Dec 6A 2002 to Richard & Doug – the deponent conspiracy and why it wasn’t
In Reply to: Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited” by Ed Gusmanof 954
The Catherine Johnson Versus Annetje/Hannah Lawson saga.
Gusman - In the beginning Doug believed that if Violetta was to have her DAR membership approved, the DAR required her to provide a spouses name for her revolutionary veteran. Ergo - Doug’s allegation that Catherine Johnson appearing on the application and in the affidavits is a fictitious name created by a conspiracy between Violetta and Fanny and Ferdinand.Doug had failed to check with the DAR what their membership requirement was for spousal names.
Gusman - Even I, as incompetent as you enjoy portraying me knew enough about :“proper research” to verify facts prior to creating allegations. A practice, which like Doug,you also do not follow. Not knowing what the DAR spousal name requirements were, I wrote the DAR. The DAR responded with a letter stating that membership applicants would not be denied membership if they did not know their veterans spousal name. I sent that letter to Doug.
Gusman - Doug also had failed to look at the DAR application submission date and affidavit creation dates. Had he done so he would have observed there was an eight months difference between when the DAR application was submitted and when the affidavits were later created. Doug also failed to understand the significance of the difference between the Van Sickle name on Violetta’s membership application and the Van Siclen name appearing in both the affidavits and Bible transcript. Doug also failed to understand the significance of the Catherine Johnson name appearing on the membership application.
Gusman -Coincidentally the appearance of Catherine Johnson and Van Sickle on the application would later prove to be the evidence against a conspiracy existing between the deponents. Catherine Johnson on the application is proof that Catherine Johnson in the affidavits was correct or if you prefer then Catherine Johnson in the affidavits is proof that Catherine Johnson on the application was the correct name for the spouse of Cornelius Van Siclen.
Gusman - I now go into greater detail about why the name Catherine Johnson on Violetta’s DAR application is not a fraudulent name created by a conspiracy of the three deponents as alleged by Doug and supported by Richard.
Gusman -Violetta had known all of her 51 years that she had a Revolutionary Veteran for her great grandfather. Recall Fanny stating in her affidavit - “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 event in the family life” and Ferdinand’s statement - “…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 …”
Gusman - Violetta age 51 married with adult children, knowing from childhood that she had the required revolutionary veteran in her direct blood line, without discussing her decision with her mother Fanny, decided to apply for DAR membership. Violetta believed she knew her great grandfathers name -later proved to be incorrect. Violetta would have inquired about what was required on her membership application. She would have been told that although there was a box for it, the name of her veteran’s spouse was not required on her application in order for her to receive DAR home office membership approval . If Violetta had not already known the name of her great grandmother, her veteran’s wife, our copy of her application would not include a spouses name. Not knowing the name, Violetta would have left the spousal box blank. A spouse’s name wasn’t required and if not already known there was no reason for Violetta to have taken the time and expense to search for a spouses name. No knowing person would conduct such a research when the name wasn’t a requirement for DAR membership.
Gusman - Annetje/Hannah Lawson, who Doug and Richard allege is the wife of Violetta’s veteran, affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen, lived until 1849. Ferdinand and Fanny left Canada for the U.S. in 1848. Ferdinand was 20 years old and Fanny was 11 years. If Annetje/Hannah Lawson had been their grandmother that translates into the deponents having a personal relationship with their only grandmother Annetje/Hannah Lawsonduring the 20 and 11 years they respectively lived in Canada. In other words Annetje/Hannah Lawson would have been the only grandmother they had ever known. Annetje/Hannah Lawson would then be the grandmother’s name they would carry with them through out their life times.
Gusman - It then follows that Violetta, daughter of Fanny a deponent,would have reached her 51styear knowing that her great grandmother was named Annetje/Hannah Lawson. If as Doug and Richard allege, Annetje/Hannah Lawson had been the deponents grandmother and Violetta’s great grandmother, a reasonable person could then assume that the name Annetje/Hannah Lawson would be the name appearing on our copy of Violetta’s membership application. Either the name Annetje/Hannah Lawson or a blank spousal box should be on that application. Neither is there. The spouses box is not blank and the name Catherine Johnson appears on the DAR application as the spouse of Cornelius Van Sickle.
Gusman - Because Violetta already knew her alleged great grandmother’s name, who was the alleged spouse of her veteran, a reasonable person will conclude that Violetta would have optionally left the spousal box blank or inserted the alleged name Annetje/Hannah Lawson allegedly known to Violetta for 51 years. Violetta opted to insert a spouse’s name for her veteran but it was not the name Annetje/Hannah Lawson.
Gusman - No person of sound mind and common sense will permit themselves be gulled into believing that Violetta, age 51, who is alleged to have known her grandmother as Annetje/Hannah Lawson, since childhood and the deponents, who are alleged to have known their grandmother as Annetje/Hannah Lawson, also since childhood, would form a conspiracy to create a fraudulent name alleged to be Catherine Johnson when the three deponents already knew the name of Cornelius Van Siclen’s wife by the alleged name Annetje/Hannah Lawson. In addition, if the deponents had known their grandmother by the name of Annetje/Hannah Lawsonthroughout their life up until 1907 they would have refused to perjure themselves with what Doug and Richard allege is a fictitious name Catherine Johnson. A person with a smidgen of common sense would ask – why would the three deponents want to create a fraudulent name for a spouse of Cornelius Van Siclen when the alleged name Annetje/Hannah Lawsonwas allegedly known to them. Or perhaps the same person might ask, why would the three deponents want to enter into a conspiracy to perjure themselves when no spousal name is even required for the revolutionary veteran.
Gusman - Why then does the name Annetje/Hannah Lawson not appear on Violetta’s application or in the affidavits? I will tell you exactly why - it is because Annetje/Hannah Lawson is not the great grandmother’s name that Violetta knew for 51 years. Annette/Hannah Lawsonlived until 1849 - theyear after the deponents entered the U.S. in 1848 - if the deponents had known Annetje/Hannah Lawson for their respective 20 and 11 years prior to going to the U.S. then Annetje/Hannah Lawson is the name the deponents would have written into their affidavits. Because neither the affidavits or Violetta’s application contain the name Annetje/Hannah Lawson a reasonable person with common sense will conclude that the three deponents did not know or had ever heard the name Annetje/Hannah Lawson.
Gusman - It follows then that in addition to Annetje/Hannah Lawson not being the grandmother of the deponents, Annetje/Hannah Lawson was not the wife of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen. It equally follows that if, as stated by Doug and Richard, Annetje/Hannah Lawsonis the wife of the Cornelius Van Siclen buried in Brighton Cemetery, Brighton, Ontario, then neither that Cornelius Van Siclen and his wife Annetje/Hannah Lawsonare the parents of the affidavit Maria Van Siclen married to Luther Calvin Eastling.
Gusman – Why does the name Catherine Johnson appear on the affidavits. For the obvious reason that Catherine Johnson was the real great grandmother of Violetta, grandmother of the deponents and wife of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen. Catherine Johnson (first wife of Cornelius Van Siclen) is the grandmother that the deponents knew prior to leaving Canada in 1848 and Catherine Johnson is the name Violetta grew into adulthood hearing and it is Catherine Johnson that Violetta at age 51 entered on her application as the spouse of what she thought her veterans name was when she completed her application.
Gusman - Therein is the reason that Catherine Johnson appears in both the affidavits and DAR application
Gusman - Don’t use words such as senile, hazy memory, too old or any of the other lame rationalized excuses each of you apply in your attempt to cover up your folderol and the major faux pas created by your failure to analyze the reasons why the name Annetje/Hannah Lawson does not appear in the affidavits or the DAR application.It is not because the deponents were senile, had hazy memories, were too old or any of the other absurd excuses you have in the past offered as rationalizations for your on going failures to analyze and compare the documents known as affidavits and DAR membership application. Annetje/Hannah Lawson does not appear in the Eastling documents because Annetje/Hannah Lawson never was a player in the Eastling lineage back to and including the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen.
If Annetje/Hannah Lawson had been a player she would have appeared in the Eastling documents in lieu of Catherine Johnson who was a player.
End of Catherine Johnson versus Annetje/Hannah Lawson dialog.