Sandy Larsen
-
Posts
9,500 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Everything posted by Sandy Larsen
-
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.
-
More stupidity on the part of your bumbling idiotic patsy framers, right Jimmy? They couldn't even get the right "card stock" to mimic a real U.S. Postal Money Order. What a band of goofs those plotters were. But thank goodness we've got super sleuths like Armstrong, Josephs, Larsen, and DiEugenio on the scene now to figure all this out. Otherwise, Dulles, Ferrie, Shaw, and the stumblebum who used the wrong paper for CE788 would never have been found out and exposed! "More stupidity on the part of your bumbling idiotic patsy framers, right Jimmy? They couldn't even get the right "card stock" to mimic a real U.S. Postal Money Order. What a band of goofs those plotters were." David, I have a theory that, if true, would explain a lot of stuff like this. It would also explain how a fairly large conspiracy could be accomplished without people talking. My theory isn't original, but may be unique as a whole. I'm gonna try to keep this as brief as possible. It's based on the concepts of compartmentalization and "need-to-know" that are used by intelligence agencies, the military, and defense contractors. I'm familiar with these because I use to hold a number of top secret clearances. First you need to understand how effective these methods can be. An example of their use was in the development of the F-117 stealth fighter. It was developed, built, tested, and put in production over a period of thirteen years before it's existence was finally revealed in 1988. Hundreds -- maybe in the low thousands -- of people worked on this project. And yet it was never leaked or discovered. Even with it being test flown numerous times. The reason such a thing is possible is because each person working on the project is given only enough information to complete their task. This is the "need to know" concept at play. The vast majority of the people working on the fighter had no idea what they were working on. I believe the same techniques were used in the Kennedy assassination. I also believe that the plotters kept themselves well insulated from those actually doing the work. Those doing the work took orders, but didn't really know what was going on. I remember doing things myself, when I was in the business, that made no sense to me... I just did what I was told. To this day I have no idea what I was working on in many of my projects. A little has since been declassified, and I've been able to figure out what was going on. But that's only because I remember some code words being used at the time. Anyway, so some CIA yahoos decide to kill the president. They have their lieutenants pass orders on down to lower level agents, who assign tasks to JFK-hating assets. Some of these assents are less competent than others. These are the ones who make mistakes. In addition, no plan is perfect and snafus happen. Those things are cleaned up later. Disinformation, intimidation, blackmail is used to control people. If you think this sort of thing doesn't happen or cannot happen, you are very naive. Look into the coups that have happened in other countries. Is the U.S. any different from those? Another part of my theory is that the CIA rogues used blackmail to get officials to do things for them. I believe it wasn't hard to blackmail these people because they were already Kennedy haters. It would have been easy to find Kennedy haters among the Cubans, the Mafia, and Texans. According to James Wagenvoord, an LIFE Magazine employee, in 1963 the magazine was about to publish an article about money that had been funneled from lobbyists and contractors to LBJ when he was in the Senate. The information was coming from Robert Kennedy's office and it was meant to force him off the 1964 presidential ticket. Can you imagine this being revealed to LBJ, followed by some threat if he didn't do what he was told to do? Don't you think there would be a chance LBJ would go along rather than face being disgraced as VP and possibly doing time? The other option being that he stays out of prison and becomes president? I don't claim to be an expert on any of this stuff. But I know enough to understand it's not just the stuff of spy novels.
