WARNING to Forum Members: Please Read This!

[Jim Hargrove]

The real point, Scott, is that you can tell this Magic Money Order is forged merely by looking at it. If the row of numbers at the top are, in fact, File Locator numbers, then that seems to indicate that the money order went completely through the system. But it did so without an endorsement or date stamp from a single financial institution, in clear violation of Postal regs.

[Scott Kaiser]

The real point, Scott, is that you can tell this Magic Money Order is forged merely by looking at it. If the row of numbers at the top are, in fact, File Locator numbers, then that seems to indicate that the money order went completely through the system. But it did so without an endorsement or date stamp from a single financial institution, in clear violation of Postal regs.

I'm not even sure what we're talking about, but if that is what happened to the postal money order, then yes, it is clearly a forgery, and is no different then forging American currency in which this case the Secret Service would have also gotten involved as this is Federally protected and not from some independent operation.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Scott Kaiser

[Scott Kaiser]

David Von Pein, on 20 Feb 2016 - 3:48 PM, said:

Jim Hargrove started this ridiculous thread merely because of my status as a Lone Nutter

It's hard enough sometimes to get those who believe Oswald acted a lone confess they're nuts! Let alone get them to admit the Warren Commission was nothing more than a cover-up.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Scott Kaiser

[Sandy Larsen]

"BTW, I asked a bank supervisor about postal money orders a few days ago."

Most moving companies will ask for a "postal money order" vs a cashier's check or any other form of payment, it assures payment, a postal money order is no difference then cash.

And a forged postal money order is no better than counterfeit money.

Though the two are treated differently legally, depending upon the endorsements or lack thereof on the back.

This is an important point because Lance the Lawyer used the "same as cash" argument to "prove" that he was right, that Federal Reserve Banks don't require bank stamps. It's funny how quickly he claimed victory and disappeared once he could see that the hole in his his argument was about to be exposed. (imo)

While a money order and a postal order are often considered to be the same type of financial instrument, there are a few subtle differences between the two. Those differences focus on where the instruments are obtained, where they may be tendered for cash, and who will accept each as a form of payment. In some nations, the level of risk associated with them also creates an additional distinction between the two.

One of the chief differences between a money order and a postal order has to do with where the instruments may be purchased. A postal order is purchased directly from a national postal system, such as the US Postal Service or the Post Office in the United Kingdom. By contrast, a money order is produced by an independent financial service provider and may be purchased at any number of retail outlets, including supermarkets or drugstores.

Another key difference is the reputation of the two instruments. While there are exceptions, creditors are usually more willing to accept a postal money order over a money order issued by an independent financial services provider. One of the reasons for this is the perception that postal orders are more difficult to forge than money orders issued by other entities. In addition, there are providers who tend to be somewhat slow with honoring payment, a factor that may lead some creditors to not credit customer accounts until the funds are actually received. In contrast, the face value of the postal orders may be posted immediately, since the chances of forgery or some other issue are relatively low.

Cashing the financial instrument is another difference between a money order and a postal order. Many banks, along with most post offices, will honor a postal order immediately by providing cash to the individual presenting it. In contrast, a money order may not be eligible for immediate cashing. Instead, the presenter would need to deposit the order into a bank account, and allow the bank time to clear it. This is another reason why many creditors will accept postal orders but may decline payment tendered in the form of a money order.

I hope this is understood between a "postal money order" which clearly identifies the currency as being equal and having accessibility to "quick cash" vs a money order that would require a deposit.

My hole suddenly shrank to a golf size...

Just to be clear...

I wasn't arguing with what you said Scott. I was interjecting because the statement you made could have been (and has been) used as fodder for a lone nut argument used in attempts to discredit what many CTers believe, that the postal money order allegedly used to buy the Carcano rifle was never actually processed by the banking system. Because it was forged. I should have made that clear in my post.

[Scott Kaiser]

"BTW, I asked a bank supervisor about postal money orders a few days ago."

Most moving companies will ask for a "postal money order" vs a cashier's check or any other form of payment, it assures payment, a postal money order is no difference then cash.

And a forged postal money order is no better than counterfeit money.

Though the two are treated differently legally, depending upon the endorsements or lack thereof on the back.

