Hummer: A Humdinger of a Judge!
See the photos Judge Hummer doesn't want you to see!

October 6, 2005

Why would a Lancaster County Judge not want you to see evidence that cleared a man of criminal charges?

5thEstate.com has been following family court Judge, Wayne Hummer, after receiving many complaints regarding Hummer's bias and improper rulings that damage families and destroy careers and lives. The accusations came from many quarters and from people from all walks of life. The accusations were seemingly outrageous, but were they true? After spending over a year investigating and seeing first hand how "the system" works, 5thEstate.com is ready for a story.

This first story has more drama than an afternoon soap opera and yet it is very real. Unlike a soap opera, some of the "stars" in the drama won't be able to go back to a normal life when the cameras are turned off. At first hearing, you will not believe the abuse that some people put up with at the hands of a Lancaster County judge, the courts, the District Attorney, the Children and Youth, the police and a host of others in supporting roles for this real life drama called family court.

Wendy Flanders, who lives on Main St in Leola, is an attractive 45 year old woman with bright eyes and a beautiful, engaging smile. If you were to meet Flanders, you would be struck by her soft-spoken, feminine and demure manner. Wearing ladylike dresses and skirts, along with her quiet ways, it often makes people, in particular men, draw closer to hear what she has to say. Unlike many women her age, Flanders doesn’t "color" her long, below-the-shoulder hair that is starting to have more silver than black. She has three children, ages 20, 13 and 7. She has no employer and drives an attractive jeep. Flanders has a great tan thanks to her Leola pool membership and while each of Flander's children have a different father, she's never been married.

So how does Flanders support herself? Flanders is on full-time Social Security disability, but that's only part of her income. All three of her ex-paramours currently or in the past have given her a monthly stipend. With the help of taxpayer funded legal services, police, judges, Sheriff-deputies and prosecutors, as well as, Calvary church on Landis Valley Road, Flanders has single-handedly (conservatively) cost taxpayers hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars or more with filings, police actions, court hearings, jail-time and everything that goes with it.

So who is this "born-again" Wendy Flanders' chief enabler? It's a 68 year old Lititz man who has made absolutely illogical and bizarre decisions that has encouraged and foster this abuse of the system. It's caused men to be thrown in jail without cause and has drained their finances as they fight the onslaught of Wendy Flanders' false and slanderous charges.

At the end of this year, Judge Wayne Hummer will celebrate 43 years as an attorney. By law, Hummer must retire August 18, 2007 upon reaching his 70th birthday. 5thEstate.com has been tracking a number of cases through his courtroom as well as observing first hand Judge Hummer's disregard for both the Pennsylvania and United States constitutions. Meanwhile, families are destroyed and children's lives are negatively impacted.

It's routine for "child custody hearings" to drag out for months and even years. Along that way, Hummer will make dozens of "little" decisions that are contradictory, illogical and hurtful to the child. Other than his decisions, there is often NO record. This black robe will make these decisions without a court reporter making a record of what was presented or discussed and sometimes behind closed doors! But can't people just appeal any decision the judge makes? Only when the judge makes a final decision after months and possibly years later! That means a father who is under a court order to see his 10 year old child every other weekend could appeal the judge's decision when the child is a teenager! By that time, the estrangement and alienation has already taken hold.

And what happens when there is evidence that Judge Hummer made a BIG mistake? Hummer will order the evidence destroyed! (But it's too late - 5thEstate.com already had it!) Wendy Flanders is an expert on using the Protection From Abuse (PFA) laws to control, manipulate and make her ex-lover's lives miserable. Want to see for yourself? When 5thEstate.com first examined the website WendyFlanders.com, we weren't sure if we could believe all of it. This website was created by one of Wendy Flanders' victims, Ben Vonderheide. The hundreds of pages of court papers represented thousands of hours of time for court employees, Sheriff deputies, jail guards, police and especially lawyers. And hundreds of thousands of dollars of your money!

Another time, 5thEstate.com will examine PFAs and how the system works, or in this case - doesn't work! But suffice it to say, Wendy Flanders and Ben Vonderheide has experienced an acrimonious breakup! But then so were all her breakups with all three men! How do we know this? The public record is filled with dozens and dozens of filings originating from Flanders! Each man has PFAs filed against them as well as many Indirect Criminal Contempt (ICC).

What about Hummer? Since the judge knows that the former couple are not getting along, is the judge making sure that his decisions make sure that they don't have conflict? After all, is the judge to make things easier or harder for the child? Time and time again Judge Hummer has made rulings that has increased the conflict between the parents. And just who is at the center of the all the court-controlled conflict? The child.

