Sandy Larsen

I can't believe that forty eyewitnesses, the majority of whom were medical professionals, can be wrong about this. Evidence can be altered, especially when it is hidden from everybody. I once had a photo taken of me for a passport. When I grimaced at the acne I saw on the photo, the photographer said no problem. I watched as he did some shading on the negative with pencils, which took a few seconds. A few minutes later he came out of his lab with a new set of photos, this time sans the acne. It was rather amazing.

I received this email from Dr. Michael Chesser in response to Pat Speer's comments [above]. The relevant portion is posted here with his permission: Hi Greg, I've attached my presentation with notes. I'm very disappointed to read Pat's comments. I didn't say that David had not seen the original x-rays - I have no idea where he [speer] got that. My slide covering the left lateral skull x-ray describes what happened at NARA when I viewed that film. The NARA personnel overheard me dictating, and when I dictated my thoughts that the T shape was covered by emulsion, they immediately left the room and came back with Martha Murphy, who told me that a mistake had been made, and that I had been looking at the HSCA copies. She appeared upset - I thought at the time that she was upset with the personnel in the room, but I of course can't know what she was thinking. The T shape appeared odd, and it lit up and stood out from the background when I would shine my flashlight from one angle, but I couldn't actually see a wax mark on the surface of the emulsion. I still don't know how to interpret this. I can see how David concluded there is emulsion over the T shape, because the surface is smooth. I agree with David that there is an occipital skull defect, separate from the white patch, and I think it is probably where the Harper fragment was located. What convinced me more than anything else is the appearance of the scalp retraction photograph. [end quote] It seems clear to me that Pat merely misunderstood or misinterpreted what he heard at the presentation. An honest mistake, of course.

I could refute or discredit every single one of the example testimonies given here by Bugliosi and quoted by DVP. But I know it would make no difference to DVP, and Bugliosi is dead. So I won't waste my time. But for anyone who sees DVP's post and is wondering about these people's testimonies, I suggest they look for the complete history of these people's testimonies on Dr. Aguliar's List of Head Wound Witnesses and decide for themselves what is fact and what is fiction. Just do a search on the page for the person's name. Almost every witness to Kennedy's head wound said that there was a large hole on the rear right side of the head. Dr. Aguliar lists over forty of them, all of them professionals and most of them medical professionals. Some of them changed their minds when they were told that the autopsy photos showed no hole on the back of Kennedy's head. Others held their ground and insisted that the photos had been doctored.

Pat, Jenkins told David Lifton that there were skull fragments in the casket. He describes their putting them back together, and his description included the following: "I would say the parietal and occipital section on the right side of the head -- it was a large gaping area .... I'm laying my hand on the back area of my skull .... if I spread my fingers and put my hand back there, that probably would be the area that was missing .... When they put it back together, it would probably have been about the size of your fist -- which was an actual hole missing." If there was no hole in the back of the scalp, how did the fragments of bone escape? Furthermore, later in the interview Jenkins commented on the back-of-head autopsy photographs: "When I told Jenkins that autopsy photographs showed that the back of the head was essentially intact, except for a small bullet entry wound at the top, he was incredulous. 'That's not possible, That is totally--you know, there's no possible way. Okay? It's not possible.' " (Best Evidence, 1980, page 616, 617) Apparently either Jenkins' story has changed, or you have misremembered what he told you. Jerrol Custer told David Lifton that the wound in the skull was posterior in the skull and said that ".... he exposed, and returned to the morgue, X- rays showing that the rear of the President's head was blown off." (Best Evidence , p. 620) FWIW, in May 29, 1992 and November 18, 1993 press conferences Custer repeated his consistent claim that the current X-rays are forgeries. (http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm)

Ah, okay. I thought that's what you meant, but I wanted to be sure. I edited that post where I said I hadn't studied the whole rifle-purchase thing. What I meant to say was that I hadn't studied it carefully. I actually am aware of the issues you mention. I just like to study things like these in depth before I accept them as fact. It's not a terribly difficult thing to do If the source material is referenced.

One reason is that if Oswald was on the first floor or outside, it is simple not possible for him to have run from the sixth floor down that far in the necessary time frame. Okay..... But there is just a one-floor difference between first and second floor. If a cover story was to be fabribicated, it seems that the "third or fourth" floor story would have been a better one.

Jim, What do you mean when you say "you will see why this does not at all follow logically from that."? What are "this" and "that?" And in "the rest makes it very unlikely." The rest makes what unlikely?

