THE BOOK FORBIDDEN FAMILY BY JOAN M. WHEELER HAS BEEN PULLED FROM PUBLICATION BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO THE PUBLISHER THAT JOAN LIED IN THE BOOK! May 9, 2011Posted by Ruth in Announcements and updates, 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, Statements from The Three Sippel Sisters, Uncategorized.
Tags: abuse, adoption, adoption reform, adoption reunion, blaming people for your own mess, bullying, dishonesty, embellishing the truth, emotional abuse, emotional blackmail, false accusations, false accusations of sexual abuse, fish stories, Forbidden Family, harassment, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, LIBEL, Lies, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, SLANDER, spreading untruths, stupidity, theft, whining, wrongful publication of a photo that the author does not own the copyright to!
Readers of this blog and Joan’s website may be interested to know that:
THE BOOK FORBIDDEN FAMILY HAS BEEN PULLED FROM PUBLICATION BECAUSE OF THE MANY LIES TOLD IN IT.
Joan says on her website today, “thank you for the phenomenal publicity that we have given her.”
Roflmao! Another delusion from a person who needs to have psych medications!
Joan M. Wheeler has egg on her face – she has been EXPOSED as a LIAR and a CON-ARTIST!
The “phenomenal publicity” contained in this blog “Refuting the Book Forbidden Family” has always been to chronicle and PROVE with actual documents that Joan is a LIAR. Only an IMBECILE thanks the people who have brought attention to the fact that they are a LIAR!
There cannot be many actual copies of this book – She had to SELF-PUBLISH it, with the lowest package that the company offered – $800.00 – do the math people – the selling price of the book is $45.00 – it is offered on Amazon.com which gets about 40% of the monies. Trafford gets it’s cut – they have to make a profit – so figuring at least 75% going to Amazon and Trafford – that leaves $200.00 from her initial investment! Divide that up – I get about 4 and a half copies! We can account for 5 copies right off the bat. And having spoken on the phone with a representative from Trafford, we got this statement: “It is hardly a best-seller.” Roflmao! So who is Joan trying to fool? – Don’t be fooled by this con-artist – she’s a liar, she’s been exposed – she is dead in the water.
She may try to come up with a “new and improved” book, but rest assured, The Three Sippel Sisters will be right there to make dam sure she tells the truth.
So here is the email I sent to the publisher Trafford/Author Solutions over the weekend, and their response? THEY PULLED THE BOOK!
Now stop and ask yourself the question WHY? Why would the company pull the book just because I, Ruth, emailed them – BECAUSE THEY SEE THE PROOF THAT YOU DELUDED PEOPLE AND JOAN WON’T ADMIT TO: THAT JOAN M. WHEELER IS A LIAR! – Of course those people who see right through Joan’s lies are not delusional and know just what kind of nonsense, word-twisting, fact-twisting propaganda Joan is capable of. For Joan to try to justify her lies by saying she purposely mixed up dates and events to protect identities is BULLSHIT!
To lie about the length of an order of protection is protecting NO ONE! To stretch the actual time of six-months to one year does nothing to protect ANY one’s identity. To LIE about a non-event (a 3 month court battle and further LIE that “Brenda” accosted her children outside a court room was done to put her birth sister in a bad light and garner sympathy for herself UNDER FALSE PRETENSES). Don’t be fooled by her propaganda! She has said over and over that everything in her book was the TRUTH. Now, by saying she “mixed up dates and events” she is ADMITTING THAT SHE DID NOT PRESENT THE TRUTH. Like a true snake with a forked tongue, she is trying to cover her ass. DON’T BUY IT! Her own daughter says “my mother is crafty at twisting words.”
I have said MANY times on this blog that Joan continuously mixes up dates and events and presents them in an untruthful manner. I have challenged her MANY times to come clean. I have said again and again that even when confronted by actual documents and her own handwritten letters to explain the discreencies, all she does is say she is telling the truth. For a year and a half this blog has been saying this over and over. For a year and a half she kept saying that – why all of a sudden is she changing her story? Because on Friday, May 6, she was told to do revisions of her book – and by posting her “thank you” on her website on Friday, she is COVERING HER LYING ASS! But after receiving an email from me on Monday morning (May 9,) the decision was made BY THE PUBLISHER that instead of a revision, the book Forbidden Family will be pulled in its entirety.
Her rationale of lying was “Protecting identitys?” BALONEY! If she wrote ONLY the truth – the identity would still be protected – but what readers don’t know – is that in back in the early 1990’s she published a short article called “The Secret is Out” and used OUR TRUE NAMES! Anybody in the adoption reform field who read that article, then read the book Forbidden Family would already KNOW our names – because Joan had already published our names 20 years ago. So who is Joan kidding when she says that WE identified ourselves on this blog first – now SHE did. She did NOT protect our identities. Joan used her real name in the book. Sh used her real birth name Sippel and put MY family’s photo on the back – and it takes no genius in the City of Buffalo to recognize my father, a well-known employee at Buffalo City Hall, and many people knew about his giving his daughter for adoption – to put 2 and 2 together and identify me and others in the book.
She also puts in her book, my mother’s true name – and since MY name is in her obituary – published in 1956 – MY identity is right there. And smearing somebody’s reputation, whether you use their true name, or not is just simply the same thing – a smear campaign. Joan, you cannot weasel your way out of it – you are a LIAR! Plain and simple as that! LIAR!
Here then is my letter to the publisher:
May 6, 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
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.
Why I don’t give a DAMN about Joan Wheeler’s adoption trauma or any other “trauma” she’s going through April 15, 2011Posted by Ruth in a. What is demanded from Joan Wheeler - the purpose of this blog., Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, Uncategorized.
Tags: abuse, adoption, adoption reform, adoption reunion, being downright nasty, blaming people for your own mess, bullying, contradictions, cowardice, cyberbullying, dishonesty, Disrespect, Dr. Rene Hoksbergen, false accusations of sexual abuse, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, hatred of infertile women, Lies, mental instability, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, stupidity, theft, whining
by Ruth Sippel Pace
clarification, I copied and pasted a post that Joan had placed on the adoptee forum, and I answered here, on my blog. In the past, Joan has accused me of stalking her on the internet to see what she writes – call it stalking if you want, I call it “monitoring” what Joan says about me and my family. Because I have the right to know what is written about me. And if it’s a lie, I will mostly definitely straighten that lie out. Don’t like what I’m doing Joan? – too bad. THEN STOP WRITING ABOUT ME AND MY FAMILY ON THE INTERNET – AND MOST IMPORTANT – STOP LYING ABOUT ME. A month ago, we sent this same message – after Joan got on the Huffington Post to smear our reputations and my grandfather’s reputation. – Whenever I see that Joan has writted stuff about me – I will be right there – because that it is my right. — Ruth Sippel Pace, April17, 2011, 11:17pm.