Let's examine a situation that was inspired by Wendy Flanders and one in which Judge Hummer put his stamp of approval on! On September 29, 2004, in making a decision on the THIRD PFA accusation made by Flanders, Judge Workman gave an order which described how the exchange of their child should be handled. Specifically, "During custody exchanges, Plaintiff Wendy Flanders shall remain in her car when she drops off or picks up the child at the curb. She may watch the child walk to the house, but shall NOT get out of the car." (emphasis 5thEstate.com)

In light of the problems that Wendy and Ben have had, that made a lot of sense to not let them get anywhere near each other - right? On October 19, 2004, Custody Conference Officer Tim Lanza, Esquire and the parties agreed to have their future custody exchanges at the Lancaster City Police Station.

During a custody exchange six weeks later, on November 30, 2004, in the lobby of the police station, Wendy Flanders accused Ben Vonderheide of :

" The defendant did during a child custody exchange step toward the victim and placed his body in front of the victim. The victim then stood up to walk away and the defendant bumped his chest against the victim's chest. The defendant then grabbed the victim's right wrist with his left hand and demanded her to give him their son... "

The problem with Flanders' accusations? Let's cut to screen shots from the police surveillance video that shows Flanders is a liar! But before showing that proof, read what Judge Hummer says in his court order denying you the right to see this proof!

" And NOW this 18 Day of February, 2005, upon consideration of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Motion for Return of Property, it is hereby ordered that Bennett J. Vonderheide, and his counsel Lucile Longo, Esquire, return the any and all copies of Exhibit DVD from the January 11, 2004, custody hearing, and all copies to the Lancaster Bureau of Police. The original Exhibit DVD will remain in custody or the Court of Common Pleas.

Further, Bennet J. Vonderheide is ordered to remove all evidence of this digital recording from any internet website, and is prohibited from displaying this recording on the internet or through any other media. "

Oops. Sorry Judge, but 5thEstate.com got a copy before you tried to hide it! Now why wouldn't a judge want people to see evidence that cleared a man of an accusation? At press time, Judge Hummer had not returned repeated attempts to contact him. Notice the first frame where Ben is standing. Wendy is sitting next to their child. In the next frame, (the video system's next frame!) Ben is moving away from Wendy and she is moving toward him. Is this the actions of a woman who is "…afraid of what he will do next"? Or is it the action of woman who wants to instigate and cause a problem?
Next, Wendy stands up and moves toward Ben. Why doesn't she remain seated?! Conversely, Ben moves away from Wendy. (the video system apparently captures a frame every few seconds - these are continuous frames)
While Ben is focusing on the child, Wendy has gone all the way to the other side of Ben!
Wendy says that Ben was the aggressor!
Wendy was dropping their son off - why is she not giving the child to his father?

Why didn't Wendy let her child walk to his dad? Why didn't she remain seated until the boy and his dad walked away? If Wendy had, there would ha+ve been no criminal complaint to file against Ben. And no jail time for Ben.

At 10:30 that night, Southern Regional Police Department banged on Ben's door. They hand-cuffed Ben and hauled him off to spend the night in Lancaster County Prison. Why? All Wendy had to do was show up later in the evening and make her charges against Ben. What about the boy? Police took him to his mother who waiting down the street from Ben's house.

Now Judge Hummer did rule in Ben's favor BUT only because there was a video to prove Flanders was lying! What was Flanders' penalty for lying? Absolutely nothing. There is no disincentive for Flanders to stop filing false charges. The District Attorney decided that the videotape was "inconclusive" in terms of charging her with "false swearing"! In fact, Flanders got to see her enemy thrown in jail AND she took her son away from his dad. Mission accomplished.

After seeing that Wendy had made an outrageous lie, did Hummer stop enabling Wendy? To the contrary. Hummer ordered the video removed from WendyFlanders.com. When Wendy wanted to move the custody exchange to the YWCA, Hummer agreed! After all, there are no cameras to vindicate Ben at the Y!

If Hummer was truly interested in stopping the conflict during the custody exchange, why wouldn't Hummer agree to have the parents drop-off and pick-up their child before or after school? That's the argument that Ben put forth when Wendy wanted to move to the "Y"

Wendy will often bring a "witness", former Calvary Church Counselor, Kathy Yoder along to these custody exchanges. If Wendy Flanders has so much "fear" of Ben why would she not stay in the car or even stay at home and let Yoder do the child exchange?