David, Personally I view the lack of a bank endorsement as just a suspicious thing. How suspicious depends on how unusual it was for a bank not to stamp a PMO. I hope to learn more about that from Armstrong. It will be even more suspicious (MUCH more) if it turns out that the PMO processing facility also routinely stamped PMOs on the back. But I suspect they didn't do so, given that they stamped the front side with a file locator number. In the end it's the totality of evidence that makes me decide whether or not something was forged. EDIT: I should mention that I haven't studied in-depth any of the other issues surrounding the rifle purchase. So it will be some time before I have a feel for the "totality of the evidence" regarding it. EDIT 2: Added the phrase "in depth" to the above edit. Because I *am* aware of the other issues.

Can somebody tell me what the motivation might have been to fabricate the alleged lunchroom encounter?

But Baker didn't take take the passenger elevator, the stairs near the front door, or a freight elevator, did he? (At least not before taking the back stairs.) If not, then he wouldn't have known how confusing the building is.

That's right folks. The purpose of the following rule in the Federal Reserve Banks' regulation: "All cash items [checks & PMOs] 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, or endorsed to the order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar endorsement. ... The endorsement of the sending bank should be dated and should show the American Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent type on both sides." is to tell commercial banks that bank endorsements are not necessary. And not only that, but if commercial banks insist on endorsing the items, the FRBs want them to know that the endorsements don't need to be dated or show the ABA transit number. Yes, that is the purpose of this clause according to Craig Lamson. Because the word "should" was used instead of "shall." <roll eyes> Can you imagine ALL banks deciding NOT to endorse checks because of this silly interpretation? Now let's get real. Here's the definition of "should": should /SHood/ verb 1. used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions. 2. used to indicate what is probable. 3. expressing the conditional mood. 4. used in a clause with “that” after a main clause describing feelings. 5. used in a clause with “that” expressing purpose. 6. (in the first person) expressing a polite request or acceptance. 7. (in the first person) expressing a conjecture or hope. 8. used to emphasize to a listener how striking an event is or was. The only one of these definitions that fits is "1. used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions." So according to the rule, banks: 1) are obliged; 2) have the duty; and/or 3) are correct to stamp checks and postal money orders with their endorsement. And banks: 1) are obliged; 2) have the duty; and/or 3) are correct to include on their endorsement stamp the date and their ABA transit number.

Robert, I haven't studied in detail the events you guys are discussing here in this thread. Can you tell what the motivation might have been for concocting the lunchroom encounter between Oswald and Baker?

Sandy.... Thanks SO MUCH for your serious research and contribution to this thread!! Your private message has been forwarded to JA. Your work is MOST APPRECIATED!!!! --Jim HarveyandLee.net Thanks Jim.

If I am reading this right, not only is Mrs. Sanders' testimony of the lunchroom incident hearsay, it is hearsay of hearsay. Right? Well, I for one would be interested in hearing about the other two witnesses. I've always found it odd that Officer Baker pulled his gun on Oswald for no apparent reason. Also, some time ago I read that Baker made a comment to Truly shortly afterward that Oswald was a dangerous man. What could have triggered that? (I've seen that statement mentioned just that one time, so maybe it was just some commenter's imagination running wild.)

Brilliant! That makes things easier for me. Thanks Tim Brennan and DVP!

David I thoroughly enjoyed your synopsis of this thread. It truly has been a roller coaster ride. Mind if I borrow a couple of those Excedrin?

You're wrong, Sandy. Pictured below are two illustrations dug up by Tom Scully that prove such a "fine sorting" system was in place as early as April 1960. HERE is the 1960 source document which contains the images below. Click to enlarge: No David, I'm right. Both of those diagrams above represent processing facilities at Federal Reserve Banks, NOT commercial banks. Everywhere it says "fine sorted" it is referring to the fine sorting done by FRBs. Fine sorting isn't a fancy type of sorting method. It is just a very thorough and precise type of sorting that is required to properly route checks to their paying banks. Prior to 1974/1979, FRBs did the fine sorting. The reason they introduced the fine-sorting program was to allow banks to do the sorting themselves so they could save money. Because FRBs charged money for the service. And some banks figured they could do it at a lower cost. Fine sorting is analogous to pre-sorting outgoing mail, which some businesses do to lower their postage costs. That 1960 article doesn't even mention the fine-sort program.

