I

101ST CONGRESS

2d Session

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESREPORT

101-610

IN THE MATTER OF
REPRESENTATIVE BARNEY FRANKREPORT
OF THECOMMITTEE ON
STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCTU.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESJULY 20, 1990.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to beprinted.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICEWASHINGTON : 1990

COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCTJULIAN C.

DIXON, California, Chairman

VIC FAZIO, California
BERNARD J. DWYER, New Jersey
ALAN B. MOLLONAN, West Virginia
JOSEPH M. GAYDOS, Pennsylvania
LOUIS STOKES, Ohio

JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
CHARLES PASHAYAN, JR., California
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
FRED GRANDY, Iowa

RALPH L. LOTKIN, Chief Counsel
DAVID J. McCARTHY, Counsel
MARK J. DAVIS, Counsel
CHARLES J. WILLOUGHBY, Counsel

oU-.u01-o 1-0--

C-1.15P-11-4, JR A 1

I.6. Poue of Aepreoentatibeq
committrr al 6tanbarbs of Offitial Canbut
buitt |1-2.

U.S. Capitol

Uanbington. 3C 20515
July 20,1990

The Honorable Thomas J. Foley
Speaker
0. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Mr.

Speaker:

By direction of the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, I hereby submit a Report entitled "In the Matter ofRepresentative Barney Frank."

Chairman
EnclosureTABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

Introduction (p. 1)

II.

Summary of Findings (p. 3)

III. Results of Investigation (p. 5)
A.

B.

Alleged
Use
ofRepresentative
Frank's
Apartment for Prostitution Involving Third
Parties (p. 5)
1.

Information Obtained (p. 5)

2.

Committee Conclusions (p. 18)

Representative Frank's Communications
Probation Officials (p. 18)
Conclusions
Representative(p. 29)withFrank's

RespecttoCommunications

C.

Dismissal of Parking Tickets (p. 30)

D.

AllegedSexualGymnasium (p. 34)

E.

Conclusions with Respect toof Stephen L. Gobie (p. 37)

Activity

with

in

the

House

the Credibility

Testimony of a former associate of Mr.
Gobie (p. 39)
Testimony of an individual whom Mr.
Gobie alleged assisted Representative
Frank in deceiving Probation Officials(p. 45)
Testimony of
another
individual
reportedly
hadknowledge
about
Gobie's activities (p. 47)
Otherevidence bearing
credibility (p. 50)
IV.

Recommendation (p. 53)(iv)

on Mr.

who
Mr.

Gobie's

EXHIBITS
Inquiry

adopted

1.

Preliminaryof
Resolution
September 12, 1989

2.

5,
January
Daugherty

3.

January 5, 1990, Interrogatory to Colonel James R.
Daugherty

toInterrogatory

1990,

Mary

Jo

APPENDICES
A.

Letter dated August 28, 1989, from Representative
Frank

B.

January 18, 1990,
Jo Daugherty

C.

1990,
Interrogatory
16,
January
Colonel James R. Daugherty

D.

October 25, 1990, Affidavit by Mary Jo Daugherty

E.

Representative Frank's September
to Probation Office5, 1985, letter

F..

-Representative Frank's March 10,
Probation Office

1986, letter toG.

Representative Frank's September
to Probation Office2, 1986, letter

H.

Representative Frank's December
to Probation Office

16,

-I.

February
Frank

J.

April 16, 1986 Memorandum

27,

Interrogatory response by Mary

1990,

letterfrom

response

by1986, letter

Representative

101st Congress
2d Session

Report No.
101-610HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESIN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE BARNEY FRANKJuly 20, 1990.--Referred to the House Calendar and Ordered
to be printed.

Mr. Dixon, of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
submitted the following
REPORT

I.
on

Committee

The"Committee")is

INTRODUCTION

Standards

of

Official

under

the

Rules

authorized(theConduct
the

of

House

of

Representatives (House Rule X, clause 4(e)(2)(B)), to investigate
any alleged violation by a Member, officer, or employee of theHouse, of the Code of Official Conduct
any

addition, alleged violations of(House Rule XLIII).

In

regulation,

or

law,

rule,

other standard applicable to the conduct of such Member, officer,
or

employee,dischargeofinperformance of his or her duties,

the

his

her

or

responsibilities

areor thewithintheCommittee's jurisdiction.
In August, 1989, the news media reported that Representative
Barney Frank had engaged a male prostitute, Stephen L. Gobie, who
wason

probationinVirginia,

subsequently established .

and

that

RepresentativeFrank

personal and employment relationship

-i-

(1)

2
with Mr. Gobie.

The news accounts asserted, among other things,

that Mr. Gobie used Representative Frank's apartment to conduct
third parties;

involving prostitution involving

activities

thdt

Representative Frank obtained the dismissal of a large number oftickets

parking

congressman's

were

that

incurredandautomobile;

when
the

that

with probation authorities on behalf

Mr.

Gobie

used

the

congressman

interceded

Gobie.

Later newsof Mr.

articles recounted assertions that the congressman and Mr. Gobie
had engaged in sexual activity in the House gymnasium.
On September 12, 1989, the Committee adopted a Resolution ofPreliminary Inquiry regarding "assertions relating to the conductof Representative Barney Frank in connection with his employment
See, Exhibit 1.

of a personal assistant."
12,

1989,

Representative Atkins

from participatingin thesubject matter.

Also on September
himself

recused

Thereafter,

Representative Louis Stokes was designated to sit as a Member of
the Committee in connection with this case.
As part of its investigative efforts,
subpoenas,
havingobtained

information

andreviewed

relevanttodocuments

theobtained sworn testimony from thethe Committee issued

mattersfromorganizations

underreview, andrelevant witnesses during theperiod December 4, 1989, through May 31, 1990.
The Committee's Report focuses on four matters:
A.

Use

of

the

congressman's

personal

residenceinWashington, D. C. for the purpose of prostitution involving third
parties;
B.

The congressman's contacts with individuals responsible-2-

for the oversight and administration of Mr. Gobie'q probation;C.

The administrative dismissal of parking tickets; andD.

Sexual activity in the House gymnasium.
II.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Based upon the Preliminary Inquiry, the Committee concludedthat:oNotwithstanding several publicized assertions, theweightoftheRepresentative Frank had
knowledge of

does

not

eitherprior

evidence

prostitution activities

indicateorthatconcomitantalleged tohavetaken place in his apartment involving third parties.
oNotwithstanding assertions by Mr. Gobie, both theProbation Officer and the sex therapist who had a roleintheadministration

of

Mr.

Gobie's

probation

expressly denied under oath his claim that they werepressured by Representative Frank.
oWhile Representative Frank did not personally send
dated

April

Commonwealth's

Attorneyfor

Virginia,

neverthelessaMemorandum

he

16,
the

1986,

City

of

acknowledged

to

the

Alexandria,
that

it

contained misleading statements which were favorable to
The Committee believes that Representative

Mr. Gobie.

Frank should have reasonably anticipated that the 1986
becommunicatedtolaw enforcement

Memorandum

might

officials.

The congressman set into motion a series ofcontacts resulting in that document being sent to the
Commonwealth

Attorney.

Asaresult,the misleadingcouldpolitical

influencestatements

misleadingwhich

outcome

of

the

That

the

does

not

could

communicatingof

inappropriateness

the

from

detractuse

affect

such

no

had

apparently

Memorandum

toprobation.

Gobie'sMr.

ofadministrationtheaffecttoattemptanasperceivedbestatements

affected

have

the

The Committee

administration of Mr. Gobie's probation.

believes this matter warrants further action.
o

The Committee concludes that Representative Frank

acted improperly in connection with 33 parking tickets
whensubmitted

he

when

or

dismissalof Columbia forshould have been

paid.

tickets

those

the

Committee

directs

restitution

to thetickets whichthose parking
The

for

administrative

accepted

to make full

Representative FrankDistrictheAccordingly,

dismissal.

ofcertainCommittee believes

this

he

and

matter warrants further action.
oRegardingclaim

Gobie's

Mr.

that

Representative Frank engaged in sexual activity in theHousegymnasium,theCommittee

receivednocredibleevidence that such activity occurred.
In

view

connection

Representative

of

with

33

parkingFrank's

ticketsandconductinpreparation

andimproperhis

issuance of the 1986 Memorandum, both of which were connected tohis status as a Member of Congress, the Committee concludes thatfurtheractionRepresentativeisappropriate.

Frank's

improperIntheconduct

Committee's
violatedjudgment,

House

Rule

5
XLIII,

1,

ClauseAdoption of

andwarrants

Report, which

thisreprimand

by

the

full

House.
will

recommends,

the Committee

constitute imposition of this sanction as the proper dispositionof all facts and matters considered by the Committee.
The

and

details

resultsoftheCommittee's investigative

efforts and recommendation are next discussed.
III.
A.

RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION

Representative Frank'sof
Alleged Use
Prostitution Involving Third Parties

for

Apartment

Information Obtained

1.

Based upon

specific assertions

madeby Stephen

L. Gobie,

news articles reported that Representative Frank was aware of andallowed his personal residence in Washington, D. C. to be used by
Mr.

for

Gobie

parties.

thepurposeofprostitution

involvingthird

As an example, an August 25, 1989, news report stated:
A male prostitute provided homosexualand bisexual prostitution services from theapartment of U.S. Rep. Barney Frank on
Capitol Hill on a periodic basis from late1985 through mid-1987, The Washington Times
has learned.
"I had reason to believe that he might
be trying to do that," said Rep. Barney
Frank, Massachusetts Democrat, who confirmed
in an interview with The Times on Wednesdaythat the escort had access to his house in
the 200 block of 8th Street SE.

News reports implied that Representative Frank may have usedhis

position

activities

Mr.

congressman's

as

a

Gobie

Membertoallegedly

residence,

facilitate
arrangedortheprostitution

conducted

such as through authorizing Mr.

in

the

Gobie

entry to a House garage to gain access to Representative Frank's

6inwith suchconnection

which

may

have

been

used

December

6,

1989,

the

Committee

thecourseofautomobile
activities.
On

DuringGobie.

that

deposeddeposition,

Stephenthe

L.

Committee

specifically questioned Mr. Gobie about prostitution activities
involving

third parties taking place at Representative Frank's

personal residence in Washington, D.C.

that,

To put Mr.

Gobie's testimony

duringdeposition,"escort"his

activities

residence wereof theRepresentative Frankextracts

of

the

he

in context,

Mr.

type

at

Representativethat occasioned Mr.

to meet in 1985.

Committee's

is noteworthy

Gobie acknowledged

conducted

same

it

examination

Following areof Mr.

Q.
During the period of time you had access to
the Congressman's
apartment, did you arrange
personally for sexual activity to take place forcompensation at the Congressman's apartment?
A.
I don't believe I have ever done that in mylife.
I run an escort service, sir. People havecalled it prostitution. My service was an escort
service.
I sold time with escorts on an hourly
basis with a fee attached.
Whatever happens,
happens during those encounters.
I'm not privy tothat nor do I choose to be.
So when you'retalking about sex, I really don't know what you'retalking about. I set up appointments for escorts.
I don't wantto get into a battle ofsemantics here, but there is in my business, thereis as far as terminology, there is a difference
betweena
prostituteandanescort.
A
professional escort
is
legal
and
legitimate
employment, I believe.
So the answer to my question is "no"?

theFrank's
Gobie andrelevant

Gobie on thismatter:

Q.

that

A.
Oh, I see.
No sir.
I arranged for escorts
to meet clients.
Whether
there was sexual
activity or not involved, that is not something
I'm privy to.
Q.

Was it your--A.

I run an escort service.

Plain and simple.

0.
Was it your expectation that sexual activity
might take place?
A.
I had no -I have no idea.
It's notsomething that I can conclude.
Like I said, I
nevercharacterized
myself asa prostitute.
That's been done for me.
I understand why people make, make the fineline to some people between escort and prostitute,but I went as far, gentlemen, as to have a
disclaimer prepared on the telephone for potential
clients in case they were trying to make anassociation between any type of sexual activity
and money.
I had a standard disclaimer to issue
to clients over the phone in case they were
getting that kind of impression. If they pressedme on that type activity, I suggested they use
another service.
0.
Do you have any knowledge whether any of theclients that you arranged to engage your escort
service in fact were involved or participated inanysexualactivityattheCongressman's
residence? Do you have any knowledge of that?
A.

Not that I can recall at this time.

Q.
Okay.
Did you personally engage in any
sexual activity with individuals, not Congressman
Frank, at the Congressman's apartment?
A.

Not that I can recall at this time.

Because Mr. Gobie was ambiguous in his response, additionalquestions were asked to clarify the matter.

With this in mind,

the following extracts of the deposition reflect the Committee's
probingofapartment:

the

issue

of

prostitution

at

the

congressman's

8
Q

*

*

did

*

you

ever

specificallytellCongressman Frank in a conversation that you wereusing either his telephone or his apartment forthe conduct or arranging of sexual activity?
A.

Not that I can recall at this time.

Q.

*

*

Did

*

you

arrangeforclients

tomeetwith personnel who were a part of your escort
service with the expectation or anticipation that
there might be sexual activity engaged in at
Congressman Frank's apartment?
The reason I ask
that question is because you said on occasion you
remade the bed notwithstanding the fact that you
did not live there.
A.

Yes.

Q.

So --

A.

I take a nap occasionally.

Q.
I asked the question, did you arrange forclients to meet with your associates with theanticipation, not the expectation, but with theanticipation --A.

Not in my work.

Q.
That clients of yours might engage in sexual
activities with your associates?
Was that apossibility of which you were aware?
A.

I wasn't aware of anything --Q.

That is a yes or no question.

A.

That is a no.

Q.

The answer is no?

A.

The answer is no.

On

December

11,

1989,

the

Committee

Representative Frank who testified under oath.

interviewed

During the courseof the interview, the following exchange occurred:
Q.

*

*

*

do

you

ever

recallengaging

inconversation with Mr. Gobie, a conversation inwhich he would have notified you or apprised youor you would have had suspicion that he wasengaging in escort or prostitution activities
using your apartment?
A.

Absolutely not.

Q.

Okay.

A.
Absolutely not. Either personally or throughorganizing other people.
Relevant

thistoaspectoftheCommittee's

Preliminary

Inquiry were reported quotes attributed to Representative Frank(for example,

the August 25,

1989, news reportcited earlier)indicating the congressman's purported awareness of prostitution
involving third parties taking place in his personal residence.
In thisregard,followingtheexchange

took

place

duringinterview of Representative Frank:* * * you stated that you had no knowledge ofQ.
escort service by Mr. Gobie other than personal.
Explain what you mean by other than personal,
please?
A.
I knew that he, or assumed, I knew when I
called him that he personally was engaging in thiskind of escort business. I had no idea until thefirst potential idea was when Mary Jo Daugherty[the congressman's landlord] told me in August of'87 that he was arranging escorts for otherpeople.
That is what I meant by personal. I assumed
it was something he personally was doing, but notthat he was arranging it for other people.
You say you were aware of his personal. WhatQ.
type of escort service was he providing personallyfor other people that you were aware of?
A.

Not for other people.

Q.

For himself?

A.

Himself.

