The deposit slip that was never stamped by the bank

[Jim Hargrove]

Tom....


The subject of this thread is "The deposit slip that was never stamped by the bank." In the first sentence of his OP, Gil wrote, "Not only did the FNB of Chicago not stamp money orders...."


The discussion currently going on at three different forums concerns DVP's attempt to discredit John Armstrong's discovery a few years ago that the infamous "Hidell" money order was never processed, cashed, or cancelled by a bank or other financial institution. Von Pein and Parker have tried to suggest that some of the holes punched into the card actually represented cancellation by other financial institutions. This is clearly not true. The holes indicate the serial number of the money order and the exact amount of the face value, and nothing else.


I showed other Oswald financial documents from c. 1963 to show how receiving (cashing) institutions stamped legitimate financial instruments. Your attempt to change the focus of the discussion to how the existing serial number fit into the probable date of issuance of the mo itself is irrelevant to the question of whether this document was cashed or deposited into a bank--any bank or any other financial institution.


It wasn't. Gil's original post also shows how even more documentation concerning this transaction appears to be fraudulent.

[Tom Scully]

With all due respect, Jim, the more time and effort I put into doing my own research in reaction to your numerous presentations, the more I understand what you do not know and do not care to know. I've become convinced you have no idea what the specific FRB processing/clearing was for the yellow-tinted, tabulation card, aka the money order in the amount of $21.45. I have established the fact that the money order form sold at Dallas until close of business on 4 January, 1963, was processed by FRB and that processing included an FRB processing center operator manually reading the amount displayed on each blue-tinted money order and manually key punching holes into the money order card that denoted the amount the operator had manually read. So that is actual documentation of the FRB marking the blue-tinted money order tabulator card during processing, but the money order in the amount of $21.45 was on a yellow tinted tabulator card with holes corresponding to the face amount already key punched in as it was created by the new Friden money order machine. No documentation as to how the accepting bank or the FRB processing actually did or did not mark the new yellow tinted, post January 4, 1963 money orders sold at the Dallas P.O. has actually been presented by you, or by John.

http://www.google.com/patents/US2785800
.......
..After payment at banks or post offices the postal money order cards are then cleared and processed at the Federal Reserve Bank by the present machine. A group of cashed money order cards is placed in the hopper or magazine of the present machine and upon depression of the motor release bar to cycle the machine each is automatically fed to a viewing station. During this time the District Number designation or hole which Was prepunched in the postal money order card is sensed and stored up by relays until such time that it is read out to control the predetermined extent of rotation of a sorting drum to select a pocket determined by the Federal Reserve District number designation.
With the card in the viewing station the amount written on the card is read by the operator and set up under control of the ten-key keyboard mechanism of the basic machine. For the first card fed from the magazine a depression of the motor release bar causes a single cycle of the operation of the machine and the rotation of the sorting drum at the termination of the cycle, but thereafter a depression of the motor release bar following the ten-key keyboard operation causes the machine to take two cycles, and the position of the drum is not changed until after the second cycle. During the first of the two cycles the card which was at the viewing station is fed to the punching station where it is stopped.
After the card punching has been completed the card stop located in the card punching mechanism is released and the card then advances to the check receiving chute of the basic machine.....

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.

[Drew Phipps]

Ok , well, I have a question. Why would the Federal Reserve, or any other bank, care enough about the money order number, issued by the post office, to punch card it in? Aren't the written instructions, posted by Tom, concern postal services as opposed to financial institutions? Don't (or didn't) banks use routing numbers?

Do any of you guys have other period documents which purport to be stamped by the First National Bank of Chicago?

[Jim Hargrove]

Not only did the FNB of Chicago not stamp money orders, I guess they never stamped deposit slips as well.

