THE LOWDOWN ON POSTAL MONEY ORDERS CIRCA 1963

[David G. Healy]

Jon,

Are you actually suggesting that you have provided PROOF that the Hidell money order is a "fraud"?

Really?

You must be joking.

Please tell me, Jon, how the presence of a stamp placed on the Hidell PMO by the First National Bank of Chicago would prove that First National "got credited for its payment to Klein's"?

Even if such a bank stamp had been on the Hidell money order, it certainly wouldn't be proof that First National got credited for the $21.45 face value of the PMO. Such a stamp would have been put on the PMO by First National itself, not by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Seems to me that the File Locator Number, placed on the money order by the Federal Reserve Bank AFTER the PMO had been handled by both Klein's and First National Bank, is a very strong indication that First National was, indeed, credited for the money order.

I also find it very humorous that Jon G. Tidd seems to think that the lack of a bank stamp on the back of the money order somehow completely dismantles this huge pile of accumulated evidence that all points toward Lee Harvey Oswald as the sole assassin of President Kennedy.

That's one hell of a powerful Postal Money Order, huh?

but..... but..... BUT, I was going to make a website for this topic.... it's gotta be worth at LEAST 3600 more posts..... but..... but..... LMAO!

Edited January 15, 2016 by David G. Healy

[Jon G. Tidd]

David Healy,

The Hidell PMO is important because it's not a matter of opinion.

Either it was sent through the FRB system to the U.S. Post Office or it wasn't.

[David Von Pein]

Jon...I commend both you and Sandy for advancing impeccably cogent arguments built on solid evidence regarding the PMO issue.

Again, the application of Occam's Razor to the equation is instructive. The simplest explanation that is adequate to the evidence is preferable to that which is unnecessarily complex.

In my experience with LN's, I have found that they will cling to unreasonably complex solutions in order to avoid conceding even the mere possibility, let alone reality, of conspiracy, irrespective of facts to the contrary.

This is hilarious (in the usual Pot/Kettle sense of ironic arguments advanced by conspiracy theorists).

Greg Burnham is actually suggesting via the above quote that the LNers who believe that the Hidell money order is a real and genuine document are placing their belief in something that is "unreasonably complex".

So Greg is actually saying in this instance regarding the Postal Money Order that the belief that something ISN'T fake is far more of an "unreasonably complex solution" than the belief that the item in question IS a fake.

Greg has things backward (as per the CTer norm). Because in order to believe that the PMO is a fraud involves believing in a FAR more "unreasonably complex solution" than the LNers' belief that the Postal Money Order is simply what it appears to be -- i.e., a perfectly normal and legitimate and non-sinister financial instrument that was utilized by Lee Harvey Oswald to pay for a rifle that he ordered from Klein's Sporting Goods in March of 1963.

But the belief that the PMO is a fraud means that virtually everything connected to the money order was manufactured by conspirators --- from Oswald's handwriting, to the Klein's stamp, to the 10-digit number stamped on the front of the PMO, etc.

And yet I'm supposed to think, per what Greg Burnham just said above, that such mass fakery is MORE of a reasonable conclusion to reach—and a less complex one—than a conclusion that involves no fakery at all.

Incredible topsy-turvy logic there.

William of Ockham just had a stroke!

Edited January 15, 2016 by David Von Pein

[David G. Healy]

David Healy,

The Hidell PMO is important because it's not a matter of opinion.

Either it was sent through the FRB system to the U.S. Post Office or it wasn't.

yes, indeed it is.... DVP has many, many posts waiting for this debate to continue, as he does with any assault on the 1964 WCR conclusions...

It's what he lives for....

[Thomas Graves]

Jon...I commend both you and Sandy for advancing impeccably cogent arguments built on solid evidence regarding the PMO issue.

Again, the application of Occam's Razor to the equation is instructive. The simplest explanation that is adequate to the evidence is preferable to that which is unnecessarily complex.

In my experience with LN's, I have found that they will cling to unreasonably complex solutions in order to avoid conceding even the mere possibility, let alone reality, of conspiracy, irrespective of facts to the contrary.

This is hilarious (in the usual Pot/Kettle sense of ironic arguments advanced by conspiracy theorists).

