Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

[Sandy Larsen]

And even Jon G. Tidd agrees with me, as he said in Post 17.

No, Jon Tidd agrees with me. (He merely agreed to one thing you said, as would have I.) He said

[DVP said:]

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

DVP is partially, but only partially, correct here. Klein's was the original payee. Its endorsement stamp made the Chicago bank the second payee. The basic rule here is that any time a check is transferred (negotiated) by a "pay to" type of endorsement, the transferee is a payee.

[Formatting added for clarity.]

Even on the back of the MO you can see that Klein's paid the money order to their bank. Because the endorsement field is preceded by the words "Pay to."

[Sandy Larsen]

Addendum....

Another thought after reading this paragraph yet again:

"All Disbursement Postal Money Orders drawn in favor of financial organizations, for credit to the accounts of persons designating payment so to be made, shall be endorsed in the name of the financial organization as payee in the usual manner."

Even if I am 100% wrong and completely off my rocker about what I said in Posts 11 and 47 in this thread, I still don't think Sandy Larsen has a leg to stand on.

Why?

Because even if the postal regulation cited above is referring only to markings that would appear on the back side of a U.S. Postal Money Order (versus showing up after the "PAY TO" line on the front of the M.O.)....so what?

Under those circumstances, that regulation cited by Sandy would be referring to an endorsement that we all KNOW is already present on the Hidell money order, which is the Klein's stamp on the back endorsing the M.O. over to First National Bank "for credit to the accounts of persons designating payment so to be made" [citing the 762.29 postal regulation] -- with First National then becoming the second "payee".

So there's nothing new or groundbreaking there at all, regardless of how that word "drawn" is interpreted.

But when a bank is the payee of a money order, on behalf of one of its account holders, the bank is required by law to endorse it as the payee before handing it over to a Federal Reserve Bank. That is what paragraph c states.

[David Von Pein]

Sandy,

But you just said you agreed with Jon when he agreed with me about that one thing (not the "partially correct" thing Jon referred to) --- and that one thing was that the word "drawn" indicates that the "financial organization" that Paragraph C is talking about would have to be shown on the FRONT of the M.O. as the original payee. Hence, it would be "drawn in favor of [a] financial organization". But such was not the case with the Hidell money order.

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

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

"DVP is correct here." -- Jon G. Tidd

Edited November 15, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

Can I just do a Devil's Advocate-type comment on your statement: "I like to use the fact that the money order was never cashed because it is such a simple things to see and understand." If we accept that 1) a cancel stamp was required, and 2) there is no such stamp on this money order, a more objective-less advocative reading of the evidence would not call it a "fact," and would state only that it does not appear to have been processed as a cashed money order would be processed.

Anybody can take any fact and find words to explain it away.

I invite you, as a devil's advocate, to provide a plausible explanation for the lack of stamps on the back of the money order. I'll be happy to consider and respond to that.

You're certain that there's no other possible interpretation: "fact...never cashed"?

I'd say I'm about 98% certain that is the case.

Because everything we knows points to the (presumed) fact that money orders were to be endorsed by the bank. The Fractional Federal Reserve Routing Number is present on the Hidell MO, indicating that it was to be processed by a Federal Reserve Bank. There is testimony that the MO was to be processed by a FRB. There is a place on the Hidell MO for bank endorsement stamps, and a note above that area mentioning such endorsements. We've seen the federal law requiring an endorsement stamp of the bank. The processing of negotiable documents like checks and money order was mature in 1963, including the adoption of the MICR numbering system that we're all familiar with. (MICR = Magnetic ink character recognition.) So there is no reason to believe that money order were treated any differently in 1963 than they are today.

The ONE THING that contradicts all we know is the Hidell money order. Just that.

In addition to that, I've shown (to my own satisfaction) that the bleed-thru we see on the Hidell money order is highly unlikely to have occurred on a real postal money order card. I've done tests only on 7 mil cards I have on hand. But I found some actual postal money order receipts from the 1960s on eBay that were torn away from the part that you deposit. I've purchased those and will do ink tests on them once I get them.

