This is the extensive and shameful list of civil investigations and lawsuits against Trump

This is the extensive and shameful list of civil investigations

and lawsuits against Trump

Although no previous president has been charged, let alone convicted, with crimes against the Constitution, this does not mean that it will not be possible.

Trump lost his immunity when he lost the election, and his requests for protection were not met because of his previous status. Biden refuses to release him from questioning by the January 6 committee.

Buckle up. Here's a series of criminal investigations, escalating civil proceedings against him, and the result if available.

E Jean Carroll defamation suit

1. Carroll v. Trump, No. 20-cv-07311
2. 2020 WL 6277814 (SDNY 27 October 2020)
3. appeal file No. 20-03977 (SDNY 27 October 2020). (2d Cir. 25 Nov 2020)

E. Jean Carroll, writer and consultant columnist, is the plaintiff.

Carroll publicly accused then-President Trump of sexually assaulting her in a New York City store in the 1990s in 2019. A few hours later, Trump questioned Carroll's claim, accusing her of inventing the story to draw attention to her forthcoming book. Carroll then sued Trump in New York state court for defamation, claiming Trump defamed her when he publicly accused her of fabricating the assault allegations.

The Justice Department sought to intervene on Trump's behalf under the federal Tort Claims Act after nearly a year of state court proceedings - and with Carroll's lawyer pressing Trump's DNA sample (FTCA). This action raised the possibility that the claim would be rejected.

In fact

1. the FTCA (as amended by the Westfall Act)
2. grants federal workers full protection for damages
3. including defamation

committed in the context of their official responsibilities.

According to the Justice Department, the president's official responsibilities include communicating with the press about public cases, meaning that any defamatory comments he made against Carroll were immune from prosecution.

Since FTCA claims must be fought in federal court, Carroll's action was immediately transferred to the Southern District of NewYork as a result of the intervention of the Department of Justice (SDNY). Carroll claimed in federal court that Trump's comments were not protected by the FTCA.

In short

Carroll argued that Trump was not protected by the FTCA because he was not an "employee," and (2) Trump's comments against Carroll were outside his official presidential responsibilities.

Both cases were approved by the Court.

Despite the fact that the removal was irreversible, the court ruled that the FTCA did not apply to Trump's conduct, allowing Carroll's defamation claim against Trump to continue in his personal capacity.

Both the Justice Department and Trump filed separate appeals. Trump also demanded that the district court's proceedings be suspended until the appeal is decided.

Status:

 In the SDNY proceedings, the parties filed contradictory briefs in response to Trump's request to stay until December 2020.

On January 15, 2021, the Justice Department and Trump filed various opening papers in the 2nd District. Carroll's lawyers later requested their brief be filed on April 16, 2021. It is noteworthy that her lawyer chose this date specifically for the Biden Justice Department to reconsider the Trump administration's argument that Trump was working within the scope of his job when he allegedly denigrated Carroll. This tabulation request was granted by the 2nd Circuit.

Carroll filed her brief on April 16, 2021, asking the Court of Appeal to retain the lower court's judgment.

Despite the shift in the administration

• the Justice Department provided Biden a brief to respond on June 7, 2021

• supporting Trump's claim that the FTCA applies to his behavior.

• She reiterated key points from

• the Justice Department's opening summary of Trump

 including that the President was an FTCA "employee" and that elected officials responded to media inquiries within the scope of their work.

The District Court rejected Trump's request to stay (i.e. suspend) the proceedings during the hearing of the appeal to the 2nd Circuit on Sept. 15, 2021.

The argument was set before the 2nd Circuit on December 3, 2021.

Zervos Summer Defamation Suit

No. 150522/2017 (NY Sup Ct. 17 Jan 2017), Appeal File No. APL-2020-00009 (New York 9 Mar 2020)

Summer Zervos, the former trainee trainee, is the plaintiff.

Summary Case:

On January 17, 2017, Zervos filed a defamation complaint against Trump in New York state court. Many women, including Zervos, accused Trump of inappropriate sexual conduct throughout his campaign.

In her lawsuit against Trump, Zervos alleges that in 2007, when she was interviewing Trump, he kissed her on the lips and inappropriately touched her.

