Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sandy Larsen

Rectangular and round punch codes on the Hidell money order explained.

Recommended Posts

Warren Commission Document No. 75, Page 668, is an FBI report that says a money order for $21.45 was sent to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago on March 16, 1963 (next-to-last paragraph)....

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

Sure looks like the Hidell money order entered the federal banking system to me.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He just told you, Jack (as in "you don't know Jack sh.......). Clean the wax out of your ears.

Thank you, Robert. I see it now that I've cleaned the wax out of my ears. :D

Team "Ad Hominem is not evidence" Member

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jus

Warren Commission Document No. 75, Page 668, is an FBI report that says a money order for $21.45 was sent to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago on March 16, 1963 (next-to-last paragraph)....

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

Sure looks like the Hidell money order entered the federal banking system to me.

Just like Bardwell Odum showed Wright and Tomlinson CE 399 and they positively identified it, right ?

Give us all a break OK?

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Then you should be able to document it. Not just assert it.

And when did it change? Per you, "The modern law is the Uniform Commercial Code. The previous law was the Negotiable Instruments Law."

So please document it using 1963 law, whichever of the above was applicable then.

Thanks much,

Hank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Armstrong quote:

".... As you can see on many examples, with an uncashed postal money order from 1961 (front and back sides), with rectangular punched holes...."

James, do you know if this 1961 uncashed postal money order is posted somewhere? I couldn't find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like Bardwell Odum showed Wright and Tomlinson CE 399 and they positively identified it, right ?

Give us all a break OK?

Yeah, Jim, CD75 is just another lie, right? This one being told by the THREE different Chicago FBI agents who attached their names to that report in CD75 -- Gale T. Johnson, James E. Hanlon, and Philip R. Wanerus.

So there are three more scheming falsehood tellers for Jimmy to add to his ever-growing list of falsehood tellers (can't say the L-word at this forum, for some silly reason).

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Armstrong quote:

".... As you can see on many examples, with an uncashed postal money order from 1961 (front and back sides), with rectangular punched holes...."

James, do you know if this 1961 uncashed postal money order is posted somewhere? I couldn't find it.

Yes it is, as John sent it to me. I could not get it to transfer to this site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two kinds of people in this world.

One type can be told not to pee on an electric fence, and will take the advice in stride and not perform such a foolish act. The other type simply cannot be shown or told and, inevitably, must go out and try it for themselves.

I wonder which category Hank would fall into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He just told you, Jack (as in "you don't know Jack sh.......). Clean the wax out of your ears.

What's with the "Jack sh.." attack on Hank, Ba Ba?

Can't you be civil?

--Tommy :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Civility with trolls is not something I practice or promote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Civility with trolls is not something I practice or promote.

So you agree that you are not only uncivil, but that you call other members "trolls."

Thank you for confirming that.

--Tommy :sun

PS I have the same problem with "paranoiac zealots," but I manage to restrain myself.

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy:

That is another mystery is it not?

I mean the bleed through. I don't see how it can be ignored.

It really does seem to me to be a big faux pas, one which the WC apparently swallowed.

I mean can someone explain it innocently?

umm...

When they were stealing the money order, they thought it better just to make a copy lest a bank teller notices and reports the missing money order?

I dunno!

But I'm putting a lot of thought into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two kinds of people in this world.

One type can be told not to pee on an electric fence, and will take the advice in stride and not perform such a foolish act. The other type simply cannot be shown or told and, inevitably, must go out and try it for themselves.

I wonder which category Hank would fall into.

Whoa, Robert. Which category would Mark Lane fall into? Harold Weisberg? Sylvia Meagher? Josiah Thompson?

They questioned the evidence they were shown and the claims that were made about that evidence.

Didn't they?

If all you can do is be dismissive of me for asking for the evidence, then you're dismissive of everyone here, we all want to see the evidence. As far as I know.

Hank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Civility with trolls is not something I practice or promote.

So you agree that you are not only uncivil, but that you call other members "trolls."

Thank you for confirming that.

--Tommy :sun

PS I have the same problem with "paranoiac zealots," but I manage to restrain myself.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Civility with trolls is not something I practice or promote.

What exactly did I do to get you to classify me as a trolls member? (apparently the singular gets censored)

Ask for evidence?

Question assumptions?

Hank

Edited by Hank Sienzant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...