Jump to content
The Education Forum

Sandy Larsen

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,455

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Sandy Larsen

  1. Sandy Larsen
    In 1987 postal money orders required bank endorsements. Part 229, which I quoted from above, is called Regulation CC. It was created as a result of the Expedited Funds Availability Act of 1987. So any regulation on bank endorsements prior to 1987 will be found elsewhere. I suspect that Lance could find the earlier regulation if he wanted to. The question is, does he want to? EDIT: Added the word "earlier" to clarify.
  2. Sandy Larsen
    Can't wait to read the article, James. Thank you for communicating with Armstrong on this matter, and for your support here. And many thanks to John Armstrong for spending his valuable time on this.
  3. Sandy Larsen
    LOL good one, Ray.
  4. Sandy Larsen
    Lance has concluded, based on the mere presence of a number stamped on the front of the Hidell money order, that bank endorsements were not required in 1963. Meanwhile I have proven that bank stamps were required both prior to and subsequent to 1963. It's only a matter of time before I, or someone else, discovers whether or not the law was different between those two dates, 1925 and 2001. The difficulty lies in accessing the appropriate documents. (And not being well off enough to be able to hire an attorney.)
  5. Sandy Larsen
    In 1925 postal money orders required bank endorsements. The following is from the United States Official Postal Guide, 1925, page 95: 27. Payments to Banks - When an [money] order purporting to have been properly receipted by the payee, or indorsee, is deposited in a bank for collection, the postmaster at the office drawn upon may effect payment to the bank, provided there be a guarantee on the part of the bank that the latter will refund the amount if it afterwards appear that the depositor was not the owner of the order. An order thus paid should bear upon its back the impression of the stamp of the bank. Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=5qciAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=%22should+bear+upon+its+back+the+impression+of+the+stamp+of+the+bank%22&source=bl&ots=goxRv0Ln4w&sig=KMMzSjHJa_v1Zp46S5HbJzVOskU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAGoVChMIwf6a2ICdyQIVCZuICh1Z2AeU#v=onepage&q=%22should%20bear%20upon%20its%20back%20the%20impression%20of%20the%20stamp%20of%20the%20bank%22&f=false
  6. Sandy Larsen
    In 2001 postal money orders required bank endorsements. The following is from 2001 CFR Title 12 (Banking) > Part 229 > Subpart C (Collection of Checks, Regulation CC): 229.2 Definitions As used in this part [Part 229], unless the context requires otherwise: (k) Check means-- (5) A United States Postal Service money order; 229.35 Indorsements (a) Indorsement standards. A bank (other than a paying bank) that handles a check during forward collection or a returned check shall legibly indorse the check in accordance with the indorsement standard set forth in appendix D to this part. Appendix D to Part 229--Indorsement Standards 1. The depositary bank shall indorse a check according to the following specifications: • The indorsement shall contain— —The bank’s nine-digit routing number, set off by arrows at each end of the number and pointing toward the number; —The bank’s name/location; and —The indorsement date. • The indorsement may also contain— —An optional branch identification; —An optional trace/sequence number; —An optional telephone number for receipt of notification of large-dollar returned checks; and —Other optional information provided that the inclusion of such information does not interfere with the readability of the indorsement. • The indorsement shall be written in dark purple or black ink. • The indorsement shall be placed on the back of the check so that the routing number is wholly contained in the area 3.0 inches from the leading edge of the check to 1.5 inches from the trailing edge of the check. Source: http://ithandbook.ffiec.gov/media/resources/3631/frb-12cfr229_subparts%20a_b_c_regu_cc.pdf
  7. Sandy Larsen
    Naturally I don't wish to lead anyone astray. Earlier I pointed out that the Hidell money order was missing a "cut-corner," a punch card feature that was widely in use at the time, and was used for postal money orders. It appears that the "cut-corner" feature was eliminated in early 1963. That is when the round punch-holes were added to represent the value of the money order. Here's the original thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22447 I apologize for any problems this may have caused others.
