Sandy Larsen

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.

Thanks Jim for your encouragement. I'm glad to hear that John Armstrong is still working on this.

This scenario requires that a photocopy machine would be able to reproduce bleed-through without also reproducing any evidence of touch-ups. Meanwhile, capillary action is a common phenomenon; card stock is permeable and fibrous; inks have many different levels of viscosity and density, and adding water changes their viscosity and density. I, for one, find the latter explanation more believable than the former. I was thinking that the photocopy method would allow the handwriting forger to perfect Oswald's handwriting, and that everything else would be added last (after photocopying). But I just checked and even the Oswald handwriting bleeds through. So I'm stumped. The reason the bleed-through bothers me is that almost all the inks bled through, not just one or two. And my experience writing on various papers as a young person -- which was considerable -- tells me that the card stock would not bleed very easily. On the other hand, my experience was in the early seventies, not the early sixties. Perhaps there was significant change with inks or card stock between those two periods. (That's a little hard to accept because virtually nothing has changed since the early seventies and now. I still buy the same types of paper and card stock, and the same magic markers, Sharpie.) Here's another possibility. The photocopy method was used. But the reason for doing so wasn't to re-copy and perfect the handwriting. The purpose was to allow numerous takes at creating the money order. So if the handwriting wasn't quite right, merely make another photocopy and try again. Once satisfied, apply the stamps. Like you, I prefer the other explanation. But the bleed-through really bothers me. I hope that my tests on true card stock shows a lot of bleed-through... that would simplify things for me.

How much pressure did you use when you placed the ink on the paper when you did your test for bleed-thru on the money orders you said you tested? Here's my previous exchange with Jim DiEugenio on this issue. Do neither of my possible explanations fall into the category of "reasonable explanations", Sandy? .... JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: I mean the bleed through. I don't see how it can be ignored. It really does seem to me to be a big faux pas, one which the WC apparently swallowed. I mean can someone explain it innocently? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Sure. There must have been a "heavier hand" being applied by both Lee Oswald (whose written words are bleeding through just a little bit on the CE788 money order) and the postal employee who stamped the M.O. in the lower right-hand corner. More pressure on the pen or the inked stamp means more ink being absorbed by the paper. Hence, it bleeds through to the other side. If the 1961 money order mentioned earlier by John Armstrong has no bleed-thru, and IF it was the exact same thickness of paper stock as CE788 (which I don't suppose can ever be confirmed with 100% certainty), then I suppose that would indicate the people who wrote on and/or stamped that 1961 money order just didn't apply as much pressure as Oswald and the post office clerk applied to the CE788 money order on March 12, 1963. [...] Plus, it's also possible (I suppose) that between 1961 and 1963, a lighter weight and thinner paper stock was being used for U.S. Postal Money Orders, which would, of course, lend themselves more to "bleed-thru". I have a bunch of stamps and I tried pushing them down hard and holding for one second. No detectable bleed-thru. I tried the same with a red magic marker and I could see a faint dot from that. But nothing like the date stamp bleed-thru on the Hidell MO. What I want to do is get some pens, the type they used in the 1960s. They aren't ball-point pens, for sure. So I need to get what they had then and see if bleeding occurs from signing signatures. You can see bleed-thru from all four signatures on the back, though just barely from one of the signatures. This should be a good test because nobody is gonna hold a pen in one spot for one second when writing their signature. Though some might push a little hard. As for correct thickness of the money orders, I should soon be receiving several receipts that were torn off from actual money orders of the time.

I wouldn't be questioning the money order if missing stamps was the only irregularity. I might have even dropped it today or sometime soon if it weren't for the ink bleeding thru. But naturally I don't intend on spending a great deal more time on this aspect of the case. There are other more important things to investigate. I chose this only because it seemed to be simple at the time. The bleeding ink is harder to understand than the missing stamps.

The problem I have is that there are so many irregularities in the rifle-ordering evidence. But that alone wouldn't have aroused my suspicion. There are other things in the official story that I simply cannot accept, like 40 medical witnesses to a gaping hole in the back of JFK's head, and yet the back-of-head autopsy photo shows nary a scratch. Evidence in the archive that changes or disappears. Oswald's wallet being found in two locations at the same time. Heck... two OSWALDs! There is virtually nothing normal in the whole Oswald-shot-JFK narrative. It's crazy. Just plain crazy.

