Hawaiʻi's Hidden Hand: Is Justice Blind in the Aloha State?

Factual Allegations: News Release

A legal proceeding in Honolulu has raised serious questions about the integrity of the judicial process, following allegations of significant misconduct by Judge Wilson Loo and one of the parties involved. The case, involving a request for an injunction, has become the center of a controversy stemming from claims of witness influence, perjury, and a biased courtroom environment. This news release details the alleged actions of Judge Loo and the opposing party, [Redacted ({REDACTED})], based on the firsthand account of the individual who brought the cross-petition for the injunction.

The Core Allegation: Influencing Testimony

The central issue revolves around the cross-examination of ({REDACTED}) during the injunction hearing. The individual who was cross examining, states that while questioning ({REDACTED}) about whether he had provided LSD to another person, Judge Loo made a distinct non-verbal gesture before ({REDACTED}) answered the question. This gesture is described as a clear "no" nod, accompanied by a facial expression that allegedly conveyed disbelief and suggested the desired response.

Immediately following this alleged visual cue from Judge Loo, ({REDACTED}) denied providing the LSD. The cross-examining individual attempted to object to the judge's action, stating, "Let the record show that the judge just..." but was reportedly cut off aggressively by Judge Loo, who loudly stated, "Nah ah ah enough out of you!!"

This incident, according to the individual who was cross-examining, fundamentally compromised the fairness of the proceedings and led to a collapse of their ability to effectively question ({REDACTED}).

Judge Loo's Actions: A Detailed Account

1. Non-Verbal Cue: Before ({REDACTED}) answered a direct question about providing LSD, Judge Loo allegedly made a clear non-verbal signal - a "no" nod and a specific facial expression - that communicated a suggested denial to the witness.
2. Interruption of Objection: When the opposing party attempted to object to this action and make a record of it, Judge Loo allegedly interrupted aggressively and loudly, preventing the objection from being fully stated.
3. Failure to Address Defamation: After the main ruling, ({REDACTED}) allegedly {redacted} (referencing a social media post related to a third party). Judge Loo reportedly took no action to address this statement.
4. Granting of Gag Order. Judge Loo approved the request of ({REDACTED})'s Lawyer.

Wilson Loo's Judicial Misconduct

({REDACTED})'s Actions: A Detailed Account

1. Denial Under Oath: After receiving the alleged visual cue from Judge Loo, ({REDACTED}) denied providing LSD, despite a prior text message, presented as evidence, where the accuser had stated they "took the acid."
2. Defamatory Statement: Following the judge's ruling, ({REDACTED}) allegedly {redacted} in open court.
3. Presentation of Prior Text Message: ({REDACTED}) presented a text message as evidence where the opposing party stated they "took the acid."

Contextual Background

The current allegations arise from a complex and escalating series of events spanning a considerable period. To understand the full context, it's necessary to review the history of interactions between the reporting individual (who filed the cross-petition for an injunction) and the individual referred to as "({REDACTED})".

The reporting individual had a prior financial interaction with ({REDACTED}), involving an unpaid debt of $200. During this period, the reporting individual disclosed to ({REDACTED}) details of a prior, unrelated incident involving serious allegations of a murder threat (issued by 235), lackmail, and witness tampering (issued by an associate of 235, in relation to the murder threat, while stating some kind of professional or adversarial relationship with co-founder. The reporting individual had reported these prior matters, with subsequent events eventually resulting in contact with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The prior reporting was made via {redacted}.

Following this disclosure to ({REDACTED}), the reporting individual states that ({REDACTED})'s behavior changed significantly. The reporting individual alleges that ({REDACTED}) began engaging in a pattern of escalating harassment and violence. This allegedly began with ({REDACTED}) offering and providing controlled substances, including LSD, to the reporting individual. The reporting individual states that they distanced themselves from ({REDACTED}) after these initial incidents.

The reporting individual then alleges that ({REDACTED}) began a campaign of harassment. This began with an incident at a Starbucks, where ({REDACTED}) allegedly kicked the reporting individual. Following this, ({REDACTED}) allegedly engaged in repeated acts of vehicular aggression, using his vehicle to threaten and intimidate the reporting individual.

The most serious of these alleged vehicular incidents occurred on a country road. The reporting individual was walking on the opposite side of the road, facing away from the direction of oncoming traffic. ({REDACTED}), approaching from behind, allegedly accelerated his vehicle to a high speed (described as "redlining"), crossed the double yellow line, and accelerated the vehicle towards the reporting individual. The reporting individual states they narrowly avoided being struck. They were able to see ({REDACTED})'s face in the vehicle as it sped away.

The reporting individual reported these incidents, including the near-miss on the country road, to the Honolulu Police Department (HPD). They spoke with Officer S{redacted}, among others. However, the reporting individual states that these reports were not acted upon. A police supervisor allegedly mentioned "other info" as a reason for the inaction but did not disclose the nature of this information.

After repeatedly warning ({REDACTED}) to cease contact, and after the alleged vehicular incidents, the reporting individual made a public post on social media detailing ({REDACTED})'s alleged behavior. ({REDACTED}) then filed for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the reporting individual, via petition containing libelious, false and misleading statements. The reporting individual cross-filed for a TRO against ({REDACTED}).

The reporting individual alleges that HPD failed to properly and promptly serve ({REDACTED}) with the cross-filed TRO, despite repeated requests. During this period, ({REDACTED}) allegedly continued to harass the reporting individual. Officer S{redacted} of HPD allegedly informed the reporting individual that ({REDACTED}) *had* been served, which the reporting individual later discovered to be false. Subsequently, Officer B{redacted} of HPD, responding to another alleged harassment incident, confirmed that ({REDACTED}) had *not* yet been officially served, conflicting with S{redacted}'s prior statement.

