FBI's Pants on Fire!

[David Josephs]

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

Show that it existed then Tom. I'm sure your resources are better than mine...

There is a Leewood Drive with numbers in the 6001+ range
There is no Lee Wood Dr at all.
And like so many of the addresses in Oswald's past, they are either non-existent or vacant lots. But at least the address is real.

2703 Mercedes. There but gone.



So please help this poor soul out with your endless resources.

This is Leewood Dr in Alexandria. Please locate 2121 Lee Wood Dr. As in LEE WOULD be guilty no matter what he did... ::coolrock::


And what I believe I said was that it is very likely that these two men did not exist or that these actions were attributed to them yet were done by others... Since there is nothing which follows their acquiring the PMO to prove they actually did it - Are those their initials on the back Tom - can you prove it via some sort of corroboration other than it corroborating itself?

I don't expect you to engage any longer Tom - you don't like it when your mountains of obtuse info is shown for what it is - a huge distraction in your attempt to prove the SS & FBI were honest in their investigation.

So you keep hunting down the 3rd cousin of the 4th in-law once removed who may have attended a meeting where Dulles' mistress's ex boyfriend knew a nazi who once said something you think is important in order to illustrate your command of the 6 degrees of separation. The rest of us will continue to move forward with the understanding that our FBI and Secret Service blew smoke up our behinds at every chance and that the evidence which you so vehemently defend is easily proven worthless on its face.

bu-bye now... I'm sure you know for a fact that if Marks and Jackson were the people involved that night, they were not at all involved with the key intelligence agencies in any helpful capacity. You see Tom - you pick one little thing in a series of huge events and try to claim a victory over the minutea... rather than seeing the total picture and the conflicts which arise in the first take of evidence in every situation...

What they said FIRST it appears, was never correct if it exonerates Oswald. If it convicts him, it was gold.

[David Josephs]

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.

Your nose is growing again Tom.

I said that Marks' testimony supports that the Fed Processed PMOs.

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

I did in fact claim that Marks and Jackson were ficticious names of employees - I misspoke.
I should have said that two men which the SS claims were Marks and Jackson were tasked with acquiring the PMO at least 9 hours after HOLMES had already found it and after a slew of misleading information from the FBI to those looking for this document. That is these two men are who the SS says they were - they are acquiring a document already acquired a number of times that day and in different parts of the country.

The HSCA handwriting "experts" were not given the original of either the envelope of the money order... I'm sure you've read what they said about that.

So if you need me to say I mispoke about those two names being actual employees - I mispoke.
They are obviously real people at least as of 1960. Kinda strange though that the address offered does not exist - no?

As I posted above, at 7:55pm Dallas/Chicago time 8:55pm DC time SAIC KROZ is informed that the PMO has been found and is on the way to Chief PATERNI.
Yet the PMO had not yet been picked up by Jackson, given to Marks or given to PARKER at 9:30pm DC time.

Which PMO is KROZ told about Tom and how is it both on the way to the Chief and being acquired simultaneously?

[Jim Hargrove]

[Tom Scully]

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.:

(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/viewco...ontext=nlr "....In drafting the Uniform Commercial Code, the most controversial article was related to bank deposits and collections....")

and;

...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/...ontext=mlr


........

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

http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/fi...0003-3.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:

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/v...ontext=clr

Thank you, Scott....insightful as always.

[Mark A. O'Blazney]

You could write a book about yourself now, Scott. It would be much more interesting.