Skip to content

Joan Wheeler discusses the dysfunction of others: just more outlandish lies

by on September 1, 2011
In this essay, Joan Wheeler discusses the dysfunction of others. But it is just another lying/hateful chapter of more outlandish lies in Joan Wheeler’s lying book, Forbidden Family, which was pulled from publication. This essay/post was written by me in May 2010, emailed to Ruth on June 2, 2010 and has been revised August 2011.

BEFORE WE CONTINUE HERE UPDATE NOVEMBER 2016; as older posts are being seen I, Gert, am updating with links to my second blog and a Facebook page wherein I expose AGAIN the lies, fabrications and hate that Joan M Wheeler (Doris Michol Sippel) says about me and family. The first book Forbidden Family, A Half Orphan’s Account of Her Adoption, Reunion and Social Activism published in 2009, was pulled from publication by the publisher in May 2011 due to libelous material in it. Then in 2015, she ‘self-published’ a ‘revised’ version calling it ‘Forbidden Family, an adoptee duped by adoption’, being her own editor and owner. This woman has no shame no sense of family honor! Then in 2016 Joan changed her name back to her birth name and reedited and republished the SAME crap in another book; a Third edition! CALLED ‘Forbidden Family: An Adopted Woman’s Struggle for Identity’! Talk about conning people!

this blog’s title/sub title is… DUPED BY ADOPTION & AN WOMAN’S STRUGGLE FOR IDENTITY, A BOOK STUDY an in-depth analyzes of the books called Forbidden Family; My Life as an Adoptee Duped by adoption & An Adopted Woman’s Struggle for Identity by Joan M Wheeler/Doris M Sippel.


Is Joan Wheeler talking about herself or does she really believe that it is others that are dysfunctional? Will the real dysfunctional person please stand up?

“Oh, I’m so tired”, she said tremulously, “so tired of it all, of myself, of lying and thinking up lies, and of not knowing what is a lie and what is the truth. I wish I…”     The Maltese Falcon ….. by Dashiell Hammett

In my last posts, exhibits A, B and C, I presented evidence of Joan’s own misdeeds, that she hides from view, and now having done that I again return to the book itself.

The scene is right after the reunion, actually the half-day visit, of 1992, where Joan laments that she has lost her birth family because they all hate her. At that time we didn’t hate her as much as we  just wanted her to stop causing trouble,  but, she continued on with her trouble-making and so caused the negative feelings in us to grow. In this next chapter, she tells fantastical tales of harassing letters and phone calls, which I have addressed in the past ‘evidence’ posts. In the last ‘evidence’ post, I addressed certain letters that were not harassments; they were only that in Joan’s mind.

Now let’s see about chapter 28, that Joan calls, dysfunction and letting go; this ought to be enlightening!

Right off, in her tale, that I find unbelievable… but…according to Joan, one of our step-sisters calls Joan to inform her that our father was so upset by the trouble that Joan caused, to us sisters, that he had a heart attack. Everyone is blaming Joan. Joan insists, as she tells a step-sister, that she knows nothing about anything, that she has her ‘…own problems dealing with the constant obscene phone calls from our three older sisters interfering in my life!…and I’m sorry he’s in the hospital but I didn’t do anything.’ Stepsister hangs up on Joan. Joan is left ‘stunned…thinking…my sisters call me and call Dad, get him involved when he doesn’t need to be, then he gets upset, has a heart attack and I’m blamed! I’m told …it was bad news and (she Joan) better stay away.’

Too bad she had not, stayed away, and still does not understand that that is what she ought to have had done; stay away from all!

Joan’s husband decides its time to call the police and she insisted they tap the phone line. A six-month investigation has a Buffalo police detective ‘outraged’. Joan has him saying that… ‘he had a good lead on the calls from Buffalo…he had phone company records…I can’t do anything about the long distance calls coming in from P.NY (actually Watertown) or from Liverpool, England…out of jurisdiction but I’m recording what they say and I can identify who belongs to the line.’