  8. Sandy Larsen
    I am officially conceding on the cut-corner issue. I believe that, while the old-style punch cards (pre-1963) did have a cut corner, the new ones did not. The reason I held to my earlier position is because the cut-corner was an improvement over the previously un-cut version of the card, and had become the standard in IBM punch cards. It made so sense to me that such a feature would be removed, because in doing so it would allow cards to be inserted upside-down or flipped over. And that would lead to cards not being readable. Or so I thought. Well, a few days ago something occurred to me. Wouldn't it be nice *if* the cards could be inserted into the card reader in any orientation and still be readable. And that's when it clicked. That indeed could be done as long as there were unused columns in the card. An extra hole could be punched which would indicate to the machine what the orientationof the card was, and the machine could adjust the read code accordingly. In this thread http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22434 I showed that the punched holes on the Hidell MO would be decoded as 2202130462 P - [dash] The number clearly represented the MO's serial number. But I didn't understand the purpose of the P or dash holes. But now I see that one of these could have been used by the machine to determine the orientation of the card. (Maybe both would be needed for that purpose, depending upon the peculiarities of the machine.) Now, this idea could be the case only if ALL the cards had the presumed "orientation hole(s)" punched. Well, Lance Payette and DVP have each posted samples of the post-1962 cards and the both have the "P" and "-" characters punched, just like the Hidell MO. If we are to assume all the cards had these punched -- a reasonable assumption -- then indeed one or both of those characters could have been used for orientation detection. And if that were the case, that would explain the elimination of the cut-corner feature. I believe that this is the case, as it makes a lot of sense. Also given that the extra holes appear to have been added when the cut-corner was eliminated. I wouldn't be surprised if the sorting machine used the orientation information to automatically correct the orientation. Thus eliminating one more step in the sorting process.
  9. Sandy Larsen
    What has taken place with the money order strikes me as more in the vein of, "We want the money order to be bogus to fit our theory, ergo it is bogus." It strikes me as what I see too often: The CT True Believers will not be satisfied unless no one was who he appeared to be, no piece of evidence can be trusted, everyone was lying, everyone was part of the conspiracy, etc. I hope you're not characterizing serious JFK researchers that way Lance, if you are, I suggest you spend more time on the forum getting to know some. I have no agenda. If I had to bet my life savings, I'd place my money on "The man shot by Jack Ruby had no knowing involvement in the assassination of JFK." But I'm also sane enough to realize I could be 100% wrong. I refuse to be lumped with the crazies, those CT True Believers for whom their particular CT has become a fundamentalist religion. Again, I hope you're not characterizing serious JFK researchers that way. Frankly, I'm pretty surprised at what I have managed to turn up with some minimal Internet sleuthing while I sit home with the flu, and even more surprised that it would be causing any controversy here. Perhaps the question should be, "Why did Gil Jesus, David Josephs, John Armstrong, Martha Moyer and Ray Gallagher not find in literally years of research, going back to the nineties, what Barely Interested Lance has found in a day and a half?" Not fair, Lance. First, researchers like these don't always direct their efforts on one specific issue, like this MO bank stamp thing. Second, not all researchers had the luxury of a well developed Internet to do the hard work for them. Third, not all researchers have a legal background to help them know what to search for. And, last but not least, need I remind you that even you have not found the answer as to whether bank stamps for postal money orders were required in 1963.
  10. Sandy Larsen
    [Lance] said he was looking at a narrow issue. But Tommy, even as a "narrow issue" it makes no sense whatsoever to conclude that the lack of bank markings is irrelevant simply because a number is stamped on the top-left front of the money order. Even DVP's conclusion that the MO had to have been processed -- because Oswald's handwriting is present -- is superior to Lance's (tentative) conclusion. At least it would have taken more than minimal effort to forge the handwriting. Forging a number is nothing compared to that! I don't see how Lance could have entertained the thought of a forged MO, ignoring the handwriting issue, yet place such importance on the number.
