It seems that Joan Wheeler CAN do the right thing when she wants to. But she still will have to pay for the times she went out of her way to lie about her birth sisters March 20, 2013Posted 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: abuse, adoption, adoption reform, adoption reunion, being downright nasty, birth certificates, contradictions, dishonesty, embellishing the truth, false accusations, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, LIBEL, Lies, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, spreading untruths
About Joan’Wheeler’s comment page on The Huffington Post.–
Since Joan made that libelous statement about me and admitting that she wrote that libelous letter to my employer (Nov 2012) on January 22, 2013, she has made several more comments about adoption and birth certificates. So you will have to scroll down to see the stupid comment she made about me and my sisters – even accusing me of starting my twitter account solely to bother her. really. I took her to task on Huffington – refuting all her bullshit lies there. All her stupid libelous comments AND my replies – with the TRUTH – are all there in one spot. You just have to scroll down a bit.
As to her recent activity on Huffington – with her discussions about adoption and birth certificates – THIS IS WHAT WE’VE BEEN TELLING JOAN TO DO FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS NOW – have your debates about adoption and birth certificates all you want – we don’t care – JUST LEAVE US THE HELL OUT OF YOUR DISCUSSIONS! AND STOP LYING ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOUR ADOPTION.
It seems as though Joan is quite capable of discussing her adoption activism WITHOUT DRAGGING US INTO IT OR DISRESPECTING OUR FAMILY after all. Because I have not one single problem with what she has been saying recently on Huffington.
She even FINALLY acknowledged that the natural family relinguished her because there was no other choice. Which actually is a direct contradiction of what she keeps harping about – she keeps saying she is 100% against adoption, and keeps promoting kinship and guardianship care. Which was NOT a viable option in our family.
We’ve told Joan before – if you want to engage in your anti-adoption activism, LEAVE US OUT OF IT. By continually dragging us into it – she opens herself up to our rebuttals.
All she has to EVER say is, “I was adopted when my birth mother died. Due to lack of options of child care, my birth father relinguished me for adoption. My adoptive parents lied to me. I was found by my birth siblings in 1974. A few years later, personality conflicts between us resulted in us not having a relationship.”
That’s all she has to ever say about us. Since she keeps lying about us – we keep telling the truth about us.
absolutely Gert – Joan needs to learn that when she lies, she not only hurts others, she hurts HERSELF as well! By lying on Huffington about me – by writing a lying letter to my employer, SHE has hurt herself. Now she goes on trial for that. Idiot. We’ve been saying on our blogs for over three years to Joan – STOP LYING. JUST TELL THE DAM TRUTH AND STOP TALKING ABOUT US. cos when you tell the truth – you don’t get in trouble. Joan creates the very situations she bitches about. Because she’s a fool.
let me clarify the title of this blog post. When I say “But she still will have to pay for the times she went out of her way to lie about her birth sisters ” – that is not a threat. It is a fact. If you do somebody wrong – it’s gonna come back to you in some way. Karma baby – it’s called KARMA. It’s called paying for your sins. Somehow, someway, you will reap what you have sown. If you treat people like dirt, the way Joan has treated me and members of my family, someone is going to treat Joan like dirt. It’s the law of the universe – cause and effect. Like I said – it is Joan herself creating the situations she is bitching about. NOBODY TOLD HER TO TELL LIES ABOUT ME. SHE MADE THE CONSCIOUS DECISION TO TELL THE LIES. Now, with her lies exposed, she has to deal with the consequences of her actions and words.
Tags: adoption, adoption reform, adoption reunion, birth certificates, brow-beating, con-artist, dishonesty, embellishing the truth, harassment, LIBEL, misrepresenting one's credentials, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, Ruth Willerth, scam artist, SLANDER, Smattersings Books, spreading untruths, Trafford Publications
by Ruth Sippel Pace
In my post of May 24, 2011, Joan Wheeler has conned another person about her book of lies, Forbidden Family, I blog about how a poor woman got conned into buying one of the few remaining copies of this lying book. She then wrote a “review” of it on amazon.com. The “review” was no such thing. The “review” was simply adoptee rhetoric about birth certificates, and bringing up the subject of Barrack Obama and Donald Trump, which has nothing to do with the book. And it is clear, the woman didn’t read the book very well. Anyways, in doing some research, we find that this woman is a youth pastor, is a writer, and is part of a writer’s group in the north suburbs of Buffalo, NY.
BEFORE WE CONTINUE AN UPDATE, FEBRUARY 2016, as older posts are being seen I’m updating with links to my second blog and a Facebook page wherein I expose AGAIN the lies, fabrications and hate that Joan M Wheeler says about me and family. After the first book was pulled from publication by the publisher, May 2011, she has ‘self-published’ another ‘revised’ version. In this ‘version’ called ‘duped by adoption’ she has increased her exploitation by including PICTURES and REAL NAMES and much more personal information violating again the families. Joan has no decency NOR shame. There is NOTHING in this book for adoption reform. She is totally against adoption and her two families. To learn more see…
NOW CONTINUING ON WITH THIS POST
In Gert’s post of May 10, 2011, Joan Wheeler’s book Forbidden Family has been pulled from publication part 2 – Joan thanks her birth sisters for exposing her lies. Gert tells of Joan adding a page on her Forbidden Family site, which she uses as a dig against us birth sisters, under the tab “Thank You”. Gert says in her post: “… she (Joan) has found herself a writing ‘coach’, for these 4 paragraphs are NOT fully Joan Wheeler’s words. How do I know? Because I have read and know Joan’s writing style and her choice of words, as they are written in her book and on various web sites, and they are not used in this smug ‘thank you’. “
It is now clear who her writing coach is: Ruth Willerth of Smattersings Books, a self-described Christian writer and a youth pastor.