Bold face lies and fabrications! As I’ve said previously both Kathy and I never placed any phone calls to Joan. Who has the money to make long distance and trans-Atlantic calls? Give me a break! Wire taps of the nature that Joan is describing DO NOT record the actual conversation, they can only trace where the call is coming from! So all this ‘dialogue’ between Joan and the detective where she says the detective said ‘…I hear everything’s that’s said…’ is pure bullshit. The man never heard me or Kathy or Ruth because we never made the calls! It is not possible to hear the conversation on a wiretap to locate origin of call! Joan is full of shit! She just wants to make a sensational story and make the sisters be wrong. hyperbole

Joan must watch a lot of low-grade TV shows because she has this detective speaking in some kind of exaggerated form of ghetto rap that no one with any kind of intelligence or life experience would believe to be possible, I certainly don’t. hyperbole Joan, miss innocent, tells the detective that she has left us alone but they (us) will not leave her alone. ‘They don’t want me to write about adoptees’ rights.’ Here’s a news flash! She can write all she wants about adoptee’s rights, we don’t care! It’s because she writes about our lives that we don’t want her to write about! When ever Joan is ‘cornered’ about what she has written, she ALWAYS says it’s about adoptee’s rights and reform, BUT, if that was true why does she HAVE TO write about our lives? Our lives have NOTHING to do with adoptee rights and reform and that is what we object to!

I now repeat a paragraph, for sake of continuity, of what I had said in one of my last posts, about what she wrote about me.  Joan Wheeler’s own behavior….exhibit A on August 18, 2011

She states, rather she fabricates, pg 314, that she was receiving harassing phone calls. She fabricates that a Buffalo police detective apparently recorded incoming and outgoing calls. On pg 316, in his report, on me, he quotes me saying ‘…she says she’s gonna bring the entire House of Thor to bring evil up on you!’  Excuse me! How dare she! ‘House of’ is an SCA term. I would never say such. These gods are not comic book heroes! Real gods don’t give a hoot about humans let alone being asked to ‘bring evil’ on someone has worthless as Joan! She lives in a fantasy world and does not know a thing about anything real! No one who takes their Heathen religion seriously would ever say such a thing; call a God to bring evil! What utter ignorance! She has no clue what real Gods are like! As I pointed out, there are role-playing gamers and then there are the real people. I happen to be a real follower of the Elder Gods and to me he was not Thor but Thunor. We shall discuss the entirely of this total fabrication in another post but remember this now, this accusation of Joan’s upon me is not only a fabrication aimed at tarnishing my reputation but also an insult to every Heathen who professes love and loyalty to the ancient High Ones. I shall never forget this insult! Heathen wisdom says: You are your Deeds, You are your Words!

I never made a phone call to Joan. She forgets that I left Buffalo in 1982 never wanting to talk with her again. I saw her for mere hours in 1992 and when I found out she caused trouble, because she didn’t like my religion and said that my mental health was in danger because of my religion, I resumed my never wanting to talk with her. I briefly spoke with her in 2005 when someone else dialed the phone number. That conversation was pleasant but Joan turned it around and described it as harassment and again I resumed my never wanting to talk with her. That’s, count them, two times since 1982, that I spoke with Joan on the phone or other wise! So, if there were and kind of wiretaps that contained actual conversations she ought to get them from the police and produce them for all of us! hyperbole

It must be remembered that the whole of Joan’s life from 1976 to 2009 was the WRITING of her book and everything that happened, or didn’t happen, was used as fodder for her to rewrite into ‘her life’ story. So, when she speaks to me in 1992 and in 2005, she had NO INTENT on reconciliation! She only used those two events, one in person and one phone call, to JUSTIFY her position that I, Gert, harassed her.

Pg 316, apparently a restraining order was issued against Ruth. I will defer to Ruth to set that story right, which I know that she has in other posts. Joan then states ‘…the other two sisters stopped their telephoning and letter writing campaigns to my home.’ Sure we stopped for we never started! Fool! If we were writing and phoning, please tell me WHAT CAUSED US TO STOP? Joan, in her usual way of telling lies, can’t seem to come up with a plausible reason, because there were NO CALLS AND LETTERS in the first place.

Then we are told, in this chapter, all about the battle to get Joan to return Kathy’s items to her. I did address some of these issues in my previous post, Joan Wheeler’s own behavior….exhibit B on August 18, 2011, where I discussed the evidence against Joan. I shall let Kathy address whatever she feels she needs to or wants to on this. Remember I was out of the loop. I knew not what was happening with Joan nor did I give a damm! It is only in Joan’s poisoned mind where she believes that I am always after her. It is in her poisoned mind that she believes, she cannot see any truth.

