adoption reform, Adult Adoptees Advocating for Change, birth/adoptive families, confrontations with Joan Wheeler, dead book, Joan centric, libelous book, obeying the law of the land, public record, record keeping and fraud, sins of omission and suppress of one's own misdeeds, tainted evidence
Birth certificates and amended adoption certificates are NOT evidence of state fraud…they are vital statics!
Chapter 37, of Joan Wheeler’s Forbidden Family, is called ‘Presenting my personal documents as evidence of state fraud’.
Right from the starting gate, in this chapter, I sense the dynamics of a one-woman courtroom! Joan has taken on the entire system of ‘record keeping’, by governments, calling it ‘fraud’ and believes that her ‘personal documents’ are ‘evidence’. Talk about being the center of the universe…that’s right, everything Joan does comes from a Joan-centric position. Much in this chapter has already been presented several times over in previous chapters. This chapter’s title is very misleading. Redundancy is what this chapter ought to be called! After 13 pages, of showing the documents, she then goes on, for 8 more pages, of pontificating and demanding and outlining her agenda! Talk about ‘bait and switch’!
Much of the documents presented here actually are my and my sisters ‘evidence’ that Joan did not ‘protect’ other family members’ identities or ours. The simple fact remains that by NOT removing my mother’s names and my father’s last name, she has given enough information for any easy research. She did not remove living person’s names, nor did she provide written proof that she received permission to have those living person’s names printed. This book was sloppily written and
researched and has exposed and exploited family members.
Joan’s arguments, in this chapter, are similar to those that she used in the past 36 chapters. She could have easily just presented her evidence and dispensed with all the personal dramas, insanities and lies, about 550 pages worth, but she really wasn’t interested in doing a book unless it focused heavily on her personal centric views! Be that as it may…her arguments are spurious in nature; that is by definition, not genuine: different from what it is claimed to be, not authentic, or not valid or well founded. They are based more on a personal self-righteous indignation of the way the system actually is; in other words, she feels anger at the unfairness of her adopted status. The word indignation means: anger because something seems unfair or unreasonable.
She has, and continues to, present false scientific positions and facts. She has a theory and is fitting her facts into her theory instead of the opposite and true way of doing it. Don’t confuse her with the real facts; she already has the theory, facts and outcome. Sorry Joan, that is not the way to do it!
Scientism – use of scientific method: the use of the scientific method of acquiring knowledge, whether in the traditional sciences or in other fields of inquiry.
Scientific method – means of acquiring knowledge scientifically: the system of advancing knowledge by formulating a question, collecting data about it through observation and experiment, and testing a hypothetical answer.
Does Joan follow the scientific method in presenting her case of adoption reform? Of course not, if she were not so angry, hostile, full of rage, with indignant self-righteousness, perhaps she might be able to ‘sell’ her case, but this book is not the way to go. A real Social Worker would have done better and be smarter!
When Joan uses words like evidence, state fraud, fraud, falsified and the like she is already labeling the evidence…she has tainted the evidence! She does not believe in the state’s or religious organization’s authorities to keep statistical information, to grant and change or modify any record, as in the case of adoption where it is necessary to show and prove that one person’s name and parentage was duly noted and altered due to legal means that the communities have collectively agreed upon. Granted, to change any community’s way of doing business is based on agreement and can and does take time. But, to call the way the law works as fraud is not the way to do it.
To change a community’s way of doing business there must be a case presented, with evidence to facilitate any meaningful change; to use ‘fighting’ words and methods, and use intimidation certainly will not bring about any meaningful change. Did Joan obtain and publish the laws and statues of our state and federal governments so as to show us, the readers, what the laws currently are? If so, I have not seen them here in this book.
