jump to navigation

off blog topic – I am now an ex-fan of actor Kevin Sorbo (Hercules the Legendary Journeys January 7, 2014

Posted by Ruth in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed
As much as this pains me – and I still will love the Hercules and Xena series – I am no longer a fan of Kevin Sorbo. I read his book True Strength, after he suffered a series of small strokes and recovered. I believe he has fried his brains. For some time now, actually since the Trayvon Martin case, Mr. Sorbo has been leaving blatant racist remarks on his twitter and official facebook pages. I, in… good conscience, and a true believer in diversity, cannot remain his fan any longer. I remove all “likes” and “freindships” with Mr. Sorbo.  Mr. Sorbo would do well to watch the DVDs of Hercules the Legendary Journeys and learn the lessons that his character Hercules always strived to teach others – love and acceptance. Since Mr. Sorbo’s personal character seems to be of hate and intolerance, I am now an EX-fan.
addendum: Mr. Sorbo has the freedom of speech to say what he wants. However, saying what one wants to say also brings consequences for that – whether for good or for bad.
just because someone is a right wing politico does not give them the right to engage in hate speech and racist remarks. I have been taking his writings with a grain of salt for some time now – but it’s been becoming uncomfortable reading it – he clearly hates blacks and Muslims. My first husband was a Muslim from Yemen, and a good decent man, who sat at my kitchen table a few days after WTC attacks and sobbed as he looked at a picture of the people jumping out of the towers. My present husband John, is black, and is also a good decent man, who risked his life in Vietnam as a Navy Seal.
If the son I had miscarried in 1985 had lived, (by my first husband), his name would have been Saeed Ali, and a Muslim. – I have many fine friends who are Arab and Muslim and they are decent people. I just got sick of looking at that shit.
Advertisements

Joan Wheeler’s book Forbidden Family is not only libelous, it’s poorly researched. September 15, 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

In my post  “Why must Joan Wheeler continue to tell lies about her birth family?”, I wrote the following:

Joan Wheeler is constantly saying that our family was “poor” and we lived in a run-down neighborhood. Not so. We did live in a back apartment. So? Some houses are constructed up and down. Front and back. Actually, our apartment was the back AND the whole second floor! Our landlord, Mr. Johnson and his wife had the small one bedroom apartment downstairs in the front.

In the 1950′s and 1960′s, the nieghborhood that we lived in, Smith St. near William St. was vibrant. All along William St. was a bustling shopping district. With a large city playground nearby. There were 2 gas stations, a post office, 3 drug stores, several mom + pop delis, a couple of small variety stores, a liquor store, a butcher store, a large supermarket, a Deco restaurant, and we lived about a mile from Central Terminal, the main hub of railroad passenger and freight service.

I also recently quoted my facebook buddy, Star Trek Troubles with Tribbles author, David Gerrold when he said that “as a writer, 90% of what I do is RESEARCH.”

This is where Joan makes a crucial mistake. She doesn’t do her RESEARCH!

Joan was born in January 1956 and by April 1956, was relinquished to adoption. The final papers were signed in January 1957.  During that time, the Wheelers lived on Coit St., near Broadway. Only one block and two and a half blocks up from where we lived on Smith St.  After adopting Joan, the Wheelers moved to a newly purchased house in Kenmore, a northern suburb of Buffalo.

We moved to Smith St. in the middle of the block, between Howard St. and William St., somewhere between January 1947 and May 1948. Gert’s birth certificate says the address where mom and dad lived was 650 Genesee St. and Kathy’s gives the address as 824 Smith. St. We lived in a apartment that consisted of a small back yard, with wild elderberry trees and a wild cherry tree. My paternal grandmother made home made elderberry wine. We had a back shed.

Our home consisted of a kitchen with a separate pantry, a small dining room, living room and a small bedroom where mom and dad slept. (And later, dad and our stepmom). We shared a bathroom with our landlord and landlady, the Johnson’s. Then we had the entire upstairs which consisted of a large bedroom in the front of the house, where we 3 girls slept, a large “playroom” that had a small built in closet with shelves, where house linens were stored. (sheets, pillowcases, tablecloths, towels, etc). A smaller section was used as a closet – our bedroom didn’t have one, so Dad made us one – he put together, using plumbing pipes and plumbing joints, a free standing rack for us to hang our dresses on. We had dressers for our other clothing.

On the other side of the playroom, was the entrance to the attic that we shared with the Johnson’s and a small room that used to be a bathroom, but after the ceiling caved in, and the plumbing fixtures removed, it was converted to a bedroom for my brother and stepbrother.  They had bunkbeds and I’m not really remembering how their clothes were stored. But I do remember the old medicine cabinet on the wall was used to store the boy’s army figures.

Around 1961, we moved next door to 822 Smith St, because it was a bigger apartment and we had a separate bathroom. In 1965, Dad bought a house and moved to the Delevan/Grider section, right around the corner from the old E.J. Meyer Memorial Hospital (now Erie County Medical Center – ECMC).

As to the Smith St. neighborhood – Joan makes a big deal about it in her book, when in the 1970’s after being reunited with us, she goes to see where we used to live and was dismayed at the run-down neighborhood. But she fails to realize that what she saw in the 1970’s was NOT the way it was in the 1950’s when we lived there. She failed to do her RESEARCH. – So I went and did it for her.

Today, September 15, 2012, my husband John and I were in the main downtown branch of the Buffalo and Erie County Library, where many historical books and maps and documents are kept. It is a treasure trove for anyone interested in the history of Western New York and the birth of Buffalo, which began with the name of New Amsterdam.  Years ago, (1996)  in researching my present neighborhood, I learned that prior to my house being built in 1910, the whole section was farmland, belonging to the Erb Family Farm.

John and I today went to see the library’s exhibit on the War of 1812. There was a major battle during the War of 1812, when the British crossed over from Canada into the Village of Black Rock and burned almost all of New Amsterdam to the ground.

Many other key battles were fought on Lakes Erie and Ontario. During one overnight battle, our national anthem was written. – remember the lyrics “… gave proof through the night, that our flag was still there.”

During the rebuilding, the name of New Amsterdam was changed to Buffalo. Eventually growing outwards until it encircled the village of Black Rock. Now Black Rock is known as just a neighborhood in Buffalo. – and the exhibit for the War of 1812 in the downtown library has maps and documents, and the corner of where I used to live in the 1970’s with my first husband – Amherst St. and Military Rd., is prominently mentioned. As is the old Pratt and Letchworth steel mill (built in the early 1800’s) where my first husband worked.

Anyway, getting back to my childhood neighborhood, across town on the East Side of Buffalo. Remember where I earlier mentioned a bunch of businesses that I remember as being around where I lived? As long as I was in the library,  I went and looked at the 1959 Polk’s City Directory and came away with the following businesses on William St., from Emslie St. down to Fillmore Ave. Our playground was on William St. starting from Fillmore Ave, to almost Coit St. and is not listed in the directory. There were residences on William St, some were separate houses, some were back or upstairs apartments to many of the smaller businesses, and these residences are not listed. I only want to show that when we lived there, it was a thriving busy shopping district.

Emslie St. had our church and school, Sacred Heart, a couple of blocks south from William St. Our paternal grandmother lived on Howard St. near Krettner St, which is only one block from Emslie. So our grandparents lived within walking distance from our house, and we passed it when we went to church or school.

Starting from Emslie St., the businesses that were on William St. in 1959 were:

Loblaws (a large supermarket)

Uni-Tri Furniture + Appliance of Buffalo

M.H. Fishman – 5 and $1.00

Fosser’s Flowers

Family Store

National Wholesale Dry Goods

Haber Furniture

Lombardo Santo Shoes

Krettner St. intersects

E-Z Shopping Center

Floyd Miller Grocery

George Hoffmann Ice Cream

American Washer Service

Murther’s Home Bakery

Buffalo Picture Framing and Mirror Corp.

Community Liquor Store

Aron Goldberg Furniture

Sherman St. intersects

Marine Trust Co. – bank

Alfred Wallpaper and Paint

Citizen’s Fur Service (a furrier? a FURRIER? In a neighborhood that Joan portrays as poor?)

Cadet Cleaners (dry cleaner)

Ray Lippens Restaurant

Smithey’s Barber Shop

Rudolph Frey – butcher

Frey Sausages

Choice Cut Meat

Stanton St. intersects

E.J. Meyer Hospital Dispensary #2

US Post Office

Fran’s Grill and Restaurant

Lovejoy Loan Association

Ritter Plumbing

William St. Market

Used Furniture

Ben’s Wholesale Furniture

Furniture Manufacturer Wholesale Outlet

Shumway intersects

Bison Sausage

Potts Furniture

Rothschild Inc – wholesale candy

Matty’s Doughnuts (oh I remember this one!)

Sloan’s Second Hand Store

Wolff’s Furniture Store

Quality Wholesale Tobacco

Smith St. intersects

Bory’s Wallpaper and Paint

Fran + Rocky’s Mobil gas station – (I remember the Mobil Pegasus sign – you could see it from our bedroom window)

Tripi’s shoe repair

Mrs. Lottie Radzikowski Beauty Shop

Thelma’s Drapery Shop

Soby’s  Pharmacy

Chandu’s Restaurant (I didn’t know until years later – it was a high class burlesque place!)

Kokouska deli

Coit St. intersects

Club Polka Restaurant

Holy Trinity Ukrainian Orthodox Church

Sanitary Barber Shop

Detroit St. intersects

Select Cleaners

Paul Bochynski Barber

Alice’s Restaurant (oh be quiet)

Video Radio Shop

Krysauf  Restaurant

Industrial Steel Products Machinery

Bazaar Ukrainian Art Store

Bazaar Ukrainian Club

Niagara Mohawk Power sub station

Canopy Grill

Fillmore Ave. intersects

Now it took me all of 10 minutes to write this down at the library and another few minutes to type it all out. So what is Joan’s excuse? Joan with her two college degrees and she can’t even do the basic research for her book.

These pictures show the intersection of William and Emslie in 1910 and 2003. I can’t find any pictures from 1940’s or 50’s. The building that housed the Savoy theatre is still standing, but is vacant. The brown and white structure on the left in the 2003 photo is the YMCA – where our supermarket Loblaws used  be. The vacant lot across the street was where Hammond’s Drug Store was. A lot of changes in a hundred years. Some for the bad, some for the good.

1. gertmcqueenSeptember 16, 2012

Ruth this post is excellent! It proves your great abilities as a researcher and your memory.

>She doesn’t do her RESEARCH! Correct; all of Joan’s research comes from her bigoted adoptive parents and ‘hearsay’ from many birth-relatives, siblings included, where memories are faded and not ‘documented’ while talking to a ‘family’ member. No one KNEW that when they were speaking with Joan from the time we reunited that she was keeping NOTES and writing a book. So the memories of birth family members were then MADE INTO a narrative that fit into Joan’s version of HER STORY. Problem with that way of working is that it is NOT RESEARCH and can not be sold as truth.

>Joan Wheeler is constantly saying that our family was “poor” and we lived in a run-down neighborhood. Not so. Correct; that comes from being raised by snubs that looked down on the birth family, she was raised that way and it comes out of her everywhere

>Wheelers lived on Coit St., near Broadway. Only one block and two and a half blocks up from where we lived on Smith St. After adopting Joan, the Wheelers moved to a newly purchased house in Kenmore, a northern suburb of Buffalo Correct; the Wheeler’s came from the same background and neighborhoods that we all came from but when they moved to the suburbs…well it happens all the time, they are called snobs.

>Gert’s birth certificate says the address where mom and dad lived was 650 Genesee St. and Kathy’s gives the address as 824 Smith. St. Correct.

>and a small room that used to be a bathroom, but after the ceiling caved in, and the plumbing fixtures removed Correct; one of the most exciting memories, we were watching Howdy Doody when the ceiling came down on us and we fled into the kitchen where Mom and Dad were.

>In 1965, Dad bought a house Correct…I married in 65 and never lived in that house.

>when in the 1970’s after being reunited with us, she goes to see where we used to live and was dismayed at the run-down neighborhood Correct; I had the same reaction when I went back to the old neighborhood, but I UNDERSTOOD about urban decay. Joan never sees things in their proper place…only how it will fit into her version and if it doesn’t she makes it fit…that’s called lying.

>Emslie St. had our church and school, Sacred Heart, a couple of blocks south from William St. Our paternal grandmother lived on Howard St. near Krettner St, which is only one block from Emslie. So our grandparents lived within walking distance from our house, and we passed it when we went to church or school Correct; also before we went to Sacred Heart we went to School #40, within walking distance on Pink St off of Smith. And our maternal grandparents lives a few blocks up towards Broadway and Fox St (?) where St Ann’s Church is…I believe our parents were married there and where Kathy and I had received ‘confirmation’.  Ruth’s note: I never went to School 40, by the time I got to school age, we started going to Sacred Heart. School 40 is on Clare St., but to get there from our house, you did walk up Pink St. – It was a short distance from our house. In 1981-85, I lived on Townsend St., about a half mile from our old house on Smith. From 1985, 1987, I lived on the corner of Clinton and Clare Sts, only two blocks from School 40. – St. Ann’s is on Broadway near Emslie – Fox St. is in another neighborhood Gert – close to where the old Twin Fair store on E. Ferry was – Fox St. is where Uncle Rich and Aunt Ann lived. — Ruth’s additonal comment and correction of herself:

speaking of NOT RELYING ON PEOPLE’S HEARSAY – Boy did I just do a big oopsey. Gert is talking about FOX St. I was thinking of BOX St.- with a B. I just had a flash when I was just proof-reading all of this – and said to self – “wait a minute – it was BOX St. off of Kehr St, near French near E. Ferry where my stepmother’s good friend Millie lived. – So like a GOOD RESEARCHER DOES – I checked Google Maps – yep, I was wrong – Fox St., with an F – does indeed run by Broadway.

I remember many a Sunday dinner at Grandpa and Grandma’s Herr’s house and how Grandpa Herr had the wooden spoon ready incase any child did not behave right at the dinner table.

Thanks so much for this Ruth, marvelous work! This is why we are writing to restore our lives, our parents backgrounds, our family honor! Joan Wheeler had no business writing any kind of book about our lives and our parents. She still has no right in talking about us and we will continue to speak out against her until she removes all those hate blogs against us.

2. RuthSeptember 16, 2012

excellent comment Gert – and you are so right that Joan relied on people’s narratives – which can be faulty. – See how I corrected you about the location of School 40 and where Fox St. is? (readers – you have to remember Gert is older than me, and has not lived in Buffalo since 1982. As I said in my note in the body of the post, I lived a half mile from our old house from 1981. Our house was only demolished in early summer 2011. My house on Townsend was demolished in 2009. Grandma Sippel’s house at 177 Howard was demolished many years ago – and another house with the same address is there now. But I know exactly where the original house was – on the corner of Howard and Bond St. – Krettner ended at Howard only a few houses away. In a house on Bond St., just two doors from the corner lived my brother’s best friend George Fischer – and we used to look out our windows at each and make faces at each other – you know, all the stupid things kids do. School 40 is still there, and is still open. St. Ann’s and Sacred Heart are closed. Sacred Heart school was demolished in 2010. I know where Uncle Rich lived on Fox St., because his daughter, my cousin Nancy lives only a mile and a half from me, and certainly remembers where she grew up. I currently live in the Bailey/Genesee section, just a half mile from Holy Name of Jesus church where my parents were married. Right around the corner on Bailey, used to be School 9 where my mother went to grammer school. Uncle Rich went there too, and tells me how he used to leave school, walk down the street one block over my present house, and walk along the railroad tracks that lead right to his house on Scheu Park – which is only less than a mile from my present house. Because I know the neighborhoods of Buffalo’s East Side, I know what stories are correct. Joan never lived on the East Side – except as an adult, when she lived for a few years in the Broadway/Bailey section. BUT and this is a big but – NOBODY TOLD JOAN THAT WE WERE POOR GROWING UP – nobody that is but her adoptive parents. And stupid Joan, BELIEVED them. Like I said, she didn’t do her own RESEARCH. She relied on older people’s gossip – she listened to their “point of view” and tried to pass it off as truth. She relied on people’s recollection of years past – go back and look at MY own recollection – what did I write? – TWO gas stations? But when I did the RESEARCH – only gas station showed up in the City Directory. Then again, the other gas station is at the corner of William and Fillmore – and the Deco restaurant was next to it -on the southeast corner of William and Fillmore. There has always been a gas starion there – and still is. — When I lived on Townsend St. in the early 80′s – I would buy gas there. Townsend is a one-way street, 2 blocks from Fillmore and ends at William St. Where I lived on Clinton St. – 85-87 – Clare St., where School 40 is – is only one block from Fillmore Ave. – and only two blocks from the funeral home where my mother was laid out. So basically, in the 80′s – I moved back to my childhood neighborhood, and now I live in my mother’s childhood neighborhood. And like I said – I did MY research. When I bought my housein 1996 from our landlord, I went to the library, and saw the old maps from the Holland Land Company – I saw where the old Erb farm ended at Bailey. I had already learned the early history of Buffalo/New Amsterdam and the tribe of Native Americans called the Erie who lived in this section – a long time ago. Joan doesn’t learn these things – to broaden her mind – because despite her having  two college degrees, she is ignorant in many things. She has only ONE interest and she bores the hell out of everyone – ADOPTION ADOPTION ADOPTION ADOPTION ADOPTION ADOPTION ADOPTION ADOPTION.

