18 U.S.C. § 1719
Franking privilege
Whoever makes use of any official envelope, label, or indorsement authorized by law, to avoid the payment of postage or registry fee on his private letter, packet, package, or other matter in the mail, shall be fined under this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1972–2016 · leading case: Fordelia M. Gleason v. Ben S. Malcom, 718 F.2d 1044 (11th Cir. 1983).
Fordelia M. Gleason v. Ben S. Malcom, 718 F.2d 1044 (11th Cir. 1983). “By way of example, she claims that her co-workers violated 18 U.S.C. § 1719 (1976) by seeking an evaluation of her mental capacity in a “deceitful” and “fraudulent” manner.”
Carter v. Telectron, Inc., 452 F. Supp. 944 (S.D. Tex. 1977). “Of particular value were the large number of official United States Courts envelopes illegally re-used by Carter in correspondence with this District in apparent violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1719 (1970). By noting the various federal courts whose return addresses were printed on the…”
Bowie v. Williams, 351 F. Supp. 628 (E.D. Pa. 1972). “The result could be administrative collection of the postage due from the offender or prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1719 , which provides criminal penalties for abuse of the frank.”
Carter v. Telectron, Inc., 452 F. Supp. 944 (S.D. Tex. 1977). “Of particular value were the large number of official United States Courts envelopes illegally re-used by Carter in correspondence with this District in apparent violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1719 (1970). By noting the various federal courts whose return addresses were printed on the…”
United States v. Todd Lawton, 628 F. App'x 79 (3rd Cir. 2016). “He pleaded guilty in state court to possession of Percocet — a narcotic.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.