Now back on February 18, 2011, and February 22, 2011, Joan, under her member name of 1adoptee, on the Adult Adoptees Advocating for Change forum posted the following:
« on: February 18, 2011, 12:36:14 PM »
Hi gang! I found a new avenue to get adoption reform issues to the general public: local writing groups.
Here’s what I’ve been doing for the last few months. I found a local writer’s group and started attending meetings. I sat in for awhile before bringing in some of my own writings. When I got up the courage, I brought in a first draft of an online comment in response to an article posted on some online Newspaper.
The group I belong to requires members to pass out copies of their works. Members read and reflect on what’s written, and then write down their critique of the piece. A moderator goes from person to person and each one says out loud what they like, dislike, and ways to improve the piece. After everyone gets a chance to talk, the author of the piece addresses the group’s concerns.
So when it was my turn last night, I passed around a draft of a comment I was working on. The critique is supposed to center around the writing itself, but, as you know, people get caught up in their perceptions of adoption and then give their opinions of adoption, without really understanding that the piece I wrote is about adoption reform. We had a rousing discussion of what adoption is, and when it got to my turn to speak, I pointed out that every adoptee has two birth certificates and there is pending legislation in various states for adoptee access to their sealed records. This was an excellent way to educate the general public, at least the people in the room, and, at the same time, get feedback on my own writing style.
So, for those of you out there who are writers, pop in at your local writers group. Bring your own works with you, share them, and spread the word!
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2011, 11:56:59 AM »
Yeah, the rainbow-farters are all upset and they whine, “Why should I adopt a child if this stuff is going on?” and the usual, “My sister adopted three kids and my friend has an adopted child…” It was really hard not to bite their headds off, but I said this isn’t about adoptive parents,, this is about an adoptee’s right to her original birth certificate. The room of about ten people found it difficult to focus on why I brought my one-page letter to them. It was a draft and I wanted suggestions as to how to make it a better essay. One or two of the people actually focused on the group’s activities: writing! Next meeting I’ll bring copies of my original and amended birth certificates for them to see what really happens…should be interesting to hear the discussion then! Fear, yeah, I fell it. But it also feels good to get the message out!
End of comments
Now, let us review this evidence:
Joan went out on a recon-mission to promote her agenda. Think about this timing… she tells the forum about the writer’s group and her proposed infiltrating into that group to get them to talk about BC and adoption etc. Over time some of these people probably had brought the book, she did have about 3 books sold in April and that got her all excited and asked this poor woman to help her with a ‘thank you’ to those nasty sisters. And this was ALL DONE BEFORE TRAFFORD CALLED HER,. So then when she gets the word that the book is being pulled she harasses and browbeats this woman, Joan is an expert browbeater, to purchase the book so that she could do a review…remember you have to be a customer to write a review…that’s why the woman HAD TO BUY the book to leave a new and revised ‘agenda’ for the book. What bullshit.
Well, here is my message to Pastor Ruth and the other members of that writer’s group: discuss long and hard about the book Forbidden Family – learn your lessons well: how NOT to try to con your publisher. How NOT to lie and say it is a non-fiction book that is the truth, when it is full of slander and libel. How NOT to publish a photograph that you don’t own the copyrights to.
Joan Wheeler’s book Forbidden Family is a case study on how NOT to write and publish a book.
Pastor Ruth and her writer’s group ought to print out this email I sent to Mr. Eugene Hopkins of Trafford Publishing. They need to study it and further learn from Joan Wheeler’s mistakes.
May 16, 2011 –
Trafford, Author Solutions
Dear Mr. Hopkins,
I am the younger sister of Gert McQueen, with whom you have been in discussions with for the past few months over the book that your company published, “Forbidden Family” by Joan M. Wheeler.
I know that you had received our complaint about this book back on January 21, 2011. I also emailed you my co-complaint on this book. Included in my email, I attached several scanned official court documents pertaining to court cases between Ms. Wheeler and myself.
It is my understanding that recently you remarked to Gert that you were reluctant to get involved in a “family squabble.” Mr. Hopkins, Ms. Wheeler ceased to be a legal family member to us when she was adopted out of our family in 1957. Although we were reunited in 1974, I cut ties with her in 1990 after she stole hundreds of dollars from me. She further alienated herself to me in 1993 when she filed a false police report against me, over phone calls that I placed to her house, (in response to a letter she sent me). I called her house, and she said to me “hold on,” and hung up on me. She then reported to the police that I was placing threatening calls to her. I was summoned into court and Ms. Wheeler was granted a six-month order of protection against me.
In her book, that your company published, she records this incident, but claims that I was placed under arrest (I was not.), that she was granted a one-year order of protection against me (it was for six-months), that I was placed on probation (I was not), and that I have a criminal record (I do not).
I covered this and more in my emailed complaint to you and provided the actual court documents that prove that Ms. Wheeler lied, committing the crime of LIBEL in her book, that your company published.
In another part of her book, Ms. Wheeler describes a three month court battle between me and her in the year of 1994. This is completely false.
