The People's Court - General Discussion

[rcc]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I started to rewatch the ludicrous case of the silly cow, here suing her tiny, sit-com nerd ex-lover who looks about 13, for some old used laptop. The silly cow let the excitable wee nerd climb aboard and he somehow managed to impregnate her. This would all be laughable except that some child will have to go through life calling these two misfits "my parents". There ought to be a law.

The mother did say she was autistic though.

[Pepper the Cat]

22 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I started to rewatch the ludicrous case of the silly cow, here suing her tiny, sit-com nerd ex-lover who looks about 13, for some old used laptop. The silly cow let the excitable wee nerd climb aboard and he somehow managed to impregnate her. This would all be laughable except that some child will have to go through life calling these two misfits "my parents". There ought to be a law.

The child is being adopted.

the defendant must have borrowed his shirt from his friend. He was swimming in it.

[Bazinga]

Today's episode is from January 31, 2018 and is discussed on Page 95.

Here is the link:

Hair Salon Ruckus

[AngelaHunter]

59 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

Today's episode is from January 31, 2018 and is discussed on Page 95.

Here is the link:

Hair Salon Ruckus

I enjoyed this - the poor pitiful, upstanding, Italian-handshake, sad-eyed, shady lady with HER cross dangling from her wrist - just as much as I did the first time. I may have enjoyed it even more since I knew what BS was coming, i.e. the picture of the front of the check she gave her hubby for the repairs. I also re-enjoyed Def's oily ambulance-chasing son, who advised JM on NY law when he doesn't even have the sense to register the mail he says he sent or get anything in writing. He's a lawyer who thinks it's okay to shout out when a judge is talking.

I always like it when someone who is just renting puts their whole body and soul - nay - their very lives and a ton of money into renovating or beautifying someone else's property and thinking that gives them special privileges.

She thought JM "bullied" her. No. She merely laid out the facts and saw through her theatrics and lies. That is not bullying.

[Bazinga]

Today's episode is from January 22, 2018 and is discussed on Page 94.

Here is the direct link:

Handyman Fall Fiasco

Edited October 5, 2022 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

I still don't get why handyman def had to pay 2,000$ to the plaintiff when her rotted out door shattered while he was working on it. She was going to need a new door soon anyway. It was always going to cost her 4K and she expected him to pay that, which includes very high installation costs. IMO, the door broke while he was working on it. He didn't break it.

She's been paying him 30$ - 40$ over the years to do odd jobs for her, so probably saved a huge bundle all those years by not hiring professionals who are licensed and insured. Good luck to her finding another trustworthy handyman who will work for a pittance, now that she's alienated Def.

A few years ago my deck was getting rickety and creaky, with some rotted boards here and there. If I got my handyman to just rip out the rotten boards and replace them and half the deck collapsed while he was sawing and hammering, would I expect him to pay for a complete new deck, including labour? No. That's nuts. I would figure that, oh, well - I knew I needed a new deck and the bandaid approach didn't work.  If I have to get a new deck sooner than I expected someone else shouldn't have to pay for it.

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I still don't get why handyman def had to pay 2,000$ to the plaintiff when her rotted out door shattered while he was working on it. She was going to need a new door soon anyway. It was always going to cost her 4K and she expected him to pay that, which includes very high installation costs. IMO, the door broke while he was working on it. He didn't break it.

She's been paying him 30$ - 40$ over the years to do odd jobs for her, so probably saved a huge bundle all those years by not hiring professionals who are licensed and insured. Good luck to her finding another trustworthy handyman who will work for a pittance, now that she's alienated Def.

A few years ago my deck was getting rickety and creaky, with some rotted boards here and there. If I got my handyman to just rip out the rotten boards and replace them and half the deck collapsed while he was sawing and hammering, would I expect him to pay for a complete new deck, including labour? No. That's nuts. I would figure that, oh, well - I knew I needed a new deck and the bandaid approach didn't work.  If I have to get a new deck sooner than I expected someone else shouldn't have to pay for it.

I agree with you. Perhaps the judge's thinking was that the handyman should have known better than to attempt it with it as it was? Maybe?  Either way, never sue someone who is basically doing you a favor.  yes, he was charging, but charging a pittance is a favor.  

[Bazinga]

Today's episode was mentioned a few posts back; the one with the screaming neighbor.  It was first aired on May 2, 2019.

Here is the link to the discussion on Page 132:

Nightmare Neighbor

[CrazyInAlabama]

Classic rerun "Nightmare Neighbor"

Bazinga posted the link to the original airing.  

