The Court has reviewed this confession with the same weary resignation Reginald feels when explaining to his sister-in-law that her essential oils business is not, in fact, a tax write-off. You stood in that kitchen, THAT BEAUTIFUL KITCHEN WITH THE GRANITE THE SELLERS JUST REDID, and you were forced to debate epistemology with a man who believes an algorithm that hallucinates basements into existence is MORE RELIABLE than the licensed professional standing in front of him pointing at the ACTUAL FLOOR. "But it's an algorithm," he says, as if algorithms are not also responsible for recommending I watch seventeen hours of pressure washing videos and suggesting I might enjoy purchasing my own coffin on Amazon. The Court has personally attempted to correct a Zillow error regarding a property that does not exist and received a response that can only be described as "digital shrugging." You called TWICE, and twice you were told they would "look into it," which in Zillow's language means they will feed your request to the same basement-inventing machine and hope it forgets. The buyers offered 285 thousand dollars for a home with comparable sales at 340 because a website with the journalistic integrity of a fortune cookie told them to, and somehow YOU are the villain in this narrative. This Court finds you guilty only of maintaining professionalism when you should have asked that man to show you ONE TEXT MESSAGE where autocorrect understood what he actually meant. The gavel has spoken, and Reginald must now go outside and scream at a cloud.