Even after I quoted the Law dictionary to you last year about what the legal responsibilities of a Notary and the emphasise that Courts place on notarized records you can't seem to grasp the significance of notarized documents.
The posting about value of sources placed "Notarized" in the Primary Source.Nothing more needs to be said about the Eastling records because they are notarized. You say the deponents lied under oath - then prove they lied!.
Van Curen my strongest recommendation to you is to drop the Maria Van Curen subject in it's entirety.
I am going to answer your second posting on August 15th and then I will terminate these assinine discussions.
I have rethought R. McCool's suggestion about backing off and have decided it is excellent advice. I have posted enough rebuttals to alert anyone to the fact that the Van Sicklen/Eastling connection in the Van Sicklen genealogy is fraudulent and based on your tampering with Maria Van Siclen's name, her marriage date and number of children birthed by Maria Van Siclen.
Your allegations that Hannah Lossing metamorphised into an Annette/Hannah Lawson are unbelievably absurd.That happens with the progenitors of butterflys but not genuine human beings.
Your admission of altering Maria Van Sickle's marriage date, considering that the Notary certification is evidentiary proof acceptable in any Court that he copied the date recorded in the Bible exactly as written, is self evident proof that you do not have integrity required by a qualified researcher and also demonstrated your unmitigated willingness to falsify records in a manner to support your fancied,imagined suppositions.
I will leave now and hope never again to encounter genealogy researchers who vomit trash like you do.