James DiEugenio

I prepared this version after I read the Rakove book. As you can see, its more focused on the Middle East since Rakove wrote more about that area than Africa. I gave this for the first time at the AARC Conference. Then again at the Lancer Conference, last year, 2014. In this one I actually name names about those so-called historians who I feel have been the equivalent of Posner except on who JFK was. But I also criticize some of the early JFK critics, who I think, did not go far enough. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1gmtA1SLIp11bl1_2F2NfrFajNyvP2S1yekoctGkDxe4/edit#slide=id.p4

See my post at number 21. Ok Cliff, I will start another thread. This one is yours. Your hijacking was successful

Then he should call it JFK: The Lie

PB: To my recollection as an historian of all things, including Judyth, I would have to say that the first time I came across this phrase was when the bullish Prof Fetzer was trying to defend Judyth on the Ed Forum long ago. So I attribute this statement to him. The rest of us are, supposedly, to 'trust' his judgment and accept this as a fact. What this represents, in fact, is a fallacy of logic called "appeal to authority", in which a person is told to 'believe' something because a supposedly credible person told him so. Dr. Fetzer, of course, knows all about fallacies of logic, as this was part of his area of expertise when he taught at UMD. So, to have a prof of logic pushing a fallacy of logic seems to defy logic imo. ​Its accurate that Fetzer officially went over Niagara with his incredibly stupid defense of Baker. I actually tried to talk him out of that privately. I told him he had never investigated New Orleans on the ground, and had never read Garrison's files. So it was dumb of him to pronounce judgment on Baker when he himself had done no first hand inquiry into her. I then encouraged him to talk to someone who had done these things, and I suggested say Bill Davy. ​He never did. And this is where I officially began to distance myself from Fetzer. And I also began to think something was up with him. Either that or he was becoming an egomaniac--all truth in the case had to be certified by him. When, in fact, he had made no scholarly effort to discern the truth about Baker. To my knowledge, he never even called Carol Hewett in Florida who did work on her for Sixty Minutes. Fetzer then stayed on this wild tangent with Mary's Mosaic, Cinque, Israel's sponsorship of the JFK hit etc. In each case, it was a "test" for the JFK community. When in fact, it was really a test for how far underwater Fetzer would take himself. Well, as David Lifton has pointed out, Fetzer's wild descent ended up (inevitably) in Holocaust Denial. As Lifton has noted, Fetzer recently wrote the intro for a British professor's book on the subject. Which got the professor terminated. ​This is the kind of stuff Fetzer, who TInk Thompson called the professor from Duluth, has now descended into.

Let me add, I never wanted this thread to focus on the Bay of Pigs. In fact, in my original presentation, I actually said I did not want to talk about Cuba and Vietnam. Since that is what we have been talking about for about 45 years. There was much more to JFK's foreign policy that was ignored. Including Africa and the Middle East and Indonesia. But some people don't want to look at this new aspect. For what reasons, I do not know. But IMO, this new stuff is more integral to the modern world. Vietnam and Cuba are more or less history. Much of the newer stuff is ongoing.

