jump to navigation

January 30, 2012

Posted by Ruth in Uncategorized.
comments closed

Refuting a Book of Lies: Forbidden Family --

 by Ruth Pace

There’s a thread on the adoptee forum entitled Suffer the Wrath of the Adoptee. I’ll read it when I get a chance, but for now, I want to give my opinion on just the title of this thread.

 These adoptees like to label themselves ANGRY ADOPTEES. They are angry because for whatever circumstances went on in their lives, they were adopted. I can’t comment on their stories, because I don’t know them, I don’t know what happened. Frankly, it’s none of my business. I can only comment on the adoption that I know all about – that of my younger sister Joan Wheeler, who also calls herself an ANGRY ADOPTEE.

 I can’t control her anger. That is something she has to deal with. Whatever beef she’s got against my father, her aparents, the system – has NOTHING TO DO WITH ME. I was only 3 ½ years old…

View original post 2,523 more words

Advertisements

We have the Power! January 27, 2012

Posted by Ruth in Announcements and updates.
comments closed

 

We are watching Joan. We know everything little piece of crap you put on the internet about us.

The Truth Stands Alone – a lesson that Joan Wheeler really needs to learn January 26, 2012

Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler Speak - how Joan views the world, Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

On Joan’s webiste, she has the following: “unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material pertaining to the author’s life, personal and professional opinions, without express and written permission this website’s author and owner is strictly prohibited.”

mmmm, sounds pretty straighforward – except we are dealing with a person who is two-faced. Joan M. Wheeler wants to copyright HER life, but she writes a book that has things about MY life. And she LIED about my life and NEVER got written or oral permission to write about me in the first place.

So let it be known, that Joan is in violation of MY privacy. And always had every intent to be in violation of my privacy. Here is an excerpt from an old book proposal that she sent out more than 15 years ago when she was trying to get a publishing house to publish her book (before she had to resort to self-publishing it via a vanity press because no reputable publisher wanted to touch it).

“The author questioned several lawyers on the possible legal problems with an autobiography. All are in agreement that the truth stands alone. The author has compiled sufficient documentation as proof to back up her statements.

The author will maintain her identity throughout the book. Family members’ names will remain unchanged since they were published in various obituaries and newspaper articles. The author will use only the first names wherever possible, and a fictitious name for a relative or friend if that person’s name is not part of a public record.”

Oh yes, we’ve heard that crap from Joan in the past that she spoke to lawyers. Uh-huh, and just what did she tell them? I guarantee it wasn’t the truth.  – But that’s not what I want to talk about.

I want to talk about how 15 years ago, she fully intended to violate MY privacy by publishing MY real name. Doesn’t matter if MY name was in my mother’s obituary, because if Joan had protected my mother’s privacy, my privacy would have been protected as well. But we see how this works AGAINST Joan – Joan says on her cyberbullying page that we sisters identified ourselves on our blog BEFORE her book came out. (I covered the actual timeline that this blog was created and when the book was published in my post of December 8, 2011 “Joan Wheeler FINALLY announces the demise of her book Forbidden Family, but still shows evidence of her silly delusions”). Well, now, to take Joan’s logic in her book proposal, since our names were part of the public records from the 1950’s does it really matter what she says on her cyberbullying page? No, it negates what she says. And it shows how she is just grasping at straws to show how SHE is in the right, even though it is a 180 degree turnabout. She has actually argued for BOTH sides of my privacy issue.

And to publish my name, she needed written permission to use my name, which she never got, therefore, in the published final version of the book, my name WAS changed. HOWEVER, Joan left enough clues to identify me. These clues were discussed in that post I referenced above.

But to take things further, Joan deliberately LIED about me in the final version of her book. Like falsely reporting that I have an arrest record, falsely reporting that I was placed on probation, falsely reporting that I was a computer hacker on my job and tampered with Joan’s hospital financial records. Falsely accused me harassing her. Falsely accused me of calling child abuse on her, falsely accusing me of accusing her of having an affair with my fiance. Falsely reporting actual court proceedings in her book. All these falsehoods in a book that was supposed to be the TRUTH. All these falsehoods that were PROVEN to the publisher and the end result? – Joan’s precious book was KILLED!

Now what did she say in that book proposal about the TRUTH? –
“the truth stands alone.” Well, if that’s the case, and she reports in a book proposal that several lawyers were in agreement with that premise and basically gave her the go-ahead to publish my name, why was the final product changed? Gee, I thought “THE TRUTH STANDS ALONE.”

Yep, she ended up changing my first name because SHE DELIBERATELY INTENDED to write all those falsehoods against me. She tried to pull a fast one and guess what? The TRUTH came back to slap Joan in the face!

