jump to navigation

Gert McQueen answers the secret is out – more evidence of misdeeds and lies by Joan Wheeler May 19, 2011

Posted by Ruth in Black and White Evidence of Joan Wheeler's Lies: Letters, Court Documents, Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Gert McQueen

There are many essays or blog posts that I have written that have not been seen yet on this blog. Seeing that we are discussing and showing our EVIDENCE I feel it is time for the following to be posted. It is part of a larger essays where I discuss many pieces of evidence about Joan’s lying. And we do have the physical documents to go with it. Here we go:

BUT FIRST…UPDATE, August 2016,

as older posts are being seen I’m updating with links to my second blog and a Facebook page wherein I expose AGAIN the lies, fabrications and hate that Joan M Wheeler says about me and family. After the first book was pulled from publication by the publisher, May 2011, she has ‘self-published’ another ‘revised’ version. In this ‘version’ called ‘duped by adoption’ she has increased her exploitation by including PICTURES and REAL NAMES and much more personal information violating again the families. Joan has no decency NOR shame. There is NOTHING in this book for adoption reform. She is totally against adoption and her two families. To learn more see…



keep this all in mind as you READ this EVIDENCE, then ask your self…is Joan really to be believed?

The next pieces of evidence are in connection to the article The secret is out that Joan wrote in 1990 published in England and the aftermath from it. This article caused great concern because in the article Joan uses her sisters’ real names, interestingly enough not mine. In any event, the publication of that article is what caused certain letters to be written, alerting those agencies, listed in the article, that privacy was not afforded to the persons mentioned in the article. These letters were not ‘harassments’ but legitimate letters of concern for the breach of privacy the author committed. It is only Joan who turns these letters into gross obscene letters in her fabrication of telling of them. 

As I have stated in previous posts, I did not write any letters to Joan and it is a falsehood for Joan to write in her book on pg 308 ‘…my sisters wrote harassing letters in the months after our family reunion of 92’. Which sisters? She does not say, so how can anyone be sure whom Joan is referring to?

(Ruths’ note: as usual, Joan lumps all three of her sisters as one entity. Only thing is, we didn’t write harassing letters to her, either individually or collectively.)

On pg 310 she writes ‘…the 40 page letter that my sisters put together…’ and ‘…my sisters included copies of long handwritten letters they wrote to the nine major adoption…’ Wrong! Joan does not name the sisters because there were no sisters, in the plural. Ruth and I never wrote to those nine major adoption agencies listed in the article. Kathy wrote legitimate letters of concern for the breach of privacy; all else is pure nonsense and fabrication by Joan. Furthermore, Kathy wrote an seven-page letter, not 40 pages; Joan loves hyperbole! (see graphics #4a-4g below).

Hyperbole…exaggeration: deliberate and obvious exaggeration used for effect.

Again, we shall revisit this issue, when I return to the book, after I complete this presentation of the evidence of Joan’s own behavior of fabrication, telling lies, doing harassments, and other deeds that are not in her book. For now it is sufficient to state that we three sisters, who are refuting the lies of Joan, possess proof that she is a liar and user of hyperbole solely for the effect of putting us sisters in bad light.

As part of the fallout from the breach of privacy and Joan’s consistent disregard for returning Kathy’s personal property to her, Kathy in England , demanded her property returned to her. There were negotiations; monies sent by Kathy to Joan, for shipping, back and forth letters, but all of Kathy’s efforts were stalled by Joan because Joan had excuse after excuse for not sending them.

Evidence here: In two letters that Joan wrote to Kathy (ca.1992) we learn from Joan, in one, ‘…yes I did receive the money order…put it in a special account for when I have time to pack everything for you…can’t do it right now…don’t have a car…can’t do anything right now…Colby lost his job…trying to cope with unemployment…I am working two part-time jobs…pay is low…with this new upset…going and finding your scrapbooks will just have to wait…. the records are safe…I’ll let you know when I can get the stuff together…before Christmas…’  and in another ‘…have been sad that our relationship ended abruptly and that I have caused you pain…felt the need to reach out to you…need to apologize for overstepping my bounds in your life…I respect your right to privacy and am sorry for my past behaviors…I ask forgiveness…and hope that we can be friends again…since I’m rather busy now, I will try to pack up your things sometime before Christmas…working two part-time jobs and will be going back to college in the fall…’ (see graphics 1 and 2 below).

So we see from Joan’s own words; that she did receive money to send Kathy’s things back to her, that she put the money in a special account, for when she has time, but she can’t do it now, no car, husband lost a job, coping with unemployment, working two jobs, pay is low, new upset, getting your stuff will just have to wait, let you know when I can get the stuff to you later but sad that our relationship ended abruptly and I caused you pain, need to reach out to you, to apologize, respect your right to privacy, sorry for past behaviors, ask forgiveness, can be friends, but I’m rather busy now, will try to pack your stuff before Christmas, working two jobs and going back to college in the fall.