A few days prior to the injunction hearing, the reporting individual overheard ({REDACTED}), while on a phone call in a public place, state, "I have another buddy who is federal." The context of this statement, according to the reporting individual, was ostensibly related to the upcoming legal proceedings. The "another" suggests that a *different* buddy was connected to state, or local government.

Regarding the injunction trial before Wilson Loo: It is important to note that these were in-person proceedings that were permanenently documented as audio-only recordings.

Subsequent Events:

Following the hearing, the individual experienced the following:

1. Professional Contact: The individual was contacted on a professional networking platform by someone with a prior high-level government security role. The contact included a specific, uncommon pop-culture reference within a request for technical assistance.
2. Social Media Experience: The individual subsequently observed content on a major social media platform that directly related to a central disputed issue in the legal case. The content's nature and timing aligned with the contact in point 1.
3. Local Interaction: The individual had an encounter with a former government agency intern in a public setting. This individual, who possesses a distinctive vehicle and license plate, engaged in actions that directly impacted the reporting individual's existing personal relationships within the immediate community.

Additional Subsequent Events:

Following the hearing and subsequent events, feeling deeply disturbed by the outcome and convinced that ({REDACTED}) had committed perjury, the individual who filed the cross petition (let's refer to them as "the individual" for clarity) took action. They placed a 911 call to the Honolulu Police Department (HPD) to report the alleged crime. This call was made with the specific intent of reporting ({REDACTED})'s alleged false testimony under oath regarding the provision of LSD.

The 911 call connected the individual to a female HPD officer. The individual explained the situation, detailing how ({REDACTED}) had denied providing LSD during the hearing, despite the existence of the text message evidence and, crucially, after allegedly receiving a non-verbal cue from Judge Wilson Loo. The individual explicitly stated their belief that ({REDACTED}) had committed perjury.

The female officer's response was, according to the individual, immediately aggressive and dismissive. Instead of taking the report and initiating a preliminary investigation, the officer allegedly stated that it was *the individual's* responsibility to prove the perjury, not HPD's responsibility to investigate it. This directly contradicted standard police procedure, where law enforcement is obligated to investigate credible reports of crimes.

The individual, attempting to provide further evidence, informed the officer that there was potential CCTV footage at Stonefish Grill that might be relevant to the case (presumably to show context leading up the case or ({REDACTED})'s actions). The officer allegedly dismissed this, reiterating that it was "not their job" to investigate perjury.

Undeterred, the individual pointed out that furnishing LSD was, in itself, a separate and serious crime, regardless of the perjury in court. They requested that HPD investigate ({REDACTED}) for the illegal distribution of a controlled substance. The officer, according to the individual, continued to be aggressive and refused to take the report.

Finally, the individual, desperate to be heard, mentioned Judge Loo's alleged non-verbal cue - the nod and facial expression - that they believed had directly influenced ({REDACTED})'s false testimony. At this point, the officer reportedly defended Judge Loo, referring to him as "the 'Honorable' Loo" in a tone that the individual interpreted as sarcastic and dismissive, conveying a clear implication that the officer believed the judge and disbelieved the individual's account. The officer effectively shut down the conversation, refusing to take any action or initiate any investigation into either the perjury allegation or the underlying drug offense. The call ended with the individual's report unacknowledged and unaddressed.

Overall Sequence involving REDACTED, Loo, HPD, et al.

Potential Violations

The following is a comprehensive list of *potential* violations, both federal and under Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS), based on the allegations and narrative provided. It's crucial to remember these are *potential* violations; a full investigation and legal proceedings would be required to determine guilt or liability. This is NOT legal advice, but rather an analysis of the possible charges based on the provided account.

I. Potential Violations by "({REDACTED})" (the opposing party)

A. Federal:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1621 - Perjury: If he knowingly made a false statement under oath about providing LSD. The judge's alleged non-verbal cue strengthens this claim significantly.
• 18 U.S.C. § 1503 - Obstruction of Justice: If his actions (including the alleged perjury) were intended to influence the outcome of the legal proceeding.
• 18 U.S.C. § 1513 - Retaliation Against a Witness: If his actions (harassment, defamation, filing the TRO) were in retaliation for the reporting individual's prior reporting or cooperation with law enforcement (related to the {redacted} matter). This would require showing a connection.
• 18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy: If he conspired with others ({redacted}, HPD officers, his "federal buddy," etc.) to commit any of the above offenses.
• 18 U.S.C. § 241 - Conspiracy against rights: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person.
• 18 U.S.C. § 876 - Mailing threatening communications: for the texts.

B. Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS):

• HRS § 710-1072 - Perjury: The state-level equivalent of the federal perjury statute.
• HRS § 710-1070 - Obstructing government operations:
• HRS § 711-1106 - Harassment: For the alleged verbal harassment and stalking behavior.
• HRS § 711-1106.4 - Stalking: A more serious charge than harassment, if the conduct met the statutory definition (repeated, causing fear).
• HRS § 707-716 - Assault in the Third Degree: If the vehicular incidents caused the reporting individual to fear imminent physical harm.
• HRS § 710-1077: Intimidating a Witness
• HRS § 604-10.5 - Civil Action for Abuse of Process: If the TRO was filed maliciously and without probable cause, for an improper purpose.
• HRS § 707-761: Criminal Libel.
• HRS § 710-1060 et seq. relating to conspiracy.

II. Potential Violations by {redacted}

A. Federal:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1622 - Suborning Perjury: If he knowingly induced ({REDACTED}) to commit perjury through the alleged non-verbal cue. This is a very serious charge for a judge.
• 18 U.S.C. § 1503 - Obstruction of Justice: By influencing witness testimony and interfering with the fair administration of justice.
• 18 U.S.C. § 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law: By violating the reporting individual's right to a fair trial (due process) through his biased actions.
• 18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy: If he conspired with ({REDACTED}) or others to commit any of the above offenses.

B. Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS):

• HRS § 710-1072.2 - Subornation of Perjury: The state-level equivalent of suborning perjury.
• HRS § 710-1070. Obstructing government operations.
• HRS § 701-107. Criminal Solicitation.
• HRS § 710-1060 et seq. relating to conspiracy.

C. Hawaiʻi Revised Code of Judicial Conduct:

• CANON 1: A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY. This is a broad, overarching principle. The alleged actions, if true, undermine all of these aspects.
  • Rule 1.2. Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary: "A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety."
    • Application: The alleged non-verbal cue and the interruption of the objection, as well as any failure to address defamtion, create a strong appearance of impropriety and lack of impartiality. This directly undermines public confidence.
• CANON 2: A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY, COMPETENTLY, AND DILIGENTLY. This canon is directly implicated.
  • Rule 2.2. Impartiality and Fairness: "A judge shall uphold and apply the law and shall perform all the duties of judicial office fairly and impartially."
    • Application: The non-verbal cue suggests a pre-judgment and a bias against the cross-examining party and in favor of ({REDACTED}). This is a direct violation of the requirement to be impartial.
  • Rule 2.3. Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment:
    • Application: While the report doesn't allege explicit bias based on protected characteristics, the alleged actions could be interpreted as bias against the cross-examining party, and in favor of the witness.
  • Rule 2.4. External Influences on Judicial Conduct:
    • Application: The text presents this situation: "(b) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment. (c) A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge." While the motivation is unknown, the actions suggest some external influence led Judge Loo to favor ({REDACTED}).
  • Rule 2.6. Ensuring the Right to Be Heard: "(a) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law."
    • Application: By interrupting the objection, Judge Loo arguably denied the cross-examining party the full right to be heard and to make a record of the alleged misconduct.
  • Rule 2.8. Decorum, Demeanor, and Communication with Jurors: "(b) A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, court staff, court officials, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity and shall require similar conduct of lawyers, court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control."
    • Application: The interruption, described as aggressive and loud, violates the requirement to be patient and courteous.
    • Application: The judge has a duty to address misconduct and maintain order; by taking no action after the statement, the judge failed to maintain the decorum of the proceedings.
  • Rule 2.9 Ex Parte Communications:
    • Application: While a non-verbal cue isn't a typical ex parte communication (which usually involves communication outside the presence of one party), it *is* a communication to the witness intended to influence their testimony. This is similar in spirit to an improper ex parte communication, as it gives an unfair advantage to one side.
• CANON 3: A JUDGE SHALL CONDUCT THE JUDGE'S PERSONAL AND EXTRAJUDICIAL ACTIVITIES TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF CONFLICT WITH THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE. This canon addresses the judge's conduct and activities.
  • Rule 3.1(b). Extrajudicial Activities in General: "A judge shall not demean the judicial office."
    • Application: The aggressive interruption ("Nah ah ah enough out of you!!") demeans the judicial office through its unprofessional and undignified nature.
  • Rule 3.1(c). Extrajudicial Activities in General: "A judge shall not participate in activities that would appear to a reasonable person to materially impair the judge's independence, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to fulfill the duties of judicial office."
    • Application: The non-verbal cueing during testimony and aggressive interruption of an objection would appear to a reasonable person to materially impair the judge's independence, integrity, impartiality, temperament, and fitness to fulfill judicial duties.
• CANON 4: A JUDGE SHALL NOT ENGAGE IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, OR IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY. This canon's provisions extend beyond traditional political activities.
  • Rule 4.1(a)(12). Political Activities of Judges in General: "A judge shall not make any statement that would reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court."
    • Application: While typically applied to verbal statements, the alleged non-verbal cueing to influence testimony would reasonably be expected to affect the outcome and impair the fairness of the proceeding.

III. Potential Violations by HPD Officers (S{REDACTED} and B{REDACTED}, and the unnamed female police officer via 911 call)

A. Federal:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1503 - Obstruction of Justice: For refusing to investigate the perjury report and potentially covering up ({REDACTED})'s and/or Judge Loo's actions.
• 18 U.S.C. § 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law: For potentially denying the reporting individual equal protection under the law and access to justice through their inaction and alleged bias.
• 18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy: If they conspired with each other, ({REDACTED}), Judge Loo, or others to commit any of the above offenses.
• 18 U.S.C. § 4 - Misprision of felony: failure to report a known felony.

B. Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS):

• HRS § 710-1070 - Obstructing Government Operations: For refusing to investigate the reported crimes.
• HRS § 710-1029 - Hindering Prosecution in the Second Degree: If their actions (or inaction) were intended to hinder the apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of ({REDACTED}).
• HRS § 710-1060 et seq. relating to conspiracy.
• HRS Chapter 806, relating to criminal procedure. For failure to investigate a crime.

IV. Potential Violations by {redacted} (if connected)

A. Federal:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1513 - Retaliation Against a Witness: If his contact was intended to intimidate or retaliate against the reporting individual for their prior reporting or cooperation with law enforcement. This is a serious charge, especially for a former intelligence officer.
• 18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy: If he conspired with others to commit any offenses.

V. Potential Violations by "Matthew" (the ex-State Department intern) (if connected)

A. Federal:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant:
• 18 U.S.C. § 1513 - Retaliation Against a Witness: Potentially, if his actions were part of a coordinated effort to isolate and intimidate the reporting individual.
• 18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy: If he conspired with others.

B. Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS):

• HRS 710-1077. Intimidating a Witness

VI. Potential Violations related to {redacted} activity (if connected)

• This is harder to establish, but if {redacted}, then there are several civil and criminal violations.

VII. General Notes

• Burden of Proof: It's crucial to remember that these are *potential* violations. The burden of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt," and in a civil case, it's "preponderance of the evidence."
• Investigation Needed: A thorough investigation by the appropriate authorities (FBI, Department of Justice, Hawaiʻi Attorney General, etc.) is necessary to determine whether these potential violations occurred and who is responsible.

