By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell Book
BBC - Guardian UK - Complaint - DPA Deal
SDNY Exclusive, Jan 5 – Brooklyn based literary agent Weronika Janczuk was arrested on January 11, 2022 for cyber-stalking.
On July 21 the US Attorney's Office agreed to defer prosecuting her.
To some, it stood in contrast to a contemporaneous prosecution for alleged telephone threat to a theater / screening in Manhattan. The basis of the decision is not known. Deferred Prosecution Agreement on Inner City Press' DocumentCloud, here.
In September, after the DPA, Janczuk emailed a series of threats to Inner City Press, as well as demands for censorship: "Please pull all content: here Weronika Janczuk Sun, Sep 11, 11:11 AM to editorial, jwolf Please pull immediately, also: here The content sent herein is legal in nature and intent, and is protected from publication by e-channel'd privacy & security laws, IP protections, and positively-declared NDA statutes."
The cc-ed jworf replied, "Dear Amy [of MacMillan) and Inner City Press – I imagine I have received this email because I’m the outside general counsel for the American Association of Literary Agents. (I’m cc’ing our President, Jennifer Weltz, on this.) I have no idea what this email means or even what it’s about. Ms. (Dr?) Janczuk is not a member of our organization."
On October 4, this: "Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker: Pretrial Release Violation Hearing as to Weronika Janczuk held on 10/4/2022. Deft Appears with Federal Defender Sylvie Levine by Clay Kaminsky and AUSA Edward Robinson for the government. Detention on Consent w/o Prejudice."
How was a deferred prosecution agreement allowed in this case, and denied in others?
With this question still unanswered, on April 13, 2023 this: "SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.So Ordered, Katherine H. Parker." There was no document attached.
Thereafter, with the last non-sealed entry saying Janczuk remained detained on consent, on October 22 and then December 22, 2023 a series of one month Orders to Continue in the Interest of Justice.
On January 5, 2024, Janczuk appeared without any advance notice in the SDNY Magistrates Court. Inner City Press was there. She pled not guilty to an information, after waiving indictment. The AUSA asked for a control date of January 29, saying his Office has extended a plea offer. The Federal Defender, who Jancsuk previously tried to fire, whispered with her. In the gallery was a well dressed middle aged man and a young girl - described as visitors or observers. Do victims rights (to be notified) statutes apply here? There was still no "cr" docket number. Watch this site.
In the complaint, the prosecutors quoted the defendant telling the target, "I swear I will kill you... I will seriously castrate you." Complaint now on Inner City Press' DocumentCloud here.
It emerges that people who should have been told of the impending DPA and release, weren't.
According to the DPA, Janczuk should have no contact with Duncan Sahner, Elizabeth Sahner, Christian Sahner, Brigid Casey, Ronald Sahner, Thomas Phillips, Sarah Jane Sahner. Also, no contact with any employee of Abdiel Capital including Colin Moran, Geoff & Lauren Gentile, Peter & Lindsay Snedeker, David Escamilla, David Chi, David Mosher, Natalie Dabkowski, Albert Horsting, Rachel Leichner, Connor Cucalon, Megan Clarine, Robert Kriegsman, Jihym Kim, Charlotte Burke, Tori Mercado, Stephen Pascoe.
She is not go to 78 Durand Road, Maplewood NJ 07040; Abdiel Capital, 90 Park Avenue, NY 10016, Lathan & Watkins, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, 10020 and St. Vincent Ferrer Church, 869 Lexington Avenue, NY NY 10065.
But before the DPA was rubber stamped, there was no notice in the docket at all. We'll have more on these contradictions.
At 7 pm that night she was told she would be a "guest of the government" overnight, until she can be fitted with a location monitoring GPS bracelet. Inner City Press was there - as it was on March 22, when Janczuk's request to represent herself was not granted. Instead, she is being referred, still in detention, for a psychological examination. As of the March 22 proceeding, her requests were not in the public docket.
On March 22 between 2 and 3 pm, Janczuk stood before SDNY Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses. She insisted she wanted to represent herself. Judge Moses inquired, but then declined to grant the request, pending a psychological exam, citing US v. Barnes, 693 F.3d 261, 270.
Judge Moses asked the Federal Defender and AUSA to submit a draft order for the exam, naming a licensed practitioner. Inner City Press mused, in writing, Will that go into the docket?