The other day I wrote an answer to this post that Joan placed on the adoptee forum:
“Realize that whatever trauma they have lived through, real or imagined, is what is driving them to hurt you.”
I answered: “Yeah, I get that Joan – whatever CRAP you went through as a child you are now taking out on your birth sisters. .. Well, I don’t give a DAMN what you went through. I don’t give a DAMN that your adoptive parents lied to you – you don’t get to write a book and tell lies about Ruth Sippel Pace and her kin, without Ruth refuting your lying shit. You don’t get to get on the internet and tel lies about Ruth Sippel Pace and her kin, without Ruth refuting your lying shit. AND THAT’S THE TRUTH!”
I see that’s a bit harsh and wish to explain. When I was first reunited with Joan, and was getting to know her – I most certainly DID have sympathy for her for her “adoption trauma.” Of all her birth family, I believe I was the most supportive of her. It was ME who told her to “go for it,” when she first had the idea to write a book. It was ME who accompanied her to WGRZ-TV studio for a taping of human interest story on adoption reunion. This was in 1980 or 1981. – (addendum – April 18, 2011,) – addition, April 27, 2011: Anyone wishing to verify this story, contact reporter Rich Kellman at WGRZ-TV studios, 259 Delaware Ave, Buffalo, NY 14202. I’m not sure if they would still have records of this taping, but I don’t think it would hurt to ask. This verifies that I, one of Joan’s birth sisters, did indeed SUPPORT her in her adoption interests and causes, and did indeed have a relationship with her 30 years ago, despite her LYING and saying that we did not. I, Ruth Sippel Pace, provide documentation of everything that I say on this blog, contrary to Joan Wheeler, who gives NO proof, NO documentation, to prove her LIES.
and why didn’t these 2 instances of me supporting her and her adoption cause make it into her book on adoption? She writes about herself going to all these adoption reform meetings and conferences, her letters to the editorial pages of newspapers, but she doesn’t mention going to WGRZ-TV to be interviewed by reporter Rich Kellman? She was on TV, talking about adoption reunion, and she doesn’t write about it in her book about adoption? – She writes about how even a couple of people in the adoption reform field discouraged her to write her book – yet fails to write how I, her “horrible” birth sister actually encouraged her to write the book AND appeared on TV with her to discuss our reunion. – NO, she can’t write about that, see, because it would put into questiion her continual lying statements that “she had to be silenced” about her adoption interests. The only time we try to “silence” her is when she bores us to death on the subject or when she LIES – which is just about 99% of the time.
Although I did not agree to her tactics regarding my oldest sister’s Gert’s children – in fact I was appalled at Joan’s interference and bullying Gert over the adoption of Gert’s son by her and her new husband. And when she called child abuse on Gert over daughter, I was very angry with Joan.
In 1983, I was a bridesmaid in Joan’s wedding. She had borrowed my mother’s wedding gown 4 years earlier, volunteering to have it restored. She and her seamstress used the gown as a model to make a copy of. But then Joan removed bead trim off the original dress and put it on her own. She promised to replace the trim. She never did. When I got the gown back several months later, she had never restored or cleaned the gown. I waited until she asked me to babysit for her, and when that day came, I brought a pair of scissors with me and removed the bead trim from Joan’s gown – because the trim belonged to me – on my mother’s wedding gown – that my father had given me. – This was the first theft that Joan committed against me.
As the 80’s progressed – so did Joan’s bad behavior. Yet I continued to have a relationship with her. (despite her saying on the Huffington Post that we did not). I had been trying to conceive and had several books on pregnancy and child rearing. Joan even borrowed some of them – and I had a hell of a time getting them back. (so much for her saying in her book that I had merely “claimed” to want to have children). It was Joan who drove me home from the hospital in June 1985 after my miscarriage, and it was ME who drove her and her new daughter home from the hospital in October 1986.
In June 1987, Joan and I were on the phone. I was still grieving the loss of my son, (indeed, to this day, I still grieve), and I told Joan that I did not want to discuss infertility. But did Joan respect my wishes? No., she kept on talking about it. I told her 3 more times I did not want to talk about it. She kept on talking. I finally yelled at her to shut up and hung up on her. What kind of idiot keeps talking about a painful subject when the person asks, then finally demands that they don’t? I did not speak to Joan for a full year. I did not write to her. I did not call her.
But in 1988, I did call, and we reconciled. This was the time that we spent many days at the beach with her children – the summer of 1988, I was on disability for a back injury at work. I was going for physical therapy in the mornings, and enjoyed afternoons at the beach with my sister and her kids. These outings continued through the summers of 1989 and 1990, when my work schedule permitted it.
But Joan continued her bullying of me. And stealing from me. In 1990, we decided to buy an apartment building together. I borrowed money from the bank for a down payment. The money was in a joint checking account to be used for lawyer fees, real estate broker fees, etc. By September 1990, we didn’t find an apartment building that would suit us, and we dissolved the partnership. When the back account was closed, there was a lot of money missing. Joan confessed to me that she had been using the money for her day to day living expenses. I was livid. I borrowed this money from the bank to buy real estate, not to support Joan, who had a husband – who had a job. Our lawyer was to return part of his fee – and he sent us a letter that I would receive half, and Joan would receive half. Joan and I agreed that when she cashed her check, I would get the cash, because the lawyer’s fee was paid for out of the money that I had borrowed and placed in the account.
Then Joan called me on the phone and stated that she was keeping the money. I had finally had it with her bullshit bullying me and told her to keep the fucking money, but she was not my sister, and to stay away from me.
We did have a couple more interactions during the following year, mostly she kept calling and giving me excuses why she couldn’t repay me the money that she STOLE from me. Each time I just kept my distance.
Then by 1993 the out and out fighting began. For more details on the meddling, Joan’s stalking me, her pranks, her trying to get me fired from my job, her writing bullshit letters to elected officials about me – see my post of November 2, 2010, What is demanded from Joan Wheeler – the purpose of this blog.
I remember shopping with my cousin Gail once, around 1991, and I were talking about Joan and the shit she had done to me. I told Gail, “I don’t know who I’m more angry at – Joan for doing this shit, or myself for allowing her to do it.”
