David Von Pein

And, as I said in my previous post, that is exactly what DID happen with the Hidell money order --- i.e., Klein's stamped it with its rubber stamp ("PAY TO THE ORDER OF FIRST NATIONAL BANK"). But you, Sandy, think that FIRST NATIONAL would need to do the same thing in order to send it from First National to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago....is that correct?

Addendum.... Another thought after reading this paragraph yet again: "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." Even if I am 100% wrong and completely off my rocker about what I said in Posts 11 and 47 in this thread, I still don't think Sandy Larsen has a leg to stand on. Why? Because even if the postal regulation cited above is referring only to markings that would appear on the back side of a U.S. Postal Money Order (versus showing up after the "PAY TO" line on the front of the M.O.)....so what? Under those circumstances, that regulation cited by Sandy would be referring to an endorsement that we all KNOW is already present on the Hidell money order, which is the Klein's stamp on the back endorsing the M.O. over to First National Bank "for credit to the accounts of persons designating payment so to be made" [citing the 762.29 postal regulation] -- with First National then becoming the second "payee". So there's nothing new or groundbreaking there at all, regardless of how that word "drawn" is interpreted.

Sandy, The entire starting point for your argument that occupies the title of this thread -- "Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!" is flawed, based on what I said yesterday at 1:39 PM EST in Post 11. And even Jon G. Tidd agrees with me, as he said in Post 17. And Jon is apparently a lawyer. (Is that right, Jon? Are you?) Sandy said:

And how many of those rifles were linked ballistically to the JFK assassination? En garde!

Jeanne DeMohrenschildt saw a rifle in the Oswalds' Neely Street apartment in 1963. I guess CTers who belong to the "Oswald Never Owned ANY Rifle At All" club must think this testimony by Mrs. DeMohrenschildt is all a lie too.... Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. And I believe from what I remember George sat down on the sofa and started talking to Lee, and Marina was showing me the house that is why I said it looks like it was the first time, because why would she show me the house if I had been there before? Then we went to another room, and she opens the closet, and I see the gun standing there. I said, what is the gun doing over there? Mr. JENNER. You say--- Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. A rifle. Mr. JENNER. A rifle, in the closet? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. In the closet, right in the beginning. It wasn't hidden or anything. Mr. JENNER. Standing up on its butt? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes. Mr. JENNER. I show you Commission Exhibit 139. Is that the rifle that you saw? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. It looks very much like it. Mr. JENNER. And was it standing in the corner of the closet? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. You want me to show you how it was leaning? Make believe I open the closet door this way. And the rifle was leaning something like that. Mr. JENNER. Right against the wall? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes; and the closet was square. I said, what is this? Mr. JENNER. It was this rifle? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I don't know. It looks very much like it, because something was dangling over it, and I didn't know what it was. This telescopic sight. Like we had a rifle with us on the road, we just had a smooth thing, nothing attached to it. And I saw something here. Mr. JENNER. I say your attention was arrested, not only, because when the closet door was opened by Marina you saw the rifle in the closet--you saw a rifle? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes. Mr. JENNER. That surprised you, first? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Of course. Mr. JENNER. And then other things that arrested your attention, as I gather from what you said, is that you saw a telescopic sight? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes; but I didn't know what it was. Mr. JENNER. But your attention was arrested by that fact, because it was something new and strange to you? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes. Mr. JENNER. You were accustomed to your husband having weapons? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Well, we had only one rifle on our trip. But my father was a collector of guns, that was his hobby. Mr. JENNER. And being accustomed to rifles, to the extent you have indicated, you noticed this telescopic lens, because you had not seen a rifle with a telescopic lens on it before? Had you seen a rifle with the bolt action that this has? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. No; I didn't ever know. I read it was bolt action but I would not know. Mr. JENNER. But you did notice this protrusion, the ball sticking out? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. No; I don't recall. The only thing there was something on it. It could be that it was the telescopic sight or something, but it was something on the rifle. It was not a smooth, plain rifle. This is for sure. Mr. JENNER. Now, when you saw that, and being surprised, were you concerned about it? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I just asked what on earth is he doing with a rifle? Mr. JENNER. What did she say? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. She said, "Oh, he just loves to shoot." I said, "Where on earth does he shoot? Where can he shoot?" When they lived in a little house. "Oh, he goes in the park and he shoots at leaves and things like that." But it didn't strike me too funny, because I personally love skeet shooting. I never kill anything. But I adore to shoot at a target, target shooting. Mr. JENNER. Skeet? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I just love it. Mr. JENNER. Didn't you think it was strange to have someone say he is going in a public park and shooting leaves? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. But he was taking the baby out. He goes with her, and that was his amusement. Mr. JENNER. Did she say that? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes; that was his amusement, practicing in the park, shooting leaves. That wasn't strange to me, because any time I go to an amusement park I go to the rifles and start shooting. So I didn't find anything strange. Mr. JENNER. But you shot a rifle at the rifle range in these amusement parks? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes. Mr. JENNER. Little 22? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I don't know what it was. Mr. JENNER. Didn't you think it was strange that a man would be walking around a public park in Dallas with a high-powered rifle like this, shooting leaves? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I don't know it was a high-powered rifle. I had no idea. I don't even know right now. Is it a high-powered rifle? Or just a regular one-bullet rifle, isn't it? Mr. JENNER. It is a one-bullet rifle, but it is a pretty powerful one. Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I didn't know that. What caliber is it? Mr. JENNER. 6.5. Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. That I don't understand. We had shotgun with us. Mr. JENNER. Had anything been said up to this point in your acquaintance with the Oswalds of his having had a rifle, or a shotgun, in Russia? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. No. Mr. JENNER. No discussion of any hunting in Russia? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. In fact, we never even knew that he was a sharp-shooter or something. We never knew about it. Mr. JENNER. No discussion of that? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. No discussion at all. She just said, we are so short of money, and this crazy lunatic buys a rifle. This is what she told me. And you know what happened after that. Mr. JENNER. Please. Tell me everything she said on this occasion. Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I think the most important thing is, that crazy lunatic bought a rifle when we really need money for other things. Mr. JENNER. And she also said he took it out in the park and was shooting it. Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Something like that; yes. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/demohr_j.htm

