Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sandy Larsen

Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

Recommended Posts

TIM BRENNAN SAID:

The Money Order Bleed-Thru Problem Explained....

One of the reservations expressed about the veracity of [the Hidell money order] is the apparent "bleed thru" effect of the postal stamp and other details, given that US Postal Money Orders were actually of a computer punch card type by this time in 1963.

However, it seems that this issue can be explained. The card was subjected to a chemical process, which bleaches and makes inks run, in order to establish whether or not there were latent fingerprints upon it.

After this, a process known as "desilvering" was applied to the card to return it as much as possible to its previous state, though obviously some effects of the fingerprinting process, like ink run, remained in place.

Fortunately, though, FBI handwriting expert James C. Cadigan examined the card and had it photographed BEFORE the fingerprinting process took place. This is a much CLEARER copy of the Money Order, Cadigan's handwriting arrows notwithstanding ----> CADIGAN EXHIBIT NO. 11.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Excellent, Tim!

Thank you for pointing out the difference between the photos of the money order. The picture of the M.O. as seen in Cadigan Exhibit No. 11 most certainly does not exhibit the bleed-thru that is apparent in Commission Exhibit No. 788.

Here's a direct comparison of the two exhibits:

Money-Order-Comparison--CE788-Vs-Cadigan

~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks again, Tim Brennan, for this discovery. It looks like you've just hammered one more nail into the coffin of the "Money Order Is Fake" theory.

Source link:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/0wrJY1LBj78/knAU6EFkBwAJ

Brilliant!

That makes things easier for me. Thanks Tim Brennan and DVP!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TOM SCULLY SAID:

It follows that, after FBI lab "processing" of the $21.45 postal money order, it was much less authoritive for the purposes of evidentiary value than the "official" photographs of that money order taken before processing.

I expect [Albert] Doyle and other interested parties do not fully understand the Federal Reserve Bank role and the fact that no human examined automatically processed money orders for endorsements, which were not required, anyway, and lack of presence of had no effect on processing or claim of payment by First National Bank of Chicago.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I imagine that even Sandy Larsen at The Education Forum by this time is pretty much convinced the Hidell M.O. was not a faked or forged document. The excellent VISUAL proof that the M.O. (as seen in Cadigan No. 11) does not show any of the bleed-thru that CE788 exhibits is likely the thing that will tip the scales for Sandy in the direction of "There's No Forgery Here". Particularly after Sandy said this to me four days ago:

"I wouldn't be questioning the money order if missing stamps was the only irregularity. I might have even dropped it today or sometime soon if it weren't for the ink bleeding thru. But naturally I don't intend on spending a great deal more time on this aspect of the case. There are other more important things to investigate. I chose this only because it seemed to be simple at the time. The bleeding ink is harder to understand than the missing stamps." -- Sandy Larsen; Dec. 2, 2015

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TOM SCULLY SAID:

It follows that, after FBI lab "processing" of the $21.45 postal money order, it was much less authoritive for the purposes of evidentiary value than the "official" photographs of that money order taken before processing.

I expect [Albert] Doyle and other interested parties do not fully understand the Federal Reserve Bank role and the fact that no human examined automatically processed money orders for endorsements, ....

It is still true today, of course, that endorsement stamps are rarely looked at after a check is handed to a bank teller.Nevertheless, bank stamps are still widely used even after fifty years of improved automation and technological advances. I looked at several of my canceled checks yesterday and every single one had at least one bank stamp. (One exception was a check I wrote out to my own bank. Naturally that one doesn't require a stamp.) So the fact that bank stamps aren't looked at doesn't mean they aren't required, or at the very least used as a matter of good banking practice.

Even as recently as 2001 (or nearer) bank stamps were required by federal law on postal money orders, as I have proven. Even though they generally aren't looked at.

....which were not required, anyway, ....

Yes, bank stamps were required, as I have proven. And as there is evidence for, but no known independent evidence against.

....and lack of presence of had no effect on processing or claim of payment by First National Bank of Chicago.

Where is the proof or even evidence for that statement? Even the later regulation, dated 1969, explicitly stated that such cash items might be returned for proper endorsement. (Though, as a practical matter, I suspect Scully's statement is correct. At least for a large majority of PMOs.)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I imagine that even Sandy Larsen at The Education Forum by this time is pretty much convinced the Hidell M.O. was not a faked or forged document. The excellent VISUAL proof that the M.O. (as seen in Cadigan No. 11) does not show any of the bleed-thru that CE788 exhibits is likely the thing that will tip the scales for Sandy in the direction of "There's No Forgery Here".

Yes, that has tipped the scale for me. But not all the way. Just enough to say the Hidell PMO is not a smoking gun, but rather just another anomaly that MAY be due to forgery. Now, where exactly the scale points depends upon how common it was for a bank to leave a PMO unendorsed. If not likely, then forgery is indicated; if likely, then no forgery is indicated.

I apply rules of logic and statistics when making assessments. My assessment changes and becomes more refined as more information is gathered.

Particularly after Sandy said this to me four days ago:

"I wouldn't be questioning the money order if missing stamps was the only irregularity. I might have even dropped it today or sometime soon if it weren't for the ink bleeding thru. But naturally I don't intend on spending a great deal more time on this aspect of the case. There are other more important things to investigate. I chose this only because it seemed to be simple at the time. The bleeding ink is harder to understand than the missing stamps." -- Sandy Larsen; Dec. 2, 2015

I have renewed interest given that I have since shown that bank endorsements were indeed required on PMOs. Though I don't think there is much more I personally can do on this issue. Given personal circumstances, I don't have the wherewithal to be conducting personal interviews or other such highly involved inquiries. That's why I am interested in reading John Armstrong's report on this.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ctka.net/2015/JosephsRiflePart1.pdf

I think you meant this doc. and the link to the report Chicago FRB employee LESTER GOHR's FBI report https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=200&tab=page

There does not appear to be any follow-up with the FRB of Chicago or the USPS.

No, my research is not quite that inept. I have seen those documents. They say nothing to the effect that the money order should show bank endorsements.

What I said in my original post on November 19th was:

I took the time to review materials relating to the money order in the John Armstrong archives at Baylor University - Box 18, Tabs 22-24. I also reviewed the text and footnotes pertaining to the money order in Harvey and Lee and the relevant portions of the Harvey and Lee website. 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. (Wilmouth did assure the FBI the money order would be found at a postal records center in Kansas City, which was incorrect, but undoubtedly he was the infallible fount of all wisdom regarding postal money order endorsements).

I repeat, Where's the beef?

Go read your own copies of Harvey and Lee. The Wilmouth statement is expounded upon at length in three paragraphs in the middle of page 451. The footnotes to the three paragraphs do not support what is being claimed. Surely it cannot be taking JA three weeks simply to steer we seekers of truth to the Gospel of Wilmouth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have renewed interest given that I have since shown that bank endorsements were indeed required on PMOs. Though I don't think there is much more I personally can do on this issue. Given personal circumstances, I don't have the wherewithal to be conducting personal interviews or other such highly involved inquiries. That's why I am interested in reading John Armstrong's report on this.

Sandy....

Thanks SO MUCH for your serious research and contribution to this thread!! Your private message has been forwarded to JA.

Your work is MOST APPRECIATED!!!!

--Jim

HarveyandLee.net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have renewed interest given that I have since shown that bank endorsements were indeed required on PMOs. Though I don't think there is much more I personally can do on this issue. Given personal circumstances, I don't have the wherewithal to be conducting personal interviews or other such highly involved inquiries. That's why I am interested in reading John Armstrong's report on this.

Sandy....

Thanks SO MUCH for your serious research and contribution to this thread!! Your private message has been forwarded to JA.

Your work is MOST APPRECIATED!!!!

--Jim

HarveyandLee.net

Jim,

Nice subtle "plug" for Harvey and Lee (and Henry, Too)!

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have renewed interest given that I have since shown that bank endorsements were indeed required on PMOs. Though I don't think there is much more I personally can do on this issue. Given personal circumstances, I don't have the wherewithal to be conducting personal interviews or other such highly involved inquiries. That's why I am interested in reading John Armstrong's report on this.

Sandy....

Thanks SO MUCH for your serious research and contribution to this thread!! Your private message has been forwarded to JA.

Your work is MOST APPRECIATED!!!!

--Jim

HarveyandLee.net

Thanks Jim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ALBERT DOYLE SAID:

[sandy] Larsen has a done a good job of showing the 1960 Regulations required a bank number and date stamp. He also cited the same in the 1969 Regulations, so that means they applied in 1963 as well.


CRAIG LAMSON SAID:

Actually all he did is prove it was not a requirement. The salient word here is SHOULD. Not shall or must.

Larsen failed and you just did too.


ALBERT DOYLE SAID:

Obviously just a denier trying to get the most out of semantics as possible against the obvious.

[...]

As far as I see it, nobody has yet topped Larsen's citation of the Federal Bank Regulation 'Circular' showing Money Orders had to have a bank number and date stamp according to the rules.


CRAIG LAMSON SAID:

The word "SHOULD" in this case is not just semantics.

Why don't you research it in a legal context. Or would that destroy your carefully constructed fantasy?


TIM NICKERSON SAID:

Sandy Larsen, over on the ED Forum, says that he has shown that bank endorsements were indeed required on PMOs. He's wrong and I don't see where anyone has pointed that out to him.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

To reiterate, a "cash letter" for a bulk deposit would, in my view, still satisfy the regulation cited below, without the First National Bank personnel needing to place multiple separate stamped endorsements on each and every U.S. Postal Money Order that was part of such a "bulk" deposit/transfer.

