Law Enforcement Submission — Attorney Criminal Conduct
STEVEN D. SILVERSTEIN ESQ.
CA State Bar #130763 · Silverstein Evictions · 14351 Red Hill Ave Ste G, Tustin CA 92780
A documented record of extortion under color of professional authority, suborning perjury, filing false instruments, obstruction of evidence, and conspiracy — presented for criminal investigation. Now confirmed: retained family enterprise eviction counsel with documented pattern spanning 2018–2024.
46+
Years Practice
#130763
State Bar
6
Charge Grounds
Day 1
Knowledge
4
Tran Family UDs
I. Subject Profile — Identifying Information
Full NameSteven D. Silverstein, Esq.
California State Bar#130763 — Active
Practice Address14351 Red Hill Ave, Ste G · Tustin, CA 92780 · (714) 832-3651
Practice SpecialtyEviction Law — Landlord Only — 46+ years — thousands of cases — OC courts exclusively
Role in This CaseOpposing Eviction Counsel — represented Phat L.K. Tran — appeared at all hearings
Self-Description"I have been called overly aggressive in doing these evictions. I plead guilty."
Additional DistinctionJudge Pro Tem — OC Courts — has sat as judicial officer in courts where this case was heard

Silverstein is not a general practitioner who stumbled into eviction work. He is the premier eviction specialist in Orange County — a man who has taught continuing legal education to other attorneys on exactly these procedures, and who has served as a judicial officer in the courts where this case was heard. Ignorance is not a defense available to him.

II. What Silverstein Knew — And When He Knew It // Knowledge Timeline

The following timeline establishes the sequence of Silverstein's actual and constructive knowledge. Each item represents a fact he either personally received, was present to observe, or was legally required to know as lead counsel.

DAY ONE
Initial Contact
Gasio appeared pro se at Superior Court. Silverstein's representive in court that day "Clint" reviewed the case materials presented at lunch in the hallway. By his own officers account he stated he "wouldn't want to represent that person" — indicating he assessed the evidence and recognized its strength. Either way: he saw the case on Day One.
PRE-TRIAL
Discovery Phase
Silverstein received 200+ emails and communications via courier delivery establishing: (1) cashier's check tendered during cure window; (2) Hanson Le had knowledge of and access to payment; (3) rent was wired to a personal Wells Fargo account not belonging to Tran; (4) operative lease rate was $5,000, not $5,350.
PRE-TRIAL
Video Delivery
A 15-minute video was electronicly delivered to Silverstein and a hard copy by courier documenting the fraud evidence. He received it. He watched it or chose not to watch it. Either constitutes actual or willful ignorance of exculpatory evidence he was legally required to disclose if material to the proceedings.
AT TRIAL
Lease Contract
The 2 lease contracts were introduced into evidence in court. The lease moveout showed rent of $5,000 a month times two months owed acording to Anna Ly. Silverstein was present. The 3-Day Notice stated $5,350. Gasio raised the discrepancy on the record. Silverstein proceeded anyway on a notice he knew was overstated.
secondAT TRIAL
Closing Question
Silverstein's last question in hallway at conclusion of trial weeks later: "Did you cash the check?" — an admission of knowledge. He knew a check existed. He knew it hadn't been cashed. He built his closing argument on a foundation he knew was false.
POST-TRIAL
Move-Out Demand
Silverstein directed or was present when Gasio was told to pay the full $20,932 move-out clearance bill — a document containing: an unsupported rent figure, legally impermissible attorney fees, and a family-entity invoice contradicted by a city inspector. He had the 200+ emails. He knew the check existed. He told Gasio to pay a fraudulent bill he knew to be false.
III. Six Criminal Charge Grounds // Beyond Civil Malpractice
1
Extortion Under Color of Professional Authority
PC §519 · PC §524 · 18 U.S.C. §1951 (Hobbs Act)
Criminal

California Penal Code §519 defines extortion as obtaining property through wrongful use of force or fear, including the threat of economic injury. The federal Hobbs Act extends this to extortion affecting interstate commerce — which wire transfers and DocuSign transmission satisfy.

Silverstein directed or participated in communicating to Gasio that the full $14,548 clearance bill must be paid, while in possession of: the 200+ email chain; the Tran text confirming $5,000 rate; the sealed cashier's check evidence; and the city inspector clearance contradicting the invoice.

