Skip to content

First Sibling to Die and 30th year of reunion…the next chapters in Forbidden Family to be explored

by on November 15, 2011
Joan Wheeler continues her melodramatic piece of lying crap in chapter 32 and 33 of Forbidden Family
If people have forgotten the libelous book that Joan Wheeler wrote…here we are AGAIN. Oh yes, there is more of that book so let’s continue on, shall we!
This blog essay was written Sept 30, 2010 and has been revised here now November 2011

Always in need for the continuation of drama, Joan Wheeler continues her melodramatic piece in chapter 32, called the First Sibling to Die and chapter 33 called the 30th Year of Reunion.
Melodrama: sensationalized dramatic or literary work: a dramatic or other literary work characterized by the use of stereotyped characters, exaggerated emotions and language, simplistic morality, and conflict
Cattle die, kinsmen die, you too will one day die, all that will remain, is your refrain!            …Havamal: Words of the Wise One. Germanic lore.
As usual, to convey the story, Joan uses ‘melodrama’…she ‘screamed and dropped the phone’, when she was told her brother died. You know, I got a phone call too and I didn’t scream and carry on and drop the phone! Death is part of life. We all lose someone we love, as we ourselves will die. There is no reason to have all that drama when someone dies. In particular it is not ‘good’ for the soul of the one who just passed, for that type of drama frightens the newly departed soul.  (Ruth’s note: well Gert, everybody reacts to news of death differently. I reacted to hearing about Butch’s death with a string of obscenities. I did cry. I did not drop the phone. I did talk calmly with my father. Cosnidering this was the 5th death of a relative that I had expereinced in the past 5 weeks, I was rather rational. The stuff all began on July 21, 2003 when my husband’s grandfather died. On July 28, my mother in law died. One week later, my cousin Gail died. I did not drop the phone, again talked rationally to my father, but went upstairs and woke up my husband and then was hysterical. Two weeks later, my ex-husband’s cousin came to my door and told me of my ex-husband’s passing. I didn’t become hysterical, but I did feel the need to sit down. In fact, Shawqi guided me to one of the chairs on my porch. – People don’t understand that even though Abdo and I had broken up in 1985 and we both had moved on (I had been with John since 1986) – Abdo was my first love. When Abdo came back to Buffalo in 1994, we didn’t get back together, but we were still good friends. Even my present husband John was a friend to Abdo, admired him very much and actually cried when I told him that Abdo passed. There’s no need for melodramatics – we all knew that Butch had been ill. Sad that he passed – oh yes. Grieved? oh yes. But we were sort of prepared for it. Joan’s documentation of how she reacted to Butch’s death is not so much of a reflection of her grieving him, but showing her readers of another blow to HER – in her oh-so-traumatic life! As usual, shit happens ONLY to Joan. As I jsut documented, I went through a lot of shit myself in only 5 short weeks. And then 3 weeks after my brother’s death – my husband had open heart surgery. The week before his surgery he and I quit smoking – cold turkey! So I don’t feel sorry for Joan. She experienced the loss of her birth brother – but she didn’t grow up with him. I did. She didn’t experience climbing trees and playing ball with him. Playing Davy Crockett and cowboys and indians with. Exploring the science musuem and other places with. Going swimming with him and having him defending me when a playground bully was bothering me. Or getting punched in the arm by him. – Older brothers are really a contradiction – one minute they’re defending you, the next minute they’re the ones who are messing with you.  — So why was Joan all hysterical? Give me a break!) – Back to Gert’s post:
But, Joan has to have her drama and she allows her ‘inner life’ to just take over. Pg 377, she ‘…sank into sorrow…absentmindedly signed papers for teachers…blinked incomprehensibly at my daughter who needed supplies.’ We see that Joan has NOT YET learned to take better care of her children or pay attention to their needs as we have seen in previous chapters and posts. Too bad for the children.  Remember, Joan says they are ‘dear’ to her!