I don't think those documents say what you seem to think they do. Yes, of course they mean what I think they do. I've studied them carefully. One of the documents is the announcement for the fine-sort program. It and two of the other documents refer to each other... they are clearly all connected. Only the 1970 document stands alone. I'll save the 1970 document for last because it is the least straightforward. 1974 New York Impementation: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1974_07478.pdf "As part of its continuing program to improve the availability of credit for cash items deposited for collection in the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York will, effective November 1, 1974, accept cash letters containing end-point sorted deposits of cash items payable by or through certain banks (as listed on the attached Pre-Sorted Immediate Credit Items— Cash Letter Recap form) that receive cash letters from this Bank’s Head Office through the New York Clearing House." The phrase "end-point sorted" is synonymous with "fine sorted." A "cash letter" is simply a deposit slip to a FRB. So this is merely stating that the New York FRB (or clearinghouse, because it clears checks) accepts fine-sorted deposits from banks. If you now look at the next document, the 1979 one, you will see that it comments on the New York FRB accepting fine sorted documents "for the past few years (from 1974 to 1979), and that the program is being extended to all the other FRBs. In other words, it is referring to the New York program announced in this document. There is a list of eleven requirements listed in this document. You will see that they follow roughly the eight requirements in the 1974 Fine Sort Regulations document below. 1979 Completed Fine Sort Program: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/nycirc_1979_08621.pdf "Interterritory Fine-Sort Program" "For several years this Bank [the New York Federal Reserve Bank] has provided to authorized senders a later closing hour for the receipt of cash items that are end-point sorted according to paying bank. As part of a continuing effort to improve credit availability for cash items and to discourage remote disbursement practices, this program will be available at all Federal Reserve offices throughout the country beginning August 15, 1979." Look at the title. This document is the Fine Sort Program being announced. And the upper highlighted part is stating that the program has been in place at the New York FRB for "several years." So you see, this is referring to the 1974 program announced above. Note how in the body of the text it uses the phrase "end-point sorted," just as was used in the 1974 announcement above. Again, "end-point sorted" is the same thing as "fine sorted." Just phrased differently. The document continues: "The program at this Bank will continue to operate according to the guidelines listed in paragraph 9 of our Operating Circular No. 5. revised effective July 1, 1974, except that there will no longer be a minimum volume requirement of 200 items per package." This Operating Circular No 5 referred to here is the following 1974 document, directly below this sentence. 1974 Fine Sort Regulations: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1974_07394.pdf "Operating Circular No. 5" "Revised Effective July 1, 1974" "9. As provided in the appendices hereto, this Bank has established a later closing hour for cash letters containing end-point sorted and MICR computer-acceptable cash items payable by or at certain specified banks that receive cash letters from any of our offices: Provided, That the senders of such end-point sorted cash letters have applied for, and received, authorization from this Bank to make such deposits." Look at the title, Operating Circular No 5, Revised Effective July 1, 1974. See, this is the document referred to in the 1979 document above. Quoted here is Paragraph 9 of that document, as referenced in the 1979 document above. This document give a list of eight requirements for the program: "1. End-point sorted cash letters must be enclosed in sealed packages, which should be stamped with the legend “ Pre-Sorted Immediate Credit Items.” 2. Such letters must not contain nonmachineable cash items. All items (except those described in paragraph 3 below) should be fully qualified for high-speed processing. 3. American Express Travelers Cheques and First National City Travelers Checks may be deposited as non-dollar amount encoded items in such cash letters, provided each type of such items is sorted and packaged separately. 4. Each sealed package should contain at least 200 items, and all tape listings and recaps should be clearly identified and dated. 5. Tape listings and recaps of bundles should be included within each sealed package. 6 . Each package should be clearly marked with the names, routing symbols, and A B A numbers of the depositing and paying banks. 7. The total dollar amount of the cash letter should be clearly marked on the package. 8 . The total dollar amount of the packages destined for each of the paying banks must be listed on a Pre-Sorted Immediate Credit Items— Cash Letter Recap form, copies of which will be provided by this Bank, which should accompany each deposit." These eight are roughly equivalent to the eleven requirements given in the 1970 document above. Compare them. True, the requirements had been revised. But you can see they are requiring roughly the same things, like cash letters (deposit receipts) being enclosed in sealed packages. 1970 Washington Pilot Program: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/publications/frbrichreview/rev_frbrich197005.pdf "The Washington-Baltimore Regional Check Clearing Center" "Since its inception the Federal Reserve System has worked with bankers to improve the check collection process on which the nation’s payments system is based. The opening of the Washington-Baltimore Regional Clearing Center on January 2, 1970, represents a major step in that direction. Regional clearing centers are perhaps the best immediate answer to the check collection problem. Moreover, a series of such centers, connected by wire with each other and with their participating banks, could well bridge the gap between the present payments system and the “ checkless society” of the future." "If a participating bank desires, it may fine sort its checks by drawee bank and deliver them to the Center by 5 a.m. for inclusion in the daily shipment." This is the oddball of the four documents, and it predates all the other fine-sort related announcements. It describes a pilot program that uses a number of innovations, including a wire-connected network, for improving the efficiency of check processing. It allowed fine-sorting deposits by its participating banks, and this was four years prior to the writing of the fine-sorting regulations used in the New York fine-sorting program. You say: "I would have expected a great deal more about this wonderful new sorting method." Fine sorting wasn't really a big deal, and it wasn't new. Before banks were allowed to do it, the Federal Reserve Banks did. Allowing banks to do it was just a way for them to save money. Because FRBs charged money for the service, and some banks thought they could do it at a lower cost to them. I think you must be thinking of "high-speed machine sorting," the computer-controlled variety in particular. Now that was a big deal.