After rejecting his approaches, his behaviour changed to that of a businessman, and he then offered her a position for half the wages she was looking for.

She tried to contact Trump

claiming she was "punished for not sleeping with him."

 Trump said he couldn't talk to her at the time. Zervos claims she chose to come up with these accusations after hearing Trump speak scornfully about women on Billy Bush's tape to get to Hollywood. In response to her accusations,

Zervos says she suffered psychological and financial damage as a result of Trump's allegations.

Case status:

Trump filed a petition for rejection as well as a stay of proceedings for the duration of his administration.

On 3 October 2018, the court rejected Trump's request, ruling that if the events alleged by the plaintiff were accurate, it had a reasonable defamation claim.

The Court also ruled that there were no cases of federalism or comity that would prevent the State Court from hearing a complaint against the current President for his unofficial conduct. In October 2019, a panel of appeals judges in NewYork upheld the decision, ruling that the President was "not above the law" and that the defamation case could continue.

The move was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.

In the meantime

the Court ordered that Zervos could not "search for evidence" until the New York Court of Appeal issued in March 2020. Zervos has petitioned to continue the case when Trump leaves office in 2021.

The New York Court of Appeals dismissed Trump's appeal

for dismissal on March 30.

Trump first filed the petition, arguing that a complaint against the current president could not be heard in state court.

In a one-sentence judgment, the Court held that the cases were now under discussion and that the case might continue.

The Court of First Instance decided on October 4, 2021

Zervos may step down by December 23, 2021. This appears to be "the first time Trump has had to answer questions under oath regarding alleged sexual misconduct," according to the Law360.

Michael Rand, law clerk with New York State Judge Jennifer Schechter, who oversees the case, allegedly "indicated that he expected a trial date to be set somewhere in the first part of 2022" during the discussion of the schedule of depositions.

Mary Trump Litigation Fraud

1. Trump v. Trump
2. No. 654698/2020 (New York Sup. Ct.
3. deposited on September 24, 2020)

Prosecutor: Mary Trump, niece of former president

Case summary: In September 2020

Mary Trump sued her uncle, Donald Trump, for allegedly cheating on her for tens of millions of dollars. Mary's father - Donald Trump's brother - died in 1981, leaving her with great interest in Trump's real estate business. Because Mary was an event at the time, Donald Trump and his siblings took ownership of her share, claiming to protect Mary's long-term interests.

But, according to Mary

that didn't happen. According to her complaint, the Trump brothers withdrew income from her share and developed an ongoing plan to artificially devalue her assets. This has been going on for almost two decades. When Trump patriarch Fred

Sr. (Donald Trump's father)

died in 1999, Mary objected to the provisions of his will. The Trump brothers quickly reacted by backtracking and trying to get Mary out of the family's entire origins. After long probate proceedings, and with Mary's legal costs rapidly rising, the siblings issued an ultimatum: they would not resolve the issue of probate until Mary relinquished all rights to the family's wealth, including those inherited from her late father.

The Trump family, according to Mary, proposed a settlement amount that significantly undervalued their share of the family's assets. Despite this, she eventually accepted a settlement in April 2001, oblivious to the fact that she was sold short.

Then, in 2018, The New York Times revealed that the Trump Organization had long been illegally changing its asset prices. Mary claims that she then discovered that she settled for tens of millions of dollars less than her real value.

Mary wrote a book two years later accusing the Trump family of denying her fair share. On 24 September 2020, the case was filed in New York state court, accusing Donald Trump and his brothers of fraud and breach of fiduciary liability.

Case Status: On January 4, 2021, Trump filed a motion to dismiss the case. On 26 February 2021, Mary filed a rebuttal. The court has yet to rule on the application until September 2021.

Donald Trump filed his own lawsuit against Mary Trump, The New York Times, and several of her reporters on September 21, 2021. Trump claims his niece sent sensitive information, including his tax returns, to New York Times writers, who used this data to produce their 2018 article on alleged asset price manipulation of the Trump Organization. He claims that her actions violated the 2001 Convention, and that the Times and its correspondents must be held accountable for pushing her to do so.

