This is directed to Mr. Van Curen and Mr. McCool. Call it - “The Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited”
There are no longer living witnesses to the evidence presented herein by Gusman and Van Curen. Consequently, the evidence contained within the various historical documents has to be taken at face value and is limited in scope to the context of each evidentiary document as written.
With the single exception explaining why I selected the spelling “Van Siclen”, I have stripped away all of the accumulated verbiage by both Van Curen and myself. What is left is presented here. You will note that in terms of documentary face value evidence, when all of the accompanying Gusman and Van Curen verbiage is removed, neither Van Curen nor Gusman have very much in the way of conclusive evidence that can be authenticated.
Gusman’s face value evidence consists of three sworn and notarized affidavits.
Van Curen's face value evidence consists of a single 1801 Fishkill DRC birth/baptismal church record. I have included that part of the Van Sicklen genealogy dealing with Maria Van Sicklen only because Van Curen referred to a New Hackensack DRC Christening as verification about Annatje Lawson. I have never seen the New Hackensack document.
During the previous months, Van Curen has made much of the obvious fact that Gusman has no face value evidence such as letters, official records etc. that support the evidence of sworn notarized testimony.
You will note that contrary to all of the accumulated verbiage by Van Curen,stripping the accumulated Van Curen verbiage reveals that Van Curen also has no letters, official records, etc. that support the two face value evidentiary documents submitted by Van Curen. As an example – a Revolutionary military record for a man is not an evidentiary document, which can be used as proof that the maiden name Lossing transmuted into Larson. A Canadian Census is not evidentiary proof that Maria Van Sicklen was Maria Van Siclen, etc. and neither is supporting evidence that Maria Van Sicklen married Luther Calvin Eastling.
Van Curen stated in his August 16 #667 posting – “People have a right to know the truth. So long as you insist on trying to pass off your Myth as factual, I will be here to set the record straight and provide the correct information, complete with references. Then, we will let them decide for themselves whether they wish to believe in the physical evidence or in family folklore” Unquote
Stripping off the rationalizations, speculative and unproving verbiage of both Gusman and Van Curen reveals the truth as told by the face value evidence of the documents themselves.
When there are no living witnesses to support or refute the evidence each party submits, authenticating evidence is derived from and limited to the context of the submitted documents themselves. That type of evidence becomes face value evidence. All of the accumulated verbiage expounded by both parties to date is not authenticating evidence for the documents submitted by both parties.
Neither Gusman nor Van Curen are living witnesses and cannot produce living witnesses to the documents they submit to support their allegations.Consequently, the only evidence available to support the submitted documents is what is contained within those same documents.
TWO ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED:
(I)Determine The Maiden Name Of Marie Who Married One Luther Calvin Eastling
(II)Was Maria Van Siclen or Maria Van Sicklen married to Luther Calvin Eastling.
ALLEGED MAIDEN NAMES FOR MARIA ARE: Van Siclen and Van Sicklen.
THE OBJECTIVE: Determine, using the maiden name, the correct ancestral lineage for the wife Maria, of Luther Calvin Eastling.
LINEAGE’S TO BE CONSIDERED: Van Siclen and Van Sicklen
(I)Determine The Maiden Name Of Marie Who Married One Luther Calvin Eastling
(A)GUSMAN has alleged that Van Siclen is the maiden name of Maria married to Luther Calvin Eastling.
There are no people now living who can confirm or refute the sworn and notarized testimony contained in Gusman’s submitted evidence. Documents are not known to exist which could confirm or refute all or any part of the deponents sworn statements appearing in the affidavits. Additional supporting documents have not been discovered as of Sept 6 2001.
Consequently, Gusman’s allegation is dependant on the face value evidence of the submitted affidavits.
