the aggravating circumstances of the breach, the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to set aside any portion of the forfeited bond, notwithstanding that some factors may have weighed in Buntenbah’s favor. See United States v. Stanley, 601 F.2d 380, 382 (9th Cir. 1979) (the district court did not abuse its “wide discretion” by failing to set aside forfeiture even though the defendant “made all required court appearances and there was no showing of specific prejudice, cost, or inconvenience to the Government resulting from [his] breach”); see also Nguyen, 279 F.3d at 1117 (“[A] bond functions like liquidated damages in that it must be reasonable when set; it need not necessarily approximate the actual costs of breach.”).
After several delays, Buntenbah was sentenced to 36-months in federal prison, the maximum for the conspiracy in aid of racketeering charge. He is serving his sentence at the Honolulu Federal Detention Center. With credit for time served, he is scheduled for release on May 24, 2026.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dang, he’s out next year already.
The 9th Circuit’s ruling upholding the $250,000 bond forfeiture in the Buntenbah case sets a troubling precedent. Bail is meant to guarantee a defendant’s appearance—not act as a punitive fine for misbehavior while on release. Mr. Buntenbah did appear in court. His bond served its primary purpose.
Yes, his conduct was serious and led to revocation of release—but that should be addressed through sentencing, not by retroactively turning bail into punishment. When courts begin forfeiting bail for reasons unrelated to flight risk, it undermines the core principle that pretrial release is about process, not punishment.
If we keep shifting the purpose of bail from assurance of appearance to moral judgment, we risk making the system more about optics than law. That’s not justice—it’s erosion of a constitutional safeguard.
Let’s not let public outrage or prosecutorial convenience redefine the meaning of bail.
Thank you for the reminder. We average folks don’t give much thought to bail, but it is an important right that must be protected for everyone.
So people on bail are free to commit more crimes and terrorize the community without losing their bail money?…. tell me you own a bail bonds company without telling me…
Yes, I do own a bail bond company — and I’ve helped thousands of families navigate the justice system with dignity. I hope you never need my services, but if you or someone you love is ever arrested, you’ll find out fast that freedom, fairness, and accountability aren’t punchlines. They’re lifelines. Before that, I was in pretrial services. Google my name. See why Hawaii is a leader in pretrial justice. However, we are referring to the federal authorities here, specifically regarding Mr. Buntenbah.
not proud of it, I but I have lived that life long ago… while I agree with you on the necessity of bail and pretrial justice, I don’t think those arguments have anything to do with this man losing his what he put up for bail. The man continued to do the violent actions that he was accused and plead guilty to while out on bail.
Thanks, Matt. For the record, I have great respect for Chief Judge Derrick K. Watson—his judgment is sound, and I don’t question his decisions. In this case too, I believe he ruled correctly based on the facts and the law before him. What I’m pointing out is the precedent this sets: it’s the first time in Hawai?i that such a significant bail forfeiture has been ordered under these circumstances.
Bail isn’t just about the accused—it’s also about the people who risk their assets to guarantee someone else’s appearance in court. What if the parents lost their home due to the actions of their child? When the system forfeits a home or property even when the person shows up in court, it sends a dangerous message: that the courts don’t distinguish between new criminal conduct and actual flight risk or failure to appear. That undermines trust in a system that relies on accountability—both from defendants and from those who vouch for them.
As someone who’s helped thousands navigate pretrial release, I’ve seen how quickly confidence breaks down when rules shift without clarity or consistency. We should be watching this carefully—not to challenge the ruling, but to understand what it means going forward.
Remember, only about 30% of federal defendants are granted bail. That means roughly 70% are detained pretrial. I believe in judicial discretion—guided by legislation and subject to regular review. Just like mandatory minimums for old drug cases are being reevaluated, we must ensure bail practices remain fair, consistent, and transparent.
James,
I appreciate your detailed explanations and very much agree with you. Bail system and pretrial justice is very flawed. I commend you on your efforts.
I apologize as my first comment came off disrespectful.
PS
I did some checking. You were my bail bondsman about 16 years ago….small world
If you do a little checking, this is not even close to setting precedent. You may not like it, but there is a bunch of Case(s) that have addressed this. The contract between Butenbah and the Courts was very clear and agreed upon by both parties.
True, it’s not a legal precedent — but it’s a practical turning point in Hawai‘i. For the first time, we’ve seen a family home taken for a federal bail breach. The contract was “clear,” sure — but do you really think Buntenbah grasped the full cost of a moment in Waik?k?? This is what happens without private surety bail: people pay with their lives, their homes, or both. The federal system ditched sureties in 1985, and now 70% sit in jail pretrial. If that’s justice, where are the voices supposedly defending the poor? Where’s the ACLU now?
