In a motion filed on March 31st, Luke Wenke’s public defender urges the judge who’s overseeing Wenke’s federal cyberstalking case to reopen Wenke’s bond proceedings in hopes that he’ll be able to secure his release from jail amid his ongoing legal matters. I don’t want to inaccurately convey the argument she used to justify the request, so I’m going to put on my Captain Obvious hat and focus on another angle of this situation that I feel more qualified to speak on.

Luke Wenke barely lasted two months in the free world between his release from federal prison on October 7th of last year and his cyberstalking arrest on December 17th. Less than 24 hours after his final court hearing in the previous case, Wenke began deluged the judge with hostile and malicious emails. His behavior continued to escalate and, within weeks, transcended into the realm of chargeable offenses.

This is a typical, established pattern for Wenke. He gets released, wastes no time reoffending (or violating any existing rules he’s bound by at any given time), and ends up back in jail. Anyone who can read basic English can look at his case file and see that this happens over and over and over and over and over and over and fucking over.

Does Luke Wenke’s team really think releasing him from jail is a good idea? I can’t process how or why anyone of sound mind would draw this conclusion.

And while I understand that a defense attorney’s job is to act in their client’s best interests, and that this usually translates to fighting for their freedom, I have to sincerely wonder about the thought mechanisms at play here. Does she really think Wenke will behave? That he’ll follow any pretrial supervision rules that are set forth by the court?

Because even an idiot would know better, in my opinion, which leads to my next question. Does she know Wenke is unlikely to comply with the rules, and is she choosing to fight for his release anyway? Does she not realize that freedom isn’t in his best interests, because of the extremely high likelihood that he’ll dig a deeper hole for himself legally speaking?

None of these possibilities are good. If someone believes Wenke is going to abide by requirements that he has violated time and time again, then it makes me think they might be incredibly gullible or naïve.

And I definitely wonder how much they care about society’s safety. Because when it comes to Luke Wenke, no one is immune to becoming his next target, and it’s very clear, based on his letters to the court, that he’s living in a constant rage and is intent on seek retribution against his victims for perceived injustices. Wenke has even said on multiple occasions spanning a years-long period that he’s NOT GOING TO STOP until he feels his demands for “justice” have been met.

I fear that this is going to be another shameful example of the completely preventable “hindsight 20/20” cases that America is infamous for.

Whenever Luke Wenke is locked up, I try to soak up every minute of sanity and safety possible, because I know the torment will resume at some point (most likely in the near future). Luke Wenke’s stalking and harassment have dominated my life for years because he refuses to stop and the authorities refuse to make him stop. I would’ve never made this website if I felt like the people in power were willing to help me in any meaningful way.

Banning Luke Wenke from contacting me and then dropping a charge for violating said ban because he pleaded guilty to a totally unrelated charge is not effective protection for a victim. In addition to rendering the ban ineffective and therefore useless, it says, “you don’t matter,” “no one cares,” and “this country’s trash plea bargaining system — and your sTaLkEr’S rIgHtS — take precedence over your safety or wellbeing.” I realized that no one was going to make Wenke stop, and I figured I might as well get my two cents in edgewise (especially in case the worst happens to me). So, I created this website.

I’ve even had discussions with my family about what to do in the event that the worst does happen, and at one point I felt so defeated that I more-or-less accepted that if Wenke has his way, I’ll probably die young. So when I read his public defender’s argument that cyberstalking is not a violent crime, I felt like it took invalidation to a whole new level.

It’s her job to fight for Wenke, NOT to care about his victims. I get it. Clear as day. And I’m very glad it’s not my job. If I were tasked with representing someone who revolves his existence around ruining others’ lives and has expressed violent fantasies about his victims, I would not last long at that job, especially knowing that the victims fear for their lives when said individual is in the free world. Because instead of advocating for that person’s freedom after noticing that something is very obviously not right with that person’s mind, I’d argue that remaining in custody was in my client’s best interests. Keeping him where he can’t physically harm his victims, which would worsen his legal situation and therefore be against his best interests.

I don’t believe in facilitating, enabling, excusing, or overlooking wrong, even when it inconveniently clashes with what I want to believe. In fact, one of the main reasons I shared what I knew about Wenke with law enforcement starting six years ago was because I kept thinking about how I’d feel if he harmed someone (or worse) and I had said nothing.

At the time, Wenke and I were friends, and his escalating behavior put me in a very difficult position. But I did not want that type of tragedy on my hands, and it made the decision easy. I put the situation into someone else’s hands, even at the risk of betraying a friend. I had a front row seat as Wenke perpetually obsessed over his targets, and I knew his crimes weren’t victimless. The distinction between right and wrong was obvious. There was no confusion. And I’m not surprised, but I’m perplexed that anyone can consider the allegations against Wenke in the context of his history and think freedom would be to his benefit.

If this highly visible trainwreck in motion ends as catastrophically as I fear it will because someone chose to actively avoid pressing the brakes when there was an opportunity to avoid disaster, I will be able to say — if I survive — that I did everything in my power to raise the alarm. And I’ll be so disappointed to be right.

What if the worst really does happen?

If Luke Wenke’s team wins this round, he’s released, and the worst happens, will the people who fought for his freedom hide like cowards when the surviving loved ones of the victims want answers to hard questions, like why the fuck he was free in the first place despite his glaringly obvious history of violating contact bans and other noncompliance with court-imposed rules?

Someone can argue that Luke Wenke’s alleged crimes aren’t violent, but I find it funny how the why gets chronically overlooked. Why, as in, why Luke Wenke has never committed a violent crime: most likely because the authorities stopped him in time. It especially seems like this was the case with his first cyberstalking arrest in 2022. The feds found a hit list, a to-do list consisting of a drive-by shooting, and an AR-platform rifle in Wenke’s house. Yeah, the firearm was only partially assembled, but again, that’s possibly (or even likely) because Wenke was stopped in time.

There was also evidence that Wenke was actively engaging in discussions with a man in Ohio who was instructing him on how to convert the firearm to a fully-automatic weapon, and Wenke told employees at a gun part store that he was “building an AR.” But because law enforcement intervened and prevented any planned carnage from unfolding, his team is now flexing his lack of a violent history. That’s convenient.

It reminds me of the time my ex-boyfriend grabbed my hand, hit me in the face with it, and then said “I didn’t hit you, you hit yourself.” TeChNiCaLLy, I suppose he was right, but this didn’t make me feel any safer. I’m not saying that anyone involved in the case would agree with that example — I don’t talk to the parties, so I don’t know how they feel about something like that. I’m just saying that’s what the argument reminds me of, however correctly or incorrectly so. And I find the mindset behind the argument for bail to be abhorrent, but I’m entitled to my opinion and they’re entitled to theirs.

Wenke’s failure to execute his plan before his arrest does not even slightly translate to a lack of intent. Are the people advocating for his release truly confident that if he gets a similar idea in his head, he can and will be stopped before anyone is harmed? That’s a big gamble, because it involves human lives.