Would someone give this info to Sandy Larson at the Ed Forum please!

[Tom Scully]

In 1963 EACH batch shall show the following information on ALL PMO including the fraudulent postal money order Lee Harvey Oswald was set up with. Any questions David?

7050.30 -Prepare an adding machine listing of each batch showing the following information:

FRB name or code at the top.

* The amount of each item.
* The total amount of the batch.
* FRB clearance date.
* Batch number.

A batch is a quantity of at least several items and does not speak to the bank clearing at either Chicago First National or Regional Federal Reserve Bank process......

http://jfk.education/node/13
..........
..........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" .....
.......

What Tom seems to express is unavoidable reasoning to follow conclusions as presented. There is absolutely nothing wrong to swim in theory, most of the language if not all of it Tom put up hence at how the Federal Reserve Bank charges the dispersing Banks PMOs, and it seems to me that once all avenues have been exhausted, no one is no longer swimming in theory, then the evidence which now presents itself closes this part of the line of questioning without debate. I believe I did just that Tom.

If the following statement seems to be factual evidence for some, it's not for me, in a post recorded from Tom is the following statment.

"The holes indicate the serial number of the money order and the exact amount of the face value, and nothing else."

Tom, my suggestion to you even though you're a lawyer I believe you should let theories raise theories, and facts be facts.

Can you exhibit no example of adequate reading comprehension? I assume, reading your nonsensical, "how the Federal Reserve Bank charges,"
that you were reacting to your interpretation of this, but your wording is too incoherent to offer more than a guess about your inadequate understanding.:

http://jfk.education/node/12
..............
http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/fi...0003-3.pdf



.......

........

Oh, and by the way I called and recorded my conversation with an officer at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Antonio 210-978-1200. The officer I spoke to informed me he was very familiar with the procedures on handling the old puch out 1963 USPMO's.

His exact words were before sending the batch of PMO's back to the USPS they EACH get recorded and double checked against the USPS forms for acuracy before endorsement. I asked where does the FRB endorse the PMO? I wanted him to tell me, he replied, ALL PMO's get endorsed on the back side usually under the cashing banks endorsement, this should NOW put this to rest.

The postal money order we are discussing was not sending the batch of PMO's back to the USPS, you are describing a then obsolete process obsolete with regard to all postal money orders sold by post offices in Dallas and in Chicago after January 4, 1963. The postal money order under discussion was automatically processed identically to US government checks. It was sent to the Treasurer's ADP system in Washington, DC, not to the USPO money order center in Kansas City.

There is no dispute that my research established as fact that you are describing a process that was obsolete with regard to the postal money order in question. The details you have provided in your post are irrelevant. The purpose of the changes to postal money order design and issuance announced in spring 1962 and established after January 4, 1963 in Dallas and Chicago post offices and throughout the country by later in 1963 was to eliminate the cost of a $600,000 annual contract with regional Federal Reserve Banks to

....before sending the batch of PMO's back to the USPS they EACH get recorded and double checked against the USPS forms for acuracy before endorsement.

.................

http://jfk.education/node/11
........

Everyone may say there's no FRB endorsement on the PMO so therefore it has got to be forged, but did anyone know where the FRB would have endorse the PMO? That is NOW provided. Because a few recite chapters and or numbers the question still remains, is or was anyone really sure where the FRB endorsed the PMOs if they were endorsed at all?

I believe the findings in THIS thread are indisputable not even DVP in his right mind could question them.

Readers can decide if you have misled them with information from the San Antonio source you posted quotes from that my November, 2015 research clearly informs was obsolete and irrelevant in relation to the $21.45 postal money order purchased in March, 1963, which was of a point of sale design and issuance driving a totally automated post bank deposit processing that no longer returned the paid $21.45 postal money order to the Post Office postal money order center, or not....

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...post115921

.........
But, we are discussing a money order with a March, 1963 date on it, and the only thing I know for sure is that you have no evidence related to the process marking of this yellow-tint, 1963 money order that required no FRB key punching. Remember the guy you told me was admitted into the NYC radio station to meet with the talk show host? This is a similar scenario in that, just as in that example, I supported all that I claimed with documentation both John and you had never seen before. You asked no questions, and you are not asking any in this go round. My agenda is seeking a high level of accuracy, and yours is making the pieces fit conclusions you rigidly cling to.


.......