Joan was ‘…afraid to be cooped up on a plane with one sister who hated me…also afraid to be alone with my father.’ And of her adopted mother Joan says ‘…she didn’t believe me when I told her my brother died…stared at me while I cried…typical of her reactions to any real emotions of mine, she dismissed my grief as if I were acting.’ Has Joan ever heard of the story of the ‘wolf who cried too much’? And didn’t I just point out that Joan loves and needs to be melodramatic so perhaps the adoptive mother felt…well there she goes again!
Dad took, to Phoenix for the funeral, several of his children. Kathy did not go: she was in England. I did not go and told my father that I saw no particular reason to go for I had already spent long conversations with my brother before his death and I don’t travel well. But, it was heard and told to me by others, that Joan, in all her wisdom, and her constant interference and judgements of other’s behaviors, said that I, being the eldest, should have been there. Sorry, I do not live my life according to Joan’s visions/opinions of what I ‘should’ do. Again, this is an example of how Joan makes statements of ‘fact’ about situations and personal knowing when in fact she has none. Joan never spoke to me about my reasons for not going, but yet, Joan can make judgments about me according to her flawed reasoning…that is called misrepresentation and certainly is not any form of truth.  
And because her natural family is not given to dramatic outbursts as she is ‘the plane flight was emotionally cold…Dad kept the two warring sisters (Joan and Ruth) apart…these four days were going to be hell.’ Joan has pre-ordained the situation long before it unfolds! Typical behavior of Joan’s and the reason why after awhile NO ONE wants to be around her.
It ought to be remember, when attempting to understand Joan, that people’s motives, as portrayed by Joan, are all build upon conjecture on her part. In other words, she makes it up, as she goes along, that is, all circumstances, what is in the other person’s mind and what comes out of their mouths, is all done, by Joan, to suit Joan’s vision of reality. Joan is very conditioned by outward appearances, she makes snap value decisions without looking closely. Example, pg 379, ‘we pulled into the driveway of my deceased brother’s home…I had no idea …they were this wealthy.’ Did Joan also see behind that appearance? Did she see years of building, struggles, bills, and debt? It truly is amazing. That’s like a person seeing a new car and thinks the person is ‘wealthy’ but they never see the 5 years of paying for it behind the car.
This ‘conditioned by outward appearances’ is what is so unsettling about Joan’s book and how she presents the families. Joan makes all kinds of personal judgments and uses a lot of second-guessing and assumptions about everyone and every situation. Then she puts on paper what ‘happened’ according to her mind, her judgments, her morally. She can’t possibly be all that all-knowing and all wise as to know what is in another’s mind and/or life. But yet, according to her, she wrote a book that is the truth and no one should question it or her! It’s the truth, Joan says, and oh never mind the person BEHIND that curtain!!!
And as in other chapters, this chapter has much retelling and rehashing of the same old ‘perceived’ turmoil that Joan has with family members, so much so that it isn’t even worth mentioning. One wonders, what’s the point of it all? Does Joan believe that by repeating her pain, over and over again, people will believe her? This book is boring! How many times does she have to tell the reader how she ‘perceives’ how people behave towards her?
She relates a story, pg 383/384, that is again, false. She has combined several episodes, making them into one, added a few more details and presto we have more of a dramatic effect! According to my memory, and memories are faulty, I have two distinct memories of two separate events and they don’t add up to what Joan has presented here.
There was a time when my brother, as a small child, was indeed ill with sore throat, fever and cough, but it did not occur the same night our mother went to the hospital as Joan states. It occurred after an incident when our home was in repair from a ceiling collapse. I remember it well; we four children were in the living room watching Howdy Doody on TV. Both our parents were in the kitchen. I heard a strange noise on the ceiling, looking up I saw a beginning crack and I screamed. We all ran from the living room into the kitchen to both our parents. It was during the time that our home was being repaired when my brother got ill. I remember my grandmother and her sister, our great aunt and the ‘owners’ of the house we lived in were in and out taking care of us, including my brother. It is possible that my mother got sick and had to go to the hospital but it was not at the same time as when my brother got ill. His illness lasted for a few days. It was AFTER my brother was well again, that our mother went to the hospital to stay. It was not an emergency! It was a planned event; we all know that Mommy had to go back to the hospital to stay for a while. My father took my mother AFTER we all said goodbye to her. There was no drama as Joan portrays it.
