Statement of Complainant

I.Identification and Competence of the Complainant

1.I am Michael Andrew Gasio. I am 72 years of age. I reside at 9432 Pier Drive, Huntington Beach, California 92646. I served the State of California for thirty years in public education with the Fresno Unified School District, in successive roles including teacher, school counselor, vice principal of a high school, and principal of a middle school — positions of public trust held in loco parentis. My undergraduate study was four years of criminology, including field exposure to law-enforcement evidence practice; the disciplines of contemporaneous recordkeeping and chain of custody applied throughout this statement were acquired in that training. I retired before the events described here began.

2.My wife and co-complainant, Yulia Gasio, was a named tenant on both executed leases. Tetyana Zvyagintseva, a senior, limited-English-proficient relative, was a named occupant on the executed leases. The household includes two dogs, disclosed in the first written contact with the listing agent on April 19, 2022. EX-091

3.The family had no prior litigation history, no eviction history, and no criminal record. Over twenty-six months the family paid approximately $146,000 in rent, on time, with no missed payment and no late payment asserted by the landlord during that window.

4.I am not an attorney. I characterize no person as having committed a crime. This statement sets out documentary facts of my personal knowledge and the questions those facts present; the determinations belong to the investigating and prosecuting authorities. No finding has been made.

II.Persons Identified in This Statement

5.Phat L.K. Tran, property owner of record, licensed dentist, National Provider Identifier 1184847162, operating as OC Dental Implant Center / Dr Phat Tran DMD Inc, 14411 Brookhurst St, Suites A and B, Garden Grove, CA 92843, (714) 775-7561. Email of record in May 2022: kyphat@yahoo.com. Personal Wells Fargo account of record: #1005959166.

6.Anna Tran Ly, California DRE Broker License #01894348 (issued January 28, 2011), individual licensee; the “Sun Realty and Management” DBA under which she previously operated expired on the fictitious business name register February 24, 2015. Email of record: lymyhoa@yahoo.com. The parent–daughter relationship with the property owner is corroborated on the public record by a December 13, 2004 grant deed, Phat L.K. Tran to Anna Ly, OC Recorder Doc. No. 2004000110673 1, recorded with documentary transfer tax of $0.00 — a configuration consistent with intra-family transfer.

7.Hanson Le, also of record as Tri G. Le, California DRE Broker License #01358448 (broker since March 23, 2006), Broker Associate; personal Wells Fargo account named on the 2024 lease: #3312943297. His salesperson attachment to Springdale Marina Inc. (DRE Corp. #01208606) detached May 13, 2024 — seventeen days before the cure tender described below arrived at the brokerage office.

8.Steven D. Silverstein, California State Bar No. 86466, admitted May 31, 1979, proprietor of Silverstein Eviction Law, Tustin, counsel of record for the unlawful-detainer plaintiff. The State Bar Office of Chief Trial Counsel file on Bar No. 86466 is open; no finding has been made.

9.Corporate brokerage chain. Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices California Properties, Huntington Beach branch, 5848 Edinger Avenue (ZIP 92649): branch manager Angie M. Sandoval, DRE #01130478 (current DRE address of record: 120 5th St, Ste C110, Huntington Beach 92648); designated officer Dennis Allen Rosas, DRE #00602101; division manager Iris Fay Tonti, DRE #00844023; corporate licensees of record at the branch during the period include Springdale Marina Inc. and Stratton-LFCA Inc. (DRE Corp. #02211662).

10.Richard J. Rosiak, California State Bar No. 141430, the complainants’ prior counsel, whose conduct is under formal review by the California State Bar Enforcement Division, Examiner Devin Urbany. No finding has been made.

III.Summary of the Matter

11.A tenant family with a clean twenty-six-month payment record was served an unsigned Three-Day Notice demanding rent that had already been tendered twice — once by cashier’s check delivered to the brokerage of record and signed for, once by wire extracted to the owner’s personal account during the cure window. The owner conceded the payment in writing the day after the Notice was posted. An unlawful detainer was filed twelve days later as if neither tender existed. The family was removed; the property was converted to short-term rental within weeks at a substantially higher rate; and the post-tenancy accounting instrument deducted attorney fees from the security deposit in a category the statute does not permit, supported by an invoice dated nine days after the instrument that recites it was signed.

