Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

[Sandy Larsen]

1 minute ago, Ken Davies said:

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

 

Thanks Ken.

Yes, I understood your post, which was quite relevant.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Thanks Ken.

Yes, I understood your post, which was quite relevant.

 

BTW Ken, when I wrote, "I cannot speak regarding today's banking practices and laws," that had nothing to do with your post.

You see, when I did my research on the PMO endorsement issue, I studied the law and how it adapted with banking practices over the full 20th century. And I showed how the endorsement requirement for PMOs was always the same over the whole 100-year span. (I did that because, at first, I couldn't find what the law was specifically for 1963... only for before and after that time period. However, I did eventually find the law for 1963.)

But I didn't research a thing beyond the year 2000.

That is the reason I said I couldn't speak regarding today's banking practices and laws.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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.

 

No, Regulation J is not about cash Letters. Regulation J is about how banks are supposed to handle cash items -- such as checks and postal money orders -- that they collect.

("Cash items" are those financial instruments that a bank will immediately exchange for cash without putting a hold on them.)

 

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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.

 

Yes, Regulation J covers cash letters. But that's only because cash letters are used in the processing of cash items... checks and postal money orders (and a few others).

But Regulation J is not about cash letters in particular... it is about how collected cash items are to be handled. Here is a good article on Regulation J:

Regulation J: What it Means, How it Works, FAQs

According to this article, the purpose of Regulation J is the following:

Regulation J is a Federal Reserve rule that governs how banks and financial institutions collect checks and other items. It also outlines how they are to settle balances with the Fed.

This article doesn't say a word about cash letters! Or endorsements, for that matter. Because those are only small parts of the Regulation.

 

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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).

 

Wrong!  It's not about cash letters.

 

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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. 

 

Wrong!  It's not about cash letters.

 

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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). 

 

 

Wrong!  It's not about cash letters.

 

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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.

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah,Blah, Blah, Blah,Blah, Blah, Blah,Blah, Blah, Blah,Blah, Blah, Blah,Blah, Blah, Blah,Blah, Blah, Blah,Blah, Blah, Blah,Blah, Blah, Blah,Blah, Blah, Blah,Blah, Blah, Blah,Blah, Blah, Blah,Blah, Blah, Blah,Blah, Blah, Blah,Blah, Blah, Blah,Blah, Blah, Blah,Blah, Blah, Blah,Blah, Blah, Blah.

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. 

 

My god Greg, at least with Lance Payette (an attorney) I didn't have to put up with this nonsense. He never disagreed with what I said that the circular (and thus Regulation J) states that bank stamps (endorsements) are required on PMOs. (He came up with other excuses for the missing stamps on the rifle PMO.)

What makes you think you are smarter than an attorney on this topic??

 

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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.

 

Trust me Greg, you're not making me look bad. You're making yourself look bad.

I mean, before going off on this wild goose chase of yours about Regulation J being about cash letters, why didn't you simply google "regulation j" and read what it is about? Had you done so, you would have saved us both a lot of time with your spittle-spattle blah blah blah about cash letters.

 

[Greg Doudna]

Sandy—Lance Peyette is irrelevant, leave him out of this. I have no idea what he argued and it doesn’t matter. You can’t cite his alleged failings as an argument.

You keep repeating as mantra, over and over as if repeating it will make it true, concerning Regulation J: “Wrong—it’s not about cash letters”.

And I can only again just quote the Fed saying the exact opposite: “Regulation J, which outlines the rules and procedures for processing cash letters”.

And you agreed, “Yes, Regulation J covers cash letters”.

And then after admitting that you just do a 180 and insist the opposite three times, that Regulation J is “not about cash letters”.

I stand by what I wrote. Before I read Regulation J I was confused. After I read it I saw the problem. You were insisting on an interpretation that both was never stated and makes no sense. I saw what it was about in agreement with what the Fed explicitly said it was about—rules and procedures for processing cash letters. So we’ll just disagree here, no need to belabor it.

David von Pein got it right in terms of common sense, but I realized this is not simply a reasoning from common sense. It is the meaning of the written words snd nothing supports your insistence on the nonsensical interpretation. You can carry on. But I know there is nothing wrong with the allegedly missing bank stamp on the Kleins m.o. Nothing at all on that score. 
 