Brian T. Maloney (LION), Reiki “healer” of Williamsville NY passes judgment on those he considers to be inferior and menial to him. August 12, 2012

Posted by Ruth in Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

So this arrogant, ignorant little man, who presents himself as a “healer” has passed judgment on me and my sisters and says that we have not educated ourselves.

In my last post Brian T. Maloney, (Lion) Reiki Healer (?) from Williamsville NY judges teachers and health care workers as having “menial jobs.”  I defend my career. I listed a couple of the continuing education classes that I have pursued in my life. But I left out quite a bit.

Let’s see, in fall of 1970 I attended shorthand and business classes at The Urban Center of Erie Community College, downtown Buffalo. In 1972, I attended chemistry and advanced algebra classes at Erie Community College. In 1972, I attended the Nurses Aide Course at the Buffalo General Hospital School of Nursing. In 1977 and  1978 I attended Egyptology classes at The Buffalo Science Museum. In 1980 I attended Belly Dance classes at Buffalo State College. Also in 1980 I attended a class designed to identify the natural flora of Western New York at The Tifft Farm Nature Preserve. In 1981, I attended a Psychic Phenomena Course at Buffalo State College. In 1981-82, I attended an Electricity Course at BOCES, Potter Rd. In 1982-83, I attended a Residential Wiring Course at BOCES, Potter Rd. In 1989, I attended computer classes at Seneca Vocational High School through the Buffalo Public Schools Adult Education Program. In 1999, I attended Union Steward Classes offered through my labor union, 1199 SEIU. In 1999 I attended New York State Certified Nurse’s Aide classes at Millard Fillmore School of Nursing. In 2008, I attended the Patient Care Assistant classes at Millard Fillmore School of Nursing. Not to menton the various inservices and classses offered throuh my employer on such subjects of updated patient care, EKG and Cardiac Telemetry (2001), Communication Skills, Caring for the Dying, Caring for the Elderly, various computer classes. Some of these were mandatory, some optional. Every year, since 1072, I have been trained more and more by my employer. Oh – I also took CPR classes not only at my employer – but at The American Red Cross. See, even though I was trained by my employer, it was not accredited and recognized by other institutions, therefore, when I took a second job through an agency, I had to be New York State Certified as a nurse’s aide and in CPR. 

I have also attended classes offered through The University of Buffalo, The Home Depot, The Williamsville Public School System, The Lancaster Public School System, The Maryvale Public School System, and The West Seneca Public School System on such varied subjects as Hypnosis, Home Repair, Interior Decorating, Stenciling, Sewing (both clothing and for the home), dance, drama, theatre, makeup application (both personal and stage). I am a well-rounded individual with many interests and passions. Anybody who thinks that I am inferior because I don’t hold a college degree is a sad, pitiful person indeed.

Brian T. Maloney, a Reiki “healer” a follower of Eastern Mystical religions has the nerve to pass judgment on me because I don’t have a college degree. Well, whoop-de-doo Brian. YOU may have a degree from Niagara U, but you certainly don’t have much material in that empty space between your ears. And that degree hasn’t helped you keep a job for more than a few years at a time. One failed job after another. HA!  While I’ve been at my job for 40 years, with a nice retirement package coming. Gert and Kathy are currently retired, after holding down very good careers, also with longevity and retirement packages.

You DO realize that this is all on the public internet – and you just put coffin nails in your so-called “career” as a healer. A “healer” does not pass judgment on others or refer to their careers as “menial.”

As well as all your insults to me and my sisters, as well as the evidence of YOUR cyber-stalking, cyber-harassing and cyber-bullying of me and my sisters. Not very nice things for a “healer” to be engaged in. But hey man – you started this. YOU took it upon yourself to take out a blog against us. We didn’t know you – never met you – YOU started this bud. Hope you like where your reputation is headed.

1. RuthAugust 14, 2012

In the early 1970′s, I also volunteered at West Seneca Developmental Center – an instituion that housed the profoundly and severly retarded and handicapped children.

I have no feelings of being a “menial” when taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves. There are individuals are born with such birth defects that they could be 30 years of chronological age, yet have the body of a two year old. And that body is twisted and deformed. And their brain may only be that of a six-month old infant.

that individual must be fed, toileted, given love. What is the matter with YOU Brian – that you, pass yourself off as a Reiki healer and say that MY job is menial?

Did you not change the diapers of your own children? Oh, how menial!

And mark me well Brian – these words are on the public internet – you want a career as a Reiki HEALER yet you slam a health care worker -YOUR words, as well as mine are on the internet – people are going to see wht you wrote – and make their own judgment of — YOU!

The difference between us Brian – is that I’m a true healer. YOU are nothing but a deluded person involved in a cult. Spouting “words of wisdom” of this religious person and that religious person doesn’t mean a damn thing until you get your hands into the WORK!

Like Fr. Nelson Baker and Mother Theresa – they didn’t preach, pat themselves on the back, nor pass judgments on those who WORKED with the poor and the sick. They just rolled up their sleeves and got in there and did what needed to be done.

You are disgusting Brian. I hope your children are proud of you. um speaking of which, I know that at least one of them checked out my LinkedIn profile. Which means all the interent exchanges about you are being viewed – by your family.

And after you dishonored the memory of your father – Reiki “healer” – you are disgusting little snot – 62 years old and acting like a 14 year old pig.

Halloween and other horrors. Joan Wheeler is a horror all year round! May 3, 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, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

roflmao! – in case you need a refresher course in internet slang/shortcut – this means Roll On Floor Laughing MY Ass Off!

And this is just what I’m doing when reading Chimp’s new hatred post. And what bullshit – Chimp professes that he (and we know damn well it’s not a he, but Joan, hiding behind a made up person) – he and Joan don’t hate anyone. Really? Then why the continued use of Gertie and Ruthie – as personal bully digs and ridicule at us? Talk about being “fixated” – Joan is FIXATED on using the name Ruthie, as far back as December 2009. So drop the charade you fool. Or not – if you like making yourself into a laughing stock – then by all means- do so!

But I caught you Joan the Chimp – you fucked up! Because Pilgrim/Champ/Brian has been saying all along that Kathy has said nothing, but then all of sudden Chimps says “If 3 healthy healthy, mentally stable individuals insist on ganging up on one disaled person” – um, how did Kathy get into this all of a sudden? – Because Joan can’t stop lumping us all together. Idiot. Then Chimp says that Kathy seems to have lost interest. – What are you saying Chimp? Either Kathy is insisting on being on the team, or she has lost interest. MAKE UP YOUR MIND! (but see  – I’ve said it before over and over – Joan contradicts herself left and right, even in one paragraph, as we see right here.) And she makes stupid grammar mistakes – she repeated the word healthy – twice. She does that too. So we can tell by the writing style that Chimp is in fact Joan. – Um and another giveaway  that Joan and Chimp are the same – Joan’s posts are always full of misspellings – she can’t even spell the word disabled.

oh, yes, we are “attacking” a disabled person. Never mind this “disabled” person just was on a website two weeks ago ATTACKING pro-adoption people and infertile women. Oh give me a break – disabled my ass! Her herniated disc in her neck and other ailments did not stop HER from attacking and bullying other people online – so shove it JoanChimp.

Chimp also says: “No, I didn’t bother reading it. I’m not interested in adding any more lunacy to my existance..”  — What? do you mean you already HAVE lunacy in your existence? – You got that right you fool. — and by the way FOOL – there is no A in existence! Learn to spell.

Chimp goes on to say:  “The only reason for this blog is to try to get you to mind your own business.” — Excuse me you fool: JOAN’S GARBAGE BOOK AND WHAT SHE SAYS ABOUT US ON THE INTERNET IS OUR BUSINESS! WHEN SHE TALKS ABOUT HER BIRTH FAMILY AND HER BIRTH SISTERS –SHE IS TALKING ABOUT US AND THEREFORE IT IS OUR BUSINESS. – You clearly need to learn English pal.

Another giveaway this is really Joan talking is another attack on religion. Joan is obsessed with other people’s religions and people’s religious values. She is always ranting against the Catholic Church. In her book, on the internet, she said it to our father’s face, causing him to finally shove her out his life forever!

In September 2008, on her blog, Joan attacked Gert and mine’s pagan religion and brought up our “pagan values.” She attacked Kathy’s religion on her blog in October 2009. AND on pages 300-302, Joan is attacking us and putting us down for our choices in religion and spirituality.

Now we have another attack on our values. Joan, pay attention to your own filthy values – oh wait – you have none. Because for anyone to hurt her own sister like YOU did – like stealing hundreds of dollars from her, calling her place of employement for months trying to get her fired, AFTER you were told what you accused her of didn’t happen – WHO ARE YOU TO TALK ABOUT VALUES? But we see how judgmental and two-faced JoanChimp is – She can do anything she wants – but let someone else do the same thing she does – and all of sudden she gets spiritually endowed and preach-happy about values. Bitch.

Oh I absolutely love the crap Chimp says about me ripping wings off of flies and scaring children. WHAT AN ASSHOLE! – This is because Chimp Joan falls into the same HATE propaganda against pagans and shows us what a bigot she is. Just as she published erroneous and hateful propaganda in her book, this nutball comes on to say crap about pagans. What an asshole.

Ripping wings off of flies. What kind of MATURE person says this shit? My god, not even in The Wizard of Oz is the Wicked Witch of the West so hatefully portrayed. That movie perpetuates the wrongful charicature of a witch – green skinned, with a wart on her nose, flying around on a broomstick. But Elphaba NEVER ripped wings off flies. What crap are you listening to Joan? You are so laughable. roflmao! –

Scaring children? Oh – this goes back to her continual digs at me because she says I hate her kids, hate all kids, ridicules me for liking horror movies. Again – we see Chimp and Joan are the same person.

Scaring children? roflmao! In years past, John and I used to decorate our porch for holidays. We stopped when the porch floor got too rotted – we didn’t want anyone getting hurt. Even though we had the new porch put on 4 years ago – we haven’t decorated since – just haven’t had the time. Besides we want to put up lattice-work around the porch to semi-enclose it. And the lattice work will give us a better backdrop to hang things on.

Yes, we decorated for the Winter Solstice, which is the Pagan winter holiday. Got a problem with that Chimp? Too bad. Take it up with the Founding Fathers of this country because they wrote in Freedom of Religion in our constitution. Got something to say about the Constitution of the United States bitch?

But our favorite holiday is Halloween – well the popular American take on the Pagan Samhain. But we enjoy the fun that goes with the whole Halloween thing and Trick or Treat. Our neighbors would decorate their porches with smiling jack-o-lanterns, happy harvest scarecrows, hay bales, corn stalks. John and I – our jack-o-lanterns were scowling faces. We had skeletons and bats hanging from spiderwebs. Giant spiders and giant swamp rats everywhere. Ghouls, ghosts, and goblins were our decor fare.

And our house was the most popular in the neighborhood. John wore a black robe and hood, skeleton gloves and a ghoul mask. When the kids came up and yelled “Trick or Treat,” I would stand behind the door and open it slowly, then John would jump out. Yes, we did scare one girl – she was about 14 – she was scared so bad – she screamed, ran off our porch, across the street, and up the stairs onto the porch of a house across the street from us. Screaming as she went. Then she turned around, and came back, laughing her ass off. She said “You scared me so bad. But I love it!”

So for your enjoyment – here are some pictures of our house decorated for Halloween. You don’t like horror novels, movies or decor Joan – that’s fine. But your continued putting me down for it shows the world for what you are – a schoolyard bully ridiculing another person for their likes and their values.  YOU have shown the world what YOU really are.

We first started decorating our house in the mid 90’s starting with simple things, then graduating into more things.  I put up a small table, covered with an old sheet that I had lightly dyed purple and then dipped briefly into black dye. This gave it a real dirty “graveyard” look. The table had swamp rats and scowling jack-o-lanterns. Under the table, concealed by the sheet, were small speakers leading to a boombox just inside our door that played Halloween music and sound effects. Eventually, we put out another table, on the other side of the porch, that held a “flaming” cauldron, more ghouls and swamp rats and a fog machine.  I dont’ have any pictures that have the flames and fog going. But it looked great!

Here is our house Halloween 2000.  For the previous Winter Solstice, I had put up a huge display of lights to celebrate the coming of the new milennium, with a “2000” sign, that I left up for a whole year, incorporating it into my Valentine’s Day, St. Patrick’s day, 4th of July and Summer decor.

Here is Halloween 2001, with Brandy our DOG (not cat, you bimbo JoanChimp):

Here are two views of 2001’s decor in the daytime:

This is a skull that John hung in our rec room window. I don’t know what year this was taken, but you should see some of the ghoulish stuff we have in there! Oh yes – we love shopping at The Spirit of Halloween store. And we love going to the various Haunted House mazes in our area.

Here is John in 2001,  in his full costume holding our CAT Samantha. (not dog, JoanChimp).

Now, lastly, here is John in 2001, with the kids of our friends from around the block: ages 12, 4 and 5. Now if a 4 year old, and a 5 year old is clearly at ease with our ghoulish decorations, where does Joan get off saying that because of my pagan religion that I’m scaring kids.  – the one kid has his face blacked out for privacy reasons.

.

a short announcement to Joan Wheeler April 28, 2012

Posted by Ruth in Announcements and updates, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

In your book, Forbidden Family, you put me down for liking horror movies. I say “Screw you. I will like what ever movies I want. You ain’t the boss of me. I don’t give a damn if you don’t like the fact that I like  horror movies.”

Got a problem with me liking horror movies? Anybody? Too damn bad. 

And Joan, when you put me down for something that I like, you showed yourself for what you are – a bigoted bitch who places value judgments on people. What does the fact that I like horror movies have to do with your adoption, our reunion, or adoption reform? Nothing. Therefore, it does not belong in your book. You once said you only wrote about us when our lives intersected with yours. – The fact that I like something that you don’t is not an intersection of our lives. The fact that you further put me down for something that I like shows you are a bully.

I predict – (cos I can foretell what Joan will do – not that hard because like all immature little bitch bullies, she is so predictable) – a new post by Joan in her alter-ego of Champ will appear, with nasty hateful little comments about me liking horror movies. Despite the fact that Chimp, um I mean “Champ” preaches about us throwing hate at Joan, Chimp throws a lot of hate at us. So “he” is no better than us.

HA HA HA HA HA –  I can always count on Joan to give me a good laugh.

Evidence sent to Trafford Publications which resulted in the pulling of the book Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler – Part 1 June 22, 2011

Posted by Ruth in Announcements and updates, Lies in the book Forbidden Family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, Statements from The Three Sippel Sisters.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

In our last post I stated “… Gert and I will be putting out on this blog those several pages of proof – because we are honest. We give our blog readers full disclosure of what we write and to whom. We deal in truth. – Not only do we deal in the truth – we deal in the truth to EVERYBODY! “  This is Gert’s narrative on how we decided to contact Trafford to make a formal complaint about this hideous book. Gert’s complaint to Trafford follows. My own complaint, because it covers so much material, is split into two parts, and will be posted either tomorrow or Friday, June 24, 2011, depending on time allowances.  – Ruth Pace

Gert McQueen:

We blood sisters had found out about the publication of Joan Wheeler’s book Forbidden Family around the end of 2009. I myself did not get a physical copy of the book until late January 2010. As I started to go over it I became quite upset, as were my other two sisters. Initially we three were just picking out certain things in the book and then it dawned on me to attack the book from the beginning. So I started to read it from the outside covers and from page one. It is not an easy book to read and that doesn’t mean just because we sisters are subjects in the book. It is a difficult read because of all the hate, mental disruptions and disturbances and outright lies that the author put out.

At some point in December 2010 as I was reading chapter 38 I said out loud to myself…how did this f…ing book GET published? What kind of an publishing house produced this piece of garbage? It was at that time that I made my first phone call to Trafford, on December 14, 2010. As I spoke with a customer service rep and asked some questions, it became obvious, to both of us, that there were some serious problems with the content of the book. I was told that the author did NOT pay for editing services but had a ‘print ready’ manuscript and UNLESS there is a complaint the editing department DOES NOT look at the manuscript. I was told to send a email with some particulars of my objections to the customer service department. I did that and waited.

During the first week of January 2011, speaking with a customer service manager, I was told to send him a list of the most credible examples of libel and other evidences that we say the author had put in the book. Ruth and I did that. Then our father died and it was not until January 21 when I was able to speak with someone at Trafford, a top level manager, who took charge of our complaint. I spoke with Mr Hopkins many times between Jan 21 and May 6 when he finally told me that the book WAS pulled.

Ruth and I now submit, on this blog, the narratives and credible evidence we gave to Trafford. 

Here is Gert’s complaint:

Evidence related to slanderous lies in the book Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler, provided by Gert McQueen.