This list provides a comprehensive overview of the potential legal ramifications based on the provided account. It highlights the seriousness of the allegations and the need for a thorough and impartial investigation.

Editorial: A Call for Justice in the Aloha State

The preceding news release details a deeply disturbing series of allegations that, if true, represent a profound betrayal of public trust and a breakdown of the very foundations of our justice system. The story of one individual's struggle against alleged harassment, violence, judicial misconduct, and potential conspiracy should serve as a wake-up call to all who believe in fairness, accountability, and the rule of law.

The idyllic image of Hawaiʻi—sun-drenched beaches, swaying palms, and a spirit of "Aloha"—often masks a darker undercurrent. This isn't a story of paradise; it's a story of how power, unchecked and potentially corrupted, can crush an individual, leaving them fighting for survival against a system seemingly rigged against them. It's a story that raises troubling questions about justice, accountability, and the potential for abuse within the very institutions meant to protect us. It whispers of shadows, of possible conspiracies, and echoes of notorious historical abuses, leaving us to wonder if the ghosts of programs like MKULTRA ever truly left us.

What began as a seemingly minor dispute spiraled into an alleged nightmare. An at-risk individual, already vulnerable, found themselves targeted by a relentless campaign of intimidation, ranging from alleged drug provision and physical assault to repeated incidents of vehicular aggression. Police reports were allegedly filed but ignored. Warnings were issued but went unheeded. The victim, desperate, turned to social media, only to find the legal system weaponized against them.

The alleged actions of Judge Wilson Loo during the injunction hearing are particularly egregious. To reportedly influence a witness's testimony with a non-verbal cue, to silence an objection, and to fail to address blatant defamation within the courtroom—these actions, if proven, strike at the very heart of judicial integrity. They suggest a deliberate attempt to subvert justice and protect an alleged perpetrator.

The subsequent events—the contact from a former intelligence official, the targeted online content, the alleged interference by a former government intern—add further layers of concern. While seemingly disparate, these incidents, viewed in the context of the alleged perjury, judicial misconduct, and police inaction, paint a disturbing picture: a potential conspiracy to silence, discredit, and destroy an individual.

The alleged perpetrator's overheard boast of a "federal buddy," made just days before the hearing, cannot be dismissed as mere coincidence. It raises the specter of influence peddling and the potential for corruption at the highest levels. Combined with the prior reporting to federal authorities regarding unrelated matters (referred to as "AK/AM" for sensitivity), a chilling possibility emerges: that this entire sequence of events may be rooted in retaliation and a deliberate effort to obstruct justice.

At the core of this troubling narrative is the question of justice—or, more precisely, the apparent absence of it. The judicial system is the cornerstone of any democratic society, tasked with upholding the rule of law and ensuring that justice is served impartially. When a judge, entrusted with this sacred duty, allegedly engages in misconduct—such as influencing witness testimony or silencing objections—it not only tarnishes the reputation of the judiciary but also erodes the very foundation of public trust in the legal process.

The allegations against Judge Wilson Loo, if proven true, represent an egregious violation of this trust and a blatant disregard for the principles of justice. A courtroom should be a sanctuary of fairness, where truth is sought above all else. Yet, in this case, the courtroom appears to have been transformed into a stage for manipulation, where the scales of justice were allegedly tipped by the very person responsible for balancing them.

Justice, in its truest form, demands impartiality. It requires that every individual, regardless of their status or connections, be held to the same standards under the law. The alleged actions of Judge Loo and the opposing party suggest a perversion of this ideal—a system where influence and power can override truth and fairness. If these allegations are not thoroughly investigated and addressed, the damage to the public's faith in the judicial system could be irreparable.

Transparency is not just a buzzword; it is a fundamental requirement for restoring faith in a system that has been called into question. The public deserves to know the truth about what transpired in that courtroom and beyond. An investigation shrouded in secrecy will only fuel speculation and distrust. Therefore, any inquiry into these allegations must be conducted openly, with regular updates provided to the public, ensuring that the process itself is as accountable as the individuals it seeks to scrutinize.

In cases involving potential judicial misconduct, transparency is especially critical. Judges wield immense power, and with that power comes the responsibility to act with the utmost integrity. When that integrity is called into question, the investigation must be beyond reproach. The people of Hawaiʻi—and indeed, the nation—have a right to know whether their judicial system has been compromised and, if so, to what extent.

Moreover, transparency in this investigation would serve as a deterrent to future misconduct. If those in positions of power know that their actions will be scrutinized and that the public will be informed of any wrongdoing, they may think twice before engaging in behavior that undermines the principles of justice.

Once the investigation is complete, the findings must be disclosed in their entirety. Justice demands not only that the truth be uncovered but that it be laid bare for all to see. Those found guilty of misconduct, perjury, or conspiracy must be held accountable, regardless of their position or influence. The people of Hawaiʻi, and indeed the nation, have a right to know if their judicial system has been compromised and what steps are being taken to rectify such a grievous wrong.

Full disclosure is not merely about punishing the guilty; it is about restoring the integrity of the system. It is about demonstrating that no one is above the law—not even those who are tasked with enforcing it. Without full disclosure, the shadows of doubt will linger, and the public's trust in the judicial system will remain fractured.

Furthermore, disclosure is essential for the victim in this case. The individual who has allegedly suffered harassment, violence, and a miscarriage of justice deserves to have their story heard and validated. They deserve to see those responsible for their suffering held accountable. Anything less would be a continuation of the injustice they have already endured.

The allegations presented in this case are not isolated incidents; they suggest a pattern of behavior that may indicate a broader conspiracy. The mention of a "federal buddy" and the subsequent events involving individuals with government ties raise alarming questions about the extent of this potential conspiracy. If left unaddressed, such criminality could continue to fester, undermining the integrity of not just the judicial system but also law enforcement and other governmental institutions.

