This disclosure gives the background to my reporting for Oahu Underground. The events shaped my decisions to report threats, preserve evidence, and seek review. My firsthand account, public records, sealed evidence, and interpretations are identified separately.
My work in music, civic groups, and technical communities brought me into contact with some of Oʻahu’s institutional circles. The chronology explains how I reached the later investigations. Establishing a connection between events requires evidence of what passed between participants.
Evidence Categories
Claims follow the editorial standards: firsthand account, identified record, sealed-record dependency, context, and labeled inference.
Withheld Context
I had earlier law-enforcement contact and a personal history that affected how I experienced later encounters and threats to my career. I withhold biographical details to protect privacy, sources, and third parties. They do not establish targeting, coordination, access to restricted information, or official motive. Any claim that an official relied on that background requires records or testimony of its use.
Information Imbalance in Institutional Encounters
An official may receive labels, background summaries, or informal accounts that the person being judged cannot see or answer. That imbalance can affect whether police accept a report or consider the complainant credible. Establishing its role in any encounter requires the information the official actually received.
Process Friction
I represented myself, asked specific questions, and insisted on records. I asked police to receive reports and tried to describe a visual event in an audio-only hearing. This chronology records what happened when I sought those explanations and tried to preserve the evidence.
The Prosecution and Official Account
The personal events below are my firsthand account unless another source is identified. Agency action outside my knowledge, motive, and causal connections remain separate questions for records and witnesses.
For the earlier private chronology and its source-map, see Before the Tax Office. It supplies Reporter Disclosure context, not proof of the later prosecution or the separate Wilson Loo allegations.
I appeared in person to address a disputed tax issue. The encounter occurred in a small, camera-less booth. The tax official verbally attacked me and demanded about seven times what I owed. I told him what I owed, and the final calculation came in just below the figure I had given him. He threatened that leaving would mean dealing with someone who “wasn’t nice.” His accusation about what I said was false.
In my view, the official’s accusation recast the unrecorded encounter as a criminal act while leaving out the pressure inside the booth. The Hypothetical Gun examines the charging and trial presentations. The tax amount, testimony, and trial handling can be tested against transcripts, accounting records, and filings.
The official’s accusation reached the grand jury through a proceeding governed by secrecy. I denied it to my attorney. At trial, the accusation was not presented, argued, or tested by any party. It had entered the charging process but was absent when I could confront it before the trial jury.
Out-of-State Investigator Encounter
In November 2015, James Yuen stood beside the man identified to me as a New Jersey State Police investigator during questioning that invoked my childhood associates. I understood his warning as a threat of invasive investigation. Before the Tax Office records the words, setting, and unresolved agency identity and assignment.
Names, private background details, and identifying public-record references remain withheld for safety and third-party privacy. Whether later Hawaiʻi actors received or used that background requires evidence of what reached them.
Pretrial North Shore/Haleiwa Threat Report
After February 2016 and before the July 2017 trial, Gene and Rita Hartmann threatened me with death while I was under indictment and investigating for my defense. Gene knew of the case and investigation. I understood the warning as pressure to stop investigation and disclosure, including what I intended to testify about. The Threat Report preserves the words and examines each speaker’s knowledge and intent. Naming another person did not establish that person’s participation.
Shortly before trial, a man who described himself as an associate of a public figure and that person’s spouse threatened my career if I kept talking about “what happened.” I understood him to refer to the Hartmann episode and my other concerns described in this chronology. Before the Tax Office gives that encounter. The family and social connections made reporting unusually difficult; they do not establish who directed the conduct or why institutions responded as they did.
Pretrial Assigned-Counsel Report and Leave-Hawaii Proposal
Audrey L.E. Stanley1 was my assigned public defender before her September 23, 2024 appointment as a per diem Family Court judge. I told her about the Hartmann episode and its connection to my defense investigation. She interrupted and dismissed my report without explaining reporting or protective options.
She later relayed a tentative concept under which leaving Hawaiʻi might resolve the prosecution. She made clear that it came from the prosecution, not from her. I received no clear written terms and could not identify the specific originator or determine whether this was an offer, informal message, dismissal condition, or something else. The Hartmanns’ separate departure suggestion and the concept she relayed both pressed me toward leaving. I observed no coordination.
The Threat Report examines her handling and the records needed to identify the person within the prosecution who originated the concept, its form and any terms, and her advice.