It is the opinions of Gert McQueen, Kathy Inglis, and Ruth Pace that our personal and family honor has been sullied and damaged by the publication of this book by Joan Wheeler.

Lies pg xv and xvi ‘why I wrote this book’

Fact: author did not do research to verify information nor speak directly to all individuals (speaking here for blood sisters) to provide the facts and their ‘versions of the truth’. At no time did the author discuss anything related to us sisters, with us, before publication of this book. We had no knowledge that this book was being written or that it was published until after the fact.

Fact: this section (why I wrote the book) written in 2006, was indeed written for vengeance, contrary to the author’s statement, ‘I didn’t write this book for vengeance…my intent is not vindictive or malicious’.

Lie: author states, pg 531, ‘each one of my sisters had something to hide, something they did not want me to write about, which I have not written about.’

Fact: This is a warning statement, of the threat of blackmail, from the author to us sisters.

Examples of how and why the author tells the family tales for vengeance and with malice…pg 543, 545, 546, 547

Fact: Chapter 35 pg 429 – 459 were written about events of 2006/07 with malice and for vindictive purposes. Pg 434 author states that her friend said ‘I don’t want people to know my private life’. But author disregards that request and tells all. On pg 452 the author states… ‘Yes, Jimmy earned a place in this book right along with the other examples of prejudice against adoptees – against me- to be remembered for all the wrong reasons. Of all the people who hurt me because they didn’t understand or approve of what I’m doing…I expose in my writings.’

Fact: Chapter 38 pg 482 – 566 were written April-July 2009, again with malice and for vindictive purposes to show, pg 484, how the author ‘was the only half-orphan treated differently’. This chapter’s sole purpose is for malice and vindictiveness.

Fact: on two separate occasions, 1992 and 2006, before publication of this book, the author had lied directly to me (Gert) about our relationship, leaving me to believe that she loved me, but then used those 2 occasions to further lie about me in the book.

Lie: the author’s position that this book is about adoption reform when in fact it is violently against adoption.

Fact: chapter 23 pg 238- 242 author’s views about the Catholic church.

Fact: pg 485 author’s statement against the institution of adoption. ‘my conclusion that the concept of adoption is corrupt…pathology lies in adoption itself.’

Fact: pg 566 author’s statements ‘adoption must end in America , I demand restitution for my life as a person duped by adoption.’ 

Fact: pg 473- 476 author’s claims of fraud against Surrogate Courts, Registrar of vital statistics and Catholic Church

Fact: Pages 348 – 356 shows some of the outrage and hate that the author has towards adoption.

Pages 357 –358, 367-368 shows the author’s rage and hate, in front of her children

Fact: Author published, whole or in part, the real names of her birth parents, which are my and my sisters’ and brother’s parents and institutions/city/state locations. The author provides sufficient information, date and place of mother’s death, full names of relations, living and dead, where in a quick search could reveal our names, pg 489 – 492. There are many pages, through out that contain real names of family members.

Pages that show documents of my father and mother’s names, 460, 462, 464, 466,

On page 302 and footnoted as #15 page 634, the author sites her article ‘the Secret is Out’, which contained the real names of birth family, and which was the reason that birth sister Kathy wrote a letter to adoption agencies, around 1992/93, to protest the publication of our real names, which the author then relates falsely as harassments pg 310.

Pages containing a living family member’s name, where is the permission? 466

Back cover of the book contains a family photo of my parents, my brother, my sisters and myself. Living persons in that photo did not give permission for that photo to be used on a book of lies about our family.

Lie, slanderous: pg 95 author states that I, Gert, ‘took a few puffs on a joint to get stoned’. I, Gert, never did that!

Fact, pg 93 author states that she, the author, ‘started smoking pot’

Lie, slanderous: pg 128 author states that I, Gert, got the author drunk, stoned and then made sexual advances to her.

Fact: I, Gert, never did that!

Lies, slanderous: pg 214 and pg 220, author states again that I, Gert, sexually abused the author.

Fact: I, Gert, did not!

Fact: Additional pages containing foul obscene language…pg 214, 360. The other pages as indicated in my original email complaint are, 160, 219, 220, 312, 313, 370.

Lie, slanderous: author states, pg 214, that I, Gert, used those obscene words, plus threaten to kill her, in letters and over a telephone,

Fact: I, Gert, did not! I wrote one letter, as referenced on pg 214, to author’s adoptive mother informing her of the author’s actions of interference to and against my minor children and myself.

Fact: pg 157, the author had a previous history, 1977, of interfering with and causing trouble because over my father’s adoption of his step-daughter

Lies, slanderous: Pg 213- 214 contains much that is an untrue account of the events that the author herself did to my (Gert) immediate family.

Fact: in 1981 my husband and I were in the process of adopting my own birth son, the author recklessly interfered in our parental authority, called me an unfit mother, told me I was doing great harm to my son, told my children they did not have to obey me. I was forced to remove the author from my home and forbid any contact with my children. As part of the adoption process my husband and I were investigated by the courts and were found fit, for adoption. But in retaliation for being forbidden to see my children, the author called in a child abuse report, which was quickly dismissed because we had just completed a adoption investigation. Fact: On pg 301, the author states that she had called in the abuse in 1981.

Fact: In 1982 my husband and I moved our family to another city in part to remove my children from the negative influence of the author. My daughter had behavior problems and after our physical relocation she ran-away, Sept 1982, back to the city we moved from. Again, in retaliation to me, the author used that occasion to call a second child abuse against my husband and me this time claiming sexual abuse.

Fact: In a Family Court hearing I requested, and was granted, that my minor daughter be placed in protective custody of the county and she was placed in a foster home. I then had a hearing about the child abuse against husband and myself. In March 1984 the charges of child abuse and maltreatment was found to be untrue and all records were to be ‘expunged’ from the record. It was as if it never happened, until the author lyingly wrote about it in the book.

Fact: I have scanned the first and last pages of that document to show that the charges against me were false to begin with, were expunged and that this episode should not have been repeated, particularly in print, it is a slanderous lie and misrepresentation purely for malice and vindictiveness. See additional documents

Fact: I, Gert, moved from the same city where the author lived in Sept 1982 and did not speak nor see her again until 1992. I had no knowledge of anything she did, or said, I had no contact with any person with whom I spoke about the author…I divorced myself from the author…for her interference, her alienating my children from me and contributing to the destruction of my marriage and family unit.

Fact: In 1992, at a family gathering the author and I spoke, I attempted a reconciliation, thought that the author was doing the same, until, she used my religion as a means to continue spreading lies that my mental health was in danger because of my religion and other hateful things against me to other family members. I then continued on with my ‘divorce’ and have not seen the author since 1992. Sometime in 2006, when my father was ill, I had a short phone conversation with author to which, she said she loved me and wished me well, knowing full well she was lying and was publishing a book of lies.

Lie, slanderous: author states, pg 243, referring to child abuse calls the author was receiving that I, (Gert) ‘obviously retaliated against me since I was responsible for having her investigated through the same child abuse hotline. The only difference was that (Gert)’s phone calls were based on revenge, not concern. My intervention with my niece came after I pieced together evidence of sexual behavior that threatened her well-being.’

Fact: as I had just stated, I had no contact with the author during this time-period (1984), I didn’t even know that the author had a child! I did not call any abuse on to the author. This lie is a continued accusation against me for alleged sexual abuse, in this case against my own child that was found to be untrue and was expunged from the record!  It does show the fact that the author did indeed call in a false child abuse report upon me, Gert, in 1982, but here she lies about the actual truth of the circumstances.

Fact: pg 301, author states that she ‘reported fears to child protection authorities in 1981’. By the author’s own admission she called two false child abuse reports against me.

Lies, slanderous: chapter 27, pg 295-313, is a complete fabrication of the event.

Fact: it was a very brief family gathering, at a local park, with pleasant conversations, hugs, and a separate visit with author, myself and Ruth, at which time I shared with them my religious affiliations and activities. At no time did the author say anything negative to me about my religion, only to say that her husband had been part of SCA and she thought that was ‘my religion’; it is not. I thought and was lead to believe by the author, that perhaps a reconciliation could occur between us, as had occurred between myself and Ruth which ended the then 10 year silence and mistrust.

Fact: the next day, the author went to my father’s home, saying ‘Gert’s mental health must be in danger because there is something wrong with Gert’s religion’. (religious intolerance).  My father told her that he knew of my religion and my mental health, that the author was not welcome in his home if she continued to spread lies and cause trouble. The author continued to argue, my father threw her out of his home.

Fact: It was my father who told me about the confrontation that he had with the author, at his home and what the author said about me, (Gert). I have not seen the author since that event of July 1992 and I have had one short phone conversation, again pleasant, in 2006!

Lies, slanderous: pg 301, author states that I, Gert, ‘got pregnant at age 17, married the 16 year old father to get out of living in a foster home and dealing with our father and stepmother.’

Fact: I was out of the foster home, my step-mother had died and both myself and my husband were of legal age and married because we wanted to.

Lies, slanderous: pg 308 –313, author states that we sisters did harassing letters and phone calls.

Fact: I, Gert, did not write letters or make phone calls.

Lies: pg 316 – 318 pertain to events about getting personal properties of Kathy’s back from the author that the author did not do in a timely matter.

Fact: Under pressures, from family members, the author enlisted the help of Doctor Hoksbergen. My sister Kathy wrote a letter to Doctor Hoksbergen after she received a very intrusive and intimidating letter from him.

See my email that contains my assessment of Hoksbergen’s letter as well as letter the author wrote to my aged foster mother attempting to gain information from her.

Lies, slanderous: pg 310 author states that she had spoken with a Joe Soll, adoption specialist, who had received letters from the author’s sisters.

Fact: see my email with copy of an email exchange that I, Gert, had with Mr. Soll, who denies everything the author had stated on pg 310/311.

Lies, slanderous: pg309, the author states ‘my sisters would do anything to prevent me from publishing my life story, they ganged together to destroy my soul so I wouldn’t be a threat to them, this surely was sibling rivalry and jealousy at its best.’

Lies, slanderous: pg 314-318, the author states that we sisters made many harassing phones and she enlisted the help from the police and they had some sort of recordings of what was said and can make identifications. She has a police officer saying this about me, (Gert)… ‘this one in ‘P’…what’s her name, oh here it is I’ve got her right here, ‘I’ she says she’s gonna bring the entire House of Thor to bring evil upon you, honestly, I wish these two were in Buffalo, I’d fry them like hotcakes.’

Fact: I, Gert, never made phone calls, there is no proof from any police dept. or phone company.

Fact: The statement about me bringing a god (Thor) is an insult to one of my Gods! To state that I would ‘bring evil’ is beyond slander it is hate speech towards my religion and my religious practices. The author only knows SCA activities from her husband’s association with reenactments.

Fact: I, Gert, am a well-respected innovator of the reawakening of certain ancient folk religions. I am a lore-teacher and writer in my religion of Anglo-Saxon Theodish Belief. Some of my writings and activities can be seen on the web just by googling my name. I take great offense having my religion and my religious practices misjudged and discussed so disrespectfully.

Fact: The author has also been very vocal and disrespectful about my sister Ruth’s pagan religion and my sister Kathy’s Jewish religion. These things are reported on our refuting blog. (religious intolerance – hate language).

Lie: page 359 author states that in 1999 she wrote a letter to our brother and ‘a similar letter to my sisters, that whatever they had against me needed to be talked out, resolved, so we could be a family again.’

Fact: I (Gert) never received such a letter. I attempted in early 1982 mediation with the author but the author said ‘go to hell’. After the betrayal by the author in 1992 I wanted nothing to do with the author. I attempted another reconciliation by phone in 2006 only to be betrayed again, by author.

Lie: pg 359 author states ‘my sisters retaliated with yet more hate mail and vicious phone calls’

Fact: I (Gert) never did.

Again, I must state that, it is the opinions of Gert McQueen, Kathy Inglis, and Ruth Pace that our personal and family honor has been sullied and damaged by the publication of this book by Joan Wheeler. For honor sake we ask that Trafford Publication look at the content of the material in this book and remove it from your selling markets.

Thank you.

Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler Chapters 22, 23, and 24 pages 222 – 257 – REFUTED! – Part 2 by Ruth Pace March 25, 2011

Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed
 In a post written by Gert McQueen on May 10, 2010 and posted to this blog last week on March 16, 2011, Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler Chapter 22- More of the same, payback’s a bitch and what is Joan going to do! Gert says the following about Chapter 22, A New Family “it’s more of the same stuff we have read before, another redundant chapter.”

 I agree, more whining, more digs aimed at her birth sisters.

She starts out the chapter by saying that prayer and meditation from an aunt and uncle helped strengthen her spirituality. Influenced her in inner healing. Really? I don’t see much evidence to this. Her spirituality? To what? To have that confidence in one’s own spirituality that there is no need to trash another person’s religion? HA! We see Joan trashing the Catholic Church left and right and her sisters’ (me and Gert) Neo-Pagan paths. Inner healing? HA! All over the book and to this day, Joan writes about her tormented inner life.

On page 222, she relates how she saw two Liverpool, England musicians in concert in Buffalo, New York. These 2 people knew our sister Kathy in Liverpool. Joan writes, “I wondered why Edith (Kathy) didn’t take me to see them in Liverpool.” Oh whine.

Well, let’s see, why didn’t Kathy take her to see them? Does Joan mean to see them perform or see them socially? As the poor writer that she is, she doesn’t make the distinction. But there are lot’s of reasons why Kathy didn’t take her to “see” them. Maybe they weren’t performing when Joan was there. Maybe they were out of the country, performing in Germany maybe. Maybe one of them had the flu. Maybe one of them had a death in the family! Did Joan ever bother to ask Kathy? And maybe put the dam TRUTH in her book? NO! And quite frankly WHO GIVES A SHIT? And what does this have to do with Joan’s adoption, Joan’s adoption reunion, and Joan’s adoption reform work? NOTHING!

This is an example of why this book is a piece of shit! The book is peppered with these kinds of questions! Questions from Joan’s tormented mind – but she never gives her readers the TRUTHFUL answers to these questions. Joan just loves to SPECULATE on people’s motives of their day to day lives. She should stop that shit and pay attention to her own miserable life. Maybe put into practice what Aunt Helen and Uncle Dom were trying to tell her.

But Joan doesn’t want to do that – she doesn’t bother to do proper research – and tell the truth. It’s much easier to write a speculative question, because it’s a clever ploy – to show that Kathy was a negligent bitch to Joan – she didn’t take Joan to see a couple of musicians. You know, Kathy knows a lot of musicians in England, seeing as she is a musician herself. So Kathy is supposed to take Joan to meet every single musician that she knows. On the outside chance that they may travel to the States and perform in Buffalo. Yes, everyone on the planet must plan their lives to please Joan. Introduce her to EVERY person they know because if they don’t, she will feel slighted and insulted and whine about it in her book. And it’s a clever ploy to put another insulting dig against one of her birth sisters without the reader being aware of what she is doing.

On page 244 Joan writes this about me: “Brenda (me) was a big comfort. She loved baby Aaron (Joan’s son) and came to see us often.” Remember this when she writes all over the internet how I hate her kids. Notice how Joan contradicts herself left and right – that’s because she can’t stick to the TRUTH!

Another thing she likes to do is LIE about me concerning  her kids is that I am jealous of her because she has two kids and I am infertile. In June 1985, I suffered a miscarriage, after several years of trying to conceive. Yet, she writes that I’m taking her son to outings in 1985. And both of her kids to the beach in 1989 and 1990.  She just can’t stick to one story.

On page 248, she writes about the backlash of her doing an interview in the newspaper on adoption and getting a few facts wrong. This topic is covered in Gert’s post and I have already written about it. But she says on page 248 “There was no one to help me cope with my feelings, except my year-old son.” Um, what was I? Chopped Liver? I thought she said that I came to visit her often! She didn’t say between page 244 and 248 that we suddenly stopped speaking to each other.

On page 253, summer of 1985, she writes, “Brenda and I frequently took 18-month-old Aaron on outings.” Later on in the book, in the years 1988-90, she says the same thing, as we did go to the beach a lot with her kids. But on the internet, on The Huffington Post, she said that she didn’t have a relationship with me for more than three decades. Do the math people: 3 decades = 30 years. 2011 minus 30 is 1981. But it’s right there in black and white on page 244 we’re at the beach in 1984, and on page 253, we’re taking her son to outings in the summer of 1985.

On page 252 she relates how she goes to Charleston, South Carolina to visit her husband, who had gone there for a better job. She says she wasn’t impressed with the city. Well, she is entitled to her opinion, but on page 257, she states she didn’t like the houses in Charleston, because they were “poorly made with staples instead of nails.” What? She is a construction expert? Let’s see, she made this expert opinion in 1985. In 1989, Hurricane Hugo blew into Charleston. While two-thirds of the city’s houses suffered varying degrees of damage (Wikipedia), the city was not leveled. So I guess Joan’s expert assessment on building codes goes in the trash.

