Sandy Larsen
-
Posts
9,455 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Everything posted by Sandy Larsen
-
Let's look at Jon's post again again and I'll explain. <Begin Jon Tidd's Post> DVP said: "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"." Jon said: DVP is correct here. DVP said: "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." Jon said: DVP is partially, but only partially, correct here. 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. </End> I agree with all Jon says here. Even the two times he agrees with you. The Hidell money order was indeed "drawn" in favor of Klein's sporting good. At which time Klein's was the payee. However, the moment an authorized person at Klein's endorsed the money order by stamping the back, the payee became the First National Bank of Chicago. The money order became drawn in the favor of first National Bank. (Certainly not still drawn in Klein's favor. Though First National would, according to their banking account agreement with Klein's, deposit the $21.45 to Klein's account ) -
LOL
-
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"). I repeat what I said (above) with relevant emphasis: All Postal Money Order payments to banks, to be credited to the accounts of account holders, shall be endorsed in the name of the bank as payee, in the usual manner (i.e. as is done for checks, etc.). Klein's is not a bank. First National is. So First National should have endorsed the money order in its name. Also, remember, Klein's had endorsed the MO over to First National, making First National the new payee. Now read again what I said and see if it now makes sense. 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? Yes, that's correct.
-
Anybody can take any fact and find words to explain it away. I invite you, as a devil's advocate, to provide a plausible explanation for the lack of stamps on the back of the money order. I'll be happy to consider and respond to that. You're certain that there's no other possible interpretation: "fact...never cashed"? I'd say I'm about 98% certain that is the case. Because everything we knows points to the (presumed) fact that money orders were to be endorsed by the bank. The Fractional Federal Reserve Routing Number is present on the Hidell MO, indicating that it was to be processed by a Federal Reserve Bank. There is testimony that the MO was to be processed by a FRB. There is a place on the Hidell MO for bank endorsement stamps, and a note above that area mentioning such endorsements. We've seen the federal law requiring an endorsement stamp of the bank. The processing of negotiable documents like checks and money order was mature in 1963, including the adoption of the MICR numbering system that we're all familiar with. (MICR = Magnetic ink character recognition.) So there is no reason to believe that money order were treated any differently in 1963 than they are today. The ONE THING that contradicts all we know is the Hidell money order. Just that. In addition to that, I've shown (to my own satisfaction) that the bleed-thru we see on the Hidell money order is highly unlikely to have occurred on a real postal money order card. I've done tests only on 7 mil cards I have on hand. But I found some actual postal money order receipts from the 1960s on eBay that were torn away from the part that you deposit. I've purchased those and will do ink tests on them once I get them. One other thing is this: I found an actual 1961 postal money order on e-Bay. The price for it is $100 so I won't be buying it. But there is a noteworthy difference between it and the Hidell money order. One of its corners has the notch in the upper right-hand corner that IBM punch cards all had. We don't see one on the Hidell card. Why not?
-
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.
-
No, Jon Tidd agrees with me. (He merely agreed to one thing you said, as would have I.) He said Even on the back of the MO you can see that Klein's paid the money order to their bank. Because the endorsement field is preceded by the words "Pay to."
-
Duplicate post.
