For David and other potentially interested people. What appears in ( ) is entered by Ed Gusman.
Statement by David - Post #568 "He (Van Curen) simply seems to be saying that the information he has found leads to a different conclusion than that reached by Mr. Guzman or Mr. Norman. I WOULD THINK THAT THE OBVIOUS PROCEDURE WOULD BE TO OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS THAT MR VAN CUREN CITES AND EXAMINE THEM."
Well David your conclusion about examining original documents is right on the mark. Nothing should be more simple. However, you should have specifically referred to the original marriage documents for Luther and Maria Van Sicklen, because the argument centers on exactly who was Luther Calvin Eastling's second wife. If Van Curen had the original marriage documents, copies thereof or knew where they were sourced, and could prove that Maria Van Sicklen was the second wife of Luther Eastling then why didn't he produce them when both yourself and Mr Huren suggested that Van Curen do so.
How did Van Curen reply to your suggestion? Van Curen's post #571 responded with 20 single spaced full width page lines wherein there is not a single reference to providing you or any one on this forum with the transcribed copy of the Luther/Maria Van Sicklen original marriage document or source where the marriage record can be found.
Faced with the Certified copy of Maria Van Siclen's marriage to Luther, documented marriage record evidence is mandatory for Van Curen if Van Curen is to prove there was a marriage between Luther Calvin Eastling and Maria Van Sicklen.
Within those 20 lines, Van Curen included the following which I have quoted from Post #571 - "The data collected during the research of this line (Van Sicklen line) is far to great to try to squeeze into a single message, so I have decided to publish the references and their resulting conclusions to a web site. It will take some time to properly develop, but once finished I will post the URl to this forum, so interested parties may locate the same documents I have, and decide for themselves what the truth is." Ask yourself why Van Curen doesn't give us a transcribed copy of location of his alleged original marriage record for Luther and Maria Van Sicklen.
Next I will review Van Curen's response to Mr. Huren who essentially voiced the same concern only more directly toward requesting proof of the marriage of Luther Calvin Eastling to Maria Van Sicklen.
How did Mr. Van Curen reply to Mr. Huren - Van Curen's Post #572 Total 40 full page width single spaced lines wherein Van Curen jumped all over the proverbial map and talked about too many things to repeat here. Not one time did Mr. Van Curen refer to Mr. Huren's request or suggestion that Van Curen provide original evidence proving that Luther Calvin Eastling married Maria Van Sicklen.
Therein is the tecnique consistantly used by Van Curen to direct attention away from subjects which conflict with his rationalized theories and for which he cannot answer.
A single transcribed copy of the marriage record for Luther Calvin Eastling and Maria Van Sicklen would have taken no more space that the certified copy of Maria Van Siclen's bible entry required. If a transcribed copy was not available to Van Curen then a link to the source where the record of the Luther Calvin Eastling, Maria Van Sicklen marriage could be found would have sufficed.
David I hope you now understand that Van Curen does not have an original copy, a transcribed copy of the original or even a source for the original marriage record of Luther to Maria Van Sicklen. Van will never prove that his convoluted, fantisized version of that marriage occurred because there is no record to substantiate such a marriage. No such record exists and never has existed because no such marriage ever occurred.
The only copy of a record for the second marriage of Luther Calvin Eastling is the Certified copy of Maria's bible entry record of her marriage. That record and the affidavits of Fanny and Ferdinand were discovered in the files at DAR Headquarters by a researcher hired by a co-researcher of mine to look specifically for those records because we knew from a 1924 letter that Violetta Irons Voorhees had once belonged to the D.A.R.
Van Curens version of the Luther/Maria Van Sicklen marriage was copied from the Certified copy entries written by Maria Van Siclen in her Bible record. Those documents and the Eastling lineage were sent to Van Curen by myself and my co-researcher a long time ago. Prior to receiving the Eastling records Van Curen did not have an Eastling/Van Sicklen link in his genealogy.
Before linking the Eastling records to the Van Sicklen genealogy, Van Curen had to first falsify the Van Siclen name and make it Van Sicklen then change the 1814 marriage date to 1824 and finally destroy the record of births for the first three children of the 10 recorded by Maria Van Siclen in her Bible entry. He provides a rather convoluted rationalization in various postings how he did it and why.
I will close with this. For those of you who do not know the significance of a Notarized Certified copy of a document, I will explain as briefly as I can. It is not a Certificate as mentioned by David. A Certified copy is an exact copy of a document transcribed by a Notary to another paper. The fact that the Notary certifies the transcribed copy establishes the copy as exact in all details and creates a legal status for the Certified copy that carries great weight in a Court of Law or with Attorneys. Words not noted as illegiable by the Notary cannot be subject to a later interpretation as illegiable by other parties. Only if the Notary includes with the certification the notation that a word, words, letter or numbers are not ledgable, is it legally permissable to treat the noted illegibility as unreadable. Those parts of a certified document which are not noted as illegible can unequivocally be taken as clearly legible and readable in the language in which it was written.
You note how Van Curen attempted to change 1814 to 1824 by faulting the Notary for not noting that the 1814 date as not clearly legiable. Well you could bet your last dollar, job car and house on the fact that no Notary will ever fail to note a word, words, letter or numbers that are not clearly legible to himself. It is a matter of self protection that the Notary insures that no one coming after him such as a Judge or Attorney will ever be able to say they couldn't read anything because the Notary failed to note it was illegible.
So why did Van Curen create a marriage date of 1824 and not use 1814 as in the Certified copy. Van Curen doesn't believe that girls can have children before they get to an older age than 13. So what does Van Curen do? Along with falsifying Maria Van Siclen's name to become Maria Van Sicklen, Van Curen falsifies Maria Van Siclens marriage date by changing it from 1814 to 1824 and falsifies the number of children Maria birthed from 10 to 7. The falsified data about Maria Van Siclen is the information he places in his Van Sicklen genealogy and is how he linked the Eastling lineage to the Van Sicklen lineage.
David I tell you this with a certain reluctance. Van could not as you said - "seems to be saying that the information he has found leads to a different conclusion than that reached by Mr. Guzman or Mr. Norman".
There was and currently is no additional information about the marriage of Luther and Maria Van Siclen available except that discovered by my co-researchers investigator.
I regret having to get back on the forum but David and others need to know why Van Curen wouldn't and couldn't answer their question or comments about producing original documents proving a marriage occurred between Luther Calvin Eastling and Maria Van Sicklen.