Printable View
Is there a difference in a Postal money order and one issued by a bank or private institution (Western Union, Walmart, etc)? It appears the postal money order have the words "Pay To" and other money orders issued have the standard "Pay to the order of". Are postal money orders lawful money if paid for with lawful money?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharmjd
Postal money orders are on the list of lawful money instruments with postage stamps, as I recall.
I might look for that a little later if nobody finds it ahead of me.
Most money orders are negotiable instruments and thusly are subject to one's choice to demand lawful money or not. You can know this by the language "Pay to the order of" - which I like because I can assign any instrument like this by allonge without the use of a bank.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
In fact a negotiable instrument might be assigned and exchanged many times prior to it hitting a bank. All one would need to do is show a chain of title - notarized of course at each exchange.
A postal money order is NOT NEGOTIABLE in terms of it being assigned to a third party. The only one who can negotiate the money order is the Payee. The PMO is made "Pay To".
I do not prefer "Pay To" language as it is too restrictive in my opinion. But to each his own.
I can purchase a PMO or an ordinary MO with Cash - so my remedy is between my two ears! What someone else does with the instrument is their business. I refuse to tamper with free will.
Regards,
MJ
Those details are quite edifying. Thank you MJ.
Just consider how the FRB is funded by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. From what I recall its something like, U.S. Securities (lawful money basis) are exchanged for FRNs. The FRBs hold U.S. and U.S.A. Securities in trust as a custodian. Consider the notion that when you give FRNs to the clerk at the post office, and she gives you a U.S. security: the process being reversed in plain sight (out of the clearinghouse). Consider the big stink that was made when the U.S. Postal Inspector General suggested reviving the banking powers of the U.S. post office.
Related:
The Road Ahead for Postal Financial Services (March 2015) -- U.S. Postal Service Office of the Inspector General
I want to paw your library.
Also, in St. Louis with their Metrolink, if you put in a $20 bill for train ticket or pass, you will get back $1 (gold-colored) coins and some loose change. Metrolink (akak Bi-State) is U.S.-Federal in nature because its a joint venture between States of Illinois and the State of Missouri. Go figure, they don't give back FRNs for change. Maybe its just simpler rather than keeping paper bill dispensers. Who knows?
I encountered a US clerk of court refusing FRN's for the first time in about two years.
Today I went to the post office and bought a postal money order for $1. Before the clerk gives it to me, she stamps it with a red stamp "NOT VALID OVER $50 DOLLARS". But here https://www.usps.com/shop/money-orders.htmit says my postal money order is good for up to $500.
How to enforce? Thanks!
PS -- yes hold their feet to the fire by showing them their own rules -- this is the first time I've seen them do this. Anyone have any insight about this? Thank you
PPS -- this was for consideration only, no plans of altering that amount. What if I wanted a postal money order for $51? Is my point, why even stamp that message at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moxie
I enjoy that pondering.
I think the newer red notice overrides the older. I believe the effort is because somebody purchasing a $1 Money Order might be planning to alter it to $100.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
Does anyone out there have a good YouTube/Talkshoe/pdf/webpage about this topic -- pleez post, because I've looked, and it's a tough find. Thanks!
I am not sure what the issue is.
I think the Postmaster General authorized the agent/clerk to reduce the ceiling amount of the Money Order on very small money orders.
The issue is -- I'm no expert on this aspect of postal money orders. LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
If the ceiling was reduced to $50, maybe it was because later on, someone might alter that money order to be a higher amount? But why put a limit on it? Do they not have enough cash to cover it?
The format of the USPS MO is like the linen on Treasury Paper. Before the "smart" advances people would bleach $1 bills and print them into $20 bills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
I wish only to do what is lawful.
I am not accusing. But it is nonsensical to buy a postal service money order for $1. At least to me. And I can understand how the Postmaster General would issue memorandum to red ink the MO so that it cannot be misused. I am on the emails from the OCC and occasionally there is a warning/alert about falsified MO's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moxie
For further information buy a $5, $10 and $25 MO. Tell us if they get the same stamp as the $1 MO.
The $1 money order was an attempt to substitute in place of a $1 stamp since the Red Fox stamp has two slashes thru the dollar sign and they're a pain to get a hold of.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
hi Moxie,
that is interesting.. years ago when i used ebay, i required postal MO for payment (i quit ebay when they required PayPal) back then I received some for over $1000.
next time i am at the PO i will ask about a max amount now.
is it still a red fox? why is it so hard to get? Ive read some prefer them on more serious contracts but a simple 2cent stamp should serve the same purpose, no? maybe not backed by gold though, if that is what the fox stamp actually is (so they say anyway)Quote:
Originally Posted by Moxie
I was reading some "Tax Percue" information recently that had some tips on post enforcement. a search on that term may be helpful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moxie
I have used 2 cent stamps for the purpose quite satisfactorily so I see no reason to acquire Red Fox stamps nor MO's for my paperworks. For other circumstances I have printed the State flag on the upper left corner also achieving satisfaction. ...Remembering that it isn't the stamps nor flag that "work", it is standing behind my paperworks that achieves satisfactions.
I - can - get - mo... sat-tis-fac-tion
This is what I was trying to do with the money order:
Quote:
Originally Posted by motla68
I've heard to only use stamps which are lawful money, and the Red Fox is only on e-bay and I needed something quick, no time to wait for it to arrive. Figured a money order is the next best thing. Plus I could use my new Lawful Money ink stamper for the memo line.Quote:
Originally Posted by george
I've seen different info about stamps as consideration. One is, if you sign thru the stamp, it makes you the postmaster of that document the stamp is on, and the court has no jurisdiction over that document. Backed by the UPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by EZrhythm
Then I've heard -- any stamp is fine on the back of a document.
Then I've heard -- don't sign thru the stamp on the back, the court will cancel those with their court stamper.
Then I've heard - -the 2 cent stamp is the original dejure stamp, so use that.
I can't get no satisfaction!
Yes, standing on your paperwork is key.
OK, thats cool! what thread is that matla68 quote from? mis that guy.. enjoy triangulating stuff into my own methods from his and others variances in perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moxie
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...-a-trust/page2Quote:
Originally Posted by george
I remember the Postmaster of the Document was cited in the Universal Postal Union constitution. I did a word search and found nothing though.
Those of you who redeem lawful money might understand that you have no power or authority to "deface" the private credit of the Fed. So the cancellation of the stamp - lawful money - is an expression of authority; like the postmaster has to cancel value in the same stamps. So it makes sense the citation. I have just never seen anything on it in the DMM (Domestic Mail Manual) or in the UPU docs.
http://www.upu.int/uploads/tx_sbdown...onManualEn.pdf