On April 19, 2024, the tenant executed a $5,000 wire transfer through Wells Fargo to satisfy the first installment of the Year-3 lease, immediately following the landlord’s written assurance: “we want to keep you.” This payment was transmitted to the landlord’s designated account and logged as “New lease 24 one payment at 5000.” The transfer was completed same-day under confirmation number OW00004382456864.
Under California contract law, tender is perfected when payment is delivered to an authorized agent or the party named in the agreement. Year-3 tenancy was therefore lawfully funded and accepted on April 19.
Despite this, the landlord later denied receiving the payment, a claim directly contradicted by the Wells Fargo record. The landlord retained the benefit of the payment—evidenced by continued occupancy value—and subsequently concealed and disclaimed the transfer. This concealment became the operational anchor for the fraudulent “non-payment” narrative used to justify an unlawful 3-day notice and force the tenant from the property.
This conduct signals a deliberate orchestration of arrears: conceal payment → claim non-payment → trigger eviction → capture deposit → relist at a higher price. The behavioral pattern aligns with a profit-driven eviction strategy.
Federal Elements — 18 U.S.C. §1343 (Wire Fraud)
A wire fraud violation arises where interstate wire systems are used to execute a scheme involving material misrepresentation. Each statutory element is satisfied:
• A wire transmission occurred (documented April 19, 2024).
• The landlord made false statements claiming non-receipt.
• The concealment was used to obtain property and financial advantage (eviction leverage, deposit retention, rent increase strategy).
• The tenant suffered direct financial and property harm through a fraudulently-initiated eviction process.
The April 19 transfer is definitive proof that Year-3 rent was paid, knowingly concealed, and later weaponized in court—a foundational act in the broader fraudulent eviction scheme.
CARD 2 — DIVERSION OF PAYMENT, POLICE NOTIFICATION, DRE NOTIFICATION
PAYMENT DIVERSION & EARLY PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT — April 20–May 2024
Immediately after the April 19 rent payment was transmitted, the landlord diverted, concealed, and disclaimed the wire transfer. Once the tenant recognized that the payment had been intercepted or hidden, he initiated formal notifications to law enforcement and the California Department of Real Estate (DRE).
The landlord received copies of every communication sent to these agencies; he was cc’d daily beginning in late April and early May. From this point forward, the landlord had actual notice that (1) payment had been made, (2) concealment constituted fraud, and (3) regulatory bodies and police were being alerted.
Historical Financial Pattern Demonstrating Motive
Year 1:
• Property was re-acquired by the landlord.
• Existing tenants paying $3,600 were removed immediately after closing.
• New tenants (the victims) were installed at $5,000/month, a $1,400 profit uplift from Day 1.
Year 2:
• The landlord kept the landscaper fee for himself rather than applying it as required under the lease, constituting additional benefit-taking.
• Rent was not lawfully increased despite the landlord later claiming he “hadn’t raised rent in three years.”
Year 3:
• The April 19 wire was the first payment of the renewed tenancy.
• The landlord attempted to raise rent retroactively and unlawfully, outside CPI limits and without proper notice.
• The dispute did not arise until the tenants announced they were considering moving, eliminating the landlord’s off-book benefits.
• At this time, the landlord was already under law-enforcement scrutiny, increasing his motive to force the tenants out quickly.
Operational Fraud Pattern
Inflate incoming tenancy revenue in Year 1.
Extract off-book financial benefit (landscaping fee) in Year 2.
Attempt an illegal rent increase in Year 3.
When challenged, conceal a valid rent payment to fabricate arrears.
Use the fabricated arrears to trigger eviction and replace the tenant with higher-yield or preferred occupants.
This sequence represents a structured, escalating fraud model, not a billing dispute. The concealment of the April 19 wire and the immediate need to contact police and DRE demonstrate a financial scheme already in progress.
CARD 3 — MAIL & WIRE FRAUD: JUNE RENT PAYMENT / RETURNED CHECK LIE
CARD 3 TEXT (Same Structure, Fully Corrected)
MAIL / WIRE FRAUD — June Rent Payment
Card 3 documents the June rent payment made on May 30, 2024, and the landlord’s subsequent false claim that the payment was never received—even though his own agent confirmed in writing that he had been in possession of the cashier’s check since that date. This false assertion became a core element used to justify eviction, despite evidence showing the payment was properly delivered through the established Berkshire Hathaway channel.
The landlord’s denial of receipt is contradicted by the tenant’s records and by the agent’s communications:
• The cashier’s check was delivered on May 30.
• Hanson Le confirmed to the landlord that he had the payment.
• No return ever occurred—the cashier’s check was never rejected, voided, mailed back, or refunded.
• No postal tracking, envelope, or signature exists because no return was ever attempted.
• The landlord’s later claim of “non-payment” conflicts with documented chain-of-custody and his own agent’s text messages.
The contradiction is material because it was used to create a fraudulent arrears narrative, which was then presented to the court as the basis for eviction. The fabrication of non-receipt—despite written confirmation of receipt—constitutes a deliberate falsification of financial facts.
The conduct detailed in Card 3 satisfies the components of mail and wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343, specifically the knowing use of false statements and interstate communications to deprive the tenant of property rights. The landlord sought financial gain under fraudulent pretenses by asserting non-receipt of payment, despite direct evidence to the contrary and while his agent was under active police investigation for forgery and counterfeiting related to the lease.
CONTRACT ALTERATION — Unauthorized Modification of Executed Lease (2022)
Card 4 presents evidence that the landlord’s agent altered the fully executed 2022 lease after both tenants had signed it, failing to add the required pet addendum. These changes were made without notice, consent, initials, or re-execution, in violation of California contract law and C.A.R. ethical standards.
Material Facts
• The signed lease was to included full pet authorization for two 100-lb dogs, explicitly disclosed in the agent’s first email.
• The copy later provided to the tenants had the pet addendum removed without explanation.
• No new signature page, initials, amendment, or disclosure was provided.
• This removal manufactured false liability exposure for pet-related damages not supported by the original agreement.
• The lease also omitted required habitability, mold, and move-in condition disclosures, enabling the owner to later deny responsibility for pre-existing defects.
These omissions were not clerical errors—they formed the foundation for later fraudulent damage claims and rent-increase leverage.
PAYMENT LOCATION MANIPULATION — Owner’s Residence as Payment Site
Theoriginal lease directed all payments to the landlord’s private residence, which simultaneously functioned as:
• an acupuncture office,
• a dental practice address,
• and an investment hub,
—demonstrating multiple undisclosed business operations at the same address.
The owner by his contract requested: “Bring the check to my house… make it out to me personally Phat Tran.”
This is a compliance violation under C.A.R. standards and California Business & Professions Code § 10176, which prohibits commingling and diversion of tenant funds outside proper trust-account channels.
Later, the owner unilaterally changed payment terms, directing the tenants to:
• “Pay electronically only,”
• “Pay to this bank account number,”
• and “Pay on the 20th or incur a fee,”
—changes made without an addendum, without 30-day notice, and without statutory compliance.
This pattern reflects progressive financial control and unauthorized modification of lease terms, consistent with fraud preparation.
LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE — Intent to Extract Financial Advantage
The post-execution alterations and withheld disclosures served a clear strategic purpose:
Direct payments to personal accounts outside formal channels, enabling diversion.
Set up a future eviction justification through falsified non-compliance claims.
The agent’s conduct meets multiple prongs of contract fraud, document tampering, and misrepresentation:
• California Civil Code § 1709 — Fraudulent Deceit
• California Civil Code § 1950.5 — Move-in/Move-out Disclosure Requirements
• Business & Professions Code § 10176 — Dishonest Conduct; Failure to Supervise
• C.A.R. Code of Ethics — Mandate to disclose, retain, and provide accurate documents
Why This Card Is Foundational to the Criminal Case
This 2022 contract alteration is not isolated.
It is the first documented breach showing intentional manipulation of financial terms and legal exposure. It pre-sets the pattern that later appears in:
• The April 19 wire concealment
• The June cashier’s-check denial
• The forged 13-month lease
• The fabricated arrears used for eviction
This card establishes the origination point of the fraud architecture and is essential for showing long-range motive, method, and intent.
UNLICENSED REAL ESTATE ACTIVITY — Contract Agent Not Authorized in Jurisdiction
Card 5 establishes that Anna Ly, the individual acting as agent for the landlord, was not licensed to conduct real estate activity in Newport Beach, the location of the property. Despite lacking proper licensure, she:
• Represented herself as a real estate agent for “Sun Realty & Management,”
• Operated multiple businesses out of her private residence, including:
– a DDS (dental service) address,
– an investment/real estate operation,
– the unregistered “Sun Realty & Management” entity,
• And used that residence as the central point of contact and document processing for the contract.
These operations were reported to Newport Beach Police Department and City Code Enforcement for unlicensed business activity. The regulatory violations form part of the sequence that led to the fraudulent eviction later upheld in Superior Court.
INVALID CONTRACT EXECUTION — Landlord Never Signed the Lease Version Used Against Tenants
Both the first and second versions of the 2022 contract show irregularities:
• Phat Tran never signed the operative version.
• Signatures do not align across pages.
• Disclosures appear mismatched or missing.
• Required C.A.R. documentation is incomplete.
• The signature page and the disclosure pages reflect different execution chains.
Under California law, an unsigned lease cannot be enforced against the tenant while being selectively enforced by the landlord.
This is a fundamental breach that invalidates the eviction foundation.
RESIDENCY ESTABLISHMENT — Legal Intent to Occupy Controls
California tenancy attaches when the tenant:
Executes the lease,
Demonstrates intent to reside, even if:
– Move-in is scheduled or delayed,
– Keys are pending,
– Landlord later attempts to alter terms.
The tenants here executed the agreement and followed through with all required steps, establishing legal residency before any of Anna’s later manipulations.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS
Anna’s conduct implicates:
• Bus. & Prof. Code §10130 — Illegal real estate activity without a license.
• Bus. & Prof. Code §10176 — Misrepresentation, failure to supervise, falsification of records.
• Bus. & Prof. Code §10139 — Unauthorized practice of real estate brokerage.
• Civil Code §1709 — Fraudulent deceit.
• Civil Code §1710 — Suppression of a material fact.
These violations compromise the integrity of every subsequent transaction, communication, and claim made by Anna and her father. The absence of a properly executed contract and an unlicensed agent calling herself a “brokerage firm” demonstrate the structural fraud at the heart of the tenancy.
SIGNIFICANCE IN SCHEME
This card is foundational because it proves:
• The entire contractual foundation was engineered and handled by an unlicensed agent,
• The lease relied on in eviction was never fully executed,
• The agent operated multiple businesses illegally from her home,
• And the formation of the tenancy itself was corrupted from inception.
This sets the stage for the later frauds documented in Cards 6–10.
Card 6 establishes two structural defects that undermine every eviction filing, payment dispute, and contractual claim that followed:
The landlord never executed any of the leases presented across three years of tenancy, and
The individual acting as his agent (Anna Ly) lacked the required licensing authority to negotiate, modify, or issue legally binding real estate documents.
These defects are not technicalities—they invalidate the legal framework the landlord later relied upon to fabricate arrears, issue notices, and pursue eviction.
Key Findings
1. LANDLORD NEVER SIGNED THE LEASES
Across multiple years, evidence shows that:
• The original 2022 lease was never signed by Phat Tran.
• The renewal contract was never executed by him.
• The Year-3 substituted “$67,000 contract” was also unsigned by the landlord.
• Signature blocks are missing, mismatched, or contain only tenant signatures.
Under California law, a landlord cannot selectively enforce lease terms when he refuses to be bound by the contract himself.
