Hank Sienzant Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 I'm still just waiting for evidence of this supposed need for a bank stamp on the back of a post office money order. Surely something that exposes the conspiracy would not be just an assumption on everyone's part, would it? Evidence? Anyone? Hank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) ..... Edited November 11, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) Totally untrue. I merely saw Jean's post at the McAdams forum and decided to re-post it here. Jean wasn't "passing" anything on to ME specifically at all. Jean, in fact, is a current member of this forum and she can post here anytime she wants. She's been a member since August 22, 2004, as we can see here in her profile.... As they say, this is a distinction without a difference, either you picked it up or she passed it off. I already went over in detail your whole relationship with Davison. You actually beatify her horrendous book on Oswald. The main point is, and was, that neither your, nor her, nor McAdams did any review of the evidence before you jumped over here and announced with great fanfare: "Money order debunked!" You could not control yourself, you lost control of your sphincter muscles. And look what came out. And now you all want us to forget about it like it did not happen. Sorry, it did. And as I said, this is about the third or fourth time with you. When does a continuous pattern of "errors" become a deliberate attempt to mislead? I leave that up to Mr. Gordon and friends to decide. IMO, he was right when he wanted to kick you off for saying the Single Bullet Theory was inescapable. Yeah, inescapable BS. Edited November 11, 2015 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 I'm still just waiting for evidence of this supposed need for a bank stamp on the back of a post office money order. Surely something that exposes the conspiracy would not be just an assumption on everyone's part, would it? Evidence? Anyone? Hank here's a fact, Hank. You're stuck with the findings of the 1964 WCR. YOU own it. As does DVP (who I might add is proud of owning it) It's YOU that needs to post corroborating evidence that supports those 1964 findings when and if one posts NEW evidence or theories undermining any specific WCR finding. Damage control seems the correct term. Shall we expect mel Ayton next, perhaps .John McAdams? The SBT, LHO did it all by his lonesome fantasy is heading for the ash heap and you can't stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 David: The Single Bullet Fantasy is in the ash heap and has been there for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) Sorry, it did. And as I said, this is about the third or fourth time. And just what were the other two or three, Jim? Please provide the links. When does a continuous pattern of "errors" become a deliberate attempt to mislead? Holy St. Mary! What a beautiful place for a "Pot/Kettle" icon here! (Somebody get me one--quick!) CTers have the patent on sending people down garden paths. And they own another patent on sending perfectly innocent people to the figurative gallows based on NOTHING but suspicion, rumor, and gut feeling --- like, say, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, Linnie Randle, Wesley Frazier, Bob Frazier, Allen Dulles, and M.N. McDonald, among dozens of others connected in some way to the events of November 22, 1963. Jim D. surely must have changed his middle name to "Irony". How could it possibly be anything else? IMO, he [James R. Gordon] was right when he wanted to kick you off for saying the Single Bullet Theory was inescapable. Well, James, fortunately for all of us, you aren't steering the ship here at The Education Forum. Yeah, inescapable BS. You, Jim, should be very familiar with those two initials -- BS -- what with the fact you believe in every one of these incredibly ridiculous things.... jfk-archives/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-81/The-Stupid-Things-James-DiEugenio-Believes Edited November 11, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted November 11, 2015 Author Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) DVP asks, well how do you know the money order would need a stamp? Maybe because the guy who owns Klein's said it had to pass through the Federal Reserve system? Proof that postal money orders were processed by Federal Reserve Banks can be seen right on the Hidell MO itself. Right below the MO's serial number (2,202,130,462) is the following symbol: 15-119 ------ 000 This is the old-style Federal Reserve Routing Number that was used back when manual sorting was still being done. This form of the number is referred to as the "fractional form" for obvious reasons. It has been superseded by a non-fractional form, but the fractional form is still required by law to be printed on all bank checks, including money orders. (Note that the horizontal line may be replaced with a "/" slash, so the number will fit on a single line of text.) Fractional Form of Federal Reserve Routing Number XX-YYY -------- ZZZ XX = City Prefix YYYY = ABA Institution Identifier (a.k.a. ABA Routing Number) ZZZ = Federal Reserve Routing Symbol The City Prefix indicates the location of the issuing bank. It is 15 on the Hidell MO, signifying Washington, DC.