Quoting the District Court: “I think — this is for Mr. Rice. I was completely wrong on my round one motion to dismiss, not just because the Ninth Circuit told me so but in sort of rethinking it, Mr. Rice was right in his round one motion, and I’m convinced of that now, and, again, not just because the Ninth Circuit told me, but I too got — you know, I got sucked into the affordable housing in San Francisco, and that wasn’t something I should have done in a motion to dismiss phase, and — but I got sucked in by it because I thought, well, San Francisco is trying to do what it can for affordable housing. But Mr. Rice was right and said — so said the Ninth Circuit. And I’m convinced now that that’s — that’s right. Like, I was wrong. So, you know, I’m always glad to know when I’m wrong.” (June 15th 2023 pretrial hearing — one day before the start of the trial — transcript, p. 66, 12-25.)

Point of clarification by me (i.e. “Mr. Rice”): In my view, the District Court (i.e. the Honorable Laurel Beeler) wasn’t “wrong” — instead, [She] was “wronged” (i.e. “got sucked into the affordable housing in San Francisco”) by the City Attorney’s’ “affordable housing” program narrative (i.e. reframing). As opposed to the applicable and truthful (i.e. “Mr. Rice was right”) Fair Housing Act and California Fair Employment and Housing Act narrative (i.e. frame) asserted in both my original and amended complaints, which I continue to assert. Please consider my physician’s September 19, 2017 letter (mailed by her directly to the MOHCD) and, without any inquiry, the MOHCD’s October 26th 2017 “Action Required” letter sent to, and received by, me on October 26, 2017. Lastly, the Honorable Beeler held herself accountable. The critical question here is will the District Court (or any court of jurisdiction) ever hold the City Attorney and Deputy City Attorneys involved in this case accountable for Sucking the District Court “into the affordable housing in San Francisco”?

To be clear and certain, “Mr. Rice was right” the entire time, and still is. Because, simply, from before the relevant period, during the relevant period, and after the relevant period, Mr. Rice told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth — and continues to do just that. Whereas, defendant City and County of San Francisco, et al. has not; which I claim in my appeals to the Ninth Circuit.

This section is for anyone that cares to have more details of my lawsuit against CCSF. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, appearing pro se, Case No. 19-cv-04250 LB: my Original Complaint and Exhibits, CCSF’s Motion to Dismiss, my Opposition, CCSF’s Reply, District Court’s Order Granting Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend. Amended Complaint, CCSF’s Motion to Dismiss, my Opposition, CCSF’s Reply, Declaration of Dr. Ludwig in Support of [my] Claims, District Court’s Order Granting Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice.

Initial appeal in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, appearing pro se, Case No. 20-15087; Opening, Answering, and Reply Briefs at Dkt. Nos. 2.0, 8.0, and 15.0, respectively), Ninth Circuit’s Memorandum reversing dismissal of my FHA claims.

Back at the District Court … one moment please.

Primary appeal in the Ninth Circuit seeking reversal of judgment, appearing pro se, Case No. 23-16013; Opening, Answering, and Reply Briefs at Dkt. Nos. 17.1, 26.1, and 31.1, respectively.

Secondary appeal in the Ninth Circuit seeking reversal of award of CCSF’s Bill of Costs, appearing pro se, Case No. 24-2217; Opening, Answering, and Reply Briefs at Dkt. Nos. 7.1, 12.1, and 18.1, respectively.

Primary appeal: my May 2, 2026 Motion for Sanctions (against CCSF’s counsel), CCSF’s Counsel’s May 12, 2026 Opposition, and my May 13, 2026 Reply. My May 29, 2026 Motion to Appear Remotely and Statement in Support of Oral Argument. Without oral argument, the Ninth Circuit June 2, 2026 Memorandum, my June 5, 2026 Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, my June 9, 2026 Motion to Submit Addendum to Petition for Panel Rearing and Rehearing En Banc, my June 18, 2026 Corrected Motion for Appointment of Counsel [in this appeal], and my June 23, 2026 Plaintiff-Appellant’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority in Support of Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc.

Secondary appeal: Interesting June 17, 2026 Ninth Circuit Order (“The Court is inclined to appoint pro bono counsel to represent appellant [Rice] in this appeal.”), and my June 17, 2026 Response (accepting the Court’s appointment of pro bono counsel to represent me in this appeal).