Dec. 6A to Doug
Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited”
Posted by: D G Van Curen (ID *****7681) Date: December 06, 2002 at 07:04:47
In Reply to: Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited” by Ed Gusmanof 984
Gusman –This is the question I asked Doug - "Please provide in your next posting and from whatever record you use, an exact copy of the entry recording the birth of Hannah Lossing include both the father's and mother's surnames."
Gusman - The answer to that request should have been no longer than - Hannah Lossing born ( ), Father (), Mother ( ).What I received was a two and ¼single spaced page dissertation which included these gems.
Doug - I don't need to provide a birth record for Hannah LOSSING (exact spelling). All I needed to do was establish that Hannah LOSSING (exact spelling) of the 1801 baptism of daughter Maria at Fishkill is the same person as Annetje LAWSON (exact spelling) and Hannah LAWSON.
Gusman – What you describe as records is not a birth record of the specific Hannah Lossing in the Reform Fishkill baptismal record. Your alleged Hannah Lossing birth record is a record of birth for one Annetje Lasson and not Hannah Lossing. Consequently, you have provided nothing that identifies the parents of Hannah Lossing
Doug -Again, I don't need to provide a record of Hannah Lossing's birth. 1. records prove that Hannah Lossing is Hannah Lawson is Annetje Lawson, etc. 2. Her baptism record has been provided and the surname recorded for that event wasn't spelled "Lossing". A compilation of records prove conclusively that Annetje Lasson baptised 1774 is Hannah Lawson, is Annetje Lawson, is Hannah Lossing. Do the research.
Gusman – If by “Her baptism record has been provided… “ you mean the record of birth for Annetje Lasson – I did not request Annetje Lasson’s birth/baptism record. I requested the birth/baptism record of Hannah Lossing,, which will reveal the names of the parents of Hannah Lossing.
Gusman – The birth parents of Hannah Lossing are not found in the compilation of records to which you refer. The birth/baptismal record for Hannah Lossing will show the parents of Hannah Lossing. If you have forgotten, it is the name Hannah Lossing that appears in the Reform Fishkill baptismal record, not Annetje Lasson.
Gusman – I do not understand what your problem is and why you keep dancing around the maypole about sending me the birth/baptismal record for Hannah Lossing. It should be no problem with your hoard of microfilm for churches in and around the state of New York, New Jersey and where ever. UNLESS YOU HAVE ALREADY FOUND HANNAH LOSSING'S BIRTH/BAPTISMAL RECORD AND READ THAT HER PARENTS ARE NOT SIMEON lAWSON/lASSON AND MARGRIET KEUREN. What should I believe? If that is your game - naughty naughty naughty.
Doug - I can use Hannah Lossing of the 1801 baptism as a replacement for Annetje Lawson...since both are married to Cornelius Van Sicklen, son of Ferdinand...a fact that proves they are the same person. Any intellignet person would readily recognize that fact.
Gusman – The only document that will conclusively prove who the parents of Hannah Lossing are is Hannah Lossing’s birth/baptismal record. It matters not who the women are married to, what identical dates are on grave markers ad infinitum. What is significant is who their fathers are. Paraphrasing what you wrote – Any intelligent person would readily recognize that you CANNOT legitimately transpose two women until you know conclusively the husband’s names for both of the women you want to transpose. Guessing, speculating, and referencing volumes of documents in a rationalized attempt to meld two women as one is an exercise which is rather foolish and without value without first establishing the parents names of the two women you want to meld into one. You cannot do the meld until you categorically have established the surnames of their parents. If the parents names are identical for both ladies they can be said to be the same person. If one of the parents name is different, the two ladies had different parents and your attempt to meld them is doomed before it begins.
The requirement for exact names of parents for both ladies is sometimes referred to as precision genealogy research as opposed to sloppy genealogy research.
New subject from Doug’s response
Doug - I don't plan on using anything in the DAR application, except the bible certifications.
Gusman – Good thinking.
Gusman - The Bible entries have less validity than the affidavits – The Bible entries were not written under oath and notarized. Only the transcription was notarized. The legal fact is that the affidavits created under oath carry more legal merit than the Bible entries.
Doug -Since the Bible certifications are the only things of value in the DAR application, they are all that will be used
Gusman – Your choice, I see no problem with that
Doug - I do not plan to alter any affidavits.
