D.A. Report to Supervisors Defends Handling of Land Fraud Case

In a written report to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti said his office “acted appropriately and promptly to protect the public and the innocent victims who lost money” to developer Marshall Redman, now facing fraud and theft charges in connection with his sale of high desert property.

“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 said in his report.

But three supervisors said they were not satisfied with the two-page memorandum, and want the district attorney to appear before the five-member board.

“This is insufficient,” said Supervisor Gloria Molina. “No, this does not satisfy me.”

Supervisor Mike Antonovich was particularly critical, noting that while Garcetti’s office did not file charges until last month, 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 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. Redman has pleaded not guilty.

Garcetti could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

In the report, he said 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 customers have received clear title to the land they purchased.

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.

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 before November 1993.

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

“We don’t do civil lawsuits. We do criminal actions. So, I don’t understand the problem.”

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

Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke was critical of Garcetti, but said the supervisors deserve some of the blame because the panel held up funding before approving a real estate fraud unit within the district attorney’s office in 1993.