Gail said, “You do it because you love her. You are trying to be a sister to her. I had some issues with my sister Ida, but this is different. Ida didn’t steal from me or tell lies. You need to put your foot down.”
And I did. In 1991, I refused to be Joan’s doormat any longer. And that’s when the real shit began and continues to this day. THAT is why throughout her book, the one person in Joan’s birth family that is the most written about in her filthy book is ME. Almost every page is Brenda this, Brenda that. (she calls me Brenda in her book). Because I had turned the cheek so many times to her shit and continued to take her shit – then when I stood up for myself – Joan set out to punish me along with other people in her book.
And I state here and now: I am a human being and do not deserve to be treated the way Joan has treated me. She had a wonderful person (me) who loved her. Who accepted her – as she was. I never judged her. I supported her. I loved her. BUT NO MORE. SHE PUSHED ME AWAY FROM HER – SHE TURNED MY LOVE FOR HER TO HATE. My hate for her has NOTHING to do with Joan’s imaginings that I blame her for our mother’s death, or her stupid lying shit that my grandfather molested me and I am jealous that Joan was adopted out and escaped that abuse. What a crock of shit – my grandfather never molested me or my sisters. But Joan will stop at nothing – she loves to tell lies about me and my sisters.
The reason I hate Joan is because of her own actions to me. Joan needs to take responsiblity for her own choices in life. At the age of 16, she made the conscious decision to search for her birth family. She didn’t have to look for us – we found her. (our bad). But we had no idea that our younger sister was a such a BITCH. We took her to our hearts, and she betrayed and hurt each and every one of us. And one by one, we all turned our backs on her -even our father threw her out of his house several times, the last incident being in 2009, where he called his lawyer and REMOVED Joan from even his pre-planned funeral arrangements and his self-written obituary.
It is all on Joan. She did this. She treated her birth family like shit and we Sippels are not shit.
And that is why I reiterate what I wrote to Joan the other day and I don’t give a DAMN that it is harsh:
I don’t give a DAMN what you went through. I don’t give a DAMN that your adoptive parents lied to you – you don’t get to write a book and tell lies about Ruth Sippel Pace and her kin, without Ruth refuting your lying shit. You don’t get to get on the internet and tel lies about Ruth Sippel Pace and her kin, without Ruth refuting your lying shit. AND THAT’S THE TRUTH!
Here is the gist of my post of November 2, 2010 – a concise listing of the shit that Joan has done to her birth family.
The purpose of this blog is to refute and debunk Ms. Wheeler’s statements that she puts forth in her book and on the internet. We also will discuss Ms. Wheeler’s behavior in real life, because it is detrimental to us and our family.
The Three Sippel Sisters demand the following:
1. Public apology and retraction from Joan Wheeler for the following:
- Falsely accusing Gert of repeatedly sexually molesting Ms. Wheeler.
- Falsely accusing Ruth of having a criminal record and being placed on probation.
- Falsely accusing Ruth of calling child abuse on Ms. Wheeler in December 1994. In the book, she lists it as happening in 1993, on the internet in May and September 2010, she lists it as 1996. – (only a liar can’t keep dates straight – I have scanned and posted an actual letter sent by Joan dated December 1994 to New York State Child Abuse authorities and in it she states the call was made Dec. 1994. Why are there 3 different years listed by Joan in this letter, in her book, and on the internet?
- Falsely asserting that there was a 3 month court battle in the spring of 1994 over this child abuse call. (which according to her letter didn’t occur until months later, and on the internet, years later). There was never a 3 month court battle between Joan and Ruth. and again, why does she keep mixing up the date of the call? Perhaps because she keeps lying about it.
- Falsely accusing Ruth of hacking into computers where Ruth works and tampering with Ms. Wheeler’s medical bill in late 1994.
- For six months of almost daily phone calls placed to Ruth’s place of employment for the purpose of Ruth losing her job. This was AFTER Ruth’s employer’s investigated Joan’s complaint in the fall of 1994, determined that Ruth was innocent, informed Joan of this, yet Joan continued into the spring of 1995 with calling various departments in the hospital and falsely informing them that Ruth did tamper with her bill.
- Falsely asserting that Ms. Wheeler has had “multiple orders of protection” against the 3 Sippel Sisters.
- Falsely asserting that the one and only Order of Protection Ms. Wheeler ever received (against Ruth) was for one year, when in reality it was for 6 months.
- Falsely asserting that the 3 Sippel Sisters repeatedly interfere with Ms. Wheeler’s life and harass her.
- For using our picture on the back cover of her book without our permission. The book is used for monetary gain, therefore, Ms. Wheeler is making money from our likeness.
- For writing letters to Anthony J. Masiello, when he was mayor of the city of Buffalo and other elected officials, giving them personal and private details of Ruth’s life, thereby invading Ruth’s privacy.
- For stealing Kathy’s money and belongings in 1993.
- For stealing Ruth’s money in 1990 and the bead trim off the wedding dress of our mother, which was Ruth’s property.
- An apology and explanation that Ms. Wheeler lied to Professor Rene Hoksbergen, and asked him to interfere with Kathy’s life in 1993, thereby invading Kathy’s privacy.
- For all lies and misrepresentations that are contained in the book and on her website.
2. Joan WILL comply with the following:
- The complete pulling of the book Forbidden Family off the market.
- Full return of Kathy’s money and belongings that was stolen by Ms. Wheeler in 1993.
- Full return of Ruth’s money that was stolen by Ms. Wheeler in 1990
- The cessation of posting any more about her sisters ANYwhere on the internet, except when discussing her adoption and she is to limit her discussion of her sisters to say that she has 3 older birth sisters, one who first made the contact with her, and due to personality conflicts, any reunion between Joan and her 3 birth sisters has been terminated.
3. Ms. Wheeler will cease her public statements that:
- Our father was coerced into relinquishing her for adoption. It has always been his assertion that he was NOT coerced.
- The 3 Sippel Sisters are “trashing” her on the internet via “multiple” adoption reform sites.
4. We Three Sippel Sisters further demand a public apology from Professor Rene Hoksbergen for his interference with Kathy in 1993, and his recent “professional” review of the book Forbidden Family, wherein, he is guilty of spreading a false allegation of sexual abuse by the person of Gertrude McQueen. Professor Hoksbergen did not check any “facts” that Joan Wheeler alleges, and therefore he is guilty also of damaging the reputation of Mrs. McQueen, and the other two Sippel Sisters.
