Jump to content
The Education Forum
Jim Hargrove

WARNING to Forum Members: Please Read This!

Recommended Posts

Well then, Scott, what's the point of even stamping ANYTHING on any check or money order? If EVERYTHING can possibly be faked (like rubber stamps and File Locator Numbers and all the things that were stamped on the front of the M.O. by the Dallas Post Office on 3/12/63), then it can never be proven that ANY check or money order that has ever been processed by any bank in the world is legit. Right?

So, I'll ask again --- at what point do the LEGITIMATE LOOKING THINGS on the document make you want to stop pretending everything's been put there by conspirators?

According to your way of thinking, David, forgeries do not occur because checks, etc. are stamped. And somehow "legitimate looking" stamps prevent or stifle forgery.

Problem is, preventing forgery is generally not the reason for stamps. Stamping is for 1) completing a negotiation; 2) indicating conditions; 3) indicating restrictions on negotiability; 4) indicating rejection or acceptance of responsibility; and/or 5) record keeping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, that damn "E" gets me every time.

One last thing David, I'll leave you with this.

All money orders are forwarded through the Federal Reserve Banking System, to which commercial banks have access. Meaning they go through the ringer, and get endorsed by a financial institution and is For this standard:

a. Money order means a U.S. Postal Money Order.

b. Federal Reserve Bank means a Federal Reserve Bank or branch thereof that presents a money order for payment by the postmaster general.

c. Presenting bank means a bank that presents a money order to and receives credit for the money order from a Federal Reserve Bank.

d. Reclamation means the action taken by the postmaster general to obtain refund of the amounts of paid money orders.

e. Examination includes examination of money orders for indicia of theft, forged endorsements, forged signatures or initials of issuing employees, raised amounts, and other material defects by electronic methods and visual inspection for defects that cannot be discovered electronically.

http://pe.usps.com/text/dmm/S020.htm

Scott,

The document that you cite here gives regulations for cashing a postal money orders (PMO) at post offices. You need to cite the regulations for cashing PMOs at banks.

You are right, and David is wrong, that a bank stamp was required on Hidell's PMO. Bank stamps have always been required, ever since banks began accepting them. The same is true for Federal Reserve Banks. (Actually, the latest date for which I've checked these regulations is 2001. So things may be different now... I don't know.)

You will find proof of what I'm saying in Post 197 on this page. David knows about the proof but simply refuses to acknowledge it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, that damn "E" gets me every time.

One last thing David, I'll leave you with this.

All money orders are forwarded through the Federal Reserve Banking System, to which commercial banks have access. Meaning they go through the ringer, and get endorsed by a financial institution and is For this standard:

a. Money order means a U.S. Postal Money Order.

b. Federal Reserve Bank means a Federal Reserve Bank or branch thereof that presents a money order for payment by the postmaster general.

c. Presenting bank means a bank that presents a money order to and receives credit for the money order from a Federal Reserve Bank.

d. Reclamation means the action taken by the postmaster general to obtain refund of the amounts of paid money orders.

e. Examination includes examination of money orders for indicia of theft, forged endorsements, forged signatures or initials of issuing employees, raised amounts, and other material defects by electronic methods and visual inspection for defects that cannot be discovered electronically.

http://pe.usps.com/text/dmm/S020.htm

Scott,

The document that you cite here gives regulations for cashing a postal money orders (PMO) at post offices. You need to cite the regulations for cashing PMOs at banks.

You are right, and David is wrong, that a bank stamp was required on Hidell's PMO. Bank stamps have always been required, ever since banks began accepting them. The same is true for Federal Reserve Banks. (Actually, the latest date for which I've checked these regulations is 2001. So things may be different now... I don't know.)

You will find proof of what I'm saying in Post 197 on this page. David knows about the proof but simply refuses to acknowledge it.