Also, on the back cover of the book, which your company published, is a family photograph that is of my parents, my siblings, and myself. Ms. Wheeler herself is NOT in the photograph at all – and the picture was taken BEFORE Ms. Wheeler was not even born, therefore, she wasn’t even a member of the family pictured on the back of her book. I have never given Ms. Wheeler permission, orally, or in writing, permission to use my photograph on her book. Also, since the photograph was taken sometime mid-1955, and Ms. Wheeler was born on January 7, 1956, and then 4 months later adopted out of the family, she does not OWN this photograph. She may “own” a paper copy of this photo, but since she was NOT a legal member of the family depicted in the photo, she does NOT have the legal right to publish it and gain monetary gain from it.
Whether you think of me and Ms. Wheeler as “family members” or not has no bearing on the basis of our complaint – that is being that Ms. Wheeler (and your company) has/have published my picture without my legal consent. In lying about a three month court case between us in 1994, and lying about the length of time the order of protection granted to her in 1993, Ms. Wheeler is presenting falsehoods about the City Court of the City of Buffalo. When Ms. Wheeler presents in her book that I was placed under arrest, she is presenting falsehoods about the Buffalo Police Department.
Further, may I ask you Mr. Hopkins, should a person be subjected to such slander and libel with no recourse, simply because they are related to the perpetrator? The issue of Ms. Wheeler being related to me and Gert is a NON-issue. Ms. Wheeler lied in her book. That is all that should concern you.
Gert tells me that several times in her conversations with you, you have told her that our complaint is in your legal department, and you have yet to hear back from your lawyers.
On your website is the Terms and Conditions for authors to agree to when submitting their work for publication. I cite the following items that Ms. Wheeler is in violation of YOUR own Terms and Conditions.
2. YOUR LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY
2.1. You represent that (i) you are the sole copyright owner of the Work and all of its content.
Ms. Wheeler is in violation of this because she has MY likeness on the back of her book, WITHOUT my consent.
2.4. You further represent that the Work does not contain illegal, unlawful or objectionable material including, but not limited to, pornography, obscenity or hate speech. You acknowledge that the Work is not plagiarized and does not include
falsely attributed statements of third parties.
. Ms. Wheeler is in violation of the second sentence, because as I pointed out above, she has lied about actual court proceedings between her and me.
I further cite YOUR Terms and Conditions as presented to authors on your website:
7. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
7.1. Suspension of Services. Upon a breach, default, or failure by you to comply with these Terms and Conditions or the failure to cooperate with us in the provision of any Services, we will have the right to suspend any or all performance until you cooperate with these Terms and Conditions and/or cooperate with us in the provision of Services.
Since I have just pointed out that Ms. Wheeler IS in violation of 2.1 and 2.4 of YOUR Terms and Conditions as presented on your website, Mr. Hopkins, you have NO choice, but to pull the book Forbidden Family off the market, your website, and your advertisement of it on Amazon.com. I don’t understand why your lawyers cannot come up with a timely interpretation of your own terms and conditions, the definition of the term libel, and the application of the term libel to Ms. Wheeler’s statements of me in her book that you published.
On page 670 of the Tenth Edition (1994) of the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary are the following definitions of the term LIBEL:
– A written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression.
– A statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt.
– Defamation of a person by written or representable means
– The act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel
I believe that all four definitions cover what Ms. Wheeler has done in her book. By falsely reporting in her book that I have an arrest record, she is conveying a unjustly unfavorable impression.
You have stated to Mrs. McQueen that you do not want to be in the middle of a “family squabble.” This is no “family squabble.” It is accurate accusation of libel and a justifiable demand for the pulling of this book.
I expect to be hearing shortly on your decision to do a right and lawful action: the pulling of this libelous book.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
Very sincerely yours,
Mrs. Ruth Pace
cc: Kevin Weiss; Kevin A. Gray; Gert McQueen
Tags: adoption, adoption reform, Barrack Obama, birth certificates, contradictions, Donald Trump, embellishing the truth, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, LIBEL, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, Ruth Willerth, SLANDER, Smattersings Books, truth in books
by Ruth Sippel Pace
Some poor lady actually parted with her good money to buy this lying book from Amazon.com and then she left a “review” – she didn’t even read the book, because her review wasn’t even about the book, it was mostly about Barrack Obama and Donald Trump. Some people just love mixing apples and oranges.
So Gert and I left a couple of comments – and when I went there – I saw another person had left a comment – not a review, but a reminder – that this book was pulled from publication. Thank You Andrea, who ever you are.
So here is the new “review” and the comments posted by Gert and myself:
Timely Informative, May 23, 2011
This review is from: Forbidden Family (Paperback)
Forbidden Family by Joan M Wheeler is timely considering it took the resources of Donald Trump to make public President Obama’s birth certificate. I’m so glad to find out that he really is an American. I live in the part of America that must produce whatever forms government says we must like birth certificates, social security cards, photo id… Being one of millions of Americans not understanding Hawaii seals all birth certificates from the public, I wonder… How the public would respond if our president was adopted so had two conflicting birth certificates?
Knife of Truth series consulting editor
Gert’s comment to this “review” – posted to Amazon
It is obvious that this ‘reviewer’ HAS NEVER read the contents of this book! This reviewer obviously is a personal friend of Joan Wheeler and has become yet another person conned and duped by Joan. For a person who makes money for providing reviews she really ought to be more careful about which books she is reviewing. Joan’s book of lies has over 600 pages and perhaps only about 200 of them any information about adoption reform including birth certificates. Those other 400 pages are hateful lies and misrepresentations towards both birth and adoptive families and that is WHY the book has been pulled from the selling market, by the publisher.