Unless and until ALL these listed items are complied with by Joan Wheeler, (and Professor Hoksbergen), this blog will remain an active blog with every printed lie, misrepresentation, or misdeed of Joan Wheeler’s, either in the book, or on the internet, or real life, WILL be refuted and the truth WILL be documented. Further, any future lies, falsehoods, misrepresentations, and further invasion of the privacy of The Three Sippel Sisters, their families and friends, will result in the continuation of this blog.
ALSO: Ruth hereby demands that Joan Wheeler’s ex-husband Colby Allen Bell repay every penny of the money he stole from her in 1990. – $490.00. He withdrew $500.00 from the joint checking account that Ruth had with them to purchase real estate (with her permission) to purchase a case of fireworks. Colby was supposed to replace that money when the fireworks were sold. He did not. He repaid Ruth only $10.00.
Further, in 1991, 3 ATM withdrawals were made totalling $400.00 from Joan and Colby’s checking account, causing their rent check to bounce. Joan and Colby accused Ruth of doing it. The following year, Colby was caught on a student video, admitting that it was HE who withdrew the money to support his habit of frequenting strip joints.
Ruth demands a formal and public apology from Colby from his theft of her money and a formal and public apology from both Joan and Colby concerning the accusation that she illegally made ATM withdrawals, which could have resulted with a criminal investigation of her by the bank and law enforcement. This could have damaged her reputation irreparably.
Again, until ALL demands here listed are FULLY met, this blog will remain active and the public shall know just what kind of persons Joan Wheeler and her ex-husband are.
Now ask me if I care about any “trauma” Joan is going through. – I don’t.
Additional comment by Gert McQueen, Saturday, April 16, 2010:
Ruth’s newest post called…Why I don’t give a DAMN about Joan Wheeler’s adoption trauma or any other “trauma” she’s going through is very well said! Excellent! Concise! Accurate!
And yes the purpose of this blog is to refute and expose every dirty thing that Joan Wheeler has done to our entire family and we shall NEVER stop exposing the TRAUMA that Joan has done to us!
I would like to add something more to this item:
1. Public apology and retraction from Joan Wheeler for the following:
1. Falsely accusing Gert of repeatedly sexually molesting Ms. Wheeler.
1(a) Falsely accusing Gert and husband of child abuse to her daughter. Those charges were PROVEN to be totally FALSE and were EXPUGED by the State and never were to be EXPOSED by anyone including Joan.
1 (b) Joan and Doctor Hoksbergen’s statements about me sexually abusing Joan are based purely on some kind of adoption pyschobable nonsense…there is no truth to such nonsense…these false accusations (sexual abuse and child abuse) are Joan’s attempts to ‘hit below the belt’ at me for NOT continuing a sexual three-way that Joan wanted to have and continue.
I stand by my decision in 1981…I divorced her from my family…I renounced her then and I maintain that denouncement…Her conception and birth to my parents was an ACCIDENT OF THE FATES. She is NO SISTER and I shall continue to refute her lies to my dying day!
To Joan Wheeler, from Ruth Sippel – drop dead March 8, 2011Posted by Ruth in Announcements and updates, Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family.
Tags: abuse, being downright nasty, bullying, cowardice, cyberbullying, emotional abuse, false accusations of sexual abuse, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, Lies, sleazeball, stupidity
A personal message to Joan Wheeler
Are you proud of yourself? Your latest low-down rotten slur against your blood kin shows not only us, but the entire world what a low life you are.
Blabbing on the internet a suppposed sexual molestation – you have the nerve to first accuse my grandfather of this heinous deed, which is completely FALSE!
And what if is was true? what kind of f’ing sleaze goes on the internet and blabs that?
Guess what readers? There is a person, close to Joan Wheeler, who at the age of 3, was sexually molested. And I KNOW it is true, because at the time, I was close to this young person. I will NOT blab who it was, or who did it. Why not? Because I have more class than Joan Wheeler.
We Three Sippel Sisters do not like Joan, not because we are jealous of her, or any other kind of delusional thought patterns that Joan may think of – We hate her because of her continual acts of hate towards us – we have been using this blog to chronicle her rotten deeds to us, and this act is another example of how Joan treats us. We, as human beings, do not deserve to be treated like this. Who the hell does Joan think she is? Well, she’s getting slapped down now, and slapped down hard. Because she doesn’t act like a normal human being. She acts like a f’ing moron. Only a moron goes on the internet and spreads shit like this.
Joan does not owe us an apology however, she owes an apology to all the adult survivors of child sexual abuse – yes, because when Joan posted what she did, merely as a ploy to hurt us, she made a mockery of this heinous act. And she needs to be deeply ashamed of herself. Because of the person who I alluded to above. I wonder how Joan could look at that person in the eye after making a mockery of what that person went through. And all other child sexual abuse victims – Joan is an asshole! She will burn in hell for this.
Let her run to her adoptee buddies at the Adult Adoptee forum and say some lies about us now. But she can’t weasel her way out of this one.
Joan Wheeler – DROP DEAD!
aha – we have the evidence and now everyone can see what a lying filthy snake Joan Wheeler is. March 7, 2011Posted by Ruth in Black and White Evidence of Joan Wheeler's Lies: Letters, Court Documents, 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, blaming people for your own mess, bullying, cyberbullying, delusional thinking, delusions, dishonesty, elder abuse, embellishing the truth, emotional abuse, emotional blackmail, exploitation of a rape victim, false accusations, false accusations of sexual abuse, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, Lies, mental illness, mental instability, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, spreading untruths, stupidity
aha – we have the evidence and now everyone can see what a lying filthy snake Joan Wheeler is.
by Ruth Sippel Pace
This was just sent to me via email, the entire exchange and what Joan Wheeler said on the Huffington Post. She continues with her lies that she had multiple orders of protection against me, when in reality she only ONE. In her delusional mind, and her diarrhea of the mouth, ONE equals MANY. (was she never taught arithmetic?) Also for your consideration is the outlandish and disgusting lie about my grandfather. Joan has now taken the Angry Adoptee too fucking far and shows the world what a BITCH she really is. And this is going to help adoption reform? No! Rational people in congress and supreme court will NOT look at the rantings and ravings of such an irrational delusional liar as Joan Wheeler. For the love of god Joan, SHUT THE F UP!
Joan M Wheeler
Comments (15) | Friends (46)
Commented Mar 4, 2011 at 16:32:42 in Health
You can search my names on Google, read every comment and post I ever wrote, send follow-up comment postings and email to instigate and aggravate me. You don’t want me in your life so stay out of mine.
