Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

[Sandy Larsen]

I suspect that Lance could find the regulation if he wanted to. The question is, does he want to?

Hello? The point of this bombshell is what? As you yourself note, Federal Reserve Regulation CC was adopted in response to the 1987 Expedited Funds Availability Act. I myself had posted contemporary (1960's era) materials suggesting postal money orders should have been endorsed as they proceeded through the banking chain.

From what you found, I couldn't conclude that bank stamps were required or that they were used routinely on PMOs. I concluded only that they were used at least sometimes.

The questions are: (1) Was the Klein's money order in fact "endorsed," and we perhaps do not understand what "endorsed" meant at that time? (2) If it was not endorsed, should that have been fatal or was there some banking practice in place of which we are unaware? and (3) If it was not endorsed and should have been, how did it end up at the federal Records Retention Center in Alexandria, VA, with a File Locator Number on it?

What is it I should have "wanted" to find - a Federal Reserve Regulation adopted in 1988, when punch cards were obsolete? Why?

No... I would have liked you to find 1960s regulations.

I did find rules that depositary banks were to stamp the back sides of PMOs with their endorsements. This is important because its an indication that banks were routinely doing that. But the regulations I found covered only the decades preceding and succeeding the 1960s. (~1900 to 1925+ and 1987 to present.)

It would be useful to find that bank endorsement stamps were required specifically in 1963. Because if that was the case, that would mean that the stamps were routinely used and that most PMOs got them. And if a PMO didn't get the stamps, then something unusual had happened... possibly indicating a forgery

If, on the other hand, we were to find that there was no requirement for bank stamps and that they were used, for example, just by some banks, then the fact that the Hidell MO had no stamps would be nothing unusual.

Do you understand my reasoning?

That's why I'm looking for bank endorsement regulations for the 1960s.

I took the time to review materials relating to the money order in the John Armstrong archives at Baylor University - Box 18, Tabs 22-24. I also reviewed the text and footnotes pertaining to the money order in Harvey and Lee and the relevant portions of the Harvey and Lee website. The idea that the money order should have four levels of endorsements (i.e., including Klein's) is attributed to Robert Wilmouth, Vice President of the First National Bank of Chicago. This is stated flatly in Harvey and Lee (page 451) and is repeated all over the Internet as though it were gospel, yet I have been unable to find where Wilmouth actually discussed the endorsement issue. I feel sure Armstrong did not invent this out of whole cloth, so I am hoping someone can steer us to the actual statement. (Wilmouth did assure the FBI the money order would be found at a postal records center in Kansas City, which was incorrect, but undoubtedly he was the infallible fount of all wisdom regarding postal money order endorsements).

As I reviewed the materials - which are fascinating - it was very striking to watch the scramble for the money order unfold in real time. It all strikes me as very plausible and not at all suggestive of people who were engaged in a conspiracy (they could have been, of course, but it seems extremely far-fetched). Much more plausible, to me anyway, is someone looking to build a conspiracy theory many years after the fact who seizes upon the inevitable mistakes and discrepancies that creep into documents as fallible humans scramble to deal with an event of the magnitude of the assassination of the President. If a bogus money order had been a preplanned element of an assassination conspiracy, the post-assassination events surrounding it would have unfolded like clockwork. Just as an example, does this smell like a conspiracy?

"Shortly thereafter. Mr. Marks was contacted by the reporting agent and advised thst some difflenity was experienced in bringing the computer machines up to operational level; however, he believed that it would take approximately 13 minutes for the machines, when in full operation, to locate subject postal money order. Mr. Marks stated it would be necessary then for an employee of the Federal Records Center, Alexandria, Virginia, to physically obtain the money order. Mr. Marks stated the latter operation would take approximately 20 additional minutes, after which he would personally be furnished with subject original money order."

All of this falls outside my current area of interest and knowledge. Maybe Jim DiEugenio will discuss this with you. But I don't know after all the insults you threw out.

A fake File Locator Number? Really? This strikes you folks as plausible?

