Category Archives: Court

The value of vaccines

3 Replies

I saw this study referenced in a lawsuit filed by 15 states seeking to overturn the Trump administration’s reversing of longtime child vaccination protocols supported by years of evidence.

It provides estimates of the value of childhood vaccinations in sharp contrast to the actions of the current adminiatration.

The study: Health and Economic Benefits of Routine Childhood Immunizations in the Era of the Vaccines for Children Program — United States, 1994–2023

Link: CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of August 8, 2024

Abstract
Since 1994, the U.S. Vaccines for Children (VFC) program has covered the cost of vaccines for children whose families might not otherwise be able to afford vaccines. This report assessed and quantified the health benefits and economic impact of routine U.S. childhood immunizations among both VFC-eligible and non–VFC-eligible children born during 1994–2023. Diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis vaccine; Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine; oral and inactivated poliovirus vaccines; measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine; hepatitis B vaccine; varicella vaccine; pneumococcal conjugate vaccine; hepatitis A vaccine; and rotavirus vaccine were included. Averted illnesses and deaths and associated costs over the lifetimes of 30 annual cohorts of children born during 1994–2023 were estimated using established economic models. Net savings were calculated from the payer and societal perspectives. Among approximately 117 million children born during 1994–2023, routine childhood vaccinations will have prevented approximately 508 million lifetime cases of illness, 32 million hospitalizations, and 1,129,000 deaths, at a net savings of $540 billion in direct costs and $2.7 trillion in societal costs. From both payer and societal perspectives, routine childhood vaccinations among children born during 1994–2023 resulted in substantial cost savings. Childhood immunizations continue to provide substantial health and economic benefits, while promoting health equity.

A copy of the lawsuit is attached below.

Heavy workload in Hawaii U.S. Attorney’s office blamed for slowing pending cases

3 Replies

Thanks to all of you who read the incredibly flattering profile published yesterday by Civil Beat as part of their “Bright Spots” series, especially those who shared gracious comments!

And to those of you who subscribed to ilind.net as a result of reading the profile, welcome board. I hope you find enough of what you’re looking for to become regulars.

Here’s today’s bit of news.

Today is the deadline for the government to file its answer to Miske co-defendant Norman Akau’s appeal of the 14-year prison sentence handed down by Judge Derrick Watson last March. The sentence included the nearly five years he had already been held in Honolulu’s federal detention center awaiting sentencing.

At the time of his indictment and arrest in mid-2020, Akau was an elected member of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) local union executive board. He was a founding member of the Nakipi Motorcycle Club in Kaneohe, and was implicated (along with several other Nakipi members) in drug dealing, robberies, and assaults. He pleaded guilty to a single count of racketeering conspiracy and, in exchange, the government dropped other charges against him. He is currently scheduled for release from prison on June 19, 2032.

The Akau’s opening brief was filed in December, with an original January deadline set for the government’s reply.

That deadline was extended for 30-days at the request of the government through a “streamlined” online request, which can only be used once.

But on February 11, Assistant U.S. Attorney Aislinn Affinito filed a motion asking to extend the deadline an additional four months until June 23, 2026.

No action has been taken on the motion, according to a check of the court docket this morning, although the motion says the continued delay is not apposed by the defense. If the motion is not granted, the government’s answer is due by the end of today.

Affinito’s motion in support of her request for a further delay points the finger at internal pressure from a very heavy workload within the office of Hawaii’s U.S. Attorney.

Affinito wrote:

I am requesting an extension of time because I have been unable to turn my attention to this case until now due to my supervisory responsibilities as Chief of
Major Crimes at the Hawaii U.S. Attorney’s Office — overseeing hundreds of cases/investigations, including 7 trials in the next two months — as well as my own individual case load, which includes, among other things, my participation as lead counsel in a complex civil forfeiture matter (D. Haw., 1:25-cv-00028-DKW-KJM) and in multiple, active, complex white collar investigations.

The “complex civil forfeiture matter” she refers to is the government’s civil lawsuit seeking to seize millions of dollars worth of property owned by the late racketeering kingpin, Michael J. Miske, Jr. That case has dragged on for more than a year with little reported progress toward a settlement.

Affinito is also named as the contact for media follow-up in news releases from the U.S. Attorney’s office for more than a year.

Affinito joined the Hawaii U.S. Attorney’s office in December 2022 and was quickly assigned to the legal team in Miske’s criminal trial. She previously spent about eight years in private practice in Washington, D.C.

