David Von Pein

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.

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. 2. (Banking & Finance): A person to whom money is paid or due. 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.

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.

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

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?

Sandy, But you just said you agreed with Jon when he agreed with me about that one thing (not the "partially correct" thing Jon referred to) --- and that one thing was that the word "drawn" indicates that the "financial organization" that Paragraph C is talking about would have to be shown on the FRONT of the M.O. as the original payee. Hence, it would be "drawn in favor of [a] financial organization". But such was not the case with the Hidell money order. ------------------- "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"." -- DVP "DVP is correct here." -- Jon G. Tidd

Just to show the pot/kettle nature of the thinking of CTer Ben Holmes (who posts about 100 times every day at Amazon.com), I offer up this discussion from October 6 of this year (I won't go "off topic" again in this thread after I make my point here; I promise).... BEN HOLMES SCREAMS: YOU WANT TO CHERRY-PICK THE AUTOPSY REPORT!!! DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Everybody cherry-picks, Ben. LNers do it. CTers do it. Can't be helped. It's human nature and always will be. (And I already told you that same thing several times at this very forum in the past.) Plus.... Ben Holmes is a HUGE hypocrite when he tosses this statement up in my face.... "YOU WANT TO CHERRY-PICK THE AUTOPSY REPORT!!!" ....because YOU, Benny, will forever "cherry pick" the autopsy report. You LIKE the "somewhat into the occipital" verbiage (which is obviously inaccurate as far as an "absence of scalp and bone" is concerned, as the photos and X-rays AND Zapruder Film readily confirm for all time)....but you sure as heck HATE these THREE parts of that VERY SAME autopsy report, don't you Mr. Kettle?..... "It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased." and.... "The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance." and.... "The other missile...made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck." So, as we can easily see via the above examples of things that Ben will completely disregard (or label as "lies"), Hypocrite Ben Holmes is a much more blatant and brazen "cherry picker" of JFK's autopsy report than I have ever been. http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx2TE33G766I1KP&cdMsgNo=7589&cdPage=304&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3S6UAIF5802TL#Mx2TE33G766I1KP

There's not a DVP "lie" in sight. And yet Healy has determined that I have lied in "at least 30 posts" at Amazon. Have at least SOME pity on a man's weak bladder, will ya, Healy! Jiminy Christmas!

Here's something else of interest relating to the subjects of "The Rifle" and "Klein's Sporting Goods"....

Hear, hear! From a 2013 EF thread.... JIM DiEUGENIO SAID: I am really proud of the section on the Paines in my book. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: That figures. Defamation of character is always something to be proud of, isn't it Jimbo? None of that crap DiEugenio wrote in his last post [HERE] comes even close to showing Ruth Paine (or Michael Paine) had anything to do with a conspiracy to murder John Kennedy and/or frame Lee Oswald for that murder. DiEugenio's pathetic attempts to trash Mrs. Paine are sickening. I only wish I could persuade Ruth to start a slander lawsuit. She'd win, hands down. Does anybody have Ruth's phone number? Maybe I'll give her a call. DVP April 14, 2013 jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20110