In Joan’s poisoned mind we learn that ‘…Dad said, you’re destroying this family…I order you to round up (Kathy’s property)…and send them to her’ Joan tells him ‘…I’m dealing with my marriage breaking down…two small children…no time to deal with Kathy’s irrational beliefs that I stole her belongings.’ Joan is ‘disgusted that ‘Big Daddy’ would throw his weight around, belittle me yet again by treating me as if I were a child.’

Notice how Joan does not take any responsibility for her own actions or inactions! She can’t because…Kathy has ‘irrational beliefs’…and…notice how she describes her birth father…’big daddy throwing his weight around and belittling little Joan’. This is ALL IN Joan’s mind; it has nothing to do with reality.

She ‘was disgusted…packed Kathy’s (stuff) and delivered them to Dad…she was steaming mad…far to busy dealing with children and constant bickering between herself and husband to be bothered over Kathy’s panic…’ Notice Joan’s reactions to having to take care of her own business…her irrational emotions and her self-centeredness. Notice that Joan doesn’t mention the letter that Dr Rene Hoksbergen sent to Kathy that I presented in the evidence post, exhibit B.

Then the scene shifts rather quickly for now Joan ‘…could get right back to my life…’ adoption reform movement activities and her marriage and her children be dammed. So in April of 93, as she claims she has no money, she goes to a conference in Cleveland ! Not only that but ‘…it was my sanctuary, my safe place, and my weeping ground and weep I did.’ Good God, that’s sad that she can’t find sanctuary and a safe place with her children! Just what kind of daily life did those children get from a woman who can only find peace and contentment at some adoption conference!

Joan identifies with the many psychological terminologies and theories that are out there, like bonding, or if bonding is terminated the infant feels a loss and on and on. Joan obviously, from very early in her life, was not truly bonded with Dorothy.

Okay…I just used a Joanism, the word obviously. Obviously, I don’t have any real knowledge of what I just said, about bonding, but, neither does Joan when she uses the word obviously when she is asserting that something is true. It may be obvious to her but not to others and obviously the word obviously does not connotate truth. That is a Joanism and the book and everywhere else that Joan writes and talks about are full of Joanisms.

In any event, we all know that Dorothy, the adopted mother, herself had many ‘issues’ that she transferred onto Joan. The only place that Joan can be validated is with adoptees where they speak the same sick language. It doesn’t matter to Joan that she has real family members to bond with, or that she had a husband and has children, she is unable to bond, period! Joan says, ‘…I realized that I was emotionally distraught due to many traumas, starting with the series of events that marked me before I was born.’ She is doomed never to be bonded, because she has self-diagnosis her condition! She is doomed…oh my god how horrible!!

Pg 319. Joan states a falsehood, ‘…some relatives, particularly my sisters, told me that they blame me for Momma’s death’ How dare she! We have never said such a thing! As far as I’m aware no relative would have said such nonsense! This is purely Joan speech to heighten her drama! She ought to be taken out back and whipped! And another falsehood, presented to Joan by her adoptive mother Dorothy, for reasons only known to Dorothy, but which nonetheless, causes great harm to the blameless, about the condition of Joan’s body as an infant. As Joan states ‘…she made me feel as if it were my fault, perhaps I should feel grateful that I was saved.’ Point being that Dorothy was a very mentally sick woman who raised an infant that she always felt was going to be taken away from her and she poisoned Joan’s mind so much and held onto Joan, that Joan has no way of knowing the difference between any kind of truth from that which springs from fear mongering.

Over and above that Joan does have a mind of her own and it truly is pathetic that she can’t think without embellishing and fabricating garbage to fit her troubled mindset. I don’t know where she got such crap like pg 319 ‘…my sisters told me…’ first off she doesn’t tell which sister, that is very important because when she includes the three of us into ‘my sisters’ that is her way of making her internal view real, when in fact it is false. I, for one, never told Joan such bullshit as ‘…we crawled all over Momma as she sat on the couch with her pregnant belly. She told the kids not to jump on her as they might hurt the baby…’

Remember, I have said it before; I was the oldest, 8 going on 9, when I last saw my mother alive. I did not know what pregnant was, I only knew she was fat. I did not know that there was a ‘baby in the belly’. It is a safe bet that if I, who was the oldest, didn’t know that there was a ‘baby in the belly’ none of the rest of the little kids knew it either! This is pure Joan fabrication, period, it is all falsehoods. Oh and it gets better! ‘…my pre-birth self heard their voices muffled through amniotic fluid and muscles as I lay curled up inside getting ready to be born…’ Such drama! Okay so she heard voices, in her pre-birth self, maybe that explains it all!

