Wilson Loo: Hearing and Oversight in Hawaiʻi

This overview follows the reports before the December 2, 2022 hearing, the court’s handling of my harassment evidence, and the oversight decisions afterward.

Related investigation: The Information Trail examines what information may have passed between participants in the 2015–2022 events.

The Courtroom Account and Review Questions

Courtroom account: The Nod gives my firsthand account of the December 2, 2022 hearing. This overview examines the wider hearing, police handling, and subsequent oversight.

The alleged direction of sworn testimony and interruption of record preservation warrant investigation under 18 U.S.C. § 242 for a willful deprivation of federal rights under color of law.¹ The analysis below examines the witness’s answer under Hawaiʻi perjury law and the knowledge and intent investigators would need to establish.

Events Before the Hearing

Before the hearing, the defendant stalked me, assaulted me, and threatened me with his vehicle. The timeline below also identifies my earlier reports to federal authorities.

Timeline

Prior Federal Matter: Before meeting the defendant, I contacted federal authorities about the Hartmann death threat. Kevin separately threatened my career outside Kahala Whole Foods, invoking [redacted] [redacted]. Their motive and any connection to the later Loo proceeding require separate evidence.

Police Officer Change: Following my federal contact, a police officer was removed from the Wahiawa beat. I interpret this as relevant to later HPD responses. Retaliatory motive remains unestablished in the public record available here.

Initial Contact: The defendant owed me roughly $200 for work. I never received that money. Prior to collection efforts, I disclosed details of the prior federal incidents.

Drug Distribution Begins: The defendant began offering and providing controlled substances, including LSD, to me. The later courtroom question did not arise from my digital behavior or platform activity; it arose from my account, prior law-enforcement reports, and a text-message exhibit in the sealed court file.

Physical Violence: The defendant kicked me at a Starbucks during his yearlong course of stalking and violence.

Repeated Vehicle Threats and an Attempt to Run Me Down: He repeatedly used his vehicle to threaten me. On September 12, 2022, on PaaLaa Road, he accelerated from behind, crossed the double yellow toward me, narrowly missed me, and raced off. I reported that attempt to run me down to HPD under report 22-353421.

Police Reports Filed: I filed multiple reports with HPD. No arrests were made. HPD investigated the Starbucks assault and referred it to prosecutors, but none of my reports resulted in a prosecution of the defendant. Intake, investigation, and disposition records are needed to establish what happened to each report.

“Federal Buddy” Statement: Days before the hearing, I overheard the defendant say, “I have another buddy who is federal.” 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 words alone do not establish federal influence.

This chronology presents firsthand events and institutional outcomes. Intake notes, disposition records, sealed-file access records, and witness interviews could establish what was reviewed and why a matter was closed or left unresolved.

The Alleged Perjury: Material False Testimony Under Oath

The sworn denial and text-message exhibit documented in The Nod are the factual premises for the perjury inquiry. The exhibit’s presence alone does not establish the witness’s knowledge or all elements of the offense.

Hawaiʻi’s perjury statute, HRS §710-1060, requires a false statement in an official proceeding under an oath required or authorized by law, which the speaker does not believe to be true. A conviction also requires the court to find the statement materially false. The oath, actual provision of LSD, denial, witness’s knowledge, and materiality need to be examined through testimony and the complete court file. I reported the denial as perjury; no perjury conviction is reported here.

The Witness Signal and the Audio-Only Record

The recording limitations described in The Nod make contemporaneous preservation relevant to review; the audio cannot corroborate the visual act itself.

The Legal Questions

The federal question is whether signaling a sworn witness toward a “no” answer and cutting off my attempt to preserve the signal amounted to a willful deprivation of a federal right under color of law, under 18 U.S.C. §242.¹ An investigation would need to identify the federal right deprived, such as the right to an impartial tribunal and a fair hearing, and establish willfulness. The signal and interruption warrant that inquiry; they do not by themselves establish all the elements of a federal crime.

