Submitted to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals on July 22nd, 2025, the following document lays out the defence’s argument for why it believes Luke Wenke was erroneously mandated to inpatient mental health treatment following an evidentiary hearing in April of this year. In it, federal public defender Timothy P. Murphy argues that there’s insufficient evidence to indicate that Luke Wenke suffers from a mental disease or defect requiring hospitalisation.

The defence refutes the expert testimony of court-appointed forensic psychologist Dr. Corey Leidenfrost, who concluded that Luke Wenke is delusional and dangerous. After performing two evaluations on the defendant, Dr. Leidenfrost recommended involuntarily committing Wenke to a psychiatric facility, and Murphy makes sure to point out in the appeal brief that only one of these meetings occurred in person.

Furthermore, Murphy criticises Dr. Leidenfrost for failing to consult with Luke Wenke’s legal counsel and family, which he believes could have resulted in a more accurate diagnosis of the defendant’s alleged mental illness. I find it laughable that Wenke’s public defender tries to poke holes in Dr. Leidenfrost’s credibility while citing Wenke’s family members as potentially reliable sources of insight into Wenke’s mental health.

Anyone who’s been on this torturous ride as long as I have likely knows that Wenke is not the only person in his family who’s prone to alarmingly dysfunctional behaviour and making an outright mockery of the mental health system. And I don’t see how input from someone with such flawed thinking could possibly help an expert accurately diagnose a patient.

The defence claims that Luke Wenke had no arrest record prior to his federal case. This is untrue.

Luke Wenke had no previous criminal convictions when he was arrested by the FBI for cyberstalking in January of 2022. But he did, in fact, have an arrest record. As the following document shows, Wenke was arrested in Elkhart County, Indiana in December 2020 — more than a year before his federal arrest — on misdemeanour charges of marijuana possession and possession of drug paraphernalia.

I therefore don’t understand why Murphy wrote on page 16 of Wenke’s appeal brief that he had no arrest record prior to the “present matter.”

The District and Appeals Courts both denied Luke Wenke’s motion for a stay.

Almost immediately after Luke Wenke was ordered to undergo mental health treatment, his public defenders filed an appeal. In their efforts to secure what they apparently feel is an outcome in their client’s best interests, the defence sought to stay the enforcement of the court’s ruling. If granted, the motion would have spared Wenke from being placed in treatment while he challenged his case.

The District Court denied the motion in mid-May, and the Appeals Court denied a similar motion a month later. Shortly after the defence filed its appeal brief, U.S. Attorneys submitted a letter to the court requesting a three-month deadline to prepare the prosecution’s response. The letter also requests permission for the government to file supplemental documentation supporting its argument:

Same Shit, Bigger Pile.

At this point, I think this is the best way to describe Luke Wenke’s seemingly never-ending legal woes. The Bureau of Prisons website lists a projected release date of October 7th, yet the prosecution requested a deadline more than two weeks after that for filing its response to the appeal brief. A party involved in the case told me that Wenke could remain incarcerated past his max-out date, depending on his “response to treatment,” while others seem to regard the release date as the absolute latest that the authorities can keep him in custody.

I don’t know what to believe or whose information to trust, and that’s one of the biggest problems with this case. It’s extremely unfair to force Wenke’s victims to languish in fear and with no solid clue of when he’ll see freedom again.

I attempted to contact someone involved in the case for clarity regarding when Wenke will be freed, or even for a tentative release date. They did not get back to me, which isn’t uncharacteristic of the people overseeing Wenke’s case (although it is unusual for this person). Wenke’s custody situation, and the potential direction of his case, are treated like precious, privileged secrets that the authorities don’t want the public to be privy to, despite civilians generally having a right to know this information.

And don’t get me started on how my name is mentioned hundreds of times in the case documents, including motions, court hearing transcripts, and Luke Wenke’s moronic letters to the court, yet from my understanding, I’m not “officially” considered a victim.

Despite my frustrations, I still agree with the defence on certain things.

In the appeal brief, Murphy notes that Luke Wenke demonstrated a capability of understanding and following rules during a 45-day stint in general population at a federal jail in Chicago. This doesn’t surprise me. I’ve long been aware that Luke Wenke is more lucid than the authorities seem willing to acknowledge. I know that he has a full understanding of the rules and boundaries that he knowingly chooses to disregard and violate.

Murphy also pointed out that during his time at the jail, Luke Wenke managed to avoid raising any concerns among staff regarding the safety of other inmates. I think it’s far-fetched to imply that this means Wenke is a peaceful or non-disruptive person, especially after former inmates who served time with him told me that he doesn’t act like a tough guy in jail. Several people have described Wenke’s jail personality as quiet and meek — in other words, a complete contrast to how he typically acts “on the outside” — and, therefore, an inaccurate measuring stick for gauging his likelihood to endanger free civilians.

So, am I convinced that just because Luke Wenke acts docile around other prisoners that it means he’s a non-threat to me, his other victims, or society in general? Not by a long shot, especially since he continues to run his mouth and obsess over me in his letters to the court.