I was not aware--

The kind that I availed myself of

the

10
I did
when I responded to his ad in the paper.
That isnot think that I was his only customer.
the basis.
Regardingthematterimproperactivities

taking

in

place

of

the

involvinghis

personal

congressman's. awareness thatthird

parties

residence,

might

the

have

been

Committee

sent

letters of interrogatory to Colonel and Mrs. James Daugherty whowere the congressman's landlords and who, at all times relevanttotheCommittee's

Preliminary

Inquiry,adjoining Representative Frank's apartment.

lived

in a

residence

While Exhibits 2 and

3 and Appendices B and C reflect the full text of the Committee's
correspondence with the Daughertys, the information provided may
be summarized as follows:oThat Colonel and Mrs. Daugherty lived in the houseabove Representative Frank's apartment and were notabsentee landlords;oThat neither Colonel nor Mrs. Daugherty had any
knowledge of the specific nature of the relationshipmaintained by Mr. Gobie and Representative Frank;oThat Colonel and Mrs. Daugherty had no knowledge
regarding how Mr. Gobie earned any income;oThat Colonel and Mrs. Daugherty had no knowledgeof any of the activities that Mr. Gobie undertook for
Representative Frank;
o
That
Mr.
Gobie
used
Representative
Frank'sapartment when the congressman was not at home;oThat Colonel and Mrs. Daugherty had no direct
knowledge of the frequency of any use Mr. Gobie made ofRepresentative Frank's personal automobile;
o
That
Mrs.
Daugherty
became"concerned
andsuspicious" of Mr. Gobie's activities beginning in theSummer of 1987, although she did not have any "proof as
to what went on there" -- she did not see any illegal
activities but "only could guess";
o

That

upon

becoming

suspicious

of

Mr.

Gobie's

11
activities,
Mrs.
Daugherty
reportedthemtoRepresentative Frank indicating that she did not want
Mr. Gobie on her property;
That none of the activities giving rise to Mrs.
Daugherty's suspicions occurred when Representative
Frank was present;oThat upon being notified by Mrs. Daugherty of herconcern, Representative Frank apologized and said that
he would take immediate action; andoThat Mrs. Daugherty is of the view that theassertions made by Mr. Gobie regarding use he made ofRepresentative Frank's apartment and the congressman'knowledge thereof are "obvious lies".
O

Prior

to

responding

to

the

interrogatories

sent

her

Committee, Mrs. Daugherty had submitted on October 25,
affidavit.

In that document (Appendix D),

by

the

1989, anMrs. Daugherty statedunder oath that:
None of the activities I have describedoccurredwhenCongressman
Frank
was
present. It is my strong belief, based on myknowledge of both Congressman Frank and Mr.
Gobie, that Mr. Gobie took advantage ofCongressman Frank and had begun to misuse theapartment
without
Congressman
Frank'sknowledge or permission.
In

light

reasonable

toRepresentative

of

the

above,

theCommittee

that

the

statement

conclude
Frank

in

the

news

reportofbelieves

itisattributedtoAugust25,

1989,

above, -- "I had reason to believe that he might be trying to dothat[i.e.,

does

notconduct prostitution activities in my apartment]"--represent aninconsistency

in

Representative Frank's

statements on the matter, but rather, reflects the congressman's
state

of

awarenesstohismatterofsubsequentconversation

with

Mrs.

Daugherty in August, 1987.
Also

relevant

totheRepresentative

Frank's

12
purported knowledge of alleged prostitution activities are other
Gobie.

assertions by Mr.

Meriting discussion are Mr.

Gobie'sstatements that he had arranged to have calls "forwarded" to thetelephone in Mr. Frank's Washington, D.C. residence in connection
with

the

escortservicewhich

heoperated--forexample,"[Representative Frank] allowed me to transfer my escort service
lines

to his house

*

*

*,l

On

another occasion

during Mr.

Gobie's deposition, the following exchange occurred.
Q.
How long a duration did you have of, say,from the first time you forwarded calls to Mr.
Frank's apartment until that date?
How long wasthat period of time?
A.
Oh, we met in '85, April. The first time I
forwarded the lines over was probably within six
months of that, so April to six months, somewherein that six-month period I began forwarding thelines over, and then it must have been the last
half of '85 and '86 and somewhere in '87 I'm sureis whenhe landlord found out about what wasgoing on.-

[Representative Frank] made the offer initiallyabout me forwarding the lines over to his house. **[Representative
Frank]
initiatedthesuggestion about me actually having the service
being transferred to his house and answering thelines from his house.

1 "Call-forwarding" is a service offered by the telephone company
in which a call to one telephone number is automatically routed
to another telephone number.
2
The original transcript of Mr. Gobie's deposition used thephrase "somewhere in '86".
In
follow-up conversation with Mr.
Gobie, he confirmed that, either due to a transcription error or
his own misstatement, the transcript should have read "somewherein '87."
Mr. Gobie also re-confirmed that the call-forwarding
service was provided by the telephone company.
-12-

13
Q.

on hisown[Representative Frank]So
you could forward
initiative made an offer thathyour calls?
A. Right. I was pleading -- telling him about mywoes and not being able to run my service.
The Committee inquired ofknowledgeofanytelephone

in hisRepresentative Frankcall-forwardingthat

personal residence.

may
Duringhaveasto hisinvolved

thethe December 11,

1989, interview of the congressman, the following exchange took
place:Q.
Did you ever have conversation with Mr. Gobie
about his using your telephone or having phone
calls routed to him?
No.
Once I did because I called once fromA.
Massachusetts to get my messages and my answeringmachine was shut off. The next time I saw him, I
said, "Hey, the answering machine was shut off.
What was going on?"He said, "I think I was cleaning and I
Again, he was a friend whom I
unplugged it.'trusted, and now I realize quite stupidly, butthat seemed plausible to me.

Furthermore it is my understanding that at noQ.
time do you recall any conversation in which you
may have authorized or discussed with Mr. Gobie
the fact that he might use your telephone for thereceipt of telephone calls?
I never specifically toldA.
To the contrary.
I never told him not to set
him not to do that.
fire to the living room rug. It never occurred to
I said with regard to theme to do that. * * *phone, I have to have clear access to that phone
at all times to check for messages. * * *I would call my house from time to time when
I was staying at the office considerably after
6:00, say, we were in session late or I had other
I would call my own apartment to getbusiness.
-13-

14
In fact, thatmessages on my answering machine.
is the regular way I communicate with my staff
after they have left if there are press calls or
So they leave them on my message
family calls.
machine at home. So I would regularly be calling
my house, but it would be to get my messages andhe wouldn't be there.
However,later

duringtheinterviewofthecongressman,thefollowing exchange occurred.
Was there any event that you received a phoneQ.
call which apparently was for him (Gobie] and thatyou expressed to him some annoyance at receiving aphone call or series of phone calls for him?

I do remember getting one call where a guy
A.
said, "Hey, some girl is supposed to meet me andI assumed it is the wrong
where is she?"
I said to him, "I got some crazy phone
number.
Do you know anything about it?" He said,call.
I accepted that. I thought he was a friend"No."at the time.
Subsequently, I think that was part of thisBut that was-- I wasn't supposed to be there.
the only one.
In view of the divergent testimony received from Mr. Gobie
and Representative Frank regarding the claim that escort service
calls were forwarded to the congressman's personal residence, theCommittee sought to obtain additional information.
the Committee
from

which

apartment.

herequested from Mr.
said

calls wereSpecifically,

Gobie those telephone numbers
forwardedtothe congressman's

In a written communication to the Committee signed by

Mr. Gobie on December 27,

1989, Mr. Gobie informed the Committee

as follows:
The following are phone numbers that were"call-forwarded" to:210 8th St. SE for the
purposes of operating escort services.

151.) (202) 333-3706 - Escort service:
Touch of Class"

In

2.)
(202)
"Saxons'"544-0090

the

Mr.

light

of

-

EscortGobie's"A

Service:deposition

andwrittenstatements, on February 12, 1990, the Committee issued a subpoena
to the C & P Telephone Company seeking, among other things,
Any record of call-forwarding service in1986 or 1987 for telephone numbers (202)333-3706 or (202) 544-0090.
By letter

dated February

13,

1990,

writing to the Committee's subpoena.

Bell

Atlantic respondedin

The following information

was received regarding the telephone numbers in question:(202) 333-3706
Mr. Gobie's assertion:
during 1986, and 1987
August, 1987.

Call-forwarding service
up until approximately

Bell Atlantic's records:
the
year
1986.
No
provided during 1987.

No records available forcall-forwarding service(202) 544-0090
Mr. Gobie's assertion:
during 1986, and 1987
August, 1987.

Call-forwarding service
up until approximately

Bell Atlantic's records: No records available forthe year 1986.
Call-forwarding service provided
from January to February 13, 1987.
No callforwarding service after February 13, 1987.
In view of the above,
Gobie's

claim

that

calls

there is no way to corroborate Mr.
were

forwarded

from

two

different

telephone numbers to the residence of Representative Frank during-15-

1986 due to the absence of available telephone company records.
With

regard

1987,

to

that

indicate

records

telephonecall-forwarding was available only for (202) 544-0090 from January to
February 13, 1987.
Also relevant to the issue of prostitution activities, wasMr. Gobie's

assertion

that,

from

time

to

time, Representative

Frank contacted him to see if it was "okay if I come home", so as
to avoid embarrassing a client of Mr. Gobie'- escort service who
the congressman's apartment.

might be in

On this matter, thecongressman was specifically questioned:
You mentioned that it is absolutely false, if
Q.
I understand correctly, that there were some tacit
understandings with you and Mr. Gobie that you
would call your apartment to see, is it okay for
you to come home?
A.

Absolutely outrageous.

Regarding this aspect of the Committee's inquiry, Mr. Gobie
told

the

Committee

that

Frank

Representative

never

came

home

while Mr. Gobie was engaged in an escort service activity at hisapartment.
Of final
his

claim

note and relevant

that

activities

takingplace

inrecounting

of

event

that

"associates"to Mr.

Gobie's credibility and

Frank

was

aware

of

certainresidence

was

Mr.

Gobie's

betweenoneofRepresentative

an
and

the

his

occurredcongressman's

landlord,

ColonelDaugherty:* * * When his landlord discovered the fact I wasdoing this, accidentally, an associate of minecame for a job interview one day and asked thelandlord where do I go for the interviews for
escort and modeling jobs.
The landlord almost

his
James

fell off the ladder he was working on outside, andthe landlord read the riot act to Congressman
Frank when he came back Monday, and Congressman
Frank in turn read the riot act to me and told me,,he said it would be best if we didn't see eachother a couple weeks, just laid low, no activity
at the house. He said, "You'll have to promise me
I said,you'll never forward the lines again."
If anybody is aware, I don't want
"No problem."to be doing this here.
So I knew that the jig was up, so to speak,* * *because they found out.

Inasmuch as Mr. Gobie related a specific incident involving
Representative Frank's landlord, the Committee's January 5, 1990,
interrogatory specifically asked Colonel Daugherty-[Question] 14. Do you recall an incident when you
were on a ladder working outside Representative
Frank's apartment and an individual asked you for
information about where to interview for escort
If so, please describe inand modeling jobs?
detail when this occurred and what transpired.
Did you talk with Representative[Question] 15.
Frank about this matter?
Did you talk with Mr. Gobie about[Question] 16.
this matter?
Inhissworn responseofJanuary 16,

1990,

ColonelDaugherty

stated as follows regarding the foregoing three questions:
I have absolutely no recollection[Response] 14.
of this ladder incident that someone has brought
up. I have searched my mind to recall, have askedWe
my wife if I had ever mentioned it to her.
It could not havecome up totally blank.
occurred.
The matter did not occur so I did[Response] 15.
not discuss it.
The matter did not occur so I did[Response] 16.
not discuss it.
Based

upon

the

above,

theCommittee

concludes

that

yet

another of Mr. Gobie's assertions of fact regarding the operation

18
involving Representative Frank'sof "escort" or other activities
apartment

been

has

individual,

Colonelspecificallydeniedbyrepudiatedsworn

Daugherty.
under

noted,

As
that

oath

from

testimonythehaslandlordby Mr.

described

event

the

another

Gobie ever took place.
Committee Conclusions

2.
Based

upon

information

testimony,theCommittee

or

third

apartment.

Not

and

been

that

the

partiesonly

andweightprostitution
have

taken

sworn

of

the

James

Daugherty,

Mr.

Gobie'sassertion,

Mr.

service

were

by

the

fact

contradictedcall-forwarding service

in 1987service (from January to February 13,

in

his

landlords,
testimonyassertion hasthat his

claims ofbytelephonetheat all with respect

and only approximately

telephone number

sworn

Gobie's

activities

place

Frank'sRepresentative

rendered questionable

company (notoalleged
have

of

Mrs.

call-forwarding

to onesubpoena

submitted

contradicting
alsoknowledge

concomitant

involving

Colonelconcludes

underindicates that Representative Frank did not have either

evidencepriorobtained

1987)),

six weeks of suchwith respect to the(No records were available for 1986.)

other number.

concludes

therefore, further

The Committee,that no further

action is warranted.
B.

The
this

Committee

area

on

Representative

Communications

Frank'sRepresentative
Officials

initially focused

two
Frank

issuesits

relating

regarding

Mr.

-18-

with

Probation

Preliminary Inquiry

in

to

by

Gobie'scommunications
probation.

WereRepresentative

Frank'svouching forMr.

attempt

p essuretoauthorities

four

to

letters

Gobie appropriate?

into

or

takingorofficials

Did Representative

intimidate

actionprobation

Mr.

Gobie'sreportingFrank

probation

favorably on

Mr.

Gobie?
The four letters by Representative Frank briefly described
Mr.

Gobie

funds.

&sa

personal

employee

not

paid

(See Appendices E, F, G, and H).

withgovernment

To determine whether

facts supported the congressman's description of the relationshipdescribed in the letters, the Committee pursued this issue withRepresentative Frank and Mr. Gobie.

The two witnesses agreed inmany respects as to basic facts but offered different conclusions
and characterizations regarding their relationship.
Both Representative Frank and Mr. Gobie agreed that after
their initial meeting and subsequent similar encounters over anapproximately 2 month period, Mr. Gobie undertook a variety of
personal tasks for the congressman.
the fourth or

fifth

encounter,

They both agreed that after

theirrelationship changed andfairly soon Representative Frank began giving Mr. Gobie cash, but
not

for

sex.

Both

RepresentativeFrank

negotiatedsalary;agreedwere

that

not full

payments to Mr.

Mr.

Gobie'stime;

activities

there wasnofor

set orGobie were estimated to be$100 (later $75) a week, but were not entirely regular; and that
there was no written or explicitly agreed-upon job description.
Representative Frank also testified that he withheld no money forSocial Security or income

tax, and Mr. Gobie declined to answer

the Committee's questions as to whether he had any earned income
-19-

20
or whether he paid income tax on money received during the periodof his association with Representative Frank.
Both men agreed that Mr. Gobie performed various activities
duringthe period in question, including driving Representative

Frank

to

laundry,

the

from

and

and seeingcarcongressman's

the
be

to

repaired or

Representative Frank's

to theupkeep

of

Mr.

Gobie

accompanied Representative

In addition,

apartment.

totendingFrank'sRepresentative

takinginspected,

airport,Frank on some shopping trips, and drove him on local trips in the
Washington area, including one to the White House.
Both men also agreed

that there was a dimension to theirrelationship that transcended employment.

Mr. Gobie spoke of his

personal admiration for Representative Frank, and Representative
Frank said that Mr.

his ego,and that therelationshipdeteriorated

Gobie was good for

relationship was not entirely arms length.
bothFinally,agreedthat

thewhen, in August 1987, Representative Frank's landlady confronted
Representative

Frank withher

beliefthat

Gobie had beenMr.

using Representative Frank's apartment for prostitution, a matter
about which the congressman said he was not aware.
The two disagreed on whether Representative Frank's payments
and Mr. Gobie's activities constituted "employment". at least for
purposesoftheRepresentative

Virginia Probation officials.

