DA53 — Failure to Return Evidence, Concealment of Court Documents & Suppression by All Respondents

Overview

This page documents the full scope of evidence suppression by every individual and corporate respondent involved in the case of Tran v. Gasio. Under California law, parties involved in litigation have a legal duty to preserve, retain, and return material evidence and documents belonging to a litigant once litigation is reasonably foreseeable. This duty exists regardless of whether the individual is an attorney, corporate agent, property owner, broker, or representative.

Acting pro se, the tenant lawfully demanded the return of all critical documents and placed HBPD Lt. Randall on CC as an official custodian of record to ensure proper chain-of-custody and to confirm whether any party would comply. Every respondent failed to produce required documents, constituting clear indicators of concealment and obstruction.

This expanded section provides legal foundations, detailed actor-specific findings, consequences of suppression, and large-format exhibits correlating to the certified mail and evidence-return demands.

Legal Basis for Mandatory Evidence Retention & Production

The following laws and standards apply to all parties listed on this page:

• California Code of Civil Procedure §2023.010: Prohibits misuse of the discovery process, including withholding evidence and failing to respond to lawful evidence demands.
• California Civil Code §§1709–1710: Defines fraudulent concealment as the suppression of facts a party is obligated to disclose.
• Penal Code §135: Criminalizes willful destruction or concealment of evidence relevant to any legal proceeding.
• Penal Code §166: Prohibits disobedience of lawful court processes, including failure to produce materials necessary for trial preparation.
• Penal Code §182 (Conspiracy): When multiple parties collectively refuse to comply with evidence demands, coordinated concealment may constitute conspiracy.
• Rule 1.16(e) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct: Requires attorneys to return all client papers and property upon request, without delay.
• Corporate and fiduciary retention statutes: Businesses must preserve documents relevant to anticipated litigation.

Evidence Exhibits — Certified Notices & Public Production Demand

Open full-size certified service exhibit

Proof of certified mail service and Substitution of Attorney filings confirming formal, lawful notice to all parties. This record shows that every respondent was placed on documented notice to return evidence by a specific date and all failed to comply.

Open full-size public demand notice

Public notice instructing all parties to turn in withheld evidence directly to HBPD Lt. Randall for safe keeping. This established clear expectations, created a chain-of-custody framework, and underscores the deliberate refusal of all respondents to comply.

Consequences of Failure to Produce Court Documents

When a litigant or attorney refuses to return documents required for legal defense, the consequences are severe and can include:

• Adverse inference (court may assume withheld materials were damaging to the withholding party).
• Obstruction charges under Penal Code §§135 and 166.
• Sanctions for misuse of the discovery process.
• Attorney discipline for violating Rule 1.16(e).
• Civil liability for damages caused by concealment.
• RICO predicate behavior when document suppression is coordinated across parties.

Because every respondent refused to produce records and each had independent legal duties to do so, the collective refusal forms a strong pattern of enterprise-level obstruction.

Actor-Specific Findings (Expanded)

1. Steven Silverstein — Eviction Attorney

Silverstein was obligated to retain all correspondence, notices, filings, and payment records related to the unlawful detainer action. Multiple certified demands were served, yet he returned nothing. As the attorney who filed the eviction, his records were essential to verifying service, payment history, and representations made to the court. His refusal constitutes:

• Suppression of tenant defense materials
• Possible destruction of exculpatory evidence
• Bad-faith litigation tactics

2. Richard Rosiak — Former Tenant Attorney

Rosiak was required to return the complete client file, including emails, contracts, payment records, and all evidence provided by the tenant. Despite formal demands, he did not produce a single document. This violated Rule 1.16(e) and materially harmed the tenant’s defense by denying access to critical evidence. His refusal appeared intentional and aligned with the timing of his withdrawal.

3. David Beard — Berkshire Hathaway Legal

As corporate counsel, Beard had a statutory duty to preserve all documents related to the allegations of fraud presented to him. He was given explicit notice of contract tampering, payment concealment, and document fraud. His complete failure to respond or return documents suggests intentional suppression.

4. Martha Mosier — Corporate Executive

Mosier received extensive evidence, including full binders sent by certified mail. As a corporate officer, she was required to escalate and preserve such materials. Her failure to produce even a single page demonstrates either deliberate suppression or gross negligence in corporate retention protocols.

5. Phat Tran — Property Owner

Tran was formally served and notified of his obligation to provide the original lease, renewal agreements, receipts, communication logs, and agent correspondence. He refused to produce any documents—including the very contract he relied upon to evict the tenant—indicating concealment and obstruction.

6. Hanson Le — Real Estate Agent

Le received all notices and was personally involved with receiving mailed payments addressed to the brokerage. He was in possession of material evidence, including the tenant’s check and renewal correspondence. His failure to produce these items, combined with invoking the Fifth Amendment when questioned by police, strongly suggests intentional concealment.

7. Anna Ly — Listing Agent

Ly handled the original listing, the 2022 lease, the 2023–2024 renewal, and multiple disclosures. She was legally required to produce those documents when notified. Instead, she deleted inbox content and denied sending contracts that appear in your records. Her refusal supports allegations of contract fraud and evidence destruction.

8. Jeremy Ryan Carpenter — Mail Handler

Carpenter’s records show that certified mail was properly processed and that all respondents received formal notice. His documentation confirms that you used appropriate legal channels to demand evidence. His compliance highlights the non-compliance of all other parties.

Summary

Every respondent failed to produce required evidence despite receiving certified notices and clear instructions to submit materials to HBPD for chain-of-custody protection. Their collective refusal represents a unified pattern of obstruction and concealment directly relevant to both civil and criminal investigations.