This is an important point because Lance the Lawyer used the "same as cash" argument to "prove" that he was right, that Federal Reserve Banks don't require bank stamps. It's funny how quickly he claimed victory and disappeared once he could see that the hole in his his argument was about to be exposed. (imo)

While a money order and a postal order are often considered to be the same type of financial instrument, there are a few subtle differences between the two. Those differences focus on where the instruments are obtained, where they may be tendered for cash, and who will accept each as a form of payment. In some nations, the level of risk associated with them also creates an additional distinction between the two.

One of the chief differences between a money order and a postal order has to do with where the instruments may be purchased. A postal order is purchased directly from a national postal system, such as the US Postal Service or the Post Office in the United Kingdom. By contrast, a money order is produced by an independent financial service provider and may be purchased at any number of retail outlets, including supermarkets or drugstores.

Another key difference is the reputation of the two instruments. While there are exceptions, creditors are usually more willing to accept a postal money order over a money order issued by an independent financial services provider. One of the reasons for this is the perception that postal orders are more difficult to forge than money orders issued by other entities. In addition, there are providers who tend to be somewhat slow with honoring payment, a factor that may lead some creditors to not credit customer accounts until the funds are actually received. In contrast, the face value of the postal orders may be posted immediately, since the chances of forgery or some other issue are relatively low.

Cashing the financial instrument is another difference between a money order and a postal order. Many banks, along with most post offices, will honor a postal order immediately by providing cash to the individual presenting it. In contrast, a money order may not be eligible for immediate cashing. Instead, the presenter would need to deposit the order into a bank account, and allow the bank time to clear it. This is another reason why many creditors will accept postal orders but may decline payment tendered in the form of a money order.

I hope this is understood between a "postal money order" which clearly identifies the currency as being equal and having accessibility to "quick cash" vs a money order that would require a deposit.

My hole suddenly shrank to a golf size...

Just to be clear...

I wasn't arguing with what you said Scott. I was interjecting because the statement you made could have been (and has been) used as fodder for a lone nut argument used in attempts to discredit what many CTers believe, that the postal money order allegedly used to buy the Carcano rifle was never actually processed by the banking system. Because it was forged. I should have made that clear in my post.

I was hoping you understood the smiley face, I understand what Jim had pointed out, and to take the objective side, because I really don't know much about Oswald's alleged purchasing of the rifle with the postal money order story. I do know that ALL postal money orders REQUIRE bank endorsements, if it's NOT endorsed through FDIC which protects a postal money order then it's a forgery. Just as a banks are FDIC insured by the government so that ALL customers are protected up to $100,000 in-case of losses, robbery or the bank it self has taken a gainful loss then the Federal Government steps in, just as they have in the past with banks.

Texas State Attorney warns about scams

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/agency/weeklyag/2006/0706counterfeit.pdf

USPS scams

https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22225/html/kit_014.html

Edited February 22, 2016 by Scott Kaiser

[Jim Hargrove]

I do know that ALL postal money orders REQUIRE bank endorsements, if it's NOT endorsed through FDIC which protects a postal money order then it's a forgery.

Thanks so much for proving my point, Scott. The alleged Postal Money Order for the purchase of the rifle that allegedly killed JFK has no bank endorsements on it whatsoever. Does that strike you as likely?

Edited February 24, 2016 by Jim Hargrove

[Scott Kaiser]

I do know that ALL postal money orders REQUIRE bank endorsements, if it's NOT endorsed through FDIC which protects a postal money order then it's a forgery.

Thanks so much for proving my point, Scott. The alleged Postal Money Order for the purchase of the rifle that allegedly killed JFK has no bank endorsements on it whatsoever. Does that strike you as likely?

If there's no bank endorsement, then it's a forgery, it's as simple as that, there's no arguing the facts.

[David Von Pein]

If there's no bank endorsement, then it's a forgery...

Absolute nonsense, Scott. There are multiple other explanations without having to constantly resort to "forgery".

Question for you, Scott....

How did the Klein's "Pay To The Order" stamp get on the back of the Hidell money order if that money order was never handled by anyone at Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago?

Do you think the Klein's stamp is a "forgery" too? Even though Bill Waldman testified that the stamp on the M.O. is "identical to our endorsement".

And what about Oswald's handwriting? Should I believe that LHO's writing on the M.O. is a "forgery" too? Even though handwring specialist Alwyn Cole told the Warren Commission this:

"It is my conclusion that the handwriting on this money order is in the hand of the person who executed the standard writing [i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald]."

