Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy,

I have not been on here much of late since I am working on a review of Talbot.

But I wish to congratulate you on your really good work on this issue.

John Armstrong's (pretty much) definitive work on this will be online soon. It will incorporate much of this discussion and use two interviews with bank supervisors. That, combined with your archival work will be quite compelling.

Thanks Jim for your encouragement. I'm glad to hear that John Armstrong is still working on this.

[Sandy Larsen]

Proof that . . .
Postal money orders required bank endorsement stamps in 1963.

(The following is a detailed proof. See an abbreviated proof here and here.)
(See this post if you think a lawyer could find an exception to the rule.)

 

I wish to address a document brought up earlier by Lance Payette in this thread. The document, a "circular" issued by a Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) in 1960, states that postal money orders are to be treated by FRBs as "cash items." "Cash item" simply means that the FRB gives banks instant credit for the item -- there is no waiting period for the item to clear. Even checks are usually treated by banks as cash items. (Or so I've read.)

The circular, which was in effect in 1963, also states that cash items presented to an FRB for collection are required to have bank endorsement stamps.

This seemingly would mean, therefore, that postal money orders required bank stamps. However, as Lance pointed out, there is a clause in the circular stating that there is an agreement between the Postmaster General and Federal Reserve Banks, and that the agreement may have removed the bank endorsement requirement for postal money orders. (The only known evidence for this possibility being the Hidell money order.) I will hereafter refer to this agreement as "The Agreement."

It was therefore important to find The Agreement. Lance stated that he couldn't find it. Neither could I.

HOWEVER...

It occurred to me that there had to have been a way for banks to be informed of exactly what the FRB requirements were. This got me to searching the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) for bank endorsement regulations. I found documents dated 1909, 1925, 1987, and 2001 stating that bank endorsements were required specifically on postal money orders. But the documents I found closer to the 1960s suffered the same problem as the circular that I'm writing about now. They state that postal money orders are treated as cash items, and that cash items require bank endorsements. But they leave open the possibility of The Agreement nullifying the bank endorsement requirement on postal money orders.

THEN...

Today I found something interesting. I found another 1960s era FRB circular which has an appendix specifically for postal money orders. Upon reading it, I realized that I had found The Agreement! Not necessarily the full agreement, but the parts of the agreement that bankers needed to be aware of when presenting checks to an FRB.

Suddenly everything became clear. The regulations I had been seeking had been in front of me the whole time! THE CIRCULARS! The circulars are what are used to inform banks what FRB requirements are! Not the CFR. Not the UCC. The circulars!

Then I felt stupid for not realizing this earlier.

I checked the FRB website to confirm my conclusion. On this page

https://www.frbservices.org/regulations/operating_circulars.html

it is stated

"Federal Reserve Financial Services are governed by the terms and conditions that are set forth in the following operating circulars."

So, when a bank wants to know what the FRB requirements are, they look them up in the circulars. Duh!

SOOOOO...

How do we know whether or not postal money orders require bank stamps? We just read the appropriate circular. And, if we want to know if The Agreement nullifies the bank stamp requirement, we look for THAT in the circular.

Now, recall the 1960s era circular I found with the appendix containing (the pertinent part of) The Agreement. It is Appendix B in this 1969 circular:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1969_6370.pdf

The regulations given for postal money orders in this circular are pretty much the same as the regulations given in the 1960 circular that was in effect in 1963. But this one has The Agreement in Appendix B. Quoting from this document:

Items which will be handled as cash items

 

3. Except as otherwise provided by this operating circular, the

following items may be sent to this Bank for handling as cash items

in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Regulation J, of

this operating circular, and of our time schedules:

 

( a ) Checks drawn upon any bank included in the current “Federal

Reserve Par List,” which indicates the banks upon which checks are

collectible at par through the Federal Reserve Banks and is furnished

from time to time and supplemented each month to show changes sub­

sequent to the last complete list.

