Jump to content
The Education Forum

Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!


Sandy Larsen

Recommended Posts

I'm researching 1963 postal regulations, trying to find the 1963 indorsement (the law spells it with an "i") rules for postal money orders.

The research is frustrating. The National Archives provides only the current rules (and information on rules for prior years not going back nearly to 1963).

It's clear that the rules for the years available require indorsement by each party seeking payment on the PMO. This means, under the rules for the years available, a depositary bank such as First Chicago, which pays against the PMO and then seeks payment from another financial institution next up the payment chain, must indorse in order to receive payment. This approach to indorsements was in effect for commercial money orders and checks in 1963. If I had the bet, I'd bet it was also in effect for PMOs, but I don't want a bet. I want certainty. I hope to have it soon.

Jon,

It wasn't postal regulations that dictated how postal money orders were to be processed by banks. It was Federal Reserve Bank regulations that did.

If you look at FRB Circular 4928, dated August 18, 1960, you will see that "cash items" were required to have bank endorsements (paragraph 13 on page 6). The circular defines checks and postal money orders, among other instruments, as "cash item" (paragraphs 1.1 and 1.3 on page 1). Regulations specific to postal money orders are also given (paragraph 11 on page 5).

FRB circulars were and are still used to inform commercial banks what their requirements are for clearing checks.

Postal money orders could also be cashed at post offices. Postal regulations dictated how those were to be handled. (See 12 CFR Part 171.3 , on page 237.)

As I pointed out what now seems like several eons ago:

  • All versions of the Code of Federal Regulations from 1936 to present are available from heinonline.org. The CFR for the relevant time period contain no regulations pertaining to the endorsement of Postal Money Orders. But don't take my word for it - please, waste your own money like I did.
  • In the FRB Circular, which I pointed out early on, the operative phrase is:

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.

The provisions in Regulation J pertaining to the endorsement of cash items would apply to Postal Money Orders only if the agreement between the Federal Reserve and the Postmaster General did not provide otherwise. Since Postal Money Orders are quite different from checks, and the Federal Reserve really only serves as an agent for the Postmaster General, a reasonable bet would be that the agreement did "provide otherwise" and that Postal Money Orders were simply packaged and sent along in bulk. This is not a certainty, but in light of the above language in Regulation J it is certainly incorrect to leap to any conclusion that Postal Money Orders "had to be endorsed." What we need to see is the mysterious agreement.

Like Sandy, I "hope to learn more about that from Armstrong." Until said Armstrong can at least steer me to the Wilmouth statement that serves as the sole authority for the "endorsement requirement" described in Harvey and Lee, however, consider me "Highly Suspicious in Arizona." If a fellow lawyer accused me of citing a case for a proposition for which it does not actually stand, or of citing a case that had been overruled, I can guarantee you I'd have a response in 15 minutes.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 657
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sandy,

Thanks.

Question: You provide a link to Title 39 of the CFR. Was the text provided at the link in effect in 1963?

The regulations at the link provided by Sandy clearly show that they include amendments through 1969. If one were interested in Title 12, Part 171 of the 1963 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, one would look (as I just did) at the January 1, 1963 edition at heinonline.org. One can also look at it here for free: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4343235;view=1up;seq=10 I realize my response is not as authoritative as "guessing along with Sandy, Jim and the Ghost of Armstrong," but perhaps you may find it useful.

This is the current regulation pertaining to paper Savings Bonds, which are also "cash items" (as are "food coupons"). My bet would be that Postal Money Orders were processed the same way.

3.2 All Paper Savings Bonds must be submitted in separately sorted cash letters containing only Paper Savings Bonds and cannot be sent in mixed cash letters also containing other types of cash items listed in paragraph 2.1 of this Circular. If we receive a cash letter containing both Paper Savings Bonds and other types of cash items listed in paragraph 2.1 of this Circular, we reserve the right to return any or all of the items contained in the cash letter to the sender or, in our discretion, we may process the items on a delayed schedule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to add this general observation to these proceedings....

Even IF the First National Bank WAS "required" to place stamped markings on the Hidell money order, that still does not positively HAVE to mean the M.O. is a fake and a fraud. Under such circumstances, somebody at the bank could have just screwed up and failed to stamp the Hidell M.O.