Frank stated that he hired Mr. Gobie in the summer of 1985 andfired him at the end of summer in 1987.
was never hired, hence never fired -undertaking

tasks

for Representative

Mr. Gobie says that heinstead, he described his
Frank

as

an

outgrowth of

21
friendshipnotnevertheless

due

an

to

acknowledged

that

RepresentativeFrank

duringamountmatterof

wasaemployment
he

the

did

receive

periodalthoughdispute.

Mr.

He

relationship.

Gobie

money

from

precisethecash

estimated

received from Representative Frank totalling no more than $2,000;
Representative Frank said it was about $5,000 per year.

Neither

witness produced any documentation indicating that Mr. Gobie was,or was not, employed by Representative Frank.
evidencecredible

Representative

for

the

Frank'sfour

Committee
letters

toThus, there is notoconcludeprobationverifying Mr. Gobie's employment were inaccurate.
finds

no

impropriety

inverifyinga Memberofficials

The Committee

employment

employee, absent a clear showing of a false statement.
light,

theprobation

matterofRepresentative

concerning

officeMr.

Frank's

Gobie's

that

of

an

In thisletters

to

the

does

not

claim

that

employment

warrant any action.
Next,

the

Committee

examinedMr.

Gobie'sRepresentative Frank had attempted to exert pressure upon or to
intimidate

probation

Virginia

authorities.

In

Committee

interviews both Probation Officer Cheryl Johnston and Mr. Gobie's
court-orderedsextherapist,

Representative

Frank

had

Lois

attempted

Valladares,

deniedtothempressure

that
or

to

intimidate them in any way.
During the deposition of Mr. Gobie, the following exchange
took place:Q.
You mentioned earlier that the Congressman,in addition to some written letters that we havealready introduced as exhibits, had conversation-21-

with your Probation Officer.
A.

Yes, and my therapist, Dr. Valladares.

Q.

When and what were those conversations about?

I didn't hear about the conversation withA.
first[the Probation Officer]
Cheryl Johnston
She related
I was told by Dr. Valladares.
hand.
Barneyto me that Cheryl Johnston had called -she told Dr. Valladares andFrank called the -she felt she was being pressured into making
decisions concerning my extension of probation.
Congressman
as
if
felt
She
pressuring
her
over
the
phone
or
intimidate her or change her decision.

was
Frank
tryingtorelatedDr.
Valladares
circumstances, the same feeling that
she was called by Congressman Frank.

the
same
she had when

When Ms.

Johnston was invited at the close of her

testimonyto add anything for the record she volunteered the following:
I would just say that, you know, during the time I
wasinvolved
with
Steve,
andgetting
correspondence from Congressman Frank, and evenwhen I was taking him back to court, I never hadthefeelingthat
Congressman
Frank
tried
to
influence or pressure me in any way.
Similarly,

Mrs.

Valladaresstated

in

a

sworn

declaration

dated December 18, 1989:
At some point during the year 1986 I received
a phone call from Congressman Barney Frank.
He
told me he wascallingtoinquire aboutanemployee of his, Stephen Gobie, whom he knew to bea client of mine.
Mr. Gobie had been referred tome by the Fairfax County Probation Department.
Mr. Frank asked for my evaluation of Mr. Gobie's
progress during his therapy with me.
I had arelease from Mr. Gobie to speak with Congressman
Frank.
I told Congressman Frank that Mr. Gobie
was making progress.
Congressman Frank's call to me was completely
appropriate in every way.
He asked nothing of me
that was in any way inappropriate. I discerned noattempt to influence me in my treatment of Mr.

23
Gobie orin my contacts with the Probation
His inquiry was like many calls from
Department.
employers of clients of mine.
The

Committee

evidence,
and

Lois

concludes

upon

the

basis

of

availableallthe sworn testimony of Cheryl Johnston

in particular
Valladares

and

of

analysis

Ms.

Johnston's

contemporaneous notes detailing her administration of Mr. Gobie's
probation
attempt(discussed below),that

influence or

to exert

toRepresentative Frank did not
intimidate

eitherindividualwith respect to their administration or recommendations regarding
the probation of Mr. Gobie.
Because of its decision to have for review and analysis thecompleterecordofallcommunications

regardingMr.

Gobie's

mostofRepresentative
theCommittee

subpoenaed the Probation Office's file on Mr. Gobie.

This filecontained,

among otherdocuments,

probation,

Frank's

the handwritten log that had

been maintained by Probation Officer Johnston.

After an initial

review of her notes, Ms. Johnston was interviewed a second time,
primarily
log.

for

her

interpretation

of

her

own

entriesinto

theMs. Johnston interpreted certain of her notes to read as

follows:
December, 16, 1985 - Employer contact/telephone
Gobie works on his
call to Congressman Frank.
withgovernment
isn't
paid
personal
staff,
funds.
He pays Gobie $200 per week to keep homeand car running smoothly, bills paid on time,etc.
Gobie also does some political tasks which
someone on government
formight be improper
He is aware of Gobie's
payroll to perform.
He estimates the job takes aboutprobation.
twenty hours per week but he doesn't attempt toGobie has been 100%keep track of the time.
reliable.

-23-

March 10, 1986
Probation Officer advised Goble
she will be requesting extension of probation.
Gobie upset, will call in his favors to prevent
it; will use
his friends from Congress, etc.
Gobie had letter from Congressman Frank to verify
employment.
March 28, 1986 - Personal home contact
Saw Gobie
at his new home.
Gobie will be using Congressman
Frank to persuade the Commonwealth Attorney to let
Gobie's probation expire.
May 2, 1986 - Telephone call from John Kloch.
He
is getting calls from Capitol Hill.
Probation
Officer advised Kloch of Gobie's status and that
she is preparing request for extension.
Kloch'q
officewill
notopposeProbation
Officer's
recommendation.
With regard to Ms. Johnston's note of the May 2, 1986, phone
call from John Kloch, she volunteered the following testimony:
I really had forgotten about in here talking withJohn Kloch who is the Commonwealth's Attorney inAlexandria, and him saying he was getting a lot ofphone calls about Steve.

You know it may be that the political heat went toJohn Kloch because he was an elected official.
Committee
reasonCounsel

then

asked

assume

that

the

to

Representative Frank.

Ms.

Johnston"Capitol

whether

Hill"

she

calls

had any

were

from

She responded that--

I don't know if they would have been directly from
him or from other people.
John Kloch is very
active politically.
And, you know, if maybe
someone asked people that he was buddies with togive him a call.
Becausestatements

of

Ms.

concerning

contacted Mr.
Commonwealth's

Johnston's
contact

May

2,

1986,

entry

with

Mr.

Kloch,

theJohn E. Kloch, who was at
Attorneyforthe time

Alexandria.

-24-

In

and

her

Committee(and still is)
the

role

of

Commonwealth's Attorney, Mr. Kloch's office appeared on behalf of
the Commonwealth of Virginia regarding the proposed extension of
Mr. Gobie's probation.
1990,

responsetotheinterrogatorythat,recollection,he

RepresentativeFrank

regardingGobie'R

Mr.

While Mr. Kloch stated in his March 6,

to

did

Committee's
the

not
or

February

22,

1990,

knowledge

and

best

of

his

receive

any

calls

from

eitherhis

congressionalstaff

anyoneonprobation,

contacted by another individual

heindicated

that

he

was

regarding the matter and statedthat he had received from that individual a copy of an April 16,
1986, Memorandum prepared by Representative Frank concerning Mr.
Gobie's probation.
In thisspecific

regard,theMemorandum

dated

Kloch

Representative

Frank on his

the Committee
April

official

16,

byletterhead concerningthe

proposed extension ofAppendix

the

In

1986,

preparedadministration andJ).

obtained from Mr.

thatprobation

Memorandum, Representative(See

Frank made avigorous argument in favor of Mr. Gobie's release from probation,
includinghis

expressionoffavorable opinions

regardingMr.

Gobie.

Among other things, Representative Frank indicated that

he

met

had

asserted

Mr.

that

Gobie
Mr.

in

1984

"through

Gobie

had,

with

(marijuana use),beenrequirements."As"scrupulous

discussed

mutualone

about

meeting

below, certain

friends"

apparent

of

his

and

exception
probation

Representative

Frank's statements in the Memorandum were factually misleading, amatter which the congressman acknowledged to the Committee.
Becausethesubject

Memorandum

had

been

sent

to

the

26
Commonwealth's Attorney, a serious question exists withtowhetherthecongressman

preparing misleading

shouldbestatements that

held

could

respect

accountable

be

for

perceived as an

attempt to exert political influence affecting the administrationof Mr. Gobie's probation.
Representative Frank told the Committee that he did not ask
that

the

Memorandum

be

sent

to

Mr.

congressman said that the document
representation about him [Mr.

Kloch.

Further,the"was never intended to be a

Gobie]

to any decisionmaker or toanybody else."
Based upon
spoke

with,

the guidance he received from an individual he

RepresentativeFrank

contacted

represented Mr. Gobie in the matter.

anattorney

who

Subsequently, Mr. Gobie's

probation was extended at the suggestion of the Probation Office
which was represented by the Office of the Commonwealth Attorney.
Mr. John Kloch specifically informed the Committee that not
only had he not been contacted by Representative Frank or any one
on his congressional staff,
had been sent

but also that the Memorandum, which

to him by an individual with whom Representative

Frank had discussed Mr. Gobie's probation, did not affect either
his

judgmentor activities regarding Mr.

Gobie's probation nor

did it lead him to believe that he was being pressured.
In

view

of

the

above,

theCommittee

hasgravity of the identified misleading statements.
certain of

the misleading statements,

consideredWith respect to

the Committee notes thatsome dealt with expressions of the congressman's opinion.
neitherpossiblenorpractical

for

the

the

Committee

to

It is

reach aconclusion

withrespecttowhether

RepresentativeFrank

communicated such opinions as a matter of sincerely held belief
or whether the opinions were expressed either in the absence of
supporting
Accordingly,

knowledge
any

or

such

to

the

disregard

after-the-factofjudgment

known

facts.

based solelyon

speculation would lead to a conclusion not grounded on objective
data.

In this light, the Committee has treated the matter of thecongressman's expressions of

opinioninthe document

as

views

which Representative Frank was entitled to hold, notwithstandingthat others

may well

have

taken

issue

with

the

congressman'sfavorable assessment of Mr. Gobie.
The Committee has approached the matters of the misleadingstatements in the Memorandum from three perspectives:
substance of the inconsistency or contradiction;

First, thesecond, to whomthey were communicated, and third, the context (and vehicle) by
which such assertions were communicated.
ofthemisleadingstatements,

theRegarding the substanceCommittee's

Memorandum indicates that these were either:to the circumstances

reviewof

theAssertions relating

giving rise to and the full nature of theGobie/Frank relationship and how it evolved; assertions relating
to Mr. Gobie's compliance with the requirements of his probation;and the assertion thatcause problems --"I worry that an extended probation will

not that it would in any way lead him to commit

any more crimes * * *."Representative Frank told the Committee

the opposite; namely, that continuing Mr. Gobie's probation would
lead to his continued prostitution since probation prevented Mr.
Gobie from landing a "real job."

28
While

both

Representative

Committee

that

their

congressman's March 31,

Frank

and

Mr.

Gobie

told

the

relationshipwasoccasioned

by

the

1985,

response to an ad placed in The

Mr. Gobie offering "escort services", in his

Washington Blade byApril, 1986, Memorandum, Representative Frank did not say he met
Mr. Gobie through an advertisement, but, rather, "through mutual
friends."

Also

in

that

communicatedhisbeliefdocument,

that

Mr.

Representative

Gobie

was

Frank

meetingtherequirements of his probation (specifically, to obey all laws),
when, in fact, the congressman acknowledged to the Committee that
he wasaware that during

engaging

inthe period in question Mr. Gobie wasprostitution.

Representative Frank
describing eitherIt

was notistherefore

totally candid andthe nature of,suchissuesweredirectly

that

forthcoming inor the events giving rise to,his relationship with Stephen L. Gobie;
activities during probation.

clear

as well as Mr. Gobie's

It is of critical importance that
relevanttoanyconsiderationofwhether Mr. Gobie's probation should have been extended.
Of equal importance to the matter of misleading statements
inthedocument,

Commonwealth's

is

Attorney.

the

fact
While

that

it

was

sent

to

the

Representative

Frank

did

not

personally send the document to Mr. Kloch, and regardless of thefacts

precipitating thenonetheless

clear

that

Memorandum

actually being

Representative

Frank

sent,

it is

reasonably

shouldhave anticipated that the document might be communicated to law
enforcement officials having a role in Mr. Gobie's probation.
Thus, as with the matter of the misleading statements in the
-28-

29
document

itself,which

RepresentativeFrank

himself

hasacknowledged, the Committee also concludes that the congressman
set into motion a series of contacts resulting in that document
being

sent

to

CommonwealththeAttorney.

Asacould be perceived as an attempt

misleading statements

theresult,to usepolitical influence to affect the outcome of the administrationof Mr. Gobie's probation.
suchaffectdoes

communicating

notThat the Memorandum apparently had no

detractfrommisleading

known

the

of

inappropriatenessstatements

which

could

have

affected.the administration of Mr. Gobie's probation.
Committee

Thebelieves

this

is

a

matterwhich

warrants

further action.
Conclusions with Respect to Representative Frank's Communications
On the basis of a review of all available evidence, whether
there was a "scheme"

to misrepresent the nature of Mr. Gobie's-relationship withthe congressman is a matter

determined

upon -available

based

testimonial

which cannotorbedocumentary

evidence.
The Committee concludes that, as was the case with respect
to Mr.

Gobie'sassertions

that

Representative Franksoughttoapply pressure on probation officials, adequate information has
not been received on which to sustain Mr. Gobie's claim that hewas not employed by Representative Frank.
While

Representative

Frank

did

not

personally

send

a

Memorandum dated April 16, 1986, to the Commonwealth Attorney for
the City of Alexandria, Virginia, he nevertheless acknowledgedthat itcontained misleading statements which were favorable to

30
Mr.

Gobie.

RepresentativeFrank

reasonably

shouldhave

anticipated that the 1986 Memorandum might be communicated to law
enforcement officials.

The congressman set into motion a seriesofincontacts

resultingthat

document

sent

to

the

the misleading statements

As a result,

Commonwealth Attorney.

being

could be perceived as an attempt to use political influence toaffecttheoutcomeprobation.
does

not

known

That

of

the

administration

the Memorandum apparently

detract

misleading

the

from

statements

which

could

Mr.

Gobie's

had no such affectinappropriatenessadministration of Mr. Gobie's probation.

ofofcommunicating

haveaffectedthe

The Committee believes

this matter warrants further action.
C.

Dismissal of Parking Tickets
The

third

area

of

focus

in

the

Committee's

Preliminary

Inquiry concerned Mr. Gobie's assertion that Representative Frank
used

his

statusadministrativethat wereasadismissal

of a

of

large

Congresstonumbertrafficofobtainthetickets

incurred by Mr. Gobie when he used the congressman's

automobile

for personal

thatnaturetheMemberofactivities.

Mr.

traffic

violations

the

Gobie

further statedinvolved

illegalparking.
It was clear during the Committee's deposition of Mr. Gobie
as wellFrank,

as theDecember

that

the

unrestricted

use

11,

congressman
of

the

1989,
had

interview ofprovidedcongressman's

Mr.

Representative
Gobie

personal

virtually

automobile.

