Co

rsi I have

lab

eled

Boothl

is

for her husband Fredric Booth and Booth2 is

for

their

son

.

B

l

are

25

days more than what they should be when calculated based on the average

number

of

births per day

up to

the State Registrar acceptance and filing date. That was a red

flag

to

me

be.

cause I knew the principals in the f?rgery had to cover up peir first mis

,t

ake by

producin

g

i

. •

if

-:

COLBs with wrong certificate numbers for the pw-pose of

thr

ow

ing

off

~

in

 

vestigators

as

to

th

e

.

t,\

A

importance

of

he sequential numbering.

~Gt ~:-.I

-'

~~.,

.>,

"

r~:_

:

Ye

ar

193]

194

9

19ro

1961 1961

1951 1961

1981

C

alctJI<:t

ed

Certlticll'te

RcglS1lr

'en Data Doct

or

Re

O.

N

o.

No.

Dl"

C

Date

of

Brth

S Cl1l d Reg.

Date differ enc

10259

12/121193]

51

14/

193]

Short

form

5127/1930

1~

69£7 6/30/1949

7.117/1949 7/1 9/1

949

7/25/1949

')

15816

12i3/19ro

12127/1950

121281

19S0

12128/"

96 J

9945 7130/

1961 812311961

8/24

/1

98

1 8124W

110

8/24

/

1961

8/4/1961

Short

form

8/101

~

10641

8

 

211961

8

/~/'%

1

81711961

8

1B

1

10320

8121;196

1

8/4/196-1

Short

form

8~

)1

15124 11/2/1981/

11124/1913"i

11/26/1981

11127.1

J'

-

1.:.

,;.

25

Nam

e

cia DeCosta

,

f 1l

.

'to

. l" .

,

,

Problem Fraud

number Forged

&

raud

numbe

r

Fraud

number

,

II

Ah nee

Forge

u.a fraud

numh~

f

'J;.lia

Su

mtbara

Fra

l.

ct

ll

umber

l;

tr

ack

0 am

 t

FJll'

~

(j

&

stolen

num

b¥··

Wa .iel

i

ch

~.~.

number

...

i;J:,

1

?

~i'

number '

.

~

-; '-·t~-

 

i:

,_4

1 '

·~·r~l

".~1.r

Table

1.

Troublesome certificate numbers which are out of,sequence and or forged.

,I;

1;~~1-t

tt

.I

.u

1 ,

Of

-I,

9 With further

examinat~on

I also found that the certificate number on Booth1

was

nat:

pro-

: s

··

duced by a normal Bates numbetmg-machine. In my research we

a~quired

six Bates

numb

erin

l

l

IIRTH

o

What the Booth1 Number should have looked like

I

~

OF

E

Booth1

C~rtificat

 

~

~~ll1b~r

 

I

I

I1s161

1n16")

. . b B ·

...

1

s1i

·

'A~g

twn

di

He1 M f\I}f,e

fonts for

1

~

I

~

f

 ~~

W>

1fuhiber

 

Figure

1.

The

certl~IGa~e

 

num

e

J I

~9.

o(

s.;n9

~

Ol:;t;

. :,

J

.lj-JH

'

 m

ur

 '

fiiU810

3 &C

9 60"I1

• _

'

n- o) JO

i ·

'

.

J -':;(;

ern:;:

hc:iC

I)trJ

\~J

lie.::

I ,

.

1\':1

i C:'l;;

'.

~

12

;-

;: .~

.

e~et\ei

'

~::?::':~c. ~I.:~~ '.~;

.J"<:IIEiS-S:

f

oae

tlK

flu.,,',

I.e'd

"

:Je

~:

\8

teP.

1:

010'.\0[1\

~

'

,:r~

l+-

t-m.I

lIIii~

It\O- '~

·

~rtt:t

~

iF~

;,;cr--

1 "

.

:'

~-

MOt'

I:-i

I

~el

:r\<

j

-f

I

ro

e "~'

DIl

r9f?t\

\ i

tl\f~

machines

of

that period. We were able to purchase machines with 6 7 8 and

II

numbers

a

, "

. ,

.

\ •

 J

, , ,

Figure 2. The

~umbers

are overlapping and they should not

be

.

wheels. I had never heard or found a 4 wheel B,ates machine and

why

would the Department.

10

When I looked Closer' at the certificate number I noticed'that the 8 and 2 looked too close, Health have one anyway wit/] pver

14

500

bi~

in

1949?

It

just

did

not

make

any sense.

Figu"

The numbers are on nietai wheals that

c~ot'touch

or

overlap.

Tlie

proper Bates nlnnber spacing I shows the Certificate

numb ,

on Booth 1 on the lower half. You

Can

clearly see there are

tv>

is 10.8 points and the grids displayed are'set

to

·that width. The top hltlf

of

the

ri

Jure

I shows the different \ypefaces and two different baselines so that has to

mean

that two separate Bates

III>

same

num~r

producOd by

our

ates

numb~ring

machine and wllat

it

shduld have looked like, chines created Booth 1 CO LB but that is not possible at the Department

of

Health. We )now

the

 There is nonnall

y'

about

oM

' point

of

space be'tween the numbers.

It

looked like the' 8 was not used

an

eight wheel nwnbering machine. fully

fonned

on the lower right because

of

bad ink coverage so I found

and

tried a number 8 4

from 1959,

1961

and 1964 year birth certificates that had an 8 in the number. I overlaid each one on the Booth1 8 and all three showed that the 2 was overlapping the

8.

Figure 2 is an enlargement

of

the original 82. As you can see the bottom left

of

the 2 is over the line. Figure 3 shows

5

.I

Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.org