If "big banks" did fine sorting in 1963, then how was it possible that sequential file locator numbers (without gaps or overlaps) got printed on the fronts of the PMOs? Tom does understand, doesn't he, that after banks do fine sorting, the checks are finished being processed? At that point the FRBs send them to the paying banks.

You're talking about the "fine-sort program," where the bank does the sorting so that the Federal Reserve Bank doesn't have to. Let me tell you, I've had just about enough of Tom Scully. I've read several of his posts. He ridicules John Armstrong followers (and numerous static web pages) because they're still pushing the old money order theories. Well what does he expect? That they should spontaneously update as he discovers new information? He needles this guy on his forum because he speculates. What's so wrong with speculating, as long as it's clear that that's what you're doing? He also disses the guy for not contributing new material himself. Well maybe the guy isn't into that. Or maybe he contributes elsewhere He claims that only he and Lance Payette are contributing new information re. the money order, and that nobody on Education Forum is. He says that I'm misleading people... and no, he wasn't talking about the disbursement PMOs, he was talking about the laws I've found that ARE on the mark. I think it's time for Tom Scully to eat a little humble pie. He keeps pounding on the fine-sort program, like that explains how it is that the money order hasn't any bank stamps on it. Well guess what, Mr. Scully... the fine sort program wasn't established till 1979. It was first tested in a pilot program in 1970 at the Washington-Baltimore Regional Check Clearing Center. In 1974 it was implemented at the New York FRB only. And in 1979 the program was expanded to all FRBs. Nobody at Education Forum is contributing , my azz. Sources: Search for these phrases in the documents: "fine sort," "fine sorted," and "end point sorted." 1970 Washington Pilot Program: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/publications/frbrichreview/rev_frbrich197005.pdf 1974 New York Impementation: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1974_07478.pdf 1979 Completed Fine Sort Program: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/nycirc_1979_08621.pdf 1974 Fine Sort Regulations: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1974_07394.pdf

True, I took some hits with the disbursement PMOs and the missing corner non-issue. But I think I'm on solid ground now. (And I *have* had some other successes, TYVM.) Nothing ventured, nothing gained... right?

Well I was gonna thank you for the complement David, but I see you have now deleted it. Something like "Very nice, Sandy" which meant a lot coming from an LNer. Oh well... as they say, good things never last. Huh? Think about it David... regulation16 says that non-endorsed items MIGHT be processed. Or they might be returned. What bank is gonna decide NOT to endorse their checks and then hope they aren't returned? Regulation 16 is for when accidents happen. Regardless, it's an irrelevant point.. Number 16 isn't present in the 1960 regulations that were in effect in 1963. When I said the 1960 and 1969 regulations were "essentially the same," I didn't mean they were identical. I meant that the essential components of each were the same, the essential components being "postal money order = cash item" and "cash item is to be bank-endorsed" and "The Agreement is present to read and doesn't nullify endorsement requirement for PMOs." I demand my complement back! LOL David H., I agree that it is time (past time, really) to move beyond the minutia and explore the big picture. There's enough information available to do that. But I think the answers to minutia are still valuable. It can help researchers figure out who was involved and how things were accomplished. So I'm glad we have the David Talbots and James Douglasses for the larger picture. But I'm also glad we still have the David Liftons and John Armstrongs for the smaller. Not to mention the Jim DiEugenios who work both ends.