Oh, I love the TRUTH. I don’t fear the truth. yeah, I’m quite aware of that time old saying “the truth hurts.” But the truth doesn’t hurt me. Because I have always abided by the truth. Only a liar fears the truth. Only a liar like Joan. Because for her, the truth really does hurt. — yeah, that slap hurt like hell – and she deserved it. She deserves every little thing that she gets.

And by the way Joan, MY life is copyrighted too. You don’t get a second chance to smear my good name. Your book is dead, and it will remain dead. Scrap more money together and self-publish that lying crap again, and the results will be the same: another death. Because you tried to defraud Trafford Publications, your credibilty is shot. And I will sue the pants off ANY publishing house or entity that puts out your lying crap book. And that’s a promise baby. That’s the TRUTH – AND THE TRUTH STANDS ALONE!

 

 1. gertmcqueenJanuary 26, 2012

Gert here:

Well said, Ruth!
Joan’s argument that because, in our mother’s obit, her children’s names were published, means that it was OKAY for Joan to identify us, is so full of holes, an ocean runs through it.

Joan’s birth name is also published in that obit, but, that named person, NO LONGER EXISTS. Joan can claim both those names as they are hers, but, she had no right to EXPLOIT, for fame and profit, the rest of OUR FAMILY. Joan USED better judgement when it came to the ADOPTED FAMILY.

No, Joan can’t worm her way around the FACT AND TRUTH that she provided plenty of documentation for anyone to FIND OUT the real names of those she exploits and lies about in that hate-filled book and on her websites plural.

Joan had NO RIGHT to publish documents with our parents names on it, where they lived, etc. Living or dead makes no different. Joan crossed over the line of respectability and familiar honor when she published our family’s names and faces. Those acts are acts of dishonor and in the old days someone who had done an act of dishonor would have been buried FACE DOWN IN THE GRAVE!

In several places Joan states that she spoke to lawyers, in the plural, but not ONCE does she ever name a lawyer. If she did indeed have a lawyer, that lawyer’s name ought to be presented, so that people can contact the lawyer to verify Joan’s claims. It is well known that Joan not only contacts lawyers, at the public’s expense, but she also hounds them to the point of where they refuse to take her calls, which causes her to hound them again and again.

We have already proven that Joan has used a well-known adoption reformer’s name and position to further her lying case against the birth siblings. Does the name Joe Soell mean anything to the adoption reform movement? Go ask him directly, like I did, if Joan Wheeler told the truth, as written in that book, or did she fabricate it?

Joan Wheeler has an identity problem. She must use both her names, she must tell her story, and to do so she must tell about the birth family and the adoptive family. She should NEVER have written a book…her life isn’t all that interesting or important. But by writing a book about her life, she has written a book about many other people that were NEVER asked for permission for their lives to be written about, let alone twisted and lied about by the diseased mind of Joan Wheeler.

Joan Wheeler needs to hide in shame for the personal disgrace of betraying her birth family!

very well said Gert. And to save anybody any trouble to ask Joe Soll what he said – I will quote him. In Joan’s published version of her book – she says she received a 40 page letter written by her birthsisters “throwing her out of the family.” She says in the book she sent Mr. Soll a photocopy of this letter. She says in the book that she phoned him and they discussed this letter.

Gert emailed Mr. Soll in May 2010. Within a half hour of receiving Gert’s email, Mr. Soll wrote back and said that what Joan wrote in her book about his was “patently false.” — patently FALSE!
But Joan keeps insisting that what she wrote in the book was TRUTH. But here comes an adoption expert, and reports a FALSEHOOD!

And another little item I found in that book proposal: she originally intended to pubish 20 photographs in the book – and in her own words some of those photographs were of BIRTH FAMILY MEMBERS! And where were the legal signatures from those birth family members giving her permission to publish those pictures? Well, she eventually didn’t publish those photos, – wise move Joan.

OH – the subject of a lawyer – I will name one – Mr. R. Campo – who was hired by us to do the legal work for buying real estate. We were in his office strictly to do legal work for real estate – and then Joan brought a huge pile of papers and asked him to look over it for a “civil lawsuit” regarding her adoption. He said he would take a look “when he had the time.” Because he was given a retainer fee for the real estate work, and NOT the adoption issue, he didn’t take the time. (He wasn’t going to work for free). Joan got upset, hounded the man to the point that he got angry with her, and then got angry with me, when I had nothing to do with Joan’s adoption issue. This was back in 1990. It is now 22 years later and Joan is STILL looking around for a lawyer to handle her civil case. Because she has hounded the hell out of every lawyer in Buffalo – and then turned to the internet and wrote falsehoods when trying to find legal answers.
Does Joan not know the definition of the word TRUTH? Apparently not!

new post on my Midnight and Mythos site January 24, 2012

Posted by Ruth in Announcements and updates.
comments closed

because there is another side of me you don’t know —

The End of World – December 21, 2012 – because the Mayan calendar ended? mmmmmm.

new post by Gert McQueen: Is adoption a theft? According to Joan Wheeler it is! January 17, 2012

Posted by Ruth in Announcements and updates.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

new post by Gert McQueen “Is adoption a theft? According to Joan Wheeler it is!” — with a scathing comment by … ME! – because Joan says her kids have no family – hell it ain’t MY fault! read and find out whose fault it really is!

