Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

[James DiEugenio]

How many times do I have to say this:

It is all one transaction!

Can we get simple: I buy a sweater for a girl as a gift. I pick out the sweater, I go to the counter, I take out my charge card, I give it to the salesperson, she rings it up, she runs my card, I sign the receipt, she bags the merchandise, I take the bag and leave.

All these steps are part of one transaction.

Same thing if I had done the purchase from a catalog online. Its all part of one transaction.

So to say for example, that the processing of my charge card is not related to signing the receipt--I mean who the heck buys that baloney? You are the one passing out red herrings.

Everything must be on the up and up and consistent with each other step. I hate to tell you, but that is the way the real world works Hank.

You have been hanging out at McAdam's' place too long. What happens is you end up like him. He still can't figure rout what he did wrong with Cheryl Abbate.

Edited December 26, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Hank Sienzant]

How many times do I have to say this:

It is all one transaction!

Can we get simple: I buy a sweater for a girl as a gift. I pick out the sweater, I go to the counter, I take out my charge card, I give it to the salesperson, she rings it up, she runs my card, I sign the receipt, she bags the merchandise, I take the bag and leave.

All these steps are part of one transaction.

Same thing if I had done the purchase from a catalog online. Its all part of one transaction.

So to say for example, that the processing of my charge card is not related to signing the receipt--I mean who the heck buys that baloney? You are the one passing out red herrings.

Everything must be on the up and up and consistent with each other step. I hate to tell you, but that is the way the real world works Hank.

You have been hanging out at McAdam's' place too long. What happens is you end up like him. He still can't figure rout what he did wrong with Cheryl Abbate.

All these steps are part of one transaction.

​Nobody is disputing that. In fact, it's good of you to finally admit it. You've been arguing all along these are not all part of one transaction, haven't you?

So to say for example, that the processing of my charge card is not related to signing the receipt--I mean who the heck buys that baloney? You are the one passing out red herrings.

​That's the LOGICAL FALLACY of a straw man argument. I didn't say they were unrelated... I said it was a change of subject to start talking about the bullet or the rifle when the subject of this discussion is the money order, and only the money order. In one sense, if you step far enough back, everything is related, so you can change the subject from Oswald's supposed fluency in Russian to the paper bag found on the sixth floor, and argue that those are related. But when we're discussing the paper bag, to switch to talking about Oswald's fluency in Russian is a change of subject. And so is switching to talk about the rifle when the subject of the thread is the money order. And here's the subject of the thread, Jim:

Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1.Person A has position X.

2.Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

3.Person B attacks position Y.

4.Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

You have been hanging out at McAdam's' place too long. What happens is you end up like him.

​And you're still resorting to the LOGICAL FALLACY of poisoning the well.

He still can't figure rout what he did wrong with Cheryl Abbate.

And there's the LOGICAL FALLACY of the red herring once more.

Can't discuss the money order? Change the subject! Start discussing the rifle, or CE399, or Cheryl Abbate.

Hank

Edited December 26, 2015 by Hank Sienzant

[James DiEugenio]

At least I got you to back up on the whole A is not related to B is not related to C malarkey.

But I can't believe you missed all that yakking about the money order?

Incredible.

What I am showing is that all of this is fundamentally related to each other.

And you don't like it.

I really can't blame you. Because it's a loser for your side.

Oswald never had that rifle. Which makes everything about that transaction dubious.

Edited December 26, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Hank Sienzant]

At least I got you to back u pin the whole A is not related to B is not related to C malarkey.

But I can't believe you missed all that yakking about the money order?

Incredible.

What I am showing is that all of this is fundamentally related to each other.

And you don't like it.

I really can't blame you. Because it's a loser for your side.

Oswald never had that rifle. Which makes everything about that transaction dubious.

You keep talking about the rifle when the subject of this thread is the money order.

Why is that, Jim?

[James DiEugenio]

Geez Hank, is not:

A. The money order

directly related to

B. The rifle?

A was supposed to pay for B, correct?

Therefore if Oswald never got B, then the question becomes why is that?

Maybe because he never sent the payment?