I've answered many of those questions in Healy's thread-starter. They were asked originally in 2007 by a rabid CTer named Ben Holmes. At that time, Holmes' list had just 21 questions on it. I answered them on January 11, 2007, here.... https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/9eZqPIn8vms/Mm7iJxysuW0J

QUESTIONS THAT ARE NEVER ANSWERED BY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.... JFK conspiracy theorists are usually pretty good at asking questions regarding President John F. Kennedy's 1963 assassination. But conspiracists aren't so good at coming up with any answers themselves to many of the big-ticket questions that lone-assassin believers have for them. For example, these eight inquiries: 1.) Where are those other non-C2766 [non-Mannlicher-Carcano] bullets? Who hid those bullets? When did they hide them? 2.) What other weapons were used? 3.) Why is it that out of all the bullets and fragments connected with the murder of President Kennedy, not one of the presumed-to-exist non-Carcano bullets/fragments turned out to be large enough to be tested so as to eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as the weapon that fired those bullets/fragments? More good fortune for the ever-lucky plotters? 4.) If the Single-Bullet Theory is false, what anti-SBT theory replaces it? And if the throat shot was a frontal shot, how could two bullets fail to go through JFK's soft flesh without damaging any parts of JFK's back/neck to account for the double-stoppage of the bullets? And where did those two bullets go? If the throat wound was an entry wound, then Kennedy should have had two bullets in his upper back and throat regions when he was autopsied. Where are those two bullets? 5.) Where could a frontal gunman have been located to have caused a large exit wound in the right-rear portion of JFK's head (which is a wound that almost all conspiracy theorists think existed, even though such a rear head wound is not visible at all in the President's autopsy photographs and X-rays)? 6.) Why does everything lead to Lee Harvey Oswald, including every scrap of the physical evidence in the whole case, if LHO was really innocent? A patsy plot, right? Then why doesn't Mr. Oswald name some names of his co-conspirators during the two days he was in police custody, instead of saying the Dallas Police Department framed him via his totally-misunderstood "I'm Just A Patsy" declaration, which is a comment that has Oswald clearly aiming the blame at the DPD and not the Mob, CIA, etc.? 7.) If a pre-arranged "solo patsy" plot really existed prior to 11/22/63 (as per the plot proposed by kooks like Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone and many other conspiracy theorists), then why on Earth did the conspirators try to kill JFK by firing multiple guns from different angles in Dallas' Dealey Plaza? Were those plotters just playing it safe? Or were they merely retarded idiots who wanted the plot to be uncovered within minutes of shooting the President from so many different angles? 8.) Related to the latter portion of #6 above --- Why was Lee Harvey Oswald willing to remain so tight-lipped for 46 hours if he truly was a "patsy" and knew at least something about the plot swirling around him (and even most of the JFK conspiracy kooks who populate the world think Oswald knew something)? Or was Lee Harvey truly the bonehead to end all boneheads and either (somehow) knew nothing of any plot to murder the President, or was willing to take the lone rap for two murders he never committed (including the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit)? David Von Pein April 4, 2008 May 2012