 

( b ) Government checks, postal money orders, and food stamp cou­

pons.*

 

( c ) Such other demand items, collectible at par in funds accept­

able to the Federal Reserve Bank of the District3 in which such items

are payable, as we may be willing to accept as cash items.

 

*Provisions [i.e. The Agreement] governing the collection of the foregoing

cash items are contained in Appendix A, Appendix B, and Appendix C,

respectively, of this operating circular.

 

o

o

o

 

APPENDIX B

POSTAL MONEY ORDERS

 

1. Postal money orders (United States postal money orders;

United States international postal money orders; domestic-inter­

national postal money orders) will be handled by us as cash items in

accordance with an agreement made by the Postmaster General, in

behalf of the United States, and by the Federal Reserve Banks as

depositaries and fiscal agents of the United States pursuant to authori­

zation of the Secretary of the Treasury. With respect to matters no*t

covered by that agreement, the terms and conditions of Regulation J

applicable to cash items, of this operating circular, and of our time

schedules shall be applicable to all such postal money orders.

 

2. We will give immediate credit for postal money orders received

from a sender maintaining or using an account with us as provided

in our time schedules. Simultaneously with such credit, we will debit

the amount of such money orders against the general account of the

Treasurer of the United States under such symbol numbers as may

be assigned by the Treasurer of the United States; and such credit

to the account of the sender shall then become final as between us and

the sender.

 

3. The agreement between the Postmaster General and the Federal

Reserve Banks provides, in effect, that no claim for refund or other­

wise with respect to any postal money order debited against the gen­

eral account of the Treasurer of the United States and delivered to

the representative of the Post Office Department as provided in said

agreement (other than a claim based upon the negligence of a Federal

Reserve Bank) shall be made against or through any Federal Reserve

Bank; that, if the Post Office Department makes any such claim with

respect to any such money order, such money order will not be re­

turned or sent to a Federal Reserve Bank, but the Post Office Depart­

ment will deal directly with the bank or the party against which such

claim is made; and that the Federal Reserve Banks will assist the

Post Office Department in asserting such claim, including making

their records and any relevant evidence in their possession available

to the Post Office Department. Section 210.12 of Regulation J, relat­

ing to the return of cash items by the paying banks, is not applicable to

postal money orders.

 

There is nothing in The Agreement about bank endorsements. But in the body of the circular is this clause:

Endorsements

 

15. All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank

direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to, or

to the order of, the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed

to, or to the order of, any bank, banker, or trust company, or en­

dorsed with equivalent words or abbreviations thereof. The endorse­

ment of the sender should be dated and should show the A.B.A. transit

number of the sender, if any, in prominent type on both sides of the

endorsement.

So we see that bank endorsements were required on postal money orders. (No big surprise.)

But remember, these are 1969 regulations, not the 1960 ones that were in effect in 1963. The reason I quote them here is to reveal The Agreement, and also to show that the regulations were essentially the same in 1969 as they were in 1960 (and 1963).

But why wasn't The Agreement printed in the 1960 circular as it was in 1969? As it turns out, IT WAS! It just wasn't set apart in its own appendix.

Now I will quote from the 1960 circular:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1960_04928.pdf

Items which will be accepted as cash items

 

1. The following will be accepted for collection as cash items:

 

(1) Checks drawn on banks or banking institutions (including private

bankers) located in any Federal Reserve District which are collectible

at par in funds acceptable to the collecting Federal Reserve Bank. The

“ Federal Reserve Par List,” indicating the banks upon which checks will

be received by Federal Reserve Banks for collection and credit, is fur­

nished from time to time and a supplement is furnished each month

showing changes subsequent to the last complete list. This list is subject

to change without notice and the right is reserved to return without

presentment any items drawn on banks which may have withdrawn or

may have been removed from the list or may have been reported elosed.

 

(2) Government checks drawn on the Treasurer of the United States.