Cliff: Unlike you, I don't like arguing for the sake of arguing. The CIA revised the original plan because Kennedy did not like it. Therefore, it was revised according to his strictures. I don't know why you are bringing up these points about Bundy. Maybe because he is Skull and Bones? The idea of knocking out the Cuban Air Force was alway a part of the CIA's agenda. But Bissell and Dulles understood that Kennedy was not vey enthusiastic about it since it so much relied on direct American involvement. The idea that it was all Bundy simply does not jibe with the known facts. Especially when you have curtailed your direct presentation of the March 15th memo. The actual memo is something like four pages long. It appears in Peter Kornbluh's invaluable book Bay of Pigs Declassified, which I think is the best book on the subject. (see pgs. 125-28) And my quotes about the air strip being secured on the island for the strikes all come from the beginning of the memo and at the end. But further, , when push came to shove, Bundy carried out Kennedy's orders. Just as everyone else in the White House did. Including McNamara, who I did not quote. But McNamara is also on record as saying that the D Day air strikes were not in the revised plan. That the CIA came back to the White House and asked for them. This is in Noel Twyman's book, Bloody Treason. Kennedy harped to Bissell on this point, that is reducing the number of air sorties. An important point--adduced by Larry Hancock-- is that Bissell tried to keep Hawkins out of any direct meetings with JFK on the subject of his plan. Since he likely knew that Hawkins would object to the drastic revisions made upon Kennedy's requests. To the point that he would have asked that it be aborted. In fact, I think Larry quotes him as actually saying that. This would not have been in keeping with the secret agenda of Dulles and Bissell. As Talbot notes in his new book, Bissell also kept another memo from going to Kennedy. This one said that the plan as now revised--the first revision, where it went form guerrilla style to strike force-- would require that the operation be a joint CIA/Pentagon operation since it would not likely succeed.( The Devil's Chessboard, p. 398, galley uncorrected proof) Again, Bissell knew that this would likely kill the operation. Therefore, they kept up appearances, i.e. misleading JFK as to the number of likely defections, the lack of police at Playa GIron, and the possibility of "going guerrilla" and linking up with other dissidents. This was all pure malarkey. But its what Dulles and Bissell knew they had to say to keep the fey operation alive in the White House. It was all surgically exposed by both Lyman Kirkpatrick in his IG report, and Bobby Kennedy during the Taylor Commission investigation. Talbot adds that during the latter, according to a CIA liaison, Dulles made for a very bad witness. That is probably because RFK was such a ferocious antagonist. Once he was familiar with the plan revisions, Bobby never bought the idea that Dulles still proffered: that the concept was to achieve a beachhead and then build it up, allowing for air strikes. He actually attacks Dulles on this specific point. In fact, in his cross examination, he makes it clear he does not buy it at all. (DiEugenio, p. 42) And this was the beginning of the end for Dulles, Bissell and Cabell. Because RFK then presented witnesses that also exposed the other lie, that is about "going guerrilla". Bobby presented the Hunt/Dulles bete noire, Manuelo Ray. And he helped blow that one up. (ibid, p. 43) This all led to Bobby consulting with Lovett, finding the Bruce/Lovett report, and Lovett being called in to see JFK. Lovett told him Dulles had a history of doing this kind of stuff--that is going beyond the parameters of a mission's guidelines. And then adding things in afterwards--as in this case the request for D Day air strikes. And that was it. Later, both Dulles and Bissell admitted their secret agenda. Although I don't think Dulles did this on purpose. I think the CIA failed to pick up those notes at Princeton that he stupidly left behind. BTW, Talbot notes in his new book that Dulles started this proposed 1966 article in direct reaction to Schlesinger and Sorenson getting their books excerpted in Life and Look. And in the former, Schlesinger argued that the Bay of Pigs came about because Kennedy was misled. Dulles started his article, but then realized that what he would eventually write would not contradict Schlesinger, but actually bolster his tenet. So he wisely called it off. But evidently, his wife picked up the leftovers and the CIA did not fleece them from Princeton. Where this direct evidence of his secret agenda was discovered many years later.

Thanks Paul. Have a nice Thanksgiving.