The text exhibit’s presence in the file does not alone establish that Loo knew its contents or knew the anticipated answer was false. His knowledge requires testimony, communications, or other evidence of what he had seen and understood.

Judge Loo’s Background: Oversight Experience as Context

Loo had served on Hawaiʻi’s Commission on Judicial Conduct. His prior Commission service supports my inference that he understood the limitations of judicial oversight and of an audio-only record. Whether Loo intended to prevent preservation requires evidence beyond his prior Commission service; the observed conduct is documented in The Nod.

The Case Loo Cut Off

He stalked me for about a year, physically assaulted me, and repeatedly threatened me with his vehicle. On PaaLaa Road, he tried to run me down. I came to court with a stack of documents and tried to explain what he had done. I was nervous and struggled to summarize it. Loo cut me off and said, in substance, that I could go on all day. He never asked for the short version. All he had to do was ask. Loo denied my request for an injunction.

Loo cut short my presentation of material evidence central to the case, yet permitted the opposing party to repeat a false claim as established fact during final remarks, after testimony had ended. The issue was the court’s unequal treatment of what each party could present and challenge. The sealed audio can establish how that sequence unfolded.

The Court Had to Hear the Evidence

HRS § 604-10.5(g) directs that the court “shall receive all evidence that is relevant at the hearing.” The statute permits oral and written responses and the court’s own inquiry. A preliminary TRO rests on probable cause; the final injunction requires clear and convincing evidence. The hearing was where the court had to receive and test the evidence supporting my request for protection.²

The statute calls the prohibited conduct “harassment,” but its definition expressly includes physical harm, assault, and threats of imminent physical harm under subsection (a)(1). Subsection (a)(2) separately addresses an intentional or knowing course of conduct, continuity of purpose, lack of a legitimate purpose, and emotional distress. My account included an assault, repeated vehicle threats, and an attempt to run me down. Those acts went directly to the statutory grounds for protection.²

Nervousness Was No Reason to Cut Off the Case

In Chang v. Berc, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court enforced this same statute’s hearing and relevant-evidence requirements when a respondent’s lawyer and witnesses were ready to present evidence. The court rejected default as a substitute for hearing the case.³ The requirement to receive relevant evidence has force. It cannot be reduced to a hearing date at which a party is stopped before completing a material account.

AC v. AC explains why difficulty making a formal presentation does not dispose of the issue. The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court vacated a custody decision after a rigid time limit cut short material testimony. It also rejected an offer-of-proof objection where the subject of the interrupted testimony and the witness’s personal knowledge were apparent.⁴ The analogy is the interrupted evidence: the court must examine what the party was trying to establish, rather than treat an imperfect presentation as an answer to the complaint.

I was trying to explain the acts for which I sought protection. Asking for dates, identifying the incidents one at a time, or asking for a short summary would have brought the relevant facts into focus. HRE Rule 611(a) gives a judge control over testimony for precisely that purpose: ascertaining the truth while managing time.⁵ Loo instead cut me off and told me I could go on all day. My nervousness did not relieve him of the duty to hear relevant evidence.

The Duties Applied to Loo

Rule 2.6(a) of the Hawaiʻi Revised Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to accord a legally interested person the right to be heard according to law. Rule 2.8(b) requires patience, dignity, and courtesy. These rules apply to per diem judges. Rule 2.2 comment [4] expressly permits reasonable accommodations so self-represented litigants can have their matters fairly heard.⁶ A request for the short version would have served both efficiency and a fair hearing.

The Judiciary’s Principles of Professionalism for Hawaiʻi Judges are equally direct. Principle 6 addresses a lawyer’s or self-represented party’s presentation of a cause and a complete, accurate record “free from unreasonable or unnecessary judicial interruption.”⁷ That is the professional standard against which Loo’s interruption should be examined.