Joan goes on to say that her husband suggested a double-wide trailer. She writes: “Bad enough we were already poor; I didn’t want to live in a trailer park to become trailer trash. Maybe that was his goal, but it wasn’t mine.“

Trailer Trash? Trailer Trash? Where does she get off putting people living in trailer parks as trash? What a disgusting, stereotypical, discriminatory thing to say. Does she forget that her own birth brother and his wife, lived in a trailer park when they first moved to Arizona?

In a comment to my post What is the REAL reason behind Joan Wheeler’s rant on the Huffington Post?  March 9, 2011, Gert listed the National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics, “Social Workers’ Ethical Responsibilities to Clients.”

In Item 07 – Privacy and Confidentiality article d, we find the following:

Social workers should act to prevent and eliminate domination of, exploitatin of, and discrimination against any person, group, or class on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, or mental or physical disability.

Joan likes to spout off and brag that she is a “social worker,” but in her usual contradictory self, she also says she is “unemployed, due to disabilities.” If she’s unemployed, then she is NOT a social worker. She also brags that she is a member of the National Association of Social Workers.

WELL, in her putdown of people living in trailer parks, she is in violation of that code where it says “Social workers should act to prevent and eliminate ….discrimination against any ….CLASS…”

Okay, it talks about social workers and their clients, which Joan doesn’t have any clients, because she’s not working, but if Joan is feeling this in her heart and personal life, how would she treat a client if she had any? Just how would she treat a client that lived in a trailer park, considering she considers people living in trailer parks as trash. Perhaps we should count our blessings that Joan is NOT a working social worker – she’d be very detrimental to her clients with her bigoted way of thinking – and heaven help any client who ADOPTED a child. Yes, yes, I’m indulging in a bit of speculative thinking myself – but we all know dam well what Joan would do. It’s right there in her book – she has chronciled herself putting down people in meetings, classrooms, her own professors and classmates while getting her social work degree, even the Association of Social Workers. I guess I’m not really speculating after all – just telling the  truth, using Joan’s own words from her own trashy book. After all, it’s right there in black and white on page 257: trailer trash.

The Social Worker’s Code also doesn’t include a client’s income, but it does say CLASS, which in this case would be poor people. And Joan already said that her and her husband and year old son were POOR, so in other words, she was putting herself down.

After Joan puts down residents of trailer parks, Joan then says “I wanted a better life.” I can’t fault her there. Everybody wants a better life. That’s why they GET OFF THEIR ASS AND GET A JOB! TO WORK TOWARDS THAT BETTER LIFE!

In writing about her birth brother in 2003, when the family goes to Arizona for his funeral, Joan writes in her book about how “rich” he and his wife were. No, they weren’t “rich,” they were upper middle class. And their beautiful house was the reward of years of WORKING AT JOBS!

In 1976, when my brother and his wife moved to Arizona, they filed for bankruptcy, sold their belongings, packed up their little Toyota Corolla, and drove across the country in search of their better life. And through hard work, they achieved it. And yes, at first they lived in a TRAILER PARK! And they weren’t TRASH! But again, as we see over and over and over again throughout this TRASHY book, Joan M. Wheeler puts down her birth family as trash. The only trash from the Sippel family is Joan herself and her book.

Joan doesn’t want ADOPTEES to be discriminated against – yet turns around and says this discriminatory statement against residents of trailer parks.

My first apartment in 1971, was a room in a boarding house. I was working as a cashier for Twin Fair, a K-Mart type store. I then roomed with an older woman, while I took classes in 1972 to become a nurses aide in September 1972. In early 1973, I moved back to my father’s house to help out with the kids, while working full time nights at the hospital, where 38 years later, I am still working. During 1973 and into 1974, I saved my money and in May 1974, I got my first real apartment. In 1975, I moved into a larger apartment with my first husband, and each subsequent apartment was a bit nicer than the last. In May 1987, my present husband and I moved into a rented HOUSE, which in 1996, we bought off the landlord.

I’m also looking for the “better life.” And am working towards it. My husband and I are secure in our house, doing renovations as time and money permits. Our long term plans are to have the renovations done in about 10 years, and then turn our attention to the acquiring and landscaping of the empty lot next to us.

What’s Joan doing? Living in fantasyland. Waiting for a movie to made out of her trashy book. Sorry Joan, not even Oprah is going to feature this trashy book on Oprah’s Book Club – because when she sees how you put down trailer people, she’s going to see you for what you are – a bigot, and a liar. Someone who puts down and insults and lies about her own birth family. And don’t even try to ride in on the adoption coattail – just because Oprah recently introduced her adopted out birth sister to the world. Oprah isn’t stupid, nor is most of the world – we all see Joan for what she is.

And what will Joan do? Now that her meal ticket is gone.

addendum: March 26, 4:40am. by Ruth Pace

The following is from an adoptee forum. And I have a question for the author: Romany, have you Deeply Read the above and what your buddy Joan has said about poor people being TRASH?


———————————————–

Title: Re: Single mother’s…Thanks Huckabee for your insight..
Post by: Romany on March 06, 2011, 03:17:35 PM

The trouble is – people like him divide the world into “good” (educated, moral, productive, financially sound) and “not good” (uneducated, immoral, unproductive, poor).  There are no educated, immoral, productive, poor people just as there are no uneducated, moral, unproductive, financially sound people – or any other combination.  The “good” people have all the “good” attributes and the “not good” people have nothing.  Morality (his version) leads to good things and immorality (his version) leads to bad things because that’s what his god tells him.

And according to her book Forbidden Family, Joan Wheeler also divides the world into “good” people – those who do not live in trailer parks, and “not good ” people – those who do live in trailer parks.  I don’t even want to touch Joan’s “morality” because I dont’ think I can – she doesn’t have any morals.

NOTICE TO JOAN WHEELER – JANUARY 7, 2011 – STAY AWAY FROM MY FATHER! GOT THAT? January 7, 2011

Posted by Ruth in a. What is demanded from Joan Wheeler - the purpose of this blog., Announcements and updates, Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, mental illness, Our Family History, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

first part from Gert McQueen, second part from Ruth Sippel Pace

I, Kathy Inglis, concur with what my two sisters say here.

from Gert
To Joan Wheeler, warning, take this very seriously…YOU ARE TO STAY AWAY FROM OUR AGED FATHER AND STEPMOTHER…by order of EVERY member of our family.

You are NOT to go to our father’s home, you are not welcomed there. Our father and his wife do not want you to call on the phone or knock on their door. You are not to go to any hospital where either of them may be for any reason…you are not allowed in their presence.

If you go again, like you did on Tuesday Jan 4, 2011 sometime between the hours of 11am and 6pm, the police shall be called to have you removed and charged with harassment and taking advantage of sick and weak elders.

Your adoptive mother’s end stage of her life is next to nothing of consequences to our father and his wife and the rest of our family. If you, Joan, are dreading the death of your adoptive mother and ‘want to make peace with dad’ that is YOUR PROBLEM, not theirs! They and everyone else gave you almost 37 years of chances to make peace. You had your chances and you blow them, not once, but many many times…And after you published this rotten disgusting piece of shit against every family member you have the gull to ask to ‘make peace with dad’!!

How many times do you need to insult Dad and get kicked out before you GET IT? You want to ‘make peace with dad’! Do you mean -peace like in what you did and said in your book…spring of 2008 pg 553 – 556 and Feb 2009 pgs 557 – 559. Is that the kind of ‘make peace with dad’ bullshit that you want now!! (Ruth’s note – see explanation just below)

You, Joan, are a lying piece of sick shit! And if you come near MY FATHER again the police shall be called. Get it! I hope so, for your sake!

Go and deal with your adoptive mother’s dying and what will be left of your pathetic life when she is gone, because you ‘are dreading her death…dreading it’!

Your life is what you made it, now go and live your life with the demons that you wrought and leave us alone!

Ruth’s note: to clarify to what Gert is alluding to – what Joan wrote in her filthy book –
A few years ago, after my father had open heart surgery, Joan VOLUNTEERED to take my elderly father and my elderly stepmother to their doctor appointments. A couple years later, Joan DEMANDED gas money from my father, then DEMANDED he chip in for car repairs. When he refused to be held to financial and emotional blackmail, Joan goes home and tells her mother, who trashed my father for HER past financial decisions. THEN Joan writes about this shit in her book. Yet towards the front of the book has the nerve to quote the fourth commandment “honor thy mother and thy father.” And you know what the beef Joan’s mother had? Because when she adopted Joan in 1956, she had to give up her job to take care of an infant. BUT when Joan was older – did she she go out and get another job? NO! So she sits and whines that MY father had the benefit of a working wife (but not until 1972 Dorothy, like your daughter – you don’t get your facts straight).  So this bitch is putting MY father down, and Joan puts it in her book. Dorothy also is bitching that SHE raised his daughter and now HE owes her! Excuse me, bitch when you signed the adoption papers YOU became the legal parent and guardian of that child. If you didn’t want to accept the financial responsibility of that child you should not have adopted her. BUT guess what folks? Edward Wheeler worked at Dunlop tires, making a pretty good penny! AND the Wheelers owned their own house in the suburbs AND had TWO MORE RENTAL PROPERTIES! It is not MY father’s problem that the Wheelers did not do a better job planning for their financial future. And that includes Joan. She should have been working all this time and putting money into a retirement fund instead of blowing all her money on bullshit. – and I have lot more to say on that subject in future installments of this blog.

Joan pulled that shit on me back in 1990 – I fronted the down payment and lawyer’s fees for real estate, in a joint checking account – to be used for closing costs, expenses for real estate, but Joan withdrew money without my permission (stealing) for HER living expenses. That was not what I agreed to loan the money to her for. Bitch. The money was to buy an apartment building NOT for Joan to live off. and she even says in the book “the money disappeared.” Disappeared? MY money disappeared? She was withdrawing small amounts to buy hamburgers in the mall (and she had the nerve to “treat” me to one), paying her cable bill with premium channels like HBO while John and I had only basic cable – Joan living high on MY money! SCAM ARTIST! I do not work to support Joan or her kids. And her husband was withdrawing money to blow at a strip joint. Then caused their rent check to bounce. Joan and Colby – thieves, scums, deadbeats, liars – but can go to rock concerts, but don’t pay the electric bill, when they got toddlers at home – blow Ruth’s money on shit and act all surprised when Ruth gets mad.

So I was out almost $900.00 and Joan wonders why I’m mad – and 20 years later, she tries to pull the same scam on my father! And my father knew what Joan did to me and put his foot down and wasn’t about to be fooled by Joan’s tears. So  for revenge – she trashes my father in her book.
This is Joan’s way of honoring my father – holds him hostage to her and her mother’s lifetime of bad financial planning and spending habits, then further dishonors him by putting that shit in her book.  And of course while she writes about this shit, she automatically HAS to include a dig against me. Because I didn’t drive my dad around – and she did. Well, I have a JOB, Joan doesn’t. I work the night shift and sleep in the day. And I had another post open heart surgery person to take care – my husband. He had his surgery 3 months before my father. And I had to put in overtime to make up for his lost income. did Joan ASK me why I wasn’t taking my dad to the doctor? NO – she doesn’t do any dam research for her book – but just includes her flawed INTERPRETATIONS of someone’s actions and passes them off as a truth in her lying book. – and she trashed my younger brother because he owned a motorcycle, not a car, so he couldn’t take my dad to the doctor. So SAINT Joan is taking my dad to the doctor and oh boo-hooo, she gets no gratitude, SAINT Joan is sooo good and pure and the rest of the family aren’t taking him to the doctor – oh puh-leaze! How does someone dare to demand money from an elderly person after VOLUNTEERING to drive them? You can make arrangements with them – by saying, “I have the time to take you to the doctor or shopping, but I’ll need help with the gas money.” No problem with that! But to DEMAND money?  NO, that’s stepping over the line.  btw, my Dad offered to pay for MY speeding ticke in 2003, when I was on the way to his house when he asked me to take him shopping once. I said “No, it was MY foot on the gas pedal, not yours.” It’s called personal responsibility Joan – and I see you still haven’t learned that – you didn’t learn a dam thing after you scammed me and then you try to scam an elderly person – you’re an elder abuser – you slapped your elderly mother once – but you aren’t going to do that to MY father.

 

GETTING BACK TO THE NOTICE TO JOAN WHEELER TO STAY AWAY FROM OUR FATHER!

I, Ruth Sippel Pace, being of sound mind and body, and being the LEGAL daughter of Leonard J. Sippel Sr. concur with Gert McQueen’s demands above. Also, J.R., our step-sister-turned LEGAL sister through adoption, and the LEGAL and biological daughter of Gi. S., hold Power of Attorney and she made it clear to Gert via telephone January 6, 2011 that she does not want Joan Wheeler near her parents. Also at that time, G. S. told Gert via tselephone that she does not want Joan near her or her husband. I concur with her wishes.

Also, on or about November 15, 2010 my father called me on the phone to invite me to a family function. I asked him if Joan would there, and he said “No.” Then he added emphatically, “I am done with her. I don’t want to see her again.”

The reason: because of the last conversation she had with my father sometime in 2009, where Joan told my father to his face that she does not like people of Polish descent or Catholics. My father is of Polish descent. His mother’s parents emigrated from Poland. Our family is Roman Catholic, some members have converted to other religions, but those of us who have, still have great respect for the Roman Catholic Church.

Joan, in her own hand-written description of her trash book Forbidden Family says “….she (Joan) had to be silenced.” Alluding to people always telling her to shut up about adoption.

No, Joan doesn’t GET IT! She has not been told shut up about adoption, she has been told to shut up PERIOD! Joan suffers from diarrhea of the mouth. Once she gets started, she can’t stop. She also suffers from chronic gross exageration! If an actual event took 5 minutes, Joan reports it as 20 minutes. If she received ONE phone call, she reports it as 10.
 
Joan has never learned SELF-CONTROL. She cannot control her mouth. I have had philosophical and theological debates with my father, so has Gert, but we learned to do it in a respectful manner, and not insult my father’s mother or his birthright religion. Joan goes on the Adult Adoptees forum and fairly revels in the fact that she left an insulting comment on somebody else’s internet post. There are several instances in the book where she does the same thing. She insults people, then sits back and laughs at herself, and pats herself on the back  for her bad manners. She doesn’t care that what she said in person or in the book or on the internet may HURT another human being! In fact, she ENJOYS hurting other human beings. She is a straight-up bitch.

I have been personally hurt by Joan in person, by her lies about me in the book and her lies about me on the internet. I have been hurt to read my family being trashed in print in her book and on the internet.

So she insults and hurts my father’s feelings in 2009, and now all of a sudden, in January 2011, she comes running to my father’s house. Why? Because she is dreading the fact that her adoptive mother may leave this world? What does that have to do with my father?

Did Joan go to my father’s house to apologize for what she said in 2009? I doubt it. She has had almost 2 years to do so. She even wrote about it in her book, just prior to it’s publication in November 2009. She “explained” what she meant that by the anti-Polish remark, she was saying about the unique Polish descendants living in Buffalo and their accent. BUT she still insults THEM by implying that the accent denotes stupidity.

For those who don’t know of this accent, watch the 1993 Harrison Ford movie The Fugitive, where he is renting a basement apartment from a Polish lady. She may be in Chicago, but it is the same as in Buffalo. The actress doesn’t appear stupid to me. And neither do many of the Polish people that I know personally in Buffalo.

But we see that Joan is a bigot! It’s one thing to have a light-hearted laugh about an immigrant’s accent, as in the movie The Christmas Story, where the Chinese waiters are trying to sing the song Deck the Halls. Because there is no “L” in the Chinese language, when they try to say the L sound, it comes out as R. The scene in the movie does not depict the Chinese people as stupid, but caring people when you see them rush to feed their patrons.

This is where Joan fails in her conversational style. She is a bigot. She is judgemental. She wants to voice HER opinion. And if you disagree with her – you are worthless to her.

THIS is why we have all tried to tell her to WATCH WHAT YOU SAY JOAN. Because with her diarrhea of the mouth, she HURTS other people’s feelings. And after having their feelings hurt, several times, a person is just going to say “the hell with you, get away from me.”

Then Joan is left holding the bag and WILL NOT ACCEPT THAT IT IS HER OWN ACTIONS AND WORDS THAT HAVE CAUSED PEOPLE TO RUN THE HELL AWAY FROM HER AND BAN HER FROM THEIR HOUSE! ~~ addendum – January 9, 2011  ~~ and I, Ruth Pace am sick and tired of always being blamed for everything in Joan’s life. When a person who has had enough of Joan’s insults, does say “the hell with you (Joan), get away from me,” Joan automatically blames ME. Even if I hadn’t seen the person or spoke to them in 15 years! I have had enough! Whatever negative activity that happens in Joan’s life is NOT always RUTH’S fault. got that Joan – I simply do NOT have such a huge influence on YOUR life. I live my OWN life – go live yours and LEAVE ME OUT OF YOURS!

It is perfectly clear that Joan is NOT WANTED by any person in the Sippel family. Joan has hammered coffin nails into her relationships with the Sippel Family for years. The last hammering was the publication of that lying filthy book.

Now stand up and be a Woman – accept the consequences of your own dam actions Joan. You brought this shit on yourself.

