how not to promote the subjects of your book

There’s plenty of ‘background’ on how Joan feels and thinks about her birth family. The following post contains links to post wherein I detail everything she wrote on that hate-blog against us.

This is not the way to promote one’s book.

the link


about internet trolls…like Joan M Wheeler

Don’t be DUPED by Joan…learn about her behaviors. Here’s a link to an older post on my first blog.

Ruth’s review of ‘Duped by Adoption’ has been REMOVED…

Gosh Joan really doesn’t want the birth sibling to speak their truth!

The only way that the automated functions of Amazon, would ‘know’ whether something is ‘a miss’, is if someone, namely Joan M Wheeler, contacted Amazon.

On February 18, 2016, I noticed that Ruth’s review (#11) was ‘removed’ from the Amazon page of Joan’ latest revision of lies! Just like myself, Ruth’s review is a ‘no-no’ because, according to Amazon, we ‘know the author’. Dahh!! That’s the automated system’s way of saying that THE AUTHOR doesn’t want a particular person writing a review!

But…we are able to comment, on other reviews and have discussion topics and comment on them!

Ruth’s ‘review’ was published on January 4, 2016; here is the link and the content of that review.

And for the record here is Ruth’s review and comments…

By Ruth Pace on January 4, 2016

Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase

this book was previously removed from print by Trafford Publications because I sent them actual police and court documents that proved that 1. she libeled me in the book. 2. she did not protect my identity – in a footnote she told her readers (all 10 of them) where to find an article she wrote in 1990 that contained my full and true name. 3. She had on the back cover a family photo that was taken a year before she was born. — She signed a contract with Trafford stating that her non-fiction book was the truth, but my documents proved she lied, and the contract also stated that the author holds the sole copyright to the work and all it’s content – how does she hold the sole copyright to a photo that was taken before she was born? Because she violated the contract she signed with them, the publisher pulled it from print.

She also claimed that a lawyer “vetted” the book. No, because she says in the book that my father was a poor uneducated man, however in 1955, he took a job as a civil engineer in the streets paving department of the City of Buffalo, working in City Hall, and had many political persons as personal friends. Joan’s “lawyer” was either a piss-poor vetter, or a figment of Joan’s imagination. Why do I call this lawyer a piss-poor vetter? Because in the downtown public library of Buffalo NY are back issues of Polk’s City Directories – that list my father’s name, address, employer and his job title in the directories from oh, the late 40’s all onto the 2000’s.

Jan 4, 2016 12:31:12 PM PST gert mcqueen says:

Yes, Ruth, this revised and reworked piece of work contains many false-hoods, fabrications and misrepresentations, as well as libel. This time around she has real names of many members of the families, including pictures. Why? Because she says, dead people can’t sue and neither can their heirs. She has spent a few MORE years, of her horrible life as a duped adoptee, rewriting her memoir in order to change MANY things. Why? Because she has read our complaints about her selective memories, and since key people like the adoptive mother and OUR father are now dead, she feels FREE to expound with more creative FICTION upon REAL PEOPLE, all the while never mentioning her own actions within any particular circumstance or situation; it’s always about the other guy, never her.

As we have stated over many years, since the appearance of her first piece of exploitation, the reasons that she falsely accuses family members is because she hates being adopted, her belief that everyone in two families where all out to get her and her belief that the world will learn something from her life. What will they learn, you ask? That the author needs serious help.

on Jan 4, 2016 12:50:47 PM PST Ruth Pace says:

Gert McQueen says “the reasons that she (the author) falsely accuses family members is because she hates being adopted.” I concur, but also add, the reason she goes after her birth sisters is because she was adopted out and we were not. Also – she singles me out in particular to be her main target. Why? Because when our mother died, I was placed in the care of my mother’s brother M. and his wife, who actually wanted to adopt me and raise me in the Protestant religion. But my father refused, because he wanted me raised as a Catholic. — The author simply can’t stand the fact that my father gave HER up for adoption, but not ME. She has been trying to punish me for that since the early 1980’s. The various versions of her book contains many many lies about me. The majority of the book is involved in detailing MY life story, about my dancing, my marriage, my miscarriage. Every other page is Brenda this, Brenda that – (she calls me Brenda, but leaves many clues to my real name). Brenda, Brenda, Brenda. Is this a book about adoption or adoption reform? Or is it a book about the life of Brenda?


Here are a couple of other related links, to Ruth’s review, followed by permalinks to Ruth’s discussion on Joan’s Amazon page.

permalink to Ruth’s discussion topics


Joan M Wheeler is NOT a ‘Late Discovery Adoptee’! She always KNEW she was adopted!

Joan is a spin-doctor; lying through her teeth! She keeps trying to ‘fit in’ in places she doesn’t belong. She has even tried to pass herself off as a trans-racial adoptee! Nope, she is NOT a trans-racial adoptee! She is just a plain old adoptee from the ‘closed’ records system.

