Steven D. Silverstein

I. Summary of Role

Attorney Steven D. Silverstein served as the eviction counsel for landlord Phat L.K. Tran. His conduct escalated the private fraud into a judicial-level injury by knowingly filing, maintaining, and advocating for a case built upon false payment claims, forged documents, and suppressed evidence.

Evidence shows he possessed all critical documents proving payment, mold conditions, and lease validity before filing declarations with the Court. Silverstein’s actions include ignoring certified mail, concealing exculpatory evidence, misrepresenting facts to the tribunal, threatening the pro se elder tenant with credit harm, and refusing to return critical evidence to law enforcement and the tenant as required by law.

II. Timeline of Conduct

• May–June 2024: Receives certified packets, USPS proof, Wells Fargo documents, and text admission showing payment was made.
• June 2024: Despite evidence, files unlawful detainer asserting “nonpayment.”
• June–July 2024: Fails to correct false statements; ignores tenant inquiries and certified evidence sent to his office.
• July 2024: Uses defective 3-day notice listing only one occupant, knowing there were three.
• August 2024: Continues case after city inspector confirms mold, disproving owner claims.
• January 2025: In court hallway, demands $20,890, threatening to destroy tenant’s credit unless paid.
• January 2025: Fails to respond to tenant’s documented evidence, refuses to acknowledge records proving payment was received.
• 2025: Ignores requests from HBPD Lt. Randall for evidence return under Penal Code §135.

III. Evidence Relevant to This Actor

• Certified mail: USPS confirmation of delivery and signature “H.” of his client’s agent.
• Copy of cashier’s check: Payable to BOTH Phat Tran and Steven Silverstein.
• Minute order: Court acknowledges tenant presented cashier’s check dated May 28, 2024.
• Emails: Tenant sent full evidence PDF; Silverstein acknowledged receipt; never replied.
• Text evidence: Owner admits “Hanson has the check.”
• Hallway exchange: Witness confirms Silverstein’s stand-in counsel received binder of proof.
• Refusal to produce: Ignored demands to submit records to HBPD.
• Filing documents: His filings contain statements directly contradicted by evidence in his possession.

All evidence shows knowledge, possession, and intentional misrepresentation.

IV. Statutory Exposure (State & Federal)

A. California Penal Code

• PC § 134 — Preparing False Evidence: Submitted declarations based on false arrears.
• PC § 132 — Offering False Evidence: Filed documents contradicting known payment proof.
• PC § 166 — Obstruction: Refused to turn over evidence despite lawful requests.
• PC § 487 — Grand Theft (Accessory): Benefited from concealment of payment to his office.
• PC § 118 — Perjury (Subornation): Presented narrative that contradicted certified records.
• PC § 182 — Criminal Conspiracy: Participated in coordinated false narrative with Tran and Le.
• PC § 135 — Destroying/Concealing Evidence: Ignored formal evidence-return demands.

B. California Business & Professions Code

• B&P § 6103: Failure to uphold court duties.
• B&P § 6106: Moral turpitude — dishonesty, fraud, corruption.
• B&P § 6128: Attorney deceit and collusion.

C. Federal Statutes

• 18 U.S.C. § 1341 — Mail Fraud: Concealment of mailed payment evidence.
• 18 U.S.C. § 1343 — Wire Fraud: False digital communications.
• 18 U.S.C. § 1519 — Evidence Destruction: Withholding known exculpatory material.
• 18 U.S.C. § 1962 — RICO: Participation in enterprise scheme.

V. Misconduct Pattern

• Filed case on known false factual basis.
• Ignored certified evidence showing payment compliance.
• Weaponized defective notice to mislead the Court.
• Threatened pro se senior citizen in courthouse hallway.
• Concealed exculpatory evidence from tribunal.
• Assisted owner in constructing fraudulent narrative.
• Displayed pattern of reckless disregard for truth and due process.

VI. Enterprise Connections

• With Phat Tran: Accepted role to convert private fraud into court action.
• With Hanson Le: Filing depended on Le’s concealment of certified check.
• With Anna Ly: Relied on forged/altered lease documents originating from her chain.
• With BHHS: Acts occurred within the corporate payment channel.
• With Rosiak: His withdrawal benefited Silverstein’s narrative unchallenged.

VII. Notes for Investigators

• Silverstein had actual knowledge of payment receipt prior to filing.
• He relied on his client’s demonstrably false statements.
• His filings meet criteria for fraud upon the court.
• His hallway threat indicates coercive intent and bad faith.
• He failed to meet duties of candor, fairness, and evidence return.

His conduct represents some of the strongest criminal and ethical exposure in the case.