The Mock-Pistol Gesture
I personally observed James Yuen working directly with Vincent Kanemoto in trial preparation. I later watched Kanemoto make the mock-pistol gesture during closing and ask the seated jury to imagine a gun that was not in evidence. The Hypothetical Gun holds the detailed closing account, its legal questions, and Kanemoto’s later denial.
The judge called counsel into chambers after the closing. The Defense Table Went Quiet examines retained counsel’s advice, preservation choices, and plea pressure. This disclosure supplies the chronology of my law-enforcement contacts; it does not duplicate those trial inquiries.
Contemporaneous Public Visibility
Before the Tax Office addresses the absence of identified contemporaneous news coverage.
Later Events
The later events below shaped my reporting choices. Their sources are identified in the chronology table.
Spring 2021 FBI contact: I submitted an online FBI report and later met with the FBI in Mokuleia about earlier threats, what I described at the time as witness-tampering concerns, and law-enforcement integrity. Federal-intake records could establish what was reported and how it was handled.
HPD officer change: I recall that an HPD officer was later “cycled out” or replaced. Assignment records could establish what changed and why.
Malama Market citations: The following day, two HPD cruisers responded to my truck at Malama Market in Haleiwa and issued parking citations. I experienced the response as intimidation. Dispatch, citation, and any retained footage could test what occurred and why the units responded. No identified communication connects the officer change or citations to my FBI contact.
Correction — October 4, 2026: An earlier report placed the Starbucks assault in November 2021. A contemporaneous photo located after the related proceedings dates the incident to January 2022. The chronology below uses January 2022 while preserving the fact that the earlier HPD/prosecutor record used November 2021.
2021–2022 reports involving the redacted witness: I ended a brief work relationship and social acquaintance with the man in September 2021. I later sought roughly $200 for work by text and email. He never paid. After the Starbucks assault, I wrote off the debt and said I would avoid further in-person contact.
My first assault report gave November 2021 as the date. HPD investigated and referred it to prosecutors with that date. After the proceedings ended, I found a contemporaneous photo dating the assault to January 2022. The correction above preserves that difference.
The vehicle threats included Malama Marketplace in December 2021, Breakers at North Shore Marketplace in June 2022, and Waialua Beach Road in July 2022. I sent a cease-and-desist email on July 24.
On September 12, 2022, I was walking east on the left side of PaaLaa Road. He drove up from behind, accelerated hard with the engine redlining, crossed the double yellow toward me, narrowly missed me, returned to the travel lane, and raced off. I recognized the stick-shift vehicle because I had ridden in and driven it. I reported the attempt to run me down under 22-353421.
I submitted a TRO at Wahiawa Police Station on September 16. Between September 19 and 22, he continued harassing me. Shatoo told me service had occurred; Brandt later represented otherwise. Report 22-365099 concerns the September 20 Breakers encounter. HPD advised me to avoid PaaLaa Road. I encountered the man while walking or cycling on main roads in Haleiwa; I was not seeking him out.
The police reports, dispatch records, service returns, recordings, emails, photographs, and prosecutor-referral records could establish how each complaint was handled. The chronology table below identifies the records needed for review.
Federal-buddy statement: I overheard the man refer to a “federal buddy.” The meaning of the statement is unresolved. Witness testimony and communications records could establish whether it referred to an actual relationship and, if so, whether that relationship had any relevance to later events. The statement alone does not establish an actual federal relationship.
September 2022 service-status allegation: I allege that Brandt knowingly gave me contrary information about service; no adjudicated finding is reported. The Review Gap sets out the allegation and the HPD records that could test it. The opposing party also filed a TRO and continued stalking and harassing me afterward, including the “How’s your parents?” harassment. Court filings and service records can establish the sequence of the competing TRO proceedings.
September 2022 officer identifications: I identify Shatoo as the responding officer for the September 12, 2022 PaaLaa Road vehicle run-over attempt, located by report number 22-353421, and Brandt as the responding officer for the September 20, 2022 Breakers / North Shore Marketplace harassment and alleged service-status deception event, located by report number 22-365099. These officer identifications are my firsthand account; CAD/RMS and officer-assignment records could independently corroborate or contradict them.
Officer Brandt’s Intake Interference: After 2022, Brandt prevented another HPD officer from receiving my report about the quoted Hartmann threat. This later reporting attempt is separate from the September 20, 2022 Breakers / North Shore Marketplace response. See the later reporting account. Intake records, officer notes, retained body-camera footage, and testimony from the officers present could independently corroborate or contradict my account of the attempted report and Brandt’s interference, and establish what records were created or omitted.
