1. THE COURT’S MINUTE ORDER CONFIRMS WHAT SILVERSTEIN ALREADY KNEW

The official minute order (03/27/2025, Dept. C61, Commissioner Snuggs-Spraggins) shows the Court admitted the following into evidence:

• Exhibit J — Photos of mold (May 1, 2022)
• Exhibit K — Defendant-to-plaintiff emails confirming payment to Hanson Le
• Exhibit L–Q — Emails/texts confirming repair discussions and lawful communications

The minute order states clearly:
“Defendant produced a copy of a cashier’s check dated May 28, 2024.”

Minute Order (Court Exhibit)

2. THE CASHIER’S CHECK MADE OUT TO PHAT TRAN *AND* STEVEN SILVERSTEIN This is for a Second "July Payment" Your cashier’s check proves Silverstein and Tran were paid. This contradicts every “nonpayment” claim made in court.

Cashier’s Check Proof — April 22

3. SILVERSTEIN’S INDUSTRY PROFILE SHOWS A "VOLUME-BASED" APPROACH

A published newspaper article profiling eviction attorneys confirms Silverstein’s court posture: high-volume, low-review, “cookie-cutter” evictions where accuracy is secondary to throughput.

Daily Journal Profile: Eviction Volume Practice

4. HALLWAY MEETING WITH CLINT — FULL DISCLOSURE PRIOR TO RULING

During the lunch recess, Clint (coverage counsel for Phat Tran) sat by the courtroom door. You presented the full binder. He reviewed USPS proof, payment logs, and texts showing **Phat admitted Hanson received the check**. He acknowledged the binder and returned to consult Silverstein.

5. PRETRIAL EMAILS SHOW SILVERSTEIN WAS ORDERED TO RESPOND — HE REFUSED

Your emails show you warned Silverstein and the clerk:
“You were ordered in writing to face me in court today. Read your PDF. You have all my pages.”

He received 22 electronic service notices and never responded.

6. LEGAL CODES VIOLATED BY SILVERSTEIN

7. PDF EVIDENCE (DOWNLOAD CARDS)

8. DA27 — FINAL FINDING

Silverstein had:

• The cashier’s check
• The USPS delivery confirmation
• The owner’s admission that Hanson received the check
• The emails and texts confirming payment
• The hallway disclosure through Clint
• The pretrial PDFs you sent
• The binder presented in court

He still argued “nonpayment” to the Court.

This meets the legal definition of:

• Offering false evidence (PC 132)
• Preparing false evidence (PC 134)
• Obstruction (PC 166)
• Moral Turpitude (B&P 6106)
• Mail Fraud (18 USC 1341)
• Wire Fraud (18 USC 1343)

9. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE: EARLY NOTICE, OWNER ADMISSION & CHECK-HANDLING FRAUD

The following evidence further proves Silverstein had full early knowledge of the truth about payments, contract authority, and Berkshire Hathaway’s exclusive role as the payee. These items demonstrate that Silverstein’s “non-payment” narrative was impossible based on the documents in his possession.

Early Notice Email — “What kind of shyster lawyer…”
This proves Silverstein was notified at the start that: (1) the contract was a Berkshire debit, (2) the owner was no longer the proper payee, and (3) the agent had misrepresented authority. He did nothing to correct the record.

Owner’s Text Admission — Payment To Hanson Confirmed
Tran admits in his own message: “Sorry I didn’t know you did pay your rent to the Hanson account.” This eliminates any possibility of a legitimate “nonpayment” claim in court.

Bank Rules: The Payee Is BERKSHIRE — Not Tran
This establishes that only Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices California had legal authority to negotiate or return the check. Tran had no lawful standing to claim he “returned” a check addressed to a corporation. This proves fraudulent testimony.

Together, these three evidence blocks prove beyond dispute:

• You warned Silverstein from the beginning (“shyster lawyer” email)
• Phat admitted the payment was made to Hanson’s account
• The check legally belonged to Berkshire, not Tran — making his “returned check” story impossible
• No bank receipt exists because the check was never processed
• Silverstein knew his client had no proof of mailing, receipt, or return
• Your certified postal receipt is superior to their unreadable envelope photocopy

This section makes clear: Silverstein and Tran knowingly misled the Court. They relied on a false narrative that contradicted bank rules, owner admissions, and the documents in their own files.