Garcetti Defends Work in Fraud Case

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti’s written explanation Tuesday of why his office didn’t press charges against developer Marshall Redman until last month was not good enough for three county supervisors, who said they want him to appear in person before the board.

“This is insufficient,” said Supervisor Gloria Molina, referring to a two-page memorandum delivered Tuesday to the five supervisors. “No, this does not satisfy me.”

Supervisor Mike Antonovich was particularly critical, noting that while Garcetti’s office did nothing, the Los Angeles city attorney’s office worked with Kern County prosecutors to file a civil lawsuit against Redman in 1994 over hundreds of land sales to low-income Latinos across the Antelope Valley.

Garcetti’s office charged Redman last month with fraud and theft in an alleged real estate swindle targeting more than 1,500 victims in three Southern California counties between 1978 and 1994.

Utilities were promised but never delivered, leaving dozens of Redman customers now on high desert land living in Third World conditions. But hundreds of complaints and inquiries about Redman operations were received by half a dozen law enforcement agencies years before the developer was stopped.

Garcetti could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Molina said the district attorney’s lack of effective action against the millionaire developer was just one example of how several county agencies apparently “dropped the ball” in policing fraudulent land sales.

Earlier this month, the Board of Supervisors created a task force to determine why Redman wasn’t stopped sooner and to devise an early warning system against land fraud. A second task force was formed to find help for up to 250 Redman customers who still live in the high desert, many without utilities or running water.

“All I can say is, there are too many people involved, including the district attorney’s office, who could have taken more effective action,” Molina said.

“This is why I have asked for a task force. I talked with [Director of County Public Works] Harry Stone the other day and he told me that this is all just so thick, that there were all these agencies that didn’t follow up on what they were supposed to do. This is not good.”

In the written report, Garcetti stated his office “acted appropriately and promptly to protect the public and the innocent victims who lost money due to Redman’s alleged fraudulent activity. Our investigation of Redman is ongoing. Additional charges may be filed in the future, as this matter remains a high priority in this office.”

*

Garcetti stated that his office “first learned of Redman’s possible criminal activity in November of 1993.” At that time, he said, he decided to allow Kern County prosecutors and the Los Angeles city attorney’s office to file a civil suit against the three firms run by the 67-year-old developer, who then lived in a $750,000 house in Beverly Hills.

The goal, Garcetti wrote the board, was to protect the interests of the victims and “immediately stop any continuing fraudulent land sales.

“If this office had refused to cooperate with other investigating agencies and independently filed its own criminal case at that time, the civil case would have undoubtedly been stayed and any civil remedy for the victims would have [been] significantly jeopardized. Redman’s assets could have easily been diverted or concealed.”

Redman settled the civil lawsuit in 1994, agreeing to pay $580,000 and later to turn his three companies over to a court-appointed receiver. Two years later--with the first of two Redman receivers under federal investigation for his receivership activities--only three of 1,500 victims have received clear title to the land they purchased.

Molina said she wants to question Garcetti personally over claims made by other agencies, including the County Department of Consumer Affairs, that they had trouble getting the district attorney’s office to take an interest in the Redman sales prior to the date Garcetti gave as the one on which his office first heard of Redman.

“We’ve looked at the fact that consumer affairs had looked into these sales earlier than 1993 and had some problems getting action from the district attorney,” Molina said. “This memorandum doesn’t address that issue, and that’s what I need. I need some answers in order to reconcile these questions.”

Antonovich said Garcetti’s letter fails to clarify why the Los Angeles city attorney’s office, not the district attorney’s office, was the lead agency in taking action against Redman.

“This isn’t enough,” Antonovich said of Garcetti’s memo. “Why weren’t the supervisors party to the actions to close down Mr. Redman? We weren’t a party to that. Why? This doesn’t seem to be addressed here.”

“The district attorney’s office should have pursued the criminal actions along with the civil lawsuit,” Antonovich said. “You have an incorporated portion of the county of Los Angeles where the criminal activities had taken place. The district attorney has a responsibility to represent those areas and not defer to the city of Los Angeles.”

Sandi Gibbons, a spokesman for the district attorney’s office, said the office did its job by waiting its turn to pursue criminal charges after the civil lawsuit was resolved.

“There had already been a civil lawsuit filed by two other agencies,” she said. “We don’t do civil lawsuits. We do criminal actions. So, I don’t understand the problem.”

Gibbons would not comment on whether Garcetti would appear before the board if asked.

*

Antonovich said that earlier action on behalf of Garcetti’s office could have prevented more victims from buying land and perhaps could have prevented Redman from opening up a new business. In recent months, the developer has sold Antelope Valley land under a new company, Bella Vista Land Co., operating from a Beverly Hills address.

“The irony is that Mr. Redman is attempting to create a new corporation to operate the same fraudulent land sales scheme that he had done previously. A criminal investigation and proceedings against Redman at an earlier time would have prohibited that from occurring.”

Antonovich called on the district attorney’s office to aggressively investigate any new sales by Redman or his company.

“It concerns me that he’s selling land,” he said. “This individual is clearly defrauding people and should be sent to prison and not sent to the street corner to sell more property. But that’s what seems to be happening here.”

Supervisor Yvonne Braithwaite Burke said that supervisors themselves deserve some of the blame for not stopping Redman earlier.

She said the panel held up funding for weeks before finally approving a new real estate fraud unit within the district attorney’s office in 1993.

“The board should have been more up-front saying that real estate fraud was a priority,” she said. “So this board has to take its share of the blame why more wasn’t done earlier to stop this man and his fraudulent scheme.”