One other thing is this: I found an actual 1961 postal money order on e-Bay. The price for it is $100 so I won't be buying it. But there is a noteworthy difference between it and the Hidell money order. One of its corners has the notch in the upper right-hand corner that IBM punch cards all had. We don't see one on the Hidell card. Why not?

[Sandy Larsen]

All Postal Money Order payments to banks, to be credited to the accounts of account holders, shall be endorsed in the name of the bank as payee, in the usual manner (i.e. as is done for checks, etc.).

And, as I said in my previous post, that is exactly what DID happen with the Hidell money order --- i.e., Klein's stamped it with its rubber stamp ("PAY TO THE ORDER OF FIRST NATIONAL BANK").

I repeat what I said (above) with relevant emphasis:

All Postal Money Order payments to banks, to be credited to the accounts of account holders, shall be endorsed in the name of the bank as payee, in the usual manner (i.e. as is done for checks, etc.).

Klein's is not a bank. First National is. So First National should have endorsed the money order in its name. Also, remember, Klein's had endorsed the MO over to First National, making First National the new payee. Now read again what I said and see if it now makes sense.

But you, Sandy, think that FIRST NATIONAL would need to do the same thing in order to send it from First National to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago....is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

[Sandy Larsen]

And the saga continues......

TOM SCULLY SAID:

A check, unlike a postal money order, is a negotiable instrument of multiple endorsements, but....even a check, it turns out, is not required to receive an FRB processing endorsement --- CLICK HERE.

What is the source for the statement, "even a check, it turns out, is not required to receive an FRB processing endorsement"? I couldn't see it when I clicked where it says "CLICK HERE." Also, I'm not sure that FRB stamps are endorsements."

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

As Tom Scully explained, the Federal Reserve Bank stopped punching the round holes in the money orders as of January 5, 1963, two months before Lee Oswald purchased the famous "CE788" money order.

The ROUND punch holes representing the amount/value of the money order were indeed punched by the Federal Reserve Bank prior to 1963.

I'm not sure why they chose to enter the amounts in that way for money orders, given that some other method was used for checks.

So the punch holes in OSWALD'S money order were likely placed there by the post office at the time Oswald bought the M.O. (see Tom's earlier link from the 1962 Palm Beach newspaper article, linked again here).

But this remark Tom made is quite interesting, isn't it?....

"Unlike a check, a postal money order is a non-negotiable instrument and is considered void if endorsed more than once." -- Tom Scully

[sandy's underline.]

The underlined part of that sentence is alluded to on the back side of the Hidell money order. But it is also stated that bank endorsements don't count.

[Sandy Larsen]

I love you guys. Keep that mouth running long enough, you can convince yourselves of anything.

LOL

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy,

But you just said you agreed with Jon when he agreed with me about that one thing (not the "partially correct" thing Jon referred to) --- and that one thing was that the word "drawn" indicates that the "financial organization" that Paragraph C is talking about would have to be shown on the FRONT of the M.O. as the original payee. Hence, it would be "drawn in favor of [a] financial organization". But such was not the case with the Hidell money order.

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

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

"DVP is correct here." -- Jon G. Tidd

Let's look at Jon's post again again and I'll explain.

<Begin Jon Tidd's Post>

DVP said:

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

Jon said:

DVP is correct here.

DVP said:

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

Jon said:

DVP is partially, but only partially, correct here. Klein's was the original payee. Its endorsement stamp made the Chicago bank the second payee. The basic rule here is that any time a check is transferred (negotiated) by a "pay to" type of endorsement, the transferee is a payee.

</End>

I agree with all Jon says here. Even the two times he agrees with you.

The Hidell money order was indeed "drawn" in favor of Klein's sporting good. At which time Klein's was the payee.