The good part is that Judges have some discretion. Given the totality of every aspect of Mr. butenbah’s actions to date, it was a good ruling.
The question presented on appeal in United States v. Vaccaro, 51 F.3d 189 (9th Cir. 1995), was whether a district court may order forfeiture of a bail bond after finding that the defendant violated a “commit no crimes” condition of release. The Ninth Circuit upheld the forfeiture—even though the defendant appeared in court—because he engaged in new criminal conduct.
That decision has echoed for decades and helps explain why many bail agents avoid federal cases: the risk is too high, and the protections for sureties are limited. The last federal bail I issued was for a prominent news figure. Funny how that works.
The original push for federal bail reform came when drug traffickers were simply buying their way out of jail. That led to the “release or detain” model. But then one day a Honolulu fisherman was denied bail after allegedly shooting at a whale to protect his nets. I thought, “Yes, shooting a whale is wrong—but no bail at all? Good grief, now what?” These kinds of inconsistencies reveal just how fragile and political pretrial systems can become.
As Ian mentions in the second line of his report, Michael Buntenbah [is/was] owner of the “Defend Hawaii” company. Here are excerpts from my year 2012 webpage about their merchandise:
“Defend Hawaii” T-shirts feature AR-15 assault rifles
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/DefendHawaiiAssaultRifleTShirts.html
Excerpts
The December 14 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut has dominated the news media for several days. Twenty first-grade children, ages 6 and 7, along with five teachers plus the principal, were gunned down in school. Each victim was shot multiple times — some bodies had as many as 10 or 11 bullets in them.
Although the shooter had several weapons with him in the school, news reports indicate that all the bullets fired into the children came from a Bushmaster AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle in a period of less than 10 minutes divided between two classrooms.
The same sort of assault rifle used in the school massacre has been featured on T-shirts, caps, and car stickers which have been selling in Hawaii for about 5 years. These items are being sold to locals and tourists alike, through an internet store and also brick-and-mortar stores throughout Hawaii including “Local Motion”, “Island Snow”, and numerous surf shops at Ala Moana, Windward Mall, Pearl Ridge, and other locations on O’ahu, Maui, and Hawaii Island.
On Sunday December 16, just two days after the massacre of 20 children and 6 adults in Sandy Hook Elementary School, “Defend Hawaii” featured a special “Christmas Sale” of its T-shirts at Windward Mall from 10 AM to 2 PM, which was extended to 5 PM as announced on a special Twitter update posted on its “about” page. What amazing arrogance and lack of sensitivity to the grief of a nation! The two-hour extension of the sale was underway as TV was carrying President Obama’s speech to the grieving parents and families at an interfaith memorial service in Newtown CT.
Interestingly, there were loud protests by Hawaiian sovereignty activists a few years ago when a tourist brochure showed the Kamehameha statue with the King holding a martini in his outstretched hand; and the tourist company removed the brochure. There were protests when a realtor posted an ad online portraying Iolani Palace for sale (to illustrate how to market a house effectively); and the realtor took down the ad. But there have been no Hawaiian activist protests whatsoever against the “Defend Hawaii” T-shirts including the one showing the Kamehameha statue holding an AR-15 assault rifle.
Many offensive items show an AR-15 assault rifle with large-size words “Defend Hawaii.” Perhaps the most offensive T-shirt has the “Defend Hawaii” slogan and assault rifle on the front, while on the back of the shirt is the Kamehameha statue depicting the King holding the assault rifle in his outstretched hand. Both sides of that T-shirt are shown at
http://big09a.angelfire.com/DefendHawaiiTShirtKamWithGun.jpg
[Ken’s note 5/30/25: I was at Windward Mall a few days ago and saw “Defend Hawaii” shirts still being sold, although I didn’t browse inside the store to see whether the Kamehameha shirt was in their current inventory]
“Defend Hawaii”‘s claim that their mission is to defend Aloha simply is not credible. Why should assault rifles, death-head skulls, and hand grenades be used as symbols of Aloha? They want to defend Hawaii, but we can only guess what it is they really want to defend Hawaii FROM and what their long-term goals are (besides making money from inflammatory T-shirts).
I hope that people who deplore violence and subtle threats of violence will talk with the merchants selling this garbage, and the people wearing these T-shirts or displaying “Defend Hawaii” assault-rifle stickers on their cars. Ask them why they sell or display such items. Ask them who is behind the “Defend Hawaii” campaign and what their real purpose is. Let them know you think it is grossly inappropriate. Our Constitution gives merchants the right to sell this stuff, and it gives people the right to display it. Our Constitution also gives decent people the right to tell these jerks exactly what we think.