Home

Quinta Xavier Vonderheide

Mission Statement

Wendy Flanders' Accusations Against;

Mr Vonderheide

Mr Harris

Mr Caruso

Police Video

Quinta Xavier Vonderheide

Medical History

Current Custody Order

Birth Certificate

Filings by;

Mr Vonderheide

Mr Harris

John Harris Brief

Use of Churches

Kathy Yoder History

Kathy Yoder E-mail Plain Text

Articles

Filings by; Mr Vonderheide

1. In the first instance of this contempt activity, Ms. Flanders unilaterally changed the child’s name specifically and with the primary intent to cause physical, psychological and emotional separation from the natural father and to further her goal of alienation of affection and elimination of the natural father from all elements of the child’s life, thought process and activities. (Exhibit A ORDER, Exhibit B The Name Game)

2. Further, Ms. Flanders abused the process of law by falsely swearing, falsely testifying and filing false accusations, PFA’s, PFA violations and criminal charges causing alarm with all the child’s “new contacts” and again interfering with Child/Father relationship. To Wit:

Two PFA’s, five PFA violations and two criminal harassment charges of which:

A. First PFA dropped without evidence being presented.

B. Second pleaded to 60 days non-admission (After three postponements and thousands or dollars spent in legal fees, I was told we could not get in front of Court to defend).

C. Five PFA violations claimed by Ms. Flanders of which none were found to be violations by the Court. (Ms. Flanders had District Attorney and Victims’ Rights Personnel call police and complain that I was not arrested. I stated “I love you” in front of the police officer and Ms. Flanders immediately said, “That’s a PFA violation.”)

D. Harassment – After Ms. Flanders went on for twenty minutes on the stand the Judge threw it out without my testifying or presenting witness in court to refute Ms. Flanders testimony.

E. Second “CRIMINAL” harassment where I was advised that I could have to spend a year in prison based on Ms. Flanders accusations. Ms. Flanders made the charges in November 2003 about September 2003 activities. I represented myself pro se. I requested the evidence be reviewed and given to me by filing two BILLS OF PARTICULARS, DISCOVERY, MOTION TO COMPEL DA’S OFFICE, etc. The tape recordings involved were finally reviewed after a ruling by Judge Stengel. After eight months the DA’s office has now admitted that “At this time, after reviewing the tape recorded messages provided to our office by Ms. Wendy Flanders along with all other reports and phone records made available to us, the Commonwealth has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to proceed with the charge of Harassment against you in the above referenced criminal matter”. On this charge alone Ms. Flanders has so manipulated custody that the child has not had a visit with his father for five months. In the same process Ms. Flanders has allowed no more than five contacts on the telephone between Father and son over the past eight months. In fact Ms. Flanders had the church ministers and the police direct the father to call and try to make contact with the child and then Ms. Flanders misrepresented said calls as being “threatening, harassing, etc” to create this false criminal harassment charge.

F. Attempted to violate father’s bail to escalate the charges. Ms. Flanders used the "CONDITIONS OF BAIL” and further urging by third parties to break the court order and repeatedly attempt to lure father into traps.

On each occasion the filing was used to keep the child away from his father as long as possible. During these periods Ms. Flanders allowed the child no phone contact with his father.

NOTE: By way of demonstrating the long-term pattern of Ms. Flanders I have a large body of evidence to submit in the case of Mr. John Harris No. CI-99-4401 transpiring the past nine years in Lancaster courts with a near identical pattern. There is a third case with the first father of Ms. Flanders three children, which will further demonstrate history and pattern. In all these three cases with three children and three fathers have identical behavior by Ms. Flanders over a period of nineteen years. Interviewing or testimony of the two older children will show the results of these patterns on the childhood development.

3. Ms. Flanders having primary physical custody of the child has failed to provide to the father, advance information on a timely basis regarding school programs, events, meetings and teacher conferences involving the child.

A. Ms. Flanders played a game of taunting for months before child entered
Kindergarten refusing to advise the father of where or even if the child would be going to school and by what name he would be attending. This was also used by Ms. Flanders to further her accusations of harassment against father when father requested these answers on Ms. Flanders phone message machine.

B. Ms. Flanders eliminated the father from two preschools and any activities by changing the child’s name numerous times. (See Exhibit B ”name game”)

C. In fact the father has not received even the first coloring, paste-work, report card, newsletter, opportunity to buy pictures, invitation to talent show, pancake breakfast, etc.

D. Ms. Flanders has had the child call and invite the father to his baseball practice and games yet has refused the request to provide the times and locations of such events and more directly the name and phone # of the coach so the father can eliminate the subterfuge of Ms. Flanders in the best interest of the child.