You are a destructive force in the goals that I, and other adoption reformers, want to achieve.
I have gone to the police repeatedly to try to stop you. Orders of Protection only work for six months or one year, then, you are back again. New York State does not have Internet Bullying Laws. If New York did have these laws, I would have all three of my sisters arrested and convicted for causing me emotional and financial distress.
My three sisters do prove my point that separating siblings, especially after the death of a parent during childhood, damages the children who bring their mental anguish into adulthood.
My siblings have been inflicting their sick perversions and twisted obsessions upon me and my children and my adoptive mother since 1974. It appears that they will continue this right into old age and death. That is how mentally sick they are.
For adoption reform: http://forbiddenfamily.com”
Commented Mar 4, 2011 at 16:21:24 in Living
Commented Mar 4, 2011 at 16:15:12 in Living
Commented Mar 4, 2011 at 16:14:21 in Living
Fact is that is that my older sisters were molested by our grandfather and they think I escaped by being adopted. So they blame me for being an adoption activist. They were not adopted, I was, and they weasel into my life every chance they get.”
Commented Mar 4, 2011 at 16:09:53 in Living
I filed for yet another Order of Protection in 2005, after yet more unwanted contact. Charges were dismissed because the judge was tired of it all. Since I cannot get the police to help me, nor a court of law to defend me, and I cannot reason with any of my three full blood sisters. I want to be left alone.”
Ruth Herr Sippel Pace on Mar 4, 2011 at 17:57:15
If any one is interested in the TRUTH, these posts on my blog, contain scanned actual court documents that PROVE that what JW says here, March 4, 2011 is LIES and again is SLANDERING me and my sisters.
I, Ruth Sippel Pace maintain my right to answer JW’s smearing of MY reputation.
If Joan wants to silence me on the internet the solution is obvious: JW needs to stop spreading false accusations about me and my sisters.”
Commented Mar 4, 2011 at 16:04:13 in Living
There are no cyberbullying laws in New York State so I cannot call law enforcement for protection. I have been the victim of harassment and bullying from my three sisters for many decades. They have taken disagreements to the extreme.
I have no contact whatsoever with the three sisters who found me. They are mean and unstable people. I want only positive and loving people in my life. My sisters have caused a great deal of torment in my life, but they are not the focus of my reunion nor my life. I, alone, am the adoptee. My book is about my life and how adoption effected me and my immediate adoptive family, my now ex-husband, and our children.”
Commented Mar 4, 2011 at 14:39:07 in Health
About my adoption: Our mother died when I was three months old. Our father placed me with my adopting parents one month later and I was legally adopted at age 1 year and 1 week. There facts are documented in my adoption papers which I petitioned for legally.”
Commented Mar 4, 2011 at 11:29:45 in Health
Exactly. So why don’t we start legislation across the USA to stop this practice? Someone has to put a stop to it. Access legislation makes no sense when the cycle is not broken. Stop producing false birth certificates, start producing truthful adoption certificates, and we will eventually see that there is no need for sealed records. So, where’s the new legislation to end the cycle? Get on it!!!”
Commented Mar 3, 2011 at 12:59:47 in Health
Keeping secrets as deep as the true identity of your adoptee is surely indicative of a controling and insecure adoptive parent. You don’t need to be so possessive and afraid if you parented your adoptee with love. But I see that you are angry and paranoid. You did adopt someone else’s child and for that, you have evvery obligation to tell the truth: morally, ethically, religiously, and legally. To base any relationship on lies is a set-up for disaster and pain. I feel sorry for you and your husband and your adoptee. You truley are ignorant of life-cycle adoption psychology. Shame on you. As an adoptive parent you owe it to yourself to read Nancy Verrier’s books on what the adoptee experiences. This isn’t about you, this is about the adoptee!”
Commented Mar 3, 2011 at 12:51:18 in Health
My amended birth certificate states all the birth facts: date and time of birth, and hospital, but I am re-named as if I were born with that name, and my adoptive mother is named as having given me birth. That is an outright lie! The one birth fact left off of my falsified birth certificate is that there were 4 other children born to the real mother. But I am forced to present this document as proof of my birth. I resent it.
In addition to giving back a civil right to own our original birth certificates, I would like to see the elimination of the amended birth certificate as an automatic dictate upon adoption. Instead, replace the amended and falsified birth certificate with an adoption certificate which states the facts of adoption. Leave the birth certificate alone and open to the adoptee. The adoption certificate should be open, too. This is the way it is done in more progressive countries such as The Netherlands and Australia.”
Commented Mar 3, 2011 at 12:50:23 in Health
I am not grateful to be adopted. Why would I? My adoptive parents knowingly and willingly prevented me from knowing my own full blood siblings during my childhood and that is child abuse. Yes, my natural father relinquished me to adoption when I was 4 months old just after the death of my mother. He kept the other 4 children. That alone is hurtful, but my adoptive parents knew my father and open visitation could have been arranged. But my so-called loving adoptive parents kept me all to themselves, alone, in their sheltered cocoon of adoption-love. I should have been told the truth.
Now about the birth certificate issue: I was born the 5th child to married parents. My original birth certificate states that there were 4 other children born to this mother. I was given a name and my long form birth certificate states the date and time of birth in the hospital. My natural father gave this document to my adopting parents when he relinquished me.
(end of part 1)”
Ruth Herr Sippel Pace on Mar 4, 2011 at 14:20:35
Second, JW states “I should have been told the truth.” JW should begin by telling the truth in all posts on the internet. She was not 4 months old when she was adopted, but 3 months.”
Miss Morgan B Aird on Mar 3, 2011 at 17:35:48
You were blessed to be adopted, regardless of how you feel now. I do not know anything about my biological parents and it isn’t until now (26 years later) my adoptive mom wants to seriously talk,other than when I was a child. I have a biological brother that is only 16 months older than me (which she kept), but I love both my parents just the same, because I am here and I am wonderful!”
Commented Feb 22, 2011 at 11:31:59 in New York
A wallet stolen 40 years ago and returned to the rightful owner certainly has sentimental value. The person who found the wallet felt “fantastic satisfaction” by giving back the wallet after all these years.
But what of adoptees who have had their identities at birth stolen from them? Shouldn’t they be the beneficiaries of a society who now realizes the tremendous sentimental value of obtaining one’s own birth certificate? Currently, New York and New Jersey are preventing millions of adoptees from accessing their sealed original birth certificates by refusing to pass legislation that would reunite adoptees with their original birth certificates.
Give adoptees back their civil rights to the truth of their births. Change the law. Let’s make human interest stories out of the positive outcomes that would result from reuniting an adoptee with the true certificate that documents the day they were born.
Joan Wheeler born Doris Sippel”
Commented Feb 11, 2011 at 10:44:53 in Living
Gert McQueen on Feb 14, 2011 at 09:24:12
The recent ‘pain’ is because of the lying book that Joan wrote about all family members and non-members in her quest for laying the blame of her miserable life on the doorstep of adoption.
I divorced myself from this woman back in 1982 because of what she did to my family, because I ‘adopted’ my own son and she didn’t like that and my telling her to leave me and my family alone. Ten years later, I attempted a reconcilation, in person, she again betrayed me, attacking my mental health and religion and then another attempt by me by phone in 2005 again was met with more betrayal, she thought I was looking for information to ‘get her’.
I am in no pain…Joan is…because she can not stop the truth, that we sisters are saying, on our blog. If the truth hurts, it is not my family that is hurting, only Joan because she refuses to accept the truth of the life that she was given.”
Ruth Herr Sippel Pace on Feb 12, 2011 at 16:34:56
My sister and I have a blog refuting Ms. Wheeler’s book at http://ruthsippelpace.wordpress.com/ where we tell WHY our reunion went sour.”
Gert McQueen on Feb 12, 2011 at 10:13:36
The truth about Joan’s book is that is is an extremely long painful account of the author’s own perceptions of her reality where in she fabricates, exaggerates and boldly lies about people and events. She describes her own character flaws presenting them as reasons for why she believes she has been traumatized by adoption and in that process doesn’t realize the harm she has done to herself and others. She portrays both the birth and adoptive families is very negative ways and claims to be harassed by us birth sisters. She does not tell of her own negative actions towards the birth sisters or many other people. The author is violently opposed to adoption and adoptive parents and is not truly interested in helping people,
My sisters and I are not hiding anything we say or do about refuting her book or other actions she has said or done to us; we put everything we do on our blog for it is a truth-telling blog. It is the birth sisters’ position that the fact of a publication of a book of lies and misrepresentation is an grave dishonor to our parents, ourselves and other members of our family and the adoptive family.”
Commented Oct 6, 2010 at 13:03:52 in Living
The primal wound is very much a part of my life, longing for closeness that was taken from me so soon after birth because I almost died and had to be kept in medical isolation to bring up my weight and physical development. Soon after I was released from the hosptial, my mother died, which led to my relinquishment and adoption.
Thank you for your article.
However, I would hardly call adoption “wonderful”: “Adoption is a wonderful way to start and have a family.” Be careful. Adoption as practiced in America is filled with destruction. If adoptive parents would truely be open and honest with their adoptee (mine were not) and adoptees’ the birth certificate are not sealed and falsified, and if connections with the family of origin are not severed…then adoption would become guardianship. Ever here of family preservation?
I am for total and complete adoption prevention.
Joan M Wheeler born Doris M Sippel
Open letter to Professor Rene Hoksbergen and rebuttal of his “professional” review of Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler October 14, 2010Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Lies in the book Forbidden Family, Statements from The Three Sippel Sisters.
Tags: abuse, adoption, adoption reform, adoption reunion, blaming people for your own mess, bullying, dishonesty, Dr. Rene Hoksbergen, emotional abuse, false accusations, false accusations of sexual abuse, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, Joe Soll, Lies, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, spreading untruths, stupidity, unprofessionalism
Joan M Wheeler has published a new ‘revision’ of the same old hate manifesto and renamed it ‘Duped by Adoption’. I have created a new blog and Facebook page…
Here are the links to my NEW blog and Facebook page
On Amazon, I have reviewed 7 reviews of this ‘new’ garbage book and created a ‘discussion’ on the Forward, by Rene Hoksbergen.
Here’s the link to the DISCUSSION about the FORWARD on Amazon
Here’s the link to a recent blog post Nov 3, 2015 about the contents of the forward
Here are the related links to blog posts that Ruth and I have already written and addressed topics related to Rene Hoksbergen, the author of the Forward.
https://ruthsippelpace.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/gert-mcqueens-review-of-rene-hoksbergens-review-of-forbidden-family-by-joan-wheeler/ this one is about the review in LAVAContact2 2010 English translation
continuing on with this POST…
The following was emailed to Professor Rene Hoksbergen on 14 October 2010. Dr. Hoksbergen is professor of adoption studies at Utrecht University in Utrecht, Holland and wrote the foreward to the book Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler. In 1993, at Joan Wheeler’s behest, Dr. Hoksbergen involved himself in our family in an unprofessional manner, by writing a letter to Kathy Inglis in England. Joan lied to Dr. Hoksbergen and manipulated him into writing to Kathy. Apparently Dr. Hoksbergen, despite a formal complaint having been made to Utrecht University in 1993 over his invasion of Kathy’s privacy, continues his unprofessional behavior. We Three Sippel Sisters protest this man, a stranger to us, and his continual prying into our personal lives.
Doctor R. Hoksbergen
I am Gert McQueen, birth sister of Joan Wheeler, author of the book Forbidden Family, of which you wrote the Foreword in August 2006 and a Review in 2010, month not indicated.
I have had the book since February 2010 and have been reading and writing about this book of lies since then. The first time I saw, in English translation, your review of this book was the first week of October 2010 and Doctor I must say that I am appalled!
Myself and two other birth sisters have a web blog wherein we are refuting this book of lies. The blog is called refuting a book of lies and may be reached at https://ruthsippelpace.wordpress.com I urge you to really read our blog very carefully to understand how we, the birth family, have been used and abused by Joan, not the other way around.
One reason, for writing to you, is to call your professionalism into question. Doctor, you have never met me, never spoke with me, never wrote to me, never checked facts about me or my family, and yet, you have the audacity to assume and then assert that what Joan Wheeler told you was truth! Doctor you are wrong! Joan is wrong!
Another reason for my writing is to address the various character assassinations, to which you give credence to, via the lies of Joan’s, in particular that of sexual abuse by of one Joan’s sisters, me, to her. The truth, Doctor, was that it never happened! Joan made up the story to cover up the fact that she herself initiated a three-way sexual encounter with my husband and myself! That story, of course, is NOT in the book because she lies and blames everyone else for her own misdeeds!
There is no way to explain to you in a short letter the amount of lies, fabrications and harm that Joan has done, in real life and in this book, to others as she covers up her own dirty deeds. The very reason that she ‘insists’ that I sexually abused her and her assertion that I abused my daughter was to ‘get back’ at my husband and me because we didn’t want to continue the sexual experiment that Joan wanted.
We had been forced to take many steps to remove Joan from interfering with my minor children! Beginning when Joan interfered with my and my husband’s ADOPTION of my own birth child! Joan was very militant and angry that we were ADOPTING, accusing me of being unfit! When she was told we didn’t want her opinions she then interfered with our parental authority, going behind my back to instill in my minor children that they did not need to obey the family’s core values that we set for our family. Joan went so far as to lie to police and family about the whereabouts of my minor child during a runaway episode. She then charged me with child abuse and filed for custody of my children. I was forced to put my child into foster care, for her own safety and to keep her away from Joan, while we fought the charges that Joan filed against us. My husband and I were proved innocent of all charges that were asserted by Joan. I have court documents to prove that statement. I moved my family far away from Joan. All this was in 1981/82! But you Doctor did not check the facts but instead gave credibility to Joan’s lies…stating so in your review!
Joan manipulated you into writing to my sister Kathy, who lives in England, in the 1990s. That episode of Joan’s was over money that was already paid to Joan for services she never did for Kathy. Joan blames everything and everyone for her own inabilities and in this case Joan was also guilty of stealing! But, you Doctor, on behalf of Joan, wrote a very intimidating and condescending letter to my sister, who was blameless and the victim of Joan’s and then was victimized again by you! You did not check the facts! (Ruth’s note: please see the post Joan Wheeler LIES about Dr. Rene Hoksbergen in her book Forbidden Family to see actual scanned and posted documents: Dr. Hoksbergen’s letter to Kathy, where he says it would cost around $500.00 for Joan to ship things to her in the UK; a letter from Joan acknowledging that she had already recieved monies to do the shipping; AND the actual invoices from my father totaling around $150.00 that my father paid out of HIS pocket to ship the items, this AFTER Joan received the money from Kathy, then never repaid. This was clearly an extortion attempt by Joan Wheeler, and she used her “dear” friend to try to extort money from Kathy).
In Joan’s book, she has a total fabrication of lies about your meeting my sister Ruth, her husband and other members of my family in the 1990s. You, Doctor, were never in Ruth’s home, never met her husband and never had the conversations that Joan’s asserts that you did have! Did you really meet my father as Joan states? Did you check your facts before you wrote the review of this book? You really ought to read chapter 25, very enlightening! Joan portrays you as being ‘a very dear friend’, how dear Doctor?
Joan also lies and fabricates in the book about Joe Soll, whom I have already contacted about those lies. Mr. Soll says that what is in the book, about him, is ‘patently false’. (Ruth’s note: see the post: HIGH ALERT EVIDENCE of Joan Wheeler’s lies FROM A PERSON IN AN ADOPTION REFORM ORGANIZATION to see the email exchange between Gert McQueen and Mr. Soll). My sisters and I have already written about these episodes of lies and fabrications on our web blog; we encourage you to read them. To narrow down the search for you, in the following dates you are mentioned on our blog, Jan 7, March 27, June 28 and Sept 23. We are of course not completed with our review, refuting and rebuttals of this book of lies!
When did you, Doctor, last read the manuscript? Did you read it before or after the 2006 date of the foreword? Joan had updated and revised much in the manuscript since then, even noting so on page 410 dated March 2008. And on page 416 she states she was 53. She was 53 in 2009 the year the book was published! For you to assume the correction of facts in the book, without interviewing family members, is a gross misuse of your position in the world of Adoption Reform!
Our father saw a revision about 2008 and said that it was a ‘piece of garbage and she will never finish it’. Joan is still revising it, on her web site! Shortly after seeing the 2008 revision, my father was forced, again, to remove Joan from his presence because of her intense manipulation and confrontations towards him.
What Joan has done, and with your approval Doctor, is to have taken a very tragic family situation, the death of a mother and the adoption out of an infant and has used it to exploit that tragedy for the pursuit of fame, fortune and personal gratification with total disregard for the reputations of members of birth and adoptive families. For this Joan ought to be utterly ashamed. For your part in this Doctor you ought to ashamed. Do you have any idea of the pain that your lack of professionalism, by not checking out the facts, has done to members of the two families of Joan? You have no right to insinuate yourself into any position of knowing what happened to my family! We did not give you permission!
Since 1982, I have had two contacts, one physical in 1992 and one phone call in 2005 or 06, with Joan, both times were attempts, on my part to reconcile with her, but at both times, after she smiled to my face, as soon as my back was turned, she betrayed me. For her to have truly welcomed my love as a sister, who wanted to reconcile with her, would have meant that Joan could not publish her ‘life’s work’, the book and that is unthinkable to Joan. So instead of reconciling she continued to betray myself and others, by publishing a book of lies and garbage! It is only since the publication of this book of lies that I have spoken out. I shall continue to do so until Joan pulls the book from all sales. That book and Joan’s activities are a disgrace to the honor of two families.
I, and my sisters, ask that you print a retraction of your foreword and review of this book. We also ask that you stop promoting this book as factual, for it is a product of a Joan’s diseased mind.
This letter, along with a copy of my paragraph-by-paragraph review of your review, will be posted on our blog and is being sent to a select list of adoption reform agencies or persons. In the past Joan has accused me of sending letters to many adoption agencies. I never did that, but now I MUST to demand that my and my family’s, good name be restored to us.
Thank you, Gert McQueen
~~~~~~~Gert McQueen’s comments on this review are in bold itatic.
Review of Joan Wheeler’s book Forbidden Family by Rene Hoksbergen in LAVAContact2 2010 English translation.
This autobiographical study of Joan Wheeler read with the necessary tension on the way things will go. Despite the extensive and detailed description of the many events and feelings over a period of almost fifty years.
This book is a detailed description of a tormented individual that has a great need to have the world fit her delusions. No one lives in a vacuum and by the very nature of writing about one’s own inner demons it becomes very subjective in nature and all peoples in it must fit that subjective mindset. The ‘necessary tension’ is the result of the author’s inabilities to accept life as life was given to her. The ‘extensive and detailed description’ is just over-kill and only points to a mentally unbalanced individual. Perhaps if the author actually lived a life instead of always writing ‘the book’ she and it would not be so full of torment!
It consists of two parts. The autobiography of Joan and then part two with lots of information about the American adoption history and its current situation. In this second part she makes her findings and suggestions for improvements.
Part 1, is full of sensationalized drama, with intent to sell the story, the book! The author uses, extensively, the techniques of exaggeration and hyperbole along with fabrications and outright lies. 38 chapters consisting of 569 pages are devoted to the study of the autobiography of Joan’s tormented views!
Part 2, which ought to be the more useful part of any written material intended for adoption reform, consists of only 6 chapters with a total of 62 pages! And there are no ‘suggestions’ from the author. She is a militant angry adoptee that is very hostile to anyone who adopts!
And how much does a person have to spend for this study of one person’s tormented life? Around $50.00! A person, spending a few hours on the Internet, could come up with the same source materials in this book and save themselves the money.
Joan was born in Buffalo . Her mother died shortly after her birth and her father decided to give her away to a distant relative without children. He has already four children, three daughters and one son, this fifth child can’t be taken care by him. In 1956, when this takes place, adoption in the US (and also in our country) is a taboo subject. Birth certificates are falsified, the child is sometimes very late or not informed about the adoption and many know the facts and family relationships, some don’t, as the case of Joan.
My father didn’t know about the adoptive parents being any sort of ‘distant relative’; he was in the middle of a tragedy! My father’s decisions do not have to be explained or justified. The adoptive parents also do not have to justify or explain their reasons for adopting. Throughout this book the author details, over and over again, how she had browbeaten, intimidated, condemned, and used all sorts of methods to get all parents to ‘apology’ to her for her being adopted! My god!
When she becomes 18 years old, she’s suddenly called by her eldest sister. Her three sisters were from when Joan suddenly disappeared from the family informed of the status of adoption and also of her destination. They had always wanted to know how she was doing and now she’s eighteen and formal adult, they can contact her. From this call Joan’s life has been put upside down. She describes her reactions, of the adoptive parents and how her birth family, her father and siblings deal with it.
Life, being as it is as it unfolds, is full of surprises; who would have guessed that the author would choose to condemn both families for wanting her and then go out of her way to make everyone’s life miserable with her dirty double dealings and lies! It makes me ill to read, the almost 600 pages, of pure mental garbage that the author describes herself and everyone related to her.
Against the background of all the facts around the reunion and the further development of contacts she tells clearly and gripping the progress of other aspects in her life, her school life, marriage, becomes mother of two children, the death of her adoptive father, dealing with friends, the care of her adoptive mother and only child, and many others. It is a moving description of the history of an American woman and her two families.
Gripping is not a word I’d use to describe how the author tells about aspects of her life. Soap opera dramatics is how the author details her life; every little thing is overblown so that when real troubles occur they are exaggerated to show how horrible a life she has, because she is adopted! “A moving description”, only if you are addicted to soap opera drama!
But gradually it becomes clear that the reunion in her life especially got a negative impact. There is sexual abuse of her by one of her sisters, intense feelings of jealously, aggression and ignorance towards Joan. The father tires desperately, sometimes successfully but often not, to compromise between his children. Joan herself also got a fierce nature. At the same time her adoptive mother initially responds very negative to her writings about adoption in various newspapers and increasingly in book form. Mother has a strong possessiveness towards her adopted child, Joan.
Negative impact, cause by the author herself! As I’ve stated in my letter to Doctor Hoksbergen, there was no sexual abuse from me to the author. That is purely a cover-up story to take away from a real incident that the author wanted and then retaliated, when things didn’t go her way, with a cover-up story. She makes her mistake, of letting out the truth, via her own lying; liars never remember the original lie. Page 220 contains a very important element to this lie of sexual abuse and points to the ‘cover up story’! But, you will have to read my own extensive comments on this once its posted on our web blog under the title ‘facts are stubborn things’. I suggest everyone check out and read our blog frequently to know the truth of all that the author details, for indeed, it will take a few more months for all our refuting of this book!
The ‘intense feelings of jealously, aggression and ignorance’ is not towards Joan but is what Joan feels herself and projects onto everyone else. If someone does not fit into her ‘inner world reality’ they are ‘out to get her’ and she has no limits to what she will do to get you! “Fierce nature” and “strong possessiveness” don’t begin to describe the sick relationship between adopted mother and adoptee.
Precisely because of its negative experiences Joan has decided twenty years ago, to write down her life story. She is also an adoption activist. She vehemently rails against the practice adopted in the US. She fights against the fraudulent nature, against hypocrisy, market characteristics, the closed nature of many adoptions that still continues, even against anonymous sperm and egg donors. Many times you see her at conferences, and so I made her acquaintance, her story. In the adoption world in the USA she’s well known.
When was this review actually written? The Doctor wrote the foreword in 2006 and according to the author she began writing her book in 1970’s. So by 2006 it was already close to 40 years not 20. So why have an outdated ‘review’ published now, in 2010? Precisely because it is now about one year since the book was published. This ‘review’ is a staged occurrence, it happens in the publishing world to boost sales!
She is no activist but yes she ‘vehemently rails against adoption’ to the point of not only obsession but condemnation of anyone adopting any child for any reason. Sounds more like she ought get a job with the Inquisition! She is well known in the adoption world? Pity those people!
The book is a very informative story about how an adopted deals with secrecy, how decisions are made for her, the struggle with feelings of loyalty, the reunion and contacts with biological family of both mothers and father’s side. She describes her emotional reactions openly and honestly.
This sounds as if the author wrote it for the reviewer!
It is an exciting and very well written story about the weak position of an adopted child. English is relatively simple and remain legible.
It is not written well and moves around, in space and time, as to be almost intentional misleading the reader. It is pathetic in its subjective portrayal of a weak mentally ill person. I don’t buy into the idea that because a person is adopted they are weak! They are weak because they choose to be so!
For adoptees and adoptive parents, I would recommend this book highly.
I, having actually read the thing, would recommend you use this book in the bathroom, if you were not worry about contamination from the printed words. You would be better off reading the birth sisters web blog to get a better well-rounded view of this author.
I fully endorse Gert’s statements here. Kathy Inglis.
I also fully endorse Gert’s statements. – Ruth Sippel Pace
Joan Wheeler’s book Forbidden Family – Personal psychodrama, lies and other things that don’t belong in a book. October 14, 2010Posted by Ruth in Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Lies in the book Forbidden Family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: abuse, adoption, adoption reform, adoption reunion, being downright nasty, bigotry, contradictions, cowardice, cyberbullying, dishonesty, domestic violence, embellishing the truth, emotional abuse, false accusations, false accusations of sexual abuse, Lies, mental instability, spreading untruths, stupidity, violent behavior, whining
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.
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