It was all over a year ago when the errors were first discovered and you had to admit that you had no records to support the claims made in the DAR app/affadavits.While there are legal implications with notarized "under oath" documents, such documents are routinely "ignored" in courts around the world, where physical evidence contradicts.A notarized document will always fail in court, when the evidence proves them incorrect, as is the case here.And that sums up the TRUE legal value of a notarized document.They are always second place to physical, Primary source documents.
A notarized document dated 1907 is a primary source document for an event that occurred in 1907.A notarized document dated 1907 containing "memories" of stories heard, about events that occurred @ the Revolutionary war and before that person was born, is not and never will be a Primary source document.Despite the notarization, it is still hearsay evidence.
Q?: Maria Van Curen subject?I assume you refer to Maria Van SicKlen Eastling?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.
Anyone willing to spend a little time with Dutchess County records will readily realize that Lassen, Lassing, Lossing, and Lawson are just spelling variations of the same family name.Your insistence that they are not simply proves you to be the uninformed fool we have long known you to be.I have records of 1. Cornelius Van Sicklen and wife Hannah Lawson of Fishkill, and 2. Cornelius Van Sicklen and Hannah Lossing of Fishkill.Only an idiot would think those would be two different couples.The only reason you insist on exact spelling of names in all records, is that without that restriction your DAR fantasy is dead.Fortunately, skilled/knowledgeable genealogists will never buy that nonsense.
So...you intend to "leave now, and "never again".....that is so funny.So...what is this...about the 10th or 12th time you have said that, but here you are still.Not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
The certification does not "prove" that the bible entry for Maria's marriage says "1814".Only the bible, itself, can answer that question.I believe the date to be wrong, and can justify that belief with existing records, And despite the fact that I cannot prove it, the potential for a "reading" error by the notary is real.That, however, is not the controversey.In my "official" family file, the 1814 date is used, including source notes and with a side note that it is believed to be in error, and why.The real question is whether Maria's mother was Hannah Lawson or Catharine Johnson.Whether the marriage date is 1814, 1824, or something totally different, the end result is the same.Hannah Lawson is the right answer and primary source records prove it.