Category Archives: Law

A second federal judge in Oregon orders limits on use of chemical munitions against protesters in Portland

2 Replies

In a well-functioning constitutional democratic republic, free speech, courageous newsgathering, and nonviolent protest are all permitted, respected, and even celebrated. In an authoritarian regime, that is not the case. Indeed, a democracy is only as strong as its tolerance for dissent. As Benjamin Franklin wrote:

Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins.

Our nation is now at a crossroads. We have been here before and have previously returned to the right path, notwithstanding an occasional detour. In helping our nation find its constitutional compass, an impartial and independent judiciary, operating under the rule of law, has a responsibility that it may not shirk.

So begins the 34-page decision and order by Judge Michael H. Simon, U.S. District for the district of Oregon, granting a preliminary restraining order restricting the use of chemical weapons against peaceful protesters near the ICE building in Portland, Oregon.

No Enjoined Person may direct or use chemical or projectile munitions, including but not limited to kinetic impact projectiles, pepper ball or paintball guns, tear gas or other chemical irritants, soft nose rounds, 40mm or 37mm launchers, less lethal shotguns, and flashbang, Stinger, or rubber ball grenades, unless the specific target of such a weapon or device poses an imminent threat of physical harm to a law enforcement officer or other person.

No Enjoined Person may fire any munitions or use any weapons described in subsection (a) at the head, neck, or torso of any person, unless the officer is legally justified in using deadly force against that person.

Other restrictions, and conditions under which such munitions can be used, are spelled out in a separate order of preliminary injunction.

The Portland Chicken in an AP photo included in the original legal complaint.

Plaintiffs in the case include two journalists, a couple in their 80s who were hit by various munitions while peacefully protesting, and the lead named plaintiff, Jack Dickinson, better known as the Portland Chicken. Dickinson’s has appeared at protests outside the ICE facility in a distinctive bright yellow chicken costume to which he owes his chicken identity.

It is the second such opinion in just a few days. On Friday, March 6, another federal judge ordered similar restrictions in a lawsuit brought by residents and owners of a low-income apartment complex across the street from the ICE building.

Did Mike Miske organize a conspiracy to nullify the jury’s forfeiture verdict?

Leave a reply

Don’t miss Madeleine Valera’s story in Civil Beat on the latest twist in the saga of Mike Miske (“Mike Miske Killed Himself To Protect $20 Million Estate, Prosecutors Say“).

Valera does a good job of summarizing the government’s allegation that an ongoing investigation of Miske’s deaths found evidence of a successful conspiracy to smuggle fentynal into Honolulu’s Federal Detention Center. Miske then used the drugs first to inject himself for several days in order to appear to be a regular drug user, and then to administer an overdose he hoped would be determined to be accidental.

The allegations were made in a second amended complaint in the civil forfeiture lawsuit seeking to claim Miske’s properties.

If sustained by the evidence, which has been describe only in general terms, the government argues that the transfer of ownership from Miske to his trust was the product of a conspiracy to obstruct the criminal forfeiture proceeding following the jury’s decision that all of the itemized properties were subject to foreclose.

The government alleges that the plot started with extensive revisions Miske made to his revocable living trust in September 2024, which I described in a later Civil Beat story (“Miske’s Trust: A Look At His Moves To Control His Fortune From The Grave“).

According to the amended complaint:

In early 2025, an inmate incarcerated with MISKE at FDC Honolulu was interviewed by federal investigators about the circumstances surrounding
MISKE’s death. In his interview, the inmate identified MISKE’s source of supply for fentanyl while in custody at FDC Honolulu, identified other inmate(s) who obtained drugs from the same source of supply at the same time, and described his conversations with MISKE, who had expressed a belief and desire that his death by suicide would interfere with the federal government’s criminal forfeiture of the Defendant Properties, based on advice MISKE had received from his attorney(s).

Subsequent interviews with others who had been detained at the facility, as well as other unnamed sources (likely correctional officers or others with knowledge of the situation) identified the same person as Miske’s drug source, prosecutors allege.

Valera’s story fills in the details, with comments from the attorney representing the Miske trust in the forfeiture case.

I would expect federal prosecutors will file a criminal case that would disclose evidence gathered to date.

The section regarding the suicide allegations appeared for the first time in the amended lawsuit filed in Honolulu’s Federal District Court this week.

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.

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.