David Von Pein

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.

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

TIM NICKERSON SAID:

David,

According to that 1966 document, the Treasury Department began converting the money order operation to the electronic system in June 1962.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What page number of the '66 document, Tim? I want to capture it.

And that "June 1962" date is interesting, indeed, because it's the exact same month when the new yellow-tinted money orders were being introduced, per the Palm Beach newspaper article discovered recently by Tom Scully [pictured below; the Google Books version of the Palm Beach article has mysteriously disappeared from the Internet as of today; but, fortunately Tom Scully captured an image of it before it went AWOL from the Web].

TIM NICKERSON SAID:

Page 498.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thank you. I see it now. (See image below.)

PAUL ERNST SAID:

And when was the above system introduced, which year David?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's from a 1966 document. But the 10-digit number is also seen on the Hidell M.O. from 1963. Same formatting....three digits, a space, then seven more numbers.

Are you saying that the identical formatting for that number meant something OTHER than the "File Locator Number" discussed in that 1966 PDF document that Lance posted earlier?

Gee, there's an amazing coincidence, huh?

Plus, Lance made this comment about the "new" system discussed in the 1966 document....

"Don't be misled by his reference to the "new" system — he is talking about the "new" system adopted in 1957. Later in the article (page 494), he says that the procedures for postal money orders are "quite similar." " -- Lance Payette


PAUL ERNST SAID:

David, we are talking here about BANK CHECKS and not a MO.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

From the same 1966 PDF document Lance provided....





And this excerpt below—from that same 1966 PDF file—pretty much indicates that the entire 1966 document is talking about procedures that began ten years earlier, in Fiscal 1957....





PAUL ERNST SAID:

And what about the question [regarding the first three digits stamped at the top-left of the Hidell money order] --- 138 = Dallas???

Where can I find that back?

I found something about postal zones...but not about that 138 number = DALLAS?

Can you help me out?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, I can't. I tried searching the "138" prefix all day yesterday (in the hopes that something might pop up to indicate that "138" did, indeed, mean something specifically), but I had no luck in finding any info on it. After about 1,000 Google searches, I tossed in the towel.

But maybe you'll have better luck. Or maybe Lance Payette or Sandy Larsen or Tom Scully have some kind of "magic Google Search touch" that enables them to dig out long-forgotten, decades-old PDF documents regarding very old 1960s and 1950s U.S. postal procedures.

All three of them seem to have hit paydirt of one kind or another with respect to this topic of the money order. Who knows what might turn up next. ~shrug~

The number of extremely old documents available on the Internet is incredible. While searching for stuff relating to this "Money Order" topic the other day, I actually came across a 102-year-old document of more than 700 pages, "Postal Laws and Regulations of the United States of America; Edition of 1913".

So I guess it's possible to find almost anything online, even if it's 102 years old.

Here's a photo of the sample check which appears on page 483 of the 1966 PDF document Lance provided above, indicating where on a processed check the "File Locator Numbers" are found. And it does, indeed, match the Klein's/Hidell money order exactly, with respect to the number of digits (10) and the format/placement of those digits (3 numbers, then a space, followed by seven additional numbers)....

And here's an excerpt from the 1966 PDF with more information about the "File Locator Numbers". The key words here are: "The file locator number...is printed on each paid check..."





Emphasizing these words again -- "Each PAID check..."

The check has, therefore, been PAID already before a File Locator Number is added to the check. And as Lance alluded to earlier, U.S. Postal Money Orders were likely being handled in a "similar" fashion to checks at the time.

Thank you, Lance Payette, for what must have been hours of tedious Google searching in an effort to dig up that banking information.

Just in case anybody wants to see another yellow U.S. Postal Money Order to compare with the Hidell M.O. and the previously posted yellow M.O. dated 9/11/63, here's an uncashed money order issued in Deer Trail, Colorado, on May 17, 1966, which bears a serial number that is 5.2 billion numbers higher than the number on the Oswald/Hidell money order.

And, again, like the 9/11/63 M.O., this uncashed one from 1966 also shows no stamped number in the top left corner. An odd thing I noticed about this particular money order is the fact that the serial number stamped on the stub doesn't match the serial number on the M.O. itself. They're five numbers apart, which is quite strange.

Click to enlarge:

Nix vs. Zapruder (in sync and stabilized)....

Related Link (Re: The Limo Slowdown):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-786.html

So why don't you just ignore him?

He can't. He's obsessed with me. Has been for years.

I wish he would start ignoring me, though, because the way he calls me "hon" and "toots" is creepy as all get out.

Can you imagine a 60+-year-old man talking like that over and over again on public forums? (Yikes.)

Davey, you are soon going to gag on Harry Holmes.

You have clearly not familiarized yourself with the provenance of the money order.

Does that mean that the LNers worldwide can finally expect to see some PROOF from a conspiracy theorist with respect to the things I mentioned at 3:41 AM EST this morning? You know, this stuff....

