The Information Trail: Open Questions from 2015–2022

Open Investigation / Working Theories
This investigation brings together my account of the 2015–2022 events and the available records. It asks what each person knew, where they learned it, and which records could distinguish the possible explanations.

The companion articles examine different parts of the history. Before the Tax Office covers the pre-indictment housing and information-flow history. The Threat Report covers the Hartmann death threat and Audrey Stanley’s¹ handling of my report. The Hypothetical Gun covers the prosecutor’s closing. The Defense Table Went Quiet audits the defense representation and the chambers-to-plea sequence. The Nod holds the December 2, 2022 courtroom account; The Reporting Duty examines Rule 8.3(b).

This article asks whether information from the earlier events reached people involved later, and whether their decisions reflected shared knowledge or separate interests.

Evidence-State Classification

Firsthand events, identified records, inferences, and working theories are labeled throughout, following the editorial standards. A repeated firsthand account remains one source; corroboration requires another record or witness.

Part I — The 2015–2017 Chronology and Framing Question

The chronology below separates what I witnessed from the explanations I am testing. My frame-up theory is that the tax-office confrontation became the vehicle for an adverse account of me while the lethal threat against me remained outside my trial testimony. The sequence examines information flow, professional incentives, and local decisions; the proposed connection must be tested against actor-specific records.

Solid arrows mark the sequence and Yuen’s presence at both relevant points. Dashed arrows mark hypotheses about framing, transmission, or influence; they do not establish that the North Jersey background reached Kanemoto or affected closing.

1. Tax Office, Investigator, Prior Information

The criminal case began with an unrecorded November 2015 confrontation between me and tax clerk Young Kwak. Kwak demanded about seven times what I owed and threatened that leaving would mean dealing with someone who “wasn’t nice.” His later accusation about what I said was false.

After the tax-office encounter and, according to my current recollection, before the grand-jury accusation, I met with James Yuen and a man I understood to be, and identify as, a New Jersey State Police organized-crime investigator. Agency records have not yet confirmed that status. Yuen stood beside the man when he demonstrated knowledge of my childhood associates, invoked their organized-crime associations, and said he would give me a “colonoscopy.”

I later personally observed Yuen working directly with Vincent Kanemoto in trial preparation. My firsthand account places Yuen at both relevant points. The inference concerns whether, and if so what, North Jersey background information traveled through that relationship to Kanemoto, and whether any such information influenced closing.

Yuen’s presence at both points identifies a relationship to examine. Investigator-to-prosecutor communication may have been routine; its contents and any influence on the closing argument are the questions to test.

The investigator may have entered the encounter with a preexisting adverse characterization derived from earlier social, law-enforcement, or institutional history. The present record does not establish the contents or provenance of that characterization. The investigative question is whether such prior framing affected how later allegations were evaluated.

If the investigator possessed and credited an adverse prior characterization, the hypothesis is that he became more likely to accept the later allegation. That proposed effect can be expressed as:

Here, \(P_I\) denotes the investigator’s subjective probability assignment, \(A\) the later allegation, and \(B_{\text{adverse}}\) an adverse prior characterization. The inequality expresses the hypothesis, not a calculated result. The present record does not establish what background information he possessed, whether he credited it, or whether it changed his assessment.

What background information did the investigator have before meeting me, where did it come from, and what did he pass on?

The timing of Kwak’s accusation matters separately. The present record does not establish when Kwak first made the accusation later presented to the grand jury. If the same accusation predates the investigator encounter, that encounter cannot explain the allegation’s origin; it could still matter to later adoption, reinforcement, escalation, or framing. What is the earliest timestamped version of Kwak’s accusation, and did it precede or follow the investigator encounter? The same question applies to any later institutional summary derived from that encounter.

The State did not put Kwak’s charging accusation before the trial jury or play the distress recordings; Kwak instead gave the false form account. The Hypothetical Gun examines that change in presentation. The Defense Table Went Quiet follows counsel’s handling of the witness, scene evidence, and advice through the decisions after chambers.

2. The Hartmann Threat and the Missing Counter-Record

Gene and Rita Hartmann threatened me with death while I was under indictment. I understood the warning as pressure against my defense investigation and disclosure. Gene knew of the case and investigation. The Threat Report holds the words, context, following-day exchange, and each speaker’s unresolved knowledge and intent.