From Destiny Betrayed second edition, p. 37: "Kennedy's revision envisioned air operations only after the landing force had secured a beachhead. In light of this, the CIA therefore switched the landing site from Trinidad, in the center of Cuba, on the south coast, to Playa GIron which was slightly west. One of the specific reasons this site was chosen was because, "The beachhead area contains one and possibly two airstrips...." Later on on pages 45, 46: "But yet, it seems clear in both reports, and from other sources, that these D-Day air strikes were to be launched only from a strip secured within the beachhead. Which meant that the invasion force had to capture and maintain a protected beach zone large enough to contain an air strip. In fact, the CIA agreed to this. In their revised version of the plan, delivered on March 15th, they mention it at least three times. For instance, this March 15 memo reads that air operations over Cuba would be "Conducted from an air base within territory held by opposition forces." "Later, in describing the sequence of the actual military landing, the memo reads, "The second phase, preferably commencing at dawn following the landing, will involve the movement into the beachhead of tactical aircraft and their prompt commitment for strikes against the Castro air force. Then, a couple of sentences later, it reads, "The whole tactical air operation will be based in the beachhead..." Therefore it is clear that the CIA understood this fact a month before the invasion began." Later, on page 46: "In furtherance of this declassified information, Kirkpatrick's report contains an interview with Hawkins. He states that once the Trinidad Plan was revised, Bissell told him that the State Department and Kennedy had imposed new restrictions, one of them being they had to capture an airfield from the first day for air operations. Therefore, from this testimony, we know Bissell understood this requirement." "In the Taylor Report, it clearly states that McGeorge Bundy...told Cabell the night before the brigade landed that there would no D Day air strikes unless they were launched from a strip within the beachhead". FInally, also on page 46: "On April 16th, when the idea of a D Day air strike from Nicaragua came up with UN Representative Adlai Stevenson and Dean Rusk, Kennedy specifically said he was not signed onto that decision. It was his understanding that any further air strikes would come from inside the beachhead. So, with these declassified reports, the evidence on this issue is compelling." I have a lot of respect and affection for Prouty. But in an essay he wrote about the Bay of Pigs, he seemed to lay the blame for a cancellation of the D Day air strikes on Bundy. In light of all this new information, such is not the case. Bundy was simply carrying out Kennedy''s orders about the establishment of a beach head first. IMO, this is all involved with Kennedy's revisionist view of America's role in the Third World. Which is the sub theme of my visual essay. Kennedy was not going to unleash American forces there. He would help, supply, finance certain groups opposing fascism and communism. But he was not going to send in American power to do the job itself. Eisenhower, Burke, Nixon etc did not understand this. BTW, does anyone read my books? Apparently not on this forum.

Jon: The White House is not a military unit. You don't get court martialed and placed in the brig, or worse, for not following orders. There are many instances where these kinds of things happened, e.g. with Nixon and the Moorer/Radford affair. I would say that there were more instances of it happening here because of Kennedy's reformist agenda, which was not just Vietnam, but in several places throughout the world. Including favoring Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic. BTW, after the Bay of Pigs, not only were the top three at CIA moved out, later on so were Burke and Lemnitzer. As per the D Day Air Raids, in Destiny Betrayed, second edition, I spent a lot of time on this issue. And in fact one whole chapter on Operation Zapata. I came to the conclusion, from various sources, including both Kennedy and the CIA, that the air raids were to be launched when an air strip was secured on the island. This is one of the reasons why the ultimate landing site was chosen. Talbot does a nice job in showing just how reformist Kennedy was and how heated the Dulles vs. Kennedy duel was. By April of 1961, just three months after he was inaugurated, Dulles and the CIA had gone against JFK in Congo, the attempted Paris coup against DeGaulle, and Operation Zapata. Really, Kennedy had no recourse but to fire him. Let me add this: as I was reading Talbot's chapter on the attempted coup against DeGaulle, I wrote down in the margin of my notes, all in caps: "SUPERB". It is the best rendition I have ever read of that episode. And there really is no second place. He then tops this with an amazing interview by DeGaulle in which he himself says that Kennedy was killed as a result of a plot and Oswald was a patsy.

Thanks Peter and I agree wholeheartedly. Really, the coup against Mossadegh had really immense ramifications internationally. And historically. Kennedy was trying to amend things there with his alliance with Nasser.

