Oct 23, 2002
Directed specifically to Douglas Van Siclen with information for Mr. McCool
Reading affidavits 101Pay attention beginners
Last of a three part series
AFFIDAVIT OF FERDINAND EASTLING
Copied from handwritten copy of original
State of Wisconsin
County of Clark
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 the documents evidencing such history were for a long time a family possession, but where they now are I do not know.
(Signed) Ferdenand Eastling
Subscribed and sworn before me April 22, 1907
Geo Bumle(note by Editor – Burmle may be Bume or Brule – or some thing similar)
Clark Co. Wis.
When Cornelius died in March 1850, Ferdinand was age 22.
Ferdinand stated - “….Maria Van Siclen, his second wife, that she was the daughter of Cornelius Van Siclen and his wife Catherine Johnson his wife,….” Note the phrasing - “and his wife Catherine Johnson his wife,….” I suspect that Ferdinand had intended to write - “….and his wife Catherine Johnson his wife …“.
Fanny used similiar phrasing - “My mother was the daughter of Cornelius Van Siclen or Van Sicle and Catherine Johnson his first wife.”
Why have I brought Fanny into this analysis? Because Fanny was Ferdinand’s sister and what one would know the other probably knew. For many events both brother and sister would remember some of those events. That Catherine Johnson was a “first wife” of Cornelius appears to be one of those events.
The use of “first wife” creates two possibilities. (1) Did Fanny use the words “first wife” in the sense of “first and only wife” with “only” merely implied.
(2) Did Fanny use the words “first wife” in the sense of “first wife died and Cornelius remarried” with death and remarriage implied. We will probably never know.
In either event, Catherine Johnson was and remains the birth mother of Maria Van Siclen. Catherine Johnson also remains the blood line grandmother of the 10 children of Maria Van Siclen and the bloodline great grandmother of 35 children, each of which lived into the first half of the 20th century with a few living until the 1950’s and 1960’s.
Thirty five grandchildren of Maria Van Siclen along with a lady named Cynthia Eastling all living into the 20th century is Van Curen’s Achilles heel concerning the name of Catherine Johnson in the 20th century.
The difference between Catherine Johnson living until she was in her 90’s - or dieing at the birth of Maria Van Siclen - or dieing shortly before or anytime after the marriage of Maria Van Siclen in 1814 is not relative or even significant as to Maria Van Siclen passing the name of her birth mother Catherine Johnson on to her 10 children and those 10 children passing the name Catherine Johnson onto their 35 grand children of Maria Van Siclen and Luther Calvin Eastling.
In case (1) which has Catherine Johnson living into her 90’s as the “first and only wife”, - Maria Van Siclen’s 10 children would have received from their mother Maria Van Siclen, a personal first hand knowledge of Catherine Johnson as they grew and matured to whatever their ages at the death of Catherine Johnson.
In case (2) where Catherine Johnson dies, perhaps some of Maria Van Siclen’s children would have personally known Catherine Johnson, perhaps none of them would have known Catherine Johnson. How long Catherine Johnson lived would have determined how many of Maria’s 10 children would have a personal knowledge of Catherine Johnson.
If Catherine Johnson lived or died,Maria’s 10 children would, at various times prior to the death of Maria Van Siclen in 1868, have been told by Maria Van Siclen or Maria Van Siclen’s mother, that Catherine Johnson had been their grandmother and the first wife of their grandfather. Believe or not Douglas Van Curen, Mothers really do talk with their children and impossible though it may be for you to believe, Mothers have even been known to tell their children the unmarried maiden names of their children’s grandmother. Fathers such as Cornelius Van Siclen have also been known to discuss those same things with his children.
Consequently, the primary determining factor in Maria Van Siclen’s 10 children knowing their grandmother Catherine Johnson name and that she was the “first wife” of Cornelius Van Siclen was their mother Maria Van Siclen. If any ofthose children may have been fortunate enough to have known their grandmother Catherine Johnson, there is no reason to doubt that Catherine Johnson would have mentioned to them her first/only wife status to them.
A reasonable and prudent person can assume that Maria would havepassed on to her children stories about their grandmother, including her name and the fact that Catherine Johnson had been the first wife of their grandfather. A reasonable and prudent person can also assume that the 10 children of Maria Van Siclen would have passed many of thestories, including first wife status, about Catherine Johnson on to their own children - all of who lived into the first third of the 20th century with a few of them living into the 1950’s and 1960’s.
