This activity is not a crime because the recipient’s consent has always been deemed legally sufficient to authorize others to open mail, before or after delivery. See, e.g., McCowan v. United States, 376 F.2d 122 (9th Cir. 1967) (18 U.S.C. § 1702, governing the theft of mail in transit, applies until delivery to the addressee or an authorized agent). The same is true with voicemail.

at 36. The Court found that the obstruction of correspondence counts were duplicitous because: the charges of violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1702 and 2 concern takings from depositories over an eighteen-month period letters addressed to at least ten persons at three addresses (Count II) and over a six month period letters addressed to at least two persons at one address. To accept the government's contentions of one central core of conduct and continuous scheme would virtually obliterate the distinction between substantive offenses and conspiracy, with which Kearney has also been charged in two counts (Counts I and IV) not here in issue.

The district court concluded that FACA creates non- discretionary duties on the part of at least one of the federal defendants, and, therefore, that the plaintiffs properly stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. Since defendants have pointed out discrepancies in plaintiff complaint he has no "private right of action" plaintiff will amend his cause of action under Mandamus jurisdictional statute 65; which allows for a private right of action when Congress did not provide a private right of action for a Company or individual who violates Federal Statues and count 6 18 U.S.C. 1702. Plaintiff will amend his cause of action to include 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights Defendants rely on U.S. v. Jacobsen to refute plaintiff's 4TH amendment right to privacy claim of his private e-mail correspondence.

U.S.C, 1705 )claim page 14 Plaintiff would humbly apologize to Yahoo for his error in his claim based on 18 U.S.C, 1705, this was a "mistake" and plaintiffs apologize for his error. Plaintiff contends that 18 U.S.C, 1702 has merit and yahoo violated this federal statue through plaintiffs claim. Plaintiff reason for this cause of action is solely to have his e-mail private and yahoo has violated his privacy rights.