Thanks for playing my Ed McMahon.

[David G. Healy]

At least I got you to back u pin the whole A is not related to B is not related to C malarkey.

But I can't believe you missed all that yakking about the money order?

Incredible.

What I am showing is that all of this is fundamentally related to each other.

And you don't like it.

I really can't blame you. Because it's a loser for your side.

Oswald never had that rifle. Which makes everything about that transaction dubious.

You keep talking about the rifle when the subject of this thread is the money order.

Why is that, Jim?

Hank, you are priceless... You are not doing nutters, or DVP any favors....

[Hank Sienzant]

Geez Hank, is not:

A. The money order

directly related to

B. The rifle?

A was supposed to pay for B, correct?

Therefore if Oswald never got B, then the question becomes why is that?

Maybe because he never sent the payment?

Thanks for playing my Ed McMahon.

I'll remind you that there's plenty of evidence your 'Therefore' has to overcome. Start a thread on the rifle, and post the link here. I'll be happy to discuss.

And I'll remind you that we're talking specifically about any supposed issues with the money order in this thread. Any supposed issues with the rifle deserves its own thread, and you're simply attempting to change the subject from the money order to the rifle. We can all see that.

And I'll point out that your 'Maybe" is simply speculation. And there's plenty of evidence to support that he did send the payment.

Hank

Edited December 26, 2015 by Hank Sienzant

[James DiEugenio]

Please Hank, this has all been gone over ad nauseum.

Are you going to play the Curtis guy for us, on this thread now?

The weight of the evidence is that Oswald never had that rifle in his hands.

Period. And you can look up the work of Gallagher, Moyer, Josephs, and Gil Jesus, among others, to show that. They produce a quantum of evidence in that regard. Its old hat today. Even your buddy, and Cheryl Abbate's good pal, McAdams had to admit its the wrong rifle. (Note, I did not even mention Armstrong.)

And Sandy has done a very nice job in showing that the money order part of the transaction is also dubious.

Edited December 26, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Hank Sienzant]

Please Hank, this has all been gone over ad nauseum.

Are you going to play the Curtis guy for us, on this thread now?

The weight of the evidence is that Oswald never had that rifle in his hands.

Period. And you can look up the work of Gallagher, Moyer, Josephs, and Gil Jesus, among others, to show that. They produce a quantum of evidence in that regard. Its old hat today. Even your buddy, and Cheryl Abbate's good pal, McAdams had to admit its the wrong rifle. (Note, I did not even mention Armstrong.)

And Sandy has done a very nice job in showing that the money order part of the transaction is also dubious.

You keep talking about the rifle in a thread devoted to the money order.

Seems like you're desperate to change the subject.

Note: I did not mention Armstrong either.

Hank

[James DiEugenio]

Hank, why do you have to quote a comment right about yours?

I guess you missed this twice then:

And Sandy has done a very nice job in showing that the money order part of the transaction is also dubious.

[Hank Sienzant]

Hank, why do you have to quote a comment right about yours?

I guess you missed this twice then:

And Sandy has done a very nice job in showing that the money order part of the transaction is also dubious.

I didn't miss it.

It's only your opinion about that. Your opinion, and four bucks, will get you a coffee at Starbucks. Of course, you can get the coffee for four bucks without the opinion, which pretty much establishes the value of your opinion.

Sandy hasn't shown what he set out to show -- note the title of the thread. Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!​ He quoted the wrong section of the postal code to start (quoting a section about disbursement money orders), and it was downhill from there.

At least you're back on topic.

[Sandy Larsen]

Hank, why do you have to quote a comment right about yours?

I guess you missed this twice then:

And Sandy has done a very nice job in showing that the money order part of the transaction is also dubious.

I didn't miss it.

It's only your opinion about that. Your opinion, and four bucks, will get you a coffee at Starbucks. Of course, you can get the coffee for four bucks without the opinion, which pretty much establishes the value of your opinion.

Sandy hasn't shown what he set out to show -- note the title of the thread. Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!​ He quoted the wrong section of the postal code to start (quoting a section about disbursement money orders), and it was downhill from there. [Red emphasis Sandy's.]