Crystal Dougherty vs. Thomas and Irina Mahoney Plaintiff is suing for $5,000 for loss of rental income, because no one can stand to rent the condo because of the screaming, and stomping noises, the noises went on constantly.   Plaintiff moved out in 2018, and two months later plaintiff tried to rent the condo, and tenant lasted three weeks before complaining, and plaintiff let tenant out of the lease months early, and that's what the court case for $5,000 in lost rent is for.   

https://m.facebook.com/ThePeoplesCourt/posts/2467000863319807?comment_id=2481424711877422     Here's a shot of the original airing, 

What kind of person marries and has a kid with someone, and leaves them in the condo with horrible mental issues?   

 I feel so sorry for the plaintiff who had to put up with constant screaming and moaning from the neighbor, the police coming to haul defendant away for 5150 exams, and then Irina moves back.   Then, plaintiff was naughty at not mentioning to the condo tenant about the neighbor issues, and I'm not surprised the tenant moved out. 

One time the police were called, and an ambulance showed up, and police had to forcibly put her in the ambulance, and Irina was gone for three days. 

Thomas claims plaintiff is the problem, got the building manager fired, and everything is plaintiff's fault.   Thomas also claims Irina needs her space, and that his wife doesn't have mental health issues.    I agree with JM, it sounds like living downstairs from the Exorcist.  

I'm just glad that someone said even though Irina was a phlebotomist in Russia, or where ever she came from, isn't working in the U.S.   

Hall-terview with Doug was heartbreaking.  I'm not surprised the other tenants avoid defendant.   From what the defendant said, it's not just mental health issues, but anger issues.    

Poor Doug in the hall, this case makes me mad at the husband abandoning the wife, and the impact of her on the neighbors.  I'm also glad that Doug probably has security standing close to him, defendants both sound out of touch with reality. 

$5000. 

(Where I live, TPC followed by two hours of Judge Judy air on Fox, which is showing the Womens Soccer Road to Fifa World Cup on Friday the 7th.  So it might cancel the airings for both shows.  But at least soccer ends on time. )

Edited October 7, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[Bookworm13]

It is shocking to me how well I remember most of the cases that have been airing lately. 
 

Yesterday’s case, as recapped by @CrazyInAlabama above, still left me with more questions than answers despite paying more attention. The husband seemed shadier on this watch, but maybe that’s because it was more obvious he was hiding a lot and trying to not have his personal business aired to the public regardless of the fact he agreed to come on TPC. If I ever had a neighbor like that, though, you can be sure I’d be calling the cops all the damn time until something was done. Nobody deserves to have to listen to screaming/crying 24/7. I wonder why the plaintiff didn’t try to bring any of the other neighbors as witnesses? I know the defendant said the other neighbors didn’t like the plaintiff, but I wasn’t buying a single word out of his mouth. 
 

TPC replaced by Hot Bench here today. Hoping it goes back to normal on Mon so I don’t have to try and figure out a new airing schedule since the website still shows it airing at the old time before it got switched to the current air-time. 

[Bazinga]

Today's episode is from February 13, 2018 and is discussed on Page 97.

Direct link: You Rented Me an Illegal Apartment

Edited October 10, 2022 by Bazinga
Corrected link. Confused the dates. Sorry.

[WhitneyWhit]

Is there a reason that we’re getting daily reruns rather than a new season?

[AngelaHunter]

On 10/6/2022 at 4:19 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

What kind of person marries and has a kid with someone, and leaves them in the condo with horrible mental issues?

Somone who decided he didn't get what he ordered but can't get a refund.

[aemom]

New episodes are back Oct 17!

[Bookworm13]

18 hours ago, WhitneyWhit said:

Is there a reason that we’re getting daily reruns rather than a new season?

New season starts next week. No idea why the holdup on new episodes. No explanation was posted on the FB page that I saw. 
 

Pre-empted by baseball today ☹️

[rcc]

Do not miss Harvey and his people on the street. Glad they don't do that anymore.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, Bookworm13 said:

Pre-empted by baseball today ☹️

You didn't miss much.  Halfway down the page:

https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/6835-the-peoples-court/page/102/#comments

1 hour ago, rcc said:

Do not miss Harvey and his people on the street. Glad they don't do that anymore.

Who wants to bet he'll be back out there, loose on the street, shoving his wee mic in the faces of his dreary fanclub (and his own droopy mug in the camera) with the new season?

[CrazyInAlabama]

Ratings sweeps months are November, February, and May, where they do collect ratings for every show on every channel, all of the time, not just prime time.     So, maybe they delayed so they could have new shows every day for the entire month? 

[Bookworm13]

This show is so unintentionally hilarious sometimes. 
 

JM : Do you have a license?

Def : Yes. 

JM : Let me see it.

Def : Well I don’t have it with me.

JM : Are you sure you have a license?

Def : It’s not a valid license. 😂😂

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Bookworm13 said:

This show is so unintentionally hilarious sometimes. 

It is. "You mean you want to see a VALID license?"  It's a good thing JM can keep her sense of humour and not go psycho on all these litigants who struggle to form a simple sentence, can't answer a single question without telling stupid lies, and who babble over her. "They dint axe for nobody ID".

In the second case I couldn't figure out if "Maria" was the plaintiff's girlfriend or caretaker. They don't ask for or keep receipts. The landlord def doesn't either, but comes up with an excuse: His accountant has all that stuff, and def never thought about bringing this evidence when he knew he was being sued over a deposit.

I watch these cases and marvel how these people function in the world while struggling to  speak even basic English, feel they needn't show up in court if they have something better to do, and mature business people have no idea they should keep records and need evidence when being sued.  They seem to think saying, "Oh, I have it but it's at home" will suffice. 🤪

Of course, I always drive with no license or insurance, and lately I've been thinking I should check and see if I have any warrants since that seems to be an unavoidable fact of life.

[Bookworm13]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

In the second case I couldn't figure out if "Maria" was the plaintiff's girlfriend or caretaker. They don't ask for or keep receipts. The landlord def doesn't either, but comes up with an excuse: His accountant has all that stuff, and def never thought about bringing this evidence when he knew he was being sued over a deposit.

I couldn’t figure out “Maria” either. She was his girlfriend of 2 years, they didn’t(and never had) live together, yet she was paying his bills because apparently that’s too hard for a grown man. But the fact the landlord didn’t know whether rent was for the previous week or upcoming week was pretty bad too. 
 

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

It is. "You mean you want to see a VALID license?"  It's a good thing JM can keep her sense of humour and not go psycho on all these litigants who struggle to form a simple sentence, can't answer a single question without telling stupid lies, and who babble over her. "They dint axe for nobody ID”.

I watch these cases and marvel how these people function in the world while struggling to  speak even basic English, feel they needn't show up in court if they have something better to do, and mature business people have no idea they should keep records and need evidence when being sued.  They seem to think saying, "Oh, I have it but it's at home" will suffice. 🤪

Of course, I always drive with no license or insurance, and lately I've been thinking I should check and see if I have any warrants since that seems to be an unavoidable fact of life.

Yes, it’s like litigants who have insurance, but it was lapsed on the one day they were involved in an accident, it had lapsed and they had no idea 😳 The saddest part for me is that this show has been on for decades and yet we’re not getting repeat customers. I can empathize with someone for not knowing something that was never taught/explained to them, but in a majority of cases, it’s just a lack of basic common sense. 

[Bazinga]

Today's episode is from April 18, 2019 and discussed on Page 131.

Direct link: A Friendship Destroyed

[AngelaHunter]

22 hours ago, Bookworm13 said:

I can empathize with someone for not knowing something that was never taught/explained to them, but in a majority of cases, it’s just a lack of basic common sense.

It isn't even that. They live in a shady, twilight world of vague scams, grifting, and hustles, where they never own anything, but get phones, cars, registrations, apartments, etc. 'underneath' the name of some cousin/not cousin/sister/not sister and never really live anywhere, but just "stay" here and there.

The're all "working on" getting insurance or licenses (which were all revoked for a variety of reasons, like DUIs) but drive anyway. Their (non-existent) insurance cruelly "laps" the very day they were on their way to pay it through money orders, or Western Union and by sad coincidence it's the very moment they have an accident. Life is unfair that way.

They keep large sums of cash in sock drawers since they cannot have a bank account lest the government seize it for back child support or restitution or it would mess up their welfare, then screech if someone steals it. They are unaware they have warrants out on them or liens on some property, like a 1997 Ford Tempo they never registered before they sold it.

They might be homeless and bedding down on someone's floor, but trust them - they had 5K of electronics and other stuff there and want to get paid for it.

We had a 38-year-old woman with her first car who proclaims she had no idea what to do with parking tickets and mature adults who claim they didn't know it was illegal to park on private property and walk away.

And matter what they choose to do, or how outrageous their behavior, it is always someone else's fault.

22 hours ago, Bookworm13 said:

The saddest part for me is that this show has been on for decades and yet we’re not getting repeat customers.

Sad indeed, and scary.

[Bookworm13]

17 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Today's episode is from April 18, 2019 and discussed on Page 131.

Direct link: A Friendship Destroyed

I was pre-empted by Jan 6 hearings, but doesn’t look like I missed much. 
 

Does anyone know what format we’ll get with the new eps on Monday? I’m more looking forward to that than the cases themselves, which will likely be more of the same. I’ll be happy to not have every case revolve around the pandemic, though. 

[Maverick]

 Saw a commercial for new episodes next week.    Starting off with a bang.   Plaintiff:  "He was intoxicated...."  MM to Defendant:  "Did you have sex?"  

 Litigants are in court, but no gallery.   I'm surprised they are back in person.   I thought the litigants were staying remote for cost and logistic purposes.  The lighting looks really dark.  Maybe it's just in the commercial for some reason.

[AngelaHunter]

2 minutes ago, Maverick said:

Litigants are in court, but no gallery. 

That's too bad. I prefer the remote version. Seeing litigant's homes with the unmade beds, weird relatives crawling around on the floor, tacky Hallmark plaques on walls, and hoarded lairs packed with roaches was often more entertaining than the cases.

[Maverick]

 Don't forget litigants with $5,000 refrigerators with socks stuck in the door because the cabinets were (allegedly) 1/8 of an inch off.

[Bazinga]

Today's rerun episode is from the day after yesterday's rerun episode - April 19, 2019 (discussion on Page 131).

Link: Tantrum Over Tires

I still want to know why these particular episodes are the ones picked from three or four years back?

Edited October 14, 2022 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Maverick said:

 Don't forget litigants with $5,000 refrigerators with socks stuck in the door because the cabinets were (allegedly) 1/8 of an inch off.

As was pointed out originally, it's "refigerator".

59 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

Today's rerun episode is from the day after yesterday's rerun episode - April 19, 2019 (discussion on Page 131).

I rewatched this since I had no memory of it, and was thinking that even the rare Women Who Love Rims, and self-proclaimed "Car Girls" still need the sure and strong hand of a Real Man to take care of their business and procure these rims. That way when things go south they can absolve themselves and blame someone else.

P looked and sounded plenty tough enough to negotiate the purchase of her own rims for her Ford Fusion, but feels too faint-hearted to do so I guess, and must request aid from the inarticulate, stupid, thieving goofball Def who looked as though he had just come here from a failed audition for "Planet of Apes".

"Quinzy Quinzy Quinzy!" Oh, shut up.

[Maverick]

 So it's going to be a mix of in person and Zoom cases.   I guess if you're willing to come to CT on your own dime you can be in studio.   After the Verdict is the same, withe personal questions unrelated to cases.   Harvey still has his Zoom background and no mic or peanut gallery.

 The in person halterviews are really weird.  It's clear Doug isn't in the hall with them.   Either the litigants are talking to him on a TV screen or an unseen intern is feeding them questions and Doug was edited in later.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I'm glad Doug isn't really near the litigants.   It scares me that Doug used to be within reach of some of the scarier litigants. 

[Pepper the Cat]

I got a rerun.😿

Bad enough that is was rerun, but it was also shown less than a month ago. 
 

[rcc]

On 10/14/2022 at 4:27 PM, Bazinga said:

Today's rerun episode is from the day after yesterday's rerun episode - April 19, 2019 (discussion on Page 131).

Link: Tantrum Over Tires

I still want to know why these particular episodes are the ones picked from three or four years back?

Thanks for posting the rerun links.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Pepper the Cat said:

I got a rerun.😿

Bad enough that is was rerun, but it was also shown less than a month ago. 
 

I got the new, but after reading the blurbs decided I was better off skipping the whole thing and switching over to Hot Bench.

[rcc]

First case I wonder why the couple left their dog's body lying in the street for 3 days! Second case they had money for a cruise but fighting for rent assistance!  JM was more concerned with them sleeping in the same bed rather than  scamming the system.

[Pepper the Cat]

Well I picked up the new cases on a different channel and really wish I didn’t. Poor puppy. 

[patty1h]

3 hours ago, rcc said:

First case I wonder why the couple left their dog's body lying in the street for 3 days! Second case they had money for a cruise but fighting for rent assistance!  JM was more concerned with them sleeping in the same bed rather than  scamming the system.

I was thinking the same thing... they have money to take a cruise but then they're looking to get money to help pay the rent.  Then I decided to not be so negative and see a way they could have this cruise happen:  they paid for the cruise last year when both had incomes but then lost their jobs.    That works, but who knows.   I think @RCC's scam theory is probably more appropriate.

[Maverick]

It's possible the cruise was paid for before they got rent assistance but more cruises are refundable 60-90 days before sailing.  Sadly, I don't think it's cynical to think there's a lot of people getting rent assistance/abatements, taking pandemic money, etc who are going on cruises, buying the latest iPhones and other such "essentials" .

 The dog case was simply awful.    The dog sitter was a piece of work.  MM had to pull out of her that she didn't actually live where the dog died; it was someone else's place and she apparently got them evicted.   The best/worst part was when she just randomly goes "Jesus Christ!"   MM did a double take like "did she really just say that?!" yet didn't call her out at all.

Edited October 18, 2022 by Maverick

[Paperclips]

To Kick Off the New Season - They went with a Dead Dog Episode.  Lord - I could have not have turned the channel fast enough.

[Bookworm13]

Jesus this show is making it hard for me to want to watch. I knew there was something off with the Def as soon as she walked into the courtroom. I’m honestly curious how she could be a top-rated pet sitter when she couldn’t even keep her story straight and then left a dead puppy on the sidewalk for 3 days. And as a petty side note, open your mouth when speaking if you’re not a ventriloquist(sp?). It’s just freaky. 
 

I was only half paying attention to the second case, but if you don’t have money to pay your bills, you don’t have money for fun stuff. People who can’t/don’t pay their bills and then are traveling/going to concerts, etc while complaining they can’t pay bills annoy me so much and I sadly know too many of them. 
 

The Douglas hall-terview needs to be edited better in the future. 
 

I could do without the Judge John bit, but it keeps Harvey off the screen so I can deal with it. Just wish they talked about useful or interesting topics. 

[Maverick]

 There was only one After the Verdict segment, so I suspect they're running out of personal prattle after two years of this.   Which means they either need to go back to talking about the cases or drop the segment. 

[rcc]

Now they have short commercials with JJ and JM.

[AngelaHunter]

Oh, boy. An "Ugly Christmas Sweater" case. I know these sweaters are all the rage -  the uglier the better - and it was interesting seeing just who makes and buys these things.

P is suing her FB "hang-out buddy" for 300$ for a ridiculously ugly sweater she made Def for a contest. P informs JM that her sweaters have become increasingly raunchy and "phallic", and she assures Def it will be so hideous she's guaranteed to win this idiotic contest. Def didn't win and didn't pay.

P is just awful but thinks she's winsome, with her sunglasses perched on her head and her meandering, dreary tale  with a zillion insertions of  "y'know" as though she's gabbing to her buddy at the club. Ugh. Worst of all, she starts her story by announcing, "I'm a single mom of two" as though expecting admiration, deference, and/or applause for her bad choices. What does that have to do with the case? So many litigants announce with pride things that used to be a cause for embarassment.

Anyway, I'm so glad this poor little SSMOT has plenty of time and money to go clubbing, drinking, and doing karaoke. I haven't been to a bar in decades. What do drinks cost these days, anyway?

I thought SHE was unbearable until we get to Def, who is so freaking dumb she can barely form a sentence: "So...like...like...like...she like, told me I'd win...hmmmmm, yeeeah" as she struggles to tell JM about how awful this party was as she paraded around in her 300$ ugly sweater adorned with boobies, a squeaky penis and a Santa hanging with its head in her crotch. P says Def only lost because the guy judging it wanted to get into the pants of the winner. Gross.

All the drunken creeps at this social event of the season kept touching those boobs and squeezing that penis! There was nothing Def could, like, do about it. Yeeeeeah eeeech! JM informs her she could have prevented all these scumbags from touching her and making her "uncomfortable". D squints, grimaces, and shows her teeth.

These are two fine examples of the breeders of the next generation. 300$ for P.

Then we had P who bought a 37K mid-life crisis Corvette and didn't get a second key from the seller, so psycho calls and texts him, his wife, his business etc, for which def wants 6,400$ for harassment because he was afraid to go to work lest P ambush and kill him. P never got the second key so wants Def to pay the 600$ it will cost to get a key from Chevrolet.

