> > non-negotiable instrument and is considered void if yd more than
Tim, it is displayed on page 119 with this link:
https://books.google.com/books?id=yccPAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22inconvenience+for+some+depository+institutions%2C+primarily+the+larger+institutions+that+may+receive+checks+from+several*%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=lack
A check, unlike a postal money order is a negotiable instrument of
multiple endorsements, but....even a check, it turns out, is not required
to receive an FRB processing endorsement.:
....and Tim, this is the longer quote.:
Page 118 - 119 : (if the page does not display using the link above, click
on the following link and you'll see a "look inside this book" search box
and just type in the word, "lack" w/out quotes......
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 - Snippet view -
"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"
This is from a Federal Court ruling related to postal money orders cashed
in 1963 - 1964:
https://casetext.com/case/stewart-v-us-69
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, S.D.·300 F. Supp. 1047
(E.D. Mich. 1969)
"STEWART V. U.S., (E.D.MICH. 1969)
James A. STEWART, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.
Civ. No. 30490.
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, S.D. June 16, 1969. *1048
.......... Postal money orders are not negotiable instruments and hence
are not governed by laws applicable to commercial paper, but are governed
by postal laws. Levin v. United States (U.S. Court of Claims, 1959), 170
F.Supp. 646. This court is aware of the fact that postal money orders have
limited characteristics which make them like negotiable instruments, but
these characteristics are minimal and deprive them of being classified or
considered as ordinary negotiable instruments. United States v. First
National Bank of Boston (D.C.Mass., 1967), 263 F.Supp. 298.
The operation of the postal money order system is a "sovereign function"
and not a "commercial operation", notwithstanding it may have some aspects
of commercial banking. United States v. Northwestern Nat'l Bank Trust
Co. (D.C.Minn., 1940), 35 F. Supp. 484, at
486. *1050 ....."
There is much more to consider.... I accept that the officials named at
the receiving bank, First Chicago, and at the Post Office financial
department most likely can be relied on.... the money order in the amount
of $21.45 did arrive where it was supposed to.... at the new Postal Money
Order audit/data center in suburban Washington, D.C., where the FBI named
the two responsible postal officials who made the physical, archived
$21.45 postal money order available, and this was possible because First
Chicago Bank received that money order and forwarded it to the Chicago
Federal Reserve Bank, our next stop in this research. Bear in mind when
reading the following that the new "print punch" postal money order had
been trialed in a small number of postal regions from June to December,
1962, and the bulk of Federal Reserve processing was of the older blue
tinted version which the Federal Reserve had been manually punching the
machine code representing the face value displayed on each money order,
under a contract with the Post Office. In January, a national roll out of
the new "print punch" at postal sales counter machines and redesigned
money order form went live between January and April, and the Fed. Res.
was putting both types of money orders through separate process paths.
https://www.chicagofed.org/utilities/about-us/history/chicago-fed-history-1940-1964
Chicago Fed History: 1940-1964
"...By 1956, the Bank was operating 24 hours a day to clear more than half
a billion items annually. Approximately 40 percent of the Bank's employees
were engaged in clearing checks. The operation was, according to the Bank's
annual report, the "world's largest check-clearing installation."
Complicating the Bank's task was the labor-intensive, time-consuming
nature of check clearing. Although proof machines were introduced in 1940s
to help automate the process, each item had to be individually checked by
an operator. The Federal Reserve System and commercial bankers began to
explore the possibility of automating the process in the mid-1950s. The
Federal Reserve and the American Bankers Association worked with bankers,
check printers, and business machine manufacturers to find an answer. The
eventual solution was MICR -- magnetic ink character recognition that
would enable machines to "read" and automatically process checks.
In 1961, the Chicago Fed and four other Reserve Banks began to test
automated check-sorting equipment from different manufacturers. Heading
the project at the Chicago Fed were Vice President Harry Schultz and
Assistant Vice President Carl Bierbauer. The goal was to automatically
process 1,500 checks a minute on each machine, but there were a variety of
initial problems. Bierbauer, who went on to become a senior vice president
at the Bank, recalls, "There were days and weeks when things didn't go
right. It wasn't a case where we just brought in a machine and it
worked.".."
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/chicagotribune/obituary.aspx?n=carl-e-bierbauer&pid=155873924
Carl E. Bierbauer, 96, of Naperville, IL, at peace Feb. 12, 2012, -
...."Carl retired from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in 1977 after
more than 43 years of service. As Senior Vice President, he was
responsible for Fiscal Agent functions, accounting and budgeting and all
administrative services for eight years. He was one of the first Federal
Reserve Officers to see the advantages of automated paper check
processing...."
[PDF]The Role of the Federal Reserve in the Payments System
https://www.bostonfed.org/economic/conf/conf45/conf45f.pdf by PM Connolly
- pg. 136 "....The Federal Reserve's Role in Developing High-Speed Check
Sorting Equipment When the ABA Technical Subcommittee talked to possible
manufac- turers of check automation equipment in 1955, it determined that
thirteen firms might have the potential for building and servicing this
specialized type of equipment. To provide operational and financial
support for this key initiative, the Federal Reserve worked with and
partially subsidized five firms that submitted acceptable proposals: the
Burroughs Corpora- tion, IBM, National Data Processing Corporation, the
National Cash Register Company, and Ferranti-Packard. The latter two firms
assembled systems using their own computers and check sorters made by
Pitney Bowes. Five Reserve Banks--New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston,
and San Francisco--participated. Each experimented with the equipment from
one of these companies. In each case the Reserve Banks paid the full lease
cost, even though the equipment was constantly being adjusted and
modified. Thus, the Federal Reserve provided a financial incentive for
five different manufacturers to participate. In addition, the Reserve
Banks devoted staff time and used portions of their daily incoming check
volumes to help the manufacturers test their new equipment. The System
hoped that, in the long run, multiple firms would succeed. This would
encourage compe- tition among manufacturers and help create a network with
common standards, benefiting all banks.
The Federal Reserve started this pilot project in 1960. By 1965, most
of its offices and branches were running high-speed check-sorting equip-
ment supplied by Burroughs and IBM. Other manufacturers that partic-
ipated in the Reserve Bank tests developed lower-speed equipment that
many smaller commercial banks adopted.
During the entire experimental period, the accumulated knowledge
of the System was made available to the banking industry. ..."
Same source, pg. 147: "..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.....As a
bank of first deposit, each institution needed to identify itself clearly
and conspicuously. A bank handling a check received from a bank of first
deposit--for instance, a correspondent bank collecting the check on behalf
of the bank of first deposit--would have to apply its endorsement in a
different format and in a different area of the reverse side of the check,
so as not to obscure the endorsement of any other bank. Even the consumer
depositing the check for collection would have to endorse the check within
a specified space.
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...."
My research indicates that the "money order was never cashed" controversy
hinged on numerous underinformed assumptions and conclusions, ranging from
the lack of bank processing stamps visible of the reverse side, skepticism
of the claim the original of the $21.45 was found in Washington, DC
instead of in Kansas City, suspicion over the serial numbering of the
money order purchased by Oswald in Dallas on 5 Jan., 1963, #2,202,000,060,
vs. the #2,202,130,462 serial number on the $21.45 Dallas issued money
order of March 12, 1963.
I think I have provided reasonable explanations/mitigating factors for all
of that. I shared a Nov., 1962 Post Office directive advising regional
Post Offices that they would receive and allotment of new style money
orders with serial numbering consistent with the two I described above,
and not to order any more for the time being, because the local Post
Offices ahd been allotted "initial supply" would suffice for a three month
span, or until their next requistion cycle."
I began this last week because I did not accept that a proof of Federal
Reserve bank processing was that during clearing, the Federal Reserve key
punched holes in the $21.45 postal money order. I did disprove that claim,
but I also learned that there could be no better account minimizing
suspicion of fraud or other nefarious activity, related to the
investigation that produced and authenticated that money order's journey
from Dallas purchase to Washington DC audit/ data center archive, than
this one of a seeming series of coincidences all explained by the odd
timing of Dallas money order purchase between 5 Jan. and 12 March, 1963,
coinciding with Post Office and Chicago Federal Reserve Bank long planned
processing innovations.
http://www.gao.gov/products/B-149480#mt=e-report
B-149480, SEP. 26, 1962
TO BUSINESS SUPPLIES CORPORATION OF AMERICA, THE TABULATING CARD COMPANY
DIVISION:
..... "IN ADDITION, SECTION 3.2 OF SPECIFICATION POD-F-172 (RE) CONTAINS THE
STATEMENT
"THE AMOUNT WILL BE PRINTED AND PUNCHED AT THE MONEY ORDER SALES WINDOW BY
A PRINT PUNCH DEVICE WHOSE PERFORMANCE DEPENDS UPON PRECISE CARD
DIMENSIONS, ACCURATELY PREPUNCHED HOLES, AND ACCURATELY LOCATED
IMPRINTING, I.E. DOLLAR VALUE BLOCK, ETC. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS REQUIRED
THAT EACH BIDDER FURNISH WITH HIS BID A CARTON OF 2,000 FORMS TO BE
PROCURED CONFORMING IN EVERY RESPECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS HEREIN.'
......YOU APPARENTLY WERE AWARE THAT THE MONEY ORDER FORMS WERE TO BE USED
BY THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT ON HIGHER SPEED MACHINES THAN WERE PREVIOUSLY
USED BY THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT AT THE KANSAS CITY MONEY ORDER CENTER
AND THAT, THEREFORE, CLOSER TOLERANCES AND A HIGH DEGREE OF WORKMANSHIP
WOULD BE REQUIRED. WHILE THE EXPERIENCE OF THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT WITH
THE MONEY ORDER FORMS FURNISHED BY YOU, UNDER THE 1962 FISCAL YEAR
CONTRACT, IS NOT STRICTLY APPLICABLY TO THE SAMPLES FURNISHED BY YOU AS TO
WHAT YOU PROPOSED TO FURNISH IF AWARDED THE CONTRACT FOR THE 1963 FISCAL
YEAR,"