12.Every fact in this statement is anchored to a primary document: regulated bank-channel records, USPS tracking records, DocuSign and Authentisign envelope archives, executed leases, contemporaneous text and email records, court records, public licensing and recorder records, and Internet Archive Wayback Machine captures of May 2–3, 2026.

13.The questions this record presents are listed at Part V. They concern the preparation and use of instruments in a proceeding authorized by law — California Penal Code §§ 134, 115, and 132 — together with related state and federal questions. All are presented as allegations. No finding has been made.

IV.Statement of Facts

A. Tenancy inception and the payment record (2022–2024)

14.On April 19, 2022, in my first written contact with listing agent Anna Ly, I disclosed the household composition — three adults and two dogs — and stated that the location was chosen for the dogs. EX-091 The operative 2022 lease was executed on the Berkshire Hathaway corporate platform, on a C.A.R. form, DocuSign envelope E1408B26-9382-47C5-827B-BB69325B53BC, with the pet addendum at envelope 5D80110C. EX-001 / EX-002 The agent’s April 23, 2022 email designated owner account #1005959166 for the first wire. EX-003

15.The family paid $5,000 per month for twenty-six consecutive months. Sixteen consecutive wires between January 23, 2023 and June 28, 2024 are preserved on Wells Fargo’s wire-transfer record; fifteen are $5,000 even. On the bank’s own record, the destination of every monthly rent transmission was the owner’s personal account — not the licensee account named on the lease as the payment channel. EX-008 The routing of tenant rent through a personal account rather than a broker trust account under Business and Professions Code §10145 is under review at the California Department of Real Estate, Pre-Complaint #1-26-0304-002 (Investigator Graciela F. Macias; SSI Jerusha White). No finding has been made.

16.From May 2022 forward, the agency relationship between Anna Ly and the owner displays a documented escalation: deflection in May 2022, when repair responsibility for a burnt under-sink outlet and a defective dishwasher circuit was pushed to the owner after two messages (documented in my contemporaneous May 6 and May 10, 2022 emails to kyphat@yahoo.com, which also record that no walk-through was ever conducted); disclaimer on March 18, 2023, in her written email “I no longer work for Phat Tran,” directing the household to call him directly EX-011; and denial in May 2024. Against that sequence, agency was exercised whenever money moved: lease execution and wire instructions in April 2022, lease-extension transmissions in February–March 2023, and the Move-Out Clearance Report signed in her name seventeen months after the written disclaimer. EX-029

17.Habitability conditions are documented from move-in day: a geotagged photograph of under-sink mold taken at 11:39 AM on May 1, 2022, the day of arrival EX-005, through ceiling-leak and wall-saturation photographs and two videos of mold behind the dishwasher. EX-024–EX-031 A City of Huntington Beach inspector report of July 27, 2024 found no pet damage. EX-020

B. The April 2024 lease turn

18.On April 19, 2024 I wired $5,000, confirmation OW00004382456864, with the bank-preserved memo “New lease 24 one payment at 5000.” EX-009 At 11:53 AM the same morning the owner texted acknowledgment of the wire and its terms. EX-010 The wire memo states the contractual term; the recipient’s same-morning writing accepts it.

19.Seven days later, on April 26, 2024, a new lease was executed on the same corporate platform, Authentisign envelope 46CC8725-F703-EF11-96F5-6045BDD68161, presented under a sign-or-vacate condition imposed upon the family in the April 26–28 window. EX-013 / EX-089 The instrument recites $5,350 per month commencing June 1, 2024; directs rent by direct deposit to “BANK: WELLS FARGO, NAME: HANSON LE, ACCOUNT #: 3312943297” — the broker associate’s personal named account on the face of the operative lease; caps attorney fees and costs at $1,000 combined (¶36); and, at its ¶5 move-in table, carries the owner’s signed acknowledgment that $6,375 in deposits had been received ($5,000 security, $375 keys, $1,000 pet). The owner signed April 27, 2024. On the four corners of the lease, the April 19 wire is invisible: not credited, not acknowledged, not referenced. No rent-increase notice satisfying Civil Code §827 was served.

