Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jon G. Tidd

Members
  • Content Count

    1,404
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jon G. Tidd

  • Rank
    Super Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

8,202 profile views
  1. Lance, A PMO today (2016) states on its face that it's negotiable in the U.S. That was not true in the early 1960s. You'll note I did not write that PMOs were subject to the UCC, so the cases you cite are inapposite. If you wish to study PMOs, how they were processed in the early 1960s, the one-endorsement rule, and the function of bank stamps, I recommend you check out the 1967 Cornell Law Review Article, "Legal Aspects of Postal Money Orders," by John D. O'Malley.
  2. Lance, By about 1962, there was a long-established procedure for the processing of bank items. This procedure was reflected in Articles 3 and 4 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Article 3 dealt with "commercial paper", which were and are negotiable instruments. Article 4 dealt with bank deposits. The same articles exist today, hardly unchanged from 1962. Postal money orders (PMOs) were considered by the courts in the early 1960s not to be negotiable instruments. Today they are considered negotiable instruments. The change is one of form, not substance. In the early 1960s, PMOs wer
  3. DVP, Let's talk gut level. On Sunday, November 24, I went into a University of Illinois campus pharmacy to cash a $20 check. On the pharmacy TV i saw Ruby shoot Oswald. Up to that point, my gut was that Oswald killed JFK. On that day, my mind changed. That was 1963. The assassination weekend. Was your mind ever changed?
  4. Not only did First National Bank of Chicago screw up. So did the FRB of Chicago. Once again, DVP: Merely show through a bank statement that First credited Klein's for a $21.45 deposit in mid-March 1963 (i.e., the A. Hidell PMO), and I'll shut up permanently. Forever. A bank statement.
  5. Scott @post #102. It puzzles me that Harry Holmes took the lead in finding the PMO. I can only figure that Harry was trying to please J.E. Hoover.
  6. Jim Di, I don't know about you, but I'd agree with DVP or Lance or anyone else if I saw documents to back up their claims. The strength of the LN crowd lies in government and other public documents. The strength of the CT crowd lies in government and other public documents.
  7. Bank stamps have been discussed at length elsewhere in this forum. Whatever Wilmouth said or didn't say about bank stamps is immaterial.
  8. DVP, I want to believe you are honest. I know about advocates. You are an advocate. Based on what you see, and I mean see clearly, do you believe beyond a reasonable doubt LHO killed JFK? If so, why?
  9. John Armstrong does a masterful job, IMO, of poking holes in the U.S. Government's story about Oswald's buying the rifle. So much so, based on documents not mere opinions, that he undermines the entire U.S. Government version of the assassination. Think about it. Armstrong argues convincingly that the FBI fabricated various reports. Furthermore, the facts that the FBI "lost" the Klein's microfilm and the PMO defy belief. How can anyone here any longer subscribe to "cover-up lite", the notion that there was only some cover up, perhaps harmless cover-up? There was whole-scale cover-up.
  10. DVP, the sore head came later, when my daughter began treating me as an ATM machine.
  11. This thread reminds me of whack-a-mole. At the beginning, the mole is hidden. Jim Hargrove begins the game. The mole appears. Whack! But the mole then pops up again. My daughter as a child routinely won this wonderful game at carnivals.
  12. Jim, Everyone here has consented to be in the public arena. The stuff anyone posts here is non-copyright material unless so designated. No one who posts here can maintain a libel action against one who falsely portrays what was posted unless the false portrayal was made with knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard of the falsity. In any event, it sounds to me that DVP is preaching to the choir. Which is OK.
×
×
  • Create New...