Van Curen hold this thought. Cornelius Van Siclen was a Revolutionary War Veteran and Catherine Johnson had been by his side, probably beginning prior to the war or not long after it began. Both Catherine Johnson and Cornelius Van Siclen had lived through the turbulent times of the Revolutionary war. There was an excellent reason for the Eastling family to take pride in that fact - reason enough to deliberately want to pass it on to their descendants. With the exception of the members of the DAR, not much of that pride is left today.
Three children of Maria Van Siclen - Ferdinand - Cynthia - Fanny - who lived until the 1920’s and had been told by their mother Maria Van Siclen, along with thirty five of Maria’s grand children, all of who lived into the 20th century, and would also have been told by their parents decades before 1906, thattheir great grandmother was Catherine Johnson.
That is the reason that Catherine Johnson’s name appeared in the affidavits and in the 20th century letters - not the fanciful and imaginary garbage alleged by Van Curen, who cannot provide a smidgen of evidence that will support his allegations about Catherine Johnson’s name being created either by Violetta or with a conspiracy of the affidavit deponents.
The following quotation posted by Douglas Van Curen is the result of his over active imagination and poppy cock blended with trash - nothing more.
Posted by Van Curen Oct. 19 21:35:41 -”The additional letters you have using the name Catharine Johnson were written after the DAR affidavits. Those letters simply restate the Violet Voorhees error. Once she put the name Catharine Johnson down on paper, the entire family became sold on the name. They had no reason to doubt her discover, so they accepted it as fact, and passed it around. Doesn’t change the fact that the claim was false. There is no question the name “Catherine Johnson” started with Violet’s research error. ……Sorry Eddy you loose. Everyone knows where the name came from, and that she was not Maria’s mother. Fantasy over.”
I do not understand why it is so important to Douglas Van Curen to kill off the genuine Catherine Johnson appearing in the affidavits and replace her with Van Curen’s version of who Van Curen perceives as a fraudulent and fictitious Catherine Johnson. What purpose does Van Curen expect to serve? What does he expect to prove and gain. Violetta certainly never needed Catherine Johnson’s name on her DAR application. That was proven in the DAR letter I sent to Van Curen. Why should Violetta have created a fictitious Catherine Johnson.
Why after agreeing that the affidavits are not perjured with Cornelius Van Siclen’s name. Does Van Curen suddenly attempt to divert attention to Catherine Johnson.
My personal belief is that Van Curen did it to divert attention away from the faux pas Van Curen created when he researched the wrong family - Van Sicklen as opposed to Van Siclen for his Eastling connection. Van Curen could not find the Brighton Van Curen Cemetery stone. Van Curen could not prove that a marriage occurred between Maria Van Sicklen and Luther Calving Eastling. Van Curen has been so humiliated due to each of those faux pax that he had to create a diversion and is attempting to do so with Catherine Johnson who had nothing to do with Cornelius Van Siclen’s revolutionary war service - war service confirmed by the affidavits. The purpose of the affidavits was to confirm the war service of Cornelius Van Siclen - a wife named Catherine Johnson was not required for Cornelius Van Siclen and is incidental to the objective of the affidavits.
Van Curen continues to allege in hispostings that the Eastling descendants beginning in 1907 referred to the wife of Cornelius Van Siclen as Catherine Johnson because Van Curen alleges NO EASTLING OR VAN SICLEN HAD EVERY HEARD THE NAME OF CATHERINE JOHNSON - INCLUDING CATHERINE’S DAUGHTER MARIA VAN SICLEN AND CATHERINE’S HUSBAND CORNELIUS VAN SICLEN - UNTIL VIOLETTA CREATED THE NAME IN 1906, AND THEN INDUCED THE DEPONENTS TO PLACE THE NAME OF CATHERINE JOHNSON IN THEIR AFFIDAVITS .
Fact - the affidavit of Ferdinand states - “….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….”
Fanny’s affidavit states - “ …. My mother was the daughter of Cornelius Van Siclen or Van Sicle and Catherine Johnson his first wife. “
Posted by Van Curen Oct. 7 2002 21:04:55 - “There is still not one shred of REAL evidence to support the Catharine Johnson fantasy and there never will be….because it didn’t happen”
Van Curen appears to have overlooked or forgotten about Cornelius Van Siclen, WHO WAS THE HUSBAND OF CATHERINE JOHNSON. Cornelius lived until March 1850. In the year of his death, the grandchildren of Cornelius Van Siclen were: unnamed age unk. - unamed age 30 - unamed approximately 27-32 - Hiram age 25 twin ? - Harford age 25 twin ? - Ferdinand age 22 - Cornelia age 19 twin - Cornelius age 19 twin - Cynthia age 16 - Fanny age 13.