Accepting rent without providing a signed counterpart constitutes implied tenancy, but eliminates the landlord’s ability to weaponize lease terms against the tenant.
This demonstrates that the landlord maintained intentional deniability, accepting payment benefits while avoiding contractual obligations such as repairs, pet authorization, condition disclosures, or proper notice requirements.
2. UNLICENSED REAL ESTATE PRACTICE BY ANNA LY
The individual acting as the landlord’s “agent”:
• Was not licensed in the jurisdiction (Newport Beach).
• Operated multiple unregistered businesses from her private residence:
– dental services address,
– investment/real estate operation,
– the fictitious “Sun Realty & Management.”
• Issued and altered contracts using DRE numbers inconsistent with her actual authority.
• Conducted leasing, negotiation, document alteration, and payment collection—tasks reserved for licensed agents or brokers.
• Was previously reported to Newport Beach Police Department and City Code Enforcement for unlicensed real estate activity.
This invalidates every contractual communication, lease modification, and instruction she provided. No lawful agency relationship existed, meaning:
• She had no authority to collect rent.
• She had no authority to modify contract terms.
• She had no authority to omit required disclosures.
• She had no authority to issue or interpret notices.
Her actions constitute violations of:
• Bus. & Prof. Code §10130 — Acting as a real estate licensee without a license.
• Bus. & Prof. Code §10176 — Misrepresentation and failure to supervise.
• Bus. & Prof. Code §10139 — Engaging in brokerage activity without legal authority.
3. TEXT EVIDENCE CONFIRMS PET ADDENDUM MANIPULATION & KNOWLEDGE OF CONTRACT DEFECTS
The messages displayed on the left of the card further show:
• The agent admits, “There’s no dog addendum… we left it out to make it easy for you.”
• The agent also warns that doing business by text is “not how we do things,” confirming awareness that her actions were not legally compliant.
• The executed pet addendum (on the right) contradicts her claim, showing prior approval and required documentation.
This proves:
• She concealed documents.
• She manipulated disclosures.
• She knowingly created conflicting versions of the lease.
This is classic document fraud used to later misrepresent tenant obligations.
Structural Fraud Impact
The defective contracts and unlicensed agent activity form the foundation of the landlord’s fraud scheme:
• They eliminate the legal basis for eviction.
• They invalidate notices issued downstream.
• They expose the landlord to civil and criminal liability for misuse of real estate documents.
• They set up the later financial crimes:
– concealed wire payments,
– denial of cashier’s check receipt,
– fabricated arrears,
– forged 13-month lease.
Card 6 demonstrates that the landlord and agent never intended to operate within legal norms, instead maintaining paperwork defects to suppress oversight and preserve flexibility to remove the tenants when convenient.
CARD 7 — EXTORTION: EARLY PAYMENT THREATS & ILLEGAL BANK REDIRECTION
CARD 7 — EXTORTION: EARLY PAYMENT THREATS & ILLEGAL BANK REDIRECTION
Card 7 documents the landlord’s coordinated effort to force unlawful early payments and redirect rent to private, off-contract bank accounts, using threats and retaliation to override the legally established rental terms.
1. Unlawful Demand for Early Payment
The written contract clearly states that rent is due on the first of each month.
Despite this, the landlord demanded:
• payment on the 20th of the prior month,
• repeated compliance with early-pay deadlines he invented,
• and threatened financial penalties and eviction for refusing to comply.
When the tenant stated that his credit union would mail the check on the 20th—consistent with the landlord’s earlier instruction to “bring the check to my house”—the landlord abruptly changed the terms:
“We want the payment electronically on the 20th… your bank has already released it to us… hope you understand.”
This reversal created a coercive scenario designed to force the tenant into electronic transfers that were:
• off-contract,
• undocumented,
• and directed to private accounts controlled by the landlord.
2. Illegal Bank Redirection & Diversion of Funds
After insisting earlier that rent be delivered to his residential address, the landlord then attempted to:
• redirect rent to a private bank account not listed in the lease,
• compel payment platforms that offered him unilateral control,
• eliminate paper receipts and traceable transaction records,
• and override the tenant’s right to pay by any lawful method allowed under California law.
This violates:
• Civil Code §1962 — Required disclosure of all payment locations and methods.
• Business & Professions Code §10176 — Misrepresentation and improper handling of funds.
• Civil Code §1947.3 — Restrictions on demanding electronic-only payments.
3. Coercion, Threats, and Extortion
The landlord repeatedly conveyed that failure to accept these off-contract financial instructions would result in:
• a $500 penalty,
• being “in trouble,”
• possible lockouts or removal,
• initiation of eviction proceedings.
This is textbook extortion under California Penal Code §518, which prohibits obtaining money by:
• threat,
• pressure,
• or misuse of authority.
Using the threat of immediate housing loss—especially knowing the tenant had already complied with payment requirements—meets the statutory criteria for extortion.
The conduct also violates:
• Civil Code §1940.2 — Prohibiting harassment, threats, and retaliatory conduct by landlords.
• Civil Code §789.3 — Prohibiting any attempt to force a tenant out through coercive financial measures.
4. Significance in the Fraud Scheme
These tactics formed the operational bridge between:
• early contract manipulation (Cards 4–6), and
• later financial crimes (wire fraud, mail fraud, bank-instrument concealment).
By imposing unlawful early-payment demands and diverting funds to private accounts, the landlord created the structural conditions for:
• fraudulent 3-day notices,
• false claims of nonpayment,
• denial of funds he had already received,
• and manipulation of bank instruments central to the eviction scheme.
Card 7 demonstrates that the coercion was not incidental—it was part of a deliberate financial architecture designed to destabilize the tenant and create fraudulent arrears.
Card 8 establishes that Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices (BHHS), Huntington Beach office, formally received a complete evidentiary package documenting:
• the executed contract,
• payment receipts,
• notices of fraud,
• contradictions in the landlord’s statements,
• unauthorized payment modifications,
• and early evidence of contract tampering by the landlord’s agent.
USPS tracking confirms delivery and signature by “HH” on May 30. This establishes that BHHS had direct knowledge of rental fraud allegationsbefore any eviction filing.
Despite receiving this material, BHHS failed to respond, investigate, or intervene, even though the documents contradicted the landlord’s claims and revealed statutory violations in progress.
This failure constitutes:
• Corporate awareness of misconduct
• Willful disregard for tenant rights
• Negligence in supervision
• Suppression of material facts
• Failure to control or discipline an agent acting under their name
These factors play a critical role in escalating the case from civil wrongdoing to organizational liability and potential RICO exposure.
Card 8 also documents a complete breakdown of lawful contracting practices during the second year of tenancy. The email chains show:
1. Unauthorized Contract Changes
After the tenants signed the 2022–2023 lease:
• The agent attempted to change the payment method (from personal check to wire transfer).
• She demanded payment on the 20th of the prior month, contradicting the written lease (rent due on the 1st).
• She attempted to impose a $30/month surcharge not supported by any agreement.
• These amounts totaled $720 annually—a covert rent increase outside of CPI limits and not disclosed in writing.
2. False Urgency & Manufactured Delinquency
Multiple messages show the agent falsely stating:
“Have you paid rent for this month? The owner told me he hasn’t received it.”
These statements were made:
• before rent was due,
• without contractual basis,
• without any missed payment,
• and with the intent to create fear and force early payment.
3. Threats of a $500 Late Fee
The agent threatened a $500 fee—a term not found anywhere in the contract—again manufacturing false arrears and fear of eviction.
These coercive messages demonstrate intent to override the contract and create an artificial debt record.
4. Voiding & Re-Issuing Contracts
As shown in the voided “Residential Lease or Month-to-Month Rental Agreement,” multiple versions of the lease were generated within a two-day period. This:
• created confusion,
• allowed the agent to alter terms without disclosure,
• and deprived the tenants of a stable, reliable contract.
This pattern is consistent with document manipulation for financial gain.
CORPORATE LIABILITY: BHHS Failure to Investigate
Once BHHS received the contract, receipts, and fraud notices, they were obligated to:
• review the contract irregularities,
• correct the unauthorized payment demands,
• discipline their agent,
• and halt the unlawful conduct.
Instead:
• They ignored all written complaints,
• Allowed their agent to continue unauthorized contract changes,
• Allowed false delinquency reports to accumulate,
• And allowed the eviction to proceed based on known falsehoods.
This establishes a direct causal link between BHHS’s failure to act and the wrongful eviction.
SIGNIFICANCE IN THE FRAUD CHAIN
Card 8 is pivotal because it proves:
The corporation had early evidence of fraud.
The corporation chose not to intervene.
The corporation allowed known lies (nonpayment, altered terms, fake arrears) to be weaponized in court.
This corporate silence enabled the later wire fraud, mail fraud, cashier’s check concealment, and forged 13-month lease scheme.
Card 8 is the corporate-knowledge milestone the DA needs for establishing:
• negligence,
• supervision failure,
• organizational complicity,
• and possibly RICO enterprise behavior if misconduct was systemic.
CARD 9 — MAIL FRAUD: USPS PROOF VS. “NEVER GOT IT” LIE
CARD 9 — PRIOR PAYMENT CONFIRMED: OWNER & AGENT HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE BEFORE EV1CTION
DIRECT PRE-EVICTION KNOWLEDGE — Payment Made, Communicated, and Concealed
Card 9 establishes that the April 25, 2024 email titled “Witches burnt Broom” provided direct, written notice to Berkshire Hathaway agent Hanson Le that rent for May 2024 (first payment of Year 3) had already been paid.
In this email, the tenant states:
• The $5,000 May payment was transmitted the week prior.
• 11 remaining payments were scheduled at $5,350—mirroring the new contract terms.
• Household information was provided (wife professor, stable income, no hardship) to maintain transparency.
This email predates all eviction activities and proves the landlord and agent had actual knowledge of payment, eliminating any lawful basis for a 3-day notice.
This is the critical contradiction that collapses the eviction case.
KEY FINDINGS FROM CARD 9 BACK PAGE (PDF)
According to the uploaded evidence:
• The April 25 communication confirms early tender of the May rent.
• Under Civil Code §1583, tender is complete when delivered to the authorized agent — which it was.
• Both owner and agent acknowledged that Year-3 payments had begun (“11 payments remain at $5,350”).
• The later claim in court that “no payment was received” is directly contradicted by this email.
• Financial documents included in the packet (Barclays, Wells Fargo, Fidelity) prove ability to pay, eliminating any credible motive for nonpayment.
The PDF shows that the tenant followed the contract, documented communications, and provided notice far beyond what the law requires — while the landlord concealed receipt and lied about payment status.
THE DISHWASHER INCIDENT: BEGINNING OF THE OWNER’S UNLAWFUL PLAN
Shortly after this payment confirmation:
• A man appeared at the property claiming he was there to “replace the dishwasher.”
• This individual was later tied to the owner’s network and the unlawful scheme.
• This coincides precisely with the moment the owner initiated his fraudulent plan, attempting to convert the lawful Year-3 lease into a forced removal strategy.
While payment had already been accepted, the owner:
• refused to honor the contract,
• refused to install the dishwasher,
• redirected communication to avoid a paper trail,
• and began laying the groundwork for a fabricated arrears narrative.
The timing demonstrates: Payment in → owner begins planning illegal eviction → dishwasher incident marks the transition point from contract noncompliance to active fraud.
LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE — OWNER KNOWINGLY BROKE THE LAW
This evidence proves:
1. He knew rent was paid
He had the agent’s notice and your written notice.
2. He acted as if rent were unpaid
He later told the court the exact opposite of documented fact.
