Big changes have come to Genealogy.com — 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: legacy (ID *****7908) Date: August 05, 2002 at 19:46:56
In Reply to: Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited” by Donna Ewins of 1585

Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited”
Posted by: Donna Ewins (ID *****6635) Date: July 24, 2002 at 22:15:23
In Reply to: Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited” by legacy of 881

This is a reply to the above post ………..

For the information of those who do not understand the legal significance of sworn and notarized affidavits and oaths, I include the following definition of an affidavit from:

LEGAL ENCYCLOPEDIA AND LAW DICTIONARY < http://www.lectlaw.com/ref.html >

The 'Lectric Law Library's Legal Lexicon On
* AFFIDAVIT *

AFFIDAVIT - A statement of facts which is sworn to (or affirmed) before an officer who has authority to administer an oath (e.g. a notary public). A statement which before being signed, the person signing takes an oath that the contents are, to the best of their knowledge, true. It is also signed by a notary or some other judicial officer that can administer oaths, to the effect that the person signing the affidavit was under oath when doing so. These documents carry great weight in Courts to the extent that judges frequently accept an affidavit instead of the testimony of the witness and are used in place of live testimony in many circumstances (for example, when a motion is filed, a supporting affidavit may be filed with it).

Practice. An oath or affirmation reduced to writing, sworn or affirmed to before some officer who has authority to administer it. It differs from a deposition in this, that in the latter the opposite party has had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness, whereas an affidavit is always taken ex parte.
……………………………….........................................................................................................................
The 'Lectric Law Library also defines an Oath - I suggest that the definition be read. Due to it’s length I will not copy it here. ………………………………..........................................................................................................................
Following is a reply to the post by Donna Ewins.

I am somewhat uncertain as to where to start this response due to the, the rather convoluted nature and excessive generalization of your posting. I note that your response is essentially a cloned copy of identical responses from people who do not comprehend the legal significance of an affidavit including the potential penalties for lying under oath. I seriously doubt that you will knowingly lie on an affidavit once you understand the legal nature and significance of an affidavit - quoting yourself “….I can swear to anything and find someone to notarize it.”

You state - “……so much time being spent on trivialities such as the "correct" spelling of 18th century names when there is no such thing.”

You write in generalities so broad that one could believe that Ben Franklin, George Washington, and yes Thomas Jefferson, and all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence may not have known how to spell their names. Then there are names appearing in the Doomsday book that retain their exact and correct spelling today. I and no doubt many others have names in their lineage spelled today exactly as they were spelled during the Crusades. Appearing on the same page of the First Reformed Fishkill Church Birth and Baptismal record as Maria Van Sicklen are names in use today and spelled exactly as they are written on that 1801 record - Ackerman - Ostrander - Dubois - Cooper - Rider - De Long - Norris . Perhaps you should review the names of those who arrived on the Mayflower. You will no doubt be in a state of shock after discovering how many are spelled today exactly as on the Mayflower passengers list. Of course, as you stated , there are many names wherein derivatives of original spelling have altered the names. Regrettably, you are wrong about there being no such thing as the correct spelling of names in the 18th century. You stated - "……correct" spelling of 18th century names when there is no such thing.”

There is not only correct spelling but exact spelling reaching back centuries. Incidentally, correct spelling and exact spelling do not always equate with each other. A name can be spelled correctly within a generation and following generations but not be an exact spelling of the earlier name. Such is the situation with Van Siclen and Van Sicklen. The correct spelling in the Eastling Bible transcript and affidavits for Van Siclen was not the exact spelling of the progenitor of Van Siclen and Van Sicklen. While each is a unique bloodline in itself, they descended from a common bloodline - Van Sycklin - or so states Waddell in his Van Sickle book.

The on going argument about Maria Van Siclen versus Maria Van Sicklen is not about a single “ k “ appearing in one surname and not the other. The argument whirls around inherited blood lines. I surely hope you understand that if a Maria Van Sicklen married Luther Calvin Eastling, the blood/genetic/DNA line of their descendants would be completely different than with the marriage of Maria Van Siclen to Luther Calvin Eastling - even the physical appearance of every Eastling descendant since Luther would be different if they were descendants of Maria Van Sicklen.