A reasonable and prudent person can conclude from the ages of Cornelius Van Siclen’s grand children in the year of Cornelius Van Siclen’s death 1850, that the grandchildren would have been told by either Maria Van Siclen or Cornelius Van Siclen that his wife’s name was Catherine Johnson. Those grandchildren included Ferdinand and Fanny who created their affidavits and with their sister Cynthia lived into the 1920’s.
For the record - the “REAL evidence” which Van Curen rejects are the affidavits themselves. Affidavits cannot be supported by un-certified documents. Affidavits can only be challenged by Certified original source records or living people.Therefore, no additional documents need to be presented as proof of the veracity of the affidavits. The affidavit is one of the few legal documents that derives it’s authenticity from within itself.
Demonstrated competency by a researcher in the analysis of an affidavit for perjury requires the investigator to consider the many and varied factors surrounding the deponents, their siblings and relatives at the writing of the affidavit.
Gusman believes the affidavits to be 100 % factual - no perjury whatsoever. Van Curen and a few others believe the affidavits contain perjured testimony. This affidavit analysis is specifically for Van Curen’s benefit and those few individuals who fail to understand the nature of the affidavits.
One of the first items for a perjury analysis of an affidavit is to take into account the impact that suspected perjury could have on siblings and relatives who had no part in creating the affidavit. Van Curen has alleged that Catherine Johnson was a fraudulent creation of Violetta which was supported by Fanny and Ferdinand. Van Curen is not able to provide evidence supporting his allegation.
The perjuryallegation by Van Curen is very unusual, (1) Van Curen has no evidence which even implies intent by the deponents to alter the name of their grandmother Maria Van Siclen. Van Curen has no evidence proving that the name of Cornelius’s Van Siclen’ wife was ever any name except Catherine Johnson. The evidence that Catherine Johnson is the blood line grandmother of the deponents is overwhelming. It is that evidence which will be presented.
(1) The affidavits themselves are the primary evidence proving that Catherine Johnson was the wife of Cornelius Van Siclen. Ferdinand states - “…. 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.”
(2) The secondary evidence is more subtle but equally as strong. Douglas Van Curen concentrates only on the deponents Fanny and Ferdinand and ignores the eight remaining children of Maria Van Siclen and also the 35 descendents of Maria‘s 10 children. The name and descendents of only one child is not known.
This analysis assumes that Catherine Johnson did not die until in her 90’s. It should be kept in mind that even if Catherine Johnson died at the birth of Maria Van Siclen or any time prior to the death of Cornelius Van Siclen, Maria Van Siclen and her husband Cornelius would have told Maria’s children about Catherine Johnson their grandmother.
Assuming Catherine Johnson had not died early, each of Maria’s ten children had the opportunity, up to 1848 when Maria’s family left for the U.S.,to visit, walk, talk, eat and perhaps at different times live together in the same house with their grand parents Cornelius Van Siclen and Catherine Johnson. It is a fact that the 10 children of Maria lived with their parents Maria Van Siclen and Luther Calvin Eastling. until the marriages of Maria’s children.Two of Maria’s children Hiram and Cornelius livedvery near and sometimes with their mother Maria until she died in 1868.
It hardly seems necessary to state, that even if Catherine Johnson wasn’t living to do so, Marie would have passed on to her 10 children the stories, events, and marriage status Maria had been told by her mother, including the name of her mother Catherine Johnson. It should likewise not be necessary to state the each of Maria’s 10 children would have in turn have passed many of the stories aboutCatherine Johnson and Cornelius to their 35 grand children of Maria Van Siclen. Keep the thought that Cornelius Van Siclen was a Revolutionary veteran, a fact the family took great pride in.
Consequently, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that all or most of Maria Van
Siclen’s grand children did not know about Catherine Johnson. However, from the two 1920’s letters I have, it is also obvious that even after the name Van Siclen had been revealed in Violetta’s affidavit, the Eastling descendants continued to use the name Van Sickle for Cornelius Van Siclen, but did use the name Catherine Johnson for his wife.
