I. Tax Office, Threats, and Criminal Prosecution (2015–2019)
Young Kwak — Coercion, false accusations, and false sworn testimony. Verbally attacked and intimidated me inside a tiny, enclosed tax-office booth; demanded approximately seven times the actual tax owed; threatened consequences if I left; falsely accused me in the grand-jury proceedings; and falsely testified at trial that he merely instructed me which tax form to complete. His trial testimony concealed the coercive encounter. The prosecution also used a misleading diagram depicting the booth as substantially larger and more comfortable than it was.
Unidentified New Jersey State Police investigator — Threats, intimidation, and abuse of investigative authority. During a November 2015 encounter, invoked my childhood acquaintances and organized-crime associations and threatened to give me a “colonoscopy,” communicating the threat of an invasive, humiliating investigation. James Yuen stood beside him during the encounter.
Gene (Eugene) Hartmann — Death threats, coercion, and witness intimidation. While I was under indictment and investigating for my defense, instructed me to “Stay away from [name withheld],” knowing about my prosecution and defense investigation. Participated in the death threat delivered with Rita Hartmann, pressured me to leave Hawaiʻi, and subsequently reframed the threatening exchange as a “murder mystery.”
Rita Hartmann — Death threats and coercion. Participated in the same encounter, supplying the lethal consequence of Gene’s instruction: “Or you will get whacked.” Also participated in the pressure for me to leave. The threats were directed at conduct connected to my ongoing defense investigation and intended disclosures.
“Kevin” — Intimidation, retaliation, and threats against my career. Approached me outside Kahala Whole Foods shortly before my July 2017 trial and threatened to destroy my career if I continued discussing the Hartmann threat and associated conduct. Invoked a public figure, that person’s spouse, and a prominent technology investor to reinforce the warning.
Vincent Kanemoto — Prosecutorial misconduct, prejudicial jury manipulation, and dishonesty. During closing argument in July 2017, acknowledged that no gun was involved, formed a two-handed mock pistol, pointed it toward all twelve jurors, asked them to imagine a gun anyway, and urged conviction. The judge immediately intervened and summoned counsel into chambers. The prosecution’s trial presentation omitted Kwak’s earlier charging accusation and the recordings documenting my distress, while presenting his false routine-form account and a misleading booth diagram. Kanemoto worked directly with James Yuen preparing the case. When I confronted Kanemoto at Glazer’s in Haleʻiwa during summer 2019, he denied making the mock-pistol gesture.
Audrey L.E. Stanley — Neglect of defense obligations, dismissal of a death threat, and deficient client communication. As my assigned public defender, interrupted and dismissed my report of the Hartmann death threat, characterized it as a “conditional death threat” and “no big deal,” and failed to explain reporting, investigative, or protective measures. Separately laughed while reviewing the grand-jury account of my distress. Also relayed a prosecution-originated proposal that the case might be resolved if I left Hawaiʻi, without providing clear terms or explaining its implications. Stanley subsequently became a per diem Family Court judge.
Unnamed Retained Trial Counsel — Conflict of interest involving the high priest, abandonment of a reported death threat, ineffective assistance, deficient representation, and coercive plea pressure. Had a conflict-of-interest issue involving the high priest that raised serious questions about his loyalty and independent judgment. I personally informed him that Gene and Rita Hartmann had threatened to kill me while I was under indictment and conducting my defense investigation. He dismissed the murder threat, failed to treat the witness-intimidation implications seriously, failed to explain investigative or protective options, and advised me against including the threat in my trial testimony. I followed his advice, keeping an actual death threat and its connection to my defense investigation out of the jury’s hearing. His handling of that report must be examined alongside the high-priest conflict, not treated as an isolated tactical decision.
Charged $6,000 for plea representation and $8,000 for trial, with no specified compensation for retrial. Told me the judge wanted a “tight trial,” said he was counting on me looking guilty, and opened with words suggesting “Maybe he did it.” Conducted cursory cross-examination of Young Kwak, dismissed my immediate report of Kwak’s false sworn testimony, failed to obtain the requested photograph of the enclosed tax-office booth, and failed to adequately challenge the prosecution’s misleading diagram.
