Section 11 · Pre-Trial Transmission

Pre-Trial Transmission

Written notice on January 16, 2025 to seven named recipients; fifteen-minute silent visual catalog of the trial exhibit binders — each exhibit held steady on camera for reading — transmitted on the eve of the January 27, 2025 trial date.

Letter + 15-min silent video · 7 recipients · Jan 16, 2025 Sequencing · 6 days post Rosiak withdrawal letter No Finding Has Been Made

Overview — What this page documents

p. 01

This page preserves two documents transmitted in advance of the January 27, 2025 trial date. The first is a written letter sent via Yahoo Mail at 1:40 PM on January 16, 2025 to every defendant, both attorneys of record, the co-complainant, and two third-party witnesses — seven named recipients in total. The second is a fifteen-minute silent visual catalog of the complete trial exhibit binders, filmed page-by-page, each exhibit held steady on camera for the viewer to read. The video was transmitted to the same recipients on the evening before trial.

Both documents were preserved with full Yahoo Mail server headers and timestamps. The letter named, in writing, the evidence that would be presented at trial and the specific warning not to perjure. The video provided the visual counterpart — every exhibit in the binders, shown to the viewer directly, with no narration. Between them, the two transmissions supplied the defendants and their counsel with a complete reading copy of the trial case in advance of the courtroom.

Sequencing context. The January 16, 2025 transmission was sent six calendar days after the withdrawal letter from prior plaintiffs' defense counsel Richard J. Rosiak (CA Bar #141430) arrived in the plaintiffs' mailbox on January 10, 2025 — three days before the originally noticed January 13, 2025 trial date. The plaintiffs prepared and sent the transmission while operating pro se. Trial proceeded as the first substantive trial date on January 27, 2025 with the plaintiffs appearing without counsel.

Document One — Written notice, January 16, 2025

p. 02

Recipients of record · original transmission

TO Dr. Phat L. K. Tran D.M.D. · Owner / UD plaintiff · NPI #1184847162

TO Andrew Elkins · Third-party witness

TO Helder Pinheiro · Third-party witness

TO Yulia Gasio · Co-complainant · communication authority of record per the July 18, 2024 written transfer

TO Hanson Le · DRE #01358448 (AKA Tri G Le) · Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices California Properties

TO Anna Ly · DRE #01894348 · Sun Realty & Management · believed to be a daughter of property owner Phat L.K. Tran (not independently verified)

TO Steven D. Silverstein, Esq. · CA Bar #86466 · counsel of record for UD plaintiff

Transmitted Thursday, January 16, 2025 · 1:40 PM · Yahoo Mail · Trial set January 27, 2025

Dear Dr. Phat Tran,

This letter is legally titled for your attention.

Note for the Judge: Phat Tran — your words will be used against you in a Superior Court case on January 27, 2025.

I hope you’ve enjoyed kicking us out of our house after making me pay the June rent twice — once by check (and thank you for confirming that Hanson has the check) — and then going to the judge to claim you couldn’t pay your bills, demanding I pay you again directly into your bank account.

Legally, I had three days to comply. And I did. That’s $10,700 from my savings into your personal checking account — according to you.

It is my understanding that within one month, you collected $10,700 from my savings account. As you know, I am a retired senior on Social Security.

You need to bring Hanson Le to court with you so we can figure out the wrongs he helped you commit to cover your financial mess.

You forced an old man into court to defend himself. Same pattern you pulled in June — $10,700 into your account. Why not pay a lawyer $850 and get new carpets and back rent?

Did I get three years’ depreciation on carpets? You say I lived there three years. Did I get the 60-day notice as required by law from Anna Ly — who opened and closed your lease after 27 early payments were made?

You thought you could go to a Superior Court judge, tell her I didn’t pay you — despite written confirmation thanking me for the cashier’s check, with the words “Hanson has the check” — and demand payment again?

You claimed your partner left the practice and you were stuck with more bills than money. I have never shared personal problems with tenants.

This man wrote to me that for three years he didn’t raise the rent — and now he’s claiming I never made a single payment. What happened to payment 25?

I told counsel: here is the evidence — the cashier’s check, your letter thanking me for it, and your three-day notice that I paid early.

Then you went back to court, threw us out, and raised the rent $2,500.

Do not perjure yourself regarding what you have done with those two real estate agents. When the judge reads this at the start of trial, there will be no erasing or ignoring it.

