Scott Kaiser

No David, you asked for a third, I just merely gave you what you asked for, and now, you're trying to use it. Shame on you David.

Wait a minute, I think I understand you now, and what you're saying is that since the plotters didn't bother to add any markings to the PMO to avoid any further investigation of blowing this PMO you're suggesting the bank just screwed up, is that what you're now saying? My father would say, I'm surrounded by what? LOL!

Yeah, why in God's name wouldn't you go with just plain incompetence? I personally, stick with number #1.

No, as I explained in my last post, I choose to believe that the following words within the FRB regulation can be properly applied to the Hidell Postal Money Order, IF that money order had been included in a large bulk "cash letter" type of deposit by the FNB of Chicago. In such a "bulk" deposit, "All cash items" (in BULK form) probably were endorsed via a "cash letter" which accompanied the multiple money orders that FNB sent to the FRB, which would include the Hidell M.O. .... "All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent." Scott, David is making stuff up. He claims that the DEPOSIT SLIP was endorsed rather than the individual PMOs. (The deposit slip is called a "cash letter.") There is NO reason to believe this is true. There is ZERO evidence. Not even a SINGLE HINT of this has been seen ANYWHERE. It's just DVP's theory. ​Thanks for clearing that up, I wasn't sure where he was getting his information from to prove an argument he was destine to fail.

​WRONG! That would have led to another investigation, which teller "approved" the PMO, who stamped it, time, date, and would have narrowed down to no one, that would have caused an explosion. Bank Tellers go through extensive training, and before acting on their own, they are supervised, the routine is de novo, over and over, you don't forgot your job at a bank, you can easily lose it that way.

There's also a good chance they're right! Last word, lololol... hahahaha!!

David V, would you agree that my suspicions of this forged postal money order by Hidell maybe wasn't Ozzie after all? Hmmmm?

Now David, I think David is correct, lol....

Bottom line, Sandy was correct about bank endorsements, you chose not to believe him. I know you didn't overlook my post, or I'm sure you would have attacked it, or tried to discredit it. You can't discredit truth! This should now end these discussions really as to whether the federal institution is required to endorse the currency. You can NOW add this information to your sight so that it ends all questions. 3.3Endorsement 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. no need to ware your glasses, I don't want you to miss anything, this information is described in "small print"

Not sure how much "liquid" one would need to apply to paper before lifting prints, or what type of liquid would be needed, would you know what they used? I do know that once "liquid" is applied to paper depending how much is applied the signature will begin to "smudge" very quickly. The last time I ever saw anyone try to life finger prints off paper in those days would use "dusting powder" not liquid, today they use crazy glue and a microwave to lift the prints off paper. If the FBI did in-fact use some type of liquid to lift the prints it's no wonder Hoover was surrounded by idiots.

Yeah, I hate when that happens, thanks for clearing that up for me David.

My bad David, I'm so stupid, how could I have not included the other as well, I'm sorry, this is right out of the Secret Service hand book, although there is a distinction between "Pay to the order of" and "Disbursement Postal Money Orders", both are required to be endorsed by the financial institution. https://books.google.com/books?id=Ggo7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=is+there+a+difference+between+pay+to+the+order+of+and+Disbursement+Postal+Money+Orders&source=bl&ots=ijwvsKcANH&sig=xQgBjqryeY1WJDpoJMTRILfgZuE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2gICo44_LAhVEsoMKHeJiCzsQ6AEIJjAB#v=onepage&q=is%20there%20a%20difference%20between%20pay%20to%20the%20order%20of%20and%20Disbursement%20Postal%20Money%20Orders&f=false When I examine the PMO under magnification, you can clearly see the words Kleins and Sporting had been erased and re-written, and or written in pencil not pen. I am sure that this is not the carbon copy. In-fact, the word "sporting" is written darker then the word Kleins suggesting that someone, when re-writing the word pushed down slightly harder with the pencil not keeping a consistent amount of pressure throughout. Someone tried to forge Oswald's handwriting.

And, because the postal money order was signed by an Alex Hindle, if I misspelled the name sorry. It would make THIS postal money order a forgery, so, there had to be someone else who knew Oswald was aka Hindle, if that's true, then it only stands to reason why this postal money order never made it to the bank or to the postmaster, someone needed to cover their tracks.

