This report represents a good faith effort to document and disclose matters of serious public concern. All factual assertions are made with a reasonable basis and sincere belief in their truth, supported by firsthand observation or authenticated documentation. All individuals mentioned are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law. This disclosure follows multiple attempts to address these issues through official channels.
A legal proceeding in Honolulu has raised serious questions about the integrity of Hawaii's judicial system, following allegations of witness influence, perjury, and systematic obstruction of justice involving Judge Wilson Loo, local police, and other parties.
During an injunction hearing that was recorded audio-only despite being conducted in person, Judge Wilson Loo allegedly made a deliberate non-verbal gesture—a clear "no" nod accompanied by a facial expression—immediately before witness [Anonymous] answered a question about providing LSD to the plaintiff.
When the plaintiff attempted to object, stating "Let the record show that the judge just...", Judge Loo reportedly cut him off aggressively, shouting "Nah ah ah enough out of you!!" This prevented the visual cue from being documented in the official audio record.
Legal Implications: If proven, this constitutes suborning perjury—a felony under both federal and Hawaii state law. Judge Loo's alleged actions would represent a deliberate attempt to induce false testimony under oath regarding a material fact (drug distribution), potentially carrying penalties including removal from office and criminal prosecution.
This case centers on a disturbing question: What happens when a judge who previously served on Hawaii's Commission on Judicial Conduct allegedly uses that insider knowledge to manipulate court proceedings while avoiding detection?
The events leading to this courtroom confrontation began with what the plaintiff describes as an escalating campaign of harassment by the defendant. According to the plaintiff's account:
The central criminal act in this case is the defendant's alleged perjury regarding drug distribution. When directly questioned under oath about providing LSD, the defendant denied doing so—despite text message evidence presented in court showing the plaintiff had "took the acid."
The Criminal Elements:
Legal Consequences: Perjury is a Class C felony in Hawaii, punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment. Under federal law (18 USC 1621), perjury in judicial proceedings carries up to 5 years and substantial fines. The materiality of this false testimony—concerning drug distribution that was central to establishing defendants's credibility and the plaintiff's character—makes this a serious felony with no mitigating circumstances.
The critical detail that allegedly enabled Judge Loo's misconduct was the decision to record the in-person hearing as audio-only. This created what the plaintiff describes as the perfect opportunity for visual manipulation that would leave no official trace.
Judge Wilson Loo's alleged actions constitute suborning perjury under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 710-1072.2 and federal law 18 USC 1622. The elements are clearly met:
The Stakes: Suborning perjury by a judge carries potential sentences of 10 years imprisonment, removal from office, and permanent disbarment. Judge Loo's previous service on the Commission on Judicial Conduct makes this misconduct particularly egregious, as he had intimate knowledge of oversight mechanisms and their limitations.
What makes these allegations particularly concerning is Judge Wilson Loo's previous service on Hawaii's Commission on Judicial Conduct. This experience would have provided him with:
The plaintiff argues that this wasn't judicial bias or a momentary lapse in judgment, but a calculated exploitation of systemic weaknesses by someone who understood them intimately.
The most disturbing aspect of this case may be what happened after the alleged misconduct was reported. According to the Commission on Judicial Conduct's own correspondence, Wilson Loo was "no longer a per diem judge as of July 2024" - conveniently timing his departure to avoid accountability for the misconduct that occurred in his courtroom.
The Timeline of Evasion:
The Commission's March 13, 2025 letter to the plaintiff reveals the cynical calculation behind this maneuver:
"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."
This creates a perfect storm of corruption: a judge can commit misconduct, resign before facing consequences, wait out the 90-day jurisdictional window, and then return to the bench with impunity. The Commission's own rules become a tool for evading accountability rather than ensuring it.
The corruption extends beyond Wilson Loo. The plaintiff's correspondence to the Commission also disclosed alleged misconduct by Audrey L.E. Stanley, now also serving as a First Circuit Per Diem Judge. According to the complaint, during her tenure as a Public Defender, Stanley was informed about a "conspired, coordinated murder threat issued by Eugene and Rita Hartmann" and allegedly "attempted extortion: relayed offer to 'drop charges' if author 'left the state'."
This connection to the Eugene and Rita Hartmann murder threat case demonstrates a pattern of officials using their positions to protect criminal networks rather than serve justice. The fact that Stanley, like Loo, now serves as a judge despite these allegations suggests systematic corruption in Hawaii's judicial appointment process.
When confronted with evidence that their website still lists Wilson Loo as an active judge - contradicting their claim that he resigned - the Commission has maintained complete silence. This refusal to clarify basic facts about judicial status reveals an institution more concerned with protecting its members than serving the public interest.
The Corruption Formula:
This systematic evasion of accountability transforms judicial misconduct from a career-ending scandal into a temporary inconvenience.
Following the court hearing, the plaintiff made multiple attempts to report what he believed were criminal acts, including perjury and drug distribution. The response from the Honolulu Police Department was, according to his account, 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 HPD still did nothing.
The plaintiff describes a pattern where:
Days before the hearing, the plaintiff overheard the defendant in a phone conversation stating, "I have another buddy who is federal." The word "another" suggested the defendant already had connections at the state or local level, raising questions about whether these relationships influenced the subsequent legal proceedings and police responses.
The {} Connection and Evidence Manipulation: During the injunction trial, the defendant strategically introduced evidence from an incoherent Facebook post suggesting connections between {} founder P and the defendant's actions. This created a deliberate narrative linking the original blackmail by "Kevin" (JJ's associate who had blackmailed the plaintiff's career while name-dropping P_) to the current LSD dealer's behavior. By introducing this evidence, the defendant made the plaintiff appear delusional for mentioning {} connections, which contributed to portions of the case being sealed. This tactical move obscured the legitimate pattern of retaliation stemming from the plaintiff's original federal contacts about the Eugene and Rita Hartmann murder threat.
Following the court hearing, the plaintiff reports a series of concerning incidents that suggest coordinated retaliation:
This pattern of post-trial targeting reinforces the plaintiff's contention that the courtroom misconduct was part of a broader effort to silence and discredit him, particularly given his status as someone who had previously contacted federal authorities about serious criminal matters.
The plaintiff's account raises troubling questions about whether this represents isolated misconduct or something more systematic. The combination of:
This suggests what the plaintiff characterizes as a coordinated effort to silence a victim and protect those in positions of power.
This case demands immediate federal intervention. The allegations represent clear violations of federal criminal law:
The Federal Nexus: This case involves federal crimes, interstate activities, and potential violations of civil rights. The plaintiff's previous contact with federal authorities regarding separate criminal matters, combined with the alleged retaliation, establishes clear federal jurisdiction and the need for FBI investigation.
The integrity of Hawaii's justice system hangs in the balance. When a judge can allegedly manipulate proceedings using insider knowledge of oversight weaknesses, and when police consistently fail to investigate serious crimes, the very foundation of justice is at risk.
Regardless of the outcome of any investigation into these specific allegations, this case highlights critical vulnerabilities in Hawaii's judicial oversight system:
The allegations presented here paint a picture of a justice system that may have failed at multiple levels. From the courtroom to the police station, the plaintiff describes encountering institutional resistance that protected alleged wrongdoers while silencing their victim.
Whether these allegations prove true or false, they highlight the urgent need for transparency, accountability, and reform in Hawaii's justice system. The people of Hawaii deserve courts they can trust and police who will investigate crimes regardless of who commits them.
The case now rests with federal authorities who have the independence and resources to conduct a thorough investigation. Only through such scrutiny can the truth emerge and public confidence in Hawaii's justice system be restored.
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 the author.