Owner of the rental property at 19235 Brynn Ct. Directed the rent payment scheme through his personal agent Hanson Le, requiring payments to a third-party Wells Fargo account bypassing the formal lease agreement. Sent the text message confirming receipt of the cashier's check — then allowed eviction proceedings to continue as though no payment had been tendered. Tran's own written text is the primary evidence of his knowledge and concealment.

· Text message: "Hanson has the check" — admits knowledge of payment receipt during cure window
· Written statement: evicting because "he never raised the rent" — establishes retaliatory motive
· 54% Airbnb rent increase immediately post-eviction
· Airbnb conversion began during active tenancy (bunk bed removed June 2024)
· Dishwasher bill dated before tenant moved in — billed to tenant
· Multiple variable-rate loans — documented financial distress driving scheme
· Required rent on the 20th — non-standard, used to manufacture default

Property manager under a BHHS-branded DocuSign contract (Envelope #46CC8725). Received rent payments into his personal Wells Fargo account #3312942937 — not a licensed real estate trust account. Signed for the cashier's check at BHHS (USPS signature "H.H." May 30, 2024). Concealed the check from both the owner and the eviction process. Subsequently resigned from BHHS. When questioned by HBPD, invoked the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

· USPS Tracking #9534914882764149935944 — signature "H.H." at BHHS, May 30, 2024
· DocuSign Envelope #46CC8725 — BHHS corporate email, his personal WF account
· Tran's text: "Hanson has the check" — establishes Le's custody of the funds
· Text: "I understand they didn't want to sign" — shows awareness before notice was issued
· Check made payable to BHHS — Le had no authority to cash it
· Resigned from BHHS following the check delivery
· Invoked the Fifth Amendment with HBPD

Listing agent for the rental property — and the landlord's daughter. Concealed the pet approval she had granted in writing, contributing to a fraudulent lease term dispute. Her family entity, LY Construction, submitted a repair invoice dated the month before the tenant moved in — then extracted payment from the tenant for pre-tenancy damage. City inspector clearance occurred 18 days before the invoice date. The baseboard replacement documented in the invoice is consistent with a full remodel, not tenant damage. Anna Ly's prior DRE history includes a separate accusation for criminal conviction and license renewal fraud (DRE Accusation H-40694 LA).

· Written pet approval granted — concealed in proceedings
· LY Construction invoice: dated before tenancy began — billed to tenant
· City inspector clearance 18 days before invoice date
· Baseboard replacement = full remodel not damage repair
· AP Silk Arts Inc. corporate link between Tran and Ly
· DRE Case #1-24-0513-010 — investigated, flagged as conflicted
· DRE Accusation H-40694 LA — separate criminal conviction and license fraud

Filed and prosecuted the eviction on behalf of Tran with documented knowledge that the cashier's check had been tendered and received. At the damages hearing, Silverstein told the court the check had been returned by mail. USPS tracking shows the alleged return letter was still in transit at the time of the hearing. No check was produced — only a dark, unreadable photocopy of a letter describing a check. The actual check was never returned. Silverstein's last question to Mr. Gasio at trial was: "Did you cash the check?" — to which the answer was no, because the check was never returned to him.

· Told court check was returned — USPS tracking contradicts this
· Produced only unreadable photocopy as "proof" of return
· No check was ever returned or produced as physical evidence
· Filed eviction after receiving documented proof of payment
· Received 324 emails with evidence of payment — no response
· Last trial question: "Did you cash the check?" — designed to obscure that the check was never sent back
· California State Bar complaint filed

Retained as defense counsel with a $4,000–$8,000 retainer. Prepared no court documents and filed no motions on behalf of Mr. Gasio. Withdrawal letter arrived in Mr. Gasio's mailbox on Friday, January 10, 2025 — three business days before the scheduled trial of January 13, 2025. Told Mr. Gasio that reentry into the property was "not legally permitted" under California procedure — a statement confirmed false by California law. California State Bar disciplinary proceeding opened; investigator Devin Urbany assigned.

· Retainer paid: $4,000–$8,000 — no court documents produced
· Withdrawal letter: January 10, 2025 — three days before trial
· Told client reentry "not permitted" — confirmed false under CA law
· Documented pattern of client abandonment before court dates
· CA State Bar Case: Investigator Devin Urbany assigned
· 10-exhibit State Bar evidence package filed June 25, 2025

As the designated broker of record for BHHS Springdale Marina Inc., Rosas bore supervisory responsibility over Hanson Le's licensed activities. The DocuSign contract bearing the BHHS brand and corporate email was executed under his brokerage. Le collected rent into a personal bank account — not a licensed trust account — under Rosas's supervision. The cashier's check was made payable to BHHS California and was received at the BHHS office. Rosas's failure to maintain proper oversight enabled the financial diversion.

· Supervisory broker over Hanson Le DRE #01358448
· Le operated personal WF account in lieu of trust account — broker oversight failure
· BHHS check received at office under Rosas's supervision — not accounted for
· DRE B&P §§10176, 10177 violations attributed to brokerage
· Named in DRE formal complaint July 2025

The BHHS brand, corporate email infrastructure, and DocuSign platform were used to execute the original lease agreement (Envelope #46CC8725). The cashier's check tendered by Mr. Gasio was made payable to "Berkshire Hathaway Home Services California." The check was delivered to, and signed for at, a BHHS franchise office. The corporate entity has not acknowledged the check, produced it, or returned it. 11 documented contacts with BHHS entities — from the original contract through certified mail campaigns — constitute predicate acts under RICO.

· DocuSign Envelope #46CC8725 — BHHS corporate email used
· Check payable to "BHHS California" — received at BHHS office
· 11 documented corporate contacts — RICO predicate acts
· Martha Mosher (BHHS CA President) — notified
· legal@BerkshireHathawayHS.com — notified
· Corporate entity never acknowledged or returned the funds