Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

[David Von Pein]

Bulk deposits like that have been made for at least the last fifty years. (Much longer than that, but I mean with the technology of the 1960s in place.) And checks are still being individually endorsed. So you're not making a good argument. Plus you haven't shown anything that indicates that bulk deposits didn't require individual bank stamps. You're just speculating it to be the case... and that is in spite of the evidence showing otherwise.

But it's a solution to the "problem" that makes the most sense, IMO.

IF a United States Postal Money Order DID require the BOFD (Bank of First Deposit) to stamp the money order after the BOFD handled and processed it in circa 1963 (and I don't think anyone has established beyond all doubt that such stamps from the BOFD were definitely required when it comes to U.S. Postal Money Orders), then one of the following options must certainly be true....

The First National Bank employee(s) in Chicago had a massive brain cramp on 3/16/63 when they definitely DID process the Hidell money order (see CD75 again) but decided NOT to place a single individual stamp on the front or back sides of the Hidell M.O. (even though, per Sandy Larsen, they were definitely required to do so).

or:

The Hidell money order was faked by unknown conspirators in an effort to make it look as though Lee Harvey Oswald had purchased a 6.5-millimeter Italian carbine from Klein's Sporting Goods in March 1963.

And if that last option is the accurate solution, then we must accept the idea, as previously suggested in this discussion, that the person or persons who faked the M.O. were members of the "BRILLIANT ONE MINUTE AND TOTAL BOOBS THE NEXT" fraternity, because "they" faked the File Locator Number AND Oswald's handwriting AND the two post office bank stamps AND the Klein's "50 91144" stamp to utter perfection....but then they just FORGOT about all of those multiple stamped markings that Sandy Larsen says should definitely be present on the front and back sides of the money order that the unknown "they" were manufacturing as a patsy-framing device.

And I think that even you, Sandy, have expressed your opinion about how UNlikely the "patsy-framing device" scenario I just laid out above would be to accept.

But it's nice to know, via this post, that conspiracy theorist extraordinaire David Josephs does, in fact, believe in miracles. That's a handy piece of information to have (just for future reference). Thanks, David J.

Also (FWIW)....

Let me repeat something that Tim Nickerson posted many days ago, which is a Q&A exchange that someone had with a representative of BankersOnline.com:

Question:

If a check is payable to John Smith and Mary Smith, Settlers and Trustees of The John and Mary Smith Revocable Living Trust, is it sufficient to endorse the check with "For Deposit Only" and an account number? There are no markings or stamps on the back of the check from the depositary bank.

Answer:

That endorsement would be sufficient as long as it was deposited into a like-named account. The BOFD has provided you a warranty that this has happened and if it did not, you have recourse through the BOFD.

First published on BankersOnline.com 7/23/12 ----> CLICK HERE.

Edited December 22, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Ray Mitcham]

No, David, the solution that makes most sense, is that the money order was faked.

Live with it.

[David Von Pein]

No, David, the solution that makes most sense, is that the money order was faked.

Live with it.

Good. We're now up to two Edu. Forum members who embrace miracles.

Thanks for the confirmation on your part, Ray.

Edited December 22, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Hank Sienzant]

Armstrong obviously didn't research this very well, or else he would have discovered the answer in the Warren Commission testimony, as cited previously here by DVP, wouldn't he?

There's the rub. I see a lot of allusions to Armstrong's research, but if he couldn't even discover why there was bleed through, then that calls into question how great a researcher he really is.

Doesn't it?

Hank

The paragraph about ink bleeding on the money order isn't in Armstrong's book. It does appear on his website, clearly as an afterthought. And if you read the paragraph you will see that he doesn't claim to have researched it, because he urges "serious researchers" to do so.

The quote I saw was:

"The "bleed-thru" of the ink is a strong indication that postal money order 2,202,130,462, shown as CE 788, was not original card stock." -- John Armstrong

That is wrong.

Right?

Hank

Hank,

DVP and I already had a mini-debate over the use of the words like "appears" and "indicates." If you care to read the debate, it begins at post 295 on this page:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22439&page=20

I saw that. Is it a strong indication of "not original card stock", as Armstrong suggests, given what you know now?

