Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sandy Larsen

Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

Recommended Posts

Secondly, Lance, one of the big probeme with the WC is that it never followed in detail the whole chain of possession of a piece of evidence.

In some instances, it never even examined in a perfunctory way any key piece of evidence, e.g. the autopsy x rays, the autopsy photos, CE 399, the shells found at the so called sniper's lair etc. In some cases, like the wallet at the Tippit murder, that was not even mentioned.

Again, a lawyer would be very keen on these matters I would think.

So we have this rifle, which as you must know is the wrong rifle. In both classification and in length and weight. It was not the rifle the WC says Oswald ordered.

It is also not the rifle Marina referred to in her first SS interviews.

About which no postal employee ever said they recall Oswald picking up.

And which the WC lied about how Oswald could have picked it up since he should not have been able to pick it up due to postal regs.

The man who bailed out the WC on this problem was Harry Holmes. Holmes' family later apologized for his perfidy chalking it up to the Cold War Pressures of the time.

Now, I assume you know how important Holmes was in this whole money order imbroglio? In fact, one can say he started it from the one end.

As a lawyer, why should a man who has been shown to be so untrustworthy, go completely unmentioned by you, when he would seem to be crucial to the whole issue?

Simply because of the FLN?

And the rest of us--Ray G, Martha Moyer, Armstrong, Gil, David,-- are, in your words, True Believers?

Jimbo,

He said he was looking at a narrow issue.

But now, because you feel frustrated, you're demanding that he explain the whole freaking enchilada.

Take some deep breaths, relax, and try to learn something.

You can do it.

--Tommy :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

So we have this rifle, which as you must know is the wrong rifle -- in both classification and in length and weight. It was not the rifle the WC says Oswald ordered.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jim's above comment about the "wrong rifle" is just outright nonsense. And I think, deep down, Jim knows it's pure nonsense.

Quoting from this discussion I had with DiEugenio in April of this year at Amazon.com:

"As for the assassination rifle being the "wrong rifle", as Jimmy likes to constantly say, DiEugenio knows perfectly well what the reasonable answer to that "36-inch vs. 40-inch" discrepancy is. I've pointed it out to him on several occasions in the past. But since he likes the idea of Oswald having never touched Carcano Rifle #C2766, Jim will forever ignore the logical answer to the "wrong rifle" topic.

But, of course, that's why we have had professional investigators and real detectives looking into these matters over the years, instead of relying on [people] like Jim DiEugenio to try and solve a Presidential assassination. If James had been in charge, Oswald would probably have posthumously been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize instead of being officially labelled what he was---a double murderer.

Re: the rifle....

"Regardless of exactly what it said in the American Rifleman magazine from which Lee Oswald ordered his rifle via mail-order (i.e., "36 inches" vs. "40 inches"; and "Carbine" vs. anything else), Klein's shipped a rifle with serial number C2766 to "A. Hidell" on March 20, 1963. The internal paperwork generated AT THE TIME in March of '63 (see Waldman Exhibit No. 7) confirms that Oswald/"Hidell" was shipped an Italian 6.5mm rifle with that exact serial number on it ("C2766")." -- DVP; September 21, 2008"


Also see:
JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/DVP Vs. DiEugenio (Part 99)
JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/DVP Vs. DiEugenio (Part 100)
JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Oswald Ordered The Rifle

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tommy:

If you don't have anything of substance to say, then don't say anything. Just read and maybe you will pick up something. First it was a unified field conspiracy theory and now its deep breathing exercises. Whew. Almost makes me wish Trejo was here. :help

DVP's last is more of his patented sophistry.

This is a fact. Pure and simple: The rifle that the WC says Oswald ordered is not the rifle in evidence. Its the wrong rifle. Period. He can fulminate and stomp his feet and fall on the floor about it and throw his usual John Barrymore tantrums a la Bugliosi. He's been doing it for years, decades actually.

None of that will erase this fact. Its the wrong rifle by length, weight and classification.

And there is no credible evidence Oswald ever picked it up. And in fact, he could not have picked it up by postal regs. So the WC lied about this. And they used Harry Holmes to do so. For a very succinct treatment of this see Stewart Galanor's book called, appropriately enough, Cover Up. He deals with it in about four pages, and half of them are primary documents he got from writing the Postmaster General.

Harry Holmes' testimony contradicted that evidence. Either that or Galanor forged the letter he wrote and the documents he was sent. (Incredible the way these anti conspiracy guys end up embracing these fantastic solutions to their evidentiary problems.)

Now, my general point is this: how can an attorney isolate one tiny part of this transaction and say its valid, based on that one point. When, in fact, everything about it--from A to Z-- is dubious. And the guy who started the whole MO mess is Holmes! Who he ignores.

By doing so, is he not then guilty of doing the thing he says is true about the people he criticizes?

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tommy:

If you don't have anything of substance to say, then don't say anything. Just read and maybe you will pick up something. First it was a unified field conspiracy theory and now its deep breathing exercises. Whew. Almost makes me wish Trejo was here. :help

DVP's last is more of his patented sophistry.

This is a fact. Pure and simple: The rifle that the WC says Oswald ordered is not the rifle in evidence. Its the wrong rifle. Period. He can fulminate and stomp his feet and fall on the floor about it and throw his usual John Barrymore tantrums a la Bugliosi.

None of that will erase this fact. Its the wrong rifle by length, weight and classification.

And there is no credible evidence Oswald ever picked it up. And in fact, he could not have picked it up by postal regs. So the WC lied about this. And they sued Harry Holmes to do so. For a very succinct treatment of this see Stewart Galanor's book called appropriately enough Cover Up. He deals with it in about four pages, and half of them are primary documents he got from writing the Postmaster General.

Holmes' testimony contradicted that evidence. Either that or Galanor forged the letter he wrote and the documents he was sent. (Incredible the way these anti conspiracy guys end up embracing these incredible solutions to their evidentiary problems.)

Now, my general point is this: how can an attorney isolate one part of this transaction and say its valid, based on that one point. When, in fact, everything about it is dubious. By doing so, is he not then guilty of doing the thing he says is true about the people he criticizes?

Jimbo,

Lance said he was looking at the narrow issue of whether or not the money order went through the depoisiting proess.

Maybe you missed that.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​I will repeat this for your benefit, I think everyone else got it:

Now, my general point is this: how can an attorney isolate one part of this transaction and say its valid, based on that one point. When, in fact, everything about it is dubious. By doing so, is he not then guilty of doing the thing he says is true about the people he criticizes?

​To make a point of comparison: its like saying Humes' beveling idea overrides all the problems with the autopsy.

Yeah, sure it does.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tommy:

If you don't have anything of substance to say, then don't say anything. Just read and maybe you will pick up something. First it was a unified field conspiracy theory and now its deep breathing exercises. Whew. Almost makes me wish Trejo was here. :help

DVP's last is more of his patented sophistry.

This is a fact. Pure and simple: The rifle that the WC says Oswald ordered is not the rifle in evidence. Its the wrong rifle. Period. He can fulminate and stomp his feet and fall on the floor about it and throw his usual John Barrymore tantrums a la Bugliosi.

None of that will erase this fact. Its the wrong rifle by length, weight and classification.

And there is no credible evidence Oswald ever picked it up. And in fact, he could not have picked it up by postal regs. So the WC lied about this. And they sued Harry Holmes to do so. For a very succinct treatment of this see Stewart Galanor's book called appropriately enough Cover Up. He deals with it in about four pages, and half of them are primary documents he got from writing the Postmaster General.

Holmes' testimony contradicted that evidence. Either that or Galanor forged the letter he wrote and the documents he was sent. (Incredible the way these anti conspiracy guys end up embracing these incredible solutions to their evidentiary problems.)

Now, my general point is this: how can an attorney isolate one part of this transaction and say its valid, based on that one point. When, in fact, everything about it is dubious. By doing so, is he not then guilty of doing the thing he says is true about the people he criticizes?

Jimbo,

Lance said he was looking at the narrow issue of whether or not the money order should show evidence of endorsement by FBN and the Federal Reserve Bank. .

Maybe you missed that.

In a way you remind me of Fetzer and Cinque. They seem to think that Oswald's innocence would be in jeopardy if "Doorman" was someone other than him, and to perish that thought they really go off on a paranoiac, quasi-mystical "everything was altered" trip.

You seem to think that if the money order was properly endorsed and deposited into Klein's bank account through normal channels, and in a timely manner, then Oswald must have ordered the (wrong sized by mistake) rifle and shot the President with it.

But that doesn't necessarily follow, does it?

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My general point is this: how can an attorney [Lance Payette] isolate one tiny part of this transaction and say it's valid, based on that one point. When, in fact, everything about it--from A to Z--is dubious. And the guy who started the whole MO mess is Holmes! Who he ignores.

By doing so, is he not then guilty of doing the thing he says is true about the people he criticizes?

Jim,

It's a thing called: Being able to properly and reasonably evaluate and assess the evidence in the JFK murder case without resorting to calling everybody under the sun a [falsehood teller] or a cover-up agent or a conspirator.

And as I have pointed out so many times in the past, that is something that James DiEugenio has never been able to do. And I think that becomes blatantly obvious when we look at the sum total of the many, many things that Jim is absolutely positive fall into the general category of "everything about it--from A to Z--is dubious" --- and I'm not talking about JUST the rifle evidence, but virtually EVERY SINGLE THING that points in the direction of Lee Harvey Oswald as the murderer of President Kennedy AND J.D. Tippit.

DiEugenio thinks ALL of the evidence pointing to Oswald is "dubious". All of it. It's ridiculous.

Just last week, I asked Jim:

"I'll be happy to rewrite that 20th item [on this list], Jim, if you can tell me JUST ONE single piece of evidence that leads to Oswald that you think was NOT faked, tainted, or manufactured. Is there one such piece? I don't think there is."

-- DVP; November 12, 2015

I never received an answer.

The silence was (and is) deafening.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to DVP for posting the images from the article. I had no luck when I tried to do so.

As stated in the 1966 article, the system had been in place since 1957. File Locator Numbers had been used since that time. It is my understanding that this article is talking only about items for which the U.S. Treasury has the ultimate responsibility - Treasury checks, postal money orders and other federal instruments.

Since the article specifically refers to postal money orders and says the processing was "quite similar" to that for Treasury checks, the fact that the specimen in the article is a Treasury Check rather than a postal money order seems irrelevant to me. It is remotely possible that postal money orders did not receive File Locator Numbers, but (1) the author makes the File Locator Number sound like the greatest invention since sliced bread and the key to the system that had been in place since 1957, and (2) the Klein's postal money order has what certainly looks like a File Locator Number.

The File Locator Number tells the Treasury Department where within the Department the item is physically located. I assume the 138 would be a box, bin, shelf or building. I don't believe the number would have anything to do with Dallas or any other geographical location. (I did find two references to "TUS-3515, Chart of Locator Numbers" but had no luck locating the actual chart.)

The File Locator number doesn't just mean the item has been paid. It means the item has arrived at its final destination in the process (i.e., the Treasury Department), been examined and determined to have been properly paid, had its information converted to magnetic tape and a File Locator Number assigned, and then placed into storage. In short, the item has reached the end of its road.

The Treasury Department's records retention manual would dictate how long old postal money orders are stored. I didn't find the manual, but I did see references to 5 years and 10 years. There is no way a postal money order from 1963 would still be in storage.

If the ten digits are a File Locator Number, I am satisfied this is the end of the story. To perpetuate the "mystery" would require an extremely far-fetched scenario: The conspirators had an inside contact at the Treasury Department who was able to place a File Locator Number, and they hoped no one would notice the absence of endorsements by FNB and the Federal Reserve Bank. To me, a File Locator Number would pretty well say, "Nothing else matters."

Edit: This is becoming my full-time job, but I did find a newspaper article from 1970 stating that the GSA records retention center in Mechanicsburg, PA, is where all old Treasury checks were stored and that they were destroyed every 7 years. Every month, 60,000,000 checks were shredded. Each year, the center received 400,000 requests from Treasury to locate an item in storage.

Lance,

A ten-digit File Locator Number was no doubt printed on postal money orders in 1963. And the ten-digit number stamped on the Hidell MO is obviously a File Locator Number, or at least is meant to be.

You said earlier:

It appears that they are the "File Locator Number" placed by the Treasury Department, which would seemingly be a pretty definite indication that the money order was processed.

and now:

If the ten digits are a File Locator Number, I am satisfied this is the end of the story.

I respect you for you legal acumen, but to draw that conclusion IMO is utterly ridiculous. A File Locator Number could have easily been stamped on the money order by *anyone* . Isn't that obvious?

With the exception of the handwriting on the MO, I myself would have no trouble faking that money order as we see it today (a photocopy). Or even when I was a teenager. For heaven sakes, forgeries are not an uncommon occurrence. That's why I am astonished by your conclusion.

You yourself have provided proof that stamping bank endorsements on postal money orders in 1963 was at the very least practiced, and that automated machines used at the time were capable of quickly reading money-order punch-holes and stamping a bank endorsement without slowing the process down. In contrast, nobody has provided any evidence that the presence of stamps was optional. (And no, you can't used the the Hidell money order as evidence of that, given that it is the object of suspicion.)

The reason suspicion is being placed on the authenticity of the money order isn't because of missing bank stamps. It's because of a combination of numerous irregularities which, as a whole, scream "something fishy is going on here." The presumably-missing bank stamps is a tiny part of the puzzle.

You said:

To perpetuate the "mystery" would require an extremely far-fetched scenario: The conspirators had an inside contact at the Treasury Department who was able to place a File Locator Number, and they hoped no one would notice the absence of endorsements by FNB and the Federal Reserve Bank.

No. All that need be done is this:

  • Acquire the services of a handwriting forger.
  • Get a fake ID made for this person, using the name A. Hidell. (Not a big deal... I've seen fake IDs used by underaged teenagers to buy alchohol.)
  • Have this person purchase a $21.45 money order using the ID.
  • Either bribe the postal worker to stamp a "Mar 12 1963" date on the MO, or alter the stamp later .
  • Purchase a stamp to mark the MO with a file locator number.
  • Done!

If you plan ahead and have more time, there are other, easier ways of accomplishing the forgery.

You said:

The Treasury Department's records retention manual would dictate how long old postal money orders are stored. I didn't find the manual, but I did see references to 5 years and 10 years.

FYI, as I said earlier, money orders were destroyed after two years. According to CFR 171.5(a) (1970) "Money orders are destroyed 2 years after payment, and photostats cannot thereafter be furnished. [34 FR 1722. Feb. 5 1969]"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Lance] said he was looking at a narrow issue.

But Tommy, even as a "narrow issue" it makes no sense whatsoever to conclude that the lack of bank markings is irrelevant simply because a number is stamped on the top-left front of the money order. Even DVP's conclusion that the MO had to have been processed -- because Oswald's handwriting is present -- is superior to Lance's (tentative) conclusion. At least it would have taken more than minimal effort to forge the handwriting. Forging a number is nothing compared to that! I don't see how Lance could have entertained the thought of a forged MO, ignoring the handwriting issue, yet place such importance on the number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you familiar with those issues at all? Have you researched them? Or are they irrelevant to you?

What has taken place with the money order strikes me as more in the vein of, "We want the money order to be bogus to fit our theory, ergo it is bogus." It strikes me as what I see too often: The CT True Believers will not be satisfied unless no one was who he appeared to be, no piece of evidence can be trusted, everyone was lying, everyone was part of the conspiracy, etc.

I hope you're not characterizing serious JFK researchers that way Lance, if you are, I suggest you spend more time on the forum getting to know some.

I have no agenda. If I had to bet my life savings, I'd place my money on "The man shot by Jack Ruby had no knowing involvement in the assassination of JFK." But I'm also sane enough to realize I could be 100% wrong. I refuse to be lumped with the crazies, those CT True Believers for whom their particular CT has become a fundamentalist religion.

Again, I hope you're not characterizing serious JFK researchers that way.

Frankly, I'm pretty surprised at what I have managed to turn up with some minimal Internet sleuthing while I sit home with the flu, and even more surprised that it would be causing any controversy here. Perhaps the question should be, "Why did Gil Jesus, David Josephs, John Armstrong, Martha Moyer and Ray Gallagher not find in literally years of research, going back to the nineties, what Barely Interested Lance has found in a day and a half?"

Not fair, Lance. First, researchers like these don't always direct their efforts on one specific issue, like this MO bank stamp thing. Second, not all researchers had the luxury of a well developed Internet to do the hard work for them. Third, not all researchers have a legal background to help them know what to search for. And, last but not least, need I remind you that even you have not found the answer as to whether bank stamps for postal money orders were required in 1963.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

methinks someone is trying to pull DVP's deep-fried money order out of the fire... Nutters will go to any length to defend their faith (1964 Dulles-Warren Commission Report of course)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A firestorm appears to have erupted while I slept. One thing struck me in all this: John Armstrong has interviewed a 35-year bank president, and by God he is going to show that my understanding is entirely wrong. Super! I look forward to it. But why didn't John Armstrong interview this bank president or someone like him 15 years ago, or ten years ago, or five years ago in his far-reaching quest for The Truth? Why didn't any of these super-sleuths interview experienced ex-employees of the Post Office, the Federal Reserve or the Treasury Department? Why is that?