3. He accepted the benefits of tenancy
He allowed you to continue acting under the contract (and even wanted future payments at $5,350).
4. He created a false basis for eviction
Manufacturing arrears despite knowing payment had already been delivered.
5. He concealed evidence
He never produced this April 25 email to the court despite having been notified.
This meets the elements of:
• Fraud (Civil Code §1709–1710)
• Perjury via false statements in UD
• Constructive eviction
• Retaliation (Civil Code §1942.5)
• Bad-faith eviction (CCP §1174.2)
• Wire Fraud (18 USC §1343)
• Concealment of a financial instrument
WHY CARD 9 IS A PROSECUTOR'S GOLD MINE
Payment confirmed before any dispute.
Owner and agent had direct knowledge.
A fraudulent eviction was pursued anyway.
The dishwasher event marks the operational beginning of the owner’s scheme.
This email alone disproves the entire nonpayment narrative.
Card 9 forms one of the strongest pieces of evidence in the entire case because it shows the landlord initiated eviction knowing rent had been paid starting year three — which is the core act of fraud.
CARD 10 — BANK FRAUD: FALSE CLAIM OF “RETURNED CHECK”
CARD 10 — TEXT-BASED ADMISSIONS: PAYMENT, TERMS, AUTHORITY, AND INTENT
DIRECT MESSAGE EVIDENCE — The Owner & Agent’s Words Reveal the Scheme
Card 10 consolidates six key SMS threads between the landlord (Phat Tran), the unlicensed property manager (Hanson Le), and the tenants. These messages contain the most direct, unfiltered admissions of:
• payment acknowledgment,
• contract renewal acceptance,
• owner’s intent to renew at $5,350,
• non-compliance with the original lease,
• improper early-payment demands,
• bank-account redirection,
• concealment of roles,
• and use of false authority.
These texts prove knowledge, intent, and active participation in the fraud long before the eviction occurred.
1. The Owner Introduces Hanson as His Agent — April 4
“Hi Michael, sorry this late reply. The name of the manager is Hanson Le, he will contact you soon.”
This establishes:
• Hanson is acting under color of the owner’s authority,
• The owner is responsible for Hanson’s actions,
• BHHS liability attaches through agency principles.
2. Hanson Confirms His Role & Lease Renewal — April 5
“I am Hanson, a new property manager for Phat Tran. Good to connect with you… we were waiting for a DocuSign to extend the lease another year.”
This proves:
• Hanson is representing himself as manager,
• He is negotiating terms without a license,
• The owner approved continuation of tenancy,
• Year 3 lease intention is mutually understood.
3. Tenant Provides Required Disclosures — April 6–7
You disclose:
• your wife is a professor,
• your mother-in-law lives with you,
• your pets were approved,
• your residency has been stable for 2 years.
This:
• further establishes tenancy,
• proves transparency and cooperation,
• eliminates any possibility of “concealment” on your part.
4. The Owner Accepts New Payment Terms at $5,350 — April 19
“We are filling out new paper work… old lease 5000 then new payment 5350. I want people paying early.”
This text is devastating for the landlord in court because it:
• confirms he accepted the rent increase,
• confirms the terms of Year 3,
• shows he wanted early payment,
• and contradicts his later claim that you “refused to sign” or “did not pay.”
He literally acknowledges the new amount and renewal.
5. Tenant Correctly Shuts Down Hanson's Harassment — April 30
“I just told your property manager not to text me back again…”
This message is legally significant:
• You attempted to stop off-contract communications,
• This demonstrates harassment,
• Violates Civil Code §1940.2 (landlord intimidation),
• Shows the landlord failed to supervise his agent.
6. Hanson Issues “Official” Renewal Terms — then Requests Your Bank Info
“Also Michael, I just talked with the owner Dr. Phat Tran… start date 6/1/2024… rent rate $5,350/month.”
“What bank do you use so I can provide you my bank account number…?”
These lines together prove:
A. Renewal was accepted by both parties.
There is no legal way for the landlord to later deny tenancy or payment.
B. Hanson tried to divert rent to a private account.
This is:
• illegal under Civil Code §1962,
• unlicensed activity under Bus. & Prof. Code §10130,
• consistent with financial fraud,
• consistent with money-laundering patterns in property disputes.
C. This contradicts the owner’s later sworn testimony.
He cannot claim:
• “No payment was made,”
• “Tenant refused to renew,”
• “Tenant was behind on rent,”
• “We didn’t know he wanted to stay.”
His own agent documented the opposite.
LEGAL INTERPRETATION — WHAT THESE SIX TEXT THREADS PROVE
1. Actual Knowledge of Payment
They knew Year 3 had begun and expected 11 payments at $5,350.
2. Intent to Evict Despite Payment
They knew rent was paid and proceeded anyway.
3. Unlicensed Brokerage Activity
Hanson negotiated, altered, and enforced contract terms illegally.
4. Receipt of Funds
The communications acknowledge receipt of funds and expectations for continued payment.
5. Contract Acceptance
Both landlord and agent explicitly confirm renewal, meaning no eviction could lawfully be filed without fraud.
6. Early-Payment Extortion
“Pay early” and “bank account number” demands demonstrate coercive attempts to force a new financial scheme.
7. Diversion of Rent
Hanson tried to route payments into a personal account outside Berkshire pathways.
SIGNIFICANCE TO THE DA
These six SMS panels show:
• Motive: extract higher rent through pressure and off-book accounts.
• Method: misrepresentation, coercion, concealment.
• Knowledge: they knew rent was paid and tenancy renewed.
• Intent: evict regardless of legality.
• Agency: landlord + unlicensed agent working in concert.
BHHS WAS FORMALLY NOTIFIED BEFORE ANY EVICTION ACTIVITY — AND DID NOTHING
Card 11 establishes that Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices (BHHS) received multiple, documented notices of fraud, payment concealment, contract tampering, and unlawful eviction attempts weeks before the June 21, 2024 filing.
The evidence includes:
• certified USPS deliveries,
• emails to BHHS Legal in Irvine,
• letters to the Huntington Beach office,
• corporate web-form submissions,
• and direct correspondence identifying Hanson Le as the agent conducting the unlawful acts.
Taken together, these documents prove that BHHS:
knew the lease was valid,
knew rent had been paid,
knew their agent was involved in contract fraud,
knew the tenant was being harmed, and
chose not to intervene.
This card defeats any claim that BHHS “was unaware” or “not responsible.”
1. DIRECT NOTICE TO BHHS LEGAL DEPARTMENT (IRVINE)
The tenant mailed a detailed fraud report to:
Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices
Legal Department
18500 Von Karman Ave, Suite 400
Irvine, CA
This packet included:
• the executed contract,
• payment receipts,
• copies of the cashier’s check issue,
• evidence of forged/voided agreements,
• and a timeline of Hanson Le’s misconduct.
The email titled “Final attempt to negotiate a settlement” further outlines:
• that the lease was paid,
• the agent’s routing-number scheme,
• covert contract changes after execution,
• and harassment via multiple contradictory payment demands.
BHHS did not respond.
This is supervisory breach #1.
2. NOTICE TO BHHS HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFICE
A separate letter was mailed to:
BHHS Huntington Beach
Ethos Property
(Address shown in evidence)
This letter informed BHHS that:
• Hanson Le had altered contract terms,
• the payment was made but concealed,
• a fraudulent 3-day notice had been issued,
• the lease was being replaced with a counterfeit variation,
• and that police involvement had begun.
USPS tracking shows successful delivery and signature.
BHHS again failed to act.
Supervisory breach #2.
3. CORPORATE WEB-FORM COMPLAINT — INTERNAL SYSTEM NOTICE
The screenshot from BHHS’s own website shows a detailed online complaint submitted through the “General Question / Corporate Reporting” form. It states:
“Today I was served a 3-day notice to vacate. We have a new contract…
Hanson Le texted me he was giving me a new routing number but failed to give…
I sent a cashier’s check in May 2024 to the registered manager…
I am calling HB Police about this fraudster and your not responding to my documents showing fraud.”
BHHS receives and logs these automatically into internal compliance channels.
• the evidentiary package weighed over one pound,
• contained contracts, payment proofs, letters, and
• was delivered to BHHS Legal, BHHS Huntington Beach, Ethos, and the City Attorney.
This confirms:
• actual knowledge,
• constructive notice,
• and legal receipt of all major fraud allegations.
5. RELEVANT EXCERPT FROM FILED CARD 11 BACK PAGE
The uploaded text provides critical legal conclusions:
• BHHS had actual, constructive, and documentary notice of the fraud before the eviction filing.
• BHHS violated Bus. & Prof. Code §10148 (failure to supervise and maintain records).
• BHHS ignored multiple complaint channels — letter, email, website submission, certified mail.
• Their inaction constitutes willful blindness, exposing them to liability under conspiracy and fraud principles.
• Once notified, BHHS had an affirmative legal duty to investigate the agent’s misconduct.
• They instead allowed the fraudulent eviction to proceed unrestricted.
This aligns with the core corporate-liability standard:
A corporation that knows of unlawful conduct by its agents and permits that conduct to continue is legally responsible for the resulting harm.
6. WHY CARD 11 IS LEGALLY CRITICAL
A. It eliminates the “we didn’t know” defense.
BHHS received notice through every possible channel.
B. It establishes supervisory negligence.
A brokerage must supervise agents; BHHS did not.
C. It creates corporate culpability.
The failure to halt known fraud makes BHHS complicit.
D. It supports RICO and conspiracy elements.
Willful blindness = knowledge for criminal purposes.
E. It strengthens civil damages.
BHHS ignored evidence that could have stopped the eviction.
• the fraudulent 3-day notice,
• the concealment of the cashier’s check,
• the forged 13-month lease,
• and the unlawful eviction filing.
Without BHHS’s inaction, the scheme collapses.
This is why Card 11 is among the top 3 cards for prosecutors.
CARD 12 — DRE EVIDENCE AGAINST ANNA LY (NO NOTICE, NO LICENSE)
CARD 12 — REGULATORY NOTICE, POLICE RECOGNITION OF FRAUD & SYSTEMIC FAILURE TO INTERVENE
EARLY GOVERNMENT NOTICE — State Regulators & Police Acknowledged Fraud Before Eviction
Card 12 documents that both the California Department of Real Estate (DRE) and the Huntington Beach Police Department (HBPD) were formally notified weeks before the landlord filed the fraudulent eviction.
This evidence demonstrates that:
State regulators recognized the criminal elements,
Local law enforcement recognized the fraud pattern,
Both agencies took no action,
Allowing the landlord and agent to escalate into full eviction fraud.
This card proves the fraud was not a misunderstanding, but a known pattern, reported early, and ignored.
1. FORMAL DRE ACKNOWLEDGMENT — Assigned Investigator, Case Opened
The DRE sent written confirmation assigning Investigator Tom Nguyen, acknowledging receipt of your complaint.
The letters include:
• confirmation of your allegations,
• acknowledgment of receipt of evidence,
• direction to continue sending documents,
• identification of the agent(s) under investigation.
This is regulatory notice event #1.
Later communications show the case being handled by additional investigative personnel as the fraud expanded.
2. YOUR FORMAL FRAUD REPORT TO DRE — 27-Page Evidence Packet
DRE acknowledged reviewing these materials.
They classified the matter as requiring investigative review, meaning DRE formally recognized potential criminal acts, not merely civil disputes.
Yet no regulatory action followed.
3. DRE INFORMATION OFFICER CONFIRMS RECEIPT OF CRIMINAL CONCERNS
Your communications with Jessica Chuccia, DRE Information Officer, document:
Although the agency attempted to narrow the framing to a “civil” matter, your responses correctly reframed:
• forged signatures,
• fraudulent banking activity,
• extortion,
• concealment of funds,
• issuing false notices while knowing payment was made.
