WARNING to Forum Members: Please Read This!

[Scott Kaiser]

Anything else Dav? "Common Dav, give me a break!"

[David Von Pein]

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?

Edited February 24, 2016 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Who's Dav?

[Scott Kaiser]

Well the, 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 Filer 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?

At what point do the "LEGITIMATE LOOKING THINGS" on the document make you want to STOP pretending everything's been put there by conspirators?

Finally you're now getting it, I know we have a pretty screwed up system, it's called government.

[David Von Pein]

Finally you're now getting it, I know we have a pretty screwed up system, it's called government.

What a nice convenient blanket excuse you've got there. Aren't you glad you can always fall back on that lame excuse, Scott? Lucky you.

Edited February 24, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Scott Kaiser]

Finally you're now getting it, I know we have a pretty screwed up system, it's called government.

What a nice convenient blanket excuse you've got there. Aren't you glad you can always fall back on that lame excuse, Scott? Lucky you.

Should I start at the beginning in 1787?

[Scott Kaiser]

Pick one?

https://www.usa.gov/history

[Scott Kaiser]

In other words, banks are "required" to endorse the postal money order before dispersing any funds. The postal money order allegedly sent to Kline's was a forgery.

http://cfr.regstoday.com/39cfr762.aspx#39_CFR_762p26

[Scott Kaiser]

Case close!

[David Von Pein]

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:







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

Edited February 24, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Scott Kaiser]

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:

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

Edited February 24, 2016 by Scott Kaiser

[David Von Pein]

Scott,

Nothing you just cited proves what you want it to prove.

Sorry.

[Scott Kaiser]

Dav, it's late where I'm at, and I'm tried, have at it brother, and I'll catch up with you in the morning, I know it sucks, and you're going to find your way out of this one, wishing you luck, good night...

[David Von Pein]

Good night, Scot [sic].

(Do you really think the name "Dave" is spelled without an E on the end? That's mighty peculiar.)

Edited February 24, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Scott Kaiser]

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

Edited February 24, 2016 by Scott Kaiser