Ruth’s comment, posted on Amazon:
I have to wonder about this other Ruth. “Timely” she says? Um Ms. Willerth, this book of lies came out a year and a half ago. What was “timely” was YOUR purchasing it. And I agree with Gert – you didn’t even READ it, before you posted your review. But by all means, keep reading it – I wonder how you will feel about this book when you get to the part where Ms. Wheeler trashes the Catholic Church.
Seeing as you are a youth pastor, perhaps you can help Joan learn the 10 Commandments, particularly the ones about honoring one’s parents, not stealing, not lying. Please go to my blog at https://ruthsippelpace.wordpress.com/ to see actual proof of Joan’s violations of the 10 commandments.
And please do your research as to why this book is no longer being published – because the publisher found out about the slander and libel and Joan stealing MY photograph for the back cover – a photograph that she does NOT own the copyright to – a violation of the rules of the publisher – hence, the book was pulled. The copies listed here on Amazon are just those left over from the first publishing run, and the book will not be printed again.
I demand to see the long form birth certificate and long form death certificate of Osama bin Laden May 2, 2011Posted by Ruth in Announcements and updates.
Tags: birth certificates, death certificates, inquiring minds, long form birth certificate, long form death certificate, Osama bin Laden, President Obama
I was being sarcastic because of Joan Wheeler’s constant whining about her birth certificate and I was mocking out Donald Trump.
Osama is in a good place, Now the sailors can piss on his grave. Go SEALS!
The internet is on fire with the news that Osama bin Laden was killed by US Special Forces, Navy Seals.
Some sources are saying he was killed a week ago, other say he was killed on April 29, April 30 and May 1. Other sources are saying he had died way back in 2001.
This is just too confusing. In wake of President Obama’s recent producing his own personal long form birth certificate, we need to see the long form birth certificate of Osama bin Laden. AND we need to see the long form death certificate of Osama bin Laden.
Inquiring minds want to know.
I am so sick of Joan Wheeler’s whining about her adoption and her birth certificate and nobody understands her and –and — I’m going to throw up now May 1, 2011Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler Speak - how Joan views the world, Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: abuse, adoption, adoption reform, being downright nasty, birth certificates, contradictions, crybabies, emotional abuse, false accusations, false accusations of sexual abuse, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, hatred, hatred of adopive parents, hatred of infertile women, Laura Cummings, Lies, The Buffalo News, torture, whining
On June 10, 2011, The Buffalo News finally published Joan’s letter, proving her whine about Buffalo being a conservative city worthless – see Joan, if you would SHUT UP your stupid insults on everyone and everybody and GIVE PEOPLE and The Buffalo News A CHANCE – they just might come around to doing what you want. Jumping up and down and screaming and yelling that they won’t publish your letter made you just look like the whiney brat that you are – GROW UP!
“You can look back at your past, and feel sorry for yourself – or you can look back and see how it served you.” — author unknown
BEADY Eyes are everywhere, so qwitcher bitchin!
On Friday, April 29, 2011, Joan Wheeler makes an announcement that she had submitted a letter to the editor of our local newspaper, but she didn’t want to post it before its publication, to prevent her birth sister’s “beedie” eyes from seeing it. roflmao! This “accomplished” writer doesn’t even know how to spell “beady!” – Okay, we’re all human, we all make spelling and grammar mistakes, and the occasional typo on the internet. I just had to point Joan’s faux pas out because she’s always so full of herself and her own “self-importance” and “importance” to the adoption reform community. She just needs to be taken down a peg or two. And of course she needs to be taken down, because AGAIN, she insults her birth sisters. She doesn’t like the fact that we, her birth sisters are monitoring what she writes about us. We know for a fact, despite her saying that she doesn’t, she DOES read this blog. And so do some of her adoptee buddies. Do we call them names bcause they read our blog?
Listen, it’s the internet – you’re going to get all kinds of people, wanted or not, reading what you write. So suck it up. But see, Joan just loves to bitch. She goes on to say that The Buffalo News won’t publish her editorial. How does she know? She must have called them up and bugged them. I will tell you the procedures The Buffalo News has for accepting a letter via email or snail mail. You must provide them with your name, address and phone number. If they are interested in your letter, they will call you on the phone, to verify that you did indeed submit the letter. Sometimes this phone call may take a week in coming. If you get no phone call after a week, you can be sure that your letter will not get published. They do NOT contact you to tell you that they are not going to publish your letter. And sometimes, even though you get a phone call from them, they still do not publish your letter. I know this, because I have submitted letters to the Buffalo News and some have been published, others have not. I don’t get all bent out of shape about it – because I have other venues that I can turn to.
What was Joan’s letter about? The usual redundant whine about her birth certificate. With four short additional sentances about President Obama and his birth certificate. Now Pres. Obama produced his birth certificate on Wednesday, April 27. And Joan is complaining on Saturday, April 30 that the Buffalo News won’t publish her letter. Geez, Joan, give the editorial staff a break – maybe they will call you on Monday!!
But I have feeling that they probably won’t publish her letter? Why? Because they have published letters of Joan’s in the past – and about the same subject! It’s called a NEWSpaper, Joan, your letter hardly contained anything NEW, just the same tired whine that Joan moans about day in and day out, ad nauseum. And the newspaper does not HAVE to publish her letters, my letters, or anybody else’s letter. That’s a fact of life Joan, accept it.
And people, yes, The Buffalo News HAS published letters of Joan’s in the past. she even has some of them posted on her blog. And as for her charge that we live in a conservative city and the newspaper won’t publish her letter – um she admits on her blog that they HAVE published her letters. – See there, another LIE from Joan Wheeler. And if they won’t publish you anymore Joan, I suggest get another venue – how about Artvoice? And the other grass roots news publications in around Buffalo. oh oh – I did it now. Joan will probably go and make a PEST out of herself to those publications. That is the real reason that I suspect The Buffalo News didn’t publish her letter – they probably saw her email and said “oh no, it’s that Joan Wheeler nut again” But then again, this is all pure speculation – Joan may be pleasantly surprised on Monday or Tuesday and get that phone call from The Buffalo News and by next Saturday, open up her newspaper (or check online), and see her letter published. I won’t bother to read it – I’ve seen it before. And so have the editors of the Buffalo News. Because Joan repeats herself over and over and over and over and over and over. But she never gets her point across to the important people. And neither do any of the other angry adoptees. Why? Because they are so full of their anger, they don’t know how to talk to people. I have seen Joan and another adoptee post at some internet sites, and the moderators have to tell them to stop swearing. I have seen Joan totally removed from the Huffington Post.
Yes, any of my readers who on Friday read my posts about the crap lies that Joan spread on The Huffington Post, when you clicked on the links in my post, and got the message “This profile has been removed,” that’s because Joan was REMOVED from The Huffington Post for violating that site’s rules and violating human civility and privacy customs and rules – yes – she went online and accused my grandfather of being a sexual predator, my grandfather, who has been dead since 1959, two years after Joan was adopted out of our family, and Joan NEVER met, had his reputation smeared by this bitch called Joan Wheeler! Further, Joan said that I, and my sisters were sexually molested by our grandfather. This is a LIE! And even if it were true – what kind of bitch spread this shit on the internet? – The BITCH called Joan Wheeler – that’s who.
And YES, We Sippel Sisters contacted The Huffington Post and alerted them to this abuse! And within a half hour – Joan was KICKED OFF THE HUFFINGTON POST!
Joan, you need to control the diarrhea of your mouth. NO ONE is going to take you seriously when you talk shit like that. And that goes for the other angry adoptees as well, who bore people to death with their anger, their self-pitying angst, their refusal to GROW UP and see that other people are in pain too! Oh boo hoo – I was adopted. My amom is a BITCH! Yeah, well the world is full of bitches. And god forbid that their amom was a rape victim and they unfortunately were the product of a rape, and the amom couldn’t handle raising the child, to be constantly reminded of the RAPE. Oh boo hoo, the child was adopted – they care about the rape victims pain? You know, it may have been more than just a simple forcing of the woman- it may have been extremely VIOLENT. Do those adoptees care? No – they don’t see an amom as a human being who has pain, and suffers too. AND MAKES AN ALL TOO HUMAN THING CALLED A MISTAKE! Is Joan or any other adoptee MISTAKE- FREE? What gives them (or anyone) the right to hurt a human being just because they themselves have been hurt? When you go around spreading hate against adoptive parents and infertile people, you are not helping your cause, all you’re accomplishing is turning people against you.
Yes, there are some toads out there who don’t care about their children – we just locked one bitch up who after years of abusing her biological disabled daughter, killed her. She also encouraged the girl’s half brother to sexually assault her and on the day of Laura Cummings death, her brother was told by their mother to pour scalding water on her, then she was raped AGAIN, then her mother strangled her. SOMEONE should have adopted Laura! god help me, I wish I could have. That poor woman, for all her 23 years was TORTURED. Oh – did I say that horrible word? ADOPTION! yes and I’m proud of it. Joan, grow up. You are not the only human on this planet to have experienced pain. You are just not that important.
Please google Laura Cummings – walk one minute in that girl’s shoes – then shut up about your friggin adoption pain. Fucking crybabies.
from The Buffalo News: By Jay Tokasz and Gene Warner NEWS STAFF REPORTERS
Published: February 27, 2010, 10:08 AM
A good night for Laura Cummings meant being allowed to sleep on the kitchen floor in her family’s North Collins home.
Usually in the weeks leading up to her death, she was forced to sleep shackled to a metal chair with a sack over her face.
Days were even more nightmarish for the 23-year-old mentally disabled woman, who was held captive and brutalized, allegedly by her own mother and half brother, according to an Erie County Grand Jury indictment returned Friday. Cummings’ short life ended Jan. 21 with a long, tortuous death and a trail of missed chances to get her to safety.
A grand jury indicted Cummings’ mother, Eva M. Cummings, 51, and her half brother, Luke J. Wright, 31, on charges related to the homicide, but authorities continued to be confounded by the apparent lack of community concern for the defenseless woman’s welfare.
“There were a lot of people who knew what was going on and said nothing, and that is a sad commentary on the human condition,” said District Attorney Frank A. Sedita III.
Clues and reports about mistreatment inside the apartment at 2052 Sherman Ave. popped up frequently over the years. Siblings and other relatives said they called Child Protective Services and Adult Protective Services. Whispers floated around town, including at the food pantry, that Cummings was being tied up at home.
“This is the problem today and nobody wants to get involved,” added Caroline Lee, who lives down the street from the Cummings apartment.
The pantry was one of the few places in town where Laura Cummings, a petite woman with short brown hair who rarely made eye contact with people, was seen in public away from her home.
Lee called Laura Cummings’ younger brother, Richard, about the suspected abuse, and Richard contacted Erie County Adult Protective Services. “They never went inside the household and they never filed for a warrant to go inside,” said Richard Cummings, who is serving in the Air Force and is stationed in North Carolina. “I’m wondering why … Adult Protective Services didn’t do anything about it.”
