Zillow, Title Fraud, and the Engineered Dispossession of Private Property

Zillow, Title Fraud, and the Engineered Dispossession of Private Property

Zillow has positioned itself as the dominant force in digital real estate while quietly orchestrating one of the most far-reaching forms of informational fraud in the property sector. It operates as a de facto monopoly, misrepresents key ownership records, and conceals critical title documents in its misleading “property reports.”

Zillow’s Stranglehold on Property Information

Zillow commands an overwhelming share of online real estate traffic in the United States. It harvests and aggregates data from MLS listings, county records, and third-party vendors. Because:

  • Over 70% of home searches begin on Zillow or one of its subsidiaries (Trulia, StreetEasy, etc.),
  • Realtors are compelled to submit listings and cooperate within Zillow’s monetized framework,
  • Zillow selectively manipulates what data is shown to influence market perception,

…it has become a centralized gatekeeper of what the public believes is authoritative property information. This is classic monopoly behavior that distorts free market access to land and ownership records.

 

Fraud by Omission: A Digital Shell Game

Zillow’s “property reports” are not what they appear. Rather than providing full legal transparency, they engage in strategic omission of public record evidence.

❌ What Zillow Highlights:

✅ What Zillow Intentionally Hides:

  • Grant Deeds – the actual legal conveyance of title
  • Warranty Deeds – the document guaranteeing clean ownership
  • Quiet Title Judgmentslegal declarations that override competing claims
  • UCC-1 Financing Statements – commercial liens asserting superior equity claims

This creates a deliberately false impression that foreclosure sales represent lawful title transfers, when in reality, superior claims or prior conveyances often exist that invalidate those transactions.

This constitutes:

  • Fraud by omission – Zillow fails to display essential legal documents.
  • Constructive fraud – the platform deceives by design, not error.
  • False advertising – it markets incomplete and misleading property profiles as authoritative.

 

Public Records Expose Fraud and Title Suppression

Recent public records show that MEMORY STARBURST TRUST lawfully conveyed title to SAMEIS DRAGON LLC, which was then transferred to WG EXPRESS and finally conveyed to WG PRIVATE IRREVOCABLE TRUST — all through duly recorded and verifiable grant deeds.

Despite this, Riverside County Assessor’s Office and the State of California have refused to recognize or reflect these conveyances in official reports or assessments, pretending as though the transfers never occurred. This suppression amounts to an intentional deprivation of rights under color of law, facilitating:

  • Fraudulent foreclosure filings,
  • Constructive theft of title,
  • And blatant violations of due process.

Zillow’s “property report” for this very parcel conveniently omits the grant deeds and private conveyances in favor of publishing only the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale, giving the false appearance of legitimate title transfer by foreclosure — despite the superior chain of title held through private trust conveyance.

This is not accidental. It is a coordinated strategy to marginalize private trusts, erase equitable title, and reinforce the appearance of lender authority.

 

Zillow, Title Fraud, and the Engineered Dispossession of Private Property Zillow, Title Fraud, and the Engineered Dispossession of Private Property Zillow, Title Fraud, and the Engineered Dispossession of Private Property

Zillow, Title Fraud, and the Engineered Dispossession of Private Property

Zillow, Title Fraud, and the Engineered Dispossession of Private Property

 

Monopolistic Abuse and Institutional Collusion

Zillow’s platform is not neutral — it is built to serve institutional interests and generate ad revenue, not truth:

  • It sells premium placement to agents, distorting representation.
  • It refuses to correct false foreclosure or title data, even after receiving legal affidavits and updated filings.
  • It enables mortgage “servicers”, trustees, and institutional buyers to benefit from false narratives about who owns what.

Such conduct qualifies as:

  • Unfair competition under federal and state law (e.g., FTC Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200),
  • Commercial fraud and deceptive trade practice,
  • Tortious interference with lawful ownership, title, and trust-based conveyances.

 

Zillow, Title Fraud, and the Engineered Dispossession of Private Property

Conclusion: A Silent Engine of Dispossession

Zillow has weaponized its monopoly over real estate data to perpetrate one of the most insidious forms of fraud in modern commerce. By hiding true title instruments, including Grant Deeds, Warranty Deeds, and equity liens, Zillow creates the illusion of default and foreclosure legitimacy — when in fact, lawful owners may still hold superior title.

This is not an oversight. It is an orchestrated system of fraudulent concealment, commercial dishonor, and calculated collusion, now visibly propped up by county-level complicity and systemic suppression. Until held accountable, Zillow will continue to operate as a private cartel masking as a public utility, eroding property rights and undermining the rule of law one “property report” at a time.

Leave your vote

3648293 points
More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

Fraud, Color of Law, and RICO Violations by Attorney Monika Vermani (Bar #355080) Exposed in Riverside County, California

Fraud, Color of Law, and RICO Violations by Attorney Monika Vermani (Bar #355080) Exposed in Riverside County, California

Attorney Monika Vermani (CA Bar #355080) has been formally named in a high-level commercial fraud and racketeering operation involving Riverside County’s unlawful prosecution of a secured private trust estate. Verified affidavits, unrebutted notices, and perfected UCC filings establish that Vermani is proceeding without lawful jurisdiction, operating under color of law, and aiding in the unauthorized securitization and monetization of private estate assets. The record demands $100 million in damages, immediate dismissal with prejudice, and criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 1961–1968 (RICO). This case exposes a systemic pattern of commercial fraud, identity theft, and administrative conspiracy masquerading as routine judicial process.

Attorney Monika Vermani (CA Bar #355080) has been formally named in a high-level commercial fraud and racketeering operation involving Riverside County’s unlawful prosecution of a secured private trust estate. Verified affidavits, unrebutted notices, and perfected UCC filings establish that Vermani is proceeding without lawful jurisdiction, operating under color of law, and aiding in the unauthorized securitization and monetization of private estate assets. The record demands $100 million in damages, immediate dismissal with prejudice, and criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 1961–1968 (RICO). This case exposes a systemic pattern of commercial fraud, identity theft, and administrative conspiracy masquerading as routine judicial process.

252Is a U.S. Citizen an Authorized Representative of the United States?

Is a U.S. Citizen an Authorized Representative of the United States?

A U.S. citizen does not possess agency on behalf of the United States government unless expressly appointed by statute, contract, or lawful delegation. Mere citizenship does not establish authority to act for or represent the federal government in any legal or commercial capacity. In reality, the U.S. citizen is the governed and regulated party—operating under federal jurisdiction, not within it. Only properly delegated agents—such as public officers, attorneys, or fiduciaries acting under written authority—may speak or act on behalf of the United States. Recognizing this separation is essential in all matters involving legal standing, jurisdiction, and commercial equity.

2How to Convene a 12 Panel Grand Jury Citizen Authority vs. State Monopoly

How to Convene a 12-Panel Grand Jury: Citizen Authority vs. State Monopoly

Learn how private citizens can lawfully initiate grand jury investigations through both statutory and common law means. This article explains the difference between court-convened grand juries and citizen-led panels formed under First Amendment and natural law authority. From submitting affidavits to the U.S. Attorney under 18 U.S.C. § 3332(a), to organizing lawful assemblies that issue true bills, the guide walks through each step. It empowers those facing systemic fraud, corruption, or due process violations with a lawful path to remedy. Grand juries are not just for prosecutors—they are a tool for the people.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.

error: Content is protected !!