DRE acknowledged these submissions — and then failed to act.
4. HBPD RECOGNIZES THE SCHEME AS FRAUD — BEFORE THE EVICTION
Your email threads and station-visit statements confirm:
• An HBPD officer behind the counter reviewed your documents and said plainly: “This is a scam and fraud. They have your live check.”
• He explained this was a common pattern in rental fraud cases:
– payment accepted,
– agent disappears,
– rent denied,
– sudden eviction attempt,
– property re-rented at higher price.
• The Watch Commander later said Hanson Le had “no responsibility to communicate with you — he is done after taking the payment.”
This demonstrates law enforcement knew the agent took your payment and then stonewalled you — consistent with concealment of a financial instrument.
HBPD never initiated a fraud investigation.
5. CRITICAL ANALYSIS FROM CARD 12 BACK PAGE
Your uploaded document confirms:
• DRE had full evidentiary notice of fraudulent payment concealment, forged and voided contracts, retaliatory conduct, unauthorized rent increase, and bank-instrument manipulation.
• HBPD admitted your case fit a known real-estate fraud pattern.
• Both agencies recognized criminal elements, including extortion and forgery.
• Both failed to act, enabling the fraudulent June 21 eviction filing.
This is institutional failure, not tenant error.
6. WHY THIS MATTERS TO THE DA
A. Confirms Early Proof of Fraud
Regulators and police were informed before the landlord filed the eviction.
This proves your case is not a “late complaint” — you tried to stop the fraud in real time.
B. Shows Knowledge Across All Oversight Layers
• State agency (DRE)
• Local police (HBPD)
• Corporate supervisors (BHHS Legal + HB office)
Everyone had notice.
Everyone failed to act.
C. Supports Criminal Charges
This evidence supports:
• forgery,
• extortion,
• bank fraud,
• wire fraud,
• mail fraud,
• filing false instruments,
• elder abuse,
• conspiracy,
• and RICO theory (enterprise with multiple actors and failures of oversight).
D. Establishes Escalation
You were reporting fraud before the dishwasher incident, before the cashier’s check concealment, before the forged lease, and before the 3-day notice.
The fraud escalated only because no one intervened.
7. SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN THE EVIDENCE CHAIN
Card 12 shows:
• You notified DRE → no action
• You notified HBPD → no action
• You notified BHHS → no action
This institutional silence allowed the landlord and agent to:
• conceal payments,
• issue fraudulent notices,
• forge a 13-month lease,
• and push through a wrongful eviction built on lies.
Card 12 is therefore a cornerstone exhibit showing:
“This fraud was not hidden. It was reported. It was known.
It continued only because those responsible to intervene chose not to.”
CARD 13 — SIGNATURE FORGERY: CREDIT APPLICATIONS AFTER PAYMENT
THE MOST DIRECT EVIDENCE OF INTENTIONAL FRAUD, COVER-UP & CORPORATE COUNTERFEITING
Card 13 captures the point in the fraud timeline where the landlord and unlicensed agent Hanson Le attempted to wipe out an already-established tenancy after accepting the first Year-3 payment, using:
Hanson was not a broker, did not have signing authority, and was acting outside his license.
This alone triggers criminal liability.
2. AFTER RECEIVING YOUR PAYMENT, THEY TRY TO ERASE YOUR TENANCY
From the text logs:
• You confirm the $5,000 Year-3 payment (April 25).
• Hanson confirms he received your application and documents.
• You state clearly:
“Next time I email facts I will also text that information.”
Immediately after your payment clears, Hanson demands:
“Please forward your rental application…
Please send your bank account so I can provide you MY bank account number to transfer monthly rent to me instead of the owner.”
This is:
• an attempt to replace the lease,
• reset the tenancy,
• erase prior protections,
• and divert rent to an unauthorized private account.
It directly supports tenancy-reset fraud.
3. THE CREDIT-APPLICATION RESET SCHEME (AFTER PAYMENT)
This is the smoking gun.
As documented in the uploaded Card 13 Back PDF:
• Hanson demanded new credit applications for you, your wife, and your mother-in-law AFTER the landlord accepted the first Year-3 payment.
• This was not required under any C.A.R. lease.
• It was a ploy to reclassify you as “new tenants” and eliminate the existing lease protections.
• This tactic is explicitly tied to evading AB-1482 rent caps, resetting rent rates, and enabling fast eviction.
The police officer confirmed the pattern:
“It’s a scam… happens all the time… they take your payment and disappear.”
This is intentional fraud — not a misunderstanding.
4. MOTHER-IN-LAW INCLUDED ON SIGNED CREDIT APPLICATION — PROVES OCCUPANCY RIGHTS
The uploaded PDF confirms:
• Your mother-in-law was formally screened.
• Her name appears on the signed application.
• She was recognized as an authorized occupant.
Legally, this invokes:
• ADA protections
• Age-related protections (elder abuse, PC §368)
• Notice requirements for all occupants
The landlord then lied to the court later, claiming she was “not a resident.”
This is perjury by omission and a violation of Civil Code §1942.5 (retaliation).
5. HANSON ADMITS HIS ROLE WAS LIMITED — EXPOSES THE ENTIRE FRAUD
In the email screenshot:
“I was only paid to sign the contract… You should contact the owner directly.”
This proves:
• He had no authority to modify terms.
• No authority to issue notices.
• No authority to demand credit applications.
• No authority to handle or redirect rent.
• No authority to use BHHS seal.
This turns every act he performed — payment routing, contract alteration, tenant screening, notices — into unlicensed real estate activity (B&P Code §10130).
6. DIRECT THREATS, PROFANITY & RETALIATORY ACTIONS
From the SMS logs:
“dumb f***… officer said it happens all the time… it’s a scam.”
This message alone displays:
• harassment (Civil Code §1940.2)
• bad-faith conduct
• retaliatory motive
• unprofessional and unlawful communication from an agent
• acknowledgment of criminal wrongdoing
This is admissible evidence of malice.
7. POLICE CONFIRM BOTH THE FRAUD PATTERN & THE LIVE CHECK
HBPD statements documented in Card 13 Back:
“This is a scam… they have your live check.”
“Happens all the time… office will be closed or abandoned.”
“Agent has no responsibility to communicate with you — he is done.”
Forgery, counterfeit seal, new credit apps, fake paperwork.
Direct proof of knowledge
They knew rent was paid, contract renewed, tenancy valid.
Direct proof of coordination
Owner + unlicensed agent acting in parallel.
Direct proof of conspiracy
Multiple acts over time with a single fraudulent objective.
Direct proof of criminal exposure
Felonies under California penal statutes.
CARD 14 — CONTRACT SIGNATURE FRAUD: OWNER NEVER SIGNED ANY LEASE
CARD 14 — UNAUTHORIZED USE OF BHHS SYSTEMS, COUNTERFEIT AGENCY & ILLEGAL SEVERING OF REPRESENTATION
FORGERY THROUGH SUBSTITUTE AGENT — Counterfeit Contract Execution Using BHHS Identity
Card 14 documents that Hanson Le, who was not the agent of record on any legitimate lease, used Berkshire Hathaway’s corporate identity, email system, and branding to execute a forged Year-3 contract, while the true licensed agent of record — Anna Ly, the landlord’s daughter — was concealed.
This is one of the strongest fraud cards in the binder.
It proves false authority, forgery, corporate misrepresentation, and intentional substitution of agents for the purpose of tenancy erasure.
1. HANSON LE USED BHHS EMAIL, SOFTWARE & LETTERHEAD TO CREATE A COUNTERFEIT CONTRACT
The images show:
• Hanson’s BHHS business card with corporate branding
• Corporate seal, licensed trademark, and the phrase: “A Name & A Company You Can Trust…”
• His message sent from: hansonle@bhhscaprops.com
• Use of BHHS document-creation software for contract execution
He used BHHS electronic systems to:
• appear as a legitimate Berkshire agent,
• deliver a forged contract naming himself as the leasing representative,
• overwrite the original agent of record (Anna Ly),
• and give the appearance of licensed authority that he did not legally possess.
This constitutes:
• Penal Code §470 — Forgery of a contract
• Penal Code §472 — Use of a counterfeit corporate seal
• Bus. & Prof. Code §10130 — Unlicensed real estate brokerage activity
• Bus. & Prof. Code §10176 — Misrepresentation, false documents
2. HANSON LE APPEARS ONLY ON THE FORGED DOCUMENTS — NEVER ON ANY LEGITIMATE CONTRACTS
As your uploaded Card 14 Back states:
• Anna Ly is the agent of record on all legally executed leases.
• Hanson appears ONLY on the forged/substituted contract used in the eviction.
• His sudden insertion is evidence of a planned scheme to erase tenancy history and reset the rent.
This confirms legally:
Hanson was not acting under lawful agency — he was installed to facilitate the fraudulent contract.
3. FRAUDULENT TENANCY RESET — Why They Needed Hanson
The purpose of substituting Hanson onto a forged contract was:
• to eliminate the two-year tenancy history (protected under AB-1482),
• to treat you as “new tenants,”
• to justify illegal rent increases,
• to evade rent caps,
• to enable fast eviction,
• to disconnect Anna Ly and the landlord’s family from formal responsibility,
• and to conceal the actual executed leases from the court.
This was the reset maneuver enabling the remainder of the fraud sequence.
4. HANSON’S EMAIL ADMITTING ILLEGAL SEVERANCE OF AGENCY
The second uploaded image shows Hanson writing:
“Please direct all of your contact directly with the owner.
I don’t have any further involvement with you or the owner.”
This is impossible under California real-estate law.
A licensed agent cannot:
• sever representation in the middle of a contractual transaction,
• walk away after accepting payment,
• disclaim fiduciary duty after signing a contract,
• eliminate their own role after executing a binding agreement.
This message demonstrates:
• consciousness of guilt,
• intentional evasion,
• and knowledge that the forged contract was not valid.
It also supports PC §32 (accessory after the fact) because he attempts to distance himself after executing the fraudulent instrument.
5. UNAUTHORIZED CORPORATE REPRESENTATION
Using BHHS trademarks and systems without authority exposes:
BHHS corporate liability, because:
• Hanson acted under the BHHS brand,
• using BHHS email, signature block, office address, and software,
• while facilitating forgery and fraudulent eviction conduct,
• and BHHS failed to supervise or intervene after multiple notices.
This satisfies supervisory-failure elements under:
• Bus. & Prof. Code §10148 — Brokerage must maintain and supervise records
• BHHS franchise compliance standards
• Civil conspiracy negligence standards
6. WHEN HANSON DISAPPEARED — THE TIMING IS THE EVIDENCE
Hanson withdraws immediately after:
• Your Year-3 payment was made,
• You emailed proof of payment,
• You rejected his self-created rules,
• You questioned the forged contract,
• And you contacted law enforcement.
This shows:
His purpose was complete — deliver forged documents and vanish.
This matches the “agent disappears after accepting your payment” pattern HBPD described in Card 12.
7. LEGAL IMPACT OF CARD 14
Together, these facts prove:
A. Forgery of contractual documents
The forged contract listing Hanson was designed to erase your rights.
B. Counterfeit corporate representation
Unauthorized use of BHHS identity to lend legitimacy to a forged document.
C. Illegal severing of agency
Disavowing responsibility immediately after committing the fraudulent act.
D. Conspiracy & coordinated fraud
Hanson + landlord + Anna Ly, strategically timed, sequential acts.
E. Corporate supervisory failure
BHHS allowed misuse of its brand and systems, despite receiving notice.
8. SINGLE-SENTENCE PROSECUTOR SUMMARY (for back of card)
Hanson Le used Berkshire Hathaway’s corporate systems to execute a forged lease, substituted himself onto fraudulent documents to erase the existing tenancy, then illegally severed his agency relationship to evade accountability — a coordinated act of forgery, deceit, and counterfeit corporate representation.
CARD 15 — TENANT RIGHTS VIOLATIONS & FABRICATED NONPAYMENT NARRATIVE
Card 15 establishes that before the landlord issued the fraudulent 3-Day Notice, he and his agent:
Had already received payment,
Had acknowledged receiving payment,
Had received your full evidentiary package,
Had possession of the Berkshire Hathaway check,
Had notice of fraud, and
Knew the non-payment claim was false.
This card proves actual knowledge, intentional concealment, and fraudulent use of the court process.
1. USPS CONFIRMS CORPORATE RECEIPT OF EVIDENCE — “SIGNED BY HH”
Your uploaded screenshot shows:
“Our systems show your item was delivered…
on May 30th, 2024…
the item was signed for by HH.”
This confirms BHHS Huntington Beach received your evidentiary package, which included:
• contract copies,
• payment confirmation,
• cashier’s check proof,
• notice of fraud,
• communications timeline,
• and a demand for intervention.
This delivery occurred BEFORE the fraudulent 3-Day Notice was issued.
They cannot deny knowledge.
2. USPS RECEIPT: YOU FOLLOWED EVERY LEGAL NOTICE REQUIREMENT
Your USPS receipt (uploaded image) documents:
• “First-Class Package – Evidentiary Packet,”
• delivered to BHHS HB, BHHS Legal Irvine, Ethos, City Attorney,
• weight exceeding 1 pound,
• tracking consistent with timely service.
This is legally binding constructive notice under California law.
Their later claim that “we never received anything” is provably false.
3. OWNER’S OWN TEXT MESSAGE DESTROYS HIS CASE
You uploaded the text where Phat admits:
“Hi Michael, sorry I didn’t know you did pay your rent to the Hanson account…”
This admission proves:
A. He knew rent was paid.
B. He knew Hanson had the funds.
C. He cannot claim “non-payment.”
D. The 3-Day Notice was knowingly false.
This is direct evidence of intent to deceive the court.
4. BHHS CHECK IMAGE — THE PAYMENT THEY HID
You also provided the check marked:
“BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY — Four Thousand Three Hundred and …”
This is the BHHS-designated payment instrument, addressed properly per the contract.
Legally important facts:
• The check was never returned,
• The landlord had no authority to possess or return a check payable to BHHS,
• The landlord did not return the full $5,350 (he returned only $4,300 to manipulate the record),
• BHHS later claimed “no record of payment,” despite having received your package.
This demonstrates conversion, concealment, and evidence suppression.
5. PHAT TRAN’S MULTIPLE AKA IDENTITIES
Your image shows the compiled list of Phat’s alternate spellings and names:
• Phat Lucky Dr Tran
• Phat K Tran
• Phat L Tran
• Phat He
• etc.
The presence of multiple identities is relevant because:
• it complicates background tracing,
• it supports financial-fraud risk factors,
• it is consistent with evasive document behavior,
• it may relate to the mail-fraud scheme (routing payments to different names).
This evidence supports the DA’s understanding of possible intent to obscure records and payment routes.
6. LANDLORD ACKNOWLEDGES YOUR PACKAGE — THEN CLAIMS IGNORANCE
Your text to Phat:
“I have not heard back from them yet regarding if they found this contract…”
This shows:
• BHHS acknowledged they were searching for the contract (your proof),
• but no one corrected the record or stopped the fraudulent eviction,
• indicating supervisory failure and willful blindness.
7. BACK PAGE ANALYSIS (OFFICIAL CARD 15 BACK TEXT)
The uploaded Card 15 Back text confirms:
• The 3-Day Notice was issued after BHHS and the landlord received payment and evidence,
• Phat’s text acknowledging payment proves he knew nonpayment was false,
• The landlord’s claim of returning a “check” is impossible (no such return happened),
• The BHHS check itself disproves all sworn eviction statements,
• Proceeding with eviction anyway satisfies mail fraud (18 U.S.C. §1341),
• Filing false documents satisfies Penal Code §115,
• The conduct supports charges of perjury, fraud, and conspiracy,
• BHHS’s failure to intervene breached Bus. & Prof. Code §10148,
• All evidence refutes the landlord’s narrative and confirms intentional deception.
8. WHY CARD 15 IS ABSOLUTELY DEVASTATING TO THE EVICTION CASE
A. Payment made.
B. Payment acknowledged.
C. Evidence package delivered.
D. BHHS signature recorded.
E. BHHS check exists.
F. They pretended payment didn’t exist.
G. They issued a 3-Day Notice anyway.
H. They lied to the court.
This is 100% proof of a knowingly fraudulent eviction.
9. DA SUMMARY SENTENCE
Card 15 establishes the moment of criminal liability: the landlord and agent filed a 3-Day Notice knowing payment had been made, acknowledged, and documented — an act constituting mail fraud, false filing, perjury, and conspiracy under California and federal law.
CARD 16 — REAL LEASE vs. COUNTERFEIT LEASE: DOCUMENT FRAUD & AB-1482 VIOLATIONS
THE DEFINING EVIDENCE OF CONTRACT FORGERY, TENANCY RESET FRAUD & UNLAWFUL EVICTION
Card 16 is the linchpin that proves the eviction was engineered through document fraud, counterfeit use of Berkshire Hathaway corporate insignia, and a deliberate attempt to erase a legally binding tenancy already renewed and paid for.
This card shows:
The REAL Year-3 lease (DocuSign, certified, fully executed).
The COUNTERFEIT lease created by Hanson Le for Phat Luu Ky Tran.
The timing of the fraud—the forged lease appears only after Year-3 payment was accepted.
The statutory protections violated, especially AB-1482.
The criminal exposure under Penal Code §§ 115, 470, 472 and rent-cap ordinances.
1. THE REAL YEAR-3 LEASE — LEGALLY BINDING, VERIFIED, CERTIFIED
Your uploaded documents show:
• DocuSign Certificate of Completion
• Valid metadata: IP addresses, timestamps, audit trail
• Signatures from all proper parties
• Lease term extending into Year 3
• Full C.A.R. disclosure packet, including:
– Rent Cap & Just Cause Addendum required by AB-1482
– Proper rent amount
– Proper conditions
– Anna Ly listed as the true agent of record
Under California law, acceptance of rent for the renewal period perfects the tenancy, making the contract binding even if the landlord later attempts to deny it.
The real DocuSign lease was signed weeks before the fraudulent eviction attempt, and the landlord accepted the April 19 wire paymentunder this lease.
This is the contract in effect at the time of eviction.
Everything else is forged or counterfeit.
2. THE COUNTERFEIT HANSON LE LEASE — A FORGED DOCUMENT
Your images show a second, unauthorized “lease” that:
• Lists Hanson Le (not Anna Ly)
• Contains altered dates, removed disclosures, changed fields, and manipulated rent terms
• Omits the AB-1482 Just Cause Addendum
• Has no DocuSign metadata, no certified audit trail
• Uses BHHS corporate insignia despite Hanson lacking authority
This aligns exactly with the Card 16 Back findings.
Police Officer Confirmation (as quoted in your earlier evidence):
“This becomes counterfeiting — like using a printing press to make your own money.”
The counterfeit Hanson lease was created for one purpose only: to erase your actual tenancy and replace it with a fake, reset tenancy to justify eviction.
3. THE TIMING SHOWS INTENT TO DEFRAUD
From Card 16 Back (must cite):
The forged contract appears only after:
You paid the Year-3 rent.
You emailed the April 25 “Witches Broom” confirmation.
They acknowledged the start of Year 3.
The lease was already legally executed via DocuSign.
This timing is critical because:
They attempted the tenancy reset only after they had your money.
And they needed a forged lease with no AB-1482 protections in order to:
• raise rent illegally,
• issue fraudulent 3-day notices,
• hide the real contract,
• and conceal payment acceptance.
4. THE AB-1482 VIOLATIONS ARE UNAVOIDABLE
The real lease contains the required Rent Cap & Just Cause Addendum outlining:
The forged lease removes all of this, specifically to eliminate:
• your rent-cap protection,
• your just-cause rights,
• the need for proper notice,
• your legal standing as a continuing tenant.
This is the textbook definition of an AB-1482 evasion scheme.
5. REAL LEASE NAMES ANNA LY — FORGED LEASE NAMES HANSON LE
This exposes the deeper conspiracy:
• Anna Ly, the owner’s daughter, is the real agent of record.
• She signed all legitimate lease documents.
• She is legally responsible for disclosures and compliance.
• Naming Hanson on the forged lease disconnects the fraud from the family and obscures liability.
This also ties directly into RICO-style enterprise behavior:
• false paperwork,
• substituted agents,
• forged corporate identity,
• concealment of the real contract,
• coordinated evasion between landlord + agent + corporate silence.
6. REAL-LEASE VS COUNTERFEIT LEASE SIDE-BY-SIDE (Summary)
Real Year-3 Lease
Forged Hanson Lease
DocuSign certification
No DocuSign trail
AB-1482 Addendum included
Addendum removed
Signed by proper agent (Anna Ly)
Signed/issued by unauthorized person (Hanson)
Tenancy governed by statute
Statutory protections erased
Rent amounts consistent
Rent inflated + inconsistent
Lawful notice method
Illegal “new paperwork” reset
Acceptable contract
Counterfeit instrument
The forged lease is not a clerical error.
It is a weaponized instrument used to remove two years of tenancy and legal rights.
7. LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE
Card 16 proves:
A. Document Forgery
Counterfeit lease introduced to nullify the real contract.
B. AB-1482 Violations
Just-cause and rent-cap protections intentionally removed.
C. Tenancy Reset Scheme
Reclassifying you as “new tenants” AFTER accepting Year-3 payment.
D. Fraudulent 3-Day Notice
The forged lease was used as the basis for a knowingly false eviction filing.
E. Filing of a Forged Instrument (PC §115)
Submitting or relying on a forged lease in court is a felony.
F. Corporate Seal Misuse
Hanson used BHHS insignia to legitimize a forged contract.
G. Intent to Deceive
The contract timing and structure show this was deliberate—not accidental.
8. ONE-SENTENCE DA SUMMARY
Card 16 proves the landlord and agent replaced a valid DocuSign lease with a forged, counterfeit version to erase tenancy rights, evade AB-1482 protections, and commit a fraudulent eviction based entirely on falsified documents.
CARD 17 — MOVE-OUT FRAUD: NO WALKTHROUGH, FABRICATED DAMAGE CLAIMS
1. MOVE-IN MESSAGE MISREPRESENTED AS MOVE-OUT (FRAUD ON ITS FACE)
Per the Card 17 Back analysis:
• The message was a move-in handoff, not move-out.
• It proves the landlord never performed the required move-in inspection under Civil Code §1950.5.
• Without a documented move-in condition report:
– no damages may be charged,
– no deposit may be withheld,
– all LY Construction claims collapse.
Using this message as “move-out verification” is direct evidence of intentional fraud.
2. NO MOVE-IN CONDITION REPORT — STATUTORY VIOLATION #1
Civil Code §1950.5 requires:
• A written move-in inspection form,
• Signed by landlord and tenant,
• Identifying the condition of each room and fixture,
• Provided BEFORE tenancy begins.
The landlord provided none.
Without a baseline record, no alleged damage can legally be attributed to the tenant.
Therefore, every LY Construction charge is invalid.
3. NO PRE-MOVE-OUT WALK-THROUGH — STATUTORY VIOLATION #2
Civil Code §1950.5(f) requires landlords to:
• Offer a pre-move-out inspection,
• Identify proposed deductions,
• Give the tenant time to remedy or dispute.
The landlord did not:
• schedule a walk-through,
• issue required notices,
• give an opportunity to repair anything.
Failure to offer this inspection automatically invalidates damage charges.
4. LY CONSTRUCTION — FAMILY BUSINESS, FALSE DAMAGES, AND INFLATED BILLING
Your uploaded invoice shows LY Construction, tied directly to Anna Ly, billing:
• $7,837 for materials and labor,
• including replacing 88¢ carpets the tenants never damaged,
• done during Year 3, not move-out.
This is a coordinated pattern:
• family-run contracting company,
• no legitimate move-out basis for charges,
• inflated material and labor costs,
• invoice issued after a fraudulent eviction.
Per the Card 17 Back PDF:
• With no move-in inspection and no move-out walk-through,
• the invoice is fraudulent on its face,
• serving as a mechanism for financial extraction and false claims.
This supports charges under:
• Penal Code §115 — Filing a false instrument
• Civil Code §1950.5 — Unlawful deposit withholding
• Penal Code §532 — Obtaining money under false pretenses
• Elder financial abuse (PC §368) if tied to your mother-in-law’s displacement
5. AGENT MISREPRESENTATION: ANNA LY CLAIMED SHE “NO LONGER WORKED FOR PHAT” IN 2023— BUT STILL HANDLED MOVE-OUT & DAMAGES
Your uploaded email shows:
“I no longer work for Phat Tran, call him directly.” — Anna Ly (2023)
Yet:
• She reappears to handle the move-out,
• Communicates with attorney Silverstein,
• Sends clearance-related emails,
• Oversees LY Construction repair billing,
• Represents move-out conditions to the court.
This is a false statement of agency status, which supports:
• Misrepresentation
• Evasion of responsibility
• Concealment of conflict of interest
• Fraudulent participation in damage assessment
As the true agent of record on all legitimate leases, she had:
Her re-entry indicates coordinated participation in the eviction and damage-fabrication scheme.
6. DAMAGE CLAIMS CONTRADICT REALITY — CARPETS REPLACED IN YEAR 3, NOT AT MOVE-OUT
Your clarification shows:
• LY Construction replaced the carpets during Year 3,
• Tenant did not damage carpets,
• Carpets were replaced while you were still living there.
This proves:
• Damage did not exist,
• Damage was not tenant-caused,
• The invoice is for routine upgrades, not repairs,
• It was used post-eviction to justify financial extraction.
This aligns with the fraudulent pattern seen in many property-upgrade evictions.
Card 17 proves the landlord and agent fabricated damages by mislabeling a move-in message as move-out documentation, skipping all required inspections, and issuing a fraudulent invoice through a family contractor—rendering the entire damage claim legally void and supporting charges of fraud, false filing, and unlawful financial gain.
CARD 18 — ELDER ABUSE: MEDICAL INCAPACITY IGNORED BY LANDLORD & COUNSEL
THE THREE SEPARATE CRIMES IN ONE DOCUMENT:
(1) False Nonpayment Claim
(2) Illegal Private Bank Redirection
(3) Filing a Void, Unsigned Notice
Card 18 establishes that the June 21, 2024 “3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit” was not only unlawful — it was an engineered fraud, designed to create a false eviction basis when the landlord already had full payment, documentary proof, and actual knowledge that rent was paid.
This card is one of the most important in the entire series.
1. THE REQUIRED RENT HAD ALREADY BEEN PAID — EARLY, FULLY, AND DOCUMENTED
The 3-Day Notice demands:
• $5,300 due on June 1,
• allegedly unpaid for the period June 1–15.
But the facts prove the opposite:
A. USPS confirms delivery of payment evidence on May 30
USPS tracking delivered your packet to BHHS Huntington Beach at 3:43 p.m., signed by “H.H.”.
B. Payment was made through the Berkshire contract channel well before June 1
C. The landlord personally admitted payment was made
As shown in Card 15:
“Sorry, I didn’t know you did pay your rent to the Hanson account.”
This proves:
• payment was made,
• agent had the funds,
• owner knew this before issuing the notice,
• the notice was knowingly false.
This is fraud by affirmative misrepresentation.
2. THE 3-DAY NOTICE DIRECTED PAYMENT INTO A PRIVATE ACCOUNT – ILLEGAL
The Notice orders:
“MAKE RENT PAYABLE TO: PHAT TRAN c/o WELLS FARGO BANK ACCT #1058959166”
This violates the written lease, which required rent to be paid to:
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESERVICES
—not to the landlord’s private checking account.
This is:
• trust-fund diversion,
• bank-instrument fraud (18 U.S.C. §1344),
• unauthorized modification of lease terms,
• evidence of concealed payment routing,
• a violation of Civil Code §1962 (payment location disclosure requirements).
The illegal bank-routing instructions alone void the notice.
3. THE PAYMENT LOCATION ON THE NOTICE IS FALSE
The Notice directs:
“Make the payment at this address: 19041 Beach Blvd, Huntington Beach”
This is not:
• the property address,
• the broker’s office,
• a lawful payment location listed in the lease,
• or any authorized agent’s known address.
This is a false payment address, which makes the Notice legally defective.
Under CCP §1161, a 3-Day Notice is void if:
• the payment location is improper,
• unclear,
• contradictory,
• or materially false.
This notice fails all four requirements.
4. THE NOTICE IS UNSIGNED — A FATAL LEGAL DEFECT
The notice lacks the landlord’s required signature.
Under CCP §1161, an unsigned notice:
• is void on its face,
• cannot support an unlawful detainer,
• invalidates the entire eviction filing,
• and constitutes false filing if used anyway.
This defect alone terminates the eviction case.
5. THE NOTICE REQUIRES PAYMENT FOR DATES NOT LEGALLY OWED
The Notice demands June 1–15 rent for:
June 1–15, 2024 for the period of June 1–30, 2024
This contradicts itself — and shows obvious fabrication.
Even if rent had not been paid (it had), the landlord cannot:
• issue a 3-Day Notice mid-month,
• restructure billing periods not in the lease,
• accelerate rent illegally,
• or demand partial-period payment.
This is another statutory defect that voids the notice.
6. THE BACK PAGE ANALYSIS CONFIRMS THIS NOTICE IS FULL FRAUD
Your uploaded Card 18 Back file establishes:
• Rent was paid early, not late.
• The landlord knew this.
• The 3-Day Notice contradicts known facts.
• Private account routing = trust-fund diversion.
• Filing a notice known to be false satisfies
– Penal Code §115 (filing a false instrument)
– Penal Code §118 (perjury)
– 18 U.S.C. §1341 (mail fraud)
– 18 U.S.C. §1344 (bank fraud)
• The notice violates AB-1482 because no true nonpayment existed.
• The property was governed by Just Cause requirements — none satisfied.
• The landlord’s conduct represents bad-faith eviction under Civil Code §1940.2.
This is criminal misuse of judicial process, not a civil billing dispute.
7. DA SUMMARY SENTENCE (USE ON BACK OF CARD)
Card 18 proves the landlord issued a knowingly false 3-Day Notice — demanding payment already made, routing funds into an illegal private account, using a void unsigned form, and triggering eviction through fraud, trust-fund diversion, and false filing.
CARD 19 — BANK FRAUD: JULY PAYMENT & "PRIVATE ACCOUNT" DIVERSION
Card 19 documents a coordinated fraud scheme executed by Phat Tran, LY Construction, and eviction attorney Steven D. Silverstein. The exhibits demonstrate extortion, attempted double collection, bank-instrument manipulation, fabricated damages, and the use of false legal filings to execute an unlawful eviction.
1. BANK-INSTRUMENT FRAUD — LANDLORD REFUSED LAWFUL BANK PROCEDURES
After demanding payment and later denying receipt of the $5,000 cashier’s check, the tenant immediately contacted Wells Fargo to resolve the issue.
Wells Fargo provided the following legal rules for cashier’s checks over a certain amount:
A cashier’s check cannot be cancelled or replaced unless the payee (Phat Tran) appears in person, presents ID, and signs a lost/stolen/destroyed instrument affidavit.
If the landlord refuses to appear, the bank cannot act.
Wells Fargo offered an alternative: The bank would immediately advance funds to Phat Tranprovided he maintained at least a $4,000 minimum balance (“cushion”) in his account until the original check cleared.
This protects the bank if the original check is later cashed.
The tenant relayed these instructions exactly as provided — offering a lawful, immediate solution to make the landlord whole.
Landlord’s reaction — evidence of intent to defraud:
Phat Tran refused:
• to go to the bank,
• to show identification,
• to sign the affidavit,
• or to maintain the $4,000 cushion required for immediate payout.
Instead, he demanded:
“Just put the money in my account.” “Don’t worry about the check.”
This refusal is proof of consciousness of guilt, because:
• If the check were truly lost, he would have eagerly signed the affidavit.
• His refusal indicates the check was not lost — he or his agent had possession or control of it.
• His demand for a second payment constitutes attempted double collection, conversion, and bank fraud (18 U.S.C. §1344).
2. EXTORTION — DEMANDING FINANCIAL PRODUCTS UNDER THREAT OF EVICTION
Text messages show the landlord pressuring the tenant to purchase a financial bond to “avoid delays” in the eviction process, despite full payment having been made:
“Waiting can be avoided with the purchase of an acceptable bond… you’ll be out 6%.”
This satisfies Penal Code §518 (extortion) because:
• No arrears existed.
• Payment was confirmed and acknowledged.
• The threat of eviction was used to coerce a financial transaction.
• The landlord sought financial advantage by creating false urgency.
3. FABRICATED DAMAGES & FALSE BILLING — LY CONSTRUCTION
The “Clearance Report” and LY Construction invoice show:
• $7,837 in charges
• No move-in inspection
• No move-out walk-through
• No documentation of alleged “damage”
• Charges for carpet replacement that occurred during Year 3, not after vacating
Under Civil Code §1950.5, failure to perform required inspections renders all damage claims invalid.
The invoice is therefore:
• a false claim,
• submitted for financial extraction,
• supporting charges under Penal Code §115 (false instrument) and §532 (obtaining money by false pretenses).
Because a dependent family member (your mother-in-law) was displaced and targeted during the process, these actions also meet elements of elder financial abuse (PC §368).
4. ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT — FILING KNOWN FALSE CLAIMS
Attorney Steven Silverstein, known for operating a high-volume eviction practice, filed eviction documents containing:
• false claims of nonpayment,
• forged/counterfeit contract data,
• fabricated arrears,
• and damage charges unsupported by law.
By filing and prosecuting an unlawful detainer based on known false facts, he violated:
• mail fraud — delivery of false notices
• wire fraud — texts/emails used to convey false statements
• bank fraud — attempted double collection
• false filing — forged contracts & clearing report
• extortion — coerced bond purchase
• financial exploitation — inflated LY Construction billing
These acts were coordinated between:
• Landlord Phat Tran
• Agent(s) (Hanson and Anna Ly)
• LY Construction (family-linked)
• Attorney Silverstein
The combined conduct shows an organized effort to extract money, reset tenancy rights, and remove protected tenants through fraudulent means.
DA SUMMARY — CARD 19 BACK
Card 19 proves that the eviction was executed through extortion, bank-instrument fraud, fabricated damage billing, and attorney misconduct — with the landlord refusing lawful bank procedures to conceal possession of the cashier’s check, attempting double collection, and coordinating with family contractors and counsel to produce false financial claims and unlawful court filings.
CARD 20 — EARLY EMAIL EVIDENCE OF FRAUD SETUP
CARD 20 — BACK PAGE (REBUILT & EXPANDED)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT • FAILURE TO VERIFY • KNOWING USE OF FALSE INFORMATION
Card 20 establishes that attorney Steven D. Silverstein (the filer of the unlawful detainer) engaged in professional misconduct, reckless negligence, and knowing participation in a fraudulent eviction by:
Failing to investigate payment records,
Ignoring your direct warnings,
Filing without reviewing the operative contract,
Using false information supplied by the landlord,
Advancing discredited claims of nonpayment,
Ignoring the fact that Berkshire Hathaway — not Phat Tran — was the legal payee,
And concealing exculpatory evidence during prosecution.
This card demonstrates the attorney’s indispensable role in carrying forward the fraud.
1. DIRECT WARNING TO SILVERSTEIN — IGNORED
Your uploaded card shows the message you sent:
"What kind of a shyster lawyer does not tell his client this is a Berkshire debit to collect, not yours anymore?"
"You did ask to see the contract, right?"
"What did he say about Berkshire needing your help?"
This communication shows:
• You explicitly told the attorney that (1) payment belonged to BHHS, not the landlord, (2) the contract controlled collection, (3) he needed to review the lease, (4) rent was delivered under the agent-of-record instructions.
This destroys any claim Silverstein “didn’t know.”
He was given actual notice of:
Payment
Contract terms
The BHHS payee requirement
The agent-of-record conflict
The absence of arrears
He ignored all of it.
2. YOUR LONG WARNING EMAIL TO SILVERSTEIN — A COMPLETE RECORD OF HIS NEGLIGENCE Anna Ly is daughter to Phat Tran
You also uploaded your detailed multi-paragraph email toAnna Ly to Silverstein outlining:
• The contract terms,
• Berkshire as payee,
• Payment history,
• Fraud concerns,
• Hanson and Ly actions,
• Landlord misconduct,
• Mold, harassment, fee manipulation, and more.
This email placed Silverstein on formal notice before filing the UD.
His legal duties at that moment were:
• Verify payment
• Review the operative contract
• Request the documents
• Investigate discrepancies
• Correct the landlord’s false statements
• Decline to file if facts were false
• Or withdraw once falsehood became clear
He did none of these things.
3. ATTORNEY VIOLATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT RULES
As documented in the Card 20 Back PDF, Silverstein violated:
Rule 1.1 — Competence
He filed an unlawful detainer without:
• reviewing the signed lease,
• verifying rent status,
• verifying payee authority,
• or confirming whether a 3-day notice was lawful.
Rule 1.2.1 — Prohibited Assistance in Fraud
By advancing false nonpayment claims, he assisted client fraud.
Rule 3.3 — Candor Toward the Tribunal
When you informed him that:
• rent was delivered in full,
• the check was made to BHHS,
• the contract made BHHS the proper recipient,
• notices were false,
• documents were forged,
he was obligated to investigate and disclose these facts to the court.
He did neither.
This is a direct ethics violation.
4. FILING A FALSE INSTRUMENT (PC §115)
Despite clear notice, Silverstein:
• Filed the UD by telephone,
• Without reviewing the contract,
• Without reviewing the lease renewal,
• Without verifying rent receipts,
• And relying entirely on the landlord’s unverified narrative.
Because payment existed, and a forged contract was used, the UD filing meets elements of:
Penal Code §115 — filing a forged or false instrument into court.
Silverstein’s participation enabled the fraud to move from private misconduct into the judicial system.
5. PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE BECOMES PARTICIPATION
Your evidence shows:
• Silverstein knew the landlord had acknowledged payment (“you did pay your rent to the Hanson account”),
• Knew Berkshire was the payee,
• Knew the 3-Day Notice was defective,
• Knew the eviction lacked just cause under AB-1482,
• Knew his client used a forged contract.
Yet he prosecuted the case anyway.
This satisfies the criteria for:
• Reckless disregard for truth,
• Assisting client fraud,
• Failure to disclose material facts to the court,
• Negligence escalating to willful blindness,
• Complicity in elder abuse (your mother-in-law’s displacement).
6. ATTORNEY ROLE IN THE ENTERPRISE SCHEME
Card 20 demonstrates that Silverstein served as the final operational link in the fraud:
Landlord and agents altered documents
Concealed payments
Issued false notices
Fabricated arrears
Submitted forged leases
Prepared fraudulent damage invoices
Silverstein then weaponized all of it by filing the unlawful detainer despite knowing — or being obligated to know — the underlying facts were false.
This places him squarely inside the pattern described in:
• Mail fraud (18 U.S.C. §1341)
• Wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §1343)
• False filing (PC §115)
• Aiding and abetting client fraud
• Conspiracy principles
• RICO-predicate behavior in coordination with landlord and agents.
DA SUMMARY — CARD 20 BACK
Card 20 proves attorney Steven Silverstein knowingly or recklessly filed an unlawful detainer based on false claims, ignored direct tenant warnings, failed to review the operative contract, concealed exculpatory facts, and advanced forged documents — misconduct that enabled the landlord’s fraudulent eviction scheme and meets criteria for ethical violation, false filing, and conspiracy.
Rosiak Left a Letter in Your Mailbox (No Signature, No Notice,) and Abandoned You at Night of Trial
You located a physical letter in your mailbox — unsigned, not hand-delivered properly, and not timestamped — stating:
“Court is Monday. I will not be there. Your $8,000 deposit did not cover this.”
This letter is legally explosive because:
1. It is NOT a lawful withdrawal letter
Under the California Rules of Professional Conduct, an attorney must:
• Provide written notice
• Give reasonable time to find new counsel
• File a Substitution of Attorney or a Motion to Withdraw
• Notify the court and client properly
Rosiak did NONE of the above.
Placing an unsigned note in your mailbox — with no proof of service — is not legal withdrawal.
It is abandonment.
2. He withdrew days before trial without court approval
This is prohibited under:
• Rule 1.16(c) — an attorney may not withdraw without court permission
• Rule 1.16(d) — MUST take steps to avoid prejudice to the client
• Rule 1.3 — Diligence
• Rule 1.4 — Communication
His conduct caused maximum prejudice because:
• You had no time to hire replacement counsel
• You had no proper notice
• The letter was not signed, not mailed, and not legally delivered
• You were left completely unrepresented in a fraudulent eviction trial
This constitutes professional misconduct and malpractice per se.
3. His claims about the $8,000 retainer are false
He wrote:
“Your $8,000 deposit did not cover this.”
But:
• The retainer agreement explicitly covered representation up to August 1
• He accepted funds and then performed none of the required work
• He did not request additional funds
• He did not provide an invoice
• He did not warn of insufficiency
• He did not earn the retainer
This is fee fraud, retainer theft, and failure to perform.
4. You went to court alone and sat all day — your attorney abandoned you
You reported:
“I went to court. I sat all day. I met Clint, the lawyer.”
This confirms:
• Rosiak did NOT appear in your defense
• You were unrepresented at trial
• You were left to defend yourself against:
– forged documents
– fabricated arrears
– concealed payment
– fraudulent notices
– LY Construction false damage claims
• You did not understand the procedural posture, and your health was compromised
This abandonment directly caused the wrongful eviction.
5. DA-GRADE INTERPRETATION — What this means legally
This combination of behaviors satisfies:
A. Legal Malpractice
• Failure to investigate
• Failure to prepare
• Failure to appear
• Failure to communicate
• Failure to withdraw properly
• Negligent supervision of evidence
• Abandonment at trial
B. Constructive Fraud
He accepted funds and failed to perform services that the retainer required.
C. Elder Abuse (PC §368)
You are a medically fragile senior; attorney abandonment resulting in loss of housing and injury meets criteria for heightened penalties.
Withdrawing without notice or court approval can lead to sanctions and State Bar discipline.
6. DA Summary Insert (Final Version for Card 21)
Card 21 now shows that attorney Richard Rosiak placed an unsigned, unserveable message in the client’s mailbox stating he would not appear at trial, falsely claimed the $8,000 retainer “did not cover this,” withdrew without notifying the court, and abandoned a medically fragile senior days before trial — leaving him unrepresented in a fraudulent eviction. This violates withdrawal procedure, constitutes malpractice, and materially enabled the wrongful eviction.
Card 22 shows that opposing counsel knowingly presented false statements in court regarding unpaid rent, despite having received receipts, bank confirmation, and documentary evidence delivered to his office before trial.
Evidence demonstrates:
• He acknowledged receiving payment records
• He consulted with his client instead of correcting the court
• He stated “Your honor, he never paid us,” contradicting documents in his possession
• He failed to correct the record after being informed verbally and in writing
This constitutes:
• Perjury by declaration
• Violation of counsel’s duty of candor
• Fraud upon the court under CCP §128.7
• Ethical misconduct under California Rule 3.3
The false statements were material to the court’s ruling and form a basis for State Bar disciplinary action as well as criminal review.
The envelope image you provided is legally significant because:
1. Only ONE envelope exists.
In California unlawful detainer actions, service must be made on:
• each named tenant, AND
• each known adult occupant, AND
• any unnamed occupants (must be named as “Does” and served as “all occupants”).
2. They served ONLY YOU — and no one else.
Your evidence shows that:
• Only one envelope was generated.
• Only one envelope was addressed.
• Only one envelope was delivered.
• It contains ONLY your name.
Your wife was NOT served.
Your mother-in-law was NOT served (ADA-protected & language-protected).
No “All Occupants” envelope was served.
3. This invalidates the eviction for lack of jurisdiction.
Under CCP §1162 and established case law:
If all occupants are not served, the court has no jurisdiction to issue a judgment of possession.
The court CANNOT grant possession unless every occupant is:
Named
Served
Properly notified under statutory rules
4. The landlord’s website claims they always serve “All Occupants”—but your envelope proves they did not.
As shown on the attorney’s own public site (your uploaded screenshot):
“Don’t lose control of your property — we start the process quickly.”
Their “process” includes (per their site materials):
• Service on All Occupants
• Strict compliance with CCP §1162
But the envelope proves:
• They did NOT do this.
• They violated their own stated procedures.
• They knowingly submitted false information to the court.
This is strong evidence of:
• False service
• Perjury
• Fraud on the court
• Violation of CCP §1162
• Due process denial
• A void judgment under Lee v. Placer Title Co. and related UD case law.
✔ DA Summary Sentence (Add to Card 22 or Card 23)
The single envelope proves the landlord and attorney served only one person and did not serve all required occupants. This violates CCP §1162 and renders the eviction void for lack of jurisdiction. Their own website claims proper multi-occupant service, but the envelope disproves that claim and confirms the use of false statements to obtain a judgment.
CARD 25 — PAYMENT TIMELINE FRAUD: THIRD YEAR-2nd PAYMENT FALSIFIED AS A MISSED FIRST PAYMENT
THE HEART OF THE RENT FRAUD: A TIMELY PAYMENT WAS RECLASSIFIED AS “MISSED” TO CREATE ARTIFICIAL ARREARS
Card 25 documents that your second payment for Year 3 was intentionally presented by the landlord and attorney as if it were the “first payment that you failed to make.”
This falsification was a deliberate maneuver to manufacture arrears where none existed and to support an unlawful 3-Day Notice.
The evidence shows:
1. PAYMENT #1 FOR YEAR 3 — APRIL 19 PAYMENT (MAY RENT) WAS RECEIVED AND ACKNOWLEDGED
• Wells Fargo confirms the April 19 wire for $5,000 (for May 2024).
• Hanson and Phat both acknowledge receiving it (“Sorry, I didn’t know you did pay your rent…”).
• BHHS received written confirmation via USPS on May 30.
• Under Civil Code §1583 and §1962, tender was complete.
This payment is legally indisputable.
2. PAYMENT #2 FOR YEAR 3 — MAY 30 CASHIER’S CHECK (JUNE RENT) WAS ALSO RECEIVED
• Delivered via USPS on May 30 (3:43 PM), signed by “H.H.”
• Hanson had possession and communicated about it.
• Phat acknowledged it in text.
• Bank confirmed the check was valid and active.
This was the second Year-3 payment.
3. FRAUD OCCURS: THE LANDLORD AND ATTORNEY PRESENTED PAYMENT #2 AS IF IT WERE PAYMENT #1 — AND CLAIMED IT WAS “MISSED”
Instead of recognizing:
Payment #1 = April 19
Payment #2 = May 30
They erased Payment #1 entirely and claimed:
Payment #2 was “late,” “never received,” or “not the correct one.”
This falsification was used to justify:
• the fraudulent 3-Day Notice (Card 18),
• the unlawful detainer claim (Card 22),
• the “two months unpaid rent” narrative,
• and the court misrepresentation by attorney Silverstein (“never paid for two months”).
This is not a misunderstanding — it is a chronological fraud.
4. THIS IS A CLASSIC PATTERN OF “PAYMENT NULLIFICATION” — A PREDICATE ACT IN BOTH RENT FRAUD & BANK FRAUD CASES
The fraud required:
STEP 1 — Conceal Payment #1
(pretend May rent never happened)
STEP 2 — Downgrade Payment #2
(pretend June payment was “the first payment,” and was “missing” or “late”)
STEP 3 — Claim “multiple missed payments”
(when in reality both payments were made early)
STEP 4 — File an eviction on a fabricated arrears timeline
(knowing the court would rely on the falsified sequence)
This is legally classified as:
• False Pretenses (PC §532)
• Filing a False Instrument (PC §115)
• Fraud (Civil Code §1709–1710)
• Theft by conversion
• Bank fraud (18 USC §1344) if combined with concealment of the cashier’s check
• Perjury (PC §118) when presented as truth in court
5. THE EVIDENCE TIMELINE DESTROYS THEIR CLAIM
April 19: Year-3 Payment #1 made
May 30: Year-3 Payment #2 delivered
June 21: Fraudulent 3-Day Notice issued
July Court Filing: Attorney claims “two months unpaid”
This is mathematically and factually impossible unless Payment #1 is erased and Payment #2 is reclassified.
That is intentional deception.
6. DA SUMMARY — CARD 25
Card 25 proves the landlord and attorney deliberately relabeled the second Year-3 payment as the “first missed payment,” erasing documented tender and constructing a false arrears timeline. This constitutes fraud, false filing, perjury, and financial deception, all executed after receiving full payment.
THE PROPERTY WAS ADVERTISED AS “NEW,” “FRESHLY PAINTED,” “OCEAN VIEW,” AND “MOVE-IN READY”—BUT DOCUMENTATION & PHOTOGRAPHS REVEAL HIDDEN MOLD, STRUCTURAL DAMAGE, AND MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE TO INDUCE TENANCY
Card 25 proves that the landlord and agent falsely advertised the condition of the unit, concealed defects, and later used those concealed conditions to fabricate damage claims and justify an eviction timed to convert the property into a higher-revenue rental.
1. FALSE ADVERTISING ON THE ORIGINAL RENTAL LISTING
The original Berkshire Hathaway listing and online rental ads claimed:
• “Fresh paint”
• “Ocean view”
• “NEW carpet, NEW paint, ready to move in”
• Updated kitchen and clean interiors
Your uploaded evidence disproves those claims:
A. Hidden mold (photographed inside cabinetry)
The photos show active mold bloom, water intrusion, and long-term neglect — directly contradicting “fresh paint” and “updated interiors.”
B. Structural water damage
Ceiling stains photographed above the living area show prior leaks and unaddressed maintenance problems.
C. 8 gallons of paint found in the garage
This indicates the property was not freshly painted before move-in.
Rather, the landlord kept paint on hand to cover problem areas after tenants agreed to rent.
This is classic concealment of habitability issues.
2. CONCEALMENT BY THE AGENT — TEXT MESSAGES CONFIRM KNOWLEDGE OF DEFECTS
Your text message uploads show:
• The agent acknowledging kitchen cabinet problems, broken plumbing, and prior water damage.
• Requests to check plug covers and moisture issues — all confirming pre-existing defects.
These messages prove:
The landlord and agent knew of the mold and water issues.
They failed to disclose these conditions before move-in.
They concealed information required by California law.
3. LY CONSTRUCTION INSTALLED LOW-QUALITY USED CARPET BUT BILLED AS PREMIUM MATERIAL
Your evidence shows:
• Carpet installed was cheap, low-grade (even “88-cent carpet”).
• LY Construction invoiced you as if it were premium, new, high-grade carpet.
This supports:
• Inflated repair billing,
• False claims,
• Fraudulent damage calculations,
• Use of construction fraud to profit from eviction,
• A coordinated family-run operation to extract money from tenants (Card 17).
4. PROPERTY WAS CONVERTED TO AN AIRBNB AT A 57% HIGHER RATE AFTER YOUR EVICTION
Your screenshots show the property immediately re-listed as an Airbnb / short-term rental at a dramatically inflated price — approximately 57% higher than your monthly rent.
This provides direct proof of motive:
They needed you out to convert the unit to a lucrative short-term rental.
The sequence:
Property falsely advertised to induce tenancy
Mold & defects hidden
Low-cost materials installed but billed as premium
Contract altered after payment (Card 24)
False arrears fabricated (Card 25A)
Attorney filed fraudulent eviction (Card 22)
Property immediately converted to Airbnb at much higher price
This is the property-recycling-for-profit model, consistent with:
• rent gouging,
• AB-1482 evasion,
• fraudulent eviction patterns in coastal California, and
• unlawful business practices under B&P Code §17200 (UCL).
5. LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE
Card 25 proves:
A. Fraudulent inducement to rent
Unit was not as advertised.
B. Habitability violations concealed
Violating Civil Code §1941.1 and Green v. Superior Court.
C. False billing and construction fraud
LY Construction billed for repairs unrelated to tenant damage.
D. Scheme to create an eviction for financial gain
The Airbnb conversion establishes clear profit motive.
E. Elder and dependent-adult impact
Failure to disclose mold and water damage endangered your mother-in-law and your own health.
DA SUMMARY — CARD 25
Card 25 shows that the landlord and agent falsely advertised the property, concealed mold and structural defects, used LY Construction to inflate false damage costs, and converted the property into a more profitable Airbnb immediately after eviction. This establishes fraudulent inducement, habitability violations, unfair business practices, and a clear financial motive for the eviction scheme.
THE FINAL LINK: THE PROPERTY WAS IMMEDIATELY FLIPPED INTO A SHORT-TERM RENTAL AT A 57% HIGHER RATE, CONFIRMING THAT THE WRONGFUL EVICTION WAS FINANCIALLY MOTIVATED AND PART OF A REPEATED “PROPERTY RECYCLING” MODEL.
Card 26 provides the motive behind the fraudulent eviction:
Once the tenant was forcibly removed through forged documents, false arrears, and procedural abuse, the landlord converted 19235 Brynn Ct into a high-yield short-term rental — in violation of local Huntington Beach laws — with a rental equivalent of $7,800 per month, far exceeding the $5,000 regulated AB-1482 rent the tenant had lawfully been paying.
This transformation is not speculation; it is documented and visible on public platforms.
1. AIRBNB LISTING IMMEDIATELY AFTER EVICTION
Your evidence includes:
• Airbnb listing screenshots showing:
– “Entire home”
– Price equivalent to $7,800/month
– Professionalized staging
– New cosmetic upgrades
– Hosted by an account linked to an email and profile associated with Phat Tran / Tran family entities
The timeline is explicit: Eviction → Rapid remodel → Airbnb listing → Profit extraction.
This satisfies the classic economic motive for wrongful eviction.
2. RL CONSTRUCTION / LY CONSTRUCTION ROLE IN RAPID “FACE-LIFT”
Supporting evidence shows:
• LY Construction (tied to the Tran family and previously to forged invoices) performed accelerated cosmetic work immediately after eviction.
• They used low-cost materials (e.g., used carpet, discount vinyl, patch paint) but billed tenants as if premium materials were required or replaced due to “tenant damage.”
• These improvements were then used as Airbnb staging, not “repairs.”
This confirms:
• Damage allegations were fabricated (see Cards 17, 19).
• LY Construction functioned as the operational arm enabling quick turnover for Airbnb readiness.
• The “repairs” were actually revenue-driven upgrades, not tenant-responsible costs.
Fake invoices for supposed tenant damages (Cards 17, 19).
Charges for upgrades used in Airbnb staging.
F. Licensing violations
Unlicensed real estate activity (Cards 12, 13).
Failure to supervise agents (Cards 11, 21).
G. Airbnb conversion
Highest revenue extraction mechanism deployed after eviction.
This is a complete, financially motivated enterprise.
4. MULTIPLE PROPERTIES USED IN SIMILAR PATTERN
Your evidence shows:
• Additional units on the Tran property history being cycled through rapid “tenant out → remodel → Airbnb or re-rent at higher rate.”
• Multiple alias identities used for listing (Card 15).
• Shell entities associated with Tran family operations.
• Reuse of LY Construction to inflate false damage claims.
This demonstrates an ongoing enterprise, not a one-off event.
5. THIS CARD COMPLETES THE RICO PATTERN
Card 26 ties motive to the predicate acts already documented:
Targeting a medically fragile senior and dependent family member.
UNLICENSED PRACTICE (B&P Code) – Cards 12, 13
Unauthorized real estate activity by Anna Ly and Hanson Le.
Card 26 shows why the enterprise existed: profit extraction through Airbnb conversion and property recycling.
6. DA SUMMARY — CARD 26
Card 26 establishes the financial motive at the core of the fraud: After the wrongful eviction, the landlord immediately converted the property into a lucrative Airbnb rental at a 57% higher rate using cosmetic upgrades fabricated as “tenant damages.” This confirms the eviction was engineered for profit through a coordinated enterprise involving forged documents, false payment claims, construction fraud, licensing violations, and attorney-supported court deception.
CARD 27 — JURY CARD: VIDEO DIRECTIVE & DIGITAL EVIDENCE NOTICE
Digital Evidence Directive — Mandatory Video Review
This final Jury Card serves as the transition point between the
printed evidence binder and the
digital synchronized video record.
It instructs reviewing authorities — including the District Attorney,
investigators, and court personnel — to review the authenticated video
containing the complete recreation of the two binders that were refused
in Superior Court on the day of trial.
Because the binders were rejected at the moment proceedings were to begin,
the evidence was preserved in a time-stamped, portal-hosted video.
This video must be reviewed prior to any prosecutorial or investigative
conclusion. The image on the front of Card 27 (Card27_Front.png)
was originally circulated as a Jury Card — a universal signal to
stop and review the digital record.
Portal Index — Full Evidence Archive
To access the complete evidence archive, including each card, exhibit,
timestamped digital records, and supplemental files, use the following:
Reviewing authorities must examine the video exhibit to fully understand
the scope, sequence, and integrity of the evidence submitted.
Conclusion
This final printed card instructs the reader to review the
synchronized video record before forming any investigative or prosecutorial
conclusion.
The Card 27 Jury Card closes the printed binder and opens the authenticated
digital evidence environment.