Every retelling of a story, by Joan, is filled with… Melodrama: sensationalized dramatic or literary work: a dramatic or other literary work characterized by the use of stereotyped characters, exaggerated emotions and language, simplistic morality, and conflict.
And as usual Joan loves to use melodrama to fill in the images she has carefully crafted of her last look at our brother, in the casket, and of the ‘…last hint of love between…’ herself and her sister, whom she still believes is ‘out to get her’. It’s all about Joan being ‘conditioned by outward appearances’ and her own ‘inner reality’ and subjective reasoning, taking bits and pieces that she puts together and then placing the webs around them to make it real! Not!!!
Hey don’t you think that that last paragraph, of mine, was a good example of dramatic melodrama? I did! And I’m the only one that counts here! This is an example of HOW Joan thinks!
If you read or listen to Joan carefully you will see where she is always having recurring reconciliations  instead of real permanent ones, with members of the family. Why is that? Because as soon as someone gives her ‘another’ chance, she blows it. She is incapable of maintaining any last relationship. Joan ends this chapter, pg 384, at our brother’s funeral in 2003, where she ‘…couldn’t recall the last phone conversation…don’t think we spoke since before I sent him the letter of reconciliation in 1999 – the letter that he ignored.’  Wonder why he didn’t answer it? I don’t know, he and I never spoke about it, but I can tell you what I think and know. From my own experience the two times I’ve reached out to ‘touch’ Joan to reconcile with her I got more betrayal and grief. She is not worth the effort! Ruth may be able to share more here, but, since this lying hateful book was published, I learned, and seen more, letters that Joan has written including this one she wrote to our brother. The reason he did NOT answer it and ignored it was because in it Joan TRASHS his sisters to him! Just like our father, our brother, will NOT tolerate Joan’s behavior of trashing us sisters. We, sisters, did not and will not tolerate Joan’s behavior and that is why we are speaking out against her and every lie and deed she has done to us and family.
Continuing her melodramatic piece of misrepresentations, the next chapter, 33, is called, the 30th Year of Reunion. This title is an oxymoronic statement for the reunion ended and was dead years before; it is only in Joan’s diseased mind that she thinks there was/is any on-going reunion.
My personal participation in a ‘reunion’ lasted from 1974 to 1982. It ended in 82 when Joan interfered in my minor children’s lives, when I adopted my son and when she called child abuse on me twice because she DIDN’T like the way I was raising my children and that I ADOPTED! When I attempted a reconciliation in 1992 I again was betrayed by Joan and so that second ‘reunion’ lasted all of ONE WEEK. When will Joan get it…I don’t want any form of reunion with her! We will revisit this issue, about Joan’s continued attempts at reconciliations with me, in another post when I get the evidence assembled.
Nonetheless, she begins this chapter, like so many before, with embellishments, changing details to reverse the blame from herself onto her sisters. If you doubt me, please, re-read her book with NEW eyes. Look at how everything that happens to her is caused by ‘her sisters’, Joan is always the victim, someone is always dumping on her. Thirty years later, be in the book or in real time, she is still doing the same shit. It will never end!
In her attempts to gain more information, for her book, from persons that she only had brief acquaintances with, many years before, she had written a letter that prompted negative responses, not to her, but to her sisters because these people were now being ‘targeted’ by Joan. These people did not want any contact from Joan, but Joan doesn’t get it and as usual, turns the tables by saying it is the sisters’ who are causing the trouble. In other words, just as Joan wrote ‘reconciliation’ letters to our brother and others, she now wrote to acquaintances, and they want NOTHING to do with her! So when our father confronts Joan, to leave people alone, Joan turns it all around and says she is not to blame. She can’t communicate with her father, because of the ‘constant interference from my older sisters.’ No one interfered with her! It was Joan who wrote a letter to someone who DID NOT want to have contact with Joan. There is EVIDENCE and that evidence, of Joan’s harassments, will be made public.
And then Joan has the nerve, pg 387, to say ‘…what we really needed was a mediator to help us talk face to face.’ That statement is just there for Joan to ‘look good’. Joan didn’t then, or at any time before or since, want any kind of mediator. I tried that with her back in 1981/82 after she had interfered with my minor children and my parental authority. When the mediation group sent Joan a letter for a meet, Joan’s answer was ‘I want nothing to do with that bitch and she can go to hell.’ No, Joan wants only to continue to blame the ‘sisters’.
Even her so called ‘attempts’ with communicating with Ruth, via a joined website, ended not because of Ruth but because of Joan. Joan NEVER is the cause; she NEVER sees how her words or actions cause the trouble. Joan is ALWAYS the victim, always harassed by the other person. NEVER has Joan admitted to ALL THE LETTERS  she has written to cause trouble. But letters do exist and she will now have to answer them!
Dad had a planned by-pass operation; he did develop some complications that did require a bit of time in a nursing room. Sometimes when a person gets sick, is in the hospital and recovering, there is a wake up call that occurs. I had one in 2001 and changed many things in my life. I believe that my Dad had one after this operation. When you have a wake up call there are times when you review your life and attempt to ‘justify’ things. Dad did just that, to all of us, not just with Joan, she isn’t all that unique to single herself out for special attention here. What is an important consideration, when someone is having these wake up calls, is to give comfort and not try to get them to confess. Joan’s constant harping, about the wrongs done to her, about her adoption, caused Dad many needless concerns and pain. This is why in 2009 Dad forbid Joan to come to his home and why the family forbid Joan to come to the hospital when he died, and why the family forbid Joan to be in our presence at the funeral home. Joan did the same thing to her adoptive mother in her last years of life.
Dad DID NOT NEED TO JUSTIFY HIS ACTIONS WHEN HE PLACED JOAN UP FOR ADOPTION. But Joan will not let it rest. Why? So she could continue with her drama, because she ‘…needed to see him on Thanksgiving Day… felt as if I didn’t belong…quiet on the outside, screaming on the inside…wanted to be alone with Dad who gave me away to tell him it was all right…needed his understanding and approval…needed him to understand why I’m writing this book…I needed, I needed, I needed.’ That’s right, it’s all about Joan and her needs! What Joan needs is a wake up call! These actions of Joan’s toward my father are called browbeating, intimidation and harassments. Joan is an expert at doing so, as we have shown of Joan’s own deeds towards elderly.
And to make sure the her readers see it the way Joan sees it, she then retells us all again, how Dad said he made mistakes, he needed an education, the priest said this, the relatives said that. And how calming Joan is towards him. Bull shit! It’s not only a literary technique of word play but also more drama to fit into Joan’s version of things. Goddamn why can’t Joan leave it alone! Dad does not have to make amends to Joan or to anyone! Joan was adopted out of the family for good and solid reasons….deal with it already! 
I made a visit home that January of 2004 and saw Dad in the nursing home. He told that he has been spending time with Joan. I said that was fine and if I see her I see her, not to worry. Joan portrays her time with aging adoptive mother and birth father and stepmother as if it was all ‘peaches and cream’, but I know that just under the surface there is much more that Joan does not tell for I had conversations with both my dad and step-mother. On pg 392 she launches into 7 pages of rehashing the same old shit related to Dad and her adoption only adding more and more embellishments. What is the purpose? It is only to make more drama, to continue it on and on and on and Joan’s opportunity to fabricate yet more on the family history. No wonder the book is so long!
A family’s history is not limited to only one member’s memory. This is Joan’s major misunderstanding. She is not the sole authority on what happened. I personally do not agree with her presentations of certain issues and I take exception to her ‘putting words’ in Dad’s mouth. If Dad had any issues with me, about anything, he certainly never was at a loss to express them to me. (in the book Joan calls me Irma, I’m not Irma I’m Gert) So, as on pg 392, when Joan has Dad saying ‘…I should have made contact with you, not Gert…I should have been given the opportunity to make first contact…’
Fact: a decision between four siblings was made, without consulting Dad, about whether we should contact Joan upon her 18th birthday. I spoke with a lawyer and an adoption agency and was told that ONLY siblings were able to contact the adoptive sibling, that the parent STILL could not do so. I was told that it was NOT against the law for siblings to contact the adopted sibling and the decision amongst the four of us was for me, Gert, being the oldest to make first contact. Okay, that’s the truth, from the one who made the contact. Today I will admit that contacting Joan was the WORST thing we did, but, like with everything in life, you make decisions with what you  have at any given moment. It is only Joan who KNOWS what everyone SHOULD have done long before she was ever born! And because everyone made the WRONG decisions, without consulting Joan, everyone is WRONG and must PAY forever.
