finding that absence of House rules authorizing congressman’s appropriation of staff funds for his own expenses, coupled with his non-disclosure of that appropriation, established scheme to “defraud[ ] the public ... of his faithful and honest services”
How later courts described this case
- finding that absence of House rules authorizing congressman’s appropriation of staff funds for his own expenses, coupled with his non-disclosure of that appropriation, established scheme to “defraud[ ] the public ... of his faithful and honest services”
- “[A] defendant ‘causes’ the use of the mails where he does an act with knowledge that the use of the mails will follow in the ordinary course of business, or where such use can reasonably be foreseen, even though not actually intended.” (quotation marks omitted)
- mailing of congressional employees’ paychecks, out of which defendant was paid kickbacks
- "proof of fraudulent intent is critical"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OBERDORFER, District Judge
(concurring):
I agree with Judge Wilkey’s analysis and conclusions.
Comparison of the specific forms, defendant executed to authorize the “salary adjustments” (e. g., App. 89) with the specific vouchers signed by him to authorize payments for “official office expenses incurred in my Congressional District” (e. g., App. 101) makes the case, so far as I am concerned. I am particularly influenced by the certificate on the voucher for district office expenses: “I further certify that payment therefor has not been received.” I think those documents establish that defendant, a fiduciary, knowingly authorized disbursement of funds from the U.S. Treasury for his personal and district office use on the false representation that he was drawing the funds to pay additional salary to his employees and that the disbursing authority repeatedly acted in reliance on those representations to the detriment of the United States and to the advantage of defendant.
It may (or may not) be that if the forms executed by defendant had disclosed that a portion of the “salary adjustment” would be spent by the employee for defendant’s district office expense, the disbursing authority would have approved. But, the forms, as executed, did not disclose and, in fact, concealed information necessary to put the disbursing authority on notice of any issue to be decided, such as the amount to be diverted from “salary adjustment” to something else.
With great respect for the dissent, I am not persuaded that we can or should reverse or remand.