* The ABA Routing Number 119 is used for postal money orders.** The Federal Reserve Routing Symbol 0000 is used for postal money orders and Treasury checks.*** (The leftmost 0 is removed for the fractional form.) The following document http://tfm.fiscal.treasury.gov/v2/p4/c700.html outlines the procedure Federal Reserve Banks are to use when processing postal money orders. Quoting from this document: "There are a number of outstanding 'punch card' postal money orders that were issued prior to the introduction of paper style postal money orders in the spring of 1973, which bear the ABA routing number 0000-01 19. These money orders have a commercial life of 20 years. Processing instructions for the 'punch card' postal money orders are in II TFM 4-7070 of these instructions." [emphasis mine] We can see that this refers to the form of MO supposedly used by Oswald.The document refers to these MO's as "Old Style Money Order: A card style money order bearing ABA routing number 0000-0119." They are to be processed as follows: " 'Punch card' money orders that have the ABA routing number 0000-0119 will be handled as mutilated items. They should be identified as old style 'punch card' money orders on the PS Form 1901 for code 004." "Mutilated items" are those that cannot be processed in the normal fashion. In conclusion, we see that the Hidell money order was indeed intended to be processed by a Federal Reserve Bank. And so it would have had FRB marks stamped on it had it been processed. It was never processed. *Source for 15 City Prefix code used for Washington ,DC http://www.eccho.org/uploads/Supplemental-1_2-1_City%20State%20prefixes.pdf **Sources for 119 ABA Routing Number used for Postal Money Orders https://www.frbservices.org/files/servicesetup/check/pdf/check21_special_sort_options_guide.pdf http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2009-title12-vol3/xml/CFR-2009-title12-vol3-part229-appA.xml ***Source for 0000 Federal Reserve Routing Symbol used for Postal Money Orders http://www.eccho.org/uploads/Supplemental-1_2-1_City%20State%20prefixes.pdf Other Sources: http://www.eccho.org/uploads/Supplemental-1_2-1_City%20State%20prefixes.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_transit_number#Federal_Reserve EDIT: Changed "FRB numbers" to "FRB marks." Edited November 12, 2015 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) God, but I love the sound of trolls getting their butts kicked. Edited November 11, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Sienzant Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) DVP asks, well how do you know the money order would need a stamp? Maybe because the guy who owns Klein's said it had to pass through the Federal Reserve system? Proof that postal money orders were processed by Federal Reserve Banks can be seen right on the Hidell MO itself. Right below the MO's serial number (2,202,130,462) is the following symbol: 15-119 ------ 000 This is the old-style Federal Reserve Routing Number that was used when manual sorting was still being done. This form of the number is referred to as the "fractional form" for obvious reasons. It has been superseded by a non-fractional form, but the fractional form is still required by law to be printed on all bank checks, including money orders. (Note that the horizontal line may be replaced with a "/" slash, so the number will fit on a single line of text.) Fractional Form of Federal Reserve Routing Number XX-YYY -------- ZZZ XX = City Prefix YYYY = ABA Institution Identifier (a.k.a. ABA Routing Number) ZZZ = Federal Reserve Routing Symbol The City Prefix indicates the location of the bank. It is 15 on the Hidell MO, signifying Washington, DC. The ABA Routing Number 119 is used for postal money orders.* The Federal Reserve Routing Symbol 0000 is used for postal money orders and Treasury checks.