Why is that NOT even a remote possibility in the eyes of CTers?

People foul up all the time. It couldn't be more common.

And I'll also remind everyone again of the following section of the banking regulations that were cited earlier (which is a segment taken from the 1969 regulations, but this might have also been in place in 1963 too; we haven't seen a "1963" manual or "circular" on this stuff as yet)....

"16. In the event a cash item is received by a Federal Reserve Bank from a sender without the endorsement thereon of such sender, the Federal Reserve Bank may present, send, or forward the item as if it bore such endorsement, or place on the item the name of such sender and the date of its receipt by the Federal Reserve Bank, or return the item to the sender for proper endorsement by the sender. This Bank makes the warranties stated in Section 210.6(6) of Regula­tion J by presenting, sending, or forwarding a cash item. These warranties arise whether or not such item bears the endorsement of this Bank."

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1969_6370.pdf

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm researching 1963 postal regulations, trying to find the 1963 indorsement (the law spells it with an "i") rules for postal money orders.

The research is frustrating. The National Archives provides only the current rules (and information on rules for prior years not going back nearly to 1963).

It's clear that the rules for the years available require indorsement by each party seeking payment on the PMO. This means, under the rules for the years available, a depositary bank such as First Chicago, which pays against the PMO and then seeks payment from another financial institution next up the payment chain, must indorse in order to receive payment. This approach to indorsements was in effect for commercial money orders and checks in 1963. If I had the bet, I'd bet it was also in effect for PMOs, but I don't want a bet. I want certainty. I hope to have it soon.

Jon,

It wasn't postal regulations that dictated how postal money orders were to be processed by banks. It was Federal Reserve Bank regulations that did.

If you look at FRB Circular 4928, dated August 18, 1960, you will see that "cash items" were required to have bank endorsements (paragraph 13 on page 6). The circular defines checks and postal money orders, among other instruments, as "cash item" (paragraphs 1.1 and 1.3 on page 1). Regulations specific to postal money orders are also given (paragraph 11 on page 5).

FRB circulars were and are still used to inform commercial banks what their requirements are for clearing checks.

Postal money orders could also be cashed at post offices. Postal regulations dictated how those were to be handled. (See 12 CFR Part 171.3 , on page 237.)

As I pointed out what now seems like several eons ago:

  • All versions of the Code of Federal Regulations from 1936 to present are available from heinonline.org. The CFR for the relevant time period contain no regulations pertaining to the endorsement of Postal Money Orders. But don't take my word for it - please, waste your own money like I did.
  • In the FRB Circular, which I pointed out early on, the operative phrase is:

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.

The provisions in Regulation J pertaining to the endorsement of cash items would apply to Postal Money Orders only if the agreement between the Federal Reserve and the Postmaster General did not provide otherwise. Since Postal Money Orders are quite different from checks, and the Federal Reserve really only serves as an agent for the Postmaster General, a reasonable bet would be that the agreement did "provide otherwise" and that Postal Money Orders were simply packaged and sent along in bulk. This is not a certainty, but in light of the above language in Regulation J it is certainly incorrect to leap to any conclusion that Postal Money Orders "had to be endorsed." What we need to see is the mysterious agreement.

Like Sandy, I "hope to learn more about that from Armstrong." Until said Armstrong can at least steer me to the Wilmouth statement that serves as the sole authority for the "endorsement requirement" described in Harvey and Lee, however, consider me "Highly Suspicious in Arizona." If a fellow lawyer accused me of citing a case for a proposition for which it does not actually stand, or of citing a case that had been overruled, I can guarantee you I'd have a response in 15 minutes.

Consider this... it was necessary in the past, and is still necessary today, for banks to be informed of Federal Reserve Bank regulations they must comply with when clearing items through an FRB. The obvious question is, how are banks made aware of these regulations? The answer is, through FRB operating circulars. It states so right here on the FRB Services website. Quoting from that:

"Federal Reserve Financial Services are governed by the terms and conditions that are set forth in the following operating circulars."

As such, I believe that any portions of the Agreement between the Postmaster General and the Federal Reserve Banks which are relevant to FRB customers -- commercial banks -- are reported right there in the circulars themselves.