  11. Sandy Larsen
    Lance, A ten-digit File Locator Number was no doubt printed on postal money orders in 1963. And the ten-digit number stamped on the Hidell MO is obviously a File Locator Number, or at least is meant to be. You said earlier: It appears that they are the "File Locator Number" placed by the Treasury Department, which would seemingly be a pretty definite indication that the money order was processed. and now: If the ten digits are a File Locator Number, I am satisfied this is the end of the story. I respect you for you legal acumen, but to draw that conclusion IMO is utterly ridiculous. A File Locator Number could have easily been stamped on the money order by *anyone* . Isn't that obvious? With the exception of the handwriting on the MO, I myself would have no trouble faking that money order as we see it today (a photocopy). Or even when I was a teenager. For heaven sakes, forgeries are not an uncommon occurrence. That's why I am astonished by your conclusion. You yourself have provided proof that stamping bank endorsements on postal money orders in 1963 was at the very least practiced, and that automated machines used at the time were capable of quickly reading money-order punch-holes and stamping a bank endorsement without slowing the process down. In contrast, nobody has provided any evidence that the presence of stamps was optional. (And no, you can't used the the Hidell money order as evidence of that, given that it is the object of suspicion.) The reason suspicion is being placed on the authenticity of the money order isn't because of missing bank stamps. It's because of a combination of numerous irregularities which, as a whole, scream "something fishy is going on here." The presumably-missing bank stamps is a tiny part of the puzzle. You said: To perpetuate the "mystery" would require an extremely far-fetched scenario: The conspirators had an inside contact at the Treasury Department who was able to place a File Locator Number, and they hoped no one would notice the absence of endorsements by FNB and the Federal Reserve Bank. No. All that need be done is this: Acquire the services of a handwriting forger. Get a fake ID made for this person, using the name A. Hidell. (Not a big deal... I've seen fake IDs used by underaged teenagers to buy alchohol.) Have this person purchase a $21.45 money order using the ID. Either bribe the postal worker to stamp a "Mar 12 1963" date on the MO, or alter the stamp later . Purchase a stamp to mark the MO with a file locator number. Done! If you plan ahead and have more time, there are other, easier ways of accomplishing the forgery. You said: The Treasury Department's records retention manual would dictate how long old postal money orders are stored. I didn't find the manual, but I did see references to 5 years and 10 years. FYI, as I said earlier, money orders were destroyed after two years. According to CFR 171.5(a) (1970) "Money orders are destroyed 2 years after payment, and photostats cannot thereafter be furnished. [34 FR 1722. Feb. 5 1969]"
  12. Sandy Larsen
    Doug, the purpose of the cut corner is to make it QUICKLY obvious that a card among a stack of them is oriented incorrectly. The red circle you cite would require looking at each individual card... a slow process. (If you were to look at each individual card, the red circle would hardly be necessary as it would be obvious if a card were upside-down or flipped over.)
  13. Sandy Larsen
    Excellent post, Lance. Thanks for spending the time researching this and reporting on it. I sure hope you stick around. Lord knows we could use someone who can read legalese. What you've already posted and explained is pretty amazing. This morning I found the following paragraph repeated in successive issues of The United States Official Postal Guide, all predating 1951: Payments to Banks - When an [money] order purporting to have been receipted by the payee, or the first endorsee, is deposited in a bank for collection, the postmaster at the office drawn upon may effect payment to the bank, provided there be a guarantee on the part of the bank that the latter will refund the amount if it afterward appear that the depositor was not the owner of the order. An order thus paid should bear upon its back the impression of the stamp of the bank. The person receiving payment in the bank's behalf on an order thus receipted, the signature of the payee or endorsee being left undisturbed, may be required to write his name upon the back of the order. Of course this predates both FRB processing and punch card MOs. But it does indicate that the bank stamping of money orders was a welll established practice, having been performed for at least a couple decades that I saw. The above paragraph had disappeared by the time the final Official Postal Guide was published in 1953 (or 1954?). But I think that was a victim of abridgment , not a change in practice or law.
  14. Sandy Larsen
    I understand you are trying to salvage a theory, but trying to make the bank into a payee is pounding round pegs into square holes. Actually I just thought you hadn't noticed the "pay to the order of" stamp. I don't know if endorsing over to the bank would have made any difference. If it were a check we are talking about, and today rather than 1963, then definitely the bank would be required to endorse it either way. FRBs require it. I just don't know if that was necessarily the case for money orders in 1963. The Klein's stamp was a garden-variety deposit stamp with the company's account number on it. It is better practice to say, "For deposit only" than "Pay to the order of," but both types of deposit endorsements are very common and widely accepted. Most common is probably "Pay to the Order of Bank XYZ for Deposit Only to Account 1234567." These are called restrictive endorsements. The depository bank does not then become a payee who is separately required to endorse the instrument as it makes it way to its ultimate destination. Okay. But let me ask you a couple questions: 1) Isn't it true that if I was the payee of the MO and I endorsed it with "pay to the order of Lance Payette," you would then be the payee? If so, then why not the bank if I did the same with them? 2) Why does Klein's stamp even have the words "pay to the order of?" Why not just "for deposit only" alone? Surely, there have to be scads of 1963-era money orders around. I don't understand why you say that. I mean, if you're talking about ones that were processed. Those were boxed up for two years and then destroyed. I can't think of a reason why there would be any left at all these days. Even if a handful somehow escaped their demise, it seems that people would have tossed them in the waste basket by now. EDIT FOR BREAKING NEWS: Looks interesting. I'll study it later when I have more time. I have discovered a highly significant item that cuts against my previous position! The following appears in the court's opinion in UNITED STATES v. CAMBRIDGE TRUST COMPANY, 300 F.2d 76 (First Circuit 1962): From October 1956 to January 1958 one Ralph Porter purchased 699 postal money orders payable to himself. The orders were in the usual form and each bore on its face the legend "Void If Altered." Porter cleverly raised each order about ninety dollars and then transferred them to E. M. F. Electric Supply Company, Inc., by the endorsement: "Pay to E. M. F. Electric Co. Ralph Porter, Payee." E. M. F. delivered each order to the appellee bank, referred to hereinafter sometimes as the Bank, for deposit to the credit of its account with the endorsement: "For deposit only E. M. F. Electric Supply Co. and Camera Exchange" Printed on the deposit slip accompanying each order was the statement that in receiving items for deposit the Bank "acts only as depositor's collecting agent and assumes no responsibility beyond the exercise of due care" and that "all items are credited subject to final payment in cash or solvent credits." The Bank stamped each order with its usual clearing house stamp reading: "Pay to the Order of Any Bank, Banker or Trust Co. Prior Endorsements Guaranteed Cambridge Trust Company" and transmitted the orders to the First National Bank of Boston for collection. That bank in turn presented each order to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston for payment, and it paid the full face amount of each order as raised. So this certainly suggests that the Klein's money order should have been stamped by First National Bank of Chicago. The question would be whether this was mandatory, standard practice, or what.