Nothing until April 4: "ORDER as to Weronika Janczuk: it is hereby ORDERED that a psychiatric examination be conducted by Dr. Paradis of Ms. Janczuk at MDC Brooklyn, and that a report of such examination, including Dr. Paradis's opinion as to whether Ms. Janczuk is "competent to represent [her]self at trial," United States v. Barnes, 693 F.3d 261, 270 (2d Cir. 2012), be provided to the Court under seal; and it is further ORDERED that the Court will pay the cost of the evaluation (at a rate of $400/hour, not to exceed 15 hours); and it is further ORDERED that the Bureau of Prisons and MDC Brooklyn will permit Dr. Paradis to conduct an evaluation either in person or remotely with Ms. Janczuk (Reg. No. 81379-509), and during the examination, Dr. Paradis is permitted to bring and/or use the tools of her examination, including but not limited to a stopwatch, notepad, blank paper, pencils, pens, paper books and tests. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 4/4/2022)."
The doctor is Cheryl Paradis, Psy.D.
Forty days later, no results - but on May 13 the US Attorney's Office put in a letter requesting another continuance.
And on June 22, this: "ORDER as to Weronika Janczuk: Defendant Weronika Janczuk, charged by complaint with one count of making threatening interstate communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. ง 875(c) and one count of cyberstalking in violation of 18 U.S.C. งง 2261A(2)(A) and 2261A(2)(B), has now sent four letters directly to the undersigned Magistrate Judge from the Metropolitan Detention Center, where she is detained. Because the defendant is represented by counsel, the Court will forward all such letters to her counsel and will not docket them or further consider them. The defendant is reminded that all motions and other requests for judicial relief in her criminal case must be presented to the Court through her counsel. If the defendant wishes to file a civil action, in which she is the plaintiff, she may do so pro se. However, a civil action cannot be initiated by means of a letter addressed to an individual judge. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 6/22/2022)."
Apparently, these are not being deemed judicial documents. We note, however, that she tried to fire her Federal Defender but is being evaluated as to whether that is a knowing decision. So in one view, she is incommunicado. Could she sent her letter(s) to her Federal Defender along with the instruction to file them on ECF? Or write to some other(s)?
On July 13, the US asked for another month, saying in its declaration that "defense counsel and I are engaged in discussions concerning a possible disposition... we plan to continue our discussions." But didn't Janszuk move to fire her appointed lawyer, and it is delayed pending this competency review? How can the US be negotiating with defense counsel in this context?
Inner City Press remains on the case.
Back on January 11 she slammed the table and was led into the holding cell by two U.S. Marshals. Inner City Press, the only media in the public courtroom, published an article about it an hour later.
On January 14, Janczuk who is represented by Federal Defender Sylvie Jill Levine left a voicemail making a threat. While Inner City Press is not unsympathetic toward this defendant and others, court proceedings and public and can and should be reported.
On March 14 opposition was filed to an application by Federal Defenders for Janczuk which had not itself been docketed. And the opposition has a sealed exhibit. But it states among other things that
"The day after she was released, the defendant went in the middle of the day to a particular church, which is the Victim’s place of worship. When contacted by Pretrial Services about her location there, the defendant claimed that she had been attending the church for years. That explanation, however, is inconsistent with the fact that the Victim had resided in Minnesota from 2019 to 2021;"
"A few days prior to January 18, 2022, the defendant left four voice mail messages on Judge Moses’s Chambers’s voicemail, one of which was 15 minutes long and two of which were 8 minutes long. The number that left those voicemails was the same number assigned to the phone that was seized incident to the defendant’s arrest on January 11. Lawfully obtained GPS data for the phone assigned that number showed that the defendant was in New Jersey from January 25 to 26. Law enforcement was told by the defendant’s roommate and the superintendent for her apartment that the defendant was asking them about law enforcement’s whereabouts;"
There's more. But who was informed of FD's application?
On March 21 the belated docketed of a decision taken on March 15, with the underlying request still not in the docket: "Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger: Bail Hearing as to Weronika Janczuk held on 3/15/2022. Deft Appears with Federal Defender Sylvie Levine and AUSA Edward Robinson for the government. Detention; See Transcript (dif)." But the transcript, needless to say, is not in PACER. Watch this site.
Previously: on the morning of January 27 after several more communications (and no response from Janczuk's counsel) Inner City Press was alerted that Janczuk had been arrested again.
After covering two trials throughout the day (US v. Avenatti and US v. Dowd) Inner City Press went to the SDNY Magistrates Court and, upon inquiry, was informed that Janczuk was detained. Later this was confirmed in the docket: Detention: Risk of Flight / Danger.
But which is it? Both? Inner City Press held off reporting that beyond the communication unilaterally declared off the record, Janczkuk did an Internet post about "the journalist," and an Instagram post implying she would go to Italy.
From the post: "A notice of these charges, as well as the journalist’s singular interpretation and context, were published in a local press without any comment from her or the agency, incipient grounds for slander. We do our work with the greatest seriousness, professionalism, transparency, integrity, capacity, cleverness, and more, and our team remains infinitely well, healthy, dedicated, and hard-working. Given a private legal background of her own, Ms. Janczuk will litigate these claims in courts herself, in accord with constitutional right, until resolved."
From Instagram: "in anticipation of summer, and perhaps a March spent in Bologna, Italy, a European country some frog-jumps over, for a literary book fair."
Literary, indeed. Inner City Press has written more - watch this site.
Here now is a written libel threat - we note that the email address (the conditions of release are a single personal and work email address) and the cc-ing of the publicly paid Federal Defender:
"From: Icona Rysztosik iconarysztosik [at] gmail [at] com Date: Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 11:07 AM Subject: 2022.01.14. 11.04am EDT || LIBEL Illegal/Inappropriate Disclosure of Private Fiscal Data
To: Inner City Press Cc: sylvie levine [at] fd [dot] org>
Dear Mr. Lee, Please remove the article from online scaffolds immediately. No guilt has been judged such by the court. One stands innocent until proven guilty. No fiscal situation information was deemed public information. No permission for publication was granted by the defendant. You have grounds herein for libel. You have until the end of the day to remove this article's content on the grounds above, and then I will begin legal measures where I must. Thank you. Cheers, Weronika."
What is said in open court is public. In fact, fiscal information has been ordered unsealed upon Inner City Press requests. Here, it was never sealed. And in terms of finances, New York has anti-SLAPP suit fee shifting provisions.
Janczuk is from Canada, where currently accused pedophile Peter Nygard has his extradition hearings shielded in secrecy by a Canadian law prohibiting publication of anything but the outcome. Perhaps that is one of the factors that allowed Nygard to abuse his victims for so long. In any case, it is not the law in the US, much less in New York.
Inner City Press is now publishing the Complaint in US v. Janczuk, here. We will have more on this.
The January 11 detention or remand that Inner City Press reported took place after a two hour long proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Magistrates Court.
On January 13 Inner City Press after being contacted by others in Janczuk's orbit belatedly obtained and review the complaint in the case. It quotes Janczuk's emails to Victim-1, "a partner who works for an investment fund located in New York, New York," and to his family.
On April 17, 2021 Janczuk wrote to Victim-1, Subject: Cuntz: You've Made Me Orgasmic Message: [Victim] I swear that I will kill you.
She is subject to an order of protection in Minnesota, Dakota County Judge Arlene M. Perkkio, Dkt 19 HA-CV-20-2141. She was arrested on June 30, 2021 on Long Island for violating it.
There followed a Nassau County restraining order CR-009426-21NA, in effect until June 30, 2022. There's more - watch this site.
Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses twice summoned Pre-Trial Services out of the courtroom to discuss the case off the record. Pre-Trial Services was recommending that the Janczuk be held in detention pending trial.
Assistant US Attorney Edward Charles Robinson described Janczuk as cyber-stalking a victim he left unnamed, and the victim's family members and place of work, which he described as an investment firm / law firm. We can now report that Victim-1's last name begins with S.
Only two days prior to her arrest and one-night Federal detention, Janczuk had been tweeting photos of a Polish restaurant in Brooklyn. Other of her accounts have been removed (for example, "weronikajanczuk.wordpress.com is no longer available. The authors have deleted this site") but still online is an article, "Cyber-stalking does not get you agents and editors." The allegation did, however, give rise to this arrest and detention.
The case was US v. Janczuk, 21-mj-10886 (Moses / Wang).
Now it is US v. Janczuk, 24-cr-10 (Schofield)
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.
