The Courtroom Sequence
The December 2, 2022 hearing in the First Circuit Court in Honolulu was recorded by audio only. I appeared pro se; Bosko Petricevic represented the redacted witness. The signal described below is my firsthand visual observation; the sealed audio can test the spoken sequence.
The question before the sworn witness, (redacted), was whether he had furnished me LSD. I asked slowly and deliberately, using the full term lysergic acid diethylamide.
The evidence was already in the file. I submitted a text message to the court in which I told (redacted), “I took the acid.” Authorized review of the sealed court file could independently confirm the exhibit and establish what documentary evidence was available to Loo. The message and surrounding evidence supplied the context for my question about whether the witness had furnished that acid to me.
When the question was asked, I saw Judge Loo turn from me toward the witness and signal with his head: No, with a nose-scrunching, lip-pursing expression. Petricevic was seated facing the bench. I saw both him and the witness looking toward Loo. What they perceived and understood remains unresolved.
The expression struck me as casual and familiar, closer to we’re in agreement or not you than to a detached judicial reaction or sharp disbelief shake. I understood the signal as giving the answer for the witness. These are my interpretations of what I saw; they do not establish prior agreement or Loo’s intent.
(Redacted) then denied furnishing LSD. Whether that denial constituted perjury is a question for investigation or adjudication.
I immediately tried to put the signal on the record: “Let the record show that the judge just—”. Loo cut me off, shouting, “Nah ah ah enough out of you!!”
My allegation is judicial interference with sworn testimony and interruption of my contemporaneous attempt to preserve the record.
Motive is unresolved. My inference is that, in Hawaii’s legal ecosystem, social position and credibility framing can affect who receives deference.
The text-message exhibit and sworn denial remain in the sealed court record. Audio-only recording left the visual signal outside that recording, and the cutoff stopped my immediate description. Sealing restricted access to the aftermath. The Loo overview holds the police responses, Commission dispositions, and Ethics Commission inquiry.
The Separate Hearing Issue
Loo also cut off my explanation of the stalking, assault, and vehicle attacks; the overview sets out that account and the court’s duty to receive relevant evidence.
Competing Factual Accounts and Limits
The serious defenses are factual. A participant could deny that the gesture occurred. A witness could say the movement was ambiguous. A lawyer could say he did not see it or did not understand it as a signal. A judge could defend the cutoff as ordinary courtroom control. An investigator could conclude that the audio-only limitation makes the visual report hard to corroborate.
Those accounts must be tested against the evidence. Intent and the legal requirements for any violation remain separate from whether the gesture occurred.
Records Needed
The sealed audio and court file can test the question, answer, attempted record statement, cutoff, sealing sequence, and text-message exhibit. Eyewitness accounts and courtroom layout can test the signal and opportunity to see it. A materially different recording or exhibit, or credible contrary eyewitness evidence, would change the assessment. The weight of any account, including a participant’s denial, depends on specificity, line of sight, consistency with the audio and court file, and independent support. The Loo overview holds the full hearing and reporting history; The Two Questions sets out the investigative steps.
Further Analysis
The Loo overview examines the hearing rights at stake. The Reporting Duty develops the conditional federal criminal analysis, including Section 242 and United States v. Lanier, separately from this account of the event.
— Ekewaka Lono, 12 February 2026