This is what I found in dispersing funds from a postal money order, it appears that once the funds have been paid, that postal money order gets sent to the "postmaster" who also endorses that money order to complete the transaction. Both the bank and the postmaster stamp some sort of a transaction after that postal money order has been cleared. It's also up to the postmaster to reject a postal money order paid by a financial institution such as banks.

3.2Payment

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.

3.3Endorsement

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.

3.4Reclamation

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.

Edited by Scott Kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After further examining the alleged postal money order allegedly sent by Oswald to Kline's for the rifle, and there is clearly no endorsement by the bank or postmaster only indicates one thing, and one thing only, that postal money order is a forgery. Meaning, it's a fake postal money order, hope I was able to clear this up David.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim DiEugenio and Jim Hargrove are right about DVP's website giving him the last word. I have a perfect example.

Several posts ago Scott Kaiser tried to prove to DVP that postal money orders do indeed require bank stamps. Unfortunately he quoted regulations for DISBURSEMENT postal money orders, which are a special type of PMO and not the type used by Hidell.

In Post 85 on this page, DVP replied by pasting from his website a sequence of posts made by DVP's buddies on another forum, where they point out that I had made the same mistake. Oddly, one of the posts among them was mine from THIS forum, not theirs.

So David showed Scott that he was wrong.

Not surprisingly, David didn't reveal to Scott the FRB circulars that cover regular money orders and prove that they too require bank stamps.

Anyway, I wondered if DVP posted ANYTHING on that page of his website regarding FRB circulars and my proof. What I found is, to say the least, enlightening.

The date span of that page on DVP's site covers the whole PMO debate, up through yesterday. So it should have posts regarding my proof. But no, there is not one single post where I show that the FRB circulars tell bank managers that bank stamps are indeed required on PMOs. Not One!

In addition, I stumbled across an odd exchange between me and David on his site. David had this theory that banks didn't stamp individual items, but instead stamped the deposit slip (called a "cash letter") just once for all items. I proved him wrong by showing an actual check that Oswald had deposited. Here is what he has on his site:

SANDY LARSEN SAID:

It is easy to prove today -- right now -- that a bank stamp on a cash letter (bulk deposit slip) wasn't the way things were done in the 1960s.

For the sake of argument, let's suppose that cash items were NOT stamped individually, because it was done on the cash letter. If that were the case, then how would you explain check #7419 on
this page?

On the reverse side of the check you can see the FRB Chicago stamp (rectangular), so you know the check was processed by a Federal Reserve Bank. And you can see two bank stamps for Fort Worth National Bank (one is a hexagon and the other a rectangle with a decorative border). Since this is a national bank, it was the one that submitted the check to FRB Chicago.

Why are those bank stamps there, David?? When one stamp on the cash letter would have sufficed?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Probably because you're talking about CHECKS and not POSTAL MONEY ORDERS in that example, Sandy. That's why. Big difference. The First National Bank of Chicago very likely handled Postal Money Orders differently (in bulk) than they did checks
.

What? No rebuttal from me?

Well, no. Not on DVP's site. But if you go to the source -- this forum -- there IS a rebuttal. Here it is:

SANDY LARSEN SAID:

But the part of the regulation you quoted, regarding bulk deposits and cash letters, applies to all cash items, not just PMOs. And cash items include checks, money orders and other such instruments.

So if the FRBs allowed bank stamps to be on the cash letter instead of individual items, that would apply to checks, PMOs, and the rest.

What I showed is that what you described wasn't the case for checks. And so it wouldn't have been be the case for PMOs either.

After a few more exchanges DVP lost the mini-debate. But his website leads one to conclude otherwise. (If anybody wants to see for themselves, start at Post 25 on this page. Skip the long post to Lance Payette.)

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice one Sandy. And thanks Scott.

As I said, agreeing with Ray, Davey is a propagandist.

Like Allen Dulles, like David Belin, he deliberately leaves out the specific and crucial information that vitiates his argument.