The alleged Klein's deposit slip of 3/13/63 ( Waldman 10 ) has a date
of 2/15/63 and is not stamped by the First National Bank of Chicago,
which it should have been had it been deposited.

http://i56.tinypic.com/11gi0w6.jpg

Gil,


Megathanks for pointing out that the First National Bank of Chicago deposit slip for the alleged Klein's money order wasn't stamped or processed either, just like the money order itself. John and I had noticed other problems with the so-called deposit slip, but not that. This whole thing is ludicrous. The WC's Waldman Exhibit # 10 shows that the alleged deposit slip for the alleged money order for the alleged Hidell purchase of the rifle was dated 2/15/63, A MONTH BEFORE THE MONEY ORDER WAS ALLEGEDLY ISSUED!! Deposited nearly a month before it was issued?? What's more, the amount on the deposit slip appears to be $28.24, and not the $21.45 indicated on the money order. Obviously, neither the FBI nor the WC predicted the emergence of the internet, allowing so many of us to examine this "evidence" ourselves.


Here again, is your nifty graphic:




There is another issue about this money order I'd like to examine. Anyone old enough to remember the Kennedy assassination is probably old enough to remember how postal money orders were printed on heavy card stock. Look at the front and back of the money order in question:





Note how the circular Dallas date stamp bleeds through the paper and shows up on the back. There is a lot of other bleed through as well, including the handwriting on the front and the dated initials on the back. This should not occur on card stock; it generally doesn't even happen on typing paper.


What are we dealing with here? The original CE 788, of course, is an FBI photograph. But what did they photograph?

[David Josephs]

I'm sorry if I missed it in the text - WHEN do they punch the PMO's number into the MO itself or are they printed that way first, with the punched square holes and then bound into a book?

It would seem to me that if the Postmaster can demand a refund from the FRB & its member bank, these banks, specifically the FRB, would have processed this money order and indicate such on the MO.


http://pe.usps.gov/Archive/HTML/DMMArchive0810/S020.htm3.0 FederalReserve System
3.1General
All money ordersare forwarded through the Federal Reserve Banking System, to which commercialbanks have access. For this standard:
a. Money ordermeans a U.S. Postal Money Order.
b. FederalReserve Bank means a Federal Reserve Bank or branch thereof that presents amoney order for payment by the postmaster general.
c. Presentingbank means a bank that presents a money order to and receives credit forthe money order from a Federal Reserve Bank.
d. Reclamationmeans the action taken by the postmaster general to obtain refund of theamounts of paid money orders.
e. Examinationincludes examination of money orders for indicia of theft, forged endorsements,forged signatures or initials of issuing employees, raised amounts, and othermaterial defects by electronic methods and visual inspection for defects thatcannot be discovered electronically.
f. Stolen moneyorder means a U.S. Postal Money Order stolen from a post office, classifiedor contract station or branch, or USPS employee before it is officially issuedby the post office, classified or contract station or branch, or by a USPSemployee discharging his or her official duties.
3.2Payment
The postmastergeneral has the usual right of a drawee to examine money orders presented forpayment by banks through the Federal Reserve System and to refuse payment ofmoney orders, and has a reasonable time after presentation to make eachexamination. Provisional credit is given to the Federal Reserve Bank when itfurnishes the money orders for payment by the postmaster general. Money ordersare deemed paid only after examination is completed, subject to the postmastergeneral's right to make reclamation under 3.4.
3.3Endorsement
The presentingbank and the endorser of a money order presented for payment are deemed toguarantee to the postmaster general that all prior endorsements are genuine,whether an express guarantee to that effect is placed on the money order. Whenan endorsement is made by a person other than the payee personally, thepresenting bank and the endorser are deemed to guarantee to the postmastergeneral, in addition to other warranties, that the person who so endorsed hadcapacity and authority to endorse the money order for the payee.
3.4Reclamation
The postmas[B]tergeneral has the right to demand refund from the presenting bank of the amountof a paid money order if, after[/B] payment, the money order is found to be stolen,or to have a forged or unauthorized endorsement, or to contain any materialdefect or alteration not discovered on examination. Such r[B]ight includes, but isnot limited to, the right to make reclamation of the amount by which a genuinemoney order with a proper and authorized endorsement has been raised. Suc[/B]hright must be exercised within a reasonable time after the postmaster generaldiscovers that the money order is stolen, bears a forged or unauthorizedendorsement, or is otherwise defective. If refund is not made by the presentingbank within 60 days after demand, the postmaster general takes such actions asmay be necessary to protect the interests of the United States.

