Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

[Wolrab]

I've got it! John Lennon's killer, Stephen King, even taunted us with it in 11/22/63. Oswald had access to a time portal built with those unlimited funds, went back to March and bought the same gun twice. He used one to shoot the president, rigged the compartment in the floor and stashed the murder weapon there. He left the unused gun to gun to be discovered figuring the first thing the DPD CSI's would do was stick their finger in the barrel and discover it was never fired and he could never be charged.

 

[Hans]

Wow, that is creepy.

Yeah it is creepy to see an adult making false statements about doing stuff he isn't going to do....and being proud of saying so......c r e e p y.

 

[Hans]

So everyone's clear, Manifesto is arguing that the CIA didn't call the Post Office, or check with the relevant bank before faking the microfilm even though the CIA has a department dedicated to forgeries of various documents.

Then there's the bigger question of why not just buy the rifle with a real money order?

Yes in Manifesto's bizarro world they not only don't know how to do a simple task but this was one of hundreds of tasks they didn't do right. If you ask CTs you'll find the evil conspiracy did every single thing in the conspiracy wrong.......

 

[HSienzant]

I've got it! John Lennon's killer, Stephen King, even taunted us with it in 11/22/63. Oswald had access to a time portal built with those unlimited funds, went back to March and bought the same gun twice. He used one to shoot the president, rigged the compartment in the floor and stashed the murder weapon there. He left the unused gun to gun to be discovered figuring the first thing the DPD CSI's would do was stick their finger in the barrel and discover it was never fired and he could never be charged.

That could be a Stephen King novel.



And it's more thorough and explains more of the evidence than anything any CT has come up with in terms of a theory, ever.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Yes in Manifesto's bizarro world they not only don't know how to do a simple task but this was one of hundreds of tasks they didn't do right. If you ask CTs you'll find the evil conspiracy did every single thing in the conspiracy wrong.......

And Manifesto said exactly that in the past. Like here [emphasis added]:

This is however only one little piece of evidence in the whole chain of evidence allegedly showing that Oswald/Hidell bought the rifle. How is it with rest of the pieces of the chain? Same here. Everything is wrong. Impossible. Not plausible. Forgeries. Silly. Highly suspect. Etc, etc.

Wrong.

How is it this massive conspiracy with an unlimited budget couldn't get anything right, Manifesto?

If you can't explain and support your own arguments, why should anyone spend a minute debunking them?

Hank

 

[OKBob]

It was not you who flaunted your alleged expertise, it was other participants in the thread.

I've only mentioned that I'm a lawyer and law professor. If others have repeated that point, they have not been flaunting my expertise. In any case, I don't claim expertise in commercial transactions, banking laws, or the Federal Reserve system. I have only stated that I'm familiar with the way legal language signifies, and that "should" is not a word typically used in law to denote a legal requirement, failure to comply with which triggers sanctions.

But you're the one with the burden to establish the legal significance of the language and its effect, if any, on Oswald's postal money order. I raise the following points as issues I think you will have to consider as you pursue your proof-gathering:

1. Circular No. 4928 was not a part of the "federal regulations," as you have claimed. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) contains regulations that have been proposed by federal agencies, submitted to a notice, publication, and public comment process, and eventually promulgated as rules in the CFR.

2. Federal Reserve operating circulars, of which No. 4928 was one, were different. They were not put through the regulatory process I just described. Instead, they were issued by Federal Reserve Banks to their participating clearing banks, and the duties they created for banks were contractual in nature, not regulatory in the typical way. Because these circulars were, in effect, banks talking to banks, this explains some of the nonbinding "should," "may," or "banks are urged" language found in No. 4928. (You should read the whole circular to get a feel for how "should" operates in the context of other wording.) These documents, in addition to occasional mandatory language, were setting goals, aspirational norms, and best practices for members.

3. It is worth asking whether Circular No. 4928 actually applied to Oswald's transaction at all. Oswald's money order was processed by the First National Bank of Chicago, apparently through the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (District 7). Circular No. 4928 was issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (District 2) to its clearing banks. Since these circulars operated as contractual understandings, could a District 2 circular bind banks in District 7?

