Court
OC Superior Court · Dept. C61
What was referred, to whom, on what documentary footing, and where each matter stands today. This is the portfolio page: it walks the reviewing reader through the referral architecture before the five department pages take each layer in depth. Several matters remain pending. No finding has been made on any.
#0084411044 held more than two months, no endorsement (EX-015/EX-016; interval endpoint reserved as T-B); joint check #0084412016 negotiated with both endorsements; the depositing account is a subpoena target (EX-034; subpoena target T-A). The record never asserts whose account received the joint instrument.Assume you have the case-handoff folder open and one hour. This section is organized the way an intake memo would be: first the referral inventory and the live agency files, then the legal spine, then the federal overlay, then the charging architecture, then the one-page summary you would hand the supervising authority.
The referral program rests on a small set of exhibit-anchored transmission records rather than on 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, with FTC Report #194449713 carried inside it. 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 regulatory files of record are EX-045 — the DRE matters on Anna Ly (#1-24-0513-010) and Hanson Le (Pre-Complaint #1-26-0304-002) — and EX-046, the Huntington Beach Police Department internal-affairs file AI 26-0003 with the department’s §134 referral of May 18, 2026. The web-preservation layer is EX-043, the Internet Archive captures of opposing counsel’s public forms library. Each of these is a transmission or agency record a reviewer can pull independently; none depends on the publisher’s word.
Two pattern anchors travel with the referrals. EX-036 is the certified Harman docket purchase — Tran v. Harman, OCSC 30-2021-01237695, ROA #2, #5, and #34, acquired April 24, 2026 — establishing as docket fact that the same counsel removed the prior tenant of the same property three years earlier. Substance extraction from those ROA items is reserved as T-C; until that ruling, the pattern is recited as docket existence only, motive unstated. EX-044 is the parallel fraud matter Huynh v. Tran/Ly, OCSC 30-2025-01502635-CU-FR-CJC, in which Anna Ly appears as defendant and cross-complainant — an independent proceeding, cited for its docket facts.
| 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. |
T-A — Wells Fargo deposit-item record for joint check #0084412016: endorsement sequence, depositing account number, account ownership. Until returned, the depositing account is recited only as a subpoena target. T-B — the cure-check custody interval endpoint; until ruled, every page states “more than two months, no endorsement.” T-C — Harman ROA substance extraction (EX-036); until completed, Harman is docket fact only. T-D — the certified-mail transmission record for the proposed amended judgment (exhibit designation pending ruling). Each is a known gap stated as such, which is what distinguishes 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.