The Two Questions: How One Interview Could Test the Wilson Loo Case

Interview the witness, retrieve the sealed audio and exhibit, and compare the accounts of the people present. This memo sets out two lines of questioning to test the December 2, 2022 hearing described in The Nod. The audio can test the spoken sequence; eyewitness evidence must test the gesture.

The review path involving retired Judge Wilson M.N. Loo turns on the cooperation of one person: ████████████. ████████████ is the witness reported to have received the nonverbal signal. He is also the person whose prior conduct — specifically, his reported role as an intermediary in LSD distribution on the North Shore — created the factual predicate at issue in the courtroom question. The predicate came from my account, prior law-enforcement reports, and the sealed court exhibit described below.

Investigators should weigh ████████████’s account against motive, specificity, line of sight, the sealed audio sequence, and the court file. Truthful corroboration, combined with the sealed audio recording of Loo cutting off my objection as petitioner, could allow investigators to evaluate the elements of 18 U.S.C. § 242 — deprivation of rights under color of law. Judges can be prosecuted under § 242: the Supreme Court unanimously confirmed this in United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997). The harder issue is whether these specific facts meet § 242’s willfulness requirement and Lanier’s fair-warning standard — that the unlawfulness of the conduct must be “apparent” in light of pre-existing law. Judicial immunity — a defense to civil suits — has no application to criminal prosecution.

████████████’s testimony could help test the Section 242 theory and the separate Hawaiʻi false-testimony questions. His answers would need to be assessed against the sealed audio, the exhibit, and the other evidence.

The Evidence Trail

In 2021, at Stonefish Grill in Haleʻiwa, ████████████ received LSD from a woman and subsequently provided it to me. This exchange occurred inside the restaurant. Security footage, if preserved, could corroborate it.

In the same location’s parking lot, I sat in the back seat of ████████████’s ███████ while a man in the passenger seat presented approximately 100 LSD tabs and provided one to me.

I supplied this information to law enforcement. I reported ████████████’s activities on three separate occasions, through three separate channels, before and after the Wilson Loo trial:

None of these reports produced communicated action. Intake, assignment, preservation, and disposition records could establish what review occurred and why no action was communicated. I identified the location, act, and individual in my pre-hearing reports. Dated intake records can independently corroborate that chronology; interviews and sealed-record review could test the dispute.

Under 21 U.S.C. § 841, a distribution charge requires proof of knowing or intentional distribution of a controlled substance. The encounters provide facts to investigate; the substance’s identity and the participants’ knowledge or intent require evidence. Federal investigators must assess the applicable limitation periods as well as the offense elements before using possible Section 841 exposure to seek the witness’s cooperation.

Stonefish Grill security footage, if preserved, could corroborate a physical transfer, the people involved, the location, and the sequence. Video alone would not ordinarily establish that the transferred substance was LSD. Its identity and the participants’ knowledge or intent would require other evidence. If the footage no longer exists, I still reported the location, act, and individual before the hearing described in The Nod.

The Two Questions

A federal agent needs to interview ████████████ and ask two lines of questions.

Line of Questioning 1 — The LSD Distribution

Question 1A: Did you receive LSD from a woman at Stonefish Grill in Hale’iwa in 2021 and then provide it to me?

Question 1B: In the Stonefish Grill parking lot, did I sit in the back seat of your ███████ while a man in your passenger seat presented approximately 100 LSD tabs and provided one to me?

Answers about both encounters would help investigators evaluate the participants’ conduct, knowledge, and potential exposure under 21 U.S.C. § 841. The text message in the sealed court file (“I took the acid”), if it reads as described, could corroborate the account; the substance’s identity and the required state of mind still need proof. This leads to the second line of questioning, concerning Wilson Loo.

Line of Questioning 2 — The Courtroom Conduct

Question 2: During your cross-examination in the Loo proceeding, when you were asked whether you furnished LSD to me, did Judge Loo nod “no” to you immediately before you denied it?