Yours is a very good question, Lance. I'd also like to see that answered. And I'd also like to see John Armstrong post his new information. I just kinda gave up on both. Hopefully Armstrong is just needing more time to finish his work. But I know how things go. There are some loose ends I've wanted to wrap up on some prior topics myself, but just can't seem to find the time. Life goes on.

Thanks for doing that David. It makes it less likely that some important information will somehow vaporize. For example if somebody gets banned and has all his posts deleted. (I hate that that happens. Not the banning part, but the deleting part.)

Well, it's just speculation on my part of course. But it seems like somebody could buy a money order, cash it, then request a copy. After that, buy another money order, and bribe the postal worker to pre-date it. (Or if they have a postal worker friend, have him do it.) Then have an expert handwriting forger put Oswald's handwriting on the form. Finally, get a rubber stamp made and stamp a fake file locator number on it. Oh, one last thing... get a Klein's endorsement stamp made and stamp the back. But at the moment I don't think that is what happened, because it appears to me that the money order was actually made on regular paper, not the real card stock. Because the ink has bled through all over the place. Why anybody would fabricate a money order on regular paper, I have no way of knowing. And it makes no sense to me. But that's what appears to have happened. I have a hard time believing that the bleed-thru that we see is actually due to the MO getting wet, as Lance notes has been suggested. Actually, I can think of one reason why regular paper might be used. If the intention was to merely provide photographs to the authorities, not a real money order, using a photocopier to make the MO could be handy. It could be retouched and then photocopied again, and repeated if necessary. When finished, a photo is given to the WC. If this were the case, one would have to explain how it was that somebody actually held and carried the MO from Alexandria, or wherever it was the MO came from. I don't know the details enough to determine if that was feasible.

Well, Sandy, the way you got the "Disbursement Money Order" thing completely wrong was certainly a bit misleading. Well that was then and now is now. Though I suppose I could be wrong again. BTW, speaking of Tom Scully, I'm impressed by what he has dug up. I assume he was the one who dug it up... I had a hard time following his long posts. Plus I saw quotes and nothing stating who is being quoted. And in one post he speaks of himself in the third person. Very confusing.

The older I get, the more precious my time becomes. I don't know how old Armstrong is, but the mere fact that he doesn't participate on the forums tells me he's got better things to do. EDIT: I just viewed a 2009 video oh Armstrong. He looks pretty young actually.

More stupidity on the part of the patsy framers. Their idiocy and bumbling never ceased, did it, Sandy? I'm baffled by it too David. But the evidence appears to show that regular paper was used, not card stock. Or maybe "thick" paper. I bought some 60s era punch-card MO receipts on eBay to do some tests. I couldn't get the bleed-thru seen on the Hidell MO to occur on standard 3" x 5" cards, which are the same thickness as punch money orders (7 mils). Maybe bleed-thru will be worse on the authentic card stock.

Also see: http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12852.msg411406.html#msg411406 In that thread someone named Tom Scully says: "David or Hank, Would you please put this in front of that stubborn guy who is still, at long last, misleading readers....."endorsements were required before 1925 and after 1987, blah, blah, blah......." I may be stubborn, but I am in no way misleading people. All I've done is quote regulations and laws from official documents. If Scully want's to make an argument, he should come here and present his evidence. I welcome it. But the "fine sort" program he speaks of appears to me to be irrelevant to this thread. It is, however, relevant to certain claims regarding the Hidell money order. Scully should consider starting a new thread here and presenting his evidence.