HPD allowed-threat statement: An HPD officer told me that an unnamed public figure’s circle was allowed to make murder threats. This is my firsthand account of the officer’s words. Authorization by that public figure or anyone else is a separate proposition requiring evidence. Bodycam, intake records, officer notes, CAD logs, and witnesses could test the statement and establish what response followed.
Before trial, HPD desk-sergeant exchange: A desk sergeant said, in substance, that according to my report there was something there. I understood him to mean criminal conduct. He then suggested possible other information, such as someone having seen something differently, without identifying an actual witness or report. The overview sets out the exchange and the questions HPD needs to answer.
Undated HPD detective call about money I was never paid: I spoke by phone with an HPD detective and recall the call as after the September 12, 2022 PaaLaa Road incident. I cannot identify the date or detective. He said, in substance, that I had been paid roughly $200 under the table and would not pay tax on it. The man I reported had never paid me; he still owed me the money. I was seeking protection from him, and the detective turned to taxes on an unpaid debt. The source of his claim that I had been paid is unknown. The overview identifies records that could establish its source and any effect on handling, including whether he accessed the earlier case. Report 22-353421 is a starting locator based on my recollection of the timing; the call’s report assignment remains unidentified.
Platform Context Kept Out of the Core Claims
After proceedings in which LSD was central, I saw LSD-related recommendations and other content that matched topics from the dispute. I observed the timing and subject matter. Platform records would be needed to explain how the content was selected.
My account records what I saw, with technical artifacts where preserved. Establishing cause, human selection, sealed-record access, or targeting would require platform logs or comparable technical records. Ordinary explanations include recommender behavior, account history, engagement patterns, keyword context, timing coincidence, generic content saturation, third-party engagement, ad-category inference, and abuse-reporting dynamics.
The 2022 Loo Proceeding
Loo cut off my explanation of the stalking, assault, and vehicle attacks; the overview gives the full account and the legal argument about my right to present the case.
The Nod holds my account of the signal, answer, and interrupted record statement. The prior prosecution, threats, and career-destruction warning explain why I treated the 2022 sequence as serious. Its review requires the hearing’s own records and eyewitnesses.
Firsthand Report Chronology
The table brings together the events, their sources, and the records needed to examine them. The Spring 2021 row collects separately reported events for retrieval; it does not establish a connection among them.
| Period | Event | Evidence category | What is documented | What remains unknown | What would test it |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Early life | I was violently assaulted in the presence of a law-enforcement officer who did not intervene | Firsthand account | Any contemporaneous records if located | Officer conduct, available duty record, third-party witnesses | Police records, school records, witness interviews |
| Early life / withheld context | Prior law-enforcement and reputational context involving withheld background | Firsthand account plus withheld context | Specific details are withheld for privacy and third-party safety | Whether any background affected later official treatment | FOIA/Privacy Act records, agency correspondence, attorney files |
| Tax-office and prosecution period | Tax-office booth encounter, coercive payment demand, verbal attack, grand-jury accusation, denial to counsel, and omission of the accusation at trial | Firsthand account plus trial/accounting records if obtained | Trial, accounting, and court records where reviewed | Whether the encounter was fairly characterized by the prosecution and why the charging accusation was not tested at trial | Trial transcript, exhibits, accounting records, attorney files, indictment materials, grand-jury material where available |
| Before trial | Yuen stood beside the out-of-state investigator during the childhood-associate references and “colonoscopy” statement | Firsthand account | Investigator role if records exist | Motive, scope, and formal basis for investigator involvement | Agency records, interview notes, witness testimony, FOIA/Privacy Act responses |
| Pretrial / North Shore-Haleiwa | Quoted Hartmann threat and career-destruction warning before trial | Firsthand account | Reports and attorney records concerning the Hartmann threat; messages or witness statements about either encounter, if obtained | Motive, connection, and institutional response | Police records for the Hartmann reporting; attorney files, witnesses, contemporaneous communications |
| Pretrial representation period | I told assigned counsel about the quoted threat sequence; counsel later relayed a possible leave-Hawaiʻi resolution concept she said came from the prosecution | Firsthand account plus attorney-file question | Representation records if obtained | Whether counsel documented the threat, who within the prosecution originated the concept, its form and any terms, and whether the overlap was reviewed | Attorney file, supervisor consultations, prosecutor communications, written terms, court records, client-advice notes |
| Trial | I observed Yuen working directly with Kanemoto in trial preparation; the prosecutor later acknowledged there was no gun in the case, formed both hands into a mock pistol, pointed it at all twelve jurors, asked them to imagine a gun anyway, urged conviction, and rested his case | Firsthand account | Preparation and trial/chambers records if obtained | What, if anything, Yuen conveyed about the North Jersey background; whether any such information influenced closing; who saw the gesture, what it communicated to jurors, how the court and counsel responded, and what counsel preserved | Yuen–Kanemoto communications, investigator notes, briefing accounts and preparation materials; court records, attorney notes, courtroom witnesses, juror testimony where lawful |
| Summer 2019 | I asked Kanemoto at Glazers in Haleiwa why he had made the two-handed mock-pistol argument to the jury; he denied it | Firsthand account | Contemporaneous notes, messages, or witnesses if obtained | What the exchange establishes about the courtroom sequence | Witnesses, messages, date/time/location records, contemporaneous notes |
| Spring 2021 | FBI online report and later in-person FBI contact in Mokuleia regarding earlier threats I had reported, what I described as witness-tampering concerns, and law-enforcement integrity context; an HPD officer was later “cycled out” or replaced; the following day two HPD cruisers responded to my truck at Malama Market in Haleiwa and issued parking citations in a manner I experienced as intimidation | Firsthand account plus federal/HPD record-locator question | FBI contact records, intake or agent notes, correspondence, case or referral records, HPD CAD/dispatch logs, event numbers, unit IDs, officer assignment records, citation records, bodycam, or in-car video if obtained | What was reported, what federal intake occurred, what “cycled out” meant operationally, what explains the HPD response the following day, whether citations were routine or connected, and whether any later actor knew of the contact | FBI records, FOIA/Privacy Act responses, HPD CAD/dispatch logs, shift or assignment records, event and citation records, bodycam or in-car video, contemporaneous notes, witness records |
| 2021-2022 | Stonefish Grill drug-distribution reports; Starbucks physical assault; vehicle intimidation and vehicle-threat incidents at Malama Marketplace, Breakers/North Shore Marketplace, and Waialua Beach Road; September 12, 2022 PaaLaa Road report in which the same witness accelerated from behind, crossed the double yellow line toward me, narrowly missed me, returned to the travel lane, and raced off; July 24, 2022 cease-and-desist email; September 16, 2022 TRO submission; September 19-22, 2022 harassment and the alleged deceptive reversal of service status: Shatoo told me service had occurred; Brandt later represented otherwise; HPD safety advice to avoid PaaLaa Road; HPD investigated the Starbucks assault and referred it to prosecutors; no prosecution of the defendant resulted from my reports | Firsthand account plus HPD report existence where available | HPD reports including 22-353421 and 22-365099 if produced, TRO-service records, emails, photos, dispatch/CAD records, bodycam, in-car video, and any surveillance video if preserved | Completeness of investigation, reasons for the charging outcomes, TRO-service handling, whether encounters were routine/coincidental or threatening, and what records show about intake and closure | HPD records, TRO-service records, dispatch/CAD logs, 911 audio, bodycam, in-car video, surveillance video, witness interviews, emails, photos, report files, closure notes |
| 2022 | “Federal buddy” statement and HPD allowed-threat statement | Firsthand account | Any logs, bodycam, witnesses, or contemporaneous notes if obtained | What the statements meant, whether an actual relationship existed, and what response followed | Witness interviews, call logs, bodycam, dispatch records, report-intake records, internal-affairs files |
| Undated; recalled as after September 12, 2022 | An HPD detective said, in substance, that I had been paid roughly $200 under the table and would not pay tax on it; the man I reported had never paid me | Firsthand recollection; earlier-case influence is inference | No independent call record identified; contact notes or logs if obtained | Date, detective, report assignment, who said I had been paid, any earlier-case access or prejudice, and effect on handling | Report 22-353421 as a starting locator, linked reports, investigator contact and assignment notes, debt correspondence, supervisory reviews, any retained phone or database-query logs, expungement certificate and court orders |
| Before the December 2022 hearing; precise date not identified | An HPD desk sergeant first acknowledged something in my report, then suggested possible contrary information; no actual contrary report or witness was identified in the exchange | Firsthand recollection; acknowledgment of potentially criminal conduct is my understanding | Police intake or supervisor records and any retained recording if obtained | Whether the suggestion referred to an actual account, what it contradicted, and what displaced the initially acknowledged concern | Report 22-353421 and supplements, CAD/RMS history, supervisor notes, witness statements, station recording or bodycam if retained |
| December 2, 2022 | The wider hearing account covers my interrupted harassment evidence; The Nod holds the separate courtroom sequence | Firsthand account plus sealed-record-dependent evidence | Complete audio can test presentation and interruptions; court file can show submissions, exhibits, and findings | Treatment of my evidence of stalking, assault, and vehicle attacks; visual signal, line of sight, and participant understanding | Complete audio, petition, declarations, exhibit history, rulings, findings, and eyewitness review |
| After 2022 | Brandt prevented another officer from receiving my earlier Hartmann-threat report; separate from the September 20, 2022 response | Firsthand account | Police intake and assignment records if obtained | What was reported, who was present, what Brandt did, and what records were created or omitted | CAD/dispatch, officer assignments, intake records, officer notes, retained bodycam, supervisor and complaint records |
| 2023-2026 | Platform recommendations, surfaced content sequences, and Bing/indexing issues | Firsthand account for platform observations; technical exhibits for Bing where documented | Screenshots, webmaster diagnostics, data exports if preserved | Mechanism and whether ordinary platform behavior explains it | Platform logs, data exports, ad-delivery records, reproducible technical tests |
Scope Boundaries
This chronology follows the prosecution, threats, Kanemoto’s mock-pistol closing, unanswered complaints, and efforts to preserve evidence. It explains the circumstances in which I made my reports.