(bumped) 

10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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). 

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):

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. 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

I have found the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) online. Not for 1963, but for 2023. It is here:

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/cfr

I searched for and found that bank endorsements are governed by Regulation CC within the CFR. It is here:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2021-title12-vol3/xml/CFR-2021-title12-vol3-part229.xml

Section 229.35(a) specifies endorsement standards to be used. This is what it stipulates for bank endorsements:

This section requires banks to use a standard form of indorsement when indorsing checks during the forward collection and return process. It is designed to facilitate the identification of the depositary bank and the prompt return of checks. The indorsement standard a bank must use depends on the type of check being indorsed. Paper checks must be indorsed in accordance with ANS X9.100-111. Substitute checks must be indorsed in accordance with ANS X9.100-140. Electronic checks must be indorsed in accordance ANS X9.100-187. The Board, however, may by rule or order determine that different standards apply. (Bolding mine.)

(Ignore "substitute checks" and "electronic checks" as they didn't become available till the advent of the internet.)

So, even today paper checks must be endorsed, ON THE CHECK, by banks.

 

I found the ANS X9.100-111 endorsement standard that is to be used by banks. It is here:

https://x9.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/X9-TR-100-2013.pdf

This is only a preview document that gives only a little information... you need to pay for the actual specifications. But it does give this information:

This standard provides the location for all physical check endorsements and electronic endorsement overlays applied to check images.

This standard specifies the parameters for the background and design elements on the back of the check and the placement and data content of endorsements.

This standard is not intended to apply to the format of electronic endorsement records, as defined within check image exchange standards (X9.100-187), the creation of substitute checks (X9.100-140) or endorsements on the front of the physical check or its image.

For more information on electronic endorsements, refer to Check Image Central for guidance.

Note that in certain legal references, the term indorsement(s) is used instead of endorsement(s), for purposes of this standard, only the term endorsement is used.

(Bolding mine.)

 

So again, yes, bank stamps are required on the actual checks themselves. Don't believe Greg Doudna's wishful-thinking nonsense.

 

[David Von Pein]

18 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So again, yes, bank stamps are required on the actual checks themselves.

That's for CHECKS. Not UNITED STATES POSTAL MONEY ORDERS.

Two completely different instruments.

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

43 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So again, yes, bank stamps are required on the actual checks themselves.

That's for CHECKS. Not UNITED STATES POSTAL MONEY ORDERS.

Two completely different instruments.

 

Regulation J tells banks to treat checks and PMOs (and some other cash instruments) in exactly the same way.

The whole point of the agreement between the Post Office and Federal Reserve was to take the processing burden off the Post Office and use the banking system instead to process PMOs. It didn't make any sense to have the banking system treat PMOs any differently than other financial instruments.

It's only after PMOs are presented to a Federal Reserve Bank for deposit that they are treated differently.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy,

I thought we went through all this years ago?

Who started this all over?

Was it Greg since he was not here then?

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Regulation J says that banks treat checks and PMOs in exactly the same way.

But banks obviously didn't treat both checks and Postal Money Orders "exactly the same way" in 1963.

How can we know this is so?

1. There's no bank stamps on the Hidell Postal Money Order (other than the Klein's endorsement).

BUT, even though #1 is true with respect to Oswald's $21.45 money order....

2. There IS a File Locator Number (FLN) stamped on the Hidell PMO (just where it should be, in the upper left corner). And we know that FLNs are the very last thing stamped on a PMO after it has been deposited and processed.

3. And the PMO in question ended up in Alexandria, Virginia, at the Postal Records Center --- which is just exactly where it should have ended its journey after being properly processed.

Now, tell me again why anyone would believe the Hidell Postal Money Order was a fraudulent document.

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

On 12/6/2023 at 6:06 AM, James DiEugenio said:

I thought we went through all this years ago?

Who started this all over?

The old, worn-out conspiracy myths never die. You should know that that is a basic and fundamental rule of JFK forums by now, shouldn't you Jim?

Another worn-out obsolete argument that's currently making the rounds at this forum is "The SBT Is Impossible" claptrap.