If the bulk transfer from First National Bank to the Federal Reserve Bank was accompanied by a slip of paper that had all the stamped endorsements and information mentioned in Rule 13 (from the 1960 regulations) or Rule 15 (from the 1969 regulations), please tell me why that would not satisfy the endorsement policy?

Maybe we can now get into a big debate over the words "All cash items" vs. the words "Each cash item".

It seems to me that a bulk transfer, which would include just one piece of paper (i.e., deposit slip) for the entire "batch" of money orders being sent to the FRB (i.e., for "ALL cash items" within the bundled bulk package), would be a way of transferring a large amount of money orders from FNB to the FRB without violating anything written in this regulation here....

"All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to, or to the order of, the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to, or to the order of, any bank, banker, or trust company, or endorsed with equivalent words or abbreviations thereof. The endorse­ment of the sender should be dated and should show the A.B.A. transit number of the sender, if any, in prominent type on both sides of the endorsement."

And I'd like to again remind everyone of Regulation #12 (from 1960):

1960-FRB-Regulations--Number-12.png


TIM NICKERSON SAID:

David,

If we're going to get into a debate over the words "All cash items" vs. the word "Each", then perhaps we could add the words "should", "shall", and "must" into the mix as well.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, Tim, I agree.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12852.msg411727.html#msg411727

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12923.msg412477.html#msg412477

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ALBERT DOYLE SAID:

[sandy] Larsen has a done a good job of showing the 1960 Regulations required a bank number and date stamp. He also cited the same in the 1969 Regulations, so that means they applied in 1963 as well.

CRAIG LAMSON SAID:

Actually all he did is prove it was not a requirement. The salient word here is SHOULD. Not shall or must.

Larsen failed and you just did too.

ALBERT DOYLE SAID:

Obviously just a denier trying to get the most out of semantics as possible against the obvious.

[...]

As far as I see it, nobody has yet topped Larsen's citation of the Federal Bank Regulation 'Circular' showing Money Orders had to have a bank number and date stamp according to the rules.

CRAIG LAMSON SAID:

The word "SHOULD" in this case is not just semantics.

Why don't you research it in a legal context. Or would that destroy your carefully constructed fantasy?

TIM NICKERSON SAID:

Sandy Larsen, over on the ED Forum, says that he has shown that bank endorsements were indeed required on PMOs. He's wrong and I don't see where anyone has pointed that out to him.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

To reiterate, a "cash letter" for a bulk deposit would, in my view, still satisfy the regulation cited below, without the First National Bank personnel needing to place multiple separate stamped endorsements on each and every U.S. Postal Money Order that was part of such a "bulk" deposit/transfer.

If the bulk transfer from First National Bank to the Federal Reserve Bank was accompanied by a slip of paper that had all the stamped endorsements and information mentioned in Rule 13 (from the 1960 regulations) or Rule 15 (from the 1969 regulations), please tell me why that would not satisfy the endorsement policy?

Maybe we can now get into a big debate over the words "All cash items" vs. the words "Each cash item".

It seems to me that a bulk transfer, which would include just one piece of paper (i.e., deposit slip) for the entire "batch" of money orders being sent to the FRB (i.e., for "ALL cash items" within the bundled bulk package), would be a way of transferring a large amount of money orders from FNB to the FRB without violating anything written in this regulation here....

"All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to, or to the order of, the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to, or to the order of, any bank, banker, or trust company, or endorsed with equivalent words or abbreviations thereof. The endorse­ment of the sender should be dated and should show the A.B.A. transit number of the sender, if any, in prominent type on both sides of the endorsement."

And I'd like to again remind everyone of Regulation #12 (from 1960):

1960-FRB-Regulations--Number-12.png

TIM NICKERSON SAID:

David,

If we're going to get into a debate over the words "All cash items" vs. the word "Each", then perhaps we could add the words "should", "shall", and "must" into the mix as well.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, Tim, I agree.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12852.msg411727.html#msg411727

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12923.msg412477.html#msg412477

Hey Nutter's is this the only minutiae you can get lost in.... and lo and behold Lampoon Lammie is involved, carrying DVP's water! LMAO! Everything, EVERYTHING in the 1964 WCR is up for grabs... what a cluster-****

Thank you Earl Warren and Mr. Allen-CIA-Dulles.

Edited by David G. Healy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet another worthless and vapid contribution from the keyboard of David G. Healy. (Gee, what a shocker.)

Why waste the bandwidth, Healy? Or is there now a statute on the books in your town of Conspiracyville, U.S.A., that requires you to follow me around everywhere I go like a Chihuahua?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet another worthless and vapid contribution from the keyboard of David G. Healy. (Gee, what a shocker.)

Why waste the bandwidth, Healy? Or is there now a statute on the books in your town of Conspiracyville, U.S.A., that requires you to follow me around everywhere I go like a Chihuahua?

It's not a tough job keepin' and reminding lone neuter's honesty is the best policy. In fact, it's quite easy considering the horrible position the 1964 WCR currently holds, worthless fabrication comes to mind...

Perhaps you're jealous my single contribution to the JFK assassination publishing community worked out quite a bit better than your 2 feeble attempts, right? And those books you promote, those didn't work out well for ya either, did they? But you tried.

Consider this DVP, arrogance is NOT your best buddy...

Edited by David G. Healy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRAIG LAMSON SAID:

Actually all [sandy Larsen] did is prove [that bank stamping] was not a requirement. The salient word here is SHOULD. Not shall or must.

That's right folks. The purpose of the following rule in the Federal Reserve Banks' regulation:

"All cash items [checks & 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. ... 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."

is to tell commercial banks that bank endorsements are not necessary. And not only that, but if commercial banks insist on endorsing the items, the FRBs want them to know that the endorsements don't need to be dated or show the ABA transit number.

Yes, that is the purpose of this clause according to Craig Lamson. Because the word "should" was used instead of "shall." <roll eyes>

Can you imagine ALL banks deciding NOT to endorse checks because of this silly interpretation?

Now let's get real. Here's the definition of "should":

should /SHood/

verb

1. used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when

criticizing someone's actions.

2. used to indicate what is probable.

3. expressing the conditional mood.

4. used in a clause with “that” after a main clause describing feelings.

5. used in a clause with “that” expressing purpose.

6. (in the first person) expressing a polite request or acceptance.

7. (in the first person) expressing a conjecture or hope.

8. used to emphasize to a listener how striking an event is or was.

The only one of these definitions that fits is "1. used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions."

So according to the rule, banks: 1) are obliged; 2) have the duty; and/or 3) are correct to stamp checks and postal money orders with their endorsement. And banks: 1) are obliged; 2) have the duty; and/or 3) are correct to include on their endorsement stamp the date and their ABA transit number.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, if DVP is quoting people like Lammie and Nickerson, he has lost.

He should just throw in the towel right now.

He does not even know that in the domain of administrative law, the word "should" means just that .

It should be done, or its questionable and you will be called on it.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's review....

>>> Oswald's writing is on the Hidell money order (per multiple handwriting analysts---all of whom were total boobs or incompetents or liars, per people like DiEugenio).

>>> Klein's stamp is on the back of the M.O.

>>> A File Locator Number is on the M.O. (which is ONLY put there AFTER the M.O. has gone to the FRB).

>>> The M.O. is found just where it should be found (per CD75) on 11/23/63---the Federal Records Center in Alexandria/Washington.

>>> The "bleed thru" issue is now a total NON-issue, as proven by Tim Brennan (via his pointing out the "No Bleed-Thru" status that exists in the M.O. as seen in Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, below....)

Money-Order-Comparison--CE788-Vs-Cadigan

But all of the above is FAKE/FRAUDULENT, per many CTers.

You're fighting a losing battle, CTers. The money order was handled by Oswald, Klein's, and the FRB. Maybe it's time for conspiracy theorists to accept that fact.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's review....

>>> Oswald's writing is on the Hidell money order (per multiple handwriting analysts---all of whom were total boobs or incompetents or liars, per people like DiEugenio).

>>> Klein's stamp is on the back of the M.O.

>>> A File Locator Number is on the M.O. (which is ONLY put there AFTER the M.O. has gone to the FRB).

>>> The M.O. is found just where it should be found (per CD75) on 11/23/63---the Federal Records Center in Alexandria/Washington.

>>> The "bleed thru" issue is now a total NON-issue, as proven by Tim Brennan (via his pointing out the "No Bleed-Thru" status that exists in the M.O. as seen in Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, below....)

Money-Order-Comparison--CE788-Vs-Cadigan

But all of the above is FAKE/FRAUDULENT, per many CTers.

You're fighting a losing battle, CTers. The money order was handled by Oswald, Klein's, and the FRB. Maybe it's time for conspiracy theorists to accept that fact.

David,

Personally I view the lack of a bank endorsement as just a suspicious thing. How suspicious depends on how unusual it was for a bank not to stamp a PMO. I hope to learn more about that from Armstrong.

It will be even more suspicious (MUCH more) if it turns out that the PMO processing facility also routinely stamped PMOs on the back. But I suspect they didn't do so, given that they stamped the front side with a file locator number.

In the end it's the totality of evidence that makes me decide whether or not something was forged.

EDIT: I should mention that I haven't studied in-depth any of the other issues surrounding the rifle purchase. So it will be some time before I have a feel for the "totality of the evidence" regarding it.

EDIT 2: Added the phrase "in depth" to the above edit. Because I *am* aware of the other issues.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

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...