Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

[Hank Sienzant]

Klein's allegedly shipped a rifle upon receipt of an order for the rifle and a PMO. As Jim Di maintains, that's one transaction; purchase and sale.

If one part of the alleged transaction is demonstrated to be untrue, the whole transaction is untrue. No straw man at all.

Put other ways: [1] If Oswald never paid for the rifle, he never received the rifle. [2] If Oswald never received the rifle, he never paid for the rifle. [3] Unless garden-variety commerce worked differently for the transaction in question.

I suggest all here focus on this alleged transaction. Even though many other matters scream for your attention. Matters such as Allen Dulles.

This transaction goes to the heart of the assassination and involves a paper trail that is flawed. The flawed paper trail not only screams cover-up but also points a finger at William Waldman and other executives at Klein's.

It's a finger worth examining.

This transaction goes to the heart of the assassination and involves a paper trail that is flawed.

How is the paper trail flawed?

You're not going to argue it was postmarked in the wrong zone -- based on the assumption that the 12 specified a zone 12 in Dallas -- and that Oswald didn't have time to buy the money order -- based on the assumption that people never leave work after punching in and stealing some company time to do personal shopping or anything -- right?

Your entire argument about the paper trail is flawed because it's based on assumptions and ignores the real world counter-examples.

But I understand why you have to cite assumptions. You have no real evidence.

Hank

​

[David G. Healy]

Klein's allegedly shipped a rifle upon receipt of an order for the rifle and a PMO. As Jim Di maintains, that's one transaction; purchase and sale.

If one part of the alleged transaction is demonstrated to be untrue, the whole transaction is untrue. No straw man at all.

Put other ways: [1] If Oswald never paid for the rifle, he never received the rifle. [2] If Oswald never received the rifle, he never paid for the rifle. [3] Unless garden-variety commerce worked differently for the transaction in question.

I suggest all here focus on this alleged transaction. Even though many other matters scream for your attention. Matters such as Allen Dulles.

This transaction goes to the heart of the assassination and involves a paper trail that is flawed. The flawed paper trail not only screams cover-up but also points a finger at William Waldman and other executives at Klein's.

It's a finger worth examining.

This transaction goes to the heart of the assassination and involves a paper trail that is flawed.

How is the paper trail flawed?

You're not going to argue it was postmarked in the wrong zone -- based on the assumption that the 12 specified a zone 12 in Dallas -- and that Oswald didn't have time to buy the money order -- based on the assumption that people never leave work after punching in and stealing some company time to do personal shopping or anything -- right?

Your entire argument about the paper trail is flawed because it's based on assumptions and ignores the real world counter-examples.

But I understand why you have to cite assumptions. You have no real evidence.

Hank

​

slow down Hank... DVP is taking the weekend off, he's not watching.

[David G. Healy]

Klein's allegedly shipped a rifle upon receipt of an order for the rifle and a PMO. As Jim Di maintains, that's one transaction; purchase and sale.

If one part of the alleged transaction is demonstrated to be untrue, the whole transaction is untrue. No straw man at all.

Put other ways: [1] If Oswald never paid for the rifle, he never received the rifle. [2] If Oswald never received the rifle, he never paid for the rifle. [3] Unless garden-variety commerce worked differently for the transaction in question.

I suggest all here focus on this alleged transaction. Even though many other matters scream for your attention. Matters such as Allen Dulles.

This transaction goes to the heart of the assassination and involves a paper trail that is flawed. The flawed paper trail not only screams cover-up but also points a finger at William Waldman and other executives at Klein's.

It's a finger worth examining.

This transaction goes to the heart of the assassination and involves a paper trail that is flawed.

How is the paper trail flawed?

You're not going to argue it was postmarked in the wrong zone -- based on the assumption that the 12 specified a zone 12 in Dallas -- and that Oswald didn't have time to buy the money order -- based on the assumption that people never leave work after punching in and stealing some company time to do personal shopping or anything -- right?

Your entire argument about the paper trail is flawed because it's based on assumptions and ignores the real world counter-examples.