This whole business is presented in the book, by Joan, only to give her another opportunity to state, as she does on pg 392, that ‘Gert took control away from you (Dad), my adoptive parents and me.’ This is why Joan hates me, because she perceives that I took control, wrong! Perhaps I and my brother and sisters were wrong, who really knows and at this point it DOESN’T matter; its history and you can’t change it. It is only in Joan’s mind that it matters, because she truly believes that there was a conspiracy about her adoption. This is pure paranoia at work! She has to continue on with, telling again in this book, about the inter-family disagreements and how her life was destroyed because she was adopted and lied to, etc., in other words the same old tired whining line that all adoptees have. And again, blame Gert. On pg 395 she says ‘…when I turned 18 and Gert called to tell me the truth – that’s when my world fell apart.’ Okay! So I’m the scapegoat! I’m Joan’s whipping post! Never mind that Joan was searching for the birth family herself and would have found us on her own, eventually.
Joan’s purpose for writing the book, never mind that the reason was exposed already, in Joan’s own words as I have already written about, namely that, she was ‘turned down’ by ALMA because her story didn’t fit their needs. Joan was ‘pissed’ and wrote ‘her story’ to ‘show them’. Her reason that she states on pg 395 was ‘…to tell what happened so that no adoptee would be, deliberately, lied to again.’ Oh really now! Is she another ‘Joan of Arc’ or some other kind of savior! So Joan’s self-importance makes it okay to outright fabricate and hold hostage every member of two families with her dishonoring of their lives! No matter, she only needs the platform to continue on, for the next couple of pages, with her agenda…but at whose expense?
On pg 398 Joan outright lies! She states that I had her address since she was 10 years old! This is a lie! She then fabricates, lies, about me sending her dolls, on my own without my father’s knowledge, via a lawyer. This is a lie! Again Joan is mixing up and adding on various bits and pieces. Truth is that I did, for several years early on after Joan’s adoption, give to my father, a doll to be sent to my ‘sister’. My father was the one who took it to the lawyer, who then passed it on to the adoptive family. Joan’s adoptive mother, in her own need to control Joan and keep the ‘secret’ kept making up various stories as to why and how these dolls kept coming to Joan. I did not know of Joan’s address until the decision to contact her was made, when I then asked my aunt, and Joan was 17 not 10 and we waited until she was 18 to call her.
So after fabricating a story to fit Joan’s reality, she represents herself as coming to the rescue of my father and makes our father ‘apologize 50 times for giving me (her) up for adoption’. I say that either this is a fabrication, or she is one hell of a good manipulator to be able to get an old man, recovering from a heart operation, to say what ever she wants. But wait, there’s more, this is not the first time that Joan has done that. Remember the letter she wrote to my foster mother and how she browbeat her? Joan is a master intimidator, particularly of old people. Now Joan turns to the adoptive mother, pg 399, and takes 10 pages to tell us more drama to fit Joan’s vision of how it is. And remember, Joan is a browbeater to the elderly.
Of course there is no way that I would know for fact about what happened between adoptive mother and Joan but from previous episodes in this book we can figure out that there is a lot of fabricating and embellishing in the next few pages here. This statement, pg 398/399, is quite telling ‘…Mom had not once in 30 years apologized, nor explained, why she didn’t want me to ever know I had sisters and brothers and a father. I needed her to acknowledge that her deliberate hateful lie caused me a lifetime of pain…I needed her to see that the lie infected…I needed her to see…I needed her to see…’
And what about Joan’s lies? They were NOT deliberate or hateful and did NOT cause lifetimes of pain to several person?
