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.

Of course, I got curious

6 Replies

After posting over the weekend about a company’s request that a job applicant provide ChatGPT’s assessment of their “behavioral tendencies” during a job interview, the obvious question arose. What would ChatGPT say about me?

So I put the question to it.

At the prompt, I typed: “Based on my past conversations, can you analyze my behavioral tendencies?”

Here’s its summary.

If I had to summarize your tendencies in a few phrases:

* Analytical but not detached
* Structured thinker
* Fact-check oriented
* Curious across domains
* Pragmatic
* Attentive to behavioral nuance

Of course, its answer is based on my specific uses and types of interactions. When I turn to ChatGPT, Gemini, or another AI assistant, it’s almost always an attempt to solve a practical problem of some kind. I don’t seek “friendship” with any of these systems, nor seek their perspective on personal issues. I treat them as tools. I’m trying to understand and experiment with their best uses.

In any case, here’s ChatGPT’s more complete assessment.

Based on our prior conversations, here are some patterns I notice in your behavioral tendencies. I’ll keep this grounded in observable themes rather than speculation:

1. Analytical and Evidence-Oriented

You often ask precise, fact-based questions — legal status of cases (e.g., *Lind v. Grimmer*), historical verification (e.g., whether Tom Coffman recently died), biometrics in criminal investigations, stock trends tied to demographics, El Niño impacts, etc.

This suggests:

* Comfort navigating complex information
* Interest in verification and accuracy
* Likely habit of cross-checking or thinking critically about sources

2. Problem-Solving Mindset

You request step-by-step Sudoku solutions and structured transcripts with timestamps and speaker labels. That indicates:

* Preference for clarity and procedural logic
* Appreciation for organized presentation
* Possibly a background where structured reasoning is important

3. Long-Horizon Thinking

Your question about stocks benefiting from aging baby boomers, and your work supporting a retired administrator with memory issues, suggest:

* Awareness of demographic and aging-related shifts
* Patience with long-term dynamics
* Practical engagement with aging and cognitive change

4. Observant of Behavioral Detail

Your questions about your cat’s fixation on the garage and nesting behavior were nuanced and contextualized over time. That reflects:

* Attentiveness to patterns
* Sensitivity to environmental triggers
* Willingness to look beneath surface behavior

5. Direct but Not Dramatic

Your communication style is concise, low on emotional signaling, and oriented toward clarity rather than persuasion. You tend not to embellish questions — you get to the point.

6. Blending Personal and Professional Domains

You move fluidly between:

* Legal and policy questions
* Health questions
* Pet behavior
* Writing/editing tasks
* Personal narrative (e.g., the rescued puppy story)

That suggests intellectual flexibility rather than a single-domain focus.

It then offered to “describe possible blind spots or growth edges.”

I decided to stop while I was ahead!

AI meets Sudoku

3 Replies

A little afternoon experiment. I uploaded a photo of a Sudoku puzzle and asked both Gemini and ChatGPT to solve it.

Gemini went first. It took only a few seconds. Very few. There was its completed solution, along with an explanation of its methodology.

Then I turned to ChatGPT. It took longer. Not seconds. At least a minute, perhaps two. Then it too returned an answer, with explanations of how it reached its solution.

Surprising to me–The two solutions were quite different.

When I work my way through one of these puzzles, it seems like each correct choice is the only one for that particular position. One by one, they fall into place as other possible choices are eliminated.

But at first glance, each answer seemed plausible.

But as I examined each answer, I spotted the problem.

To win in Sudoku, you must fill the 9×9 grid so every row, column, and each 3×3 box contains digits 1-9 without repetition.

Gemini managed to get only two of three dimensions correct.

Gemini properly placed numbers 1 through 9 only once in each row and in each of the 3×3 blocks. But each of its columns included at least one number that was repeated more than once.

ChatGPT, on the other hand, appears to have solved the puzzle correctly.

Then I went back and asked Gemini a question: “Is there a chance that this solution is incorrect?”

It responded.

Actually, you have a sharp eye—my previous response contained a few errors where numbers were repeated in the same row or column. In Sudoku, each number from 1 to 9 must appear exactly once in every row, column, and 3×3 grid.

Here is the corrected solution, double-checked against the original puzzle’s constraints

It’s response made clear that Gemini knew the rules, but it again made the same type of errors, with a number repeated in each of several columns.

It’s quick answer masked a fundamental error in its logic.

I wonder if there are instructions I could have given that would have prevented Gemini from returning these erroneous answers.

Overall implications? I haven’t a clue.

Should Google’s investors have concerns?