Represents Financial Status When Child Is Placed With Prospective: Fill & Download for Free

**Edited & Comments RespondedAfter having miserably failed with many romantic relationships… I finally relented to my parent’s wishes for an arranged marriage process. However before we discuss that a few details about myself. (Not boasting at all but just to give you context.)· Sex: Male· Age: Early 30s· Height: 6 feet plus· Work: in IT sector· Salary: 7 figures a year· Owns: Flat in city suburbs & a car (All on EMI off course)· Family: Upper Middle Class family - Parents retired at prominent positions in service sector & 2 younger siblings in equally well settled jobs.Given my decent credentials I got a good number of proposals on many of matrimonial sites. However I connected with only with 2 girls however both turned out to be a heart-break.————————————————————————————————Specimen 1> Let say her Name is X - Her parents send an interest on a matrimonial site. Our parents talk on the phone & since the girl & I work in the same location they suggest we meet first in person. I call her up & we meet at a nearby coffee shop. The girl is in her early 20s but she seemed very mature in her thinking & very down to earth, very beautiful, cute smile, tall & we got along like house on fire. The next day her parents invited to us to their home. Turns out they are staying nearby (only 2kms away) & they are from the same caste & community. However the only deal breaker that my mother was worried was that they were from a very affluent business family & her dad was a complete prick (egoistic maniac – major red flag) when he talked. I shrugged it off away saying that the girl is unlike that & also her mother was very affectionate towards me. After that meet X & I sort of became a couple & started dating… meeting almost every day & we sort of got attached to each other in a short span of time. In the meanwhile on her father’s insistence as part of marriage process he wanted me to meet each other’s relatives. I absolutely felt it was unnecessary to involve our relatives at this stage. But somehow I felt he was sort of seeking validation from his relatives/friends to know if I was good enough for his girl. (Maybe as she was his only child.) So I was often invited to her home when her relatives/friends were around… Infact in one instance he specially got his three brothers from his native place to come and see us in a chartered flight. One was a politician, another a top cop while the last guy was also his business partner managing his business there. The venue was his office boardroom (sort of an excuse to show-off his fancy office premises as we were given a complete tour). I and my family were seated on one side while she & her family were seated on other & it almost felt like I was being interviewed / interrogated for a job. I calmly endured all their questions with humour however the kicker came when suddenly her politician uncle asked me to remove my glasses to see how I looked without them. I was completely annoyed & felt humiliated but she made a sorry face & gestured to me to be calm from the other side. However this was not the end of it as her father continued to invite me to many such other social parties & get together involving his employees, friends & relatives & after a while I sort of got used to it even though I’m a socially introvert person. Couple of months down the line he finally invites my parents & also specifically asks a few relatives from my side to come to their home to finalise the things. (Specific relative’s coz they are in influential govt. jobs which involve his area of business… I felt so). Here in front of these people he asks if we have any dowry demands… my parents say they have no such demands. In reply he proudly states that he will still be giving a recently acquired 4BHK fully furnished flat worth 5 crores in the same building in which he wants us stay after marriage. My parents say that the decision is for us (two) to decide & they have no say where they we will be staying after marriage. While his wife also proudly announces that you will also have two full-time servants to care of all household chores. Hearing all this I was bit perplexed however I felt relieved when X told her father that she does not want any of this & she is happy to stay at the flat I currently own. Later on she confided to me that she didn’t want me to become a hen-pecked husband as she felt her father could dominate me in case if we had accepted her dad’s proposal as it would akin to sort of me living with my in-laws (although different flats but same building & servants). This incident sort of raised my love for X even more & I sort of felt she was twin-flame as she could understand my feelings as I felt it. However fast forward couple of months down the line her father arranges for the booking of all the venues for the engagement & the wedding at 7 star hotels without informing my parents. When my parents come to know they confronted him & tell him that they will not be able afford the expenses equally if marriage is to be celebrated in such a grand manner. He gets offended by it & then insults & refuses to talk with my parents. I try to intervene on behalf of my parents & also try to get a mediator but her dad refuses all communication with me & my parents for next 2 weeks. In the meanwhile even the girl starts talking to me very rudely & I sense he has been poisoning her mind. While her mother in another conversation ask me whether I was adopted as my parents do not want to bear the wedding expenses. And exactly one week after that I get a text message from her on WhatsApp stating lets end this relationship now & forever. (It almost felt like I was stabbed in my heart with a knife.) While my dad got a similar message from her dad on his WhatsApp. I didn’t reply much… just wished her good luck and ended the chat. She also leaves her job as her dad wanted to avoid her from seeing me due to the close proximity of our work location. Exactly a week later she calls me asking we should get back together & that she will somehow convince her dad & she admits it’s just an ego issue. But after a while she would again call back saying her dad is angry all the time & she is not able to convince her anymore…. Someday she would cry & just say we should run away but I never saw any conviction in her words… she would say something in the morning & by night she would completely denounce what she had said earlier. This lasted for another few months I was fed-up with her antics & once she said I was only after her coz of her father’s money. And she even stated that she could ask her father to give me all the money that I had spent on her in buying gift & everything. Hearing this I was completely outraged & told her to never ever contact me again & also told her to keep her money with herself. Whatever love & respect I had for her was lost in that very instance & this sort of helped me get over her for good. I blocked her from all social media & also her mobile number. A year later her father call backs to patch things up again… but I strictly told my parents that it was a closed chapter that there is no more room for her in my heart.Moral of the Story:· Never marry someone above your financial status.