this book was previously removed from print due to libel; #1 a discussion topic about Forbidden Family; adoptee Duped by adoption

Found on Amazon’s Customer Discussions

Joan Mary Wheeler forum

this book was previously removed from print due to libel

Ruth Pace says:   Initial post: Jan 4, 2016 8:15:35 AM PST

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.

Ruth Pace says:  Posted on Jan 6, 2016 4:12:11 AM PST

an inconvenient truth.
I have in my possession a 1999 manuscript of this book. There are differences in that and in the final (?) product. She used to show parts of her writings to my father, he told me “it will never be finished, because she keeps “revising” it.

After the 2009 print version of it was pulled from publication in May 2011 because it was proved to the publisher that the author had committed libel in it, she announced a second edition would be forthcoming. The 2009 version was touted as a “truthful account” of her adoption. When I learned she would be putting out a second edition, I said “how can there be a second version of the truth?”

Now we all know that there isn’t a second version of the truth, but the author managed to skate around that by calling the newer versions “a memoir” so she can fall back on the excuse “It was how I remembered it.” – But how can a remembered version in 2015 be so different from the 2009 version that had been insisted on as being the “truth.”

Ruth Pace says:  Posted on Feb 7, 2016 10:09:42 AM PST

If readers of her book (whatever version they have) would take the time to really LOOK at what they’re reading – every other page is Brenda this, Brenda that.

Readers need to ask themselves “is this a book about Joan Wheeler’s life or is about BRENDA’S LIFE? My god, she’s got whole passages devoted to Brenda’s marriages, her belly dancing, her liking horror movies, and other things about Brenda that have NOTHING to do with the author’s adoption, adoption reunion, or adoption reform issues.

gert mcqueen says:  Mar 1, 2016 4:50:06 AM PST

The author is NOT a Late Discovery Adoptee!

I first questioned and commented on the author’s claim that she is a late discovery adoptee, on an Amazon discussion topic of Jan 2, 2016. After that the author re-worked her boiler-plate propaganda, still claiming and declaring that she is a late discovery adoptee. Then I addressed that rework a second time, on an Amazon discussion topic of Feb 7, 2016.

This is the third time I’m addressing this point. The author is NOT a Late Discovery Adoptee!

On Feb 27, 2016, I asked an adoptee, on Tweeter this question … what is the definition of a late discovery adoptee? I was told this… A somewhat standard definition would be: If you didn’t know you were an Adoptee until you were an adult.

Okay that definition is what I found in my own RESEARCH of the term. No matter how the author wishes to present it, the fact is she KNEW, she states so in this book, that she KNEW she was adopted from her earliest years! She is NOT a Late Discovery Adoptee! So one must wonder WHY does she have to fabricate something about her status as an adoptee? Such nonsense only points to the lack of credibility of the entirety of the contents of the book.

Ruth Pace says:  Posted on Mar 1, 2016 8:20:53 PM PST

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.




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