But I understand why you have to cite assumptions. You have no real evidence.

Hank

​

slow down Hank... DVP is taking the weekend off, he's not watching.

[Sandy Larsen]

Hank, why do you have to quote a comment right about yours?

I guess you missed this twice then:

And Sandy has done a very nice job in showing that the money order part of the transaction is also dubious.

I didn't miss it.

It's only your opinion about that. Your opinion, and four bucks, will get you a coffee at Starbucks. Of course, you can get the coffee for four bucks without the opinion, which pretty much establishes the value of your opinion.

Sandy hasn't shown what he set out to show -- note the title of the thread. Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!​ He quoted the wrong section of the postal code to start (quoting a section about disbursement money orders), and it was downhill from there.

Oh really, Hank?

Where have you been? Postal money orders do indeed require bank stamps.

First, you need to understand that Federal Reserve Banks use "operating circulars" to inform banks what their requirements are. A page on the FRB website states the following:

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

Having understood that, now let's look at FRB Revision 4928 of Operating Circular No. 4. Dated 1960 and in effect in 1963, it makes the following statements:

Items which will be accepted as cash items

1. The following will be accepted for collection as cash items:

(1) Checks drawn on banks or banking institutions (including private

bankers) located in any Federal Reserve District which are collectible

at par in funds acceptable to the collecting Federal Reserve Bank. The

“ Federal Reserve Par List,” indicating the banks upon which checks will

be received by Federal Reserve Banks for collection and credit, is fur­

nished from time to time and a supplement is furnished each month

showing changes subsequent to the last complete list. This list is subject

to change without notice and the right is reserved to return without

presentment any items drawn on banks which may have withdrawn or

may have been removed from the list or may have been reported elosed.

(2) Government checks drawn on the Treasurer of the United States.

(3) Postal money orders (United States postal money orders; United

States international postal money orders; and domestic-international

postal money orders).

(4) Such other items, collectible at par in funds acceptable to the

Federal Reserve Bank of the District in which such items are payable, as

we may be willing to accept as cash items.

o

o

o

Endorsements

13. All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank

direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the

order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the

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

endorsement. Cash items will be accepted by us, and by other Federal

Reserve Banks, only upon the understanding and condition that all

prior endorsements are guaranteed by the sending bank. There should

be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase,

“ All prior endorsements guaranteed.” The act of sending or deliver­ing a

cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however,

be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior

endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is

incorporated in the sending bank’s endorsement. The endorsement of

the sending bank should be dated and should show the American

Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent

type on both sides.

THEREFORE...

Postal money orders required bank endorsement stamps in 1963. Just as they always have. (A fact I've also documented in this thread.)

Maybe if you were open to the truth and would actually read my posts, you would have already known this.

Asked and answered. We've covered all that ground already.

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.

​What part of PAY TO THE ORDER OF FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO didn't you understand, Sandy?

And it certainly sounds like they weren't going to nitpick it, as they also specify they'd be happy "with some similar endorsement".

That pay-to stamp from Kleins exactly meets the requirement specified in the paragraph you cite.

Doesn't it?

Hank

It is supposed to be endorsed to the Federal Reserve Bank, Hank. Either by name, or by stamping the back with the following generic text:

"Pay to the order of any bank, banker or trust company."

Because if it endorsed in a generic way like that, then any such institution can accept the check (or money order, etc.).

Read the first paragraph of this legal document, and you will see that it talks about this type of endorsement. Click this to see a draft using this type of endorsement.

In addition to the endorsement, paragraph #13 states that the date and bank's ABA number also be stamped.

[Hank Sienzant]

Hank, why do you have to quote a comment right about yours?

I guess you missed this twice then:

And Sandy has done a very nice job in showing that the money order part of the transaction is also dubious.

I didn't miss it.

It's only your opinion about that. Your opinion, and four bucks, will get you a coffee at Starbucks. Of course, you can get the coffee for four bucks without the opinion, which pretty much establishes the value of your opinion.

Sandy hasn't shown what he set out to show -- note the title of the thread. Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!​ He quoted the wrong section of the postal code to start (quoting a section about disbursement money orders), and it was downhill from there.

Oh really, Hank?

Where have you been? Postal money orders do indeed require bank stamps.

First, you need to understand that Federal Reserve Banks use "operating circulars" to inform banks what their requirements are. A page on the FRB website states the following:

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

Having understood that, now let's look at FRB Revision 4928 of Operating Circular No. 4. Dated 1960 and in effect in 1963, it makes the following statements:

Items which will be accepted as cash items

1. The following will be accepted for collection as cash items:

(1) Checks drawn on banks or banking institutions (including private

bankers) located in any Federal Reserve District which are collectible

at par in funds acceptable to the collecting Federal Reserve Bank. The

“ Federal Reserve Par List,” indicating the banks upon which checks will

be received by Federal Reserve Banks for collection and credit, is fur­

nished from time to time and a supplement is furnished each month

showing changes subsequent to the last complete list. This list is subject

to change without notice and the right is reserved to return without

presentment any items drawn on banks which may have withdrawn or

may have been removed from the list or may have been reported elosed.

(2) Government checks drawn on the Treasurer of the United States.

(3) Postal money orders (United States postal money orders; United

States international postal money orders; and domestic-international

postal money orders).

(4) Such other items, collectible at par in funds acceptable to the

Federal Reserve Bank of the District in which such items are payable, as

we may be willing to accept as cash items.

o

o

o

Endorsements

13. All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank

direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the

order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the

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

endorsement. Cash items will be accepted by us, and by other Federal

Reserve Banks, only upon the understanding and condition that all

prior endorsements are guaranteed by the sending bank. There should

be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase,

“ All prior endorsements guaranteed.” The act of sending or deliver­ing a

cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however,

be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior

endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is

incorporated in the sending bank’s endorsement. The endorsement of

the sending bank should be dated and should show the American

Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent

type on both sides.

THEREFORE...

Postal money orders required bank endorsement stamps in 1963. Just as they always have. (A fact I've also documented in this thread.)

Maybe if you were open to the truth and would actually read my posts, you would have already known this.

Asked and answered. We've covered all that ground already.

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.

​What part of PAY TO THE ORDER OF FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO didn't you understand, Sandy?

And it certainly sounds like they weren't going to nitpick it, as they also specify they'd be happy "with some similar endorsement".

That pay-to stamp from Kleins exactly meets the requirement specified in the paragraph you cite.

Doesn't it?

Hank

It is supposed to be endorsed to the Federal Reserve Bank, Hank. Either by name, or by stamping the back with the following generic text:

"Pay to the order of any bank, banker or trust company."

Because if it endorsed in a generic way like that, then any such institution can accept the check (or money order, etc.).

Read the first paragraph of this legal document, and you will see that it talks about this type of endorsement. Click this to see a draft using this type of endorsement.

In addition to the endorsement, paragraph #13 states that the date and bank's ABA number also be stamped.

In addition to the endorsement, paragraph #13 states that the date and bank's ABA number also be stamped.

​And we covered that too. The language you cited above that states if any of that is missing, the mere act of submitting it for payment means it's the equivalent of submission with all the necessary info...

"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..."

Quite simply, you haven't proven what you claimed to have established.

As I asked before, what's the point of putting in a bunch of improvements to allow the money orders to be processed by machine if you're still going to insist on a hand stamp for every one? And additionally, if a hand-stamp isn't there or is worded improperly or is a HANDWRITTEN endorsement, is a 1963 machine going to be able to determine that which is proper and which is not, and kick it out as invalid? Or will it read the punch-holes and just process the money order and mark it as paid in the system? The whole point of the changes to the IBM-punch card money order was to speed up processing by making it possible for machines to do the processing, and replace the previous system of everything being done by humans. Quite frankly, what you're insisting on doesn't appear to make much sense.

In addition, your cited case law example doesn't appear to apply here, "Where a collecting bank indorses "Pay to the order of any Bank, Banker or Trust Co., prior endorsements guaranteed," as there is no such collecting bank endorsement on the money order in question (the collecting bank would be the FRB, wouldn't it?), and the question before the court concerned a check, not a money order. Those are fundamentally different financial instruments, as we've previously discussed. It also concerns Georgia case law, not Texas nor federal law, and you have not shown that Georgia law extends to Texas or the federal government, and likewise extends from checks to money orders. And the language previously cited, that the act of submission itself, protects the FRB from any payments in error, and makes the submitting bank liable, not the FRB.

So it doesn't appear your cited example establishes anything about the money order in question.

Hank

Edited December 27, 2015 by Hank Sienzant

[Hank Sienzant]

Hank, why do you have to quote a comment right about yours?

I guess you missed this twice then:

And Sandy has done a very nice job in showing that the money order part of the transaction is also dubious.

I didn't miss it.

It's only your opinion about that. Your opinion, and four bucks, will get you a coffee at Starbucks. Of course, you can get the coffee for four bucks without the opinion, which pretty much establishes the value of your opinion.

Sandy hasn't shown what he set out to show -- note the title of the thread. Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!​ He quoted the wrong section of the postal code to start (quoting a section about disbursement money orders), and it was downhill from there.

Oh really, Hank?

Where have you been? Postal money orders do indeed require bank stamps.

First, you need to understand that Federal Reserve Banks use "operating circulars" to inform banks what their requirements are. A page on the FRB website states the following:

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

Having understood that, now let's look at FRB Revision 4928 of Operating Circular No. 4. Dated 1960 and in effect in 1963, it makes the following statements:

Items which will be accepted as cash items

1. The following will be accepted for collection as cash items:

(1) Checks drawn on banks or banking institutions (including private

bankers) located in any Federal Reserve District which are collectible

at par in funds acceptable to the collecting Federal Reserve Bank. The

“ Federal Reserve Par List,” indicating the banks upon which checks will

be received by Federal Reserve Banks for collection and credit, is fur­

nished from time to time and a supplement is furnished each month

showing changes subsequent to the last complete list. This list is subject

to change without notice and the right is reserved to return without

presentment any items drawn on banks which may have withdrawn or

may have been removed from the list or may have been reported elosed.

(2) Government checks drawn on the Treasurer of the United States.

(3) Postal money orders (United States postal money orders; United

States international postal money orders; and domestic-international

postal money orders).

(4) Such other items, collectible at par in funds acceptable to the

Federal Reserve Bank of the District in which such items are payable, as

we may be willing to accept as cash items.

o

o

o

Endorsements

13. All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank

direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the

order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the

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

endorsement. Cash items will be accepted by us, and by other Federal

Reserve Banks, only upon the understanding and condition that all

prior endorsements are guaranteed by the sending bank. There should

be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase,

“ All prior endorsements guaranteed.” The act of sending or deliver­ing a

cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however,

be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior

endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is

incorporated in the sending bank’s endorsement. The endorsement of

the sending bank should be dated and should show the American

Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent

type on both sides.

THEREFORE...

Postal money orders required bank endorsement stamps in 1963. Just as they always have. (A fact I've also documented in this thread.)

Maybe if you were open to the truth and would actually read my posts, you would have already known this.

Asked and answered. We've covered all that ground already.

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.

​What part of PAY TO THE ORDER OF FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO didn't you understand, Sandy?

And it certainly sounds like they weren't going to nitpick it, as they also specify they'd be happy "with some similar endorsement".

That pay-to stamp from Kleins exactly meets the requirement specified in the paragraph you cite.

Doesn't it?

Hank

It is supposed to be endorsed to the Federal Reserve Bank, Hank. Either by name, or by stamping the back with the following generic text:

"Pay to the order of any bank, banker or trust company."

Because if it endorsed in a generic way like that, then any such institution can accept the check (or money order, etc.)....

Contrary to your assertion, it doesn't need the specific words "Pay to the order of any bank...", but rather, it needs to be stamped "Pay to the order of [any bank name here]" and that's made clear because the language isn't in quotes in your section you quoted. It also says some "similar endorsement" will work just as well.

So we're done here.

It was so stamped - just as you admit the language requires. By Kleins. Remember?

PAY TO THE ORDER OF

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO

50 91144

KLEINS SPORTING GOODS, INC.

We covered all this ground previously.

Like here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22439&p=320642

But thanks again for that admission it just needs to be stamped "Pay to the order of any bank". And certainly, FIRST NATIONAL OF CHICAGO qualified as any bank, didn't it?

Hank

[Guest]

Lance,

Thank you for all the time, money, and thought you have put into this issue.

We need more level-headed, objective, and well-spoken individuals like you on this forum, IMHO.

--Tommy

Thanks, Tommy. This has been an eye-opening foray into the world of JFK research for me. Precisely how has the File Locator Number been overlooked for decades? It took me a few hours on Google to determine what it was. How has the non-existent “Wilmouth statement” been repeatedly cited as authority without anyone asking, “Where is the Wilmouth statement, anyhow?” How does Lance become classified as DVP’s “buddy” when I’m sure neither of us had ever heard of the other before meeting on this thread? Is anyone allowed to agree with Dave’s assessment of the evidence on any issue without becoming “the enemy”? Why do True Believers feel compelled to close ranks, change the subject and resort to ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies in order to preserve the illusion that the Klein’s money order is a massive fake, as opposed to simply admitting “OK, there is a 99.9% certainty that it was processed through the banking system and this avenue of inquiry is a dead end?” It is not as though any conspiracy theory hinges on the money order not having been processed through the banking system. The answer, I believe, is that too many conspiracy theorists have become fundamentalist true believers; they have lost all perspective and no longer even care what the truth is on any particular issue. Their pet conspiracy theory has become a religion. I don’t believe I will ever look at JFK “research” (to use the term loosely) the same way again. I don’t believe, deep down, anyone really believes the earth is 6,000 years old; I don’t believe anyone, deep down, still really believes the Klein’s money order should be festooned with endorsements.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Guest

[Greg Parker]

Lance,

Thank you for all the time, money, and thought you have put into this issue.

We need more level-headed, objective, and well-spoken individuals like you on this forum, IMHO.

--Tommy

Thanks, Tommy. This has been an eye-opening foray into the world of JFK research for me. Precisely how has the File Locator Number been overlooked for decades? It took me a few hours on Google to determine what it was. How has the non-existent “Wilmouth statement” been repeatedly cited as authority without anyone asking, “Where is the Wilmouth statement, anyhow?” How does Lance become classified as DVP’s “buddy” when I’m sure neither of us had ever heard of the other before meeting on this thread? Is anyone allowed to agree with Dave’s assessment of the evidence on any issue without becoming “the enemy”? Why do True Believers feel compelled to close ranks, change the subject and resort to ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies in order to preserve the illusion that the Klein’s money order is a massive fake, as opposed to simply admitting “OK, there is a 99.9% certainty that it was processed through the banking system and this avenue of inquiry is a dead end?” It is not as though any conspiracy theory hinges on the money order not having been processed through the banking system. The answer, I believe, is that too many conspiracy theorists have become fundamentalist true believers; they have lost all perspective and no longer even care what the truth is on any particular issue. Their pet conspiracy theory has become a religion. I don’t believe I will ever look at JFK “research” (to use the term loosely) the same way again. I don’t believe, deep down, anyone really believes the earth is 6,000 years old; I don’t believe anyone, deep down, still really believes the Klein’s money order should be festooned with endorsements.

You have articulated some of the real problems with this "community". There is simply a "knee-jerk" impulse from both sides to disbelieve each other on any issue.

That said, I can afford to (and do) occasionally agree with DVP. All I want are the facts. DVP on the other hand, can never afford to agree with any CT position. This forces him to make up any silly argument he can to deny specific points. If he ends up being right about the CT position being wrong, it is sometimes by sheer accident - as I demonstrated in another thread yesterday.

I applaud your efforts in this thread, though I haven't followed all arguments closely enough to "pick a side".

[David G. Healy]

you'd think a couple of attorney's-word merchants, etc., could close this deal regarding the MO... NOPE!

[Sandy Larsen]

Greg and David,

Anybody with a brain can see that FRB Revision 4928 of Operating Circular No. 4 states that checks, postal money orders, and other cash items listed, are to be bank stamped. Period. You don't need to be a lawyer to see that.. you just need to be able to read English.

Greg, you don't need to follow the thread to understand the issue. Just read post #402 on page 27. Then read the rest of this post. It's the whole thing in a nutshell.

DVP throws out a lot of stuff just to see what sticks. He thinks PMOs should be handled a certain way, and so he proposes they must have been handled that way. Hank does a similar thing by saying it makes no sense to bank-stamp documents in a day and age when modern technology antiquates the practice, while at the same time completely ignoring the fact that that very practice continues even today, 50 years later. There's no talking sense to them, and I have given up.

Only Lance Payette comes close to believing a reasonably possible contrary explanation. He believes that national banks were aware that PMOs didn't really need bank endorsements -- even though the operating circular says otherwise -- and so they didn't stamp them. The problem is that he offers no evidence to back up his claim.

As for Thomas... he seems just to be a cheerleader for anybody who disputes the bank stamp problem. I suspect one of the following:

1. He's anti-Armstrong.

2. He's anti-DiEugenio.

3. He's not open to the possibility that Oswald didn't buy the rifle. (That is, he's not being open-minded.)

4. _____________________ [Thomas, fill in the blank.]

BTW Greg, like you I credit DVP with a couple of posts that were helpful to the money order issue, though not to this thread specifically. It's unfortunate that he posts so much irrelevant stuff, because I find I don't have time to read it all. Which is sad because there might be some useful nuggets among it all that I will never see as a result.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[Jon G. Tidd]

Sandy,

I'm preparing a diary on postal money orders in 1963. FWIW, I dedicate the upcoming diary to you, who have produced this invaluable thread.

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy,

I'm preparing a diary on postal money orders in 1963. FWIW, I dedicate the upcoming diary to you, who have produced this invaluable thread.

Thank you, Jon.

Is the diary meant to chronicle postal money orders in general (how they changed in 1963) or the contentions surrounding the Hidell PMO specifically (how they have changed and been resolved)? Or something else?

Oh I know... you were speaking figuratively.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy Larsen has done us all a real service.

His post at Number 415 should be framed and put on the wall at whoever runs this site. Talk about cutting through the crap and getting to the quick.

Its incredible to me that people who don't really know this issue want to comment on it, like they just slowed down at the scene of a crime and they want to comment on what really happened. No way.

It is a very complex and convoluted and multi layered instance. And it has taken something like over 20 years to finally show all the problems with the issue. And, as I noted, about five different researchers have worked on it. Unless you have digested all of that, you really are not prepared for the debate.

Edited December 29, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Jim Hargrove]

Oh really, Hank?

Where have you been? Postal money orders do indeed require bank stamps.

First, you need to understand that Federal Reserve Banks use "operating circulars" to inform banks what their requirements are. A page on the FRB website states the following:

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

Having understood that, now let's look at FRB Revision 4928 of Operating Circular No. 4. Dated 1960 and in effect in 1963, it makes the following statements:

Items which will be accepted as cash items

1. The following will be accepted for collection as cash items:

(1) Checks drawn on banks or banking institutions (including private

bankers) located in any Federal Reserve District which are collectible

at par in funds acceptable to the collecting Federal Reserve Bank. The

“ Federal Reserve Par List,” indicating the banks upon which checks will

be received by Federal Reserve Banks for collection and credit, is fur­

nished from time to time and a supplement is furnished each month

showing changes subsequent to the last complete list. This list is subject

to change without notice and the right is reserved to return without

presentment any items drawn on banks which may have withdrawn or

may have been removed from the list or may have been reported elosed.

(2) Government checks drawn on the Treasurer of the United States.

(3) Postal money orders (United States postal money orders; United

States international postal money orders; and domestic-international

postal money orders).

(4) Such other items, collectible at par in funds acceptable to the

Federal Reserve Bank of the District in which such items are payable, as

we may be willing to accept as cash items.

o

o

o

Endorsements

13. All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank

direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the

order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the

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

endorsement. Cash items will be accepted by us, and by other Federal

Reserve Banks, only upon the understanding and condition that all

prior endorsements are guaranteed by the sending bank. There should

be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase,

“ All prior endorsements guaranteed.” The act of sending or deliver­ing a

cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however,

be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior

endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is

incorporated in the sending bank’s endorsement. The endorsement of

the sending bank should be dated and should show the American

Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent

type on both sides.

THEREFORE...

Postal money orders required bank endorsement stamps in 1963. Just as they always have. (A fact I've also documented in this thread.)

Maybe if you were open to the truth and would actually read my posts, you would have already known this.

Still plenty of words posted here....

Has anyone actually found a First National Bank of Chicago endorsement or an FRB endorsement on the Magic Money Order for the Magic Rifle?

Sandy Larsen has demonstrated many times that bank stamps were required on processed Postal Money Orders in the early 1960s. Where are they on the alleged payment for the rifle that allegedly killed President Kennedy?

Can anyone find ANY bank endorsement on this so-called money order? Please, Hank Sienzant, show me an actual endorsement from an actual bank... not a rubber stamp allegedly from Kleins.

Have you found a real bank endorsement?

Where is it?

[Thomas Graves]

Oh really, Hank?

Where have you been? Postal money orders do indeed require bank stamps.

First, you need to understand that Federal Reserve Banks use "operating circulars" to inform banks what their requirements are. A page on the FRB website states the following:

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

Having understood that, now let's look at FRB Revision 4928 of Operating Circular No. 4. Dated 1960 and in effect in 1963, it makes the following statements:

Items which will be accepted as cash items

1. The following will be accepted for collection as cash items:

(1) Checks drawn on banks or banking institutions (including private

bankers) located in any Federal Reserve District which are collectible

at par in funds acceptable to the collecting Federal Reserve Bank. The

“ Federal Reserve Par List,” indicating the banks upon which checks will

be received by Federal Reserve Banks for collection and credit, is fur­

nished from time to time and a supplement is furnished each month

showing changes subsequent to the last complete list. This list is subject

to change without notice and the right is reserved to return without

presentment any items drawn on banks which may have withdrawn or

may have been removed from the list or may have been reported elosed.

(2) Government checks drawn on the Treasurer of the United States.

(3) Postal money orders (United States postal money orders; United

States international postal money orders; and domestic-international

postal money orders).

(4) Such other items, collectible at par in funds acceptable to the

Federal Reserve Bank of the District in which such items are payable, as

we may be willing to accept as cash items.

o

o

o

Endorsements

13. All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank

direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the

order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the

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

endorsement. Cash items will be accepted by us, and by other Federal

Reserve Banks, only upon the understanding and condition that all

prior endorsements are guaranteed by the sending bank. There should

be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase,

“ All prior endorsements guaranteed.” The act of sending or deliver­ing a

cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however,

be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior

endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is

incorporated in the sending bank’s endorsement. The endorsement of

the sending bank should be dated and should show the American

Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent

type on both sides.

THEREFORE...

Postal money orders required bank endorsement stamps in 1963. Just as they always have. (A fact I've also documented in this thread.)

Maybe if you were open to the truth and would actually read my posts, you would have already known this.

Still plenty of words posted here....

Has anyone actually found a First National Bank of Chicago endorsement or an FRB endorsement on the Magic Money Order for the Magic Rifle?

Sandy Larsen has demonstrated many times that bank stamps were required on processed Postal Money Orders in the early 1960s. Where are they on the alleged payment for the rifle that allegedly killed President Kennedy?

Can anyone find ANY bank endorsement on this so-called money order? Please, Hank Sienzant, show me an actual endorsement from an actual bank... not a rubber stamp allegedly from Kleins.

Have you found a real bank endorsement?

Where is it?

Relax, Jim.

Take some deep breaths.

In through the nose, out through the mouth, in through the nose, out through the mouth...

--Tommy