Proof that . . . Postal money orders required bank endorsement stamps in 1963. (The following is a detailed proof. See an abbreviated proof here and here.) (See this post if you think a lawyer could find an exception to the rule.) I wish to address a document brought up earlier by Lance Payette in this thread. The document, a "circular" issued by a Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) in 1960, states that postal money orders are to be treated by FRBs as "cash items." "Cash item" simply means that the FRB gives banks instant credit for the item -- there is no waiting period for the item to clear. Even checks are usually treated by banks as cash items. (Or so I've read.) The circular, which was in effect in 1963, also states that cash items presented to an FRB for collection are required to have bank endorsement stamps. This seemingly would mean, therefore, that postal money orders required bank stamps. However, as Lance pointed out, there is a clause in the circular stating that there is an agreement between the Postmaster General and Federal Reserve Banks, and that the agreement may have removed the bank endorsement requirement for postal money orders. (The only known evidence for this possibility being the Hidell money order.) I will hereafter refer to this agreement as "The Agreement." It was therefore important to find The Agreement. Lance stated that he couldn't find it. Neither could I. HOWEVER... It occurred to me that there had to have been a way for banks to be informed of exactly what the FRB requirements were. This got me to searching the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) for bank endorsement regulations. I found documents dated 1909, 1925, 1987, and 2001 stating that bank endorsements were required specifically on postal money orders. But the documents I found closer to the 1960s suffered the same problem as the circular that I'm writing about now. They state that postal money orders are treated as cash items, and that cash items require bank endorsements. But they leave open the possibility of The Agreement nullifying the bank endorsement requirement on postal money orders. THEN... Today I found something interesting. I found another 1960s era FRB circular which has an appendix specifically for postal money orders. Upon reading it, I realized that I had found The Agreement! Not necessarily the full agreement, but the parts of the agreement that bankers needed to be aware of when presenting checks to an FRB. Suddenly everything became clear. The regulations I had been seeking had been in front of me the whole time! THE CIRCULARS! The circulars are what are used to inform banks what FRB requirements are! Not the CFR. Not the UCC. The circulars! Then I felt stupid for not realizing this earlier. I checked the FRB website to confirm my conclusion. On this page https://www.frbservices.org/regulations/operating_circulars.html it is stated "Federal Reserve Financial Services are governed by the terms and conditions that are set forth in the following operating circulars." So, when a bank wants to know what the FRB requirements are, they look them up in the circulars. Duh! SOOOOO... How do we know whether or not postal money orders require bank stamps? We just read the appropriate circular. And, if we want to know if The Agreement nullifies the bank stamp requirement, we look for THAT in the circular. Now, recall the 1960s era circular I found with the appendix containing (the pertinent part of) The Agreement. It is Appendix B in this 1969 circular: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1969_6370.pdf The regulations given for postal money orders in this circular are pretty much the same as the regulations given in the 1960 circular that was in effect in 1963. But this one has The Agreement in Appendix B. Quoting from this document: Items which will be handled as cash items 3. Except as otherwise provided by this operating circular, the following items may be sent to this Bank for handling as cash items in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Regulation J, of this operating circular, and of our time schedules: ( a ) Checks drawn upon any bank included in the current “Federal Reserve Par List,” which indicates the banks upon which checks are collectible at par through the Federal Reserve Banks and is furnished from time to time and supplemented each month to show changes sub­ sequent to the last complete list. ( b ) Government checks, postal money orders, and food stamp cou­ pons.* ( c ) Such other demand items, collectible at par in funds accept­ able to the Federal Reserve Bank of the District3 in which such items are payable, as we may be willing to accept as cash items. *Provisions [i.e. The Agreement] governing the collection of the foregoing cash items are contained in Appendix A, Appendix B, and Appendix C, respectively, of this operating circular. o o o APPENDIX B POSTAL MONEY ORDERS 1. Postal money orders (United States postal money orders; United States international postal money orders; domestic-inter­ national postal money orders) will be handled by us as cash items in accordance with an agreement made by the Postmaster General, in behalf of the United States, and by the Federal Reserve Banks as depositaries and fiscal agents of the United States pursuant to authori­ zation of the Secretary of the Treasury. With respect to matters no*t covered by that agreement, the terms and conditions of Regulation J applicable to cash items, of this operating circular, and of our time schedules shall be applicable to all such postal money orders. 2. We will give immediate credit for postal money orders received from a sender maintaining or using an account with us as provided in our time schedules. Simultaneously with such credit, we will debit the amount of such money orders against the general account of the Treasurer of the United States under such symbol numbers as may be assigned by the Treasurer of the United States; and such credit to the account of the sender shall then become final as between us and the sender. 