[John Valentine]

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.’”

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.

[newfreep]

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.

Perhaps that is why Dr. Taitz is in London to verify with UK's colonial Kenyan records?