Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sandy Larsen

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

Recommended Posts

"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?

I should have clarified that the City Prefix indicates the location of the issuing bank. I believe that the issuing bank for postal money orders is the U.S. Post Office itself, but I haven't been able to verify that. In 1963 the U.S, Post Office was headquartered in the Old Post Office and Clock Tower building in Washington D.C. So I imagine that is the reason for Washington D.C. being the designated city.

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.

That's a excellent point Jon. From my research on this topic, I actually read what you're saying here. But I didn't recognize the opportunity of arguing this point. A case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

This is not a matter of informed opinion or judgment, like an autopsy report. This is black letter law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

That's a excellent point Jon. From my research on this topic, I actually read what you're saying here. But I didn't recognize the opportunity of arguing this point. A case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

This is not a matter of informed opinion or judgment, like an autopsy report. This is black letter law.

Can anyone document - with verifiable evidence - the claim that the PO Money Order has to be stamped by the local bank on the reverse side of the Money Order?

All I see are allegations this is the case.

Hank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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

The Federal Reserve Routing Number system in use in the 1960s is still in use today. Nothing has changed. Magnetic ink characters, those futuristic looking numbers we see at the bottom of checks, were adopted in 1958 and were in wide use by 1963. But they convey the same information, sans the City Prefix, that the fractional FRB symbol on the postal money order conveyed.

So yes, 15 did mean Washington DC in 1963.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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?

I should have clarified that the City Prefix indicates the location of the issuing bank. I believe that the issuing bank for postal money orders is the U.S. Post Office itself, but I haven't been able to verify that. In 1963 the U.S, Post Office was headquartered in the Old Post Office and Clock Tower building in Washington D.C. So I imagine that is the reason for Washington D.C. being the designated city.

I'm not sure I understand this. Does this mean the US Postal Service, headquartered in Washington, DC, was the "bank" that issued money orders for all of the post offices in the USA in 1963?

Edited by Robert Prudhomme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hank - since you demonstrated that you do not understand what a frame up is, you lost credibility here, at least with me. I don't know if you are a xxxxx, actually don't know what a xxxxx is in this context. But the question is not whether all the evidence used to prove the WC finding against Oswald is planted, but whether any of it is. Once you find that one piece is planted the rest becomes suspect.

Logically banks stamp deposits such as checks and money orders. If you know otherwise please present your evidence and stop with the legal games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

I've speculated in the past about this sort of thing (and, yes, I *am* only speculating and it should identified as such, because I have no proof of this)....

I'm wondering if a document (or deposit ticket) representing the bulk transfer of money orders from, in this case, First National Bank in Chicago to the FRB in Chicago, would be the only document that would need to be stamped or marked or endorsed by First National? ~shrug~ (Bernice Moore thinks otherwise, however.)

From THIS EDU. FORUM DISCUSSION IN MARCH 2011....

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's my feeling, too, that in many cases where a large, bulk deposit is made which includes many checks and money orders (which would certainly have been the case with the $13,000+ deposit made by Klein's Sporting Goods on March 13, 1963) that it's quite possible that only the DEPOSIT TICKET for the entire bulk amount gets stamped by the bank after it is received. That last part about "bulk deposits" with a lot of checks and money orders shouldn't be too hard to verify at some point in the future. (Are there any bank employees posting at this forum?)

BERNICE MOORE SAID:

I did work in a bank back then, but here in Canada. .... I do not know if the process was the same, in the states, but here every cheque, money order, [or] whatever, in a deposit was stamped, as it was also with the stamp of the bank where it was first presented, on the back. fwtw.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Hank T:

"All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in the two Nov. 22 murders (JFK's and Tippit's) has been faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey."

Can you show me where I ever wrote that sentence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HT:

Is Jim really right when he says: "All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in the two Nov. 22 murders (JFK's and Tippit's) has been faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey."

​The above is one of the reasons I do not talk to DVP anymore.

He cannot get the simplest matter correct. Like who Hank was quoting.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sentence of mine that Hank quoted is perfectly accurate based on DiEugenio's statements and written comments over the years about the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases. But I did not place quote marks around this 20th item on my "Stupid Things" list. I was merely saying that you (James DiEugenio) BELIEVE all of those crazy things. And you do. Without doubt. I was very careful to put in only things that I *know* you believe. And this 20th item is one of them (otherwise you wouldn't believe in Oswald's innocence in BOTH the Kennedy & Tippit murders)....

[Quoting DVP:]

20.) All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in the two Nov. 22 murders (JFK's and Tippit's) has been faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey.

[End DVP Quote.]

I'll be happy to rewrite that 20th item, Jim, if you can tell me JUST ONE single piece of evidence that leads to Oswald that you think was NOT faked, tainted, or manufactured.

Is there one such piece? I don't think there is.

Mr. Hank T: ...

Who's "Hank T."?

Hank's last name is Sienzant.

You're having a hard time with names today.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He cannot get the simplest matter correct. Like who Hank was quoting.

Of course I knew who Hank was quoting. He was quoting ME, not you. Just like I said in Post 99.

The "quote block" shows Hank was quoting from one of Sandy Larsen's posts. But Sandy was quoting me. And Hank was really responding to something that *I* wrote, not something Sandy wrote.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh really, he was quoting you?

HT:

Is Jim really right when he says: "All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in the two Nov. 22 murders (JFK's and Tippit's) has been faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey."

Have you lost it? Or can't you read the English language anymore?

He was quoting me, that is why he said what he did genius.

But you have stuck so many words in my mouth over time, that people cannot tell the difference anymore.

Which is why we are kaput.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hank - since you demonstrated that you do not understand what a frame up is, you lost credibility here, at least with me. I don't know if you are a xxxxx, actually don't know what a xxxxx is in this context. But the question is not whether all the evidence used to prove the WC finding against Oswald is planted, but whether any of it is. Once you find that one piece is planted the rest becomes suspect.

Logically banks stamp deposits such as checks and money orders. If you know otherwise please present your evidence and stop with the legal games.

It's not my contention that Money Orders (and especially the one in question) should have a bank stamp.

It's the contention of others here. I'm merely asking them to establish that contention with evidence, rather than assumptions, as you're doing.

Asking me to present my evidence to the contrary is the logical fallacy known as an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Sorry, that doesn't work.

Hank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Hank T:

"All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in the two Nov. 22 murders (JFK's and Tippit's) has been faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey."

Can you show me where I ever wrote that sentence?

Apologies, Jim. I understood you didn't write that specifically, but understood you agree with the substance of that claim.

My apologies if I misunderstood your beliefs.

Hank

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...