Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

[Ken Davies]

You are suggesting that today's banking practices were in effect 60 years ago. Where is the proof?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

I cannot speak regarding today's banking practices and laws. But for the full span of the 20th century, the law required that checks and postal money orders submitted to a Federal Reserve Bank be endorsed. (That's another way of saying they needed bank stamps.)

AFAIK there was no law requiring regular banks to process only properly endorsed checks. But if a bank did so, they would be held liable for a bad check. That is to say, they would not collect the cash they handed out to whoever cashed the check.

But Federal Reserve Banks, by federal law, required checks and PMOs to be endorsed.

Instead of engaging in saying what seems right to you, why not just read what the law stated. I will link to that below. But first let me note that I got the laws as they were presented in "circulars." Circulars are what bank officials would read. When one of these says that something "should" be done, that doesn't mean that it's optional. "Should" is just a less formal way of saying "shall." (Circulars always use "should" over "shall.")

Following is a link to the relevant law. Read just the parts I highlighted in red... it is very simple and doesn't require a law degree.

 

 

[Michael Griffith]

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I cannot speak regarding today's banking practices and laws. But for the full span of the 20th century, the law required that checks and postal money orders submitted to a Federal Reserve Bank be endorsed. (That's another way of saying they needed bank stamps.)

AFAIK there was no law requiring regular banks to process only properly endorsed checks. But if a bank did so, they would be held liable for a bad check. That is to say, they would not collect the cash they handed out to whoever cashed the check.

But Federal Reserve Banks, by federal law, required checks and PMOs to be endorsed.

Instead of engaging in saying what seems right to you, why not just read what the law stated. I will link to that below. But first let me note that I got the laws as they were presented in "circulars." Circulars are what bank officials would read. When one of these says that something "should" be done, that doesn't mean that it's optional. "Should" is just a less formal way of saying "shall." (Circulars always use "should" over "shall.")

Following is a link to the relevant law. Read just the parts I highlighted in red... it is very simple and doesn't require a law degree.

 

 

Nice work, Sandy. Very nice work. The whole rifle-ordering affair has always struck me as smelling bad, sounding fishy, and making no sense. Why bother with getting a money order and postage and filling out an order form, when you can just walk into any gun store and buy a rifle in a matter of minutes--and without leaving a paper trail?

Edited December 4, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Greg Doudna]

14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I cannot speak regarding today's banking practices and laws. But for the full span of the 20th century, the law required that checks and postal money orders submitted to a Federal Reserve Bank be endorsed. (That's another way of saying they needed bank stamps.)

AFAIK there was no law requiring regular banks to process only properly endorsed checks. But if a bank did so, they would be held liable for a bad check. That is to say, they would not collect the cash they handed out to whoever cashed the check.

But Federal Reserve Banks, by federal law, required checks and PMOs to be endorsed.

Instead of engaging in saying what seems right to you, why not just read what the law stated. I will link to that below. But first let me note that I got the laws as they were presented in "circulars." Circulars are what bank officials would read. When one of these says that something "should" be done, that doesn't mean that it's optional. "Should" is just a less formal way of saying "shall." (Circulars always use "should" over "shall.")

Following is a link to the relevant law. Read just the parts I highlighted in red... it is very simple and doesn't require a law degree.

 

 

Sandy I am no expert on 1963 Federal Reserve and other check or money order processing procedures, but your argument is not really convincing to me, here's why:

First, yes, the regulations you cite require a certain kind of bank endorsement for each money order. But how do you know that was not considered legally satisfied by some means acceptable to courts but not involving an actual physical stamp on the instrument itself? There are a whole range of comparative examples, legal recognition of equivalents, agency law, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer but I suspect a lawyer could rattle off dozens of comparative examples with interesting case law support to what I am talking about. Frankly I found the discussion you cite confusing and would be a bit more willing to believe your conclusion if it were coming from a lawyer with expertise in that line of law, rather than you or me who I doubt either of us know fully what we are talking about here.

Second, it just on common sense makes hardly any sense to me that there would not be legal propriety for batch deposits in which money orders were considered stamped if they were in a batch that had that information in a cover document applicable to all identified items inside. Legally "considered individually stamped" equivalent. The amount of paper processing to individually rubber or machine stamp millions of checks and money orders week in and week out is such a waste of time and cost for no point, when that can be done by batch ... it boggles my mind if batch processing was not considered in legal satisfaction of requirements for money order processing by those banks.

