04-12-2015, 05:49 PM
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.
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.