4. Once again, I'll suggest that "should" is different from "shall" or "must." It is advisory or recommendatory in tone rather than mandatory. "Should" implies a scenario in which existing practice has been observed to be uneven. "You should brush your teeth daily" suggests that the child is inconsistent. Failure to comply with a "should" would not likely trigger penalties.

5. Let's say arguendo that you can prove that "should" was mandatory and that Oswald's money order lacked required stamps. It appears that the money order was honored anyway: Klein's was paid, and Oswald, as Hiddell, received his purchase. Bureaucracies often operate that way. We want our banking system to function and not be held up by the venial sins of bureaucrats.

6. If you think that the absence of stamps resulted from a bungled conspiratorial fabrication, you still have to prove the fabrication and the cover-up. Oswald's money order by itself does not do all that work for you. This is why I say that you have all your work in front of you.

 

[bknight]

I've only mentioned that I'm a lawyer and law professor. If others have repeated that point, they have not been flaunting my expertise. In any case, I don't claim expertise in commercial transactions, banking laws, or the Federal Reserve system. I have only stated that I'm familiar with the way legal language signifies, and that "should" is not a word typically used in law to denote a legal requirement, failure to comply with which triggers sanctions.

But you're the one with the burden to establish the legal significance of the language and its effect, if any, on Oswald's postal money order. I raise the following points as issues I think you will have to consider as you pursue your proof-gathering:

1. Circular No. 4928 was not a part of the "federal regulations," as you have claimed. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) contains regulations that have been proposed by federal agencies, submitted to a notice, publication, and public comment process, and eventually promulgated as rules in the CFR.

2. Federal Reserve operating circulars, of which No. 4928 was one, were different. They were not put through the regulatory process I just described. Instead, they were issued by Federal Reserve Banks to their participating clearing banks, and the duties they created for banks were contractual in nature, not regulatory in the typical way. Because these circulars were, in effect, banks talking to banks, this explains some of the nonbinding "should," "may," or "banks are urged" language found in No. 4928. (You should read the whole circular to get a feel for how "should" operates in the context of other wording.) These documents, in addition to occasional mandatory language, were setting goals, aspirational norms, and best practices for members.

3. It is worth asking whether Circular No. 4928 actually applied to Oswald's transaction at all. Oswald's money order was processed by the First National Bank of Chicago, apparently through the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (District 7). Circular No. 4928 was issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (District 2) to its clearing banks. Since these circulars operated as contractual understandings, could a District 2 circular bind banks in District 7?

4. Once again, I'll suggest that "should" is different from "shall" or "must." It is advisory or recommendatory in tone rather than mandatory. "Should" implies a scenario in which existing practice has been observed to be uneven. "You should brush your teeth daily" suggests that the child is inconsistent. Failure to comply with a "should" would not likely trigger penalties.

5. Let's say arguendo that you can prove that "should" was mandatory and that Oswald's money order lacked required stamps. It appears that the money order was honored anyway: Klein's was paid, and Oswald, as Hiddell, received his purchase. Bureaucracies often operate that way. We want our banking system to function and not be held up by the venial sins of bureaucrats.

6. If you think that the absence of stamps resulted from a bungled conspiratorial fabrication, you still have to prove the fabrication and the cover-up. Oswald's money order by itself does not do all that work for you. This is why I say that you have all your work in front of you.

OMG, spoken just like a lawyer.

I believe you won your case.

And it is moot since the money order was paid.
That is unless one is jousting with windmills.

 

[manifesto]

Asked and answered. The answer won't change no matter how many times you ask. There's a 'should' in there, not a 'shall'.

But you agree that according to the federal regulations, there ”should” be endorsing bank stamps prominently visible on both sides on a PMO, 1963?

Nobody cares what you think or what you're unsure about. Your level of confusion is not the controlling factor here.

Hank

No, the controlling factor here is fanatical secterian holy faith, like in all holy congregations before they come crumbleling down.

I’m trying to save as many as possible of you before that happens. Mercy.

 

[RoboTimbo]

But you agree that according to the federal regulations, there ”should” be endorsing bank stamps prominently visible on both sides on a PMO, 1963?

You are making the claim, what do you think?

No, the controlling factor here is fanatical secterian holy faith, like in all holy congregetaions before they come crubleling down.

I’m trying to save as many as possible of you before that happens. Mercy.

Remember the relative value of common CT religionist opinions.