How many things that appear to be kosher does it take to make an item cross over into the category of "Real and Legitimate"? Or is that a stupid question to ask a conspiracy believer?

Edited February 24, 2016 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

LOL

Uh, was not the FBI at Klein's all night on the evening of the 22nd?

Davey cherry picks the things that almost anyone can fake.

Then leaves out the things that are very hard to forge.

[David Von Pein]

was not the FBI at Klein's all night on the evening of the 22nd?

EVIL FBI CONSPIRATOR -- "Hey, Bill [Waldman], can I borrow that Klein's rubber stamp that's on your desk? I need it so I can put a fake Klein's endorsement on this fake blank money order that another evil FBI conspirator swiped from the post office a couple of hours ago."

KLEIN'S VICE PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. WALDMAN -- "Yeah, sure. Anything I can do to help J. Edgar. Here you go."

FBI CONSPIRATOR -- "Thanks, Bill. I'll give it back to you in a few minutes, after I get through faking Oswald's handwriting and the post office markings and the File Locator Number and the punch holes that I've got to fake so that they line up perfectly with the phony $21.45 numerals that I'm faking on the money order too. So this might take a little while after all."

BILL WALDMAN -- "No problem. I never saw a thing. And don't forget about the massive amount of fakery you FBI guys need to do with the nonexistent documents that you're going to say you discovered in our Klein's files tonight too -- e.g., the Waldman No. 7 invoice and the Hidell order form and envelope. So you guys have got a lot of faking to do tonight. If you need me, I'll be in my office practicing the tissue of lies that I'll be needing to tell the Warren Commission in a few months. See ya."

Edited February 24, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Scott Kaiser]

LOL

Uh, was not the FBI at Klein's all night on the evening of the 22nd?

Davey cherry picks the things that almost anyone can fake.

Then leaves out the things that are very hard to forge.

Find out if the Secret Service at anytime investigated this incident, I'm not saying the FBI wouldn't look into it too, most likely if the bank did not endorse the postal money, it was forged.

http://openjurist.org/108/f3d/1380/united-states-v-g-conley

Edited February 24, 2016 by Scott Kaiser

[Scott Kaiser]

http://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/docs/08public-advisory-counterfeit.pdf

Edited February 24, 2016 by Scott Kaiser

[Scott Kaiser]

^Edited.

[Scott Kaiser]

If there's no bank endorsement, then it's a forgery...

Absolute nonsense, Scott. There are multiple other explanations without having to constantly resort to "forgery".

Question for you, Scott....

How did the Klein's "Pay To The Order" stamp get on the back of the Hidell money order if that money order was never handled by anyone at Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago?

Do you think the Klein's stamp is a "forgery" too? Even though Bill Waldman testified that the stamp on the M.O. is "identical to our endorsement".

And what about Oswald's handwriting? Should I believe that LHO's writing on the M.O. is a "forgery" too? Even though handwring specialist Alwyn Cole told the Warren Commission this:

"It is my conclusion that the handwriting on this money order is in the hand of the person who executed the standard writing [i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald]."

How many things that appear to be kosher does it take to make an item cross over into the category of "Real and Legitimate"? Or is that a stupid question to ask a conspiracy believer?

How did the Klein's "Pay To The Order" stamp get on the back of the Hidell money order if that money order was never handled by anyone at Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago?

David, now I know you can't be that naive. I use to own my own business, when we needed "rubber stamps" I'd ask my secretary to place a call in to a company that makes such items, stamping a company name is not hard to do, even if that postal money was received by Klein's would the secretary or the person receiving the mail know the difference between a forged and not forged postal money order? I'm certain if I handed you one made out for $10,000 but said to you Dav, cash this for me and only give me $5,000 grand and you can keep the rest, guess who walks away with the money?

Edited February 24, 2016 by Scott Kaiser

[Scott Kaiser]

And what about Oswald's handwriting? Should I believe that LHO's writing on the M.O. is a "forgery" too? Even though handwring specialist Alwyn Cole told the Warren Commission this:

"It is my conclusion that the handwriting on this money order is in the hand of the person who executed the standard writing [i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald]."

Perhaps, you should ask Mr. Cole if he was harassed as much as Silvia Oido?