Following Vincent Kanemoto’s mock-pistol closing argument and the judge’s immediate chambers conference, failed to adequately explain mistrial remedies, preservation of prosecutorial misconduct, or available legal options. During jury deliberations, introduced and repeatedly pressured me to accept a petty-misdemeanor plea despite my explicit refusals. Scolded me while I prayed, saying he did not believe in “that religion stuff,” and continued pressing the plea. Never explained that an unconditional plea would ordinarily foreclose direct appellate review of the prosecutor’s earlier misconduct, nor advised me about disciplinary reporting options. After the hung jury, initially told me another trial was expected, then expressed pleasure when Kanemoto decided not to retry, reporting that the prosecutor was “spooked.”
Conflict-of-interest concerns include the high-priest connection, compromised loyalty in handling my murder-threat report, financial incentives to avoid retrial, and professional interests in ending the prosecution without further scrutiny of the misconduct.
James Yuen — Investigative involvement, intimidation-related conduct, and prosecution information-flow concerns. Stood beside the purported New Jersey investigator during the threatening November 2015 encounter. Handled the tax investigation and later worked directly with Kanemoto preparing the prosecution, including preparation involving Kwak. His involvement raises questions about the development of Kwak’s false accusations, the false form testimony, transmission of my personal background, and the origin of Kanemoto’s hypothetical-gun argument.
II. Drug Distribution, Assault, Stalking, and Vehicle Attacks (2021–2022)
Redacted defendant / sworn witness — Schedule I substance distribution, assault, stalking, harassment, attempted vehicular attack, unpaid compensation, and false sworn testimony. Furnished me a Schedule I substance during encounters associated with Stonefish Grill. Failed to pay approximately $200 owed for work. Stalked and harassed me for approximately a year, physically assaulted me at Starbucks in January 2022, and repeatedly threatened or intimidated me with his vehicle at Malama Marketplace, Breakers/North Shore Marketplace, and Waialua Beach Road. Continued harassing me after my July 24, 2022 cease-and-desist notice. On September 12, 2022, accelerated from behind me on PaaLaa Road, crossed the double yellow line toward me, narrowly missed me, and fled. Continued harassment during the competing restraining-order proceedings, including remarks concerning my deceased parents. A few days before the December 2, 2022 hearing, told someone he had “another buddy who is federal.” At the December 2, 2022 hearing, falsely denied furnishing the substance after Loo’s visual signal, then repeated another false factual claim during final remarks. Police reports include 22-353421 and 22-365099.
Unidentified woman at Stonefish Grill — Controlled-substance distribution. Supplied the substance to the redacted defendant inside Stonefish Grill; he then transferred it to me.
Unidentified man in the Stonefish Grill parking lot — Controlled-substance distribution. While seated in the front passenger seat of the defendant’s vehicle, displayed approximately 100 tabs and furnished one to me.
III. Judicial Misconduct and Attorney Conduct (2022)
Judge Wilson M.N. Loo — Judicial interference, manipulation of sworn testimony, suppression of objections, unequal treatment, and denial of a fair hearing. During the December 2, 2022 hearing, interrupted and curtailed my presentation of stalking, assault, harassment, and vehicle-attack evidence, saying in substance that I could go on all day. During a material question about the defendant’s conduct, turned toward the sworn witness and signaled “no” with his head and facial expression immediately before the witness denied the conduct. When I immediately attempted to preserve the gesture on the record — “Let the record show that the judge just—” — shouted, “Nah ah ah enough out of you!!” The hearing was recorded by audio only, leaving his visual action outside the recording. Permitted the opposing party’s false claim during final remarks without allowing my rebuttal. Denied my requested injunction and granted Petricevic’s sealing request, restricting outside examination of the proceedings. His conduct raises judicial impartiality, witness-interference, due-process, and civil-rights violations.
Bosko Petricevic — Suppression-related conduct, professional misconduct, and judicial-misconduct reporting concerns. Represented the defendant at the December 2, 2022 hearing. Before the hearing, offered and urged me to accept a cross-injunction resolution that would have avoided live testimony. During the disputed sworn-testimony sequence, was seated facing the bench, and I personally observed him looking toward Judge Loo as the judge gave the visual signal to his client. His client then denied the conduct under oath. During final remarks, his client repeated a false claim after testimony had closed, and I was prevented from responding. Petricevic requested sealing of the court record, which Loo granted, restricting public access to the testimony, signaling sequence, interruption, and hearing outcome. His conduct raises professional-responsibility questions concerning the handling of judicial interference and the mandatory reporting duty under Hawaiʻi Rule of Professional Conduct 8.3(b). I have received no account from him identifying what he saw, understood, or reported.