It is imperative that this investigation leaves no stone unturned, exploring every lead and connection, no matter how high it may reach. The potential for a conspiracy involving multiple actors—ranging from local law enforcement to federal officials—cannot be ignored. The stakes are too high, and the implications too severe, to allow even the slightest hint of impropriety to go unexamined.

Moreover, the alleged criminality in this case—perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and more—represents a direct assault on the rule of law. These are not minor infractions; they are serious crimes that, if proven, demand swift and decisive action. To ignore or downplay these allegations would be to tacitly endorse a system where the powerful can act with impunity, shielded from accountability by their connections and influence.

This case demands immediate and unwavering action. The allegations must be investigated thoroughly and impartially, free from local bias and political pressure. The FBI, already potentially aware of some aspects of this situation, must excavate the facts, uncover the truth, and ensure that justice, however delayed, is finally served. The shadows in the Aloha State must be brought into the light.

The question remains: will the system, seemingly compromised at multiple levels, allow that to happen? Or will this become another example of power unchecked, of truth buried, and of an individual crushed by a system that failed to protect them? The echoes of past abuses, of programs that manipulated and destroyed lives, should serve as a stark warning. We must demand better. We must demand accountability. We must demand justice.

The Aloha State, known for its spirit of harmony and community, now faces a test of its commitment to justice and the rule of law. The allegations detailed in this report are a clarion call for action—a demand that those in power be held to the same standards as the citizens they serve. Justice, transparency, and full disclosure are not just ideals; they are the bedrock upon which our society stands. Let us not allow the shadows of corruption to dim the light of truth. The time for accountability is now.

A Calculated Betrayal: When a Hawaiʻi Judge Becomes the Architect of Injustice

The scales of justice are meant to be balanced, blind to influence and power. But what happens when the very person entrusted with holding those scales deliberately tips them? What happens when a judge, armed with insider knowledge of a flawed system, transforms the courtroom from a sanctuary of truth into a stage for calculated manipulation? This is the chilling question at the heart of the allegations against Hawaiʻi Judge Wilson Loo - a question that demands not just answers, but a reckoning.

This isn't a story of a momentary lapse in judgment. It's not about a heated exchange or an unintentional procedural error. It's a story, meticulously pieced together from firsthand accounts and contextual analysis, that points to something far more sinister: a premeditated, multi-layered scheme to subvert justice, orchestrated by a judge who understood the system's vulnerabilities intimately and exploited them with chilling precision.

The Courtroom as a Canvas of Deception

The setting was an injunction hearing in Honolulu - a proceeding that, critically, was being recorded audio-only, despite taking place in person. This seemingly minor detail would become the cornerstone of the alleged deception. The core issue revolved around a witness, referred to as ({REDACTED}), being questioned about the provision of LSD. And it's here that the alleged betrayal began.

Before ({REDACTED}) could answer the direct question, Judge Loo reportedly made a deliberate non-verbal cue: a distinct head shake, a clear "no," accompanied by a facial expression that conveyed disbelief and subtly suggested the desired response. In a room where only sound was being officially recorded, this visual signal was a calculated maneuver - a phantom directive, invisible to the official record, yet undeniably influential to the witness.

The audacity of this action is breathtaking. It's a violation of the most fundamental principle of judicial impartiality, a corruption of the truth-seeking process at its very core. But the alleged misconduct didn't end there. It was immediately compounded.

Silencing the Truth, Weaponizing Procedure

As the cross-examining party attempted to object and document the visual cue, stating, "Let the record show that the judge just...," Judge Loo reportedly unleashed a verbal barrage: "Nah ah ah enough out of you!!" This wasn't merely an interruption; it was a calculated shutdown. It served three critical, intertwined purposes:

1. Preventing Documentation: It stopped the verbal description of the visual cue from entering the audio record, effectively erasing the judge's alleged manipulation from the official account.
2. Establishing Plausible Deniability: By creating a moment of chaos and asserting his authority, Loo laid the groundwork for dismissing any later complaint as mere "misinterpretation" or "sour grapes" from the losing party.
3. Chilling Effect: The aggressive tone and abrupt dismissal created a courtroom environment where further challenge to the judge's actions would be perceived as risky, potentially inviting further reprisal.

This was not a judge maintaining order; this was a judge manufacturing a narrative, one where his intervention would remain hidden, his authority unquestioned, and the truth conveniently buried.

The Insider's Playbook: Knowledge as a Weapon

What elevates these allegations from deeply troubling to profoundly alarming is Judge Loo's previous tenure on Hawaiʻi State Judiciary Commission on Judicial Conduct. This was not just a prior role; it was a masterclass in the inner workings of the system he allegedly manipulated. His service on the Commission on Judicial Conduct likely provided him with:

• Intimate Knowledge of Disciplinary Proceedings: He understood the process, the standards of evidence, the typical penalties, and, crucially, the limitations of the oversight mechanisms.
• Awareness of Confidentiality: He knew that Commission on Judicial Conduct proceedings are shrouded in secrecy, shielding investigations and decisions from public scrutiny. This confidentiality, meant to protect the judiciary's reputation, can become a shield for misconduct.
• Understanding of Procedural Loopholes: He was likely aware of the technical and procedural gaps, like the vulnerability created by audio-only recording in an in-person setting.
• Institutional Relationships: His tenure would have fostered connections with individuals who might be involved in investigating complaints against him, potentially creating conscious or unconscious biases.

This insider knowledge wasn't merely a passive advantage; it was an active weapon. It provided the blueprint for the alleged misconduct, allowing Loo to operate with a calculated confidence, knowing the precise points of weakness in the system and how to exploit them.