Evidentiary documents which Gusman has submitted and are alleged to support Van Siclen as the maiden name for Maria the wife of Luther Calvin Eastling are:
Document 1 - Sworn and notarized affidavit from Violetta Voorhees:
Violetta Voorhees being first duly sworn deposes and says that she is now a resident of the City of Minneapolis in said, county, that she was born in Hobart, Ind. January 1st 1855, that her parents were Frank Irons and Fanny his wife, maiden name Fanny Easlin as she spelled her name, that her father spelled his name Easling: that applicant now has in her possession the family bible of Luther Calvin Eastling and Maria his wife who maiden name was Maria Van Sicklin and bible now owned by Ferdinand Easlin Jr. of Bryant S. Dakota, the great grand son of said Luther Calvin Eastling; that the first entry in the family records of said bible is as follows:
“Luther C. Eastling born May 30th 1791” and “Maria Eastling was born Sept 15th 1801”, that subsequent entries among many others in said family bible are the following “Luther and Maria VAN SICLIN Eastling was married July 22nd 1814”, “Fanny Hill Eastling born November the 20th 1837” “Francis Irons was married to Fanny Eastling April the 22 1854 in her 17 year”, “father VAN SICLEN died March the ?? in 1850”, that the entry of the birth of “Fanny Hill Eastling” is the tenth-entry of births of children of Luther and Maria Eastling, that the day of the month in the record of the death of “father VAN SICLEN” is to indistinct to read. That the mother of applicant is the Fanny Hill Eastling whose birth and marriage are recorded in said bible as above set forth.
(Signed) Violetta Voorhees
Subscribed and sworn & before me April 6 1907
Document 2 -Sworn and notarized affidavit from Ferdinand Eastling.
Ferdinand Eastling being first duly sworn deposes and says that he resides at Thorp in said County that he is seventy eight (78) years of age, that he is the son of Luther Calvin Eastling and Maria VAN SICLEN, his second wife, that she was the daughter of Cornelius VAN SICLEN and his wife Catherine Johnson his wife, 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 and documents evidencng such history were for a long time a family possession, but where they now are do not know.
(Signed) Firdenand Eastling
Subscribed and sworn before me April 22, 1907
Geo Bumle (could be spelled Brume)
Notary Public Clark Co. Wis.
Document 3 - Sworn and notarized affidavit from Fanny Eastling Kelly.
I, Fanny Kelly residing in the City of Minneapolis in said County am the daughter of Luther Calvin Eastling and Maria VAN SICLEN or SICKLEhis second wife. My mother was the daughter of Cornelius VAN SICLEN or VAN SICLE and Catherine Johnson his first wife. Mrs. Violetta Voorhees of the City of Minneapolis, Minn. is my daughter by my first husband Frank Irons.
My grandfather Cornelius VAN SICLEN was a soldier in the ware of the American Revolution being enlisted from the State of New York. He died at an extensive old age Bacauta in the province of Quebec. I saw him in my childhood. I do not remember of ever hearing him speak of his revolutionary services: but I have often heard my mother, his daughter tell of them and such services were as much a matter of family history as any other even in the family life and official documents evidencing such service were kept by some of the older members of the family and finall became of them I do not know.
(Signed) Fanny Kelly
Subscribed and sworn to before me April 17th 1907
Notary Public, Hennepin County, Minn.
The preceding affidavits are the singular available Gusman evidence, as of Sept 6, 2001, wherein the maiden surname of Marie Van Siclen is recorded as the wife of Luther Calvin Eastling. No additional records showing Maria with the following maiden names have been discovered as of Sept. 6 2001.
CONLUSION –The spelling Van Siclen appears a total of 8 times in the three affidavits whereas each of the alternate spellings appear but once. Ferdinand used only the spelling Van Siclen. Consequently, I chose to go with the Van Siclen spelling.
Maria Van Siclen is a blood-line descendant of the Van Siclen’s. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
(B) VAN CUREN has alleged that Van Sicklen is the maiden name of Maria married to Luther Calvin Eastling
There are no people now living who can confirm or refute the authenticity of the evidence contained in Van Curen’s submitted evidence. None of the documents provided by Van Curen have been sworn and notarized. Additional documents are not known to exist which could confirm or refute all or any part of Van Curen’s submitted evidence. Additional supporting documents have not been discovered as of Sept 6 2001.