Joan also has a great deal of misunderstandings about the meaning of and behind ‘separation of church and state’ in America. She rails against the Catholic Church, as she does with state governments, claiming that they lie and falsified legal documents. Well the Catholic Church has always lied, so there is nothing new there. But what Joan does not understand is that the Catholic Church and any other religious organization MUST OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND. If religious organizations did not obey the laws of the land they would not be eligible for certain tax-free status and other liberties and privileges. Any organization or person that does not obey the laws of the land are subject to penalties imposed by the land. Joan needs to go back to school and learn the basics of how a community or society works! Again, every argument that Joan presents is filled with her personal opinions and outrages…hardly a way to show an impartial presentation to those that ‘make or change’ laws of the land!
Some of her arguments are exactly the same that we sisters have against her for not protecting our identities, in the book. On pg 473 Joan states ‘…when a newspaper publishes a death notice, the deceased person’s name and family members’ names become researchable public record…this means that my father, siblings…where made known to the public…’ She further states ‘…on this technicality alone, none of my birth and adoption records should have been sealed from me.’ So she feels that this ‘technicality’ proves that her records should not have been sealed. And so we, sisters, feel that this ‘technicality’ proves that Joan should not have put any of the birth families’ names in the book because those names became ‘researchable public record’. Proof of Joan’s double standard here!
Joan also has this tendency to put her own ‘spin’ on reality…again, not a way to show an impartial presentation to those that ‘make or change’ laws of the land. She does not realize that a Surrogate Court Judge is acting upon the laws of the land and not on his own whim regardless of what information he may or may not possess. So Joan cannot make comparisons between her form of adoption and those resulting from an unwed situation or that the judge’s remarks were ‘male bias’ or not. Such assertions from Joan are purely from her own bias thinking.
I have said many times in past posts that Joan has this anger at the institution of adoption. Therefore she views everything in terms of false records and how courts and states and churches commit fraud and perjury. If a person is unwilling and unable to see how communities and societies work there is no amount of reasoning to get that said person (Joan) to see reality. Joan’s personal identity is one of being a victim; she is unwilling to change that personal perception of her identity. And, these are the major problems with Joan’s approach to adoption reform…she starts her platform on the wrong feet and every argument she has is null and voided because of her insistent that community agencies have committed fraud and perjury and made her a victim!
She makes her case, pg 473, by stating ‘I had been a victim of identity theft from the time I was an infant.’ Everything she presents after that…pages of it in fact…are meaningless to her cause, because, such is hardly a way to show an impartial presentation to those that ‘make or change’ laws of the land!
Joan ‘knew the system of adoption was unethically fraudulent’. And she knew this since the age of 18! My question is this; is Joan unethical and is she fraudulent? I suppose it depends on whom you are asking and even if such a question is appropriate or not. Point being, Joan has no moral authority to be speaking such nonsense! But in Joan’s reality, she has the moral authority to state, whenever she gets on her soapbox, that a judge ‘…did not question what he did and without thinking he ordered…crimes are obvious…’ There is NO way any reasonable person can have a sane conversation with a person who thinks this way!
And of course, according to Joan, the Catholic Church has much to answer for here too! After years of searching for the priest that signed her documents, so she could ask him if he ‘understood the consequences’, she ‘discovered he was in a nursing home…I let him alone to meet his maker without confronting him.’ How big of her! What an asshole, Joan is! If a priest does follows the orders of his church and the law of the land he certainly isn’t interested in any ‘consequences’…we are talking about priests, right?! Reality check! Then she wrote to the top dog, the Pope! Of course it will only be answered, once, by form letter! Does Joan really believe that the church will hear from yet another ‘victim’! As always, Joan is barking up the wrong tree!
And the pontificating and demanding and outlining of her agenda continues on with Joan’s outrage leading the way in each and every argument she presents. What does her flag look like? And she continues to be morally outraged, in places, if it suits her, but in really she isn’t moral at all. How do I know this? Because I’ve been Joan’s victim! Be that as it may…
And the untruths and exaggerations continue, on pg 477/478, as she discusses her demands that her natural parent’s ‘equal rights’ be restore by being placed on a ‘true’ birth certificate, she speaks two outlandish things.