Charles Gardner Geyh distinguishes three dimensions of judicial impartiality: procedural fairness to the parties, ethical standards governing the judge’s conduct, and a political dimension concerning public confidence in the judiciary. A process adequate in one dimension may fail in another.⁸ The hearing record must therefore be examined for the fairness of Loo’s conduct independently of the Commission’s later disposition.

The complete audio and court file should be reviewed together: my petition and declarations, the documents offered and received, the testimony Loo interrupted, any attempt to finish, and his findings. That review must account for the stalking, assault, and vehicle attacks for which I sought protection. The spoken record can establish the interruption and how Loo handled my presentation, independently of the visual signal.

The Accountability Loophole: Judicial Review Foreclosed

The Departure and Jurisdictional Window

The Commission’s March 13, 2025 correspondence reports that an earlier complaint received an “insufficient evidence” disposition on March 22, 2023. It separately declined review of my renewed complaint, stating that Wilson Loo was “no longer a per diem judge as of July 2024” and invoking the Commission’s 90-day former-judge jurisdictional window.

The Jurisdictional Timeline:

• December 2022: I contacted the Commission immediately after the December 2 hearing. The intake file is needed to establish how that contact was classified and what conduct it recorded.
• March 22, 2023: The Commission closed an earlier complaint for “insufficient evidence,” according to its March 13, 2025 letter
• May/June 2024: I reported Gene and Rita Hartmann to an HPD officer.
• July 2024: Wilson Loo reportedly left his position as per diem judge
• March 2025: Commission on Judicial Conduct stated it had “no jurisdiction” because Loo had left office
• May 2025: Hawaii State Judiciary website listed Wilson M.N. Loo as an active First Circuit Per Diem Judge

The Jurisdictional Gap

The Commission’s March 13, 2025 letter to me describes the jurisdictional basis for its non-review:

“Wilson M. N. Loo is no longer a per diem judge as of July 2024. Pursuant to Rule 8.2(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Hawai’i, the Commission has no jurisdiction to consider a complaint against any justice or judge if the submission is more than 90 days after the judge leaves office.”

The Commission’s refusal foreclosed renewed review. My December 2022 contact and the Commission’s reported March 2023 disposition predate Loo’s departure. Rule 8.2(b) ties the deadline to when conduct is reported. Rule 8.2(c)(3) provides that resignation or retirement before or after an investigation or proceeding begins does not itself remove jurisdiction before final Supreme Court action. The earlier contact does not by itself establish that the Commission retained jurisdiction to reopen a closed matter. The intake and review file are needed to establish what conduct was reported, how it was classified, what evidence the Commission examined before its March 2023 disposition, and the basis for its later refusal. In particular, did it obtain the hearing audio, investigate the visual allegation, or interview courtroom witnesses?

Stanley’s Earlier Representation

My correspondence to the Commission also disclosed reported misconduct by Audrey L.E. Stanley, now serving as a First Circuit Per Diem Judge.⁹ The earlier complaint described her communication during my defense representation as an offer under which charges would be dropped if I left the state. My published account gives the qualification: Stanley told me there might be a way to resolve the matter if I left Hawaiʻi. She presented it tentatively and as originating elsewhere. I received no written terms and cannot identify the originator or establish whether it was a formal offer.

The private pressure and the later proposal both pushed me toward leaving Hawaiʻi. I did not observe coordination between the participants. Stanley’s later judicial service adds to the present public interest in examining her earlier representation. This article makes no claim about the judicial appointment process. The public listing establishes her role; it does not corroborate our conversations.

The dedicated Stanley counsel-file disclosure is The Threat Report, a public-interest account of Stanley’s handling of the threat report. It does not prove the Wilson Loo account or coordination.

Documented Professional Background: Rutgers Law and Organized-Crime Prosecution

Public alumni records from Rutgers Law School establish that Wilson M.N. Loo graduated in the Class of 1980 (Rutgers Law ‘80). According to official Rutgers biographical records, prior to his judicial service and private practice, Loo served as Honolulu’s Organized Crime Prosecutor (as a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for the City and County of Honolulu from approximately 1980 to 1984).