Greg Burnham is actually suggesting via the above quote that the LNers who believe that the Hidell money order is a real and genuine document are placing their belief in something that is "unreasonably complex".

So Greg is actually saying in this instance regarding the Postal Money Order that the belief that something ISN'T fake is far more of an "unreasonable" belief than the belief that the item in question IS a fake.

Greg has things backward (as per the CTer norm). Because in order to believe that the PMO is a fraud involves believing in a FAR more "unreasonably complex solution" than the LNers' belief that the Postal Money Order is simply what it appears to be -- i.e., a perfectly normal and legitimate and non-sinister financial instrument that was utilized by Lee Harvey Oswald to pay for a rifle that he ordered from Klein's Sporting Goods in March of 1963.

But the belief that the PMO is a fraud means that virtually everything connected to the money order was manufactured by conspirators --- from Oswald's handwriting, to the Klein's stamp, to the 10-digit number stamped on the front of the PMO, etc.

And yet I'm supposed to think, per what Greg Burnham just said above, that such mass fakery is MORE of a reasonable conclusion to reach—and a less complex one—than a conclusion that involves no fakery at all.

Incredible topsy-turvy logic there.

Interesting post, DVP.

I think you might be onto something there.

It's counter intuitive to believe that fakery and forgery were simpler than the normal process, isn't it.

PS I find myself in an interesting position on the PMO issue. I think Oswald used it to buy that rifle, but he didn't use that rifle to shoot JFK.

I think Oswald participated in The Dodd Committee's investigation of mail order gun houses and was taken advantage of by The Bad Guys.

Do I have any evidence of that?

Of course not.

It's just an idea. That is permitted on this forum, isn't it?

--Tommy

Edited January 15, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Jon G. Tidd]

Tommy,

Awhile back on another thread, DVP agreed that if there was a conspiracy, that's a big if, the conspirators would stop at nothing.

Now DVP argues that because falsifying the Hidell PMO involved many falsifications, it's ludicrous to believe the PMO was falsified.

DVP can't have it both ways. If anything, falsifying the PMO is proof the conspirators would stop at nothing.

What indicates the PMO is falsified? Certainly not the front of the PMO. Certainly not Klein's stamp. Those things look for real. Maybe they were forged, but they look for real. What's not real is the absence of First National Bank's stamp.

A perfect analogy of this absence is this: I send you a PMO for one of your Czech recipes. The PMO is for $21.45 and is made out to Thomas Graves.

You endorse the PMO and deposit it in your local California bank. Your bank is going to credit you $21.45, but it wants to be credited by the next bank higher up the food chain. Your bank is only going to be credited if it stamps the PMO and deposits the PMO with its next higher bank in the food chain.

Why is a bank stamp or individual endorsement important?

The stamp or endorsement warrants to all higher in the payment chain that all signatures prior to and including the stamp or endorsement are genuine.

Breach of warranty = liability. Thus, it you endorse a forged PMO, you can be stuck with a loss = PMO amount.

Financial institutions never have exposed themselves to such losses. They have for ages required an endorsement of the party asking for payment of an instrument such as a PMO or a check.

Tommy, don't subscribe to "conspiracy lite". Don't buy the idea there was a limit to what the conspirators would or could do.

[Greg Burnham]

There is (almost literally) nothing that DVP has ever written that I hold to be true.

In order to accept that the PMO was handled properly we must choose to reinvent the entire financial instrument practices of the US banking system! Now THAT is complex.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Greg Burnham

[David Von Pein]

Don't buy the idea there was a limit to what the conspirators would or could do.

And yet they forgot that very important First National bank stamp on their forged PMO.

My, how careless.

BTW, Jon, who do you think it was who managed to plant the forged PMO in the exact place it needed to be planted in order to make it seem like the PMO completed a normal and non-conspiratorial journey through the American banking system?

Or do you think the man who found the processed money order at the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia—an employee of the National Archives and Records Service by the name of Robert H. Jackson (see Commission Document No. 87)—merely pretended to find the Hidell Postal Money Order at the Records Center near Washington?

Was Robert Jackson of the National Archives a big part of the plot to frame Lee Oswald with that $21.45 money order that you are so convinced is "a provable fraud" which "never moved through the banking system"?

