U.S. v. Schock

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant-ex-Congressman’s motion to dismiss mail and wire fraud charges arising out of defendant’s alleged submission of false or improper claims for reimbursement for his travel and office furnishings and for failure to pay taxes on said receipts that count as personal income, even though defendant argued that he had personal right not to charged for said offenses based on Speech or Debate Clause applicable to members of House of Representatives. Said Clause did not apply because instant indictment arose out of applications for reimbursement which did not constitute speeches, debates or any other part of legislative process. Ct. further rejected defendant’s argument that because reimbursement rules were adopted by House of Representatives, only House of Representatives can interpret said rules. Ct. also held that portion of defendant’s appeal relying on Rulemaking Clause/Rule of Lenity must be dismissed as premature, but that he can re-assert them in any appeal from final order in his case.