 

[RoboTimbo]

But you agree that according to the federal regulations, there ”should” be endorsing bank stamps prominently visible on both sides on a PMO, 1963?

You do agree that Sandy Larsen is an idiot for stupidly thinking "should" and "shall" are the same word, don't you ?

 

[manifesto]

And Manifesto said exactly that in the past. Like here [emphasis added]:



How is it this massive conspiracy with an unlimited budget couldn't get anything right, Manifesto?

If you can't explain and support your own arguments, why should anyone spend a minute debunking them?

Hank

The cover-up was done in the knowledge that no one would check the evidence in a real sense. It had a public relation function, not a real evidential function.

In a court room the defence would have had a massacre on both the witness testimonies and on the alleged technical evidence.

The Warren Commissions function was Public Relations and to White Wash and stamp ”Approved” on the fraudulent investigation performed by the FBI and other corrupt investigative bodies.

Everybody ”knew” that it was a cover-up of a covert coup d’etat but they feard the alternative, so they played along in the ’service of the country’. Or, they belonged to that faction within the American power structure who rejoyced when the ”pinky n-word loving traitor in the White house” got what was coming to him, and gladely took part in the cover-up as ’good American patriots’.

Ask your long time associate John McAdams, he surely knows what kind of sentiment I’m talking about.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Cite ONE A WHOLE BUNCH OF things I have made up

You do agree that these were just pulled out of Uranus.

The cover-up was done in the knowledge that no one would check the evidence in a real sense. It had a public relation function, not a real evidential function.

In a court room the defence would have had a massacre on both the witness testimonies and on the alleged technical evidence.

The Warren Commissions function was Public Relations and to White Wash and stamp ”Approved” on the fraudulent investigation performed by the FBI and other corrupt investigative bodies.

Everybody ”knew” that it was a cover-up of a covert coup d’etat but they feard the alternative, so they played along in the ’service of the country’. Or, they belonged to that faction within the American power structure who rejoyced when the ”pinky n-word loving traitor in the White house” got what was coming to him, and gladely took part in the cover-up as ’good American patriots’.

Ask your long time associate John McAdams, he surely knows what kind of sentiment I’m talking about.

 

[manifesto]

You do agree that Sandy Larsen is an idiot for stupidly thinking "should" and "shall" are the same word, don't you ?

No. Point out where he thinks that.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No. Point out where he thinks that.

Do you think "should" and "shall" are the same word?

 

[Axxman300]

The cover-up was done in the knowledge that no one would check the evidence in a real sense. It had a public relation function, not a real evidential function.

There was no cover-up.

Plus, this is factually inaccurate. If you look at real cases where law enforcement framed a suspect for an easy conviction they destroyed evidence, they didn't fabricate it. You fail

In a court room the defence would have had a massacre on both the witness testimonies and on the alleged technical evidence.

In courtroom the defense would have to explain the three photographs, the witnesses in Texas and New Orleans who saw him with the rifle, the people at the firing range who saw him with the rifle, Ruth Paine, whose garage in which he stored his rifle, his prints on the rifle, the rifle found at his place of employment immediately after the shooting.

Oswald fries in the chair for the weapon evidence alone.

The Warren Commissions function was Public Relations and to White Wash and stamp ”Approved” on the fraudulent investigation performed by the FBI and other corrupt investigative bodies.

Nope.

Everybody ”knew” that it was a cover-up of a covert coup d’etat but they feard the alternative, so they played along in the ’service of the country’. Or, they belonged to that faction within the American power structure who rejoyced when the ”pinky n-word loving traitor in the White house” got what was coming to him, and gladely took part in the cover-up as ’good American patriots’.

You wish. The fact is that a fellow communist shot JFK because he was a failure in life.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The cover-up was done in the knowledge that no one would check the evidence in a real sense. It had a public relation function, not a real evidential function.

In a court room the defence would have had a massacre on both the witness testimonies and on the alleged technical evidence.

The Warren Commissions function was Public Relations and to White Wash and stamp ”Approved” on the fraudulent investigation performed by the FBI and other corrupt investigative bodies.