If ████████████ answers yes, investigators could evaluate the elements of 18 U.S.C. § 242 — deprivation of rights under color of law — as follows:

• Under color of law. Loo was presiding as a Per Diem District Judge. He administered the oath, ruled on objections, and ordered the case sealed. This element is not contested.
• Willful deprivation of a constitutional right. This is the hardest element. The government would need to prove Loo acted with “specific intent to deprive a person of a federal right made definite by decision or other rule of law” (Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945)). The interference and interrupted preservation described in The Nod supply the factual premises to test against the sealed audio and eyewitness accounts. Whether the witness’s denial was knowingly false is a separate question; the judicial-interference inquiry does not depend on first proving perjury. The inference of willfulness rests on the totality: the exhibit was in the court file, while Loo’s actual knowledge of its contents remains to be established, the interruption prevented the objection from being recorded, and the case was subsequently sealed. A jury would weigh whether this pattern reflects willful interference with a party’s right to be heard or routine courtroom control.
• A right made definite by prior law. Under Lanier’s fair-warning standard, the violated right must be “apparent” in light of pre-existing law. The right to be heard and the right to an impartial tribunal are “basic requirement[s] of due process” (In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955)), and procedural due process requires “notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner” (Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)). These are the clearly established rights on which the §242 theory relies; whether the specific alleged conduct had sufficiently clear fair warning under Lanier remains a legal question.

The Supreme Court unanimously confirmed in United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997) that 18 U.S.C. § 242 applies to state judges acting under color of law. Judicial immunity — a defense to civil suits — has no application to criminal prosecution.

Even if ████████████ declines to confirm the nod, the sealed audio recording is represented as capturing Loo cutting off my objection as petitioner — evidence from which investigators could evaluate whether Loo deprived a party of the right to be heard or engaged in ordinary courtroom control. The audio is sealed; investigators would need to obtain it through appropriate legal process. The reported nod strengthens the theory if corroborated. The audio anchors the sequence.

If the witness corroborates the account, the factual dispute changes. It becomes a case that turns on how his account fits the sealed audio, the court file, the exhibit, and any other witness testimony. Credible contrary eyewitness evidence materially inconsistent with the reported sequence would weaken the allegation. The purpose of questioning is to test the account against the sealed audio, exhibit, courtroom layout, and other testimony.

Why This Witness

████████████ is a central interview subject: he gave the disputed sworn answer and may have seen the reported signal.

The Commission’s former-judge jurisdictional limit does not resolve his testimony. The audio and exhibit remain sealed and require authorized access.

The sworn denial presents a Hawaiʻi perjury question. If it was materially false, made in an official proceeding under an oath required or authorized by law, and the witness did not believe it to be true, it could satisfy HRS §710-1060. The prior LSD encounters also raise the separate Section 841 questions about knowing or intentional distribution and the substance’s identity. I supplied the encounters to federal and local law enforcement through the reports I filed. Any surviving footage could corroborate the physical transfer, but would not alone establish every element of either offense.

████████████’s transactions and sworn denial warrant questioning. Any current prosecutorial exposure requires separate limitations analysis. A federal investigator would not need to accept my interpretation to ask ordinary questions, compare the answers against the sealed record, and determine whether the witness’s account is corroborated, contradicted, or incomplete.

A Separate Hawaiʻi False-Testimony Question

HRS §710-1072 prohibits intentionally engaging in conduct to induce a witness in an official proceeding to testify falsely. This witness-tampering provision was in force in 2022 and does not require completed perjury. If the witness’s sworn denial constituted perjury under HRS §710-1060, HRS §702-222 could also apply to a person who, with the intent to promote or facilitate that offense, solicited, aided, agreed to aid, or attempted to aid its commission. Mere presence or knowledge would not establish that intent.

The conduct documented in The Nod does not by itself establish what Loo believed about the underlying LSD transaction. These state-law theories remain secondary investigative questions. The questions are what information he possessed before the answer, whether he believed the contemplated denial was false, and whether his signal was intended to induce false testimony or promote or facilitate perjury. The exhibit, pre-hearing submissions, records of court-file access, any staff or chambers records, and testimony from people present could bear on those questions.

What a Negative Answer Would and Would Not Settle

If ████████████ denies receiving LSD, furnishing LSD, or seeing Judge Loo signal, the investigation would not automatically end. A denial would be evidence. Its weight would depend on specificity, consistency with the sealed text exhibit, consistency with the sealed audio sequence, any available Stonefish Grill footage or retention records, and testimony from other people present.