Thank you, Jon Tidd, for all of that information. Very helpful indeed. So I guess I was incorrect about Klein's being the ONLY "payee" as far as the Hidell money order is concerned. I accept your explanation regarding First National Bank becoming the "second payee" after Klein's endorsed the back of the money order. Although 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~ But, it would appear by your first comment above ("DVP is correct here") that Sandy's cited example of Regulation 762.29c does NOT mean what Sandy thinks it does. Correct? In other words, since that word "drawn" is included in that paragraph Sandy cited, that would mean that any money order "drawn in favor of financial organizations" (quote from 762.29c) would have had the financial organization's name shown on the front of the money order next to the "PAY TO" line, correct? But we know the Hidell money order has "Klein's Sporting Goods" written on the "PAY TO" line. So, Jon, is it back to the drawing board for the conspiracy theorists on this matter or not? I'm still perplexed by some of the language. Thank you.

So the man who told Groucho Marx on the "You Bet Your Life" radio show in January 1952 that a letter could be delivered overnight from California to New York was just lying through his teeth. Is that what you think, DGH? Maybe "they" were already starting to frame Oswald way back in '52, huh?

Sandy, 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 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~ But upon reading the page you linked to a little further, Paragraph B is quite interesting. That section seems to imply that NO endorsement IS an acceptable way to handle a U.S. Postal Money Order (emphasis is mine).... --- QUOTE: --- 762.29b --- Endorsement of disbursement postal money orders by a financial organization under the payee's authorization.... When a Disbursement Postal Money Order is credited by a financial organization to the payee's account under his authorization, the financial organization may use an endorsement substantially as follows: Credit to the account of the within-named payee in accordance with payee's or payees' instructions. Absence of endorsement guaranteed. A financial organization using this form of endorsement shall be deemed to guarantee to all subsequent endorsers and to the Postal Service that it is acting as an attorney in fact for the payee or payees, under his or their authorization. --- END QUOTE --- Now, does the above merely mean that even if Klein's had not put their "Pay to the order of First National Bank" stamp on the back of the M.O., that First National would still have credited it to Klein's account? Or does "Absence of endorsement guaranteed" mean something else? ~shrug~ However, the words "to all subsequent endorsers" would seem to imply that it's likely that a money order WILL later be endorsed by other institutions. But I'm still confused a bit by the language. EDIT/ADDENDUM --- 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. https://books.google.com/books?id=sfQIBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=CFR+Title+39+762.29&source=bl&ots=0yisztpk2H&sig=vHRvehU3ARSDQwLZU6hT6bfC1UQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBmoVChMIoY6KuvmKyQIVC-RjCh3s8QEt#v=onepage&q=CFR%20Title%2039%20762.29&f=false As a side note, let me state that I appreciate the tremendous amount of work and effort and Google searching that Sandy Larsen has done in the last few days to try and nail down details relating to this controversial "Money Order" topic. Excellent work, Sandy.

