Category Archives: Law

Trump blythly advocates a war crime

I asked Chatgpt this question: “Would the forcible expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza as proposed by President Trump be a war crime?”

It answered quickly.

“Yes, President Donald Trump’s recent proposal to forcibly relocate Palestinians from the Gaza Strip to neighboring countries could be considered a war crime under international law. Such actions may violate prohibitions against forced displacement and collective punishment as outlined in the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Legal experts and human rights organizations have condemned the proposal, labeling it as a form of ethnic cleansing.”

Specifically:

1. Forced Transfer or Deportation – Under the Fourth Geneva convention (Article 49) and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Article 7 and 8), the forcible transfer or deportation of a civilian population from their homes during an armed conflict is prohibited and considered a war crime or crime against humanity.

2. Ethnic Cleansing – The forced removal of a population based on national, ethnic, or religious identity is widely considered a violation of international humanitarian law and has been prosecuted as a crime against humanity in past conflicts.

3. Collective Punishment – The mass expulsion of civilians as a means of retaliation or deterrence could also be considered collective punishment, which is prohibited under the Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 33).

4. Occupation and International Law – If an occupying power were to forcibly remove civilians from their territory, it would be violating the principle of proportionality and distinction under the laws of war, which protect civilians from mass displacement unless required for their safety.

Legal scholars and human rights organizations would likely classify any such expulsion as a grave breach of international law, potentially leading to accountability under international criminal mechanisms.

A quick update on a few Miske co-defendants

The case grinds on.

>One of Mike Miske’s cousins, Kaulana Freitas, was sentenced this week on two counts, racketeering conspiracy and use of a chemical weapon.

Judge Derrick Watson sentenced Freitas to 36 months on each count, to run concurrently (at the same time) rather than one after the other.

Watson’s sentencing order recommended Freitas be placed in a low-security federal facility at Lompoc, California, or Stafford, Arizona. In addition, Watson recommended that Freitas be placed in a 500-hour residential drug abuse and substance abuse treatment program, and also receive vocational and educational training. In addition, he will remain on 3-years of supervised release after completing his prison term.

Freitas, 36, was arrested in July 2020 along with Miske and 9 other original co-defendants. He was released on bond pending trial on January 5, 2022 and pleaded guilty two month later, on March 9, 2022. He had been held at Honolulu’s Federal Detention Center for nearly 18 months before his release on bond, which should count as time already served and reduce his 36-month sentence.

In addition to the crimes he was sentenced on, Freitas admitted to conspiring with Jake Smith and others to sell oxycodone, taking part in at least one armed robbery, and assaulting Johnny Fraser at a Kaneohe park in 2014.

See Freitas’ admissions in the “Factual Stipulations” section of his plea agreement with prosecutors (pages 5-11).

> Hunter Wilson, one of the relatively minor characters in the Miske saga, is scheduled to be sentenced on Tuesday morning, January 22.

Federeal sentencing guidelines suggest a sentence of 121-151 months in federal prison for Wilson, 28.

But on January 13, federal prosecutors filed a sealed motion that apparently asks for a downward adjustment from these guidelines.

Several days later, Wilson’s attorney, Kona-based Andrew Kennedy, filed a heavily redacted version of a sentencing memo supporting that downward departure from the guidelines and spelling out the case for a shorter sentence.

The section of Kennedy’s sentencing statement discussing the sentencing guidelines is redacted, so the specific legal arguments being made on Wilson’s behalf remain confidential.

However, Kennedy argues, Wilson was only 24 when he was arrested, and the crimes he was charged with took place when he was between 20 and 22. Both of Hunter’s parents served time in prison. Wilson was not close to his mother mother, who had drug problems and was incarcerated when he was young, and his father was imprisoned on federal drug charges when Wilson was 14.

With his mother absent and father in prison, Wilson became friends with Jacob “Jake” Smith, who was one of the older kids in his nighborhood.