1. Ruth – January 9, 2011
my father is generous – when John and I had financial difficulties, we asked him for help – and got it. AND made the attempt to repay him, which he refused to take – “you need the money more than me.”
Joan didn’t ask – she DEMANDED money. …then her mother trashes my father – and Joan puts it in her book. NOW she wants to get in good with my Dad? Why? Because she probably needs money!

2. Gert – January 10, 2011
from Gert
What Joan falls to understand is that events in other peoples’ lives are NOT about her…it’s about THEM.
Joan’s adopted mother’s life and death process is NOT about Joan…and Joan’s feelings about that woman and Joan’s fears about that woman’s death is NOT anyone’s issues…those are JOAN’S and she ought to take ownership of them and stop laying it on other people’s feet.

My father’s life is NOT about Joan, it is about HIM.

As with anyone else, when he is ill or weak or in the any reminding stage of HIS life…it is STILL ABOUT HIM and it is never about Joan. Joan has no right to inflict her own fears upon anyone else particularly my father.

When a person reaches advnced age or is on their death bed, the LAST THING they need is to have some mentally disturbed person, JOAN, begging, whinning, lying, crying, being hysterical, and asking to make peace.
 3. Ruth – January 10, 2011
I like what Gert says here: “Joan has no right to inflict her own fears upon anyone else…”
If Joan had kept a close and caring relationship with ANY of her birth family (or adoptive family or friends), than Joan would HAVE a support system – someone she could call at any time of the day or night and cry on their shoulder when a crises comes up. I know that I do. I have two very close loving people that I have known since 1978 – my best woman-friend and my other best friend – my husband. I have close friendships with people on my job – that thru the years have proven to have my back. I have relatives, some that I haven’t seen for years, but through the new phenomena of social networks like facebook, we have re-connected. One, just left a one word description of me (a little game being played on facebook). She described me as “beloved.” Even tho I haven’t seen her for about 30 years!

Why does Joan not have this kind of support system? Because she pushes everyone in her life AWAY from her with her bullshit and her insulting ways. As I said above – after a while, people get fed up with her, say “the hell with you” and they run away from her. Joan flatters herself too much in thinking that The Three Sippel Sisters, whether individually or collectively are “bad-mouthing” her left and right to EVERY single person that Joan knows. Because we just don’t have the time for that – I have a job, Gert and Kathy may be retired, but they are busy with their varied interests.

The problem with Joan (well ONE problem) is that she REFUSES to be an ADULT who takes responsibility for her own life! Everything bad in her life is NEVER because JOAN did something, but rather it is because Joan keeps BLAMING SOMEONE ELSE FOR IT. And that someone else, in Joan’s deluded mind is usually Ruth. As if I know all the people in her life. And even if I do, I am NOT on the phone 24/7 gossiping about Joan!

Joan, it has ALWAYS been YOU and YOU ALONE who have managed to turn one person after another against you – you give me too much credit that it has been MY fault that your friends have turned against you, your husband and other boyfriends have turned against you, relatives have turned against you. YOU ARE NOT THAT IMPORTANT TO MY LIFE! I WANT YOU OUT OF MY LIFE! I HATE EVEN THE SOUND OF YOUR NAME! The only reason this blog is up and I am doing this now – is because you published that trash book that DISHONORED MY father, as well as me, and my WHOLE FAMILY! YOU wrote the lies in the book – YOU insulted my father’s mother – my grandmother – YOU insulted the Catholic Church, to which generations of MY ancestors and my father’s ancestors have belonged! RUTH didn’t write the book. JOAN did. RUTH didn’t insult people of Polish heritage – JOAN did. RUTH did not trash the Catholic Church – JOAN did.
YOU JOAN, AND YOU ALONE OWN YOUR LIFE. NOW TAKE IT AND GET THE HELL AWAY FROM THE SIPPEL FAMILY! Goodbye!

Joan Wheeler’s book Forbidden Family – Personal psychodrama, lies and other things that don’t belong in a book. October 14, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Lies in the book Forbidden Family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

 By Gert McQueen, written April 22, 2010

‘Three things cannot be hidden, the sun, the moon and the truth.’…Buddha

 Chapter 15, as Joan is ‘preparing for Liverpool’, to see our sister who lives there, she tells us about meeting our father at work. I’ve addressed this in another post, but for accuracy sake and setting the record straight again, she misrepresents our father’s work situation. He was not a machinist, didn’t work in south Buffalo, at this time, 1976, he worked at the City Hall of Buffalo NY as a civil engineer and part-time at Sears as a sales representative. Our father’s natural way of discussing things is in a straightforward way and yes at times he can be abrupt. I am also that way, as I believe Ruth is. Joan does not understand straightforwardness or abrupt ways of talking that leaves no opportunity for argument. She only knows a sick sense of drama within life, one of arguments and tearing each other up and she got that from having been raised with hatred, rage and paranoia. This is why she ‘didn’t know how to relate to my father’ and many other types of statements that she has put in this book.

 We, the readers, are again subjected to Joan’s inner turmoil and negative self-talk as well as the adoptive family’s torments, paranoia and rage. Is it no wonder that these three people, Joan and the adoptive parents of Edward and Dorothy Wheeler have the medical issues that they had in 1976 and that have plagued them all their lives? This family is a sick, sick, sick family that feed on each other, over and over again. I can’t imagine witnessing a scene such as is on pg 132, adoptive mother throwing a chair at a leader of a public meeting of adoptees. see post Evil is as Evil Does – Joan Wheeler needs to learn that doing evil eventually has it’s consequences.

Why is it in this book? Is it good for sales?

 pg 133 tell us about Joan’s beginning wakeup call that comes with an interracial coupling, that she embarked on, without giving full attention to anything remotely related to the suitable compatibility nor any attention to the real possibility of the violent nature that such a relationship could bring. She should have ended it when she had the chance. Idealism doesn’t work in the real world! Oh yes being the only white woman in a black ghetto can be a wakeup call! But when I tried to tell her to think, I was all wrong! Joan Wheeler – Forbidden Family Chapter 14 – Refutted!   Ruth’s note – Joan states on page 133, regarding Manuel’s mother: “I admired the strength of his mother, a blind woman, who loved her children fiercely and raised them well despite the hardships.”         Excuse me, this woman did NOT do a well job of raising her TWELVE children! They were living in a slum tenement with cockroaches all over the place – and how did she raise her son – to beat up his girlfriend?  And she was blind! With TWELVE kids! I don’t mean to put down a blind poor woman, but obviously her handicaps prevented her from protecting her children from insects and raising her son not to be a batterer with a violent temper.

     Also on page 133 Joan says she marveled at the irony of the condition of an albino black man. What is there to marvel at? Why is she even mentioning this? Why is she mentioning the physical appearance of another human being? Does she marvel at a person who can’t see or hear? Or someone with Down’s Syndrome? Or a white person with red hair? How about a Native American woman with braids? Why the need to marvel at anyone’s physical condition?

 Got news for you Joan – blacks, albinos included, are simply PEOPLE. THIS is why her inter-racial relationship failed, because at her young age, and her being raised in the lily-white suburbs, never learned to see beyond the pigmentation of a person’s skin. No matter how much lip service she gives to wanting “equality for all people,” this little statement shows just what a bigot she really is. I mention Manuel’s mother’s blindness only because I am refuting Joan’s sentence that this woman raised her children well. In my opinion, she did not. Her son’s violence proves my point. 

Then we are subjected to more of the self-induced medical traumas that Joan has, throughout her life, because of her life-style of anger, hate and resentments. She has recurring bladder-kidney infections and wonders if they are related to genetics via our mother. If she ‘cleaned up’ her act and stopped the anger and hate the infections would have cleared out, but she doesn’t see the connection.

“Vibration can calm you down or drive you crazy. It is the primordial essence of creation by which we create and re-invent our lives. Even our thoughts generate vibrational effects. Positive thoughts can inspire you and motivate you to be more than you are, while negative thoughts can depress you and generate dis-ease. ” –  Dick Sutphen

Then she states, on pg 134, that ‘…and a permission note from my natural father, we secured my deceased mother’s hospital records, as well as my hospital birth records.’ This is a lie and has been brought out in other posts by Ruth. Joan’s Insistence on Not Letting Our Mother Rest When our father found out that Joan got hold of the medical records he was furious. We don’t know what the records state about our mother’s stay in the hospital and so I’m stating that Joan’s presentation is highly suspect. Her presentation is full of hype; it sells books! Isn’t that what she is after in writing it, to sell books and make money! Not to present truth.

In Liverpool, now meeting her sister Kathy, on pg 138 she says ‘…I rubbed my thumbs and fingers against (her fingers) as our hands were locked tightly and our eyes stared at each other with tears of joy falling with each blink.’ Gee, I wonder, did she get any uncomfortable feelings here as she did with our brother or myself? Pg 143/144 she says ‘…we settled in for the night and crawled into (her) queen size bed. Mixed feelings came over me…like sisters…we stayed up in the dark…’

I, myself, in 2000, visited London, for religious/cultural business, and took a train across the island to see Kathy. I too shared her bed and we stayed up all night, but I only had 24 hours to be with her.

Pg 145/146 she says ‘…a nightmare, I screamed for her to hold me, I sobbed as my big sister cradled me in her arms…I missed being cuddled by my older sisters and brother…I was ashamed, stunned, by my own behavior…’ She then says that 15 years later, after learning about adoption psychology, she learnt that her need to be held was normal. So if this is the case, why does she state, as I brought out in a previous post, that my ‘affection and embrace’ to her were ‘sexual’? And did I really tell her not to speak about it? Or is that just another one of her attempts to make Gert the bad guy and sell lots of books?

 I asked Kathy to make some comments about this and another Liverpool visit of Joan’s: see her statement for more misrepresentations by Joan. Kathy Inglis’ answers to Joan Wheeler’s caricature of her in the book Forbidden Family

Pg 155 she tells us about the violence in her relationship with the black guy, he beat her several times. Now it is ‘…an unhealthy relationship due to his violent temper, society’s racial prejudice and my growing fear that I’d lose both my families if I kept up this mixed race relationship.’ She’s learnt something! I know about domestic violence, been there, and it does take a long time to learn and gain courage to ‘get out’, so I’m not without sympathy here, only pointing out here that I did try to warn her.

Pg 157/158, Joan relates a visit, Sept 77, with my father’s wife where she learns that Dad is going to adopt one of his stepdaughters. Here is the first time she uses her newfound militaristic crusade against anyone who gives up a child, on paper, to adopt the same child, but she is a tad shy yet. She states that she was ‘…told some rather unusual news…Dad was to adopt his step-daughter…quite a shock…step-mother said

she would have to sign papers giving up her legal right to her own daughter, just so Dad could adopt her.’ Then Joan gives her learned opinion ‘…didn’t think this was correct procedure, wasn’t sure, maybe she signed paper giving permission, didn’t seem right that a divorced/remarried mother would have to relinquish her child, would she lose all parental rights…we were both so upset that we cried.’

Ruth’s note: this makes no sense. Ginette is Eastern Orthodox, and was raised in Europe by a Greek father. She is of the “old school.” She had two girls from her first husband whom she divorced. In 1970, she and my father got married by civil ceremony. In 1980, she wanted to get married in the church. In order to do this, she had to have her first marriage annulled. In the spring of 1980, she and my father went to New York City to present their case to the Archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Church. The annulment was granted. My father and Ginette did get married in the Greek Orthodox Church where they were parishioners. 

A casualty of the annulment was that in the eyes of the church, my stepsisters, Mariel and Joselyne were deemed as illegitimate. My stepmother calmly told me that she didn’t like that, but it was necessary so that she could now be not “damaged goods” (divorced), and she was now free to marry in the church. My personal opinion of this is that it is disgusting. But that’s how her church operates, that’s how she was raised.

So I have to wonder, if having her 2 daughters now be considered “illegitimate” in the eyes of the church, be over-worried about the stupid red tape involved in the adoption process that had to be gone through over Joselyne in 1977. And the red tape was in the end stupid – first both parents have to “give up” parental custody of the child that is going to be adopted. That meant Ginette and her ex-husband Robert had to both sign the papers. Then, the adopting parents sign papers that they are taking up custody of the child. That meant that my father and Ginette signed papers. So in essence, Ginette signed away her custody of Joselyne, then 5 minutes later, signed papers acknowledging that she was GETTING custody of Joselyne.  In both instances, Joselyne’s adoption by my father and her annulment, and the church now saying that both her daughters were illegitimate, Ginette recognized it all being stupid red tape. She may have complained about the red tape, but she is not the type of woman to cry over it. She is a strong woman.

Remember all of that because Joan will do it again, to me, after she overcomes her shyness she will be very insistent that she is right, everyone else is wrong! But at the present moment in history, Joan doesn’t seem to see that she has done any harm and wonders why our father ‘yelled’ at her for interfering in his business, of adopting his step-child and upsetting his wife. Ruth’s note: and what ever ANY person does in their family is NOT Joan’s dam business! And if she sticks her nose into a  family’s personal business, or deigns to tell a parent how to raise their child (especially when she herself was  NOT a parent) – and she gets yelled at for her interference – well then, that’s too dam bad.

Pg 158 – 161, we are hearing about yet another mother/daughter assault upon each other with hate/rage. What does Joan think she is gaining by relating all those rages? Strange way to honor your mother! All it does is to show a very sick drama of mental illness. Is this Joan’s reason why people should not adopt? If so then all this business about the birth family and reunion is totally unnecessary. see post:  Evil is as Evil Does – Joan Wheeler needs to learn that doing evil eventually has it’s consequences.

Pg 161 shows us an example of Joan’s constant use of cognitive dissonance, which means an inconsistency, lack of consistency or compatibility between actions or beliefs. After we are told about the violence between mother and daughter then we get to see an entry in Joan’s diary where she states; ‘…mom doesn’t seem to be as threatened as she once was…both my adoptive parents are willing and eager to socialize with my natural father and stepmother…watching my two fathers playing with six-year (brother)…my two mothers sit and chat as if old friends…Mom takes a genuine interest in my sister in Liverpool…now we discuss the family situation…’ Excuse me! The two families, birth and adoptive, did not interact with each other! This is just another version of Joan’s ‘Jekyl and Hyde’ way of thinking and behaving! Its cognitive dissonance, believing two opposing ideas at the same time; like how Christians believe. But oh, fear not, the violent exchanges will continue on!

Pg 162, where Joan leaves college in summer 78, funny that she doesn’t mention that at that time I did drive down there to get her, with my children and our father. I also remember a conversation about what kind of a job she would be able to get with a Liberal Arts degree; apparently she doesn’t want to relate that tale. Wonder why? Probably doesn’t fit in with her ‘vision’ of the ‘reunion’.

 Pg 165 she now has her own apartment and the mother/daughter hate-fest starts up again. But after awhile Joan loses a job, and instead of moving back home, the adoptive parents ‘took care of Joan’, they paid her rent and brought her food, while she looked for a job, so much for living on your own, being an adult and handling hardships like the rest of her siblings had done.

I didn’t have a ‘security blanket’ when I left home. I got married one month after HS graduation and within 2 years had 2 children and a no-good husband. There was no such thing as ‘going back home’ or having my father ‘take care of me and my kids’. The school that I grew up on was the school of hard knocks, you made your bed, you lay in it and if you want to be an adult than you take care of yourself because you are an adult. Period. I raised my children that way. I’m not suggesting that that is the best or the only way but that is what I was taught by my parents and Joan was not raised that way.

I remember once, early in my first marriage, I had asked my father to co-sign for a loan so that we might be able to get our finances in order. He did reluctantly. And we were late on a payment and the bank called my father for the payment. My father came directly to where I was attending school and yelled at me for putting his credit in jeopardy. I understood, but it had not been me who missed the payment but my then ex-husband. I never asked my father again to help me. He and I believe that ‘you are responsible for your own debts’. 

When my own children made the decisions to become adults, each in their own way, they became adults. Even though they did so earlier than I would have wanted them to and in the ways that I wished they didn’t, nonetheless they declared their adulthood to me. They got their freedom to live their lives the way they wanted and so did I. That is the usual, normal and right way for children and parents to part ways, not the way Joan and her possessive adoptive parents were.

So what does she do when she gets a job? On pg 169 we find out that she “immediately began saving my money for a trip to Liverpool…’

Priorities! Never ceases to amaze me about people’s priorities. Trips, vacations and luxury stuff long before thinking about long-term security, like a good job, food, rent, utilities, and insurances. I have come to the conclusion that people continue to do this because they KNOW that the SYSTEM will bail them out, be that system some parent who doesn’t want to lose the kid or the society that does not make people WORK for their checks.