 

a year and a day later…. January 12, 2012

Posted by gertmcqueen in Uncategorized.
comments closed

everyone has a story…in three parts

January 12, 2012 by gertmcqueen

post on our family site

Joan Wheeler condemns her birth family for looking at pictures of her January 12, 2012

Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler Speak - how Joan views the world, Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

So today on the Adult Adoptees Advocating for Change forum was this discussion. Joan was not part of it, but I find it very interesting.

  The title of the thread is “Is it weird?”
opening post:

When I started my search I was dying to find out information.  I found out that my nparents married and had three boys.  I was so excited when I found out I not only had siblings but they were full siblings.  Weird thing was I have ALWAYS wanted a brother and now I find out I have 3! 

Okay, the thing I am hoping is not too weird is I like cyber stalk them because I haven’t reached out to my bfamily yet.  Is it weird I check out their Facebook and I have saved pictures I could find?  I even put them all together with mine to see if there are similarities (which I believe I see many).  I found a picture of my bdad and it is so weird I think he looks like my agrandpa.  The one I long to find, however, is my bmom.  I have one clipping that the state put in my file of their marraige announcement and their picture is there but it is so terrible and is hard to see.  It is a strange longing and what I can see of her in the face I think we look crazy alike! 

Anyway, now that I have babbled on about my thoughts and weirdness I will settle down.  Haha! 
Reply #1

LOL Renae, Those are completely normal things for adoptees to do!
Reply #2

Yep, completely normal!  Who WOULDN’T want to see the face of their own mother?  Or see and know something about their own families?  I think it is more abnormal to NOT want to do those things.

I mean, why is Ancestry.com so huge? Because people want to know where they came from. 
 
Reply #3
Completely normal.  I was happy too when I found out my first parents were married.  I always wanted brothers but ended up with sisters instead…

Congrats of finding them! Have fun cyber stalking!
 
Reply #4

Completely normal!  I cyber stalked my siblings for months until b-mom finally told them!
 
Reply #5
It is not weird.
 
Reply #6

Totally normal.  I checked out all my relatives via Facebook before making contact (they seemed relatively normal lol).  When I told them, they laughed and said they would have done the same lol.

I did family history via Births/Deaths and Marriages and, to cut a long story short, found a family history site for a convict and his brother (convict is grandfather’s descendant, his brother is grandmother’s descendant) – wrote away for the FH books which listed all the 7000 or so descendants and in a couple of the books discovered pictures of my nmum, most of my uncles, grandparents and grandmother’s siblings and parents and grandfathers father – that was pretty exciting because I really wasn’t expecting to find any photos at all – well worth the $10 I spent on all 3 books lol.  
 
Reply #7

Perhaps a lot more weird is that I often google my nmum’s widower’s name in the hope that there will be something online about him (eg is he still alive (he was alive a year ago though very ill)) as I sort of want to contact him one day (but am too scared to lol).  I did find an interesting legal document (he is suing a company for health reasons) which does give all his work history – probably of no relevance to me but sort of interesting. 

So now to my observations:
In her book, and on her websites, Joan Wheeler bitches and moans that pictures of her were exchanged between a birth aunt and an adopted aunt. She equates that with “spying.” She’s even accused her birth sisters of stalking her for her entire life. Considering we were children (me being 3 years old) – that’s kind of hard to do! Joan also related in her book that when she was an adult (?) in her first apartment, she had a picture of our mother and she was staring at it, trying to relate to it. (just like the person who started this thread on the forum).

To clarify: my mother’s sister, Catherine, grew up with a woman named Helen. Helen’s brother in law Edward Wheeler and his wife couldn’t have kids of their own and wanted to adopt. When my mother died, and it became clear that my father couldn’t take care of an infant, Aunt Catherine asked my father what he was going to do. She SUGGESTED adoption. My father consulted his priest. After much soul-searching, he agreed to the adoption. He was not coerced. So the adoption took place. YES through the years, Aunt Catherine knew about Joan. She never told us, until Gert was an adult. Joan CONDEMNS Aunt Catherine in her book as “spying” on her. BULLSHIT! Aunt Catherine and Helen GREW UP TOGETHER – they were friends BEFORE my parents and Joan’s aparents even met and married! And of course Aunt Catherine would “keep an eye” on Joan (keeping silent because of the legalities), because JOAN WAS THE DAUGHTER OF HER DEAD SISTER!

