PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
Key Evidence Items
Each item below is a discrete piece of physical or documentary evidence. Items marked PRIMARY are the anchors of the criminal case — each one independently corroborates the others. All items are in the custody of Michael Gasio or preserved in authenticated digital form with original metadata intact.
E-1
★ PRIMARY — SMOKING GUN
OWNER'S TEXT MESSAGE — "HANSON HAS THE CHECK"
File: 0wner you paid hanson text.jpg · Drive: New_folder_2 · Admitted: Court Feb 6, 2025 · Tran nodded acknowledgment to commissioner
What It Is
A text message sent by property owner Dr. Phat Tran during or shortly after the 3-day notice cure window, confirming that his agent Hanson Le had received the cashier's check. Full text documented: "Hanson has the check. I understand they didn't want to sign." This message was admitted into evidence at the February 6, 2025 hearing. When the commissioner reviewed it, Tran nodded acknowledgment from the defense table.
Why It Is Decisive
This single item establishes five critical facts:
1. Tran knew the check had been received during the cure window.
2. Tran knew who had it (Hanson Le) and where it was (BHHS).
3. Tran made no attempt to notify Mr. Gasio of any problem.
4. Tran allowed the eviction to proceed with full knowledge the payment had been made.
5. Tran's claim that the check was returned is directly contradicted by his own written statement.
ADMITTED — COURT FEB 6, 2025
1. Tran knew the check had been received during the cure window.
2. Tran knew who had it (Hanson Le) and where it was (BHHS).
3. Tran made no attempt to notify Mr. Gasio of any problem.
4. Tran allowed the eviction to proceed with full knowledge the payment had been made.
5. Tran's claim that the check was returned is directly contradicted by his own written statement.
This Item Proves
Knowing concealment of payment. The eviction was prosecuted by an owner who knew in writing that his agent had received the tendered funds. This is not a clerical error or misunderstanding — it is documented, conscious concealment. It supports charges of theft by false pretense, perjury, fraud upon the court, and elder financial abuse.
E-2
★ PRIMARY — PHYSICAL OBJECT
SEALED CASHIER'S CHECK — $4,334 — NEVER CASHED, NEVER RETURNED
Payable to: Berkshire Hathaway Home Services California · Amount: $4,334 · Status: Sealed, never opened by recipient · In custody of: Michael Gasio
What It Is
The original cashier's check tendered by Michael Gasio as rent payment during the 3-day notice cure window. The check is made payable to Berkshire Hathaway Home Services California — not to Dr. Tran personally. It was delivered via USPS certified mail and signed for at the BHHS office by Hanson Le. The check has never been cashed. It was never returned to Mr. Gasio. It remains physically sealed in its original USPS envelope, preserved for forensic fingerprint analysis in criminal proceedings.
Why It Is Decisive
1. The check's existence in sealed condition proves it was never returned — Silverstein's claim that it was "returned by mail" is physically impossible if the check is still here.
2. The check is payable to BHHS, not Tran — Le had no authority to cash it. Nobody did anything with it — that is itself a criminal act.
3. Forensic analysis of the envelope can identify fingerprints of anyone who handled it at BHHS.
4. Silverstein's closing argument question — "Did you cash the check?" — was designed to create a false inference. The check could not have been cashed: it was never returned.
PHYSICAL OBJECT — SEALED — IN CUSTODY
2. The check is payable to BHHS, not Tran — Le had no authority to cash it. Nobody did anything with it — that is itself a criminal act.
3. Forensic analysis of the envelope can identify fingerprints of anyone who handled it at BHHS.
4. Silverstein's closing argument question — "Did you cash the check?" — was designed to create a false inference. The check could not have been cashed: it was never returned.
This Item Proves
The return-by-mail claim is false. A check that was "returned" cannot simultaneously be in the original sealed envelope in Mr. Gasio's possession. This item directly contradicts the central defense claim and independently establishes that the cashier's check was received, retained, and never returned — constituting theft.
E-3
★ PRIMARY — DELIVERY CONFIRMATION
USPS CERTIFIED MAIL — TRACKING #9534914882764149935944
Delivered: May 30, 2024 · Signed: "H.H." at BHHS Springdale Marina office · Recipient: Hanson H. Le
What It Is
USPS certified mail tracking record showing the cashier's check envelope was delivered on May 30, 2024, to the BHHS Springdale Marina office. The delivery signature on the USPS tracking record reads "H.H." — the initials of Hanson H. Le, the BHHS agent who was Tran's property manager. Delivery occurred during the legally required cure window.
Why It Is Decisive
USPS certified mail with a signature constitutes legal proof of delivery. This record:
1. Places the cashier's check physically at the BHHS office on May 30, 2024.
2. Identifies Hanson Le as the individual who signed for it.
3. Establishes delivery within the legal cure window.
4. Combined with E-1 (Tran text) and E-2 (sealed check), creates an irrefutable chain: check delivered → owner notified → check concealed → eviction continued.
ON FILE — USPS AUTHENTICATED
1. Places the cashier's check physically at the BHHS office on May 30, 2024.
2. Identifies Hanson Le as the individual who signed for it.
3. Establishes delivery within the legal cure window.
4. Combined with E-1 (Tran text) and E-2 (sealed check), creates an irrefutable chain: check delivered → owner notified → check concealed → eviction continued.
This Item Proves
Legal delivery of payment within the cure window. Combined with the owner's text (E-1) and the sealed check (E-2), this creates a three-part proof: the check was sent, it was received, and the owner knew it was received — yet the eviction continued.
E-4
ELECTRONIC CONTRACT RECORD
DOCUSIGN ENVELOPE #46CC8725 — ORIGINAL AUTHENTICATED LEASE
Executed: April 28, 2024 · From: BHHS corporate email address · Payment directed to: Hanson Le personal Wells Fargo account #3312942937
What It Is
The authenticated original lease contract executed via DocuSign on April 28, 2024. Sent from a BHHS corporate email address. The contract directed rent payments to Hanson Le's personal Wells Fargo account #3312942937 — not a licensed California real estate trust account as required by law. This DocuSign envelope is the authenticated original. A different, forged version of the contract was presented in court.
Why It Matters
1. Establishes the authentic contract terms — including the payment direction that routed rent to Le's personal account.
2. Proves BHHS corporate infrastructure was used to execute the scheme.
3. The discrepancy between this authenticated document and the version presented in court establishes forgery.
4. Routing rent to a personal account in lieu of a trust account is a standalone B&P Code violation.
AUTHENTICATED — DOCUSIGN METADATA INTACT
2. Proves BHHS corporate infrastructure was used to execute the scheme.
3. The discrepancy between this authenticated document and the version presented in court establishes forgery.
4. Routing rent to a personal account in lieu of a trust account is a standalone B&P Code violation.
This Item Proves
The BHHS brand and infrastructure were used to create the original lease. A substitute document was used in court. The rent diversion to a personal account was built into the contract from execution — establishing premeditation.
E-5
FINANCIAL RECORD
WELLS FARGO APRIL 19 ELECTRONIC DEPOSIT RECEIPT
Date: April 19, 2024 · Type: Electronic deposit · Admitted: Court hearing February 6, 2025
What It Is
Electronic deposit receipt from Wells Fargo confirming April 19, 2024 rent payment received. This receipt was physically handed to Commissioner Snuggs-Spraggins at the February 6, 2025 hearing. It is part of a 26-month unbroken payment record demonstrating Mr. Gasio's consistent, on-time rent payment performance throughout the entire tenancy.
Why It Matters
1. Admitted into court evidence — part of the official record.
2. Establishes 26 months of unbroken payment performance.
3. Directly contradicts any narrative of chronic non-payment.
4. The eviction was predicated on a single disputed payment — not a pattern of non-payment.
ADMITTED — COURT FEB 6, 2025
2. Establishes 26 months of unbroken payment performance.
3. Directly contradicts any narrative of chronic non-payment.
4. The eviction was predicated on a single disputed payment — not a pattern of non-payment.
This Item Proves
26 months of consistent, documented rent payment. The eviction was not about a non-paying tenant — it was about an owner who wanted his property back for Airbnb conversion and manufactured a default to accomplish it.
E-6
FRAUDULENT INVOICE
LY CONSTRUCTION DAMAGE INVOICE — DATED BEFORE TENANCY BEGAN
Entity: LY Construction (family entity of Anna Ly) · Invoice date: month before tenant moved in · City inspector clearance: 18 days before invoice date · Amount collected: $350
What It Is
A repair invoice from LY Construction — a family entity of listing agent Anna Ly — dated the month before Michael Gasio moved into the property. The invoice purports to document damage repair but is dated before the tenant could have caused any damage. City inspector clearance of the unit occurred 18 days before the invoice date. The items billed (baseboard replacement) are consistent with a full pre-tenancy remodel, not damage repair. Tran extracted $350 from Mr. Gasio to pay this invoice.
Why It Matters
1. Invoice predates tenancy — tenant could not have caused the documented damage.
2. City inspector clearance 18 days prior proves unit was in compliant condition before the claimed damage.
3. LY Construction is a Ly family entity — establishing a financial relationship between Tran (owner) and Ly (agent) beyond the real estate transaction.
4. Post-eviction remodel photos confirm the work billed was renovation, not repair.
ON FILE — PRE-DATED INVOICE
2. City inspector clearance 18 days prior proves unit was in compliant condition before the claimed damage.
3. LY Construction is a Ly family entity — establishing a financial relationship between Tran (owner) and Ly (agent) beyond the real estate transaction.
4. Post-eviction remodel photos confirm the work billed was renovation, not repair.
This Item Proves
A pattern of billing the tenant for costs that were not his responsibility. Combined with post-eviction remodel photos, this establishes that the property was being renovated for Airbnb conversion at tenant expense — a fraud that began before the tenancy and continued through the eviction.