His site is a fairy tale world, right out of the Brothers Grimm.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean this with all sincerity, I am not out to hurt one side or the other, I'm not trying to discredit anyone, I'm not going to put anyone down, I believe we are all in this together. We all want the truth, and we all make mistakes. David, outside of JFK I think we'd be good friends, speaking JFK, truthfully, that postal money order is a complete forgery. And, that is the honest to God's truth, after posting the regulations on how the bank cash's postal money orders, it's clear that not only do the banks have to stamp and endorse the money order as a "guarantee payment" to the company who also endorsed the postal money order, but the postmaster will [also] endorse the postal money order as payment or it was rejected. In this case with the postal money order Oswald allegedly sent never made it to the bank, therefore it was not endorsed, and it certainly could not make its way to the postmaster or it would have been discovered a forgery, which would have then certainly opened a can of worms so to say.

Edited by Scott Kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The easiest way of finding out if that postal money order is a forgery is to make a copy of it, approach someone at the post office, and ask? What harm could that do? Then, I'd say you have a tightly nit sealed case against those who forged this document. Bet it was the CIA.

Edited by Scott Kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the CIA can make an entire ship disappear, and have it bounce from owner to owner, and even have it registered in the Cayman Islands (3) three months AFTER my father's assassination, and there was nothing we could do about it then, trust me when I tell you, a document is nothing.

Edited by Scott Kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, because the postal money order was signed by an Alex Hindle, if I misspelled the name sorry. It would make THIS postal money order a forgery, so, there had to be someone else who knew Oswald was aka Hindle, if that's true, then it only stands to reason why this postal money order never made it to the bank or to the postmaster, someone needed to cover their tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott @post #102.

It puzzles me that Harry Holmes took the lead in finding the PMO.

I can only figure that Harry was trying to please J.E. Hoover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're wrong, Scott. The regulations you cited are for a totally different type of money order, called a "Disbursement Postal Money Order". That's not the same thing as a regular M.O. that Oswald purchased. More....

HENRY SIENZANT SAID:

David,

Not sure if you caught this, but Sandy Larsen is confusing P.O. DISBURSEMENT money orders with P.O. CONSUMER money orders (like the one Oswald purchased).

He says "Here's the proof", then cites something that doesn't apply to Oswald's money order whatsoever:

Sandy wrote:

"From the Code of Federal Regulations, 39 CFR 762.29c ....

"Endorsement of disbursement postal money orders drawn in favor of financial organizations:

All Disbursement Postal Money Orders drawn in favor of financial organizations, for credit to the accounts of persons designating payment so to be made, shall be endorsed in the name of the financial organization as payee in the usual manner."

[End Quote.]

A disbursement money order is one the Post Office issues to pay its own bills... they disburse the money to various contractors who do repairs, or those who they buy stuff from.

See the prior page, section 762.13: "Disbursement Postal Money Orders are issued solely by Postal data centers and solely for the purpose of paying Postal Service obligations."

Also see that page, section 762.11: "Disbursement Postal Money Orders, unlike other postal money orders, bear on their face the phrase, "This special money order is drawn by the postal service to pay one of its own obligations"."

And see page 211, section 762.11(a): "Disbursement Postal Money Orders have words of negotiability -- "Pay to the Order of" -- printed on their face, while other postal money orders simply bear the words "Pay to" on their face."

Oswald's money order was clearly NOT a disbursement money order. Oswald's money order bears the words "pay to", so it was NOT a disbursement money order.

As always, there's sleight of hand when conspiracy theorists try to present evidence. They claim it's one thing, but it's another thing entirely. Either they don't know the difference, or they know the difference and are trying to pull a fast one.

Count your fingers when discussing the JFK assassination with conspiracy theorists.

Larsen also cites this website:

FRB Procedures for Processing Postal Money Orders:

http://tfm.fiscal.treasury.gov/v2/p4/c700.html

But nowhere in there that I can find does it say the bank must affix its stamp to the money order. These are also the current rules, and he presents no evidence all this applied in 1963 (checks now have a number of safeguards to prevent forgery, and no doubt Postal Money Orders have improved & the processing may have changed in various ways in the intervening 52 years as well).