Would you, reader, buy that brunch of boloney? She was given the money to ship the items but found excuses for not doing so and yet she has the money and time to go back to college! How nice! Priorities!

Neither did Kathy, buy it that is, and when Kathy puts the pressure on to get her property back, Joan enlists the ‘big guy’; Dr. Rene Hoksbergen, the very same that wrote the forward of this book of lies and fabrications! It ought to be noted that the last time the good Dr. saw a ‘draft’ of the book was in 2006, three years before publication! Joan has done extensive rewrites since he saw it. I wonder if Dr Hoksbergen would approve of the published work? Perhaps I shall write him! I’ll think about that!

In the meanwhile, I’ll just inform folks with, yes that’s right, evidence here, just what Dr Hoksbergen said to my sister Kathy on Joan’s behalf. (see graphic #3 below). It ought to be remembered that Joan is a very good con artist. Joan can play the part of the misused, misunderstood adoptee, that the birth family seems to go out of their way to make life miserable for her. This letter by Dr Hoksbergen was written to Kathy in April 1993.

In part he says: ‘…you will be amazed that you suddenly get a letter from a complete stranger…(goes into his educational and professional backgrounds)…connected with the phenomenon of adoption …conference in 1987 I met your sister Joan Wheeler…tried to help her with some of her questions and problems…I very well know the complexity of her life situation and emotional stress this often gives to her…sometimes we have to give adoptees some more time and understanding then we do in other occasions…conference in April I had a long discussion with Joan about many important family related questions. It has become clear to me that she is very sad about the problems she seems to have with you. It is a pity that rather uncomplicated questions of yours, has given deep going emotional stress to at least Joan and as far as I understand also to you. Let me be more clear: you have asked her to send back your goods…last year Joan had a lot of material problems…not having a car, losing her jobs etc…Joan does not have the money…(goes into detail about weight and costs)…it is an idea to ask Joan what precisely you definitely want to have back as soon as possible…the rest could be taken back slowly, when you visit your friends and relations in the USA…to my opinion problems like these should not divide people…related…who might need each other…when people live far away from each other…things easily might become complicated…I would ask you to forgive Joan what you think she did wrongly…I’m sure that her intensions are good…but she has problems to carry out the things you asked her…I know she would love it so much to have a good friendship with you…she has tried to see you in Liverpool…but she does not have the money for it…it is a useful idea if you write me back about your suggestions…if you prefer this in stead of writing directly to Joan…I know that she very much want to solve the problems you have with each other…’

Okay! Here’s what I see in this communication; first and foremost intimidation by a professional with the use of a condescending tone to a woman who has already paid to have her personal property return and is being denied justice. Secondly, what I see is, the continuation of the mixture of intimidation as well as a good dose of browbeating, which btw is somewhat common with the professional attitudes of doctors.

‘phenomenon of adoption’  …since when is adoption a phenomenon?

‘complexity of her life situation and emotional stress’ …do only adoptee have complexity and emotional stress, is this some kind of new ‘condition’ that the rest of the population doesn’t have?

‘give adoptees some more time and understanding then we do in other occasions’ …again, what makes the adoptee some kind of special needs person? Does this mean they are in the same category as the physically and mentally ‘challenged’ individuals are in (for those that are not PCs they are commonly called retarded)?

‘she is very sad about the problems she seems to have with you’ …oh so Joan needs a professional to communicate that sentiment?

‘it is a pity’ …no shit!

‘Let me be more clear’ …by all means, what he is saying is that Kathy and by extension the rest of the birth family ‘needs’ to understand the special conditions that the adoptee has and we must alter our views.

(Ruth’s note: the birth family is not considered to be human, with our own human needs, desires, etc. ONLY the adoptee matters. – BULLSHIT – I am just as IMPORTANT as the adoptee, they are NOT the center of the universe, just because in their view, they got shafted. LOTS of people the world over get shafted every day, adopted or not. Life sucks. DEAL WITH IT.)

‘Joan does not have the money’ … she was given the money, what happened to it and even if she wasn’t given the money why is it that she can’t give back someone else’s property?

(Ruth’s note: What happened to this money, that Joan says she put in a “special account?” I know what happened to it – the same thing that happened to MY money that Joan and I had in a joint checking account for the purpose of buying real estate in 1990 – Joan STOLE it – used if for HER living expenses).

‘had a lot of material problems’ …is Joan the only person in the world with problems, does not Kathy have anything in her life that should be considered here?

‘the rest could be taken back slowly, when you visit your friends and relations in the USA’   …an assumption that Kathy will be visiting the USA, was never in the negotiations to begin with, that’s a direct attempt at turning the whole thing back onto Kathy.

‘to my opinion’ …amazing that he didn’t send Kathy a bill for his opinion, what did it cost Joan for getting the doctor to write this letter?

