Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sandy Larsen

Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

Recommended Posts

On 12/1/2015 at 11:51 PM, Hank Sienzant said:

 

Just to be absolutely crystal clear, Hank's idea about the real bank endorsement being "Pay to the order of The First National Bank of Chicago" is totally incorrect, right?

Klein's sporting goods VP William Waldman's WC testimony:

Quote

 

Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 788, which appears to be a U.S. postal money order payable to the order of Klein's Sporting Goods, and marked that it's from a purchaser named A. Hidell, and as the purchaser's street address is Post Office Box No. 2915, and the purchaser's City, Dallas, Tex.; March 12, 1963: and underneath the amount of $21.45, the number 2,202,130,462. And on the reverse side there appears to be an endorsement of a bank.
I wonder if you would read that endorsement, if you would, and examine it, please.


Mr. WALDMAN. This is a stamped endorsement reading "Pay to the order of the First National Bank of Chicago," followed by our account No. 50 space 91144, and that, in turn, followed by "Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc."


Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not that is your company's endorsement on that money order?


Mr. WALDMAN. It's identical to our endorsement.


Mr. BELIN. And I hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9 and ask you if you can state what this is.


Mr. WALDMAN. This is our endorsement stamp which reads the same as that shown on the money order in question.


Mr. BELIN. You have just now stamped Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9 with your endorsement stamp?


Mr. WALDMAN. Correct.


Mr. BELIN. Do you have any way of knowing when exactly this money order was deposited by your company?


Mr. WALDMAN. I cannot specifically say when this money order was deposited by our company; however, as previously stated, a money order for $21.45 passed through our cash register on March 13, 1963.


Mr. BELIN. You're reading from Waldman---


Mr. WALDMAN. From a Mr. A. Hidell of Post Office Box No. 2915, from Dallas, Tex.


Mr. BELIN. And you are now reading from Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7?


Mr. WALDMAN. As indicated on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7. Now, we cannot specifically say when this money order was deposited, but on our deposit of March 13, 1963, we show an item of $21.45, as indicated on the Xerox copy of our deposit slip marked, or identified by--as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 10.


Mr. BELIN. And I have just marked as a document what you are reading from, which appears to be a deposit with the First National Bank of Chicago by your company; is that correct?


Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.

 

Waldman exhibit 9:

 

WH_Vol21_0365a.jpg

 

The "Pay to the order of The First National Bank of Chicago" is a stamp from the Klein's company, not a Reserve Bank as Belin incorrectly assumed.

 

So a Federal Reserve Bank apparently must print a completely separate stamp on the money order before it is considered endorsed?

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a Federal Reserve Bank apparently must print a completely separate stamp on the money order before it is considered endorsed?

They did. It's the 10-digit stamped number beginning with "138" on the Oswald/Hidell money order. That's the "File Locator Number", which was discovered by Lance Payette a couple of years ago (see the link below). It is stamped on a money order (or check) after it gets to the Federal Reserve....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html#The-File-Locator-Number-On-The-Hidell-Money-Order

File-Locator-Numbers.png

CE788.jpg

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What DVP here fails to mention is the 4 different reports of finding this Money Order ....  and that it would have been the TREASURY who had the tape created by these punch cards.  The TAPE which connects the serial number to the FILE LOCATOR NUMBER.  

Following encashment of a check by the payee, it is deposited sooner or later in a commercial bank. The bank will honor the check after proper examination and then will apply to its cognizant Federal Reserve Bank for the reimbursement, which usually takes the form of a credit to the bank's reserve account. The Federal Reserve Bank then applies to the Treasurer of the United States for reimbursement of the amount which it has credited to the commercial bank. When the Treasurer has electronically examined the check to determine that it bears an authorized disbursing officer's symbol and serial number and that there is not a stop-payment notice against it, the check is considered "paid." Checks are received in batches of about 1,000 checks, accompanied by detailed listings.

One of these 4 brings us to the USPS National Records center in Maryland where the Money Order was supposedly retrieved by Robert Jackson and given to J. Harold Marks who in turn gives it to Secret Service SA PARKER at 10:10pm.  

Problem being Dave, the Fed Records Center is not the US Treasury.  the FILE LOCATOR NUMBER appears to only be used by the Treasury.  At what point that day does the SS/FBI/USPS acquire this file locator number?

Why is it not until that night that "computers" were turned on at the Fed Records Center by Secret Service "Recording" Agent BURKE claiming it would be 15 mins for the computer to warm up so they could find the PMO.  

DAVE - What info would they be feeding into that system and from where did they get it?  According to WCD87 p118 SS Asst Chief Paterni asks SAIC GAIGLEIN to find the PMO and is given the serial number, March 12, $21.45, KLEINS and HIDELL.

About that same time Postal Inspector KNIGHT tells SS SA GRIFFITHS the PMO would be sent to Kansas City and the PIs there are already looking.

at 8:55pm EST, 70 minutes before it is actually found, SS SA GRIFFITHS learns the original PMO has been recovered "By Postal Inspectors" and is on the way to Asst Chief of the SS PATERNI.

You see Dave... there being a file locator is nice - if a PMO was forged we'd expect to see the number...  if the PMO was NOT forged... we'd expect to see the MO STUB which remains attached to the MO BOOK.  Neither of which are in evidence and would have looked like this before being detached...  The stub on the far right would still be in the book even if Oswald lost his copy of the receipt - yet given that Oswald kept EVERYTHING, kinda strange this stub was not among his belongings...

5912320373514_LHOMoneyorderincolorwithsignaturecomparisonsandwhatthestublookslike.thumb.jpg.c057888cfaa41f0be9bff81c0e961717.jpg

This thread deals with the required processing marks on the back of this PMO.  The STAMP placing "50 91144" is the KLEIN STAMP for depositing checks...  Once it hits the 1st Nat'l of Chicago, it and the Federal Reserve Bank will process this check so the USPS can transfer the money to the correct bank.

=================================================================================

1.    The Bank, now the new Payee, forwards the PMO to their affiliated Federal Reserve Bank for reimbursement of funds and processing USPS Fed Res Sys process
a.     All money orders are forwarded through the Federal Reserve Banking System, to which commercial banks have access
                                         i.    For this standard: Money order means a U.S. Postal Money Order.
b.    
The postmaster general has the usual right of a drawee to examine money orders presented for payment by banks through the Federal Reserve System and to refuse payment of money orders, and has a reasonable time after presentation to make each examination. Provisional credit is given to the Federal Reserve Bank when it furnishes the money orders for payment by the postmaster general. Money orders are deemed paid only after examination is completed, subject to the postmaster general’s right to make reclamation under 3.4.

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

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

2.    The Federal Reserve Bank will record the transaction and also include markings on the back of the PMO in accordance to their batch processing rules. 

a.    Today, the Federal Reserve Banking System (FRBS) processes everything electronically yet fairly recently the paper products themselves were sent through Batch Processing machines.  Section 7040 of Chapter 7000 of the “Procedures for Processing Postal Money Orders” tells us:

                                         i.    Section 7040 -Processing Fit Money Orders
7030.25 -Fit Money Order. A money order that can be completely processed on high speed processing equipment.

·         Batching and Listing Fit Money Orders. Paper money orders are MICR printed with the routing code (including a routing number of 0000-0020 or 000000204) and the serial number with check digit. The routing number is also preprinted in the upper right corner on the form, which is in the location and front as prescribed by the ABA.

FRBs will process FIT money orders as follows:

·         Receive money orders from banks and process on high speed equipment in the manner most compatible with the processing of other categories of cash items.
         
Prepare batches of no more than 500 items.

·         Insert (in numerical sequence) USPS batch Locator Control Documents so that one is filed at the beginning of each batch of money orders to be read.

·         Create a paper-tape list of serial numbers with optional check digit and amount of each money order read. The list will show the batch number and a subtotal for each batch with an overall total of all money orders listed on the paper tape.

·         The total amount of fit items should be entered on PS Form 1901, code 100.

·         Money orders bearing unreadable MICR characters in the on-us field are not to be rejected and handled as mutilated. List the characters that can be read on the paper tape as a reconcilement aid.

                                        ii.    Section 7040 & 7050 (Manual process)

·         7050.20 -Insert a USPS Batch Locator Control Document at the beginning of each batch of mutilated money orders.

·         7050.30 -Prepare an adding machine listing of each batch showing the following information:

a.     FRB name or code at the top.

b.     The amount of each item.

c.     The total amount of the batch.

d.     FRB clearance date.

e.     Batch number

                                       iii.    Section 7070 - Processing Old Style Money Orders

·         "Punch card" money orders that have the ABA routing number 0000-0119 will be handled as mutilated items. They should be identified as old style "punch card" money orders on the PS Form 1901 for code 004

 =====================================

Notice the "punch card" of these OLD STYLE PMOs.   Why doesn't the Fed for Chicago have a record as well as the PMO exhibiting their markings?

 

 

And finally - one of the stories offered is from Harry Holmes who claims the STUB was found since one of the 3 copies of the PMO is the receipt retained by the USPS..  The ORIGINAL PMO would have looked kinda like this before the left 2 copies are torn from the book and given to the customer...

Dave - where is the book with the stub proving that PMO was EVER real?  It doesn't exist buddy... for Holmes' story was a complete crock of sh!t as we all now know.

5912320373514_LHOMoneyorderincolorwithsignaturecomparisonsandwhatthestublookslike.thumb.jpg.c057888cfaa41f0be9bff81c0e961717.jpg

So while you may have found something on this faked piece of evidence which does correlate to the real world - connecting it to that real world is not something you ever seem able to do.  You like to pick one and only one thing and hammer it relentlessly.  It's a tactic so you don't have to deal with all the other items of evidence supporting the creation of that item of evidence.

Why too would the HSCA "handwriting experts" be given a photocopy of this critical item when it is the only item the expressly connects Oswald to Hidell to the rifle?

Not only was the PMO offered a XEROX, but one of the experts goes on to explain how copy/paste/rephoto is one of the key ways to create a fraudulent document

 

ITEM #29. March 12, 1963. U.S. postal money order No. 2,202,130,462 bearing handwritten fill-ins as follows: Klein's Sporting Goods, A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915. Dallas, Tex. Blue ink, ballpoint pen. Location: Archives. (CE 788; JFK exhibit F-509A and 509B.) Note: Item #29 is acknowledged as a XEROX COPY made from the microfilm copy

From the HSCA Experts report itself:

  1. Limitations on the examination (71) Five items of evidence were not examined in the original, but were copies. Photocopies have several limitations. They do not reproduce all the fine details in handwriting needed in making an examination and comparison. At best, they do not produce as sharp an image as a properly produced photograph, and they lack tonal gradations, a result of the contrasting process of reproduction. In addition, it is possible to incorporate or insert changes and alterations into copies. A method frequently used is to paste together parts of documents to make one fraudulent document, which is then copied. If the first copy can pass inspection, it will be used; if not, it will be reworked to eliminate all signs of alteration. This amended copy is then recopied for the finished product. This is usually referred to as the "cut and paste" method. (72) Document examiners only render a qualified or conditional opinion when working from copies. They stipulate that they have to examine the original before a definite opinion will be made. (73) Because of problems with the following documents, no definite opinion can be rendered: (74) Item 18, a halftone copy of a photograph of the original document. This is at least a third generation copy and is not suitable for comparison. (A halftone copy consists of very small dots and not continuous lines.) (75) Item 29 was a Xerox copy made from a microfilm copy. Such a second generation copy has the defects of both processes

 

 

 

 

Edited by David Josephs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2017 at 10:52 PM, Micah Mileto said:

Just to be absolutely crystal clear, Hank's idea about the real bank endorsement being "Pay to the order of The First National Bank of Chicago" is totally incorrect, right?


Micah,

Yes, you are right. Hank was wrong.

The First National Bank of Chicago was Klein's Sporting Goods' bank. When Klein's deposited a check or money order, they would first endorse it  by stamping it on the back with the "Pay to the order of" stamp that you speak of. Notably, the stamp included Klein's bank account number, so there would be no confusion as to which account the money would be deposited to.

The next thing that would have happened is the First National Bank of Chicago would deposit the money order to their account with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. The bank would have to endorse the money order before submitting it to the Federal Reserve Bank. THAT WAS NOT DONE.

The whole point of this thread was to prove that federal law required such an endorsement on postal money orders in 1963. I thought I'd done so in Post #1, but later realized that the law I pointed to was for a special type of postal money order. But if you go to that post, there is a link to the corrected proof.

The next step for the money order would have been for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago to stamp it. We do see a file locator number (FLN) stamped on the front by the Federal Reserve Bank, but not an endorsement on the back. John Armstrong did a write-up that states that an FRB endorsement on the back was required. But he provides no references, so we can't say that it's been proved that that stamp was required.

Note that the FLN is not an endorsement... it's purpose is to facilitate locating the money order after it's been put in storage.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2017 at 4:31 AM, Sandy Larsen said:


Micah,

Yes, you are right. Hank was wrong.

The First National Bank of Chicago was Klein's Sporting Goods' bank. When Klein's deposited a check or money order, they would first endorse it  by stamping it on the back with the "Pay to the order of" stamp that you speak of. Notably, the stamp included Klein's bank account number, so there would be no confusion as to which account the money would be deposited to.

The next thing that would have happened is the First National Bank of Chicago would deposit the money order to their account with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. The bank would have to endorse the money order before submitting it to the Federal Reserve Bank. THAT WAS NOT DONE.

The whole point of this thread was to prove that federal law required such an endorsement on postal money orders in 1963. I thought I'd done so in Post #1, but later realized that the law I pointed to was for a special type of postal money order. But if you go to that post, there is a link to the corrected proof.

The next step for the money order would have been for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago to stamp it. We do see a file locator number (FLN) stamped on the front by the Federal Reserve Bank, but not an endorsement on the back. John Armstrong did a write-up that states that an FRB endorsement on the back was required. But he provides no references, so we can't say that it's been proved that that stamp was required.

Note that the FLN is not an endorsement... it's purpose is to facilitate locating the money order after it's been put in storage.

 

Is there a difference between a "bank endorsement" to a bank versus from a bank?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Is there a difference between a "bank endorsement" to a bank versus from a bank?

 

When a bank presents a check to the counter of another bank for deposit, it must endorses the check. By endorsing the check, the presenting bank guarantees that the receiving bank will indeed be credited for the amount printed on the check. Even if the check bounces.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Is there a difference between a "bank endorsement" to a bank versus from a bank?

Micah, you are being lured deeper and deeper down a rabbit hole by people who (1) have reasons for wishing to keep the Klein's PMO a mystery and (2) don't know what they are talking about.  I am no longer active on this silly forum, but I have been a lawyer for 35+ years, do know how to read federal statutes and regulations, and do at least have some idea what I am talking about.

1.  Start with the File Locator Number (FLN), which no CT loon had even addressed before I identified what it was in a mere two hours of research on Google.  (Let me repeat that:  In the DECADES that the Klein's PMO had been debated, no one had even discussed what those rather prominent numbers across the top of the PMO might be!)  The FLN is the number assigned when a PMO makes its way completely through the payment/collection cycle and is put into storage at the Federal Records Center, where it is retained for a period in case the Postal Service raises questions about it and wishes to examine it (or needs it for evidence in a court case).  The FLN allows the PMO to be easily located, as this one was after the assassination.  The fact that the Klein's PMO bears a FLN is a huge problem for the CT loons because IT IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THE KLEIN'S PMO MADE IT ENTIRELY THROUGH THE PAYMENT/COLLECTION CYCLE.

2.  John Armstrong started all the silliness about the Klein's PMO not having the required bank endorsements.  In Harvey and Lee, he cited to a bank official at the First National Bank of Chicago (named Wilmouth, as I recall) who supposedly said this.  I exposed that the citations were FICTITIOUS.  The bank official never said anything about bank endorsements.  Armstrong's fiction became CT "gospel" and has been repeated \throughout the conspiracy literature, apparently without any of these "experts" bothering to check Armstrong's footnotes as I did.  When I pointed out that Armstrong's citations were fictitious, which you can easily confirm for yourself, the non-response was deafening.

3.  When you put 1 and 2 together, I don't believe there is much need for further discussion about the authenticity of the Klein's PMO.  But I will persevere for your benefit ... 

4.  Under the federal regulations of the time, a PMO could have ONLY ONE ENDORSEMENT.  That was by the payee, in this case Klein's.  The "Pay to the order of" stamp on the back of the PMO is Klein's endorsement.  People who insist the Klein's PMO should have "bank endorsements" merely reveal their ignorance.  The federal regulations also stated that "bank stamps" were not deemed endorsements, which logically raises the question "What is a bank stamp, and should the Klein's PMO have had one or more bank stamps?"

5.  The Federal Reserve is a BANKING SYSTEM with a central bank, 12 regional banks, and many member banks.  Most banks are members of the Federal Reserve system, but there can be non-member banks.  The First National Bank of Chicago was a member bank.

6.  Insofar as PMOs are concerned, the Federal Reserve acts as the COLLECTION AGENT for the Postal Service under an agreement with the Postmaster General.  In banking terminology, the Postal Service is deemed to be the "paying bank" for PMOs, while the Federal Reserve is merely a collection agent that does the processing and transmittal to the Federal Records Center.  (The bank that accepts a PMO for deposit - in this case the First National Bank of Chicago - is the "depository bank."  If Klein's had deposited a check written on an account at the Bank of America, BOA would be the "paying bank.")

7.  Under the Federal Reserve regulations, PMOs are treated as "cash items."  This is relevant to how they are packaged and transmitted from member banks to the Federal Reserve regional and central banks.  They are treated like government checks and food stamps, with a minimum of processing since there is seldom serious concern about their authenticity.

8.  I believe that when a PMO was deposited by a payee (such as Klein's) at a bank that was a member of the Federal Reserve system (such as First National Bank of Chicago), the depository bank simply packaged the PMO as a cash item and transmitted it to its Federal Reserve regional bank (in this case the one in Chicago).  There was no need for a Federal Reserve member bank to "endorse" (i.e., stamp) the PMO - the member bank was simply transmitting the PMO to its regional Federal Reserve bank.  Nor was there any need for the regional Federal Reserve bank to "endorse" (i.e., stamp) the PMO when it transmitted the PMO to the central Federal Reserve bank.  All banks in the chain were part of the Federal Reserve system, which was simply acting as a collection agent for the Postal Service.

9.  The Postal Service, of course, had received its money when the initial buyer of the PMO purchased it.  The point of the collection process was merely for the depository bank that had accepted and paid the money order to be reimbursed from the Postal Service's account with the Treasury Department.  Getting the PMO into the Federal Reserve system is what ensured that this would be done.  The Federal Reserve regulations made clear that the Federal Reserve would not become involved in disputes as to whether a PMO had been stolen or had other issues.  The Federal Reserve was simply acting as a collection agent.  If an issue later arose, it was up to the Postal Service to retrieve the PMO from the Federal Records Center and deal with the depository bank (if necessary) and the person who had stolen or forged the PMO.

10.  So where do bank stamps fit into this?  I found a federal court case that I believe explains this.  PMOs were sometimes deposited or cashed at banks that were NOT members of the Federal Reserve system.  In order for the collection process to work, the PMO had to get into the Federal Reserve system.  This was done by the non-member bank sending the PMO to a designated "clearinghouse" bank, which then got the PMO into the Federal Reserve system.  It is the non-member bank and possibly the clearinghouse bank that I believe would have been required to stamp a PMO in order to establish the chain of payment from the initial deposit with the non-member bank.

All the talk of "missing bank endorsements" on the Klein's PMO is just nonsense by people who don't know what they are talking about and are determined to perpetuate a mystery that was put to rest by items 1 and 2 above.  Sandy's post immediately above is just nonsense from a layman who deludes himself that he can interpret federal regulations.  If nothing else, my participation in this discussion was an eye-opening, eye-popping lesson for me about how the CT loons operate.  You literally cannot have a rational discussion with these folks.  There may be some aspects of the Kennedy assassination that are genuinely puzzling and worth pursuing, but this isn't one of them.  If you insist on allowing yourself to be lured ever-deeper down this rabbit hole to nowhere, I can only say:  YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

Edited by Lance Payette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 9:52 PM, Micah Mileto said:

Just to be absolutely crystal clear, Hank's idea about the real bank endorsement being "Pay to the order of The First National Bank of Chicago" is totally incorrect, right?

To the extent it was being characterized as a "bank endorsement," yes, that would be incorrect.  However, I don't believe, for the reasons stated above, that there was any need for a Federal Reserve member bank like the First National Bank of Chicago to put ANYTHING on the Klein's PMO before packaging it as a cash item and transmitting it to the regional Federal Reserve bank in Chicago.  These were both banks within the SAME SYSTEM that was acting as the COLLECTION AGENT for the Postal Service.  As I recall, Hank's point - that I do believe is legitimate and with which I would agree - was that if there WERE any need for First National Bank of Chicago to show that it had paid the Klein's PMO, the "Pay to the order" stamp would have sufficed for this purpose.  The way the system worked, I believe, made any such indication unnecessary.  If a PMO was being transmitted to a regional Federal Reserve bank by a Federal Reserve member bank, then BY DEFINITION that member bank had paid (or accepted for deposit) the PMO.  If the PMO had been paid by a non-member bank, it would not find its way to the regional Federal Reserve bank through a local member bank like the First National Bank of Chicago but through a designated clearinghouse bank.

Over and out - and I do mean "OVER" and I do mean "OUT."

Edited by Lance Payette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

8.  I believe that when a PMO was deposited by a payee (such as Klein's) at a bank that was a member of the Federal Reserve system (such as First National Bank of Chicago), the depository bank simply packaged the PMO as a cash item and transmitted it to its Federal Reserve regional bank (in this case the one in Chicago).  There was no need for a Federal Reserve member bank to "endorse" (i.e., stamp) the PMO - the member bank was simply transmitting the PMO to its regional Federal Reserve bank.

 

Micah,

What Lance Payette believes is wrong. And I will prove so in my next post.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proof that Postal Money Orders required Bank Stamps in 1963


First you need to understand that Federal Reserve Bank requirements are set forth in "circulars" that are issued to member banks. My source for this fact is the Federal Reserve Banks' commercial website, specifically this page:  https://www.frbservices.org/regulations/operating_circulars.html . On that page it is stated:

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


FRB Circular 4928, dated August 18, 1960, dealt with Postal Money Orders in 1963. Here is a link to that circular:

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


I will now quote the pertinent parts of the circular. You need only read the parts I've highlighted in red.

 

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

 

Postal money orders

 

11. Postal money orders will be handled in accordance with

an agreement made by the Postmaster General, in behalf of the

United States, and the Federal Reserve Banks as depositaries and

fiscal agents of the United States pursuant to authorization of the

Secretary of the Treasury; and with respect to matters not covered

by such agreement, the provisions of Regulation J, this circular and

our time schedules shall be deemed applicable to all postal money

orders. [ Here is the agreement: ] Immediate credit will be given to member banks and non­

member clearing banks for postal money orders as provided in our

time schedules and simultaneously with such credit we will debit the

amount of such money orders against the general account of the Treas­

urer of the United States under such symbol numbers as may be

assigned by the Treasurer of the United States. Said agreement fur­

ther provides in effect that no claim for refund or otherwise with

respect to any money order debited against the general account of

the Treasurer of the United States and delivered to the representa­

tive of the Post Office Department as provided in said agreement

(other than a claim based on the negligence of a Federal Reserve

Bank) will be made against or through any Federal Reserve Bank;

that if the Post Office Department makes any such claim with respect

to any such money order, such money order will not be returned or

sent to a Federal Reserve Bank, but the Post Office Department will

deal directly with the bank or the party against which such claim is

made; and that the Federal Reserve Banks will assist the Post Office

Department in making such claim, including making their records

and any relevant evidence in their possession available to the Post

Office Department

 

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 did indeed require bank endorsement stamps in 1963.

 

The truth is that bank endorsement stamps were ALWAYS required on postal money orders throughout the 20th century. Even before the Federal Reserve System was set up. I have located legal documents dated 1911, 1925, 1960, 1969, and 2000 showing so.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did everybody see how easy the proof is?

  1. The Circular first lists all financial instruments that are considered to be Cash Items. It states that Postal Money Orders are Cash Items.
  2. The Circular then states that all Cash Items must be endorsed.

That's it... that's the proof.

So are you going to believe Lance Payette -- who makes up this long story about how he thinks the Federal Reserve Banks should handle PMOs? Or are you going to believe your own "lying eyes" when you read the actual regulation -- the one I quoted.

BTW, did you notice that I backed my claims with FRB sources? And that Lance Payette cited no sources?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again, Lance Payette, for your fine work in digging up the various pieces of banking information relating to this "Postal Money Order" topic.

And I think it's appropriate at this point in time, nearly two years after my involvement in these PMO discussions began, to again ask this question that I first asked a year and a half ago:

"How many things that appear to be legitimate about the Hidell money order does it take for a stubborn CTer to admit that the money order is, in fact, very likely a legitimate document?" -- DVP; January 9, 2016

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Bank stamps were always required on Postal Money Orders during the 20th Century.
 

United States Official Postal Guide, 1911

Page 22:

8. Payments to Banks - When an [money] order purporting to have been receipted by the payee, or the first endorsee, is deposited in a bank for collection, the postmaster at the office drawn upon may effect payment to the bank, provided there be a guarantee on the part of the bank that the latter will refund the amount if it afterward appear that the depositor was not the owner of the order. An order thus paid should bear upon its back the impression of the stamp of the bank. The person receiving payment in the bank's behalf on an order thus receipted, the signature of the payee or endorsee being left undisturbed, may be required to write his name upon the back of the order.

 

United States Official Postal Guide, 1925

Page 95:

27. Payments to Banks - When an [money] order purporting to have been properly receipted by the payee, or indorsee, is deposited in a bank for collection, the postmaster at the office drawn upon may effect payment to the bank, provided there be a guarantee on the part of the bank that the latter will refund the amount if it afterwards appear that the depositor was not the owner of the order. An order thus paid should bear upon its back the impression of the stamp of the bank.

 

FRB Circular 4928, August 18, 1960

All cash items [including Postal Money Orders] sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar endorsement. Cash items will be accepted by us, and by other Federal Reserve Banks, only upon the understanding and condition that all prior endorsements are guaranteed by the sending bank. There should be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase, “All prior endorsements guaranteed.” The act of sending or deliver­ing a cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however, be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is incorporated in the sending bank’s endorsement. The endorsement of the sending bank should be dated and should show the American Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent type on both sides.

 

FRB Circular 6370, July 18, 1969

All cash items [including Postal Money Oders] 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.

 

Others

I recall that I found the same requirement for bank stamps on PMOs in a late 1980s document and a late 1990s document. I didn't save that information, I imagine because it was irrelevant to the 1963 assassination.

But the point is that bank stamps were always required on PMOs, and there was never any deviation from that practice.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2017 at 8:47 PM, Lance Payette said:

Micah, you are being lured deeper and deeper down a rabbit hole by people who (1) have reasons for wishing to keep the Klein's PMO a mystery and (2) don't know what they are talking about.  I am no longer active on this silly forum, but I have been a lawyer for 35+ years, do know how to read federal statutes and regulations, and do at least have some idea what I am talking about.

1.  Start with the File Locator Number (FLN), which no CT loon had even addressed before I identified what it was in a mere two hours of research on Google.  (Let me repeat that:  In the DECADES that the Klein's PMO had been debated, no one had even discussed what those rather prominent numbers across the top of the PMO might be!)  The FLN is the number assigned when a PMO makes its way completely through the payment/collection cycle and is put into storage at the Federal Records Center, where it is retained for a period in case the Postal Service raises questions about it and wishes to examine it (or needs it for evidence in a court case).  The FLN allows the PMO to be easily located, as this one was after the assassination.  The fact that the Klein's PMO bears a FLN is a huge problem for the CT loons because IT IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THE KLEIN'S PMO MADE IT ENTIRELY THROUGH THE PAYMENT/COLLECTION CYCLE.

2.  John Armstrong started all the silliness about the Klein's PMO not having the required bank endorsements.  In Harvey and Lee, he cited to a bank official at the First National Bank of Chicago (named Wilmouth, as I recall) who supposedly said this.  I exposed that the citations were FICTITIOUS.  The bank official never said anything about bank endorsements.  Armstrong's fiction became CT "gospel" and has been repeated \throughout the conspiracy literature, apparently without any of these "experts" bothering to check Armstrong's footnotes as I did.  When I pointed out that Armstrong's citations were fictitious, which you can easily confirm for yourself, the non-response was deafening.

3.  When you put 1 and 2 together, I don't believe there is much need for further discussion about the authenticity of the Klein's PMO.  But I will persevere for your benefit ... 

4.  Under the federal regulations of the time, a PMO could have ONLY ONE ENDORSEMENT.  That was by the payee, in this case Klein's.  The "Pay to the order of" stamp on the back of the PMO is Klein's endorsement.  People who insist the Klein's PMO should have "bank endorsements" merely reveal their ignorance.  The federal regulations also stated that "bank stamps" were not deemed endorsements, which logically raises the question "What is a bank stamp, and should the Klein's PMO have had one or more bank stamps?"

5.  The Federal Reserve is a BANKING SYSTEM with a central bank, 12 regional banks, and many member banks.  Most banks are members of the Federal Reserve system, but there can be non-member banks.  The First National Bank of Chicago was a member bank.

6.  Insofar as PMOs are concerned, the Federal Reserve acts as the COLLECTION AGENT for the Postal Service under an agreement with the Postmaster General.  In banking terminology, the Postal Service is deemed to be the "paying bank" for PMOs, while the Federal Reserve is merely a collection agent that does the processing and transmittal to the Federal Records Center.  (The bank that accepts a PMO for deposit - in this case the First National Bank of Chicago - is the "depository bank."  If Klein's had deposited a check written on an account at the Bank of America, BOA would be the "paying bank.")

7.  Under the Federal Reserve regulations, PMOs are treated as "cash items."  This is relevant to how they are packaged and transmitted from member banks to the Federal Reserve regional and central banks.  They are treated like government checks and food stamps, with a minimum of processing since there is seldom serious concern about their authenticity.

8.  I believe that when a PMO was deposited by a payee (such as Klein's) at a bank that was a member of the Federal Reserve system (such as First National Bank of Chicago), the depository bank simply packaged the PMO as a cash item and transmitted it to its Federal Reserve regional bank (in this case the one in Chicago).  There was no need for a Federal Reserve member bank to "endorse" (i.e., stamp) the PMO - the member bank was simply transmitting the PMO to its regional Federal Reserve bank.  Nor was there any need for the regional Federal Reserve bank to "endorse" (i.e., stamp) the PMO when it transmitted the PMO to the central Federal Reserve bank.  All banks in the chain were part of the Federal Reserve system, which was simply acting as a collection agent for the Postal Service.

9.  The Postal Service, of course, had received its money when the initial buyer of the PMO purchased it.  The point of the collection process was merely for the depository bank that had accepted and paid the money order to be reimbursed from the Postal Service's account with the Treasury Department.  Getting the PMO into the Federal Reserve system is what ensured that this would be done.  The Federal Reserve regulations made clear that the Federal Reserve would not become involved in disputes as to whether a PMO had been stolen or had other issues.  The Federal Reserve was simply acting as a collection agent.  If an issue later arose, it was up to the Postal Service to retrieve the PMO from the Federal Records Center and deal with the depository bank (if necessary) and the person who had stolen or forged the PMO.

10.  So where do bank stamps fit into this?  I found a federal court case that I believe explains this.  PMOs were sometimes deposited or cashed at banks that were NOT members of the Federal Reserve system.  In order for the collection process to work, the PMO had to get into the Federal Reserve system.  This was done by the non-member bank sending the PMO to a designated "clearinghouse" bank, which then got the PMO into the Federal Reserve system.  It is the non-member bank and possibly the clearinghouse bank that I believe would have been required to stamp a PMO in order to establish the chain of payment from the initial deposit with the non-member bank.

All the talk of "missing bank endorsements" on the Klein's PMO is just nonsense by people who don't know what they are talking about and are determined to perpetuate a mystery that was put to rest by items 1 and 2 above.  Sandy's post immediately above is just nonsense from a layman who deludes himself that he can interpret federal regulations.  If nothing else, my participation in this discussion was an eye-opening, eye-popping lesson for me about how the CT loons operate.  You literally cannot have a rational discussion with these folks.  There may be some aspects of the Kennedy assassination that are genuinely puzzling and worth pursuing, but this isn't one of them.  If you insist on allowing yourself to be lured ever-deeper down this rabbit hole to nowhere, I can only say:  YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

 

Above is a snapshot of Lance Payette's changing story regarding bank stamps on postal money orders.

 

Last year in #8 above, he admitted that his claim was only his belief. In contrast, he now says he has demonstrated his claim to be true based on "a plethora of federal regulations, Federal Reserve bulletins and case law."

Here is what he wrote today. Compare it to #8 above.

"I came up with a plethora of federal regulations, Federal Reserve bulletins and case law by which I, as a practicing lawyer for 35 years, demonstrated that endorsements would not appear on a 1963 money order deposited in a bank that was a member of the Federal Reserve system."

 

 

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...