From the sentencing statement:

“Jake Smith was a strong personality in the community where Mr. Wilson resided. In the absence of a father figure, Mr. Wilson looked up to Jake Smith as an older brother. These were formative years for Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson was a teenager who’s father was just removed from his life and he latched on to those who appeared strong and assertive and successful within his immediate community.

This relationship with Jake Smith is ultimately what led Mr. Wilson to the
Miske Enterprise.

In testimony during Miske’s trial, Wilson said he attended Kahuku High School while living in Kaaawa, and graduated in 2013, when he began selling crystal meth. He had started using meth when he was 16, and quickly became addicted. After high school, he was spending at least $200 a day on his own drug use, and sold drugs pay these bills. He said he was part of Jake Smith’s drug network.

Wilson was the first of Mike Miske’s co-defendants to “flip” and begin cooperating with the government.

He signed a “proffer agreement” pledging to tell the truth to government investigators on July 20, 2020, just five days after he, Miske, and other co-defendants were arrested in a series of raids. He met with FBI agents for the first time that same day. On July 23, only 8 days after his arrest, Wilson was released on $50,000 unsecured bond, and moved into a halfway house. He pleaded guilty to racketeering conspiracy and conspiring to distribute drugs on May 6, 2021.

He remained at the halfway house for five months until a shot was fired one night into the living room by an unknown assailant.

Wilson testified that the incident left him afraid for his life, and he sought permission to relocate for his own safety. He was allowed to move in with his family to the Big Island.

In more than four years on release, Wilson has not violated any conditions and has built a very positive relationship with his federal probation officer, Kennedy wrote. He worked as a flooring installer until he was injured, and now hopes for additional experience that could lead to his own contractor’s license in the future.

“For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Hunter Wilson respectfully requests that this Court grant the government’s motion for downward departure and fashions a sentence appropriate in this case,” Kennedy wrote.

> In a surprise move, attorney Birney B. Bervar withdrew from representing Lance Bermudez, another of Miske’s original 10 co-defendants, and was replaced by Myles Breiner. The change, approved by Magistrate Judge Kenneth Mansfield, was quickly approved by Judge Derrick Watson.

Bermudez, 33, pleaded guilty in September 2022 to racketeering conspiracy and conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. At the time of his change of plea hearing, Bermudez was being held at an undisclosed location, and the Bureau of Prisons online inmate locator continues to list him as “not in BOP custody.” He is currently scheduled to be sentenced on March 20, but with the change of attorneys, this could be further delayed.

Bermudez had a reputation as a “shooter” that attracted Miske’s interest, and he was recruited to carry out a murder-for-hire contract targeting a Waimanalo man Miske believed was providing information to federal investigators.

Bermudez faces a 10-year minimum sentence on the drug conspiracy charge, and up to 20 years on the racketeering charge, according to his plea agreement.

Breiner’s first order of business as his attorney was to file an 8-page request for discovery of detailed documentation in the government’s case against Bermudez, including such things as “…the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom the government intends to rely upon to establish Defendant’s presence at the scene of the alleged offense,” any written or recorded statements by Bermudez held by the government, any relevant grand jury testimony, as well as the names, current addresses, and telephone numbers of any informants involved in the case.

The discovery request seems to ignore the vast amount of discovery, including over two million pages of documents, previously disclosed to the defendants and their attorneys over the past four years under the supervision of a court-appointed coordinating discovery attorney based in California.

The questions seem more appropriate for an attorney preparing for trial or an upcoming plea negotiation, but with Bermudez’ plea deal wrapped up back in 2022, they seem oddly disconnected. However, dropping into a case this complex just weeks before the scheduled sentencing has to be a daunting task for Breiner.

And he was quick to assure that Bermudez “is NOT backing out on the plea agreement.”

Breiner said in a text message on Saturday that he had previously represented Bermudez in a state case. Based on that past experience, he said Bermudez requested his assistance “to finish the case.”

The Miske Enterprise case is about to disappear

You should jump over to Civil Beat to read my story posted today concerning the impact of Miske’s death on the whole Miske Enterprise racketeering case (“The Case Against Mike Miske Could Be About To Disappear As If It Never Happened / A federal legal doctrine requires all actions be vacated if a defendant dies before being sentenced or if any appeals remain“).

