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

[abaddon]

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.

Are you stating that Larsen is claiming that "should" is only aspirational and simply a recommendation?

Good. Then both Larsen's and your argument are baseless.

 

[manifesto]

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,

There was no trial for Oswald. He didn’t even got legal assistance when arraigned before summary executed by a liaison between the Mob and DPD in the cellar of DPD HQ.

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.

Where do anyone ”pretending ’should’ means ’must’ in a legal sense”?

You just makes it up as you go, don’t you Hank?

They would have understood what would pass for a reasonable argument and what would be exposed as idiocy by the prosecution rather quickly.

What would be exposed as ”idiocy”, Hank?

Name it.

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.

Hank

Well, we will never know, will we? No jury. No legal defense. No independent criminal investigation.

Just shameless people like you, licking up to power.

 

[manifesto]

Are you stating that Larsen is claiming that "should" is only aspirational and simply a recommendation?

Good. Then both Larsen's and your argument are baseless.

No, I’m claiming that nowhere in the thread is Larsen conflating ’should’ with ’shall’.

On the contrary, he repeatedly says that the regulations is just that, regulations, and if someone can show that this regulation was arbitrarily followed, the argument for a forgery based on the absence of bank stamps disappears.

I agree.

1. Yes, the regulations states that certain bank stamps should be present on PMO’s 1963, absent on the Hidell PMO.

2. What does it say about the authenticity of said Hidel PMO.

Well, it depends on how common it was that this regulation was followed.

 

[bknight]

No, I’m claiming that nowhere in the thread is Larsen conflating ’should’ with ’shall’.

On the contrary, he repeatedly says that the regulations is just that, regulations, and if someone can show that this regulation was arbitrarily followed, the argument for a forgary based on the absence of bank stamps disapears.

I agree.

1. Yes, the regulations states that certain bank stamps should be present on PMO’s 1963, absent on the Hidell PMO.

2. What does it say about the authenticity of said Hidel PMO.

Well, it depends on how common it was that this regulation was followed.

This is moot as the money order was paid. Still jousting with windmills?

 

[Wolrab]

It was cashed. Derail over.

 

[HSienzant]

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.

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

Asked and answered. It's settled. Should doesn't mean mandatory or required. Shall means mandatory or required. Should means optional but recommended.

Should does not mean shall. Recommended does not mean mandatory. Did you click on the links I provided? I warned you about those, so perhaps you stayed away.

Oswald/Hidell alleged postal money order.

It bears his handwriting. It uses his known alias. It is enclosed with an order for a weapon to be shipped to his PO box. He was photographed with that weapon that was shipped to his PO box, and the weapon bears his fingerprints and palm print. It's his postal money order, as much as you want to deny that, it doesn't change the facts any.

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

Asked and answered. Yes, with the understanding that the legal definition of 'should' is 'recommended but not required'.

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

Also asked and answered. It doesn't call the authenticity into question in any fashion because they were NOT mandatory.

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.

Asked and answered for at least the third time now. Yes, with the understanding that the legal definition of 'should' is 'recommended but not required'.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

It was cashed. Derail over.

Was it? How do you know?

 

[manifesto]

This is moot as the money order was paid. Still jousting with windmills?

How do you know it was ”paid”?

 

[HSienzant]

No, I’m claiming that nowhere in the thread is Larsen conflating ’should’ with ’shall’.

On the contrary, he repeatedly says that the regulations is just that, regulations, and if someone can show that this regulation was arbitrarily followed, the argument for a forgery based on the absence of bank stamps disappears.

I agree.

1. Yes, the regulations states that certain bank stamps should be present on PMO’s 1963, absent on the Hidell PMO.

2. What does it say about the authenticity of said Hidel PMO.

Well, it depends on how common it was that this regulation was followed.

It also depends on what the meaning of 'should' is.

In a legal sense, 'should' doesn't mean mandatory. It means 'optional but recommended'.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/shall_we_abandon_shall/

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=575768

"Edit: "should" means a person is "encouraged" to do something while "must" and "shall" mean they are required to do it." ​

http://reqexperts.com/blog/2012/10/using-the-correct-terms-shall-will-should/

Shall – Requirement: Shall is used to indicate a requirement that is contractually binding...
Should – Goals, non-mandatory provisions. Should is used to indicate a goal...​

Keep pretending you don't understand or never saw the point being made.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

No, I’m claiming that nowhere in the thread is Larsen conflating ’should’ with ’shall’.

On the contrary, you and he are pretending 'should' means 'required' or 'must' but it doesn't.

It means 'recommended but optional'.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

How do you know it was ”paid”?

William Waldman testified Klein's made a deposit of $13,827.98 on March 13th, 1963, of which one of the items was a deposit of 21.45. The money order from "A. Hidell" (Oswald's known alias) in the amount of #21.45 passed through their system on that day, March 13th, and would have been deposited to the bank on that day (the idea in business is to book sales as quickly as possible and pay vendors as late as possible).

== QUOTE ==

Mr. BELIN. You have just now stamped Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9 with your endorsement stamp?
Mr. WALDMAN. Correct.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any way of knowing when exactly this money order was deposited by your company?
Mr. WALDMAN. I cannot specifically say when this money order was deposited by our company; however, as previously stated, a money order for $21.45 passed through our cash register on March 13, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. You're reading from Waldman---
Mr. WALDMAN. From a Mr. A. Hidell of Post Office Box No. 2915, from Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And you are now reading from Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7?
Mr. WALDMAN. As indicated on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7. Now, we cannot specifically say when this money order was deposited, but on our deposit of March 13, 1963, we show an item of $21.45, as indicated on the Xerox copy of our deposit slip marked, or identified by--as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 10.
Mr. BELIN. And I have just marked as a document what you are reading from, which appears to be a deposit with the First National Bank of Chicago by your company; is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
Mr. BELIN. And on that deposit, one of the items is $21.45, out of a total deposit that day of $13,827.98; is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.​

== UNQUOTE ==

Seecondly, unlike your conspirators, Klein's didn't have an unlimited budget. They weren't in the habit of shipping goods halfway across the country for free. Waldman testified that the amount was enclosed with the order. That means they got paid.

== QUOTE ==

Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show arts' serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a price shown for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Price is $19.95, plus $1.50 postage and handling, or a total of $21.45.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see another number off to the left. What is this number?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number that you referred to, C20-T750 is a catalog number.
Mr. BELIN. And after that, there appears some words of identification or description. Can you state what that is?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number designates an item which we sell, namely, an Italian carbine, 6.5 caliber rifle with the 4X scope.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm record?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the date of shipment was March 20, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle around the letters "PP."
Mr. BELIN. Does it show if any amount was enclosed with the order itself?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the amount that was enclosed with the order was $21.45, as designated on the right-hand side of this order blank here.
Mr. BELIN. Opposite the words "total amount enclosed"?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.​

== UNQUOTE ==

Hank

 

[bknight]

How do you know it was ”paid”?

Because LHO got the merchandise, very simple if you think about it instead of jousting with windmills

 

[Agatha]

Please go here for all your continuation needs.

Posted By: Agatha