 

(3) Postal money orders (United States postal money orders; United

States international postal money orders; and domestic-international

postal money orders).

 

(4) Such other items, collectible at par in funds acceptable to the

Federal Reserve Bank of the District in which such items are payable, as

we may be willing to accept as cash items.

 

o

o

o

 

Postal money orders

 

11. Postal money orders will be handled in accordance with

an agreement made by the Postmaster General, in behalf of the

United States, and the Federal Reserve Banks as depositaries and

fiscal agents of the United States pursuant to authorization of the

Secretary of the Treasury; and with respect to matters not covered

by such agreement, the provisions of Regulation J, this circular and

our time schedules shall be deemed applicable to all postal money

orders. Immediate credit will be given to member banks and non­

member clearing banks for postal money orders as provided in our

time schedules and simultaneously with such credit we will debit the

amount of such money orders against the general account of the Treas­

urer of the United States under such symbol numbers as may be

assigned by the Treasurer of the United States. Said agreement fur­

ther provides in effect that no claim for refund or otherwise with

respect to any money order debited against the general account of

the Treasurer of the United States and delivered to the representa­

tive of the Post Office Department as provided in said agreement

(other than a claim based on the negligence of a Federal Reserve

Bank) will be made against or through any Federal Reserve Bank;

that if the Post Office Department makes any such claim with respect

to any such money order, such money order will not be returned or

sent to a Federal Reserve Bank, but the Post Office Department will

deal directly with the bank or the party against which such claim is

made; and that the Federal Reserve Banks will assist the Post Office

Department in making such claim, including making their records

and any relevant evidence in their possession available to the Post

Office Department

 

o

o

o

 

Endorsements

 

13. All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank

direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the

order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the

order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar

endorsement. Cash items will be accepted by us, and by other Federal

Reserve Banks, only upon the understanding and condition that all

prior endorsements are guaranteed by the sending bank. There should

be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase,

“ All prior endorsements guaranteed.” The act of sending or deliver­ing a

cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however,

be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior

endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is

incorporated in the sending bank’s endorsement. The endorsement of

the sending bank should be dated and should show the American

Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent

type on both sides.

As can be seen, The Agreement in this document is located in item #11, as opposed to a separate appendix.

THEREFORE...

Postal money orders required bank endorsement stamps in 1963.
 

[David Von Pein]

Thanks, Sandy.

But as part of these sections of the regulation you cited....

"Postal money orders will be handled in accordance with an agreement made by the Postmaster General, in behalf of the United States, and the Federal Reserve Banks as depositaries and fiscal agents of the United States. .... All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar endorsement. .... The endorsement of the sending bank should be dated and should show the American Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent type on both sides."

....why couldn't something like this procedure I talked about yesterday at another forum have been in place for "bulk" transfers of U.S. Postal Money Orders? Yes, it says "All cash items" in that postal regulation you cited, and it also says the cash items should be dated and should show a transit number "on both sides" (geez, imagine the time it would take to place all those markings and stamps on BOTH SIDES of each and every one of the hundreds if not thousands of Postal Money Orders that were being sent to a huge bank like the First National Bank in Chicago on a daily basis), but I'm still thinking that in the case of large bulk transfers or deposits of U.S. Postal Money Orders, this process I speculate about below was probably the way First National Bank handled the Hidell money order in 1963 (seeing as how that M.O. does not have any First National stamp on it at all)....


"I would guess that the Hidell money order was probably "endorsed" as part of a bulk batch of U.S. Postal Money Orders sent by First National Bank to the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago.

All of the money orders in such a "bulk" transfer were going to be sent to the very same place--the FRB in Chicago, Illinois--so I can't see why a single stamped endorsement placed on a separate document (which would be attached to the bundle of bulk money orders being sent from First National to the FRB) wouldn't suffice in a bulk transaction like that, instead of having to stamp a separate endorsement on each and every money order.

