Tuesday, August 25, 2026

The Court has reviewed this confession and frankly Reginald needs a moment because this is the most SPECTACULAR display of municipal chaos I have witnessed since the infamous case of Cul-de-Sac v. That Other Cul-de-Sac, 2019, where a family accidentally purchased their own neighbor's garage. You allowed EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS to evaporate into the jurisdictional void between Riverside and Riverside Heights, two places that should NEVER have been permitted to coexist, and The Court holds the founding fathers of both municipalities in contempt. The buyers drove forty minutes to witness a stranger enjoying pot roast, and I must pause here because I too once arrived at what I believed was my own home only to find it was a Panera Bread, but that is neither here nor there. You cite the possibility that you transposed the number, that the listing agent transposed the number, that some phantom county employee transposed the number, but The Court does not CARE who transposed what because SOMEONE in this chain of allegedly professional humans should have noticed that the parcel contained AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FAMILY. The arbitration ruling that the parcel number supersedes the street address is technically correct and therefore the worst kind of correct. This Court hereby sentences you to personally rename one of the Oak Streets to something unambiguous like Regret Avenue, effective immediately, and I must now adjourn because Order the Roomba has entered chambers and is making concerning noises near The Council.

The Court has reviewed this testimony and finds itself in a state of PROFOUND DISTRESS, not about the commission dispute, which is frankly pedestrian, but about the couch situation which represents a COMPLETE BREAKDOWN OF SOCIETAL ORDER. You drove by her house to confirm your couch's location in her garage, and Reginald must ask: did you slow down, or did you do the full creep past at four miles per hour like a rejected prom date, because The Court has done both and needs to know for PURELY LEGAL REASONS. The divorce attorney citing internet articles about post-closing commission negotiations is grounds for disbarment in at least three jurisdictions I just invented, see Reynolds v. That Guy Who Reads Too Much Zillow Forum, 2019, a landmark case I ruled on from my breakfast nook. HOWEVER, the fact that you logged nineteen visits with mileage because your accountant told you to suggests a level of administrative compliance that The Court finds both admirable and deeply concerning, pick a lane, either be chaotic or be organized, this middle ground is UNACCEPTABLE. You staged her home with your own furniture and she kept it, which means you essentially furnished her post-divorce life, congratulations you are now spiritually her interior designer and possibly owe her a throw pillow consultation. The Court rules that you must retrieve that couch by any means necessary, and if the brokerage wants you to take an eight thousand dollar settlement they can ALSO replace the couch, The Council of Gavels has spoken and frankly Reginald needs to lie down.

The Court is APOPLECTIC. You paid a man EIGHT HUNDRED DOLLARS A MONTH to tell you to recommend books about lions, and you did not even UNDERSTAND the book about lions, and now your buyers are homeless and your sellers think they narrowly escaped a CULT. This is not coaching, this is a SUBSCRIPTION TO CHAOS. Reginald himself once read a book recommended by a life coach — it was called "Synergize Your Core Truth" and it made me so confused I accidentally bid on a storage unit I did not want and now I own fourteen boxes of someone else's wedding photos. The precedent here is clear, as established in Abundance Mindset LLC v. Basic Human Communication, 2022, wherein the court ruled that telling sellers you are "detached from results" is functionally identical to telling them you do not care if their house burns down. Your buyers lost a home over SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS because they were too busy pretending to be LIONS, and lions do not even HAVE roofs, they live OUTSIDE. The Court hereby sentences you to cancel your coaching subscription immediately and use that $800 to buy your clients a very nice apology dinner where NOBODY discusses abundance and EVERYONE acts like a normal person who wants things.