- 11 -
In support of their respective positions, the parties each
called witnesses to testify about any compensation paid by
petitioner for services performed in the gaming operation.
Petitioner’s witnesses on this subject were Clausing, Parr,
Edward Helton (Helton), Shawna Phillips (Phillips), Karen Cornett
(Cornett), and Lulu Blair (collectively, petitioner’s six
witnesses). Petitioner’s six witnesses generally testified that
they were not paid for any services that they performed in the
gaming operation and that they believed none of petitioner’s
workers was paid for his or her work in the gaming operation.
Respondent’s witnesses on this subject were Jessica Seaks,
Melissa Conyer, and Linda Grooms (collectively, respondent’s
three witnesses). Respondent’s three witnesses generally
testified that petitioner surreptitiously paid both them and each
other nonofficer worker cash of $65 a day (exclusive of tips and
Christmas bonuses) and that one or more of petitioner’s officers
instructed them (respondent’s witnesses and petitioner’s other
nonofficer/nonsecurity guard workers) not to disclose this
payment arrangement to anyone.
Our resolution of this dispute turns mainly on a
determination of the credibility of petitioner’s six witnesses
and respondent’s three witnesses. Such a determination
epitomizes the ultimate duty of a trial court, as trier of fact,
to determine the truth of a matter on the basis of conflicting
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011