Jon: Anyone who can read that powerpoint, which is largely based on new material by Muelhenbeck and Rakove, and somehow fall back on the Bay of Pigs and the Diem assassination is very much close minded. If you want to ignore all these things about the Middle East and Africa and the non aligned movement in Indonesia, Congo, Algeria, Egypt etc. that is your decision. Fine. But to then blame JFK for the Bay of Pigs and the Diem assassination, I mean please. Are these the same sources you use for what you call our impending victory in Vietnam? As myself, Greg Burnham, Larry Hancock and others have shown, Allen Dulles and Dick Bissell lied their heads off about Operation Zapata to JFK. Because they knew he was predisposed against the project. And when Kennedy saw it was a disaster he refused to commit American troops to salvage it. (You probably think he should have. So that Cuba could then become an American colony.) He then fired the top level of the CIA, started a RIF of about 20 per cent, and sent RFK as an ombudsman over the Agency. Again, if you want to ignore all of this, fine. Its your decision. The best two treatments of the Diem case are in John Newman's book JFK and Vietnam and the Douglass book JFK and the Unspeakable. In the former--which I still consider the best book on the subject--take a look at pgs. 345-351. Those six pages are the best summary of how the Saturday Night Special cable was sent to Saigon. Its quite clear that this was prepared and plotted for by the State Department cabal that Maxwell Taylor referred to--including HIlsman, Forrestal and Harriman. That they waited for the proper moment when the principals were out of town and struck on a weekend, knowing that the cable would not get a proper airing. They then lied to JFK by telling him that McCone had signed off on the memo. This is how the whole thing started. This is why Kennedy was enraged when he returned and said, "This xxxx has got to stop!" As Douglass notes, Forrerstal volunteered to resign over his role in the plot. Kennedy shouted, "You are not worth firing. You owe me something now!" As Douglass further illuminates, Lodge was in on the plot. For he showed the cable to the generals first. In direct contradiction to his instructions. As Lodge further noted in an interview for PBS, Kennedy then sent him a cancellation cable. But, it was too late, the plotting had already started. BTW, even Conein admitted he was getting conflicted messages from the White House and the State Department. And Lodge made sure he got the head of the CIA station out first, since he knew Conein would cooperate with him. Douglass is very good on showing how the actual killings happened. Again, this was in direct contradiction to what JFK had ordered. Which is why at this time, Kennedy had tried to close down all cable traffic going to Saigon. But Lodge had snookered Diem into thinking that he was speaking for the White House, which he was not. Therefore upon their escape from the palace, the brothers kept in communication with Lodge. Telling him where they were. Lodge would relay this to Conein who was in contact with the generals. That is why it played out as it did. Kennedy, again, could not believe what had happened. He recalled Lodge to Washington for the express purpose of firing him. But, before that, he told Forrestal there was going to be a massive review of the whole Vietnam mess--including how the cable was sent. But Dallas happened before Lodge returned. When he did return LBJ, of course, did not fire him. Thus began the reversal of JFK's NSAM 263. One last point. Lodge was not Kennedy's choice, as lousy commentators (I won't even call him an historian) like Halberstam have proffered. JFK wanted to send ace diplomat Edmund Gullion as ambassador. Who was someone, as you probably do not know, he had a personal relationship with and whose views were in line with his own. Rusk vetoed this. That is how he got Lodge. Needless to say, if Gullion had been sent, none of this would have ever happened. Its bad enough to cherry pick two incidents out of three years of a highly complex and comprehensive foreign policy, leaving everything else on the cutting room floor. But then to tell only half the story about those two events? Well, to me, that is not good history.

Dr. Jeffrey Sachs almost gets it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hilary-clinton-and-the-is_b_8627042.html I think this is as far as the mods at Huffpo--the new MSM-would let him go. Here is the rest of the story, that they would not let him post even if he tried: http://www.ctka.net/2015/HillaryJFKAddendum.html I take no credit for this. I refer to the two men who uncovered this story, Stanford professor Robert Rakove and Georgetown professor Phil Muehlenbeck. I was just probably the only person in this community to read and review both books. The JFK case is incredibly relevant today. It was the reversal of his policies in the Middle East, and the handiwork of one of the guys who covered up how he died--John McCloy--that essentially caused the mess we have there today.

James, The problem with Chapter 7000 of the Treasury Financial Manual, for our purposes, is that it doesn't specify anywhere that bank endorsements are required. Correct me if I'm wrong. It is far better to quote from Title 12 of the CFR, Part 229, as I did in post #119 on page 8. There it specifically states that bank endorsements must be used on checks collected by FRBs, where the definition of a check includes postal money orders. This is a matter of interpretation. But I interviewed a bank supervisor today who has been in the business for 27 years, not quite as long as the guy John interviewed, but close. He said the following: Whenever a merchant brings in his deposits--cash, MO or checks--the last two are inscribed by his bank. They are then sent to the local FRB, which does the same. They are then sent to the regional FRB, which does the same. Ultimately, his bank gets a copy with those inscriptions. How could they get it back unless the FRB knew where to send it?

