Doug wrote - 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.
Gusman - Expert witnesses to what?
Doug - 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.
Gusman - Your expert witnesses and present day record keepers cannot testify under sworn oath to events and people they did not know or personally witness. The extent of their "expert testimony" would be limited to testifying that the records presented to the Court are original records copied from micro film. or the original church records. They cannot accurately and conclusively testify that the data in the original source records was correctly entered, or that the names are correctly or incorrectly spelled or that the birth dates or anything appearing in the records was correctly entered. Only a notary who witnessed the entries can testify that he witnessed the data being entered. Since all parties to the events have died you are out of luck on everything except having a church official testify that the church records are original records. Until you produce a baptismal record showing the birth father for Hannah Lossing, No one can conclusively prove from where she obtained her Lossing name - by birth or a misspelled vaiant name.
Example - Mr. Record Keeper were you present in 1801 when the birth of Maria Lossing was entered into the Baptismal Record? Mr. Record Keeper answering - No sir. Mr. Record did you personally know Hannah Lossing. Mr. Record Keeper answering - No Sir. Mr. Record do you know if Hannah Lossing was born of a father with the Lossing surname. Mr Record Keeper answering. - No Sir Mr. Record Keeper if you were not present when the birth entries were made, and you did not personally know Hannah Lossing and you don't know if Hannah's birth father was named Lossing what is the point of your testifying for Douglas Van Curen.
Doug wrote - 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.
Gusman - I suggest that you again read what I quoted from the lectric law library about how judges will accept affidavits rather than the testimoney of live witness. The deponents have died, their testimony was sworn under oath and witnessed by a notary. Your up a legal tree with no way down.
Gusman -Violetta's DAR application was rejected eight months after submitted. Her DAR admission was approved solely on the basis of the affidavits. Violetta did not resubmit a rewritten application.
Gusman -The Van Sicklen name was not in the affidavits or in the DAR application. Your allegation that Violetta's DAR admission was approved based on Van Sicklen is wrong and without merit. The Van Sicklen name did not appear in the affidavits or application. The only veteran's names appearing in the DAR application were Van Sickle and several mispellings of Van Sickle. In the affidavites the names were Van Siclen, Van Sicle, Van Sickle.
Doug wrote - She gained admittance using a "VAN SICKLEN" record.
Gusman - Interesting since Van Sicklen is not mentioned in either document.
Doug Wrote - Check with the DAR.
Gusman - I did almost immediatly after receiving the application and affidavits long before I sent you copies.Was told Violett's admission would have been approved because of the affidavits and not the application.
Doug wrote - 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.
Gusman - Violetta was admitted based on the affidavits as I told you, after her application was rejected eight months earlier. The information in the application resulted in rejection.
Gusman - The affidavits contained nothing that appeared in the DAR application except the name Catherine Johnson. How could Fanny and Ferd deliberately have made the same mistake in their affidavits that Violetta had made in her application, which resulted in her rejection eight months earlier, whereas when what you allege was the same data in the affidavits resulted in her admission?
Where did you get the idea that Fanny and Ferdinand repeated the mistakes Violetta made in her application?
Rather convoluted reasoning wouldn't you agree?
You are correct about the copywrite protection.
Doug wrote - 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.
Gusman - I like your idea - will attempt to determine how to get the process started and some ball park cost estimates. What would work in the U.S. may not work in Canada. May begin to make inquires in Jan. Feb 2003. I have too much going for awhile to be sidetracked until then. How much can afford to spend?