Oh really, Hank?

Where have you been? Postal money orders do indeed require bank stamps.

First, you need to understand that Federal Reserve Banks use "operating circulars" to inform banks what their requirements are. A page on the FRB website states the following:

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

Having understood that, now let's look at FRB Revision 4928 of Operating Circular No. 4. Dated 1960 and in effect in 1963, it makes the following statements:

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

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.

THEREFORE...

Postal money orders required bank endorsement stamps in 1963. Just as they always have. (A fact I've also documented in this thread.)

Maybe if you were open to the truth and would actually read my posts, you would have already known this.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[Jon G. Tidd]

Klein's allegedly shipped a rifle upon receipt of an order for the rifle and a PMO. As Jim Di maintains, that's one transaction; purchase and sale.

If one part of the alleged transaction is demonstrated to be untrue, the whole transaction is untrue. No straw man at all.

Put other ways: [1] If Oswald never paid for the rifle, he never received the rifle. [2] If Oswald never received the rifle, he never paid for the rifle. [3] Unless garden-variety commerce worked differently for the transaction in question.

I suggest all here focus on this alleged transaction. Even though many other matters scream for your attention. Matters such as Allen Dulles.

This transaction goes to the heart of the assassination and involves a paper trail that is flawed. The flawed paper trail not only screams cover-up but also points a finger at William Waldman and other executives at Klein's.

It's a finger worth examining.

[Thomas Graves]

Klein's allegedly shipped a rifle upon receipt of an order for the rifle and a PMO. As Jim Di maintains, that's one transaction; purchase and sale.

If one part of the alleged transaction is demonstrated to be untrue, the whole transaction is untrue. No straw man at all.

Put other ways: [1] If Oswald never paid for the rifle, he never received the rifle. [2] If Oswald never received the rifle, he never paid for the rifle. [3] Unless garden-variety commerce worked differently for the transaction in question.

I suggest all here focus on this alleged transaction. Even though many other matters scream for your attention. Matters such as Allen Dulles.

This transaction goes to the heart of the assassination and involves a paper trail that is flawed. The flawed paper trail not only screams cover-up but also points a finger at William Waldman and other executives at Klein's.

It's a finger worth examining.

Dear Mr. Tidd,

How do you know that the transaction's paper trail is flawed?

How do you know that it wasn't the perfectly natural paper trail of a normal transaction?

Because it seems suspicious?

--Tommy

Edited December 27, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Hank Sienzant]

Hank, why do you have to quote a comment right about yours?

I guess you missed this twice then:

And Sandy has done a very nice job in showing that the money order part of the transaction is also dubious.

I didn't miss it.

It's only your opinion about that. Your opinion, and four bucks, will get you a coffee at Starbucks. Of course, you can get the coffee for four bucks without the opinion, which pretty much establishes the value of your opinion.

Sandy hasn't shown what he set out to show -- note the title of the thread. Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!​ He quoted the wrong section of the postal code to start (quoting a section about disbursement money orders), and it was downhill from there.

Oh really, Hank?

Where have you been? Postal money orders do indeed require bank stamps.

First, you need to understand that Federal Reserve Banks use "operating circulars" to inform banks what their requirements are. A page on the FRB website states the following:

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

Having understood that, now let's look at FRB Revision 4928 of Operating Circular No. 4. Dated 1960 and in effect in 1963, it makes the following statements:

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

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.

THEREFORE...

Postal money orders required bank endorsement stamps in 1963. Just as they always have. (A fact I've also documented in this thread.)

Maybe if you were open to the truth and would actually read my posts, you would have already known this.

Asked and answered. We've covered all that ground already.

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.

​What part of PAY TO THE ORDER OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO didn't you understand, Sandy?

And it certainly sounds like they weren't going to nitpick it, as they also specify they'd be happy "with some similar endorsement".

That pay-to stamp from Kleins exactly meets the requirement specified in the paragraph you cite.

Doesn't it?

Hank

PS: All this was covered in the past.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22439&p=320774

Edited December 27, 2015 by Hank Sienzant