Michael Gasio
Pro Se Complainant · Gasio v. Tran et al.
Retired California School Administrator · Former Vice Principal · Fresno Unified School District (30 years)
OC Superior Court No. 30-2024-01410991-CL-UD-CJC
Transmitted: Thursday, January 16, 2025 · 1:40 PM · Yahoo Mail

The letter is reproduced for public dissemination with two categories of editorial redaction: (i) profanity, redacted in earlier circulation; and (ii) non-evidentiary content (rhetorical flourishes, threat-style passages, and a settlement-amount sentence) removed for the public version. Sequence and evidentiary substance are preserved. The original full letter is retained in the case file for court and agency use. Original Yahoo Mail records with full server headers and timestamps are preserved and available upon lawful request.

III

Document Two — Silent visual catalog, eve of trial

p. 03

A fifteen-minute silent video catalog of the complete trial exhibit binders was transmitted to the same seven recipients on the evening before the January 27, 2025 trial date. The video has no audio commentary. The binders were turned page-by-page on camera; each exhibit was held steady long enough for a viewer to read it. The file was preserved in the Yahoo Mail sent folder. It is embedded below.

Note: This video has no audio track. It is a silent page-by-page catalog of the binder exhibits. Your device speakers do not need to be on. Playback time: approximately fifteen minutes.

Pre-Trial Evidence Transmission · Fifteen-Minute Silent Visual Catalog · Two Trial Binders · Transmitted to All Recipients · No Audio Commentary

If the video does not play in your browser, the file is accessible directly at: gasiomirror.com/pretrial-transmission-evidence-for-trial.mp4

What the silent catalog shows

The video contains no audio commentary. The binders are turned page-by-page, with each exhibit held on camera long enough to read. The sequence mirrors the organization of the binders carried into court. The exhibits shown include:

The May 28, 2024 Wells Fargo cashier's check for $4,338.48, payable to Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices California Properties, addressed to the BHHS Huntington Beach office at 5848 Edinger Avenue (the mailing and main office address of Springdale Marina Inc, DRE Corp #01208606, the corporate licensee of record at the time of delivery).

The United States Postal Service Certified Mail tracking printout — tracking number 9534914882764149935944 — showing delivery to the addressee on May 30, 2024 at 3:43 PM, signed for by the initials “H. H.”

The Wells Fargo wire-transfer confirmation for the April 19, 2024 payment of $5,000 (Confirmation No. OW00004382456864; WT SEQ 140387; BNF Phat Tran; memo: “New lease 24 one payment at 5000”), and the June 28, 2024 wire confirmation at the new contractual rate.

The Authentisign lease envelope (Envelope 46CC8725) transmitted on Berkshire Hathaway's corporate platform on April 26, 2024, with the payment clause directing rent to Wells Fargo account #3312943297 in Hanson Le's personal name.

The text message from Dr. Phat Tran to the plaintiff: “Hanson has the check.”

The timestamped photograph of established black mold under the kitchen sink, taken at 11:39 AM on May 1, 2022 — move-in day.

The June 21, 2024 Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit, annotated against Code of Civil Procedure sections 1161 and 1162, identifying the wrong-account, single-envelope-service, and signature defects on the face of the instrument.

The code-violation notes prepared for trial, identifying each documented condition and pairing it with the governing California Civil Code, Health and Safety Code, and Business and Professions Code provision.

Brokerage-Structure Note: The 5848 Edinger Avenue address shown on the cashier's check and USPS receipt is the historical address of delivery on May 30, 2024 — the mailing and main office of Springdale Marina Inc, DRE Corp #01208606, the corporate licensee of record at that date. As of the April 28, 2026 DRE consumer-license verification, the BHHS California Properties DBA is concurrently held by Stratton-LFCA, Inc. (DRE Corp #02211662, issued 3/6/2023) operating from 120 5th Street Suite C110, Huntington Beach 92648 under the same Designated Officer of Record (Dennis Allen Rosas, DRE Broker #00602101). Cross-reference the Brokerage Organizational Structure reference page for the full corporate-license inventory.

Disposition — What happened next

p. 04

The Record of Non-Response · Trial Proceeding · Post-Trial Continuing Record

No recipient transmitted a written correction to any fact stated in the letter. No recipient transmitted a written objection to any exhibit shown in the video catalog. No recipient contacted the plaintiff to dispute the contents of either transmission. No returned mail was received by the plaintiff's Yahoo Mail account. The matter proceeded to trial as the first substantive trial date on January 27, 2025 with the letter and the video catalog in the inbox of every defendant and both attorneys of record.

At trial, testimony given under oath by the UD plaintiff regarding the disputed June 2024 payment was contradicted, in the same proceeding, by the UD plaintiff's own written admission in evidence — the same “Hanson has the check” text reproduced in the walkthrough above and named in the letter above. When shown the text and asked by the bench whether he had written it, the witness acknowledged under oath that he had. This account reflects the plaintiffs’ recollection, preserved in the sworn declaration under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2015.5; the reporter’s transcript of the January 27, 2025 proceeding before Commissioner Carmen D. Snuggs-Spraggins, Department C61, is pending and governs.

The legal significance of the pre-trial transmission is that every act taken by every named recipient at and after the trial was taken with documented prior written notice — by name, by exhibit, and by statute — of the evidence that would be presented and of the specific warning not to perjure. The silent visual catalog supplied the same recipients with a reading copy of the exhibits themselves, directly from the binders carried into court. Under the United States Supreme Court's holding in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754 (2011), a defendant who subjectively believes there is a high probability that a fact exists and who takes deliberate actions to avoid learning of that fact is treated, for federal criminal purposes, as having actual knowledge. The pre-trial transmission forecloses the avoidance-of-knowledge defense on the face of the record.

Continuing Record

p. 05

Continuing record · events post-dating the January 27, 2025 trial

Mar 27, 2025

Under Submission Ruling. Minute Order, Document ID 74522578, Department C61, Commissioner Carmen D. Snuggs-Spraggins. The Court's findings expressly acknowledge the cashier's check tender: “Defendant produced a copy of a cashier's check in the amount of $4,338.48 dated May 28, 2024, made payable to Berkshire Hathaway Homeservices.” The funds reflected on the check were not credited to the rent account.

Pre-Apr 22, 2025

(PROPOSED) AMENDED JUDGMENT. Document captioned in OC Superior Court, names Commissioner Snuggs-Spraggins, recites trial submission of February 25, 2025. Title contains the word “(PROPOSED)” in parentheses. Judge's signature line and date line both blank. Document never signed by any judge. Transmitted by certified mail by counsel for collection purposes.

Apr 22, 2025

Wells Fargo cashier's check #0084412016, $5,338.48, joint payees PHAT K. TRAN AND STEVEN D. SILVERSTEIN, memo “DUPLICATE JUL 24 RENT/PAID UNDER PROTEST.” Mailed UPS Express tracking #1Z6017R6803685099A1 from The UPS Store #4415, Huntington Beach. The duplicate is collected after the same rent had been wired to Phat Tran's account on June 28, 2024 (Wells Fargo Conf #OW00004652829145, preserved).

Aug 8, 2025

Independent civil fraud action filed. Huynh v. Tran/Ly, OC Sup. Ct. No. 30-2025-01502635-CU-FR-CJC. Anna Ly (DRE #01894348, Sun Realty & Management) and Anh Andy Quang Tran named as defendants in the same courthouse, eight months after the Gasio filing. Defendants represented by ArentFox Schiff LLP and Law Offices of Mike N. Vo, APLC.

Oct 2025

Recorded transfer of 20012 Sand Dune Lane. The same address printed on the 2022 lease as the Owner's payment-direction address — held personally November 2003 through October 2025 (21 years 11 months) — transferred to Smart Invest HB LLC, Delaware-formed entity (CA File B20250360378), no Huntington Beach business license, no STR permit. Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.04 badges-of-fraudulent-transfer factors implicated.

Apr 25, 2026

Eleven-agency packet mailed. Letters to USPS Postal Inspection Service (18 U.S.C. § 1341), DOJ Civil Rights / Housing (FHA §§ 3604, 3617), and CFPB (15 U.S.C. § 5481, broker-personal-account routing of eighteen wire transfers) added to the prior eight active agency channels. Inventory at Section 07.

Apr 29, 2026

Sworn declaration under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2015.5 preserving trial events executed by Michael A. Gasio and stored in the document set.

May 2, 2026

Wayback Machine preservation of stevendsilverstein.com, capture timestamp 20260502214745, 182 elements across firm domain tree on a single run. Public-service preservation framing only; preserved for evidentiary continuity of the firm's web footprint as it existed on the operative date.

Scope of This Section

p. 06

Scope and methodology

This page reproduces two documentary items preserved in the case file. The letter is reproduced with redactions for public dissemination (profanity and non-evidentiary content); no sequence or evidentiary substance has been altered, and the original is retained in full for court and agency use. The video walkthrough is hosted from the case-file server and is available by direct link above.
The continuing-record timeline is anchored to primary documents preserved in the case file. No statement on this page characterizes any individual as having committed a crime; criminal liability is determined by qualified prosecutors and courts, not by the plaintiffs or by this site. Statutory and case-law citations identify legal frameworks within which the documented facts may be analyzed by qualified investigators. The plaintiffs make no assertion of legal conclusion. No finding has been made.