If the CIA can make an entire ship disappear, and have it bounce from owner to owner, and even have it registered in the Cayman Islands (3) three months AFTER my father's assassination, and there was nothing we could do about it then, trust me when I tell you, a document is nothing.

The easiest way of finding out if that postal money order is a forgery is to make a copy of it, approach someone at the post office, and ask? What harm could that do? Then, I'd say you have a tightly nit sealed case against those who forged this document. Bet it was the CIA.

I mean this with all sincerity, I am not out to hurt one side or the other, I'm not trying to discredit anyone, I'm not going to put anyone down, I believe we are all in this together. We all want the truth, and we all make mistakes. David, outside of JFK I think we'd be good friends, speaking JFK, truthfully, that postal money order is a complete forgery. And, that is the honest to God's truth, after posting the regulations on how the bank cash's postal money orders, it's clear that not only do the banks have to stamp and endorse the money order as a "guarantee payment" to the company who also endorsed the postal money order, but the postmaster will [also] endorse the postal money order as payment or it was rejected. In this case with the postal money order Oswald allegedly sent never made it to the bank, therefore it was not endorsed, and it certainly could not make its way to the postmaster or it would have been discovered a forgery, which would have then certainly opened a can of worms so to say.

After further examining the alleged postal money order allegedly sent by Oswald to Kline's for the rifle, and there is clearly no endorsement by the bank or postmaster only indicates one thing, and one thing only, that postal money order is a forgery. Meaning, it's a fake postal money order, hope I was able to clear this up David.

Can we now say case closed?

Scott, The document that you cite here gives regulations for cashing a postal money orders (PMO) at post offices. You need to cite the regulations for cashing PMOs at banks. You are right, and David is wrong, that a bank stamp was required on Hidell's PMO. Bank stamps have always been required, ever since banks began accepting them. The same is true for Federal Reserve Banks. (Actually, the latest date for which I've checked these regulations is 2001. So things may be different now... I don't know.) You will find proof of what I'm saying in Post 197 on this page. David knows about the proof but simply refuses to acknowledge it. This is what I found in dispersing funds from a postal money order, it appears that once the funds have been paid, that postal money order gets sent to the "postmaster" who also endorses that money order to complete the transaction. Both the bank and the postmaster stamp some sort of a transaction after that postal money order has been cleared. It's also up to the postmaster to reject a postal money order paid by a financial institution such as banks. 3.2Payment 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. 3.3Endorsement 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. 3.4Reclamation 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.

Sorry, that damn "E" gets me every time. One last thing David, I'll leave you with this. All money orders are forwarded through the Federal Reserve Banking System, to which commercial banks have access. Meaning they go through the ringer, and get endorsed by a financial institution and is For this standard: a. Money order means a U.S. Postal Money Order. b. Federal Reserve Bank means a Federal Reserve Bank or branch thereof that presents a money order for payment by the postmaster general. c. Presenting bank means a bank that presents a money order to and receives credit for the money order from a Federal Reserve Bank. d. Reclamation means the action taken by the postmaster general to obtain refund of the amounts of paid money orders. e. Examination includes examination of money orders for indicia of theft, forged endorsements, forged signatures or initials of issuing employees, raised amounts, and other material defects by electronic methods and visual inspection for defects that cannot be discovered electronically. http://pe.usps.com/text/dmm/S020.htm

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

My bad David, I'm so stupid, how could I have not included the other as well, I'm sorry, this is right out of the Secret Service hand book, although there is a distinction between "Pay to the order of" and "Disbursement Postal Money Orders", both are required to be endorsed by the financial institution. https://books.google.com/books?id=Ggo7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=is+there+a+difference+between+pay+to+the+order+of+and+Disbursement+Postal+Money+Orders&source=bl&ots=ijwvsKcANH&sig=xQgBjqryeY1WJDpoJMTRILfgZuE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2gICo44_LAhVEsoMKHeJiCzsQ6AEIJjAB#v=onepage&q=is%20there%20a%20difference%20between%20pay%20to%20the%20order%20of%20and%20Disbursement%20Postal%20Money%20Orders&f=false

Case close!

In other words, banks are "required" to endorse the postal money order before dispersing any funds. The postal money order allegedly sent to Kline's was a forgery. http://cfr.regstoday.com/39cfr762.aspx#39_CFR_762p26

Pick one? https://www.usa.gov/history