-
David said: 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. Thanks for the kind words, David. I'd be embarrassed to admit how many hours of searching I spent trying to find that passage. I almost fell off my chair when I first read it. I don't know if Jon Tidd's reply satisfied your questions. I'm going to attempt to translate to layman's terms 39 CFR 762.29 paragraphs b and c so I can respond to your post. Here's the original legalese text: ( 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. c) Endorsement of disbursement postal money orders drawn in favor of financial organizations. 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. Here's my Layman's translation: ( The endorsement of a postal money order by a bank, on behalf of the payee (i.e. account holder) [because the account holder apparently forgot to endorse it himself when he deposited it]. When proceeds of a Postal Money Order is credited by a bank to the payee's (i.e. account holder's) account, the financial organization may use the following endorsement if the account holder failed to endorse the money order himself: Credit to the account of the named account holder, in accordance with account holder's instructions [located in the bank account agreement signed by the account holder]. Absence of [the account holder's] endorsement is guaranteed. [The Postal Service is thereby held harmless in the event payment ends up in the wrong hands.] A bank using this form of endorsement is providing a guarantee to all subsequent endorsers (i.e. other banks the money order may go through) and to the Postal Service, that it is acting as an agent for the account holder, and has been given the "power of attorney" (by the account holder, as agreed to in the bank account agreement) to sign for him. c) The endorsement of postal money orders which are to be paid to banks. All Postal Money Order payments to banks, to be credited to the accounts of account holders, shall be endorsed in the name of the bank as payee, in the usual manner (i.e. as is done for checks, etc.). (Paragraph ( is pretty wordy, so I'm not sure others will understand it. But it is easier for me to understand than the original legalese. I think paragraph © is now easy to understand for all.) If a person deposits a check or money order and forgets to endorse it, his bank may choose to accept it. But later it may be rejected by the issuing bank (the Postal Service in our case). To prevent this from happening, the person's bank can use the endorsement described in paragraph ( to hold subsequent holders of the financial instrument harmless. .
-
Anybody can take any fact and find words to explain it away. I invite you, as a devil's advocate, to provide a plausible explanation for the lack of stamps on the back of the money order. I'll be happy to consider and respond to that.
-
Jon understands it the way I do, though after reading the way he put it I think I understand now why Klein's endorsement is required. 1. The Payee is originally Klein's. 2. Klein's endorses it over to their bank, and the bank becomes the payee. 3. The bank endorses it over to the Federal Reserve Bank, and the Federal Reserve Bank becomes the payee. 4. After that, I suppose the Federal Reserve Bank presents the MO to the Postal Service, and the Postal Service pays the money to the payee, which is the Federal Reserve Bank. The process I describe here makes sense to me. Honestly, I have no idea if it's all correct, but what I do know is that 1 and 2 are correct, and that by law the bank must endorse the MO before presenting it to the Federal Reserve Bank for processing. If the bank doesn't endorse it, the Federal Reserve Bank cannot honor it because the payee, Klein's, is not a member bank of the Federal Reserve.
-
In Dallas, back in 1963 you could walk into any place that sold guns and buy any longarm without using an ID. The entire charade regarding Kleins, the money order, the P.O. boxes, and the bogus murder weapon was hastily contrived to pin blame on Oswald. Without that evidence there would be essentially no case at all, it was required to prop up the Lone Nut theory Exactly! Thanks Chris. (Not to diss the other feedback. All feedback is useful, even if only to clarify.)
-
While it's true that there are a number of inconsistencies and inexplicable things indicating Oswald didn't shoot the Carcano or any rifle that day, I like to use the fact that the money order was never cashed because it is such a simple things to see and understand. And the fact that an unprocessed MO was used as evidence against Oswald is strong evidence he was being framed. Think about it. The prosecution presents as evidence the murder weapon, and a money order that was used to pay for the murder weapon, along with related document... only, the money order was NOT used to buy anything. The way the weapon was paid for is a critical link, but is proven to be false evidence. How can it be explained? Well, maybe the weapon was shipped without payment being received. Oh really? Then how do you explain the records showing the MO was deposited?? That's right, the MO that wasn't deposit was deposited. I don't think so. It smacks of framery.
-
A money order isn't a check. But it's processed the same way a check is, through a Federal Reserve Bank using their routing number system. There are also other "financial instruments" processed that way. The purpose of the endorsement is to indicate who is to be paid the money. When you receive a check, you have to endorse it over to the bank because you aren't a member of the Federal Reserve. (The Federal Reserve will pay only member banks.) The bank can then receive payment from a Federal Reserve Bank (and credit it to your account). But the bank must also endorse the instrument... for what reason I'm not sure. But it is required by law. Maybe they are endorsing it over to the Federal Reserve. Or maybe it just creates a paper trail on the check. Makes no difference to me the reason, though it would be nice to know.
-
Any prevailing theories on the back wound?