Inherited genetics is the reason for the argument over the correct - not necessarily exact - spelling of surnames within generations and crossing over generations. Van Siclen and Van Sicklen are both correct spellings for each unique blood line but neither name is the exact spelling of the Van Sycklin name followed by the Van Sickelen, name which had been the common blood line from which Van Siclen and Van Sicklen are derived. Each unique blood line inherited different genetic/DNA characteristics from the women who married the Van Syckling/Van Sickelen men who at some point assumed the variant spellings of Van Siclen and Van Sicklen.

Van did not and even as I write this perhaps does not appear to understand the significance of how a single letter inserted into a name, such as “ k “ inserted into the Van Siclen surname, could have altered the bloodline of thousands of descendants of Luther Calvin Eastling. I suspect there are hundreds maybe thousands of researchers, with the qualifications of a cherry picker, who bandy aka’s about without the faintest understanding of what they could be doing to legitimate and accurate inherited bloodline, genetic DNA genealogy records.

Correct and accurately researched blood line ancestry is not resolved or “automatically made accurate” with the application of aka’s as in Hannath Lossing aka Annetje Lasson aka Lawson. Lossing, Lasson and Lawson are not variant spellings developed in the 18th century, Each identically spelled name can be found in records hundreds of years earlier.

You may have convinced yourself that one is a variant spelling of the other developed in the 1700’s and as with the occasional exception in all things that may be true for one or a few individuals who preferring a variant spelling began to use it. However, because those same names spelled exactly as Lossing, Lasson, Lawson appear in records hundreds of years earlier, then for you to prove conclusively that anyone of those names is a variant spelling of the other you must have documentation proving the transition of one spelling to another and precisely who the transition applied to and when it occurred. Like Van Sicklen and Van Siclen, perhaps one brother used Lossing and another used Lasson. Aka’s without adequate documentation proving the validity of the aka selected name is meaningless and contribute nothing toward competent genealogy research of correctly spelled names within the generations being researched.

Correctly researched blood lines are not a source of “amusement” to those who take blood lines seriously. Your choice of “amusement” was unfortunate and was not an appropriate word to use.
……………………………….......................................................................................................................
Perhaps someday I shall cross swords with Van in a Court action whereby I shall challenge his alleged and fraudulent marriage of Maria Van Sicklen to Luther Calvin Eastling, using the sworn and notarized affidavits as my evidence.

A couple of items that Van’s attorney may mention to Van after reviewing the Eastling affidavits versus Van’s alleged evidence which is the First Reformed Church Fishkill 1801 Birth and Baptismal record, wherein the coincidental birth of a child named Maria Van Sicklen occurred on Sept 15 1801.

Vans hypothetical attorney advising Van:

Attorney - You admitted on a public internet forum that you have no evidence that would support your allegation of the marriage of Maria Van Sicklen to Luther Calvin Eastling.. (A copy of that admission would be included in the Petition.) If that is still true then without new evidence, attempting to conclusively proving your allegations of a marriage between Maria Van Sicklen and Luther will be an error in judgment on your part.

Attorney - The First Reformed Fishkill Church Birth and Baptismal record showing the birth of Maria Van Sicklen is just that, a record of the birth of the child Maria Van Sicklen on Sept 15 1801- a birth record is not a marriage record and is not acceptable evidence that the child ever married as an adult.

Attorney - The Birth and Baptismal record does not record a baptism date for Maria Van Sicklen - The Court may rule that a missing baptized date in a First Reformed (Dutch Reformed) church baptismal record can be interpreted to mean that Maria Van Sicklen appearing on the Birth and Baptismal record died before she could be baptized. The burden of proving the child lived beyond infancy will be on you.

Attorney - The mother of Maria appears on the Birth and Baptismal Record as Hannah Lossing. Written into the birth record as it is, it is absolutely impossible for you to prove than the birth mother’s name was not Hannah Lossing. Until you can conclusively prove that Hannah Lossing is the wrong name, an impossibility, Hannah Lossing cannot be changed to another name merely by using aka’s to support your allegation of a future marriage of her child Maria. In any event and even if it were not impossible to change Hannah Lossing to another name, whatever name you selected would not be relevant as proof of a future marriage of the child Maria. The names of parents, whatever they may be, cannot be used as evidence that their children married. .