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks, Hank. Excellent work on noting the difference between "Disbursement Postal Money Orders" and the type of ordinary money orders that consumers purchase at post offices.

I'm glad you scrolled back one page in those Postal Regulations, Hank, because apparently nobody else did -- and that includes me. And I'm ashamed to admit that I didn't scroll back to that page you discovered. Because by doing so, you have totally defeated Sandy Larsen's "proof" regarding this topic.

Plus, let me add one more section of Postal Regulation 762.11 that you didn't mention in your post, Hank....

762.11© --- "The amounts of Disbursement Postal Money Orders are printed in words as well as numbers, while the amounts of postal money orders available at post offices are printed in numbers only."

As we can see, the Oswald/Hidell money order has the amount ($21.45) printed only in numbers, not in words:

CE788.jpg

Postal-Regulation-762.png

So, I guess I was on the right track when I said this to Sandy Larsen last month:

"I'm not sure that the information in "Paragraph C" of those money order regulations really means what you think it means. The word "drawn" has me confused. The Hidell money order was "drawn" in favor of Klein's Sporting Goods, was it not? It wasn't "drawn" "in favor of [a] financial organization". And Paragraph C says that, in effect, the financial organization is the "payee". Wouldn't that mean the name of the financial institution would also be on the "PAY TO" line on the front of the money order too?" -- DVP; 11/12/2015

SANDY LARSEN SAID:

Since 1987, postal money orders have, by law, required bank endorsements.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But unless someone can prove that the 10-digit File Locator Number stamped at the top of the Hidell money order is fake (which nobody is ever going to be able to prove, of course), then there is solid EVIDENCE that the CE788 money order did go through the regular banking channels in order to reach the Federal Reserve Bank.

And if some conspiracy believers want to maintain that a First National Bank endorsement was necessary on a processed money order in 1963, and if those same CTers also believe that the File Locator Number seen on the Hidell M.O. is a fraudulent number and was placed there by conspirators who wanted to frame Lee Harvey Oswald, then the question MUST be asked:

If the plotters were smart enough to know they needed to fake the File Locator Number on the money order, then why didn't they also realize that they needed to fake a First National Bank stamped endorsement on the back of the money order as well?

Also see THIS POST by Tom Scully.

MORE:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html

My bad David, I'm so stupid, how could I have not included the other as well, I'm sorry, this is right out of the Secret Service hand book, although there is a distinction between "Pay to the order of" and "Disbursement Postal Money Orders", both are required to be endorsed by the financial institution.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Ggo7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=is+there+a+difference+between+pay+to+the+order+of+and+Disbursement+Postal+Money+Orders&source=bl&ots=ijwvsKcANH&sig=xQgBjqryeY1WJDpoJMTRILfgZuE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2gICo44_LAhVEsoMKHeJiCzsQ6AEIJjAB#v=onepage&q=is%20there%20a%20difference%20between%20pay%20to%20the%20order%20of%20and%20Disbursement%20Postal%20Money%20Orders&f=false

When I examine the PMO under magnification, you can clearly see the words Kleins and Sporting had been erased and re-written, and or written in pencil not pen. I am sure that this is not the carbon copy. In-fact, the word "sporting" is written darker then the word Kleins suggesting that someone, when re-writing the word pushed down slightly harder with the pencil not keeping a consistent amount of pressure throughout. Someone tried to forge Oswald's handwriting.

Edited by Scott Kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I examine the PMO under magnification, you can clearly see the words Kleins and Sporting had been erased and re-written, and or written in pencil not pen.

Wrong again, Scott. What you're seeing is merely the bleeding through of the ink from the other side of the money order (as a result of the FBI applying liquid to the M.O. to check it for fingerprints). Fortunately, however, Cadigan Exhibit No. 11 shows a photo of the M.O. BEFORE the liquid was applied to it, so we see no bleed-thru at all here....

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0152a.htm

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

Edited by David Von Pein

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...