Joan is insistent on believing that the four of us siblings had some kind of ‘togetherness’ that made us different from her. She is mistaken. The four of us where also taken away and separated. No we did not, pg 319, ‘…have each other…had 18 years to come to grips with Momma’s death and her (Joan’s) disappearance…by 1974 had achieved their goal of reuniting the family…’ We were all little kids, placed here and there, had gone thorough many traumas and did not have any ‘goal’ outside of surviving! Joan has no idea of how our individual lives were.

Joan’s mind and how she interprets the world around her is full of scenario building, from her own mind, which has nothing to do with what actually happened, and yet she believes this is reality. This is why we are refuting the book because it is total fiction, from Joan’s mind not reality. A good example of this is pg 320 she ‘…had 18 years of ‘protective custody’ in which I was sheltered…(everyone saw it) as an idyllic home…those walls came tumbling down when my siblings broke through the barricade that shouldn’t have been there to begin with.’

I will say it again, contacting Joan when she was 18 was perhaps not the smartest thing I ever did, but she also was ‘looking’ and it would have been just a matter of time for ‘her’ to find us. So Joan can’t lay blame on the birth family for any disruption that occurred in the adoptive family…it was destined to happen when she was adopted. Joan is setting up her agenda here, that adoption is all wrong, when she uses words like ‘barricade’ between birth and adoptive siblings. And her use of metaphor is weird…’walls came tumbling down when my siblings broke through the barricade that shouldn’t have been there to begin with.’ What!!

She is trying to come to terms with and over the possessive adoptive parents she had and that is why she says ‘protective custody’. Sorry, she was in their care because of adoption not some kind of punishment or witness protection program from anything. Joan’s use of certain terms is really inappropriate for adoption. Perhaps she ought to go into the criminal aspect of society where they use terms like protective custody. I’m beginning to wonder if Joan sees adoption as some kind of criminal activity. Actually, since I originally wrote this essay I have seen that Joan does indeed view adoption as criminal; just look at the forum on Adult Adoptees Advocating for Change!

The way Joan interprets the world around her caused much resentment, still does, with the birth family because she ‘assigns’ to each of us, things that we never thought, perceived or did. Therefore her statements are not accurate and she is incapable, because of her dysfunction, to understand the true nature of each of us. She continually views each of us as being wrong and she assigns to each of us things that we just don’t believe, felt, or thought. Example, pg 320, ‘…natural father resented her for being a stay at home mother, yet my mother, his wife, had done the very same thing…’ He did not resent her. Joan also fails to understand the difference in historical times as well as personal circumstances. In the 1950’s most women were stay at home mothers, but in the 1980’s and 90’s most women were working and those that were at home had husbands to support them. Joan refuses to accept responsibility for her own actions, that being, that she preferred to stay home and not work outside of the home and she has continued to blame her husband and everyone else for not supporting her.

Another example, pg 320, Joan’s insistence that Dad resented her for ‘…exposing his decision to place …child for adoption…perhaps he felt guilt, perhaps remorse, but I…was the target of his anger and rage. He threw me out of his house, time and again. That’s the only way he knew how to handle me. He couldn’t love me because then he’d have to ask for my forgiveness, so he ordered me around instead.’

All of this is totally in Joan’s mind, not in reality. Dad did not resent her, his feelings are his feelings but certainly Joan was not and is not ‘…the target of his anger and rage.’ As I have told in previous posts, it was Joan’s insistence in ‘confronting’ Dad that caused him to remove her from his presence. Joan does not see that Dad is not like her adoptive father who put up with Joan’s temper outbursts. Dad does not allow such behavior in his presence, as most sane people wouldn’t. Why does she think that Dad needs to ‘ask for my (her) forgiveness’? She doesn’t understand that Dad comes from a very different historical time period and upbringing. She should stop trying to fit people into her worldview and just accept people for who and what they are. She is not qualified to give assessment of people, regardless of her college education, because she is flawed, her words and deeds cause great harm to people.

Joan’s little bit of knowledge, in the form a college degree in social work, makes her a very dangerous person. She has NO experience as a social worker because she has never worked as one, but, she fancy herself as a great social worker who understand all that is wrong with people in her life and if only they would listen to her all will be well.