However, the moment an authorized person at Klein's endorsed the money order by stamping the back, the payee became the First National Bank of Chicago. The money order became drawn in the favor of first National Bank. (Certainly not still drawn in Klein's favor. Though First National would, according to their banking account agreement with Klein's, deposit the $21.45 to Klein's account )

Edited November 15, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[Chris Newton]

I don't know if this link will provide any leads to the process but it might:

https://www.google.com/patents/US2745493

[Sandy Larsen]

I don't know if this link will provide any leads to the process but it might:

https://www.google.com/patents/US2745493

The holes punched by those machines were used for sorting purposes.

[David Von Pein]

As a continuation of what I said in Post #58 (re: the possible reason why we see no First National stamp on the deposit ticket seen in Waldman #10)....

Another possibility is: the extra copy of the deposit ticket was stamped by the bank—but on the BACK side of the deposit slip, instead of on the front of it.

HERE is an example to prove my point about that (also shown below). It's a deposit ticket that I filled out and sent to my bank in October 2015. After processing the deposit, the bank stamped only the back of the deposit slip, not the front.

Now, yes, I'm providing an example from 2015 here, and not from 1963. But I think it's quite possible (even likely) that the basic procedure at most banks for stamping deposit tickets hasn't changed since 1963.

[James DiEugenio]

The key punch holes are irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Namely, did the money order pass through the system.

[David Von Pein]

The key punch holes are irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Namely, did the money order pass through the system[?]

Warren Commission Document No. 75, Page 668 is an FBI report that says a "Postal Money Order" in the amount of $21.45 was definitely sent to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago by the First National Bank of Chicago on Saturday, March 16, 1963 (next-to-last paragraph of CD75, p.668).

It sure as heck looks like the Hidell money order passed through the system to me.

At the very least, that 11/23/63 FBI report in CD75 verifies that FIRST NATIONAL BANK handed off the $21.45 "Postal Money Order" to the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK in Chicago on 3/16/63, which was one day after Klein's deposited the M.O. into its account on March 15th (also verified in CD75).

Is Vice President Robert Wilmouth of the First National Bank of Chicago now on your list of falsehood tellers, Mr. DiEugenio?

Edited November 16, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Guest]

I admittedly skipped the Postal Money Order class in law school, but there is only one "payee" - here, Klein's. The money order was "drawn in favor of" Klein's. Klein's, as the payee, then "endorses" the money order. Klein's deposits the money order in its bank, which is a member of the Federal Reserve system; it is the "depository bank" but neither a payee nor an endorser. (If Klein's had endorsed the money over to some third party, that party would have become an "additional endorser" and could have deposited the money in its bank.) Klein's bank as the depository bank credits the money order to Klein's account, as indicated by the stamp on the back. The stamp is the depository bank's guarantee to the Federal Reserve bank that Klein's endorsement is genuine and the money order has been paid. (If the money order had been endorsed by Klein's over to a third party which deposited it in its bank, that bank's stamp would have guaranteed the genuineness of all endorsements, including Klein's.) Klein's bank, as the "presenting bank," then forwards the money order to the Federal Reserve bank, which credits the presenting bank and sends the money order to the Postal Service. I will defer to anyone who is more knowledgeable, but this is how I read the current regulations and understand negotiable instruments to work.

[David G. Healy]

The key punch holes are irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Namely, did the money order pass through the system[?]

Warren Commission Document No. 75, Page 668 is an FBI report that says a "Postal Money Order" in the amount of $21.45 was definitely sent to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago by the First National Bank of Chicago on Saturday, March 16, 1963 (next-to-last paragraph of CD75, p.668).

It sure as heck looks like the Hidell money order passed through the system to me.

At the very least, that 11/23/63 FBI report in CD75 verifies that FIRST NATIONAL BANK handed off the $21.45 "Postal Money Order" to the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK in Chicago on 3/16/63, which was one day after Klein's deposited the M.O. into its account on March 15th (also verified in CD75).

Is Vice President Robert Wilmouth of the First National Bank of Chicago now on your list of falsehood tellers, Mr. DiEugenio?

more than enough prestidigitators and fabricators on the lone nut side of the equation not to mention WC members to keep one busy policing for the next 50 years. Why do you insist on making a fool out of yourself? "...did the money order pass through the system?"