+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-Deep-Politics-Forum)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-JFK-Assassination)
+--- Thread: DVP - Take the Money Order Image to your bank and ask them if it was processed (/Thread-DVP-Take-the-Money-Order-Image-to-your-bank-and-ask-them-if-it-was-processed)
DVP - Take the Money Order Image to your bank and ask them if it was processed - Albert Doyle - 02-12-2015
I thought perhaps the LN's had gained the momentum on the Money Order issue until I read the below. It seems pretty immutable no matter what else is shown, including the File Locator Number:
Quote:· The Bank will then PROCESS the PMO, adding whatever marks, electronic or otherwise to the back of the PMO and record the payment to Payee in their records
This means, despite Kleins' stamping "First National Bank Of Chicago" on the Money Order, when First National transferred the Money Order to the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank the rules seem to require First National to add its endorsement stamp for this process. It appears to be a firm rule that can't be obviated.
There is no Postal rule or regulation that openly says the punched holes served as endorsement for this process.
The reason the possible plotters could have forged the File Locator Number and not the bank stamp is because the Locator Number was accessed from the Treasury Department internally as a government agency. The bank stamp would be hard to access or forge because it was external and belonged to a private bank company that was set-up to prevent such forgeries.
There's something else I realized. The reason the plotters skipped the First National Bank part of the process may be because they were worried about triggering some sort of Intel 201 File red flag on Oswald. Yes, the Money Order was bought in A Hidell's name but it is possible the entire transaction was forged because of worry over some vigilant agent who wasn't in the loop catching the order and flagging Oswald for it. But maybe they had no choice because they couldn't access a bank stamp because of tight bank security.
Those Lone Nutters who scoff at the idea of the rifle order being bogus should read Newman to see evidence of Oswald's files being guided around detection by Angleton's SIG department right around the same time period.
DVP - Take the Money Order Image to your bank and ask them if it was processed - Albert Doyle - 04-12-2015
Sandy Larsen found the applicable rules in the Federal Regulation Code "Circulars".
He found the specific entry for Postal Money Orders and the Federal Reserve Banks. In the rules before this that I omitted for brevity they described Postal Money Orders as "cash items":
" Endorsements
13. All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank
direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the
order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the
order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar
endorsement. Cash items will be accepted by us, and by other Federal
Reserve Banks, only upon the understanding and condition that all
prior endorsements are guaranteed by the sending bank. There should
be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase,
" All prior endorsements guaranteed." The act of sending or deliver*ing a
cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however,
be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior
endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is
incorporated in the sending bank's endorsement. 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. "
There is now the problem of the rule requiring the phrase " All prior endorsements guaranteed ". This would connote that the sending bank issue one of its own stamped endorsements containing this phrase - which there clearly is not on Oswald's alleged Money Order.
There's only one conclusion from this. If these rules are ironclad and cannot be avoided the Money Order does not satisfy these requirements and does not contain a stamp from the First National Bank specifically indicating " All prior endorsements guaranteed ".
The back-breaker however is this clause:
" 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. "
The Kleins stamp does not contain this necessary information and therefore violates the letter of the law as far as the federal regulations. There's no looking back from this. The code is clear and leaves no doubt this specific endorsement stamp is required on each individual Money Order and cannot be avoided. Oswald's alleged Money Order does not contain this necessary stamping and therefore officially now lacks the chain of evidence required for legal validity.
Armstrong was correct.
DVP - Take the Money Order Image to your bank and ask them if it was processed - Albert Doyle - 04-12-2015
An infamous denier said Larsen omitted something important:
Quote:"16. In the event a cash item is received by a Federal Reserve Bank from a sender without the endorsement thereon of such sender, the Federal Reserve Bank may present, send, or forward the item as if it bore such endorsement, or place on the item the name of such sender and the date of its receipt by the Federal Reserve Bank, or return the item to the sender for proper endorsement by the sender. This Bank makes the warranties stated in Section 210.6(6) of Regula*tion J by presenting, sending, or forwarding a cash item. These warranties arise whether or not such item bears the endorsement of this Bank."
EDIT:
Larsen made a good point in reply. He stated that Section 16 is a rule for exceptions or rare mistakes where the Federal Reserve Bank receives a Money Order that should have been stamped according to the rules but wasn't. So, in other words, the previous Circular code stands and the Money Order in question should have been stamped according to Federal Reserve Bank regulations.
Larsen also added that the Section 16 exemption was not existent in the 1960 regulations Larsen previously cited that applied to the 1963 Money Order.
Finally: The infamous denier and Scully do make a valid point that there was an existing Section 12 exemption that allowed bulk Money Orders from big banks to be sent under a "cash letter". This would potentially make stamping unnecessary and only include the bank stamp on the tag for the bulk Money Order delivery to the Federal Reserve Bank. This was done to make it easier to send Money Orders to a common Treasury final destination as payor.
This pretty much dead ends the issue either way unless better evidence emerges.
Edit: Larsen has raised an issue that banks didn't do that type of bulk sorting until 1979 and only Federal Reserve banks did it prior to that.
.
DVP - Take the Money Order Image to your bank and ask them if it was processed - Albert Doyle - 11-12-2015
I don't think Scully realizes that while showing us a Missouri professor's academic work that critiques Money Order endorsement practices, saying they will soon be as necessary as incantations, in actuality the ensuing banking practices that followed actually trended towards all Money Orders and checks receiving automatic endorsement stamping. I don't think Scully realizes that while he thinks he has shown a source that suggests endorsements would be done away with like primitive tribal practices, in reality what occurred was endorsements became universal and were stamped on all check and Money Order exchanges. This is typical of Scully who often attempts to impress the reader with esoteric references, however, as I have shown here, he uses those references to defy context and try to suggest untruths that are the opposite of what even his own sources show.
If you read Scully and Von Pein they offer references that suggest banks were moving towards blank, unendorsed checks and Money Orders in bulk and cash letter transfers, but what actually happened is modernization and computer technology ended up endorsing all such instruments with quick strip stamping. The endorsement practice that eventually became the norm 100% endorses Larsen.
.