Fraud at Panama Hotel and Tax Litigation (case closed)

Ithaca Capital Investments v. Trump Pan. Hotel Management, No. 18-cv-00390 (SDNY 30 March 2020)

Ithaca Capital, a real estate holding company that acquired a controlling stake in the Trump International Hotel in Panama, is the plaintiff.

Summary of case: Trump International Hotels Management, a hotel company owned by Donald Trump, is involved in a federal lawsuit over a failed hotel management contract. Trump International operated a premium hotel in Panama until 2018. Trump International, as was its usual business practice, negotiated with a separate owner to provide management services and use the name "Trump". When the former owner declared bankruptcy in 2015, Ithaca Capital moved quickly to acquire the bulk of the hotel's units. However, according to Ithaca, Trump officials made a number of false statements about the profitability of the hotel. Ithaca embarked on the acquisition unaware.

The hotel soon fell into financial difficulty and the relationship between the parties collapsed. Ithaca says that after terminating the agreement, it found that Trump International had cut back on reporting expenses, diverted hotel profits and failed to pay income taxes.

After a brief round of arbitration, Ithaca filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Trump International. Ithaca made many allegations about Trump. First, Ithaca claimed that Trump officials, including Eric and Donald Jr., overvalued the hotel. Second, they alleged that Trump International violated the terms of their agreement by mismanaging property. Third, Ithaca claimed that Trump International illegally transferred hotel profits for its own benefit.

Case status: Trump International challenged all of Ithaca's allegations and filed numerous counterclaims. The district court upheld all three of Ithaca's claims and rejected all but one of Trump's counterclaims on March 30, 2020. Trump's latest complaint, due to damaging interference, claims that Ithaca interfered with Trump's other hotel contracts by forcing him out of their partnership.

The parties are currently engaged in discoveries, which are expected to be completed by autumn 2021.

In July and August 2021, the parties exchanged a series of confidential messages. The parties mutually decided to terminate the proceedings on 15 September 2021

Doe v. Trump Corporation Class Action

No. 18-cv-09936 (SDNY October 29, 2018), appeal file, No. 20-01706 (2d Cir. 28 May 2020)

(Anonymous) Jane Do, Luke Law, Mary Moe and Richard Rowe are the plaintiffs.

Case summary: On October 30, 2018, Trump, Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump were named in a class action lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, defendants used their brand name to deceive thousands of working class people by promoting a variety of companies in exchange for "hidden payments." ACN Opportunity, LLC (a company based on a controversial multi-level marketing scheme), Trump Network, LLC (another multi-level marketing scam), Business Strategies Group, LLC are among the participating companies (a seminar claiming to sell Trump's success secrets). The suit also alleges that the defendants are responsible for a "pattern of extortion activity" in violation of the RICO Act (the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act),

On 24 July 2019, the Magistrate's Court judge granted the defendants' request for partial dismissal. The court rejected RICO's allegations because the complaint failed to "make a sufficient claim that the defendants' conduct was the direct cause of the plaintiffs' damages." However, it decided that other claims relating to state laws would not be dismissed under the Collective Justice Act (CAFA).

Case status: Trump filed a petition for compulsory arbitration, which was rejected by a district court judge in April 2020. The court decided that since the defendants were not parties to the arbitration agreement (between ACN and the plaintiffs), the arbitration force. It also decided that the application for compulsion to arbitrate was made in bad faith because the parties acted in a manner that "substantially prejudiced the claimants" and was incompatible with the spirit of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The Trumps filed a preliminary appeal with the U.S. Appellate Court for the Second Circuit.

After refusing forced arbitration, the Trumps filed a request to remain or cease legal proceedings. The district judge rejected the defendants' petition, citing the four traditional considerations to be balanced when granting residence and concluding that they did not meet the criteria for residence

Civil action against capital over misuse of 2017 opening funds

No.2020-CA-00488-B, District of Columbia v. 58th Inaugural Presidential Communications. (Supreme Court of D.C., September 9, 2020).

