Quote:The irony here is that David Josephs went on Len Osanic's internet radio show and stated that Robert H Jackson's home address in Alexandria, Virginia, "does not exist". (Link to 90 sec. long sound clip.: https://app.box.com/s/yuq77v3xdp3rmgc3mkc3fwvvbdb7i635 )
...and has posted here that neither Jackson nor J Harold Marks exist, but Jim Hargrove and Dawn seem to feel very strongly that my posting is the problem. My posts could be reduced to one paragraph each if there was less resistance to new evidence

Quote:You posted that J Harold Marks's 1960 testimony supports that postal money orders were keypunched by the Federal Reserve.

You posted that Marks and Jackson are fictitious names.

Quote:And thanks for the Marks testimony - adds further proof the PMO had to be processed by the FRB of Chicago.

Tom Scully Wrote:12-22-2015, 12:56 PM
...........
What is the substance of the challenge to the Secret Service agent's
report on his receipt of the postal money order? I've established that the money order was, as the SS agent's report claimed, found where a paid money order purchased in Dallas on March 12, 1963 would be found, to the exclusion of the challengers' claims that it should have been found at the Kansas City, MO postal money order center, and that the two names reported to have presented that paid money order to the SS agent were "real" and acting in their documented capacities. There is the additional evidence of the file locator number displayed on the upper face of that paid money order. Nothing has been presented proving a requirement of affixing bank stamps to a postal money order to avoid disqualifying its payment. There is no procedure for inspecting for bank endorsement stamps, automatically processed government checks or postal money orders, for approval of payment or possible disqualification owing to missing endorsement stamps, but there were comments like this, at the time, as state laws were updated in response to UCC regulation "changes" related to banking endorsements.:

Quote:(a similar article authored in the same year, 1964, performing a similar comparison of the revised UCC to Nebraska state law.:
pg 2. 1964 - http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2692&context=nlr "....In drafting the Uniform Commercial Code, the most controversial article was related to bank deposits and collections....")

and;

Quote:...To make a collecting bank's duties depend upon an inscription which it cannot take time to read, or to make the right of a payor bank to recover from prior parties depend on whether a machine failed to stamp, may be likened to a requirement that incantations be prop- erly made.40

from :
.PDF pg. 15, 1964 pub. date: http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1871&context=mlr


........

Quote:http://jfk.education/node/12
11/20/2015 - 00:25

http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/5829/CIA-RDP80B01676R002800080003-3.pdf
.......

Federal Reserve Pricing Policy on Check Clearing Services: ...
https://books.google.com/books?id=yccPAAAAIAAJ
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs - 1984 - Image of intro text:

18. How does the Federal Reserve justify not placing its endorsement on
all items handled by it?
Doesn't this practice make the return items task more difficult for payor
institutions while making the Federal Reserve's processing task easier?
The Federal Reserve places an endorsement on all items that it processes
through reader sort equipment. However, the Federal Reserve also offers a
program, called "fine-sort," whereby depositing institutions may deposit
checks that have been presorted and packaged according to payor
institution. The Federal Reserve delivers these checks to the payor
institutions along with the checks the Federal Reserve has itself
processed.
The collection of checks in the fine sort program is accelerated because
they can be deposited later than other check deposits.
In addition, the fine sort program is the most efficient method of
collecting checks in certain instances, such as when an institution of
first deposit has a relatively large number of checks drawn on a
particular payor institution. Although the lack of the Federal Reserve
endorsement on checks collected through the fine sort program may be a
source of inconvenience for some depository institutions, primarily the
larger institutions that may receive checks from several several sources
other than the Federal Reserve, the fine sort program does not result in
significant problems in the return item process. We believe the fine sort
program results in improve- ments in the speed and efficiency of the
nation's check collection system" .....
(Here we have a large bank, Chicago First National, presumably with a
large number of checks (US Treasury) and postal money orders all destined
for the same payor, the Treasurer's ADP system in Washington, DC.)

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/scribd/?item_id=33362&filepath=/docs/publi...





https://www.frbatlanta.org/about/publications/atlanta-fed-history/first-...


An item in the May 1965 6-F Messenger, the Bank's employee magazine, captured the
attitude of some of the operators toward the rapidly disappearing 803 proof machines:

Scott Kaiser Wrote:Yes, Federal banks were required in 1963 just as the same articular you provided for year 2000 to endorse PMO's, please read the 1967 Legal Aspects of Postal Money Orders, and... You're welcome! Again!

http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3600&context=clr