Paragraph 11 of Circular 4928, as you partially quoted above, points out the Agreement between the Postmaster General and the Federal Reserve Banks. Following that, in the very same paragraph (11), are portions of the Agreement that commercial banks need to know. And I would submit to you that they are the entirety of the portions of the Agreement that banks need to know.

In other words, paragraph 11 is the Agreement... the parts that are relevant to commercial banks, that is.

Following is the complete text of paragraph 11. You will see that there is nothing further added in the paragraph regarding bank endorsement requirements. And therefore, what the circular states regarding bank endorsement requirements on postal money orders did indeed comply with the Agreement.

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 nonmember

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 Treasurer

of the United States under such symbol numbers as may be

assigned by the Treasurer of the United States. Said agreement further

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 representative

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy,

Thanks.

Question: You provide a link to Title 39 of the CFR. Was the text provided at the link in effect in 1963?

I'm glad you asked. As it turns out, the answer is no.

If you go to the appendix entitled "List of Sections Affected," on page 831, you can look for any part of Title 39 to see if had been changed since 1964.

In 1966, Parts 171-173 were "Recodified from Subchapter G, Parts 61-63 Respectively," which I take to mean that they were relocated within the code.

Part 171.3 was revised in 1967.

Part 171.3 ( i ) was amended in 1969.

When I first referred to this list some time ago, I thought that all the years, 1964 though 1969, were combined in one section. I didn't see Part 171 in that section and so I thought that it had not been amended since 1964. I just now realized my mistake. There is a separate list for each one of those years.

So in 1964 the relevant Part was 61, not 171. That probably is the case for 1963 as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to add this general observation to these proceedings....

Even IF the First National Bank WAS "required" to place stamped markings on the Hidell money order, that still does not positively HAVE to mean the M.O. is a fake and a fraud. Under such circumstances, somebody at the bank could have just screwed up and failed to stamp the Hidell M.O.

Why is that NOT even a remote possibility in the eyes of CTers?

We already know that PMOs were bank stamped in the 1960s, thanks to Lance's research. The important thing beyond that -- and I've told you this twice already -- is how common it was for a PMO to be submitted to an FRB without a bank endorsement. If it was common, then clearly there is nothing learned from the lack of bank endorsement on the Hidell PMO. But if it was rare, then this could mean that the Hidell PMO was forged. I emphasize the word "could."

BTW, does even Armstrong come right out and declare the PMO was forged?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one were interested in Title 12, Part 171 of the 1963 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, one would look (as I just did) at the January 1, 1963 edition at heinonline.org. One can also look at it here for free: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4343235;view=1up;seq=10

I get Title 7 when I click on the link. And doing a search for Title 12 yields nothing for me but other titles. Title 12s seem to be highly valued and not to be given out for free.

I realize my response is not as authoritative as "guessing along with Sandy, Jim and the Ghost of Armstrong," but perhaps you may find it useful.

It's not "guessing" Lance. It's reasoning and common sense. What good is an Agreement if the parties to the Agreement are kept ignorant of their obligations?

O.P.E.R.A.T.I.N.G. C.I.R.C.U.L.A.R.S. There is your answer!

This is the current regulation pertaining to paper Savings Bonds, which are also "cash items" (as are "food coupons").

3.2 All Paper Savings Bonds must be submitted in separately sorted cash letters containing only Paper Savings Bonds and cannot be sent in mixed cash letters also containing other types of cash items listed in paragraph 2.1 of this Circular. If we receive a cash letter containing both Paper Savings Bonds and other types of cash items listed in paragraph 2.1 of this Circular, we reserve the right to return any or all of the items contained in the cash letter to the sender or, in our discretion, we may process the items on a delayed schedule.

My bet would be that Postal Money Orders were processed the same way.

I don't think so Lance.

That special requirement for paper Savings Bonds comes from Operating Circular 3 dated July 23, 2015. It applies only to Savings Bonds and Savings Notes, which are covered in Appendix C of the circular. Postal Money Orders are ..... wait for it .....

Postal money orders are treated as cash items, just like checks (paragraph 2.1 ( b ) on page 2). They require bank endorsements (paragraph 6.6 on page 10). And PMOs are governed by an Agreement between the U.S. Postal Service and Federal Reserve Banks, as is noted in Appendix B. Appendix B also details portions of the Agreement that are relevant to commercial banks. Check it out.... it appears to be pretty much the same as spelled out in the 1960 circular, paragraph 11.