Akau’s appeal focuses on a claim that the government breached the terms of his plea agreement by including his participation in a murder for hire plot when calculating the appropriate sentence in his case. Akau’s attorney, Arizona-based Ramiro Salazar Flores, argued that Akau first disclosed a murder plot targeting an ILWU union official during his plea negotiations. Miske reportedly identified the official as the person blocking his continued access to union jobs on the docks. Flores argues Akau’s plea agreement barred the government from using that self-disclosure against him. The government said at sentencing that it had relied on “derivative evidence” gathered from other sources, but Flores argues prosecutors failed to disclose the “derivative evidence”, putting Akau at an unfair advantage.

Flores argues that it comes down to a question of due process and fairness.

Did the government violate Mr. Akau’s right to due process and fairness in the plea bargaining process when, prior to the change of plea proceeding, it
assured him the evidence of the murder for hire offense would not be used to calculate his sentencing guidelines while at the same time failing to disclose derivative evidence of the same murder for hire offense it possessed and intended to present.

An update on Miske’s Millions

3 Replies

My latest update on the legal tug of war over the property of the late racketeering kingpin Michael J. Miske, Jr., was published today at Civil Beat (“Mike Miske Case: Investigation Into Crime Syndicate May Not Be Over Yet“).

Although the government filed a civil forfeiture lawsuit more than a year ago claiming the right to seize a list of more than 20 properties, including real estate, vintage cars, and art, along with more than $4 million in cash and checks, there has been little measurable progress reported.

The only information available concerning off-the-record discussions between the feds and the Miske Trust have been in a series of brief status reports and stipulated agreements filed in the case. Although largely repetitive and pro-forma, there are occasionally bits of interesting information to be gleaned from these documents.

And the most recent court filing, an agreement among the parties to seek another 3-month delay in further court proceedings, offered up a surprise.

From today’s story:

A stipulated agreement between the parties in the asset forfeiture lawsuit states that prosecutors intend to use evidence collected in a previously undisclosed criminal investigation to bolster their legal claim to his properties.

Until then, the Miske-related criminal cases appeared to have effectively ended with the 30-year prison sentence doled out to Lance Bermudez in July, the last of about 18 co-defendants and associates of Miske to be sentenced — although three defendants have appeals of their sentences pending at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

The stipulation, filed in the U.S. District Court in Honolulu on Feb. 5, was signed off on by all current parties to the forfeiture case — the government, the Michael J. Miske Jr. Trust and three lenders holding secured interests in certain of Miske’s properties. In seeking the delay, the parties agreed “these upcoming motions … may affect the status of the civil action and/or discovery.”

It’s the first the public has heard about the existence of a new criminal investigation that has already yielded evidence prosecutors believe will provide further legal support for their attempt to seize the bulk of Miske’s assets.

In any case, check out today’s story in Civil Beat.

Judge orders government to facilitate return of illegally deported Venezuelans

Leave a reply

Here we go again.

Another strongly worded opinion and order by a federal judge in the District of Columbia took the government to task for ignoring both prior court orders and the constitutional rights of Venezuelans illegally deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador without due process. The opinion by James E. Boasberg, chief judge of the DC Circuit, came the same day as a colleague on the court issued an order blocking the government from retaliating against Senator Mark Kelly by reducing his rank and retirement pay.

The Guardian reported:

A US federal judge’s order that some of the Venezuelan men sent by the Trump administration to a notorious prison in El Salvador must be allowed to return to the United States to fight their cases has been greeted with hope and a sense of vindication – but also fear – by one of the deportees.

US district judge James Boasberg ruled on Thursday in Washington DC that the Trump administration should facilitate the return of deportees who are currently in countries outside Venezuela, saying they must be given the opportunity to seek the due process they were denied after being illegally expelled from the US last March.

Boasberg added that the US government should cover the travel costs of those who wish to come to the US to argue their immigration cases.

The tone of Boasberg’s memo was one of frustration and exasperation at the government’s failure to comply with basic constitutional constraints.

On December 22, 2025, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion finding that the Government had denied due process to a class of Venezuelans it deported to El Salvador last March in defiance of this Court’s Order. The Court offered the Government the opportunity to propose steps that would facilitate hearings for the class members on their habeas corpus claims so that they could “challenge their designations under the [Alien Enemies Act] and the validity of the [President’s] Proclamation.” Id. Apparently not interested in participating in this process, the Government’s responses essentially told the Court to pound sand. Believing that other courses would be both more productive and in line with the Supreme Court’s requirements outlined in Noem v. Abrego Garcia, =the Court will now order the Government to facilitate the return from third countries of those Plaintiffs who so desire. It will also permit other Plaintiffs to file their habeas supplements from abroad.

The order is just 7 pages long, and well worth reading to appreciate the extent to which the government has been extending a symbolic middle-finger at the attempts of the federal courts to press the Trump administration to comply with constitutional guidelines.