"Gusman - Church record keepers and historians living today cannot legally certify that the church baptismal records were written by an individual or individuals who had given their oath to write the truth in front of a Notary."
Eddy is obviously not a lawyer. If he were, he would know that such present day record keepers and historians would be called, and accepted, as expert witnesses. With an indepth knowledge of their church memberships and family practices in their given area, they WOULD be able to certify that Cornelius F Van Sicklen was one member of the Church, and that Hannah Lossing, Hannah Lawson, and Annetje Lawson...all recorded as married to Cornelius F Van Sicklen...are one person, not 3. Talk to your attorney...he will tell you the same thing.
"When faced with the sworn and notarized affidavits the judge will place the greater weight with the affidavits because their truth is always assumed until concluusive evidence proves that a testimoney contains errors"
The whole purpose of a court proceeding is to determine if sworn testimony is true or not. In this case, the evidence clearly proves the affadavits to be untrue. The Judge will have no recourse but to declare the affadavits invalid, making Violet's DAR membership invalid.
"I thought I had made it clear that if your published genealogy includes references to the Eastling affidavits and where they can be reviewed - your genealogy can contain your version of Maria Van Siclen's birth and ancestry"
I thought I made it clear that I have no intentions of using Violet's DAR application. There is no reason to make a reference to Violetta's DAR application, or Fanny & Ferd's affadavits, since they are not a credible source of information. I don't publish fiction...I publish fact. And I provide references to the records that establish the facts. Fanny and Ferd's affadavits contain no records, and are certainly short on anything factual. They are family folklore, nothing more.
"EIGHT MONTHS AFTER SUBMISSION THE DAR REJECTED HER ORIGINAL APPLICATION, REQUESTING THEREBY THAT VIOLETTA PROVIDE AFFIDAVITS WRITTEN BY PEOPLE WHO HAD A PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF VIOLETTA'S BLOOD LINE CONNECTION TO CORNELIUS VAN SICLEN. THE DAR ACCEPTED THE AFFIDAVITS AND GRANTED VIOLETTA MEMBERSHIP STATUS SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE SWORN AFFIDAVIT TESTIMONY THAT VAN SICLEN WAS HER VETERAN NOT BECAUSE A VAN SICKLE WAS HER VETERAN"
Van Siclen was her veteran? You had better make a call to the DAR. If she had claimed that her veteran ancestor was Cornelius VAN SICLEN - spelled exactly - she would have been denied membership. VIOLETTA WAS NOT ADMITTED AS A DESCENDANT OF A 'VAN SICLEN", BUT AS A DESCENDANT OF A "CORNELIUS VAN SICKLEN"(spelled exactly as it is in the official record), OF THE MCKINSTRY REGIMENT. THIS IS THE PART THAT MAKES YOUR EXACT SPELLING NONSENSE SO IDIOTIC. She gained admittance using a "VAN SICKLEN" record. Check with the DAR. Cornelius Van SIcklen of the McKinstry is her validating ancestor, and I can prove she is not related to him. But you did point out something very interesting. She was admitted based upon the affadavits...so it holds that Fanny and Ferdinand may have deliberately repeated the mistakes she made in her application, to insure that she received membership. Perhaps there was a conspiracy, after all. Thanks for pointing that out.
"We both now agree on the Van Siclen spelling which is a huge jump from where we began two years ago"
The agreement you refer to was my poking fun at your ridiculous exact spelling argument. Obviously you don't recognize sarcasm when you see it. I was making a joke of you, because everyone reading this exchange is aware that spelling does not establish ancestry. I guess you can say that there is some sense of agreement, however, since we now know that Cornelius was buried as a "VAN SICLEN". It was purely ironic, though, that Maria's father was actually buried under the "VAN SICLEN" spelling. During his life he was also recorded as Van Sicklin and Van Sicklen, and could have been buried using either of those, as well. Regardless of the spelling on his tombstone, however, he would still have been Maria's father. He was the only one in the entire cemetery buried under the "VAN SICLEN" spelling. Everyone else had one of the other two spellings.
"The lady from whom I got the Eastling data sent me copies of her original papers, not a copy of a book. I can't state if a book was created and copyrwrited."
It doesn't matter if her work was copyrighted or not. Noone can copyright the events of a deceased persons life. The only thing protected under the copyright is the manner of presentation, and anything orignal created by the author. As long as the data is not copied in the form of the original presentation, there is no copyright infringement. Names, dates, locations, etc are public domain and are not copyrightable. And you present yourself as a legal expert? You have much to learn.
Speaking of legal expertise, I decided to run this by a lawyer, to get an unbiased opinion. He said that the evidence is very strong, and should be enough to establish that the affadavits contain false information. He suggested, however, that I consider a shorter and more certain route. Since we know where Maria is buried, and where Hannah Lawson is buried, have the court order exhumation and DNA testing. There is no more conclusive proof than genetic testing. We can carry that as far as we need to - dig up the Lawsons/Lossings in Dutchess County...Ferdinand Van Sicklen and his wife in Dutchess...Cornelius Van Sicklen and Catharine Johnson at Rumbout....to establish genetic matches to all necessary. The court would also order the losing party to pay the costs of exhumation, testing, and re-internment. I know what the result of that will be, so Eddy...no more bluffing....it is time to put up or shut up. I know you are wrong, and I am willing to empty your wallet to prove it. It's your move.
Notify Administrator about this message?
|Home | Help | About Us | Site Index | Jobs | PRIVACY | Affiliate|
|© 2007 The Generations Network|