Gusman – Excellent thinking
Doug - No court would ever hold up an affidavit in favor of indisputable real evidence, so your threats are of no concern to me. You have no records to support your fiction…
Gusman- Sorry guy – you are out of the ball park on that one. Affidavits are automatically admitted into lawsuits as primary evidence. I would have to come up with the original affidavits or a certification that they were copies of the original. I hope the originals remain in DAR Headquarters files. Prior to the Court admitting any of your alleged evidence, you will first have to go through the legal process of having each document you plan on submitting certified as original source data. Because it probably was taken off L.D.S. microfilm or some other legally recognized microfilm source, you should have no or little problem getting it Certified. Documents not notarized/certified are not admissible in Court. Did you know that? Here is the kicker you are up against. The affidavits are statements sworn to by the deponents in front of a Notary.
Gusman - None of your certified copies of original micro film were originally created under oath in front of a Notary, hence although certified as copies of original microfilm which will probably make them admissible documents, because the data contained therein was not created under oath in front of a Notary the data therein does not hold the legal status of an affidavit - who is to say that the data contained on one or more of your documents is accurate or was intentionally or unintentionally entered incorrectly ? You will say that the same is true for affidavit testimony. Few people can tell when another is lying. I agree, however, whether you like or not, agree or disagree, the sworn oath is another automatic legal assumption by the Courts that sworn testimony is true until proven false..
Gusman – What you do not appear able to comprehend is the automatic legal status of the sworn oath and notarized affidavit. I am going to include one short quotation from The 'Lectric Law Library's Legal Lexicon On * 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).
Gusman -You will note above –“… to the effect that the person signing the affidavit was under oath when doing so…” The notary only signifies by his signature that the deponent was under oath at the time the deponent gave his testimony. The notary is not signifying that the deponents testimony is fact or fiction.
Gusman - You may want to review the content of this web site <http://www.lectlaw.com/ref.htmlhttp://www.lectlaw.com/ref.html > It is recommended reading when one has little else to do.
Doug - so your threats are of no concern to me.
Gusman – I have made no threats of any type whatsoever. Read again what I wrote. I merely suggested that you discuss with your attorney the publication of your genealogy prior to publishing and that you show your attorney my e-mail – including this latest dialog. Common sense dictates that you should consult an attorney prior to publishing anything for public or private use – for instance do you currently know that no part of the data you plan to include in you genealogy is covered by a copy write ? It is called common sense. What is your reaction if I tell you that parts of the Eastling genealogy in your possession were taking from a published and copy writed genealogy and that I include those parts by permission of the person holding the copywrite.And that I also have permission to randomly alter those parts providing that I source and explain in detail my alterations, always retaining the orginal copy writed version as notes that are part of the genealogy.
Doug - You have no records to support your fiction.
Gusman – I require no records in addition to the sworn and notarized affidavits. That is the real plus with affidavits. Read again the quotation from above – “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” It is a forgone conclusion that the Court will rule for the affidavits on the subjects of Catherine Johnson and Cornelius being a Revolutionary Veteran. The only two items of significance. I suggest you read again exactly how the affidavits are worded.They are very convincing. I also recommend your reading my latest posts about the Catherine Johnson and Annetje Lawson saga and the other about the Conspiracy. They were sent this morning as replies to Richard.
Gusman - Then of course until I read your published genealogy I have no clue as to what I will do. As it now stands, I have no objections to your publication wherein you indicate you will use Eastling data. If you make alterations to established affidavit facts, including the transcribed Bible entries, or if you fail to include affidavit facts and do not note that there are affidavits which refute your allegations or that you left out of your genealogy items you knew to be in the affidavits, and you fail to note the availability of the affidavits and the contents therein that you altered or left out of your genealogy, things may become rather dicey. On the other hand if you document the availability of the affidavits and note each affidavit entry that you altered or did not include in your genealogy you don’t have a problem. You understand that I have no objections to alterations of any form. Your interpretations and opinions are your own. You protect yourself by noting the availability of the affidavits that refute the alterations. I object when no paper trail is available to researchers who in later years may want to do a follow up investigation.
A person of reasonable intelligence and common sense knowing that refuting affidavits are available and knowing the contents of the those affidavits would, if for no other reason than that affidavits are legal documents, include the affidavit contents into a genealogy as primary information – and do so even though the author of the genealogy disagrees with the affidavit contents. The person of intelligence would then create source notes outlining his objections to the affidavits and what he believes are the errors in the affidavits. An example is Catherine Johnson – show her as the wife of Cornelius Van Siclen. Then in your source notes explain that you do not believe Catherine Johnson is the wife of Cornelius Van Siclen, your reason and who you think is Cornelius Van Siclen’s wife. You can even set up the family file so that one of the women is the primary wife, Annetje Lawson, with Catherine Johnson as the secondary wife and then include your source notes. When faced with legal documents that can easily challenge a genealogy, the wise people always take precautions to protect themselves. Intelligent people do not cut off their nose just to spite their face.
I look forward to reviewing you published genealogy.