But unless someone can prove that the 10-digit File Locator Number stamped at the top of the Hidell money order is fake (which nobody is ever going to be able to prove, of course), then there is solid EVIDENCE that the CE788 money order did go through the regular banking channels in order to reach the FRB. Yes, evidence, but a far cry from being proof. Otherwise, someone could buy that punch card money order on e-Bay for $100, stamp a file locator number on it, and declare that it has therefore been processed. Even though we all know that it hasn't. And if some conspiracy believers want to maintain that a First National Bank endorsement was necessary on a processed money order in 1963, and if those same CTers also believe that the File Locator Number seen on the Hidell M.O. is a fraudulent number and was placed there by conspirators who wanted to frame Lee Harvey Oswald, then the question MUST be asked: If the plotters were smart enough to know they needed to fake the File Locator Number on the money order, then why didn't they also realize that they needed to fake a First National Bank stamped endorsement on the back of the money order as well? See the last paragraph of post #166 for a simple scenario explaining how that could happen.

If I believed what you do, Paul, I'd go a step further and concede that Buell Wesley Frazier was probably wrong about the length of the package, and that Oswald took the rifle to the TSBD. I think it's much more likely he's mistaken than all the rifle purchase irregularities being mere coincidences. I might even go a step further and concede that Oswald shot the rifle but, for whatever reason, lucked out and passed the residue tests. Just more irregularities, that's all. But I don't believe what you do. I think there are too many rifle-purchase irregularities. And I think it is VERY easy to explain witnesses providing deceptive testimony supporting the WC's pre-conceived conclusion. Just have an important official tell certain witnesses that lies are necessary to avoid nuclear war. Done. BTW, have you discussed/debated what you say here -- that Oswald did buy the rifle -- with David Joseph? If so I'd like to read the thread. Even if it changes my mind... makes no difference to me.

Hank, Excellent points, all. --Tommy Oh for heaven sakes, neither a Federal Reserve Bank nor any other bank is going to accept an endorsement by someone other than the presenting bank itself. John, one purpose of the stamp is to provide the receiving bank a guarantee from the endorser that he/it is indeed entitled to the money, and will pay the paying bank back if it later turns out that the money went to the wrong person. Obviously a bank endorsement is a better guarantee than a personal endorsement, like the one Klein's stamped on the MO. Endorsement stamps also provide information to the receiving bank. For example, Klein's endorsement stamp tells First National Bank to which account the money should be deposited. The bank's endorsement stamp would include its routing number, address, date, and any other information the bank chooses to stamp on the check (e.g. branch identifier). I have documented the fact that bank endorsement stamps were required on postal money orders during the first decades of the 1900, as well as the ending decades. I'm confident that they were were required in the decades between as well. It's just a matter of finding the statutes. Someone with access to a law library could do this.

What Hank Sienzant says is true, that a "disbursement postal money order" is not the same thing as a "postal money order." At the time I posted the legal requirements for the "disbursement" type, I thought that the term "disbursement" was "legalese" fluff, and I just ignored it. I was glad to see lawyer Lance Payette join the forum, given that he could better interpret the hard-to-understand legal documents I was searching for. (Though I don't believe he ever did attempted to interpret what I had already posted.) I actually discovered just before Thanksgiving week that disbursement postal money orders were different, and I planned on making corrections here. But then I came down with a severe stomach flu, from which I am just now recovering. I apologize for my mistake. HOWEVER, none of this really matters in the end. Because the law is the same for both the disbursement and the regular postal money orders. Later on in this very thread I posted the legal requirements specifically for regular postal money orders, which I repeat below. As you will see, regular money order do require, by law, bank stamps. This law has been in effect since 1987, when the Expedited Funds Availability Act was passed. (NOTE: I haven't the means of checking legal requirements every single year. It is conceivable that the law for bank stamps has changed since 2001, the year of the Code of Federal Regulations I quote from below. But I doubt it.) I've also shown in this thread that bank endorsements were required at least from ~1900 through 1925. Lance noted a few posts ago where one can buy a subscription to access every volume of the Code of Federal Regulations. I'm hoping to find the time, strength, and money to go through those and determine if the practice of banks stamping postal money orders changed any time between 1925 and 1987. I doubt it did, but I want to know for sure. Since 1987 postal money orders have, by law, 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.ff...b_c_regu_cc.pdf