I don't understand why you scoff at the idea of a forgery. Especially if we're talking about a fake File Locator Number. What is so difficult to accept about a fake FLN? Just make a number up and stamp it! Nobody would know any better. If you're going to scoff, why not do so regarding Oswald's handwriting. At least that is something difficult to forge.

(Interestingly, the digits that I believe to be the FLN do not appear to have caused any discussion at the time - nor, for that matter, did the supposedly "missing" endorsements.)

I didn't comment on the FLN till later because I was busy. I was surprised to see you defending it, as it made perfect sense to me. I was happy to see that there was finally an explanation for those digits. You are to be commended for finding it.

Sorry to attempt to bring common sense to this discussion. You people enjoy pissing all over yourselves so much you wouldn't know what to do with the rest of your lives if the assassination were actually solved.

What you call common sense makes no sense to me at all.

До свидания. I'll check back sometime to see if someone who Actually Knew What He Was Talking About ever surfaced.

I could actually read that. I took Russian in high school. I remember that and privyet tovarish. That's about it. And babushka.

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

[...]

A fake File Locator Number? Really? This strikes you folks as plausible?

I don't understand why you scoff at the idea of a forgery. Especially if we're talking about a fake File Locator Number. What is so difficult to accept about a fake FLN? Just make a number up and stamp it! Nobody would know any better. If you're going to scoff, why not do so regarding Oswald's handwriting. At least that is something difficult to forge.

[...]

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

Sandy,

Because this thread (which you started) is about whether or not the money order required an "endorsement" (depending, of course, on how that word was defined by the authorities in 1963), not about Oswald's handwriting?

--Tommy

Edited November 20, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

[...]

[...]

A fake File Locator Number? Really? This strikes you folks as plausible?

I don't understand why you scoff at the idea of a forgery. Especially if we're talking about a fake File Locator Number. What is so difficult to accept about a fake FLN? Just make a number up and stamp it! Nobody would know any better. If you're going to scoff, why not do so regarding Oswald's handwriting. At least that is something difficult to forge.

[...]

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

Sandy,

Because this thread (which you started) is about whether or not the money order required an "endorsement" (depending, of course, on how that word was defined by the authorities in 1963), not about Oswald's handwriting?

--Tommy

Tommy,

I understand your point. But what I'm really protesting is that Lance seems to have no problem toying with the possibility of Oswald's handwriting being faked, but when it comes to the File Locator Number possibly being faked, he considers that to be absurd. I don't know how that could make sense to anybody. Obviously its easy to fake a stamped number, but not so somebody's handwriting.

[James DiEugenio]

James,

The problem with Chapter 7000 of the Treasury Financial Manual, for our purposes, is that it doesn't specify anywhere that bank endorsements are required. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It is far better to quote from Title 12 of the CFR, Part 229, as I did in post #119 on page 8. There it specifically states that bank endorsements must be used on checks collected by FRBs, where the definition of a check includes postal money orders.

This is a matter of interpretation. But I interviewed a bank supervisor today who has been in the business for 27 years, not quite as long as the guy John interviewed, but close.

He said the following:

Whenever a merchant brings in his deposits--cash, MO or checks--the last two are inscribed by his bank.

They are then sent to the local FRB, which does the same.

They are then sent to the regional FRB, which does the same.

Ultimately, his bank gets a copy with those inscriptions.

How could they get it back unless the FRB knew where to send it?

Edited November 20, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

James,

The problem with Chapter 7000 of the Treasury Financial Manual, for our purposes, is that it doesn't specify anywhere that bank endorsements are required. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It is far better to quote from Title 12 of the CFR, Part 229, as I did in post #119 on page 8. There it specifically states that bank endorsements must be used on checks collected by FRBs, where the definition of a check includes postal money orders.

This is a matter of interpretation. But I interviewed a bank supervisor today who has been in the business for 27 years, not quite as long as the guy John interviewed, but close.

He said the following:

Whenever a merchant brings in his deposits--cash, MO or checks--the last two are inscribed by his bank.

They are then sent to the local FRB, which does the same.

They are then sent to the regional FRB, which does the same.

Ultimately, his bank gets a copy with those inscriptions.

