Phat Tran's 3-Day Notice: Illegally Served Under Active Lease

This 3-day notice was issued on June 21, 2024, despite a valid, signed 3-year lease already in effect with confirmed rent paid. It demanded payment to a private Wells Fargo account with no routing information traceable to a lease or landlord identity, violating contract and banking law. The landlord refused to show ID at the bank and declined to resolve the matter in person.

Violations and Legal Defects

❌ **California Civil Code §1946.2** – Retaliatory eviction during valid tenancy.
❌ **California Civil Code §1962** – No posted name, address, or valid notice to pay rent or quit.
❌ **No Standing** – Court documents named only Michael Gasio, omitting spouse and elderly mother under lease protection laws.
❌ **Extortion (Penal Code §520)** – Owner demanded payment to a private bank account with verbal threats, refusing to identify himself or return funds.
❌ **Contract in Place** – Signed lease renewal and confirmation of receipt of first month’s payment on April 19, 2024, fully acknowledged by agent and owner.
❌ **Fraudulent inducement and perjury in court filings (Penal Code §118)** – Stating tenant did not pay, despite text confirmation from owner and tracking receipt.
❌ **Wells Fargo protocols violated** – Owner refused to show ID, and bank legally could not process transaction for an unverifiable recipient.

🚫 3-Day Notice issued June 21, 2024 — violates active lease and payment history.

📩 Owner acknowledges plan to settle — "You’ll get the money Monday."

🚨 Tenant reports vehicle threat during extortion attempt — elder abuse in progress.

💬 Owner instructs tenant to backdate lease to create false appearance of nonpayment.

📝 $8,000 Retainer paid to Richard Rosiak, who knew lease was valid and funds had been paid.

📧 Client warned Rosiak in January that trial was imminent — no court filing occurred.

📩 July 18, 2024: Formal notice to Rosiak that wife would attend court — he failed to inform the court.

DA Findings Prepared

Fraudulent service of notice and forged contract terms to gain possession.
Attorney misconduct in violation of Business & Professions Code §6068 and failure to protect client rights.
Ongoing pattern of refusal to correct records or return payments made in good faith.
Criminal conduct including potential RICO implications via wire fraud, forgery, and unlawful eviction under false pretenses.

This case file and documentation were submitted to the Orange County District Attorney’s Office and the California State Bar for formal investigation.