Prosecutor's Office: District of Columbia Prosecutor (AG)

Case summary: In the run-up to Trump's inauguration in 2017, his inaugural committee raised a record $107 million for inauguration celebrations. As a charity, the inaugural committee was obliged to benefit from these charitable contributions for public benefit, i.e. by organizing activities to celebrate the 2017 inauguration of the presidency.

However, according to DC AG

The inaugural committee improperly used nearly $1 million of this money for the Trump family's private companies. District of Columbia lawyers are now suing the Opening Committee, Trump International Hotel

And the Trump Organization for alleged overexpenditure. DC AG alleges, among other things, that the commission paid excessive rent to rent space at the Trump International Hotel in downtown DC. For example, the group reportedly spent $175,000 renting the main ballroom on the same day that another charity paid just $5,000 - a 35-fold increase. Furthermore, the committee was said to have overlooked much better offers available in other premium locations, instead opting to overpay for space on Trump's property.

According to DC AG, these payments are a hidden effort to redirect charitable funds to the Trump family's private assets. The lawsuit focuses on alleged irregularities by the commission's executive director Rick Gates, who also played important roles in the Trump campaign. (Later, Gates will assist with Mueller's investigation). To link Trump's companies, the lawsuit claims that Trump's companies were aware that they were overcharging the nonprofit committee, citing internal discussions between the parties allegedly referring to both. Both sides were aware of the high prices. The court's DC AG seeks to force the Trump Organization to put embezzled funds in a trust fund where they can be used for charitable purposes.

Case status: Defendants - the Commission and two Trump companies - moved to dismiss the lawsuit, but the district judge rejected the application in September 2020. On January 11, 2021, DC AG added a new accusation that the group illegally used charitable funds to pay the hotel bill on Trump's behalf. The case is still under investigation, and the attorney general's office has already fired several high-ranking Trump officials, including Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr.

On March 24, 2021, DC AG filed a request for a summary judgement. On 8 April 2021, the three defendants filed their separate petitions for an expedited sentence.

Update: On July 28, 2021, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, in its ruling 3-0, affirmed the District Court's ruling and declared that the Trump family could not impose arbitration. The court decided that since there was no "close link" between Trump and ACN, the plaintiffs could not reasonably conclude that their arbitration agreement extended to Trump. As a result, the Court determined that "the defendants are not authorized to compel the plaintiffs to arbitrate in this case". The court has yet to rule on the summary sentencing applications as of September 2021.

Karen Bass et al. Incitement to Capitol Attack on January 6

No. 21-cv-00400 Thompson v. Trump (introduced DDC on February 16, 2021)

Plaintiffs: Representatives Karen R. Bass, Stephen I. Cohen, Veronica Escobar, Pramila Jayapal and Henry C. S. as represented by the NAACP.

Case summary: Mississippi Congressman Benny Thompson sued former President Trump and Rudy Giuliani, as well as two right-wing militia organizations known as the Proud Boys and Oath Guards, on February 16, 2021, for breaching the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act, 42 USC 1985. (1). Thompson claims in the lawsuit that Trump violated the Ku Klux Klan Act by encouraging riots aimed at preventing members of Congress from carrying out their official responsibilities to swiftly certify the Electoral College's vote. He claims that after Trump's defeat in the November 2020 election, the then president embarked on a campaign to organize his followers, culminating in the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. He portrays Trump's remarks on the morning of January 6 as a call to arms aimed at preventing certification of the election.

The law was enacted in 1871 in response to KKK violence and intimidation aimed at preventing black people from voting. Members of Congress may prosecute any person who colludes in "harassment by force, disruption, obstruction or obstruction" of the performance of the responsibilities of a public official under the law.

Thompson seeks damages in addition to punitive damages for the mental suffering suffered during the assault.

Case Status: Ten other members of Congress joined the case as plaintiffs on April 7, 2021. On 26 May, the defendants filed a motion dismissing the lawsuit. In his application, Trump argued that I had absolute immunity because he was president; (2) that even if he does not enjoy absolute immunity, Westfall's law protects him from any personal liability; (3) that members of Congress cannot sue under the KKK Act; and (4) that his speech is protected by the First Amendment. The court did not rule on the petitions until September 2021.

Rep. Thompson stated on July 21, 2021, that he would withdraw from the case in order to prevent any dispute with the House Select Committee, chaired by Thompson, on January 6, 2021. The other plaintiffs -- all members of Congress who are not on the Committee -- confirmed that the case would continue.

Eric Swalwell's inflammatory action for 6 January events

1. No. 21-cv-00586 Swalwell v.
2. Trump (DDC case filed on March 5, 2021)
3. Rep. Eric Swalwell is a prosecutor (D-CA)

Case summary: Rep. Eric Swalwell sued Donald Trump and several allies in federal court in Washington, D.C., on March 5, 2021, over the riots on January 6. Swalwell, like Rep. Benny Thompson, claims that Trump and his co-defendants -- Donald Trump Jr., Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ama.) and Rudy Giuliani -- violated the Ku Klux Klan Act by conspiring to block the Electoral College's January tally. 6.

Swalwell's complaint goes further, claiming that defendants must be held civil liable for negligence because they participated in criminal incitement under local law in the capital, which sets standards of care. It should be noted that Swalwell claims that Trump violated the same D.C. law - 22-1321 (a) (2) - that D.C.J. Carl Racine appears to focus on in his criminal investigation into Trump's conduct.

Swalwell further alleges that the accused are responsible for inciting (aiding and abetting) the violent behaviour of rioters and deliberately inflicting psychological harm on members of Congress in relation to the Capitol assault, as well as civil rights and incitement charges.

Swalwell's lawsuit was filed on March 5, 2021.

Giuliani filed a petition to dismiss the allegations against him on May 17, 2021. He said his comments did not constitute incitement, that he had never been involved in a conspiracy with other defendants or troublemakers, and that his speech was ultimately protected by the First Amendment.

Donald Trump and his son Donald Jr. filed their own petition to dismiss the lawsuit on May 24, 2021. More importantly, former President Trump has claimed full immunity from Swalwell's allegations since Trump's alleged misconduct occurred while performing his official responsibilities as president. Both Trump and Trump Jr. claimed that their statements were protected by the First Amendment and the classic Brandenburg test. Trump also offered a variety of additional reasons, including the position, the doctrine of the political issue, and the allegation that Swalwell was prevented from prosecuting Trump for the same conduct Trump was convicted of during his impeachment trial.

Swalwell filed a petition for a default ruling against Brooks on July 1, 2021, claiming that Brooks had missed time to answer the case. Brooks responded to his petition, requesting that the court dismiss the complaint because he worked within the "scope of his job", and thus the order was suspended under Westfall law. On 5 July, the District Court rejected Swalwell's motion for a virtual sentence, but has yet to rule on Brooks' application.

On July 27, 2021, the Justice Department filed a memo claiming Brooks was not working within his job, and was therefore not protected by the Westfall Act. The House of Representatives responded with a "non-participation strategy" (quiet) on the question of whether Brooks acted within the limits of his job. The Chairperson of the House Management Committee filed a memorandum alleging that Representative Brooks was not working within his mandate.

Capitol Police Riot Suit on January 6

• Smith v. Trump

• No. 21-cv-02265 (DDC application filed on August 26, 2021)

• Prosecutor: Seven Capitol Police Officers

Case summary: On August 26, 2021, a second group of Capitol Police officers sued for injuries sustained while defending the Capitol on January 6. Officers alleged that Trump and his co-defendants, including Proud Boys and the Oath, conspired by guards to incite riots and attack the Capitol, leaving officers physically and psychologically injured.

Like other lawsuits on January 6 against Trump, the complaint asserts that Trump violated the KKK Act by conspiring to incite riots. The complaint also claims that unnamed defendants, identified only as "John Doe," attacked the officers after Trump provoked them, potentially putting Trump at fault for their injuries.

Prosecutors also add in a unique lawsuit that was not found in other lawsuits on January 6 against Trump: that defendants violated the DC's Bias-Related Crimes Act, a domestic hate crime law. According to the complaint, the accused were motivated by political bias against the Democratic Party when they instigated and carried out the Capitol attack.

