◆ SpookStack

é = *. PAGE FOUR THE BUILDINGS. ME LISTED AS MATERIAL WITNESSES THE ARCHITECTS GS wer, ese sams SATO fT AND TRE CPA INVESTIGATORS. HAD NOT SUSTAINED THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT BUILDINGS WERE SEPARATE AND FELT THAT RESPONDENTS HAD MISCONCEIVED WIR THEIR CASE IN THAT THEY BROUGHT PLANS IN PIECEMEAL, THUS CONFUSING THE ISSUE HE STATED THAT if RESPONDENTS HAD BROUGHT ALL PLANS IN FIRST HEARING SO THAT HE COULD SEE THEN AS HE DOES NOW THE ENTIRE PROJECT OF THE CASINO, HOTELAND SHOPS. WAS CONCEIVED qm AND STARTED PRIOR TO MARCH TWENTY SIX, HE WOULD HAVE RULED IN FAVOR OR RESPONDENTS AT_JIME OF FIRST HEARING. HE-STATED MMR THAT RESPONDENTS APPARENTLY THOUGHT THEY HAD TO HOW THE BASIC PLAN OF JANUARY MTWELVE IN ORDER TO PROVE THAT pre THEY WERE ENGAGED ON A PROJECT EMBRACING THE CASINO HOTEL AND SHOPS FROM THE BEGINNING RATHER THAN FROM SOMETIME IN MARCH, IT WAS NOTED THAT WEN RD was ASKED WHAT TESTIMONY INFLUENCED HiS DECISIONS ON THE THREE ISSUES |NVOLVED, HE WAS UNABLE TO GIVE CLEAR CUT Qi ANSWERS. THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE HEARING WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE INTERVIEW, IT bt Se od OE oe tT, ot te i EL T THE GOVERNMENT rN Gey IS DOUBTFUL HOWEVER THAT@MMBCouLD POINT oUT IN THE TRANSCRIPTS TESTIMONY WHICH INFLUENCED HIS DECISION ON ANY OF THESE POINTS aa IT WAS APPARENT THAT HE GAVE CHIEF WEIGHT TO TESTIMONY AND OPINIONS OF INDIVIDUALS QQQRRERMBM REGARDED BY HIM AS BEING