20.The structural effect of that drafting is that a reader of the lease alone — without the bank record and the owner’s text acceptance — would conclude no rent had been paid between May 1 and the first lease-recited due date. That structural appearance is precisely what the Three-Day Notice, served eight weeks later, asserted. On April 2, 2024 the owner had emailed, in substance, that the family should not think he was looking for a new lessee.

21.Two further April 2024 communications bear on the record. In a text thread with the contact labeled “Property Manager,” the sender wrote on Saturday, April 6 at 5:43 PM, “I am currently traveling in Europe, and will be back in CA on 4/15,” and on Sunday, April 7 at 8:43 AM demanded by text a copy of every household member’s driver’s license. The thread is optically verified in the case file; attribution of the contact label is carried as a documented open question.

C. The repair-and-deduct chain

22.The dishwasher failed March 5, 2024 and was reported the same day. On April 18, 2024 agent Hanson Le and a technician attended and could not repair it. On April 26, 2024 — the day the new lease was executed — Mr. Le committed in writing to obtain owner approval for a replacement. The owner did not approve; his counter-position, conveyed to me, was an offer to install towel bars. On May 13, 2024 at 3:50 PM Mr. Le sent a withdrawal text; his corporate license attachment detached the same date. On May 15, 2024 the family purchased a replacement dishwasher from The Home Depot, delivered to the property, total $1,011.52 — an exercise of the repair-and-deduct remedy under Civil Code §1942.

D. The cure tender

23.On May 28, 2024 at 3:41 PM the family obtained a Wells Fargo cashier’s check for $4,338.48 — the $5,350 rent figure less the documented $1,011.52 §1942 repair — payable to Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices, the broker named on the executed lease, and mailed it the same day by USPS Certified Mail with Signature Confirmation, tracking 9534 9148 8276 4149 9359 44, in four packages with full supporting documentation. EX-015

24.USPS records delivery at 3:43 PM on May 30, 2024 at the brokerage office, 5848 Edinger Avenue (ZIP 92649): “Delivered, Left with Individual,” signed with the initials “H H.” EX-016 The check was never deposited, never endorsed, never returned, and never credited to the family’s account. It sits sealed today, in my custody, available for latent-fingerprint examination should a criminal case be opened. Its tender is acknowledged on the face of the Court’s March 27, 2025 Under Submission Ruling, Document ID 74522578. EX-032

25.Independently of the certified mailing, the family had directly provided the owner with images of the cashier’s check and the Home Depot receipt, which the owner accepted and used in connection with his own tax records. As of June 21, 2024 the owner therefore held, in his own possession, the documentation of both the tendered check and the deduction that priced it.

E. The Three-Day Notice of June 21, 2024

26.On June 21, 2024 a Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit was originated through a DocuSign envelope whose creator and sender fields, on the platform’s own metadata, both identify Anna Tran Ly — the owner’s daughter, not the broker of record under the 2024 lease, and not an attorney. EX-017

27.On its face the Notice: demands the gross $5,350; directs the cure payment to Wells Fargo account #1005959166 — the owner’s personal account, named in neither executed lease and distinct from the lease-specified channel; bears no handwritten signature (the owner’s name is typed); omits the service-date and notice-expiration paragraph; drops the “or quit” disposition language; and replaces the landlord-contact field with a bank branch’s street address and telephone.

28.The instrument’s architecture mirrors the commercial three-day-notice template published in counsel of record’s own public forms library — a library that, by direct inventory preserved in the May 2–3, 2026 Wayback captures, contains a commercial three-day notice, a Move-Out Clearance Report, a declaration of service, and an eviction-procedures guide, and contains no residential three-day-notice template. Three structural paragraphs of the served Notice track the published commercial template; the departures are concentrated in the fields that govern facial validity. The structural-fingerprint analysis is preserved in the case file.

29.The Notice was posted to the front door on the evening of Friday, June 21, 2024. It was served only on me. The two other named tenants on the executed leases — Yulia Gasio and Tetyana Zvyagintseva — were not served (Code of Civil Procedure §1162). The record contains no proof-of-service documentation of diligent personal-service attempts preceding the posting, and no evidence of separate mailings to each named tenant — the very predicate counsel of record describes, on camera, in his own published service-instruction video.

