Posts: 19789
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: Judge rules it was OK for widow to lose home over $6.30 in unpaid interest
April 29, 2014 at 1:39 am
(This post was last modified: April 29, 2014 at 1:45 am by Anomalocaris.)
The procedure doesn't have to be morally unimpeachable to be legally necessary to uphold. It only has to be not greatly more procedurally flawed than what is par for the course.
Otherwise no legal transaction can be entered with reasonable expectation of legal protection from ex post sentimentality. That would not, on a much larger scale than a minority of hard luck cases, serve the greater public good.
The judge does have wide latitude. Fortunately In this case he exercised dutifully to protect the role of legality against sentimentality.
Posts: 6191
Threads: 124
Joined: November 13, 2009
Reputation:
70
RE: Judge rules it was OK for widow to lose home over $6.30 in unpaid interest
April 29, 2014 at 10:25 am
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.
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
Posts: 6191
Threads: 124
Joined: November 13, 2009
Reputation:
70
RE: Judge rules it was OK for widow to lose home over $6.30 in unpaid interest
April 29, 2014 at 10:31 am
(This post was last modified: April 29, 2014 at 10:32 am by Autumnlicious.)
by the way, the reason why outright assholes and sympathetic housewives are treated different under nearly identical circumstances in law usually is because a judge has decided to treat things differently based on context.
You wouldn't want a legal system that ignores context, would you?
You keep arguing for a conclusion, however others have raised questions that support said conclusion. Who is using faith here – the people who are worried about a procedure taking advantage of another and would have been satisfied had it taken a little bit longer to reach a conclusion, or someone who simply argues that because it doesn't appear invalid, that it must be perfectly legitimate?
Judges are not infallible – because many are elected, it raises the question of how fallible they really are.
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
Posts: 1121
Threads: 53
Joined: February 5, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: Judge rules it was OK for widow to lose home over $6.30 in unpaid interest
April 29, 2014 at 11:43 am
(This post was last modified: April 29, 2014 at 12:01 pm by Autumnlicious.)
(April 28, 2014 at 8:54 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Inhumanity over the most trite of debts.
If noncompliance was such a problem (which I doubt – there was no mention of refusing to pay), why not simply throw the defendant in jail for a few days to compel payment?
Rotten judge, rotten county.
That's just Fascism.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
Posts: 19789
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: Judge rules it was OK for widow to lose home over $6.30 in unpaid interest
April 29, 2014 at 12:06 pm
(This post was last modified: April 29, 2014 at 12:17 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(April 29, 2014 at 10:25 am)Moros Synackaon Wrote: 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.
(April 29, 2014 at 10:31 am)Moros Synackaon Wrote: 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.
Posts: 7163
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: Judge rules it was OK for widow to lose home over $6.30 in unpaid interest
April 29, 2014 at 1:33 pm
What I took away from the case is the disturbing reminder of how easy it is to get screwed really badly because of something minor that apparently wasn't done maliciously. Lose a home over a six-dollar invoice that got lost in the mail? In this day and age? And I just bought a home... 
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 19789
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: Judge rules it was OK for widow to lose home over $6.30 in unpaid interest
April 29, 2014 at 1:42 pm
(April 29, 2014 at 1:33 pm)Tonus Wrote: What I took away from the case is the disturbing reminder of how easy it is to get screwed really badly because of something minor that apparently wasn't done maliciously. Lose a home over a six-dollar invoice that got lost in the mail? In this day and age? And I just bought a home...
My insurance agent failed to notify me that his company dropped flood insurance from its services. My mortgage company got wind of it and went out and got the most expensive possible flood insurance to meet the mortgage condition, at 10 times market rate, without informing me. So I am out of $2000.
Posts: 7568
Threads: 20
Joined: July 26, 2013
Reputation:
54
RE: Judge rules it was OK for widow to lose home over $6.30 in unpaid interest
April 29, 2014 at 2:14 pm
(April 29, 2014 at 1:42 pm)Chuck Wrote: My insurance agent failed to notify me that his company dropped flood insurance from its services. My mortgage company got wind of it and went out and got the most expensive possible flood insurance to meet the mortgage condition, at 10 times market rate, without informing me. So I am out of $2000.
That's awful. I suppose it's the mortgage company's prerogative to select the insurer and you have no recourse?
Posts: 6843
Threads: 0
Joined: February 22, 2014
Reputation:
15
RE: Judge rules it was OK for widow to lose home over $6.30 in unpaid interest
April 29, 2014 at 11:50 pm
Just another example of typical American corruption. You can bet that the buyer is connected to the the person who forced the sale. A normal person would have simply reached into his or her pocket and paid the $6.30 or personally contacted the woman to make sure that she was aware of the problem. If there's a lake of fire hell then the people involved should be tossed into it for all eternity.
|
