Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Snapshot of Lance Payette's changing story.

 

Sandy, I don't know if you are just having a bad day or what, but is the above what you are calling (on another thread) my "concession" that your position is correct?  HUH???  I am equally puzzled by your reference to my "changing story" - what is that even supposed to mean?  I researched the bank endorsement issue along with everyone else beginning at square one.  At the outset, I was entirely open to the position that bank endorsements were in fact required.  As I educated myself via some pretty intensive research, I realized that (1) they are not and (2) your efforts are a layman's efforts to prop up a dead theory.  If you think I should somehow be embarrassed by the post you have quoted - well, be my guest, but I stand by it in its entirety.  (I am somewhat embarrassed by the tone, which is not consistent with the standards of the Kinder and Gentler Forum to which everyone is at least pretending to ascribe.)  Please, enlighten me as to what you think you have accomplished by reviving this tedious thread.

EDIT:  Oh, I see, my "changing story" is that I previously said I "believe" and I today said I had "demonstrated."  Is that it?  Goodness, you are having a bad day.  What you are highlighting is what is known as a distinction without a difference.  My new position, as of 6:35 p.m. MST is that "I believe I have demonstrated" - will that work for you?

Because of my confidence in my position, I communicated with the postal museum at the Smithsonian Institution and a couple of philatelic societies that I thought might have expertise in postal money orders.  Alas, no one will touch the JFK cesspool with a ten-foot pole.  And, as with the educational records issue, you were so "confident" (uh huh) of the self-evident correctness of your position that you did ... NOTHING.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Guest

[Sandy Larsen]

41 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

59 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Snapshot of Lance Payette's changing story.

 
Oh, I see, my "changing story" is that I previously said I "believe" and I today said I had "demonstrated."  Is that it?  Goodness, you are having a bad day.  What you are highlighting is what is known as a distinction without a difference.  My new position, as of 6:35 p.m. MST is that "I believe I have demonstrated" - will that work for you?

 

There's a big difference between an individual believing something versus its truth being demonstrated.

 

dem·on·strate
/ˈdemənˌstrāt/

verb

1. clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence.

 

And you never did demonstrate your belief. You just stated it.

 

 

[Thomas Graves]

58 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

There's a big difference between an individual believing something versus its truth being demonstrated.

 

dem·on·strate
/ˈdemənˌstrāt/

verb

1. clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence.

 

And you never did demonstrate your belief. You just stated it.

 

 

 

Sandy,

 

May I demonstrate something?

Above, you wrote the phrase "individual believing," rather than the correct, "individual's believing."

Now, how could you, a highly intelligent and highly educated, born-in-America guy, get that sort of grammar wrong on a fairly consistent basis (iirc), but a dude who was born in Hungary (and who didn't start learning English until he was about ten years old, and had already learned the very un-English languages of Hungarian and Russian) could?

 

--  TG

 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Micah Mileto]

Could there ever be any hope to find other examples of money orders cashed and preserved from the 60's? How would one even go about finding such specimens?

[Sandy Larsen]

11 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Could there ever be any hope to find other examples of money orders cashed and preserved from the 60's? How would one even go about finding such specimens?

Micah,

PMO's were routinely destroyed after being in storage for some period of time, 2 years I believe. So the only processed PMOs that might be found are ones that were pulled from the storage, for example for purposes of a court case. I have no idea what happened to those PMOs after they serve their purpose outside of storage.

Other than that, all we have left to see  whether or not PMOs required bank stamps are the federal regulations and circulars that were sent to banks indicating to them how PMO's were to be handled.

As I have shown, during the 20th century, federal regulations indicate that PMOs were to be treated as "cash items," meaning they they didn''t need to "clear the bank" for the funds to become available. Federal regulations also indicate that PMOs were to be endorsed by the bank that submitted them to a Federal Reserve Bank. (PMOs had to be submitted to a Federal Reserve Bank for processing) I don't know if they continued to be treated the same way after the year 2000.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

On 5/12/2017 at 11:30 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Proof that Postal Money Orders required Bank Stamps in 1963

First you need to understand that Federal Reserve Bank requirements are set forth in "circulars" that are issued to member banks. My source for this fact is the Federal Reserve Banks' commercial website, specifically this page:  https://www.frbservices.org/regulations/operating_circulars.html . On that page it is stated:

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

FRB Circular 4928, dated August 18, 1960, dealt with Postal Money Orders in 1963. Here is a link to that circular:

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

I will now quote the pertinent parts of the circular. You need only read the parts I've highlighted in red.