Dammit Joan – why is all your whining all about YOU and YOUR pain? Did you never think that Aunt Catherine would be in pain? Do you think that Aunt Catherine LOVED you your entire life, and be hurting, knowing that you were her neice and she couldn’t hug and kiss you? Or that when your birth siblings wanted to find you it was because WE LOVED YOU?

So if it is normal for ADOPTEES to “stalk” their birth families, why is it NOT normal for BIRTH FAMILIES to “stalk” the adopted ones? As usual, these adoptees have a double standard. Joan routinely CONDEMNS her birth sisters for doing the same dam thing she did – look at a picture of a family member and wonder about them. Yes, Joan CONDEMNS Aunt Catherine for having a picture of her when she had her First Holy Communion. Aunt Catherine was a second mother to me. I know that she spent hours looking at that picture of Joan and cried, knowing this was the daughter of her dead sister. But Joan did the same thing when she received a picture of her dead mother.

Yep – that Joan Wheeler is full of contradictions and double standards. SHE can look at pictures of her birth family, but her birth family is condemned for looking at pictures of her.

1. gertmcqueenJanuary 12, 2012

Gert here:

very good Ruth…great insights into the minds of adoptees and of course Joan!!
while I can certainly understand their ‘need to know’ I do find their double standards and their tactics to be worst than childish and more malicious in nature….they, the adoptee, can do all the spying and stalking they want…but NO ONE else can!! And the adoptee, Joan in particular, screams that we, the birth siblings, are COMMITTING the crime of cyber-stalking for doing the very thing they are doing.

So the next time Joan Wheeler tells the world or a lawyer that we are stalking her, she had better be careful for we shall refer them to this post…

2. RuthJanuary 13, 2012

oh yes- the subject of stalking – let me tell you about stalking!

In 1987, I had broken off ties with Joan – because she had hurt and insulted me after I had miscarried my son. I had hung up the phone on her in April 1987. The following month, my husband (then fiance) John moved into a house together. I had the post office send my mail to a friend’s house in Lackawanna NY. I did not call Joan AT ALL. I did not Write to her either. But for months – I would come into work and find little slips of paper paperclipped to my timecard – memos from the nursing office – “call Joan Wheeler at (such and such number)” I never called her.

In the summer of 1988, I reached out to Joan and we reconciled. She told me that she tried to find me. She went to the post office to get my forwarding address – it was some house in Lackawanna, but the people there said they didn’t know me. (thank you Hassan) – and Joan said that she’d been calling my job and leaving messages and once had a conversation with one of my managers, who told her (and remember, this is Joan telling me this) “If Ruth doesn’t want to call you, there’s nothing we can do.”

What’s wrong with this picture? JOAN ADMITTED TO STALKING ME IN 1987 – 1988! YET SHE GETS ON THE INTERNET AND CLAIMS IN HER BOOK THAT I STALKED HER! WHAT A TWO-FACED BITCH!

Go ahead now, Joan, file cyberstalking and other stalking charges against me – for I will tell the authorities what a bitch YOU are. You want to take that gamble? And how about the times you wrote letters to my job in 1995 – falsely accusing me of computer hacking with my employer and giving away private details of my life to a supervisor that did not know me. Or how about the time in March 2011 you went on the Huffington Post internet site and blabbed sexual abuse garbage about me and my sisters – garbage that resulted in you getting kicked off the Huffington site. – a clear case of CYBERSTALKING! Oh, the pot sure has a lot of nerve calling the kettle black.

Joan Wheeler is a Bastard! January 7, 2012

Posted by gertmcqueen in Uncategorized.
comments closed

the next installment of refuting that lying book…is on Gert’s blog…come and take a look….

Joan Wheeler is a BASTARD!

by on January 7, 2012

another post on Gert’s blog January 6, 2012

Posted by gertmcqueen in Uncategorized.
comments closed

this is a reposting from Ruth’s blog to Gert’s blog, but, it is well-worth re-showing it here and now, for it addresses the issues we are currently showing, that Joan Wheeler lies, and continues to lie, about the birth family.

Joan Wheeler’s statements about my father, are false! reposted from February 14, 2011

by

 

new post on Gert’s blog…come take a look! January 5, 2012

Posted by gertmcqueen in Uncategorized.
comments closed

 

Joan Wheeler is lying again about Dad’s care and when he died!

by

2011 in review January 1, 2012

Posted by Ruth in Uncategorized.
comments closed

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2011 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Syndey Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 9,600 times in 2011. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 4 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

%d bloggers like this: