Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

[John Dolva]

Sorry if this is a stupid question. What does the stamp on the back mean? I try to think of something. Is not the

PAY TO THE ORDER OF

The First National Bank of Chicago

50 91144

KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.

where the numbers are an account number and the name the name of the account? Maybe in being stamped with the words of a disbursement money order it signifies as having re-entered the postal system which means as far as the account holder is concerned it has been paid?

edit clarification, typos

dited by John Dolva, Today, 11:20 AM.

"And see page 211, section 762.11a: "Disbursement Postal Money Orders have words of negotiability -- "Pay to the Order of" -- printed on their face, while other postal money orders simply bear the words "Pay to" on their face."" - a postal money order converted to an internal disbursement money order by being stamped on the back?

[David Von Pein]

That can't be right, John. The words "PAY TO THE ORDER OF" are part of Klein's own stamped endorsement. Those words weren't put there by the Post Office or by anyone who issued a money order. That stamp was put there by Klein's Sporting Goods.

Do you think KLEIN'S had the power to turn Oswald's regular money order into a "Disbursement" money order?

Plus, as indicated in Part 762 of the regulations, all "Disbursement" money orders "are issued solely by Postal data centers and solely for the purpose of paying Postal Service obligations."

Edited December 2, 2015 by David Von Pein

[John Dolva]

I'm thinking official rubber stamp in this instance with the bank name, then the account number and name of the account to which this money is transferred to. Used at the post office where klein's take their stacks of orders to be paid (into account). It's then stamped to be paid to the bank to that account. From that and other stacks a specific disbursement money order is issue internally to deal with the periods collated orders.?

edit add once stamped and stacked they are read by a tabulation data processing machine machine. The bank then receipts that transfer and and in time issue a bank statement to the account holder.?

Edited December 2, 2015 by John Dolva

[Hank Sienzant]

Sorry if this is a stupid question. What does the stamp on the back mean? I try to think of something. Is not the

PAY TO THE ORDER OF

The First National Bank of Chicago

50 91144

KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.

where the numbers are an account number and the name the name of the account? Maybe in being stamped with the words of a disbursement money order it signifies as having re-entered the postal system which means as far as the account holder is concerned it has been paid?

edit clarification, typos

dited by John Dolva, Today, 11:20 AM.

"And see page 211, section 762.11a: "Disbursement Postal Money Orders have words of negotiability -- "Pay to the Order of" -- printed on their face, while other postal money orders simply bear the words "Pay to" on their face."" - a postal money order converted to an internal disbursement money order by being stamped on the back?

A disbursement money order issued by the postal service is to pay their own bills, John.

Consumer money orders are different. They are sold to consumers who want to mail money through the mail (to purchase something or pay their own bills) but who may not have access to a checking account.

You don't convert a consumer money order into a disbursement money order by stamping 'pay to the order of' on the back, front, or any of the four edges.

Oswald wasn't trying to pay the post office's bills and neither was Kleins. Oswald was trying to buy a rifle when he purchased that money order, and Kleins was trying to get the money into their account when they cashed it.

Please go back and read the sections cited by me and posted here by David Von Pein about what disbursement money orders are, and are not.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22439&page=10#entry319457

Specifically, this:

A disbursement money order is one the Post Office issues to pay its own bills... they disburse the money to various contractors who do repairs, or those who they buy stuff from.

See the prior page, section 762.13: "Disbursement Postal Money Orders are issued solely by Postal data centers and solely for the purpose of paying Postal Service obligations."

Also see that page, section 762.11b: "Disbursement Postal Money Orders, unlike other postal money orders, bear on their face the phrase, "This special money order is drawn by the postal service to pay one of its own obligations"."

And see page 211, section 762.11a: "Disbursement Postal Money Orders have words of negotiability -- "Pay to the Order of" -- printed on their face, while other postal money orders simply bear the words "Pay to" on their face."

and this, which I didn't bother to quote (added by DVP):

762.11c --- "The amounts of Disbursement Postal Money Orders are printed in words as well as numbers, while the amounts of postal money orders available at post offices are printed in numbers only."

Hank

Edited December 2, 2015 by Hank Sienzant

[David Von Pein]

I'm thinking official rubber stamp in this instance with the bank name, then the account number and name of the account to which this money is transferred to. Used at the post office where [K]lein's take their stacks of orders to be paid (into account). It's then stamped to be paid to the bank to that account. From that and other stacks[,] a specific disbursement money order is issue[d] internally to deal with the period[']s collated orders?

Boy, are you desperate, John.

I can't even follow all of your double-talk quoted above.

The regulations brought to the forefront by Hank Sienzant tonight make it perfectly clear that the Hidell M.O. was not a "Disbursement Money Order" -- and never COULD be one, because, as I just quoted in my last post, "Disbursement Postal Money Orders are issued solely by Postal data centers and solely for the purpose of paying Postal Service obligations."

And neither of those things applies to Oswald's money order....

It was not issued by a "Postal data center". It was issued at the "GPO" (General Post Office) in Dallas, Texas.

And Oswald's M.O. was not issued for the purpose of "paying Postal Service obligations".

And yet we have John Dolva desperately trying to turn the Hidell M.O. into a Disbursement M.O.

Why are you trying to turn the Hidell/Oswald M.O. into something it obviously is not, John?

Edited December 2, 2015 by David Von Pein

[John Dolva]

I'm not. I imagine a scenario of money transfers. Then I try to see if it fits the needs of simplifying a manual process and saving lots of money. When a money order is 'cashed' at the postoffice by a relatively high volume client it is honoured by the post office by stamping it and then arranging a money transfer as per the order which is then retired to storage.

Believe me, there is nothing desperate about it at all. It's just a stupid question that obviously has triggered off something.

[Hank Sienzant]

More dirt on the casket:

CHAPTER 7000 http://tfm.fiscal.treasury.gov/v2/p4/c700.html

PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING POSTAL MONEY ORDERS

Appendix B – Processing Postal Money Orders

· Purchaser of the PMO designate a “Payee” and fills out the purchaser’s information

· Purchaser pays for the PMO – Postal clerk tears PMO from stub and hands to Purchaser

· Purchaser provides PMO to designated Payee for deposit in exchange for goods/services

· Payee endorses the back of the PMO and deposits PMO in their Bank

· The Bank will then PROCESS the PMO, adding whatever marks, electronic or otherwise to the back of the PMO and record the payment to Payee in their records

o The Bank, now the new Payee, forwards the PMO to their affiliated Federal Reserve Bank for reimbursement of funds and processing

USPS Fed Res Sys process

3.0 Federal Reserve System

3.1General

All money orders are forwarded through the Federal Reserve Banking System, to which commercial banks have access.

3.2 Payment

The postmaster general has the usual right of a drawee to examine money orders presented for payment by banks through the Federal Reserve System and to refuse payment of money orders, and has a reasonable time after presentation to make each examination. Provisional credit is given to the Federal Reserve Bank when it furnishes the money orders for payment by the postmaster general. Money orders are deemed paid only after examination is completed, subject to the postmaster general’s right to make reclamation under 3.4.

3.3 Endorsement

The presenting bank and the endorser of a money order presented for payment are deemed to guarantee to the postmaster general that all prior endorsements are genuine, whether an express guarantee to that effect is placed on the money order. When an endorsement is made by a person other than the payee personally, the presenting bank and the endorser are deemed to guarantee to the postmaster general, in addition to other warranties, that the person who so endorsed had capacity and authority to endorse the money order for the payee.

3.4 Reclamation

The postmaster general has the right to demand refund from the presenting bank of the amount of a paid money order if, after payment, the money order is found to be stolen, or to have a forged or unauthorized endorsement, or to contain any material defect or alteration not discovered on examination. Such right includes, but is not limited to, the right to make reclamation of the amount by which a genuine money order with a proper and authorized endorsement has been raised. Such right must be exercised within a reasonable time after the postmaster general discovers that the money order is stolen, bears a forged or unauthorized endorsement, or is otherwise defective. If refund is not made by the presenting bank within 60 days after demand, the postmaster general takes such actions as may be necessary to protect the interests of the United States.

​BTW, please note the last paragraph, the first sentence. If the PMO has no bank endorsement, if it turns out to be bogus or fraudulent, how could the FRB know who to get their money back from unless it was endorsed by a bank?

Doesn't the stamp on the back of the money order in question already satisfy those conditions?

It identifies the original payee, the bank it was deposited to, and the account number of the original payee.

PAY TO THE ORDER OF

The First National Bank of Chicago

50 91144

KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.

Why would they need an additional stamp by the bank itself for the FRB to know where it came from?

All that info's already there.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Hank Sienzant

[Thomas Graves]

More dirt on the casket:

CHAPTER 7000 http://tfm.fiscal.treasury.gov/v2/p4/c700.html

PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING POSTAL MONEY ORDERS

Appendix B – Processing Postal Money Orders

· Purchaser of the PMO designate a “Payee” and fills out the purchaser’s information

· Purchaser pays for the PMO – Postal clerk tears PMO from stub and hands to Purchaser

· Purchaser provides PMO to designated Payee for deposit in exchange for goods/services

· Payee endorses the back of the PMO and deposits PMO in their Bank

· The Bank will then PROCESS the PMO, adding whatever marks, electronic or otherwise to the back of the PMO and record the payment to Payee in their records

o The Bank, now the new Payee, forwards the PMO to their affiliated Federal Reserve Bank for reimbursement of funds and processing

USPS Fed Res Sys process

3.0 Federal Reserve System

3.1General

All money orders are forwarded through the Federal Reserve Banking System, to which commercial banks have access.

3.2 Payment

The postmaster general has the usual right of a drawee to examine money orders presented for payment by banks through the Federal Reserve System and to refuse payment of money orders, and has a reasonable time after presentation to make each examination. Provisional credit is given to the Federal Reserve Bank when it furnishes the money orders for payment by the postmaster general. Money orders are deemed paid only after examination is completed, subject to the postmaster general’s right to make reclamation under 3.4.

3.3 Endorsement

The presenting bank and the endorser of a money order presented for payment are deemed to guarantee to the postmaster general that all prior endorsements are genuine, whether an express guarantee to that effect is placed on the money order. When an endorsement is made by a person other than the payee personally, the presenting bank and the endorser are deemed to guarantee to the postmaster general, in addition to other warranties, that the person who so endorsed had capacity and authority to endorse the money order for the payee.

3.4 Reclamation

The postmaster general has the right to demand refund from the presenting bank of the amount of a paid money order if, after payment, the money order is found to be stolen, or to have a forged or unauthorized endorsement, or to contain any material defect or alteration not discovered on examination. Such right includes, but is not limited to, the right to make reclamation of the amount by which a genuine money order with a proper and authorized endorsement has been raised. Such right must be exercised within a reasonable time after the postmaster general discovers that the money order is stolen, bears a forged or unauthorized endorsement, or is otherwise defective. If refund is not made by the presenting bank within 60 days after demand, the postmaster general takes such actions as may be necessary to protect the interests of the United States.

​BTW, please note the last paragraph, the first sentence. If the PMO has no bank endorsement, if it turns out to be bogus or fraudulent, how could the FRB know who to get their money back from unless it was endorsed by a bank?

Doesn't the stamp on the back of the money order in question already satisfy those conditions?

It identifies the original payee, the bank it was deposited to, and the account number of the original payee.

PAY TO THE ORDER OF

The First National Bank of Chicago

50 91144

KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.

Why would they need an additional stamp by the bank for the FRB to know where it came from?

Hank,

Excellent points, all.

--Tommy

[John Dolva]

See, it seems it is a stupid question as knowing this:

"CHAPTER 7000 http://tfm.fiscal.tr...v2/p4/c700.html

PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING POSTAL MONEY ORDERS

Appendix B – Processing Postal Money Orders

Purchaser of the PMO designate a “Payee” and fills out the purchaser’s information

Purchaser pays for the PMO – Postal clerk tears PMO from stub and hands to Purchaser

Purchaser provides PMO to designated Payee for deposit in exchange for goods/services

Payee endorses the back of the PMO and deposits PMO in their Bank

The Bank will then PROCESS the PMO, adding whatever marks, electronic or otherwise to the back of the PMO and record the payment to Payee in their record.

The Bank, now the new Payee, forwards the PMO to their affiliated Federal Reserve Bank for reimbursement of funds and processing

USPS Fed Res Sys process"

was how it was when it was the USPO and not just the USPS, I'd move on. Otherwise it seems pretty much dealt with. Thank you.


edit typo, clarity

Edited December 2, 2015 by John Dolva

[Sandy Larsen]

HANK SIENZANT SAID:

David,

Not sure if you caught this, but Sandy Larsen is confusing P.O. DISBURSEMENT money orders with P.O. CONSUMER money orders (like the one Oswald purchased).

... A disbursement money order is one the Post Office issues to pay its own bills... they disburse the money to various contractors who do repairs, or those who they buy stuff from.

What Hank Sienzant says is true, that a "disbursement postal money order" is not the same thing as a "postal money order." At the time I posted the legal requirements for the "disbursement" type, I thought that the term "disbursement" was "legalese" fluff, and I just ignored it. I was glad to see lawyer Lance Payette join the forum, given that he could better interpret the hard-to-understand legal documents I was searching for. (Though I don't believe he ever did attempted to interpret what I had already posted.)

I actually discovered just before Thanksgiving week that disbursement postal money orders were different, and I planned on making corrections here. But then I came down with a severe stomach flu, from which I am just now recovering.

I apologize for my mistake.

HOWEVER, none of this really matters in the end. Because the law is the same for both the disbursement and the regular postal money orders. Later on in this very thread I posted the legal requirements specifically for regular postal money orders, which I repeat below. As you will see, regular money order do require, by law, bank stamps. This law has been in effect since 1987, when the Expedited Funds Availability Act was passed. (NOTE: I haven't the means of checking legal requirements every single year. It is conceivable that the law for bank stamps has changed since 2001, the year of the Code of Federal Regulations I quote from below. But I doubt it.)

I've also shown in this thread that bank endorsements were required at least from ~1900 through 1925.

Lance noted a few posts ago where one can buy a subscription to access every volume of the Code of Federal Regulations. I'm hoping to find the time, strength, and money to go through those and determine if the practice of banks stamping postal money orders changed any time between 1925 and 1987. I doubt it did, but I want to know for sure.

Since 1987 postal money orders have, by law, required bank endorsements.

The following is from 2001 CFR Title 12 (Banking) > Part 229 > Subpart C (Collection of Checks, Regulation CC):

229.2 Definitions

As used in this part [Part 229], unless the context requires otherwise:

(k) Check means--

(5) A United States Postal Service money order;

229.35 Indorsements

(a) Indorsement standards. A bank (other than a paying bank) that handles a check during forward collection or a returned check shall legibly indorse the check in accordance with the indorsement standard set forth in appendix D to this part.

Appendix D to Part 229--Indorsement Standards

1. The depositary bank shall indorse a check according to the following specifications:

• The indorsement shall contain—

—The bank’s nine-digit routing number, set off by arrows at each end of the number and pointing toward

the number;

—The bank’s name/location; and

—The indorsement date.

• The indorsement may also contain—

—An optional branch identification;

—An optional trace/sequence number;

—An optional telephone number for receipt of notification of large-dollar returned checks; and

—Other optional information provided that the inclusion of such information does not interfere with the

readability of the indorsement.

• The indorsement shall be written in dark purple or black ink.

• The indorsement shall be placed on the back of the check so that the routing number is wholly contained

in the area 3.0 inches from the leading edge of the check to 1.5 inches from the trailing edge of the check.

Source: http://ithandbook.ff...b_c_regu_cc.pdf

[Sandy Larsen]

Doesn't the stamp on the back of the money order in question already satisfy those conditions?

It identifies the original payee, the bank it was deposited to, and the account number of the original payee.

PAY TO THE ORDER OF

The First National Bank of Chicago

50 91144

KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.

Why would they need an additional stamp by the bank for the FRB to know where it came from?

Hank,

Excellent points, all.

--Tommy

Oh for heaven sakes, neither a Federal Reserve Bank nor any other bank is going to accept an endorsement by someone other than the presenting bank itself.

