������Ƶ

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered one of accused racketeering boss Michael J. Miske Jr.’s original co-defendants to forfeit a quarter-million dollar bond used to secure his release from custody following his indictment and arrest in July 2020.

Michael Buntenbah, 52, also known as Michael Buntenbah Malone, is a former mixed martial arts fighter who worked as a bouncer at Miske’s M Nightclub from at least 2012 to 2016. He is also the owner of the company that produces and distributes the Defend Hawaii line of clothing and accessories.

He was not officially employed by Miske’s nightclub, nor was he on the list of employees registered with the Honolulu Liquor Commission. Instead, prosecutors say, Buntenbah was part of a shadow group of bouncers or security staff who wore the same black uniforms as the official club staff, but worked off the books providing strong-arm services to Miske on request. 

Buntenbah had been free on bond since late 2020, but was ordered back into custody  last month after he violated the conditions of his release by leading an assault on a group at a Waikiki restaurant and bar on Jan. 20.

Prosecutors then filed a motion seeking forfeiture of his bond, setting up Tuesday’s hearing before Judge Derrick Watson, who is overseeing the racketeering case against Miske, his co-defendants and other former associates.

Watson’s ruling granting the forfeiture motion means Buntenbah will have to come up with the full $250,000 in cash to cover the bond, or face a foreclosure lawsuit by the government that could trigger a forced sale of the property.

The 4,149-square-foot home on Popoki Street in Kaneohe is currently appraised for real property tax purposes at more than $1.6 million. However, records show it  may be encumbered by one or more outstanding loans.

Mitigating Circumstances?

Tuesday’s hearing started with Judge Watson’s statement that he had read the legal filings, and had watched a video of the Jan. 20 assault a number of times.

The , apparently taking by a security camera in the restaurant, had been circulating on social media since soon after the incident.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Aislinn Affinito, addressing the court for the government, began by describing the incident as “an unprovoked violent act which warrants forfeiture.”

The law requires forfeiture for a breach of the conditions of release, unless the court finds that justice clearly requires a lesser penalty, perhaps forfeiture of only a portion of the total amount, Affinito argued.

In this case, she said, Buntenbah instigated the violent attack, and that there were no mitigating circumstances that would justify a lesser penalty than forfeiture of the entire $250,000.

She then described what is seen in the video as Buntenbah, surrounded by his two sons and backed up by several  others, confronted Daniel Miller, who was seated at a table with several friends in the Moani Bistro and Bar in Waikiki’s International Marketplace.

Buntenbah shoved a chair out of the way, and quickly things got out of control, with several people punching Miller until he fell to the floor, where they continued to punch, kick, and stomp him, with Buntenbah joining in, until security staff finally were able to break up the fighting.

Buntenbah’s attorney, Michigan-based Gary Springstead, disagreed, saying that there were mitigating circumstances.

“Obviously, this shouldn’t have happened at all,” Springstead said. But, he argued, it was not an unprovoked attack because Buntenbah and Miller were acquainted, and Miller had previously threatened Buntenbah.

Springstead maintained the video actually shows that Buntenbah verbally confronted Miller and did not intend to start a violent attack. He said Buntenbah can be seen on the video initially extending his right arm to hold one of his son’s back from moving toward Miller, who was seated with his back to the camera.

And when the first punches were thrown, “you can see the hesitation,” Springstead said.

Springstead suggested forfeiture of the entire $250,000 would not be “proportional” to what he described almost dismissively as “a misdemeanor assault.” He also pointed out that Buntenbah had been free for over three years without any other incidents.

He also pointed to two other co-defendants who were released on $50,000 bonds, who under similar circumstances would have far less exposure, although they appeared to have more involvement with Miske’s alleged racketeering organization.

Springstead again pointed out Buntenbah’s family resides in the home, and suggested having to cover the $250,000 bond would make it difficult for other members of the extended family.

