Roy G. and Dorothy M. Welker - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                          

          behalf of Miller-Senate (the cash payment).3  The cash payments              
          were placed in envelopes with the name "Welker" on them, and Mr.             
          Welker received them when he arrived at Brockland Pontiac to pick            
          up the papers for the high risk loans.                                       
               Mr. Welker never thanked Bob Brockland for any of the cash              
          payments, and Mr. Welker never was surprised that he received                
          $100 in cash for each loan he approved.  Bob Brockland did not               
          consider the cash payments to Mr. Welker to be gifts from                    
          Brockland Pontiac; instead, he thought they were fees which were             
          a cost of doing business.                                                    
               Mr. Welker received the following amounts from Brockland                
          Pontiac as a result of his purchase of high risk loans on behalf             
          of Miller-Senate:4                                                           
                         Year                  Amount                                  
                         1984                 $14,209                                  
                         1985                 29,400                                   
                         1986                 31,697                                   
                         1987                 21,900                                   
          Mr. Welker did not keep any records of the cash payments he                  
          received from Brockland Pontiac.                                             

               3  We note that some of the first few payments were $50 in              
          cash rather than $100.  We use $100 as the amount of the cash                
          payment throughout the opinion for convenience only.                         
               4  Neither party explained why the total for 1984 or 1986 is            
          not divisible by 50 or 100.                                                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011