adoption reunions, birth/adoptive families, browbeating to get your own way, confrontations with Joan Wheeler, cyberbullying, exploiting a dying dead mother, family honor, Forbidden Family a book of lies, libelous book, Rene Hoksbergen, sins of omission and suppress of one's own misdeeds
Why did Joan Wheeler write that libelous book, Forbidden Family?
I am starting over again, revisiting Joan Wheeler’s libelous book with some reposts and some possible new comments.
It became apparent to me, as soon as I got that hateful book, that I would have to go at it in a systematic way; reading it and refuting it. As my reading and writing progressed I also dealt with emotions, mine and my sisters’. And of course I did all my writings at home, then transported the files to the library’s computers. There was NO way I could have read and written about the book at the library, not only would that be very inconvenient but emotionally impossible. As I review these original posts I am reminded of so many more things I could have said, and did say, in many other posts since we started to refute Joan’s lies and reclaim our family’s honor that she stole and sullied with her filthy mind and heart. And of course, Joan has tried, in so many ways, to prevent us siblings from telling the truth…she really ought to be get a grip on life and realize that she blow it this time…for we siblings are just not going to go away.
We shall continue to repost and re-examine Joan Wheeler’s, pulled from publication, book of lies and hate, UNTIL she takes down her two hateful blogs against us and apology to the birth family.
The original post can be see @ Guest post from Gert McQueen, March 8, 2010
From Joan’s eldest birth sister Gert McQueen, second posting about her views on the book Forbidden Family, which she just received last week. for her first post see The Three Sippel Sisters
What are my reasons for speaking out about Joan’s book?
Because as members of the birth family we have our own anger and grief, from losing our mother, separation from a sibling, and dealing with life’s hurts, to having this sister speak out with such fabrications and lies, with hate and venom about our parents and ourselves. We feel that others, that have a more reasonable mindset, that are capable of seeing both sides of an issue, can judge rightly who presents the truer picture of Joan’s book…her or other family members.
There is a wisdom that states ‘you are the company you keep’ so we are not speaking to Joan’s friends for they only wish to see her side or they are, in some way, obnoxious in Internet behavior and speech with ‘in your face’ attitudes. I don’t answer that type of dialog.
Joan has been mistaken that we sisters would not care what she wrote. Her fantasy of making millions of $ off one of life’s miseries upon a couple of families (birth and adoptive) is her sole reason for writing it, she also believed that there would be a movie made of it. To continue on with her fantasy she has misrepresented and abused both her families. So these are some of the reasons for commenting, publicly, because she made it public.
Going back to the book itself:
In Dr Rene Hoksbergen’s foreward he states that Joan’s book is about ‘reunion in progress’. Fact; it ceased to be a reunion due to the adoptee’s, that is, Joan’s own actions towards the birth family. He states ‘the adoptee…fulfills the cultural role she is expected to fulfill…to be a grateful and dependent person…’. Where is such a perception coming from? No one in the birth family said that Joan, the found sister, should be grateful or dependent. We were glad and joyful about knowing her and having found her. I truly question the Doctor’s assertion that ‘Joan’s account is a true description’. He never questioned me to learn about my perception on this matter. He is guilty of promoting a one-sided presentation of the ‘reunion in progress’.
In Joan’s why I wrote this book section, she says her purpose was ‘to increase awareness and influence social change so that no adoptee will be lied to again and that…go through what I went through…’ Okay admiral goals, perhaps, but to do so she has ‘exposed her life’. No one told her to expose her life. and hey!!She doesn’t live in a vacuum, other people have been exposed here and exploited by her ‘noble’ purposes. Why is it that Joan’s words are true, that is researched to verify the info, but her ‘extended adoptive and natural relatives have their own…based on hearsay.’? Joan has put forth the FACTS before hand and had TAINTED the views of all others.
A good portion of her research comes from second hand, hearsay and anecdotal stories gathered from some family members who had their own reasons for ‘coloring’ the truth about any situation or person. It is a known fact that in every family there are people who don’t like each other and will tell all manner of tales against them. It is also a known fact that there are some of my mother’s brothers who did not like my father and who may have told Joan some stories that are colored by their dislike of my father. For Joan to print these opinions and present them as a true story is what I and my sisters are refuting….and setting the record straight!
She is correct in saying basically that not everyone connected to her knows everything, but, she makes a mistake when she says that as the adoptee, her memory is the truth. No! Truth is Truth and no one has a patent on it. Joan’s truth is not my truth.
On her memoir page, she has a quote of Huxley’s, she would have written a better book if she heard herself before the book went to print. A more apt quote by Huxley, about Joan’s book, is:
“Irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors” from Science and Culture and other Essays, “The Coming of Age of the Origin of Species”
Her citing of the commandments are truly unfortunate, for her. Honor Father and Mother: She really has no concept of what it means, all she can do is to expose, misrepresent them and humiliate them to all the world.
Bear false witness:
My sisters and I are pointing out the false witness that she has through out the book.
Her use of the Oscar Wilde quote only points to her obsessive compulsion that the only life that matters is her own.
On the back cover of the book: Yes I can see how she ‘protects the identities of the natural family! Where is the picture of her adoptive family? Why is this so one-sided, exploit one family but not the other, on the cover!
And oh so much mellow-drama, ‘secrets traded across’ and ‘she had to be silenced’. Sounds like a movie poster!
Her use of mixing fictitious names with real names is so confusing. What method did she use, death or permission or capriciousness? Her use of actual documents also makes it real easy to find out real names anyway, they are all public documents, so marking off names and dates is stupid.