"Now, if only [John] Armstrong can somehow find a way to conveniently explain away how on Earth the Klein's endorsement stamp **AND** Lee Harvey Oswald's own handwriting (which was verified as Oswald's by at least 4 different handwriting analysts) managed to attach themselves to the CE788 Hidell U.S. Postal Money Order, then Mr. Armstrong will be home free on this issue. Until then, I'm afraid Armstrong is fighting an uphill battle. .... And the lack of a bank stamp on the back of the money order does not prove that either the Klein's stamp or Lee Oswald's handwriting are fraudulent markings on Commission Exhibit 788." -- DVP; 11/16/15 AM

As I've said in the past, James DiEugenio doesn't care how many people he has to trash and call L-words (falsehood tellers). There is no limit in Jim's all-encompassing world of "conspiracy" and "cover-up" in the JFK case.

In Jim's last short post alone, three people get thrown under the bus by Jim -- Holmes, Dulles, and Ford. All of them innocent of any wrong-doing (IMO), but all of them considered falsehood tellers of the first order by James DiEugenio of Los Angeles.

Absolutely pathetic.

Regarding 138 4159796, I have been able to find nothing. But my guess would be it is evidence of processing - perhaps an identification number of some sort placed by the Federal Reserve.

I couldn't find anything on the "138 4159796" number either. I searched Google Books and also the regular Google.com in the hopes that maybe I could determine whether or not the "138" portion of that 10-digit number could be some kind of "prefix" that would indicate the branch or the location of, say, a Federal Reserve Bank or some local bank (like First National in Chicago). But I came up empty (as I really expected to).

However, I'm still wondering about the "138" portion of that number, because it is set apart from the seven digits that come after it. Which makes me think the "138" could possibly represent a three-digit code for "Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago", or something along those lines.

I'm back to ~shrugging~ again. But, as I said before, somebody stamped that 10-digit number at the top of the Hidell money order. The question is: Who?

A reply to Jim DiEugenio's Post #17....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1065.html

TIM NICKERSON SAID:

That money order sold on E-BAY on June 21, 2014 as a stamp collection item [is the top picture below]. The money order itself was never cashed. Compare that money order with the Klein's rifle money order:




DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks, Tim.

Perhaps that number that you've highlighted at the top of the Hidell money order — 138 4159796 — does mean something as far as "processing" is concerned. Could the Federal Reserve Bank have stamped that number on the money order in Washington? I don't know. But it obviously got there somehow. And it's not part of the money order's serial number. So what does that ten-digit number mean? And who stamped it there? And when?

But I have a feeling that conspiracists like John Armstrong and Jim DiEugenio will be doing cartwheels due to the fact that the yellow uncashed money order, dated September 11, 1963, has a serial number that is 1.4 billion numbers LOWER than the Hidell money order, even though the September money order was stamped (and, I would assume, purchased by someone) six months AFTER Lee Harvey Oswald purchased the CE788 money order in March.

That huge difference in the serial numbers will likely cause CTers to cast still more doubt on the legitimacy of Oswald's money order.

I've been a lawyer for 35 years, and there is just no way the bank is the payee - unless you get a money order to pay your mortgage or car loan from the bank, and it actually is the payee.

Thank you.

Lance,

Thank you for your recent posts concerning this "money order" topic.

I'm just pleased to see that there is at least ONE other person on the planet (besides myself) who thinks that the only real "payee" involved in the CE788 Hidell money order is Klein's Sporting Goods.

Repeating what I said four days ago....

"All of that legalistic language can be quite confusing as to exact meaning. But I'm not sure that the information in "Paragraph C" of those money order regulations really means what you [sandy Larsen] 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?

The language has me scratching my head as to WHO IS WHO there.

~shrug~

[...]

And I also just now noticed that the heading for everything that follows in Section 762.29 of those postal regulations cited by Sandy Larsen is this heading:

"Endorsement of disbursement postal money orders by payees."

The key words there are "BY PAYEES".

Well, in the case of the subject Hidell postal money order, the BANKS certainly aren't the PAYEES. The "payee" is Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago, Illinois. It was Klein's getting PAID the $21.45, not First National Bank or the Federal Reserve Bank.

So I think that heading of that regulation--alone--makes Sandy's assumption that the BANKS were required to endorse U.S. Postal Money Orders to be an unproven assumption based on Postal Regulation 762.29." -- DVP; Nov. 12, 2015

[End Quote.]

----------------

The literal definition of the word "payee" is....

PAYEE (noun) ---

1. (Banking & Finance): The person to whom a cheque, money order, etc, is made out.

Also....

PAYEE (noun) ---

A person to whom a check, money, etc., is payable.

-- TheFreeDictionary.com

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/payee

----------------

It seems to me that the BANK doesn't qualify under any of those above-referenced definitions. The Hidell money order wasn't made payable to "First National Bank". And the bank can't spend the money that has just been deposited into a customer's account. Only the "payee" (Klein's) has that right. The bank is just storing and holding the money for Klein's. They really aren't being "paid" (in the literal sense of the word, because it's not First National's money). From my (admittedly) "layman" point-of-view on this, all of what I just said above makes sense to me.