The Premeditation is in the Details

The audio-only recording is not a trivial detail; it's the fulcrum of the alleged scheme. Judge Loo, with his Commission on Judicial Conduct experience, would have been acutely aware of this limitation. Choosing to use a visual cue to influence testimony in an audio-recorded proceeding is a strong indicator of premeditation. It suggests a conscious decision to act in a way that would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove later.

The immediate, aggressive shutdown of the objection further strengthens the argument for premeditation. It suggests that Loo anticipated the attempt to document his actions and had a pre-planned response to neutralize it. He wasn't caught off guard; he was executing a strategy.

The subsequent sealing of the case is the final, damning piece of the puzzle. It's a move that effectively buries the entire proceeding, shielding it from public scrutiny and making it far more difficult to access the evidence, even for investigative purposes. While sealing cases is not inherently unusual, its application *in this specific context*, following the alleged misconduct and obstruction, transforms a routine procedural action into a potential tool for further concealment.

A System Designed for Impunity?

This case exposes a disturbing truth about Hawaiʻi's judicial oversight system: it appears to be structurally vulnerable to manipulation by those who understand its weaknesses best. The confidentiality of Commission on Judicial Conduct proceedings, intended to protect the judiciary's reputation, can ironically become a tool for concealing misconduct. The reported lack of strong penalties for judicial wrongdoing creates a sense of impunity, emboldening those who might be tempted to abuse their power.

If a judge, with the insider knowledge and experience of Wilson Loo, can allegedly orchestrate such a calculated subversion of justice, it begs the question: how many other instances of misconduct are hidden behind similar technical and procedural veils? How many times has the system been manipulated, the truth buried, and justice denied?

Beyond the Courtroom: A Pattern of Obstruction?

The allegations against Judge Loo do not exist in a vacuum. They are part of a larger, disturbing pattern of alleged obstruction and institutional failure. Prior complaints to the Honolulu Police Department (HPD) about harassment and dangerous behavior were allegedly ignored or mishandled. Reports of potential criminal activity - including the alleged provision of LSD - were reportedly dismissed by law enforcement.

This broader context is critical. It suggests a systemic unwillingness to hold those in positions of power accountable, a pattern of protection that extends beyond the courtroom and permeates the local law enforcement apparatus.

The pattern extends beyond individual incidents into a systematic failure of accountability. The report states multiple attempts to report serious violations, with a pattern where police were dismissive, HPD delayed, and officers obstructed reports about their colleagues. A system which appears to close ranks, to protect themselves at the cost of fairness and protection of individuals.

The mention of ({REDACTED}) boasting about having "another buddy who is federal" a few days before the hearing adds another layer of concern. It's crucial to clarify: this report does not allege any direct prior relationship between Judge Loo and ({REDACTED}). The significance of the "federal buddy" comment lies in the word "another." It implies that ({REDACTED}) *already* had a connection in a position of authority at the state or local level. While this does *not* directly implicate Judge Loo, it raises the specter of a broader network of influence and potential pressure within the local system.

Unstated Motivations, Observable Actions

This report focuses on the *observable* actions of Judge Loo and his *provable* relationship with the judicial oversight system. It meticulously avoids speculating about Judge Loo's *underlying* motivations for allegedly favoring ({REDACTED}). This distinction is paramount. While we cannot definitively know *why* he acted as he reportedly did, several possibilities, though unstated in the original account, could explain his behavior:

• Undisclosed Connection: There *could* be some prior connection or agreement between Judge Loo and ({REDACTED}) that has not been revealed. This is *not* alleged, but it remains a theoretical possibility.
• Protecting the Judiciary's Reputation: Judge Loo might have believed that suppressing the case, even through improper means, would protect the judiciary from embarrassment or scrutiny. This motivation, while misguided, would still constitute a serious breach of ethics.
• Misguided "Justice": Judge Loo might have harbored a belief that the cross-examining party was acting improperly or pursuing an unjust outcome, leading him to take inappropriate action to "correct" the situation as he perceived it. Even if this were the case, it would not justify his alleged actions.
• Bias: Judge Loo might have held a simple, unarticulated bias against the cross-examining party, for reasons unknown.
• External Pressure or Conspiracy: The actions could potentially be related to larger, unreported issues, such as the prior reports to federal authorities concerning an unrelated criminal conspiracy.

The core argument is this: regardless of the *underlying* motivation, the *observable actions* - the visual cue, the interruption, the sealing of the record - constitute a serious and calculated breach of judicial ethics and a sophisticated attempt to obstruct justice. Judge Loo's prior position on the Commission on Judicial Conduct provided him with the *knowledge* and the "blueprint" to carry out this alleged misconduct effectively.

The Demand for Accountability: More Than Just Reform

This case requires a response that is as multi-layered and sophisticated as the alleged misconduct itself. It demands:

1. An Independent, External Investigation: The investigation cannot be handled internally by the Hawaiʻi judiciary or HPD. The FBI, with its resources and independence, is best positioned to conduct a thorough, impartial inquiry.
2. Full Transparency: The findings of the investigation must be made public, in full. The people of Hawaiʻi have a right to know whether their judicial system has been compromised and to what extent.
3. Systemic Reform: The loopholes and vulnerabilities that enabled this alleged misconduct must be closed. This includes:
   • Mandatory Video Recording: All court proceedings, without exception, should be recorded both visually and audibly.
   • Public Disclosure of Commission on Judicial Conduct Proceedings: The culture of secrecy must end. Disciplinary investigations and decisions should be open to public scrutiny.
   • Independent Oversight: An external body, composed of individuals with no ties to the Hawaiʻi judiciary, should be established to oversee judicial conduct and investigate complaints.
   • Meaningful Penalties: The consequences for judicial misconduct must be severe enough to deter future wrongdoing. This should include suspension, removal from office, and, in cases of criminal conduct, prosecution.
4. Protection for Whistleblowers: Those who attempt to report judicial misconduct, like the cross-examiner in this case, must be protected from retaliation.