Okay, Sandy. Believe what you want. But I disagree. But can you give me your opinion as to why the alleged plotters were so incompetent when it came to pretty much everything relating to the alleged "phony" rifle purchase? E.G., Wrong paper stock used for the money order. No bank stamps. The rifle order and money order go from Dallas to Chicago in 24 hours, which is an impossibility if we're to believe the conspiracy theorists.* They "shipped" the WRONG RIFLE, per DiEugenio and other CTers (sending "Hidell" a 40-inch Carcano instead of the 36-incher that "Hidell" ordered via the American Rifleman magazine ad). Why did they manufacture that little piece of confusion if the ENTIRE rifle transaction is nothing but a fantasy from the ground up---including ALL of the paperwork? They forgot the proper legal forms for the rifle (which CTers insist should have been included with the rifle shipment; although Jean Davison in the past has made it quite clear, via documentation, that such a legal requirement only applied to HANDGUNS in 1963, not rifles). * Incredibly, however, a letter that was mailed in January 1952 could go all the way across the country overnight--from California to New York. (Audio below.) NEXT-DAY AIR MAIL SERVICE -- IN 1952!

Geesh. I can't believe I actually need to talk Jimmy through this easy stuff. The words in quotation marks that Hank S. quoted are my words, which is obvious if you follow this thread for the last couple of pages. Sandy quoted me from my website. Hank then quoted Sandy who was quoting me. Still need another blueprint, Jim?

Of course I knew who Hank was quoting. He was quoting ME, not you. Just like I said in Post 99. The "quote block" shows Hank was quoting from one of Sandy Larsen's posts. But Sandy was quoting me. And Hank was really responding to something that *I* wrote, not something Sandy wrote.

That sentence of mine that Hank quoted is perfectly accurate based on DiEugenio's statements and written comments over the years about the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases. But I did not place quote marks around this 20th item on my "Stupid Things" list. I was merely saying that you (James DiEugenio) BELIEVE all of those crazy things. And you do. Without doubt. I was very careful to put in only things that I *know* you believe. And this 20th item is one of them (otherwise you wouldn't believe in Oswald's innocence in BOTH the Kennedy & Tippit murders).... [Quoting DVP:] 20.) All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in the two Nov. 22 murders (JFK's and Tippit's) has been faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey. [End DVP Quote.] I'll be happy to rewrite that 20th item, 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. Who's "Hank T."? Hank's last name is Sienzant. You're having a hard time with names today.

Jim, Hank was quoting me, not you, from my "22 Stupid Things" webpage.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/01/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-81.html#The-Stupid-Things-James-DiEugenio-Believes

I've speculated in the past about this sort of thing (and, yes, I *am* only speculating and it should identified as such, because I have no proof of this).... I'm wondering if a document (or deposit ticket) representing the bulk transfer of money orders from, in this case, First National Bank in Chicago to the FRB in Chicago, would be the only document that would need to be stamped or marked or endorsed by First National? ~shrug~ (Bernice Moore thinks otherwise, however.) From THIS EDU. FORUM DISCUSSION IN MARCH 2011.... DAVID VON PEIN SAID: It's my feeling, too, that in many cases where a large, bulk deposit is made which includes many checks and money orders (which would certainly have been the case with the $13,000+ deposit made by Klein's Sporting Goods on March 13, 1963) that it's quite possible that only the DEPOSIT TICKET for the entire bulk amount gets stamped by the bank after it is received. That last part about "bulk deposits" with a lot of checks and money orders shouldn't be too hard to verify at some point in the future. (Are there any bank employees posting at this forum?) BERNICE MOORE SAID: I did work in a bank back then, but here in Canada. .... I do not know if the process was the same, in the states, but here every cheque, money order, [or] whatever, in a deposit was stamped, as it was also with the stamp of the bank where it was first presented, on the back. fwtw.

More stupidity on the part of your bumbling idiotic patsy framers, right Jimmy? They couldn't even get the right "card stock" to mimic a real U.S. Postal Money Order. What a band of goofs those plotters were. But thank goodness we've got super sleuths like Armstrong, Josephs, Larsen, and DiEugenio on the scene now to figure all this out. Otherwise, Dulles, Ferrie, Shaw, and the stumblebum who used the wrong paper for CE788 would never have been found out and exposed!