Addendum #5 (or maybe it's #6; I'm losing track).... JIM HARGROVE SAID: Tom.... The subject of this thread [at the Deep Politics Forum] is "The deposit slip that was never stamped by the bank." [...] The discussion currently going on at three different forums concerns DVP's attempt to discredit John Armstrong's discovery a few years ago that the infamous "Hidell" money order was never processed, cashed, or cancelled by a bank or other financial institution. Von Pein and [Greg] Parker have tried to suggest that some of the holes punched into the card actually represented cancellation by other financial institutions. This is clearly not true. The holes indicate the serial number of the money order and the exact amount of the face value, and nothing else. I showed other Oswald financial documents from c. 1963 to show how receiving (cashing) institutions stamped legitimate financial instruments. Your attempt to change the focus of the discussion to how the existing serial number fit into the probable date of issuance of the M.O. itself is irrelevant to the question of whether this document was cashed or deposited into a bank--any bank or any other financial institution. It wasn't. TOM SCULLY SAID: With all due respect, Jim, the more time and effort I put into doing my own research in reaction to your numerous presentations, the more I understand what you do not know and do not care to know. I've become convinced you have no idea what the specific FRB processing/clearing was for the yellow-tinted, tabulation card, aka the money order in the amount of $21.45. I have established the fact that the money order form sold at Dallas until close of business on 4 January, 1963, was processed by FRB and that processing included an FRB processing center operator manually reading the amount displayed on each blue-tinted money order and manually key punching holes into the money order card that denoted the amount the operator had manually read. So that is actual documentation of the FRB marking the blue-tinted money order tabulator card during processing, but the money order in the amount of $21.45 was on a yellow-tinted tabulator card with holes corresponding to the face amount already key punched in as it was created by the new Friden money order machine. No documentation as to how the accepting bank or the FRB processing actually did or did not mark the new yellow-tinted, post-January 4, 1963 money orders sold at the Dallas P.O. has actually been presented. GIL JESUS SAID: Not only did the FNB [First National Bank] of Chicago not stamp money orders, I guess they never stamped deposit slips as well. The alleged Klein's deposit slip of 3/13/63 (Waldman 10) has a date of 2/15/63 and is not stamped by the First National Bank of Chicago, which it should have been had it been deposited. JIM HARGROVE SAID: Gil, Mega thanks for pointing out that the First National Bank of Chicago deposit slip for the alleged Klein's money order wasn't stamped or processed either, just like the money order itself. I had noticed other problems with the so-called deposit slip, but not that. This whole thing is ludicrous. The WC's Waldman Exhibit #10 shows that the alleged deposit slip for the alleged money order for the alleged Hidell purchase of the rifle was dated 2/15/63, A MONTH BEFORE THE MONEY ORDER WAS ALLEGEDLY ISSUED!! Deposited nearly a month before it was issued?? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I just realized today [November 14, 2015] that the incorrect date on the "Extra Copy" of the deposit ticket that Klein's filled out in March 1963 (pictured at the bottom of Waldman Exhibit No. 10) has only one inaccurate number printed on it, instead of two slipped digits. I had previously remarked to someone at one of the JFK forums in the last few days that TWO digits were written incorrectly on that deposit slip (the "2" and the "15" in the date), but when we look at Warren Commission Document 75, which is an FBI FD-302 report filed in November 1963 by three Chicago FBI agents, we see that the deposit that Klein's made which included the Hidell postal money order was actually not deposited on March 13, 1963, which was the day Klein's received the order form and money order from Oswald/Hidell in the mail. Per CD75, the deposit with the Hidell money order in it was sent by Klein's to First National Bank of Chicago on Friday, March 15, 1963, two days after Klein's received the Hidell order for the rifle. Here's what it says in CD75: "A deposit made with the bank on March 15, 1963, by Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc., 4540 West Madison Street, Chicago, Illinois, in the amount of $13,827.98, included two items in the amount of $21.45, and was processed by the bank on March 16, 1963." -- CD75, Page 668, Paragraph 4 So that means that only the "2" in the date—which is written as "2/15/63" on the extra copy of the deposit ticket—is inaccurate. The rest of the numbers are correct (per the info found in CD75). The 2 (February) should, of course, really be a 3 (March). Someone at Klein's must have still thought it was February when they wrote out that deposit slip on March 15th. But the key to knowing that the incorrect date on the deposit ticket was just a case of an innocent slipped digit is the fact that the total amount shown on the "2/15/63" deposit slip is identical to the penny when compared with the detailed summary sheet of Klein's 3/13/63 sales, which is also pictured in Waldman Exhibit 10. Both items show a total of $13,827.98. And a probable reason for why that "extra copy" was not stamped or marked in any way by the bank is because that piece of paper was probably never sent to the bank by Klein's. It's an "extra copy" that might have been retained by Klein's for its records only, and might not have gone to the bank with the original copy of the deposit ticket. But even if that extra copy did make it to the bank, it's also quite possible that only the FIRST (primary) copy of the deposit ticket gets stamped or marked by the bank. In the alternate scenario where ALL copies of the deposit record do get sent to First National by Klein's, the top copy is likely the only one that stays with the bank (and is marked or stamped), while any carbon copies get sent back to Klein's unmarked. 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.

