I agree that inquiring about the provenance of this document is a good place to start. It’s been published by World Net Daily, which says that it was provided by Orly Taitz. Here’s the information about provenance from WND: “Taitz told WND that the document came from an anonymous source who doesn’t want his name known because ‘he’s afraid for his life.’”
The judge may find that explanation to be just a little bit too convenient. If I were a judge, I’d want a solid basis before issuing a subpoena demanding that a foreign government produce certain documents. The judge’s problem here is that the only identifiable person associated with this document is Taitz, who, as far as the WND story indicates, cannot personally vouch for its authenticity. The judge has no way of knowing whether Taitz’s anonymous source is just some high school kid who’s good at editing images.
BFLR
VERY good. Actually this is not an image manipulation type forgery, if it is one. It is the old fashioned kind: a real duplication of a government form, that needs to dublicate type style, paper type, layout, look and fee, it has to get the basics right, and it has to look aged, but not too aged.
I doubt any high school kid could carry something lijke this off. this would need a skilled and knowledgeable forger. If it is a forgery.
I personallly beleive it is genuine, but who knows. I have an openmind. Almost all the critiques I read to day range from the insubstantial to the metaphysical. But the real analysis has yet to begin.
That certainly makes sense, considering that we already have one suspicious death with possible linkages to this matter. If that document was produced as part of the divorce, then the anonymous person might well be an employee of the law firm that handled it, who just happened to be browsing through the firm's dusty archives. At a minimum, he (she) should be in fear of losing his (her) job.
I have a different possible explanation for the source's reluctance. I think he could have purloined the document from Hawaii courthouse records, which I believe would be a criminal offense, and coming forward could jeopardize his freedom, maybe interfering with making a buck or two.
But, if that IS what happened, then he NEEDS to come forward with the honest truth, come what may, in order to establish the provenance and authenticity of the document.
Or, if the holder of the document KNOWS it to be genuine due to where and how he acquired it, then he may assume that it can be validated in orher ways, such as checking the data contained in the document. If this is his intent then the document itself diminishes in importance, and becomes essentially a treasure map. If indeed the underlying document exists at the specified location (Book 44B, Page 5733), then who cares what the proffered secondary document looked like, or who signed it or if he had a funny name.
Could this document be what Corsi brought out of Kenya? He had been threatened. Regardless, if it has been procured illegally, the source might not want to be known even if the document is legit.