Legal Notice
This report documents alleged misconduct based on public records, court filings, and firsthand testimony. All individuals are presumed innocent. Firsthand claims are attributed to the complainant’s account. Where conclusions depend on sealed records or unverified testimony, conditional language is used. This publication follows the failure of official channels to address the matters described.
The Hearing
On December 2, 2022, an injunction hearing took place in Hawaiʻi’s First Circuit Court before Judge Wilson M.N. Loo, a per diem judge of the First Circuit listed in the Hawaiʻi State Judiciary records.
Public record (court procedures): The hearing was conducted in person but recorded audio-only, consistent with standard courtroom recording procedures for that session. This procedural condition is significant because it means no video record exists of any non-verbal conduct during the proceeding.
During cross-examination, the complainant asked the defendant a direct question: whether he had provided the complainant with LSD.
Documentary evidence (submitted to court, sealed): Prior to this question being asked, text message evidence had been submitted to the court file. According to the complainant, this evidence included a message in which the defendant acknowledged taking LSD, establishing the factual predicate for the question.
Firsthand testimony (complainant’s account, not independently verified): According to the complainant, before the defendant answered, Judge Loo made a deliberate non-verbal “no” gesture — a head movement accompanied by a facial expression — directed at the defendant. The defendant then denied under oath that he had provided LSD.
Public record (audio recording): The complainant attempted to place the observed conduct on the record. His words began: “Let the record show that the judge just…” Judge Loo interrupted, stating “Nah ah ah enough out of you!!” The audio record captures both the attempted objection and the interruption. It does not capture any visual conduct.
If the complainant’s account of the non-verbal signal is accurate, Loo’s conduct would constitute suborning perjury — a felony under 18 U.S.C. Section 1622. The sealed court file and the audio record are the primary evidence bearing on this question.
The case was subsequently sealed.
The Evidence in the File
The following evidence trail is documented across multiple sources. Each item is labeled by evidence type.
Public record (HPD reports): HPD reports document a reported physical assault by the defendant against the complainant. These reports exist in the public record and establish that law enforcement was aware of the allegations of violent conduct.
Documentary evidence (submitted to court, sealed): Text messages submitted to the court file reportedly show the defendant’s involvement in the distribution of controlled substances, including LSD and cocaine. This evidence is in the sealed court file and is not independently accessible to the public.
Firsthand testimony (complainant’s account): The complainant reports an attempted vehicular assault on a country road, in which the defendant allegedly used a vehicle as a weapon. This incident was reported to HPD. The complainant’s account has not been independently verified beyond the fact that a report was filed.
Firsthand testimony (complainant’s account): The complainant reports a sustained campaign of stalking and harassment by the defendant, including references to the complainant’s deceased parents. The complainant also reports that associates of the defendant, identified as Eugene and Rita Hartmann, made a credible murder threat that was reported to law enforcement and not investigated.
Firsthand testimony (complainant’s account): Days before the December 2022 hearing, the complainant reports overhearing the defendant reference a “federal buddy.” The significance of this statement, if accurately reported, is a matter of inference.
The Non-Investigation
The documented sequence of institutional responses — and non-responses — forms a pattern. Each institution’s handling of the complainant’s reports is documented below.
Law Enforcement
Firsthand testimony (complainant’s account, corroborated by HPD report existence): The complainant filed multiple reports with the Honolulu Police Department regarding the defendant’s conduct, including the physical assault, the alleged vehicular assault, and the stalking campaign. Officers referenced in the complainant’s account include Officer Brandt and Officer Shatoo.
According to the complainant, HPD officers provided conflicting information about the service of legal papers related to a restraining order. The complainant reports that despite documented reports of violence, no investigation of the defendant’s conduct proceeded to prosecution.
Inference (labeled): Whether this pattern reflects a deliberate decision to avoid investigating the defendant or a series of independent institutional failures is not established by the available public record. The structural outcome is the same: documented reports of violence did not result in accountability.
The Commission on Judicial Conduct
Public record (Commission correspondence, March 2025): When the complainant filed a complaint regarding Judge Loo’s conduct at the December 2022 hearing, the Commission on Judicial Conduct responded with a letter confirming that Loo was “no longer a per diem judge as of July 2024.” The Commission cited Rule 8.2(b), which imposes a 90-day jurisdictional window for complaints against judges who have left the bench.
Public record (Hawaiʻi State Judiciary website): After the Commission’s correspondence stating that Loo had departed, the Hawaiʻi State Judiciary’s own website continued to list Wilson M.N. Loo as an active First Circuit Per Diem Judge. This contradiction between the Commission’s claim and the Judiciary’s public listing has not been officially explained.
The Procedural Gap
Public record (court procedures): The audio-only recording format of the December 2022 hearing created a structural condition in which any visual conduct — whether judicial signals, gestures, or facial expressions — would be unrecorded. If the complainant’s account of a non-verbal signal is accurate, this procedural condition meant the most consequential act in the hearing left no trace in the official record.
The documented sequence shows a pattern where each institution’s response — or non-response — effectively shielded the same individual from accountability. Whether this reflects coordination or independent failures, the structural outcome is identical.
The Oversight Failure
The Commission on Judicial Conduct’s own rules created a jurisdictional gap that is exploitable by any judge who departs the bench within the complaint window. Rule 8.2(b)’s 90-day limitation means that a judge who resigns — or whose per diem status lapses — before a complaint is processed falls outside the Commission’s jurisdiction. This is a structural vulnerability, independent of any individual case.
The contradiction between the Commission’s March 2025 letter (stating Loo was no longer a per diem judge as of July 2024) and the Judiciary website (continuing to list him as active) raises unanswered questions. Either the Commission’s information was inaccurate, the website was not updated, or the status change was temporary. The public record does not resolve this discrepancy.
Whether this pattern reflects coordination or independent institutional failures, the structural outcome is the same: no accountability mechanism engaged. The complainant’s reports of judicial misconduct, police non-investigation, and defendant violence all entered official channels. None produced a substantive institutional response.
Verification invitation: The sealed court file contains the text message evidence and the audio record of the hearing. Federal investigators with access to this material could confirm or refute the complainant’s account of the non-verbal signal by interviewing the witness under oath.
What the Record Shows
Documented in the public record:
- HPD reports of physical assault by the defendant
- Audio recording of Judge Loo’s interruption during the complainant’s attempted objection at the December 2, 2022 hearing
- Commission on Judicial Conduct correspondence citing Rule 8.2(b) and confirming Loo’s departure
- Hawaiʻi State Judiciary website listing Loo as active after the Commission’s stated departure date
Dependent on sealed records:
- Text message evidence reportedly showing controlled substance distribution
- Full audio of the December 2022 hearing
Dependent on firsthand testimony (not independently verified):
- The non-verbal judicial signal to the defendant before the perjured answer
- The attempted vehicular assault
- The Hartmann murder threat
- The “federal buddy” statement
This matter has been referred to the DOJ Public Integrity Section, which acknowledged receipt of the complaint.
Successor reporting examines specific elements of this case in greater detail: The Two Questions addresses the evidentiary path to resolution. The Nod reconstructs the hearing in forensic detail. The Zero Commission documents the oversight body’s structural failure. The Paper Bag examines the conflict-of-interest architecture in Hawaiʻi’s self-investigation model. The Shape of the Cage presents the structural model of how networked institutional failure operates without requiring a single point of coordination.
The record is public. The sealed file exists. The questions remain open.