Case status: Officers filed their lawsuit in federal court in D.C. on Aug. 26, 2021.

Issue of Voting Rights of the NAACP Legal Defence Fund

Michigan Care Rights Organization v. Trump, No. 20-cv-03388 (DDC introduced November 20, 2020)

The Michigan Care Rights Organization and the NAACP, represented by the NAACP's Legal Defense and Education Fund, are the plaintiffs (LDF).

Summary of Case: On November 20, 2020, the LDF sued then President Trump and the Trump campaign, claiming that their conduct after the election violated section 11 (b) of the Voting Rights Act 52 USC 10307. and (b) ". After losing the election, Trump spent weeks pushing Republican election officials not to acknowledge the result - in particular, the lawsuit considers the conduct of Wayne County Republican election officials, who initially voted not to certify the election but later did. Intimidation of voters, persons assisting voters and some election officials is prohibited under article 11 (b). The Voting Rights Act defines voting broadly as "every activity required to make voting effective [,]... including... obtaining such a ballot properly calculated and including it in the relevant vote totals ".

The lawsuit was amended in December 2020 to add the NAACP as a plaintiff, the Republican National Commission as a defendant, and a new claim: that defendants violated the Ku Klux Klan Act, which prohibits conspiracies to deny a person equal protection under the law or the ability to vote. 1985 ، 42 USC (3). According to LDF, Trump's attempts to invalidate ballots in cities with high black populations conform to legal standards.

LDF seeks legal damages, an interpretative ruling, and a court order to prevent defendants from intimidating future voters and election officials.

Case Status: Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case on February 25, 2021. They made a number of allegations, including that the case was filed in an incorrect court, that the legislation referred to did not allow private parties to initiate litigation, and that their actions did not violate laws. The court has yet to rule on the petitions until September 2021.

Civil lawsuit in New York over fraudulent real estate practices

People v. Trump Organization, Case No. 451685/2020 (NY Sup. Ct. 15 Dec. 2020)

The Attorney General of New York is the Prosecutor (AG)

Case summary: In March 2019, New York Attorney General Letitia James launched a civil investigation into allegations that the Trump Organization overstated and downsized property values in order to reduce tax liabilities and other financial benefits. Her investigation began after former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen testified before Congress that Trump had committed fraud. While there is some overlap, James said her investigation differs from and is separate from the Manhattan district attorney's criminal investigation.

Its investigation focuses on the Seven Springs Resort, owned by Trump in New York. In December 2019, James sent a subpoena to the Trump Organization, requesting documents related to a $21 million tax deduction Trump took against the property in 2015. According to her court papers, James investigated whether Trump illegally inflated the property's valuation in order to increase the amount of tax advantage.

James is also investigating other Trump-related deals. It examines whether Trump failed to pay taxes on debt forgiven during the financial restructuring of Trump Hotel & Tower in Chicago, as well as the evaluation of Trump National Golf Club in Los Angeles that was used to exempt him from the conservation tax, which was significantly higher than the metrics commonly used to assess golf characteristics.

Status: In October 2020, James Eric Trump's office was impeached in connection with Seven Springs' subpoenas. It also requested similar documents from Trump's tax lawyers. His lawyers originally refused to grant them, stating that the lawyer's and client's privilege protected them. The state court judge disagreed, ordering on January 29, 2021 that tax lawyers must file more than thousands of paperwork related to tax cuts.

On May 18, 2021, Fabian Levy, a spokesman for the New York attorney general, said, "We have informed the Trump Organization that our investigation into the organization is no longer purely civilian in nature. We are now actively investigating Trump organizations as criminals, along with Manhattan da. "

Scotland's unjustified wealth orders

Plaintiff: Avaaz Foundation v. Scottish Ministers et al.

Case summary: The Scottish Parliament decided on February 3, 2021 to reject demands by the Green Scottish Opposition Party to inspect the Trump Organization's golf properties through an unjustified wealth order (UWO).

UWOs is a tool aimed at preventing suspected corrupt foreign officials from laundering potentially stolen money into the UK.