Consequently, Van Curen’s allegation is dependent on the face value evidence of Van Curen’s submitted documents.
Evidentiary documents which Van Curen has submitted and are alleged to support Van Sicklen as the maiden name for Maria the wife of Luther Calvin Eastling are:
Document 1.Fishkill DRC 1801 birth baptismal record.
Parents – Cornelius FV Sicklen and Hannah Lossing; Child named – Maria Van Sicklen; born Sept. 15, 1801, Fishkill area, N.Y.
Document 2.Van Sicklen genealogy generation no. 3
Parents – Cornelius Van Sicklen and Annetje Lawson; Child named – Maria Van Sicklen; born abt. 1800, Britton, Ontario, Canada
No documents have been submitted by Van Curen that contain face value evidence which can conclusively prove that the Marie Van Sicklen born to Hannah Lossing in the Fishkill area of N.Y. is the identical Maria Van Sicklen born to Annetje Lawson in Briton, Ontario, Canada. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
(II) THE SECOND ISSUE:Was Maria Van Siclen or Maria Van Sicklen married to Luther Calvin Eastling.
GUSMAN’S EVIDENCE of marriage between Luther Calvin Eastling and Maria Van Siclen – Face value evidence contained within the affidavit’s of Violetta, Ferdinand and Fanny. Specifically these statements: The certification in Violetta’s affidavit - “Luther and Maria VAN SICLIN Eastling was married July 22nd 1814”; Ferdinand’s affidavit – “Luther Calvin Eastling and Maria VAN SICLEN, his second wife”; Fanny’s affidavit – “…am the daughter of Luther Calvin Eastling and Maria VAN SICLEN”.
VAN CUREN’S EVIDENCE of marriage between Luther Calvin Eastling and Maria Van Siclen – As of Sept. 6 2001, Van Curen has submitted no face value evidence, which shows a marriage between Luther Calvin Eastling and Maria Van Sicklen.
I close with four legal definitions from Web site address - www.lectlaw.com/ref.html
The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon On
* Notary Public *
NOTARY PUBLIC - A notary public is a public official who, depending on the state, has the power to acknowledge signatures, administer oaths and affirmations, take depositions and issue subpoenas in lawsuits. Notaries public are most commonly used to acknowledge signatures, especially on court papers such as affidavits.
Although notaries public are public officials, most are people who work in private industry and take a state-administered test to become notaries public. Often, one or more employees of large institutions which process much paperwork (such as banks, insurance companies and real estate brokers) and large law offices are notaries public. Also, many people who work at courthouses are notaries public.
A public officer commissioned under the authority of a state government to witness signatures on legal documents and to verify that the name shown by the signature is the actual name of the person signing the document. (2) Obs. A legal officer whose duty was to write, witness, care for, and otherwise take care of documents. He was a legal officer, and thus, everything he wrote/witnessed was considered legal evidence. They were certified by the King or the Pope.
An officer appointed by the executive, or other appointing power, under the laws of different states.
Their duties are generally prescribed by such laws. The most usual of which are, l. To attest deeds, agreements and other instruments, in order to give them authenticity. 2. To protest notes, bills of exchange and the like. 3. To certify copies of agreements and other instruments. By 1850 Act of Congress it is enacted, that in all cases in which, under the laws of the United States, oaths, affirmations or acknowledgments may now be taken or made before any justice or justices of the peace of any state or territory, such oaths, affirmations or acknowledgments may be hereafter also taken or made by or before any notary public duly appointed in any state or territory, aud, when certified under, the hand and official seal of such notary, shall have the name force and effect as if taken or made by or before such justice or justices of the peace. And all laws and parts of laws for punishing perjury or subornation of perjury committed in any such oaths or affirmations, when taken or made before any such justice of the peace, shall apply to any such offence committed in any oaths or affirmations which may be taken under this act before a notary public or commissioner as hereinafter named: Provided always that on any trial for either of these offences, the seal and signature of the notary shall not be deemed sufficient in themselves to establish the official character of such notary, but the same shall be shown by other and proper evidence. Notaries are of very ancient origin. They were well known among the Romans, exist in every state of Europe, particularly on the continent. Their acts have long been respected by the custom of merchants and by the courts of all nations.