Next week, the "Badge Man" and "Tippit Was Buried In JFK's Grave" myths will likely be revisited.

It never ends. And never will.

 

Edited January 5 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

19 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Sandy,

I thought we went through all this years ago?

Who started this all over?

Was it Greg since he was not here then?

 

Yes, it is Greg.

Apparently he's decided that the Carcano indeed was purchased by Oswald. He doesn't want to change his precious determination, so he must bend the meaning of the law to fit it. He's as bad as Pat Speer with his no-blowout-wound-on-the-back-of-the-head ideology.

 

[David Von Pein]

15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Apparently he [Gregory Doudna] has decided that the Carcano indeed was purchased by Oswald.

Which is the only conclusion that any sensible and reasonable person could possibly reach.

Why not join the sensible, Sandy?

Edited December 6, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Michael Griffith]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Which is the only conclusion that any sensible and reasonable person could possibly reach.

Oh yeah, of course. It's only "sensible and reasonable" to believe that instead of just going to a local gun store, buying a rifle, and leaving no paper trail, Oswald, who was highly intelligent, decided to order a rifle by mail so that it could be traced back to him. Moreover, we are asked to believe, he even had Marina take pictures of him holding that mail-order rifle, and, to top it off, he informed the police that his belongings were in Ruth Paine's garage, apparently not caring that the police might find the backyard rifle pictures! Oh, yeah, that makes total sense. Entirely logical and reasonable. You bet. 

And just never you mind that Oswald supposedly somehow bought the money order for the mail-order rifle at a post office while he was actually at work (and the TSBD required that timesheets agree with the clock-registered times). 

And just never you mind that not a single round of ammo and not a single piece of gun-cleaning equipment (pull-through cord or metal pole, cotton swabs, oil, small brush, etc.) were found among Oswald's possessions. Gee, one would almost surmise from these facts that he didn't own a rifle or that he never used it.

And just never you mind that the only two gun stores in the Dallas area that sold ammo suitable for the Carcano rifle both insisted that Oswald had never been a customer. And, again, not a single bullet was found among Oswald's possessions. 

Nah, never mind all that. 

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Nah, never mind all that. 

That's right. Never mind all that, because it's not the subject of this thread.

[Greg Doudna]

I don’t think any of these other issues you raise Michael Griffith are relevant to the interpretation of the Kleins money order’s lack of a bank stamp. 

But, distinct question and issue, yes I think Oswald had the rifle. Both Marguerite and Marina testified that on Nov 22 Marina showed Marguerite a photo or photos of Oswald holding a rifle which sounds like BYP, and that Marina concealed it or them in her shoe. The next day both Marguerite and Marina testified Marina destroyed it or them by fire in a hotel room at Marguerite’s urging. I think that weighs in favor of the BYPs existing. The BYPs held up to forensic examination by the HSCA panel of experts which could not find evidence of forgery or alteration.

I don’t know why he did it by mail order and alias instead of an in person purchase but he was witnessed interested in mail order advertisements of rifles in New Orleans as well, and a lot of researchers have conjectured his mail ordering could have involved informant activity. 

The lack of ammo or rifle cleaning equipment found in Oswald’s belongings, and separately, lack of any recent practicing, with the rifle prior to Nov 22 I believe is weight against him shooting JFK on Nov 22, distinct issue. It also—this is less noticed—is weight to me weakening notions of widespread evidence fabrication since ammo would have been planted in Oswald’s belongings if so. 

I don’t know why Oswald was lying about having that rifle or mail ordering it when interrogated. It’s what a defense counsel would say was not helpful to his case. But that doesn’t prove he shot the rifle which is a distinct issue and some pretty compelling evidence argues he didn’t. 

I think my paper on Oswald repairing and reinstalling the crappy original scope and base mount on the rifle on Nov 11 at the sport shop in Irving has brought new information and finding of fact to the table which simply must be considered and integrated in any interpretation proposing to solve the case, missed in most prior discussions. 

But again, none of those things have anything—anything—to do with the specific and answerable narrow question of whether the lack of a bank stamp on the back of the Kleins money order indicates or establishes that that money order was never processed for payment.