They require a person or organization to disclose the assets of their unjustified wealth, and although they may not automatically lead to criminal proceedings, they can lead to asset confiscation at the very least. Suspicions that prompted Trump's investigation emerged after Trump spent hundreds of millions of dollars in cash deals entirely to buy and renovate golf properties in Scotland.

This was particularly concerning given that Trump had previously used debt to finance large-scale acquisitions.

The co-leader of the Scottish Green Party stated, "Scotland cannot be a country where anyone with money can buy any land and property they want, without asking any questions, and the Scottish Greens will continue to challenge the vested interests that protect people like Trump instead. from our communities ". Eric Trump criticized the lawsuit, saying that "at a critical time when politicians must focus on saving lives and reopening businesses in Scotland, they are focused on pushing their personal agendas."

Case status: In May, the non-profit Avaaz Charitable and Global Rights Advocate filed a petition in Scotland's highest civil court to appeal the decision not to pursue the UWO case. On 11 August 2021, Lord Sandison of the Scottish Court of Session decided that the petition for "judicial review of the approach of Scottish Ministers in determining whether an application for UWOs will be submitted to the Court" could "proceed unconditionally or unrestricted." He decided that their case had "real prospects for success." The Supreme Court of Scotland is later this year is likely to hear the matter.

Criminal investigations into Trump's finances

1. No. 19-cv-03826 Trump v.
2. Deutsche Bank (SDNY 29 April 2019)
3. No. 19-cv-08694 Trump v.
4. Vance (SDNY, 19 September 2019)

In 2019, then-President Trump sued to block three House committees and Manhattan district attorneys from subpoenaing his financial records. The Manhattan Attorney General's Office now has access to Trump's tax returns from February 22.

Case summary: The House Intelligence and Finance Committees filed subpoenas with Deutsche Bank and Capital One in 2019 to obtain information on President Trump's finances at the time. Trump cooperated with the recalls before the banks, requesting a clearance ruling that the subpoenas were invalid and an injunction that would have prevented banks from disclosing Trump's financial information. Furthermore, the House Oversight Committee sent a subpoena to Mazars, Trump's own accounting firm, to request further accounting information. Trump filed a new lawsuit to overturn the subpoena.

Meanwhile, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. issued a subpoena to Mazars to access Trump's tax documents. Trump filed a new lawsuit to block the publication of the material.

All three cases were heard by the Supreme Court on the same day, July 9, 2020. Congressional subpoenas were combined into a single lawsuit and returned to lower courts so that they could examine the separation of powers cases brought by congressional committees that warranted hearing. President. In the Vance case, the Court decided that the District Prosecutor could request the President's financial records.

Congressional subpoenas ended with the next Congress in January 2021. Vance's subpoena was resubmitted to the Supreme Court, which refused to suspend him on February 22. His spokesman acknowledged that the office now had access to Trump's tax returns, which included millions of paperwork pages. No charges have been filed.

According to new reports on March 1, Vance's investigation focused on Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg, whose potential cooperation with prosecutors could be a major advance in the case. The New York Times reported on March 31 that Vance's office had recalled Weisselberg's personal bank accounts, and on April 8, investigators seized Weisselberg's daughter's financial law statements.

According to new reports on March 8, Vance's investigation extended to a $130 million loan check obtained by the Trump Organization to build a skyscraper in Chicago, as well as whether loan forgiveness was declared as income as required by the IRS.

The Washington Post reported on May 25, 2021, that Vance formed a special grand jury "expected to determine whether to prosecute former President Donald Trump, other officials of his company, or the company itself if prosecutors make criminal allegations before the committee. "According to the newspaper," the procedure indicates that the investigation conducted by County Prosecutor Cyrus R. Vance Jr. ' He also points out that Vance believes he discovered evidence of a crime committed -- if not by Trump, then by someone close to him or his company. "

Jeff McConey, senior vice president and controller of the Trump Organization, is one of many witnesses who have already testified before the special grand jury. He is said to be the first employee of the company to be called to testify.

Prosecutors accused the Trump Organization and its chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, of orchestrating a tax fraud conspiracy for more than fifteen years on July 1. Weisselberg, the Trump Organization and Trump Salary Corporation are charged with paying Weisselberg and the other Trump Organization. Executives with unreported or wrongly reported funds to federal, state and local tax authorities.