Mr. Jackson must have been a huge part of the plot and frame-up, right Jon? Because if he wasn't, then Jackson really did find a Postal Money Order for $21.45 with the name "A. Hidell" on it at the Records Center storage facility near Washington on 11/23/63. And how could it have ended up there if it "never moved through the banking system"?

Edited January 16, 2016 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

In order to accept that the PMO was handled properly[,] we must choose to reinvent the entire financial instrument practices of the US banking system! Now THAT is complex.

Yeah, Greg. Either that, or we could....

Merely accept the amazing and incredible notion that Gregory Burnham doesn't know as much as he thinks he does about the process by which United States Postal Money Orders were handled and processed by U.S. banking institutions (like the First National Bank of Chicago, Illinois) in the year nineteen hundred and sixty-three.

Guess which option is more likely to be the accurate one?

Edited January 16, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Thomas Graves]

Don't buy the idea there was a limit to what the conspirators would or could do.

And yet they forgot that very important First National bank stamp on their forged PMO.

My, how careless.

[...]

Good point, DVP.

It's very strange, indeed, that the seemingly meticulous, all-powerful Bad Guys either were not able to, or simply forgot to, do that. They also very stupidly made the PMO reach Chicago, and be delivered there, by the next afternoon. Something that never, never, ever, ever happens.

But sorry, DVP, does this mean that I don't think there was a conspiracy to kill JFK? No, it doesn't, because I think it's very possible that Oswald bought the rifle with that PMO, but didn't kill JFK with it or any other weapon; that that rifle was not even fired on 11/22/63.

--Tommy

Edited January 17, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

The stamp or endorsement warrants to all higher in the payment chain that all signatures prior to and including the stamp or endorsement are genuine.

Breach of warranty = liability. Thus, it you endorse a forged PMO, you can be stuck with a loss = PMO amount.

Financial institutions never have exposed themselves to such losses. They have for ages required an endorsement of the party asking for payment of an instrument such as a PMO or a check.

Jon,

I'm glad you bring up the issue of liability.

When Lance Payette was here, his argument against the need for bank stamps was that PMOs are as good as cash. And therefore there was no need for a bank stamp... it would be like stamping a $5 bill.

I didn't attempt to argue the point because all I needed to do was produce the FRB regulation for bank stamps on PMOs, and I did that. But now that you bring up the issue of liability, I realize that there is an argument to be made against Lance's claim.

Let me explain (to others, because you already know) what would happen if fraud were involve in the cashing of a PMO. But before I can do that I need to provide a couple of regulation details.

First, the bank presenting a PMO to an FRB is required to stamp it. In addition, the stamp is supposed to state that all prior endorsements are guaranteed by the presenting bank. HOWEVER, the regulation also states that the very act of presenting the item indicates the bank's acceptance of that condition.

Second, there is a regulation that is specific to PMO's (not checks or other cash items) that states in effect that if a bank pays the wrong amount to a person, or pays the wrong person, or if fraud occurs, the Post Office will have to deal directly with the presenting bank to resolve it. The FRB will be held harmless. The exception to this rule is where FRB negligence is involved.

Okay, now suppose the owner of a PMO fraudulently raises its amount and is thereby paid by the bank an amount greater than what the PMO is worth. Once the problem is discovered, the Post Office will attempt to recover the excess money that it wrongfully paid to the presenting bank. If the PMO is stamped, there will be no dispute... the presenting bank will return the money to the Post Office. If it doesn't, the Post Office will sue the bank and will win.

However, if the FRB accepts, processes and pays for such a PMO that is not bank-stamped, the presenting bank could legally walk away, leaving the Post Office with no recourse. If the Post Office sues the presenting bank, it will lose because the bank did not guarantee the PMO's endorsements. But guess what would happen next. The Post Office would sue the FRB for negligence... and would win. And so, in the end the FRB would be left with no recourse.

Of course, nobody in the banking industry wants any of this to happen. So banks routinely stamp every item they present to FRBs. If an FRB doesn't check for bank stamps, or accepts items that are not stamped, it does so at its own peril.

I'd love to see Lance Payette try to dispute this. It's funny how such an experienced attorney, with his 35 years of successful litigation, missed something so fundamental and simple as this. Thanks Jon for pointing it out.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Sandy Larsen