[Tom Scully]

Ok , well, I have a question. Why would the Federal Reserve, or any other bank, care enough about the money order number, issued by the post office, to punch card it in? Aren't the written instructions, posted by Tom, concern postal services as opposed to financial institutions? Don't (or didn't) banks use routing numbers?

Do any of you guys have other period documents which purport to be stamped by the First National Bank of Chicago?

Drew, I hope this will help. From 1951 until the expiration (one year after purchase date) of blue-tinted postal money orders sold into early 1963, the Federal Reserve bank processing a postal money order would employ an operator who manually read the amount displayed on the postal money order, and.... (a page from a brief, 1960 congressional committee hearing. The term "raised" is interchangeable with the terms "forged" or "counterfeited")
https://bulk.resource.org/gao.gov/91-375/0000AA67.pdf


We now know that the $21.45 postal money order allegedly purchased at Dallas P.O. in March, 1963, was a new style, yellow-tinted tabulator card with holes key punched to denote the face amount performed at time of creation of said money order, instead of key punched during Federal Reserve bank processing by an operator manually viewing each postal money order face amount and manually key punching holes in the blue-tinted tabulator card AKA a postal money order.

Images posted of Leslie Welding paychecks which were not processed similarly by the Federal Reserve Bank as postal money orders were, only inform us that the research Jim has presented did not delve deeply enough into the unique marking the FRB did during processing to money orders of the 1962 type, compared to the FRB processing/marking of personal or commercial checks.

Then, this happened, and neither Jim, or John, or I know if, or how the FRB marked the new style yellow tinted postal money orders the FRB processed in March, 1963, except that we can be certain the FRB no longer manually key punched amounts on these new, yellow tinted PMOs...... :


(Ironically, I think it is somewhat of a blessing that the $21.45 postal money order was coincidentally of a new type with the amount coding key-punched at the sale point, because, if it was a money order of the 1962 and earlier design and still displayed round, key-punched amount code holes on its right side, I anticipate the reaction would have been that although the Federal Reserve Bank was paid in excess of $600,000 annually to manually view and then key-punch the round amount code holes into the blue-tinted tabulator card AKA postal money orders, the mere presence of correctly placed round amount code key-punched holes was not convincing proof the $21.45 money order had been Federal Reserve Bank processed. After all, how hard is it to fraudulently punch five round holes in the correct locations on a tabulator card money order?)

[Tom Scully]

duplicate of post below....

[Tom Scully]

With all due respect, Jim, the more time and effort I put into doing my own research in reaction to your numerous presentations, the more I understand what you do not know and do not care to know. I've become convinced you have no idea what the specific FRB processing/clearing was for the yellow-tinted, tabulation card, aka the money order in the amount of $21.45. I have established the fact that the money order form sold at Dallas until close of business on 4 January, 1963, was processed by FRB and that processing included an FRB processing center operator manually reading the amount displayed on each blue-tinted money order and manually key punching holes into the money order card that denoted the amount the operator had manually read. So that is actual documentation of the FRB marking the blue-tinted money order tabulator card during processing, but the money order in the amount of $21.45 was on a yellow tinted tabulator card with holes corresponding to the face amount already key punched in as it was created by the new Friden money order machine. No documentation as to how the accepting bank or the FRB processing actually did or did not mark the new yellow tinted, post January 4, 1963 money orders sold at the Dallas P.O. has actually been presented by you, or by John.

http://www.google.com/patents/US2785800
.......
..After payment at banks or post offices the postal money order cards are then cleared and processed at the Federal Reserve Bank by the present machine. A group of cashed money order cards is placed in the hopper or magazine of the present machine and upon depression of the motor release bar to cycle the machine each is automatically fed to a viewing station. During this time the District Number designation or hole which Was prepunched in the postal money order card is sensed and stored up by relays until such time that it is read out to control the predetermined extent of rotation of a sorting drum to select a pocket determined by the Federal Reserve District number designation.
With the card in the viewing station the amount written on the card is read by the operator and set up under control of the ten-key keyboard mechanism of the basic machine. For the first card fed from the magazine a depression of the motor release bar causes a single cycle of the operation of the machine and the rotation of the sorting drum at the termination of the cycle, but thereafter a depression of the motor release bar following the ten-key keyboard operation causes the machine to take two cycles, and the position of the drum is not changed until after the second cycle. During the first of the two cycles the card which was at the viewing station is fed to the punching station where it is stopped.
After the card punching has been completed the card stop located in the card punching mechanism is released and the card then advances to the check receiving chute of the basic machine.....

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.

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.

I proved that the $21.45 postal money order as well as a money order Oswald purchased on January 5, 1963, serial number ending in 60
were processed automatically and no longer were put through the process by the regional Federal Reserve Banks, which also included manually key punching in machine code the face amount of the money order as a procedure of the obsolete double checked process as you described.

As more often than not, you are woefully ill equipped to contribute more here, Scott, than ill informed or highly emotional and obscenity laced posts.

I laid all this out and you either have not read what I shared with you or you did not comprehend the details.

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

......

....and your immediate reply-

Tom, take a breath and relax before trying to put the cart before the horse, I can appreciate you putting up your regular mombo gumbo language as always, however, I don't think anyone would be interested in your 1988 revised Act. And, thus is the reason I put up the 1964 revised act from the Federal Reserve (it self,) it continued from it's 1963 revisions. Please note my very last post in-case you know, you didn't read it!

Scott, if you had actually read and understood the research details I shared with you, you could have been knowledgeable enough to point out to the
San Antonio source you contacted and presented quotes from, to point out the details I am AGAIN sharing with you here; you could have informed
your source that he was describing an obsolete and thus irrelevant FRB postal money order processing sequence because the money order you think
you are researching was issued from a then new, point of sale, print punch, Friden postal money order machine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Probably because the safety measures and security practiced by Federal Reserve banks was so good that those who forged the evidence after the assassination couldn't crack it.

Its a possibility, anythings possible. I mean, after all its kinda like looking for a needle in a heystack. It's like some people take 50 plus years to find what they're looking for while someone else finds it in five minutes, go figure?

Laughable, if your long disruptive record here (your smugness guarantees it) was not made by you so predictably pathetic. Again and again you work
yourself up over issues you indicate you develop no firm grasp of and the outcome is your initial absurdly smug tone descends into obscenity laced, emotional outbursts.

[Scott Kaiser]

With all due respect, Jim, the more time and effort I put into doing my own research in reaction to your numerous presentations, the more I understand what you do not know.

^This is about the only statement I can agree with you on!

Scott, if you had actually read and understood the research details I shared with you, you could have been knowledgeable enough to point out to the San Antonio source you contacted and presented quotes from, to point out the details I am AGAIN sharing with you here; you could have informed
your source that he was describing an obsolete and thus irrelevant FRB postal money order processing sequence because the money order you think
you are researching was issued from a then new, point of sale, print punch, Friden postal money order machine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tom, what I think you don't understand is the [procedure] and [polices] is what I'm trying very hard to point out here, in other words, the handling of the PMO's, endorsements and returns, not sequence, point of sales, print, punch or machined. That is all obsolete/irrelevant, the relevant point is... Is the Federal Reserve Bank responsible for endorsing PMO's prior to returning the PMO's to USPS? I have proven, without theory, without a second guess, without doubt, and without question, they do, get it? Got it? Good!!!!!!

[Scott Kaiser]

By Scott Kaiser

Its a possibility, anythings possible. I mean, after all its kinda like looking for a needle in a heystack. It's like some people take 50 plus years to find what they're looking for while someone else finds it in five minutes, go figure?

Laughable, if your long disruptive record here (your smugness guarantees it) was not made by you so predictably pathetic. Again and again you work yourself up over issues you indicate you develop no firm grasp of and the outcome is your initial absurdly smug tone descends into obscenity laced, emotional outbursts.

Tom, go do yourself a favor, go write a review at this sight to help you relieve stress. LMAO!

https://www.amazon.com/Edwin-Kaisers-Cov...entries*=0