Trump personally mentions in the indictment. The complaint claims that Trump's employees.

by arranging education expenses for members of the Weisselberg family through personal checks drawn on account and signed by Donald J. Trump.

According to a source familiar with the investigation, the indictment also refers to an "uncharged conspirator", Jeff McConey, the Controller of the Trump Organization.

On September 2, Matthew Calamari Jr., Director of Institutional Security at the Trump Foundation, and Jeffrey McConey, Controller of the Trump Organization, appeared before a grand jury in Manhattan. Calamari was granted "transactional immunity for the persons he testified to", while McConey was allegedly asked to explain his previous grand jury testimony and answer questions regarding Calamari Sr.

Investigation into DC Attorney General's incitement to attack U.S. Capitol

Prosecutor's Office: District of Columbia Prosecutor (AG)

Summary Case: According to Washington Attorney General Carl Racine, he is considering charging Trump with incitement. To date, his office has focused on the Capital Law, which considers "incitement or encouragement of violence when such violence is likely to occur as a misdemeanor". Washington prosecutors are supposedly investigating Trump's comments and tweets before and during the violence to see if they constitute criminal incitement.

However, Racine warned that Trump's impeachment would be a difficult task. Even if the former President can no longer claim presidential immunity, the First Amendment may protect his words from punishment. A speaker may be punished for incitement under Brandenburg - the relevant case here - only if his or her speech is intentional and is likely to provoke unlawful behaviour immediately. This is a reputable criterion to meet, especially in terms of purpose. Even if some hooligans claimed they were following Trump's orders, Racine would need to prove that Trump intended to do so. Despite Trump's damn comments, Racine may have difficulty meeting such a high level.

Not only that, but also Racine's options for indicting for restrictive crimes. Racine's office can only pursue low-level crimes because Washington, D.C. shares criminal jurisdiction with the federal government. As a result, he is essentially bound by Washington's incitement law and cannot prosecute Trump for potentially more related crimes. Moreover, as pointed out by defense lawyers in Washington, this minor crime is usually prosecuted in cases of disorderly conduct at the street level, making it a bad match.

Case status: Racine's office is looking into Trump's conduct but has not filed any charges.

It should be noted that prosecutors in the Ministry of Justice's investigations appear to be more interested in prosecuting hooligans than in investigating the former President. Despite the fact that Washington's top federal prosecutor refused to criminally exclude Trump's impeachment, nothing has since indicated that a federal investigation is under way. According to reports, Justice Department officials are discussing whether to launch a criminal investigation into Trump ally Roger Stone.

Fulton County, Georgia, investigating the impact of criminal elections

1. Fulton County
2. District Prosecutor's Office of
3. Georgia is responsible for the trial of the case.

Case summary: On February 10, 2021, the Fulton County District Attorney's Office launched an investigation into former President Trump's alleged electoral interference. Investigate possible violations of Georgia's electoral laws, such as "soliciting election fraud, making false statements to state and local government bodies

Fulton County Attorney Fanny Willis also plans to consider a telephone conversation between Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, where Raffensperger says Graham asked the Secretary of State if he could legally eliminate votes. Graham's spokesman says this is not the case, and Graham was actually inquiring about signature verification procedures. According to reports, the DA's office is also investigating whether Rudy Giuliani broke election rules by making misleading claims to Georgia authorities.

Prosecutors are expected to request grand jury subpoenas for materials and witnesses related to the investigation in the week of March 1, 2021.

Willis hired John Floyd, a renowned specialist in the state extortion trial, to help with extortion investigations on March 6. Fees may play a bigger role.

The Wall Street Journal published a tape of a phone conversation between then-President Trump and Francis Watson, a senior investigator in the Georgia Secretary of State's office, on March 11. During the conversation, Trump encouraged Watson to investigate mail-in ballot fraud. The Fulton County District Attorney's Office said a copy of the phone call would be requested.

As of March 28, there was a grand jury examining subpoenas on materials related to the investigation.