Equal rights??!! It’s a birth/adoption certificate and NOT a equal rights issue!
One is of Joan being morally outraged because her natural mother is not on a ‘true’ certificate, that it ‘is a dishonor to her and is morally wrong’. So in this case, my mother’s name, not being on a birth certificate of Joan’s, is a dishonorable thing and is morally wrong. But Joan can ‘invoke’ that dead mother, put words in her mouth condemning her other daughters so Joan can ‘look’ like the victim and that is honorable and morally right! Forked tongue liar that Joan is; she doesn’t see how her manipulating of words are her own downfall.
Then the second outlandish thing is her demands that her father be put on a true certificate but that ‘…the government better hurry up, my father is dying.’ She wrote this before the book was published in Nov 2009 and as I write this it is Dec 2010 and he is dying in the same way that I and everyone else is…one day at a time! (he did die January 2011) Give me a f…ing break! All this drama and sensationalism! Did Joan write a petition to the government with her demands before she published this book or did the ideas just come to her as she wrote that paragraph? Why would she write such a stupid thing in a book? Because she is sick, sick, sick!
Other words that come out of Joan’s mouth, via the printed page, which are false and forms of exaggerations are; ‘…I know right from wrong…I am not stupid…nor a child who needs to be told what I can and cannot do…’ Well I guess it depends on whether or not you have ever been a victim of Joan!
Nothing in this chapter serves adoption reform. It is just 21 pages of propaganda from Joan Wheeler! The next chapter is far worst!
But Gert – you called Joan an asshole – remember how Joan is always going on the internet and complaining that we call her names (particularly asshole) on our blogs.
Well to put a fine point on that – Joan made that complaint I believe in May of 2010 on the Adult Adotees Advocating for Change forum. In one of my past comments to this blog I outline how members of the forum routinely find pro-adoption websites and publish the web addresses of the “offending” sites and instruct their members to go and spam those sites. Joan had only been a member of the forum for just a few short months (January 2010) and fit right in with their cyberbullying ways. In February and May 2010, she put a call out to them to go to my blog and spam me. She even told them to write to WordPress and complain about me. She said to the members that if enough of them complained then wordpress would have no choice but to “shut those fuckheads down.” One of the statements she used to incite the mob was that her birth sisters were telling her to kill herself and were calling her asshole on our blogS.
At the time, their was only ONE blog in existence. Kathy’s blog (Chayelet’s Blog) was used to put forth only ONE statement: that she was denying any relationship with one Joan Wheeler. There was never any name calling on it. Gert’s blog was not in existence until July 2011.
Up to that time – February and May of 2010 – I had not called Joan asshole on my blog. But once I read that false accusation – I didn’t want Joan to be a liar, see, so I did start calling her an asshole. Joan needs to keep her mouth shut – she put the idea in my head. lol.
Yes, I called her an asshole and I shall continue to! that is NOTHING compared to what Joan has called us! Besides that’s my opinion and my point of view!! I have a right to speak about MY experiences and how I see those experiences and from my point of view Joan is an asshole!
But on a serious point of matter…this post was about chapter 37 of that libelous book of Joan’s and I wrote this essay in Dec 2010…one year AFTER it was published and it was at that time that I asked myself HOW DID THIS BOOK GET PUBLISHED? and called the publisher and as we all know now the libelous book was pulled!
Obviously it has taken a long long time to get all those chapter essays I wrote up on blogs and it will take me some time to get to that last chapter (38) because I have so much more about Joan to expose! as a preview…chapter 38, which I did write about only one small section, is worst than garbage and frankly I’m dreading going back into that to write about it…but…I shall…UNLESS….Joan does the right thing and remove the two blogs she has advertizing a book that no longer is available, that is libelous in nature, in which she attacks and libels us constantly. She KNOWS what she must do, but, until she does…I shall continue to write exposing every thing she has written! And if she is an asshole, she is an asshole.