Joan does the same type of projecting her mind, her worldview, upon her husband as she does with everyone. I will grant her that her husband was a piece of work, in his own right, but she didn’t have to put up with it nor try to change him. By her own words she does describe an individual who is that ‘game player’ I have mentioned before, always living in some other world, than the real one they physically inhabit. And it’s this guy’s understanding of a ‘religion’ that Joan believed mine was! What a fool!

Pg 321 Joan tells us that a Philip Beggrov Peter, PhD, a certified hynotherapist, bought a book for her, The Language of Letting Go, Daily Meditations for Codependents by Melody Beattie. I haven’t read the book but I know something about the topic. What I find absolutely appalling is, again, Joan’s insistence that the birth family is the cause of her problems. ‘He said that a child adopted out comes from a family of birth that has serious problems and these problems can have lifelong effects. When a reunion occurs the returned child can become enmeshed in the pathological family dynamics.’ Excuse me!

Since when does the death of a wife/mother, the root cause for Joan’s adoption, mean that the birth family had ‘pathological family dynamics’? There does come a point when all the physiological assessments becomes nothing but a bunch of stinking rot! Any wonder why we are refuting this stupid book? This is why Joan believes that the birth siblings have pathological problems, because she read it in a book! All the birth siblings are to Joan are lab rats that she can disect according to her whim and exploit for profit. Like I’ve said…a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!

So, for Joan’ ‘…for her survival she needed to focus on herself…it would give her personal strength. Feel the loss, the sadness and anger; let go and move on with life.’ God damm it! That is what we all had been telling her from the get go. Let it go! Didn’t she just say on pg 320 that the families ‘…expected me to just ‘snap out of it’! That’s the same thing as letting it go. But no, here it is pg 322 and now some expert told her that her birth family is pathological and she needed some f…king book to tell her that! Sure, that will put the birth family in their place! Now she can let it go! But she never has…let go!

But the key question is, for how long? We all know that answer, she doesn’t! Not only doesn’t she attempt to ‘let go’, just sort of ignore us, but also she has to make sure that she regulated everyone in the birth family in some kind of ‘cell’ so that she could go on with her ‘self-protection’. She states, ‘The silence was golden…from the condemning and condescending father he was to me…from my sisters’ persistent, childish behavior and constant put downs. I was learning to live life as a recovering co-dependent.’ She is stuck on psycho babble and doesn’t know the true meaning of changing her addiction to stress drama caused by her own need to go after those that have anything related to adoption and her refusal to change herself. Her life as a ‘recovering co-dependent’ did not last long…she still is…co-dependent…she had the adoptive mother all these years until she died in 2011, Joan still has her 25 year old daughter living and supporting her. Yep…still addicted to stress drama.

Getting rid of her husband would prove far worst mostly because of her weak character ‘…wasn’t strong enough to leave on my own…it would mean life on welfare…no marketable job skills…college degree wasn’t good now…who would care for the children…they were caught in the middle…searched for a way out.’ So she finds the perfect answer by getting back with a former boyfriend and moving in with him! Smart move! Out of the frying pan and into the fire. She is addicted to stress drama! How many old boyfriends has Joan had over the years? How many boyfriends does Joan go through in one year?

The rest of this chapter, pgs 322 to 330, involve situations that revolve around Joan’s leaving her husband, moving in with her new old boyfriend and various things related to Ruth who has, in other posts, told of these stories. There are a few things that I find of interest to point out. She tells us that her new found old boyfriend drives a garbage truck. What happened to Joan’s PC attitude? Shouldn’t that be ‘sanitation operator’? And she is willing to go, with small children, after not knowing anything about this guy, for well over 10 years and just moves in with him, just like that. Joan is an opportunist, the opportunity arose, and she wanted to leave her husband so she took it, without thinking. That’s says a lot about her care of her children. She didn’t learn a thing from 10 years earlier when she lost her ‘battle’ to prove me unfit and the ‘thought’ of abuse, in my home. No, she just got stupider. Pity her children.

For the most part these pages are full of soap opera type intrigues with things that don’t make sense, like buying a house with rent to own contract seems a strange thing to do if you are breaking up a marriage.

There are so many names on one page that it is too confusing to follow, as it is trying to fit the too many sub-plots in the story. She really needs a cleaner script! Joan is too involved with her own story to notice that, pg 324, other people see that she is nuts and she puts all this nonsense in this stupid book! Oh and yes of course whom does she blame? ‘What a mess my sister had caused!’ Joan is nuts because of those nasty birth sisters!

