Court
OC Superior Court · Dept. C61
The federal authorities the documentary record touches, mapped to the documents that touch them — and framed strictly as questions for federal reviewers. Nothing on this page asserts that any federal statute was violated. It identifies which exhibits a federal reader would pull first, and why.
#194449713. This page names no other federal recipient, because the manifests — not this page — are the authority for that list.#0084411044 — more than two months, no endorsement (EX-015/EX-016; T-B); joint check #0084412016 — negotiated, both endorsements, depositing account a subpoena target (EX-034; T-A). §913 applies: no adverse inference from silence.The wire record is the cleanest part of the case file, because banks keep better records than people do. Four exhibits carry it.
$5,000 with its memo line — “New lease 24 one payment at 5000” — written into the bank record at transmission. EX-010: the owner’s SMS acknowledging the wire’s receipt.$5,350 (confirmation OW00004652829145) transmitted under an eviction threat, to an account designated outside the payment terms on the lease face, and never refunded.#0084411044 for $4,338.48, tendered within the cure window. EX-016: the USPS record 9534914882764149935944 — delivered and signed “H H” on May 30, 2024 at 3:43 PM, at the listing brokerage. The owner’s own SMS — EX-018, acknowledging payment “to the Hanson account” (June 22, 2024) — closes the custody loop in the owner’s words.#194449713), and the May 11, 2026 certified mailing to the District Attorney (EX-042, USPS 9589 0710 5270 3530 1127 14).46CC8725 with a 13-month term and a changed rent-payee — raises questions under the Fair Housing Act’s §3604 (terms and conditions) and §3617 (interference, coercion, intimidation) frameworks, given the household’s composition. The sequence is documentary; the §3604/§3617 assessment belongs to the federal forum, and this page leaves it there.In order: the wire pair EX-009/EX-010 (payment wired, payment acknowledged), then the cure-chain trio EX-015/EX-016/EX-018 (instrument, delivery signature, owner’s custody admission), then EX-019 (the off-contract wire, retained), then the sworn filings EX-032 against which all of the above are read, then the transmission records EX-041/EX-042 establishing what has already been put before which authorities. The two held instruments keep their reservations: T-A (the joint check’s depositing account — subpoena target, EX-034) and T-B (the cure-check custody interval endpoint). That is the entire federal road map; everything else on this portal is the state-law context it sits in.
No federal authority has opened, confirmed, or characterized any matter described on this page except as the exhibit-anchored filings themselves state (FTC Report #194449713, filed and pending, within EX-041). Federal frameworks are cited as lenses. No finding has been made. No charge has been brought.
This portal is a public-interest case file assembled and published by Michael A. Gasio, plaintiff pro se in Gasio v. Tran et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2024-01410991-CL-UD-CJC. The plaintiff is not an attorney. Nothing on this portal constitutes legal advice.
Every factual assertion is drawn from primary documents — executed contracts, bank records, emails, text messages, court filings, public licensing records, and public-records directory entries — preserved in the case file and referenced by exhibit number, source, and date. Every characterization is an allegation.
No statement on this portal should be read as a determination that any named person has committed a crime, violated a statute, or breached a professional duty. Those determinations are reserved to qualified counsel, regulatory agencies, and the courts. No finding has been made. Cal. Evid. Code §913 — no adverse inference is to be drawn from any party’s silence.
This publication is made in the exercise of rights protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 2 of the California Constitution, California Civil Code §47(d), and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.