Yes. But that is true only for checks. Money orders go to the Postal Service for inspection and storage. (Then later they are destroyed. Which is the reason we can't find old processed money orders on eBay.)

How could they get it back unless the FRB knew where to send it?

Well the name of the bank *is* on the front side of the check. But don't get me wrong... I do know that bank stamps are required.

(oops... I didn't think that through, did I.)

There is no question that since 1987 bank endorsements have been stamped on money orders, because we have seen the law requiring it.

My thinking right now is that before 1987 ,bank endorsements were done, not to comply with law, but because that was the standard bank practice. However (assuming I'm right), that doesn't mean that bank endorsements weren't required. They *were* required... by banks, including Federal Reserve Banks.

The reason I believe this is because of the wording I've been seeing. In federal regulations since 1987 the wording has been "banks SHALL endorse" whereas before that the wording was "banks SHOULD endorse." The reason the practice of endorsing was made law in 1987 was simply because lawmakers wanted to standardize the endorsement stamp so that check clearing could be expedited. (In fact, the name of the 1987 law was Expedited Funds Availability Act.)

.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[David Von Pein]

In a related "Money Order" matter....

DAVID JOSEPHS SAID [iN THE AUDIO CLIP BELOW]:

http://box.com/David Josephs On "Black Op Radio" (11/19/15)(Excerpt)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In the above audio excerpt, David Josephs says that Robert Jackson's home address in Alexandria, Virginia, "does not exist".

But Tom Scully, himself a conspiracy theorist(!), has once again unearthed a document that tends to debunk some of the nonsense constantly being spouted by CTers about the money order and Oswald's purchase of Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766. In this instance, Scully's research would seem to refute David Josephs' claim that Mr. Jackson's address does not exist at all.

On this webpage, Scully posted a photo of the death certificate of Robert Henry Jackson, one of the men who was involved in the initial retrieving and handling of the CE788 Hidell money order on November 23, 1963 [see CD87]. Jackson died in January 1977, and his residence is shown on his death certificate as "6108 Leewood Drive" in Alexandria, Virginia, the same city, located just 7 miles south of downtown Washington, D.C., where the Hidell money order was found on 11/23/63....





It could be that CTers David Josephs and John Armstrong were searching for Lee Wood Drive (with two words in the street name, which is how the street name is incorrectly spelled in the Secret Service document found on Page 3 of Commission Document No. 87), instead of Leewood Drive (one word).

But even if Josephs and Armstrong did a Google search for "Lee Wood" (two words), they would certainly have been prompted to also search for "Leewood" (spelled as one word) as well. ~shrug~

In any event, it's pretty clear that "Leewood Drive" does exist in the Washington suburb of Alexandria, Virginia. And that fact can easily be confirmed by looking up "Leewood Drive" on Google Maps, which I did, RIGHT HERE.

As far as Robert Jackson's street numbers not matching (CD87 says that Jackson lived at "2121 Lee Wood [sic] Drive"; while Jackson's death certificate indicates his residence as of 1977 was "6108 Leewood Drive"), I don't think that's any reason for a CTer to leap for joy and shout "Cover-Up" or "Conspiracy". It's possible that Mr. Jackson moved down the street between 1963 and 1977. Or perhaps the person who wrote up the Secret Service report in CD87 got the number wrong.

Or, just as likely, the city of Alexandria might have re-numbered Jackson's street address. And for verifiable proof that addresses are re-numbered occasionally in U.S. cities, just ask me. My house in Mooresville, Indiana, had a street number of 140 when I first moved into the home in 1982. But the number was changed by the city (or county) several years later to a much higher number, 7992.

So, I think we can chalk up the Lee Wood/Leewood Drive mystery as just one more thing that conspiracy theorists have been mistaken about when it comes to researching things associated with the assassination of John Kennedy.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html

Edited November 21, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

In a related "Money Order" matter....

DAVID JOSEPHS SAID [iN THE AUDIO CLIP BELOW]:

http://box.com/David Josephs On "Black Op Radio" (11/19/15)(Excerpt)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In the above audio excerpt, David Josephs says that Robert Jackson's home address in Alexandria, Virginia, "does not exist".

But Tom Scully, himself a conspiracy theorist(!), has once again unearthed a document that tends to debunk some of the nonsense constantly being spouted by CTers about the money order and Oswald's purchase of Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766. In this instance, Scully's research would seem to refute David Josephs' claim that Mr. Jackson's address does not exist at all.

David,

I would appreciate it if you would stick to the topic when posting here. Thanks.

[Guest]

At great personal expense ($19.95), I procured a 24-hour subscription to www.heinonline.org, which has all editions of the Code of Federal Regulations since the inception in 1936. I searched the CFR from 1962 through 1964 and found absolutely nothing about the endorsement (or indorsement) of postal money orders. Nary a word.

In the portion of the John Armstrong Collection at Baylor University pertaining to the money order (Notebook 2, Box 18, Tabs 22-24), it appears that all Armstrong had was the Post Office part of the 1963 CFR pertaining to money orders. Consistent with what I found at HeinOnline, there is no mention of endorsement (other than by the named payee).

[David Von Pein]

HANK SIENZANT SAID:

David,

Not sure if you caught this, but Sandy Larsen is confusing P.O. DISBURSEMENT money orders with P.O. CONSUMER money orders (like the one Oswald purchased).

He says "Here's the proof", then cites something that doesn't apply to Oswald's money order whatsoever:

Sandy wrote:

"From the Code of Federal Regulations, 39 CFR 762.29c ....

"Endorsement of disbursement postal money orders drawn in favor of financial organizations:
All Disbursement Postal Money Orders drawn in favor of financial organizations, for credit to the accounts of persons designating payment so to be made, shall be endorsed in the name of the financial organization as payee in the usual manner."

[End Quote.]

A disbursement money order is one the Post Office issues to pay its own bills... they disburse the money to various contractors who do repairs, or those who they buy stuff from.

See the prior page, section 762.13: "Disbursement Postal Money Orders are issued solely by Postal data centers and solely for the purpose of paying Postal Service obligations."

Also see that page, section 762.11b: "Disbursement Postal Money Orders, unlike other postal money orders, bear on their face the phrase, "This special money order is drawn by the postal service to pay one of its own obligations"."

And see page 211, section 762.11a: "Disbursement Postal Money Orders have words of negotiability -- "Pay to the Order of" -- printed on their face, while other postal money orders simply bear the words "Pay to" on their face."

Oswald's money order was clearly NOT a disbursement money order. Oswald's money order bears the words "pay to", so it was NOT a disbursement money order.

As always, there's sleight of hand when conspiracy theorists try to present evidence. They claim it's one thing, but it's another thing entirely. Either they don't know the difference, or they know the difference and are trying to pull a fast one.

Count your fingers when discussing the JFK assassination with conspiracy theorists.

Larsen also cites this website:

FRB Procedures for Processing Postal Money Orders:
http://tfm.fiscal.treasury.gov/v2/p4/c700.html

But nowhere in there that I can find does it say the bank must affix its stamp to the money order. These are also the current rules, and he presents no evidence all this applied in 1963 (checks now have a number of safeguards to prevent forgery, and no doubt Postal Money Orders have improved & the processing may have changed in various ways in the intervening 52 years as well).


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks, Hank. Excellent work on noting the difference between "Disbursement Postal Money Orders" and the type of ordinary money orders that consumers purchase at post offices.

I'm glad you scrolled back one page in those Postal Regulations, Hank, because apparently nobody else did -- and that includes me. And I'm ashamed to admit that I didn't scroll back to that page you discovered. Because by doing so, you have totally defeated Sandy Larsen's "proof" regarding this topic.

Plus, let me add one more section of Postal Regulation 762.11 that you didn't mention in your post, Hank....

762.11c --- "The amounts of Disbursement Postal Money Orders are printed in words as well as numbers, while the amounts of postal money orders available at post offices are printed in numbers only."