Ruth’s note: oh yes Joan has her priorities. I know I’m jumping the years here, but in July 1986, me, Colby and Joan went to Chautagua, NY to see the 60’s rock group The Monkees. In September 86, they added Buffalo to the tour. Joan just HAD to go see them. Then two weeks later, she calls me up, crying – her electricity was getting shut off. So we have here, a 30 year old married, 8 months pregnant woman, with a 3 year old at home, with a shut off notice. Shut off notices don’t come unless you haven’t paid the bill for a few months. But she spent money to see a rock group, not once but TWICE! Oh never fear – Mama Wheeler came through for spoiled little Joanie – and paid the bill.  Oh by the way, when we went to see the Monkees in July – Colby and Joan paid for my ticket – they owed me for long distance calls Joan made on my phone. So if you have money to buy THREE tickets to see a rock concert – why can’t you pay your electric bill? Answer – they obviously didn’t have the money to do both – so like RESPONSIBLE ADULTS – they neglect paying their utility bills and go see a rock concert.  So what’s Colby’s excuse? He wasn’t ADOPTED – no, adoption has nothing to do with this fiasco – JOAN AND COLBY ARE BOTH SPOILED BRATS WHO MOOCHED OFF MAMA WHEELER AND THEN TRIED TO MOOCH OFF ME AND ENDED UP STEALING CLOSE TO $900.00 DOLLARS FROM ME! Anybody who listen to Joan’s whines about how “poor” she is, should wake up and smell the coffee. For someone so “poor” how does she manage to travel all over the place? Wake up people! Joan is crafty at whining about her “poverty.”

On pg 167/168 Joan says that Dad told her the story of how our parents met. Well I’m stating here for the record that what Joan has written on pg 168 is NOT the same story that my father told me. I’m not repeating her falsehood here. Joan’s version of the story includes some pretty bazaar elements and people that I have never heard of and have not idea where she gets some these strange family connections.

Because my Dad is older now I don’t like to question him too much. If I ever find out more information about family connections I shall post them for clarity sake but for now, Joan’s story doesn’t ring true.

I did asked my father in March of 2010 about how he, my father, met my mother and what he told me is essentially the same that he has told me several times over the years and it is not the same as the one that Joan relates. My father’s father Leon and my mother’s father Jacob both knew each from work on the railroads. During a furlough home in WW11, my father and his father where coming home to Buffalo from an army base. My mother and her father where going to Buffalo after a visit in Iowa. During this time period soldiers had first preference to seats on a train. After my father’s father told him that a friend and his daughter were going to Buffalo on the same train my father saved 4 seats for them. This is how my father and mother met. They exchange contact information and that was that and as they say ‘the rest is history’.

Broadly speaking Joan does not know how to ‘take’ our father, simply because he is not the same as the adoptive father who was weak, timid, browbeaten and abused by a dominating wife. Our father also does not engage in useless arguments, like the kind that Joan is so used to having from her upbringing. Pg 169/170 she is ‘…so upset about an incident (with my father) that she sought counseling…to be told that ‘she must be afraid of men because you keep saying ‘my father gave me away’…and you cannot trust men…’ She finds a ‘real psychiatrist…with a sliding fee scale…’ Boy, for someone who has no money and has the ‘parents’ paying rent and food she sure can afford things what most of us can’t like professional help! By her description of these sessions it sounds as if either she is a fool, for paying for such incompetence or she is a fool to think that the readers would believe her nonsense that a psychiatrist would be that stupid! Either way she wins… the fool’s cap!

Seriously now, you know people, Joan is not the only child that did NOT have the father there. All of us siblings did not have our father either, and yes we all have had some difficultly with that issue, but, you eventually have to ‘get over it’ and not wallow in it forever. It’s called growing up and becoming an adult! That’s doesn’t mean that you will never have ‘issues’ over the lost parent or cold parent but at least you can get on with your life. The kind of shit, that Joan writes, does NOT make good book copy. Joan is not a good writer. She can’t tell her life story with any kind of compelling feelings that makes a book good or a classic, like the one I happen to be reading at the moment  (how appropriate). 

“Of Human Bondage” by Somerset Maugham (1915): ‘They seemed to be always on the verge of a quarrel. The fact was that he hated himself for loving her. She seemed to be constantly humiliating him, and for each snub that he endured he owed her a grudge.’ and ‘He thought she might beckon to him, he was willing to forget anything, he was ready for any humiliation, but she had turned away, and apparently had ceased to trouble about him.’

Back to Joan’s book, the episodes where she relates such issues as the bridal dress, which Ruth has addressed in other posts, the truth of what actually happened certainly is not how Joan has portrayed it. An event of a communion party and the inter-relationships between and with birth family that contains a step-mother, step-children and half-siblings, that Joan never knew 5 years before, yet has much ‘insights’ into them, is so out of character to what I actually know of all these people, is to question Joan’s account. For example Joan states, pg 175, that after our father called her I called her. Not true! She states that I ‘yelled at (her) for ruining the party and mistreating (step-mother)…’ and on and on ‘…and by the way, you need to return Momma’s wedding dress to…you have no right keeping it…(I) hung up’. Wrong, wrong and wrong! She seems to have forgotten that at that time, 79, I was busy with my own young family and I had very little involvement with my father’s family and/or with what Ruth was doing.  Ruth’s note: I address the communion party and the wedding dress in a separate post: Ruth Pace’s additional comments of Personal Psychodrama of Joan Wheeler

When reading anything Joan writes you must use the filter called ‘the Joan factor filter’. Joan herself can be quite rude and stupid because, by her own admission pg. 174, ‘I wasn’t taught to clean up. I had no social skills.’ And so, does that mean that everyone in the family or the world must take such lack of training into consideration when dealing with a woman, who at this time period was 23 years old! Was she just hatched? Had she never been to other people’s homes, did she not learn any social skills at college? Oh I forgot, whatever it is, it is never Joan’s fault.  Ruth’s note: and for someone who grew up without a mother, I think I had a lot more social skills than Joan. And later on in the book, Joan quotes her mother who was putting me and my sisters down: “they had no mother and look how they turned out.” Oh yes, Mama Wheeler, Gert, Kathy and I turned out a hell of a lot better than Joan. Just how the hell did you raise her? Not very well as I can see.

According to Joan there seems to be some kind of conspiracy against her by all of the birth family. Far from it, she portrays everyone in such a light as to say that everyone was ‘out to get her’. Dad is always yelling at her. Dad’s wife is upset with her. The stepsisters don’t like her. Ruth and Gert don’t like her. She has the audacity and stupidity to say, pg 176, that she ‘…could picture Dad yelling at my sisters for causing trouble with his second wife and third wife. I wondered if my sisters deliberately caused Dad to yell at me since he didn’t get that chance while I was growing up.’ What an asshole Joan is! Ruth’s note: I address this asinine remark of Joan’s in my post Ruth Pace’s additional comments of Personal Psychodrama of Joan Wheeler

She does not see Dad’s positive sides because she wants him to be some image of a real father that she has concocted in her mind instead of taking him for what he is. Of course he is ‘short’ in temper, who wouldn’t be when dealing with Joan, but of course, the readers of this book have no idea of what it’s like to deal with Joan.

She has zero information about Dad’s 2nd wife, she didn’t live with what we lived with, and she really ought to be ashamed of herself to put into print this garbage. Equally, she really ought to hide her face in the dirt for even suggesting that any of us siblings had any problem with Dad’s 3rd wife! She ought to hide in shame for suggesting it. Truth, Dad’s 2nd marriage was not a good one but we were all very young, innocent children and knew NOTHING about the real grown up troubles that my father had to deal with in that marriage. It is only in my own adulthood that I appreciate the pain that my father went through during those years.

Remember now that my father had been a widower twice before he met the woman that became his 3rd wife, and I was very pleased that he had married her. When he had made the decision to marry he asked each of us, long before we knew Joan, what we felt. Each one of us told him the same; that he should go ahead and marry and do what he feels is right. I was happy for them both. This woman had 2 little girls and I saw how she took care of them and my father and I somehow envisioned that what she did was what my own mother would have done, in order words, she fulfilled a space in my father’s life that was emptied by the death of my mother. How could I possible ever have a problem with this woman? No, never, she has always been a good woman, mother, wife, stepmother and friend. Joan knows not what she writes about! All she knows is how to be a ‘…victim, a pawn pulled back and forth at everyone else’s whims. In self-protection, I turned inward…’ Like everything else coming from Joan, it is from that sick inward self which does not reflect the true world around her.

From “Of Human Bondage”: ‘He talked of getting occupation of this sort so long that he had not the face to refuse outright….at last he declined the offer…it would have interfered with my work he told Philip. What work? Asked Philip brutally. My inner life, he answered.’

Gert – October 16, 2010

I want to point out that Ruth’s extensive use of details is very very important…It points to many facets of Joan’s lack of understanding other people do have long memories and accurate memories. Joan can say all she wants to about how bad her sisters were/are, but, that doesn’t make her statements correct.

thank you Ruth, for all the details that you provide for us…for it give a fuller picture.

and as Ruth as describe here about how a natural mother must SIGN papers in order to ADOPT her own birth child…that is correct…for I HAD TO DO THE SAME when my 2nd husband and I ADOPTED MY BIRTH SON.

Joan did not like that, oh no, and she caused great harm, she knew better than the adoption agencies who did very extensive BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS on my husband and myself, in order for us to adopt…that was not enough for Joan, she had to interfer and she caused alot of pain and trouble…more on that in my NEXT blog entry.

Joan hates anyone who adopts for any reason.

 

RuthOctober 16, 2010

As to Gert’s last sentance – “Joan hates anyone who adopts for any reason.” – I have to add this:

Joan also hates INFERTILE COUPLES or INFERTILE WOMEN, because they just might be adopters

Joan Wheeler – Forbidden Family Chapter 14 – Refutted! October 4, 2010

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, Lies in the book Forbidden Family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

In Joan Wheeler’s book Forbidden Family Chapter 14, she tells of her college days and her struggles with being in an inter-racial relationship, her wanting to go to Egypt or England, and her budding anti-adoption thoughts. We are not interested in her adoption or anti-adoption concerns, because they do not concern us. We are discussing how her “autobiography” involves US, in particular raking us in her hatred of her adoptive parents. Gert McQueen has already written her take on this chapter in her post, What is a Birth Certificate Used For? Thoughts on Chapter 13 of Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler  Gert answers Joan confusion and questions about birth certificates in the short Chapter 13, then goes onto addressing Chapter 14. 

Here is a brief segment from Gert’s post:

The times were the mid-1970s, Joan was a very immature sheltered girl who had no experience living with the racial tensions and riots that swept across the country. I, like many others, did. Interracial couplings were NOT the norm, they were scandalous and NOT for every family. The movie Guess who’s coming to dinner appeared in 1967, most families in America were NOT like the family portrayed in the movie. In real life the late 60’s and early 70’s were filled with much violence as the Civil Rights movement was stabilizing. Many whites might have been okay with mix-race couplings but many were not and the same can be said for the Blacks, if they did they were a minority keeping a low profile, something Joan knows nothing about. In many families the idea of crossing racial lines was just not done and the issue was entirely up to an individual family as to how they reached those decisions. When a child goes against the established core values of their family and the wishes of the parents, for shock value, for acting out, for rebellion, the situation never works out well.

This is what Joan did, she did it for rebellion reasons and she gives ‘lip service’ to it when she says ‘…years later that perhaps I used racial issues as a smoke screen – something to focus on instead of what was really bothering me.’ Again, too bad for me that she didn’t come to that conclusion sooner before she interfered with my parental authority and told my 13 years daughter that ‘your mother doesn’t know anything, don’t listen to her, if you want to date a Black boy do it’! But that’s a story for a later. She says that the interracial relationship and adoption issues ‘drove a wedge between her parents and herself…they fought bitterly.’ That is her adoptive parents.

As I stated in a previous post, as very young children, my parents and us 4 children, lived in the same house with a Black family and we were raised not as racists or bigots. My father, in particular, always allowed us to make our own decisions and if we were happy he was happy. My sister Ruth has had long-term relationships with other races and they were and are accepted within our family. My personal views were that it was not right for myself, or my children, even though they, my children, were free to have friends of different races and religions. As a parent I have the right to make the ‘established core values of the family’ and no one has the right to contradict them to my minor children, as Joan did.

On pg 122 Joan tells of a phone conversation with me, ‘the eldest…which made her an authority figure’, in which I tell her that ‘it’s your choice and you alone will have to live with the consequences, but you are young and don’t know what you’re doing…you can’t dislocate yourself  from your family…society isn’t ready for it and you have to live with the rules of society’. That’s correct, I said it or something like it and it was sound advice, then and now. But to Joan, she ‘…hung up the phone in disbelief…Gert must have been chosen to be the spokesperson to represent the entire Sippel, Herr and Wheeler family clans.’ Not true! I was stating my own personal opinion and speaking as a parent myself. It is only Joan who feels the need to find someone to point the finger at to say that they are the cause of her problems. So Be It!

So she gets back to having more dramas. ‘There was a Reunion in Progress but no one knew how to proceed.’ Did she? no she just lets more of her inner life talk to her and she comes up with ‘my families hated blacks, therefore, they hated me. I was a sinner in need of repentance….’   

Ruth returns:
ok, let’s talk about race, bigotry and Joan and how she CREATES problems where none exist.
MY personal choices in MY personal life are none of Joan’s concerns and I don’t see why MY personal choices of MY life is in Joan’s book. In 1974, I was living in my own apartment, paying my own rent – (with no help from ANYone), working a full time job, AND taking part time college classes. (so much for Joan’s put-downs of me that I never went to college). I was at this time, 22 years old and exploring MY own life and all that goes with it – the dating scene, etc. In late 1974, a very nice Palestinian man was admitted to the hospital where I worked. We had several talks. In spring of 1975, I was walking to work one night. (I did not own a car, nor knew how to drive – contrary to Joan’s assertions that I drove her around to family reunions in 1974). As I passed the window of a restaurant – there was Farouk. He tapped on the window, waved, and motioned me to come in to the restaurant. He was with a couple of friends, and he bought me a cup of coffee and then drove me to work. We exchanged phone numbers and then began casually dating. The friends he was with were part of a large group of friends that hung out together, and I joined the group. Many of these people are still friends with me today.Some have passed away, others have moved to other parts of the country. Farouk and I dated for about 3 months, and then went separate ways. One of the group, Abdo, asked me out in June 1975, and we fell in love, moving in together just 3 weeks after meeting each other. Our relationship lasted 10 years. He went back to his home country in 1985, and even when he came back to Buffalo in 1994, and I was with my present husband, Abdo and I remained close friends, and I was the one who handled all the legal issues and paperwork concerning his death in 2003.
    So we see again Joan not geting details of my life right, even though she deems herself an authority on it. On page 122 of her book she reports that I had been “seriously dating an Arab man,” in May of 1975. Who was she refering to? Farouk or Abdo? NO, she has to bring up the fact that I was involved with an Arab man, because she was involved with a black boy in college and her parents were not accepting it. Instead of writing about her problems with her parents, she has to drag ME into it. I am nobody’s role model. I knew Joan for one year at this point in time, what I did with my life then, now and for all times in the future and the past is NOT Joan’s business and she has no right to hold MY relationships up to scrutiny in her book. Or, as I suspect she did, to use as an arguing tool with her parents. She says her parents hated blacks. Really? well, then why 20 years later why was my current husband John, a black man, accepted by her mother as Uncle John to Joan’s kids (her grandchildren) and accepted into the family?

As to Joan creating problems where none exist – on pages 120 – 124 she is relating her views of inter-racial relationships, even stating “I wanted equality for all people- black, white, women, men, adoptees and non-adoptees.” But she picks and chooses who should have equality. For example, for all her saying that my husband Abdo (Basim in the book) was a nice guy, she shows her prejudice against Arabs twice in her book and once in real life.

In late 1979 Abdo had gone to his home country for a visit of several months. In early 1980, Joan was dating a Jewish boy named Rich. One day, she was visiting me and asked me if there would be a problem when Abdo returned to Buffalo and found out that she was dating a Jewish boy. Oh? She wanted equality for all people? Then why the ASSUMPTION that Jews and Arabs don’t get along? Yes, we all know about the ongoing enmity in the Middle East between the Isrealis and the Palestinians. Abdo is not Palestinian. He is Yemeni. And just because there is a mess in the Middle East, and people living here in America may POLITICALLY choose sides, this does not mean that they are bigots. Joan automatically assumed Abdo was a bigot. On page 123 -124, she says that she almost went on a year long exchange program in Egypt, but was advised by her college advisors that she would have to escorted everywhere. She says she was terrified of living for a year in a country where outspoken women would be a target for ridicule, assault and rape. Yes, sadly, Joan and her college advisors were correct, however, to paint all Arabs as such, and to paint all Arabs as Jew-haters, especially one who she had known for 4 years is reprehensible.