Third, if the conclusion you think is the only possible interpretation of those regulations, and if you think that money order for the rifle was forged, can you offer a plausible reason why a forger would leave off the bank stamp? Doesn't make sense to me.

Fourth, that money order might be argued prima facie to be evidence that not all money orders needed to have a physical stamp on them, in order to comply with mandated due process and procedure for proper endorsing of money orders. Rather than citing a regulation and citing a non-lawyer (yourself) interpreting it narrowly as falsification, where are lawyers addressing this at the time? Where is photo evidence of similarly processed money orders sampled showing how it was always done differently Etc.

Fifth (continuing from the previous), the absence of contemporary witness testimony from persons inside the system telling how it was done, more information, more context, not just a non-lawyer such as yourself exegeting printed regulations as stand-alone conclusions ... these things seem to be missing from the discussion.

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Sandy I am no expert on 1963 Federal Reserve ...

 

Then you should consult one rather than rattling of a list of reasons why you don't accept the legal requirements for submitting PMOs to a Federal Reserve bank. (Every PMO was processed by Federal Reserve banks at the time. They probably still are.)

I debated this topic with Lance Payette, an attorney who was determined to prove that PMOs didn't always require bank stamps. If there were exceptions to the law requiring bank stamps, they would be given in Regulation J (Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 210). What does Regularization J govern?

From Investopedia:

Regulation J refers to a rule put in place by the Federal Reserve System that outlines how depository institutions must collect checks and other items [such as postal money orders]. Regulation J also directs banks and financial institutions on how to settle balances through the Federal Reserve. This regulation is one of many established and enforced by the Fed. Under Regulation J, institutions must abide by the terms and conditions set by the Fed. (Bolding mine.)

Lance couldn't find a damned thing to support his contention so he just made one up. He said it was covered in an agreement between the U.S. Postal Service and the Federal Reserve, something which he assumed wasn't publicly available. I found and presented it, thus proving him wrong. He then made up another way that would preclude the need for bank stamps. As a lawyer, he would have access to he Code of Federal Regulations. (I had access only to those statues sent to banking institution, called "circulars.") I asked him  to provide the statute regulating the thing he claimed, or any evidence that ANYBODY besides himself was aware of such a thing. Again, he couldn't produce a damned thing. I knew he was blowing smoke.

The circular that I cited for my proof happens to BE regulation J. It was issued to show it in its entirety including an amendment that had been made to it. Why don't you read it for yourself and show us all where there is mention of exceptions to the bank stamping rule? Good luck.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1960_04928.pdf

 

[David Von Pein]

5 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

It...makes hardly any sense to me that there would not be legal propriety for batch deposits in which money orders were considered stamped if they were in a batch that had that information in a cover document applicable to all identified items inside. .... It boggles my mind if batch processing was not considered in legal satisfaction of requirements for money order processing by those banks.

Indeed, Greg.

Here's what I said about that topic of "bulk batch" deposits during these marathon EF forum sessions concerning the Hidell money order back in 2015:

-----------------------------

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I would guess that the Hidell money order was probably "endorsed" as part of a bulk batch of U.S. Postal Money Orders sent by First National Bank to the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago.

All of the money orders in such a "bulk" transfer were going to be sent to the very same place--the FRB in Chicago, Illinois--so I can't see why a single stamped endorsement placed on a separate document (which would be attached to the bundle of bulk money orders being sent from First National to the FRB) wouldn't suffice in a bulk transaction like that, instead of having to stamp a separate endorsement on each and every money order.

I do not know for certain if such a "single endorsement on bulk transfers" procedure was actually in place at major U.S. banks in 1963, but such a process makes perfect sense to me. And it would certainly save the bank a lot of "stamping" time too.

[...]

DVP LATER SAID:

To reiterate, a "cash letter" for a bulk deposit would, in my view, still satisfy the regulation cited below, without the First National Bank personnel needing to place multiple separate stamped endorsements on each and every U.S. Postal Money Order that was part of such a "bulk" deposit/transfer.