3. The agreement between the Postmaster General and the Federal Reserve Banks provides, in effect, that no claim for refund or other­ wise with respect to any postal money order debited against the gen­ eral account of the Treasurer of the United States and delivered to the representative of the Post Office Department as provided in said agreement (other than a claim based upon the negligence of a Federal Reserve Bank) shall be made against or through any Federal Reserve Bank; that, if the Post Office Department makes any such claim with respect to any such money order, such money order will not be re­ turned or sent to a Federal Reserve Bank, but the Post Office Depart­ ment will deal directly with the bank or the party against which such claim is made; and that the Federal Reserve Banks will assist the Post Office Department in asserting such claim, including making their records and any relevant evidence in their possession available to the Post Office Department. Section 210.12 of Regulation J, relat­ ing to the return of cash items by the paying banks, is not applicable to postal money orders. There is nothing in The Agreement about bank endorsements. But in the body of the circular is this clause: Endorsements 15. All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to, or to the order of, the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to, or to the order of, any bank, banker, or trust company, or en­ dorsed with equivalent words or abbreviations thereof. The endorse­ ment of the sender should be dated and should show the A.B.A. transit number of the sender, if any, in prominent type on both sides of the endorsement. So we see that bank endorsements were required on postal money orders. (No big surprise.) But remember, these are 1969 regulations, not the 1960 ones that were in effect in 1963. The reason I quote them here is to reveal The Agreement, and also to show that the regulations were essentially the same in 1969 as they were in 1960 (and 1963). But why wasn't The Agreement printed in the 1960 circular as it was in 1969? As it turns out, IT WAS! It just wasn't set apart in its own appendix. Now I will quote from the 1960 circular: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1960_04928.pdf Items which will be accepted as cash items 1. The following will be accepted for collection as cash items: (1) Checks drawn on banks or banking institutions (including private bankers) located in any Federal Reserve District which are collectible at par in funds acceptable to the collecting Federal Reserve Bank. The “ Federal Reserve Par List,” indicating the banks upon which checks will be received by Federal Reserve Banks for collection and credit, is fur­ nished from time to time and a supplement is furnished each month showing changes subsequent to the last complete list. This list is subject to change without notice and the right is reserved to return without presentment any items drawn on banks which may have withdrawn or may have been removed from the list or may have been reported elosed. (2) Government checks drawn on the Treasurer of the United States. (3) Postal money orders (United States postal money orders; United States international postal money orders; and domestic-international postal money orders). (4) Such other items, collectible at par in funds acceptable to the Federal Reserve Bank of the District in which such items are payable, as we may be willing to accept as cash items. o o o Postal money orders 11. Postal money orders will be handled in accordance with an agreement made by the Postmaster General, in behalf of the United States, and the Federal Reserve Banks as depositaries and fiscal agents of the United States pursuant to authorization of the Secretary of the Treasury; and with respect to matters not covered by such agreement, the provisions of Regulation J, this circular and our time schedules shall be deemed applicable to all postal money orders. Immediate credit will be given to member banks and non­ member clearing banks for postal money orders as provided in our time schedules and simultaneously with such credit we will debit the amount of such money orders against the general account of the Treas­ urer of the United States under such symbol numbers as may be assigned by the Treasurer of the United States. Said agreement fur­ ther provides in effect that no claim for refund or otherwise with respect to any money order debited against the general account of the Treasurer of the United States and delivered to the representa­ tive of the Post Office Department as provided in said agreement (other than a claim based on the negligence of a Federal Reserve Bank) will be made against or through any Federal Reserve Bank; that if the Post Office Department makes any such claim with respect to any such money order, such money order will not be returned or sent to a Federal Reserve Bank, but the Post Office Department will deal directly with the bank or the party against which such claim is made; and that the Federal Reserve Banks will assist the Post Office Department in making such claim, including making their records and any relevant evidence in their possession available to the Post Office Department o o o Endorsements 13. 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, or endorsed to the order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar endorsement. Cash items will be accepted by us, and by other Federal Reserve Banks, only upon the understanding and condition that all prior endorsements are guaranteed by the sending bank. There should be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase, “ All prior endorsements guaranteed.” The act of sending or deliver­ing a cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however, be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is incorporated in the sending bank’s endorsement. The endorsement of the sending bank should be dated and should show the American Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent type on both sides. As can be seen, The Agreement in this document is located in item #11, as opposed to a separate appendix. THEREFORE... Postal money orders required bank endorsement stamps in 1963.