Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

5 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

 

Jason,

First, that is not a bank endorsement. A bank endorsement is one stamped by a bank, not an account holder.

Second, the applicable federal regulation required that the endorsement be made to a Federal Reserve Bank, not to the receiving bank (which is what the First National Bank of Chicago was.)

The applicable federal regulation for bank endorsements is given in the following post:

At the time, all Postal Money Orders were processed by Federal Reserve Banks. Here was the requirement for bank stamps in 1963 for Cash Items, including Postal Money Orders, received by Federal Reserve Banks:  (Source)

 

All cash items [including postal money orders] 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.

 

The PMO made out to Kleins is missing these stamps.

 

Edited April 24, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Jason Ward]

24 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Jason,

First, that is not a bank endorsement. A bank endorsement is one stamped by a bank, not an account holder.

Second, the applicable federal regulation required that the endorsement be made to a Federal Reserve Bank, not to the receiving bank (which is what the First National Bank of Chicago was.)

The applicable federal regulation for bank endorsements is given in the following post:

At the time, all Postal Money Orders were processed by Federal Reserve Banks. Here was the requirement for bank stamps in 1963 for Cash Items, including Postal Money Orders:

 

All cash items [including postal money orders] 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.

 

The PMO made out to Kleins is missing these stamps.

 

By your numbers:

1. No - it doesn't matter who endorses the instrument - either the bank or the customer can.  Walk up to a teller today and deposit a check and they will happily stamp it themselves.  Or you can stamp it.  Or sign it.   The bank can endorse on your behalf and you can endorse on the bank's behalf in this case.  Either way works and there is no requirement about WHO must affix the endorsement.

2.  No, Sandy, you are wong again.  An endorsement can be made to a Federal Reserve Bank......  <<<OR>>> is the key word you apparently do not understand:

now....

take this slowly

.....AND ACTUALLY READ THE WORDS YOU QUOTED from REGULATIONS:

 

or endorsed to the

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

 

This instrument is missing no endorsements.   

Edited April 24, 2018 by Jason Ward

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

PAY TO THE ORDER OF

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO

 

5 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.

 

No, it doesn't match the "guideline." And what you call guidelines are federal regulations for the Federal Reserve System.

Here's the regulation being discussed:

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.

So the endorsement would look like one of these:

1. Pay to the order of Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
2. Pay to the order of Any Bank, Banker or Trust Company
3. (Some similar endorsement.)

(See this for an example of endorsement #2.)

 

[David Von Pein]

10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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.

So the endorsement would look like one of these:

1. Pay to the order of Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
2. Pay to the order of Any Bank, Banker or Trust Company
3. (Some similar endorsement.)

Sandy,

Please tell us (again) why, in your estimation, the "Pay To The Order Of The First National Bank Of Chicago" endorsement on the CE788 Hidell/Oswald Postal Money Order does NOT meet Requirement #2 listed above. Isn't "1st National Of Chicago" to be considered "Any Bank" in your opinion? If not, why not?

 

[Jason Ward]

33 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

No, it doesn't match the "guideline." And what you call guidelines are federal regulations for the Federal Reserve System.

Here's the regulation being discussed:

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.

So the endorsement would look like one of these:

1. Pay to the order of Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
2. Pay to the order of Any Bank, Banker or Trust Company
3. (Some similar endorsement.)

(See this for an example of endorsement #2.)

 

Sandy, you are as wrong about this as you were wrong about your dental charts - and  the endorsement on the M.O. is in full compliance.   No, Sandy, the phrase "Any Bank" is not the literal requirement.... any bank means INSERT the name of any bank - as in The First Natl Bank of Chicago.  I work at a bank and posted an endorsement above already.   Go to a bank, any bank in America, and ask someone who knows.  Your "example" is ridiculous on many levels, starting with the fact that you are citing the documents of a non-US bank draft. 

There are no special endorsement requirements for a money order,  it is the same as a check.  The Klein's stamp is all that is needed. This is a waste of time, goodbye.

Edited April 24, 2018 by Jason Ward

[Sandy Larsen]

Jason,

It is apparent that you haven't even read the regulation. It is here for 1963.

The regulation describes what must be done when a cash item, such as a postal money order, is presented to a Federal Reserve Bank.

It states that the following must be done:

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. 

So, first of all it is to be endorsed as follows:

Pay to the order of Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

or

Pay to Any Bank, Banker, or Trust Company

Reading on....

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.

So a bank stamp should be used to show the date and ABA transit number of the sending bank, on both sides of the PMO. In this case that would be the ABA number of the First Bank of Chicago, because that is the bank that would send the PMO to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

9 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Sandy,

Please tell us (again) why, in your estimation, the "Pay To The Order Of The First National Bank Of Chicago" endorsement on the CE788 Hidell/Oswald Postal Money Order does NOT meet Requirement #2 listed above. Isn't "1st National Of Chicago" to be considered "Any Bank" in your opinion? If not, why not?

 

 

David,

All PMOs are processed by Federal Reserve Banks, and they require that the "sending bank" endorse the PMO over to them. In our case the sending bank was the First National Bank of Chicago and the Federal Reserve Bank was the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. So there should be a stamp that reads

Pay to the order of Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

The stamp should also include the date and the ABA number of the sending bank, First National Bank of Chicago. This one stamped on both sides of the PMO.

