This is the most troubling part about Wood's thought processes as an attorney. He knows or should know that testimony without other corroborating evidence is weak, but all he claims to have supporting his theories of child abuse and murder at the Supreme Court is a statement from an unnamed person alleged to be "whistleblower" connected to DHS, which has limited domestic law enforcement responsibilities. If that person exists and had anything more than a fanciful tale spun from Q drops they most likely would have gone to the FBI, not Lin Wood. Maybe that's why he focuses on defamation cases, where the main evidence (defendant's defamatory statements) is simply handed to plaintiff's counsel on a silver platter.