Perhaps she thought Abdo would have a problem with Rich because there was a definite problem once with Manuel, the black boy. They both came up one weekend for a visit – in his car. We all went to Voelker’s bowling alley. I was in the ladies room and Joan came running in, scared out of her mind. Manuel had just threatened her. He had alreay beaten her up, and she was terrified he would do so again. Oh boy, more drama. What to do?  So I spoke to Abdo. Before we left the bowling alley we told both Joan and Manuel that we did not want any problems. It was decided that Joan would sleep on our couch, and Manuel was told to sleep in his car. (it was warm enough). Manuel had no problem with smacking around Joan, but he listened and obeyed when Abdo laid down the rules. The next morning, Manuel came upstairs, we had breakfast and the two of them left to drive back to college. I never saw that boy again and good riddance. Abdo did not have a problem with Manuel being black, but did have a problem with him hitting Joan and possibly creating a problem in our house. And when Abdo returned to Buffalo in 1980, Joan had already stopped seeing the Jewish boy, but I told him about Joan’s question. He couldn’t believe she would think that of him! Abdo was one of the sweetest persons on this planet and wouldn’t hurt a fly. Yes, we had our fights, as all couples do, and both our tempers got the best of us, but on the whole, Abdo was kind, quiet and gentle. There is another anti-Arab slur in the book, but I will deal that when we get to it. We are still discussing her college years and her problems with dating the black boy.

What’s with this statement of Joan’s on page 123 “My families hated blacks.” Where does she get this crap? Mayber her adopted parents had a problem with interracial relationships, but her birth family did not. At least her father and siblings. SOME, not all of my mother’s family don’t approve of interracial relationships, but have never held my choice in a life partner against me.

But this statement is included in a long winded paragraph, where she is going off on a tangent about her parents not happy with her choice in dating a black boy. Joan then comes up with this intelligent conclusion: “my families hated blacks, therefore, hated me.”

Where does she come up with this shit? Who the hell EVER said they hated her? In 1975, that is. All Gert did was talk to her on the phone about the possible repercussions of inter-racial relationships. Gert was giving her good advice, that if she wanted to date a black boy, she had better be prepared for any backlash. And I don’t mean from anybody in her families, I’m talking about society in general. In the 23 years that I’ve been with John, I have never been the target of any racial slurs, but on 3 occasions, all in restaurants, we did get some filthy looks, two occasions from whites, and one occasion from a black lady. John and I are mature enough to handle that, in 1975, Joan obviously was not mature enough to handle anything like that. My god, she couldn’t even handle me supposedly telling her around Christmas 1974 that she spelled our last name wrong, and she’s got herself imagining her families “hating” her because she’s dating a black boy. Is Joan a mind-reader? Or is she like Deanna Troi on Star Trek the Next Generation, who can sense other beings emotions! – Oh, yes, she already said in reporting on how she was a bridesmaid at the age of 18 for an adoptive cousin and she “sensed” people talking about her. Deanna Troi comes from the planet Betazed. Is Joan from that planet as well?
 
But see, this is how Joan embellishes things and blows them out of proportions. I don’t doubt that her parents were not accepting this relationship and some harsh words were exchanged – but how does she conclude that the Sippel family hated her? At this point in time, Kathy was living in England, not having even met Joan. I have no idea what my father or brother thought of her relationship – I don’t recall her even asking me about my relationship. so she gets some advice from one member of the Sippel family, and right away, the whole Sippel family hates her. And you know what? The Sippel family probably could care less who she was dating. We were all living our own lives, my family accepted Abdo and in turn John.

But hold on! Joan says at the top of page of 122 – “My sisters and older brother accepted my inter-racial relationship.” She then goes on to say that her natural father was outraged.” – Baloney! Gert has already explained that my father raised us NOT to be bigots, and since I was already involved with a man of a different race, why would he be outraged at Joan? This makes no sense! Maybe he was showing concern because his daughter was getting smacked around this particular black boy! Did Joan ever think of that? That our objections to Manuel was because of his behavior towards her? That we actually were concerned for her safety? Oh no! Because that would show that we actually CARED ABOUT HER – and this would go against her ASSUMPTIONS that we all hated blacks and therefore we hated her. And this would not make sense in her book, because her book is all about showing how the whole world and her families, detest her and give her nothing but grief!

And getting back to Joan’s statement about Gert when she advised Joan on the phone: “Gert must have been chosen to be the spokesperson to represent the entire Sippel, Herr and Wheeler family clans.” we see Joan’s propensity for BLOWING THINGS OUT OF PROPORTION! Somehow I doubt that a vote was taken by every member of my mother’s family, (the Herrs) the Sippel family, and the Wheeler family and they all chose Gert to speak to Joan about dating a black kid. What a ridiculous statement to make! Gert hadn’t met even one tenth of the Wheeler family, was busy raising her own two kids, didn’t see half of the Herr family, and the Sippels didn’t take a vote to elect her either! Why must Joan constantly speak in the superlative? Because she likes to embellish things – she likes to make things bigger than what they are. And if the reality doesn’t fit her fantasy of how things should be – she will just go ahead, make stupid conclusions, and publish them as facts. Hence the purpose of this blog – to point out Joan’s mistaken “facts” and present the true story of the Sippel family.

On page 122 Joan says there was a Reunion in Progress. (her capitalizations). She whines elsewhere in the book that now that she’s reunited with her birth family, she had these people to get to know. There was tremendous pressure on her, she was on display, they all knew her, but she didn’t know them, and blah blah blah.

At the time of our “reunion” with Joan, I myself was on a voyage of self-discovery. So was Joan, having found her birth family. Joan makes it out that she was the only one confused by meeting new people, etc. etc. Well, so was I. I was living in my first apartment, making choices in my life, including scholastic, career, sexual, and social. Are these not struggles for EVERY person on the planet in young adulthood? What makes Joan so dam special? She isn’t and the sooner she gets that through her thick skull the better she will be able to cope with life. I mean, come on! This happened in  1974. It is now 2010. THIRTY-SIX YEARS LATER – and Joan is still whining about how she was sooooo put out about her CONFUSION in meeting a whole new family!

Oh for crying out loud! When a person gets married – they have a whole new family of in-laws to meet and get to know and integrate into their life – you have to learn how not to piss off your mother-in-law, don’t serve meat to a cousin-in-law, because they’re vegan, don’t invite aunt-in-law and sister-in-law to the same party because they don’t get along. EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET THAT GETS MARRIED HAS TO MEET A NEW FAMILY AND LEARN ABOUT THEM! So when will Joan stop whining about having to learn about a whole new bunch of people! We weren’t axe murderers for crying out loud! Joan says nobody knew how to proceed with the reunion. Really? I did. I simply ACCEPTED HER! I RESPECTED HER. Was I perfect? NO! Did I inadvertently hurt her feelings when I corrected her misspelling of our family name? I don’t know. I don’t remember doing it. I am simply a flawed human being. HOWEVER, I never went out of my way to hurt her. The problems between us began in the 80’s when she began to disrespect me and go out of HER way to hurt me. But we will get to those later. I do want to touch on a statement of Gert regarding this “reunion in progress.”

“Joan never gave anyone the opportunities to continue with the ‘in progress’ because she was so argumentive and aggressive in her positions and would not allow others, particularly the adoptive and birth families, to have their own opinions and views on any social issue, it was always about Joan. “

Oh, yes, this is so true. Joan always was opinionated and she never learned to back off and let other people have a say. And by god, don’t you EVER take an opposing viewpoint to Joan’s. And I’m not talking about adoption – it’s EVERYTHING! She doesn’t like this, she doesn’t like that – everybody has to stop what they’re doing or thinking about and cowtow to Dictator Joan. Now you blog readers may or may not know that in the 1980’s I was a professional belly dancer. I had a scrapbook of pictures of belly dancers, and one day (in the early 80’s) Joan was at my house and she was looking at the scrapbook. She said, “I don’t approve of this skimpy costume.” What? Who asked for HER approval? Oh, well, every belly dancer on the planet – get rid of your dance costumes because Joan doesn’t approve of them. Oh, but wasn’t she complaining because if she lived in Egypt, SHE would be singled out for being an opinionated outspoken woman? So here she is singling out OTHER women because of their dance costumes? As I said before – she picks and chooses who should have equality. Does she have a problem with ballet dancers? Gosh, I can see every curve and bump on a male ballet dancer – and those tutus! Shocking! I can see all the way up to the dancer’s crotch! – oh, well they’re covered up with a leotard. Well, how about the staute of David – nude drawings by all the famous painters – The Vetruvian Man – Venus de Milo with her breast exposed – IT’S CALLED ART! Dance is an artform of the human body. I have seen nude dancers – and I’m not talking about the exotic dancers in strip joints – I’ve seen modern jazz dancers IN THE NUDE! Golly Gee, they didn’t even have on a skimpy belly dancing outfit! Let’s burn them at the stake! Why? Because Joan Wheeler would not approve of them.

Another time – it was 1983 – Joan, her husband Colby and I went to see the new Star Trek movie – The Search for Spock. Towards the end of the movie, there is a scene in a temple, with your usual Hollywood style temple maidens – all dressed in see-through white flowing dresses.  Oh boy! In the car ride home that was the whole topic of conversation!

Okay – let me expound on something here. I have had a crush on Leonard Nimoy and the character of Mr. Spock since the summer of 1966 when I saw the very first commercial for Star Trek. I didn’t even wait for the show to begin – I saw 5 seconds of him on a commercial and was hooked! In the 1982 Star Trek movie, The Wrath of Khan, Spock died in the end. Oh that hurt me. BUT we science fiction fans could see in the film’s last 5 minutes how they set it up for Spock’s return. So we knew he was coming back – we just didn’t know HOW. So now in The Search for Spock, we see Spock come back to life. And it was a pretty good movie! I was walking on air when we left the movie. In the next 10 minutes, during the 5 mile drive back to my house, all I heard was all about those disgusting white dresses and blah blah blah and I couldn’t wait to get the hell out of that car. I got in the house and I had a headache! Abdo asked me what was wrong. I said “I have a headache – that bitch just ruined my mood – Spock came back to life and all because of that idiot and her f’ing big mouth I have a headache!”

Even today, I am a huge Star Trek fan, and I also head up a local Star Trek fan group, called the USS Ari, a starship, formerly of Starfleet International, now an independent ship/group. FORTY-SIX YEARS OF LOVING STAR TREK and when Captain Ruth Pace, commander, USS Ari NCC 1723, comes out of a Star Trek movie with a headache and just wanting to run in the house – you have to wonder why! BECAUSE JOAN IS A PSYCHIC VAMPIRE! She sucks all the air out of the room. And when her mouth starts going and her voice starts getting shrill – all you want to do is get the hell away from her. I left her daughter’s fourth birthday party because she and her mother, in front of the birthday princess and all the guests – started SCREAMING at each other. My ears were hurting – I got John and said “I have to go. I can’t stand this noise.” So we left.

Another time on the phone, (around 1993, so much for her saying she hasn’t had contact with me) we were talking and all of a sudden we started arguing about the money she stole from me. She started yelling at me, I tried to tell her to stop, she kept on going off on a tangent – then she said, “and I know you hate the word, but I’m going to say it anyway: adoption, ADOPTION ADOPTION.” Then she hung up. WTF? first, I never said I hated the word, just dam tired of it. Second, the conversation was not about adoption, it was about the money she owed me. Third, her statement “I know you hate the word, but I’m going to say it anyway..”shows how SHE DOESN’T CARE ABOUT HOW ANYONE FEELS. SHE HAS NO RESPECT FOR ANYONE. Fourth, just like the rambling long paragraph on pages 122 and 123, where she starts out about her dating a black boy, gets off on a tangent about a woman dying leaving five little kids, throwing out stuff like “respect your elders, “What.,she’s angry? and concludes that everybody hates her! She gets herself worked up and when she gets going she can’t or won’t stop and ends up pushing people away from her. I have had way too many outbursts like that from her and for my own peace of mind – and the sake of my ears – (not to mention her stealing money from me, stealing the beads off my dead mother’s wedding dress, her disrespect of my wishes of not talking about infertility after my miscarriage and other things) – by 1990 I didn’t want any more “reunion in progress” with her – she ruined it. I don’t associate with people who treat me like dirt. Do you?

oh and Joan, your addition to your cyberbullying page – geez! This is how you honor Mom on her birthday? Slapping her obit up there and saying:  “Mom, I’m sorry your older daughters are making fools of themselves. I love you, Mom. I’m sorry you died too soon. If you had lived, we would be a loving family.”

See how Joan keeps trashing her sisters YET AGAIN on October 4, 2010 (got that Rus – see how Joan wants peace, yet keeps yakking about us?) Anybody who would put up such a birthday rememberance is NOT honoring the dead woman – anybody with brains can see what Joan is doing – USING a dead woman’s obituary and trying to say she loves her, and trashes her sisters in the same sentance. No, Joan, everybody can see who the fool is. And I said before – you can lie to yourself, you can lie to your friends, but you can’t lie to Mom. She’s not that stupid you know. and neither are we. roflmao!

1. Gert – October 4, 2010

Every human being is going to DIE, that’s a fact of life! Missing someone who has died is also a fact of life! To wish for things to be different is also a fact of life!

But…to use the dead and their memories to PROMOTE one’s (Joan’s) personal vindictive campaign against one’s own blood…and to invoke the dead against blood family…in the form of BULLYING…is not only dishonorable…it also shows the true nature of the one who is promoting their vindictiveness…Joan wrote and invoked our mother to use against us…shame, shame, shame!

Today, Oct 4, is our mother’s birthday! It is NOT a date for Joan to continue her lying and bullshit…Joan what do you really think our mother is thinking about you right now? Would she be proud of you?

Why don’t you just stand up like a woman and answer your blood relatives as to your actions against them? Why don’t you allow our mother to rest in peace?

Joan, you are a very sick person.

I am not interested in your opinions of me September 1, 2010

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

the purpose of this blog is to refute the lies from Joan Mary Wheeler. The lies that she has put forth about me and my family in her book Forbidden Family. And the continuing lies she puts out about me and my family to this day on the internet.

If you don’t like what you see here – you have my leave to leave! Because obviously you do not have an open mind – so buh-bye!

MY character is not the issue of this blog – it is JOAN”S character that is the issue.

As for any preachy advice – thank you. Because it only one sided. You don’t know me. Therefore you have no right to judge me. I DO know Joan – and she has been judged. And if you THINK you know Joan thru her clever whinings and manipulations and traps – you are not as smart as you think you are.

um, by the way – if your “advice” is this question: “why do you care what Joan writes about you? Just ignore her”, um, why don’t you practice what you preach?  — Why are YOU here, caring about what I write? And why don’t YOU ignore me? oh and I really like the guy who berated me for calling Joan a bitch – then called me one. Well buddy, then you ain’t any better than me. lol. That sure was one “intelligent” commentor. NOT! Next time, don’t include in your complaint the very same thing you are complaining about. Well, thanks for the laugh you knucklehead!

As for me not posting your comments, don’t whine about that either – you didn’t let me post my comments on your site – so why should I post your stuff? It works both ways. You adoption people do not want a fair and equitable debate or rebuttal. But whine that I don’t post your comments.

Your very site is hypocritial. You post rules saying that inflammatory and falsified posts will not be tolerated – but that’s all I saw on your site. It’s better to be upfront about things. Don’t beat around the bush – I don’t. I tell it like it is. And if you can’t take the heat – stay out of the kitchen, or, er, my blog.

But see, like Joan, bullies like you can dish it out, but can’t take it. I have the Freedom of Speech to say what I want. If Joan can say what she wants about me, then I can say what I want about her. The only difference is: Joan lies. I tell the truth.

That’s right – I said BULLIES. Only bullies tell others to keep silent. I have been victimized by Joan and her lies. I will not be silenced. I stand up to bullies. And I stand up to those who tell me to keep silent.  Joan wrote a whole book about me and my family – and continues to write lies —  where are your admonitions to her to shut up? No, I will not be bullied into silence.

I challenge any one to set up a lie detector test for ANYTHING that I have stated on this blog. And by the gods, I will pass it every single time. Because I am not the liar – Joan Wheeler is.

To Joan Wheeler’s adoption buddies – hi! (lol) August 30, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Announcements and updates, Having Fun with Disfunctionality.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

Your site’s rules do say,
to hold prospective members at bay:
“no defamatory or falsified posts”
shall grace your message boards boasts.

But you let one sinner defame her kin
left and right, again and again.
You believe her version of the “facts”
sucked up in her Academy Award acts.

All I want is the truth be told
and for this, yes, I am bold.
Ask yourself this one query,
With falsehoods on ME, yes, I’d be weary.

Now as to your message so clever,
for my sly visits to sever,
On my “sweet” sister, I will stop spying,
when with her foul mouth she stops her lying.

 For all she has written about me
on YOUR site, for your members to see,
are defamatory, falsehoods-yea, breaking YOUR rules
 for you not to realize this – your’re nothing but fools.

And now I have one more thing to say to thee,
I do have a life, one truly BLESSED without Joan-ie.
And on this fine bright summer morning,
I thumb my nose at her, at you, and at your stupid warning.

What is a Birth Certificate Used For? Thoughts on Chapter 13 of Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler July 22, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler Speak - how Joan views the world, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

by Gert McQueen

Guess who’s NOT coming to dinner? And is it affection or an invitation?

‘If love be not in the house, there is nothing’…Ezra Pound

See updated info at end of this post

Do you really need a document to prove your inner self? For what is a document but a piece of paper that states certain facts, vital information if you like, the who, what, where, when and why…why, because you exist therefore you MUST have documentation! Chapter 13, Adoption and Birth facts switched on documents.