4. Exhibit A reads in part; “When Mother begins school Father shall have partial physical custody one night each week, which shall either be a Tuesday or Wednesday depending upon the child's school schedule, from 4:00 p.m. on such day until 4:00 p.m. on the following day.”

• Instance of Contempt: Ms. Flanders refused to allow the child to spend the court ordered time with the father during school, initially restricting the visits to 4:30 PM – 6:30 PM only. Stating that the father was not capable of picking the child up or taking the child to school. When father stated that at a minimum the child could certainly stay out late with his father since school started at 12:45 PM, Ms. Flanders scoffed at the father as being inconsiderate of the child’s best interest and (as always) only interested in hurting Ms. Flanders through pushing visits which are not in the child’s best interest. Although child begins school at 12:45 PM he needed all of this time to rest for school the next day. Thus far through two preschools and the entire first year of kindergarten Ms. Flanders has absolutely refused to allow father to take child to or pick child up from school.

• Ms. Flanders has refused to make the child available for these visits at all over the past five months (see above).

• On 5/17 I contacted Mr. Wolman to request he instrument the order again for the weekday visit. On 5/18 Mr. Wolman left a message that Ms. Flanders had advised that she and I had agreed to 4:30 - 6:30. I explained the truth as stated above and logic behind it. In an effort to see the child and not cause confusion I stated that I would accept what Jim could get her to understand this time. I did explain the benefits and fatherly reason behind me picking him up at school etc I stated that Ms. Flanders has claimed to be frightened over and again the past two years yet every time I try to stay away from her she insists of contact. Picking up at school and walking to school the next day eliminates all contact and possibility of fear or paranoia. We could have done this for every visit if she wanted including weekends. I stated for the record that anything less than what the order called for is in direct contempt and further demonstrate Ms. Flanders refusal to follow the letter, intent or spirit of the court order. I oppose and do not agree to take any less time any longer and have explained to Mr. Wolman to please make clear to his client what it means to follow an order, although she knows and has more experience than most attorneys. I got a call back from Dafney at Mr. Wolmans office and was told that Ms. Flanders was willing to allow the visit to go until 7:30 but I needed to feed him in order to get this privilege (my word).

5. Exhibit A reads in part; The parents shall meet at the Conestoga Wagon Restaurant to exchange custody.

• Instance of contempt: Ms. Flanders refused to follow the court order for exchanges insisting instead that father submit himself to entrapping, specific, domineering and instigational conditions or Ms. Flanders refused to make the child available. Combined with condition of bail Ms. Flanders used this method to keep the child from having any visits over the past five months. Including Christmas, Easter and all. (Child’s presents opened 5/15/04). Specifically Ms. Flanders refused to bring the child to the Wagon restaurant as specified in the court order.

• Ms. Flanders stated to the counselors at her church that an attorney had advised her to make these changes on her own. Ms. Flanders told the child throughout the five-month contempt that the judge told daddy to come up into her driveway and that his daddy deserved to get arrested for not following the judge’s orders. Furthermore Ms. Flanders had the child dress up and wait falsely for the father after refusing to allow visitation (including Christmas Eve). The child would then cry and Ms. Flanders expressed what a bad guy the father is for not visiting the child.

• On May 13th 2004 Mr. James Wolman (Exhibit C) finally came out from the shadows and admitted he was representing Ms. Flanders in this case. The father immediately demanded that Mr. Wolman instrument the court order and explain to his client. Mr. Wolman refused on first call and stated he had to go. The next morning Mr. Wolman called back and had reconsidered. The first visit in five months took place on May 14th 2004 (the next day)

6. Exhibit A reads in part “Both parents shall permit reasonable telephone access to the child while the child is in his or her custody.”

• Ms. Flanders has consistently kept the child from telephone contact at every opportunity as one example I submit the following two instances;

• June 15th 2003 through June 22nd 2003 the father had the child on family reunion. As always the father made the child call Ms. Flanders every day. From June 23 2003 through July 14th 2003 Ms. Flanders took her “equal time" and completely refused to allow the child to call his father at all.

• From September 15th through September 29th 2003 the father called twenty three times leaving a message for the child to return his call. This was with the help, advice and direction of the local police department, church counselors and Ms. Flanders psychologist. The child did not call at all but Ms. Flanders used the records of these calls to file criminal harassment charges (charges dismissed when District Attorney heard tapes). During this false charge the child was kept from telephone contact for the period from September 14th 2003, through May 14, 2004 except for five “well directed, listened in on and word by word coached by Ms. Flanders. For the record I have witnessed Ms. Flanders listened in and prompted Bryna AKA Elizabeth, etc on every call her father ever made to her in my presence.

