Big changes have come to — all content is now read-only, and member subscriptions and the Shop have been discontinued.
Learn more

Chat | Daily Search | My GenForum | Community Standards | Terms of Service
Jump to Forum
Home: Surnames: VanSickle Family Genealogy Forum

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited”
Posted by: Ed Gusman (ID *****7908) Date: December 10, 2002 at 17:23:02
In Reply to: Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited” by D G Van Curen of 1585

Dec 10 Van Curen

Van wrote - Your statements about recordkeepers and historians is false

Gusman - I suggest that you keep on believing that.You will be happier than if you discover the truth as to how a Court functions.

Van Wrote - Courts routinely accept expert witnesesses, even regarding historical events.

Gusman - True as far as it goes. But you don't go far enough. There is no one in your menageria of experts who can take the witness stand and testify that they conclusivly know who the father of Hannah Lossing actually was. With a husbands name and birth and death dates of the couple that match, you would certainly have a strong case.

But not a conclusive case!

In any event none of the above or anything contained within your recent 15 plus or minus postings address the basic problems you allege - did the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen serve in the Revolutionary war and how can you PROVE HE DID NOT.

By your and Richard's admissions the spelling of names in Colonial times was so convoluted that no one living today and researching colonial records can conclusively determine the correct spelling for people in the 16th century.

If that is true, then it follows that the spelling for Revolutionay Veterans was equally convoluted. Ergo - a record of Cornelius Van Siclen's service record may be in the Veteran files under a variant spelling and he will never be discovered using the Van Siclen spelling. That is fact which neither you or Richard can deny.Hence to state that there is no record proving Cornelius Van Siclen was a Veteran is without merit.

Something of interest although unrelated to the Van Siclen discussion. Mr. Pudwell, Canada. said this in his Glen Garry e-mail subject: "...Luther C. Eastling, curiously enough, has no discharge, no desertion and no disbandment date!! And, yet, it also indicates that he did not die in fact, BOTH THE LUTHER EASTMAN'S (SHOULD HAVE READ EASTLING'S) are the only Glengarrys with a last name starting with the initial "E" to have not perished while in service!!"

I have including the preceding paragraph about Luther Eastling to show Richard and Doug that even in the Canadian Glen Garry Militia records of service the names of their veterans were sometimes recorded with variant spellings.

You therefore have zilch on which to base your allegations that affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen was not a Revolutionary Veteran. The affidavits prove that he was.

You don't find it hypocritical to apply "exact spelling" standards to Cornelius Van Siclen while using helter skelter spelling research for all other names, including Lawson, Lasson, Lossing ? Applying your helter skelter spelling standards to the service records of Cornelius Van Siclen opens the Veterans records to many names which could represent the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen.

Why if as you allege, Hannah or Annetje Lawson were the grandparents known to the deponents until they went to the U.S. and with a continuing ongoing relationship with the deponents mother until she died in 1868, did not the name of Hannah or Annetje Lawson appear in Violetta's application?

My position is that Catherine Johnson's name was on the DAR application because it was Catherine Johnson who's name Violetta had grown to adulthood hearing about. Catherine Johnson's name was in the affidavits because that was the name the deponents knew and heard from birth until their mother Maria Van Siclen died.

Your rationalizations in your previous posts have no merit because even if your alleged Hannah had been their grandmother then the alleged Hannah is the name Violetta would have included in her application. You would do well to come up with something far more believable than what you have presented to date as a reason why Catherine Johnson appeared in the DAR application.

Van wrote - Even Ferd stated he didn't have the records. "Hearing" about them doesn't validate his statements.

Gusman - I agree that Ferd stated that "he didn't have the records."

Gusman - Ferd did not state that he "heard" about the records. Ferd stated that he "knew Cornelius Van Siclen in his lifetime". That statement plus the fact that Ferd knew and associated with his grandfather for the first 20 years of Ferds life, until Ferd. left Canada, I am convinced is evidence sufficient to convince a judge that Ferd talked with his grandfather during those first 20 years and that his grandfather would have revealed details of his Revolutionary Service. I believe such testimony would also convince a judge that Ferd had held and read the service records for his grandfather. Ferd stated in his affidavit - "...documents evidencing such history were for a long time a family possession, but where they now are (I) do not know."