The Soul of Justice at Stake

When a judge can allegedly weaponize procedural knowledge and technical limitations to obstruct justice, it represents a particularly insidious threat - one that exploits the very mechanisms designed to ensure fairness. This is not just about one judge and one case. It's about the integrity of the entire judicial system in Hawaiʻi. It's about whether the people of Hawaiʻi can trust that their courts are places of fairness and impartiality, or whether they have become instruments of power and manipulation.

The alleged actions of Judge Wilson Loo represent a profound betrayal of public trust. They are a calculated assault on the very principles that underpin a just society. If these allegations are proven true, they demand not just condemnation, but a fundamental overhaul of the system that allowed them to occur.

The Aloha Spirit, often associated with harmony and compassion, must extend to the pursuit of justice. It demands that we hold those in power accountable, that we shine a light on wrongdoing, and that we ensure that the scales of justice are truly balanced, for everyone. The future of Hawaiʻi's judiciary - and the faith of its citizens - depends on it. The echoes of past failures, of times when powerful systems abused and controlled, should not be ignored. They must inspire and compel.

Addendum: Clarification of Allegations and Legal Considerations

This addendum clarifies the author's position regarding the alleged judicial misconduct of Judge Wilson Loo, focusing on the concept of mens rea—the mental state or intent behind an action—and presenting a layered analysis of the observed events. This clarification aims to ensure legal protection while raising awareness about potential wrongdoing in a public statement.

Enhanced Legal Notice and Disclaimer

This document presents allegations based on direct observation and documented evidence. While the author maintains a good faith belief in the accuracy of all factual assertions, it is important to emphasize that:

• All individuals mentioned are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law
• The allegations presented require thorough investigation by appropriate authorities
• This disclosure is made in the public interest, focusing on institutional conduct rather than personal matters
• Some names and identifying details have been redacted to protect privacy and ongoing investigations

Furthermore: My actions in publicly disclosing information about the events surrounding the legal proceeding in Hawaiʻi are entirely independent and voluntary. I am not acting at the direction of, or with the approval of, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) nor any other government agency. While I have had prior contact with the FBI regarding a separate matter, and while they acknowledged my credibility as a whistleblower in that context, I explicitly refused their offer of assistance in this matter. I am acting solely as a private citizen, motivated by a commitment to exposing what I believe to be serious wrongdoing and serving the public interest. I believe my actions are within my legal rights, and I am prepared to accept the consequences of those actions. My perspective is also informed by a broader consideration of how evolving technologies, such as Ubiquitous Technical Surveillance and Artificial Intelligence, may necessitate changes to legal doctrines related to truth, evidence, and the protection of sources. I am not claiming that the FBI, nor any other governmental entity, condones or supports my specific actions in this case. I am simply stating my belief that they are aware of my commitment to exposing crimes, based on my prior interactions.

The author maintains an ongoing commitment to accuracy and will promptly address any demonstrated factual errors. Any corrections or updates will be documented transparently. Inquiries regarding factual assertions may be directed to the publication's legal department.

Layered Analysis of Judge Loo's Actions

The allegations against Judge Loo are based on firsthand observations during an injunction hearing, which, while officially recorded as audio-only, was conducted in person, allowing the author to witness visual actions. The analysis separates observable facts from their potential implications, emphasizing the most provable violations:

Non-Verbal Cue (Nod)

• Observation: The author observed Judge Loo make a distinct "no" nod with an accompanying facial expression before the witness, ({REDACTED}), answered a question about providing LSD.
• Context: This occurred during cross-examination, immediately preceding the witness's denial.
• Potential Implication: The timing and nature of the gesture raise concerns that it may have influenced the witness's response, though the judge's intent remains unconfirmed.
• Legal Significance: Under Rule 2.2 of the Hawaiʻi Revised Code of Judicial Conduct, judges must perform duties impartially. Even if unintentional, such a gesture could create an appearance of bias, violating Rule 1.2, which mandates promoting confidence in the judiciary.
• Counterargument: The nod might have been coincidental. However, its occurrence during a critical question undermines the perceived fairness of the proceedings, regardless of intent.

Interruption During Objection

• Observation: When the author attempted to object, stating, "Let the record show that the judge just...," Judge Loo interrupted in a loud and abrupt manner, saying, "Nah ah ah enough out of you!!"
• Context: This followed the non-verbal cue and prevented the author from completing the objection.
• Impact: The interruption stopped the author from documenting the prior gesture on the record, limiting their ability to challenge the witness's testimony and affecting the fairness of the hearing.
• Legal Significance: This action violates Rule 2.6, ensuring the right to be heard, and Rule 2.8, requiring judicial patience and courtesy. It represents a clear breach of judicial decorum and impartiality, regardless of any preceding events.
• Counterargument: The interruption could be seen as maintaining courtroom order. However, its loud and abrupt nature, combined with its timing, suggests it was aimed at silencing a legitimate objection, exceeding reasonable judicial control.

Strategic Approach and Legal Considerations

The author emphasizes the following:

• Good Faith Reporting: All statements reflect a sincere effort to report events as observed, based on firsthand experience.
• Accuracy Acknowledgment: Minor inaccuracies may exist, but the core observations remain truthful.
• Exhaustion of Remedies: This disclosure follows unsuccessful attempts to seek redress through police reports and FBI contact.
• Focus on Facts: The analysis prioritizes observable events (e.g., the interruption, text message evidence) over unprovable interpretations.
• Investigative Deference: Determining Judge Loo's *mens rea*—whether actions were intentional or reckless—requires further investigation by authorities like the FBI.
• Statement Purpose: Allegations are presented to document what was observed, not to assert their absolute truth without verification.