That's right folks... The 2015 operating circular is pretty much the same as the 1960 operating circular, technological advances notwithstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a idea for you Lance.

Given that FRB requirements for PMO clearing hasn't changed much since 1960, maybe the Agreement between the U.S. Postal Service and Federal Reserve Banks hasn't changed much either. If you want to prove me wrong about the Agreement being published in operating circulars, just find the current agreement and show me that it contains regulations for commercial banks that aren't in the operating circulars. Also, you could show me that the Agreement has an exemption for bank endorsements on PMOs.

It shouldn't be too hard to find the current Agreement. Tom Scully could probably find it for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You REALLY can't figure this out, Jim?

I think it's fairly clear that the FBI just simply didn't release the EXACT DOLLAR AMOUNT ($21.45) that appeared on the front of the money order. So the media people were going with the CURRENT Nov. '63 price for the gun (without the scope)--$12.78.

But we know the FBI and Secret Service--on Nov. 23!--had the info regarding the exact dollar amount ($21.45), because CD75 and CD87 that I've linked dozens of times in this thread verify that fact.

So why would you think anything is "magic" or suspicious about this at all? Do you think BOTH of those documents (CD75 & CD87)---which are from TWO different agencies (the FBI and the SS)---are fake documents?

You're right, David, I can't figure out why you're speculating so wildly here.
You want us to believe that the FBI released information about the magic rifle the day after the assassination, including the date of purchase, the vendor, and a handwriting analysis of the alleged orderer, and the fact that the orderer used an alias, but that it then withheld the price of the rifle so that news media all across the country could GUESS what the price might have been. AND you want us to believe that all the different reporters were completely wrong about the price, but came up with the EXCAT SAME INCORRECT PRICE, even though THREE DIFFERENT PRICES were shown just in the three or four little ads you entered into this thread. Not only that, but EVERY SINGLE REPORT I've seen failed to point out that the list price, often presented in the same paragraph as the rest of the information that could only have come from the FBI, was a GUESS, a GUESS made on the basis of multiple prices advertised for the weapon. Despite your speculation, the best reading of this evidence is that the FBI on 11/23 indicated the rifle cost $12.78, just as all those news stories reported so confidently.
Here's on thing that might have happened: Someone other than Dial Ryder put repair tag #18374 with Oswald's name on it on Dial Ryder's workbench in the Irving Sports Shop gun store near Dallas. The repair, according to the tag, was to "drill and tap" and "bore sight" something that belonged to "Oswald." And so someone at the the FBI felt it would be safe to indicate that "Hidell" purchased the rifle from Klein's at the cost without a scope, $12.78. But the Ryder story soon fell apart, and now the FBI had to make the $12.78 price go away. It was easy to make it vanish from FBI internal documents, but removing it from scores of American news reports was simply impossible.
And so the tap dance began. Magic media reports, a magic money order, a magic rifle that fired magic bullets... enough magic to make Harry Potter blush!
Edited by Jim Hargrove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A UPI story called “Oswald Case 'Airtight,'” printed in daily newspapers all across the country on 11/24/63, included the following paragraph:

Police Chief Jesse Curry

wove police evidence tighter

around Oswald. He said the

FBI reported that Oswald

bought the Italian 6.5 Carcano

bolt-action rifle with a tele-

scopic sight from a Chicago

mail order house for $12.78.

See a newspaper.com image of the actual story here.

Sure is funny that the FBI would get the price so wrong if it was really in possession of legitimate Kleins records and the magic money order, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A UPI story called “Oswald Case 'Airtight,'” printed in daily newspapers all across the country on 11/24/63, included the following paragraph:

Police Chief Jesse Curry

wove police evidence tighter

around Oswald. He said the

FBI reported that Oswald

bought the Italian 6.5 Carcano

bolt-action rifle with a tele-

scopic sight from a Chicago

mail order house for $12.78.

See a newspaper.com image of the actual story here.

Sure is funny that the FBI would get the price so wrong if it was really in possession of legitimate Kleins records and the magic money order, eh?

