traderi1, that would come down to legal arguments one way or the other whether the inclusion of a witness changed the legality of the original document.
Normally the addition of extra information would not negate the legality of the original document.
The courts would be the place where the arguments could be heard and a determination could be made.
The point is the the POA was not needed nor was it pivotal in the purchase of the property. Yet it is the focus of the investigation under the guise of the AWU fraud?
P.S. gilded, the property was in Blewitt's name, so the proceeds of the sale where distributed with Blewitt's authority. So yes Blewitt was party to the theft of the AWU money.