The 'Lectric Law Library's Legal Lexicon On
* HEARSAY *
HEARSAY - Secondhand information that a witness only heard about from someone else and did not see or hear himself. Hearsay is not admitted in court because it's not trustworthy, as well as because of various constitutional principles such as the right to confront one's accusers, however, there are so many exceptions that often times hearsay is admitted more than excluded.
A statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. -- 28 USC
Hearsay is any statement made outside a hearing or trial which is presented at the hearing or trial to prove the truth of the contents of the statement. All evidence rules begin with the premise that hearsay cannot be used in court because secondhand testimony is considered unreliable and because the person who made the original statement is often unavailable for cross-examination. Statements in the forms of letters, affidavits, declarations, diaries, memos, oral statements, notes, computer files, legal documents, purchase receipts and contracts all constitute hearsay when they are offered to prove that their contents are true.
Testimony during a hearing or trial is not hearsay unless the witness tries to repeat something someone else said or wrote. In addition, a statement introduced to prove something other than its truth is not hearsay. For example, testimony may be offered to show the speaker's state of mind.
Example: Dana and Bruce were fighting, and Dana shouted "Bruce, you are a lousy bastard." Marla heard the argument and was asked to testify at Dana and Bruce's divorce trial. Marla was permitted to repeat the statement "Bruce, you are a lousy bastard," because it is not hearsay. It was not introduced at the trial to prove that Bruce has lice or is an illegitimate child, but rather to show that Dana was angry.
A witness's earlier out-of-court statement may be presented at a trial or hearing if it contradicts his in-court testimony because the statement is being used to cast doubt on the witness's credibility rather than prove the statement's truth or falsity.
A great many exceptions to the hearsay rule exist and much hearsay tends to be admitted under these exceptions. Evidence which qualifies as exceptions is usually statements which are reliable and believed to be unfabricated. Some common exceptions are:
Utterances made at the time of a startling event which provoked the observer into speaking (for example, seeing one's spouse in bed with someone else);
Statements describing a current condition (for example, "I feel sick.");
Prior testimony from a hearing, trial or deposition;
*** Religious records, family records and marriage certificates;
Property documents (for example, deeds);
Statements made against one's own monetary or penal interest (that is, an admission of a crime);
Declarations made by someone who believes his death is imminent;
Business records made in the regular course of business;
*** Official records;
*** Ancient documents, and;
(THE *** HAVE BEEN INSERTED BY MYSELF SPECIFICALLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF VAN CUREN)
The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon On
* Oath *
OATH - A declaration made according to law, before a competent tribunal or officer, to tell the truth; or it is the act of one who, when lawfully required to tell the truth, takes God to witness that what he says is true. It is a religious act by which the party invokes God not only to witness the truth and sincerity of his promise but also to avenge his imposture or violated faith, or in other words to punish his perjury if he shall be guilty of it.
It is proper to distinguish two things in oaths; 1. The invocation by which the God of truth, who knows all things, is taken to witness. 2. The imprecation by which he is asked as a just and all-powerful being, to punish perjury.
The commencement of an oath is made by the party taking hold of the book, after being required by the officer to do so, and ends generally with the words,"so help you God," and kissing the book, when the form used is that of swearing on the Evangelists.
Oaths are taken in various forms; the most usual is upon the Gospel by taking the book in the hand; the words commonly used are, "You do swear that, " etc. "so help you God," and then kissing the book. The origin of this oath may be traced to the Roman law, and the kissing the book is said to be an imitation of the priest's kissing the ritual as a sign of reverence, before he reads it to the people. Rees, Cycl.
Another form is by the witness or party promising holding up his right hand while the officer repeats to him,"You do swear by Almighty God, the searcher of hearts, that," etc., "And this as you shall answer to God at the great day."
In another form of attestation commonly called an affirmation, the officer repeats, "You do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm, that," etc.
The oath, however, may be varied in any other form, in order to conform to the religious opinions of the person who takes it.
Oaths may conveniently be divided into promissory, assertory, judicial and extra judicial.
Among promissory oaths may be classed all those taken by public officers on entering into office, to support the constitution of the United States, and to perform the duties of the office.
Custom-house oaths and others required by law, not in judicial proceedings, nor from officers entering into office, may be classed among the assertory oaths, when the party merely asserts the fact to be true.
Judicial oaths, or those administered in judicial proceedings.
Extra-judicial oaths are those taken without authority of law, which, though binding in foro conscientiae, do not render the persons who take them liable to the punishment of perjury, when false.
Oaths are also divided into various kinds with reference to the purpose for which they are applied; as oath of allegiance, oath of calumny, oath ad litem, decisory oath, oath of supremacy, and the like
The Act of Congress of 1789, regulates the time and manner of administering certain oaths as follows:
Be it enacted, etc., That the oath or affirmation required by the sixth article of the constitution of the United States, shall be administered in the form following, to wit, "I, A B, do solemnly swear or affirm, (as the case may be,) that I will support the constitution of the United States." The said oath or affirmation shall be administered within three days after the passing of this act, by any one member of the senate, to the president of the senate, and by him to all the members, and to the secretary; and by the speaker of the house of representatives, to all the members who have not taken a similar oath, by virtue of a particular resolution of the said house, and to the clerk: and in case of the absence of any member from the service of either house, at the time prescribed for taking the said oath or affirmation, the same shall be administered to such member when he shall appear to take his seat.
That at the first session of congress after every general election of representatives, the oath or affirmation aforesaid shall be administered by any one member of the House of Representatives to the speaker; and by him to all the members present, and to the clerk, previous to entering on any other business; and to the members who shall afterwards appear, previous to taking their seats. The president of the senate for the time being, shall also administer the said oath or affirmation to each senator who shall hereafter be elected, previous to his taking his seat; and in any future case of a president of the senate, who shall not have taken the said oath or affirmation, the same shall be administered to him by any one of the members of the Senate.
That the members of the several state legislatures, at the next session of the said legislatures respectively, and all executive and judicial officers of the several states, who have been heretofore chosen or appointed, or, who shall be chosen or appointed before the first day of August next, and who shall then be in office, shall, within one month thereafter, take the same oath or affirmation, except where they shall have taken it before which may be administered by any person authorized by the law of the state, in which such office shall be holden, to administer oaths. And the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers of the several states, who shall be chosen or appointed after the said first day of August, shall, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices, take the foregoing oath or affirmation, which shall be administered by the person or persons, who, by the law of the state, shall be authorized to administer the oath of office; and the person or persons so administering the oath hereby required to be taken, shall cause a record or certificate thereof to be made, in the same manner as by the law of the state he or they shall be directed to record or certify the oath of office.
That all officers appointed or hereafter to be appointed, under the authority of the United States, shall, before they act in their respective offices, take the same oath or affirmation, which shall be administered by the person or persons who shall be authorized by law to administer to such officers their respective oaths of office; and such officers shall incur the same penalties in case of failure, as shall be imposed by law in case of failure in taking their respective oaths of office.
That the secretary of the Senate, and the clerk of the House of Representatives, for the time being, shall, at the time of taking the oath or affirmation aforesaid, each take an oath or affirmation in the words following, to wit; "I, A B, secretary of the Senate, or clerk of the House of Representatives (as the case may be) of the United States of America, do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will truly and faithfully discharge the duties of my said office to the best of my knowledge and abilities."
There are several kinds of oaths, some of which are enumerated by law.
Oath of calumny. This term is used in the civil law. It is an oath which a plaintiff was obliged to take that he was not actuated by a spirit of chicanery in commencing his action, but that he had bona fide a good cause of action. This oath is somewhat similar to our affidavit of a cause of action.
No instance is known in which the oath of calumny has been adopted in practice in the admiralty courts of the United States.
Decisory oath. By this term in the civil law is understood an oath which one of the parties defers or refers back to the other for the decision of the cause.
It may be deferred in any kind of civil contest whatever, in questions of possession or of claim; in personal actions and in real. The plaintiff may defer the oath to the defendant, whenever he conceives he has not sufficient proof of the fact which is the foundation of his claim; and in like manner, the defendant may defer it to the plaintiff when he has not sufficient proof of his defence. The person to whom the oath is deferred ought either to take it or refer it back, and if he will not do either the cause should be decided against him.
The decisory oath has been practically adopted in the district court of the United States, for the district of Massachusetts, and admiralty causes have been determined in that court by the oath decisory; but the cases in which this oath has been adopted, have been where the tender has been accepted; and no case is known to have occurred there in which the oath has been refused and tendered back to the adversary.
A judicial oath is a solemn declaration made in some form warranted by law, before a court of justice or some officer authorized to administer it, by which the person who takes it promises to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, in relation to his knowledge of the matter then under examination, and appeals to God for his sincerity.
In the civil law, a judicial oath is that which is given in judgment by one party to another.
Oath in litem, in the civil law, is an oath which was deferred to the complainant as to the value of the thing in dispute on failure of other proof, particularly when there was a fraud on the part of the defendant, and be suppressed proof in his possession. In general the oath of the party cannot, by the common law, be received to establish his claim, but to this there are exceptions. The oath in litem is admitted in two classes of cases: 1. Where it has been already proved, that the party against whom it is offered has been guilty of some fraud or other tortious or unwarrantable act of intermeddling with the complainant's goods, and no other evidence can be had of the amount of damages. As, for example, where a trunk of goods was delivered to a shipmaster at one port to be carried to another, and, on the passage, he broke the trunk open and rifled it of its contents; in an action by the owners of the goods against the shipmaster, the facts above mentioned having been proved aliunde, the plaintiff was held a competent witness to testify as to the contents of the trunk.
The oath in litem is also admitted on the ground of public policy, where it is deemed essential to the purposes of justice But this oath is admitted only on the ground of necessity. An example may be mentioned of a case where a statute can receive no execution unless the party interested be admitted as a witness.
A promissory oath is an oath taken by authority of law by which the party declares that he will fulfil certain duties therein mentioned, as the oath which an alien takes on becoming naturalized, that he will support the Constitution of the United States: the oath which a judge takes that he will perform the duties of his office. The breach of this does not involve the party in the legal crime or punishment of perjury. A suppletory oath in the civil and ecclesiastical law, is an oath required by the judge from either party in a cause, upon half proof already made, which being joined to half proof, supplies the evidence required to enable the judge to pass upon the subject.
A purgatory oath is one by which one destroys the presumptions which were against him, for he is then said to purge himself when he removes the suspicions which were against him; as when a man is in contempt for not attending court as a witness, he may purge himself of the contempt by swearing to a fact which is an ample excuse.
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.
Affidavit To Hold To Bail, is in many cases required before the defendant can be arrested; such affidavit must be made by a person who is acquainted with the fact, and must state, 1st, an indebtedness from the defendant to the plaintiff; 2dly, show a distinct cause of action; 3dly, the whole must be clearly and certainly, expressed.
An Affidavit Of Defense, is made by a defendant or a person knowing the facts, in which must be stated a positive ground of defense on the merits. It has been decided that when a writ of summons has been served upon three defendants, and only one appears, a judgment for want of an affidavit of defense may be rendered against all.