Because of Mr. Gobie's assertions, the alleged magnitude of thetickets he claimed to have been incurred and dismissed, and the
-30-

fact

that

such

Representative
Committee

actionFrank'sdeterminedwould

status
that

have

as

a

been

MemberinvestigationofofpredicatedonCongress,

the

this

matterwasnecessary.
Under provisions of the District of Columbia Code, section
40-703(c), Members of Congress-** * may park their vehicles in any
available curb space in the District of Columbia,
when:(1) The vehicle is used by
Congress on official business;the memberof(2) The vehicle is displaying . Congressional
registration
tag
issuedbythejurisdiction
represented by the member; and(3) The vehicle is not parked in violation ofa loading zone, rush hours, firehouse, or fireplug limitation.
The
Inquiry

Committee
by:approachedObtaining

thisrecords

fromaspectofthethe District

PreliminaryofColumbia

reflecting Representative Frank's receipt of traffic citations;probing the issue during the December 11, 1989, interview of thecongressman;obtaining

information

from

RepresentativeFrank

relevant to his whereabouts and activities on each day on which a
traffic citation was received; obtaining documentation from theHouse Sergeant at Arms; and obtaining from Representative Frankhis specific response to and analysis of how many tickets werereceived and whether a citation might have been issued at a time
when

his

automobile

was

being

used

for

other

than

official

purposes.
In addition, the Committee focused its investigative efforts

-31-

32

on

that period of time during which Representative Frank and Mr.

Gobie

maintained

theirbetween

Representative

periodofinvolved

ended

in

throughgiven theforreceivedthetheduringand1987,1987),

location of

better

While

Mr.

there

Gobie

as

(Representative

August,end ofnature andreview,

Frank

time

relationshiplastedrelationship.

approachtheperiodtheCommittee's

while

the

to

is

disputetheactual

Frank

Mr.

Gobie

said

the

stateditCommittee determinedthat

the parking tickets identified
wasApril 1,

to focus
1985,

onthose tickets

through December

31,

and

the

1987.
Based
foregoing

upon

considerations,theanalysis

following

in

light

of

summarizes

theCommittee's findings:

In"

During the period in question, a total of 67
citations were written against Representative
Frank's car for non-moving violations.

"

Of
the
67
tickets,
60
involved
parking
tickets and 7 concerned citations issued due
eithertotheexpirationofinspection
stickers or license tags.
(Of the latter 7
tickets, two were dismissed and the remaining
5 were paid by Representative Frank);oOf the 60 parking tickets involved, 16 were
establishedashavingbeen
paidbyRepresentative Frank based upon the recordsof the Districtof Columbia orcancelled
checks having been submitted to the Committeeby the congressman.

the

light

remaining--tickets.

In

of

the

i.e.,

above,

theCommittee

administratively

focuseddismissed

on

the

44

--

parking

Committee's analysis of allavailable

documentation, and particularly Representative Frank's

letter totheCommittee

view

of

dated

the

February

27,

1990,

AppendixI,itappears

33
that 18 of the 44 dismissed parking tickets were not waived at
the expressed request of Representative Frank; 26 parking tickets
were dismissed

as

the

resultofthecongressman's

expressedrequest for such action.
Notwithstanding that certain of the 44 parking tickets weredismissed despite the fact that no request to do so was initiatedby Representative

Frank, the Committee sought and obtained thecongressman's analysis of each of the 44 citations.
In

his letterof February

27,

1990,

Representative Frank

informed the Committee that, based upon his review, 11 of the 44
tickets "were appropriately waived inasmuch as they were issued
while thecarwas being usedforofficial

business"

and

that

twentyny of the 44 appear to have been waived in error, for the
car apparently was not being used for official business at thetime that theywere

issued."The

Committee

has reviewed

accepts Representative Frank's analysis and doesandnot challenge

his characterization of when or why the automobile was being used
for official purposes on the 11 occasions identified.
With respect

to

the

remaining

13

tickets,

Representative

Frank was not "able to determine the purposes for which the car
was being used."
whetherthe *unanswered*Thus, he stated that he was "uncertain as to* waivers were appropriate."questionwithrespect

totheBecause of thespecificnatureandpurpose for which his automobile was being used, Representative
Frank informed the Committee that he is "willing to resolve theambiguity here against myself by treating these 13 as having been
waived in error."- 3,I -

In light of the foregoing, the Committee concludes that of
the 44 parking tickets received during the period April 1, 1985,
through December 31, 1987, Representative Frank either sought or
received the administrative dismissal of 33 parking tickets forwhich Representative
adequatebasis

official

purposes.

Frank himself instructs that there was no

indicating

his

The

automobile

Committee

was

being

furtherusedforconcludes

that

Representative Frank should take steps to negate fully any suchfinancial benefit.
Accordingly, the Committee directs Representative Frank tomake full restitution to the District of Columbia for the valueof theor

33 tickets dismissed due to the absence of any statement

indicationthat his

automobile was being used for official

purposes.
D.

Alleged Sexual Activity in the House GymnasiumThe

fourthPreliminary

major

Inquiry

areaofconcerned

focus

in

assertions

the

that

Committee's

Representative

Frank and Mr. Gobie had engaged in sexual activity in the House
gymnasium.

Duringhis December 6, 1989,

deposition, Mr. Gobie

was questioned about this matter.
According to Mr. Gobie, he was in the House gymnasium about"three or four times" with Representative Frank.
onlyoccasion

1986.

In

he

could

supportofRepresentative

Frank

in

specificallyhistheHowever, therememberwascontention

that

he

had

facility,

Mr.

Gobie

accurate description of the general floor plan.

January
been

1,

with

providedan

Mr. Gobie statedthat he believed the first visit to the gymnasium was on January

35
1, 1986.
Mr.
sexualGobie

activity

and

which

asked about

been

had

reportedtheassertionofnewspaperin various

Gobie stated that after using various facilities

Mr.

articles.

specificallywasequipment

inthe

gymnasium,

he

and

Frank

Representative

separately undertook sexual activity "in front of George Bush's
He further stated that such activity also took place on

locker."the"two orthree"

occasions

other

was

present

else

above.

He also indicatedelsewhere

in

the

to

observethatfacilitythethe sameduring

he

which

was

in

the

Mr. Gobie also stated thatgymnasium with Representative Frank.
nobodyinhisdescribed

activities

activities took place
later

visitstothegymnasium.
With respect to then-Vice President Bush's locker, Mr. Gobie
said that "it was ajar, half open.
that

while hedid not

We looked inside, yes."touch anythinginsideHethefurthersaidlocker,"we joked about throwing a copy of The Washington Bladein the locker and circling some escort ads in red pen. * * * Justa joke."DuringFrank, thethe December 11,

1989,

interview of Representative

congressman was asked about Mr. Gobie's assertions.

The congressman acknowledged that Mr. Gobie did,in fact, join

him in the House gymnasium "maybe in late 1985 or early 1986."
Concerning

Mr.

Gobie'sassertionofsexualactivity,

following exchange occurred during the interview.
Would youQ.
joined you inperiod?

recall whether Mr. Gobie ever
the gymnasium during a holiday

-35-

the

36
It might
That might have been that time.
A.
have been during a holiday period, sure.
And do you recall the time that he joined you
Q.
there, late 1985, early 1986, was there any otherWas this during when the gym wasstaff present?
normally closed?
A.
My recollection is that there was nobody else
present, but I can't be sure of that.

With respect to Mr. Gobie's joining you inQ.
the gymnasium, I understood you to say that at notime did you engage in sexual activity -- I am
sorry, in sex with Mr. Gobie?
A.
At the gym.
said that.

That

is absolutely correct.

I

Q.
To the best of your recollection, did any
sexual activity take place not involving Mr. Gobie
at the gym when he was present with you at thegym?
A.
With me?
Absolutely not.
I mean, let me
answer that in various ways. First of all, I wasnever at the gym with Mr. Gobie and anybody else
who was, if there was somebody else there, if
there was anybody else, they were members of thestaff or,perhaps, gym staff.
So if thesuggestion that he has made or anybody has madethat there was somebody at the gynm who was not a
regularly authorized gym goer, other than Mr.
Gobie, that is an absolute lie. I have never had
sex with anyone in the gym nor have I heard ofother people doing it.
So I think the wholebusiness is grossly exaggerated.
I can't see howanyone could have. The whole notion, the way they
were describing it, out in the locker room, which
is where the doors open from the swimming pool,that is the craziest notion. I will agree that I
behavedin ways that were
inappropriate andstupid, for which I feel very badly.
But at no point, having sex with someone in
the open area of the gym would have remotely been
anything I wanted to do or if I did think it wasat all reasonable. But I never had sex in the gym
with Mr. Gobie nor anyone else, and I was notthere with anyone else who was not authorized to37
be in the gym.
Q.
Did anything of . sexual nature take place inthe gymnasium facility involving you?
A.

No.

In reaching a conclusion with respect to the merits of theassertionofsexualactivity,

consideration the facts that:
Mr. Gobie was nottheCommittee

has

taken

into

First, the information provided bysubject to any corroboration

since no otherindividuals were claimed by Mr. Gobie to have been present when
the alleged activity

purportedly

questioned

matter,

about

the

unequivocally denied
light,

thetook place;andsecond, when

Representative Frankclearly andvalidity of

the Committee concludes

theassertions.

In thisthat while Representative Frankshould not have taken Mr. Gobie into the House gymnasium --inviolation of gymnasium rules -- the assertions made by Mr. Gobie
regarding sexual activity in the House gymnasium are unsupported
and do not warrant further action by the Committee.
E.

Conclusions with Respect
Gobie
While

respect

much

to

has

been

Representative

to the Credibility of

said,

written,

BarneyStephen L. Gobie, it is clear

andFrank'sthat most,

Stephen L.

speculatedwithrelationship

with

if

not all,of suchmedia attention has been the product of assertions made by Mr.
Gobie.

As has been discussed in detail in prior sections of thisReport, the Committee went to great lengths in seeking testimony
or

other

information relevantto the assertions.

instances where an assertion made by Mr. Gobieor

duringhis

Committee

deposition)
-37-

was

In numerous(either publicly
investigated

for

38
accuracy,theassertion

was

contradicted bythird-party

testimony or other evidence of Mr. Gobie himself.

sworn

As examples,the following presents a summary of the factual assertions madeby Mr. Gobie and the results of the Committee's findings.
.Mr. Gobie's Assertion:
Mr. Gobie repeatedly andpublicly alleged that Representative Frank wasaware that Mr. Gobie was arranging or conducting"escort service" activities in the congressman's
Washington, D. C. residence that involved sexual
activity.
In his sworn testimony, Mr.
*Committee Finding:Gobie expressly denied ever having apprised thecongressman directly or indirectly that suchactivity was taking place in the congressman's
apartment; or even having knowledge of any sexual
activity in the apartment.

0
During his deposition,
Mr. Gobie's Assertion:
Mr. Gobie asserted that he arranged to have calls
forwarded from two telephone numbers to thefacilitate
theapartmenttocongressman's
He indicatedoperation of his "escort service".
that call forwarding occurred up to August 1987.

*Committee Finding: While one witness stated that
he understood that Mr. Gobie used call-forwarding
during the Summer of 1987, the telephone company
stated that no records were available for 1986, nocall-forwarding service was provided to one of thesuch service wasnumbers in 1987, and thatterminated on February 13, 1987, with respect toThus, Mr. Gobie's assertion
the second number.
that calls were forwarded to the congressman's
apartment up to August, 1987, was contradicted byrecords of the telephone company.

Mr. Gobie asserted that
*Mr. Gobie's Assertion:
Representative Frank applied pressure on both his
Probation Officer, Ms. Johnston, and the therapist
with whom he was meeting, Ms. Valladares, in aneffort to obtain favorable disposition of Mr.
Gobie's probation.
*Committee Finding:

Both

Ms.

Johnston and Ms.

Valladares, under oath, when confronted with Mr.
Gobie's assertions, expressly denied any suchpressure was brought to bear by the congressman.
Moreover, both individuals emphasized that in his
limited communications or dealings with them,
Representative Frank's communications were totally
appropriate and the fact that he was a Member ofCongressinnoway
enteredinto
theirconsiderations
inthe administrationof Mr.
Gobie's probation.
Testimony of a former associate of Mr. Gobie
Becauseof

press

prostitute who had

accounts

indicating

that

a

formerbeen associated with Mr. Gobie stated

that

Representative Frank had knowledge of the use of his apartment
forarrangingorconducting

illegalactivities,

the Committee

contacted the individual and obtained her testimony on May 10,
1990, with a quorum of the full Committee present.
maintain the confidentiality of thisindividual'

In order to
identity, theCommittee is not identifying the person but points out that her
testimony was obtained voluntarily and under oath.
During the May 10, 1990, deposition, the witness responded
to questions and provided information concerning: her association
with Mr.

Gobie;

activities

Frank's apartment;her

the basis for

view

her

certain activities
residence.
The

which

transpiredin Representative

contacts with Representative Frank;

which

that

the congressman had

took

place

in

his

and

knowledge ofWashington,

D.C.

The following summarizes the testimony obtained.

witness

testified

that

she

first

met

Mr.

Gobie

in

September, 1986, when she responded to an advertisement seeking
models and/or escorts.
Gobie,

thewitness

In describing her

stated

that

while

association with Mr.
rates

and

fees

were

40
discussed, the matter of whether sexual activity would take placewith a client was left totally to her discretion.
her

She described

relationship with Mr. Gobie as basically a partnership in

which Mr. Gobie would transact ahead of time the payment of fee
withthe client.

The agreed-upon

fee would be split with her,with Mr. Gobie keeping one-third.

The witness characterized her

activities

asdistinction

an

upon

escort andnota prostitute

the

that

whateverfact

and basedsexualthat

activitytranspired between her and a client was of her choosing at thetime of an encounter, not by prearrangement.
The witness recalled that the first time she met the person
whom she later

learned was Representative Frank was during thewinter of 1986 when Mr. Gobie was living on 25th Street, N.W., in
Washington, D.C.

On

that occasion, she stated she was leaving

Mr. Gobie'q apartment and, as she was doing so, Mr. Frank and Mr.
Gobie

came

"Barney".

into

the

apartment

and

she

was

She described her encounter withintroduced

tothe congressman as

brief, and said she was not aware that "Barney" was a Member ofCongress.
anDuring her testimony she indicated that she spoke withindividual

whom she believed

to be

Representative Frank on

several occasions during the period after first having met him in
the winter of 1986 but before June, 1987, when "B" would call for"Greg" at the25th Street apartment.

However,that those contacts with the congressman were on

she made clear
the telephone

and not in person.
The witness testified that at the time she met Mr. Frank in
December

1986

she

was

workingwith Mr.

Gobie

in

the

escortbusiness.

Shetestified that Mr. Gobie did not ever

tell

her

Representative Frank knew about her business

relationship with

Mr. Gobie andnotthat Representative

Frank had

independently

expressed awareness to her of that business association
believemaybe

friends".

he

The[Representative
witnessalsoFrank]

stated

she

"I do

--

just

thought we

had

no

were

knowledgeofwhether Mr. Frank knew that Mr. Gobie was in the escort business.
Thewitness said

that

she was aware of sexual

activities

occurring in Representative Frank's apartment during the period
June through July, 1987, but that she had no personal knowledgeof any sexual activity occurring in the congressman's

residenceprior to or after that period.
Thewitnessrecalled

that

the

first

congressman's apartment was on June 17,
she

did

not

know

at

the

time

time

she wasinthe

1987, however, she said

that

the

residence

wasRepresentative Frank's, only that it was "Barney's apartment."
It was not until her second visit to his residence on June
25,

1987

that

Congress.

she understood itThisfactors:Mr.

realization

Gobie

havingwasthehome ofapparently

indicated

to

was
her

a Member

based
that

her

on

of
two

clientcontact was taking place in the home of an important person and,second,theindicating

fact

that

she

the congressionaltime, June 25,

1987, Mr.

saw

apparently"proclamations"status of

the resident.