John, one purpose of the stamp is to provide the receiving bank a guarantee from the endorser that he/it is indeed entitled to the money, and will pay the paying bank back if it later turns out that the money went to the wrong person. Obviously a bank endorsement is a better guarantee than a personal endorsement, like the one Klein's stamped on the MO.

Endorsement stamps also provide information to the receiving bank. For example, Klein's endorsement stamp tells First National Bank to which account the money should be deposited. The bank's endorsement stamp would include its routing number, address, date, and any other information the bank chooses to stamp on the check (e.g. branch identifier).

I have documented the fact that bank endorsement stamps were required on postal money orders during the first decades of the 1900, as well as the ending decades. I'm confident that they were were required in the decades between as well. It's just a matter of finding the statutes. Someone with access to a law library could do this.

[John Dolva]

Good. Thank you. I've been educated. Please continue.

[Guest]

I don't think it is helpful to keep discussing federal regulations adopted 25 or 50 years after punch-card postal money orders had become dinosaurs. The focus has to be on, what were the requirements and practices in 1963 (or at least in the first decade or so of the punch-card era)? I am pretty confident that if Sandy wants to take the trouble to review the CFR from 1936 to 1964, he is not going to find any regulation relating to the endorsement (often also spelled "indorsement" in the federal materials) of postal money orders. But there must be plenty of people 75 to 85 years old who were actually directly involved in the processing of postal money orders in 1963.

I thought we were promised that John Armstrong had a response in the works and was soon going to be educating us. What happened with that? If he has nailed down the money order issue as decisively as we are led to believe he has, where's the beef?

Some time ago, I pointed out, "The idea that the money order should have four levels of endorsements (i.e., including Klein's) is attributed to Robert Wilmouth, Vice President of the First National Bank of Chicago. This is stated flatly in Harvey and Lee (page 451) and is repeated all over the Internet as though it were gospel, yet I have been unable to find where Wilmouth actually discussed the endorsement issue. I feel sure Armstrong did not invent this out of whole cloth, so I am hoping someone can steer us to the actual statement."

Can we at least nail that down - where is the Wilmouth statement? I'm not sure I'd regard a statement by a bank VP as the last word on the processing of postal money orders, but I'd at least like to see what he actually said.

I am perfectly open to being proved wrong on the "money order mystery." I just simply find it almost decisive that (1) the money order somehow ended up with a File Locator Number on it, which ordinarily is proof of final processing, (2) the money order was in fact located after the assassination through what appears in the record as a pretty standard locating procedure, and (3) if the Final Locator Number is fake, the conspirators rather stupidly omitted the endorsements that we are told should be there. Perhaps 2+2 can sometimes be something other than 4 in a quantum universe, but I am having a hard time making the money order mystery add up.

[Paul Brancato]

I think the postal money order question is a false trail which detracts from the real issues with the rifle. It is likely that LHO ordered it and paid for it. Likewise it is likely that he picked it up from the Post Office despite the lack of proof that he did so. The questions are why did he order the rifle, and what did he do with it once it was in his possession? Why would an assassin deliberately leave a trail to the murder weapon he intended to use to kill someone, Walker or JFK? Makes no sense, and leads inevitably to the conclusion that the motive for buying the weapon by mail remains obscure. It seems to me a more fruitful approach to examine this than to try to prove that somehow he was framed post assassination. Too many pieces have to be explained, too much testimony dismissed, once we accept the postulate that he never purchased or owned the rifle.

[David Von Pein]

Since 1987 postal money orders have, by law, required bank endorsements.

But unless someone can prove that the 10-digit File Locator Number stamped at the top of the Hidell money order is fake (which nobody is ever going to be able to prove, of course), then there is solid EVIDENCE that the CE788 money order did go through the regular banking channels in order to reach the FRB.

And if some conspiracy believers want to maintain that a First National Bank endorsement was necessary on a processed money order in 1963, and if those same CTers also believe that the File Locator Number seen on the Hidell M.O. is a fraudulent number and was placed there by conspirators who wanted to frame Lee Harvey Oswald, then the question MUST be asked:

If the plotters were smart enough to know they needed to fake the File Locator Number on the money order, then why didn't they also realize that they needed to fake a First National Bank stamped endorsement on the back of the money order as well?

Edited December 2, 2015 by David Von Pein