Court
OC Superior Court · Dept. C61
The regulatory and law-enforcement files of record, set out one forum at a time: what was filed, with whom, under what file number, and exactly where each matter stands today. Several remain pending. No finding has been made on any.
Read this page as the regulatory tab of an intake memo. Each forum is a row in a single ledger: the filing, the file number, the examiner or intake of record where one is known, and the status in the agency’s own vocabulary — nothing softened, nothing inflated.
The referral program rests on transmission records, not narrative. The campaign mailing set is EX-041 — the nine-agency certified mailing of April 2, 2026 and the eleven-agency packet of April 25, 2026, carrying Federal Trade Commission Report #194449713. The District Attorney referral is EX-042 — the May 11, 2026 certified mailing to District Attorney Spitzer presenting the Penal Code §134 question, USPS 9589 0710 5270 3530 1127 14. The licensing files of record are EX-045; the municipal law-enforcement file is EX-046; the web-preservation layer is EX-043. Each is a record a reviewer can pull independently.
86466, before the Office of Chief Trial Counsel. Formal review open. No finding has been made.141430, before the Enforcement Division, Examiner Devin Urbany. The dual-instrument correspondence of January 28, 2025 (EX-088) frames the alleged conduct under CRPC 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4; that exhibit is the earliest documented Bar transmission. Under formal review. No finding has been made.01894348. DRE file #1-24-0513-010 is closed; the §827 notice question remains unresolved on the record. The licensing question crystallized by the operative lease is the §10145(a) trust-fund question — rent directed on the face of the instrument to a named personal account rather than to a broker trust account.01358448. DRE Pre-Complaint #1-26-0304-002 — Macias intake, Senior Special Investigator Jerusha White. The operative 2024 lease (EX-089, ¶3.D(1)) directs rent by direct deposit to a Wells Fargo account in Hanson Le’s name, account 3312943297; the broker text of the same period (EX-014) asks for payment “to me instead of to the owner.” §10145(a) question presented. Pending. No finding has been made.AI 26-0003. The file closed February 18, 2026.9589 0710 5270 3530 1127 14, delivery estimated mid-May 2026 (EX-042).#194449713, filed within the April 2026 campaign mailing set (EX-041): the nine-agency certified mailing of April 2 and the eleven-agency packet of April 25, 2026.| Forum | File of record | Status · record vocabulary |
|---|---|---|
| CA State Bar · Office of Chief Trial Counsel | Steven D. Silverstein · Bar #86466 | Formal review open. No finding has been made. |
| CA State Bar · Enforcement Division | Richard J. Rosiak · Bar #141430 | Under formal review · Examiner Devin Urbany. No finding has been made. |
| CA Dept. of Real Estate | EX-045 · #1-24-0513-010 | Anna Ly matter closed; the §827 notice question remains unresolved on the record. |
| CA Dept. of Real Estate | EX-045 · #1-26-0304-002 | Hanson Le Pre-Complaint · Macias intake · SSI Jerusha White. Pending. |
| Orange County District Attorney | EX-042 · USPS 9589 0710 5270 3530 1127 14 | Pending resubmission. The §134 question is before the office on the documentary record. |
| Huntington Beach PD · Internal Affairs | EX-046 · AI 26-0003 | IA file closed 2/18/2026; the department’s own PC §134 referral issued 5/18/2026. |
| Federal Trade Commission | EX-041 · Report #194449713 | Filed within the April 2026 campaign mailing set. Pending. |
| Preservation layer | EX-043 · archive.org captures | Opposing counsel’s public forms library captured to the Internet Archive, May 2026. |
One adjacent docket travels with the regulatory files and is recited as docket fact only: Huynh v. Tran/Ly, OCSC 30-2025-01502635, Department C10, the parallel fraud matter in which Anna Ly appears. It is an independent proceeding, cited for its docket facts, not for any result. Where a status above reads “pending” or “closed with a question open,” that is the gap stated as such — which is what separates a documentary record from an argument.
This portal is a public-interest case file assembled and published by Michael A. Gasio, plaintiff pro se in Gasio v. Tran et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2024-01410991-CL-UD-CJC. The plaintiff is not an attorney. Nothing on this portal constitutes legal advice.
Every factual assertion is drawn from primary documents — executed contracts, bank records, emails, text messages, court filings, public licensing records, and public-records directory entries — preserved in the case file and referenced by exhibit number, source, and date. Every characterization is an allegation.
No statement on this portal should be read as a determination that any named person has committed a crime, violated a statute, or breached a professional duty. Those determinations are reserved to qualified counsel, regulatory agencies, and the courts. No finding has been made. Cal. Evid. Code §913 — no adverse inference is to be drawn from any party’s silence.
This publication is made in the exercise of rights protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 2 of the California Constitution, California Civil Code §47(d), and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.