Everybody ”knew” that it was a cover-up of a covert coup d’etat but they feard the alternative, so they played along in the ’service of the country’. Or, they belonged to that faction within the American power structure who rejoyced when the ”pinky n-word loving traitor in the White house” got what was coming to him, and gladely took part in the cover-up as ’good American patriots’.

Ask your long time associate John McAdams, he surely knows what kind of sentiment I’m talking about.

In a court room all the claims you have failed to support here, that evidence could have been tampered with, would have to be supported by evidence they *were* tampered with.
This would fail.
In court the vague memories of people decades later would be tested by, not assumed more accurate than, the photographs and documents.

Your confidence in the case you posit to be a slam dunk in the courtroom suggests an ignorance of legal standards.

 

[manifesto]

I've only mentioned that I'm a lawyer and law professor. If others have repeated that point, they have not been flaunting my expertise.

Yes they have, when stating this as reason for taking everything you say as gospel. You may well be an expert on the issus at hand but that doesn’t exclude you from having to provide evidence in support of your statements. And certainly not if you are an outspoken member of the Lone Nut community. That makes everything you say highly suspect of at least being biased and in need of independent verification. By the way, of course this goes both ways, whatever I say should be highly suspect in the same way to you.

That is one positive outcome from a polarized subject, it sharpens the demand for legitimate evidence.

In any case, I don't claim expertise in commercial transactions, banking laws, or the Federal Reserve system. I have only stated that I'm familiar with the way legal language signifies, and that "should" is not a word typically used in law to denote a legal requirement, failure to comply with which triggers sanctions.

No one have claimed that the absence of certain bank endorsement stamps ”triggers sanctions”. The only claim so far is that PMO’s according to federal regulations 1963 should have certain such stamps and that the Hidell PMO do not have such stamps on it.

When this issue is settled the next issue would be what this absence says of the authenticity of said PMO.

As long as these two issues continues to be conflated in the discussion there will be no end to it. Is this what you want?

But you're the one with the burden to establish the legal significance of the language and its effect, if any,

Since I so far haven’t claimed any ”legal significance” of any sort or kind I have no ”burden” to establish such, do I?

on Oswald's postal money order.

Oswald/Hidell alleged postal money order.

I raise the following points as issues I think you will have to consider as you pursue your proof-gathering:

1. Circular No. 4928 was not a part of the "federal regulations," as you have claimed. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) contains regulations that have been proposed by federal agencies, submitted to a notice, publication, and public comment process, and eventually promulgated as rules in the CFR.

Yes it certainly was:

"Federal Reserve Financial Services are governed by the terms and conditions that are set forth in the following operating circulars."​

2. Federal Reserve operating circulars, of which No. 4928 was one, were different. They were not put through the regulatory process I just described. Instead, they were issued by Federal Reserve Banks to their participating clearing banks, and the duties they created for banks were contractual in nature, not regulatory in the typical way. Because these circulars were, in effect, banks talking to banks, this explains some of the nonbinding "should," "may," or "banks are urged" language found in No. 4928. (You should read the whole circular to get a feel for how "should" operates in the context of other wording.) These documents, in addition to occasional mandatory language, were setting goals, aspirational norms, and best practices for members.

You are continuing your conflation of the issue.

1. Do the federal regulations state that bank endorsing stamps should be present on PMO’s 1963?

2. If so, what could the absence of such say about the authenticity of the Hidell PMO?

It’s two separate issues. One at a time.

3. It is worth asking whether Circular No. 4928 actually applied to Oswald's transaction at all. Oswald's money order was processed by the First National Bank of Chicago, apparently through the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (District 7).

Whas it? How do you know?

Circular No. 4928 was issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (District 2) to its clearing banks. Since these circulars operated as contractual understandings, could a District 2 circular bind banks in District 7?

All Postal Money Orders was regulated by the Federal Reserve Bank and had to be processed by at least one Federal Reserve Bank Branch.

4. Once again, I'll suggest that "should" is different from "shall" or "must." It is advisory or recommendatory in tone rather than mandatory. "Should" implies a scenario in which existing practice has been observed to be uneven. "You should brush your teeth daily" suggests that the child is inconsistent. Failure to comply with a "should" would not likely trigger penalties.

Again, you are conflating two different issues. The issue at hand still is if it according to the federal regulations should be bank endorsing stamps on PMO’s 1963.

Yes or no.

5. Let's say arguendo that you can prove that "should" was mandatory and that Oswald's money order lacked required stamps. It appears that the money order was honored anyway: Klein's was paid,

How do you know this?

and Oswald, as Hiddell, received his purchase.

How do you know this?

Bureaucracies often operate that way. We want our banking system to function and not be held up by the venial sins of bureaucrats.

No one have claimed that bureaucratic systems can’t make mistakes.

6. If you think that the absence of stamps resulted from a bungled conspiratorial fabrication, you still have to prove the fabrication and the cover-up. Oswald's money order by itself does not do all that work for you. This is why I say that you have all your work in front of you.

Well, that’s what I keep repeating. One step at a time.

Do you agree that the federal regulations stated that certain bank endorsement stamps ”should” be present on all PMO’s 1963, absent on the Hidell PMO?

Yes or no.

 

[manifesto]

In a court room all the claims you have failed to support here, that evidence could have been tampered with, would have to be supported by evidence they *were* tampered with.

No. Absence of secured chain of custody alone is enough to make it invalid.

This would fail.
In court the vague memories of people decades later would be tested by, not assumed more accurate than, the photographs and documents.

Agree. But this is not the case with all the testimonies taken in connection with the DPD/FBI/WC/Press shortly after the event.

Your confidence in the case you posit to be a slam dunk in the courtroom suggests an ignorance of legal standards.

I’m not an expert on legal standards but I know some of it by reading what experts says.

On request from Oswalds mother, Mark Lane demanded to be present as Oswalds posthumous legal defence during the WC hearings, but was denied.

No cross examinations of witnesses. No in depth analysis of technical evidence. No alternative witnesses heard. No alternative technical evidence.

Shall or should I continue?

Where would you find a jury not tainted by DPD’s parading of Oswald in front of the national media day and night as the killer of JFK and officer Tippit before he was silenced by Jack Ruby in the DPD cellar in front of millions of TV viewers?

Albania?

 

[HSienzant]

In court the vague memories of people decades later would be tested by, not assumed more accurate than, the photographs and documents.

Actually, they never would have been uttered in time for the trial whatsoever. Oswald's trial was a slam dunk and in early 1964, before any of those conspiracy books had been published, real defense lawyers wouldn't have passed off the absurdities that CTs attempt to push off on the unsuspecting public, like pretending 'should' means 'must' in a legal sense. They would have understood what would pass for a reasonable argument and what would be exposed as idiocy by the prosecution rather quickly. And they would not want to push the boundaries of idiocy (unlike CTs) for fear of losing the jury altogether. Don't insult the jury's intelligence.

Your confidence in the case you posit to be a slam dunk in the courtroom suggests an ignorance of legal standards.

He's right to think it would be a slam dunk. He's just wrong on which way the jury would rule. He only understands the CT version of the chain of possession, where everyone who ever handled the item must swear up and down that the item is the one they handled, and if they can't attest to that with 100% certainty, why, the item is not admissible. He doesn't understand a chain can be established simply by the testimony of each person in the chain stating what they did with the item once they came into possession of it would also establish chain of possession. He also doesn't understand that items without a solid chain of evidence are still admissible at the discretion of the judge and it would be up to the jury to decide how much weight to put on it. He thinks if someone says 'I'm not sure that's the same bullet (or whatever) I handled on 11/22/63, it never gets before the jury. He's wrong and I'm pretty certain most everyone else understands that's not the way the real world works.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

No. Absence of secured chain of custody alone is enough to make it invalid.

Agree. But this is not the case with all the testimonies taken in connection with the DPD/FBI/WC/Press shortly after the event.

I’m not an expert on legal standards but I know some of it by reading what experts says.

On request from Oswalds mother, Mark Lane demanded to be present as Oswalds posthumous legal defence during the WC hearings, but was denied.

No cross examinations of witnesses. No in depth analysis of technical evidence. No alternative witnesses heard. No alternative technical evidence.

Shall or should I continue?

Where would you find a jury not tainted by DPD’s parading of Oswald in front of the national media day and night as the killer of JFK and officer Tippit before he was silenced by Jack Ruby in the DPD cellar in front of millions of TV viewers?

Albania?

Sorry, but no... you are not convincing me you know what standards would be applied, for the chain of custody, or otherwise.