I do not know for certain if such a "single endorsement on bulk transfers" procedure was actually in place at major U.S. banks in 1963, but such a process makes perfect sense to me. And it would certainly save the bank a lot of "stamping" time too.

And Tom Scully has brought up this very same topic of bulk transfers in some of his recent messages as well,
such as THIS POST." -- DVP; 12/3/15

Edited December 4, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Important Addendum....

Well, Sandy, it looks like you overlooked this important part of those 1969 regulations. Let's look at Section 16....

"16. In the event a cash item is received by a Federal Reserve Bank from a sender without the endorsement thereon of such sender, the Federal Reserve Bank may present, send, or forward the item as if it bore such endorsement, or place on the item the name of such sender and the date of its receipt by the Federal Reserve Bank, or return the item to the sender for proper endorsement by the sender. This Bank makes the warranties stated in Section 210.6(6) of Regula­tion J by presenting, sending, or forwarding a cash item. These warranties arise whether or not such item bears the endorsement of this Bank."

[End Quote.]

The above paragraph makes it quite clear that a bank DOES NOT have to place its endorsement on each and every United States Postal Money Order (or "cash item") that it sends to a Federal Reserve Bank.

And even though "Regulation 16" shown above is from a 1969 document, to quote Sandy....

"The regulations were essentially the same in 1969 as they were in 1960 (and 1963)." -- Sandy Larsen

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

Screen capture of Regulation #16:



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

Edited December 4, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David G. Healy]

Important Addendum....

Well, Sandy, it looks like you overlooked this important part of those 1969 regulations. Let's look at Section 16 of the regulations....

"16. In the event a cash item is received by a Federal Reserve Bank from a sender without the endorsement thereon of such sender, the Federal Reserve Bank may present, send, or forward the item as if it bore such endorsement, or place on the item the name of such sender and the date of its receipt by the Federal Reserve Bank, or return the item to the sender for proper endorsement by the sender. This Bank makes the warranties stated in Section 210.6(6) of Regula­tion J by presenting, sending, or forwarding a cash item. These warranties arise whether or not such item bears the endorsement of this Bank."

[End Quote.]

The above paragraph makes it quite clear that a bank DOES NOT have to place its endorsement on each and every United States Postal Money Order that it sends to a Federal Reserve Bank.

1969? What does that have to do with 1963?

The Kleins MO is no longer relevant, not worth good Indiana spit when it comes to evidence... Hell, it has no provenance, no chain of custody... and shall I remind you:

<quote on>

From David Talbot:

One of the great ironies of history is that while the media elite was busily trying to shore up public confidence in the Warren Report, the political elites were privately confiding among themselves that the report was a travesty, a fairy tale for mass consumption. Presidents, White House aides, intelligence officials, senators, congressmen, even foreign leaders - they all muttered darkly among themselves that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, a plot that a number of them suspected had roots in the U.S. government itself. (In truth, some high media dignitaries have also quietly shared their doubts about the official version. In 1993, CBS anchorman Dan Rather, who did much along with his network to enforce the party line on Dallas, confessed to Robert Tannenbaum, the former deputy chief counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, "We really blew it on the Kennedy assassination.")

Thanks to tapes of White House conversations that have been released to the public in recent years, we now know that the man who appointed the Warren Commission - President Lyndon Johnson - did not believe its conclusions. On Sept. 18, 1964, the last day the panel met, commission member Sen. Richard Russell phoned Johnson, his old political protégé, to tell him he did not believe the single-bullet theory, the key to the commission's finding that Oswald acted alone. "I don't either," Johnson told him.

http://www.salon.com/2004/09/15/warren/

<quote off>

think Johnson was wondering about a fictious money order at the time?

[David Von Pein]

Boy oh boy, I feel sorry for Sandy. Between the disaster I just created for him by citing Regulation #16 in my last post, and the previous embarrassment he suffered when he boldly declared "Here's the proof" when he first started this thread on November 12 (only to have to admit his "proof" didn't apply to the Hidell money order at all, since the Hidell M.O. was not a "Disbursement Money Order")....Sandy's having a rough November and December.

Edited December 4, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

Thanks, Sandy.

Well I was gonna thank you for the complement David, but I see you have now deleted it. Something like "Very nice, Sandy" which meant a lot coming from an LNer. Oh well... as they say, good things never last.

Important Addendum....

Well, Sandy, it looks like you overlooked this important part of those 1969 regulations. Let's look at Section 16....

"16. In the event a cash item is received by a Federal Reserve Bank from a sender without the endorsement thereon of such sender, the Federal Reserve Bank may present, send, or forward the item as if it bore such endorsement, or place on the item the name of such sender and the date of its receipt by the Federal Reserve Bank, or return the item to the sender for proper endorsement by the sender. This Bank makes the warranties stated in Section 210.6(6) of Regula­tion J by presenting, sending, or forwarding a cash item. These warranties arise whether or not such item bears the endorsement of this Bank."

[End Quote.]

The above paragraph makes it quite clear that a bank DOES NOT have to place its endorsement on each and every United States Postal Money Order (or "cash item") that it sends to a Federal Reserve Bank.

Huh? Think about it David... regulation16 says that non-endorsed items MIGHT be processed. Or they might be returned. What bank is gonna decide NOT to endorse their checks and then hope they aren't returned? Regulation 16 is for when accidents happen.

Regardless, it's an irrelevant point.. Number 16 isn't present in the 1960 regulations that were in effect in 1963. When I said the 1960 and 1969 regulations were "essentially the same," I didn't mean they were identical. I meant that the essential components of each were the same, the essential components being "postal money order = cash item" and "cash item is to be bank-endorsed" and "The Agreement is present to read and doesn't nullify endorsement requirement for PMOs."

I demand my complement back! LOL

The Kleins MO is no longer relevant, not worth good Indiana spit when it comes to evidence... Hell, it has no provenance, no chain of custody... and shall I remind you:

<quote on>

From David Talbot:

<quote off>

David H.,

I agree that it is time (past time, really) to move beyond the minutia and explore the big picture. There's enough information available to do that. But I think the answers to minutia are still valuable. It can help researchers figure out who was involved and how things were accomplished.

So I'm glad we have the David Talbots and James Douglasses for the larger picture. But I'm also glad we still have the David Liftons and John Armstrongs for the smaller. Not to mention the Jim DiEugenios who work both ends.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

Boy oh boy, I feel sorry for Sandy. Between the disaster I just created for him by citing Regulation #16 in my last post, and the previous embarrassment he suffered when he boldly declared "Here's the proof" when he first started this thread on November 12 (only to have to admit his "proof" didn't apply to the Hidell money order at all, since the Hidell M.O. was not a "Disbursement Money Order")....Sandy's having a rough November and December.

True, I took some hits with the disbursement PMOs and the missing corner non-issue. But I think I'm on solid ground now. (And I *have* had some other successes, TYVM.)

Nothing ventured, nothing gained... right?

[David Von Pein]

Regulation 16 says that non-endorsed items MIGHT be processed. Or they might be returned. What bank is gonna decide NOT to endorse their checks and then hope they aren't returned? Regulation 16 is for when accidents happen.

And that's where my Post #198 comes back into play, regarding First National possibly endorsing just ONE piece of paper that was then attached to a BULK TRANSFER/DEPOSIT of Postal Money Orders -- which is what I think probably did happen with the Hidell money order. And this type of bulk transfer is discussed by Tom Scully (who's also done some very good research on this "Money Order" topic).

An excerpt from Scully:

"Planning by the Dept. of the Treasury from at least 1957 culminated in larger banks being able to avoid burdening Fed Bank sorting and processing of large lots destined for a single payor, in this instance US Treasury issued checks and after June 1962, gradually all US postal money orders as well, since all were processed by the Treasurer's Information System and post processing were archived in the same place. This was a planned, and in March 1963, a recently implemented efficiency innovation. Big banks fine sorted the large lots of US Treasury issued checks and postal money orders in sequential serial numbers with a reconciliation data tape and a cash letter and only regional Fed Banks transport service to the Washington, DC Treasurer's ADP center. I researched and presented these planned developments."

-- Tom Scully; December 2, 2015

From the 1960 regulations Sandy posted earlier:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1960_04928.pdf

Edited December 4, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

I do not know for certain if such a "single endorsement on bulk transfers" procedure was actually in place at major U.S. banks in 1963, but such a process makes perfect sense to me. And it would certainly save the bank a lot of "stamping" time too.

And Tom Scully has brought up this very same topic of bulk transfers in some of his recent messages as well,

such as THIS POST." -- DVP; 12/3/15

You're talking about the "fine-sort program," where the bank does the sorting so that the Federal Reserve Bank doesn't have to.

Let me tell you, I've had just about enough of Tom Scully. I've read several of his posts. He ridicules John Armstrong followers (and numerous static web pages) because they're still pushing the old money order theories. Well what does he expect? That they should spontaneously update as he discovers new information? He needles this guy on his forum because he speculates. What's so wrong with speculating, as long as it's clear that that's what you're doing? He also disses the guy for not contributing new material himself. Well maybe the guy isn't into that. Or maybe he contributes elsewhere

He claims that only he and Lance Payette are contributing new information re. the money order, and that nobody on Education Forum is. He says that I'm misleading people... and no, he wasn't talking about the disbursement PMOs, he was talking about the laws I've found that ARE on the mark.

I think it's time for Tom Scully to eat a little humble pie. He keeps pounding on the fine-sort program, like that explains how it is that the money order hasn't any bank stamps on it. Well guess what, Mr. Scully... the fine sort program wasn't established till 1979. It was first tested in a pilot program in 1970 at the Washington-Baltimore Regional Check Clearing Center. In 1974 it was implemented at the New York FRB only. And in 1979 the program was expanded to all FRBs.

Nobody at Education Forum is contributing , my azz.

Sources:

Search for these phrases in the documents: "fine sort," "fine sorted," and "end point sorted."

1970 Washington Pilot Program:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/publications/frbrichreview/rev_frbrich197005.pdf

1974 New York Impementation:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1974_07478.pdf

1979 Completed Fine Sort Program:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/nycirc_1979_08621.pdf

1974 Fine Sort Regulations:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1974_07394.pdf

Edited December 4, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

Big banks fine sorted the large lots of US Treasury issued checks and postal money orders in sequential serial numbers with a reconciliation data tape and a cash letter and only regional Fed Banks transport service to the Washington, DC Treasurer's ADP center. I researched and presented these planned developments."

-- Tom Scully; December 2, 2015

If "big banks" did fine sorting in 1963, then how was it possible that sequential file locator numbers (without gaps or overlaps) got printed on the fronts of the PMOs? Tom does understand, doesn't he, that after banks do fine sorting, the checks are finished being processed? At that point the FRBs send them to the paying banks.

[David Josephs]

Why does no one address the Wilmouth statement, which seems to have become the Gospel for the fact that the money order should have bank endorsements? I said many posts ago that I was sure Armstrong had not invented it out of whole cloth, but now I'm beginning to wonder. Can no one point me to a link to this Holy Grail?

Yours is a very good question, Lance. I'd also like to see that answered. And I'd also like to see John Armstrong post his new information. I just kinda gave up on both. Hopefully Armstrong is just needing more time to finish his work.

But I know how things go. There are some loose ends I've wanted to wrap up on some prior topics myself, but just can't seem to find the time. Life goes on.

http://www.ctka.net/2015/JosephsRiflePart1.pdf

I think you meant this doc. and the link to the report Chicago FRB employee LESTER GOHR's FBI report https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=200&tab=page

There does not appear to be any follow-up with the FRB of Chicago or the USPS.

[David Von Pein]

Sandy,

Is there something that you've seen that would prohibit BOTH methods being in place -- fine sorting and a File Locator Number?

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

Edited December 4, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

David Josephs,

That CD7 document isn't the document that Lance Payette wants to see. The document that (apparently) John Armstrong was using to support what he said on page 451 of his book "Harvey And Lee" indicates (per Armstrong) that Wilmouth gave an interview saying that a Postal Money Order would have to be stamped FOUR different times in order to be legitimate.

The CD7 document doesn't say anything about Wilmouth talking about the alleged "four bank stamps".

But if that CD7 document is actually the document that Armstrong is using to prop up his theory that money orders require FOUR different endorsement stamps, then he has significantly misled his readers, because that FBI report in CD7* doesn't say anything at all about how many endorsements (if any) should be affixed to U.S. Postal Money Orders....

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=199&tab=page

* The document seen in the CD7 link, btw, is exactly the same as CD75, which is the document that I've been linking to many times during this discussion.

CD75:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10477#relPageId=672

But, as mentioned multiple times previously, the CD7 / CD75 FBI document does pretty much debunk all of the nonsense about the Hidell money order being a phony document. Here's what we find in that FBI report (emphasis is my own):

"Robert K. Wilmouth, Vice-President, Operations Department, The First National Bank of Chicago, Clark and Monroe Streets, furnished the following information...A deposit made with the bank on March 15, 1963, by Klein's Sporting Goods...was processed by the bank on March 16, 1963. .... The other item of $21.45 was a Postal Money Order which was sent to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago on March 16, 1963."

Edited December 5, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Doug Buitenbos]

I do not know for certain if such a "single endorsement on bulk transfers" procedure was actually in place at major U.S. banks in 1963, but such a process makes perfect sense to me. And it would certainly save the bank a lot of "stamping" time too.

And Tom Scully has brought up this very same topic of bulk transfers in some of his recent messages as well,

such as THIS POST." -- DVP; 12/3/15

You're talking about the "fine-sort program," where the bank does the sorting so that the Federal Reserve Bank doesn't have to.

...

I think it's time for Tom Scully to eat a little humble pie. He keeps pounding on the fine-sort program, like that explains how it is that the money order hasn't any bank stamps on it. Well guess what, Mr. Scully... the fine sort program wasn't established till 1979. It was first tested in a pilot program in 1970 at the Washington-Baltimore Regional Check Clearing Center. In 1974 it was implemented at the New York FRB only. And in 1979 the program was expanded to all FRBs.

Nobody at Education Forum is contributing , my azz.

Sources:

Search for these phrases in the documents: "fine sort," "fine sorted," and "end point sorted."

1970 Washington Pilot Program:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/publications/frbrichreview/rev_frbrich197005.pdf

1974 New York Impementation:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1974_07478.pdf

1979 Completed Fine Sort Program:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/nycirc_1979_08621.pdf

1974 Fine Sort Regulations:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1974_07394.pdf

I don't think those documents say what you seem to think they do. In the 1970 document, the term "fine sort" appears in the article titled "The Washington-Baltimore Regional Check Clearing Center." It clearly implies that the new innovation is the concept of the clearing center, and mentions that fine sorting may be done by member banks (including any member FRBs) before sending the items on to the clearing center. It's possible that they introduced the method of fine sorting along with the establishment of the center, but if they had, I would have expected a great deal more about this wonderful new sorting method. In any event, it does not claim that fine-sorting is a new process invented just for the Clearing Center. The bulk of the other articles dwell on updates to policies regarding the receipt and handling of pre-sorted and unsorted items, and do not say that fine- or end-point sorting was anything new to be implented and do not state that fine-sorting was introduced in 1970.