If the bulk transfer from First National Bank to the Federal Reserve Bank was accompanied by a slip of paper that had all the stamped endorsements and information mentioned in Rule 13 (from the 1960 regulations) or Rule 15 (from the 1969 regulations), please tell me why that would not satisfy the endorsement policy?

Maybe we can now get into a big debate over the words "All cash items" vs. the words "Each cash item".

It seems to me that a bulk transfer, which would include just one piece of paper (i.e., deposit slip) for the entire "batch" of money orders being sent to the FRB (i.e., for "ALL cash items" within the bundled bulk package), would be a way of transferring a large amount of money orders from FNB to the FRB without violating anything written in this regulation here....

"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 endorsed with equivalent words or abbreviations thereof. The endorse­ment 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."

And I'd like to again remind everyone of Regulation #12 (from 1960):

 

Edited December 5, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The circular that I cited for my proof happens to BE regulation J. It was issued to show it in its entirety including an amendment that had been made to it. Why don't you read it for yourself and show us all where there is mention of exceptions to the bank stamping rule? Good luck.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1960_04928.pdf

I’m sorry Sandy, I read the Regulation document of your link and I truly do not see a requirement that the required bank endorsement to a federal reserve bank of a money order must be on the physical money order.

I see rule or number 13 saying “All cash items … should be endorsed … the endorsement of the sending bank should be dated and should show (blah blah)”.

OK that’s clear but what isn’t said is that that endorsement has to be on the money order as opposed to a note attached to it, or as the case may be, an endorsement for 500 of them written on a sheet attached to the 500.

I am not talking about any exception to a rule. I would like you to show me where is the rule of where the endorsement of the item has to appear to the exclusion of any other location.

[Sandy Larsen]

18 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I’m sorry Sandy, I read the Regulation document of your link and I truly do not see a requirement that the required bank endorsement to a federal reserve bank of a money order must be on the physical money order.

 

I don't have the full text of Regulation J. But the circular I linked to strongly implies that the bank stamp be applied directly to the cash item, given that it mandates applying the endorsement to "both sides."

From page 6 of the circular:

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. (Bolding mine.)

Do you suppose that the circular is referring to both sides of a "cover document" that isn't even mentioned in the circular with regard to the endorsement requirement?

If you still believe you are right on this matter, I challenge you to find any reference to the banking practice that you suggest. But be aware that Lance Payette -- an LN lawyer intent on proving me wrong -- was aware of your and DVP's proposition when he was debating me, and came up with nothing supporting it.

 

[Greg Doudna]

18 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

From page 6 of the circular:

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. (Bolding mine.)

 

That puzzles me Sandy but the only sense I can make of it is both sides of whatever paper the endorsement appears.

Nobody including you I think is claiming banks literally had to/always stamp both sides of every single money order instead of just the back, two distinct stamps per piece, so you tell me what it means before citing it as certainty of your prior interpretation. 

Does the Fed want the cover letter endorsement info stamped front and back of that letter as a backup in case machine processing got the wrong side photographed or scanned? 

That aside, I think you do need to go read that again and show the rule saying WHERE physically the endorsement information MUST BE LOCATED to the exclusion of anywhere else. To say you think it is implied, not good enough. 

You’re the one making the strong claim that an existing Kleins money order cannot have been processed for payment based on a strong claim of an interpretation of a rule you are asserting without quoting specific language stating your interpretation. It is unacceptable to handwave and say your claim is “strongly implied” and then demand someone else show otherwise. 

Why is it “strongly implied” that cover letters with the endorsements do not fulfill the language and the purpose and intent of the regulation, which is to have accurate endorsements?

[Sandy Larsen]

19 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

 

 

 

 

Cash letters are used by banks -- including Federal Reserve Banks -- for quick processing of cash items, such as checks and postal money orders. In the 1960s they were optional (and may still be AFAIK) and there was no requirement for endorsing them. (Had there been such a requirement, it would have be outlined in the 1960 Regulation J circular, which it is not.)

I have found an excellent source of today's Regulation J information regarding cash letters. It is here:

Efficiency in Cash Letters: Unraveling Regulation J Guidelines

I discovered that today it IS required that cash letters be endorsed.