The immediate unanswered question is what legal effect his unexpected death has on the criminal case.

The answer is simple, straightforward and startling.

Miske’s death means the case against him will disappear.

All of it. From the original indictment in 2019 through the three subsequent updates, the six months of complex trial proceedings, the jury’s repeated verdict of guilty on 13 charges, and the jury verdict requiring him for forfeit his home, vehicles, bank accounts and other assets.

Miske’s indictments, trial, convictions and forfeitures will all disappear in a legal sense, as if they had never happened.

I wrote the story yesterday (Monday), and submitted it to Civil Beat around 4 p.m. Later that evening, around 7:30 p.m., Miske’s attorneys filed a motion to vacate the jury’s verdicts along with the indictments, as my story had predicted.

My story should have made clear that none of this impacts the cases of Miske’s twelve co-defendants or the other Miske associates who were charged separately who entered into plea deals with prosecutors. All told, about 20 former Miske associates took those deals. Some are still awaiting sentencing, while at least one has already served their sentence.

I ran into the information about abatement ab initio over breakfast on Saturday with friends visiting from California. She is one of Meda’s longtime criminology colleagues and he is trained as an attorney. We had talked about some issues surrounding my coverage of the Miske case several times before, and so it was natural that I filled them in on Miske’s death while awaiting trial.

He almost immediately said the words. Abatement ab initio. I had no idea what he was talking about, so he went on to explain. The whole case will disappear, at least as it regards Mike Miske. I was very surprised because it had not been discussed publicly in the aftermath of Miske’s death.

Later in the day, I started checking online for information about this legal doctrine, and then waiting until Monday to make a few telephone calls to get comments, and to hastily write the story.

False theory about Kingdom land patents leads to first felony convictions

A Maui woman who sparked several takeovers of private land based on a mistaken understanding of Native Hawaiian rights has pleaded “no contest” to criminal charges for her admitted role in the illegal occupation of the home and property of a retired state judge.

Alicia Napuaonalani Hueu entered a “no contest” plea in a Maui courtroom earlier this year to 1st degree theft, a Class B felony, as well as two misdemeanor charges, obstructing a government function and criminal property damage. Two of her co-defendants also pleaded guilty to felony charges, one to 1st degree theft and another to 1st degree burglary. Charges against two others were dropped by prosecutors as part of their plea deal with Hueu.

All three defendants were granted a deferred acceptance of their pleas, and released on 4-years probation. If they stay out of trouble and comply with the terms of their probation, the convictions will be removed from their records.

This is believed to be the first time felony charges have been successfully brought against Hawaiians wrongly asserting native land rights under the false theory of “heirdom” promoted by Hueu, which asserts a “lineal descendant” of the original recipient of a Hawaiian Kingdom-era royal land grant retains an ownership interest “in perpetuity” that is superior to modern land titles and gives the right to control the property. In this view, neither time nor valid prior property sales or transfers can extinguish the ownership rights of descendants.

Whether its proponents are able to suspend their sense of reality enough to accept this theory as true, or have cynically weaponized it as a narrative to generate support for native Hawaiian land rights and sovereignty, isn’t clear from the record.

Other similar property takeovers based on claimed family ties to specific properties have generally been treated as civil disputes over land title, no matter how flimsy the claims put forward under the guise of native rights. This has left the legal owners to fend for themselves, and bear the substantial cost, in time and money, of defending their title and regaining access to their own property through protracted civil court proceedings.

Although courts have upheld some challenges to past takings of land from Hawaiian families, those victories required evidence showing title had never been validly sold or otherwise legally transferred over the intervening century and a half since the original royal patents were issued.

The theory of “heirdom,” in contrast, eschews analysis of title claims and instead relies entirely on genealogical ties to the original land grant recipient.

