Hank Sienzant
-
Posts
127 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Everything posted by Hank Sienzant
-
But when a bank is the payee of a money order, on behalf of one of its account holders, the bank is required by law to endorse it as the payee before handing it over to a Federal Reserve Bank. That is what paragraph c states. Doesn't Paragraph C apply, like the rest of the section, specifically to *disbursement* money orders issued by the Post Office, and not to the consumer money orders they issue? You're quoting the wrong section and applying it to the wrong document. Hank -
It may be their bank account number or their Dun & Bradstreet number. https://fedgov.dnb.com/webform Both of those are longer now, but in 1963? Hank PS: It's not a PO disbursement money order. Those are of a different form and are used to pay the Post Office Department's bills. They are NOT the same as the kind as a consumer can purchase over the counter at a post office. See the info above where DVP quotes the info concerning disbursement money orders (originally provided to DVP by me).
-
Apologies, Jim. I understood you didn't write that specifically, but understood you agree with the substance of that claim. My apologies if I misunderstood your beliefs. Hank
-
It's not my contention that Money Orders (and especially the one in question) should have a bank stamp. It's the contention of others here. I'm merely asking them to establish that contention with evidence, rather than assumptions, as you're doing. Asking me to present my evidence to the contrary is the logical fallacy known as an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Sorry, that doesn't work. Hank
-
Can anyone document - with verifiable evidence - the claim that the PO Money Order has to be stamped by the local bank on the reverse side of the Money Order? All I see are allegations this is the case. Hank
-
Well, now we're getting far off the subject at hand, of the postal money order and the supposed evidence of fakery. Is Jim really right when he says: "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." ALL the physical evidence? So that means the C2766 rifle was somehow "faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured" to frame Oswald? And the three shells at the window? And the paper bag with his prints on it? And the nearly whole bullet at Parkland? And the two large fragments found in the limo that point to his weapon? And the money order? And the order form? And the Kleins paperwork? And the post office form showing Hidell was allowed to receive mail at his PO Box? And the backyard photos showing him with the rifle in question? And the autopsy, the autopsy x-rays, the autopsy photos, the Zapruder film, the Altgens photo determined by experts to show Lovelady on the steps, the testimony of a multitude of witnesses, and the body of JFK? (This is by no means an all-inclusive list, but it's a start on the physical evidence that Jim is alleging is not legitimate). Hank
-
I should have said "FRB Marks" instead of "FRB numbers." Thanks for pointing that out. I haven't spent the time yet to understand what exactly the marks mean. But I know there are marks. And I thought I did see numbers when I took a quick glance at some of my checks. But of course I'll have to look at some 1963 checks to see what the marks were at that time. Checks won't prove a thing. We're talking about Money Orders. Aren't we? What's the numbers 138 01597856 at the very top of the Money Order signify? Hank
-
Well I have shown, subsequent to your post here, that the MO in question would definitely have been processed by the Federal Reserve Bank. As all MOs still are today. Federal Reserve Banks do use stamps on the backs of financial instruments when they process them. And the wording on the reverse side of the MO refers to the use of bank stamps on the MO. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... But I'll tell you what, Hank... show me a processed postal money order that has no stamps, and I'll consider conceding to your side. No, Sandy. Now you're asking me to disprove your claims. That's the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. I would think you'd be able to cite some legitimate processed postal money orders from the 1960's that show bank stamps on the back. That would be some proof. Also, you could cite the 1963 then-current rules that show bank stamps would be required. Hank
-
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! Especially since that stuff would have been available in any half-way decent wholesaler of paper products. IBM card stock was universal in the 1960s. Hank
-
Hi Sandy, Respectfully, in my opinion, it's not proof of that. Regular paper money orders wouldn't have the keypunch card holes; as they can't feed through the machine readers like the card stock ones. They would serve no purpose on thin paper. Have you ever seen one of those suckers in action? Have you ever fed a stack of punched cards through a machine reader? Since the PO MO in question has the keypunch card holes - meant to be fed through, and read by machine readers - then the PO MO in question must be card stock. As far as I can see. But of course, I couldn't see the evidence that PO MO's need to be stamped by a bank, either. Does anyone have any evidence that's anything more than an assumption? Hank Team "Opinions are Not Evidence" Member Hank, When I read your post, it seemed at first like you are agreeing with what I said. With this statement of yours "Since the PO MO in question has the keypunch card holes - meant to be fed through, and read by machine readers - then the PO MO in question must be card stock." you are concluding that the Hidell MO is made with card stock. Right? That is also what I believe. But if it is made with card stock, why is it that the "Mar 12 1963" postal stamp so readily bled through to the back? The fact that it bled though indicates that the MO we see is actually paper stock, not card stock. And this conclusion contradicts the conclusion of the prior paragraph. You're assuming the bleed-through and card stock are mutually exclusive. You haven't shown that. I'm going by what I can see - and the key punch holes are consistent with the IBM punch cards I utilized as a programmer, that were made with card stock. You appear to be assuming if there's bleed-through, then it can't be card stock. But you haven't demonstrated that in any way. Hank
-
umm... When they were stealing the money order, they thought it better just to make a copy lest a bank teller notices and reports the missing money order? I dunno! But I'm putting a lot of thought into it. Wouldn't the real money order be sold and cashed, and in their system to be retrieved? Wait, that won't work. That's where this was discovered. Right?