Its doing pretty well. It made both the NY Times and LA Times bestseller lists. It was number 20 in the former and number 7 in the latter. It has already gone into reprinting. Thanks, Jim! That 13 point East Coast v. West Coast spread is "interesting." Tom Well, that is why they call it the Left Coast.

Its doing pretty well. It made both the NY Times and LA Times bestseller lists. It was number 20 in the former and number 7 in the latter. It has already gone into reprinting.

Is there any evidence that Morales was in Dallas in November? I think Scott Kaiser says there is.

We know what your definition of common sense is Lance.

Quoting Sandy: —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. This is a point Armstrong will go over in detail in his article.

Last installment form the same source: 7050 -Processing Mutilated Money Orders This section relates to the handling of mutilated paper money orders with ABA routing numbers 0000-0020 or 000000204. 7050.10 -Mutilated paper money orders must be grouped in batches not to exceed 200 documents in a batch. If the total number of mutilated items does not exceed 200, they may be handled as one batch. For larger quantities, make as many batches as necessary, not exceeding 200 in any one batch. 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: ■FRB name or code at the top. ■The amount of each item. ■The total amount of the batch. ■FRB clearance date. ■Batch number. 7050.40 -Batches of the paper money orders that cannot be machine processed without first being MICR amount encoded may be delivered to the USPS representative without processing, provided the above requirements are essentially met. 7050.50 - The total amount of mutilated items should be entered on the PS Form 1901, code 110. Section 7060 - Detection Of Stolen Or Raised Money Orders FRBs are not required to institute regular routing procedures for the detection of stolen or raised money orders. However, each FRB will cooperate, in special circumstances, to aid USPS representatives in the detection of these items. Section 7065 - Adjustment of Errors Adjustment of errors and charges by the FRB will be made by using SF 5515 for ALC 18-00-0005, and PS Form 1176 "Schedule of Differences in Money Order Clearances". (Appendix No. 1). All charges or credits accepted will be identified by the FRB, itemizing the schedule number, as indicated on PS Form I 1 76, and amount on the PS Form 1901 for code 003. 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. Section 7075 -Processing Domestic International Money Orders (Semi-Domestic) Canadian money orders, ABA routing number 0000-0127, and Canal Zone money orders, ABA routing number 0000-0800, can be mechanically processed; all others must be processed manually. The batch size of Canadian money orders cannot exceed 200 documents. Money orders of different countries cannot be intermingled; each country must be batched separately. The total of all domestic-international money orders should be shown under code 400 on the PS Form 1901. Section 7080 -Other Procedural Matters 7080.10 -Postal Service Reimbursement to FRBs. The Postal Service has agreed to reimburse the FRBs for services provided in processing postal money orders beyond the level of service provided to financial institutions paying cash items. Charges will be determined by an annual survey, according to Federal Reserve and U.S. Postal Service agreements, and will be billed monthly with a single bill for each Federal Reserve District submitted to the Money Order Division, and will be paid at the end of each 6 months. The Postal Service reserves the right to review and challenge the method used in calculating these charges Courtesy of David Josephs. More to come from John Armstrong. This is starting to resemble Holm vs Rousey.

