You may recall that, some time back, in an item entitled "Blasts from the Past," I discussed an anomaly in the transfer of the El Cortez from Jackie Gaughan to an ownership group that included various longtime associates — and Lonny Zarowitz. The latter is a former Gaughan employee and subsequent adversary. He accused the elder Gaughan of certain illegalities, accusations that were taken seriously as far away as New South Wales.
However, despite having tried periodically to throw a spanner into the Gaughan works, Zarowitz remains firmly ensconced within El Cortez ownership and is part of the group currently running it (and whom, presumably, we have to thank for the recent closure of the Chinese Kitchen Buffet). My musings shook loose a response from the real Lonny Zarowitz, who graciously gave permission to reprint some of his correspondence here.
Sept. 4, 2008
Dear Mr. Mckee,
I am writing in response, or more accurately to add my two cents to your blog dated June 18th concerning my situation with Jackie Gaughan, the El Cortez, & Nevada gaming authorities, among others. I have one minor criticism, namely, that you didn't make the effort to get BOTH sides of the story before forming and voicing your opinion. But given the unlikely nature of my version, and the concerted efforts to discredit me, this isn't too hard to understand.
Yet, even without the benefit of a full perspective, you managed to get nearly to the crux of the matter with your rhetorical question; "So how is it that a character like Zarowitz is going to wind up with a piece of the El Cortez, should the Nevada Gaming Commission approve the sale?" If, with a more balanced view, you had included the qualifying phrase "unless Zarowitz's allegations are true", you would have turned the key on the whole matter (let's shorten the phrase to 'UZAT' because I'll be using it again).
The whole dispute breaks down very simply. I accuse Gaughan of a series of criminal acts, and various government agencies (including the Gaming Control Board) of helping him cover it up and continue his illegal activities a la Whitey Bulger. They all deny it, and one side is LYING! Pure & simple. No misunderstandings or shades of grey. But who? Certainly the GCB would know if the allegations against THEM are true or not. So, what do they say? Well, their words say I'M the liar, but, as you point out, their actions tell a completely different story! For the better part of 5 years I did everything I could to rub their noses in my allegations. In my own concerted effort to bring warranted disrepute on the state's gaming industry and its regulators, I even passed out accusatory fliers at GCB meetings, offering to share my evidence with unsuccessful applicants, and did so with gaming opponents nationwide, all the while, daring the board to discipline me.
They never did. Why? 'UZAT'. When this recent transaction came before them, their mandate required them to determine my suitability. Did they take the opportunity to call me to task for my behavior? NO!! Why? 'UZAT'. With a multi-million dollar windfall in the balance, they never even had me fill out a form, or provide any information, financial or otherwise. Not one question! About ANYTHING!! I didn't even have to attend the hearing! Why 'UZAT'. If my allegations were false, my behavior would be reprehensible and as the ''victims' of my slanders the GCB would have had the motivation as well as the obligation to act to make me put up or PAY UP! But they didn't. Why? 'UZAT'. Sherlock Holmes would call it the curious actions of the dog in the night … after night … after night. As I said, clearly they know the truth, and just as clearly, they don't want anyone else to. Why? 'UZAT'
I hope you will continue to pursue this now that you realize the significance of your own questions, and trust those instincts. Finally as for your referring to me as "a character like Zarowitz" you are absolutely right on that score. The fact is, I had to choose between being one, and having none.
Thank you,
Lonny Zarowitz
Sept. 14, 2008
Dear Mr. Mckee,
Thank you for acknowledging my response. I was confident you would find my points 'interesting', as would your readers. For that reason, and in the interest of fairness, I would greatly appreciate it if you would post it for them as well. Surely, my version of events, if true, makes for a far more compelling, and important story that should have piqued your journalistic curiosity. I would also love to hear your specific opinions on the points I've made (posted or otherwise).
As for a buyout, the offer I received from Gaughan amounted to 30 cents on the dollar.(*) Incidentally, this offer came at a key point in the set up. To accept that, or any subsequent incarnation, would have been tantamount to, and easily construed as, an admission of guilt. That will never happen! The Epstein group has also demonstrated a high-handed, bad faith attitude, made possible by the same continued undue influence with GCB that first made YOUR antennae twitch, giving me no alternative but to resurrect "The Character".
Thanks, Lonny Zarowitz
* — I had asked Mr. Zarowitz: "Given the, um, adversarial relationship between Jackie Gaughan and yourself, how is it that he (or his successors) never bought you out?"
Copies of Zarowitz's two e-mails have been shared with Mark Clayton of the GCB (as well as with the El Cortez's PR firm) and I will inform you of any official response.