30.On June 22, 2024 — the day after the Notice was posted, within the cure window — the owner texted me, in writing: “Hi Michael, sorry I didn’t know you did pay your rent to the Hanson account, I just texted him to find out…” EX-018 Four admissions sit on the face of that text: the owner’s prior ignorance, volunteered unprompted; affirmative acknowledgment that the rent was paid; identification of the channel as the Hanson account; and the owner’s contemporaneous verification with his own agent.

F. Conduct within the cure window

31.On June 25, 2024, between 5:55 and 6:02 PM, I texted branch manager Angie M. Sandoval at (714) 600-7741, transmitting the demand-letter image and the law-enforcement notice. The corporate brokerage was on actual notice eight days before the unlawful detainer was filed; receipt is documented in carrier records, with third-party email corroboration later acknowledged by Officer J. Cuchilla of the Huntington Beach Police Department at 2:18 PM on July 4, 2024. A Huntington Beach Police Department complaint was opened June 25, 2024.

32.On June 28, 2024 — seven days after the Notice, twenty-nine days after the cure tender, five days before the filing — the owner personally telephoned and directed me to wire $5,350 to his personal account #1005959166 or face an eviction filing. I complied under verbal protest. The wire, confirmation OW00004652829145, carries my contemporaneous bank-channel memo: “Unknown Contract July 27 of 37.” EX-019 The sum was never refunded. Counsel of record’s own published cure-window directives instruct owners to engage in no informal tenant contact during the cure window and to accept no payment outside the form, manner, and payee specified by the notice; his client-distribution procedural sheet states, in the firm’s own capitals, “Once the eviction has started, do not accept any money from the tenant.”

G. The filing and the pre-trial record

33.On July 3, 2024 the unlawful detainer complaint was filed by Steven D. Silverstein, attaching and relying on the Notice as the predicate instrument — twelve days after his client’s own writing had conceded the predicate of the non-payment claim. The complaint credited neither the May 30 cure tender nor the June 28 wire, and disclosed neither the June 22 admission nor the June 25 corporate notice. The filing came thirty-six days after the family’s May 28, 2024 mold report to the City Attorney and within weeks of the May 12, 2024 DRE complaint regarding Anna Ly — with rent current — within the 180-day window of Civil Code §1942.5.

34.On January 16, 2025 at 1:40 PM, eleven days before the first substantive trial date, I transmitted a written letter to seven named recipients — the owner, both agents, counsel of record, my co-complainant, and two third-party witnesses — naming the evidence to be presented: the cashier’s-check tender, the June 22 admission text, the June 28 duplicate wire, the agency questions, and the deposit-deduction questions, and closing with an express written warning against perjury. On the evening before trial I transmitted a fifteen-minute silent video catalog turning every exhibit binder page on camera. No recipient transmitted a correction, an objection, or a dispute to either transmission. Under Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754 (2011), the transmissions foreclose, on the documentary record, an avoidance-of-knowledge posture by any recipient.

35.My counsel of record, Richard J. Rosiak, withdrew by letter that arrived in my mailbox Friday, January 10, 2025 — three days before the first noticed trial date of January 13, 2025, on which he did not appear and the matter was removed from the docket. I proceeded pro se from that point. His conduct is under formal review by the California State Bar Enforcement Division (Examiner Devin Urbany); no finding has been made. EX-088

H. Trial and the ruling

36.Trial proceeded in Department C61 on January 27, 2025, with no court reporter; the bench identified the courtroom microphone as the record, and the matter was taken under submission on February 25, 2025 per the ruling’s own recital. Electronic-audio requests for the proceedings are pending (EAR-1976; EAR-2027). My recollections of trial exchanges below are stated in substance, preserved in my declaration executed under Code of Civil Procedure §2015.5, and are subject to verbatim substitution upon audio recovery.