Key fact: Silverstein's last trial question was "Did you cash the check?" — proving he knew the check issue was central. Directing payment of the full bill after asking that question is not oversight. It is a deliberate act.

2
Subornation of Perjury / Knowingly Presenting False Testimony
PC §127 · PC §118 · Rules of Prof. Conduct 3.3
Criminal

Tran testified that the cashier's check was "returned by mail." Silverstein's closing argument rested on this claim. At the time: USPS tracking showed the alleged return letter was still in transit at the time of the hearing — it had not been delivered. The cashier's check remained sealed and unopened in Gasio's possession.

An attorney of 46 years who teaches evidence procedure to other lawyers, who serves as judge pro tem, who drafted or reviewed the 3-Day Notice, and who received the 200+ email chain cannot claim he did not know the "returned by mail" testimony was false.

3
Filing a False Instrument — 3-Day Notice Overstating Rent
PC §115 · CCP §1161 · PC §532
Criminal

Penal Code §115 makes it a felony to knowingly file any false instrument in a public office or court. The 3-Day Notice stated rent at $5,350/month. Tran's own text states: "old lease 5000 then new payment 5350." The lease introduced at trial confirmed $5,000.

Under CCP §1161, a 3-Day Notice that overstates rent — by even one dollar — is jurisdictionally void. Silverstein, who teaches unlawful detainer procedure to other attorneys, knows this rule with absolute certainty.

4
Offering False Evidence in a Judicial Proceeding
PC §132 · PC §134 · PC §135
Criminal

Silverstein introduced or permitted the Ly Construction invoice — a $7,837 document from a family entity for "carpet replacement due to dog pee," dated after a city inspector had cleared the property — without disclosing the contradicting government clearance record.

PC §135 suppression: The city inspector clearance — an independent government document directly contradicting the invoice — was never disclosed. His failure to produce the clearance record while offering the invoice constitutes willful suppression of exculpatory evidence.

5
Criminal Conspiracy with Tran, Anna Ly, and Hanson Le
PC §182 · 18 U.S.C. §1349
Criminal

The coordinated scheme — the fabricated 3-Day Notice, the family-entity invoice, the suppressed clearance record, the sealed cashier's check never returned, the post-eviction Airbnb conversion — required coordination among multiple actors. Silverstein is the legal architect through whom the scheme was executed in court.

Tran's RoleOverstated 3-Day Notice · concealed check receipt · contracted family entity invoice · Airbnb conversion
Anna Ly's RoleTransmitted invoice from dental office server · family entity LY Construction · DRE Complaint #1-24-0513-010
Hanson Le's RoleReceived wire to personal WF account · signed USPS package · invoked 5th Amendment · left BHHS
Silverstein's RoleFiled/relied on void notice · introduced fraudulent invoice · suppressed inspector clearance · directed payment demand
6
Mail Fraud / Wire Fraud — Federal Exposure
18 U.S.C. §1341 · 18 U.S.C. §1343 · 18 U.S.C. §1346
Federal

The scheme involved: wire transfers to Hanson Le's personal Wells Fargo account; DocuSign envelope transmission of the fraudulent clearance report and Ly Construction invoice across state lines; courier deliveries to Silverstein's office; and Silverstein's own correspondence transmitted by mail and electronic means.

The honest services provision of 18 U.S.C. §1346 additionally covers an attorney's deprivation of a party's right to honest legal proceedings. The FBI LA Field Office has received a federal referral package. Silverstein's participation in the wire and mail transmissions places him within the scope of that federal investigation.

IV. The "Clint" Connection — Day One Notice // Prior Knowledge Chain

When Gasio first appeared to present evidence — before retaining Rosiak — he met with "Clint," an attorney who reviewed the case materials and stated he would not want to represent the opposing party. Either path leads to the same conclusion: Silverstein cannot claim he did not know. He received the evidence by courier. He received the video. He was present in court. He asked the closing question about the check.

V. Master Evidence List — Silverstein's Actual & Constructive Knowledge // For Investigative Subpoena
# Evidence Item How Silverstein Had Access Criminal Significance
01200+ email chain — Hanson Le / Tran / payment routing Delivered by courier to his office multipal timesKnew payment was tendered
02 15-minute documentary video — full fraud evidence hard copy also created Personally delivered to office UPS signature and his clerks office email Actual receipt documented UPS
03 Wells Fargo wire confirmation — $5,000 to "Landlord" — Tran texts "Thank You Michael"In evidence production / email chainProves payment made
04 Tran text: "old lease 5000 then new payment 5350" Pay private account In email/text chain provided 4/193-Day Notice overstated — void
05 DocuSign Envelope #46CC8725 — Le's personal Wells Fargo account # for paymentsBHHS corporate email transmissionMisappropriation of rent funds
06 USPS Tracking — alleged return letter still in transit at hearing paper check for e deposit never tenderedPublicly verifiable — duty to check"Returned by mail" was false
07 Sealed personal check — never returned, never cashedClosing question "Did you cash the check?" = knows it existsCure was tendered, not received back
08Ly Construction invoice vs. city inspector clearance — 18-day gapCity inspector record is public — duty to verifyInvoice was fabricated
09Lease contract — introduced in court at trialPresent in courtroom — personally witnessedConfirmed $5,000 operative rate
10Anna Ly / Ly Construction / AP Silk Arts Inc. family entity chainDRE records — publicly availableInvoice = self-dealing family entity
11Post-eviction Airbnb conversion at 55–57.8% premiumPublicly listed — Airbnb / CRMLS photosRenovation motive established
12Move-out clearance: $2,005 attorney fees charged without court orderHe received the clearance document as counselLegally impermissible — he knows it
VI. Applicable Criminal Statutes // Beyond Civil Malpractice
PC §519 / §524
Extortion / Attempted Extortion
Obtaining property through wrongful use of fear under color of professional authority.
PC §127
Subornation of Perjury
Procuring another to commit perjury. Allowing Tran's false "returned by mail" testimony knowing it was contradicted by USPS tracking.
PC §115
Filing False Instrument
Knowingly filing a 3-Day Notice overstating rent. Operative lease rate was $5,000; notice stated $5,350.
PC §132 / §134 / §135
False Evidence / Suppression
Introducing fabricated invoice while suppressing city inspector clearance.
PC §182
Criminal Conspiracy
Two or more persons conspiring to cheat or defraud. Network: Tran, Anna Ly, Hanson Le, Silverstein.
18 U.S.C. §1341 / §1343
Mail / Wire Fraud (Federal)
Use of mail or wire in furtherance of a scheme to defraud. DocuSign transmissions and courier deliveries qualify.
18 U.S.C. §1951
Hobbs Act Extortion
Extortion affecting interstate commerce. Wire transfer platform and DocuSign establish the commerce nexus.
BPC §6128(a)
Attorney Deceit / Collusion
Any deceit or collusion with intent to deceive a court or party. Floor charge if higher counts not pursued.
◈ NEW — APRIL 13 2026  ·  VII-A. Pattern of Representation — Tran Family Enterprise
New — April 13 2026 Pattern Established OC Superior Court Verified Family Link Confirmed

Independent public records research conducted April 13, 2026 has confirmed that Steven D. Silverstein represented a second Tran family plaintiff in an Orange County residential Unlawful Detainer proceeding six years prior to his representation of Phat L.K. Tran against the complaining party. This establishes Silverstein not as a one-time retained counsel, but as the designated eviction attorney for the Tran family real estate enterprise across multiple properties and multiple years. A 46-year OC eviction specialist does not appear twice for the same family by coincidence.


Prior OC Representation — Confirmed by Court Record

Case TitleThao Tran & Binh Truong vs. Julia Bouvier Bach & Johan Bach
Case Number30-2018-00982394-CL-UD-CJC
CourtOrange County Superior Court
Matter TypeUnlawful Detainer — Residential
Filing DateMarch 27, 2018
Attorney of RecordSteven D. Silverstein — State Bar #130763 — Silverstein Evictions, Tustin CA
Co-PlaintiffBinh Truong — filed Writ of Possession return 05/16/2018 — operational execution role
OutcomeDefault Judgment — Writ of Possession Wholly Satisfied 05/16/2018
Verified SourcesOC Superior Court civilwebshopping.occourts.org · Trellis.law case/30-2018-00982394-cl-ud-cjc · Verified April 13 2026
◈ Plaintiff Identity — Thao Tran — Confirmed Phat Tran Family Member

Thao Tran (plaintiff, 2018 UD) is confirmed as a Tran family member per Whitepages public records: "Family includes Huong T Tran and Phat T Tran." — Thao Phuong Tran, Garden Grove CA 92843 — same zip as Times Investment LLC principal address (14331 Euclid St, Garden Grove CA 92843).

Thao Tran is CEO of Times Investment LLC (real estate investment, filed 2009, Active) and Manager of Lua Homes LLC (property management, filed 2022, Active), both HB-based. She is authorized person on 32 entities per CA SOS records.

◈ Strategic Significance for Criminal Referral

1. Retained Family Enterprise Counsel: Silverstein's appearance in 2018 for Thao Tran and in 2024 for Phat Tran — both residential OC UDs — establishes him as the retained eviction attorney for the Tran family real estate network, not a one-time hire. This directly undermines any claim of ignorance regarding the family's eviction practices.

2. Prior Relationship Informs Current Case: As counsel familiar with the Tran family's real estate portfolio and eviction operations since at least 2018, Silverstein cannot credibly claim he was unaware of the enterprise's structure, the Sand Dune Ln hub, or the coordinated nature of the actors.

3. RICO Pattern Element: Under 18 U.S.C. §1961, a pattern requires at least two acts within ten years. Two documented OC residential UDs for the same family network, six years apart, same attorney — Silverstein's participation in both actions places him within the pattern element of the enterprise as the legal enforcement arm.

Side-by-Side Comparison — 2018 vs. 2024 Silverstein / Tran UD Actions

Element 2018 Action 2024 Action (This Case)
PlaintiffThao Tran (confirmed Phat family member)Phat L.K. Tran D.M.D.
AttorneySteven D. SilversteinSteven D. Silverstein
CourtOC Superior CourtOC Superior Court
Matter TypeUD — ResidentialUD — Residential
OutcomeDefault Judgment / Writ Wholly SatisfiedJudgment — Active criminal referral
Gap Between Cases6 Years — Same Family — Same Attorney — Same Court — Within RICO 10-Year Window

VII. Video Evidence —Watch it here

Delivered Personally to Silverstein Hard Copy// Exhibit Reference

▶ Documentary Evidence — Personal Delivery Confirmed UPS — 15-Minute Evidence Summary Video

A 15-minute video documenting the full evidence of fraud in this case was personally delivered to Steven D. Silverstein's office at 14351 Red Hill Ave, Ste G, Tustin CA 92780 by courier prior to trial proceedings. Receipt is documented. Online clerk@stevendsilverstein.com Silverstein received this video at a time when he could have withdrawn from the case, disclosed the conflicts, or advised his client to settle. He chose none of those options. He proceeded to trial on a void notice with fabricated evidence.

 

Conclusion — Law Enforcement Action Requested

Steven D. Silverstein is not a peripheral figure in this case. He is the legal mechanism through which a fraudulent eviction was executed in Orange County Superior Court. He received the evidence. He watched the video. He was in the courtroom when the lease contract contradicted his client's notice. He asked the closing question that proves he knew the check existed. He then directed or participated in a demand that Gasio pay a $14,548 bill he had every reason to know was fraudulently constructed.

This is not attorney malpractice. Malpractice is negligence. What is documented here is knowing, intentional, coordinated conduct by a 46-year specialist who teaches this exact law to other attorneys and who has served as a judicial officer in the courts where this fraud was perpetrated. He is now confirmed as the retained eviction attorney for the Tran family enterprise, with documented representation spanning 2018 to 2024.

Investigating officers are respectfully requested to: Contact Silverstein for interview · Subpoena courier delivery receipts · Obtain USPS tracking records · Subpoena DocuSign metadata · Review city inspector clearance · Examine sealed cashier's check · Obtain 2018 UD case file 30-2018-00982394 for prior representation documentation

Submitted By: Michael A. Gasio, Pro Se · Case: Gasio v. Tran et al. · OC Superior No. 30-2024-01410991-CL-UD-CJC · Evidence Portal: gasiomirror.com
Subject: Steven D. Silverstein, Esq. · CA State Bar #130763 · 14351 Red Hill Ave Ste G, Tustin CA 92780 · (714) 832-3651