3. Audrey Stanley: Threat Report and Departure Proposal

Stanley interrupted and dismissed my report, then later relayed a tentative leave-Hawaiʻi concept she made clear came from the prosecution, not from her. The Hartmanns’ separate suggestion that I leave and the concept Stanley relayed both pressed me toward departure. I observed no coordination. The Threat Report examines her handling and the specific originator, form, and any terms of the proposal.

4. Pretrial Warning: Stop Talking

In May or June 2017, shortly before trial, a man I identify as “Kevin” approached me outside Kahala Whole Foods. The man described himself as an associate of the public figure and spouse, invoked a prominent technology investor’s name, and threatened career destruction if I kept talking about the Hartmann threat and related events.

He told me to stop talking about what happened. The approaching trial was the forum in which the account could enter a durable public record.

5. Mock Pistol and Role Inversion

I testified at trial but omitted the Hartmann death threat after Kevin’s warning and Retained Trial Counsel’s advice against including it. The Defense Table Went Quiet holds the account of that advice and my decision.

In closing, prosecutor Vincent Kanemoto acknowledged that no gun was involved and then used a two-handed mock-pistol gesture while asking jurors to imagine a gun and convict.

Editorial reconstruction based on my firsthand account of the 2017 closing argument, not a photograph or courtroom recording. The gun-shaped shadow is a visual metaphor. The Hypothetical Gun examines the gesture and the closing-argument record.

The frame-up theory reads that sequence as a role inversion:

• the actual lethal threat reported by me stayed outside my testimony;
• the prosecutor introduced an imaginary weapon during closing;
• I, the defendant who reported being threatened, was visually cast as the armed danger.

The contrast concerns the surviving record: the accusation against me entered the prosecution, while the Hartmann death threat remained absent from my testimony. The question is whether that difference affected later decisions and, if so, through what information.

The judge immediately called counsel into chambers. What they discussed and decided remains a separate question.

I also recall the judge instructing the jury to disregard the mock-pistol episode. The Hypothetical Gun examines that response; the transcript should establish the wording and timing.

Part II — The 2017 Chambers Game

The Defense Table Went Quiet contains the primary factual and conflict analysis. This section lays out the broader game-theoretic model, which examines how common knowledge and aligned incentives can favor the same outcome without an express agreement.

After the closing and immediate chambers conference, counsel pressed the petty-misdemeanor plea while the jury continued deciding the felony case. I refused. The jury hung, counsel expected another trial, and the State then declined to retry. The records could establish what remedies the lawyers considered, when the plea became available, and why each decision followed.

What the Lawyers Knew

Let:

The judge called chambers immediately after the closing:

The judge, prosecutor, and defense lawyer saw the closing and the judge’s immediate response. Each knew the others had seen it too.

Containment hypothesis: The lawyers understood \(M\) to include possible mistrial, preservation, professional-responsibility, or other remedial exposure.

I knew less than the lawyers about the legal consequences:

I saw the gesture and the judge’s reaction. The lawyers possessed the professional knowledge needed to value mistrial, preservation, curative relief, appellate consequences, disciplinary exposure, plea leverage, and retrial cost.

The converging incentives

Ending the case could serve different interests.

Prosecutor: an accepted plea secures a conviction and avoids mistrial, retrial, and continued courtroom scrutiny of the closing. After a hung jury, declining retrial could also avoid further courtroom scrutiny, but would leave the State without a conviction.

Defense counsel: an accepted plea ends a case that could otherwise continue into another felony trial. Under the reported retainer, retrial compensation was undefined. If counsel received no additional compensation, retrial would impose a direct personal cost.

Judge: lawful finality avoids the costs and uncertainty of mistrial and retrial, while the judge’s duty remains correct administration of the proceeding. Whether finality influenced what occurred in chambers remains an investigative question.

Client: I had denied Kwak’s accusation and wanted the jury to finish. That objective could conflict with a lawyer’s preference for ending the case by plea. My later insistence does not establish what remedies counsel had explained after chambers.

Shared awareness of the decision point and aligned incentives can favor the same outcome without an express bargain.

The possible transfer of value

A petty-misdemeanor disposition represents a prosecutorial concession relative to the felony conviction sought at trial. Its provenance remains unresolved.

The offer’s timing could distinguish three possibilities:

An unchanged earlier offer, \(P_1\), would weigh against the claim that the closing caused the concession. A revived offer, \(P_2\), would show that an existing plea was pressed again after chambers. A new or improved offer, \(P_3\), would give investigators a change to examine alongside the chambers discussion. The timing alone would not establish why it changed.