On pg 325 she moves in with the new boyfriend; they have ‘…the beginnings of a loving relationship…’ but then, you guessed it, ‘my sister’s interference in our lives caused (new boyfriend) and me to argue.’ Gee it’s all the sister’s fault never Joan’s and certainly not the new boyfriend’s. But wait, now the guy says that ‘…he acted hastily, the kids and her crowded him…blood sugar level…first hit me…tried to reason with him…threw down the basement stairs.’ And she wants to blame this on blood sugar levels! Either she picked one f…ed up guy or else she is fabricating again, making up yet another outrageous story so she can tell us, again, how messed up she is because she had 2 names, 2 identities and how bad her sisters are to her. Joan really loves repeating the lies because she believes them. Later, she finds out that the boyfriend had a ‘serious cognitive mental disorder’ as if that makes it understandable.

She left her husband, moved in with an unstable boyfriend and now she has to leave him, but where to go? Where else but to her adoptive mother’s home, and mind you where she has been living ever since. ‘We needed my mother more than she needed us interrupting her privacy.’ What a statement! Regardless of the fact that Dorothy, the adoptive mother, age 80, wants nothing better than to have possession of Joan, this is an extremely self-centered statement. Her mother’s privacy is secondary to what are Joan’s needs! Joan is an opportunist!  I’m glad I’m no one’s rug to be walked on!

We end this chapter with a tale of child abuse being called upon Joan and her mother. Really now, what kinds of fantastical movies does Joan watch to come up with all these outrageous plots? The way she tells them proves that she is making up a great deal for sensationalism. Remember hyperbole? Ruth has spoken out about these issues and has documentation disproving Joan.

Is Joan Wheeler talking about herself or does she really believe that it is others that are dysfunctional? Will the real dysfunctional person please stand up?

Ruth’s additional remarks:

A brief synopsis:

  1. Joan is sent money by Kathy to ship her belongings to her.
  2. Joan sends Kathy a letter acknowledging her receipt of the money.
  3. Joan stonewalls Kathy, gives her excuses why she can’t ship the things.
  4. Because of this, Kathy and Joan get into a disagreement via phone.
  5. Joan enlists the help of Prof. Rene Hoksbergen to “intervene”
  6. Prof. Hoksbergen sends Kathy a condescending letter, and says that Joan does not have money to ship her belongings to her. He says it will cost $500.00 to do so.
  7. Kathy then calls our father for help.
  8. Dad calls Joan and orders her to bring Kathy’s things to his house.
  9. Dad ships Kathy’s things to her in three different shipments, for the total cost of $151.00
  10. When Kathy receives them, several items are missing, mostly valuable Beatles memorabilia.
  11. When questioned by Dad, Joan says she sent “everything.”
  12. Dad did not have a heart attack, but angina, and did go to the hospital.
  13. Our stepsister, “Claire” in the book did call Joan and bitch her out.
  14.  Ruth receives a harassing letter from Joan accusing Ruth of causing the mess. Ruth had nothing to do with all of the above, and had no knowledge of anything. (The person who caused the mess was Joan herself, by #1. Not shipping Kathy’s belongings. #2. getting Prof. Hoksbergen involved in a family situation. #3. Not returning Kathy’s money. – Why does Joan NEVER accept responsibility for her actions – why is it ALWAYS somebody else’s fault – usually Ruth. – I just want to slap her sometimes.
  15. Ruth then talked to Kathy and found out about the missing items. Since Ruth SAW those items in Joan’s attic, Ruth knows (and tells Kathy) that by Joan not returning all the items, those items were now considered STOLEN.
  16.  In the spring of 1993, Ruth began receiving greeting cards in the mail. The greeting cards were actually for Ruth’s husband and signed by Joan’s children, but the envelopes were not addressed to John Pace, but to Ruth Sippel.
  17. In June 1993, Ruth received another envelope addressed to her, but inside was a letter supposedly written by Joan’s 10 year old son and the letter was for John. Further examination of the letter shows that Joan had forged the letter, posing as her son.
  18. Ruth called Joan on the phone to find out why Joan was playing these games. Joan said “wait a minute.” And hung up. This was repeated 3 times. Ruth stopped calling, refusing to play along.
  19. The following week, Ruth’s electricity was cut off. Joan still owed her money – money that Joan and her husband Colby STOLE from Ruth. Ruth calls Joan begging for help. Joan hangs up on her. In anger, Ruth called her back and did swear at her.
  20. Joan had a tracetrap placed on her phone from the first of June because she was receiving harassment phone calls, which were NOT from Gert, Kathy, or Ruth. Because Joan had that trap in place, she baited Ruth with that forged letter. And Ruth, taking the bait, called her. The trace trap did catch Ruth’s calls, (actual court document shows that ONLY the times and length of calls were taken, NOT actual conversations.
  21. Ruth receives a phone call from police Det. Martin Harrington to explain, Ruth does so and when she mentions the stolen money, Det. Harrington audibly gasped, said he would recommend that Joan drop any harassment charges. Joan did not. And proceeded to take Ruth to court.
  22. Joan signed the complaint in July 1993, not February 1993, as she says in the book.
  23. Joan received a six-month order of protection against Ruth, not a one year order of protection as she says in the book.
  24. Ruth abides by the order of the court, and because of this, the restraining order was dismissed.
  25. Ruth never called Joan’s new boyfriend. didn’t know his name. If he beat Joan up and threw her down the basement stairs, how is Ruth responsible? Again – it’s Ruth’s fault! Joan gets a flat tire – it’s Ruth’s fault. Joan gets sneezed on in a supermarkt and catchs a cold – it’s Ruth’s fault.Why even in 1999 when THE TOWN OF EDEN, NY POLICE DEPARTMENT CALLED JOAN AND QUESTIONED JOAN ABOUT A LETTER JOAN WROTE TO GAIL BUDZISZEWSKI AND JOAN ADMITTED TO THE POLICE THAT SHE, JOAN HAD WRITTEN IT AND THE POLICE INSTITUTED HARASSMENT CHARGES ON JOAN – it’s Ruth’s fault. She says it right in the book – Ruth was the blame. Ruth even controls police departments. Ruth has so much power — riiight. – Ruth must have gone to Joan’s house with a gun, held it at Joan’s head and forced her to write the letter to Gail, put it in an envelope, put a stamp on it, took Joan to the post office and forced Joan to mail the letter. But – didn’t Joan write in the book admitting that she herself wrote the letter and the admitted to the police that she did write the letter? So HOW does Ruth get blamed for the letter? — When the court granted Gail a one year restraining order against Joan – again, in the book – IT WAS RUTH’S FAULT!  – — Ruth even controls judges and courts! Talk about cognitive disassociation! Ruth is the blame for everything bad that happened and happens in Joan’s life! and Ruth is tired of this shit.