** (The leftmost 0 is removed for the fractional form.) The following document http://tfm.fiscal.treasury.gov/v2/p4/c700.html outlines the procedure Federal Reserve Banks are to use when processing postal money orders. Quoting from this document: "There are a number of outstanding 'punch card' postal money orders that were issued prior to the introduction of paper style postal money orders in the spring of 1973, which bear the ABA routing number 0000-01 19. These money orders have a commercial life of 20 years. Processing instructions for the 'punch card' postal money orders are in II TFM 4-7070 of these instructions." [emphasis mine] We can see that this refers to the form of MO supposedly used by Oswald.The document refers to these MO's as "Old Style Money Order: A card style money order bearing ABA routing number 0000-0119." They are to be processed as follows: " 'Punch card' money orders that have the ABA routing number 0000-0119 will be handled as mutilated items. They should be identified as old style 'punch card' money orders on the PS Form 1901 for code 004." "Mutilated items" are those that cannot be processed in the normal fashion. In conclusion, we see that the Hidell money order was indeed intended to be processed by a Federal Reserve Bank.And so it would have had FRB numbers stamped on it had it been processed. It was never processed. *Sources for 119 ABA Routing Number for Postal Money Orders https://www.frbservices.org/files/servicesetup/check/pdf/check21_special_sort_options_guide.pdf http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2009-title12-vol3/xml/CFR-2009-title12-vol3-part229-appA.xml **Source for 0000 Federal Reserve Routing Symbol for Postal Money Orders http://www.eccho.org/uploads/Supplemental-1_2-1_City%20State%20prefixes.pdf Other Sources: http://www.eccho.org/uploads/Supplemental-1_2-1_City%20State%20prefixes.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_transit_number#Federal_Reserve That wasn't my question. I asked for the evidence that a bank stamp is required on the back of the money order. People cashed money orders at post offices and local banks all the time. They didn't go to the Federal Reserve to get their money. The claim is that this particular PO Money Order requires a bank stamp from the Bank of Chicago on it; and absent that stamp, it must not have been cashed. Where's the evidence that it requires said stamp? Can you cite it? In addition, and as a side note, you're citing more current documentation that says what to do with the then 1963 punch card (old style) money orders if they are presented for payment TODAY (treat them as mutilated items). That has nothing to do with how they were processed in 1963 when they weren't the old style, but the state-of-the-art style of money orders. You also appear to be saying the FRB number is both on the money order in question and not on the money order in question: ON THE MONEY ORDER: Proof that postal money orders were processed by Federal Reserve Banks can be seen right on the Hidell MO itself. Right below the MO's serial number (2,202,130,462) is the following symbol: 15-119 ------ 000 NOT ON THE MONEY ORDER: In conclusion, we see that the Hidell money order was indeed intended to be processed by a Federal Reserve Bank.And so it would have had FRB numbers stamped on it had it been processed. It was never processed. Can you advise? Hank Edited November 11, 2015 by Hank Sienzant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 "The City Prefix indicates the location of the bank. It is 15 on the Hidell MO, signifying Washington, DC. The ABA Routing Number 119 is used for postal money orders.* The Federal Reserve Routing Symbol 0000 is used for postal money orders and Treasury checks.** (The leftmost 0 is removed for the fractional form.)" What significance can be attached to the location of the bank being in Washington, DC, Sandy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Checks and money orders are "commercial paper" or "negotiable instruments". A negotiable instrument is transferred from one party to another by [a] a "pay to" or "pay to the order of" direction, written by party 1, and the endorsement of party 2. Klein's, as original payee, endorsed (at least that's what we're led to believe) and then (again we're told) deposited the money order in a Chicago bank. Depositing the M.O. was equivalent of writing "pay to". Because the Chicago bank had to transfer the check farther along the payment chain, it had to endorse the money order and then deposit it with the next bank in the chain. Basic rule here: Any recipient of a negotiable instrument made out "pay to" or "pay to the order of" a specific named party must be endorsed by the recipient in order for the recipient to be able transfer the instrument. This is law. The modern law is the Uniform Commercial Code. The previous law was the Negotiable Instruments Law. The Chicago bank could not have transferred (technically, negotiated) the M.O. and gotten paid for the $21.45 (or whatever) it remitted to Klein's without endorsing the money order. This is not a matter of informed opinion or judgment, like an autopsy report. This is black letter law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 DVP asks, well how do you know the money order would need a stamp? Maybe because the guy who owns Klein's said it had to pass through the Federal Reserve system? Proof that postal money orders were processed by Federal Reserve Banks can be seen right on the Hidell MO itself. Right below the MO's serial number (2,202,130,462) is the following symbol: 15-119 ------ 000 This is the old-style Federal Reserve Routing Number that was used when manual sorting was still being done. This form of the number is referred to as the "fractional form" for obvious reasons. It has been superseded by a non-fractional form, but the fractional form is still required by law to be printed on all bank checks, including money orders. (Note that the horizontal line may be replaced with a "/" slash, so the number will fit on a single line of text.) Fractional Form of Federal Reserve Routing Number XX-YYY -------- ZZZ XX = City Prefix YYYY = ABA Institution Identifier (a.k.a. ABA Routing Number) ZZZ = Federal Reserve Routing Symbol The City Prefix indicates the location of the bank. It is 15 on the Hidell MO, signifying Washington, DC. The ABA Routing Number 119 is used for postal money orders.* The Federal Reserve Routing Symbol 0000 is used for postal money orders and Treasury checks.** (The leftmost 0 is removed for the fractional form.) The following document http://tfm.fiscal.treasury.gov/v2/p4/c700.html outlines the procedure Federal Reserve Banks are to use when processing postal money orders. Quoting from this document: "There are a number of outstanding 'punch card' postal money orders that were issued prior to the introduction of paper style postal money orders in the spring of 1973, which bear the ABA routing number 0000-01 19. These money orders have a commercial life of 20 years. Processing instructions for the 'punch card' postal money orders are in II TFM 4-7070 of these instructions." [emphasis mine] We can see that this refers to the form of MO supposedly used by Oswald.The document refers to these MO's as "Old Style Money Order: A card style money order bearing ABA routing number 0000-0119." They are to be processed as follows: " 'Punch card' money orders that have the ABA routing number 0000-0119 will be handled as mutilated items. They should be identified as old style 'punch card' money orders on the PS Form 1901 for code 004." "Mutilated items" are those that cannot be processed in the normal fashion. In conclusion, we see that the Hidell money order was indeed intended to be processed by a Federal Reserve Bank. *Sources for 119 ABA Routing Number for Postal Money Orders https://www.frbservices.org/files/servicesetup/check/pdf/check21_special_sort_options_guide.pdf http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2009-title12-vol3/xml/CFR-2009-title12-vol3-part229-appA.xml **Source for 0000 Federal Reserve Routing Symbol for Postal Money Orders http://www.eccho.org/uploads/Supplemental-1_2-1_City%20State%20prefixes.pdf Other Sources: http://www.eccho.org/uploads/Supplemental-1_2-1_City%20State%20prefixes.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_transit_number#Federal_Reserve That wasn't my question. I asked for the evidence that a bank stamp is required on the back of the money order. People cashed money orders at post offices and banks all the time. They didn't go to the Federal Reserve to get their money. The claim is that this particular PO Money Order requires a bank stamp from the Bank of Chicago on it; and absent that stamp, it must not have been cashed. Where's the evidence that it requires said stamp? Can you cite it? In addition, and as a side note, you're citing more current documentation that says what to do with the then 1963 punch card (old style) money orders if they are presented for payment TODAY (treat them as mutilated items). That has nothing to do with how they were processed in 1963 when they weren't the old style, but the state-of-the-art style of money orders. Hank He just told you, Jack (as in "you don't know Jack sh.......). Clean the wax out of your ears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Very nice Jon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted November 11, 2015 Author Share Posted November 11, 2015 This piece by Josephs is even better I think: http://www.ctka.net/2015/JosephsMOTimeline.pdf very revealing of how the money ordere(s) surfaced. That is amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Sienzant Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) "The City Prefix indicates the location of the bank. It is 15 on the Hidell MO, signifying Washington, DC. The ABA Routing Number 119 is used for postal money orders.* The Federal Reserve Routing Symbol 0000 is used for postal money orders and Treasury checks.** (The leftmost 0 is removed for the fractional form.)" What significance can be attached to the location of the bank being in Washington, DC, Sandy? And is the current numbering system the same one in use in 1963? We wouldn't want to just assume that the current documentation reflects the system in use in 1963, would we? So does the "15" mean Washington in 1963 terms, or just currently, or both? Hank Edited November 11, 2015 by Hank Sienzant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now