Instead, the abuse intensified over the last few months of Laura’s life, said investigators. “Starting in November, there’s a significant escalation of her debasement as a human being,” Senior Trial Counsel Thomas M. Finnerty of the DA’s Office said. “It was happening on a daily or nightly basis.”
Finnerty, who has prosecuted a number of heinous crimes in his 17 years in the DA’s office, called it “the worst case I’ve ever seen.” “It’s sadistic, and it’s allegedly sustained over a long period of time,” he said.
That was especially true of the unlawful imprisonment of Laura Cummings, in the weeks preceding her death.
“She’s restrained more often than she’s not,”Sheriff’s Capt. Ronald L. Kenyon said.
At other times, she was treated as an inanimate object, draped with a blanket so that visitors who stopped by the apartment wouldn’t know she was there, according to authorities.
Eva Cummings and Luke Wright were indicted on a total of 15 charges in connection with the suffocation death of Laura Cummings. They are expected to be arraigned at 2 p.m. Monday before Erie County Court Judge Sheila A. DiTullio.
Eva Cummings faces a second-degree murder charge, while her son is charged with five sexual assault charges. Both are accused of using a broomstick to sexually attack the young woman, as well as forcing her to touch her own waste and scalding her with hot water, according to the indictment papers.
Mother and son also are accused of unlawfully imprisoning Laura Cummings because of her mental disability — an elevated hate crime charge. “It’s a hate crime because it’s motivated in whole or substantial part by the belief or perception regarding the victim’s disability,” Sedita said.
Eva Cummings could face a possible sentence of 83 years to life on five charges, while her son could face 142 years to life on 10 charges, prosecutors said. The charges, based on extensive investigation by four Erie County sheriff’s detectives and statements from both suspects, paint an extremely troubling portrait of the alleged abuse against the young woman who talked with a speech impediment, had difficulty swallowing food and was said to have the mental capacity of a pre-teenage girl.
Sedita and Kenyon praised sheriff’s Detectives Gregory McCarthy, Dennis Fitzgibbon, Matthew Noecker and Jack Graham.
The efforts of the Sheriff’s Department were dogged, Sedita said.
“They didn’t stop. They interviewed basically the whole town of North Collins.”
Both mother and son are charged with unlawful imprisonment and endangering the welfare of a mentally disabled person.
“If the allegations are true, it is clear that the defendants did not treat Laura as a human being,” said Sedita. “In fact, if these allegations are true, one wonders if either one of them even considered Laura to be a human being.”
Laura Cummings’ tragic life might have gone in a different direction on several occasions, starting when she was a youngster, according to various sources. As a child, she and other siblings were placed with foster families in Florida that tried unsuccessfully to adopt the children, said Patricia Wright, Laura’s half-sister.
The Cummings household, in North Collins and prior to that in Olean, was well-known to Child Protective Services in Erie and Cattaraugus counties, family members said.
Patricia Wright, 27, said she reported abuse to Erie County Child Protective Services and Erie County Family Court more than a decade ago. “I stopped talking to them when I was 17 years old because there was nothing being done,” said Wright, who was legally adopted by a family friend and is pursuing a bachelor’s degree in forestry management. “I kept trying to tell them, You need to get those kids out of there.’ And they said, ‘No there’s nothing we can do.’ “
Patricia Wright said she was physically abused for years, resulting in a broken ankle and cracked vertebrae in her back. “I would get hit with baseball bats, spoons, anything that mom could grab a hold of,” she said. “We got hurt every day. She didn’t take us to the hospital.”
She was even locked in a closet for a week, and her brother, Luke, sneaked her bread and water, she said. After spending time at a facility for teenagers, Patricia Wright was legally adopted by Roland Grotke, a neighbor of her grandparents in East Otto. She said she tried to return to the home and rescue Laura, but was rebuffed by her mother.
“I knew my Mom was kind of off upstairs,” said Patricia Wright. “I knew she was incapable of taking care of a person like Laura, who needed that extra help.” Neither Richard Cummings nor Patricia Wright had been allowed to visit Laura Cummings in recent years, they said.
more on this sad case. poor child.
Facts are Stubborn Things Part 1 November 10, 2010Posted 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.
Tags: abuse, adoption, birth certificates, blaming people for your own mess, contradictions, contributing the deliquency of a minor, embellishing the truth, emotional abuse, emotional blackmail, false accusations, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, Lies, misrepresenting one's credentials, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, spreading untruths
Facts are Stubborn Things Part One by Gert McQueen, April 22, 2010
John Adams, before he became the 1st vice President and the 2nd President of the USA, defended some British soldiers against some citizens of Boston, in what became known as the Boston Massacre. He won the case for the soldiers because of the facts of the case. In his address to the jury he said…
“Facts are stubborn things and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations or the dictums of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence” from David McCullough’s book, John Adams.
In chapter 18 Liverpool 79, Joan tells of another trip to visit birth sister Kathy, who has told us, in another post, of that visit, from her own mouth about what actually did happen…facts are stubborn things.
Here are a few adjectives and phrases that Joan uses to describe her natural father, her birth siblings and her perceptions of us in our relationships with her: the tyrant (pg178), I am the throw away baby (pg180), why does she hates me (pg 180), leader of this great band of mixed-up, tormented kids (pg 180), what crime did I commit, her behavior now baffled me (pg 180), knew she despised me (pg 183), introduced me as ‘the American’, I felt betrayed, unloved, I was frightened (pg 184), I loved a sister who didn’t love me back (pg185). According to Joan these are facts, but are they? …facts are stubborn things.