Hank

[Hank Sienzant]

In neither case did the person say anything had been proven.

Right on the Armstrong website the following statement is made regarding the bleed-thru:

"NOTE: Serious researchers should be focusing attention on the inked postal stamps that appear on the front of the money order (Dallas, TX, Mar 12, 1963), the inked endorsement stamp (Klein's) and the inked initials and dates that appear on the back of this money order. An explanation is needed as to how ink from the postal stamp and ink from the initials/dates can "bleed" thru to the other side of the money order. Postal money orders were made from card stock similar to an index card or an IBM type punch card--between 90# and 110# paper. This paper stock was crisp, firm, and ink "bleed-thru" to the reverse side was virtually impossible. I don't understand why or how ink "bleed-thru" occurred on CE 788. The original postal money order disappeared long ago, and only FBI photographs of CE 788 remain. Who authorized and/or caused the disappearance of the original money order is unknown. Only black and white photographs remain. This ink "bleed-thru" deserves a valid explanation."

Armstrong said, "This ink 'bleed-thru' deserves a valid explanation." And now we have it.

No claim was made by Armstrong other than the bleed-thru appearing to show that CE 788 was not original card stock.And the claim was factual at the time.

Armstrong obviously didn't research this very well, or else he would have discovered the answer in the Warren Commission testimony, as cited previously here by DVP, wouldn't he?

There's the rub. I see a lot of allusions to Armstrong's research, but if he couldn't even discover why there was bleed through, then that calls into question how great a researcher he really is.

Doesn't it?

Hank

The paragraph about ink bleeding on the money order isn't in Armstrong's book. It does appear on his website, clearly as an afterthought. And if you read the paragraph you will see that he doesn't claim to have researched it, because he urges "serious researchers" to do so.

The quote I saw was:

"The "bleed-thru" of the ink is a strong indication that postal money order 2,202,130,462, shown as CE 788, was not original card stock." -- John Armstrong

That is wrong.

Right?

Hank

It is incorrect to state that the bleed-thru was due to the postal money order being printed on paper thinner than the original card stock that PMOs at the time were printed on. The bleed-thru was instead caused by a chemical bath that was used for detecting fingerprints.

That was testified to by a witness before the WC. I forget the man's name.

Here is video that shows the process:

http://science.wonderhowto.com/how-to/reveal-latent-fingerprints-paper-other-surfaces-302464/

Ok, that's what I was going for.

Hank

[Sandy Larsen]

Bulk deposits like that have been made for at least the last fifty years. (Much longer than that, but I mean with the technology of the 1960s in place.) And checks are still being individually endorsed. So you're not making a good argument. Plus you haven't shown anything that indicates that bulk deposits didn't require individual bank stamps. You're just speculating it to be the case... and that is in spite of the evidence showing otherwise.

But it's a solution to the "problem" that makes the most sense, IMO.

It makes a lot of sense. But there is no indication (that I have seen) that it was ever done that way.

[Hank Sienzant]

But, Hank, it says in that very same paragraph of the regulation that....

"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."

None of which is found on the CE788 Hidell money order.

But it's very likely (IMO) that the Hidell M.O. was part of a bulk transfer of postal money orders which was accompanied by a cash letter (deposit ticket), which very likely did have those stamps on it (i.e., the date and the ABA transit numbers).

To believe the Hidell M.O. is fraudulent is silly, especially when we KNOW it was found just exact where it should have been found in Alexandria/Washington.

And we also have information in CD75 coming from a First National Bank Vice President (Wilmouth) verifying that First National DID handle the $21.45 Postal Money Order in question.

How many more years will conspiracy theorists completely ignore these important paragraphs found in Commission Document No. 75? ....

The paragraph I am looking at says all that's necessary is an endorsement TO the bank. And we have that in the Kleins stamp.

It goes on to say that "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."

In other words, the FRB will accept money orders without any additional endorsements, and it's understood that the very act of submitting the money order for payment is the guarantee that the prior endorsements are valid on the part of the submitting bank (in this case, The First National Bank of Chicago.

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.

​You are correct that the money order doesn't have any additional endorsements. But per the language above, I'm not seeing where it needs any, as the very act of submitting the money order for payment is the guaranty that the sending bank (in this case, First National of Chicago) guarantees the item is valid.

Could the ABA number be the number specified on the Klein's stamp ("50 91144") right under the bank name?

It appears the FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO no longer exists.

http://www.nndb.com/company/096/000124721/

Hank

​

Hank,

Endorsements have more than one purpose. One is the guaranty that you point out is considered to be in place regardless of whether or not an express guaranty is included in the endorsement. Another purpose is to indicate the ABA and address of the sending bank. It is apparently for non-guaranty purposes that the bank endorsement is required.

BTW, keep in mind that whatever you interpret from that paragraph in the FRB operating circular, it will be applicable not only to postal money orders but to checks as well. Don't you remember way back when, when we were all young, that virtually every check had bank endorsements stamped on them? According to the operating circular cited, the same should have been true of PMOs as well. (Though, beginning with the PMOs of 1963, an FRB stamp appeared on the front side of the PMO in the form of a file locator number. This may well have been the only FRB stamp to appear on those PMOs. We don't know for certain.)

Are you saying checks don't require bank endorsements any more, Sandy? If that's true, perhaps you might want to consider why they don't.

In fact, as I understand it, you don't even have to stand in line and deposit a check anymore. You can just submit a photo of your check to the bank, and that will work as well. Imagine that.

Now, in the early 1960's, what changed in regards to postal money orders, and why?

Wasn't the whole point of the changes to be able to bulk-process money orders, rather than manually handle each one, to speed up transaction times? Wasn't it to get people out of the loop and let the computers do it? Hence the IBM punch-card format, so that the information on the money order was machine-readable?

What's the point of putting in all these changes to make them machine-readable and speed up processing time if you're still going to process them manually, and hand-stamp them every step of the way?

Hank

[David Von Pein]

It makes a lot of sense. But there is no indication (that I have seen) that it was ever done that way.

But how can we (or anybody) possibly KNOW for certain it was never done that way in circa 1963? The ONLY example of a photograph showing a U.S. Postal Money Order that has been (allegedly) cashed, deposited, and fully processed in circa 1963 is the CE788 "Hidell" money order.

So we've got ONE single example to go by. And nothing more.

And since there are so MANY things that exist on that same money order that are telling me that the document is a legitimate one that was handled by Oswald and by Klein's and by the FRB and by the post office in Dallas on March 12, 1963 .... well, what should I do?

Should I merely pretend that ALL of those things that should be there (and ARE there) on the money order are fake? Or should I do a small bit of "assuming" and conclude that First National Bank in Chicago just maybe had a way of handling U.S. Postal Money Orders in early 1963 that eliminated the necessity of placing stamped markings on each and every one of them?

(Guess which option I'm going to embrace.)

Edited December 22, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

I saw that. Is it a strong indication of "not original card stock", as Armstrong suggests, given what you know now?

Hank

Nope. Now, the bleed-thru we see is strong indication that the PMO was processed to reveal fingerprints.

Allow me to give a demonstration that shows how it is I can believe what Armstrong said was originally correct, but no longer is:

SCENARIO ONE

I give my five-year old daughter an 8 1/2 x 11 inch piece of card stock for a poster project she's been assigned in school. Later, I see the back side of her project on the floor, and all her writing has bled through. That is a strong indication that she ended up making her poster with regular printer paper rather than the card stock.

SCENARIO TWO

My daughter was kidnapped. I see, for the first time, her poster at the police station. I see only the back side, and that all her writing has bled through. That is a strong indication that the police have processed the poster in search of fingerprints.

My point here is that context matters.

[Sandy Larsen]

It makes a lot of sense. But there is no indication (that I have seen) that it was ever done that way.

But how can we (or anybody) possibly KNOW for certain it was never done that way in circa 1963?

For one, we have the actual FRB requirements as spelled out in their operational circulars. There is no mention of allowing banks to do what you are suggesting. Not for PMOS, not for checks.