  15. Sandy Larsen
  16. Sandy Larsen
  17. Sandy Larsen
  18. Sandy Larsen
    Interesting, Pat. Thanks for writing and posting it. If we accept Lipsey's testimony as fact -- something I'm inclined to do -- it means that Humes said during the autopsy that a bullet went in through the cowlick area. But by the following day he rejected that idea and claimed that it was the EOP bullet that caused the head damage. Years later the HSCA relocated Humes' EOP wound right back to the cowlick area, with Humes protesting all the way. How weird is that? Lipsey was listening closely to the autopsy doctors and, from what he was able to gather, the EOP wound was not necessarily at the EOP. He believed it might have been lower. He also stated that the doctors believed this wound was caused by a bullet that exited JFK's throat. That's right. And in fact he said the doctors were *certain* about that, that the near-EOP bullet exited the throat. I mentioned this before, but I believe that Lipsey's description of the wounds may very well be what Humes put down in his first report that he burned.
  19. Sandy Larsen
    Thanks for posting that, Lance. The money order I posted was issued when the Federal Reserve Bank was charged with punching the amount codes (with round holes). The one you posted was issued later, when Postal workers were charged with that duty. I wonder what the deal is with Harry Smuckler being sent 1 cent money orders. And why they still exist. Very, very odd. May I ask where you got that photo from? I'd like to see the back side if possible. It looks like I am wrong about the corner. But given the oddity of the two MOs, I'm not quite ready to concede yet. If I am wrong (and I think I probably am), I suspect that that the cut corner was removed when they switched over to the new cards that were punched by Postal workers. Though it makes no sense for them to do that. BTW, I'm not of the opinion that the news article is showing a card with no cut corner. To me it looks like they are holding the card upside-down, so that the cut corner is located on the opposite corner. Posing for the photo and not paying attention to the card. P.S. Does your wife know if Oswald was known to speak Russian there in Minsk?
  20. Sandy Larsen
    Yep! The registration cutout is missing. There's no way the Hidell money order could have been fed into the card reader as-is. LOL I noticed this last night, and Chris Newton noticed it today (I think).
  21. Sandy Larsen
    I was gonna bring this up in a day or two. (Because the forum is wearing me out.) But here goes... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22447 Nice catch, Chris!
  22. Sandy Larsen
    Here's an IBM punch card that was used in the 1960s to program computers: Here's a 1961 postal money order whose design was based on the IBM punch card: Now, here's the 1963 Hidell money order: Notice anything missing from the Hidell money order? (Or rather, not missing?) Hint: Ask Chris Newton. EDIT: I no longer believe this to be an issue. Post-1962 cards no longer used the cut-corner feature. See post 41 on page 3.
  23. Sandy Larsen
    Interesting, Pat. Thanks for writing and posting it. If we accept Lipsey's testimony as fact -- something I'm inclined to do -- it means that Humes said during the autopsy that a bullet went in through the cowlick area. But by the following day he rejected that idea and claimed that it was the EOP bullet that caused the head damage. Years later the HSCA relocated Humes' EOP wound right back to the cowlick area, with Humes protesting all the way. How weird is that?
  24. Sandy Larsen
    I believe the curly J is really a 4. I don't know what the purpose of the circle is.
  25. Sandy Larsen
    The holes punched by those machines were used for sorting purposes.
×
×
  • Create New...