Again, here is the beginning of yet another old person becoming intimidated and browbeaten by Joan. Just what makes Joan think that her adoptive mother, birth father or any one for that matter, NEEDS to apology to her? A PARENT does not NEED to APOLOGY for NOTHING! Joan is a browbeater! It’s all about Joan’s NEEDS. Sorry Joan you are NOT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE. Reasons that people adopt are not subjected to apology from the very person that was adopted! There are reasons for keeping identities of birth parents from adopted children.  
Joan continues with her fabrications; pg 399 in regards to a ‘story’ her adoptive mother tells her about a Christmas that they ‘gave to’ our father because ‘…we felt they needed a Christmas’, Joan states ‘…my mind was a blur, over 3 decades my father did not mention any of this…maybe he forgot or it was too painful for him.’ I say, perhaps it never happened and Joan is making it up again. Do you see how Joan uses the choice of wordplay to ‘create’ a sense of ‘shared’ drama, at Christmas time no less? What’s the point here? To show that her adoptive parents ‘felt’ superior to the birth family! This and other ‘stories’ are put in this book, by Joan, as proof of the duplicity of her adoptive parents!
Duplicity means deceitfulness: the fact of being deceptive, dishonest, or misleading. Joan believes her adoptive parents are deceitful and interestingly enough Joan has learned it from living it with them.
We are then exposed, yet again, to the ramblings of a nut case (Joan) with her use of hyperbole to describe her intense self-pity and her warped view of reality, talking to herself, in her mind, as she continues to weave her own web of duplicity!
She tells of an adoptive family member who was the ‘conniving meddler’ who ‘…arranged for my adoption and also spied upon me…’ Gosh, you mean to say that there was someone other than Joan’s mean birth sisters that caused Joan trouble! Yep, according to Joan, pg 401, it was her adoptive father’s relatives that were the cause and source of over 30 years of hatred and abuse towards Joan, not the birth sisters!
Joan’s use of words to describe her adoptive mother’s behavior is so like Joan’s own behavior. Like mother, like daughter as the saying goes. It takes one to know one. As Joan continues to tell the reader how her mother is, she is telling you how she is! And she explains her reason for ‘moving back home with her mother’, pg 401, was so ‘…her children would not live in a housing complex for the poor…exposing them to crime, drugs and alcohol.’ There we go again with the Joan’s poor routine! But, now she says she was wrong because she was still living with that mother’s hate and rage. No, the real reason Joan moved in is because Joan and her adoptive mother cannot live without each other! Then Joan goes on and on about the ways people were treated as immigrants, in Catholic schools, learning the English language and other aspects of life as to ‘find’ the reason why her adoptive mother is the way she is. Here’s a novel thought; why not learn to ACCEPT the way she is! That might stop a lot of suffering for everyone!
No, if Joan were to accept her mother’s life it would mean that she would have to give up her agenda! And we see her agenda on pg 404. It’s all about the conspiracy against every adoptee in the world from social taboos and political conventions! Gosh it’s too bad that people like Joan don’t get to understand the reasons behind taboos and social conventions, without them there would be no civil society. But, then again, take a good look around you in 2010; the fabric is beginning to fray!
Back to Joan’s agenda; the conspiracy surrounding her life. She cannot accept her adoptive mother and her life because the mother ‘…inflicted contradictory statements and behaviors toward me all of my life because she misunderstood the world around her.’ What!! Joan states again, ‘…how could I accept and forgive her deliberate actions and words that hurt me then and now?’ There it is…forgiveness, neither can! And if someone holds a different opinion from Joan’s they will never have any forgiveness. Pg 406, the adoptive mother says to Joan ‘…I still believe adoptees should never be told they’re adopted’. Joan’s thought on that statement is ‘what a destructive opinion’ and the reason is because Joan believes in a conspiracy of her life…they all lied about and to her!
Joan’s adoptive family was very different from her birth family, this is why Joan doesn’t fit in with the birth family, she wasn’t raised as we were, and this is also why Joan doesn’t fit in with the adoptive family, because they told lies and kept secrets. But contrary to what Joan believes as the reason, that… ‘we were all victims of an unhealthy adoption system’ the truth is more in the ways that the adoptive family choose to inform the adoptee over a life span. Parents, be they adoptive or birth parents, are people and people are just that people, nothing special, we all are in the same place, as people. It’s too bad that Joan cannot accept that she too is nothing special; she belongs with all of us as part of the rest of humanity. 