I also attended Rutgers University before moving to Hawaiʻi. In the November 2015 encounter, a person introduced as a New Jersey State Police organized-crime task force investigator invoked my North Jersey childhood connections.

Loo’s earlier work as an organized-crime prosecutor raises questions about whether he maintained interstate law-enforcement contacts or received information about me through them. His biography does not establish that he prosecuted cases involving New Jersey figures or knew about the 2015 investigator encounter. The Information Trail examines those questions.

The Oversight Sequence

The May 2025 Judiciary listing still included Loo’s name. His name was later removed.

The Institutional Sequence:

1. The hearing described in The Nod took place; its audio record was later sealed
2. The Commission reported a March 22, 2023 insufficient-evidence disposition of an earlier complaint
3. The judge leaves per diem service before renewed review
4. Commission claims lack of jurisdiction after 90-day window

Sealing limited access to the hearing record, and the Commission on Judicial Conduct invoked the jurisdictional deadline to refuse renewed review. Intake, review, conflict, and disposition records could establish how both complaints were handled.

When I queried the Ethics Commission, it stated confusion over its own authority. The inquiry and response should be preserved and reviewed separately from the Commission on Judicial Conduct’s dispositions.

What HPD Did With My Reports

Following the court hearing, I reported the sworn denial to police and asked them to investigate it as perjury. I also tried to report the LSD distribution. The response from the Honolulu Police Department was consistently dismissive:

When I called 911 to report the perjury, the female officer told me it was my responsibility to prove it, not HPD’s responsibility to investigate it. When I mentioned the LSD distribution as a separate crime, she continued to refuse to take the report. I even told her there was video evidence of the LSD dealing at Stonefish Grill, but she still refused to take the report.

The police responses included the following:

• Officer Shatoo told me that service had occurred. Officer Brandt later gave me contradictory information about that same service status during the continued stalking. I allege that Brandt knowingly gave me contrary service-status information rather than merely relaying administrative confusion. That is my allegation about Brandt’s state of mind, not an adjudicated finding. HPD service records, CAD/RMS entries, officer notes, body-camera footage, and related records can establish what each officer knew and what was represented.
• During a later attempt to report the Hartmann murder threat, Officer Brandt blocked another officer from receiving my report. After that intervention, I disclosed prior FBI contact while an officer stated, in substance, that members of an unnamed public figure’s circle were allowed to make murder threats.
• Officers dismissed reports or refused to receive them; the files are needed to establish what review followed
• A desk sergeant acknowledged, in substance, that there was something in my report, then suggested possible contrary information without identifying an actual report or witness
• During an undated call I recall as after the PaaLaa Road incident, a detective said, in substance, that I had been paid under the table and would not pay tax on it. I had never received the money.
• I received no follow-up about the specific evidence locations I supplied

Other articles in this series examine reversed officer discipline, criticism of Police Commission oversight, and changes to the State’s corruption-investigation capacity after federal prosecutions. Those examples explain the wider concern about accountability. My complaints still need to be examined through their own intake files, recordings, and written decisions.

The Desk Sergeant and the Unspecified Other Information

Before the December 2, 2022 hearing, an HPD desk sergeant came out and I explained my report. He said, in substance, that according to my report there was something there. I understood him to mean criminal conduct. Then he suggested there might be other information. When I asked what kind, he offered the example of someone having seen something differently. He identified no actual witness, report, or conflicting observation. I do not recall the precise date.

I had reported a driver accelerating from behind, crossing the double yellow toward me, narrowly missing me, and racing off. A hypothetical witness is no answer to the vehicle attack I reported. If HPD had contrary evidence, it needs to identify what that evidence was and how it investigated the attack.

A witness disputing my account should be able to say where they were and what they saw: the driver’s path, speed, distance from me, and the near miss. Someone who did not see the incident cannot establish that it did not happen simply by saying they saw nothing.