IV. Honolulu Police Department — Deception, Interference, and Failure to Act
Officer Brandt — False official information and obstruction of criminal reporting. During the September 2022 harassment and restraining-order proceedings, knowingly provided service-status information contrary to Officer Shatoo’s account that service had occurred. Brandt responded to the September 20 Breakers incident, HPD report 22-365099. In a separate encounter after 2022, prevented another officer from receiving my report about the Hartmann death threat, obstructing my effort to place that threat into an official police record.
Unidentified female HPD officer contacted through 911 — Refusal to receive criminal complaints and dereliction of investigative responsibility. After the December 2022 hearing, insisted that proving the reported perjury was my responsibility and refused to take a separate controlled-substance distribution complaint even after I identified the location, participants, and potential surveillance footage.
Unidentified HPD officer — Endorsement of threats and unequal enforcement. Told me that members of an unnamed public figure’s circle were allowed to make murder threats, effectively communicating that the threats I reported would be tolerated.
Unidentified HPD detective — False accusations, investigative diversion, and abuse of authority. During a telephone call I recall as following the September 12, 2022 vehicle attack, asserted that I had received approximately $200 in undeclared, under-the-table compensation and would not pay taxes on it. The money had never been paid. Instead of addressing the reported vehicle attack, shifted the discussion to taxes on an unpaid debt. The source of the false payment claim and any use of my earlier prosecution are accountability issues.
Unidentified HPD desk sergeant — Dismissal of criminal evidence and unsupported counter-narrative. Acknowledged that my vehicle-attack report described conduct warranting attention, then suggested there might be contrary information without identifying an actual witness, report, or evidence. Introduced a hypothetical conflicting account rather than addressing the conduct I reported.
Unidentified HPD officers at Malama Market — Intimidating enforcement response. Just after my spring 2021 FBI contact, an officer in one HPD cruiser repeatedly pinned parking tickets on my truck at Malama Market in Haleʻiwa. Another HPD cruiser accelerated up to me in the Malama Market parking lot. I experienced the repeated ticketing and the other cruiser’s approach as intimidation; these incidents form part of my complaint concerning retaliatory enforcement.
Additional unidentified HPD personnel — Refusal of reports, obstruction of complaint intake, and investigative failures. Dismissed or declined criminal reports, failed to meaningfully address identified evidence, and left serious complaints without communicated dispositions. The reports involved assault, stalking, repeated vehicle threats, a vehicle attack, distribution of controlled substances, and sworn falsification. Although the Starbucks assault was investigated and referred to prosecutors, none of my complaints resulted in prosecution of the reported defendant.
V. Prosecution and Institutional Oversight
Unidentified prosecution representative — Improper departure pressure and resolution-related misconduct concerns. Originated the proposal communicated through Audrey Stanley under which leaving Hawaiʻi might resolve my pending prosecution. The communication came during a period in which the Hartmanns separately threatened me and pressed me to leave. No written terms, clear legal basis, or identification of the originating prosecutor were provided to me.
Unidentified 2022 charging and reviewing prosecutors — Failure to prosecute reported criminal conduct. Received or were responsible for reviewing police referrals arising from my complaints, including the Starbucks assault investigated by HPD. No prosecution followed the assault referral or my reports of the subsequent stalking, harassment, vehicle threats, and PaaLaa Road attack. The charging decisions and handling of those referrals warrant accountability.
Commission on Judicial Conduct / Chair Dickson C.H. Lee — Inadequate judicial-misconduct review and procedural closure. The Commission disposed of my earlier Loo complaint as “insufficient evidence” on March 22, 2023, following my December 2022 contact. In a March 13, 2025 letter signed by Chair Dickson C.H. Lee, it declined renewed review because Loo had departed per diem judicial service in July 2024 and the 90-day jurisdictional period had expired. This left the reported judicial signaling, sworn-testimony interference, interrupted record statement, and hearing misconduct without substantive renewed review through the Commission.
Hawaiʻi Ethics Commission — Jurisdictional confusion and inadequate institutional response. When I sought review concerning the judicial-conduct issues, the agency expressed confusion regarding its own authority. Its response added to the failure to obtain meaningful institutional examination of the misconduct I reported.
Case outcomes
The 2017 prosecution ended in a hung jury, no retrial, and subsequent expungement. My later criminal complaints produced no prosecution of the reported defendant. The December 2, 2022 hearing record was sealed. The Commission on Judicial Conduct closed its earlier complaint and declined renewed review. I subsequently referred the matter to federal authorities, including the DOJ Public Integrity Section, which acknowledged receipt of my July 12, 2025 submission.