(Ruth’s note: I wonder as well. All evidence points to  Joan and the doctor being waaay beyond professional ties.)

‘‘ask you to forgive Joan what you think she did wrongly’ …excuse me! what right does this guy have to say such a thing?

‘that her intensions are good’ …intensions my ass, any intelligent person knows that following through is what matters!

‘to have a good friendship with you’ …that falls squarely onto Joan’s shoulders and no one else!

‘it is a useful idea if you write me back.’ …no thank you!

‘that she very much want to solve the problems you have with each other’ …we have heard that before!

So there you have it, the evidence of Joan Wheeler’s own behavior of fabrication, telling lies, doing harassments, and other deeds that are not in her book, Forbidden Family.

Ruth’s additional note – examine carefully Dr. Hoksbergen letter to Kathy – Joan told him that it would cost about $500.00 to ship her belongings to her. Really? Kathy enlisted the help of our father to get her belongings back. My father never owned a car, never learned to drive. So what he did, was TAKE A TAXI-CAB to Joan’s house and get Kathy’s belongings and took them to his house, packed them up and shipped them over to Kathy in three different shipments. On July 7, 1993, the first shipment went out, costing my father $52.75. On August  7, 1993, the second shipment went out, costing $45.95. On November 23, 1993, the third and final shipment went out, costing $52.95. The total my father paid was $150.95 – far less than the $500.00 Joan led Dr. Hoskbergen to believe. And this bullshit happened only 3 years after Joan conned me out of several hundred dollars! Joan is a liar, a thief and a con-artist. She belongs in jail! The letters she wrote to Kathy in 1992 (graphics 1 and 2, are the same kind of nonsense she had feeding me in 19990 and 1991 about the money she stole from me. Apologies, crocodile tears, promises of repayment, excuse after excuse why she couldn’t pay me back, blah, blah, blah, until I finally had enough of her lies and bullshit and turned my back on her completely – I lost around $700.00 to her, and that doesn’t even cover the interest I was paying every month – yes, interest – it wasn’t even MY money Joan stole – it was money I borrowed from the bank – Joan put me into debt – I couldn’t afford to fix my car, I was forced to take a bus in the snow and cold, while Joan drove a car, which she fixed with MY (borrowed) money! As I noted above – this money was in a joint checking account to buy real estate – Joan stole it for her own day-to-day living expenses. After I washed my hands of her in 1991, she went to find another mark – she tried to play Kathy for a fool – she got 50 bucks out of Kathy. Now you know why her birth sisters turned their backs on her. Joan also did NOT return all of Kathy’s belongings: missing are valuable Beatles collectibles: Beatles bubble gum sets, copies of The Beatles Fan Club magazine, a signed sketch by original Beatle member Stuart Sutcliffe. By not returning these items (and others) – Joan is guilty of THEFT. Joan has been asked for years to return these items, I personally saw them in the attic of her house on Swinburne St. in the late 1980’s, so she cannot LIE and say she doesn’t have them.

See the graphics 5a and 5b, below – my father’s receipts! Proof positive that Joan is a liar and a con-artist and LIED to her palsie-walsie, Dr. Rene Hoksbergen. And Dr. Hoksbergen, was so stupid as to be conned by Joan, stuck his nose into our family business, and got a complaint made to his employer, Utrecht University about his unprofessionalism. He apparently didn’t learn his leasson, because in 2006, he was conned by Joan again into writing a forward to her lying book. Unless he wasn’t really conned after all – won’t be the first time a man was drawn into a woman’s web. Just look what Arnold Schwarzenegger did! The bigger they are – the harder they fall. Arnold just fell. Joan just fell. Who’s next? I sent Dr. Hoksbergen a private message via facebook for his explanation and a public apology for his contribution to this lying piece of trash book. He hasn’t responded yet. If he doesn’t, I’ll know my assessment of him is correct.

1. April 27, 1992 Joan apologizes to Kathy (breach of privacy, using Kathy’s name in Secret is Out article, offers up excuses

2. mid 1992, Joan admits to receiving Kathy’s money order, offers MORE excuses

3. Rene Hoksbergen’s letter to Kathy, April 19, 1993; says cost to ship her belongings will be $500.00

4a Kathy’s letter to Hoksbergen, May 2, 1993, page 1

4b Kathy’s letter to Hoksbergen, May 2, 1993, page 2

4c Kathy’s letter to Hoksbergen, May 2, 1993, page 3

4d Kathy’s letter to Hoksbergen, May 2, 1993, page 4

4e Kathy’s letter to Hoksbergen, May 2, 1993, page 5

4f Kathy’s letter to Hoksbergen, May 2, 1993, page 6

4g Kathy’s letter to Hoksbergen, May 2, 1993, page 7

5a Shipping receipts, July 17, 1993 – $52.75 and August 7, 1993 – $45.95

5b Shipping receipt November 23, 1993 – $52.25

%d bloggers like this: