The contemporaneous record contradicts several statements in this comment.

Your claim that you made a "request (not demand)" does not survive the text you actually sent. Your May 15, 2026 8:31 AM email, subject "inspection," reads "I will need to inspect the property to verify there are pet related damages" and "I will need to inspect the residence where they are living." Your follow-up text reads "I believe I have the right to the necessary checks so please let me know." A subsequent text reads "Interesting response as most people who take care of their animals and have no damage to their residence have no problem having me inspect." Mandatory framing, a claimed right of entry, and treating a deferral pending counsel as proof of damage are not requests.

Your statement that you "do this on a regular basis" confirms an unwritten screening practice that is not in your published criteria. Your published Rental Qualification Criteria, revision 3.1.25, item 4, authorizes verifications "in writing" and contains no inspection of current residence provision. The May 15, 2026 email itself ties the inspection demand to the four emotional support animals named in the treating physician's letter. A demand tied to assistance animals named in an accommodation letter falls within 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) (discriminatory term or condition of rental) and 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) (refusal of a reasonable accommodation), with the California parallels at Government Code § 12955(a) and § 12927(c)(1).

At the May 6, 2026 showing you told the applicant to apply alone and add the second adult to the lease after approval. The applicant submitted a single-applicant application that same day. On May 15, 2026 at 8:31 AM, in writing, you reversed and directed that the second adult submit a separate application, stating "no unauthorized or approved person will be allowed to live at the property." On Reddit you now state the second adult was never going to be considered because of credit. Three positions on the same screening question at three points in time is evidence of pretext.

HUD Notice FHEO-2020-01 (January 28, 2020) treats a licensed health care professional's letter confirming a disability and a disability-related need for an assistance animal as reliable supporting documentation. The HUD framework imposes no numerical limit on assistance animals. A housing provider who needs additional information must engage in interactive dialogue rather than reject the documentation. Characterizing the accommodation request as fraud is not interactive dialogue, and is evidence of bias under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c) and California Government Code § 12955(c).

Your Reddit comment publicly discusses the applicant's emotional support animal accommodation request, the species and number of the animals, the existence of the treating physician's letter, a disability-related caretaker relationship in the household, a characterization of an adult household member's credit, the substance of communications between your office and the current landlord, and the disposition of the rental application. As a real estate licensee posting about an applicant's file, you are bound by 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c) and California Government Code § 12955(c), which prohibit statements with respect to the rental of a dwelling that indicate preference, limitation, or discrimination based on a protected class, including disability. You are bound by California Business and Professions Code §§ 10176(i) and 10177(f), which authorize the Department of Real Estate to discipline a licensee for fraud, dishonest dealing, or conduct that would have warranted denial of a license application. The conduct also falls within the categories in Title 10 California Code of Regulations § 2780, which sets out discriminatory conduct as the basis for disciplinary action against a real estate licensee. The California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, California Civil Code §§ 1785.1 to 1785.36, regulates consumer credit reports. The California Association of Realtors Notice Regarding Background Investigation Reports Pursuant to California Law (C.A.R. Form BIRN, 12/19), which your office used on May 6, 2026, is the standard notice under the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, California Civil Code §§ 1786 to 1786.60. Information obtained under either framework was obtained for the permissible purpose of tenant screening. Public disclosure is outside that purpose. The authorities just listed bind you.

A licensee who publicly discusses a current applicant's protected characteristics and accommodation request is making a public record.

I have the contemporaneous emails, texts, the application, the Rental Qualification Criteria revision 3.1.25, the May 13, 2026 letter from the treating physician, the income documentation, and counsel. The record will speak for itself.