I have no emotional involvement in this issue. Zero. I am well-aware of all the ways the money order and the Klein's transaction in general are considered suspect. At a gut level (and I do have the instincts of a very experienced lawyer), it all strikes me as 99% likely to be 99% nonsense, the sort of stuff I have seen out of the UFO lunatic fringe for the past 50+ years. (My involvement in ufology vastly exceeds my involvement in the assassination, but the parallels are striking: Diehard debunkers ... truth-seeking researchers ... true believers ... fundamentalists ... the lunatic fringe ... the scary wackos ... the self-promoters who make their livings or feed their egos by playing to the diehard debunkers, true believers, fundamentalists, lunatic fringe and scary wackos. Yep, check, check, check, check, check, check, check.)

While sitting home with the flu, I found and posted information I had not seen elsewhere regarding (1) whether all 1963 era postal money orders had corner cuts; (2) whether all 1963 era postal money orders were required to have bank endorsements; (3) whether 1963 era processing machines were capable of applying bank endorsements to postal money orders; (4) how the Treasury Department processed and stored postal money orders during this era; (5) whether the unexplained numbers at the top of the Klein's money order might be a Treasury Department File Locator Number. I have no more than 5 hours devoted to this armchair project, which frankly does make me wonder about the abilities of the super-sleuths who have preceded me.

The above information is all facially neutral. I believe I've made some reasonable inferences, but they could certainly be wrong. But neutral is never satisfactory to those at the true believer side of the spectrum. So now the conspiracy has been escalated to a "fake File Locator Number." Sure, why not? (Why not fake bank endorsements, one has to wonder? Once again, the conspirators were geniuses on Monday, morons on Tuesday.) A 35-year bank president who purports to have expertise in money orders, bank practices, Post Office practices, Federal Reserve practices and Treasury Department practices will now be wheeled out to show that I am all wet and the money order mystery will have been revived to the satisfaction of the true believers. If I had the interest and energy, perhaps I'd up the ante with a 40-year banking expert.

I suspect the money order mystery could have easily been solved years ago if one of the super-sleuths had simply interviewed a handful of experienced Post Office, Federal Reserve and Treasury Department ex-employees, but what fun would that have been? (Those who were interviewed, like Harry Holmes, were, of course, "part of the conspiracy.") Unless the conspirators really are geniuses on Monday through Wednesday and morons on Thursday through Sunday - a scenario I've never seen - real-world conspiracies just aren't as complex, convoluted, full of holes, sure to collapse and just generally goofy as most of those of which the "phony money order" is an element. I think Harvey and Lee is fascinating and chock-full of good information; I think the basic premise is off-the-scale nutty. I'm perfectly open to reasonable conspiracy theories, but I'm committed to staying on the "truth-seeking" side of the spectrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2001 postal money orders required bank endorsements.

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

229.2 Definitions

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

(k) Check means--

(5) A United States Postal Service money order;

229.35 Indorsements

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

Appendix D to Part 229--Indorsement Standards

1. The depositary bank shall indorse a check according to the following specifications:
• The indorsement shall contain—
—The bank’s nine-digit routing number, set off by arrows at each end of the number and pointing toward

the number;
—The bank’s name/location; and
—The indorsement date.
• The indorsement may also contain—
—An optional branch identification;
—An optional trace/sequence number;
—An optional telephone number for receipt of notification of large-dollar returned checks; and
—Other optional information provided that the inclusion of such information does not interfere with the

readability of the indorsement.

• The indorsement shall be written in dark purple or black ink.
• The indorsement shall be placed on the back of the check so that the routing number is wholly contained

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

Source: http://ithandbook.ffiec.gov/media/resources/3631/frb-12cfr229_subparts%20a_b_c_regu_cc.pdf

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1925 postal money orders required bank endorsements.

The following is from the 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.

Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=5qciAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=%22should+bear+upon+its+back+the+impression+of+the+stamp+of+the+bank%22&source=bl&ots=goxRv0Ln4w&sig=KMMzSjHJa_v1Zp46S5HbJzVOskU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAGoVChMIwf6a2ICdyQIVCZuICh1Z2AeU#v=onepage&q=%22should%20bear%20upon%20its%20back%20the%20impression%20of%20the%20stamp%20of%20the%20bank%22&f=false

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...