Open Letter: A Call for Justice and Systemic Reform in Hawaiʻi - and Beyond

To the People of Hawaiʻi, the Honorable Judges of the Hawaiʻi State Judiciary, the Honolulu Police Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and all who believe in justice:

I write this open letter not to provoke, but to report. I write not to seek personal vindication, but to demand systemic reform. I write because I have exhausted all other avenues. I have been a victim of a system that, in my experience, protects the powerful and silences the vulnerable. I have witnessed firsthand what I believe to be judicial misconduct, police inaction, and a potential conspiracy to obstruct justice. And I believe my case is not an isolated incident, but a symptom of a deeper malaise - a crisis of accountability that is exacerbated by the rapid advancement of technology and the anachronistic nature of our legal processes.

This is not about my credibility. This is about truth. This is about a system that allows a judge, who formerly served on the Commission on Judicial Conduct, to allegedly influence witness testimony with a non-verbal cue in an audio-recorded courtroom, to silence an objection to that cue, and then to seal the case, effectively burying the evidence of his own alleged misconduct. This is about a police department that, in my experience, repeatedly failed to investigate credible reports of harassment, violence, and even potential criminal activity. This is about a system where a victim is told it is their responsibility to prove they are a victim, rather than having law enforcement investigate their claims.

I am speaking specifically of the alleged actions of Judge Wilson Loo and others during and after a legal proceeding in Honolulu, and the alleged inaction of the Honolulu Police Department in response to multiple reports I filed. I have described these events in detail on this webpage. I will not repeat all the details here, but I will reiterate the core issue: a system that failed to protect me, and that may be failing others.

My story is one of escalating harassment, violence, and a legal process that I believe was manipulated to protect an alleged perpetrator. It began with seemingly minor incidents, escalated to alleged vehicular assault, and culminated in a courtroom where I believe justice was deliberately subverted. And throughout this ordeal, I found myself facing a wall of indifference and obstruction from the very institutions meant to uphold the law.

This is not about "he said, she said." While that phrase may be used to dismiss my claims, it points to a fundamental flaw in our current legal system - a flaw that will become increasingly untenable in the age of Ubiquitous Technical Surveillance (UTS) and Artificial Intelligence (AI).

The Inevitable Truth of UTS and AI:

We are rapidly approaching a future where pervasive, decentralized surveillance will be the norm. Cameras, sensors, and data collection devices will be everywhere, recording nearly every aspect of our lives. This data, while potentially raising serious privacy concerns, will also create an unprecedented record of events.

In this future, the concept of "he said, she said" will become obsolete. Disputes will not be resolved solely by the subjective recollections of witnesses, but by objective data analyzed by AI. AI, properly designed and governed, can serve as an impartial arbiter of truth, analyzing vast amounts of data to reconstruct events with a level of accuracy that humans cannot match.

This is not science fiction. It is the inevitable consequence of technological progress. And our legal system is woefully unprepared for it.

The Anachronism of Current Legal Processes:

Our current legal processes are rooted in a pre-digital age. They rely heavily on human testimony, subjective interpretation, and often-opaque procedures. The concepts of "sources and methods" and "provability," while important in certain contexts, can also be used to shield wrongdoing and obstruct justice.

In my case, the audio-only recording of the court proceedings became a tool for obscuring the truth, rather than revealing it. The alleged non-verbal cue from Judge Loo - a critical piece of evidence - was effectively erased from the official record. This highlights the vulnerability of our current system to manipulation, especially in a world where technology can create and conceal evidence with equal ease.

The Promise of AI as Arbiter of Truth:

I am not advocating for a dystopian surveillance state. But I am arguing that we must recognize the inevitable reality of UTS and harness the power of AI to enhance justice, not diminish it.

Imagine an AI that can analyze all available data - video footage, audio recordings, sensor data, communication records, social media posts - to reconstruct events with unparalleled accuracy. This AI would not be swayed by bias, prejudice, or personal relationships. It would not be susceptible to intimidation or corruption. It would simply analyze the data and present the truth, as best it can be determined.

This AI would not replace human judges or lawyers. But it would serve as a powerful tool for uncovering the truth and ensuring that justice is served fairly and impartially. It would hold everyone accountable - not just those who are deemed "credible" by a flawed human system. "Provability," in the traditional sense, would become less relevant. The focus would shift to veracity, as determined by a comprehensive analysis of all available data.

A Call for Reform:

My experience is a microcosm of a larger problem. It highlights the urgent need for legal reform to address the challenges and opportunities presented by UTS and AI. We must:

1. Modernize Courtroom Procedures: All court proceedings should be recorded both visually and audibly, without exception. This will create a more complete and accurate record of events.
2. Embrace Transparency: The culture of secrecy surrounding judicial misconduct investigations must end. Proceedings and decisions should be open to public scrutiny, to the greatest extent possible.
3. Develop Ethical Guidelines for AI in Law: We need to establish clear ethical guidelines for the development and deployment of AI in the legal system. These guidelines must prioritize fairness, impartiality, transparency, and accountability.
4. Invest in AI Research: We need to invest in research to develop AI systems that can reliably analyze complex data and assist in legal decision-making.
5. Train Legal Professionals: Judges, lawyers, and law enforcement officers need to be trained in the use and implications of UTS and AI.
6. Re-evaluate the concept of "provability": In a world of ubiquitous data, the traditional legal standards of proof may need to be reconsidered. The focus should shift from what can be proven through traditional means to what can be established as the most likely truth based on all available evidence.

Conclusion:

I am aware that this open letter may be met with skepticism, criticism, or even hostility. I am prepared for that. I am not seeking sympathy or personal gain. I am seeking justice - not just for myself, but for all who have been wronged by a system that is failing to keep pace with the realities of the 21st century.

I am not provoking anyone. I am reporting on the truth, as I experienced it, and as I believe it can be corroborated by evidence, however difficult it may be to access within the current system. I am calling for reform, not for retribution. I believe that by embracing the transformative potential of UTS and AI, we can create a more just and equitable legal system for all. The future of justice depends on it.

Sincerely,

Paul Edward Lowndes