The records questions are specific:

1. What contrary account, if any, existed when the sergeant spoke to me? Who supplied it, when was it recorded, and what could that person actually see?
2. What fact did it contradict, and what did HPD do to resolve the conflict?
3. What did HPD record about my conversation with the sergeant and any decision to limit or close the investigation?

The report 22-353421 file, supplements, CAD/RMS history, supervisor notes, witness statements, and any retained station recording or bodycam are the records to examine.

HPD’s own reporting policy requires officers to document complaints and prepare complete reports regardless of whether prosecution is likely. It also requires supervisors to check completeness and accuracy and officers to document classification changes made after a report is submitted. Those requirements appear in Policy 8.06, dated November 1, 2016. The original report, supplements, supervisor comments, and classification history should show how HPD handled my complaint; any amendments governing its 2022 handling must also be checked.¹⁰

The Detective and the $200 I Was Never Paid

I spoke by phone with an HPD detective on a date I cannot now identify. I recall the call as after the September 12, 2022 PaaLaa Road incident. 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 cannot identify the detective, and I am paraphrasing his words.

I had gone to HPD because this man tried to run me down. The detective turned the conversation to taxes on money I had never received. Where did he get the claim that I had been paid, and what did he do about the vehicle attack? HPD needs to answer both questions.

I suspect the detective was looking at my earlier tax-office case. That case ended in a hung jury. The State did not retry it, and it was expunged. If he used the old accusation to treat me as a tax offender or an unreliable complainant, he was prejudging my report of a vehicle attack on the strength of a case that produced no conviction.

HRS § 831-3.2(b) requires a person with an expungement certificate to be treated as not having been arrested, subject to the statute’s exceptions. Subsection (d)(3) permits disclosure to law enforcement acting within its duties, and subsection (i) preserves chapter 846 information. The law can leave earlier information accessible to police.¹¹ Access to an old accusation is not proof of guilt, and that accusation supplies no evidence that I received the $200.

The old tax-office accusation does not establish that I received $200 in this work dispute. I was never paid. If HPD relied on the old case to question my credibility, it needs to identify the facts it relied on, account for the hung jury and absence of a conviction, and explain how that history affected its response to my report.

The records questions are:

1. Who was the detective, when did the conversation occur, and which report or assignment did it concern? Was the tax remark recorded in contact notes or a supplement?
2. Who told the detective I had been paid, or what document led him to say it? Did he read the messages seeking payment, and did his notes record that the debt remained unpaid?
3. Did he look up the earlier tax-office case or receive information about it from someone else? What did he read, did it show the hung jury and absence of a conviction, and did he use it to judge my credibility?
4. Did the tax remark affect the investigation, classification, or closure of my vehicle report? What did supervisors review, and what reasons did they record?

Report 22-353421 is the place to start because of when I recall the call occurring; I cannot confirm that the call was assigned to that report. The records to examine include linked reports, detective contact and assignment notes, supplements, supervisor reviews, classification changes, any retained phone or database-query logs, and the expungement certificate and court orders. They could show who made the remark, where it came from, and whether the old tax case prejudiced the handling of my complaint.

The “Federal Connection” Statement

Days before the hearing, I overheard the defendant say in a phone conversation, “I have another buddy who is federal.” 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 words alone do not establish federal influence.

Post-Trial Context Kept Separate

Following the court hearing, I experienced further concerning incidents. They are included here only as context for why additional records were preserved. They do not prove the courtroom report, explain HPD’s handling of my reports, or establish federal influence:

1. Professional Contact: Individuals with government security backgrounds contacted me and referred to the court case.
2. Platform Content: Content relating to disputed issues from the legal proceeding surfaced to me. The cause is not established; ordinary recommender behavior, account history, interaction patterns, timing coincidence, and third-party engagement are all possible explanations. This is not evidence of coordination, sealed-record access, or human targeting.

I had contacted federal authorities about serious criminal matters before these later events. That sequence alone does not establish government direction.

