◆ SpookStack

Memo for Mr. Rosen Siegel and his associates in connection with the construction of the Flamingo Hotel at Las Vegas. This stop order was dated August 7, 1946. At the e the stop order was issued the attorney for Siegel in Las Vegas, Nevada “yequested the regional office of the CPA in San Francisce to allow the con- struction of the building to be continued pending the outcome of the hearing, D7C which was scheduled within a week. The request —!: complied with. NG HN a : the CPA, upon being contacted by Agents informed that the CPA regulations specifically hibited a person in the field from giving information to other agencies. cin off the record, showed a diagram of the Flamingo Hotel, which comprised the Casino, the kitchen and the dining room surrounded by a 200-room hotel, of stores and a series of cottages which would complete the layout. advised that Building No. 1, which comprised the Casino, kitchen an g bre room, was actually under construction prior to the original CPA freeze order issued on March 26, 1946. However, none of the other buildings were under construction nor were there any connecting tunnels or conduits cating that they were a part of the structure under progress. According <iialiliay relative buildings under construction, such as these wherein separate an' distinct buildings were being built, the CPA has always refused to permit any further buil he ones actually under construction prior to the freeze order, inted out tc the Agents that based on previous CPA decisions in sinilar is he did not see how it would be possible for the CPA to give the Flamingo Hotel permission to continue with its construction. He stated that the CPA had an "open and shut case against Siegel". At_the » 1946, vecore iy Oo was appointed to hear matter, Cy a" ari ets for the Flamingo Hotel presented a plan ie dated January 12 and contended s was the plan followed in the con- struction of the Flamingo me ata out at the hearing that = 52 this plan lacked details such as e. id he, therefore, questioned whether they could proceed with the building, using only the plans of January 12. The contractors for Siegel further produced a letter directed to the CPA dated April 17, 1946, in response to a wire from the CPA dated April 16, which stated that they mst stop construction if the construction was in violation of the freeze order. The respondents produced a letter to the effect that they were proceeding on the plan of January 12 and as was started before March 26 they were not violating any freeze order, advised that the CPA failed to present any proof that the respon wiolating any order issued by the CPA, and from the facts presented he decided in favor of the respondents. c ‘ T Tr % he personally bx of the CPA, and r ore the commissioner on August 13. ry off te