The best is last. Now the clincher that Violetta and a deponent conspiracy was not responsible for creating a fraudulent and fictitious Catherine Johnson. .
Cynthia Eastling was a sibling of Fanny and Ferdinand. Cynthia was not a party to or mentioned by the deponents in their affidavits. When Cornelius Van Siclen died, Cynthia was 16 years old. Cynthia lived until 1924/1925. Fanny lived until 1924. Ferdinand lived until 1926. Cynthia may have personally known Catherine Johnson and certainly did know Cornelius Van Siclen. Not only did many, more than likely all of the 35 grand children of Maria, know about Catherine Johnson, having been told by their parents if not by Catherine Johnson herself, beginning in the parent’s children’s childhood during the last third of the 1800’s. All of those 35 grandchildren lived until sometime in the first half of the 1900’s with a few of them living until the 1950’s and 1960’s.
I am writing about people who knew about Catherine Johnson from their parents as early as the last quarter of the 1800’s, decades prior to 1906 and who lived into the 20th century, some as long as the 1950’s and 1960’s.
The 35 grand children of Maria Van Siclen and Cynthia’s probable personal knowledgeabout Catherine Johnson from Catherine Johnson or certainly hearing it from her mother Maria Van Siclen are Douglas Van Curen’s Achilles heel. Cynthia may have had personal first hand information about whatever Catherine Johnson had told her, Cynthia also knew what ever her mother Maria Van Siclen had told her about Catherine Johnson. There is no reason to believe that Cynthia was not knowledgeable about the activities and marriage status of Catherine Johnson. The same personal first hand knowledge about Catherine Johnson is true of Fanny and Ferdinand, including hearing stories about Catherine Johnson from their mother Maria Van Siclen.
The affidavit testimony is 100 % truthful in all respects. The Eastling deponents probably learned about Catherine Johnson from Catherine herself and certainly from their mother Maria Van Siclen. The 35 grand children of Maria learned about Catherine Johnson from their own parents who were the children of Maria Van Siclen.
Ferdinand stated - “ 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….“ Ferdinand spoke from first hand knowledge having known, walked and talked with Cornelius Van Siclen prior to the death of Cornelius Van Siclen in 1850. In 1850 Ferdinand was age 22. Ferdinand like Fanny apparently had no reason to believe that he needed to embellish war stories for his grandfather Cornelius Van Siclen. Apparently Ferdinand was satisfied that the simple truth about his grandfather’s Revolutionary War Service would be sufficient.
Now here is the most intriguing event in Violetta’s DAR and affidavit saga. Violetta had entered the name Cornelius Van Sickle, including a few spelling errors which left Van Sickle recognizable even though misspelled, as her Revolutionary Veteran. The DAR found something wrong after the initial approval, rejected the application, apparently telling Violetta to get affidavits which would testify under oath to Violetta’s Veterans war service. Well Violetta got the affidavits requested by the DAR. Imagine the surprise at DAR Headquarters when the affidavits named Violetta’s veteran as Cornelius Van Siclen, a different name than that submitted by Violetta.
Violetta, Fanny and Ferdinand are telling anyone with common sense that without specifically stating so, the deponents had no intention of perjuring themselves by using the name - Cornelius Van Sickle - which Violetta had written into her DAR membership . Fanny and Ferdinand would have known they could guarantee Violetta’s DAR membership if they merely wrote the name Cornelius VanSickle into their affidavits. Violetta knew that she could have kept secret the existence of the Bible entries revealing the Van Siclen name. How easy it would have been for them to lie. No one at the DAR would ever have known and because the Van Sickle name appears to already have been in general use, not even the siblings and relatives would have known that Cornelius and Maria had ever been anything but Van Sickle.
The integrity of the three deponents was outstanding and above reproach. There is no adjectives that could better describe their honesty, courage and integrity. Courage? Yes - because like most parents and uncles they would want for Violetta what Violetta wanted - DAR membership. However it is obvious the none of the three deponents would trade their integrity by perjuring themselves with a fraudulent Van Sickle name merely to get Violetta a DAR membership.
DOUGLAS VAN CUREN - NOW YOUKNOW WHY THE AFFIDAVITS ARE 100 % TRUE IN ALL DETAILS. PEOPLE WHO VALUED THEIRINTEGRITY AND SWORN OATH SO HIGHLY THAT THEY WOULD NOT PERJURE THEMSELVES BY USING A NAME IN THEIR AFFIDAVITS THAT WAS ALREADY ON THE DAR APPLICATION ARE PEOPLE WHO WOULD NOT PERJURE THEMSELVES TO CREATE A FICTITICOUS NAME FOR A SPOUSE OR LIE ABOUT ANY ADDITIONAL ITEM APPEARING IN THE AFFIDAVITS.
The three deponents would have allowed Violetta to have her temporary DAR membership terminated rather than violate their sworn oath.
That ends the affidavit analysis. Now on to other things.
Van Curen has the most active imagination I have encountered in my 72 years - the tragic part is that VAN CUREN HAS HIS FIRST TIME TO BE PROVABLY CORRECT ABOUT ANYTHING THAT RELATES TO THE EASTLING FAMILY.
Van Curen wasn’t able to find the Van Siclen name, whatever generation it may be, and for whatever reason, on a gravestone in his OWN so to speak “BACK YARD“.
Van Curen doesn’thave one Certified source record that that will show a provable documented connection between Hannah Lossing of the Reform Church Baptismal record and any of the names Van Curen alleges that Hannah Lossing metamorphosed into.
Van Curen cannot provide one Certified source record which will connect the man laying under the Van Siclen Brighton, Ontario Cemetery stone with a Van Sicklen from any generation.
Merely because a Van Siclen cemetery marker has been discovered in a cemetery containing Van Sicklens does not even imply that the man under the marker was a Van Sicklen. The Van Siclen name is on the marker because the man was born a Van Siclen and descended from the same progenitor that Mr. McCool descended. “Heaven forbid” - perhaps the Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen may have descended from the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen. The approximated birth date of the affidavit Van Siclenis certainly correct for him to have been the father of the Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen born in 1775.
What is surprising is that Van Curen didn’t allege that the name Van Siclen on the Brighton Cemetery marker was supposed to have been Van Sicklen and that the engraver accidentally or intentionally dropped the “K” thereby creating Van Siclen from Van Sicklen.
Van Curen has the gall to allege that the Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen is one and same Van Siclen in the affidavits - WHICH HE IS ABSOLUTELY NOT - and Van Curen cannot provide one Certified source record that would prove his allegations.
Van Curen cannot provide one Certified source record proving that the Van Siclen of affidavit fame is the identical man under the Brighton Cemetery Stone - the two were born approximately 20 years apart.
Van Curen alleges that the woman buried with the Brighton Cemetery Van Curen was known by three different surnames during the first 21 years of her life. Van Curen cannot provide one Certified source record that would prove Van Curen’s allegation of name changes for the woman. Only by applying aka’s can Van Curen get from Lossing to Lasson to Lawson. Did the wife metamorphose during their 54 years of marriage or did she do all of her metamorphosing before she married. What was her Certified name on the day she married the Brighton Cemetery Cornelius Van Siclen. Did she ever metamorphose into a new name between July 8 1795 and May 12 1849 - a period of 54 years - or does Van Curen allege that she metamorphosed all three times between Oct 23 1774 and July 8 1795 - a period of a mere 21 years - making a surname change on average every 7 years.
A reasonably prudent individual has to ask how a women who was born with the Lossing surname can metamorphose into two unique additional surnames. Born as Hannah Lossing - she remained Hannah Lossing for 7 years. Metamorphosed into Lasson - remained Lasson for 7 years. Metamorphosed into Lawson and remained Lawson for 7 years - married as Van Siclen or was that Van Sicklen - remained Van Siclen or was that Van Sicklen for 54 years. What was her name when she died and how long before she died did it change to Van Siclen. Until the moment that Van Curen can provide Certified source records that will prove each surname change - Van Curen has nothing but his own interpretations of whatever documents Van Curen alleges prove the changes.
The real facts are that for each, all and any type of allegation that Van Curen has made about or against the veracity of the Eastling affidavits, Douglas Van Curen has not been able to provide a single Certified document which will substantiate Van Curen’s allegations.
Van Curen repeatedly tells me to send evidence that will authenticate the authenticity and veracity of the affidavits. Not only is there currently no such evidence, the only type of evidence which could substantiate the authenticity of the affidavitsor prove they are perjuries are Certified documents or Notarized affidavits from people not connected with Violetta’s DAR membership and the affidavits. Van has no Certified evidence proving the affidavits contain a single error of any type for any reason, perjury or accidental.
On the other hand, I have published on this forum a Certified Bible entry by Maria Van Siclen and Notarized affidavits which substantiatemy allegations - Douglas Van Curen has published on this forum nothing, and has nothing, in the way of Certified documentsor affidavits. Quantity of Van Curen’s alleged records is no substitute for the quality of the three documents I have published.
Has anyone other than myself noted that in all of Van Curen’s past forum dialog, except for the Reform Church baptismal record, Van Curen has never quoted what he alleges to be evidence from a single document. Even his reference to the Reform Church baptismal record is laced with aka’s that are not part of the baptismal record.
How easy it is to allege anything - how frequently impossible to prove the allegations! Van Curen has his overly active imagination and unproven allegations - I have my Bible entry Certification and Notarized affidavits. Who has submitted to this forum the documents of greater value?
People who comprehend the significance of Certification and affidavits will tell you that I have the greater value. People who accept on blind faith anything placed in front of them by a self proclaimed expert will probably align themselves with the most fanciful but unproven allegations by Van Curen.
Today there are people who allege that the German Holocaust never occurred. They allege that all the movies, photographs, and testimony proving the Holocaust did indeed occur are the results of a massive conspiracy by people who lied in their letters and affidavits. The disclaimers of the Holocaust allege that the Holocaust movies and photographs were created in Hollywood. Those people apply various adjectives describing their belief that the Holocaust did not happen. Adjectives, which in many cases are identical to the adjectives Van Curen applies to describe his allegations that theEastling affidavits are perjured .
VAN CUREN CANNOT PROVIDE CERTIFIED EVIDENCE FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ALLEGATIONS VAN CUREN HAS MADE.ON THIS FORUM:
Cannot provide Certified evidence that the Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen was any one other than the Van Siclen named on his marker,
Cannot provide Certified evidence that the Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen did not descend from Van Siclen progenitors who lived one, two, or three generations before the Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen.
Cannot provide evidence that the Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen was not the son of the affidavit Van Siclen.
Cannot provide Certified evidence that Cornelius Van Siclen of affidavit fame is not buried in Quebec Canada,
Cannot provide Certified evidence that the Cornelius Van Siclen buried in Brighton
Cemetery is the Van Siclen of affidavit fame.
Cannot provide Certified evidence that Hannah Lossing was any one but Hannah Lossing,
Cannot provide Certified evidence that Luther Calvin Eastling was married to a Maria Van Sicklen,
Cannot provide Certified evidence that Maria Van Siclen was married in any year except1814,
Cannot provide Certified evidence that Maria Van Siclen gave birth to only seven children and not the ten whose birth records were written byMaria Van Siclen in her transcribed Bible entry,
Cannot provide Certified evidence that the Van Siclen of affidavit fame did not serve in the Revolution,
Cannot provide Certified evidence that Catherine Johnson was not the mother of Maria Van Siclen.
Cannot provide Certified evidence that Catherine Johnson was not the first wife of Cornelius Van Siclen and that Cornelius Van Siclen did not marry a second time. .
Cannot provide evidence showing that the dissemination of the Catherine Johnson name in the 20th century was the direct result of Violetta creating a fictitious and fraudulent Catherine Johnson.
Cannot provide evidence which would refute my position that the three living children and 35 living grand children of Maria Van Siclen were alone responsible for the dissemination of Catherine Johnson’s name in the 20th century.
Cannot provide Certified evidence that the spelling of Van Siclen, as opposed to Van Sicklen, resulted from a spelling error as opposed to Van Siclen descending from progenitors a few generations earlier. .
SUMMARY - VAN SICLEN SIMPLY HAS NO CERTIFIABLE EVIDENCE THAT WILL SUBSTANTUATE ANY OF THE MANY ALLEGATIONS HE HAS MADE ABOUT THE AFFIDAVITS BEING PERJURED.
On the other hand, there is more than an ample amount of evidence contained within the Van Curen postings on this forum to conclusively proof by his own admission that Van Curen will NOT HESITATE TO TAMPER WITH AND HAS TAMPEREDD WITH HISTORICAL RECORDS IN ORDER TO MAKE THEM WORK FOR HIS SELF SERVING PERCEPTION OF WHAT THE HISTORICAL EVENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN AS OPPOSED TO WHAT APPEARS ON THE HISTORICAL RECORDED DOCUMENTS.
For myself, Van Curen’s admitted tampering with historical records has destroyed every vestige of his creditability with myself - hence my emphasize on Certified source records as opposed to documents interpreted by Van Curen. Any one reading this forum and the discussions about the Eastling affidavits can recall what Van Curen did with and to the Bible transcriptions before he discovered a Van Siclen was buried in Brighton Cemetery after which the Bible entries suddenly became valid. Then we also have experienced Van Curen’s interpretation of the presence of Cornelius Van Siclen in the affidavits until the Van Siclen name was discovered in the Brighton Cemetery. What Van Curen had previously perceived as a nothing more than my personal and wrongly placed emphasize on “exact spelling” for both Maria and Cornelius Van Siclen suddenly became legitimate and accurate spelling of the Van Siclen name because it was discovered on a Cemetery marker.
Since I have pointed out to Van Curen, the enormity of his error he is now waffling, backing water and eating a lot of road kill covered it with egg yoke for gravy. Because of that and in order to divert attention, Van Curen has again resurrected the “exact spellings” issue - which in a posting only a few days ago he said was a dead issue, and is again attempting to divert attention to other factors, such as the resurrection of a fictitious Catherine Johnson created by Violetta and how her name was disseminated in the 20th century. Both issues which I flamed with the DAR letter I sent to Van Curen well over a year ago and had become dead issues.
Van Curen recognizes how self destructive his faux pas is so now he states:
Van Curen Oct 19 2002 21:36:41 - “The “Van Siclen” spelling on the gravestone in Brighton is only significant to poke fun at your idiotic contention that all records pertainingto Maria’s father be spelled exactly “Van Siclen”.
The above post by Van Curenis one classic example of man so embarrassed and humbled that he is not able to admit his error, a man who attempts to cover up using a petulant and immature observation.
Van Curen in his posting Oct 7 2002 21:04:55 - “So who was Maria Van Siclen Eastling’s Father? Cornelius Van Siclen, of course, Spelled exactly that way on his tombstone.
Van Curen in his posting Oct 7 2002 21:04:55 - “The line is proven…. Maria VAN SICLEN EASTLING was d.o. Cornelius Van Siclen and Hannah Lawson of Brighton, Ontario. And Cornelius did not serve in the Revolution because he was born in 1775.”
I do not question that Hannah Lawson was the wife of Cornelius Van Siclen born in 1775 - I never have disputed that observation. However the Cornelius Van Siclen in the affidavits is not the same Cornelius Van Siclen that lays in Brighton Cemetery consequently your are dead wrong about Hannah Lawson being the mother of the Maria Van Siclen in the affidavits.
You have now and finally admitted that Maria Van Siclen is the daughter of Cornelius Van Siclen in the affidavits and that the wife of Luther Calvin Eastling was Maria Van Siclen.
BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION YOU HAVE SEVERED THE FAUDULENT CONNECTION BETWEEN THE VAN SICKLEN AND EASTLING LINEAGES. I NOW EXPECT YOU TO PUBLISH ON YOUR FTM WEB SITE YOUR CORRECTED VAN SICKLEN GENEALOGY WITHOUT THE EASTLING CONNECTION TO VAN SICKLEN THROUGH ONE MARIA VAN SICKLEN.
YOUR TWO YEAR ONGOING PREPOSTEROUS AND UNPROVEBLE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT LUTHER CALVIN EASTLING’S MARRIAGE WITH ONE MARIA VAN SICKLEN IS ENDED AND THE TWO LINEAGES ARE NOW SEVERED.
Your latest allegations that Cornelius Van Siclen and Cornelius Van Sicklin are the identical person, reeks like a carcass that has laid in the hot sun for two weeks. If they are one and the same person, as you allege, then attempt to explain why the name on the Van Siclen marker was engraved as Van Siclen rather than Van Sicklen.
As to Catherine Johnson not being the wife of Cornelius Van Siclen of affidavit fame and that same Cornelius not serving in the Revolutionary War, you can or cannot retract those allegations as you choose. You are wrong on both counts but I don’t care. My objective was the severance of the fraudulent marriage of one Maria Van Sicklen to Luther.
You are free to continue with all of the hyperbole and hyperbolic allegations and ongoing foolish, preposterous and absurd dialog that you desire. The affidavits tell it like it is - you choose to reject them you do so to your loss..
Now you have the end of the story.