Okay, Jimmy. Ten-Four and Wilco. One-Adam-12 out. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-complete-series.html

And let's not forget about the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald's handwriting is on the money order in question -- the original of which was examined by questioned documents expert Alwyn Cole of the Treasury Department..... MELVIN EISENBERG -- "Mr. Cole, I now hand you an item consisting of a U.S. postal money order in the amount of $21.45, payable to Klein's Sporting Goods, from "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas." For the record I will state that this money order was included with the purchase order in Exhibit 773 which has just been identified, and was intended and used as payment for the weapon shipped in response to the purchase order, 773. I ask you, Mr. Cole, whether you have examined this money order for the purpose of determining whether it was prepared by the author of the standards?" ALWYN COLE -- "Yes, sir." MR. EISENBERG -- "What was your conclusion, Mr. Cole?" MR. COLE -- "It is my conclusion that the handwriting on this money order is in the hand of the person who executed the standard writing [i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald]." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Looks like we can add the name of Alwyn Cole to James DiEugenio's list of falsehood tellers. Right, Jim? (Or does Cole already show up as #1,846 on your existing list?)

Yeah, Jim, CD75 is just another lie, right? This one being told by the THREE different Chicago FBI agents who attached their names to that report in CD75 -- Gale T. Johnson, James E. Hanlon, and Philip R. Wanerus. So there are three more scheming falsehood tellers for Jimmy to add to his ever-growing list of falsehood tellers (can't say the L-word at this forum, for some silly reason).

Warren Commission Document No. 75, Page 668, is an FBI report that says a money order for $21.45 was sent to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago on March 16, 1963 (next-to-last paragraph).... http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10477#relPageId=672 Sure looks like the Hidell money order entered the federal banking system to me.

And just what were the other two or three, Jim? Please provide the links. Holy St. Mary! What a beautiful place for a "Pot/Kettle" icon here! (Somebody get me one--quick!) CTers have the patent on sending people down garden paths. And they own another patent on sending perfectly innocent people to the figurative gallows based on NOTHING but suspicion, rumor, and gut feeling --- like, say, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, Linnie Randle, Wesley Frazier, Bob Frazier, Allen Dulles, and M.N. McDonald, among dozens of others connected in some way to the events of November 22, 1963. Jim D. surely must have changed his middle name to "Irony". How could it possibly be anything else? Well, James, fortunately for all of us, you aren't steering the ship here at The Education Forum. You, Jim, should be very familiar with those two initials -- BS -- what with the fact you believe in every one of these incredibly ridiculous things.... jfk-archives/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-81/The-Stupid-Things-James-DiEugenio-Believes

.....

Totally untrue. I merely saw Jean's post at the McAdams forum and decided to re-post it here. Jean wasn't "passing" anything on to ME specifically at all. Jean, in fact, is a current member of this forum and she can post here anytime she wants. She's been a member since August 22, 2004, as we can see here in her profile.... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=1129 So she certainly doesn't need me (or anyone else) to serve as a go-between when it comes to posting at this forum. Time for DiEugenio to wipe a little egg off of his face now. I had to do that yesterday when I fully admitted I was wrong about the "punch holes" topic. Will Jim do likewise now and retract his wholly inaccurate quote cited above?

Sure. There must have been a "heavier hand" being applied by both Lee Oswald (whose written words are bleeding through just a little bit on the CE788 money order) and the postal employee who stamped the M.O. in the lower right-hand corner. More pressure on the pen or the inked stamp means more ink being absorbed by the paper. Hence, it bleeds through to the other side. If the 1961 money order mentioned earlier by John Armstrong has no bleed-thru, and *IF* it was the exact same thickness of paper stock as CE788 (which I don't suppose can ever be confirmed with 100% certainty), then I suppose that would indicate the people who wrote on and/or stamped that 1961 money order just didn't apply as much pressure as Oswald and the post office clerk applied to the CE788 money order on March 12, 1963. Is that "innocent" explanation not nearly good enough for you, James? (Silly question, I know.) Plus, it's also possible (I suppose) that between 1961 and 1963, a lighter weight and thinner paper stock was being used for U.S. Postal Money Orders, which would, of course, lend themselves more to "bleed-thru".