- 15 -
dispute” with the casino that lasted over 2-1/2 years. Instead,
petitioner testified that although the players received “slips of
paper” when they returned chips to the cage, he did not “remember
what happened to them or why they would have been important.” In
light of petitioner's legal background, we find curious
petitioner's plea of ignorance as to the importance of such
evidence as a matter of proof of his claim.
Petitioner also claimed to have dealt, by telephone, with
Mr. Jones, Caesar’s collection manager, and denied dealing with
other Caesar’s employees whose names appeared on casino
correspondence with him.6 However, the IOU envelope and Caesar’s
correspondence with petitioner indicate that petitioner dealt
with a number of Caesar’s employees, and there is nothing in the
records of Caesar’s contacts with petitioner that shows that
petitioner informed Mr. Jones of any dispute with the casino.
Accordingly, it seems that Mr. Jones’ testimony would have been
of value to petitioner in corroborating his claim. Petitioner
did not call Mr. Jones to testify, claiming that he did not need
6
Petitioner testified that, after the golf tournament, he
asked Mr. Jones to look into whether a casino employee did not
record repayments from the players. Petitioner testified that,
while he did not hear specifically what Mr. Jones had learned, he
did start receiving settlement offers soon thereafter. However,
nothing in the records before us indicates that any investigation
of such a matter was made. Furthermore, the records indicate that
Caesar’s did not begin attempting to settle petitioner’s account
for less than the balance due until February 1987, over a year
after the alleged mishandling of petitioner’s account occurred.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011