-
What exactly did I do to get you to classify me as a trolls member? (apparently the singular gets censored) Ask for evidence? Question assumptions? Hank
-
Whoa, Robert. Which category would Mark Lane fall into? Harold Weisberg? Sylvia Meagher? Josiah Thompson? They questioned the evidence they were shown and the claims that were made about that evidence. Didn't they? If all you can do is be dismissive of me for asking for the evidence, then you're dismissive of everyone here, we all want to see the evidence. As far as I know. Hank
-
Then you should be able to document it. Not just assert it. And when did it change? Per you, "The modern law is the Uniform Commercial Code. The previous law was the Negotiable Instruments Law." So please document it using 1963 law, whichever of the above was applicable then. Thanks much, Hank
-
Thank you, Robert. I see it now that I've cleaned the wax out of my ears. Team "Ad Hominem is not evidence" Member
-
And is the current numbering system the same one in use in 1963? We wouldn't want to just assume that the current documentation reflects the system in use in 1963, would we? So does the "15" mean Washington in 1963 terms, or just currently, or both? Hank
-
Proof that postal money orders were processed by Federal Reserve Banks can be seen right on the Hidell MO itself. Right below the MO's serial number (2,202,130,462) is the following symbol: 15-119 ------ 000 This is the old-style Federal Reserve Routing Number that was used when manual sorting was still being done. This form of the number is referred to as the "fractional form" for obvious reasons. It has been superseded by a non-fractional form, but the fractional form is still required by law to be printed on all bank checks, including money orders. (Note that the horizontal line may be replaced with a "/" slash, so the number will fit on a single line of text.) Fractional Form of Federal Reserve Routing Number XX-YYY -------- ZZZ XX = City Prefix YYYY = ABA Institution Identifier (a.k.a. ABA Routing Number) ZZZ = Federal Reserve Routing Symbol The City Prefix indicates the location of the bank. It is 15 on the Hidell MO, signifying Washington, DC. The ABA Routing Number 119 is used for postal money orders.* The Federal Reserve Routing Symbol 0000 is used for postal money orders and Treasury checks.** (The leftmost 0 is removed for the fractional form.) The following document http://tfm.fiscal.treasury.gov/v2/p4/c700.html outlines the procedure Federal Reserve Banks are to use when processing postal money orders. Quoting from this document: "There are a number of outstanding 'punch card' postal money orders that were issued prior to the introduction of paper style postal money orders in the spring of 1973, which bear the ABA routing number 0000-01 19. These money orders have a commercial life of 20 years. Processing instructions for the 'punch card' postal money orders are in II TFM 4-7070 of these instructions." [emphasis mine] We can see that this refers to the form of MO supposedly used by Oswald.The document refers to these MO's as "Old Style Money Order: A card style money order bearing ABA routing number 0000-0119." They are to be processed as follows: " '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." "Mutilated items" are those that cannot be processed in the normal fashion. In conclusion, we see that the Hidell money order was indeed intended to be processed by a Federal Reserve Bank.And so it would have had FRB numbers stamped on it had it been processed. It was never processed. *Sources for 119 ABA Routing Number for Postal Money Orders https://www.frbservices.org/files/servicesetup/check/pdf/check21_special_sort_options_guide.pdf http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2009-title12-vol3/xml/CFR-2009-title12-vol3-part229-appA.xml **Source for 0000 Federal Reserve Routing Symbol for Postal Money Orders http://www.eccho.org/uploads/Supplemental-1_2-1_City%20State%20prefixes.pdf Other Sources: http://www.eccho.org/uploads/Supplemental-1_2-1_City%20State%20prefixes.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_transit_number#Federal_Reserve That wasn't my question. I asked for the evidence that a bank stamp is required on the back of the money order. People cashed money orders at post offices and local banks all the time. They didn't go to the Federal Reserve to get their money. The claim is that this particular PO Money Order requires a bank stamp from the Bank of Chicago on it; and absent that stamp, it must not have been cashed. Where's the evidence that it requires said stamp? Can you cite it? In addition, and as a side note, you're citing more current documentation that says what to do with the then 1963 punch card (old style) money orders if they are presented for payment TODAY (treat them as mutilated items). That has nothing to do with how they were processed in 1963 when they weren't the old style, but the state-of-the-art style of money orders. You also appear to be saying the FRB number is both on the money order in question and not on the money order in question: ON THE MONEY ORDER: Proof that postal money orders were processed by Federal Reserve Banks can be seen right on the Hidell MO itself. Right below the MO's serial number (2,202,130,462) is the following symbol: 15-119 ------ 000 NOT ON THE MONEY ORDER: In conclusion, we see that the Hidell money order was indeed intended to be processed by a Federal Reserve Bank.And so it would have had FRB numbers stamped on it had it been processed. It was never processed. Can you advise? Hank
-