The veto player

The plea still required my consent.

I refused.

That makes the reported pressure after refusal central to the model. The prosecutor can concede. Counsel can recommend. The judge can accept the disposition. Only I could decide whether to accept the plea.

On the courthouse bench, I prayed and refused the plea. Counsel dismissed my prayer and kept pressing. He was trying to change the decision that remained mine to make.

The jury hung without reaching a verdict. Counsel immediately told me another trial would follow. About a day later, counsel called back pleased and said Kanemoto was “spooked” and would not retry.

The State obtained no conviction and did not retry the case. I later obtained an expungement.

My working theory is that concern about the mock-pistol closing and its potential consequences influenced the State’s decision to end the prosecution without a conviction. Who authorized that decision, what Kanemoto recommended, what reasons were recorded, and what the prosecution told counsel remain unresolved.

Counsel did not advise me that I could bring the prosecutor’s conduct to a disciplinary authority. More fundamentally, I question whether professional relationships or an interest in ending the case influenced the remedies he considered, the information he conveyed, or his continued plea pressure. The issue is whether his independent judgment remained directed toward my interests.² The chambers record, communications, and counsel’s file could answer that question. Ending the prosecution did not adjudicate the professional-conduct questions surrounding the trial.

Part III — Information Provenance: Who Knew What

The table below separates established knowledge, possible access routes, evidence of actual transmission, and the records that could decide each question.

A job title or professional history can suggest where to look for information. Establishing that someone actually received it requires communications, access records, or testimony.

Part IV — Later Events: H0–H4

The later events include assault complaints, TRO handling, HPD report numbers 22-353421 and 22-365099, the desk-sergeant exchange, an undated detective call I recall as after the PaaLaa Road incident, the December 2, 2022 Wilson Loo hearing, and the later attempt to put the Hartmann threat into an HPD record.

The theories are ordered by how much information movement and shared purpose each requires.

H0 — Local Decisions

Each later episode arose from its immediate circumstances. Police, court personnel, counsel, and witnesses acted on local facts and local incentives. The 2015–2017 history played no meaningful causal role.

Predictions: later files contain no imported background characterization, no specific knowledge of the earlier prosecution beyond what I myself supplied, and reasons for the contested decisions arising from local circumstances rather than the 2015–2017 history. H0 does not require innocent conduct: deliberate wrongdoing in 2022 for reasons arising entirely within that proceeding remains compatible with this hypothesis.

H1 — Repeat-Player Convergence

Different actors acted for their own local reasons—docket management, relationship preservation, workload, reputational protection, complaint disposal, or deference to familiar professionals—and repeatedly selected options that reduced scrutiny or moved matters toward closure.

This theory requires no transmission of the earlier case. It is the later-event analogue of the 2017 chambers game.

Predictions: records show independent reasons for each act, with similar closure-oriented outputs and no common source of adverse information.

H2 — Inherited Framing

A generalized adverse characterization moved through formal or informal channels. Later actors may have acted on that characterization without knowing where it originated or how complete it was.

The concrete formation mechanism is prior framing: a decision-maker receives background information before evaluating a later ambiguous event, and that information shapes the initial interpretation. The present record does not establish the contents or provenance of any such characterization.

Páez and Matida’s editorial synthesis of epistemic injustice in criminal procedure identifies distorted credibility allocation and impaired testimonial participation as distinct problems: assumptions about a speaker or institutional authority can affect how evidence is received.³ For H2, the decisive question is whether a prior characterization reached later decision-makers and altered their evaluation of the evidence before them.

Predictions: intake notes, summaries, emails, case-management fields, or informal messages contain an imported characterization or background information that predates the later event.

H3 — Specific Information Transmission

Particular facts from the 2015–2017 prosecution or threat history reached one or more later actors before they handled the 2021–2022 matters.

Predictions: communications, access records, notes, or witnesses show that a later actor possessed details that cannot be explained by the ordinary 2022 filings alone.

H4 — Knowing Containment

Later actors knew enough about earlier irregularities to understand that new records, testimony, or review could reopen damaging questions, and they acted to prevent or blunt that exposure.

Predictions: knowledge of the earlier history appears together with conduct targeted at record creation, preservation, intake, or review; the actor’s response changes specifically when the older exposure comes into view.