So what else is new? Same old, same old! Problem is that her fellow adoptees NEVER call her on her lies and fabrications. Probably many don’t really READ what Joan writes, for, for the most part, they are all of the same ‘mind-set’ against adoption and believe Joan’s assessment that her birth siblings are damaged goods.

I have been pointing out, via the blogs and the Facebook page (Duped by Adoption)     that Joan has a long history of sucking up to various adoptee activists, working on their coat tails and hanging on their sleeves, and declaring and designating aspects of adoption that just don’t belong to her.

Since she has ‘self-published’ the latest lying garbage, her boilerplate stuff on Amazon has been exposed, by me, and rewritten, by her, SEVERAL TIMES. Each time I’ve pointed out something, she reworks the language to ‘cover’ up what I UNCOVERED; that’s called ‘spin-doctoring’.

Here, in particular, I wish to address the issue of what a Late Discovery Adoptee means and is.

It means that a person did NOT know they were adopted until they were an adult. In other words, during their childhood the FACT that they were adopted was NEVER told to them. This is a vastly different thing from a person being told ALL of their lives that they are adopted!

In Joan’s boiler plate, on Amazon, she is calling herself a ‘late discovery adoptee’. Her first go-round at passing this off, she stated that because she was 18 before she KNEW her birth family MAKES her a Late Discovery Adoptee. Well that’s not correct! I wrote a discussion topic, on Amazon, about that. A month later Joan rewrote and made a DECLARATION statement that she IS a Late Discovery Adoptee. She is WRONG, no matter how she spins the words!

On February 27, 2016 I saw a tweet, asked for a definition, got it, gave a thank you and got a like! Great!

Cryptic Omega ‏@TheCrypticOmega 

Are you a Late Discovery Adoptee? Here’s an #AdopteeSurvey for you, by an Adoptee for Adoptees:  #adoptee #adoption

gert mcqueen ‏@gertmcqueen 

.@TheCrypticOmega what is the definition of a late discovery adoptee?

4:55 PM – 27 Feb 2016

Cryptic Omega ‏@TheCrypticOmega 

@gertmcqueen A somewhat standard definition would be: If you didn’t know you were an Adoptee until you were an adult.

gert mcqueen‏@gertmcqueen

.@TheCrypticOmega thanks

To which she ‘liked’ my tweet!


Well…there you have a definition DIRECTLY from an adoptee, who is NOT Joan M Wheeler.

Now take a look at how Joan first wrote about this, my comment and then how she CHANGED her statement, hoping to by-pass any further discussion.

I first addressed this point on Amazon discussion Jan 2, 2016 1:18:44 PM PST


Author writes:

Joan is a displaced and resettled person by adoption. Raised as an only child, she knew she was adopted, but did not know the full truth. The shock of being found and reunited with her siblings and father after an 18 year separation makes her a Late Discovery Adoptee.

My comments:

Ah yes, the author is a late discovery adoptee, except, and I could be mistaken, but I thought that a late discovery meant that the individual NEVER knew they were adopted until later. And if we LOOK at the way the author states this she is attempting to get around this little known aspect. The author states, knew she was adopted, but did not know the full truth and so the shock of being found and reunited makes her a late discovery adoptee.
Upon researching the term I find these two definitions; The term “late discovery adoptee” refers to those who learn they are adopted once they are adults. And Late discovery adoption refers to a person learning in adulthood that they were adopted as children. Those of us who discovered their adoption status as adults are sometimes called late discovery adoptees, or LDAs, though not everyone embraces this label.

But like I said I could be mistaken, but seems to me the author is spinning yet another tall-tale that isn’t quite true.


And here is the second time I discussed this point, on Amazon, Feb 7, 2016 9:39:32 AM PST


Author writes:

Joan is a displaced and resettled person by adoption. She is a Late Discovery Adoptee, a half-orphan in her actual family,a legitimate bastard in her adoptive family, and the victim of government mandated identity theft and reassignment.

My comment…

The author clearly is NOT a Late Discovery Adoptee. She knew from early childhood that she was adopted. A Late Discovery Adoptee is one who finds out they are adopted when they ARE AN ADULT. The author is side-stepping this issue, co-opting the term to gain additional support, and intentionally stating a falsehood.


Let’s look again at the definition that Cryptic Omega gave me….

‘A somewhat standard definition would be:

If you didn’t know you were an Adoptee until you were an adult.


Joan M Wheeler KNEW she was adopted from her earliest years! She’s a spin-doctor, a con-artist and a liar!

She is no Late Discovery Adoptee

AND here is the permalink to my third attempt at pointing this out…

As a comment to my Amazon comment
Ruth Pace says:

She says in her book that she had been told by her adoptive parents AS A CHILD that she was adopted. And when we were reunited with her, she did tell us, her birth sisters that she had known since she was a CHILD that she was adopted. Therefore, yes, you are correct, Joan Mary Wheeler is NOT a ‘late discovery’ adoptee.
Either she is a blatant liar, or she does not know the correct terminology of adoptees. Since she keeps bragging that she is one of ‘the’ most informed adoption activists that ever was born, Joan Mary Wheeler now has egg on her face.