Accountability Barriers and Open Questions

Several parts of my account require separate examination:

• A judge with insider knowledge of oversight mechanisms
• Consistent police inaction despite multiple reports
• Statements suggesting access to federal or state contacts
• Subsequent intimidation attempts

Blocked intake, confidential discipline, sealed records, and unanswered complaints each obstruct review in different ways.

The Call for Investigation

This case warrants federal review of the sealed record and witness testimony. An investigation could examine the following legal questions:

• 18 U.S.C. §242 — Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law: An investigation of the signal and cutoff would need to establish whether Loo, acting under color of law, willfully deprived me of an identified federal right, including the right to an impartial tribunal and a fair hearing.¹
• 18 U.S.C. §1513(e) — Retaliation for Information Provided to Federal Law Enforcement: I contacted the FBI and DEA before the hearing. The statute requires a knowingly harmful action taken with intent to retaliate for truthful information supplied to a law-enforcement officer about a possible federal offense. The officer must meet the federal definition in §1515(a)(4). Chronology alone does not establish that connection or intent. Statutory text; officer definition.
• Hawaiʻi Perjury Law: The sworn denial needs to be examined under HRS §710-1060, including falsity, the witness’s knowledge, the authorized oath, and materiality. That is separate from the federal civil-rights question.

A System in Need of Reform

Regardless of the outcome of any investigation into these specific reports, this case highlights critical vulnerabilities in Hawaii’s judicial oversight system:

1. Recording Requirements: All court proceedings should be recorded both visually and audibly, without exception.
2. Transparency in Oversight: The confidentiality surrounding judicial misconduct investigations may inadvertently shield wrongdoing.
3. Independent Investigation: Complaints against judges should be investigated by truly independent bodies with no institutional connections.
4. Police Accountability: Clear protocols must exist for investigating reports of crimes by those with political or official connections.

Conclusion: Records That Would Resolve the Core Issue

Loo stopped my attempts to present evidence and preserve his signal. Several of my reports were dismissed or received no investigation; none produced a communicated merits resolution of the overall conduct I was reporting. HPD did investigate the Starbucks assault and refer it to prosecutors, as the reporting chronology records. The Commission later declined review on jurisdictional grounds. Those responses left my complaints unresolved. Intake files, review records, and written decisions could establish why each occurred.

The report is testable. Review requires these steps: obtain the sealed audio; inspect the court file and text exhibit; reconstruct line of sight; ask the witness about the visual signal and the LSD question under appropriate authority; ask courtroom personnel what they observed; and produce written reasons for any declination. Those steps would allow investigators to compare the accounts with the records.

Limits of the Public Record

The public records cited here can test the surrounding sequence, but they do not independently establish or refute the visual signal. An authority with jurisdiction could compare other eyewitness accounts with the complete sealed record. What other participants knew, their motives, coordination, and legal consequences remain separate questions. The platform experiences also require evidence of a case-specific cause, and network overlap alone does not establish criminal conduct.

What Would Falsify This

Material weakening or falsification of the core report would require sealed-record review showing a materially different audio sequence; court-file review showing absence of the described exhibit or a materially different exhibit; production of a full record showing an uninterrupted attempted record statement; or contrary courtroom testimony contradicting the visual signal while remaining consistent with timing, layout, line of sight, sealed audio, and the documentary record. The weight of testimony, including a denial by an involved participant, depends on specificity, opportunity to observe and line of sight, consistency with the audio and court file, and independent support.

Separate institutional claims could be tested against Commission records showing substantive primary-record review, documented recusal and safeguard records, HPD intake and CAD records, written declination memos, or agency correspondence showing investigation and a decision on the evidence.

Correction Policy

This publication maintains a commitment to factual accuracy. Any demonstrated factual errors will be promptly corrected with equal prominence. All corrections will be clearly marked and dated. Inquiries regarding factual assertions may be directed to me.

Sources and Notes