04-12-2015, 07:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-12-2015, 05:14 AM by Albert Doyle.)
An infamous denier said Larsen omitted something important:
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.
.
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.
.