As an alternative to this endorsement,

Pay to the order of Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

this can be stamped:

Pay to the order of Any Bank, Banker, or Trust Company

Jason is wrong in saying that the endorser is supposed to replace the words "Any Bank" to a specific bank name. The whole point of this type of endorsement is to allow more than one particular bank to be the recipient. I gave Jason this example document showing that type of endorsement, but he apparently ignored it.

 

Those stamps are missing from the rifle PMO. Here is the document that states this federal regulation. And following is a quote from the regulation showing how the endorsement is to be made... which is what I described above.
 

Endorsements

13. All cash items [including PMOs] 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.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jason Ward said:

By your numbers:

1. No - it doesn't matter who endorses the instrument - either the bank or the customer can.  Walk up to a teller today and deposit a check and they will happily stamp it themselves.  Or you can stamp it.  Or sign it.   The bank can endorse on your behalf and you can endorse on the bank's behalf in this case.  Either way works and there is no requirement about WHO must affix the endorsement.

2.  No, Sandy, you are wong again.  An endorsement can be made to a Federal Reserve Bank......  <<<OR>>> is the key word you apparently do not understand:

now....

take this slowly

.....AND ACTUALLY READ THE WORDS YOU QUOTED from REGULATIONS:

 

or endorsed to the

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

 

This instrument is missing no endorsements.   

 

Jason,

You really should be careful and think multiple times before declaring somebody wrong. I know this topic inside and out. You clearly don't.

 

 

[Jason Ward]

21 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2018 by Jason Ward

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

First of all - checks and money orders are processed all the time with NO endorsement whatsoever.

It is up to the receiving bank to decide whether or not they are willing to take the risk of accepting non-endorsed items. My bank accepts checks I forget to endorse. Maybe because I'm an established customer. But I'm sure they would be more careful with a new account holder, especially with large checks.

But this has nothing to do with the federal regulation that dictates the bank stamps Federal Reserve Banks expect to see when receiving a check or other item sent for collection.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

5 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

I am a banker with 25 years experience.   You are a  conspiracy theorist with zero knowledge of banking.

 

Jeez Jason, you can't even answer this...

 

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.

Show me this stamp on the PMO. It's not there. It's supposed to be stamped on both sides.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

No, Sandy, the phrase "Any Bank" is not the literal requirement.... any bank means INSERT the name of any bank

Jason,

"Any Bank" is indeed what is literally printed in the endorsement. You don't "insert" the name of "any bank" there.

See below, for example. This form of endorsement is well known by bankers.

 

 

[Jim Hargrove]

Legitimate financial documents have numerous stamps on the front and back indicating transit through various financial institutions.  Below, for example, are vouchers issued to Lee Harvey Oswald by the Texas Employment Commission.  Note the many stamps in these photostatic copies reproduced in the Warren Commission Volumes.  

 

Similarly, below are Warren Commission photostats of cancelled paychecks issued by Leslie Welding, one of Oswald's employers.  Note the various stamps front and back. This is how REAL financial documents are processed! 

 

[Jim Hargrove]

Sandy has shown quite clearly that the Magic Money Order® for the Magic Rifle® didn’t have the endorsement of the sending bank(s) or the ABA transit number(s), which were required on both sides of the form by federal regulations.

What the Magic Money Order® DID have was all the typography, including a "File Locator Number," that could be applied using U.S. Postal equipment.  Legitimate bank endorsements, however, would have necessitated the help of an institutional co-conspirator, apparently unavailable to Harry Holmes.

Holmes should be remembered, however, for helping us unravel this mess.  After all, Holmes submitted the Klein’s ad from the November 1963 edition of Field & Stream magazine that SEEMED to show that the 6.5 Italian Carbine (shown right under the illustration of the rifle with a scope) sold for $12.78.

 

The ad may have been slightly misleading, since it gave the price the rifle WITHOUT A SCOPE directly under an illustration of the rifle WITH A SCOPE.  Was anyone fooled by that misleading ad?

J. Edgar Hoover was apparently fooled!  He told Jesse Curry that the price Oswald paid for the rifle was $12.78, and newspapers all across America reported that "fact," as well as the "fact" that Oswald's handwriting was on the Magic Money Order®.  You know, the one that clearly didn't exist yet!

It's magic!

 

[Robert Harper]

great post, as usual.

I've finally come to think about the murder as something very complex. Every researcher who has contributed to understanding this complexity has my unending gratitude. I left a comment on one  of the MSM papers recently, that the paper spent more investigative resources - as well as waay more ink -- on the crude - maybe illegal - behavior of a Hollywood mogul , than it did on JFK's murder. Someday - hopefully sooner than later - people will see the MSM as the PR of the 1%. We all should have collectively vomited when Rolling Stone printed the article  about "operation Mockingbird" or when the reports of" Operation Northwoods" and the fakery of the Tonkin Gulf were exposed. Fortunately, independent researchers like many here -including John Armstrong - kept searching, kept trying to find out what happened. We grew up thinking that newspapers and TV news did that stuff. Nope.