The following previous blog posts cover all of the above, with supporting court documentation and letters:

 A Book of Lies, December 20, 2009

Lies in the book Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler December 18, 2009

Repost: the story of Joan Wheeler’s theft of money from me, February 27, 2010

Did Joan’s 10 year old son write that letter I got in June 1993? Or did Joan herself?, December 12, 2009

This post – Gert McQueen answers the secret is out – more evidence of misdeeds and lies by Joan Wheeler contains scanned copies of the actual correspondence from Prof. Rene Hoksbergen to Kathy, where he says it would cost $500.00; Joan’s letter saying she received the money order from Kathy; and Dad’s three shipping receipts that total $151.00.

Three years earlier, Joan had scammed Ruth out of several hundred dollars.When Ruth put her foot down and refused to be Joan’s patsy anymore, Joan went looking for a new mark, and cried her eyes out to her “very good and dear friend” to enlist his help. Noted adoption expert and college Dutch psychologist, author, and Utrecht University professor Dr. Rene Hoksbergen and tried to extort money from Kathy.

Are we learning yet Susan Thompson Underdahl?  These events happened 20 years ago – 1990-1993, and Joan is still pulling the wool over the eyes of so-called “smart” people.

  1. The OTHER Lilac permalink

    Sorry, but I’ve seen the oppressive adoptive parents ritual. There is tremendous hurt and loss on all sides, adoptees are always put in a position of trying to please just about everyone. And perhaps that makes the birth family somewhat more expendable. I mean, geez. The subject of a published novel…what issues underlie the need to write that novel.

  2. Reblogged this on Reclaiming the Sippel-Herr Family Honor and commented:

    there is always a constant NEED to refresh people’s minds of the evils that Joan Wheeler has done…there are several people, her friends, who refuse to GET IT…

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. For any interested parties concerning Susan Thompson Underdahl and this blog. « Reclaiming the Sippel-Herr Family Honor
  2. Joan Wheeler spins a tale of deceipt and gets all tangled up in a web of her own making. « Reclaiming the Sippel-Herr Family Honor

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: