jump to navigation

Joan Wheeler mocks infertility, and her own sister’s miscarriage September 12, 2012

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

I placed a comment on my sister Gert’s latest blogpost “Is infertility, by nature or by force, any reason to adopt? or is it a reason for mockery, by Joan Wheeler?”

But I also want to place it here, in it’s own post. Gert brings up the subject of how angry adoptees want everyone to feel sorry for their pain, yet those same angry adoptees don’t give a damn about anyone else’s pain. They actually MOCK people’s pain. And Joan jumps right on board the mockery train. here is my comment:

Joan routinely slams people’s religions – slams people’s choices in life. In her book, she slams poor people (yet laments she’s poor – oh that makes sense), slams people living on Buffalo’s East Side (even though she lived there too). All she ever does is MOCK people for this, for that, for ANYTHING! Then she wonders why NObody ever takes her seriously and runs the hell the away from her.

I myself am an infertile woman, and was on the receiving end of condesending remarks by Joan – LESS THAN A YEAR AFTER I MISCARRIED MY SON.   We were on the phone in May 1987 (I know the month and year – I was packing, moving into the house I live in now). She had just gotten back from one her adoption conferences and started talking about infertility. I told her that I did not want to talk about. I was still greiving my son, who I lost after years of trying to get pregnant. She ignored my request and kept right on talking. I told her again. She ignored me again. I told a third time, a fourth time. She kept right on running her mouth and then made the statement: “I know more about infertility than you think I do.” I slammed the phone down and burst into tears.

What does she know about infertility? Book statistics? Listening to other people? Yeah, Joan knows ABOUT infertitly, but does not know the PAIN of infertility.

Come on Joan, tell the world how your rotten birth sisters never took the time to “understand” you, but don’t tell the world how you stab them in the back and more cruelly, stab them in the heart.

This rotten statement to me was made in 1987, and then in her book published in 2009, Joan continues to mock my infertility and miscarriage. She writes “at one point she (me) CLAIMED  to want to have children,” – even though in 1983, while she was pregnant with her first child, Joan borrowed my books on pregnancy, breastfeeding, baby care. Why would I have those books if I merely CLAIMED to want children. But elsewhere in the book, she says that I was going to a fertility clinic. I never went to a fertility clinic (does she never do any RESEARCH?) – But that’s not the point – the point is – she contradicts herself. If I merely had CLAIMED to want to get pregnant, then why would I be at a fertility clinic?

Then she mocks me further in her book, because I made a rhetorical question “I don’t know how you find time to raise your kids and do all your writing?” Joan mocks me because I do a lot reading, and watch horror movies. Then she writes, “It’s just as well she didn’t get pregnant.”

Way to go Joan. Slam me, slam my dead son. Slam my infertility. Slam my life choices in recreation. Then slam me some more because I never took the time to “understand you.” Oh – go to hell Joan.


Halloween and other horrors. Joan Wheeler is a horror all year round! May 3, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Gert McQueen:

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

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

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

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

Here is Gert’s complaint:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact: I, Gert, never did that!

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

Fact: I, Gert, did not!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact: I (Gert) never did.

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

In her book of lies, called Forbidden Family, Joan Wheeler’s statements about my father, are false! February 14, 2011

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

by Gert McQueen, February 14, 2011

Having just recently died on January 11, 2011 my father’s life needs to be reclaimed and remembered for what it was, an honorable life. Joan Wheeler’s versions of my father’s life, that she needed to create, to substantiate her inner reality and make it into her ‘truth’ which she published, is not a truthful portrayal of my father.

Joan’s truth is NOT the truth.

Joan Wheeler has gone to great lengths to present a ‘life’ history of my father, her birth father, and this life history is not based on any facts of his life but presented solely for the ‘convenience’ of Joan’s ‘story-telling’. Joan’s story has an agenda to it, and as such, her presentations of key individuals are geared for that agenda. Joan’s book is long, way too long and because of its length, as well as being disjointed and perverse, can greatly confuse the average reader.

It is not an easy task to show where the agenda is, how it is perverse and how the lies are incorporated because the author, Joan Wheeler, is a manipulator. She is counting on the average reader to be so overwhelmed with her bullshit that they won’t see the inconsistencies and the lack of proper protocol in her so called professional social work assessments. She is able to blind a reader with her bullshit, but anyone who really knows her and the people she presents are quite capable of seeing past the bullshit. So I hope that I am able to point these inconsistencies out without confusing the reader anymore than necessary. I hope that the reader of my assessment of Joan Wheeler’s work understands that I have indeed read, deeply, this entire book of lies. I could write a book on this disgusting book of lies called Forbidden Family.

In my study of the lies of Joan’s statements, as they relate to the falsehoods about my father, I have pointed out in several other posts, that may or may not have gotten on the blog yet, many inaccuracies but here I am going to address only certain issues within Chapter 38, pgs 482-566. We must remember that Joan Wheeler says she is a social worker and that this chapter, called ‘A Social Work Assessment’, is her attempt to show that she can put together a ‘social work assessment’, sort of like doing a research paper. In my mind she failed! It is a piece of junk!

According to Joan, the ‘psycho-social-economic histories of main people in my adoption’, that is Joan’s adoption, are very very important to Joan’s agenda! That is the whole purpose for Joan’s lies…for if she can present her bullshit and pass it off as the truth, than she has her research paper and her agenda. But, as her bullshit is exposed, for the lies that they are, Joan’s story is worthless! And she is worthless!

Joan’s assessment is limited and self-serving because it is only presented as proof for her agenda. Joan offers for the ‘psycho-social-economic histories of main people in my adoption’, her self, natural mother, natural father, stepmother (who btw has absolutely NOTHING to do with Joan’s adoption and is technically NOT Joan’s stepmother but is only Joan’s natural father’s currently wife/widow), adoptive father and adoptive mother. I repeat: Joan’s own title here contains these words ‘main people in my adoption’. My father’s current wife/widow had absolutely NOTHING to do with Joan’s adoption. And by omission, Joan does NOT have any histories of her siblings, who were most definitely and most importantly part of the family dynamics related to her separation and adoption out of our family.

One of the main reasons (the agenda) that Joan includes MY stepmother is because it is part of Joan’s agenda…that my father had more economic advantages than her adoptive parent (mother), later in life, which has nothing to do with the premise of this assessment in the first place, that being that of the ‘main people in my adoption’. You cannot shift the basis of an assessment at whim! The assessment is either about the adoption or the economic situations in later years not both simultaneously.

Joan’s assessment, also as part of her agenda, attempts to reconcile, in her mind, the differences, that prevented an ‘open adoption’ and at the same time the similarities that could have made possible that ‘open adoption’. The problem is that Joan has not presented the assessments in any coherent manner and does not take into account the facts that two separate family backgrounds were NOT similar in the first place and in the second place any attempt to make them similar makes the ‘assessment’ null and voided! Another problem with this assessment is that it is full of extensive use of Joan’s own editorial comments. A social work assessment, by nature is to be unbiased; it is to present facts free of and from any personal editorial comment. Therefore this whole assessment is null and voided! She failed! This work is junk!

But to make sure of its importance, Joan instructs the reader, on pg 482, that ‘this assessment is complicated to read, but necessary to understand.’ Why is that statement necessary, because, Joan is TELLING the readers, don’t worry, just read it and take my word for it all, it is most important…in other words…just listen to my bullshit and don’t worry that I’m just a talking head without a brain! This whole business of her assessment CAN NOT be understood because it is totally biased for one purpose only…to prove that Joan is CORRECT, when in fact she is totally INCORRENT. This assessment is not the work of a social worker presenting facts. Instead it is a self-serving indictment AGAINST all who ALLOWED her to be adopted.


Joan’s has greatly dishonored my father by not telling the truth of his life. She not only lies about his life but also is very ‘selective’ in what aspects of his life are important to her agenda.

Examples of how Joan’s truth is not the truth, and how she has an agenda to promote, is in her constant telling the reader, in the book and elsewhere, that her adoptive mother and her natural father are ‘dying’ or ‘had a turn for the worst’ or had this or that illness and hospitalization. Actually, the truth is that Joan has a great deal of illnesses herself, and has a great fear of death. She has a great sense for the melodrama; her constant refrain is that some parent is on their deathbed. On pg 478, in one of her rants against the government she says that ‘the government better hurry up, my father is dying.’ The book was not published until November of 2009 so at the time that she writes this statement ‘father is dying’, he wasn’t in any immediate state of dying. He was dying then, as we all are, one day at a time. But Joan’s need for the melodrama makes it sound as if death was imminent. And it continues on…pg 553 with a date of 2008 in the text, Joan tells us, that she told a nurse, who was wheeling her adoptive mother back into her room, that ‘my father was dying, too’!

And Joan’s gives us the very reasons why she speaks with such melodrama, because it results in her gaining some kind of sympathy, ‘the nurse compassionately called out, both parents at once!’ Joan has to tell the readers that she didn’t fully explain the situation to the nurse, that those ‘both parents’ were not married to each other nor that she ‘had a third parent who was aging, too’…namely the wife of the natural father. This is how Joan manipulates people…via clever use of words and phrases.

Again, on pg 556, with a date of April 2009, she states, ‘both of my parents were dying’ and again on pg 560, ‘both of my remaining parents are near death’ and even greater melodramatics ‘my natural father will die believing I rejected him’. And as usual, Joan does not give the whole story and omits her own misdeeds and wrongful words. No, long before Dad actually died, January 2011, he knew that Joan was a mentally disturbed person who wrote a book of lies and he finally had reached his limit with her and he rejected her.


Through out the ages, individual persons make memorable lives for themselves, their families and for future generations to remember. The only thing that remains after death is your refrain (reputation). My father, like so many of his generation, was a ‘self-made’ man. This quality is certainly not limited to my father or his generation, but I am speaking here of my father.

My father’s obituary, which he wrote himself, ought to have ‘some’ elements of truth in it, after all who would know about a person’s life but the person himself! So we shall start with some basics. Some of the italics are directly from the obituary.

My father was an Army veteran of World War II. In the army he was a technician fourth grade within a Fighter Squadron, stateside from 1943 to 1946.

I worked as a civilian employee at a Veterans Administration Hospital and at an US Army base for over 22 years and know just a little about what troops go through during and after service. My father’s military service is no small thing; it means that he had ‘training’ and was ‘supporting’ the troops before, during and after their training and fighting, during a major world war!

But Joan Wheeler NEVER mentions my father’s military history, in this assessment or anywhere else in the book!

My father earned a GED and studied drafting for a year in technical school.

I am not aware of what conditions existed in my father’s life that prevented him from finishing high school or when he received a GED but ‘earned a GED’ implies that ‘work’ was done and indeed had to be done to get a General Education Degree. My father married in 1946 and started a family in 1947 and he worked to support the growing family. In 1952/53, alone, my father was raising a family, working full time in a bike repair store and going to technical school part time to learn drafting…that is no easy task.

But Joan NEVER mentions any of this in the book!

My father worked as a junior engineer for Buffalo’s Department of Public Works from 1953 to 1988, that’s 35 years! And of course, he had a good retirement. He earned it!

My father was a civil servant; he worked within a major city department. His job depended on the knowledge and skills that he had to perform a certain job. There were years where my father worked two jobs to support his family! In the course of my working life I too was a civil servant within the federal government and know a little of how demanding it is to obtain and keep a job for that long. I too have a good retirement. I earned it too! Many people earn good retirements and my father deserved his pension.

But Joan Wheeler NEVER mentions this! Joan only tells about her own lack of employment and her own low-income status. She too could have had a long-term employment with a good retirement, if only she ever went to work in the first place!

My father had many interests including painting, playing chess and reading.

My father taught my brother and I the game of chess. Who taught my father? He taught himself as he taught himself how to paint! Whenever I visited him we played. I played 5 games of chess with my Dad in 2009 and again in 2010 and he never allowed me to win; I had to win a game by skill! I know something about painting as I paint myself and it is not an easy thing to accomplish, it takes patience to read and study techniques and time to master the techniques. One of my father’s paintings, a replica of a Greek icon of Jesus, is in residence at the Greek Orthodox Church in Buffalo N. Y.

Reading, I have many memories, since I was little, of seeing my father reading, late at night. He had a large library and we shared the thrills of reading many of the same authors! Some of the last gifts I received from him were two of his great books on painting and a complete set of Sherlock Holmes, leather bound! In the last two years of his life I shipped many books to him that he did not have and he enjoyed reading them all!

All of my siblings, not Joan for she was not raised as a sibling and was not privy to what was part of everyday life with my father, are avid readers. It is well known that when one reads and reads and reads, one becomes quite well rounded in all areas of life, for reading begets worldliness!

But, it matters not what interests my father had per se. Joan Wheeler NEVER mentions anything about them!

My father also did some world traveling in his retirement; particularly France, Greece and England, and he studied languages. My father was a worldly man. He studied and involved himself in other cultures. He was a self-styled and self-made man.

But Joan Wheeler NEVER mentions this! She probably is not a wide reader for her book shows the lack of well roundedness and worldliness!

My father was very active in his church.

Joan doesn’t even know that Dad was Greek Orthodox! She maintains that he was Roman Catholic, which she insults at every opportunity. Joan never gets anything correct. 

On pg 294 she states that she confided, about her marriage problems, to her father, stepmother and adoptive mother and said that all three were Roman Catholic! She also states that the advice that all three gave her were based on ‘Jesus would help’ which she quickly pointed out, to the readers, that ‘they ignored that I wasn’t a Christian.’ The point being, that no matter what anyone said to Joan, if she disagreed, she would not tell you pointedly but instead kept it to herself as a another reason why everyone is out to get her.

Dad had left the Roman Church in the late 70s when the Roman church would not recognize his marriage to a ‘divorced’ woman, his wife. She was always of the Greek Orthodox tradition and Dad turned to the Greek Church. That is the church that both of them were very active in.

As I’ve pointed out here, Joan’s truth is just NOT the truth.


Now let’s get to her assessment and it’s falsehoods and compare them with the truth. Italics here indicate quotes from the book pages 487 – 495.

While I am not qualified to speak about Joan’s adoptive parents as to any accuracy in the assessments, it does seem to me that there is a certain amount of selective bias, by Joan, in what she presents and how she presents it. She must be true to her agenda and if you don’t understand that you will not understand the assessment.

Each person has different segments that she assigns, at her whim. This assessment does not follow proper scientific procedures. Just taking two aspects of this assessment here, Level of Education and Economic Class, she tells us…

For herself:

Level of Education: Two Bachelor Degrees: Art, and Social Work.

She has nothing about what and how many languages for herself but has it for the others. What no high school education? Degrees without the work history to go with them are meaningless. This is presented to show that she is ‘educated’ and therefore has the authority to present this bullshit. Also, what is the purpose of telling us her current educational background or anything else about herself? It has nothing to do with her adoption! This is just a way to keep her agenda going…to show the world that adoption messed up her life! I would ask…who paid for that education that she has? But of course, it was the adoptive parents!

 Economic Class: Born into poverty, raised in working class, when married took care of children while husband worked low pay jobs or was unemployed, divorce transferred back to poverty, trapped in low income temporary jobs, chronic illness in mid-life, disable, limited low income.

This is purely a self-serving assessment! She was NOT born into poverty, her father had a job, and her adoptive father had a job! Raised in working class is neither special nor unusual; it is here purely to establish her own personal assessment. What does her ‘life’ conditions have to do with her adoption? Nothing! She is presenting an agenda…she wants the world to know about her horrible life conditions. This assessment is supposed to be about the ‘psycho-social-economic histories of main people in my adoption’ NOT the adoptee! What Joan has written here and everything else on this segment of her assessment DOES NOT belong here, for Joan cannot assess herself as one of the ‘main people in my adoption’. Again, this only proves the inconsistencies and wrong-headedness that she has with all persons she is ‘assessing’ and the hidden reasons (agenda) behind it. I will be addressing this further as we go here but for now it is very interesting to note that Joan has painted a picture of herself that is self-limiting with the purpose of proving that adoption DID THIS to her, the adoptee. She has gotten ahead of herself here in an assessment by showing her agenda…this is another proof of the junk science of this ‘social work assessment’.

For my mother:

Level of Education: High school; English only language

Economic Class: Poor, working class, stay at home mother dependent on husband 1950s.

Nothing unusual here except the insistence of Joan to portray parents as ‘poor’, as in inferior to some ‘other’ standard, known only to Joan. Joan really has no conception of what constitutes ‘poor’. My mother’s family was NOT poor. There were long-held jobs within the railroad industry. I well remember large over-flowing dinner tables of food and people! Nothing that I have heard or seen, via pictures, show that my mother’s family was ‘poor’. During the time and culture that my parents lived, it was the ‘norm’, not the exception, for a wife and mother to stay at home raising the children. ‘Dependent on husband’ is another agenda phrase of Joan’s and has nothing to do with the true condition of my parents’ home life or circumstances.

For my father:

Level of Education: High school, night school, English primary language

She doesn’t say, in this assessment, what he went to night school for. It was for drafting. I would think it important to show the ‘upward mobility’ factor, even if that phrase was not in vogue at the time.  If there is a reason to have language as a factor in this assessment it escapes me.

Economic Class: Poor, advanced to working class 1950s advanced to middle-middle class in 1970s, his present wife worked, two-income household.

Again, this ‘assessment’ is tainted by the agenda of Joan Wheeler, who insists that her father was ‘poor’. As I stated above for my mother, my father’s family was NOT poor. My father’s father worked on the railroad, his mother was a cleaning lady (Ruth’s note, she also worked at Dixie’s Hats, designing hats) and there was an uncle who lived with his parents who contributed to the income. My siblings and I lived with my father’s parents when we were young or were taken care of by them, when my mother was ill. I remember many large over-flowing dinner tables of food and people! Nothing that I have heard or seen, via pictures, show that my father’s family was ‘poor’. My father’s own status, after the war, was again NOT poor! Anything related to his economic class after 1956 is not and should not be a factor in this or any other assessment, for after 1956, he was no longer Joan’s father and his life circumstances are irrelevant!

My father’s remarriages, after the death of my mother, which was the reason why Joan, as an infant, was placed out of the family via adoption, have absolutely nothing to do with Joan’s adoption. The mentions of my father’s marriages are only presented to further Joan’s agenda…one, that her natural father had more resources in later life than her adoptive mother and two, that Joan’s siblings had various forms of ‘trauma’ that Joan believes supports her agenda that adoption is harmful. If you do not understand Joan’s agenda you shall never understand her assessments. 

I am NOT presenting my father’s wives here because they have nothing to do with Joan’s adoption and should never have been mentioned in the first place in the book. I shall, in future posts, talk about what was said about these people by Joan and why they never should have been mentioned.

For adoptive father:

Level of Education: Less than 8th grade, night school later in life

So here we again see the mention of ‘night school’ but nothing about what was taken. As stated before I know nothing about the Wheelers but I do know, from pg 465, that this man worked for Dunlop Tires as an electrician.

Economic Class: Poor, working class 1940s-1980. Two-income household 1940s to 1956, one-income household after 1956

So for someone with only an 8th grade education and night school he had obviously learned a trade to support his family, therefore he was NOT poor! The inclusion of this statement, ‘Two-income household 1940s to 1956, one-income household after 1956’ is totally inappropriate for this assessment! It has no bearing on Joan’s adoption, but is only here to further Joan’s agenda…to prove that the adoptive family’s income went down when they adopted, therefore putting them in a lower income bracket from the natural family.

 For adoptive mother:

Level of Education: High school, Polish spoken at the orphanage, English taught but not spoken. Learned to speak English after age 16 when orphanage life ended and she moved back home with her father.

This is a good point to look at the language ‘assessment’ by itself:

self…no language mentioned

natural mother…English only

natural father…English primary language 

adoptive father…no language mentioned

adoptive mother… contains an extensive explanation…Polish spoken at the orphanage, English taught but not spoken. Learned to speak English after age 16 when orphanage life ended and she moved back home with her father.

Why is the parameter of ‘English’ not followed for all and why the variations of the parameter? Why the need for an extensive explanation when something like, perhaps, Polish primary language English secondary, would be more in keeping with the set parameters. Does Joan have a prejudice against Polish as a language and an ethnic group? She certainly says so in many places in the book! What is the purpose behind all this, what is the agenda, what is Joan Wheeler attempting to prove, assign and justify? Could it be some hidden prejudice against her adoptive mother? I believe that is the case, here and elsewhere. Joan Wheeler feels that it is her adoptive mother who is the central figure in all that has happened to her via her adoption. But that is only my opinion.

Returning to the adoptive mother’s ‘assessment’.

 Economic Class: Poor, advanced to working class 1940’s. As a condition to become an adoptive mother, she quit her full-time job as a commercial seamstress, became financially dependent upon her husband. One-income household beginning in 1956, reduced to fixed low income in elder years, 1982-2000s. (Ruth’s note – Joan fails to note that her adoptive parents lived in the inner city at the time of her adoption. In 1957, when the adoption was finalized, they had bought their own house in a northern suburb of Buffalo, and by the 1970’s owned 2 more properties for rental income.)

Ah…see the AGENDA! Joan wrote this assessment in 2009 just before publication of the book and after her attempts to get natural father to give her money to publish the book, fix her car and other things. Joan tells, all in the book and I shall get to it all, about how she sees that the natural father has more than the adoptive mother. Joan describes, in painful details, how the adoptive mother tells Joan that the natural father MUST give her money for book, car, food, etc. On pg 554/555 we read a rant by the adoptive mother about how she and her husband ‘did all the work…paid for the upkeep of his child…he gave you up…we took care of you…my advanced age…fixed income…’ And it goes on and on in greater delusions.

But actually the great agenda, that of the wide disparity of economic security between adoptive mother/daughter and the natural father began many many years before 2009. We see the beginnings come out in 1992 as Joan tells everyone, in the book, what (supposedly) her adoptive mother told her, pg 299/300, ‘…(Gert) didn’t apologize for calling you repeatedly and yelling at you before and after Dad died in 1982.’

That is a reference to the one letter that I wrote to Dorothy Wheeler telling her about the misdeeds that her daughter Joan did to my minor children and my family. I never knew that her adoptive father was ill and died for I had problems to fix after all the trouble that Joan did to my family. But these two women began to harbor ill towards the natural family and in particular my father once the adoptive father died.

Getting back to what Dorothy, the adoptive mother said to daughter Joan, in 1992…‘that’s what’s wrong with your sisters…they didn’t have a mother and look how they turned out…’ and ‘he lived without you for 18 years…look at the heartache we’ve gone through these past 18 years, damn it…what has he ever done for you…you that father of yours…’ Of course there’s much more of that kind of shit!

What major fact that is missing here in the minds of Joan and her adoptive mother is this fact of adoption; when someone adopts they take all responsibility for the one they are adopting. It is NOT something that changes later in life. The adoptive parents were responsible, from the moment they adopted, and they have no right to impose themselves on to the natural parent later in life. My father knew what his responsibilities were and he expected others, including the adoptive parent(s) to know theirs. My father was not responsible to pay for anything for Joan, as he was not responsible to pay for anything for myself or my other siblings when we became adults.

A condition at the time of adoption, where someone, the mother, had to quit her job to take full care of the infant was the same condition that the nature father was forced to give up said infant…there was no one in his family that was able to take full care of the infant! This is a point that Joan does not want to accept…she was adopted out because there was no ‘full time care-giver’ and when her adoptive parents adopted her, the mother HAD to quit work to become the ‘full time care-giver’, period, end of story, fact of life. 

I would have to state that this woman who became Joan’s adoptive mother, during her marriage, was NOT poor, her husband was an electrician at a major company and had a good salary and retirement. She was financially dependent on the husband in the same ways that my mother was to her husband as is the custom in our culture when SOMEONE has to stay with the children! And why would anyone adopt an infant and then leave that infant in someone else’s care!

My second husband and I adopted my own birth son, when he was 16. There was no need for a full-time caregiver and therefore I did not have to quit my job. But, I also no longer received ‘child-support’ from the natural father and my second husband TOOK FULL RESPONSIBILITY for the child he adopted! That is what happens economically with adoption.

The adoptive mother’s, Dorothy, income was reduced just as the millions of elders are! It is not anything unusual. When her husband died, in 1982, she had a pension from her husband’s pension, that’s the way it is done! If she didn’t work whose fault is that? Certainly not my father’s. If Dorothy didn’t like the outcome of the decisions that she and her husband made in 1956/57 that’s too bad! That is the way of life, live with the consequences of your actions and decisions. (Ruth’s note – and this goes for Joan herself, in the year 2011 – she never wanted to work – now that’s she too old to start a career, NOW she sees her mistakes – she IS poor, and forces her daughter to work 2 jobs to support them – I was in communication with her ex-husband last month and he corroborates this – he thinks it is “disgusting.”)

My father’s economic circumstances were never Dorothy Wheeler and Joan’s business, after 1956/57. His advancements and income and subsequent marriages and his pension have nothing to do with them and the decisions that were made in 1956/57.

I am an elder living on a fixed income of retirement and social security. I do not get any increases in my income! I and I alone were responsible to guarantee that I would have an income in my elder years. I was married twice but never long enough to gain any social security from them. I always had to depend on my self, alone. This is an example for others to learn and plan for your own retirement, early!

This assessment is junk science for another reason…because it changes its focus in the middle and becomes a mockery of itself! First Joan attempts to portray the natural father/family as poor and then in the middle the focus moves to the lower income status of adoptee herself and finally the focus goes to the NEED for the adoptive mother/daughter to have support from the natural father! (Ruth’s note – see how Joan contradicts herself.)

Joan’s agenda actually has several parts to it and the educational and economic segments became convoluted over time and, having to be altered, as the adoptive mother aged and income became a huge issue. Joan did some massive rewrites and additions to the manuscript to fit in her ever changing agenda; chapter 38 was wholly written between April and July 2009, as stated in the book pg 482. And through out chapter 38 the reader learns more and more about Joan’s agenda, which isn’t adoption reform. Joan is so unconscious as she tells the entire world just how desperate she had become. I have already started writing about this chapter in another post. It will take several posts to complete all of the various pieces of mentally disturbed aspects of the agenda.

Joan Wheeler had the audacity to place, on the front page of ‘Part1’ of this book of lies two of the Ten Commandments. She herself insists throughout the book that she is NOT Christian. Yet, she feels that she can use Christian theology when it suits her purpose! Hypocrite! She ought to be ashamed!

The two she uses are: Honor your father and your mother and Thou shalt not bear false witness.

So, Joan, how did it work out for you and your agenda! What have you gained?

Disownment and disinheritance! Was it worth it?

Joan Wheeler and bullying techniques. January 28, 2011

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

by Gert McQueen – with additional commentary by Ruth Pace

I found the following in my local Watertown Daily Times paper January 16, 2011. It is important for a couple of reasons…bullying is wide spread, it is everywhere and unless you are aware of it and learn what to do you can’t protect yourself from it. I myself am a senior citizen living in senior housing. I have seen the cliques, that are described in this article, I have seen and heard various comments and actions and I have HAD TO SPEAK UP about and against name calling, in my presence. The result was that, at least to my face, the intimidator is as nice as pie to me and others! And the others, those that are far older and more physically impaired than I, KNOW that I will speak up and out against bullies on their benefit.

But living in senior housing isn’t the first time I have been aware of and been a victim of bullying. I encountered it at my employment…over 15 years of it. I had to constantly re-educate people about what it was and how to prevent it and blow the whistle every time it happened. In fact, my particular work-enviroment and my active calling attention to the bullying tactics was and is the basis of the now current prevent bullying in the workplace program. I kid you NOT. Most work places have policies against such things, but rarely does anyone do anything to prevent it and stop it, because it is such an insidious kind of thing. I was NOT going to be a victim and my job was not going to suffer because of others and I took a stand then and I take the stand now against bullying.

Now most people see how common it is for Joan Wheeler to claim that she is being bullied by myself and others. But Joan Wheeler hasn’t a clue on what true bullying is. I have already addressed that, in depth, in other blog posts and I shall continue to call Joan the bully and expose her bait and switch and run and hid and cover her ass after it’s been exposed and all the other little games that true bullies do when exposed. The more Joan Wheeler screams that she is being harassed the more a fool she becomes.

The great key to preventing bullying is to EXPOSE it, put all kinds of light on it…that is what I do…I put light on Joan’s mental disrupted mind thoughts that are the basis for why the birth sisters are exposing the lies that Joan has told…that is not bullying but truth telling. Joan has a history of bullying, if a person REALLY reads Joan’s book you will see for yourself  how Joan describes the bullying of her adoptive mother! She is so totally unaware that she has put into words, in a book and in blogs, her own bullying techniques for all to see. But, if you don’t really read or listen to Joan fully you miss it.

I shall continue with putting all light on the lies and bullying tactics of Joan Wheeler. —

The Arizona Republic Woman, 76, experiences bullying at retirement community

Doris Lor says it wasn’t until she reached her 70s that she understood what it’s like to be bullied. The 76-year-old retired secretary has lived in New York, California and a couple of parts of the Valley, and said she always found her neighbors friendly and felt welcomed in crafts clubs and community groups – until she moved into an age-restricted retirement community in Chandler. That’s when she encountered her first bullies, and her social life took a dramatic turn for the worse. “There is a clique here that is meaner than mean,” Lor said. “The first time I went to the recreation center, a man yelled at me, ‘This is a private club. You aren’t welcome here.’ “

Social workers, recreation-center officials and others who work with the elderly say the problem Lor describes is getting more common as the retirement population increases and more people enter care homes and retirement centers. Melanie Starns, an assistant Arizona Department of Economic Security director overseeing the Aging and Adult Services Division, said her staff often hears stories about bullying, but they do not keep statistics on them. “It’s a pretty big deal. The mean girls were there in school and as we get older, they are still around,” she said.

Lor, who has lived in a 1,150-home retirement community called Solera Chandler since 2003, said she has never received support from the community’s manager or HOA board. She said she was annoyed to receive a letter of reprimand from the HOA in September after she tried to confront the residents she says exclude her from community programs. Solera Chandler’s manager and HOA president declined comment on Lor’s experiences. HOA President Mark Herrald responded to an interview request with a letter stating that his community “has not and will not tolerate bullying on the common areas of the community.”

Lor said despite repeated complaints and letters to the director of her homeowners association, she can’t get a seat at a card table, gets the cold shoulder at the women’s club and has been chased away from seats at the community pool. “No matter where you go, even if you pay for the activity, the clique saves all the seats,” Lor said. “I have never had a problem like this anywhere else. I have never been bullied at any other time in my life.”

Bullying among seniors appears to be a national problem. When the Akron Beacon Journal hosted a call-in program about bullying for northern Ohio residents, people answering the phones were surprised by the number of seniors who dialed in. One older couple said they were trapped in their home because of harassment from bullying neighbors. More often, Starns said, older people act like bullies for the same reasons that younger ones do: to respond to someone or something that makes them feel insecure. Dementia also may be one underlying cause of nasty behavior, experts say.

“When people become more frail, they feel more vulnerable,” Starns said. “Some people adjust, while other people develop difficult and destructive behaviors.” Large organizations that deal with seniors, such as Phoenix’s city-run senior centers and the Recreation Centers of Sun City, usually have codes of conduct that ban yelling, obscene language and other verbal abuse. “Whenever you get a large number of people together, things happen. We never outgrow being human,” explained Tim Gallen, communications coordinator for Sun City’s recreations centers. Penalties against bullying at his centers are strictly enforced, Gallen said. Abusive members might receive a reprimand in the mail or, in the case of multiple complaints, a suspended membership, he said.

Deanna Jonovich, a deputy Phoenix human-services director, said anyone who attends lunches and recreation programs at the city’s senior centers must sign a code of conduct that states that all center members will be treated with “consideration, respect and recognition of their dignity.”

Robin Bonifas, a gerontology expert and assistant professor at the Arizona State University School of Social Work who is researching bullying, estimates that 10 to 20 percent of older people in care homes experience some type of abuse from fellow residents. She ultimately hopes to recommend better ways for social workers and other caregivers to help the elderly handle peer conflicts.

“This is an important issue to get out there,” Bonifas said. “There needs to be clear expectations about what kind of behavior is appropriate. The best way to deal with bullying is to have an all-around culture where bullying is unacceptable.” Lor said she now stays inside her house and works on crafts alone, or visits friends at Sun Lakes, a nearby retirement community where she said she is welcome to swim and do crafts as a visitor.

“What angers me the most is what they have done to me,” Lor said. “I don’t even want to go out and make friends with people in this community anymore.” Steve Lacy, ombudsman coordinator for the non-profit Area Agency on Aging in central Phoenix, said ignoring bullies is a good strategy. His staff often coaches older people about how to handle snubs and aggression by fellow care-home residents.

“Sometimes the best thing to do is just find someone else to have a meal with,” he said. —

Ruth’s note: And this is what we have been trying to do – we have been trying to break free from Joan for years – to find “someone else to have a meal with.” But Joan will not take NO for an answer! For all her whining that the Three Sippel Sisters will not leave her alone, it has not been US continuing the contact – it has been JOAN. It is has not been US who keeps the “gossip mill” going – it has been JOAN. We had peace from 2004 to 2008 – no contact at all!  (I did send her a letter – begging for monetary help in December 2004, she still owed me over $300.00 from what she STOLE from me and I was behind in my property taxes – in danger of foreclosure, I begged for even ten lousy bucks. She took my letter and tried to institute harassment charges on me, but the court denied her petition, because they could see my letter was not harassment, but a plea for help. I should have known better than to ask such a selfish creep for help). After that, I said to myself, well, for all her saying the family needs healing, F her, and when one day she will need help and face possible homelessness, this will come back to haunt her. I neither saw her, nor heard about her for almost 4 years. Peace, Glorious PEACE!

Then in September 2008, on a now defunct blog of hers, Joan attacked us, with her newly coined moniker for us: The Three Sippel Sisters. She attacked our religions, and WARNED us to stay away from her. But, but – we HAD been away from her — why out of the clear blue sky did she go on the internet and attack us? Because she is a BULLY!

Then in 2009 – she started a new blog, and in October 2009, on Yom Kippur, Joan posts a blog entry about the Jewish holiday of forgiveness, but made an error about it. On of the Three Sippel Sisters, being a converted Jew, submitted a nice comment, correcting her error. Being new to the internet, she used her real name/email address. At first Joan was nice, even leaving a reply, saying something like she always knew she’d be in contact with Kathy again. Then a couple of days later, the bully in Joan came out and she attacked Kathy, accusing her of “bothering her.” In the course of two days, Joan did a 180 – from saying nice things to Kathy, then with no further contact, ATTACKS Kathy!

A couple of weeks later, the book of lies was published. And the whole book is nothing but a rant from a bully! Gross misrepresentations and flagrant lies are in this book! And to further insult us, Joan goes on various internet forums and continues to lie about us! So  I started this blog. Which Joan can’t stand that we are not going to shut up and she goes running to her adoptee friends to whine about us – “My sisters are bothering me. Get them away from me.” – True bully tactics – attack someone, and when that someone fights back – the bully cannot stand the heat! Goes whining to someone else for help.

A couple of times, Joan has even gone back to her blog and attempted to wipe out or hide some of her attacks on us. Coward. If it is necessary to erase what you have written, logic dictates that what you wrote should not have been written in the first place. And if it is necessary to erase what you have written, logic further dictates that an apology is in order, or at least an explanation to your blog readers why something had been removed.  This is also a bullying tactic – written attacks, meant to be seen by the bully’s target. Once the target has seen the written attack, the bully quickly removes all traces of it, so there is no evidence of it. Joan forgets the internet is virtually forever. Once it’s in cyberspace – it can’t be taken back.

Most people say “ignore the bully.” But that doesn’t always work. What does work is standing up to the bully – shedding light on the bully and their deeds. And this is exactly what this blog is for. To shed light on Joan’s bully tactics -her deeds and her words – which are cowardly, hateful, disgusting.  —


another bunch of lies from Joan Wheeler March 9, 2010

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

lol. yepper, here is Joan again, writing lies to her adoptee friends.

We did not “not like her activism.” Again Joan is LYING. In 1980, I, myself accompanied Joan to WGRZ tv station (a Buffalo New York NBC affliate). We were interviewed by reporter Rich Kellman as to Joan’s adoption and our reunion. As to her getting names and dates mixed up, Joan was writing things down in notebooks AS SHE WAS TOLD THINGS. We never perceived her as stupid. This is bullshit.

“what kills her is that we are on her website.” Well, she is on my website. It’s not killing me. Stop being a hypocrite Joan, you are reading MY blog, so shut up. As for taking your words as you write them, so? This is done to show people how one day you say one thing about us, and then another day, you change your story and say something else.

Joan did NOT write about her church on her wordpress blog. She wrote about Yom Kippur, a Jewish holiday. (Joan is not Jewish). In October 2009, she wrote a piece about Yom Kippur being about a day of atonement, a day you ask forgiveness from people. Yes, yes, my sister Kathy Inglis had read it. She was new to the internet, and as ALL people do, when they are new to the internet, googled Joan’s name and read the blog. Kathy converted to Judaisim some years in the past and wrote a politely worded comment to Joan, that Yom Kippur is not a day to ask forgiveness from other people, but to ask forgiveness from God. Kathy had used her email address, one that included her real name. So she was not hiding anything from Joan. Joan at first sent her an email saying that she always knew that her and Kathy would reconnect. Then all of a sudden, Joan changed her mind, blasted Kathy on the blog.

This was not the first time Joan used her blog to blast religion. In September 2008 on her blog at blogspot, she was blasting the Christian Church and Pagans. She knew that our eldest sister and I were Pagans. She questioned our Pagan values. What was the reason for this attack? I don’t know. My sister Gert had not had any contact with Joan for some time. I myself had not had contact with Joan for 4 and a half years. Then Joan went on to give a “warning” to “The Three Sippel Sisters.”

Now I have been on the internet since late 1999. From that time to September 2008, I have not had any contact with Joan on the internet except for the time in late 2003 and early 2004 when I was building a family photo website at the now-defunct MSN groups service. As the webmistress, I moved one of the photos Joan posted, from one folder to another and also corrected the date. In January of 2004, Joan sent me a nasty email. I was ill, did not see the email, the email got buried. When I saw it in April 2004, we had a brief skirmish, (I have scanned and posted the actual 7 page document of the email exchange here) and I booted her off my website, because she can’t behave herself. From that time on, even though I did see her slamming of my “pagan values,” I did NOT post anything, ANYWHERE on the internet in answer to this slamming of MY religious value system or her trashing of “The Three Sippel Sisters.” I wrote a brief spot about it on my myspace blog, simply saying, “when you write your book on adoption, all I ask is you tell the truth.”

Going back to the Yom Kippur incident, after she slammed Kathy for daring to correct her in erroneous statement about the purpose of Yom Kippur, Joan wrote a statement on her blog that her blog was NOT for religious debate or family skirmishes. I wrote her a polite email asking if her blog indeed was not for this, why then the entire post about Yom Kippur in the first place? And why the slamming of the Christians and Pagans and the slamming of her sisters in September 2008?

She states here “When I write about my church, or my adoptive Mom…”  What does this mean? I have explained her lie about the church, she never wrote about her church, she wrote about Christian, Jews and Pagans. As to her Mom. Nobody said anything about her mom.

She further writes that she is embarrased. She should be. Because she keeps lying. She keeps twisting things around. She keeps telling her buddies garbage. She keeps slamming me and my sisters, calling US liars. When it is in fact, JOAN herself who is the liar. She is embarrassed because the truth about her is coming out.

“…. not an invitation for my sisters to complain to WordPress that I’m  attacking the one sister’s religion or whatever they want to attack me on.”
Again, a twisting of the facts. When she slammed Kathy about the correction about Yom Kippur, Kathy rightfully so, felt insulted. She then wrote a complaint to WordPress about the misuse of the webmistress about her religion and when she wrote to correct the fact about Yom Kippur, she got slammed. Apparently WordPress took off the offending Yom Kippur post. Joan didn’t like that. She didn’t want to be censored. So got VOLUNTARILY paid for a site at startlogic and began building her present site. She transferred all her stuff from her blog at WordPress AND blogspot. Both the old blogs were shut down at the same time. If you go to the URL of her WordPress blog, you will see it was NOT DELETED BY WORDPRESS. You get the following message: “This website has been removed by the author.”

Joan keeps saying that because of “our” complaintS (only one was made) her old blogs were shut down. But did she not just say in her post about the two gay men getting their names on the birth certificate of their adopted child, that she wrote about that issue before in her old blog and her blog was SHUT DOWN BY GAY ACTIVITSTS?

Oh yes she did, and you people read it! Because when I wrote about it: Joan Wheeler Insults Gays and Lesbians, you guys got all over me. You know dam well she wrote that.


And the only reason she finally deigned to show any gratitude to you, is because she was just here on my blog,  and read my latest post.’yet they are on my website, viewing every post I make, and taking my words as if I write to them or about them, when they are not in my mind at all.” Is this not what she just did?
And we are not in her mind at all? Then why is she complaining about us? We most certainly ARE  in her mind.

So now, go back and read what I just wrote: I have NOT slammed Joan, I just corrected the FACTS. If I say that Joan is a liar, THAT IS THE TRUTH. Because she is a liar.

There’s a simple solution to this: Joan, stop lying about me and my sisters.

Here is the comment exchange between Chayelet (Kathy) and Joan. I didn’t save Joan’s original post. Wish I had.



As a Jewish lady, it’s nice to know this lady was so touched by the Hebrew sung in her church,but please permit me one observation. Her article completely misses the point of the Day of Atonement.
Yom Kippur is the culmination of a period known as Yomin Noraim-Days of Awe-a ten-day period of reflection on the wrongs we have done to others and of asking forgiveness for those wrongs, not those done do us. This period starts on Rosh Ha-Shanah(literally Head of the Year, or New Year), but is actually preceded by a whole month (Ellul) wherein we reflect on our actions in the previous year and seek forgiveness from others(Teshuvah). On Yom Kippur we fast, and stand solemnly before our G-d and ask HIS forgiveness for the wrongs we committed in the previous year. I wish this lady and her family a Shana Tova-a good year.



Our Minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Buffalo has a very sweet singing voice. In singing Hebrew, his voice struck something deep inside, an ancient knowing?

I was born, and then raised, as a Catholic, and have been a Unitarian Universaltist for a long time. In this church we are exposed to songs and readings and teachings of the worlds religions.

Perhaps I did miss the point of Yom Kippur. Thank you for expanding on my awareness. And thank you for wishing my family a good year.

I wish to reiterate, for the purposes of deeper understanding, that the negative effects of separating a sibling group of five children should not have happened at all. Our father was in deep grief and under great duress at the time he was talked into relinquishing me, but for those details, which are unknown to my siblings, you will have to wait for the release of my book.

Our father does not now fully comprehend all of the forces that were working to his demise at the time he relinquished me. I tried to explain to him, but he sees only that he is dying, not that I understand and defend him. He read the last chapter and was so traumatized by the new revelations of the extent of the crimes committed against him (and his children), that he acted in haste. I cannot allow myself to be distracted. I live with a dying mother. I have to let my father go right now. He has other adult children to take care of him.

The point of my focus on my adoptive mother in this post is that she and my adoptive father could have prevented the whole thing — my adoption — and chose not to. (I’m giving too much away here. Details are revealed in the book.)I understand that they adopted a child so they could love me all to themselves, but they took me away from my existing family and that was a sin, and a crime against us, and our father. I am not sure I can ever forgive that. My mother has no remorse for this.

Yet, the wrongs that were perpetrated upon her by my siblings, were never rectified. My adoptive mother was hurt by the actions of several of my siblings (who are not her children), but not a single one of them has ever made a formal attempt to apologize to her and to ask forgiveness. My adoptive mother to this day is affraid of my siblings. And she knows I defend her on this.

So you see, I am the holder of all this pain. I have spent my life trying to make sense of our lives.

In the end, if nothing else, the most important goal I have of my book is that no other sibling group shall be separated by adoption and that the parents by conception and birth shall be respected and honored.

May you, too, Chayelet, have a good year.

attention adoption reformers part 2 January 3, 2010

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

Here is another example of Joan’s LIES. Joan’s blog on wordpress was not shut down by wordpress. If you go to her blog, you get the message that the blog was deleted by the author. NOT by the webhost.  http://halforphan56.wordpress.com/articles/

She then BY HER OWN CHOICE, decided to get her own domain, which she was willing to pay for, because she said she “WOULD NOT BE CENSORED.” WHY THEN DOES SHE WANT TO CENSOR ME? Why is she afraid of the truth? I’m not. And why is blaming me and my sisters for HER decision to obtain a paying website.  Fact of internet life Joan: when you use a free webservice, you are subject to THEIR rules, not Ruth’s Rules. If you violate those rules, you get censored. I don’t know what you did to get wordpress mad at you. go ask them. I’m just trying to write my blog here, and abide by the rules of wordpress.com.  Because I respect my site’s host’s rules and regulations. If I make a mistake, and they delete one of my posts, I will ask them what I did wrong, so I DO NOT REPEAT MY MISTAKE. This is how we as human beings grow and learn, by taking responsiblity for our mistakes and  learning from our mistakes. We’re all human, we will all screw up. I have put my foot in my mouth in real life and cyber life many times. But I always take my lumps and don’t pawn the blame off on somebody else. JOAN: YOU TYPED WHAT YOU PUT ON YOUR BLOG, NOT ME. NOT MY SISTERS. SO KEEP THE BLAME WHERE IT BELONGS: ON YOURSELF.

 What happened was: Joan on her “adoption reform blog” made an erroneous statement about the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur. Someone posted a comment and told her she had made a mistake in one of her statements, and corrected her. Joan left the comment, and after seeing the email, saw it was from our sister in England. She then sent her a nice email, stating “I always knew we would get reconnected again.” or words to that effect. Two days later, Joan removed my sister’s comment and nastily said that her blog was for adoption reform NOT for religous debates. What happened in those two days? NOTHING! And if her blog is only for adoption reform, why was she posting things about religion? she also showed her religious bigotry in an old post on her blogspot blog when she attacked “pagan values” knowing full well that her oldest birth sister (and me) are pagan.

For some reason, wordpress.com deleted Joan’s post about Yom Kippur. Because Joan didn’t like that, she started her other blog. Why was her blog at blogspot shut down? I DON’T KNOW. I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Joan’s blog at wordpress.com was shut down over a month ago. yesterday, on January 2, 2010, she says that I have complained to wordpress about her “AGAIN.” Why would I do that? She no longer has her blog at wordpress. This makes no sense! Why would I complain to wordpress.com if she no longer has a blog at wordpress.com?

Joan, please, stop. Your hatred of me and my sisters is making you say stupid things. Are you capable of putting together a sentance that makes sense? Because you just showed the whole internet that you just blithly keep making accusations against your birth sisters with no justifications, no reason, no sense, no logic. You keep making accusations just because we are telling the truth, and YOUR lies and YOUR misdeeds are now coming to light. I don’t know why your mother is afraid of me. I didn’t do anything to her. I don’t know why you are afraid of me. What is your problem? As for your children thinking that I am scum of the earth – that is because YOU brainwashed them. but why don’t you tell your adoption reform friends, how three years ago, I connected with your daughter via myspace and we had a nice “penpal” relationship? I terminated it in November (to keep peace between you and me, and to keep your daughter out of our feud) 2009, because of YOUR verbal abuse of me over the telephone when I called you to inform you of a relative’s death. Why don’t you tell the truth about that phone call? mmm? Yes, I got the number from my father. I called him to tell him aunt Doris died. I asked if he had your number. Because I knew that just a couple of months prior, he had to throw you out of his house.

When I called, he sounded tired. To spare him a phone call, I called you. And you started screaming like a banshee. Can you not keep a civil tongue in your head? The obscenities! Yet in your blog, you tell the world that I use swear words in my normal speech. How dare you?
Anyway, yes my father gave me your number and I shredded the piece of paper I wrote it on. Believe me, don’t believe me, I don’t care what you think. I only care about you NOT LYING about me. I emailed your daughter, apologizing for upsetting you.

Oh, but I’m such a bitch, ain’t I? lol. I told her that it was NOT my intent to upset you, that I made a mistake in judgement. I WAS NOT INTERFERING WITH YOUR LIFE OR TRYING TO WEASEL MY WAY INTO YOUR LIFE? WHY WOULD I WANT TO BE PART OF YOUR LIFE? YOU ARE ABUSIVE TO ME! I DON’T WANT YOU IN MY LIFE. I DON’T WANT TO BE IN YOUR LIFE. We are connected by blood. We share family members. We will always run into each other. I have been cordial to you. In the airport September 2, 2003, waiting to go to our brother’s funeral, I WAS NOT THINKING ABOUT YOU! YOU ARE NOT THAT IMPORTANT TO ME! IF I LOOKED UPSET, YEAH, MY BROTHER JUST DIED. On July 21, 2003, my husband’s maternal grandfather died. On July 28, 2003, my mother-in-law died, On August 4, 2003. my cousin died, on August 19, my ex-husband and still good friend died. And on September 1, 2003, my brother died. I was going in and out of the airport TO SMOKE! Yet in your book, you say there was tension in the airport.

What the f are you talking about? Your boyfriend was there. Did you think I was going to jump on you and beat you up? JOAN, YOU ARE NOT THAT IMPORTANT TO ME. YOU ARE NOT WORTH ME GOING TO JAIL OVER. SO GET OVER IT. My god woman, I even left my carryon baggage near YOU, because in a silly way, I STILL TRUSTED YOU, THAT IF I WAS OUTSIDE SMOKING, OR IN THE BATHROOM, NO ONE WOULD STEAL IT. Then again, the snake you are, you probably would have left somebody steal it.

As for your threats of revealing the secrets that I and my sisters have, GO AHEAD! WHAT SECRETS ARE YOU HINTING AT IN YOUR O-SO-PROFESSIONAL BOOK? What a professional, you showed your readership what a nasty slimeball you are. That you know secrets about your sisters and will reveal them. I’M CALLING IN YOUR BLUFF LITTLE GIRL. REVEAL AWAY! AND SINCE MY OLDEST SISTER GERT HAS NO COMPUTER, SHE HAS AUTHORIZED ME TO SAY THIS: REVEAL HER SECRET AS WELL!


AS FOR YOUR REPEATED ACCUSATIONS OF OUR INTERFERENCE WITH YOU AND YOUR FAMILY, WOULD YOU KINDLY TELL US WHAT THEY ARE? ALL YOU KEEP SAYING IS *whine* “they keep bothering me.” *whine* BE SPECIFIC. GIVE DETAILS. INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW. (ME TOO). I sure would like to know what I’ve done, since November 3, 2009. And the last time I saw you was April 9, 2004. And NO, I was NOT warned at the birthday party. By whom Joan? YOU?

NO, no, no. what happened was: this was just after I booted you off my website (and as the webmistress, I had every right to do so). Why? Because you acted like an idiot again. At the party, everything was just fine. I was sitting in the living room with my stepmother. You were on the way out the door, and instead of keeping the peace, you just HAD to start your sh!t again. You turned to me, and said “Ruth, we have to talk.” I said nothing. You said nothing further. You turned and went out the door. OH MY GOD, I WAS JUST WARNED. yeah, warned that YOU wanted to talk to me again.

And liar, tell them the last contact we had in December 2004. I sent you a letter BEGGING FOR MONEY. My house was being foreclosed for back taxes. Due to my husband’s open heart surgery on September 24, 2003, we fell behind. YOU STILL OWE ME MONEY FROM WHEN YOU STOLE FROM ME IN 1990, ALMOST $900.00. I asked you for even 10 bucks. What did you do Joan? You tried to pull me into court for harrassment. And the court denied your claim, because they read my letter, and saw that it was not a harrassment letter, but a plea for help. So much for YOUR INTEGRITY AND HONESTY JOAN.
People reading this: I NOT WANT JOAN IN MY LIFE. I DO NOT WANT TO BE IN HER LIFE. The only thing I am doing is standing up for myself and my family and calling Joan out on the carpet for her lies about me and my family.

Lacking the courage to stand by what you said previously December 15, 2009

Posted by Ruth in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , ,
comments closed

On December 7, Joan Wheeler very cockily posted personal information about me and my sisters on her blog. She was very ticked off because I dared to have this blog. This blog that is designed  for getting out the truth behind my mother’s death, Joan’s adoption, our reunion with her when she turned 18, the stories of the abuse that I, and other people have suffered at Joan’s hands, and to refute the LIES that Joan says about me and my family.

She also had a page devoted to “Cyber Bullies” inferring that I am a cyber bullie, merely because I am putting out the truth.  On that page, she provided links to my blog.

Part of her ranting and raving on December 7 and December 9, yes, I said ranting and raving, she had posts titled, “Warning: Abusers Stay Away,” and, gee, I can’t remember the exact title, but it did contain the “Rant.” In the Abusers Stay Away post, she goes on and on about me, about how I am using multiple IP addresses to visit her blog, using my employer’s internet to spy on her. – I explained in a post here about IP addresses, that if you shut your modem off, the IP address will reset. And when I am on my lunch break, am on my off hours, on my personal laptop, using a complimentary wireless, then what the heck is she complaining about? And when I shut off my laptop, the internal modem is shut off, so Joan needs to just stop accusing me of doing everything and anything under the sun. lol.

She names various members of her adoptive family,  goes on and on about all kinds of abuses that she thinks happened to her. She never goes into specifics on these “abuses,” nor does she scan and post the evidence! Just names of people she obviously hates. (is there anybody on this planet that she doesn’t hate?) Then she posts the name of my employer, the cities where my two older sisters live, the maiden name and married names of my oldest sister, then goes on about my sister’s Pagan religion and holds that religion up to ridicule.

Now over here, at my blog, I hold to the truth. lol. On my page, visit my other websites, I invite people to visit me at myspace and facebook. On my facebook page I had already listed my employer. So I don’t know what Joan thinks she was “hurting” me with.  But all that aside, her goal WAS to hurt me. Sorry, Joan, after that last tirade of  filthy verbal abuse you flung at me when I merely called to tell you that your godmother died, I am no longer going to be hurt. I recognize you for what you are: a little 5 year old tyrant. All your threats mean nothing to me. And as Sarek said, “Threats are illogical, and payment is usually high.”

But getting back to Joan showing her religious intolerance, I am also Pagan. I am a Wiccan. I know that many people do not hold Pagans near and dear. I do not wish to start a religious war. I was raised Roman Catholic. I left Catholicism because it wasn’t for me. I studied Islam when I first married my first husband. But I have been studying all forms of metaphysics since I was a teenager, and officially became a Wiccan in the year 2000. Wicca is a nature religion. We believe in God, we also believe in the Goddess. We believe in the duality of nature, male and female in all things, Divinity included. We hold reverence for Mother Earth and Father Sky, and reverence for all life. In Wicca, our basic rule for morality is “Harm None.” With this, and our reverence for life, we don’t even like to squish bugs. Because they are a lifeform on this planet too.  We also hold truth, honesty, and integrity very high. Are we perfect? No, not at all. Am I perfect? lol, nooo. I’m not. I make plenty of mistakes. But when I do, I own up to them.  I don’t kill or eat babies, human or otherwise. Wiccans don’t worship Satan, because we don’t believe in Satan. As I said before, we believe in the duality of nature, male and female, dark and light, good and evil. They just … are.  See, we don’t believe in a devil “tempting” us, and we don’t “blame” the devil when we do something bad. “the devil made me do it.” NO, the devil did not make you do it, YOU made you do it.

Now a lot of people will just say, “oh, you’re a Wiccan. ” and keep on going. Others, like Kathie Lee Gifford will stick her foot in her mouth and say, “oh those dirty evil pagans.” and get reamed out. I’m not dirty, I bathe regularly. Evil? Nope, my choice of career is to take care of the sick and dying in a hospital.

There are a lot of religions out there. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddism, Shinto, Theodism, Wicca, Druidism, and many, many more. But they all seek the Divine, a oneness of humanity with the Divine. Divinity is all the same to all religions, it is simply called a different name in each of the religions. The difference of religions, is how each religion is practiced under it’s own set of man-made rules. If the set of rules of one religion is not for your taste, then you have the choice to find a religion that has a set of rules and its own particular path to Divinity that you feel comfortable with. Just because I don’t feel comfortable with the path of Christianity, or the sometimes hypocrisy of the Catholic Church, doesn’t give me the right to put the Catholic Church down. I USED to be a religion teacher with my cousin at The West Seneca Developmental Center for the profoundly mentally and physically handicapped. We taught children ages 10 – 17, under a Catholic priest, who later came forward as a child molestor. oh, ugh! And we had his name on our resumes! But this does not mean that everyone in the Catholic Church is a child molestor.

Today, at a funeral mass, I was still awed and humbled by the Catholic mass. Did I turn my back on my Wiccan faith? Nope, just partaking in a different ritual to bring me closer to Divinity. Morally and ethically, we should not put down anybody’s choice of religion. The founding fathers of America knew this. Yes, America is predominantly a Christain country, the Puritans coming over from England were escaping religious discrimination. But oh, how the Native American religions got trampled. Still, when the Constitution of the United States was drafted and approved, one of the most highly regarded rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, is freedom of religion. We do also have the freedom of speech. So I recognize Joan’s freedom of speech to basically put down somebody’s religion. But it is not a wise thing to do. Putting down someone’s choice of religion is not nice. You may have the freedom to do it, but it’s just not nice. It’s not respectful.

So now, Joan seems to have second thoughts about posting all those hateful things she did last week. The warning to abusers is password protected and the Cyber Bully page is gone. As the webmistress of the site she has every right to do this. But it just smacks of cowardice. And typical of Joan’s “attack and run” personality. She doesn’t have the guts to stand by what she says. Or if it is pointed out to her that what she did was wrong, instead of owning up to her mistake, and apologizing for it, she simply wipes it out, deletes the posts, and pretends it never happened. So typical of Joan, because she has never, NEVER EVER, taken responsibility for her own actions. “don’t pin any negativity on me, ” she said in one of her posts she deleted,  and “It’s not my fault my reunion went bad.” 

No, Joan, we CAN’T pin the negativity on you, because you’re Teflon, it slides right off. But all kidding aside, this is Joan in her classic mode. She steals money from me in 1990 and 19 years later, will not admit it. Her ex-husband owned up to me about it, but never Joan. Why, once, my roommate Joyce, my husband’s cousin, who was living with us, had Joan on the phone. She told Joan, “Joan, if I gave you $50.00 to go to K-Mart and pay on my lay-away, and you go to the store, and the store is closed, what do you with the money? Do you give it back to me, or do you spend it on yourself. ” With me standing next to her, Joyce then held the receiver between our heads so we could both hear Joan’s response: “I give you back your money.” Joyce then asked her, “well why won’t you give Ruth back her money?” Joan didn’t answer. Because she couldn’t, the little thief and liar couldn’t. Her sin caught up to her. She stammered something about my car, (she had stolen the money to get her car fixed), and John and me had two cars, and some kind of nonsense like that. BUT she screwed herself. We only had one car in August 1990, when she stole the money. My friend Hassna gave us her clunker car in October, two months after Joan’s theft. The clunker car needed work, and our other car, the Grand Prix died the end of September, 1990. Because of Joan’s theft, we didn’t have the money to fix either car. It took us a couple of months, we got the clunker Cadillac going, it lasted about 5 months. We still did not have the money to fix the Grand Prix. We went for years without a car. The Grand Prix dry rotted out, we sold it for junk for $40.00. I was still paying off the bank loan that was part of  the money that Joan stole from me. So Joan’s thievery and selfishness left my  husband and me, taking public transportation in the cold.  And in a financial bind. BUT TO THIS DAY, JOAN WHEELER WILL NOT OWN UP TO WHAT SHE DID! She’s a thief. We all know it. But she will not admit to it.

Come on Joan, where’s your courage? Got none? NOPE, because you are a thief. You are a liar, and you are a coward. When you post something on the internet, have the courage to stand by it. You have no honor.  You broke your promise to me many years ago, when you promised to pay me the money back. Your word is yourself. You break your word, you break yourself.  Not me, not your other birth sisters, not your adoptive cousins, but you, you and you alone. “It’s not my fault.” oh yes it is Joan, yes it is.

Attack and run. This is what you always have done Joan. Attack and run. This is exactly what bullies do Joan. Attack and run. Cyber bullying? Yes, Joan, you have always been a bully, and now that you have discovered the internet, you have found a new way to bully me, and others. “don’t read my blog,” you dictate to me, yet you admit to coming over and reading my blog. Typical bully behavior.

Cyber Bullies Indeed! Teflon Dictator has no shame, part 2 December 13, 2009

Posted by Ruth in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

An observation from someone: “She obviously has a one-track mind when it comes to us. Has she actually been diagnosed as schizoid, cos that’s exactly what she is presenting. Her fixation on us, her insistence on blaming us for all her ills,and the fact that she is accusing us of doing exactly what she is doing,the bullying, and the way she targets you in particular, is precisely the way my ex-neighbour behaved-and she was officially diagnosed as schizoid. There’s obviously more going on than bitterness over adoption.”

Yes, that’s exactly it. I have been her target for years. The stealing from me, the bulliness she has shown to me since 1983. The soap opera plots. My god, she must have gotten these sick ideas from watching General Hospital back in the day when Luke and Laura were on. There was one sick beyotch on there, dam if I can remember her name, but I swear, all these silly things Joan has been doing comes from the soaps. I used to watch a lot of them, but got away from them. Now I only watch Young and the Restless. gosh, what Joan has done to me puts Katherine Chancelor and Jill Foster Abbott to shame. Mrs. C. and Jill have been feuding since the show started in 1973. Is that where you’re getting ideas from Joan? From Y+ R? lol.

Also in her blog, she attacks my oldest sister for her Pagan religion. I am Pagan as well.

Excuse me, Joan Wheeler, we live in America and in America, we have the Freedom of  Religion. And in case you didn’t do your research, because I know you didn’t, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOES OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZE MY RELIGION, WICCA AS AN OFFICIAL RELIGION.



amd in the past, you slammed the Catholic Church? And you posted an erroneous post about Yom Kippur back in October?

My blog readers, and I know you guys are out there. And anyone who clicks on over from Joan’s site, and ANY investigator, or any visitor from BGH: I ask you now, who is the bully, cyber or otherwise?

%d bloggers like this: