Part 91: Los Angeles Corruption Investigation Updates – Izek Shomof Versus Patrick Wizmann

Published April 2, 2024. Updated April 3, 2024.

Photo of skyscrapers in downtown Los Angeles and puffy clouds including glassy reflections on a clear day by author (GoPro Hero 11 Black).

Please support my work with your subscription or for direct aid use Venmo

By Zachary Ellison, Independent Journalist

The latest legal action in the showdown between wealthy Israeli-American real estate developer Izek Shomof and his brother-in-law, Moroccan-American Patrick Wizmann. Aside from sharing a common faith, Shomof and Wizmann have a bond of marriage, with the former having married the latter’s sister Aline with whom he has had five children. Attorneys for Patrick Wizmann have filed two lawsuits, one over real estate in Shadow Hills in the San Fernando Valley, and another over Shomof’s recent book distributed by Simon & Schuster, Dreams Don’t Die that along with telling his life story goes into the world of Los Angeles politics and homelessness crisis. The whole story is like something straight out of the Kardashians with legal sparks flying around!

Wizmann’s litigation, initiated by the firm Grant Shenon LLP is up against Shomof’s attorneys at Allen Matkins Leck Gamble LLP in the real estate case, and in the book case Simon & Schuster joined by Forefront Books, who created the book jacket are being represented by Fox Rothschild LLP. The latter is scheduled for a May 24 9:00 am hearing in Superior Court before the honorable Bruce G. Iwasaki. A trial date regarding the 18-acre Wheatland Property that Wizmann currently resides on is yet to be set, which also delves into another property in Nichols Canyon that the two former business partners agreed to work on with the outcomes now in dispute. Wizmann is the one who has come forward with the matter, which was briefly covered in a legal publication the Daily Journal prior to me picking up the story for investigation.

Attorneys for Izek Shomof have previously declined to make him available for an interview. While Wizmann has come forward, with others questioning his motivations for turning against Shomof. The latter is far wealthier and is a generally well-respected developer, while the cross-complaint filed February 26, 2024 depicts Wizmann as something of a nuisance, accusing him of alcohol and drug abuse. The cross-complaint also alleges Wizmann owes Shomof a grand total of $760,000 in financial obligations related to his occupancy of the Wheatland Property, which sits empty and undeveloped except for Wizmann’s residence. That too is in dispute, with Shomof accusing Wizmann of making improvements including “renovations included a private jacuzzi for Wizmann’s daughter, a luxury swimming pool, and improvements on the guest house.”

Perhaps most stunning is a civil claim of “ATTEMPTED EXTORTION” with Shomof alleging that Wizmann “engaged in the tort of civil attempted extortion by threatening Shomof with reporting him to the IRS and making false allegations that Shomof is hiding assets and unreported accounts in Israel if Shomof refused to pay an extortionate sum to Wizmann.” Their relationship is fraught with trouble. Shomof accuses Wizmann of a “deceptive facade of friendship with Shomof.” The Wheatland Property at the center of the land dispute acquired by Shomof with business partner Danny LaHave struggles to get entitlement permits to build homes before the two cut Wizmann in on the property deal. The cross-complaint says that “Jonathan and Jimmy began working with Wizmann to secure the necessary entitlements for the development of Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7A, 8, 8A, 8B, 9, 10, 11, 11A, and 11B.” Wizmann and his attorney’s plan to respond to these new allegations soon, and he disputes the counter-narrative presented. Wizmann says that he was brought on to “ease the neighbors with their ongoing concerns about the proposed homes.”

The property doesn’t get immediately developed, with neighbors alleging that Wizmann harassed them, just as Shomof accuses Wizmann of doing towards him. His attorney’s writing that in seeking money from him Wizmann displayed a pattern of “subjecting him [Shomof] to ongoing harassment and bullying.” Shomof alleges that while “Wizmann’s mother was staying at Shomof’s house because her health was declining, Wizmann would argue and shout at his mother on a daily basis demanding that she give him money.” The cross-complaint also describes an incident during which Wizmann is accused of in May 2019 coming to “Shomof’s office demanding payment for certain work that had been completed at the Nichols Property, and while there pushed Jimmy [Shomof] against a glass wall and threatened to punch him,” an allegation that Wizmann disputes occurred as claimed in the cross-complaint.

Jimmy and Jonathan Shomof are assigned to develop the property according to the cross-complaint, and “land use consultant” Hamid Behdad is hired “due to his extensive land-use experience (20+ years) and instrumental role in entitling thousands of units across the City of Los Angeles.” The cross-complaint alleges that “Wizmann had further disagreements with Hamid, Jonathan, and Jimmy, which resulted in Hamid being unable to expedite the entitlement process.” Asked for comment, Behdad wrote that, “I first met Mr. Shomof back in 1999-2000, and have been working with him after I left my employment with government [sic] in 2007.” Behdad previously served as Director of Adaptive Reuse Projects after being appointed in 2003 by Mayor Jim Hahn. Behdad first met Izek Shomof in 1999-2000 after leaving “employment with government in 2007” who became closely associated with City Councilman José Huizar whose support for downtown projects could make or break buildings. Huizar has been sentenced to 13 years in Federal prison for using his office for racketeering.

Behdad did not respond to a follow-up request on his relationship with Huizar, but he made political donations according to the LA City Ethics portal to Huizar in 2007, 2014, 2017, as well as to other figures such as former Councilman Greig Smith, while still an employee, and Nury Martinez, as well as Monica Rodriguez, who still represents Council District 7, which includes Shadow Hills. In total, Behdad has donated $8,352 dollars, not an overly impressive sum compared to Shomof. Much like now convicted former Deputy Mayor Raymond Chan, Shomof and Behdad were at the center of a downtown business renaissance that generated vast sums of wealth as Adaptive Reuse permitted the conversion of historic buildings from office space into residential. About Wizmann, Behdad says that, “After a few meetings, several phone conversations, and observing Patrick's interaction with City employees, I reached to the [sic] conclusion that Patrick is the type of person that I prefer my name NOT to be associated with!”

Behdad says that “My decision NOT to accept Patrick as a client was reached based on the facts that I found Mr. Weimann [sic], irrational, unreasonable, and less than ethical - which is unfortunate.” Wizmann may allegedly be prickly, but is he lying about Izek Shomof? And is his motive particularly only monetary in relationship to the land? Journalists don’t get to always pick and choose who comes forward with information, and particularly in relation to his book, Dreams Don’t Die, for which Wizmann, even if of questionable character according to the cross-complaint, deserves some credit for bringing to the public attention. For his part, Wizmann alleges that Shomof essentially defrauded him on the land deal, and that his lawsuit over the book is righteous even if most would judge there to be a conflict of interest. Whistleblowers aren’t always perfect. Reportedly there’s more evidence on this real estate development deal gone bad that I haven’t seen yet for full review to get closer to the heart of the fraud case.

No longer in any dispute is Shomof’s omission of his 1989 felony criminal conviction for knowingly receiving stolen property (cars) with his siblings. Shomof’s declaration in the Anti-SLAPP, which stands for “strategic lawsuits against public participation” acknowledges this, with a signed declaration from Shomof himself claiming that he didn’t know it was stolen property, but still accepted “responsibility” and completed his probation and restitution without issue. In the end after he finished punishment, his plea of no contest was reduced to a misdemeanor. At the center of the book dispute is the following sentence on the book jacket: “It is the memoir of a man who had every opportunity to take unethical and often-illegal shortcuts but who instead chose the lesser-trod path of honesty and integrity.” In the 218-page filing, Shomof’s attorneys and those for Forefront and Simon & Schuster seek to cast the statement as one of commercial speech and Wizmann’s claim of false advertising as being frivolous.

The filing notes in particular, the case of entertainer Paris Hilton in writing that “The Anti-SLAPP Statute broadly applies to actions involving works of entertainment and literature and is satisfied by showing that ‘the defendant’s activity is communicative.’” According to a 2010 Law.com summary, Hilton sued Hallmark Cards over the use of her image superimposed over a waitress’s body entitled “Paris’s First Day as a Waitress” with a warning to a seated customer: “Don’t touch that, it’s hot.” The customer asks, “What’s hot?” and Paris replies, “That’s hot!” Does it matter what’s actually hot? After a prolonged legal battle, Hilton and Hallmark signed a confidential settlement. Shomof’s book isn’t quite a Hallmark Card, and as the article notes, in the end the idea of commercial speech was not so insurmountable: “Hallmark was only entitled to the transformative use defense as a matter of law if no trier of fact could reasonably conclude that the card was not transformative.” The burden of proof in such cases is quite high!

Is Izek Shomof’s book jacket so in the public interest such that even if fictitious, it’s a transformational telling of his story that anyone could appreciate? Shomof thinks so, he writes in his declaration that, “I do not claim to be a perfect person in the Book, nor do I state that I never made any mistakes in my life.” Shomof further claims that “I suspect that Wizmann bought the Book hoping to find something about me that he could somehow use to potentially damage me or my reputation, as appears to be his current mission.” Additionally, he writes that “Specifically, I chose not to include in the Book the story of what happened to me in 1988 when I purchased a car that turned out to be stolen.” Previously, Shomof’s lead attorney Scott Leipzig had told me that it was not on Shomof’s “radar” when asked, and that if “he had access to the resources he has today, he likely would have challenged the action, as he wasn’t aware that the items he purchased were obtained wrongfully by the seller and that he did nothing wrong.” 

Undoubtedly, Shomof’s book would have been better had it included the episode and been a more honest telling of his story than the admittedly fictionalized version. That Shomof has presented a book on such important matters without being fully transparent is unfortunate, but does it truly change our understanding of Izek Shomof, major real estate developer, with a bevy of news clippings to attest to the quality of his character? No doubt, in such dealings, winning is important, and it seems Shomof doesn’t like being seen in this way, can you blame him? Shomof questions Wizmann’s credibility, essentially accusing him of betrayal and digging up old dirt on Shomof. I was really hoping that would be the end of it with Shomof’s history of misdeeds. According to public court records, which I am keeping private in order to protect the identity of the crime victim, there was an additional blowout in 2005-2006, during which Izek Shomof discharged a firearm at a man in an attempt to intimidate him over business dealings in a basement. The man had temporary loss of hearing from the episode, and a temporary restraining order was granted by the judge. Shomof denied the allegation at the time, and his attorney’s did not respond to a request for comment specifically about this previously unreported shooting incident.

My suspicion is that even if it’s verifiably true that Shomof’s book misrepresents his past, that the power of the First Amendment may still yet secure the memoir from having its jacket retracted. With numerous precedents including Keimer v. Buena Vista Books, Inc., protecting the right to expression concluded in 1999 as well as other rulings. Shomof’s attorney’s write that “the proposition that the Subject Sentence is commercial speech unworthy of anti-SLAPP protection as it is located on the Book’s dust jacket, and allegedly is promotional in nature.” In short, this may be the Paris Hilton of real estate developer books, and Shomof’s book publisher Forefront may even be monetizing it! Forefront’s rulings argue they had no reason to go looking for such stories about Izek Shomof. There’s been a lot of skepticism about these matters, even if they are worth telling to the public based on the records, and I can only hope that you will agree.

If you ask me, the real question is what happens with the Wheatland property, which has sat undeveloped now for many years. Previous attempts to develop it have been stymied, and sitting near the base of the western Verdugo Mountains you have to wonder about getting any new proposal through the environmental impact process, apparently the homes have already been parceled out and would otherwise be ready to build. Just where is the public interest in this? And what about the neighbors? One night interviewing Wizmann, as I was leaving, I heard coyotes howling in the night as they do, and have done so in Southern California for millennia. Patrick Wizmann and Izek Shomof clearly are not getting along, and as they dispute the facts, you have to wonder, where will this end? Wizmann denies the allegations made in the cross-complaint and in the anti-SLAPP filing, remaining confident that he will eventually prevail in a court of law.

The last blowout in November on the sidewalk in front of The Last Bookstore just off Spring Street, where Shomof has given himself a self-declared title as “The King of Spring Street” for his ownership of an entire city block makes you think there’s still yet more to this story. Does the public have a right to know who they are dealing with? And would any of this affect whether the City and County of Los Angeles ever do business with Izek Shomof over the proposed Life Rebuilding Center in Boyle Heights? Shomof’s cross-complaint against Wizmann includes an episode during which his son Jimmy reportedly stops at the Nichols Canyon Property only to find Wizmann “in the jacuzzi with two women, despite that he was supposed to be renovating the Nichols Property and not inappropriately fraternizing.” Honestly, I just think the public deserves to know the full truth about the buying and selling of building entitlements through José Huizar’s council district office as the presumably final gavel came down in the Ray Chan trial.

Respected legal journalist Meghann Cuniff wrote about the end of the case, “I did not expect such a quick verdict, but it is not surprising that the jury was clearly repulsed by all this corruption.” She quoted E. Martin Estrada, the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, “The residents of Los Angeles deserve much better. With today’s verdict, we send a strong message that the public will not stand for corruption and that pay-to-play politics has no place in our community.” So on that basis alone, as a journalist, I’ve deemed it appropriate to grant Patrick Wizmann the same public participation that Izek Shomof has enjoyed. Question the source, get the evidence, see where it leads, but never forget the essential principle of good journalism, that more than an airing of grievances, a Festivus of legal filings, or a pile of money, people in Los Angeles want to know that they can trust their elected officials and the government agencies and offices they oversee. The public has a right to know, and that supersedes any possible character assassination campaigns in all circumstances, and yes, this is pretty much like L.A. Confidential. 

Link: Izek Shomof - Patrick Wizmann Court Filings

Link: Developer lied in memoir about leaving criminal life, lawsuit claims

Link: Izek Shomof 1988-1989 Criminal Record

Link: ‘It's not who I am.' After corruption case sentence, ex-LA Councilman Huizar asks for forgiveness

Link: Former L.A. Deputy Mayor Raymond Chan found guilty in sprawling City Hall corruption case

Link: Hilton v. Hallmark Cards

Link: Dreams Don't Die

Link: Jury convicts ex-deputy LA mayor Ray Chan of racketeering conspiracy in Huizar bribe scheme

Link: Former Los Angeles Deputy Mayor Found Guilty of Racketeering Conspiracy that Corrupted City Real Estate Development Projects

Please support my work with your subscription or for direct aid use Venmo

Zachary Ellison is an Independent Journalist and Whistleblower in the Los Angeles area. Zach was most recently employed by the University of Southern California, Office of the Provost from October 2015 to August 2022 as an Executive Secretary and Administrative Assistant supporting the Vice Provost for Academic Operations and the Vice Provost and Senior Advisor to the Provost among others. Zach holds a Master’s in Public Administration and a Graduate Certificate in Sustainable Policy and Planning from the USC Sol Price School of Public Policy. While a student at USC, he worked for the USC Good Neighbors Campaign including on their newsletter distributed university-wide. Zach completed his B.A. in History at Reed College, in Portland, Oregon and was a writer, editor, and photographer for the Pasadena High School Chronicle. He was Barack Obama’s one-millionth online campaign contributor in 2008. Zach is a former AmeriCorps intern for Hawaii State Parks and worked for the City of Manhattan Beach Parks and Recreation. He is a trained civil process server, and enjoys weekends in the great outdoors.