The basic question is, just what is a birth certificate used for, what is it’s primary purpose? Quite frankly for identification purposes and it is the business of Vital Records and Vital Statistics to make the rules governing such documents…not Joan. Everywhere you go, for anything you want to do in the world, you must have ID, and a birth certificate does that basic job. If you are adopted well information must be ‘switched’, that is simply the way the law works that’s the way it is and golly gee perhaps Joan ought just accept it.

Pg 117 Joan shows again her propensity for being smarter and wiser than any form of officialdom. She was in ‘disbelief’ and ‘livid’ ‘that New York State Officials actually typed in’…. those dumb officials don’t they know that they can’t do that!

Joan’s describing the adoption papers is loaded with a sick sort of drama; twisted minds make twisted lives and twisted tales. It’s really hard to read. She uses a form of second-guessing in this drama; ‘was she (adoptive mom) possessive and hostile because she wanted to believe she gave birth to me?’ and the adoptive father ‘he wasn’t my father because he created me in the old fashioned way…but because the Surrogate Court…declared him so by legal adoption.’ By ‘the old fashioned way’ she must mean by the usual sexual means of producing children. Why does she beat around the bush here why not just get to the point, she usually doesn’t have a problem spelling things out, so why not here? Is it because she hadn’t explored the ‘old-fashioned way’ yet? (Ruth’s note – no Gert, she had been exploring the “old-fashioned way” since she was 16).

She maintains that the records are ‘falsification of the truth’…no it’s the legal means of adapting to a new reality i.e. from birth to one set of parents to adoption by another set of parents, no falsification at all. But Joan, who is a upstanding moral person! feels that ‘there is something morally wrong in the way the truth had been altered, and hidden…couldn’t understand why birth records were legally altered when I (she) knew that falsifying documents are illegal.’ Oh dear me! Does that mean that the department of vital records did something illegal? Joan is always tying her self up into knots over things that are just legal fictions to prove the change of name from this to that. But to her, it is always ‘a slipup…must have made a mistake…’ The reason the adoptee doesn’t see the pre-adoption birth certificate is because it is up to the adults that are making the adoption of the adoptee to inform that child when appropriate. She’s always making something out of nothing and she is off fighting bureaucratic and her families.

Pg 120 Joan tells us that she is ‘hungry for identification with people like (her)’, she starts to make contacts, with other adoptees, but ‘their words stirred up feelings of isolation, anger and resentment’…she ‘wanted to enjoy life’ but she now ‘had THIS to deal with – THIS being … adoption and reunion’. (the capital letters are hers) Drama! So her dramas lead her more into loneliness and sadness and looking in all the wrong places for love as she explored the ‘old-fashioned way’ in ‘a few one-night stands’, and then she starts to date a 18-year-old Black guy that lasts ‘for two years’.

Reality check! The times were the mid-1970s, Joan was a very immature sheltered girl who had no experience living with the racial tensions and riots that swept across the country. I, like many others, did. Interracial couplings were NOT the norm, they were scandalous and NOT for every family. The movie Guess who’s coming to dinner appeared in 1967, most families in America were NOT like the family portrayed in the movie. In real life the late 60’s and early 70’s were filled with much violence as the Civil Rights movement was stabilizing. Many whites might have been okay with mix-race couplings but many were not and the same can be said for the Blacks, if they did they were a minority keeping a low profile, something Joan knows nothing about. In many families the idea of crossing racial lines was just not done and the issue was entirely up to an individual family as to how they reached those decisions. When a child goes against the established core values of their family and the wishes of the parents, for shock value, for acting out, for rebellion, the situation never works out well.

This is what Joan did, she did it for rebellion reasons and she gives ‘lip service’ to it when she says ‘…years later that perhaps I used racial issues as a smoke screen – something to focus on instead of what was really bothering me.’ Again, too bad for me that she didn’t come to that conclusion sooner before she interfered with my parental authority and told my 13 years daughter that ‘your mother doesn’t know anything, don’t listen to her, if you want to date a Black boy do it’! But that’s a story for a later. She says that the interracial relationship and adoption issues ‘drove a wedge between her parents and herself…they fought bitterly.’ That is her adoptive parents.

As I stated in a previous post, as very young children, my parents and us 4 children, lived in the same house with a Black family and we were raised not as racists or bigots. My father, in particular, always allowed us to make our own decisions and if we were happy he was happy. My sister Ruth has had long-term relationships with other races and they were and are accepted within our family. My personal views were that it was not right for myself, or my children, even though they, my children, were free to have friends of different races and religions. As a parent I have the right to make the ‘established core values of the family’ and no one has the right to contradict them to my minor children, as Joan did.

On pg 122 Joan tells of a phone conversation with me, ‘the eldest…which made her an authority figure’, in which I tell her that ‘it’s your choice and you alone will have to live with the consequences, but you are young and don’t know what you’re doing…you can’t dislocate yourself from your family…society isn’t ready for it and you have to live with the rules of society’. That’s correct, I said it or something like it and it was sound advice, then and now. But to Joan, she ‘…hung up the phone in disbelief…Gert must have been chosen to be the spokesperson to represent the entire Sippel, Herr and Wheeler family clans.’ Not true! I was stating my own personal opinion and speaking as a parent myself. It is only Joan who feels the need to find someone to point the finger at to say that they are the cause of her problems. So Be It!

So she gets back to having more dramas. ‘There was a Reunion in Progress but no one knew how to proceed.’ Did she? no she just lets more of her inner life talk to her and she comes up with ‘my families hated blacks, therefore, they hated me. I was a sinner in need of repentance….’ and on and on and on. She ‘was getting caught up in the world’s social causes, she didn’t see what these causes were doing to her.’ Personal note: Joan never gave anyone the opportunities to continue with the ‘in progress’ because she was so argumentive and aggressive in her positions and would not allow others, particularly the adoptive and birth families, to have their own opinions and views on any social issue, it was always about Joan.

Pg 123 ‘then I suffered gastrointestinal problems, sinus infections and backaches.’

Pg 126 adoptive ‘mom was admitted to the hospital with stomach ulcers.’

Pg 129 adoptive ‘father was admitted to the hospital with another bleeding ulcer.’

What does that tell you?

Also, while deciding whether to go to Egypt for a year she ‘was terrified of the Arab society in which women weren’t held equal to men…(was advised) to be aware that an outspoken woman in an Arab country would be a target for ridicule, assault and rape…I wasn’t sure it would be worth it…’ If she couldn’t take the pressure of family responses to her dating a Black man, in this country, what planet was she on when thinking she would be safe on Arab turf in the first place?

On Pg 124 Joan finally tells us the real reason she wrote this book! She makes contact with someone at ALMA who wanted to have her story in his up coming book A Time to Search. ‘The idea of being in a book excited me’ but was told later that he ‘can’t use your story after all…your reunion took place outside the realm of ALMA and its registry’. So Joan says, ‘the nerve of him…my story wasn’t good enough because I didn’t have a reunion with ALMA, I’ll show him, I’ll write my own book, my story was unique enough to stand on its own, that’s how the seed was planted in March 1976, two years into my reunion.’ So much for altruistic reasons!

Then there’s more drama with adoption issues and interactions with birth family members that she can’t figure out how to take and makes things up according to her own views. Pg 128. In 76, during a visit with our brother he tells her that he is moving west; now she is ‘losing him’. My brother drives her home one night and in the driveway ‘…he leaned over and kissed my cheek. I was stunned. I didn’t grow up with sisters and brothers….I didn’t know how it felt to be kissed by my brother…it felt odd.’

Then she tells of a visit with me in which she states ‘…that after the kids were in bed…we drank…wine…she (that’s me) rolled a few joints.’ Here we go again, tell the world that I smoked a few joints. I wished! But she continues on with the story ‘…we talked about…then the discussion turned intense. She sat close to me on the couch. She made advances that I interpreted as sexual. I was confused, drugged and drunk. I missed Momma, as she did, she told me not to tell anyone.’

Jesus Christ Almighty! So here it is folks, I, big sister, confused her, drugged her, got her drunk and then made sexual advances to her, and mind you, I told her not to tell anyone! Never happened! First she admits that she was ‘stunned’ when her brother kissed her on the cheek, ‘it felt odd’. True she did not grow up with other siblings so she hasn’t a clue about affection between siblings. She can’t figure out that we siblings also had feelings of joy and affection for her and that sometimes a hug is just a hug, a kiss is just a kiss! Everything that happens to Joan happens from the Joan filter!

At this particular time frame, summer of 76, I was going through some pretty intense stuff in my life and Joan was not part of it! My fiancé, not my boy friend, and I were to be married that year, he was to adopt, oh dear me, adopt, my children and we were to have more children. But he got cancer and this particular summer he was sick, sick and sick. In addition, my ex-husband at the time was badgering me weekly to ‘hurry up, get married, and adopt those kids, so I don’t have to pay the child support’. My world had started to crumble that summer. My fiancé died in November. I was numb for almost a year, just doing my job so I could support my children and going through the motions. Joan meant nothing to me! And she was getting ready to go to Liverpool, England and she gave little thought to my troubles and me.

But, Joan is good, in a sleazily way, I have to give her credit; she is laying the groundwork here for some event that comes later on, or else she has taken ‘liberties’ and combined one event onto another, either way, what she has said is not a true representation. But oh, what a storyteller she is, too bad most of it can’t be relied upon. I cannot of course comment about events and stories she tells about my other siblings and other family members. If I wasn’t there, at any event, gathering etc, I cannot comment, that being said, I truly have to wonder about the authenticity of other ‘events’ and hope that my sisters make their own observations known here.

Pg 128 she relates ‘…my college roommate, Lucy…we spent some time with…(Ruth) and her…boyfriend and his brother…we went dancing…’ Wrong, lie! According to Ruth, it was not Lucy it was the black boyfriend and at a bowling alley they got into an argument and he threatened her. He had already beaten her up; she was terrified. When they got home, Joan slept on the couch and the boyfriend stayed in the car, for Ruth didn’t want any problems with her neighbors.

Pg 129 Joan relates that ‘…my adoptive mother and I threw a going-away party for B and M (brother and his wife).’ According to Ruth, this is a lie, she herself has answered this issue, but for the record here and now, the party was at our father’s in Sept and Ruth has pictures! There is some doubt as to whether Joan herself was there but certainly her mother was not. Joan’s adoptive mother NEVER was at our father’s home. Ruth was never at Joan’s adoptive home. (Ruth’s note: I was at the house perhaps 3 or 4 times). I was only at that home a couple of times and we have no real knowledge about whether or not our brother ever was at that home. Kathy was already in England and never was in that home. We have no real knowledge about the so-called visits that Joan retells that occurred at our father’s home with our stepmother and other siblings.

I have been quite suspicious, as I read, of all these ‘visits’ between natural father and adopted parents that she relates; they seemed so out of character of everyone in light of how Joan relentlessly portrays the emotional instability of her adopted mother. So what does this prove? That Joan’s ‘recollections’ are flawed, at best a combination of several different events put together to make a whole that ‘fits in’ with Joan’s sense of reality. Her recollections are not to be trusted!

UPDATE Dec 2015; 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.

https://gertmcqueen2.wordpress.com/

https://www.facebook.com/dupedbyadoption1

 

more discussion of Joan’s fiction from Gert McQueen March 9, 2010 March 17, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

Pg 12 she talks about her name being changed without her consent. News flash here; no infant gives their consent for anything! As an adult you either have to accept it or change it, but regardless, stop whining about it. For example, when I made the adult decision to quit Christianity I took back my soul from Jesus Christ in a simple ceremony. I said to Jesus ‘you no longer have the right to my soul, as an adult I did not give myself to you and as an adult I now take it away from you, end of story. You no longer have any right to my soul.’ That was it and that ended it, no more whining necessary.

Pg 13 she is depressed, bored, disillusioned. What else is new here folks, if you read this entire book that is all she is and guess what, in the here and now, in the flesh she is still depressed, bored and disillusioned. Maybe she needs some help. Where are her friends? Her birth family tried to tell her she needed help and we are telling her again. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.

Pg 15 she talks about a rift, a split, because of my coolness towards her, well guess what people, I, as well as the other sibs have our own life traumas to deal with. She had no idea of the kinds of traumas I had had or was going through at the time. Yes I am the type of person that does not suffer fools lightly, if you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen. (Ruth’s note, March 17, lol, and I am the same way). By the time Joan reentered my life I had several serious life changing events happen to me and there was no time nor energy, then or now, to tell her, let alone teach her, what life was really about. If her adoptive parents hadn’t done that job of preparing her for life it was not my job to do so. Joan could not understand us because she was not prepared for real life as we, or most people usually are.

 Pg 16 she reports that our family was poor. How does she know this? What evidence does she have to support this assessment? She tells about how our family lived in a house with a black family and she somehow makes it sound trashy with a hint of bigotry. True fact here; a Black family, the Johnsons, owned the house, they were the landowners, we were the tenants. My personal memories are that the Johnsons were of a kind lovely warm people from the South. We had one bathroom in that house, and we all shared it. They had a small apartment in the front of the house, we had the back plus the whole upstairs. The lessons I learned from sharing a house with a Black family in the middle 50’s and hearing stories from my fraternal grandmother about her giving up her seat on the bus for a Black woman, after the Rosa Parks episodes, and other incidents have made me NOT A BIGOT. Of course at the time I was a very young child and didn’t really understand certain things, but these are lessons learned at the knees of parents. What lessons did Joan learn at the knees of the adoptive parents? Certainly not the same ones we learned that is sure. But in the whole scheme of things did that make our family poor, or some how tainted because of the closeness of the Blacks? God only knows what goes on in some people’s minds.

And as we are on this subject, bigotry that is, here’s another fact. Our parents were sponsors, in the early 1950s, of people that were then known as Displaced People or as a derogatory DPs. DPs were looked upon as low life somewhat like the Blacks of that time, and today with other ethnic refugees. In truth they were people that were ‘displaced’ because of World War II. They came to America as refuges and needed folks here to help them gain American ways and rights to a better life. I can’t help it if today’s people, including Joan, are ignorant of their own history. I lived through it. In was probably 1952 when they sponsored this family from the Ukraine, husband, wife and two children. Lydia and I met at age 5 and have reminded friends to this day. With the help that my parents gave them they were able to purchase a home long before my own father was able to.

Back to pg 16 she has things coming out of my mouth that I didn’t say in the manner that she relates. I never said that Dad ‘had mixed feelings about you because of Momma’s death. We were poor….Daddy put you up for adoption while the rest of us were taken in by foster homes.’ She is making it sound like Dad wanted to get rid of her, not true. We were not poor. Her adoption and our placement in foster home and orphan home were two separate events that happen years apart.

Pg 17 she states Dad ‘just got a new job as a machinist’, truth is he always worked two jobs. He went to night school, after working a day job, to get a better job. His employment had nothing to do with whether he could or could not have an infant child. She states, ‘we didn’t have a home after Momma died’. Where does she get this?

True facts here: our paternal grandparents were taking care of us during the time Dad was working. We had two homes, our own and grandpa and grandma’s. But the reality of things were that he could not place the burden of caring for an infant on top of his aged parents, who were already caring for 4 little children. Those were the real burdens, traumas and pains that our father had to deal with. There are situations and decisions in life that people have to make with what is going on at that moment and at that moment it was decided that the best for the infant child was adoption.

She states ‘it was real hard on us, things happened, terrible things’ okay, things were not perfect but this is real life not some TV melodrama! She states that I said ‘I was the oldest, I tried to keep us all together, but then you disappeared’. I tried to keep us all together!!! People, I was nine years old living with my grandparents!! I had absolutely nothing to say about what happened to me or the rest of us. Get a grip on reality! This book is fiction!

True fact here: after the death of our mother, Joan was living with maternal relatives until her adoption was completed. My father remarried within a year to a woman that had two sons, it was suppose to be a marriage that would help both of them, for each needed a another parent for their children. Unfortunately as life is, he found out early in that marriage that his second wife had a mental illness. Yes there were episode of nastiness and unpleasantness but again not everyone has the perfect life like Leave it to Beaver or Lassie, shows of those times that portrayed family life.

 When Dad’s second marriage backfired and blow up he had to protect everyone. He placed us in foster and orphan homes and she was placed in a mental institution. We did not know that our step-mother was going away and she did not know that we children, including one of her sons, were going away. We went to school as usual and from school we were taken to the foster and orphan homes. After we were gone from home, our step-mother was taken to the hospital. She had a very sad and difficult life, there were years were she was able to come home for short periods, but in the end her illnesses, mentally and physically, took toll on her and she died.

Recap here: Dad loses his first wife and mother of 5 children in 1956, he chooses to have an infant daughter adopted out believing that it was best for the child. He marries again in 56 only to have to make yet more heart breaking decisions about children and wife in 57. He loses his father in 59. He works two jobs to support his family that were still in various places, with relatives, foster care, and orphan homes and a wife in a mental institution. Within 3 months of each other he loses his 2nd wife and his mother in 1965. In 1965 he purchases a house and tries to bring his family back together. I the oldest had just gotten married. ……more to come

%d bloggers like this: