Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sandy Larsen

Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

Recommended Posts

I get why trying to prove the money order was somehow faked would be a great shortcut to proving fallacious evidence in the official record, but this seems to represent another pushing of the envelope on the part of CT'ers.

In Dallas, back in 1963 you could walk into any place that sold guns and buy any longarm without using an ID.

The entire charade regarding Kleins, the money order, the P.O. boxes, and the bogus murder weapon was hastily contrived to pin blame on Oswald. Without that evidence there would be essentially no case at all, it was required to prop up the Lone Nut theory

Edited by Chris Newton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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"." DVP is correct here.

"Absence of endorsement" includes a forged endorsement. The rule here is best illustrated by an example: Party A makes a check payable to Party B. Party C steals the check from Party B, endorses Party B's name on the back of the check, writes "pay to First Bank" on the back of the check, and cashes the check at First Bank. First bank writes "pay to Party A's Bank" on the back of the check and submits the check to Party A's Bank for payment. Party A's Bank pays First Bank. Shortly thereafter, Party A demands that Party A's bank replenish his checking account with the amount it (wrongfully) paid to First Bank. Party A's Bank does replenish Party A's account upon receiving proof of the forged endorsement of Party B. Party A's Bank now has a right of recovery from First Bank, under the rule that each endorser guarantees the genuineness of each prior endorsement. This is called endorser liability. Welcome to law school.

"Well, in the case of the subject Hidell postal money order, the BANKS certainly aren't the PAYEES. The "payee" is Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago, Illinois. It was Klein's getting PAID the $21.45, not First National Bank or the Federal Reserve Bank." DVP is partially, but only partially, correct here. Klein's was the original payee. Its endorsement stamp made the Chicago bank the second payee. The basic rule here is that any time a check is transferred (negotiated) by a "pay to" type of endorsement, the transferee is a payee.

This whole area of the law, BTW, can be grasped by law students and bar exam takers only by grasping some basic rules. The fact patterns to which the basic rules need to be applied are endless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get why trying to prove the money order was somehow faked would be a great shortcut to proving fallacious evidence in the official record, but this seems to represent another pushing of the envelope on the part of CT'ers.

In Dallas, back in 1963 you could walk into any place that sold guns and buy any longarm without using an ID.

The entire charade regarding Kleins, the money order, the P.O. boxes, and the bogus murder weapon was hastily contrived to pin blame on Oswald. Without that evidence there would be essentially no case at all, it was required to prop up the Lone Nut theory

correct, Chris! It's all a sham... Even DVP's Groucho Marx alluding is simpleminded diversion... the actual WCR evidence has lone nutters terrified.

As Harold Weisberg stated to me way back when, all you need to do is just beat WCR supporters over the head with case evidence, exhibits, documents and film-photos. They have no way to escape, and no where to escape to--they're handcuffed to WCR illusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Jon Tidd, for all of that information. Very helpful indeed.

So I guess I was incorrect about Klein's being the ONLY "payee" as far as the Hidell money order is concerned. I accept your explanation regarding First National Bank becoming the "second payee" after Klein's endorsed the back of the money order. Although it still seems a bit strange to me to have the bank considered a "payee", since it's really KLEIN'S money, regardless of where it's being stored. But, oh well. ~shrug~

But, it would appear by your first comment above ("DVP is correct here") that Sandy's cited example of Regulation 762.29c does NOT mean what Sandy thinks it does. Correct?

In other words, since that word "drawn" is included in that paragraph Sandy cited, that would mean that any money order "drawn in favor of financial organizations" (quote from 762.29c) would have had the financial organization's name shown on the front of the money order next to the "PAY TO" line, correct?

But we know the Hidell money order has "Klein's Sporting Goods" written on the "PAY TO" line.

So, Jon, is it back to the drawing board for the conspiracy theorists on this matter or not?

I'm still perplexed by some of the language.

Thank you.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, just because it would have been more convenient for Oswald to buy a gun at a gun shop in Dallas doesn't preclude him from ordering it through the mail. Obviously some people did order rifles through the mail as there was a market for it.

Anyway, the Carcano definitely belonged to Oswald whether or not he ordered it himself, was persuaded to order it, or didn't order it himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, just because it would have been more convenient for Oswald to buy a gun at a gun shop in Dallas doesn't preclude him from ordering it through the mail. Obviously some people did order rifles through the mail as there was a market for it.

Anyway, the Carcano definitely belonged to Oswald whether or not he ordered it himself, was persuaded to order it, or didn't order it himself.

That he "could" have bought it through the mail doesn't explain why he did it. It simply makes no sense to create a paper trail leading back to oneself, if the goal is to kill JFK or Edwin Walker. If he was a fanatic that didn't care if he were caught then that is at odds with his actions and words. Your last sentence doesn't make sense. If I ordered a gun online, paid for it with a postal money order in the name of "Brian Schmidt" and subsequently used it to commit a crime then by your logic that would still be your gun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get why trying to prove the money order was somehow faked would be a great shortcut to proving fallacious evidence in the official record, but this seems to represent another pushing of the envelope on the part of CT'ers.

In Dallas, back in 1963 you could walk into any place that sold guns and buy any longarm without using an ID.

The entire charade regarding Kleins, the money order, the P.O. boxes, and the bogus murder weapon was hastily contrived to pin blame on Oswald. Without that evidence there would be essentially no case at all, it was required to prop up the Lone Nut theory

Chris,

There's a theory that Oswald was participating in senator Robert Dodd's congressional investigation of the illegal purchasing of firearms by mail order.

--Tommy :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,

There's a theory that Oswald was participating in senator Robert Dodd's congressional investigation of the illegal purchasing of firearms by mail order.

--Tommy :sun

Thanks Tommy, yes I heard of that theory too. It was theorized that this was an undercover sting operation that Oswald thought he was engaged in and that this operation was then co-opted to set up Oswald as the patsy. I don't know, did the leads dry up or was it just theory?

send me your email btw - i can never PM you :) Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, just because it would have been more convenient for Oswald to buy a gun at a gun shop in Dallas doesn't preclude him from ordering it through the mail. Obviously some people did order rifles through the mail as there was a market for it.

Anyway, the Carcano definitely belonged to Oswald whether or not he ordered it himself, was persuaded to order it, or didn't order it himself.

That he "could" have bought it through the mail doesn't explain why he did it. It simply makes no sense to create a paper trail leading back to oneself, if the goal is to kill JFK or Edwin Walker. If he was a fanatic that didn't care if he were caught then that is at odds with his actions and words. Your last sentence doesn't make sense. If I ordered a gun online, paid for it with a postal money order in the name of "Brian Schmidt" and subsequently used it to commit a crime then by your logic that would still be your gun?

If someone else ordered it through the mail in order to create a paper trail for him, as some are suggesting, it still ended up in Oswald's hands as "his" gun, so they must have given it to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...it still ended up in Oswald's hands as "his" gun, so they must have given it to him.

Your evidence... the palm print that appeared after the FBI showed up at the morgue with the rifle? Life Magazine?

"...Curry expressed his doubts about the Warren Commission's single bullet theory and their finding of a lone assassin. Curry stated: "I'm not sure about it. No one has ever been able to put him (Oswald) in the Texas School Book Depository with a rifle in his hand."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or he ordered it himself as part of a government investigation of mail order firearms. I see no problem with Oswald using an alias and doing so if he was acting in cooperation with some agency. Of course he wouldn't have ordered the rifle and left a paper trail of his intention was to commit a crime with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or he ordered it himself as part of a government investigation of mail order firearms. I see no problem with Oswald using an alias and doing so if he was acting in cooperation with some agency. Of course he wouldn't have ordered the rifle and left a paper trail of his intention was to commit a crime with it.

This argument has been made before and I think that the theory is an attempt to justify why Oswald would acquire his weapon through the mail, an act that seems silly because it clearly incriminates him if it can be proved he did it.

There is no evidence that Oswald participated in this investigation, maybe because to admit that would be to admit that he was acting as an FBI informant or source - a revelation as dangerous to the cover up as anything else. Or maybe, there is no evidence because it's wild speculation? I don't know.

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

×