Judge rules it was OK for widow to lose home over $6.30 in unpaid interest

[Anomalocaris]

Prove your assertions that the legal system was under attack by this widow.

Also prove it served the public good. If the total cost at time of sale for the debt was six dollars, and the ultimate cost in pursuing the legal case was undoubtably magnitudes more, then show how it's served public to proceed on with the liquidation of her assets.

If anything, I'm convinced the shows off the banality of evil. Not being able to work with others, simply just treating them like an ardent criminal would be treated. Another words, this is full of the "fuck you I got mine" sentiment that I despise in politics.

It serves public good by giving confidence to those who enter into purchase agreements legally and followed the proper proceedures that their purchases will not be revoked against their wishes for the sake of sentimentality.

If something is done legally, then it should not be forceably reversed just to suite your misapplied sense of justice.

A certain degree of security of "fuck you I got mine" is an essential foundation of legal protection. Otherwise all legal protection would be explicitly subject to negation by publicity, sentimentality, and demagoguery.

Judges are not infallible – because many are elected, it raises the question of how fallible they really are.

If a judge was involved in putting the property up for sale in the first place, the judgement of the judge could be construed as questionable. But I doubt it would have been illegal.

Once the sale was made legally, I think this judge acted perfectly to uphold it.

You can go and try to talk the buyer out of his purchase, but if the buyer insist on keeping his purchase, as it is his right, it is the duty of the judge to uphold that right.

Judges are fallible, but they are not imperfect all the time. In this case I think the judge acted perfectly, especially considering the pressure and distractions of the sentimentalities like yours.