I’m not citing Larsen because he is an ”expert” in anything, and he doesn’t claim to be an expert in anything. He is citing federal regulations and other documents in support of his claims.
Try to remember your arguments from one post to the next.
This is the signature, Micah Mileto asking Sandy Larsen about your proclamations in the thread at Edu.Forum, Hank.
Micah Mileto:
”Just to be absolutely crystal clear, Hank's idea about the real bank endorsement being "Pay to the order of The First National Bank of Chicago" is totally incorrect, right?”
Sandy Larsen:
”Micah,
Yes, you are right. Hank was wrong.
You're back to quoting Sandy Larsen as an expert. You already admitted he's not.
Hank never said what Micah said I said. Please quote me saying that's a bank endorsement. It's clearly the Klein's vendor stamp where they stamp the money order before depositing it. William Waldman even attested to that in his testimony.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/waldman.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 788, which appears to be a U.S. postal money order payable to the order of Klein's Sporting Goods, and marked that it's from a purchaser named A. Hidell, and as the purchaser's street address is Post Office Box No. 2915, and the purchaser's City, Dallas, Tex.; March 12, 1963: and underneath the amount of $21.45, the number 2,202,130,462. And on the reverse side there appears to be an endorsement of a bank.
I wonder if you would read that endorsement, if you would, and examine it, please.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is a stamped endorsement reading "Pay to the order of the First National Bank of Chicago," followed by our account No. 50 space 91144, and that, in turn, followed by "Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc."
Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not that is your company's endorsement on that money order?
Mr. WALDMAN. It's identical to our endorsement.
Mr. BELIN. And I hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9 and ask you if you can state what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is our endorsement stamp which reads the same as that shown on the money order in question.
Mr. BELIN. You have just now stamped Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9 with your endorsement stamp?
Mr. WALDMAN. Correct.
== UNQUOTE ==
Here's Waldman Exhibit 9:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0365a.htm
[Quoting Sandy Larsen]:
The First National Bank of Chicago was Klein's Sporting Goods' bank. When Klein's deposited a check or money order, they would first endorse it by stamping it on the back with the "Pay to the order of" stamp that you speak of. Notably, the stamp included Klein's bank account number, so there would be no confusion as to which account the money would be deposited to.
No problem there, although he presents no evidence that's the Klein's account number and not the bank routing number.
[Quoting Sandy Larsen]:
The next thing that would have happened is the First National Bank of Chicago would deposit the money order to their account with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. The bank would have to endorse the money order before submitting it to the Federal Reserve Bank. THAT WAS NOT DONE.
He provides no evidence that's the case, that it would have to be done for the money order to be accepted. Remember the language of the regulation he's citing says the language is assumed and has the force of law even if it's not expressly there. You're quoting the opinion of a fellow CT - someone you already admitted is not an expert, and saying I need to show he's wrong.
No. You need to show he's right. It's your claim. Prove it with real experts. Not some fellow CT expressing his non-expert opinion. That's just you shifting the burden of proof once more.
[Sandy then goes on to admit he was reading the wrong portion of the regulations initially - the point I had earlier pointed out to him]:
The whole point of this thread was to prove that federal law required such an endorsement on postal money orders in 1963. I thought I'd done so in Post #1, but later realized that the law I pointed to was for a special type of postal money order. But if you go to that post, there is a link to the corrected proof.
The next step for the money order would have been for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago to stamp it
.
Sandy offers no proof of this claim. Then he admits it is unproven:
[Still quoting Sandy Larsen]:
We do see a file locator number (FLN) stamped on the front by the Federal Reserve Bank, but not an endorsement on the back. John Armstrong did a write-up that states that an FRB endorsement on the back was required. But he provides no references, so we can't say that it's been proved that that stamp was required.
Note that the FLN is not an endorsement... it's purpose is to facilitate locating the money order after it's been put in storage.”
Explain why Larsen is wrong here. Cite. Explain. Argue.
You told us he wasn't an expert and you weren't citing him for his expertise.
Now you quote his opinion, pretend he's some kind of expert, and tell me to disprove it.
No, not the way it works.
You should know by now that you have to cite legitimate experts with the background in the field you're citing them for. Asking me to establish a fellow non-expert CT is wrong is still just another attempt to shift the burden of proof - and this after you said you weren't citing him and after admitting he's not an expert.
You make no sense from one post to the next.
Your claim, your burden.
Hank