-
Hi Sandy, Respectfully, in my opinion, it's not proof of that. Regular paper money orders wouldn't have the keypunch card holes; as they can't feed through the machine readers like the card stock ones. They would serve no purpose on thin paper. Have you ever seen one of those suckers in action? Have you ever fed a stack of punched cards through a machine reader? Since the PO MO in question has the keypunch card holes - meant to be fed through, and read by machine readers - then the PO MO in question must be card stock. As far as I can see. But of course, I couldn't see the evidence that PO MO's need to be stamped by a bank, either. Does anyone have any evidence that's anything more than an assumption? Hank Team "Opinions are Not Evidence" Member Hank, When I read your post, it seemed at first like you are agreeing with what I said. With this statement of yours "Since the PO MO in question has the keypunch card holes - meant to be fed through, and read by machine readers - then the PO MO in question must be card stock." you are concluding that the Hidell MO is made with card stock. Right? That is also what I believe. But if it is made with card stock, why is it that the "Mar 12 1963" postal stamp so readily bled through to the back? The fact that it bled though indicates that the MO we see is actually paper stock, not card stock. And this conclusion contradicts the conclusion of the prior paragraph. You're assuming the bleed-through and card stock are mutually exclusive. You haven't shown that. I'm going by what I can see - and the key punch holes are consistent with the IBM punch cards I utilized as a programmer, that were made with card stock. You appear to be assuming if there's bleed-through, then it can't be card stock. But you haven't demonstrated that in any way. Hank Hank, You are right, and I'm glad you challenged me. I happened to have some 3" x 5" cards that are 0.007" thick, which is the same thickness as the old IBM cards. And some printer paper. I have three stamps of different make, type, and color. Black and blue. I did a number of informal tests. Here's what I found. Card Stock - Heavy Hand: Pushing the stamps down fairly hard on the cards for one second produced enough bleed-thru that I could make it out on the back side... barely. One end of one my stamps is on the wet side and I could easily see that, though not anywhere near as much as we can see the "Mar 12 1963" stamp on the MO. Card Stock - Normal Hand: Punching the stamps briefly, the way one normally would, on the cards produced very little bleed-thru, if any at all. I could barely make it out on the reverse side, and when I stamped on that side as well, it was difficult to see the print from the other side. In fact, I thought that what I could see wasn't due to bleed-thru, but rather was "seeing through" the card due to some translucency. Paper Stock - Normal Hand: Punching the stamps briefly, the way one normally would, on printer paper produced noticeable bleed-thru. In fact I could see all of it. Some of it was as bad as the "Mar 12 1963" stamp on the MO. I was surprised that all three of those stamp marks on the printer paper could be easily seen on the back side. But then I realized that what I could see wasn't all due to bleed thru, but rather was "seeing through" the paper, again due to translucency. Dark Background: In all the above tests I looked at the paper/card with it placed on a white background. Realizing that some of what I'd seen was due to translucency, I tried looking at them again but on a dark background instead. Doing that made a huge difference... I could see much less from the opposite side, in all cases. In fact, I could see nothing at all through the card stock, even with the Heavy Hand stamps. So what I thought was a little bleeding through the card was actually due to its translucency. And when I could see all the stamps through the printer paper, that was mostly due to its translucency. Preliminary Conclusion: All in all, with all the stamping I did on both the card and paper, I can say without hesitation that the card didn't resemble the MO at all. But the printer paper was considerably worse than the money order. That was with a white background. With a dark background the printer paper was comparable with the MO. My conclusion is that the MO isn't card stock. But either it is a thicker paper than what I have in the printer, or it was photographed on a dark background. Final Conclusion: I just took another look at the MO photographs. It does look like it was photographed on a dark background. My guess is that the photographer either knew or figured out right away that a dark background was needed to keep the print from the opposite side from showing. So my final conclusion is that the money order isn't card stock. It is comparable with the paper I have in the printer, and it was photographed on a dark background. End I was actually hoping my conclusion would come out the other way... that would have been an easier thing to explain. But as I told DVP, I always go with the evidence. I invite others to try this test themselves.
-
umm... When they were stealing the money order, they thought it better just to make a copy lest a bank teller notices and reports the missing money order? I dunno! But I'm putting a lot of thought into it. Wouldn't the real money order be sold and cashed, and in their system to be retrieved? Wait, that won't work. That's where this was discovered. Right? It depends on when the real money order was bought and cashed. But your point is good.
-
Maybe so. But if it did, it got lost and later was found. But it was never processed, a point that's indisputable. And when I say "maybe so," that could be the case only if Klein's was willing to ship an order before being paid. Which actually might have been the case given that money orders are always good if genuine and are rarely forged. HOWEVER.... remember, the money has been shown to be printed on paper, not card stock. So could it have even been accepted by the bank, or sent to the Federal Reserve Bank? Not likely IMO. I think it's more likely that the Klein's witness is lying. (I can't remember his name and maryferrell.org is down right now.) Why would he lie? Maybe he was told it was a matter of national security. I just go where the evidence leads me, David. The money order wasn't processed, and probably wasn't even deposited in the bank.
-
And is the current numbering system the same one in use in 1963? We wouldn't want to just assume that the current documentation reflects the system in use in 1963, would we? So does the "15" mean Washington in 1963 terms, or just currently, or both? Hank The Federal Reserve Routing Number system in use in the 1960s is still in use today. Nothing has changed. Magnetic ink characters, those futuristic looking numbers we see at the bottom of checks, were adopted in 1958 and were in wide use by 1963. But they convey the same information, sans the City Prefix, that the fractional FRB symbol on the postal money order conveyed. So yes, 15 did mean Washington DC in 1963.