As we can see, the Oswald/Hidell money order has the amount ($21.45) printed only in numbers, not in words:

==============================================

So, I guess I was on the right track when I said this to Sandy Larsen last month:

"I'm not sure that the information in "Paragraph C" of those money order regulations really means what you think it means. The word "drawn" has me confused. The Hidell money order was "drawn" in favor of Klein's Sporting Goods, was it not? It wasn't "drawn" "in favor of [a] financial organization". And Paragraph C says that, in effect, the financial organization is the "payee". Wouldn't that mean the name of the financial institution would also be on the "PAY TO" line on the front of the money order too?" -- DVP; 11/12/2015

Source for above discussion:
http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx27WB2NYXXWZIY&cdMsgNo=4001&cdPage=161&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2TWVIHCI1W2YB#Mx27WB2NYXXWZIY

Edited December 2, 2015 by David Von Pein

[John Dolva]

Sorry if this is a stupid question. What does the stamp on the back mean? I try to think of something. Is not the

PAY TO THE ORDER OF
The First National Bank of Chicago
50 91144
KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.
where the numbers are an account number and the name the name of the account? Maybe in being stamped with the words of a disbursement money order it signifies as having re-entered the postal system which means as far as the account holder is concerned it has been paid?

edit clarification, typos

Edited December 2, 2015 by John Dolva

[David Von Pein]

[deleted by author]

Edited December 2, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Hank Sienzant]

Sorry if this is a stupid question. What does the stamp on the back mean? I try to think of something. Is not the

50 91144

KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.

where the numbers are an account num,er and the name the name of the account? Maybe in being stamped with the words of a disbusement money order it signifies as having reentered the postal system which means as far as the name/account holder is concerned it has been paid?

It may be their bank account number or their Dun & Bradstreet number.

https://fedgov.dnb.com/webform

Both of those are longer now, but in 1963?

Hank

PS: It's not a PO disbursement money order. Those are of a different form and are used to pay the Post Office Department's bills. They are NOT the same as the kind as a consumer can purchase over the counter at a post office. See the info above where DVP quotes the info concerning disbursement money orders (originally provided to DVP by me).

Edited December 2, 2015 by Hank Sienzant

[Scott Kaiser]

Bank money orders come in a huge array of colors and styles, which makes them easy to forge. A USPS money order is a specific document that always looks the same, is readily available everywhere the mail is delivered, and is cashed everywhere any other type of money order is cashed. If you want to be sure you're not getting scammed, insist on a USPS money order. Simple as that.

However, because it's not easy to forge a USPS money order, it can be done.

[Hank Sienzant]

Addendum....

Another thought after reading this paragraph yet again:

"All Disbursement Postal Money Orders drawn in favor of financial organizations, for credit to the accounts of persons designating payment so to be made, shall be endorsed in the name of the financial organization as payee in the usual manner."

Even if I am 100% wrong and completely off my rocker about what I said in Posts 11 and 47 in this thread, I still don't think Sandy Larsen has a leg to stand on.

Why?

Because even if the postal regulation cited above is referring only to markings that would appear on the back side of a U.S. Postal Money Order (versus showing up after the "PAY TO" line on the front of the M.O.)....so what?

Under those circumstances, that regulation cited by Sandy would be referring to an endorsement that we all KNOW is already present on the Hidell money order, which is the Klein's stamp on the back endorsing the M.O. over to First National Bank "for credit to the accounts of persons designating payment so to be made" [citing the 762.29 postal regulation] -- with First National then becoming the second "payee".

So there's nothing new or groundbreaking there at all, regardless of how that word "drawn" is interpreted.

But when a bank is the payee of a money order, on behalf of one of its account holders, the bank is required by law to endorse it as the payee before handing it over to a Federal Reserve Bank. That is what paragraph c states.

Doesn't Paragraph C apply, like the rest of the section, specifically to *disbursement* money orders issued by the Post Office, and not to the consumer money orders they issue?

You're quoting the wrong section and applying it to the wrong document.

Hank

[David Von Pein]

That's right, Hank. The *entire* section designated "Part 762" in this document refers *only* to Disbursement Postal Money Orders and not the "regular" type of M.O. ....

https://books.google.com/books?id=sfQIBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA211

Edited December 2, 2015 by David Von Pein