Doug wrote -Church record keepers and historians will readily certify them to be the same couple, and a judge will readily accept that testimony in establishing that Maria of Fishkill was the daughter of Cornelius of Brighton. The evidence at hand is sufficient to have Violet Voorhees DAR membership declared invalid in court, should you decide it necessary to press it that far. Personally, the fact that Violet gained membership to the DAR using false information is of no interest to me.
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. Only a legally appointed Notary present at the baptism and witnessing the baptismal record entry when it was made or after it was made can legally certify the baptism and names entered into the baptisimal record were entered after the recorder swore an oath to record the entries correctly.
The best you can hope to accomplish is to have your records certified as true copies of either the original church record on microfilm or that the documents you have are certified as an original copy of the baptismal record on file in the churches themselves. A judge will accept your attorney's statement that he has submitted to the Court Certified true copies of the microfilm record. Certified copies are always stamped and notarized as true copies themselves. 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. Whereas without the presence of a Notary at the baptism or the entry into church records of the baptism who is to say that the church recorder did not make an error of any type.
Consequently, the notarized affidavit will with out question prevail over the un-notarized baptismal entries and prevail only because of the greater weight placed by the Courts on Notarized documents than on non-notarized documents. Do you know that your attorney would not even be able to submit the original church records in a lawsuit without first having them certified as original documents by church officials. Again certified as original documents is not equivalent to having the actual entry Notarized as being written under oath.
Where did you get the idea that Violetta's DAR membership approval was based on her DAR application. IT WAS NOT BASED ON HER DAR APPLICATION. Her original application contained only 4 entries that were correct. Violetta's name, the Notaries name and signature, Catherine Johnson's name and the submission and approval dates. Nothing else was correct. Her application is an excellent example that Notaries do not certify content but certify only that the contents was given under oath. Which correctly interpreted means that Violetta was telling what she believed was the truth when she wrote Catherine Johnson and Cornelius Van Sickle. What I have gleaned from various letters is that the Van Sickle spelling was in vogue in Violetta's generation and that none except the children of Maria Van Siclen knew that Van Siclen had been the genuine name of Maria Van Siclen's father prior to Van Sickle coming into vogue.
VIOLETTA'S MEMBERSHIP APPROVAL WAS BASED SOLELY ON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE AFFIDAVITS WRITTEN EIGHT MONTHS AFTER THE APPLICATION HAD BEEN SUBMITTED. 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. The service entries for Van Sickle were obviously wrong because they were for Van Sickle and not for Van Siclen.
APPARENTLY DAR HEADQUARTERS HAD FOUND SOMETHING WRONG (WHAT WE DON'T KNOW) WITH THE DATA IN HER ORIGINAL APPLICATION.
My feeling is that the DAR granted membership on the basis of the affidavit testimony for the same reason that the Courts accept the affidavits at face value always interpreting the testimony as true until conclusive evidence is produced which proves the testimony is false in part or in whole.
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 will not create any problems for you. I am not interested in subjecting you to any legal action. You are as entitled to your opinions about the origin and ancestry of Maria Van Siclen as myself. I only expect that because the affidavits are legal documents and refute what you may enter into your genealogy, that your genealgoy includes a notation that there is a legal source for information which conflicts with and refutes you entries.
If the information about which we have been arguing for two years had merely been personal letters and not legal testimony, I wouldn't be so foolish as to challenge you if you did not include references to mere letters.
I really don't anticipate a problem because I suspect that you will reference the affidavits as a refuting source.
A potentially greater problem (and it is only a potentional problem)is that the Eastling genealogy from which I copied 99.99 percent of the Eastling lineage about 10-12 years ago may be copywrited.I have corrected a couple of items in the original genealogy from family tradition to factual and provable data and much more has since been added to the lineage. Frankly I no longer recall if what I had copied had been copywrited. I always had permission to make the alterations I made. 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.
As to the inclusion in your genealogy of data about Maria Van Siclen and her father as you understand it and not as I understand it - I am certain that you will not violate a possible copywrite. As I recall when I copied the Van Siclen entries they were written as Cornelius Van Sickle and Maria Van Sickle. I did not change them to Van Siclen until after I had received from another correspondent the affidavits and DAR application.
We both now agree on the Van Siclen spelling which is a huge jump from where we began two years ago. Our differences now appear to be one ancestral generation apart because or your rejection and my acceptance of a couple of key elements in the affidavits. As I said each of us is entitled to our opinion but I believe it essential that researchers who follow us in the Eastling lineage have the ability to review both sides of our long and bitter argument. I have not given up believing in the truth contained in the affidavits.