A negative answer would weaken the case if it is specific, record-consistent, and independently supported. Credible contrary eyewitness evidence materially inconsistent with the reported sequence would weaken the allegation. It would not settle whether the audio captures the attempted record statement, whether the court file contains the described exhibit, whether the witness had motive to deny, or whether others in the courtroom saw the reported visual conduct.

The Clock

Assuming the ordinary five-year limitation in 18 U.S.C. § 3282 applies to the Section 242 theory, the period for the December 2, 2022 conduct would run to approximately December 2, 2027, subject to applicable exceptions and tolling.

That date concerns the 2022 Section 242 theory. Hawaiʻi perjury and witness tampering ordinarily carry three- and two-year limits, respectively. HRS §701-108 provides exceptions and tolling rules, including a limited extension for offenses based on misconduct in office by a public servant. That extension may be relevant to qualifying allegations against Loo; it does not automatically apply to the private witness’s alleged perjury. The precise conduct, service dates, charging history, and applicable exceptions must be established. The 2021 distribution allegations ordinarily have separate federal five-year periods measured from their respective transaction dates. Those events remain relevant to investigating the 2022 federal allegation regardless of current charging availability.

This matter was referred to the DOJ Public Integrity Section. The referral includes the documents published in this series.

What Is Being Asked

The first steps are direct: interview the witness, obtain the sealed audio, review the court file, and ask the people present what they saw, where they were positioned, and how their account fits the audio-confirmable sequence.

This brief shows why standard investigative steps are warranted. The witness is identified. The statute of limitations provides a defined window. Judicial immunity does not bar a criminal prosecution under §242. The unresolved questions are factual and specific: witness testimony, line-of-sight review, court-file review, and the sealed audio.

The reason for any DOJ non-action remains unresolved. Intake, review, and disposition records could establish what evidence was tested and what decision followed.

The allegation is public. The crucial audio and exhibit are sealed. The clock is running.

The Federal Framework

This investigation identifies 18 U.S.C. § 242 — deprivation of rights under color of law — as the primary federal review statute. It is purpose-built for state officials who abuse their authority to deny constitutional rights, and it has been upheld against state judges by the Supreme Court.

21 U.S.C. § 841 supplies a separate federal drug-distribution question if knowing or intentional distribution of a controlled substance is proved. Any current prosecutorial exposure, assessed under the applicable limitation periods, could provide a basis for seeking cooperation; it would not convert the state-court oath into a federal perjury predicate.

Federal law provides heightened protections for individuals who provide information to law enforcement about federal offenses. See 18 U.S.C. § 1513(e). My documented contacts with the FBI and DEA preceded the hearing at which the alleged perjury and due process deprivation occurred. If the adverse actions documented in this series were taken because of those reports — that is, with retaliatory intent — then § 1513(e) would place this matter within a broader federal framework that extends beyond the courtroom conduct itself.

This investigative brief relies on materials that are publicly accessible or publicly quotable. I may possess additional non-public information withheld to protect sources, safety, or lawful investigative constraints. Sealed or non-public material is described conditionally. The brief documents the public record and identifies investigative questions that a federal investigation would confirm or falsify.

Records Needed

Investigators need the sealed audio, the exhibit, the court file, accounts from people present, and any surviving Stonefish Grill footage or retention records. A different audio sequence, a missing or materially different exhibit, an uninterrupted attempted record statement, or credible contrary eyewitness evidence would change the assessment. Each account should be weighed for opportunity to observe, specificity, consistency, and independent support. DOJ intake and disposition records could establish what review occurred.

The Nod holds the courtroom account; the Loo overview holds the wider hearing and reporting history. This article identifies the interview questions and the legal elements that remain to be tested.

Related Case Files

Federal Referral Status

The DOJ Public Integrity Section investigates and prosecutes selected public-corruption cases involving federal, state and local officials. Its exclusive jurisdiction over criminal-misconduct allegations involving judges applies to federal judges.

The Loo referral draws on the documents published in this series and three earlier reports to the DEA and HPD. Investigators would also need the sealed court file. If the text message reads as described, it could help them assess the witness’s disputed testimony.

DOJ Civil Rights handles §242 prosecutions, including those involving state judges. The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color-of-law violations.

Public Integrity acknowledged receipt of the complaint. As of October 7, 2026, I have received no further communication about the referral’s status or disposition.

— Ekewaka Lono, 23 February 2026