However, cash items themselves are still required to be endorsed, as indicated by this paragraph in the document:

Missing endorsements: Another common error is missing endorsements on the checks. Endorsements are required to transfer the ownership of the check from the payee to the bank or the next endorsee. Missing endorsements can lead to legal issues, as the receiving bank may not be able to clear the check without proper endorsement. To avoid this, banks should ensure that all necessary endorsements are included before sending the cash letter.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

16 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

You’re the one making the strong claim that an existing Kleins money order cannot have been processed...

 

I've never claimed that the postal money order cannot have been processed given that there are no bank stamps on it. (Though that is certainly evidence that it wasn't.) What I've claimed and proved is that U.S. law requires bank stamps to be present on PMOs when presented to Federal Reserve Banks. (They were all eventually presented to FRBs BTW.)

As for the requirement to stamp both sides, I don't know the answer to that and I don't care. Maybe they were indeed stamped on the front as well, back then. Or maybe it was sloppy writing, and what it meant to say that, when the presenting bank endorses the item, it should also stamp its ABA transit number on both sides. My bet is on the latter.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I've never claimed that the postal money order cannot have been processed given that there are no bank stamps on it.

So once again, the implication is that all the evidence regarding Oswald's rifle purchase was falsified. Is that what you are claiming?

[Sandy Larsen]

23 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

So once again, the implication is that all the evidence regarding Oswald's rifle purchase was falsified. Is that what you are claiming?

 

I'm not claiming that here, but that is what I currently believe. I believe, based on the evidence, that the Carcano rifle is the earliest manifestation of the cover-up.

In contrast, I believe that the Mauser was planted by the CIA plotters in their attempt to have the assassination blamed on Russia and Cuba, and that this was also covered up by the government (FBI/WC).

 

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I've never claimed that the postal money order cannot have been processed given that there are no bank stamps on it. (Though that is certainly evidence that it wasn't.) What I've claimed and proved is that U.S. law requires bank stamps to be present on PMOs when presented to Federal Reserve Banks. (They were all eventually presented to FRBs BTW.)

There is no "certainly" that it is "evidence that it wasn't processed", no "certainly" about it being evidence the Klein's money order was not processed.

You are assuming based solely on what you assert is "strongly implied", without quoting anything specifically establishing what you are asserting. 

Thank you for the link you gave to the "Efficiency in Cash Letters" document. Truly, that helps me on a rapid learning curve to see what is going on here.

That document states that Regulation J, which is what you have been on about all along, is about cash letters. The document you linked says that is what Regulation J is about, in the very first words of the document you just linked:

"Cash letters are an integral part of the banking industry, and they allow for the efficient transfer of funds between financial institutions. However, the process of sending and receiving cash letters can be complex and requires adherence to strict guidelines. One such guideline is Regulation J, which outlines the rules and procedures for processing cash letters. 

OK.

And that now locks for me into place the answer to a question which puzzled me no end up until this moment: when that circular you kept citing spoke of the importance of endorsing both sides ... I kept wondering to myself, both sides of what"? Why wasn't that document making clear what? 

Well, the answer is (though it could have been clearer to people like us if it had optionally been stated explicitly): the "what" is cash letters, because both original authors and readers of that original text knew it was about cash letters, because that is what Regulation J is about (see above quote).

No wonder that Fed advisory emphasized to banks stamp both sides! Of the cash letters! A sensible precaution, for very understandable reasons, backup in case the wrong side got photocopied or photographed in a batch scan or whatever. Cash letters! Both sides! Doesn't even matter whether a bank thought it was needed. The Fed is telling banks, you do that, that is what we want done. So banks stamped both sides of those cash letters. 

Then you cite a detail within the document you have just provided which you think still refers to a requirement that the bank must individually stamp every single cotton-pickin' last one of those individual money orders even though the cash letter has fully identified and endorsed them and been stamped on both sides with that endorsement, no matter how tedious and time-consuming and totally unnecessary, because ... rule (you say). 

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

However, cash items themselves are still required to be endorsed, as indicated by this paragraph in the document:

Missing endorsements: Another common error is missing endorsements on the checks. Endorsements are required to transfer the ownership of the check from the payee to the bank or the next endorsee. Missing endorsements can lead to legal issues, as the receiving bank may not be able to clear the check without proper endorsement. To avoid this, banks should ensure that all necessary endorsements are included before sending the cash letter.