The ONLY example of a photograph showing a U.S. Postal Money Order that has been (allegedly) cashed, deposited, and fully processed in circa 1963 is the CE788 "Hidell" money order.

Lance found an example from the 1960s where money orders were bank-stamped. A court case. No photographs, but the bank stamps were clearly noted in the text.

[Sandy Larsen]

Hank,

Endorsements have more than one purpose. One is the guaranty that you point out is considered to be in place regardless of whether or not an express guaranty is included in the endorsement. Another purpose is to indicate the ABA and address of the sending bank. It is apparently for non-guaranty purposes that the bank endorsement is required.

BTW, keep in mind that whatever you interpret from that paragraph in the FRB operating circular, it will be applicable not only to postal money orders but to checks as well. Don't you remember way back when, when we were all young, that virtually every check had bank endorsements stamped on them? According to the operating circular cited, the same should have been true of PMOs as well. (Though, beginning with the PMOs of 1963, an FRB stamp appeared on the front side of the PMO in the form of a file locator number. This may well have been the only FRB stamp to appear on those PMOs. We don't know for certain.)

Are you saying checks don't require bank endorsements any more, Sandy? If that's true, perhaps you might want to consider why they don't.

It looks like we might finally be beginning to head in that direction, now that people can deposit checks by sending a photo of it over the Internet. Think about it... how does a bank stamp a photograph? But we may NOT be heading in that direction. I say that because I saw some of my checks that appeared to have been sent from a local bank to a national one via photo, and they actually had bank endorsements photographically applied to their backs. I could tell that the stamping was done photographically because the background of the "photo-stamp" covered up text that is printed on the back side of the checks.

In fact, as I understand it, you don't even have to stand in line and deposit a check anymore. You can just submit a photo of your check to the bank, and that will work as well. Imagine that.

Now, in the early 1960's, what changed in regards to postal money orders, and why?

The US government was (slightly) ahead of the technological curve. They chose hole-punching as a way of making computer automation possible. This began around 1958. Meanwhile, around the same time, the ABA introduced the magnetic ink standard that banks still use today. (Maybe you've noticed the futuristic-looking numbers printed at the bottom of checks. They are printed with magnetic ink that can be read by machines.) I think it was in the 1970s that the US government switched PMOs over to the magnetic ink standard.

Wasn't the whole point of the changes to be able to bulk-process money orders, rather than manually handle each one, to speed up transaction times? Wasn't it to get people out of the loop and let the computers do it? Hence the IBM punch-card format, so that the information on the money order was machine-readable?

What's the point of putting in all these changes to make them machine-readable and speed up processing time ....

I don't know. But bank endorsement is still being done, even on photographically sent items.

if you're still going to process them manually, and hand-stamp them every step of the way?

They aren't processed and stamped manually. It is done by machine.

Hank

[David Von Pein]

For one, we have the actual FRB requirements as spelled out in their operational circulars. There is no mention of allowing banks to do what you are suggesting. Not for PMOS, not for checks.

FWIW....

From the 1960 regulations:

And:

Replaying an earlier DVP comment....

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."

Edited December 22, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Guest]

The 1960 FRB circular stated, "and with respect to matters not coveredby such agreement, the provisions of Regulation J, this circular and our time schedules shall be deemed applicable to all postal money orders." This seems like rather odd language to use if the Agreement were "published in operating circulars" as you suggest. I don't feel a burden to "prove you wrong" because you are simply making an assumption that is, on its face, inconsistent with the FRB circular.

The Agreement is virtually irrelevant to the topic at hand. What is relevant is what commercial banks were instructed to do in 1963. And through FRB operating circulars, banks were instructed to endorse cash items. Postal money orders were in 1963, and still are, considered to be cash items in FRB operating circulars.

Your logic here is badly flawed: "The operating circular and the documents it referenced stated that cash items must be endorsed, and PMOs were included within the definition of cash items; ergo, PMOs had to be endorsed." But the same operating circular stated that it and the documents it referenced applied to PMOs unless the Agreement was to the contrary. The Agreement thus was the controlling document and can scarcely be dismissed as irrelevant.

I happen to doubt that the Agreement did say anything explicitly about the endorsement of PMOs. My belief is that it didn't need to, because the concept of a bank "endorsing" a PMO would have been understood by all concerned to be as goofy as bank endorsing a $5 bill.

I now do not believe that the bulk submittal of PMOs with a single "endorsement" of some sort is the answer. Yesterday I discovered an FRB circular (from 1966, I believe) stating that the FRB reserved the right to require PMOs to be segregated in a separate envelope if they became too voluminous. This suggests that the typical procedure was for PMOs to be placed in a transmittal envelope together with other cash items. See how reasonable and flexible I am?

Food stamp coupons have likewise been processed as cash items since 1961. Interestingly, the way banks were to process them was specified by the Department of Agriculture, which could suggest that the Postal Service rather than the Federal Reserve did indeed specify how PMOs were to be processed. As described in FRB of New York circular 5760 (January 18, 1966), the procedure for food stamp coupons was as follows:

a. Coupons accepted for redemption must be cancelled by the first

bank receiving the coupons by indelibly marking "paid" or

"cancelled" together with the name of the bank or its ABA

routing symbol-transit number on the face of the coupons by

means of an appropriate stamp. The coupons should not be endorsed

by any bank.

Food stamp coupons may not be directly analogous to PMOs, but there are similarities. Both are issued by a federal agency and are complete when issued. All the issuing federal agency needs to know is that they have been properly used and are now out of circulation. The concept of "endorsement" (other than by the payee in the case of a PMO or the user in the case of a food stamp coupon) really makes no sense in this context. I am with Hank in believing that the Klein's deposit stamp stating "Pay to the order of" FNB is all that we should expect to see. The regulations provide that the "presenting bank" (FNB) guarantees the genuineness of all endorsements, so FNB would have been on the hook if it did nothing but present the PMO to the regional FRB. If the payee had not been an FNB customer and had simply shown up at a teller's window to cash the PMO, then presumably we would have seen both an endorsement by the payee and a "Paid" stamp by FNB to confirm that the PMO had been paid and not merely endorsed; the "for deposit only" restrictive endorsement by Klein's was sufficient to show that the PMO had been paid.

Regarding the court case I had found (300 posts ago) to the effect that a PMO had been "endorsed" by a bank, UNITED STATES v. CAMBRIDGE TRUST COMPANY, 300 F.2d 76 (First Circuit 1962), I now realize that I was wrong in my understanding (gasp!). In that case, the original payee of a PMO had endorsed it to a second payee, who had in turn deposited it in his bank. The second payee's bank, which was not a member of the FR, had stamped the PMO with its "clearing house stamp" and sent it to an FR-member bank, which then transmitted it to the regional FRB. In this situation, one can hopefully see why a stamp by the intermediary bank was necessary - and why no such stamp would be needed if the PMO were deposited directly with an FR-member bank such as FNB, which then presented the PMO directly to the regional FRB.

That sucking sound you hear is the wind leaving the sails of those who persist with the "missing endorsement" nonsense. Where are all those folks who were so confident of their positions (and John Armstrong's impending neutron bomb of clarification) 300 posts ago? I admire Sandy's efforts to explore every nook and cranny of this issue, but surely it is time to give up the "missing endorsement" fight?

[Guest]

"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."

Look at ¶ 11, specifically concerning PMOs. The regional FRB is nothing but a collection agent for the Postal Service. When the presenting bank presents a PMO, the regional FRB immediately credits the presenting bank and "simultaneously with such credit we will debit the amount of such money orders against the general account of the Treasurer of the United States under such symbol numbers as may be assigned by the Treasurer of the United States." What purpose would "endorsing" a PMO to the regional FRB serve? None.

I don't doubt that PMOs were sometimes packaged separately and transmitted in bulk. But I don't believe they required any "endorsement" regardless of whether they were transmitted individually or in bulk. I believe the analysis of how a PMO was processed has been fundamentally misguided from the day Armstrong channeled the spirit of Wilmouth.

[David Von Pein]

Thanks, Lance.

(My migraine is coming back. Just in time for Christmas too. Oh, joy!)

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

Edited December 22, 2015 by David Von Pein