SPRINGFIELD — Documents released Monday in the ongoing legal tussle over former U.S. Rep. Aaron Schock’s records shed new light on the ongoing legal process — including recommendations from U.S. House lawyers on what documents the institution considers protected for ex-lawmakers.

The paperwork is part of a series of legal filings and proceedings that a federal judge in Springfield authorized the release of, dealing with some of the back-and-forth between attorneys for Schock and the government over when and how documents would be produced, and what documents could be produced, and covers portions of the last four months.

The House attorneys, part of a bipartisan group acting to articulate the rules of that chamber and the institution’s position on such matters, filed a friend of the court brief on July 28 and contend that Schock’s official congressional office records, which have been sought by federal prosecutors in Springfield since March, are protected.

Federal prosecutors strongly disagree and contend the records in question are public in nature and therefore, aren’t “property” of Schock. But in their memo, the bipartisan team of House attorneys that filed the brief, states the records are Schock’s.

The issue was likened to that of a business owner. The House attorneys argue Schock is akin to a sole proprietor in a business. He produced the records, so they are his and thus private.

Lawyers with the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of Illinois disagree, saying it’s more akin to that of a corporation. Schock is an officer in the corporation and thus has no legal right to block a subpoena because he doesn’t own the records. The corporation does.

Many of the court papers that were released were heavily redacted or released in only limited part. Many others remain sealed. Schock has been under investigation since mid-March regarding official and campaign expenditures and travel.

Prosecutors in Springfield have convened a grand jury into the matter, but Schock has pushed back and until last month refused to turn any documents over, citing his Fifth Amendment privilege, documents suggest.

The debate ranged from when subpoenas were issued days after Schock’s March 17 resignation announcement all the way through a Federal Bureau of Investigation raid on Schock’s office with a warrant to seize documents June 4. It continued as prosecutors launched a request — since short-circuited — to have Schock labeled in contempt of court for a failure to produce documents.

In a motion filed Aug. 6, the government has asked U.S. District Judge Sue Myerscough to reconsider her decision that took Schock’s point of view on the production of the documents.

And to that end, prosecutor contend “The Congressional Office of former U.S. Representative Aaron Schock is most certainly not an extension or embodiment of the pursuit of the personal interests and goals of Aaron Schock. It is instead a quintessentially representative entity.”

Despite the ongoing flap, Schock has agreed to hand over thousands of pages to prosecutors by the end of the month. There is also mention of a “direct use immunity agreement” between the two sides that was filed July 13. The agreement, outlined in a May 15 letter to Schock’s attorney, allows Schock to hand over all the documents sought by the grand jury without fear of the fact that his possession of the records will be used against him.

In essence, it means the government is free to use what is in the records against the former congressman but not the fact that Schock had the records and didn’t hand them over to authorities.

That same letter, penned by Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy Bass, also shows how frustrated the government was at that point. Bass said “it is clear that (Schock) has refused without just cause to comply with the court’s order and has no intention of complying within a reasonable time frame.”

Schock’s attorneys, conversely, argued in other filings that the government’s voluminous request for information was “oppressive and unreasonable” and “overbroad and vexatious.” They argue elsewhere that even reviewing the documents from Schock’s office over three full terms for the lawmaker and up to 18 staff members between Washington, D.C., and his three district offices, could total some 1.9 million documents.

Among other interesting pieces of information discussed in the documents:

■ Schock’s attorneys suggested that some items, including photos and any of Schock’s text messages, should be omitted from review because of lack of relevance.

■ One filing from the government says that at least some former Schock staff members’ legal fees “are being paid by Schock’s campaign entities,” which may serve to explain the legal costs near $1 million that appeared on the ex-lawmaker’s most recent campaign disclosure reports.

■ The government noted in another filing that Schock sold his 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe back to Green Chevrolet for $46,000 “but was allowed by the dealership to continue to drive it at no cost” while retaining the dealer license plate on it. They detail a number of times “law enforcement agents” observed him using it, indicating the extent to which officials are keeping tabs on the former lawmaker.

■ Schock has asked that his official papers not connected with the legal wrangling be kept by the Dirksen Congressional Center. That Pekin institution not only retains the records of former U.S. Sen. Everett Dirksen, but also those of Schock’s predecessors, U.S. Reps. Bob Michel and Ray LaHood.

Andy Kravetz can be reached at akravetz@pjstar.com or 686-3283. Follow him on Twitter @AndyKravetz. Chris Kaergard can be reached at ckaergard@pjstar.com or 686-3255. Follow him on Twitter @ChrisKaergard.