Sandy Larsen replied to Sandy Larsen's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
Remember, it was Jenkins (was it not?) who said he saw the probe pushing the pleura. I wish it was Lipsey who said it, because then it would be easier for me to dismiss. Which would simplify things. -
Any prevailing theories on the back wound?
Sandy Larsen replied to Sandy Larsen's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
I guess I should have said something. I know Lt. Lipsey's story well because he played a role in the decoy hearse thing that Lifton exposed in Best Evidence. I knew he wasn't a medical guy. And he said himself that he didn't have a good view. The reason I found his testimony interesting is because it was like a tape recording of what the doctors were saying. He seemed to remember well the gist of what was going on. His testimony rang true to me when I read it. Though I did keep in mind as I read it that he wasn't a medical type and he didn't have a good view. You know, I can't remember what it was in Lipsey's testimony that confirmed or otherwise affected our view of Jenkins' statement about seeing the probe pushing on an intact pleural membrane. Oh wait... Lipsey talked about the bullet going down into the rib cage or something like that, right? Which would contradict Jenkins. Right? Jenkins is a medical technician, so he was the one I took more seriously on the details. But your point is well taken on the charade card. -
Thanks Chris. Unfortunately it doesn't cover cashing MOs at a bank. Just at a post office. Unless I missed something.
-
Before anybody disputes this, remember that there IS a space on the back of the MO for endorsements. And there IS a printed note on the back that mentions endorsements. And now we see, above, that MOs ARE supposed to be endorsed, just as checks are to be endorsed. And there's no reason to believe anything has changed since the Federal Reserve was created. Keep in mind also that Klein's endorsed the MO. And the Federal Reserve Bank can pay only the bank, not Klein's. Which is the reason why the bank must endorse it. Just as they would with checks.
-
I should have clarified that the City Prefix indicates the location of the issuing bank. I believe that the issuing bank for postal money orders is the U.S. Post Office itself, but I haven't been able to verify that. In 1963 the U.S, Post Office was headquartered in the Old Post Office and Clock Tower building in Washington D.C. So I imagine that is the reason for Washington D.C. being the designated city. I'm not sure I understand this. Does this mean the US Postal Service, headquartered in Washington, DC, was the "bank" that issued money orders for all of the post offices in the USA in 1963? That would be my guess. It's like Chase Bank has hundreds of banks, but their City Prefix refers to their headquarters. The City Prefix was dropped from the Federal Reserve routing number when banks switch to the MICR (magnetic ink character recognition) system. Though it is still printed in the upper left corner of the check.
-
Yes I know.
-
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? Hank, See this: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22439
-
The Hidell money order, supposedly used to pay for the Carcano rifle, which supposedly was used by Lee Harvey Oswald to shoot President Kennedy, has no bank endorsements or Federal Reserve Bank stamps. This proves that the money order was never processed, and this is strong evidence that Oswald was being framed as JFK's killer. Lone nutters claim or believe that no endorsements or FRB stamps are needed for postal money orders. They want to see the proof. Well... Here's the proof:. EDIT: See this later post for the correct proof. The following applies to special money orders called "disbursement postal money orders." From the Code of Federal Regulations, 39 CFR 762.29 © CFR › Title 39 (Postal Service) › Chapter I › Subchapter J › Part 762 › Subpart B › Section 762.29 > Paragraph c Endorsement of disbursement postal money orders drawn in favor of financial organizations. 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. Source: 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 CORRECTON: The above law applies to a special type of Postal Money Order, called a Disbursement Postal Money Order. The law regarding bank stamps on regular Postal Money Orders is the same, but is published elsewhere in the Code of Federal Regulations. See this post on page 11 for details.
-
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? Jim didn't say all the evidence had been faked. DVP said that. I merely ignored the fact that DVP was exaggerating.
-
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? Checks and money orders are processed the same way. Federal Reserve Banks clear them both. I read the process a couple months ago, but can't find that manual right now. I could find no separate procedures for PMOs. What's the numbers 138 01597856 at the very top of the Money Order signify? I don't know. It appears to be some kind of internal number used by the USPS. 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 I don't have the time to do what you're asking for, Hank. Sorry.