Right there in the news report they state that the order was in Oswald's handwriting. So they also SHOULD have known the price of the order, $19.95 for the rifle, or $21.45 including shipping. The price would be RIGHT THERE on the order. Yet they say the price was $12.78! Incredible.

Clearly at that time they either had NO order at all and were lying, or they had a forged order for $12.78. (Or for that price plus shipping.)

They supposedly found the $21.45 money order the night before. If they did have it in hand at that time (which I highly doubt), they surely were still in a state of confusion as how best to handle the mess they were in.

I think this can be considered a smoking gun, Jim. (No pun intended,)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A UPI story called “Oswald Case 'Airtight,'” printed in daily newspapers all across the country on 11/24/63, included the following paragraph:

Police Chief Jesse Curry

wove police evidence tighter

around Oswald. He said the

FBI reported that Oswald

bought the Italian 6.5 Carcano

bolt-action rifle with a tele-

scopic sight from a Chicago

mail order house for $12.78.

See a newspaper.com image of the actual story here.

Sure is funny that the FBI would get the price so wrong if it was really in possession of legitimate Kleins records and the magic money order, eh?

Right there in the news report they state that the order was in Oswald's handwriting. So they also SHOULD have known the price of the order, $19.95 for the rifle, or $21.45 including shipping. The price would be RIGHT THERE on the order. Yet they say the price was $12.78! Incredible.

Clearly at that time they either had NO order at all and were lying, or they had a forged order for $12.78. (Or for that price plus shipping.)

They supposedly found the $21.45 money order the night before. If they did have it in hand at that time (which I highly doubt), they surely were still in a state of confusion as how best to handle the mess they were in.

I think this can be considered a smoking gun, Jim. (No pun intended,)

Absolutely! I just found the UPI story a an hour or two ago, and I'm still trying to figure out the repercussions. Prior to reading it, I thought perhaps someone at the FBI believed the evidence that Dial Ryder had installed a scope on the magic rifle, and therefore faked a report of the $12.78 price without a scope. But according to Curry, the FBI mistakenly thought $12.78 was the price of the rifle WITH A SCOPE. I think what happened was that someone at the FBI misread one or more of the Kleins ads, which usually showed the rifle with a scope right a above the price without a scope. It can be confusing at a quick glance.

As you say, it strains credulity that the Bureau could analyze the handwriting as Oswald/Hidell's on documents listing a wildly incorrect price. It also suggests that they were making up the story before they even had their forged documents in place. How many other innocent schmucks were convicted on this kind of crap.

I believe part of the reason we've seen more than a half century of cover-up artists defending the WC is that if people understood how the FBI and probably lots of local police departments simply fabricated evidence out of whole cloth, it would suddenly become far more difficult to gain convictions throughout our court system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

~sigh~

Common Sense Interjection.....

[Replay....]

As for any "new and improved money order, this time for $21.45 for a rifle with a scope" --- that's a lot of baloney too, because as early as 11/23/63, we find documentation showing that a money order that was definitely handled by Klein's Sporting Goods AND the First National Bank of Chicago in the amount of $21.45 was recovered at the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia, on the night of November 23rd, the day after the assassination. This documentation is all laid out in a goodly amount of detail in Commission Document #75 and Commission Document #87.

So, Jim Hargrove, do you think that the FBI and Secret Service reports that appear in CD75 and CD87 are phony documents of some kind? And do you think that a money order in the amount of $21.45 was NOT actually found at the Records Center in Alexandria at all?

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

~sigh~

Common Sense Interjection.....

[Replay....]

As for any "new and improved money order, this time for $21.45 for a rifle with a scope" --- that's a lot of baloney too, because as early as 11/23/63, we find documentation showing that a money order that was definitely handled by Klein's Sporting Goods AND the First National Bank of Chicago in the amount of $21.45 was recovered at the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia, on the night of November 23rd, the day after the assassination. This documentation is all laid out in a goodly amount of detail in Commission Document #75 and Commission Document #87.

So, Jim Hargrove, do you think that the FBI and Secret Service reports that appear in CD75 and CD87 are phony documents of some kind? And do you think that a money order in the amount of $21.45 was NOT actually found at the Records Center in Alexandria at all?

David, how do you explain the FBI having the order in their hands (supposedly) yet they still can't get the price right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...