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

[Scott Kaiser]

Didn't you and David Joseph go through all this in your thread? You should link to it.

OMG! How could I have missed your post? I really am sorry Magda, you know I would never ignore you, I must have Tom on my brain, and for that I am sorry! I don't remember if David and I ever explored this or not, but, if we did I think it should be link as it's very important evidence, especially my last post regarding the Fed Res.

[Scott Kaiser]

Scott, do more reading, please.

I presented this thirteen months ago. All of it has been pointed out to Sandy, a year ago.

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




.........

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.)

.........

11-20-2015,
............

[PDF]The Role of the Federal Reserve in the Payments System
https://www.bostonfed.org/economic/c...45/conf45f.pdf
by PM Connolly - pg. 147 "....The Federal Reserve's Role in Developing High-Speed Check Sorting Equipment
"..By the time the EFA became effective in
September 1988, the Federal Reserve Board had proposed for public
comment, and subsequently adopted, regulations to accelerate the return
process. A working group of banking industry and Federal Reserve
officials contributed operational expertise that supported the develop-
ment of practical and effective regulatory change.
The Board also used its new regulatory authority to propose and
adopt an essential new standard that previously had eluded the banking
industry. To accelerate the check return process, all participants in the
check system needed a ready means to identify the bank of first deposit....

....The endorsement standard in place prior to the enactment of the
Expedited Funds Availability Act had proved inadequate to support
the clear identification of each bank involved in the collection of a check.
The banking industry, through the American National Standards Insti-
tute, or ANSI, had made substantial progress during the 1980s on a more
comprehensive standard. However, the banks, equipment manufactur-
ers, and check printers had not reached closure on an adequate new
standard, in part because of the competitive concerns of particular firms.
To support the EFA, the Federal Reserve officials who had participated in
the ANSI process took all that had been accomplished with ANSI and,
with Board of Governors staff, added the new features needed for an
effective standard...."
...........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/b...9dd3eb389/
Banks Rap Fed For Moves on Check Processing
By James L. Rowe Jr. August 7, 1983

.....Despite the vehemence with which the big banks criticize the Fed, the central bank today is processing a smaller percentage of the total check volume than it was two years ago. It used to process about 40 percent of the nation's checks. Its share now is about 35 percent.

That's only because the big banks have sharply reduced the prices they charge for check-clearing services to keep them comparable to the Fed's, according to Lawrence Russell, senior vice president of First National Bank of Chicago and head of a bank lobbying group called the National Payments System Coalition.

Banks used to make a profit on their clearing business, Russell said. Now, he said, most are losing money and many may be forced to quit the business. Russell said in an interview that the Fed may end up "nationalizing the correspondent banking system.".....

.....Before the new law, depository institutions that weren't members of the Fed system were almost forced to use correspondent banks to clear at least some of their checks.

A savings and loan association with a check drawn on the bank next door could present the check to that bank for payment. But if the check were drawn on a bank 1,000 miles away, the S&L would give the check to its correspondent bank and pay it to collect the check.

The correspondent bank, almost always a member of the Fed system, was likely to use the central bank to clear the check if it was written for a small amount. Since the Fed was notoriously slow in collecting checks, the large correspondent banks developed their own transportation and delivery system to get big checks to their destination faster.

Backing up both the Fed and the private check-collection system is a vast network of couriers, bookkeepers and airplanes.

Since February, the Fed has speeded up its collection process. Part of the speedup was designed to make it more competitive with correspondent banks....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....ntry319621
Sandy Larsen - Posted 4 December, 2015 - 04:23 PM................
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.

As can be seen, The Agreement in this document is located in item #11, as opposed to a separate appendix.
THEREFORE...

Postal money orders required bank endorsement stamps in 1963.

Edited by Sandy Larsen, Today, 04:27 PM

....Just as Flavel A Wright described in 1964, (pg. 749) http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewco...ontext=nlr
(Sandy, read the whole Wright report.... it is only 19 pages....something has to influence you to stop misleading Ed Forum readers!)
and going back to 1952..... this was the regulation language, per the UCC:
Page 745


Page 749


Page 750

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/4/4-201

Uniform Commercial Code › U.C.C. - ARTICLE 4 - BANK DEPOSITS AND COLLECTIONS (2002)

› PART 2. COLLECTION OF ITEMS: DEPOSITARY AND COLLECTING BANKS

§ 4-201. STATUS OF COLLECTING BANK AS AGENT AND PROVISIONAL STATUS OF CREDITS;

APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE; ITEM INDORSED "PAY ANY BANK".

(a) Unless a contrary intent clearly appears and before the time that a settlement given
by a collecting bank for an item is or becomes final, the bank, with respect to the
item, is an agent or sub-agent of the owner of the item and any settlement given for the
item is provisional. This provision applies regardless of the form of indorsement or
lack of indorsement and even though credit given for the item is subject to immediate
withdrawal as of right or is in fact withdrawn; but the continuance of ownership of an
item by its owner and any rights of the owner to proceeds of the item are subject to
rights of a collecting bank, such as those resulting from outstanding advances on the
item and rights of recoupment or setoff. If an item is handled by banks for purposes of
presentment, payment , collection, or return, the relevant provisions of this Article
apply even though action of the parties clearly establishes that a particular bank has
purchased the item and is the owner of it.

(b) After an item has been indorsed with the words "pay any bank" or the like, only a
bank may acquire the rights of a holder until the item has been:

(1) returned to the customer initiating collection; or

(2) specially indorsed by a bank to a person who is not a bank.

Tom, I see after I said what I said you took some time off to re-research your material and edited your post. You're not pulling an MB on me now are you? And if in-case you didn't notice, you're saying the same shit I said meathead! Except, I disclosed the letter from the Federal Reserve! UGH!

[Magda Hassan]

Didn't you and David Joseph go through all this in your thread? You should link to it.

OMG! How could I have missed your post? I really am sorry Magda, you know I would never ignore you, I must have Tom on my brain, and for that I am sorry! I don't remember if David and I ever explored this or not, but, if we did I think it should be link as it's very important evidence, especially my last post regarding the Fed Res.

I may have confused with Tom not David Joseph.

[Scott Kaiser]

What gets me everytime is when someone is always quick to dismiss evidence and say something like. I think or believe this has been discussed before but never offers up any proof.

How about this DVP?

There are a number of outstanding "punch card" postal money orders that were issued prior to the introduction of paper style postal money orders in the spring of 1973, which bear the ABA routing number 0000-01 19. These money orders have a commercial life of 20 years. Processing instructions for the "punch card" postal money orders are in II TFM 4-7070 of these instructions.

http://tfm.fiscal.treasury.gov/v2/p4/c700.html

[Scott Kaiser]

Bank No. or FRB Code

Dallas............... 1110 Oklahoma

[Scott Kaiser]

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.

[Scott Kaiser]

What does all this mean exactly well in English translation it means at the top of the postal money order it should display the name of the Federal Reserve Bank and or the Federal Reserve Banks code including on the fraudulent postal money order to frame Oswald with which bears the number 138 D 15979 6, however the PMO code for the Dallas area shipped to the Federal Reserve Bank in Oklahoma should have appeared as 1110 so in layman's terms this postal money order isn't worth the toilet paper I use to wipe my ass with.

[Scott Kaiser]

Expect the unexpected from me and boy I can't wait to expose the rest of what I say I'm going to expose

[Scott Kaiser]

I apologize I edited post 17 and in lieu of saying Federal Reserve twice I replaced it with PMO postal money order.

My bad...

[Scott Kaiser]

FRBs are requested to refrain from writing, stamping, marking, endorsing, etc., in the area of the OCR Read Band. FRBs are further requested to avoid, if possible, any heavy endorsing on the reverse side of the money order in the area of the OCR Read Band.