I'm still just waiting for evidence of this supposed need for a bank stamp on the back of a post office money order. Surely something that exposes the conspiracy would not be just an assumption on everyone's part, would it? Evidence? Anyone? Hank
-
Hi Sandy, Respectfully, in my opinion, it's not proof of that. Regular paper money orders wouldn't have the keypunch card holes; as they can't feed through the machine readers like the card stock ones. They would serve no purpose on thin paper. Have you ever seen one of those suckers in action? Have you ever fed a stack of punched cards through a machine reader? Since the PO MO in question has the keypunch card holes - meant to be fed through, and read by machine readers - then the PO MO in question must be card stock. As far as I can see. But of course, I couldn't see the evidence that PO MO's need to be stamped by a bank, either. Does anyone have any evidence that's anything more than an assumption? Hank Team "Opinions are Not Evidence" Member
-
Nope. "Damage Control" is a different group. I'm part of the "Your Assumptions are not Evidence" team. I'm just looking for the evidence that PO Money Orders need to have a bank stamp. I don't see that established anywhere. I understand that checks need that; but checks are a different financial instrument entirely. I also pointed out an apparent erroneous claim within the cited document -- that the money orders were processed manually; but that ignores entirely the fact that the entire point of the keypunch money order is that it's machine-readable. I'm willing to see evidence. I just haven't been shown any. And Jim just shutting down like that ("That will be it with me and Hank") apparently means he can't point to any evidence either. Hank
-
At the 10am entry I see this: "FBI SA Gale Johnson, James Hanlon and Phillip Wanerus supposedly interview Wilmouth - VP 1st National Chicago. Appears to only be ONE $21.45 Money Order yet Wilmouth says the original PMO would go to the Fed Reserve of Chicago on Monday the 18th of March." Nothing about a bank stamp being applied to the back of the PO Money Order. Where do I see the support for the claim that a bank stamp needs to be applied? As I said above, it appears to be only an assumption that personal checks and money orders were handled by banks in 1963 in the precise same way, although they are completely different financial instruments. "Damage Control" is another group entirely. I'm part of the "Your Assumptions are not Evidence" team. Hank
-
I'm not seeing anywhere in that article where it says a bank stamp needs to be applied to the back of the money order. Where, precisely, do you see that affirmation? In fact, it says something apparently incorrect, which is: "The Hidell/Klein’s PMO is of the old “Punch card” style (as you can see from the punched holes)and would be processed manually." The entire point of the IBM punch card system is to read the cards via a card reader, convert the holes into data onto magnetic tape, and add it to a computer's database. No citation is listed for that "processed manually" claim either. It still appears to be an assumption that checks and money orders were treated precisely the same way by banks, although they are completely different financial instruments. Hank Of course you can't see it Hank. What would be your purpose here if you could see it? Do you see it? If so, where do you see it? Can you quote for me where it's pointed out money orders should be stamped by the bank in the document cited? Hank
-
I'm not seeing anywhere in that article where it says a bank stamp needs to be applied to the back of the money order. Where, precisely, do you see that affirmation? In fact, it says something apparently incorrect, which is: "The Hidell/Klein’s PMO is of the old “Punch card” style (as you can see from the punched holes)and would be processed manually." The entire point of the IBM punch card system is to read the cards via a card reader, convert the holes into data onto magnetic tape, and add it to a computer's database. No citation is listed for that "processed manually" claim either. It still appears to be an assumption that checks and money orders were treated precisely the same way by banks, although they are completely different financial instruments. Hank
-
JFK to 911 Everything is a Rich Man's Trick
Hank Sienzant replied to Mark Gorton's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
I give it an F. 16 shots by eight shooters? Does anyone here believe that? Hank -
Ok, and this statement about what Huffaker & Rather did was made how many decades after the assassination? And has what corroboration? And are we taking into account that people generally try to inflate their own importance when they retell a story (that minnow becomes a whale eventually). I think we're seeing some of that in the above. What evidence is there that Rather obtained a copy of the z-film from any source on Monday, and what evidence is there that Rather saw the film multiple times (other than Huffaker's statement)? I see nothing in that statement that is believable -- as it conflicts with all the evidence made contemporaneous to the assassination. For example, the known evidence indicates Zapruder did not provide a copy to CBS or any television station. And Rather & CBS (or KRLD), having this blockbuster film on hand and available for viewing, did NOT broadcast the film, but instead, only put Rather on the air to describe it? That makes no sense to me. For those reasons, I find it difficult to put much credence in Huffaker's claims. Hank