37.Before the matter was called on the first trial day, counsel of record presented a move-out invoice in the hallway and stated, in substance, that if it were paid in full he would not proceed with the eviction in the courtroom. My evidentiary presentation occupied approximately forty-five minutes. Counsel called no witnesses and presented no documentary rebuttal. After the presentation, counsel stated to the bench, in substance, that the damages claim was being dropped “to help him out.” On the standing question, I displayed the receipt evidencing payment to the brokerage through the designated channel; counsel’s oral response asserted that a debt existed, supported by no document, no ledger, and no contract. His final question to me was whether I had cashed the check; I answered no — the check is payable to Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices, and I cannot cash a check payable to another entity.

38.The ruling’s own exhibit catalog records the asymmetry: defendant exhibits admitted, seven (J–Q); defendant exhibit marked but not admitted, one; the two executed leases handed up, reviewed, and returned unmarked — so the trial record contains no admitted lease; plaintiff exhibits catalogued: zero. The disposition on the predicate debt rests, on the four corners of the record, on counsel’s oral assertion. EX-032

39.The March 27, 2025 Under Submission Ruling contains, on its own face, unreconciled arithmetic: components recited at $5,350 plus $5,530 (sum $10,880) against a recited subtotal of $10,700 — a $180 facial discrepancy; subtotal less the $6,375 deposit credit yields $4,325, against a recited principal of $3,325 — a $1,000 facial discrepancy; and the components are computed at the $5,350 rate the lease recites rather than the $5,000 rate the April 19 wire memo and the owner’s written acceptance establish — approximately $713 of embedded rate variance. The face judgment recites $4,325 ($3,325 + $500 costs + $500 fees). Service of the ruling was asymmetric: counsel received it electronically the same day at 3:16:39 PM; my copy went by mail with a multi-day lag (Clerk’s Certificate, index 183.1010823). The clerical-correction channel of Code of Civil Procedure §473(d) is identified for the reviewing authority; no finding has been made.

I. Post-judgment instruments

40.The alleged refund. It was represented to the Court through counsel that the owner had mailed a refund of the June 28 wire. The USPS tracking number consistent with that mailing, 9589 0710 5270 1436 6183 30, shows a scan at the Santa Ana Distribution Center at 8:17 PM on July 2, 2024, a July 9 “In Transit to Next Facility, Arriving Late” event, and then nothing — no delivery event, no signature, no further tracking entry. I never received it. USPS produced no proof of delivery for the mailing represented as sent.

41.The April 2025 tenders and the written acknowledgment. On April 5, 2025 I tendered cashier’s check #0084411978 ($5,338.48) payable to the Clerk of the Court, memo “Payment Under Protest”; it was voided Non-Negotiable and is preserved. EX-033 On April 22, 2025 I tendered cashier’s check #0084412016 ($5,338.48) payable jointly to Phat K. Tran and Steven D. Silverstein, face-captioned “DUPLICATE JUL 24 RENT / PAID UNDER PROTEST,” shipped with UPS receipt, tracking 1Z601R680368690941; that instrument was negotiated, and the joint-payee endorsement sequence is preserved at the issuing bank, reachable by subpoena. Both parties thereafter signed a written acknowledgment that no prior repayment had occurred — an acknowledgment in direct tension with the prior representation that a refund had been mailed.

42.The proposed amended judgment. Transmitted to me was a document captioned (PROPOSED) AMENDED JUDGMENT on Silverstein Eviction Law letterhead, with the case caption pre-filled, reciting the February 25, 2025 non-jury trial and judgment of $4,325 plus $500 fees plus $500 costs, over a blank line reading “DATED: ____ JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT.” EX-093 The instrument presents the simulated-court-document question reserved by 15 U.S.C. §1692e(9), alongside the Penal Code §115 question of offering a false instrument. The transmission-channel record for this instrument is a separate, open documentary target; no certified-mail element is asserted from the recovered artifact alone.