But Sandy, this appears in the context of urging banks to make sure all individual items in the cash letter are in order. No missing signatures. No missing dates. And no missing endorsement from the payee to the bank.

Not the bank to the Fed. But the payee named on the money order signing it over or stamping it over to the bank. 

We can see that on the Klein's postal money order. The Klein's money order has that.

Klein's, the payee, has a stamp endorsing it over to its bank, stamped right on the back. 

That is not talking about the bank endorsing those checks to the Fed, which is done in the cash letter. The bank endorses to the Fed by means of the cash letter, according to the rules in Regulation J.

There is absolutely no logical reason why, nor is there any rule stating that, the bank sending and endorsing the cash letter has to also, and competely redundantly, individually and tediously stamp every single money order or check on both sides too. 

And with this, your argument is just gone, disappeared, that (bold below):

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I've never claimed that the postal money order cannot have been processed given that there are no bank stamps on it. (Though that is certainly evidence that it wasn't.) What I've claimed and proved is that U.S. law requires bank stamps to be present on PMOs when presented to Federal Reserve Banks. (They were all eventually presented to FRBs BTW.)

No, you've only claimed that. You have not "claimed and proven" that.

The Fed required PMO's to be endorsed to them by submitting banks. But nothing in any regulation you cited requires that endorsement to be "on" the physical PMOs, as opposed to stamped on the cash letter with them.

You have not cited a single statement in the document you have set forth which is explicitly concerned with Regulation J concerning cash letters, upholding your assertion that the banks' endorsements of cash instruments such as PMO's to the Fed, endorsements which already are stamped on both sides of the cash letter, must also redundantly and illogically also be stamped on each individual physical item enclosed with that cash letter.

You just can't, as a non-lawyer, just on your sayso say a rule in a document about cash letters "strongly implies" some meaning other than cash letters that isn't stated explicitly, as if you know that. 

I am expressing this forcefully not with intent to make you look bad or humiliate, not intention here, but to get at the truth on this, which in this case is that Klein's money order has nothing known amiss with it from not having a bank stamp on it. Just nothing is amiss with that on that point on that Klein's money order at all.

And I know you have owned when mistaken in the past (and that's honorable). And I know why it looked to you the way it did, and it was a mistake in good faith. 

But it was a mistake.

That Klein's money order is clean, in order, nothing amiss on this point. 

Edited December 5, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Ken Davies]

21 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Then you should consult one rather than rattling of a list of reasons why you don't accept the legal requirements for submitting PMOs to a Federal Reserve bank. (Every PMO was processed by Federal Reserve banks at the time. They probably still are.)

I debated this topic with Lance Payette, an attorney who was determined to prove that PMOs didn't always require bank stamps. If there were exceptions to the law requiring bank stamps, they would be given in Regulation J (Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 210). What does Regularization J govern?

From Investopedia:

Regulation J refers to a rule put in place by the Federal Reserve System that outlines how depository institutions must collect checks and other items [such as postal money orders]. Regulation J also directs banks and financial institutions on how to settle balances through the Federal Reserve. This regulation is one of many established and enforced by the Fed. Under Regulation J, institutions must abide by the terms and conditions set by the Fed. (Bolding mine.)

Lance couldn't find a damned thing to support his contention so he just made one up. He said it was covered in an agreement between the U.S. Postal Service and the Federal Reserve, something which he assumed wasn't publicly available. I found and presented it, thus proving him wrong. He then made up another way that would preclude the need for bank stamps. As a lawyer, he would have access to he Code of Federal Regulations. (I had access only to those statues sent to banking institution, called "circulars.") I asked him  to provide the statute regulating the thing he claimed, or any evidence that ANYBODY besides himself was aware of such a thing. Again, he couldn't produce a damned thing. I knew he was blowing smoke.

The circular that I cited for my proof happens to BE regulation J. It was issued to show it in its entirety including an amendment that had been made to it. Why don't you read it for yourself and show us all where there is mention of exceptions to the bank stamping rule? Good luck.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1960_04928.pdf

 

Good work Sandy.  My post above was referring to the speculations/comments of Greg.