The only tolerable part was that P, for whom English is a second language, told his story in a concise, linear, clear manner unlike the first two brainless dingbats.

Neither of them bothered with a bill of sale or a contract outlining the terms and making the key a part of the deal so P gets nothing.

Only Douglas seems to be enjoying himself.

[Maverick]

 I had to have the first part of today's show on in the background on mute which had this going through my head:  "Is this a case about and Ugly Christmas Sweater?  No, surely not.  Seriously, is this an Ugly Christmas Sweater case?  Who would sue over an Ugly Christmas Sweater?  Jesus Christmas, I'm watching a fucking Ugly Christmas Sweater case."

The defendant kept saying the men were touching her, but it sounds like they were touching the dildo hanging between her Brillo pad boobs, not her actual boobs or anyone actual part of her body.  Which still, inappropriate but not quite 'they kept touching me'.   And MM was right--tell the dudes to lay off and if you don't want to keep doing it, take the damn shirt off (especially if it's so awful that you don't think you should pay for it).   The whole party sounded weird anyway, like something at the Playboy Mansion.  Some dude is totally comfortable with a woman walking around with a felt Santa muff diving her and is offering a grand cash out of his pocket and someone thinks he's looking for something other than getting into someone's pants?

 My takeaway from the second case is:  $37k for an 8 year old Vette?  Is that a good deal?   If you can spend that on a "weekend car" maybe don't go all Fatal Attraction over a $600 key.

[patty1h]

The defendant in the ugly sweater case was so childish in her whining that she couldn't stop all the icky men from touching her ugly Xmas sweater.   She also had very juvenile views of how buying/selling merchandise works, especially when she gave no input to what she did and/or didn't want on the garment. 

On top of that, she didn't seem to realize that taking the offending sweater off ASAP would likely get unwanted attention off of her.  She wants to blame the sweater for being a drunk man magnet instead of asking herself why she didn't shut that shit down.

Edited October 19, 2022 by patty1h

[Paperclips]

I'm pretty sure I am going to be hearing the word "keys" in my head for the next month.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, Paperclips said:

I'm pretty sure I am going to be hearing the word "keys" in my head for the next month.

OMG - yes! Meant to add that to my recap. I think I may have said aloud during the case, "STOP SAYING 'KEY'!!" 

3 hours ago, patty1h said:

especially when she gave no input to what she did and/or didn't want on the garment. 

To be fair, I don't think she was able to, unless she could figure out how to do it in mime. Her vocabulary seemed extremely limited.

P: "What do you want on your Ugly Sweater?"

Def: "Uhhh....umm....like, errr...you know, like, maybe, like, whatever...?"

4 hours ago, Maverick said:

My takeaway from the second case is:  $37k for an 8 year old Vette? 

I got curious and looked up a few. The ones I saw that appeared to be same model as in the case (Stingray?) had extremely low mileage and started at 60K.

I guess the fight over the 600$ key gadget that unlocks the car doors (I am never saying "k*y again) was all about the ol' principle or the P is a super tightwad.

4 hours ago, Maverick said:

The whole party sounded weird anyway, like something at the Playboy Mansion.

I imagined something more along the lines of the Irish Rovers' "Wasn't That a Party", only with sleaze, ugly sweaters., and drunk SSMs.

4 hours ago, Maverick said:

a felt Santa muff diving her

😆😄

[Guest]

Prediction:  this season is going to be full of SSM’s and SSM’s with autistic children. Remember the one SSM of four kids who she proudly announced were all autistic.  Yeah, right.

I inadvertently had it on in the background during an employee meeting.  Thankfully I was still on mute when the words penis and boobs came blasting in my office.  I did a quick dive to mute.  

Society is in trouble folks.  Real trouble.
 

[aemom]

19 hours ago, Maverick said:

 There was only one After the Verdict segment, so I suspect they're running out of personal prattle after two years of this.   Which means they either need to go back to talking about the cases or drop the segment. 

I didn't mind some of the ATV where were learned a bit more about the judges - but I think that well is dry now, so the questions they are being asked are kind of dumb for the most part.

I really liked when they talked about the actual case that we had just seen.

[Bookworm13]

I don’t know what this says about me, but I was expecting the ugly sweater to be worse than it was. I found myself laughing when the def put it on and would totally wear something like it to an ugly Christmas sweater party. 
 

The car case was just stupid. Who the fuck buys a $37k car and doesn’t get a receipt/bill of sale? This moron apparently. And then to whine over having to spend $600 more 🙄