Attorney - When faced with a sworn notarized affidavit you will be required to provide conclusive evidence that the affidavit respondents lied or some part of their sworn statement contains errors. You are faced with three affidavits, one which includes a notarized transcript of a Bible entry and created by the Notary himself recording the marriage of Maria Van Siclen/Siclin with Luther Calvin Eastling,. You tell me you don’t believe the Notary copied dates, names etc. correctly from the Bible - you will be required to conclusively prove that the Notary erred. - without the original Bible it is impossible to prove your allegation. The burden of proving the transcripts are either lies or contain errors is on yourself and unless you can conclusively proof your allegations it is a forgone conclusion that the Court will rule in favor of the Petitioner. The petitioner does not have to proof the affidavits do not contain errors - you have to prove the affidavits do contain errors.

Attorney - The only additional method whereby you can offset the affidavits is to produce conclusive evidence proving that the marriage you allege to have occurred did actually occur. Nothing you have showed me qualifies as conclusive evidence which would support your allegation.

Attorney - Unless you can come up with conclusive evidence proving your alleged marriage of Maria Van Sicklen and Luther C. Eastling my advice is to acquiesce (agree or consent quietly without protest but without enthusiasm), save the money it will cost you to fight the petition and remove the Maria Van Sicklen marriage to Luther from the Van Sicklen and Eastling genealogy, then write a letter of apology and forget the entire affair. Even I can recognize that the context of the affidavits in conjunction with Violetta’s DAR application bear out the fact that the respondents did not perjury themselves.
………………………………........................................................................................................................
Readers who disagree with the nature and legality of affidavits can depreciate, ridicule or whatever - nothing will set aside sworn statements contained within the sworn and notarized affidavits except conclusive evidence that the statements contain either lies or errors.

Additional comments not relevant to Donna’s posting.

I quote from: Waddel Page 82 Third Generation Family No IX

10, Ferdinand Van Sickelen…….VI. Johannes, born November 25, 1722, who married, (November 17, 1743,) Gertie Lott, (and had issue: Maria baptized December 15, 1751; Elsie, baptized December 5, 1753, who probably died young; Abraham, baptized July 19, 1756; and Elsie, baptized July 22 1764, and of them no further trace) and is supposed to have died January 26 1805; and from him is descended the New Lott Van Siclens;…..”.

I personally believe, without conclusive evidence, that Cornelius Van Siclen is an unrecorded son of Johannes and Gertie Lott - perhaps so perhaps no. I also believe that Cornelius Van Siclen was born between 1757 and 1760. In any event although it appears that Johannes and Gertie Van Sickelen could be the parents for the unrecorded birth of Cornelius Van Siclen, it remains speculation and so it shall remain until additional evidence proving parentage is discovered.

It is interesting to note that based on Waddell, (above) between Abraham (July 19 1756) and Elsie (July 22 1764) there is an 8 year childless period wherein no births are recorded - perhaps a bit unusual? Cornelius Van Siclen and additional unrecorded children could have been born within that eight year childless period.

It is of equal interest to note two additional items (1) Fanny’s comment in the affidavits - “….He died at an extensive old age at Bacauta in the province of Quebec….” and Ferdinand’s comment - ““that deposed knew his said grandfather Cornelius Van Siclen in his lifetime; that said grandfather was a revolutionary soldier from the State of New York, that the fact of this service as such was a well known fact of family history …..”.

There can be little doubt that Fanny referred to an age for Cornelius Van Siclen between 90 and 100. People in their 70’s frequently refer to anyone younger than 70 as young, 70 - 90 as old, 90 to 100 is very or extensively old. Considering Fanny’s comment and Ferdinand’s statements about Revolutionary War Service for Cornelius Van Siclen I have created the following chart:

(Battle of Bunker Hill - 1775) Certainly not alleging that Cornelius Van Siclen was at the battle of Bunker Hill. I merely illustrate that in 1775 if Cornelius had been born between 1757 and 1760 (within the eight year childless period) he could have been any of the following ages all of them old enough to have been a Revolutionary war soldier. If born in 1755, a year before Abraham, Cornelius would have been age 20 in 1775 and 95 in 1850. He could have even been born in 1754 making him 21 in 1775 and 96 in 1850.

Born Age in 1775 (Battle Bunker Hill) Age at death 1850

1757 18 93
1758 17 92
1759 16 91
1760 15 90

Ferdinand’s statement about Cornelius Van Siclen’s Revolutionary service is an indirect confirmation of the extensive old age of Cornelius being in the 90 to 95 area. Fanny’s statement about Cornelius dying at an extensive old age is an indirect confirmation that Cornelius was indeed old enough to have served during the Revolution.
……………………………….........................................................................................................................
End of post.



Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

http://genforum.genealogy.com/vansickle/messages/885.html
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