The beginning efforts to write her book came from and with a friend in the Division of Youth, in 1980, where Joan had a part time job. On pg 190 she states, ‘Without warning or training, I took a job as a Youth Transfer Agent with the N Y State Division of Youth. I’d be working with teenagers between the ages of 13 to 18 and most of these teens were youth offenders.’ Remember this! It is because of her association with this Division of Youth where Joan gets her ‘authority’ to interfere in my and my children’s lives later on. Remember this also! In 1980 I remarried and my new husband and I were beginning the process of adopting my children! … facts are stubborn things.
Chapter 19 Tucson; she has now saved enough money to visit birth brother Leonard. Amazing isn’t it that she has all this ability to travel and visit while everyone else in the family must work to keep roof and food! She says she arrived, for a two-week visit, on August 20, the day I remarried; my honeymoon was a weekend camping trip that included my children! …facts are stubborn things.
My brother, amongst many things, belonged to a reenactment group, SCA, Society of Creative Anachronism. Most that are in these groups are in it for entertainment and historical reasons and most groups do not allow any form of ‘religious’ overtones in their ‘character personas’. When she leaves Tucson she has a contact name of a member in Buffalo’s chapter of Medieval reenactment groups. Remember this! Because this is the beginning of how, when and why she gets her authority to condemn my religious beliefs and question my mental health some 12 years later! She like, so many others, confuse SCA activities with real and true religious reawakening and reconstruction! … facts are stubborn things.
Chapter 20 is a redundant chapter, (about birth certificates) we have heard this so many times before, totally unnecessary. But it does prove the facts of Joan’s inability to accept the ways of the world, be they semantics (pg 201) of the legal system or the facts that people and institutions do not behave the way Joan thinks they are behaving. ‘I (she) knew the clerks (in the vital Statistics offices) lied’ (pg 199) ‘an underhanded compliment meant to insult me’, ‘felt guilty…that’s how this man wanted me to feel’ (pg 202) Pg 203,‘Some people have argued that I set myself up for pain’…sure looks that way from here! And the greatest of all, pg 203, ‘I began to think less and less of my own personal situation and more and more of how our laws and social practices were imbedded into our culture and what changes were needed to make this a more humane system.’
Remember I have already told, in another post, of how, when Joan was shy and new to the militaristic crusade of adoption reform, when she upset my stepmother over my father’s adoption of her daughter, Joan was not quite sure of herself. But now she is! She overcame her shyness and she was very insistent that she is right and everyone else is wrong. Oh sure she was not thinking of herself, when she called me an unfit mother, for giving up my child for adoption. Forget the fact that I was adopting him! She was thinking about making things more humane, ha! You should have seen her in my kitchen, ranting and raving about how wrong I was to ‘give up’ my child and what harm I was doing to him. So much so I had to kick her out of my home! Sound familiar, doesn’t she tell us that our father kicked her out of his home too! …. facts are stubborn things.
Chapter 21 cancer and sibling rivalry; I have no way of addressing the situations about Joan’s adoptive father’s illness etc. but I certainly can and will address (pg 213) ‘…trouble brewing between my (her) eldest sister (me) and myself (her).’ It had nothing to do with ‘sibling rivalry’ but all about interfering trouble that was ALL Joan’s doing… facts are stubborn things.
From our very beginning, in 1979, my second husband wanted to adopt both my children, they were 14 and 15 when we married. It should also be noted that my family had been in family counseling for over 2 years before and during our marriage, so that, as a new family, we could all integrate more smoothly. We had already been investigating adoption and upon my wedding, August 1980, the kids believed that as my name changed so would theirs. We went through the usual background investigations that come with adopting, we had an attorney and because of their ages the children had to speak with the judge and give their own reasons for or against being adopted.
At that time my daughter was having a normal major identity crisis and wanted to spend time with her natural/birth father. While I thought it would be of no help I allowed my daughter to live with her natural father. It did not prove successful and after some intense disappointments with her natural father she returned home to me and my husband. She came to the conclusion that she wanted to keep her own identity, not go through a name change, because she was going to marry soon anyway. She did when she was 17. While my husband was disappointed that my daughter did not want to be adopted it did not alter how he felt about her; he loved her still and treated her as if she was his. My son had no objections and wanted to be adopted. Their natural father gave permission and signed the necessary papers; he wanted to be freed from total responsibility, a responsibility my husband was willing to give, in fact had been giving. The judge spoke with them without the parents’ presence. The judge said to us later, referring to my husband, ‘that he wished more fathers would be attentive to their children has this man does’. My son was 16, in 1981, when he was adopted. … facts are stubborn things. – (Ruth’s note: as I was a constant in Gert’s and her children’s lives – and they lived 2 blocks from me at this time period – I can attest that this is all true!)
Raising teenagers is never an easy task and when there are stepparents there are always additional elements but when you add a meddling interfering relative that has an obsessive agenda you have a receipt for disaster. Enter Joan into my family where she had no business. … facts are stubborn things.
So where are Joan’s credentials? Was she an attorney? What vast years of wisdom and experience did she have when (pg 213) she came barging into my home, obstructing my parental authority, our family’s core business, confusing my minor children with her faulty reasoning, asserting that her decisions and recommendations were in the best interests to my children and that I was to instantly follow them? (Ruth’s note: Gert already has quoted Joan stating on page 190 that when she took her job as a Youth Transfer Agent (driver) she was “without warning or TRAINING.” And at this point in time, Joan was not a mother herself. And remember her occupation: DRIVER – it is important in a few pages.)
Joan states: ‘…(my son) was 14, a bit too old for stepparent adoption.’ (Ruth’s note: can Joan EVER get dates and ages correct? Yes – my nephew was born in 1965, therefore, in 1981, he was 16).
I answer: Where does she get this nonsense? A person can be adopted at any age.
Joan states: ‘When they told me about it (my son’s adoption) I (she) was hurt and angry and very protective of his rights…I tried to get them to see that an older child’s identity would change and his birth certificate would be sealed….but they wouldn’t understand.’
I answer: Oh we understood all right! What right does she have to get in the middle of another’s adoption proceeding? Who asked her to ‘protect’ my son’s rights? I thought the judge and adoption laws were doing just fine without her. Oh I forgot, Joan does not understand nor trust the legal systems of this country. As far as his ‘identity’, he kept his first name and changed his middle and last names; that was his choice and decision. He has never had an identity crisis of any kind and never had any problem getting into the military, (unlike Joan who used her adoption/birth records as a means not to enter military service), or obtaining marriage licenses or anything else he needed, his birth certificate is NOT sealed (he has both) or any other kind of troubles.
Joan states: ‘instead of listening to me they accused me of being too sensitive…they insisted I was obsessed with adoption, they were going ahead with the adoption…’
I answer: If the shoe fits, no one can talk to Joan about adoption because only Joan is the expert, so yes she is too sensitive and obsessed.
Joan states: ‘…(he) would adopt only the older teen…he wouldn’t adopt the younger one’
I answer: I have already told the background of this. Joan doesn’t repeat the truth of things because it just will not ‘fit into’ her version of the story, she has to sell the book! … facts are stubborn things.
On pg 214 Joan states: ‘that was just the beginning’
I answer: It sure was! and before we get any further it must be said that there were many layers of different situations happening at the same period of time in which Joan has convoluted, combined and other wise mixed together, as well as leaving out some very valuable pieces of the puzzle, that she was intimately involved with and responsible for. That being said, after I kicked her out of my home, for her disruptions about our adoption plans, I paid no attention to her, until she began the next episode of interfering in my family, a year later, but before we get to that I must give some background facts. … facts are stubborn things.
Again, on pg 214, Joan states ‘…(she) had been subjected to sexual advances from (me)’. She continues on with her take on it ‘…(she) was told to keep quiet’. Bullshit! Joan is using this crap as her ‘reasons’ for interfering into my family, but I don’t want to get too far ahead here…so
Let’s talk again, remember I discussed this in another post, about the so-called sexual advances that Joan said happened between her and myself, but also let’s talk about the actual sexual situation with my husband and us. That right, my husband! Oh did Joan not say anything about that in her book? Oh dear me, that must be that BIG SECRET she didn’t write about that I should be so afraid of her telling! Gotcha, Joan! You can’t blackmail me and hold me hostage to your warped mind! For the record: there were no sexual advances by me to her in 1976, she has fabricated that lie to be able to use it later on in her fabrications to cover up the real and actual sexual encounter that she herself was involved in and to take the light off herself and put it on my husband and myself. … facts are stubborn things.
It does surprises me that Joan hasn’t mentioned the experiment between the three of us in her book, at least as far as I can see she hadn’t, but then again if she mentions it than she can’t blame me for her own bad judgments and meddling now can she. Truth is that one night, long before Joan decided to involve herself within our adoption proceedings, my husband and I had dinner with Joan at her apartment. One thing lead to another and all three of us decided to explore the ‘girl on girl’ aspect, it was nothing really, not anything I cared to explore further, nor did my husband, nor Joan herself, to the best of my knowledge. Was she abused? Taken advantage of? Told never to talk about it? No, she was willing. There now you have it, if it isn’t the truth, why should I admit to this? Will Joan deny it, perhaps, but I got it out and she can’t blackmail me! Joan fabricates things so as not to involve herself. The whole episode regarding my daughter, in which Joan does not tell of her actions, is to make my husband and myself out to be the big bad guys. In fact it was Joan’s fabricating and involving outsiders that took my daughter away from me. Joan does not tell of her own deeds or the whole story of what happened…but I will! … facts are stubborn things.
Jumping ahead a bit, to get continuity, on pg 220, even though she is not writing about it, she seems to have, that girl on girl episode, on her mind, as she writes, trying to fit untruths in her version of the story, because she wonders, in print, if she committed adultery. If I had made sexual advances to Joan, as she says I did back in 76, and then in 81 she starts to question whether she herself was a lesbian or not and whether she was an adulterer would mean I must have been married when I made the so-called sexual advances to her in 76. I was not married in 76 when she says I made advances, but now in 81 she says I abused her, I violated her. Bull shit! This is her faulty reasoning and her neglect in not telling of her own involvement in sexual activities. She uses this method of thinking and non-thinking to justify her actions when she claims my daughter is being sexual abused by my husband. Oh, but of course, that’s how she gets back at him! Oh no, we shall go back to this page later, because this is too precious not to explore further. … facts are stubborn things.
What is a Birth Certificate Used For? Thoughts on Chapter 13 of Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler July 22, 2010Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler Speak - how Joan views the world, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: adoption, adoption reform, adoption reunion, bigotry, birth certificates, contradictions, contributing the deliquency of a minor, falsified birth certificates, faulty memory, Lies, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, spreading untruths
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.