J. The Move-Out Clearance Report and its invoice

43.The family vacated August 5, 2024 under duress of the proceeding, rent current, no sheriff lockout, keys returned. The Move-Out Clearance Report executed against the tenancy is an instance of the template published continuously in counsel of record’s public forms library since at least October 11, 2010 (first Wayback crawl), with the pre-printed “Attorney Fees” line encoded as a structural element of the template’s underlying document XML — present in every download, in every year, on the Wayback record. The executed instance is DocuSign envelope F5D247C2-A1A9-4991-B91F-6A333347A87D, dated August 5, 2024. EX-021 / EX-022

44.The executed instrument was circulated by email on August 22, 2024 at 11:16 PM from lymyhoa@yahoo.com (Anna Ly) to OC Dental Implant Center, to clerk@stevendsilverstein.com, and to me, with copy to “Ky-Phat Tran,” in reply to a thread message from “OC Dental Implant Center — From the office of Dr Phat Tran DMD Inc.” On the face of the email, the move-out demand was circulated through the landlord’s dental practice’s email account, with eviction counsel’s clerk copied — a professional corporation as a named participant in a residential debt-collection thread. The commingling question is presented; no inference beyond the face of the email is asserted.

45.On its face the instrument: omits named occupant Tetyana Zvyagintseva from the residents header; recites the rent rate as $5,000 per month — the rate the wire memo established and the Notice contradicted; recites rent “Paid Through” May 1, 2024 — the landlord side’s own written concession that the period the Notice demanded had been paid through; and leaves blank the template’s own required field for the date of the predicate notice.

46.The demand structure recites credits of $6,375 against charges of $20,923 — rent owed $10,833; carpet replacement $7,835; front-door lock $250; attorney fees $2,005 — for a total demanded of $14,548. Computed at the form’s own recited rate and dates (May 1 to August 5 at $5,000/month), the rent-owed line should read $15,833; the form recites $10,833. One full month is silently consumed without a credit entry — the arithmetic footprint of the April 19 wire received but never credited on the form’s face.

47.The carpet line and Invoice #2412. The $7,835 carpet charge cites LY Construction Invoice #2412, dated August 14, 2024 — nine days after the August 5 instrument that recites it as attached. EX-023 The invoice’s line items sum to $7,837 against the form’s $7,835 — the instrument does not match its own attachment. The invoice’s actual scope is removal of carpet and installation of luxury vinyl plank across 950 square feet — a flooring upgrade, not like-for-like restoration, and not an enumerated deduction under Civil Code §1950.5(b). The charge runs roughly $9.92 per square foot against a documented cost basis of approximately $0.88 for the carpet grade alleged; after three years of tenancy, the depreciated chargeable ceiling under §1950.5(b)(2) computes to approximately $278–$396 — the charge exceeds it by roughly twenty to twenty-eight times. The invoice’s sales-tax field is empty. The invoice instructs “Make all checks payable to David Ly” — a personal payee, not the contractor entity (license #1068334, bond GCL5928963, 9142 Russell Ave, Garden Grove). The vendor surname matches the executor’s surname; no related-party disclosure appears on either document.

48.The lock line. The form charges $250 for “Front door lock got damaged, replaced new lock.” The post-vacate Airbnb listing for the same property (room 1271731093119339551) advertises “Self check-in — Check yourself in with the keypad.” Question presented: whether the $250 charge to outgoing tenants funded short-term-rental conversion hardware. The question is presented; no purpose is asserted as proven.

49.The attorney-fee line. $2,005 in attorney fees was deducted from the security deposit with no judgment entered, no fee motion filed, no fee award made, and no court authorization — a category Civil Code §1950.5(b)’s closed list does not permit, against a lease whose own ¶36 caps combined fees at $1,000. Six months later the Court awarded $500 in fees; the award was collected in addition to the $2,005 already retained — stacked, not credited. Total fee extraction: $2,505, against a $1,000 contractual cap and a $500 court award. The bad-faith-retention exposure of §1950.5(l) — up to twice the deposit plus actual damages — is identified for the reviewing authority; no bad-faith finding has been made.

50.The instrument was signed in the name of Anna Tran Ly seventeen months after her written agency disclaimer of March 18, 2023. At trial, the carpet line and the lock line were abandoned in open court and the fee line was reduced by approximately seventy-five percent — a $9,590 retreat, roughly forty-six percent of the form’s total charges, after the deposit had been retained against the inflated demand for approximately six months.

K. Post-vacate conversion and asset movement

51.Within weeks of the August 5, 2024 vacate, the property was listed for short-term rental on Airbnb at a base rate of approximately $7,786 per month — approximately forty-six percent above the family’s rent and approximately one hundred twenty-two percent above the prior tenant’s rent at her 2021 eviction. The post-eviction listing agent, Vui Nguyen, appears in the record in that limited capacity only and is not implicated in pre-eviction conduct. Huntington Beach Municipal Code §230.15 short-term-rental questions are before the city.

52.In October 2025, during the pendency of the regulatory submissions described below, the owner transferred the Sand Dune Lane property (ZIP 92648) — held personally for approximately twenty-one years and eleven months, assessor value approximately $3.4 million — to Smart Invest HB LLC, a Delaware LLC (California SOS file B20250360378) with no Huntington Beach business license and no short-term-rental permit on file. The badges-of-fraudulent-transfer framework of Civil Code §3439.04 is identified for the reviewing authority; no finding has been made. The owner’s Orange County real-property network is independently estimated from public records at approximately $11.3 million.

L. Pattern observations of public record

53.The same property was the subject of a prior unlawful detainer approximately three years earlier, prosecuted by the same counsel of record on behalf of the same family enterprise; the prior tenant’s removal was followed by an approximately thirty-eight percent rent increase to this family, and this family’s removal by the Airbnb conversion above. A 2018 docket, Tran v. Bach, No. 30-2018-00982394-CL-UD-CJC, shares the same court, the same case type, and the same counsel of record, with plaintiff Thao Thu Tran co-listed with the present owner on California Secretary of State entity filings; the familial relationship is carried as a documentary inference, not established to primary corroboration.

54.A separate, independent civil fraud action, Huynh v. Tran and Ly, No. 30-2025-01502635-CU-FR-CJC, filed August 8, 2025, names the same Anna Ly and a Tran-family defendant in active motion practice. It is cited for docket existence only; no finding of liability has been made in that action.

V.Questions Presented (Alleged — No Finding Has Been Made)

55.Penal Code §134 (preparation of false instrument for use in a proceeding). Whether the June 21, 2024 Three-Day Notice — unsigned, directing cure payment to an account named in neither lease, served on one of three named tenants, prepared while its beneficiary held written proof of the tender it denied — is an instrument prepared for use as the predicate of a proceeding authorized by law. Whether the Move-Out Clearance Report’s recital of an attachment dated nine days after the instrument’s execution presents the antedating question the statute reaches. Under People v. authority synthesized at In re Horowitz (1949) 33 Cal.2d 534 and Williams v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 320, the offense is complete at preparation with intent; subsequent use is consequence, not element.

56.Penal Code §§115 and 132 (offering false instruments for filing and in evidence). Whether the attachment of the Notice to the July 3, 2024 complaint, and the submission of the Move-Out Clearance Report figures for the Court’s deposit-credit arithmetic, present those questions. Preparation and submission are separate documentary acts performed, on this record, by different persons.

57.Perjury (Penal Code §118). Whether sworn testimony by the unlawful-detainer plaintiff regarding the disputed payments, contradicted in the same proceeding by his own written June 22, 2024 admission — authorship of which he confirmed under oath when asked by the bench — presents the question. The vehicle is the sworn petition and testimony; counsel’s closing characterizations are argument, not the perjury vehicle.

58.Theft by false pretenses / extortion (Penal Code §§484, 532, 518). Whether the June 28, 2024 telephone demand for $5,350 to a personal account during the cure window, under threat of eviction filing, against rent already tendered — never refunded, and later the subject of a representation of refund unsupported by any delivery record — presents those questions; and whether the federal wire-fraud and mail-fraud frames (18 U.S.C. §§1343, 1341) attach to the same conduct, as submitted to the FBI Los Angeles Field Office and IC3 in December 2025.

59.Elder financial abuse (Penal Code §368, subds. (d)–(e)). The complainant is 72; named occupant Tetyana Zvyagintseva is a senior with limited English proficiency. Whether the extraction, retention, and deduction conduct described above, directed at a household with two elders, presents the question.

60.Trust-fund handling (Business and Professions Code §§10145, 10176). Whether the routing of sixteen documented rent transmissions outside any broker trust account, the lease-directed personal account of a broker associate, and the retention of a corporate-payee cashier’s check signed for at the brokerage and never credited, present the licensing questions now before the Department of Real Estate.

61.FDCPA (15 U.S.C. §§1692e, 1692e(9), 1692f, 1692g). Whether the Notice, the alleged-refund representation, the duplicate payment under written protest, and the (PROPOSED) AMENDED JUDGMENT instrument EX-093 present the false-representation, simulated-court-document, unfair-practice, and validation questions; Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (1995), confirms the statute reaches attorneys collecting consumer debts.

62.Retaliation (Civil Code §1942.5). Whether the filing of the unlawful detainer thirty-six days after the family’s habitability report to the City Attorney, and within weeks of the DRE complaint, with rent current, presents the statutory retaliation question.

63.Each question above is presented as an allegation for the authority that holds it. Attorney-conduct questions under Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 and 8.4(c) and Business and Professions Code §§6068(d) and 6128(a) are before the State Bar Office of Chief Trial Counsel. No finding has been made on any of them.

VI.Agency Proceedings of Record

64.Orange County District Attorney: Penal Code §134 referral package mailed to the Office of the Honorable Todd Spitzer on May 11, 2026, USPS Certified RRR 9589 0710 5270 3530 1127 14; the resubmission is pending. California State Bar OCTC: Bar No. 86466 file open; Bar No. 141430 under formal review, Examiner Devin Urbany; no finding on either. California DRE: Pre-Complaint #1-26-0304-002 (Le matter) active; file #1-24-0513-010 (Ly matter) closed at the agency per its correspondence, with documentary questions from that file preserved in the case record. Federal submissions perfected: FBI Los Angeles Field Office and IC3 (December 2025); USPS Postal Inspection Service; HUD Office of Inspector General and DOJ Civil Rights Division Housing Section, CFPB, and FTC (Report #194449713) via the eleven-agency packet mailed April 25, 2026. Huntington Beach Police Department: complaint opened June 25, 2024; formal complaint and prosecution referral filed July 1, 2025, unanswered; Internal Affairs File AI 26-0003 closed “UNFOUNDED” February 18, 2026 without a victim interview; physical evidence delivered to Department intake was discarded prior to any interview; renewed §134 complaint directed to Administrative Operations Division May 18, 2026.

VII.Evidence Available to Investigators

65.In my custody and available on request: the sealed, uncashed $4,338.48 cashier’s check (latent-print examination); the voided April 5, 2025 instrument; the executed leases; the complete text and email archives; the trial binders; and the master evidence index (EX-001–EX-093 of record). Reachable by subpoena on independent record systems: Wells Fargo wire and account records (accounts #1005959166 and #3312943297; the negotiated joint-payee check #0084412016 endorsement chain); USPS tracking archives (both tracking numbers above); DocuSign and Authentisign envelope audit trails and certificates of completion (envelopes E1408B26, 5D80110C, BF76EC2B, 46CC8725, F5D247C2, and the Notice envelope identifying its creator and sender); Yahoo Mail server headers for the contemporaneous correspondence; the firm’s web-server logs for the published forms library; and the Internet Archive captures of May 2–3, 2026.

VIII.Requested Actions

66.I request: (a) assignment of a named detective; (b) a recorded complainant interview, which has never been conducted; (c) a records-preservation hold directed to the custodians identified at ¶65; (d) latent-fingerprint examination of the sealed cashier’s check upon case opening; and (e) coordination with the Orange County District Attorney’s Real Estate Fraud Unit concerning the May 11, 2026 referral.

IX.Scope

67.Every named person is extended an open invitation to respond to the documentary record on the merits. Under Evidence Code §913, no adverse inference is drawn, or invited, from any person’s silence or exercise of any right, and none should be drawn. All characterizations of conduct herein are allegations. Determinations of criminal liability belong to prosecutors and courts; disciplinary findings to the State Bar; licensing findings to the Department of Real Estate. No finding has been made by any agency or court on the questions presented.

Verification. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the facts stated in this statement of my own personal knowledge are true and correct; that the descriptions of documents herein accurately describe the originals or true copies preserved in the case file; and that matters stated as allegations, questions presented, or recollections in substance are identified as such and are believed true on the basis of the documentary record cited.