BTW / FYI.... Tim Nickerson at John McAdams' forum recently posted a link to this high-quality color version of Lee Harvey Oswald's money order that I had never seen before.* Now, if Tom Scully is correct and if the Hidell/Oswald money order was part of the "new batch" of money orders that were punched at the post office instead of at the Federal Reserve Bank, then that money order linked above should be yellow-tinted. The old style money orders had a blue tint, says Tom. But I can't really tell what (if any) "tint" that color version of the money order possesses. Is it yellowish? Could be. (I'm partially color blind, so I'm at a disadvantage when it comes to determining colors.) ~shrug~ * And I'm assuming that the above color picture of the Hidell money order is not merely a "colorized" version that was taken from a black-and-white photo of the document (which, I suppose, is a possibility).

And the saga continues...... TOM SCULLY SAID: The purpose of Federal Reserve Bank clearing of postal money orders had been different for Dallas region Post Office issued money orders before January 5, 1963, than it was after. The FRB was paid an annual fee by the Postal Money order service to key-punch the face amount of each money order, into the money order, AKA the blue tinted tabulator card. After this operation, the money order card with its freshly key punched holes was returned to the automated reading/sorting process and the result was that a paper tape of the day's FRB money order processing was sent along with the key-punched money order cards t the national money order audit center in Kansas City. The paper tape contained machine readable data reconciling the amount owed to each bank in the federal reserve banking system for reimbursement by the Postmaster's money order account at the GAO. The pre-punched rectangular serial number machine code on each money order card determined the location of where money order had been issued and the FRB key-punched round holes determined the amount each issuing post office owed to the GAO account. When the FRB sent the day's money order processing to Kansas City with the reconciliation data tape, the K.C. money order office batch processed the 12 regional packets of money orders the FRB processing had organized. For Dallas-issued money orders sold beginning 5 Jan., 1963, a new process sequence began. These new yellow-tinted money orders came out of the new P.O. sales counter Friden M.O. machines with the face amount both printed and key punched into the money order AKA tabulator cards. When they reached the FRB to be processed, they could be handled much more quickly and cheaply because no operator any longer had to set each money order in a viewer and key-punch machine code holes corresponding with the face amount. The Postal money order service was able to cease paying the FRB in excess of $600,000 annually for the former key-punch service. The new style money orders were processed on new, faster machines and sorted and sent to a new postal audit/data center with the FRB reconciliation data recorded on magnetic tape. Unlike a check, a postal money order is a non-negotiable instrument and is considered void if endorsed more than once. [...] The $21.45 postal money order allegedly sold in Dallas in March, 1963 was of a new type destined for a new processing method by the FRB on new processing machinery and then it was routed to a new postal audit center in Washington where the US goverment and US Post Office investigators claimed it was located and retrieved and David noticed the familiar name of the postal official who retrieved it, J. Harold Marks, the man in the 1960 congressional hearing describing the FRB key-punching of postal money order face amounts. A check, unlike a postal money order, is a negotiable instrument of multiple endorsements, but....even a check, it turns out, is not required to receive an FRB processing endorsement --- CLICK HERE. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Thank you, Tom. The work you've put into researching this "Money Order" topic is staggering. Much appreciated. JEAN DAVISON SAID: Wow, Tom. "The Federal Reserve Bank punches the amount as it appears on them....They punch this amount into the money order." So is this, then, evidence of the long-missing "bank stamp" showing that the money order was cashed? Should we all shout "Eureka"? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: No, not quite, Jean. As Tom Scully explained, the Federal Reserve Bank stopped punching the round holes in the money orders as of January 5, 1963, two months before Lee Oswald purchased the famous "CE788" money order. So the punch holes in OSWALD'S money order were likely placed there by the post office at the time Oswald bought the M.O. (see Tom's earlier link from the 1962 Palm Beach newspaper article, linked again here). But this remark Tom made is quite interesting, isn't it?.... "Unlike a check, a postal money order is a non-negotiable instrument and is considered void if endorsed more than once." -- Tom Scully