You know contracting Joan, when she was 18, was probably not the wisest decision I ever made. But hell, shit happens! Actually we siblings all wanted to and it fell to me because I am the oldest. Before any action was taken to contact her I spoke with an attorney and an adoption agency and was told that there is no law against a sibling contacting another sibling that was placed for adoption. She was 18 and we were told that it was alright to make contact. It is the natural parent that was not to make the contact.
On pg 5 she misrepresents: We did not know that mom was pregnant, we were little kids, I knew she was fat. I didn’t know pregnant and neither would an 8, 6 or 3 year old know it.
On pg 6 she lies: she says she never came home from the hospital. Wrong. She lived with relatives of our mother. I saw her many times, I have memories of the infant and her baptism.
On pg 7 she lies: chain letter what the hell! we never did that.
Certainly I can not comment on the family that adopted her I only met them a few times but I had made my own opinions from observations and they don’t fall far from the brief description of them on pg 19/20.
I do remember witnessing exchange between Joan and her adoptive mother who was making cloths for her and I though I wish I had a mother that did those kinds of things for me. My mother did make our cloths and was a homemaker, I remember her vividly. But I lost her when I was nine.
Gert says I truly question the Doctor’s assertion that ‘Joan’s account is a true description’. and She is correct in saying basically that not everyone connected to her knows everything, but, she makes a mistake when she says that as the adoptee, her memory is the truth. No! Truth is Truth and no one has a patent on it. Joan’s truth is not my truth.
First I want to set the record straight on Dr. Rene Hoksbergen’s little statement here that Joan’s account is a true description. That is a bullshit. Dr. Hoksbergen is relying on past interactions with Joan – she has probably been lying to him about us for decades. Case in point – the bullshit of 1993. When my sister Kathy emigrated to England in 1974 she left behind some of her belongings, always intending to send for them. They were in the care of our brother, then when he moved to Arizona, Joan took guardianship of the things. In 1992, Kathy sent Joan a money order for $50.00 to begin the shippiing of the things, after contacting a travel agency in Buffalo and purchasing two trunks for them. So all Joan had to do was go to the place and pick up the already paid for trunks, take them home, pack them and start the shipping. Kathy indicated in her letter for Joan to contact her when she needed more money.
Joan sent Kathy a letter acknowledging she received the money order and she said she put it in a special bank account. Months go by, Kathy doesn’t see her things. Phone calls and letters from Kathy are met with excuses from Joan. Finally out of the blue in April 1993, Kathy gets a letter from Dr. Hoksbergen who has been hearing JOAN’S version of this. Dr. Hoksbergen tells Kathy that it will cost about $500.00 to ship her things to her and Joan doesn’t have that kind of money. (um, didn’t Kathy tell Joan to call her for more money? – WHY was this college professor stooping to interfere in a mundane family matter?) – So Kathy gets on the phone with our father, who calls Joan up and demands Kathy’s things. He is upset – and righfully so – he sees what Joan is doing to his daughter Kathy. He yells at Joan – our stepsister Joselyne who witnessed my father get upset is worried that he might work himself into a heart attack – and she calls Joan up to stop upsetting people. Then Ruth, not knowing ANYthing about the whole darn thing gets a nasty letter BLAMING ME. “Because of you – 18 months ago – I get a phone call from Joselyne – screaming at me.” – Not only does Joan NEVER accept her responsibilty in creating problems, she routinely slaps the blame on ME!
So, my father, takes a cab to Joan’s house, and picks up Kathy’s belongings, and takes them home. In three different visits to the post office – he ships Kathy’s things to her for a total of about $50.00 each time – for a total of about $150.00. How do we know this? Because wise man that my father is – he sent Kathy photocopies of his receipts.
You people want proof? Well here you go – this post contains my father’s shipping receipts – the letters between Kathy and Joan, Prof. Hoksbergen’s letter to Kathy. – proof positive that “sweet” Joan Wheeler not only tried to extort money from Kathy, lied to and involved a college professor, a world-renown adoption reform specialist. And managed to create a big family fight – AND drag Ruth into it – who was not involved in it in any way, shape or form. Gert McQueen answers the secret is out – more evidence of misdeeds and lies by Joan Wheeler May 19, 2011
I told you Chimp that I have ACTUAL DOCUMENTS that prove that “Sweet” Joan is a bullshit liar.
As for Dr. Hoksbergen saying Joan’s book is a true description? Well, he was shown a different manuscript than what was eventually published. Because in the final product, Joan has him visiting MY house and me standing in the middle of my living room flapping my arms up and down while I’m screaming at him. (after exchanging filthy looks with my husband).
I state, here and now, that Dr. Rene Hoksbergen NEVER stepped foot in my house. My husband never met him. I met him at Joan’s house, and barely spoke to him, let alone screamed at him.
And Hoksbergen now knows the truth of how his “dear friend” lied about him. He knows dam well he never came to my house. He sees the truth about his ex-friend – he has finally come to see the light of how Joan is a master manipulator – she is so sweet and can wind a person around her little finger and the person doesn’t even see how they are being conned until too late. She can convince you that beer is made of cow’s milk and is white in color.
and by the way – Joan never returned Kathy’s $50.00 that she first sent to her – the money order that Joan writes and acknowledged that she received. She kept that money for herself. She also never returned all of Kathy’s belongings – missing are all of Kathy’s valuable Beatles memorobilia – Beatles bubble gum cards and issues of the Beatles Fan Club magazines – of which I know Joan has – I saw them in her attic on Swinburne St. in 1989. Joan not only is a con-artist – she’s a thief! She stole hundreds of dollars from me in 1990.
But that is another story…