This is clearly unreasonable, because she was filing to for assistance to do just this, authenticate the facts.
However, as I said before, she did have the obligation to prove that the document wasn't an obvious forgery first. A jewelers loop is sufficient to discern if a document is a product of ink jet or laser technology and this cursory inspection by a document examiner would seem to be the threshold of what might be expected as due diligence in this. Just as the impression of the seal would bear the imprint of a coin's denomination under any magnified scrutiny. This not being done, would be a real and serious lack of appropriate care.
If the Kenyan government refused to authenticate or refute the document, wouldn't the next stop be a Kenyan court?
However, as I said before, she did have the obligation to prove that the document wasn't an obvious forgery first. A jewelers loop is sufficient to discern if a document is a product of ink jet or laser technology and this cursory inspection by a document examiner would seem to be the threshold of what might be expected as due diligence in this.
I would think another essential element of due diligence would have been to obtain an account of the document's provenance from the source of the document. That was the cause of my immediate skepticism when I first heard of the document. Who would have requested the certificate in 1964, I asked myself, and how did it subsequently fall into unfriendly hands? Not having a satisfactory answer, I started off assuming it was a forgery.
Also, it appears Orly never had anything to examine beyond the bad photo of the document that was posted on the web. Zooming in on digital images of limited resolution is no substitute for a loupe on a physical document, as numerous posters on these threads have learned. Is it an E or K?? LOL! Sheesh! Pixel abuse is no way to examine documents.