Question - how would Ferd know that "documents evidencing such history were for a long time a family possession" if Ferd had not looked at and read those documents. Don't waste you time stating that someone could have told Ferd. Recall Ferd stated that he "knew" his grandfather.

Van wrote - As to cost of exhumation and testing....cost is not an object to me, since you will be the one paying for it.

Gusman - Why is it that you are unable to correspond without resorting to an adversarial confrontational attitude and on going displays of rather immature and phony bravado?

A few items for you to consider.

We would be dealing with the exhumation laws of Ontario and Wisconsin. We are not dealing with a crime. We would be dealing with (2)law firms. One in Canada, one in Wisconsin. We would be dealing with either one or two DNA laboratories in one or two nations. We may not be able to obtain exhumation orders.

Cost may not be a factor with you. For myself cost is always a factor to be evaluted prior to beginning an endeavor. What may be proven by DNA testing probably does not justify the expense of the investigation. I have the affidavits, I believe the affidavits, I believe that Maria Van Siclen was the daughter of Catherine Johnson and not the daughter of Annetje/Hannah Lossing. I care not a whit about the ancesty of Cornelius Van Siclen or Catherine Johnson. Consequently, if Catherine Johnson, by DNA testing is proven not to be the daughter of Annetje Lawson, as I believe it will be, I have gained nothing that I didn't already know. Consequently, the consideration of costs is certainly a factor with myself.

In addition we are faced with this possibility. The material obtained may not be of a quality, after 154 years and 135 years (respectively) of burial, to provide conclusive DNA comparisons. Jessie James was exhumed and had DNA tests done. The results from what I heard were inclusive because of the disintegration of significant required body parts.

The cost of a lawsuit would probably be in the same ball park. DNA testing would be conclusive, providing the body remains were in a condition which would provide DNA of a quality that would produce the desired results required to make a conclusive decision about a relationship between Annetje and Maria. DNA testing may be the better way to go.

However, before I would consider such an endeavor you will have to agree to a binding contract to equally share all costs beginning with the initial inquiries to determine the procedures to be followed. In addition at the signing of the contract each of us will have to place on deposit with a mutually approved bank, an amount of cash equal to the total estimated cost of the endeavor plus an additional $10,000 ($5,00 each) to cover unplanned cost overruns. Funds to pay on going expenses for the investigation will be drawn from the mutually deposited funds as the investigation progresses.

If we do not have a share expense equally contract, I will not be a party to the endeavor of achieving DNA comparison between Maria Van Siclen and Annetje Lawson.

In my opinion, because we benefit equally from the results, the cost of achieving those results must be equally shared. This is not a confrontational adversarial challenge. The costs will include travel expenses of all types including but not limited to taxi cabs, planes, trains, bus automobiles. all lodging costs including but not limited to motel, hotels, all communication costs included but not limited to phone charges for both cell and land lines, all shipping costs including but not limited to U.S. postal service and various express companies, all legal fees including but not limited to attorneys, court costs, filing fees, recorder and recording fees, exhumation and reinterment costs, all DNA testing fees up to and including the final report and any unplanned and unforseen cost incurred leading up to the final report from the testing laboratories.

I will not be part of a confrontational and adversarial endeavor under any circumstances. After we have determined approximate costs we will have attorneys draw up a binding contract whereby we share all expenses leading to the final DNA report of the blood line relationship between Annetje Lawson and Maria Van Siclen.

I estimate $50,000-$100,000 to achieve a DNA comparison. My estimate is based on my cost of a law suit which I won over 10 years ago. My attorny fees were within a 6 digit amount. Each of our shares for the DNA investigation would approximate $25,000-$50,000 to be placed on deposit at the signing of our contract.


Notify Administrator about this message?

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message
Search this forum:

Search all of GenForum:

Proximity matching
Add this forum to My GenForum Link to GenForum
Add Forum
Home |  Help |  About Us |  Site Index |  Jobs |  PRIVACY |  Affiliate
© 2007 The Generations Network