But on the other hand, I will readily admit I could be wrong when it comes to any LEGAL or TECHNICAL meaning of the term "payee" in conjunction with official postal regulations and the language utilized therein.

Some other people in this discussion have said that once Klein's stamped the Hidell money order with its "Pay To The Order Of First National Bank" stamp, that automatically makes First National Bank the second "payee" of the money order....

"Klein's was the original payee. Its endorsement stamp made the Chicago bank the second payee. The basic rule here is that any time a check is transferred (negotiated) by a "pay to" type of endorsement, the transferee is a payee." -- Jon Tidd; Nov. 12, 2015

But as I then said (when responding to Jon's post)....

"It still seems a bit strange to me to have the bank considered a "payee", since it's really KLEIN'S money, regardless of where it's being stored. But, oh well. ~shrug~" -- DVP; Nov. 12, 2015

Anyway, thank you, Lance, for your contributions to this discussion regarding this rather confusing subject.

John Armstrong will be posting on this soon.

Armstrong knows more about this issue than any person alive. Or dead.

What silliness DVP produced, walking around in the dark groping here and there, anywhere. But never doing his own original research.

Armstrong has digested the whole history of money orders in America.

Now, if only Armstrong can somehow find a way to conveniently explain away how on Earth the Klein's endorsement stamp **AND** Lee Harvey Oswald's own handwriting (which was verified as Oswald's by at least 4 different handwriting analysts) managed to attach themselves to the CE788 Hidell U.S. Postal Money Order, then Mr. Armstrong will be home free on this issue.

Until then, I'm afraid Armstrong is fighting an uphill battle.

Oh, I'm sure Armstrong has treated the world to his own speculative and lame-ass "Everything's Fake" excuse to try and explain how the Klein's stamp and Oswald's writing got onto CE788, but it would sure be nice to see some PROOF that those two very important things that exist on the money order were faked by evil conspirators. Any chance we'll ever see any proof of that, Jim?

And the lack of a bank stamp on the back of the money order does not prove that either the Klein's stamp or Lee Oswald's handwriting are fraudulent markings on Commission Exhibit 788.

The key punch holes are irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Namely, did the money order pass through the system[?]

Warren Commission Document No. 75, Page 668 is an FBI report that says a "Postal Money Order" in the amount of $21.45 was definitely sent to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago by the First National Bank of Chicago on Saturday, March 16, 1963 (next-to-last paragraph of CD75, p.668).

It sure as heck looks like the Hidell money order passed through the system to me.

At the very least, that 11/23/63 FBI report in CD75 verifies that FIRST NATIONAL BANK handed off the $21.45 "Postal Money Order" to the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK in Chicago on 3/16/63, which was one day after Klein's deposited the M.O. into its account on March 15th (also verified in CD75).

Is Vice President Robert Wilmouth of the First National Bank of Chicago now on your list of falsehood tellers, Mr. DiEugenio?

Another Interview With Lipsey:
box.com/Richard Lipsey Interview (November 22, 2013)

.....

Lance,

All of that info regarding that 1962 Palm Beach newspaper article (except for the "cut corner" discovery, which just came up today at this forum) has already been discussed (after that very same Palm Beach article was tracked down by Tom Scully a few days ago).

I've archived a lot of the see-saw discussion at my site, here....

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

And look at the serial number on the 1963 U.S. Postal Money Order Lance posted (also shown again below) -- it's 1.4 billion numbers LOWER than the Hidell M.O., even though Lance's example is stamped 6 months AFTER the Hidell money order.

That numbering snafu should make John Armstrong's head really spin, huh?

Of course, it would appear as if that M.O. Lance posted is some kind of SAMPLE money order. It's only made out for one cent, and still has the stub attached. But all the other markings seem to be in place. Kind of odd.

EDIT --- And now I just noticed that the 1961 money order posted in the first post above, made out to the same person, is also made out in the amount of just one cent ($0.01).

So that's double the "Harry Smuckler" weirdness.

But I see also by this 1961 M.O. that the person who supposedly purchased the M.O. is listed as a "Postmaster" in Samoa. Maybe that has something to do with it. ~shrug~

The Wiki article referred to by Lance:

wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card

DVP's problem isn't that he's abandoned this thread. It's that he can't tell us precisely how JFK was killed.

You're joking, right Jon?

Big hint coming up.....

As a continuation of what I said in Post #58 (re: the possible reason why we see no First National stamp on the deposit ticket seen in Waldman #10)....

Another possibility is: the extra copy of the deposit ticket was stamped by the bank—but on the BACK side of the deposit slip, instead of on the front of it.

HERE is an example to prove my point about that (also shown below). It's a deposit ticket that I filled out and sent to my bank in October 2015. After processing the deposit, the bank stamped only the back of the deposit slip, not the front.

Now, yes, I'm providing an example from 2015 here, and not from 1963. But I think it's quite possible (even likely) that the basic procedure at most banks for stamping deposit tickets hasn't changed since 1963.

The watermark?