Different episodes may belong at different levels. Each event needs to be examined on its own evidence before drawing a conclusion about the whole sequence.

Part V — The Records to Obtain First

An unrecovered communication proves neither transmission nor independence. Its evidentiary value depends on whether the relevant repository was identified, the record was retained, access was possible, and the search was complete.

The mock-pistol closing and the courtroom account in The Nod raise distinct preservation questions: what each recording captured, and whether visual conduct was described contemporaneously. A verbal record’s silence about a gesture cannot resolve whether it occurred.

1. Petty-Misdemeanor Offer Provenance

Question: When did the offer originate or materially improve? Did the change occur in or immediately after the mock-pistol chambers conference?

Records: prosecution plea log; prosecutor notes; defense file; emails/texts; any on-record plea discussion; chambers reconstruction.

Why it matters: A new or improved offer after chambers would give investigators a concession to examine alongside that discussion.

2. Defense Counsel’s Chambers and Remedy File

Question: What remedies were discussed after the closing? How did counsel assess the instruction I recall and the need for further relief? What did he tell me about mistrial, preservation, leverage, and the plea? Did he evaluate his own reporting duty concerning the conduct he witnessed? What did he expect a retrial to require financially and professionally?

Records: retainer; counsel notes; conflict check; client communications; strategy notes; billing; withdrawal analysis; any reporting or consultation records lawfully available.

Why it matters: Could establish whether counsel’s advice served my interests and whether financial or professional interests affected his assessment of remedies, the information he supplied, or his plea pressure. His own reporting duty is separate from whether he told me I could file a complaint.

3. Prosecutor’s Closing and No-Retrial File

Question: Who developed or reviewed the mock-pistol argument? What, if anything, did James Yuen communicate to Vincent Kanemoto during trial preparation about the North Jersey childhood-associate or organized-crime background invoked in Yuen’s presence in 2015? Did any such information influence closing? What happened after chambers? Did the incident affect the plea’s availability, terms, or urgency? After the jury hung, who authorized the decision not to retry? What did Kanemoto recommend, and what reasons were recorded? Did concern about scrutiny of the closing or professional consequences enter that decision? What communication prompted counsel’s “spooked” description?

Records: Yuen’s investigator file and notes; communications with Kanemoto; investigator briefings; materials supplied and witness-preparation records; prosecution trial-preparation notes; supervisory review; plea records; retrial recommendations, authorization, and recorded reasons; communications with defense counsel.

Why it matters: Tests the specific Yuen–Kanemoto transmission route and any influence on closing. The plea records and retrial-decision records separately test whether concern about the closing influenced either route to ending the prosecution.

4. Investigator Identity, Background Provenance, and Kwak Directionality

Question: Who was the man I understood and identify as an NJSP investigator, and what agency records confirm his status and assignment? What background information or characterization did he possess before meeting me? Where did it come from, how was it summarized, and what did he transmit afterward? What is the earliest timestamped version of Kwak’s accusation, and did it precede or follow the investigator encounter?

Records: identity and assignment records; travel authorizations; task-force logs; background materials; interview notes; earliest tax-office complaint or accusation record; HPD/NJSP liaison records; onward communications.

Why it matters: Separates investigator identity from inference, tests whether preexisting framing entered the investigation, and determines whether the encounter could bear on origin or only on later adoption, reinforcement, escalation, or framing.

5. Kwak Trial-Testimony and Booth Reconstruction

Questions: When does the form description first appear, and is it present before witness preparation? How does Kwak’s trial account differ from earlier accounts? Which recordings were presented to the grand jury, which reached the defense, and why did the State omit the charging accusation and distress recordings at trial? What alternatives to introducing that material did counsel investigate and pursue? Who prepared the booth diagram, and what foundation, scale, or measurements supported it? What did the actual booth look like and measure? What did Retained Trial Counsel document about my photograph request and immediate statement that Kwak testified falsely?

Records: complete trial transcript; grand-jury transcript and exhibits; distress recordings and discovery disclosures; earliest complaint; Yuen interview notes; witness-preparation notes; prosecution file; diagram or demonstrative; exhibit list; foundation testimony; photographs; measurements; facility plans; defense file, admissibility rulings, and client communications.

Why it matters: Tests whether the jury received a verbally and visually sanitized account of the booth encounter, whether those representations existed in earlier records or emerged during preparation, and what counsel did to correct or contextualize the picture. A detail’s later appearance identifies a point for investigation; authorship and knowledge require the underlying records. The Hypothetical Gun examines the prosecution’s presentation; The Defense Table Went Quiet examines counsel’s response.

6. What Loo Knew Before the Hearing

Question: What information about me reached Loo or chambers before the December 2, 2022 hearing?

Records: pre-hearing submissions; chambers correspondence; staff communications; conference notes; court-file access.

Why it matters: Separates H0/H1 from H2/H3/H4 for the signaling episode.

Historical professional-network research into Loo’s 1980–1984 organized-crime work becomes useful once an actor-specific bridge appears. Pre-hearing information is the immediate question.

The Loo overview separately examines his interruption of my presentation of stalking, assault, and vehicle attacks and identifies the court records needed to review that conduct.

7. Petricevic Earlier-Case Exposure

Question: Did Bosko Petricevic encounter my earlier case or related information while serving in the Hawaiʻi Department of the Attorney General from 2013–2019?

Records: correspondence; conflict logs; case-management access; personnel/task assignments; later representation file.

Why it matters: Tests one concrete transmission route into the 2022 proceeding.

8. Leave-Hawaiʻi Proposal Source

Question: Who within the prosecution originated the departure proposal, what did Stanley receive, was it a proffered plea bargain or an informal concept, and what did she explain to me about its terms and effect on the case?

Records: Public Defender file; supervisor notes; plea correspondence; prosecutor communications; any written terms; client-advice notes.

Why it matters: Establishes the proposal’s source and form; tests whether private pressure and institutional resolution shared an information source.

9. HPD Service, Intake, and Alleged Contrary Information

Question: What did HPD do with reports 22-353421 and 22-365099 and the later attempt to report the Hartmann threat? What actual evidence supported the desk sergeant’s suggestion of a contrary account? Where did the detective get the claim that I had received the unpaid $200, and did the earlier tax-office accusation prejudice his response to the vehicle attack?

Records: CAD/RMS histories; reports 22-353421 and 22-365099 and supplements; linked reports; service records; intake, officer, investigator-contact and assignment notes; debt-collection correspondence; witness statements; BWC audit trails and retained station recordings; supervisory workflow and classification history; credibility assessments and closure or declination notes; any retained phone or criminal-history query logs; the earlier case’s disposition records, expungement certificate, and court orders; and the reporting policies applicable to the 2022 handling.

Why it matters: Tests H0–H4 by identifying what police knew and where they learned it. The records could identify a contrary witness, the source of the detective’s tax remark, and any use of the earlier accusation to judge my complaint. Earlier information used to assess the later report could support H2 or H3, depending on its content; H4 requires evidence of knowing containment. See the desk-sergeant account and detective-call inquiry.

Compare the dates of earlier-case access, transmitted summaries, intake notes, and communications with the first recorded credibility assessments of the later reports. Establish whether a characterization arrived before the assessment, who received it, and whether contemporaneous reasons show that it influenced the decision. Access alone does not establish use.

10. Technical-Community Transmission

Question: Did my defense-related inquiries inside the withheld technical community propagate to outside actors before the Hartmann threat?

Records: dated email lists, board correspondence, private chats, witness testimony.

Why it matters: Tests one proposed route into the private-pressure sequence.

What the Missing Records Could Establish

The 2015–2017 investigation asks how Kwak’s accusation developed and whether background raised during the investigator encounter reached the trial prosecutor. I received a death threat but did not testify about it. Kanemoto then supplied an imaginary gun at closing. After the judge called chambers, counsel pressed a petty-misdemeanor plea that I refused.

The later investigation asks whether earlier information reached people handling my reports, whether separate interests produced similar outcomes, or whether particular participants acted knowingly to prevent review. Communications and dated records could establish who knew what, when they learned it, and how their decisions followed. Each theory needs evidence of those events and connections.

Cross-Examination and Reference Map

• Earlier Chronology: Before the Tax Office: The Housing-to-Haleiwa Record
• Trial Closing Argument: The Hypothetical Gun: The Closing-Argument Record
• Trial Counsel / Chambers Game: The Defense Table Went Quiet
• Counsel and Threat Handling: The Threat Report
• Judicial Conduct and Rule 8.3(b): The Reporting Duty
• Courtroom Line of Sight and Sealing: The Lawyer in the Room

Sources and Notes