I was living in Iran both during the planning and the execution of the Iranian Revolution. I left Iran just weeks before the Shah left and Khomeini came to power. Here's a photo of me and an American companion in an English class we were teaching. This was in Esfahan. I'm the white guy with dark hair. I'll tell you what I know about the revolution. The photo has relevance to my story. We were accustomed to seeing assortments of green and purple florescent lights being displayed by mullahs to attract the attention of the Muslim faithful when a speech or other important event was underway. But in the fall of 1977 the occurrence of these events increased tenfold. Our English class was divided into two sections, one for beginners and the other for advanced students. I taught the advanced class and it had only one student -- the fellow sitting to my companion's right. For our class, he and I sat in the adjacent room and spoke only English. One day I asked him why there were so many "mullah meetings" going on. (We American's called them that.) I'll never forget his response. He got up, closed the door, looked out the window, and closed the blinds. He said, "We are planning to take over the country." (Paraphrasing.) My jaw dropped. He went on to tell me about the "greatest leader in the world," who had been banned from the country. His name was "Homeini," which I would later learn was Khomeini. (Remember, he was speaking in English, and he was unfamiliar with the "kh" transliteration for the Farsi letter.) The people were planning to rise up, overthrow the Shah, and replace him with Ayatollah Khomeini. This was not a leftist uprising. It was a fundamentalist Muslim uprising. Their plans went beyond that. After overthrowing the Shah, their plans were to overthrow secular Islamic governments beginning with Iraq, and then Sunni governments, ending with the overthrow of Saudi Arabia. Ambitious goals indeed. As I was writing the name Homeini down, my student demanded I stop. He said I would be tortured if I was found with that in my possession. I later went back to my apartment and wrote on a sheet of paper some of what my student had told me. Of course I hid it, but nearly tore it up later out of fear of it being found. Determined to keep it, I emptied out a yellow magic market, tightly rolled the document up and inserted it, then glued the marker back together. After my time in Iran I went back to college, where I met up with Iranian friends I had made while there. One of them gave me one of those booklets containing U.S. Embassy documents which had been shredded and then glued back together by Iranian students. I was very naive at the time regarding world affairs. But if I recall correctly, the purpose of the booklet was to provide evidence that the CIA had installed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as Shah. BTW, the fellow on the front row of the photo, to the far left, ended up being my best pal in Iran. His first and middle names are "Mohammad Reza," same as the Shah's. I never asked, but always assumed he was named after him. The Shah wasn't universally hated, as some Iranians might have people believe. One Iranian told me that the Shah was loved till the Muslim leaders turned the people against him. When I arrived in Iran, before the revolution, everybody loved Americans. When I left, people were afraid to show any friendship whatsoever toward Americans. But I think only the fanatics hated Americans.

David, I would appreciate it if you would stick to the topic when posting here. Thanks.

There is no question that since 1987 bank endorsements have been stamped on money orders, because we have seen the law requiring it. My thinking right now is that before 1987 ,bank endorsements were done, not to comply with law, but because that was the standard bank practice. However (assuming I'm right), that doesn't mean that bank endorsements weren't required. They *were* required... by banks, including Federal Reserve Banks. The reason I believe this is because of the wording I've been seeing. In federal regulations since 1987 the wording has been "banks SHALL endorse" whereas before that the wording was "banks SHOULD endorse." The reason the practice of endorsing was made law in 1987 was simply because lawmakers wanted to standardize the endorsement stamp so that check clearing could be expedited. (In fact, the name of the 1987 law was Expedited Funds Availability Act.) .

[...] A fake File Locator Number? Really? This strikes you folks as plausible? I don't understand why you scoff at the idea of a forgery. Especially if we're talking about a fake File Locator Number. What is so difficult to accept about a fake FLN? Just make a number up and stamp it! Nobody would know any better. If you're going to scoff, why not do so regarding Oswald's handwriting. At least that is something difficult to forge. [...] [emphasis added by T. Graves] Sandy, Because this thread (which you started) is about whether or not the money order required an "endorsement" (depending, of course, on how that word was defined by the authorities in 1963), not about Oswald's handwriting? --Tommy Tommy, I understand your point. But what I'm really protesting is that Lance seems to have no problem toying with the possibility of Oswald's handwriting being faked, but when it comes to the File Locator Number possibly being faked, he considers that to be absurd. I don't know how that could make sense to anybody. Obviously its easy to fake a stamped number, but not so somebody's handwriting.