Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Ian Lloyd]

Sandy,

You know what the next question will be - you linked to regulations that were revised in 2013, what about the regulations in 1963?

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy,

You know what the next question will be - you linked to regulations that were revised in 2013, what about the regulations in 1963?

Yes I know.

[Chris Newton]

John Armstrong can help you guys out maybe. I recommend downloading the entire PDF.

Page 6 of this document is section 171.3 Cashing Money Orders:

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/34791/rec/1

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

[Sandy Larsen]

John Armstrong can help you guys out maybe. I recommend downloading the entire PDF.

Page 6 of this document is section 171.3 Cashing Money Orders:

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/34791/rec/1

Thanks Chris. Unfortunately it doesn't cover cashing MOs at a bank. Just at a post office. Unless I missed something.

[Chris Newton]

171.3.333 covers cashing by Firms (i.e.Kliens)

You are correct that there are no specific instructions for banking institution processing (that would probably be documented by the banking institution not the P.O).

There are some pertinent parts such as the requirement for a signature of an officer of the company even if a rubber stamp is used. (Missing from extant M.O.)

[Chris Newton]

I'm no handwriting expert but one thing about the M.O. I've always been suspicous about is the similarities of the "H" in "A. Hidell" and the "2" in "2915" with the Initials and date on the reverse side. The second set of initials attributed to Postal Inspector J. Harold Marks of Washington D.C. matches the style of the handwriting on the front. That Marks is in D.C. where the M.O. is found is purely coincidental I'm sure.

[David G. Healy]

interesting sidebar, from another forum: "how did the Warren Commission tie a money order allegedly from Oswald from March 12, 1963 - to a deposit slip dated Feb 15?"

Edited November 12, 2015 by David G. Healy

[Robert Prudhomme]

Waiting patiently here for Hank to come pee on the electric fence again.

[David Von Pein]

Sandy,

All of that legalistic language can be quite confusing as to exact meaning. But I'm not sure that the information in "Paragraph C" of those money order regulations really means what you think it means.

The word "drawn" has me confused. The Hidell money order was "drawn" in favor of Klein's Sporting Goods, was it not? It wasn't "drawn" "in favor of [a] financial organization".

And Paragraph C says that, in effect, the financial organization is the "payee". Wouldn't that mean the name of the financial institution would also be on the "PAY TO" line on the front of the money order too?

The language has me scratching my head as to WHO IS WHO there.

~shrug~

But upon reading the page you linked to a little further, Paragraph B is quite interesting. That section seems to imply that NO endorsement IS an acceptable way to handle a U.S. Postal Money Order (emphasis is mine)....

--- QUOTE: ---

762.29b --- 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.

--- END QUOTE ---

Now, does the above merely mean that even if Klein's had not put their "Pay to the order of First National Bank" stamp on the back of the M.O., that First National would still have credited it to Klein's account? Or does "Absence of endorsement guaranteed" mean something else? ~shrug~

However, the words "to all subsequent endorsers" would seem to imply that it's likely that a money order WILL later be endorsed by other institutions.

But I'm still confused a bit by the language.

EDIT/ADDENDUM ---

And I also just now noticed that the heading for everything that follows in Section 762.29 of those postal regulations cited by Sandy Larsen is this heading:

"Endorsement of disbursement postal money orders by payees."

The key words there are "BY PAYEES".

Well, in the case of the subject Hidell postal money order, the BANKS certainly aren't the PAYEES. The "payee" is Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago, Illinois. It was Klein's getting PAID the $21.45, not First National Bank or the Federal Reserve Bank.

So I think that heading of that regulation--alone--makes Sandy's assumption that the BANKS were required to endorse U.S. Postal Money Orders to be an unproven assumption based on Postal Regulation 762.29.

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

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.

Edited November 12, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Brian Schmidt]

Has anybody here even used a money order?

It seems there is some confusion as to what a money order is as a financial tool.

It is not similar to a check in that it is already a 'secured' form of payment, therefore the 'endorsement' doesn't meant the same thing as it does with a check.

[Brian Schmidt]

Plus, even if the money order was legitimate, why is that necessarily a tally on the side of LN'ers?

I get why trying to prove the money order was somehow faked would be a great shortcut to proving fallacious evidence in the official record, but this seems to represent another pushing of the envelope on the part of CT'ers.

[Paul Brancato]

Brian - good point. I posted somewhere recently that it's not a question of whether all evidence against Oswald was faked, but rather whether any of it was. This particular issue may be a diversion, because knowing whether Oswald ordered a MC rifle doesn't answer the more important question what did he do with it.

[David G. Healy]

Brian - good point. I posted somewhere recently that it's not a question of whether all evidence against Oswald was faked, but rather whether any of it was. This particular issue may be a diversion, because knowing whether Oswald ordered a MC rifle doesn't answer the more important question what did he do with it.

E-X-A-C-T-L-Y ! ! ! ! Nutters absolutely need diversions.... the WCR and its evidence is a complete failure.

Edited November 12, 2015 by David G. Healy