Engoron's Dilemma
20 February 2024 By Abiodun Kareem Giwa
Judge Engoron
Judge Arthur Engoron's profile marvels. I just read it on Fox News. He is a typical New Yorker who has risen to the top level of the Big Apple's Judiciary from the bootstrap. He must have gathered the street and the book's wisdom to be who he is today. But how does a man of his background who knows what it means to build decides to take away or destroy what another man has created over the years using the law often called an ass?
Engoron ruled Trump to pay $354 with eight additional against two of Trump's children. Analysts without political confabulations have said he shot himself in the wrist and that Trump could overcome the pitfalls at the court of appeal. Some call the judge's decision political.
Engoron accusers say he donated to the Democratic Party candidates in the past. Does that mean he should take Lettita James's burden and make it his own? Everyone knew James's pursuit and purpose as highly political to destroy Trump, arising from Hillary Clinton's loss of the presidential election. Engoron has two choices as a judge: to allow his opinion in the trial and judgment or use the jury. But he chose the former. Is that a sign of bravery or a self-destructive decision to implode his meritorious rise? One wisdom education allows us to select a path of wisdom like a sage. Engoron is nearing being called one, but people say Trump's judgment and punishment pass the offense allegedlly committed.
Many analysts say Trump will likely get the $354m fine reduced considerably on appeal. There was no victim and no loss by anyone. Analysts say the New York exists and gives the court a leeway to exercise power. The Trumps were correct to state the cost of a property with a provision for the banks to do their findings. An owner wants to sell at a price, and the bank either buys or gives its buying price, and the seller can walk away if not satisfied with the bank's decision.
Businesses are there to profit. And there can be no crime if they do not force anyone out of their money. A judge should not allow the public to cast aspersions on the rule of law, turning the court into a house of scandal. Engoron's ruling does not help the law, occasioning the sad development of Georgia about Fani Willis and Nathan Wade's show of love rubbishing integrity. The public is bound to question the evil with elected attorneys watching the saga of an evidentiary hearing exposing what should have been a soap opera played out in real life. Being confronted with the New York ruling towards upending a family's journey of several years is painful while not fully recovered from Georgia's shock. It begs an answer about what has happened to the rule of law, elected attorneys, and their judges. Are there no ethics guiding them that they have to allow their wishes to come between them and rationality?
Ethics, Philip Patterson and Lee Wilkins, write in Media Ethics - Issues and Cases, takes us out of this world of "This is the way I do it or "This is the way it has always been done" into the realm of This is what I should do" or "This is the action that can be rationally justified." The issue in Georgia's Fulton County and New York Engoron's court concerns ethics and political rascality. Engoron'a first consideration should have been the public and the rule of law. He lives in the United States, and even if he lacks the knowledge, he is not unaware of the political situation, and the Trump Organization belongs to a presidential candidate head-on with the government. James is free to bring a case before a judge, and a judge reserves the right to apply the wisdom. Engoron had a choice to free himself in the cul-de-sac where he had placed himself. Why his decision against the jury? James brought his burden to Eogoron's desk, and he had the provision of a jury to take James' burden. James is a politician, but Eogoron is not. The fact made James' request of Eogoron was a dilemma with an ethical problem requiring deep reflection and not a rush to a decision.
The judge elicits sympathy by reading his profile. Still, he abandons a path of wisdom in the face of allegations of having made political contributions to a party opposed to Trump, exposing himself for lack of sound reasoning. Graduating from high school in 1967, driving a yellow taxi while attending college, and still editing his high school's newspaper to date, amid other professional activities, commands respect. But why allow the ego and denial of the jury's collaboration to stand between him and justifiable moral finesse?
Engoron ruled Trump to pay $354 with eight additional against two of Trump's children. Analysts without political confabulations have said he shot himself in the wrist and that Trump could overcome the pitfalls at the court of appeal. Some call the judge's decision political.
Engoron accusers say he donated to the Democratic Party candidates in the past. Does that mean he should take Lettita James's burden and make it his own? Everyone knew James's pursuit and purpose as highly political to destroy Trump, arising from Hillary Clinton's loss of the presidential election. Engoron has two choices as a judge: to allow his opinion in the trial and judgment or use the jury. But he chose the former. Is that a sign of bravery or a self-destructive decision to implode his meritorious rise? One wisdom education allows us to select a path of wisdom like a sage. Engoron is nearing being called one, but people say Trump's judgment and punishment pass the offense allegedlly committed.
Many analysts say Trump will likely get the $354m fine reduced considerably on appeal. There was no victim and no loss by anyone. Analysts say the New York exists and gives the court a leeway to exercise power. The Trumps were correct to state the cost of a property with a provision for the banks to do their findings. An owner wants to sell at a price, and the bank either buys or gives its buying price, and the seller can walk away if not satisfied with the bank's decision.
Businesses are there to profit. And there can be no crime if they do not force anyone out of their money. A judge should not allow the public to cast aspersions on the rule of law, turning the court into a house of scandal. Engoron's ruling does not help the law, occasioning the sad development of Georgia about Fani Willis and Nathan Wade's show of love rubbishing integrity. The public is bound to question the evil with elected attorneys watching the saga of an evidentiary hearing exposing what should have been a soap opera played out in real life. Being confronted with the New York ruling towards upending a family's journey of several years is painful while not fully recovered from Georgia's shock. It begs an answer about what has happened to the rule of law, elected attorneys, and their judges. Are there no ethics guiding them that they have to allow their wishes to come between them and rationality?
Ethics, Philip Patterson and Lee Wilkins, write in Media Ethics - Issues and Cases, takes us out of this world of "This is the way I do it or "This is the way it has always been done" into the realm of This is what I should do" or "This is the action that can be rationally justified." The issue in Georgia's Fulton County and New York Engoron's court concerns ethics and political rascality. Engoron'a first consideration should have been the public and the rule of law. He lives in the United States, and even if he lacks the knowledge, he is not unaware of the political situation, and the Trump Organization belongs to a presidential candidate head-on with the government. James is free to bring a case before a judge, and a judge reserves the right to apply the wisdom. Engoron had a choice to free himself in the cul-de-sac where he had placed himself. Why his decision against the jury? James brought his burden to Eogoron's desk, and he had the provision of a jury to take James' burden. James is a politician, but Eogoron is not. The fact made James' request of Eogoron was a dilemma with an ethical problem requiring deep reflection and not a rush to a decision.
The judge elicits sympathy by reading his profile. Still, he abandons a path of wisdom in the face of allegations of having made political contributions to a party opposed to Trump, exposing himself for lack of sound reasoning. Graduating from high school in 1967, driving a yellow taxi while attending college, and still editing his high school's newspaper to date, amid other professional activities, commands respect. But why allow the ego and denial of the jury's collaboration to stand between him and justifiable moral finesse?
Comment Box is loading comments...