Judge Watson then asked Springstead if he had a figure to suggest that would be proportional and reasonable. 

“No,” Springstead replied, “I would be making up numbers.”

Who’s The Rat?

Prosecutors and defense attorney Springstead appear to agree on one thing. Buntenbah and Miller have a long personal history. 

It dates back to a violent incident in December 2012, when Buntenbah and a group of other bouncers joined Miske in attacking Michael Galmiche, a rival promoter who had set up to advertise an upcoming event at a competing venue to patrons leaving the the M Nightclub near its 4 a.m. closing time. Galmiche and another person were injured, and a computer and projector were damaged or destroyed.

Miske and his brother, John Stancil, were charged in state court with assault. Stancil later pleaded guilty to a reduced charge. Miske is still awaiting trial on felony assault charges stemming from the attack on Galmiche, but the trial has been repeatedly delayed pending resolution of the federal case against Miske.

Miller, who is Galmiche’s cousin, had been called to the scene after the attack, and admits having exchanged angry words with Buntenbah at that time. Later, court records show, Miske allegedly directed associates to burn down Miller’s home, although nothing ever came of it. 

But the two sides presented directly opposed versions of how this personal history led to the latest assault.

The government, in its memo supporting forfeiture, said that before any punches were thrown, Buntenbah had angrily approached Miller as he sat with friends and called him a “rat” because of his past history with Miske. 

In Springstead’s account, almost a mirror-image of the government’s version, “Mr. Buntenbah heard that the victim was calling Mr. Buntenbah a ‘rat,’ based on his agreement to cooperate with the government’s investigation in the instant case — a dangerous accusation, given the nature of the case.”

View From The Bench

Watson then weighed in by reviewing the history of the case. He noted Magistrate Judge Kenneth Mansfield originally recommended Buntenbah remain in custody after his original indictment and arrest. The matter was then appealed to Watson, who reversed Mansfield’s ruling and allowed Buntenbah to go free after imposing strict conditions and requiring a $500,000 bond secured by a mortgage on the family property.

Watson said he had “personally gone out on a limb for Mr. Buntenbah,” and expressed frustration that the case had come back to him in this manner. 

Watson then turned to his viewing of the video.

Special Report

Read all of Civil Beat’s coverage on the Michael Miske case. Subscribe to our free Morning Beat newsletter to never miss an update.

“It is clear who the instigator was, and anyone watching the video would reach that conclusion,” Watson said, adding that “there was no possible way” for anyone to view the video and conclude that it was instigated by anyone other than Buntenbah.

“He charged into the area where the victim was having drinks and dinner with friends, male and female,” Watson said.

In the end, Watson said, “who called who rat, if anyone did …is practically irrelevant.”

“There’s no excuse for these 10 individuals to be marching in looking for a fight, with Mr.  Buntenbah leading the way,” Watson said.

“Buntenbah was leading what I counted to be a nine-member-strong gang of merry men,” Watson continued, his frustration evident in his sarcastic tone. 

“This behavior certainly violates the conditions of your bond,” Watson said, referring to a requirement that Buntenbah not violate any federal, state or local law while on release in this case. A separate condition required that he not consume any alcoholic beverages or any product containing alcohol. 

“This is not a traffic violation, not a jaywalking episode, this is an outright assault in a commercial establishment where the victims were surrounded by average Joe,” Watson said.

The judge took direct aim at Springstead’s assertion that Buntenbah had hesitated and tried to prevent an attack, calling it “bordering on misrepresentation.”

“There’s no reasonable conclusion that you (Buntenbah) tried to restrain anyone around you …That’s what watching this video objectively shows,” Watson said.

“To argue that anything less is a proportional measure seems to be as genuine as that you tried to restrain others. In other words, not at all,” Watson said bluntly. “The government’s motion is granted.”

Watson then invited Springstead to file a follow-up motion, although he expressed skepticism about its chance of success.