It separates that context from article-specific evidentiary claims. Coordination by a single group, knowledge among named people, and causal significance of withheld background, employment overlap, geographic proximity, media silence, or celebrity proximity require records or testimony beyond the chronology itself.
My interpretation is part of the account. Records are needed to test it.
What Would Test It
The remaining record questions include:
- What do the grand-jury materials where available, indictment materials, trial transcripts, exhibits, attorney files, and accounting records show?
- Was an out-of-state law-enforcement investigator formally involved, and what records document the role?
- What record exists of the “colonoscopy” statement?
- What police, attorney, or agency reports exist for the Hartmann threat and related pressure?
- What does Audrey L.E. Stanley’s representation file show about the pretrial quoted threat report, the leave-Hawaiʻi concept, written terms, advice, preservation, and any supervisor consultation?
- What advice did assigned counsel give about intimidation, reporting, safety, preservation, or legal remedies?
- What did the trial judge do after the two-handed mock-pistol sequence, and what was preserved?
- What witnesses, notes, messages, or date/location records exist for the summer 2019 Glazers/Haleiwa exchange with Kanemoto?
- What FBI intake or agent notes, online-report records, correspondence, case or referral records, HPD CAD/dispatch logs, event numbers, unit IDs, citation records, bodycam or in-car video, or FOIA/Privacy Act responses exist for the Spring 2021 federal contact and the Malama Market HPD response?
- What HPD reports, TRO-service records, dispatch/CAD logs, 911 audio, bodycam, in-car video, surveillance video, emails, photos, witness records, report files, or closure notes exist for the 2021-2022 assault, vehicle-threat, harassment, and TRO-service sequence involving the redacted witness, including HPD reports 22-353421 and 22-365099, and what do they show about investigation and disposition?
- What bodycam, dispatch, CAD, report-intake, officer-note, or internal-affairs records exist for the Officer Brandt intake event and the HPD statements?
- What platform data exports, ad-delivery records, support tickets, or reproducible tests exist for the recommendation sequences?
- What does the sealed December 2, 2022 audio show about timing?
- What does the sealed text exhibit show about the LSD question predicate?
- What did the witness and Petricevic see, hear, and understand?
This chronology shows why the questions exist and identifies the records-first investigations that should test them.
Sources and Notes
Hawaiʻi State Judiciary, First Circuit Per Diem Judges (Oʻahu), lists Audrey L.E. Stanley with an asterisk identifying Family Court per diem judges. (archival copy) Judicial Selection Commission, Second Circuit judicial nominees, September 13, 2021, lists Audrey L. E. Stanley as a nominee. (archival copy) Attorney-directory profiles use Audrey L. Stanley (FindLaw) and Audrey Lani Ehrhorn Stanley (Martindale-Hubbell). FindLaw displays an update date of March 3, 2026; Martindale-Hubbell lists Hawaiʻi admission in 2009. Stanley’s 2024 judicial financial disclosure, filed April 21, 2025, lists September 23, 2024 as the date of her per diem Family Court appointment on page 1. These sources establish professional listings, name variants, and the disclosed appointment date; they do not corroborate the client conversations described here. Listings accessed October 6, 2026; financial disclosure accessed October 7, 2026. ↩︎