The Two Questions: How One Interview Closes the Wilson Loo Case

The Two Questions

How One Interview Closes the Wilson Loo Case

By Ekewaka Lono • Published: February 23, 2026

Previous reporting in this series has documented what happened in Judge Wilson M.N. Loo’s courtroom — a silent nod directing a witness to deny, under oath, what the evidence in the court’s own file proved he did. That account is published in The Nod. The institutional failure that followed — the Commission’s 100% dismissal rate, the 90-day jurisdictional loophole, the sealed record — is documented in The Zero Commission.

This investigation is different. This is not about what went wrong. This is about what it would take to make it right.

The answer is one interview.

The federal case against retired Judge Wilson M.N. Loo requires the cooperation of one person: ████████████. ████████████ is the witness Loo directed to lie. He is also the person whose prior conduct — specifically, his role as an intermediary in LSD distribution on the North Shore — created the factual predicate that Loo moved to bury.

████████████ is not a peripheral figure. He is the case. He is both the person who committed perjury at a judge’s direction and the person whose testimony, given truthfully, satisfies every element of 18 U.S.C. § 1622.

The DOJ’s own Criminal Resource Manual defines the requirements for a subornation of perjury prosecution: perjury was committed; the defendant procured the perjury corruptly, knowing or believing it to be false; and the defendant knew or believed the perjurer had knowledge of the falsity of his testimony.

All three elements would be satisfied if ████████████ tells the truth.

The Evidence Trail

According to the complainant’s account, in 2021, at Stonefish Grill in Hale’iwa, ████████████ received LSD from a woman and subsequently provided it to me. This exchange occurred inside the restaurant and was captured on the establishment’s security camera.

According to the complainant’s account, 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. The quantity and appearance of these tabs closely resembled those seized in a Honolulu Sheriff’s Department bust that had occurred prior.

This is not new 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 action. The HPD response is consistent with the pattern documented across this series: reports filed, never acted upon. The DEA report entered a system whose disposition I have never been informed of.

The security footage at Stonefish Grill, if preserved, is primary-source corroboration of the first incident. It shows ████████████ receiving a controlled substance from one individual and providing it to another — in a public establishment, on camera. If the footage has been destroyed through routine retention cycles, the existence of my prior law enforcement reports establishes that I identified the location, the act, and the individual to federal and local agencies before the trial in which Loo directed ████████████ to deny it.

The Two Questions

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

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

Question 2: 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?

If ████████████ answers truthfully — yes to both — the factual predicate is established. The text message already in the sealed court file (“I took the acid”) corroborates the chain. ████████████’s role as a source and intermediary for LSD is documented through his own conduct, my prior agency reports, and the physical evidence.

Once this foundation is laid, the investigator asks the third question — the one that closes the loop on Wilson Loo:

Question 3: 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, the elements of 18 U.S.C. § 1622 are satisfied:

• Perjury would be established. ████████████ denied under oath what the court’s own evidence — and his own conduct — established as true.
• The defendant would have procured the perjury corruptly. Loo directed the false testimony through a nonverbal signal — a nod — with the text message in front of him.
• The defendant would have known the testimony was false. The documentary evidence was in Loo’s possession at the time he signaled the witness. He had the text. He knew the truthful answer. He directed the lie.

If the witness corroborates the account, this is not a complex case. It is not a circumstantial case. It is a case that turns on whether one person, interviewed away from the courtroom and the judge who directed him, tells the truth about what happened.

Why This Witness

████████████ is the optimal witness for a federal investigator because his position is uniquely exposed.

He is not a judge. He has no institutional protection. He is not shielded by the Commission on Judicial Conduct, which has dismissed 100% of complaints since 2018. He is not shielded by the 90-day jurisdictional loophole that allowed Loo to evade the Commission’s review. He has no sealed record working in his favor.

What ████████████ has is criminal exposure. He committed perjury in a judicial proceeding. He was involved in the distribution of a Schedule I controlled substance. Both of these facts are known to federal and local law enforcement through the reports I filed. The security footage — if extant — provides corroboration that requires no testimony at all.

████████████ has been carrying this since the trial. A federal investigator offering the standard choice — cooperation or exposure — is not asking ████████████ to do anything extraordinary. It is asking him to stop carrying someone else’s crime.

The Clock

Judge Wilson M.N. Loo is retired. This simplifies the political calculus. No federal prosecutor needs to navigate the complications of indicting a sitting state judge. No interagency coordination with the Hawaii judiciary is required. No recusal chains need to be managed. Loo is a private citizen who committed a federal felony while serving in an official capacity. The case is cleaner now than it was when he was on the bench.

The statute of limitations on federal subornation of perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1622 is five years. Based on the date of the proceeding, approximately 1.8 years remain.

This matter has been referred to the DOJ Public Integrity Section, which has jurisdiction over corruption by public officials, including members of the judiciary. The referral includes the documentary record published across this investigation series.

What Is Being Asked

This is not an investigation that requires a task force. It does not require a grand jury subpoena for records that may not exist. It does not require flipping a co-conspirator inside a criminal enterprise. It does not require a wiretap, a warrant, or a surveillance operation.

It requires one or two FBI agents from the Honolulu Field Office to drive to ████████████ and knock on a door.

The question for the Department of Justice is not whether the case can be made. The evidence trail is laid. The witness is identified. The legal framework is established. The statute of limitations provides a defined window. The target is retired and carries no judicial immunity.

The question is whether the Department of Justice will make the case, or whether this referral will join the Commission on Judicial Conduct’s annual reports — processed, filed, and dismissed, the machine producing the output it was built to produce.

The record is public. The clock is running.

Prior Reporting in This Series

Federal Referral Status

This matter was referred to the DOJ Public Integrity Section. The Section has jurisdiction over the prosecution of elected and appointed public officials at all levels of government, including federal, state, and local judges. The referral is supported by the documentary record published across this investigation series, three prior law enforcement reports filed with the DEA and HPD, and the sealed court file containing the text message that corroborates the perjured testimony.

The Section acknowledged receipt of the complaint. No further communication regarding the status or disposition of the referral has been received as of publication.

— Ekewaka Lono, 23 February 2026