“Cease and Desist”

Hueu was arrested on January 4, 2020 after she and others took over 3.3 acres of land and 2-bedroom small two-bedroom home located along Hana Highway in Kipahulu, Maui. The property was owned by retired District Court Judge Douglas McNish and his wife, who had purchased it in 2006 for $1.55 million, and had listed it for sale in 2019, real estate records show.

McNish served as a family court judge on Maui from 1984 until his retirement at the end of 1999. News clippings show he was well regarded, and is credited with launching a program in 1988 requiring couples who have filed for divorce to attend a workshop concerning the impact of divorce on children. The program was later expanded into courts statewide and is now known as “Kids First.”

On November 29, 2019, five weeks before the confrontation that led to Hueu’s arrest, she sent a “cease and desist” letter by certified mail to McNish and his wife alleging they were trespassing,”illegally” occupying an “unpermitted” home on the property, and conducting an “unauthorized” land sale.

The site was identified as part of 273-acres conveyed by royal land patent No. 1902 to Kaumaia and nine others in December 1855.

The letter itself identifies Hueu as “Governor of Maui” in the “Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands.” After her arrest, Hueu also described herself as “representative and caretaker for descendants of Kaumaia.”

Elsewhere, she described herself as “a Hawaiian National and Prisoner of War residing on the Island of Maui within the Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands / Sandwich Islands.” She also claimed the titles of “Captain” and “Judge Advocate General” in Occupied Forces Hawaiian Army, a Hawaiian nationalist group that purports to be the military of the Hawaiian Kingdom, now engaged in “civil affairs” while under occupation.

Later, in a federal court proceeding, Hueu said she is a “foreign national, subject and or citizen not belonging to the United States[.]”

The “cease and desist” letter includes a replica of the Hawaiian Kingdom royal crest, and uses a return address, “Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands” at a post office box in Haiku used by Hueu.

The letter meanders from citations to Hawaiian Kingdom laws of 1859 to references to 20th century international laws of war, The Hague and Geneva Convention, and boldly claims authority to order McNish to vacate.

The Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands hereby gives you notice that the descendants of Kaumaia are the sole kuleana holders of the properties described above. As the kuleana holder, the descendants of Kaumaia hold exclusive rights to exercise its authority over the subject properties as governed under Kamehameha III 1850 self-executing Ratified Treaty with the United States of America.”

Under said authority, the Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands has NOT granted permission for use of the subject properties, in whole or in part, to you or any organization you are affiliated with. You and any other parties or groups you represent or are otherwise affiliated with are therefore trespassing on Kaumaia kuleana land; LCA helu 1902….

…The Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands demand that you immediately remove all structures and personal property from the subject properties. Access for removal of structures and personal property can be requested from the Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands Governor of Maui office and removals must be completed by 12/13/19. Be advised that any existing or new structure(s), and equipment remaining on the property after 12/13/19 is subject to disposal pursuant to Kamehameha III Treaties, 1852 Constitution, Civil and Penal Codes of the Hawaiian Islands.

Sometime in the latter part of December, following the letter’s deadline, an associate chained and locked the gate into the McNish, according to Hueu’s later testimony before the Maui Police Commission. McNish apparently removed them, prompting Hueu’s associate call Maui police and file a complaint of criminal property damage, valuing the missing broken chain and locks at $95.

It was an audacious scheme, breaking into and taking over someone’s land and house, changing the locks, then accusing the legal owner of tresspassing when they try to reenter their own property, and asking the police to enforce your fictitious title.

It didn’t work for long. Two days later, on January 3, a police report said Hueu was trespassing on the property.

The following day, police returned, cut a new set of chains and locks that had been placed on the entry gate, and entered the property. Hueu was taken from the scene in handcuffs and later charged with extortion, theft, and burglary, all felonies, along with a long list of related misdemeanors. After languishing in court for over three years, the case was concluded when Hueu accepted a plea bargain.

It remains to be seen whether prosecutors will be inclined to consider felony charges when the victim of this kind of calculated land theft is a regular citizen without the resources and connections of a retired judge.