7. Exhibit A reads in part; “The parents are encouraged to accommodate the reasonable requests of the other parent for alterations of any agreed upon Schedule, as the circumstances and best interests of the child require.”

• Father agreed to allow the child to return early from his vacation time at Ms. Flanders request. (June 14th above reunion) Ms. Flanders stated in writing that she would allow make up of this week’s time but refused.

• Ms. Flanders has never once given any additional time or accommodated the father to modify a visit.

• Ms. Flanders is not capable of accommodating normal adjustments but rather uses these opportunities to hurt father by playing him to the end pretending to “work things out” and inevitably refusing the visit to occur in the child’s best interest.

• The father has made deals with Ms. Flanders and requested the child be permitted to visit his grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, etc when they are in town or having an event but Ms. Flanders has broken her word and otherwise kept the child from these opportunities each time. Including keeping him from his own birthday party at the river when all his relatives came in town last year.

8. Exhibit A reads in part; Both parents shall encourage the child to love and respect the other parent and shall not state, nor allow others to state, in the presence of the child, derogatory comments about the other parent. Both parents shall encourage the child to have significant contacts with the other parent, and. shall make certain that the child is ready on time for the transfer of physical custody from one parent to the other.

• As with all contempt Ms. Flanders has broken this part in so many ways I cannot detail. Therefore I focus on the following demonstrable examples:

• Ms. Flanders has poisoned the child with derogatory impressions about his father for over two years now and at every point. First and foremost Ms. Flanders has consistently found new people and played the abused mother act soliciting their well-intentioned protection from the child’s “Bad Daddy”. Ms. Flanders has used the false accusations and legal filings (see above) to support and convince these individuals and organizations that the child’s father is a terrible man and should be feared. That the father has no concern about the child but only wants to hurt Ms. Flanders. One organization at point is the Calvary church and Ms. Kathy Yoder as their agent.

Ms. Flanders has brainwashed the child into thinking his father is completely at fault and Ms. Flanders is just a poor victim. As example I submit the notes and quotes the most recent visit this week. Quinta Quotes 5/15/04 (first time alone and visitation after five months of programming) we go immediately to dinner.

• As soon as Quinta arrives he launched into an angry episode about how I destroyed his fort. I explain that I actually had rebuilt it at his sisters Bryna AKAs’ request after he said he wanted it torn down. I explain that I spent a thousand dollars on this to “Keep the connection” (Wendys suggestion) and that Bryna AKA had never even come to look at it. I changed the subject within a couple sentences to I love you only stuff. The point is he arrived angry and sure that I had harmed him.

• At dinner Quinta speaks loudly to passing waitress but everyone hears and laughs “My Daddy is filed with hatred and anger”. The first day I was in his class he introduced me to his friends as “This is my Daddy – he is filed with hatred and anger”

• Quinta asks if he can say prayer for dinner “All my regular prayers and please help Daddy get rid of his hatred and anger so we can spend more time together”

NOTE: John Harris and Bryna Harris AKA ELIZABETH Flanders, etc witnessed the dinner events.

• Next morning, “With your behavior you will not go to heaven. Me and Mommy will go to heaven but you will not”.

• “You should apologize and then you might go to heaven.”

• On phone talking mentioned Wendy. “Daddy stop it. You’re talking about my mommy again.” I state – what does your Mommy talk about all the time, answer “You”

• You are a liar and you say things to hurt my Mommy. Tried to address this but not happening yet. Specifically I asked, “What lie did I ever tell you” Quinta says he knows I am a liar and he will still think the same when he is fifteen and a half. Again and again he stated more emphatically “You are a liar, you are a liar, you make up lies to hurt my Mommy, will still think the same when he is fifteen and a half, etc”

• “Mommy does not lie ever.”

• “You do not pick clothes wisely”, or food or bed time or movies, or medicine – “Like my Mom.” Is representative of the fact that he is thoroughly convinced that everything I do, have done or will do is wrong and of course Mommy knows the correct behavior, responses, way to live and pathway to heaven.

• The judge told you to come into Mommy’s driveway to get me.

• You deserve to get arrested!

• You are a real “White Man”. White man destroys the earth and killed all the Indians. When I point out that he is white also he states angrily “Me and Mommy are Indians and you are White Man”.

• People only believe you because you tell them before Mommy.

• Libby (Bryna AKA various names) does not like you because of the mean messages you left. I asked who told him that and he stated “My Mom” then covered his lips and gave a look like he should not have said that.