 

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. [ Here is the agreement: ] 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

xxxigned 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 xxxist 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.

 

 

THEREFORE...

Postal money orders did indeed require bank endorsement stamps in 1963.

 

The truth is that bank endorsement stamps were ALWAYS required on postal money orders throughout the 20th century. Even before the Federal Reserve System was set up. I have located legal documents dated 1911, 1925, 1960, 1969, and 2000 showing so.

 

Megathanks to Sandy Larsen for proving—again—that in 1963 and all other years from 1911 to 2000, postal money orders absolutely required bank endorsement stamps. Shown below is the Magic Money Order® for the Magic Rifle® that fired the Magic Bullet®.  There are no bank endorsements on it; just a Klein’s rubber stamp and lots of big FBI dates and initials that take up the blank space where the bank stamps should have been.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

When the Magic Money Order® was created, probably via Harry Holmes,  Hoover had yet to get all his stories straight about the rifle.  Newspapers all across America reported that the FBI informed Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry that Oswald bought the Italian 6.5 Carcano bolt-action rifle with a telescopic sight from a Chicago mail order house for $12.78. According to the UPI report, the "'handwriting on the mail order was Oswald's,' Curry said."

Funny the FBI could tell Curry all about that handwriting, and yet miss the price of the rifle by $8.67. Oops!

 

 

[David Von Pein]

JIM HARGROVE SAID:

There is plenty of evidence at the National Archives incriminating “Lee Harvey Oswald,” and all of it is phony.

[...]

...the FBI altered their statements.

[...]

...FBI report falsifications.

[...]

...the FBI and/or Warren Commission merely had to alter his testimony.

[...]

...documents were fabricated.

[...]

...I don't trust ANY report.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

When you have to resort to such massive allegations of constant "alteration" and "falsification" and "fabricated" stuff, it's a good sign that you've reached a level of deep desperation from which you can likely never escape.

In other words....since you've got no evidence of your own to prove any conspiracy, you have no choice but to try and invalidate the real evidence in the case. (The Hidell money order and CE399 being two prime examples, among dozens of others.)

When I see words like "all of it is phony", it's a sure sign that the CTer who wrote such nonsense has a very weak case for "conspiracy". So he's got to attack the legitimacy of ALL of the evidence. A very tiresome (and predictable) way to approach any murder case.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

I call this DVP land, which is similar to the territory that Rod Serling inhabited in his TV days.

Consider:

For a solid week, up until about the 29th, the entire media, which included literally hundreds of reporters, maybe thousands, somehow missed the fact that the rifle the DPD had was equipped with a scope!

Were they all blind? And this included the local newspapers.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Utter nonsense, Jim. The media was reporting that the murder weapon had a SCOPE on it as early as just a few hours after the assassination. There are even several FILMS (broadcast to the public on television on November 22) that show the scope attached to the rifle -- such as Tom Alyea's film, which was shown in its "wet" form (i.e., totally unedited) on WFAA-TV on the afternoon of the 22nd, with the film being narrated at various times by Bob Clark and Bert Shipp and Bob Walker, with the newsmen even pointing out the obvious fact that the rifle had a SCOPE on it.

And Walter Cronkite, on Nov. 22 and 23, talked about the rifle's "sniper scope attachment". And Dan Rather, at about 7:00 PM on Nov. 22, narrated a film showing Lt. Carl Day walking through the DPD corridor carrying the rifle, with Rather telling the CBS audience that the rifle "has a four-power telescopic sight on it" (with the scope easily visible in the film as well; see the first video at the link below)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1102.html

And the newspapers were reporting about the "telescopic sight" on the rifle as early as Day 1 on November 22 as well. Here's an example from a Portland, Oregon, paper.

Here's another newspaper (also dated 11/22/63), showing the same information about the "telescopic sight" on the rifle.

And yet another here.

Those newspapers were reporting the early erroneous info about the rifle being a "7.65 Mauser". But each paper also mentioned the fact that the assassination rifle was equipped with a "telescopic sight". That Oxnard paper was even correctly reporting, as early as November 22 (the date on the paper), that the rifle was an "Italian" gun.

So, as all these examples illustrate, Jim DiEugenio doesn't know what he's talking about.

I guess Jim thinks that just because the media was reporting the $12.78 price for the assassination weapon for a few days beyond November 22, that means that "the entire media...somehow missed the fact that the rifle the DPD had was equipped with a scope".

But if that's Jimmy's belief, he looks awfully silly, because I just provided a bunch of examples showing that the media WAS reporting on the "scope" within hours of the assassination.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

I love it when Davey goes into one of his tantrums. As he did above. It shows you how exacerbated this issue gets him.

See, that is not what I meant. Let me explain:

If DVP is saying that the 12.78 price which was widely circulated was a mistake, because they did not realize the scope was a part of the purchase, then all they had to do was look at the rifle and see it had a scope. Which as he shows, many outlets did. OK, what is the price of the scope?

But if he is saying that they knew it had a scope, then why did so many outlets still get it wrong?

It's that simple. DVP wants to have it both ways.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The media kept getting it wrong because they simply kept repeating the main $12.78 price for the rifle (without the scope) that was originally reported by Chief Curry on TV on 11/23/63. Nobody in the media took the time in those first few days to seek out what the price was WITH the scope included. Big deal.

There's no cover-up there. Just a lack of details regarding the "With Scope" price.

Again....big deal. It's only a "big deal" to rabid conspiracy theorists like you, Jim.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Davey:

Curry of the police said that the FBI reported that price [$12.78]. For a rifle with scope.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But keep in mind that when Curry told the press about the $12.78 price for the rifle, the complete information concerning the $21.45 money order had not been revealed to Chief Curry yet. I believe Curry provided the $12.78 info at about 7 PM Dallas time on 11/23, while the money order was recovered at 9:35 PM EST (8:35 PM Dallas time) on 11/23. The Secret Service and FBI knew a little earlier than that, of course, that they were looking for a money order in the amount of $21.45 (see Commission Document No. 87), but the DPD wouldn't necessarily have been privy to the $21.45 price until much later (assuming they were ever provided that figure by the SS or FBI, which perhaps they weren't, I don't really know).

So the press people went with the info they had available as of Curry's makeshift conference at DPD at 7:00 on Nov. 23 --- i.e., Oswald's handwriting was traced to the Klein's "order letter" (not the money order), with Curry telling the reporters this....

"I believe the gun was supposed to cost twelve dollars and seventy-eight cents, I believe. I believe it was advertised in some magazine for that."


JIM HARGROVE SAID THIS.


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

LOL, this is crazy! The FBI was initially going to go with the March 20 $21.95 money order purchase. Then later changed their minds and decided to fabricate their own money order!

DVP, how do you explain the fact that the FBI got the wrong order from the microfilm? I mean, are they so inept that they thought they saw serial number C2766 on that order when in fact it wasn't there? Remember, this was not just one FBI agent... it was three! So all three hallucinated the C2766 serial number???

This is yet another smoking gun, Jim. But can DVP convincingly explain it away?? I'll be sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for a reply!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sandy,

The FBI didn't get the "wrong order" from the microfilm. There WAS NO ORDER FOR $21.95 for the C2766 rifle. That was merely a slipped digit. And Harry Holmes talks about that mistake in his testimony too. That was one of the reasons it took a little longer to find the $21.45 Hidell money order --- because they were searching (in vain) for the wrong amount ($21.95).

Once they realized what the correct figure was--$21.45--they found it very quickly.

Do you think Waldman No. 7 is a fake document, Sandy? It clearly says $21.45 on it. And it also says C2766. And A. Hidell. And Italian Carbine. And William Waldman testified in detail about that order form. Was he a plotter too?




JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

What a bunch of Von Peinian baloney.

And by God in heaven, to use Holmes as your witness. As a famous lawyer said to Joe McCarthy, "Have you no shame sir?"

Well, we know the answer to that don't we? In both cases.

How anyone can write the above knowing they were looking for the serial number, not the price, is simply beyond the realm of normal thinking. He still has not read John's essay.

But that is why Davey is Davey.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jimmy,

When it came time to look for the money order, they were most certainly looking for the AMOUNT, not the serial number. (The serial number wasn't on the M.O.)

And this sentence written by John Armstrong....

"They did, however, find documentation that showed Klein's sold a $21.95 rifle that was paid for with a postal money order issued on March 20, 1963."

....is just a flat-out distortion of the facts, because the FBI most certainly did NOT find any $21.95 Klein's order form for the C2766 rifle. They found the Waldman Exhibit No. 7 document, which is the ONLY document that has BOTH a price and the C2766 serial number on it--and Armstrong knows it. He's merely trying to turn an innocent error regarding the exact amount of the purchase ($21.95 vs. $21.45) into a mountain of conspiracy and cover-up. Silly beyond belief.


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

What specifically is the "order" anyway? Is it the coupon cut out from the magazine? The money order? Both?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The "order letter" that Chief Jesse Curry refers to in his hallway press conference on the night of Nov. 23 is CE773, which is the microfilm of the order form clipped by Oswald out of the Feb. '63 American Rifleman magazine. That's the microfilmed document that was the basis for the FBI's findings that the "order letter" had Oswald's writing on it. That order form, of course, doesn't have the $21.45 figure on it either. Nor does it have $12.78 on it. It has $19.95 on it. (Shall we dance some more over those three figures?)


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

David, can you write a quick summary for me so that I can understand what happened. I'll write one up right now to give you an idea of what I want:

1. The FBI has the serial number, C2766. (I'm not sure how they got that, but I'll try to understand that later.)

2. The FBI guys search the Klein's microfilm for seven hours and find what they THINK they are looking for... an order with C2766 printed on it. (Even though it wasn't.)

3. The order is dated March 20 (now we're talking about the money order, right?) for $21.95.

4. The FBI authenticated Oswald's handwriting.

5. They discover they had the wrong order. (But then how did they authenticate Oswald's handwriting??)

David, I don't know how to fix the above with your solution to the problem. You say they were searching for an order with the wrong price. But I thought they were searching for an order with a given serial number, C2766, not with a given price.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

1. The FBI did, indeed, have the serial number. (They had the rifle in their possession at 11:45 PM CST on Friday, you know. So why would you be surprised they knew the serial number? And even if they didn't have the rifle themselves, the FBI could have simply telephoned the DPD and gotten the number from them at any time on Nov. 22....couldn't they?)

2. The FBI discovers from a gun dealer in Dallas that Italian surplus WW2 rifles were being distributed by Crescent Firearms in New York City. This leads the FBI to Klein's in Chicago after finding out that Crescent had sold the "C2766" rifle to Klein's.

3. The Klein's records are searched and the "C2766" invoice is found (via what would soon become "Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7"), which provides all the pertinent information about the sale of Italian rifle No. C2766 for $21.45 to one A. Hidell of Dallas, Texas (via "M.O." [Money Order]) on March 20, 1963 (which is the date the FBI goes with, instead of the date stamped at the very top of Waldman No. 7--March 13, 1963--which was the date Klein's put the Hidell order through their cash register, as William Waldman explained in his Warren Commission testimony; the March 20 date was, of course, the date the rifle was shipped to Hidell/Oswald).

4. Somebody connected with the discovery of the "Waldman No. 7" invoice must have transmitted the wrong purchase price to other FBI personnel ($21.95 instead of $21.45), which led to confusion when the FBI and Secret Service began searching for the money order that was used to pay for the rifle.

5. In addition to the internal Klein's invoice (Waldman No. 7), the FBI also found the "order letter" (as Curry called it), which is CE773. They quickly determined that the writing on the order form was that of Lee Harvey Oswald.

In short, there was no "wrong order". Somebody just wrote down or transmitted to somebody the wrong purchase price after the discovery of Waldman No. 7.
But even though some officials had the wrong price, there were others who knew the correct price of $21.45 for the Hidell rifle order, because we find the correct figure being written in two separate reports (connected with the discovery of the money order) authored by both the FBI and the Secret Service on November 23 -- CD75 and CD87.

David Von Pein
February 17-20, 2016

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Guns-Backyard-Photos-And-Other-Evidence

 

Edited April 24, 2018 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

You don't want to deal with new evidence which shows the rifle was never ordered or picked up. Just like Vince [Bugliosi] did not.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Complete garbage. There is no "new" evidence that proves your goofy "No Rifle Was Ordered" theory, Jimmy. Only the CT INTERPRETATION of the Klein's evidence. And it's an interpretation that's about as believable as the moonbat "No Airplanes Hit The World Trade Center" theories. It's THAT ridiculous. You should be thoroughly embarrassed at having written the following words --

"I don't think Oswald had anything to do with the rifle transaction." [J. DiEugenio; 8/5/15]

But evidently no theory is too fringe-like for Mr. DiEugenio.

Joe Ball's 1964 retort to Mark Lane concerning Oswald's rifle purchase is just as true today as it was then. It's a great quote, and completely accurate:

"I've never heard such a major distortion of what is actually a conclusive fact." -- Joseph A. Ball; 12/4/64
 

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-992.html

Edited April 24, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

David,

I don't see how your semi-random snippets of old posts serve any useful purpose. It seems to me they just clutter the page.

If they do serve a useful purpose, why not create your own thread, explain in your first post that you will be posting old semi-random snippets from other threads, and explain what your point in doing so will be.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

[duplicate deleted]

 

Edited April 24, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Jason Ward]

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

 There are no bank endorsements on it

Incorrect - there is a bank endorsement on the money order -- THE ONLY ONE  that is required, an endorsement to the order of a bank.

PAY TO THE ORDER OF

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO

 

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

or endorsed to the

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

endorsement.

 

The endorsement matches the guidelines you posted.

I work at a bank.   First of all - checks and money orders are processed all the time with NO endorsement whatsoever.   All the endorsement does is provide a legal chain of recourse should the check turn out bad.   Endorsements SHOULD be present, but quite often they are not.   Second of all - commercial depositors always endorse their checks [in effect] twice - once to themselves, and once again to their bank.  JUST AS KLEIN's did.

In any case - the endorsement on the money order is correct, it is all that it is needed - both then and now.  

 

 

Jason

Edited April 24, 2018 by Jason Ward

[David Von Pein]

26 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

David,

I don't see how your semi-random snippets of old posts serve any useful purpose.

The "useful purpose" that is served via my "semi-random snippets" is to remind people who might be looking in for the first time just how ridiculous and dead wrong many of the theories espoused by JFK conspiracy theorists truly are --- such as the "Oswald Never Ordered The Rifle" theory, which has to be one of the silliest conspiracy theories of all time.

Such common-sense reminders (via "semi-random snippets" or otherwise) are very much needed at any JFK forum, IMO, in order to provide a little "LN" balance to counteract the CTers' fantasies, if for no other reason.

Edited April 24, 2018 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

8 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

I work at a bank.   First of all - checks and money orders are processed all the time with NO endorsement whatsoever.   All the endorsement does is provide a legal chain of recourse should the check turn out bad.   Endorsements SHOULD be present, but quite often they are not.   Second of all - commercial depositors always endorse their checks [in effect] twice - once to themselves, and once again to their bank.  JUST AS KLEIN's did.

In any case - the endorsement on the money order is correct, it is all that it is needed - both then and now.

Finally! We get to hear from someone who works in a bank! I was beginning to think no one with your occupation would ever show up at this forum.

Thank you, Jason.

Edited April 24, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Jason Ward]

3 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Finally! We get to hear from someone who works in a bank!

Thank you. Jason.

Here's a sample valid endorsement today.  

It's the same as in 1963 - it's exactly like the Klein's endorsement.

The commercial depositor typically stamps* an endorsement paying to the order of their bank - just like Klein's.

* commercial depositors are more often rendering paper checks into electronic form and soon the esoteric knowledge around bank endorsements will be lost....