Gobie told her that

At

that

the residence wasthat of a congressman from Massachusetts, Representative Barney
Frank.
The witness

statedthat

sheundertookclientactivityinFrank's

Representative

occasions during
clear

that

she

the June through
had

D.C.,

Washington,

no personalonresidence

July, 1987 period;
knowledge of

any

6 to

8

she made

activity or

client contact in the congressman's apartment during the month ofAugust, 1987.
With

respect

congressman's

to

her

6

to

8

clientencountersapartment,

thewitness

statedinvolved sexual activity.

Of

these,

two events

June and one occurredin July, 1987.

that

in

only

the
three

took place in

The witness stated that

Representative Frank was not present on any of those occasions;that Mr. Gobie

joined her in sexual activity with a client on

only one such occasion; and that no client encounters took place
on weekends.
DuringtheRepresentative

courseFrank'qof

thisindividual's

apartment,

she

6-8

stated that

visitssheto

did not

have any occasion to meet or speak with Representative Frank's
landlords.
When questioned about her contacts with Representative FrankduringtheJune-Julyrecollection that she

period,thewitness

was

clear

in

her

only had one telephone conversation with

the individual whom she believed was Representative Frank while
she was at his apartment in June, 1987 and that such

telephoneconversation took place on Thursday, June 25, 1987, between 3:30
and 4:15 in the afternoon.
The
brief,

witnessduringdescribed

which

the

the

subject

individual

whom

conversationshe

asbelieved

very
to

be

Representative Frank inquired if "Greg" was there; asked if there

-42-

43

not

conversationashimself

identify
occur

duringorshecallerthewithRepresentative

through

July

31,

not

1987,

explicitly

this one conversation, she had no other telephone

contact

theincluding

Frank

while

1987,

the witness(Moreover,any

The witness stateddiscussed the occurrence of sexual activity.
that, but fornor didFrank

Representative

which

and

The caller, however,said he would "be home in 15-20 minutes."
did

was clean;

the residence

asked if"client" present;

was aduringtheperiod

was

at

his

she

of

time

17

apartment.

from

October

1986 totelephone callof June

25,

that,

said

spoke on the phone with Representative Frank
total

June

June,

1987,

she

"maybe twice" andfourcontacts with Representative

once(December 1986)

her

that

the

Frank

(eitherphone-- three times) was "maybe five to six minutes;" and thatin person --

--

or on

the

she had no recollection of ever seeing or hearing Representative
Frank on radio or television.
Shestatedthat because

she believed

theindividualwithwhom she spoke on the telephone was Representative Frank (becauseshe"recognized the voice" *northern

accent"),

and

based

* * Maybe slightly
upon

the

above, she personally concluded thata lisp and aconversation

described

the congressman knew that

his apartment was being used by Mr. Gobie for business purposes.
The witness stated that she had no personal knowledge of any
discussion between Mr.

Gobie

and Mr.

Frank

in which Mr. Gobie

apprised the congressman of the activities he was undertaking in
the latter's apartment nor did she recall that Mr. Gobie told her
about any such conversation.
-43-

During the deposition, the witness was questioned about anarticle appearing in the March edition of a magazine as well as aWith respect to the magazine article,

May 1, 1990 news report.

she stated that she believed it was she who was referred to as"Lyn" but that the reference in the article to the "operation"
wasapartment

congressman's

the

in

conducted

aboutsomething

In fact, her use of thewhich she had no definite understanding.
word"baloney" as quoted in the article referred to her belief

that

Representative

home

his

knew

Frank

was

used

being

for

"something" but not specifically prostitution activities.
report, the witness stated

Regarding the May 1, 1990, news
the

not

tell

RepresentativeFrank"two or three

she

said

she

which

was

"an

that

fact,

a quotation
thewitness

she had only one telephone conversation witharticlein thephrase

In

with

spoke

reporter exactly what she told theIn addition, with respect

Representative Frank at his apartment.
to theshetimes a week",

exaggeration".

testified that she told theCommittee --thatreporter

did

that

that

Representative

"knew

Frank

prostitutes were using his Capitol Hill apartment as a bordello",
she

that

she

had no knowledge

herself

orMr.

statedbesideof any

using

Gobie

other

individual

Representative

Frank'sapartment nor had the word "bordello" been used during the courseof her interview by the reporter.
The

witness

statedoccasion

duringwhich

activities

that
Mr.

she

Gobie

only

had

himself

knowledge
engaged

in

of

one

escortin the congressman's apartment and that she was notaware about either what occurred on that occasion or whether Mr.

Gobie communicated to Representative Frank about what took placeat that time.
OBSERVATIONS
Notwithstanding
contrary,

it

is

press

clear

accounts

that

the

or

suggestions

witnesswhotoprovided

the
sworn

testimony to the Committee on May 10, 1990, claimed knowledge ofescort/prostitution

activities

in

Representative

Frank'sapartment only during the period June 17 through July 31, 1987.
Furthermore, of
engagedina maximum ofclientactivityeight occasionsatthein which she wascongressman's

residence,

conduct of a sexual nature took place on only three occasions andonly once --June 25,

1987 --

did she have what she believed to

be a brief conversation with Representative Frank.

Moreover, thewitness was aware of only one occasion on which Mr. Gobie himself
used the congressman's residence when she was not present but she
did

not

know

importance

the

is

the

nature
fact

of

the

that

activity
duringinvolved.

the

brief

Also

of

telephoneconversation she had with the individual whom she believed to be
Representative Frank on June 25, 1987, the conversation did not
involve any expression of knowledge about sexual activity nor did
she volunteer such.

And, finally, the witness was unaware of any

conversation

which Mr.

duringGobie

told RepresentativeFrank

about his activities in the congressman's apartment.
Testimony of an individual whom Mr. Gobie alleged
Representative Frank in deceiving Probation Officials

assisted

On May 23, 1990, the Committee deposed an individual who had
been described by Mr. Gobie as having personal knowledge about

46
Mr.

association

Gobie'swith Representative

Frank

as

well ashaving participated in a "scheme" to deceive probation officials
Gobie resided with Representative Frank

into believing that Mr.
at

the

(In

apartment.

congressman's

order

to

maintaintheconfidentiality of the identity of this person, the Committee is
not disclosing either the individual's name or other identifying
information.)
During his testimony, Mr. Gobie stated that on one occasion
duringhis

probation, heprobation officials at

met withMr.

residence of Representative Frank.

Gobie statedthethat theindividual whom the Committee deposed on May 23, 1990, joined him
at Representative Frank's apartment
for

Mr.

Gobie.

In

thisin orderregard,Mr.

to provide support

Gobie

statedthatinpreparing for the meeting with probation officials, both he andthesubject

individual

obtainarticleseffectswhich

first went to Mr.

of

Mr.

Gobie's

were

then

"scattered"apartmentin orderliving attheto givetheresidence toGobie's

clothing

and

other

personal

in Representative Frank's

appearance

congressman's residence.

Mr.

that

Mr.

Gobie wasGobie stated thatwhen the meeting with probation officials was over, he and theindividual then gathered up the various articles, and drove backto Mr. Gobie's apartment where the articles were then returned.
When questioned about Mr. Gobie's allegation, the Committee
was

told

that

apartment andthiswitness

departed

alone

went

alone

after

the

to

the

meeting.

congressman'sThewitnessdenied that there had been any activity in which he assisted Mr.
Gobie

in

obtaining Mr.

Gobie's

clothing, placing

them inthecongressman's apartment, or later returning the articles to Mr.
Gobie's residence.

The witness described the reason for meetingwith probation officials as being forthe purpose of providing

support to Mr. Gobie at Mr. Gobie's expressed request to do so.
Concerning otherbeliefthatMr.

matters,

Gobie had

the witness

indicated

also

that

he

expressed

wasworkingtheforRepresentative Frank as a congressional aide and also undertook
personal tasks for the congressman.
The witness also indicated awareness ofthe fact

that Mr.

Gobie was operating an escort business, although Mr. Gobie never
specifically discussed the detailsof that operation and neverindicated that Mr. Gobie was using Representative Frank's housethatin connection withbusiness.

The witness

also

said Mr.

Gobie did not ever state that Representative Frank was aware oftheescortnor

servicewasthematterever

discussed

withRepresentative Frank.
Testimony of another individual
about Mr. Gobie's activities.
A May

1, 1990,"male witness"matter.

news story

reportedly

reported

had

contactknowledge

with another

who was described as having knowledge about Mr.

Gobie's activities
the

who

and discussion with Representative Frank on

Specifically,

the

story

reported

that

this

individual said "that Mr. Frank was also aware that Mr. Gobie * ** workedfora prostitution ring

throughout the period [of thecongressman's relationship with Mr. Gobie]."
that

this

individual

indicated

that

Mr.

The article statedGobie"helped operate

another escort service [Saxons] at the same time he says he was

-47-

48
The news

operating his own business from Mr. Frank's apartment."
story also reported that on one social occasion --a dinner atwhich Representative Frank and Mr. Gobie were in attendance -the operation of Saxons, an escort service of Mr. Richard Allen,
wasFinally,

discussed.
"I don't

statingbelievethe article quoted the individual
he

knew

Frank][Representative

as

that

Steve was running the business out of his house * * *."On May 31,

1990,

the

Committee swore

in and deposed thisindividual, whose identity is being protected at the request of
the

The

witness.

followingthesummarizes

testimonysworn

provided by the subject individual.
The witness testified that he did not tell the reporter that
RepresentativeFrank

was awareof anyprostitution

activities

engaged in by Mr. Gobie during the period 1985 through 1987.

In

this witness stated that he was not aware that Mr. Gobie

fact,

was involved in any prostitution activities at all.
The witness further testified that Mr.
participation

regularinservice to his knowledge.
three- or
Saxons

the

had

of

the

Saxonsarranged,

Gobie answered phone calls forwithout

Mr.

Allen'sknowledge

approval, for a client to come to Mr. Allen's apartment.
became

aware

of

Mr.

escort

The individual testified that during afour-day period, Mr.

andoperation

Gobie did not have

Gobie'sunauthorized

action,Mr.

orWhen heAllenreportedly became very angry and told Mr. Gobie "not to come backanymore."According to the witness,

the above-described phone-answering activities were the only involvement Mr. Gobie had with
Saxons of which he was aware.

The witness

specificallytook

issue with and disputed theaccuracy of the May 1, 1990, news article with respect to thestatement

thaton onedinneroccasion at

Frank and Mr. Gobie were present,
escort service were discussed.
make

this

occur -withstatement because

which

Representative

the operations of the Saxons

The witness said that he did notthepurported discussion did

notthe witness testified that the dinner conversation dealt

legislation

and

the

fact

that

Representative

Frank

had

publicly acknowledged his sexual preference.
While this witness stated that he understood Mr. Gobie usedcall-forwarding, he also stated that he was unaware of any callforwarding that may have taken place involving calls placed to
the Saxon's escort service being routed to the telephone at theresidence of Representative Frank.

(The Committee again notes inthis regard that the records of the telephone company expressly
contradicted Mr. Gobie's claim that calls were forwarded from the
Saxons telephone number

to Representative Frank's

apartment at

any time after February 13, 1987.)
With

respect

concerning

to

the

Representative

quote

attributed

Frank'stoawareness

the

that

individual"Stevewasrunning the business out of his house,"

the witness stated that

he did not makestatement because

he did not

know.

Mr.

such

him,

stated

that

In

this

Gobie

never

this

indicated

Representative

Frank

was

activity
aware

of

to
such

nor

actions.

connection, the witness stated that he had never discussed Mr.
Gobie's activities with either Mr. Gobie or Representative Frank.
In view of the foregoing, the Committee concludes that the
-49-

50
sworn testimony of this witness does not provide any support tothe publicof

conduct

assertions or allegations made with respect
Representative

Frank

or

any

activities

to theMr.

Gobie

assertedly undertook in the congressman's apartment.
Other evidence bearing on Mr. Gobie's credibilityIntoadditiontheforegoing,theobtained yet

Committee

other information bearing on Mr. Gobie's credibility.
For

example,

Mr.

Gobie

that,

in

Decemberdeposition

told

the

1987,

Committee
whenduring

his

was

using

he

Representative Frank's automobile, one of the windows was broken
and that he contacted both the congressman in Massachusetts and
Ms.

Patricia

Hamel,

thecongressman's

personal

their homes to arrange replacement of the window.
theabsence ofrecords(the Committee

secretary,atWhile, due tocontacted thetelephonecompany to obtain proof of such a long distance telephone call to
Massachusetts, but no such records were available), the Committee
could

not

establish

theaccuracyofMr.

Gobie'sstatement

regarding use of the telephone, Ms. Hamel informed the Committee,
under oath, that Mr. Gobie had never called her about the matter,either at home or at the office.

Furthermore, records obtained

from Representative Frank's automobile insurance company clearly
indicate that it was Mr. Gobie who signed the necessary insurance
documents to obtain replacement of the window -appears on

the

form.

There

is

no

his signature

indication whatsoever

that

Representative Frank had any knowledge of this event prior to thetime it was reported in the news media.
Perhaps the most significant indications of the weight to be51
given to Mr. Gobie's testimony derive not from what he told theCommittee

andwhethersuchanassertion

was

supported

rather, from what Mr. Gobie did not tell the committee.
Mr.

Gobie

asserting

had
that

been

consistently

he arranged

or

and

repeatedly

conducted certain

but,

Becausequotedasactivities

in

Representative Frank's apartment, the Committee sought to obtainfrom him documentary evidence supporting

those assertions.

this end, the subpoena issued to Mr. Gobie on November 17,
directed not

only that

To
1989,

he testify under oath but also that hesubmit to the Committee-Any and all records, documents or memoranda,
including but not limited to appointment calendars
and rolodexes, of whatever kind or character,concerning any activities that you engaged in forthe purpose of prostitution and which occurred
within the residence of Representative Barney
Frank located at 210 8th Street, S.E., Washington,
D.C. 20003.
The

Committee

First,

such

subpoenaed

such

information

documents would support Mr.

for

Gobie'stworeasons:

claim that heoperated a "escort business" out of the congressman's apartment
totheextentthatappointments

forwould be reflected in the records,

clientsofthatbusiness

not only as to the time ofsuch engagements but also as to the place -- e.g., Representative
Frank'- residence --the services were to be provided.

Second,and of equal importance, was the fact that in the September 25,
1989, issue of Newsweek, Mr. Gobie was quoted as saying-If I were interested in ruining half ofWashington, all I'd have to do is open my Rolodex.
(See, also,

a

news

articlepreparedAugust 29, 1989, to the same effect.)
-51-

by

StatesNews

Service,withcomplyproduction

the

of

failureGobie's

Because of Mr.

Committee's

with

subpoena

inability) torespect

to

the

up

on

this

followed

staff

Committee

records,(or claimed

Accordingly, subsequent to the deposition, in response

matter.

to the request that Mr. Gobie submit the required documentation,
Mr.

Gobie

submitted

December 16, 1989,

thedated and signed on

letterfollowing

to the Committee:

to yourin response
Gobie,
I, Stephen
request, do hereby state that I do not have in mypossession the items requested by the Committee onStandards of Official Conduct of the House ofBooks,
Appointment(i.e.
Representatives
I do not know at this time where
Rolodexes).
these items are. Upon finding these items, I willaspromptly
Committee
the
them
over
turn
requested.
To date, Mr. Gobie has not provided any material responsive to
It can only be speculated whether such

the Committee'A subpoena.

documents ever existed or whether Mr. Gobie has simply not beenable to comply with the direction that such materials be provided
to the Committee.
Gobie has

Accordingly, it need only be stated that Mr.

not provided any documents or

his assertions that he,in fact,

information to support

operated his "escort service"out of Representative Frank's apartment.
In addition to not providing any of the documents covered by
the Committee's subpoena, there were other matters on which Mr.
Gobie

not

did

allegations.

In

provideinformation

particular,

Mr. Gobie
U.S.

invoked his

Constitution

toresponseinCommittee's questions during his

Decemberrights under
avoid

to

the

support
to

own

of

the

several6, 1989,

deposition,

Fifth Amendment

self-incrimination.
-52-

his

to theWhile

theCommitteeemphasizes

thatConstitutional

privilege

inference

the

by

Mr.
has

Gobie'snot

Committee

asdecisiontoassertbeen

accordedany

negative

his

personal

exposure

to

a

to

prosecution, in order to make a full report on the results of theCommittee's

Preliminary

Inquiry,

the

fact

of

such

claimsofprivilege are here disclosed.
In summary, the testimony provided by Mr. Gobie has, in manycases,

been

contradictedorrefutedbyothertestimonyor

documentary evidence.
IV.

this

In reachinga decisionon the appropriate disposition ofcase,Committee

was

the

considerations:guidedbyseveralimportant

The assertions made with regard to the conductof Representative Frank;
theRECOMMENDATION

contextofthe credibility of Stephen L. Gobie in

evidence(testimonial

contradicting his assertions;anddocumentary)

the credibility of other witnesses,

including the congressman; and the fact that Representative Frankhas

acknowledged

acknowledged

the

his

exerciseliability

for

of
all

poor

judgmentandhasparking

tickets

that

were

dismissed in the absence of evidence indicating the conduct ofofficial activity.
Concerning Representative Frank's activities which have been
identified

asconsiderationinterview,

inappropriate,
the

fact

that

the congressmantheCommittee
hisduringclearly and

has

taken

into

11,

1989,

Decemberunambiguously

expressed

regret for his actions and accepted full responsibility for any
parking

tickets

that

were

dismissed-53-

regardless ofwhetherhe54
initiatedsuchadministrative

action.

Specifically,thecongressman dealt squarely with his relationship with Mr. Gobie
and the actions he took during that period:
Does it strike you that there is anythingQ.
incongruous between your writing letters vouching
--

if

that

is

the

right

word --

for Mr.

Gobie's

employment and the same period of time where you
have some impression or knowledge that he isengaging in prostitution, personal or otherwise?
anyme
I am not drawing
juststrikesIt
I am just asking, here is a person
conclusions.
who is on probation.
A.
I have to say it strikes me as something I
I began, and I will tellshould not have done.
you again, with chagrin, that I did not handle thepressures of having a public life, of being acloseted gay man, nearly as well as I shouldhave. I do think I managed to confine most of thedamage to myself.
But when you are in a public
position, inevitably something spills over.

I just want to express my very deep regret
and apology to you as my colleagues, I would
repeat, as I look back on this, it is a mixture ofexcessive casualness about my personal financial
affairs that I can understand, I guess I always
figured if it was my money, I guess that would beokay.
Beyond that, it has created, I did things I
shouldn't have done.
I do take some heart fromthe fact that, for the reason I talked about andacknowledged in '87, I kind of changed things.
But I don't deny I did things I shouldn't havedone.
I hope I have been able to answer all ofthe questions.
It was a mix.
As I said, I didsome things I shouldn't have done.
I got accusedof a lot more. I appreciate the chance for trying
to differentiate them.
(See, also, the congressman'q February 27,

1990,

letterto thehisrightsunderCommittee, Appendix I.)
Representative
Committee Rules

11,

Frank
12,

expressly
and 16,-54-

towaivedreceipt of a Statement of55
AllegedViolation,andPhasesHearing.

This enabled the Committee to reach factual conclusions

1

and

2

of

a

Disciplinary

regarding the evidence received during the Preliminary Inquiry,
and to proceed immediately to consideration of sanction.
The

Committee's

Preliminary

Inquiry

establishedthat

Representative Frank acted improperly when he sought or accepted
administrative

dismissalof33

Representative

Frank

Mr.

Gobie

or

parkingowing

tickets

incurredtocongressman's

the

by

status as a Member of Congress, for which he himself has admitted
that aninadequate

basis

existsindicating

official

activity.

While the Committee recognizes that Representative Frank did notseek dismissal of all such citations, he nevertheless received afinancial

benefitwaived.

The

Frank

due

Committeeshould makeColumbia

fortorespectivefines

furtherconcludesthat

restitution

tothe Districtofdismissedtheabsenceanappropriate

parkingadequate basis

thetickets

indicatinginofficial activity.

havingbeen

Representative

In thisofspecific

regard, the Committee so directs Representative Frank.
The Committee also concludes that Representative Frank acted
improperly in another matter related to his status as a Member ofCongress.
from theAs discussed in this Report,
files

Memorandum

of

dated

the
April

Commonwealth
16,

1986,

the Committee obtained

Attorneypreparedin Alexandria, a
byRepresentative

Frank.

While Representative Frank did not personally send

subject

document toacknowledged that

the Commonwealth Attorney, hetheneverthelessit contained misleading statements which werefavorable to Mr. Gobie.
-55-

56
Representative Frank reasonably should have anticipated that
the

1986

Memorandum

officials.
resulting

might

be

communicated

to

law

enforcement

The congressman set into motion a series of contacts
inAttorney.

that

As

a

document
result,

being

the

sent

to

misleadingtheCommonwealthstatements

could

be

perceived as an attempt to use political influence to affect theadministration of Mr. Gobie's
apparently

had

no

inappropriateness

such

of

probation.

affectdoes

communicating

That
not

the Memorandum

detract

misleading

from

the

statements which

could have affected the administration of Mr. Gobie's probation.
In

view

of

Representative

theabove,

Frank'stheimproperCommittee

conductinconcludes

thatconnection

withparking tickets and the 1986 Memorandum reflected discredit upon
the

House

in

violation

of

House

Rule

XLIII,

Clause1, andwarrants reprimand.
The adoption of
Accordingly,

thethis Report

Committee

shall constitute a reprimand.

recommends

that

the

House

Resolution in the following form:

HOUSE RESOLUTION

Resolved, That
adopt

the

Official

the House of Representatives

report by the Committee on

Conduct

dated

July

20,

Standards of1990,

matter of Representative Barney Frank.

in

the

adopt

a

This Report was approved by the Committee by a vote of 12ayes; 0 nays.

STATEMENT UNDER RULE XI, CLAUSE 2(I)(3)(A)The Committee's oversight findings andas stated above.

recommendations are

No budget statement is submitted.

-57-

58
EMIBIT 1a-.................
++,o-1.0|. t~ou~e of 3AtPrt~entatibet..........
Commitua on *Ianbarbg of O1fdial Conbuct
itt I2 lb. CpIS
*ast'ngton.
&C 20515
September

12,

1989

RESOLUT ION

WHEREAS,ofaware
BarneytheCommittee

assertions
in

Frank

on Standards

relating

connectionof Official Conduct
of

to

the

conductwith

his

employment

isRepresentative
aof

personal

assistant; andWHEREAS,furtherthe Committee has determined that the matters meritinquiry;

NOW, THEREFORE, BEaPreliminary

determine

Inquiry

whether

Official

Conduct

applicable

BE

or

-he

a

law,

to his conductIT

FURTHER

MemberCommittee,

arethingsdeemed

to

rule,

Rule

violated

regulation

or

11(a)

to

Code

of

the
other

standardin the performance of his duties or
andRESOLVED,

that

the

Chairmanauthorized

to

issue

subpoenas

eitherforthetakingthat all

producedpursuant

havetaken,

been

Committee

Frankresponsibilities;

production of records, andortopursuant

Representative

the discharge of his

Minority

IT RESOLVED, that this Committee conduct

to

of

and

in

Ranking

on behalf

depositions

or

of
the

testimony taken by deposition

subpoena or

produced, orotherwise

furnished

in

shall

be

Executive

Session; andIT

FURTHERRESOLVED,

immediatelyBE

notifiedofpursuant

this

that

Representative

action andto the Rules of this Committee.

informed of

Frank
his

be

rights

59E)HIBIT 2....
=..UCY-

nn

~a a.

,i *

caked

8A..4|fflI Cnstua
Ceu.(ts m *tanbrW*-

January 5, 1990

Mrs. Mary Jo Daugherty
8th Personnel Command
APO San Francisco, California

96301

Dear Mrs. Daugherty:
As you are aware, the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct has initiated a Preliminary Inquiry in connection withRepresentative Frank's relationship with Mr. Stephen L. Gobie. A
copy of the September 12, 1989, Resolution of Preliminary Inquiry
is enclosed.
The Committee would appreciate your providing information
thelarge part,In
investigation.
relevant to the subject
torelatedesiredareresponses
your
to
which
questionsof
Declaration
in
your
under
oath
you
provided
information which
October 25, 1989, copy enclosed, regarding Mr. Gobie's activities
theIn
this connection,
residence.
atthe congressman's
to theall periods relevantforCommittee understands that
Committee's Preliminary Inquiry, Representative Frank has resided
in a basement apartment that you and your husband own at 210 8thStreet, S.E., Washington, D.C.
Based upon the foregoing, the Committee
your responses to the following questions:
i.

would

appreciate

When did you first meet Representative Frank?

firstcongressman
When
did the2.
Street,8th
210
atlocatedapartment
Washington, D.C., from you?

rent
S.E.,

the
in

socialamaintained
ever
you
Have
3.
If so, please
relationship with Representative Frank?
describe the nature and extent of such social contacts.
Ifsave you ever met Mr. Stephen L. Gobie?
4.
so, please describe when and the circumstances giving
rise to that introduction.
Did Representative Frank ever describe to you
5.
For
the nature of his relationship with Mr. Gobie?
example, please explain whether the relationship was

60
Mrs. Macy Jo Dauqherty
January S, 1990
Page 2

characterized as purely personal or as one more in thenature of an employer/employee relationship in which
Mr. Goble performed various administrative tasks forthe congressman.
To the best of your knowledge, did Mr. Gobie
6.
ever perform administrative or housekeeping tasks forIf so, please describe.
Representative Frank?
If the answer to question 6, above, is in the7.
affirmative, to your knowledge did Representative Frank
compensate Mr. Gobie for performing such administrative
tasks?
Did Representative Frank8.
you how he came to know Mr. Gobie?

everdiscusswith9.
Did Mr. Gobie have access to Representative
Frank's apartment when the congressman was not at home?
10.
To the best of your knowledge, did Mr. Gobie
have access to, and use of, Representative Frank's
automobile, when the congressman was not at home?
11.
To the best of your knowledge, what was thenature of Mr. Gobie's profession or
income earning
activity?
Please describe how and when you reached
this
conclusion,
and whether(and why) yourview
changed over time.
12.
stated:In

your

October

25,

1989,

Decaration,you

I can remember only one occasion prior to thespring/summer of 1987, on which I complained
to Congressman Frank about a matter relating
to Gobie's presence.
That was when a young
woman began staying with Gobie.
I told theCongressman that I didn't want her around.
I
didn't see her after that.
What did you tell Representative Frank about the woman
and/or Mr. Gobie?
Why did you tell the congressman you
did not want the young woman "around*?
Did you know
the woman?
How often did you see the woman, and did
she stay overnight inthe congressman's apartment?
What was Representative Frank's reaction?

61
Mrs. Mary Jo Daugherty
January 5, 1990
Page 3

13.
According to your October
you stated:

25, 1989,

Declaration,

Sometime in the summer of 1987, 1 becameaware that a number of different women would
visit Gobie and that, on one occasion, men
whom I didn't recognize visited briefly andleft.
Until this type of activity began tooccur, it never dawned on me that prostitution might be taking place.
I am confident
that this sort of activity was not taking
place prior to this time because I was in thehouse almost all of the time and would haveobserved it. When this activity commenced, I
intensified
myobservation
andbecameconcerned that Gobie was acting improperly.
On what specific basis did you draw the conclusion thatprostitution might, in fact, be taking place?
14. Prior to the occasion quoted above, did you
have any other-information or impression that Mr. Gobie
was engaged in prostitution, using the congressman's
apartment?
15. Did you discuss the matterquestion 12, above, with Mr. Gobie?

described

in

16. Prior to the events described in question 12,
above, did you have any impression that Mr. Gobie wasmeeting
individuals
atRepresentative
Frank'sapartment?
17. In your Octoberfurther stated:

25,

1989,

Declaration,you

I called Congressman Frank and reported what
I had observed. He seemed stunned. I neversaw Gobie again.
Please describe in detail your conversation withRepresentative Frank and the congressman's reaction,
including any indication of his prior awareness of thematter.
18. Did any of the activities described above
occur when Representative Frank was present at hisapartment?

62
Mrs. Mary Jo Daugherty
January 5, 1990
Page 4

19.

Have

you

or

spokencomunicatedwithRepresentative Frank subsequent to the news reportsIt
regarding Mr. Gobie's activities at his apartment?
so, when and what was said?
20. When
Mr. Gobie?

was thelasttime youspoke with or saw

The Committee would appreciate your sworn responses to the
To this end,
foregoing questions at your earliest convenience.
we would request that you sign and date your responses, using the"I declare under penalty of perjury that thefollowing language:
foregoing is true and correct."
If you have any questions, please call collect Mr. Ralph L.
Lotkin, the Committee's Chief Counsel, at (202) 225-7103.

C
J

ran
nc e

T

l

Myers

king Minority Member
JS:RLL
Enclosures

63
..-

E)HIBIT 3
oust of Atprntabe....

..

.. a.mfwrw loju.

.
,*m-m
aA--

W2*. "URONVOme 015
January 5, 1990

Colonel James R. Daugherty

8th Personnel Command
APO San Francisco, California

96301

Dear Colonel Daugherty:
As you are aware, the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct has initiated a Preliminary Inquiry in connection withRepresentative Frank's relationship with Mr. Stephen L. Gobie. A
copy of the September 12, 1989, Resolution of Preliminary Inquiry
is enclosed.
The Committee would appreciate your providing information
relevant to the subject investigation.
In this connection, theCommittee understands that for all periods relevant to theCommittee's Preliminary Inquiry, Representative Frank has resided
in a basement apartment that you and your wife own at 210 8thStreet, S.E., Washington, D.C.
Based upon the foregoing, the Committee would
your responses to the following questions:1.

appreciate

When did you first meet Representative Frank?

2.
When did the congressman firstapartment
locatedat
210
8thStreet,Washington, D.C., from you?

rent
S.E.,

the
in

3.
Have
you
ever
maintainedasocialrelationship with Representative Frank? If so, please
describe the nature and extent of such social contacts.
4.
Have you ever met Mr. Stephen L. Gobie?
Ifso, please describe when and the circumstances giving
rise to that introduction.
5.
Did Representative Frank ever describe to youForthe nature of his relationship with Mr. Gobie?
example, please explain whether the relationship wascharacterized as purely personal or as one more in thenature of an employer/employee relationship in which
Mr. Gobie performed various administrative tasks forthe congressman.

64
Colonel James 3. Daugherty
January S. 1990
Page 2

6.

To the best of your knowledge, did Mr. Goble

ever perform administrative or housekeeping tasks
Representative Frank?
If so, please describe.

for7.
If the answer to question 6, above, is in theaffirmative, to your knowledge did Representative Frank
compensate Mr. Gobie for performing such administrative
tasks?
8.
Did Representative Frankyou how he came to know Mr. Gobie?

everdiscusswith9.
Did Mr. Gobie have access to Representative
Frank's apartment when the congressman was not at home?
10.
To the best of your knowledge, did Mr. Gobie
have access to, and use of, Representative Frank's
automobile, when the congressman was not at home?
11. To the best of your knowledge, what was thenature of Mr. Gobie's profession or
income earning
activity?
lease describe how and when you reachedthis conclusion,
andwhether (and why) yourview
changed over time.
12.
Have
you
spokenorcommunicatedwithRepresentative Frank subsequent to the news reports
regarding Mr. Gobie's activities at his apartment?
Ifso, when and what was said?

Mr.

13.
When wasGobie?

thelasttime you spoke with or

saw

14.
Do you recall an incident when you were on aladder working outside Representative Frank's apartment
and an individual asked you for information about where
to interview for escort and modeling jobs?
If so,
please describe in detail when this occurred and what
transpired.
15.
Did you talkthis matter?
16.
matter?

Did

youwith Representative

talk

with

Mr.

Gobie

Frank about

about

this

65
Colonel Jme6 R. Daugherty
January S, 1990

page 3

The Committee would appreciate your sworn responses to theforegoing questions at your *arl4est convenience. To this end,
we would request that you sign and date your responses, using thefollowing language:"1 declare under penalty of perjury that theforegoing is true and correct."
If you have any questions, please call collect Mr. Ralph L.
Lotkin, the Committee's Chief Counsel, at (202) 225-7103.

ui an C. Dixon

Ci iran

IyVll

JT.Myers
Ranking Minority Member'JS tLL

.lARNES FRANKOPERATIONS
w0V155NM5*ANXNG FINANCEANO--APPENDIX A

Foust of Etprrsentutlucs
Uashinrwn. Bi

.. W
'a.a.

-

OI M"
letoagMI,'ALR
M AM I'
liii flGE
m am
1.011ui- STRlETn, maS31ir
m"
14i|m

LAWaNOAIMINrSTRATIV
GOVtVRNMNTAL
FELAflONS

AmmO

August 28, 1989
The Honorable Julian C. Dixon
ChairmanCommittee on Standards ofOfficial Conduct
Suite HT-2, The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Questions have been raised about my employment of a personal assistantduring a period between 1985-1987. 1 have publicly responded to thesequestions, and I have expressed regret for the mistaken judgement involved.
In order to ensure that the public record is clear, I hereby request that
the Comsittee on Standards of Official Conduct conduct an investigation
into these matters.
I intend to cooperate fully with the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct and ask that the Committee proceed with its deliberations in an
expeditious manner.

SARNEY PRA67-

APPENDIX B-

The following are responses to the the numbered questions in the lettercondemning Congressman Barney Frank from the US House of Representatives,
Committee on Standards of Offical Conduct. dated January 5, 1990.
1. I set Mr. Frank sometime in March 1983, when we moved into the house at 210
8th St.. SE, Washington DC.
L. I understand Mr. Frank moved into the apartment sometime in 198L. He wasrenting the apartment when we purchased it in 1983.
3. We had a neighborly relationship in which we would talk about family, his
physical training program, and I would call on him to help when my husband wasout of town. He was helpful and friendly and was a good neighbor and tenant.
4. 1 remember meeting Mr. Goble on the sidewalk in frontof the house when he
was entering the apartment. This was sometime in 1986. We asked Mr. Frankabout this and he said that Mr. Gobie would be using the apartment when he wasout of town.
5. Mr. Frank never discussed with me the nature of his relationship wtih Mr.
Goble. I believed he was a friend who was ocassionally sing the apartment andlooking after things when Mr. Frank was away on his frequent trips.
6.

1 have no knowledge of tasks performed for Mr. Frank by Mr. Gobie.

7.

1 have no knowledge of any compensation.

8. Mr. Frank never discussed with me the circumstances under which he came toknow Mr. Coble.
9. Yes, Mr. Gobie had access to Mr. Frank's apartment when Mr. Frank was not at
home. We saw Mr. Gobie enter and exit the apartment often.
10.

1 nave no direct knowledge of Mr. CGbie ever using Mr. FranK's car.

11. ?rior to the summer of 1987, 1 had no knowledge nor interest in Mr. Gobie's
profession or income. In the surer of 1987, 1 became concerned and suspiciousof his activities as I observed comings and goings in the neighborhood during
this short period. I did nor want such goings on in our house. I do not haveany proof as to what went on there. I certainly did not see illegal
activities and until the stories broke in the press in 1989, 1 only could guess.
The activities made me suspicious and I reported them to Mr. Frank. I have nofurther knowledge because the activities were immediately terminated.
12. 1 told Mr. Frank that I did not want this woman around. The woman came tomy home, suitcase in hand, asked for Steve and demanded to come in. I told herthat Steve Gobie did not live here, she didn't believe me and would not leave.
I told her that he did not live here, was not on the leaseand was not here.
She finally left. I had never seen the woman before in my life. I saw her on alater weekend, coming and going as if she lived there and I did not want her on
my property. I called Mr. Frank and told him I did not want her around. I do
not know if she ever stayed overnight. I did not see her again. When I called
Mr. Frank, he apologized, and I never saw her again.

1i. The coaings end goings of many suspicious looking women brought me to eucha conclusion. Although I still do not have to chis day proof that illegal
activites were taking place, I became wary of such appearances in our
neigborhood. Yes, I came to the personal belief that apparent prostitution wasgoing on, and therefore contacted Mr. Frank to tall Mr. Gobie to get out.
14. 1 have never had any indications
Mr. Gobie's activities.

other thatthe that above of any ofi5.
I never discussed any issues of substance with Mr. Gobie but only said
hello If we passed In the street.
16.
1 did not know of any relationships that Mr. Gobte might had had in theapartment.
If his conduct did not intrude in our lives, he was but a person who
was a friend of Barney's who sometimes lived in the apartment below.
[7.
1 called Barney on vacation and said, "Something is going on in theIapartment.
All these women coming and going; it looks like a hooker ring.
want Steve out and don't want him to set foot on my property again.
As soon as
we hang up, l'm having the locks changed.' A long silence.
Barney said, "Thankyou for calling me.
I'm really sorry about this.Not as animated as usual,
Barney was shocked!
No emotion, with dull monotone, he said, "I'm sorry." Isaid, "I'm afraid of Steve.Barney said, 'Don't worry, I'll make sure he nevercomes back on the property.? Barney said something like (but I can't recall forsure) that he knew Steve had had some problems in the past but he thought he wasthrough with that.
I did not pursue this any further because Barney was so
upset.
18. NONE ofapartment.
19.
have

the activities. described above ocurred when Mr. Frank was

1 have spoken with Mr. Frank since the news broke regarding Mr.
spoken on two or three occasions on the telephone.

in theGobie.

We

The first time he called to tell us what had happened.
I had already heard
n the news, was flabergasced and was mad because of the obvious lies that Mr.
,obie was telling.
I cnew that Mr. FranK WAS NOT involved and Gobie waspainting a ta-se picture.
The second conversation was to tell me that I could talk to the reporters(since I had received a number of calls and refused).
I told Mr. Frank that I
would help him set the record straight because I knew that Goble was lying.
The third call was to tell me who his attorney was and thatfor me to talk to him.
20.
1 last saw Mr. Gobie on
getting rid of him.
I declareMa

under penalty of

it was alrightthe weekend

before I talked to Mr. Frank about

perjury thatthe foregoing is true and correct.

Duhet:sn

1

.c

) S(

v#c.
/

cf

V

T
-L

/

69
-

APPENDIX C

The following are the responses to the numbered questions ebout Congresamn
Barney Frank contained in the U.S. House of Representativem letter,
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, dated January 5, 1990.

I. m
met Mr. Frank sometime in March [983, after we moved into the house at 210
8th Street, SE, Washington OC.
2. E understand he began renting the apartment sometime t
the apartment when we purchased the house in 1983.

1981. He was in

3. 1 have had no social relationship with Mr. Frank; my only contact withhim was as a neighbor and tenant.
4. 1 met Mr. Stephen Cobie sometime in 1986. We saw him using the apartment
and asked Mr. Frank about it. He said Mr. Coble would be staying
there sometimes when he was gone.
5. 1 was never told of Mr. Frank's relationship with Mr. Goble.
business and the subject never came up.

it was not my

6. t have no idea if Mr. Gobie performed any tasks for Mr. Frank.
7. t do not know.
8. Mr. Frank never discussed with me how he met Mr. Goble.
9. Yes, Mr. Gobie did use Mr. Frank's apartment when Mr. Frank was not home.
I saw him enter and exit the apartment often.
10. 1 do recall Mr. Goble using Mr. Frank's car on one occasion when he wasgoing to the airport to pick up Mr. Frank from a trip.
[1. I have no idea how Mr. Gobie earned his income. It did not concern me, I
did not inquire, and didn't care about it at all.
12. Mr. Frank called our house in Korea. I answered the phone, He said, "Jim,
I'm sorry about all of this.' I said, OK, iarney, I'm running late.
Here is Mary Jo.'
13. 1 last saw Mr. Gobie in the sumer of 1987; 1 recall seeing him leave theapartment one weekend while I was carrying wood.
14.

I have absolutely no recollection of this ladder incident that 3ooeone hasbrought up. I have searched my mind to recall, have asked my wife if I
had ever mentioned it to her. We come up totally blank. It could nothave ocurred.

15. The matter did nor occur so I did not discuss it.
16. The matter did not occur so I did not discuss it.
I declare under' penalty of per

Jame4/
R.

y that the foregoing is true and correct.

s 'am
IS

T
17'-7i5

.
'

o

--

APPENDIXDMJTL1A?zO-

OP MLMIT 20 MOOMfl

Mary JO Daugherty hereby declaess and states as followed
Oiarrently reside in Seoul, Korea with my husband, Colonel
James A. Daugherty, who i 4maanding officer of the U.1. Army's
Ith Personnel Comand.

From early in 1963 until the eumac of 1158. my husband
and I lived In a M-06

that we own at 310 Ith Street, S.A. on

Capitol Hll in Washington, D.C.
ben our tenantaince

Congressman Barney Frank has

we bought the house and hs

occupied thebasement apatae=
Approxiaately three or four year. ago a young man whom I
Came to know as Steve Gobie sometimes stayed in the apartment
when the Congressan wa

not at home.

44AMMA whh Aid

PAP tho c6"greseman.

jAh

I came to know Gobte as

I can :-embor only one occasion prior to theepring/summer at I57, on which I complained to Congressman Frankabout a matte: :...ating to Goble's presence.
Young wOmAn bela; staying with Gobie.
Z didn't vent he:That was when a

I told the Congressman that.:ound. I didn't see her after that.

Ioet..me in the summer of 1987, 1 became aware that a
4'4"er of di fe:%w-- women would visit Gobie and that, on one
ng"5ion, men rm
atil this ty-|4 --: didn't reognize visited briefly and left.
activity began to occur, it never dawned on me

that Prostitu:... =.ght be taking place.

I &a confident that this&rt of activity *AAu not taking place prior to this time because Iwae L the houso elmost ell of the time and would have observed
It. when this activity ooencod, I Lnteneled my observation
and became oaovno4 that Goble

as aoing Lmproperly.

t CAllo4 Congrseeman Prank Sn
observed.

reported what I had

Meoesestunned.
I over saw Goble &gals.
None Of the aCtlvltlee I have described ooUrred whencongreoaman frank vas present.
By knowledi

It Is my strong belief, based onof both Congressman Frank and Mt. Ooble, that Goble

took advantage 09 Congressman frank and had beun to misuse theapartment without Congceessan Frank's knowledge or perMisslOn.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing totrue and correct.
Ixecuted thMe a6

day of October 1919.

(-2-

f/ mail Jo Paumeitty -72
E-APPENDIX

e..Ves C.N"Sl,lMoust of £eprumtntatfts

IPI,AkW

imC.

Uuutngnn

V...AMa
i.g.MN.aW,
01,11041111

imiAIYvA41HO~ka

5,11

1&-"M

M. Cberyl MM"~e
Do" ft. jah~nst
I in writing this letter to intoca you that I have been ompoying Kr.
steve Q~ble In mypersonal capacity for the past two months. because
mVJob rouires iie to mantain a riniderice and en autusobile both In
fnington van in Itsasuetts, find it important to havessistance In dealing with a wide variety of personal noeds cleaning and maintenance of bones and ciarot purchases of various
e-ortsi end other household and personal wetter@ which beam difficult
given 'i' ociplex sd~edulo and xV constant travelling between Boston
and D.C.
r. Gobie has been extramiely valuable to me4In helping with thee"mottoes. Heis intelligent, personable and reliable, and It islzpfrtant to me to know that seneami of his ability and dependability
is looking after acne of these important tasks for me. When problems
aria with qr hor cc ar or in m other way in Wshington while I
mi In Msaedsattso it I& Important for meto have semoiy like Xr.
Q*Le an whta I cn rely to tend to things. Since I do not believe It
would be right for as to use 'i' publicly fulAded Omqressional staff
for personal oricars I hire pole to do this sort of work out of m
own funds.
I in aware that Nr. Gobi* is on probation, and I hop that he can havepermission frm time to timm* to travel with as an seaking angageeonta
cut of town vimn It is important for meto have an assistant available
to help with arrangements. I will be glad to respond to any further
questions.

inu

73
-

APPENDIX F
raNW.WS99
N.Ac§A1141MAW

1A.910 IC'WIC2. ANo
UVIAX.P9AIUJ£WCIANT

Tangrtus of 1t ilb States)[Dust of aepresentattues
Wauingtorn. D.Ct.

a'lCIII ISI"0.(~U*
mll*511N

P.S. 11.1"'UIwA.41Cab 1341-

March 10. 196

Ms. Cheryl Johnson
Department of Probation

Dear Ms. Johnson:
This letter is to infom you that I continue to aiploy Steven Gobie out of nongovernmntal funds to assist me in my work In Washington. Mr. Gobil works withme on personal and political matters which should not be paid out of my officeallowance.
Mr. Gobae serves as-srt of an administrative assistant to re in dealing with thepersonal and political complexities of my work, which are greatly increased by
the fact that I travel constantly between Washington and Massachusetts, must
maintain two cars, two residences, etc.
I expect to Increase the scope of Mr. Gobte's responsibilities this spring after
he Is no longer on probation. He has perforrwed his duties for me In a first-ratemanner. ma has been reliable, Imaginative and resourceful.

BARNEYOF/peml

661116ultAA"I1T@I*

0'10

IAZEY FIANK'III O,ltA'C W...tl¢~srm

D-11
T4
Go, IA.,LNVr OPIA iiONIAPPENDIX G--(Eongresu of the l9niteb #'tatea
House of |epresenttluts
Washington.

*IINC
FINACI' AND- A N AFFAIRUI I'TLO4AORA h.IIc
Lae|.. 1. 9U,,M*esti*on. sAc IAr
Allll.* lullCA-V ISA-,116A

A'AARnAA-ICU
iWl'I.'IIN.QI.
I0PACAASA1111|ICImT'0I* IA.,

September 2, 1986

Cheryl Johnston
Probation Departnent
Dear Ms. Johnston:This is to inform you thatas a personal assistant.

I continue

to employ Steve Gobie

Mr. Gobie is paid out of non-governmental funds to assist me invarious ways in Washington D.C. as I described to you in my earlier
letter.

BARNEY FRANK

ST-i4.

illSomISARA~lltSoz

-

APPENDIX H

IA5W51PANN
game'U.
UAI~W|M5II
0|i|1104ioon~n@olaul.IA1.

-

S l, ouSDP11

Congrass of tt Inttb Bfitu
ionust of Atprzentattuts

uI"AamA~s
*4lll
1"0ll

,OIUSIAIO

Dasnbgton,.9.

OmpViK£*flCUcme. y 9"U11flll
fI.i U.N,
gim
I

a)
O4

w41

Imp

December 16, 1906
ll'MMOL
Mlfl
161W
31.4111

to Whom It

1102

May Concerns

This is to note that Stephen Gobie continues to work for me in a personal
capacity in Washington.
Mr. Gobe is not on my congresmional payroll,hut ja paid by me personally for work which he does personally end
politically for me in Washington. He performs a number of administrative
duties, pertaining to my work and living in Washington.
It is important
to me to have someone who is available to me to take care of many matters
tor me in Washington during those extended periods when I am out othecity, and Mr. GobLe performs those functions for me.

at/Pam

76
APPENDIX X .1-

SARNM FRANK. . use of £epresentatluns............
JWAN

hnto . |FebruaryE

-

"

'"

-

m

.

4 .. ......

27,199February 27,

1990

By Hand
The Honorable Jul'an C. Dixon,
Chairman
The Honorable John T. Myers,
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
The United States House of Representatives
United States Capitol, Suite HT-2
Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Colleagues:
I have reviewed once again the tickets issued withrespect to my car in an effort to determine which parking tickets
were appropriately waived and which were, or may have been, waived
in error.
Based on counsel's previous submissions and myinterview on December 11, 1989, as well as more recent attempts toreconstruct the pertinent facts given the available records, I
have reached tne following conclusions:
A total of 67 tickets were issued with respect to my car
Of these 67
between April 1, 1985, and December 31, 1987.1/
tickets, seven were not for parking violations and thus are of nointerest in the present inquiry. In any event, I paid five of theseven and, as I recall, I successfully contested (without any
invocation of my office) the other two as having been improperly
issued.
1,
7 note at the outset that eight of these tickets were
issued after I terminated Steve Gobie as a personal assistant (inlate August 1987) and returned from vacation in Massachusetts on
Besides the one time that Gobie is reported
September 2, 1987.
t nave used my car without permission (in late December 1987),
during which no tickets were incurred, I am aware of no otherinstance in which Gobie used my car after September 2, 1987. To
my knowledge, none of the eight tickets issued after September 2,
1987, was incurred by Gobie.

.

77
The Honorable Julian C. Dixon
The Honorable John T. Myers
February 27, 1990
Page 2Of the remaining 60 parking tickets, 16 were definitely
paid, as evidenced by the District of Columbia's records and mycancelled checks.
My impressions that I paid more than 16
parking tickets, and additional cancelled checks not attributable
Indeed, myto any of the 16 tend to confirm that impression.
cancelled checks establish that I paid a total of $955 for 23
As
theDistrict's
records
show only 16
tickets during the period.
parking tickets paid, however, I will accept the presumption thatthe other 44 parking tickets were waived.
I should point out that IS of the 44 parking tickets
waived (or presumably waived) were not waived at my request.
Nevertheless, if any of these tickets should have been paid but
were not, as seems to be the case with some, then I wish to assume
responsibility for them, even if they were waived without myhaving asked.2/
With respect to each of the 44 parking tickets waived(or presumably waived), I have tried to assess the appropriateness
By my reckoning, 11 of theof the waiver Lor presumed waiver).3/
44 tickets were appropriately waived inasmuch as they were issued
while the car was being used for official business.4/
Twenty of
the 44 appear to have been waived in error, for the car apparently
was not being used for official business at the time that they
were issued.
As for tne remaining 13 tickets, I nave not oeen able todetermine tne purposes for which the car was being used, and hence
I am uncertain as to nether the subsequent waivers wereappropriate.
It is my firm belief that several of these tickets,e.g., those issued while the car was downtown during a businessday, were actually incurred for official purposes.
But because I
am unable to state specifically what those purposes were, I am
willing to resolve the ambiguity here against myself by treatingthese 13 as having been waived in error.

The foregong breaKdown of the tickets is reflected in2.
the cnarts attached nereto as Appendices A and 3.
My assessment in this regard is summarized inattached hereto as Appendix C.
-;

My assessment of these 11 is
4/chart attached hereto as Appendix D.

the chart

further explained in the

78
The Honorable Julian C. Dixon
The Honorable John T. Myers
February 27, 1990

Page 3
Under this analysis, then, up to 33 tickets were waived
when they should have been paid. As noted in earlier submissions
to the Committee, I know of only nine tickets that were
erroneously waived at my request.
However, in order to rectify
mistakes of the past in this regard, and lest I retain any benefit
to which I am not entitled, I await and will abide by theCommittee's direction with respect to tickets that were, or might
possibly have been, waived in error.
In fact, I have alreadytaken substantial steps in this regard by not cashing a check for$290 that the District sent to me -- without any request by me oron my behalf and without any explanation -- constituting refunds
for tickets 1 previously paid.
Sincerely yours,

2
Barney Frank
Attachments
cc:

Stephen H. Sachs, Esq.

79
APPENDIX A
ALL TICKETS -- BY CATEGORYAll Tickets

67

Not Parking-7

Parking T ckezs

60

Definitely Paid

-16

Tickets Waived or
Presumably Waived
Waived,Upon Request

44

-26

Waived or
Presumably Waived,
Without Request

18

Waived,Without Request-7

Presumably Waived,
Without Requestii

80
APPENDIX B
ALL TICKETS - BY TICKET

Item

Ticket No.

Date

Category1

631219993

5/7/85not parking

2830534176

5/15/85

not parking

3834953730

8/30/85

definitely paid

4834231230

11/8/85

presumably waived, without

request5

637541612

11/22/85

waived, upon request

6840127890

11/26/85

waived, upon request

7638091031

12/7/85

presumably waived, without

request8841308193

12/21/85

waived, upon request

9638284264

12/23/85

waived, upon request

10941972434

1/6/86

waived, without request

11842124802

1/12/86

waived, without request

12638999060

1/13/86

waived, without request

13

837099513

2/4/86

waived, upon request

14

639734491

2/10/86

definitely paid

15839803425

2/11/86

definitely paid

16639652812

2/18/86

waived, upon request

17

837112684

3/6/86

waived, upon request

18

837645362

3/12/86

waived, upon request

19641174052

3/31/86

waived, upon request

832979534

4/16/86

waived, upon request

642416983

4/29/86

waived, upon request

841358711

5/4/86

waived, upon request

838366443

5/2 8/86

waived, upon request

836158702

6/16/86

definitely paid

644524064

6/30/86

definitely paid

837247994

7/15/86

waived, upon request

837283226

7/ 21/86

waived, upon request

649079163

11/19/86

waived, without request

649341243

11/28/86

waived, upon request

649383081

12/3/86

presumably waived, without
request843779834

12/6/86

waived, upon request

650273444

1/2/87

waived, upon request

650340471

1/13/87

definitely paid

655106292

3,'20/87

presumably waived, without
request843972533

4/7/87

presumably waived, without
request844432890

4/11/87

waived, upon request

846499010

4/13/87

waived, without request

851575056

4/16/87

waived, without request

655290554

4/17/87
11:16amwaived, without request

40

847111790

4/17/87
5:22pmwaived, upon request

41

656155032

4/21/87

not parking

35

42

56

59

62

838325725

5/12/87

presumably waived, without
request652884945

5/22/87

waived, upon request

653463252

6/9/87

waived, upon request

656402261

6/29/87

waived, upon request

656646056

7/7/87

waived, upon request

656967625

7/20/87

definitely paid

657596015

8/3/87

definitely paid

658004944

8/10/87

definitely paid

657962982

8/11/87

definitely paid

658041952

8/13/87

presumably waived, without
request658323621

8/20/87
8 ;00amdefinitely paid

658086085

8/20/87
2: 30pm

presumably waived, without
request860540262

8,/24/87

definitely paid

658380192

8/25/87
1: lSpm

definitely paid

658380181

8/ 25/87
1: 15pm

not parking

658408122

8/27/87

definitely paid

658514570

9/1/873:08pmpresumably waived, without
request658514603

9/1/873: 1lpm

presumably waived, without
request861017091

9/4/87

waived, upon request

659212680

9/9/87
5:33pmnot parking

659212691

9/9/87
5:35pmwaived, upon request

83
-4-

659476591

9/18/87
9:51ampresumably waived, without
request659476602

9/18/87
9:52amnot parking

660344812

10/10/87
2:28pmnot parking

660344823

10/10/87
2: 30pm

definitely paid

863358101

12/6/87

definitely paid

84
APPENDIX CPARKING TICKETS WAIVED OR PRESUMABLY WAIVED

Item

Ticket No.

Date

Waiver

4834231230

11/8/85

appropriate

5637541612

11/22/85

apparent error

6840127890

11/26/85

apparent error

7638091031

12/7/85

appropriate

8841308193

12/21/85

apparent error

9638284264

12/23/85

apparent error

10841972434

1/6/86apparent error

11842124802

1/12/86

apparent error

12638999060

1/13/86

apparent error

7-837099513

2,/4/86

appropriate-6639652812

2, 18/86

appropriate

17837112684

3/6/86

appropriate

18837645362

3/12/86

uncertain, possible error

19641174052

3/31/86

apparent error

20832979534

4/16/86

uncertain, possible error

21642416983

4/29/86

uncertain, possible error

22841358711

5/4/86

uncertain, possible error

23

838366443

5/28/86

apparent error

26

837247994

7/15/86

appropriate

27837283226

7/21/86

uncertain, possible error

85
-2-

28

649079163

11/19/86

apparent error

29649341243

11/28/86

apparent error

30

649383081

12/3/86

apparent error

31

843779834

12/6/86

apparent error

32

650273444

1/2/87

uncertain, possible error

34655106292

3/20/87

appropriate

35843972533

4/7/87

appropriate

36844432890

4/11'/87

uncertain, possible error

37

846499010

4/13/87

uncertain, possible error

38851575056

4/16/87

apparent error

39655290554

4/17/87
11:16amapparent error

40

847111790

4/17/87
5:22pmapparent error

42838325725

5/12/87

uncertain, possible error

43652884945

5/22/87

appropriate

44653463252

6/9/87

appropriate

45656402261

6/29/87

appropriate

46

656646056

7/7/87

uncertain, possible error

51

658041952

8/13/87

apparent error

53658086085

8/20/87
2:30pmapparent error

58658514570

apparent error

59658514603

9/1/873:08pm9/l/87

apparent error

3:llpm60

861017091

9/4/87"uncertain, possible

error

86
-3-

62

659212691

9,9/87

uncertain, possible error

5:35pm63659476591

9/18/87
9:51amuncertain, possible error

Appropriate:

11

Uncertain, possible error:

13

Apparent

20

error:

87
APPENDIX DPARKING TICKETS APPROPRIATELY WAIVED

Item

Ticket No.

Date

Official

4834231230

11/8/85

while the Congressman wasdelivering a speech to theAmerican Corporate Counsel
Association at the Omni
Shoreham Hotel

638091031

12/7/85

while the Congressman waspresiding over an
Americans for Democratic
Action board meeting at
the Washington Plaza Hotel

837099513

2/4/86

See 12/11/89 Interview.

639652812

2/18/86

See 12/11/89 Interview.

837112684

3/6/86

See 12/11/89 Interview.

837247994

7/15/86

See 12/11/89 Interview.

655106292

3/20/87

while the Congressman wasdelivering a speech to the
Georgetown University
School of Nursing at theHyatt Hotel

843972533

4/7/87

when the Congressman madea stop between a
Democratic Caucus Housing
Subcommittee meeting and
an immigration reform
legislation issues forum

652884945

5/22/87

See 12/11/89 Interview.

653463252

6/9/87

See 12/11/89 Interview.

656402261

6/29/87

See 12/11/89 Interview.

35-.........

'

APPENDIX

J(ongrenu of tl |initeb @tutes
Mouse of Iepresentutiues........

APRIL 16, 1986

70:
FR:

/!Deleted 7
Barney rank-

The case I have spoken to you about involving a probation decision deals
with a man named Stephen Gobie. He had intercourse with a femaleeaged
15 years and 10 ,,ontlis
in December of 1981. The sexual relations wereconsenting.
In January, 1982 he was arrested and charged with contributing to thedelinquencyof a minor and was sentenced to three days in jail. He served
those three days and was told by the detective in charge to call eachweek to find out about additional charges. In April 1982 he was charged
with sodomy, possession of pornographic materials involving a juvenile (fivepoloroid snapshots of the woman in question) and possession of cocaine (residue
was found on a piece of paper). He was convicted on all counts and sentenced
to four years in jail, with all but four months to spend it, and three years
probation plus court costs. He served three months in Alexandria City Jail -getting time off for good behavior and trustee work. He has for nearly thepast three years been on closely supervised probation. His probation is due
to expire on 'ay 7th. He was recently told by his probation officer that she's
going to reconmiendthat he continue probation.
think it wojlc be a very grave error.
I got to know Steve about two years ago,meeting him through mutual friends. I was aware soon after we met that he wason probation, because it weighs heavily on him. He is a very bright, outgoingand decent guy, ne did something he shouldn't have done, and was properly
sentenced for it. But I do not think it would serve any purpose to continue
his orobation -- in fact, it would almost certainly have a very negative
effect on him.
He is a hardworking and decent guy. In fact, I've hired him part time to heloe cope with the problems of having a second home in Washington -- house, car,etc. he serves as kind of an administrative assistant.
obviously would
not have hired inmif I didn't have a great deal of confidence in his integrity
and ability, and that has been wholly repaid.
He did screw uo in one area regarding the probation. apparently, urine testinghas found marijuana in his system on several occasions, although I believe thathas happened less recently. On the other hand, his probation officer, CherylJohnston, sent him to a psychologist at the Human Sexuality Institute named
Lois Valladares, to counsel him since his offense was a sexual one. I have

0

ige Twospokento LoIs Valladares and she very much disagrees with the recommendation
thathis Probation be extended. She believes that he is not suffering fromanysexualdisorders or malfunctions that would in any way lead him to misbehave
and while she expressed to me her admiration for Cheryl Johnston,sexually,
andher regret that Steve Gobie and Cheryl Johnston appear to have irritatedeachother some sn their Personal relations, she emphasizes that as thepsychologist to whom Steve Goble was referred Dy the Probation
official
Department, she believes he ought not to be required to continue probation.
I'mattaching a copy of a letter which was also sent to me by anotherof Steve's who has met him and thinks highly of him as you will see
friendinthememorandum.
Gob'e is a very bright guy who, as ' said, did something he shouldn't
Steve
havedone, and was sentenced for it. I think he is a lot brighter than thevisualprobation recipient and he found closely supervised Probation to bemoreirritating to him than he should've shown. Thus, I think he has had
somewhat difficult personal relations with his probation officer. But I do
knowthat he has been scrupulous about meeting his probation requirements.
He nabalready served 93 days in jail and had three years of probation becauseof thisoffense. At the direction of his probation office, he has reported
thenature of his offense and his probation to a couple of employers, and lost
jobsas a result. As the probation period comes to what was supposed to be
itsclose, he is anguished at the thought of continuing this supervision.
I haveno doubt whatever that if he is allowed to complete his original term
andregain his fullfreedom he will be a constructive and useful citizen. I
worrythat an extended probation will cause Problems -- not that it would any
way leadhim to commit any more crimes, because i do not think that is likely,
andhe was never a violent or abusive person at all in the first place. But: thinkit will leave him somewhat depressed and a good dealless functiona' as
a citizen than ne would otherwise be.
I'veattached a statement that Steve wrote up about thisissue.
a Pretty good representation of the kind of person he is.

0/Mttachments

Del eted

I think it's