Pg 408 has Joan telling us how she spend the 30th anniversary of the phone call that ‘…changed my life and reunited me (her) with my natural family…I commemorated the day in seclusion.’ She does that a lot! Interestingly, she doesn’t tell of my phone call to her around that same time, spring of 2004! But why should she, if she did she’d have to acknowledge that I did attempt to ‘reconcile’ with her and that fact would not support her agenda against me. Instead she opts to use that call as a point of my ‘harassing’ her.
Truth is that I went again to Buffalo when Dad came home from the nursing home. It was during that visit sometime in early 2004 that I asked my stepmother to ‘dial the number’ to Joan so I could talk with her. Dad knew I was talking with her. Joan and I spoke cautiously yet calmly with each other. I don’t recall particulars but it was cordial with mention of her children, her involvement with the Unitarians and that I was doing well. But this fact is nowhere in the book, only that I harassed her on the phone!
She ends this chapter not with hope but with self-pity…‘I hope those who have tormented me in the past will have some shred of decency to leave me in peace.’ To whom is she talking? To members of the adoptive family that did indeed torment her, to the birth family that only she believes tormented her, or from herself who truly does torment her? See why she doesn’t mention that phone call from me in 2004, it would not fit with her vision of torment that says is her life.
Comment by Ruth

Ruth here,
I will be posting my thoughts on opinions on this in time. I’m so busy at this time.
Just a couple of quick things: My father did not separate the “warring sisters” on the airplane. Joan neglects to mention that before we even left Buffalo, at the airport, she and her live-in boyfriend boyfriend were at the terminal first. I arrived second, Dad and Joselyne and Steve arrived about 20 minutes later. During those 20 minutes, I would leave the terminal to go outside and smoke, leaving my baggage near Joan. We didn’t speak, but I trusted her enough to watch over my baggage.
Gert doesn’t mention that in the book Joan states that when we arrived at our brother’s house, it was agreed that she stay our nephew’s house and I stayed at our brother’s house, again to “keep us apart.” Bullcrap! The arrangements were that non-smokers go to Kris’s house, and smokers, me, Joselyne and Steve stayed with our sister-in-law. We were all smokers.
But Joan likes to put her spin on it so that it appears as though Ruth was going to pounce on her when someone wasn’t looking. Puh-leaze! She is not worth me going to jail over.

Gert here again. Yes, when Ruth has the time she will be addressing many issues…there is only so much time in a day. So by all means please make sure to keep reading our blogs, for we are NOT done reviewing, refuting and setting the truth out over everything that Joan wrote in that book of lies.

  1. Ruth here,
    I will be posting my thoughts on opinions on this in time. I’m so busy at this time.
    Just a couple of quick things: My father did not separate the “warring sisters” on the airplane. Joan neglects to mention that before we even left Buffalo, at the airport, she and her live-in boyfriend boyfriend were at the terminal first. I arrived second, Dad and Joselyne and Steve arrived about 20 minutes later. During those 20 minutes, I would leave the terminal to go outside and smoke, leaving my baggage near Joan. We didn’t speak, but I trusted her enough to watch over my baggage.
    Gert doesn’t mention that in the book Joan states that when we arrived at our brother’s house, it was agreed that she stay our nephew’s house and I stayed at our brother’s house, again to “keep us apart.” Bullcrap! The arrangements were that non-smokers go to Kris’s house, and smokers, me, Joselyne and Steve stayed with our sister-in-law. We were all smokers.
    But Joan likes to put her spin on it so that it appears as though Ruth was going to pounce on her when someone wasn’t looking. Puh-leaze! She is not worth me going to jail over.

  2. Reblogged this on Refuting a Book of Lies: Forbidden Family — and commented:

    this has not been seen in quite a long time…always good to recall the contents of that libelous book

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. continuing on refuting that libelous book, Forbidden Family « Refuting a Book of Lies: Forbidden Family –

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: