Yulia Gasio

Co-Tenant, Academic Professional, Witness to Fraudulent Conduct, Contributor of Documentation, and Impacted Party in Elder Household.

I. Summary of Role

Yulia Gasio is a co-tenant and direct witness to the fraudulent leasing practices, payment concealment, retaliatory eviction behavior, and habitability violations orchestrated by landlord Phat Tran, agents Anna Ly and Hanson Le, construction entity LY Construction, and attorney Steven Silverstein.

Her role is significant because she provided:

First-hand witness accounts of communications with Anna Ly.
Evidence of false advertising of the “ocean view / coastal view” promise.
Documentation showing agents misled tenants about lease terms and property conditions.
Support to the elder head-of-household during coercive and hostile events.
Direct confirmation that payments were made correctly and on time.

Her statements and testimony provide corroboration for nearly every fraudulent action in the case.

II. Identity & Background

Name: Yulia Gasio
Profession: University Professor (high credibility witness)
Role in Case: Co-tenant, witness, evidence provider
Status: Household member impacted by fraudulent eviction
Special Considerations: Present during retaliation, property violations, agent misrepresentations

Her academic background and detailed documentation lend strong credibility to her testimony.

III. Timeline of Relevant Involvement

2022: Present during move-in; observed pre-existing habitability defects.
2022–2023: Engaged in email and text communication with Anna Ly regarding repairs and expectations.
Early 2024: Viewed renewal documents and witnessed inconsistencies in contract representations.
April 2024: Confirmed renewal payment was made correctly via Wells Fargo.
May 2024: Witness to tenants sending certified payment to BHHS office.
June–July 2024: Present during retaliation, threats, and “pay or be evicted” pressure.
August 2024: Attempted to supply material to Rosiak, which he ignored prior to withdrawing.
2025: Assisted in organizing Deep Library documentation and evidence chronology.

IV. Evidence Relevant to This Actor

Her direct contributions include:

Emails with Anna Ly regarding lease and property representations.
Evidence of false “ocean view” advertising.
Internal household documentation confirming timely rent payments.
Photographs and notes documenting mold and water intrusion.
Witness statements regarding threats, intimidation, and agent misconduct.
Records showing her absence out of state during key harassment events, confirming the household lacked capacity to “damage” the property as falsely alleged.

V. Statutory Significance

While not a target of investigation, her status as a co-tenant and witness ties into:

Civ. Code §1942.5 — Retaliatory eviction protections.
Civ. Code §1940.2 — Protection from harassment, intimidation, coercion.
H&S §17920.3 — Habitability conditions she experienced.
Fed. Reg. Retaliatory Housing Standards — False advertising & unsafe conditions.

Her testimony strengthens the case by confirming multiple statutory violations.

VI. Enterprise Connections

To Anna Ly: Direct misrepresentation witnessed in email chains.
To Phat Tran: Observed retaliatory conduct and false statements about payments.
To Hanson Le: Present for discussions where he acknowledged payments.
To LY Construction: Documented the concealed defects their work left behind.
To BHHS: Provided corporate with written warnings (ignored).
To Silverstein: Provided evidence that contradicted filings submitted to court.

VII. Impact & Damages

Loss of home and stability due to fraudulent eviction.
Loss of professional workspace / home art studio.
Emotional harm from threats and coercion toward family.
Forced relocation to smaller unit; loss of personal property.
Financial damages tied to relocation and lost square footage.
Collateral harm through loss of access to safe habitability conditions.

VIII. Notes for Investigators

Her documentation corroborates payment record accuracy.
She can confirm contradictions in Anna Ly’s representations.
Her timeline refutes owner’s false damage allegations.
Her statements support elder abuse and retaliation findings.
High-credibility witness due to academic profession and consistent recordkeeping.

Her participation is essential in reconstructing the events and validating the fraud timeline.