DAVID VON PEIN SAID: And yet another addendum (~sigh~).... John Mytton at Duncan MacRae's JFK Assassination Forum provided me with THIS DOCUMENT from the year 1951 (also pictured below) relating to the manner in which U.S. Postal Money Orders were handled at that time. That 1951 information is probably not very useful or valid in most respects when compared to the procedures that were in place when Oswald bought his money order in 1963, but the '51 document does prove one thing (as does the information from 1960 provided earlier by Tom Scully) -- it proves that the Federal Reserve Bank definitely DID utilize a method of mechanically punching holes in postal money orders (at least as of 1951 and then, via Scully's info, 1960 as well). But the precise method by which U.S. Postal Money Orders were handled, processed, and marked (or punched) by the Federal Reserve Bank, circa 1963, has not yet been established with any certainty. My thanks to John Mytton for providing this 1951 postal document: TIM NICKERSON SAID: That's just more concise, easy to understand confirmation that the money order had to have been cashed. The legalese stuff that I've been reading lately just gives me a headache. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Yeah, I've got a headache from it too. But the TWO most important things (IMO) that establish the 1963 Hidell money order as being a legitimate and valid document are: Oswald's writing on the money order (as determined by multiple handwriting analysts in 1964 and 1978 -- Cole, Cadigan, McNally, and Scott) and the Klein's "Pay To The Order Of First National Bank" stamp on the back of the money order. So we KNOW from the above two things that Oswald handled and wrote on that money order and Klein's Sporting Goods handled and stamped the same document. And the above two things are true, IMO, even without any other bank markings present on the document. Many CTers, naturally, disagree. They think (evidently) that somebody faked perfect "Oswald" handwriting (good enough to fool those four handwriting examiners who looked at the ORIGINAL money order in 1964 and 1978) AND the skillful plotters were able to somehow steal a rubber "Pay To The Order" stamp owned by Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago, Illinois. (Either that, or the conspirators were able to somehow convince a representative from Klein's to jump on board the plotters' crowded "Let's Frame Oswald" cruise ship.) As we can see, the "conspiracy" options involved in making that CE788 money order a fake document are much harder to swallow than to just believe that it is a genuine document that wasn't stamped by anybody after Klein's stamped it (possibly because no such additional stamps or endorsements were required to be placed on it).

Another "Money Order" Addendum: Now we have an incredible find made by Tom Scully (which Scully posted at the aaj forum HERE on November 13, 2015). It's a PDF file of a congressional hearing regarding the post office and civil service that took place on March 30, 1960, three years before Oswald purchased his money order in Dallas. Here's the relevant passage from that 1960 hearing (complete PDF file linked below): "We use the machine method. The Federal Reserve bank punches the amount as it appears on them [money orders], and as it was cleared to them by the cashing bank. They punch that amount into the money order so if a figure is misread or if a figure has been raised it is punched for the erroneous amount by the Federal Reserve bank. When it comes out through our money order center, we process it through a tabulating machine which only reads the hole that is in there." -- J. Harold Marks; Finance Officer, Bureau of Finance, Post Office Department (March 30, 1960) SOURCE: https://bulk.resource.org/gao.gov/91-375/0000AA67.pdf RELEVANT PAGE: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iJpYz9HKZXg/VkbVOuSUNYI/AAAAAAABIHc/GTOY48KIufg/s1600/1962andEarlierFRBpostalMO.jpg -------------------- So, perhaps Brian Castle and Mike Giampaolo and Jean Davison weren't wrong after all. It looks like at least SOME of the punch holes in U.S. Postal Money Orders issued prior to 1963 WERE, indeed, placed there by the Federal Reserve Bank as part of the processing of those money orders. Whether or not this exact same system was in place when Oswald's money order was purchased in Dallas, Texas, in March 1963, I really do not know. But it's an interesting piece of information nonetheless. Thank you, Tom Scully. As a side note to all this --- A rather amazing coincidence exists concerning the above testimony of Mr. J. Harold Marks of the Post Office Department. It just so happens that Mr. Marks is the very same person who took physical possession of the Hidell postal money order in Virginia on November 23, 1963, shortly after JFK's assassination (as confirmed in Commission Document 87). Small world, isn't it?