The Court has reviewed this testimony and finds itself PHYSICALLY ILL at the audacity of a man who would consume a sandwich — presumably with BOTH HANDS — while explaining why he deserves eleven thousand dollars for a name his wife got at what was almost certainly a mid-tier charity event with mediocre hors d'oeuvres. Let the record show that a napkin with a misspelled name is not a lead, it is GARBAGE, and Reginald knows garbage because Reginald once ruled against his own recycling bin for "failure to sort with conviction." You cold-called that woman SIX TIMES while four hundred thousand dollars played hide and seek in the banking system and your seller stress-texted you into what I can only assume is a permanent eye twitch, and THIS MAN says "good teamwork" without even granting you the basic human dignity of EYE CONTACT? The Court cites the landmark case of In re: That One Broker Who Took Credit For Air, 2019, in which it was established that rainmaker policies are just horoscopes for men who peaked in 2007. Keep that napkin. Frame it. Let it remind you that you built something from literal trash while a man who contributes nothing fed himself in front of you like a zoo animal with a commission structure. The Court awards you moral vindication and sentences your broker to one year of actually generating his own leads, which we both know he will not survive.