More from the same source: 1. 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. i. 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 ii. 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 7030.60 -Bank No. or FRB Code (Appendix No. 1 ). This term refers to the four digits of the FRB routing symbol. This number is to be used on various documents for charging or shipping of money orders to USPS. Section 7035 -Charges For Postal Money Orders The FRBs will prepare SF 5515, "Debit Voucher," for 8-digit accounting station code or agency location code (ALC) 18-00-0005 to charge postal money orders based on cash letters or other deposit documents received that have accompanying postal money order documents. After machine classification is made, in order to correct any amount undercharged for money orders made on the original charge of the SF 5515, another SF 5515 will be prepared and processed. If an overcharge is made on the original SF 5515, the FRB will process an SF 215 "Deposit Ticket" for the amount overcharged to ALC 18-00-0005. Appendix No. 1 provides instructions and the distribution of the SF's 5515 and 215. The net amount of all debit vouchers and deposit tickets reported to ALC 18-00-0005 must be shown on the FRBs Daily Balance Wire to BGFO on line 14-A. This amount is reconciled to the confirmed copies of the debit vouchers and deposit tickets received at MOD, St. Louis, Missouri. PS Form 1901 "Advice of Classification for Postal Money Orders" is basically a reconciliation form prepared by the FRB. Certain data from the SF's 5515 or 215 (confirmed date, document, number, and amount) will be. shown under the block titled "Charge to ALC 18-00-0005." This amount must agree with the total for the block titled "Classification of Postal Money Orders" which reflects the description, code, number of items, and amount of the postal money orders being shipped. The money order documents will be shipped to MOD, St. Louis, Missouri. Adjustments of errors made on previous shipments will also be reported under the "Classification of Postal Money Orders" block and supported by completing the "Schedule of Adjustments Entered Under Code 003" shown at the bottom of the PS Form 1901 (Appendix No. 1). NO COPIES OF THE PS FORM 1901 WILL BE SENT TO TREASURY. Each PS Form 1901 is accountable to USPS, therefore, if the FRB voids a PS Form 1901, send all copies to: (Some excess info deleted here.)

More dirt on the casket: CHAPTER 7000 http://tfm.fiscal.treasury.gov/v2/p4/c700.html PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING POSTAL MONEY ORDERS Appendix B – Processing Postal Money Orders · Purchaser of the PMO designate a “Payee” and fills out the purchaser’s information · Purchaser pays for the PMO – Postal clerk tears PMO from stub and hands to Purchaser · Purchaser provides PMO to designated Payee for deposit in exchange for goods/services · Payee endorses the back of the PMO and deposits PMO in their Bank · The Bank will then PROCESS the PMO, adding whatever marks, electronic or otherwise to the back of the PMO and record the payment to Payee in their records o 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 3.0 Federal Reserve System 3.1General All money orders are forwarded through the Federal Reserve Banking System, to which commercial banks have access. 3.2 Payment 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. 3.3 Endorsement 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. 3.4 Reclamation 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. ​BTW, please note the last paragraph, the first sentence. If the PMO has no bank endorsement, if it turns out to be bogus or fraudulent, how could the FRB know who to get their money back from unless it was endorsed by a bank?

I KIND OF THOUGHT THE NEXT STATEMENT WOULD SURFACE ONCE LANCE GOT SOME RESISTANCE: LP: 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. To compare Martha Moyer, GIl Jesus, and I assume myself with the MJ 12 advocates is a direct and cheap insult worthy of DVP. Especially in light of what Sandy just produced and the Armstrong interview. I guess we should all apologize for not jumping in the air and declaring it all case closed when Lance appeared. My God a long time lawyer was going to teach us all what real research was. Like what we have been doing was playing pick up hoops all the time. But I especially find problematic the comment of him being a long time lawyer with lawyerly instincts. Why? For two reasons. 1.) If every single aspect of a transaction is dubious, as this one is, then how can one declare the final result as a verification of what came before? What kind of legal logic is that? To me the contrary is more likely. Which is why DVP goes nuts when one points out the fact that its the wrong rifle. 2.) I once had a legal problem many years ago. I interviewed several lawyers. After I interviewed one at his office, he told me he had to leave to pick up a handwriting expert for a court appearance. I asked why. He said it was over a disputed payment issue. I said, "People really do that?" He looked at me bemused--like where have you been?--and said, "Oh, yeah. When it comes to winning or losing it happens all the time." And this was a SMALL CLAIMS CASE! But alas, Lance says that what happens all the time is confined to the extremes of Ufology. BTW, I agree, Ray at Number 122 was a real tickler. And you are welcome Sandy.

But you forget, Lance also produced evidence saying MO were stamped by banks. Armstrong's upcoming article will quote a bank supervisor in the business for 35 years.

Tommy: What you leave out and distort to benefit your bizarre characterization of me is laughable. I will try not to take it personally.

​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.