· Money is root of all problems.· Your Mom is always right.————————————————————————————————Specimen 2> Let say her name is Y – Her parents send an interest on a matrimonial site. Our parents speak and her parents give her mobile number asking me to call & speak to her before we all meet in person. I call her up & she had most sweet girlish voice I have ever heard. It was seductively sexy… the sort of ones where a man feels protective for. We hit off well… she was quite a talker & I just loved listening to her voice. The girl was in late 20s, also an IT professional and had no siblings. Over the weekend her folks invite us to her home. When we meet in person she was dark skinned, extremely fat, long hair which didn’t suit her face, looked older than her pics, (that’s the moment you realise the magic of Photoshop). Her dressing sense was also too shabby. But I didn’t judge her for looks & neither did I judge for her dilapidated state of her rented home which sort of reflected their lower middle class background. Also her family was also from a different caste & community. Despite all these I over-looked all these differences I still decided to move ahead & give this a chance as she seemed a nice person based on our phone conversations. Next they come over to our place… they admired our home & then my father proudly tells that even my son (I’m) having my own fully furnished flat. To which her dad uses this opportunity to tell me that they have no home to give for her daughter. And he goes onto state that he will not be able to give any dowry as he never got one from his in-laws as well. I tell him that I do not need his money & any dowry. And all that I cared was for good wife. He then further goes on to state about how a proposal for her broke coz of a dowry issue (Red Flag – should have investigated this further). However I told him frankly that I have no demands as such & no two persons are same. He then opens the topic about marriage expenses & sensing his uneasiness my parents offer to split it equally… and he seems relaxed again. Next about engagement & marriage he wanted one of the ceremony to be done as per his community as it was sort of an intercaste marriage. We agree to have the engagement their way & the marriage our way. Next since engagement was girl’s side responsibility he wanted we limit our guest for the event. We agreed even to this as we felt we could call more people for marriage as we were organising the wedding anyways. With all negotiations to their liking the girl’s parents went on a happy note and they invited us to their home next week to finalize the dates. During the following visit at her home they had some of her close relatives. Here again her father started with his persuasion skills and said that they wanted the engagement to happen a bit early within 1 month however marriage could wait for another 6 months. My parents again did not like this idea neither did I as we wanted both the engagement & marriage almost near to each other as per our customs & with regards to marriage we were okay to wait even until a year. But with even her relatives parleying for them we finally agreed to even these terms & the dates for engagement & marriage were finalized. Then for the engagement they wanted a ring ceremony to happen…and they also wanted fun frolic & dancing but these again were a big no as our customs were too conservative & did not allow this & our religious priest had warned that he would not be part of something like this if this happened. We reluctantly agreed to this as well since they were organising this anyway. With everything happening as they were dictating her father started boasting about how well his negotiation skills are & how he can convince anyone… giving examples of how he convinced his dentist to charge him low fees for the consultation he received or how he convinced his landlord from not evicting them as he was paying lower rent from the market standard. This instantly created a distrust for him as I started clearly saw his scheming & manipulative behaviour which he was obviously using in negotiating with us. He also claimed he was an atheist which further made me have doubts about his morals & ethics. And top it off when my parents asked about this ritual where the bride & groom after marriage on the second days goes to the girl house to spend a few days before coming to the boys side again; his answer to this was that you are not welcome in my house as I have only one bedroom. I was completely taken back by his this words as I felt that as if he was dumping his daughter on my head & after marriage he did not care whatever happened to me or his daughter. I mean I knew he had a spartan dwelling place so I could had even adjusted by sleeping on the floor but to completely say you have no entry in my home was insulting to say the least. From that day onwards I completely detested the sight of him & never wished to interact with him even if I were to get married to his daughter. I met the girl every weekend of 4 weeks before engagement however every conversation always led me in realising how different she is from me and my family & that she will never be able to stay in one-roof with my family for sure. Like for example she has always been an independent girl who never listened to her parents instead it seemed to me that her parents were too dependent on her for getting everything done. Which would mean she would never accept my parents advice as my parents can be a bit over-bearing sometimes. She was an absolute tom-boy & she had more guy friends in college as she played football with them, (Not at all questioning her chastity) drank copious amount of beer, use to attend wild parties with her friends during her internship days while staying in a PG in a different city & she also described all her other wild antics during those days. And she clearly told me that she is not at all a homely girl if that was what I or my parents thought of her based on the initial expression as she was dressed pretty traditionally then when our parents saw her both the times. As the days went she started getting bolder and was sort of dictating terms around how my new world should revolve around her world while she was the least interested in being part of mine. I was getting tensed with all this & my mom clearly saw my unhappiness with all this. A few weeks before engagement this girl influenced by her religious priest who instigated her not to join my community & started questioning why she couldn’t find a guy from her own community. After this instigation she started arguing with me that why the girl does has to always join the guy’s community… we had big fight over this. I was absolutely furious with her priest and I told if I ever saw her priest I would give him a mouthful for spreading such hate & that I did not want that priest to officiate our engagement at any cost and that I will now want both the engagement and wedding to be done as per our way. This further led to a war of words. In the meantime she wanted me introduce her to all her besties (girl gang) from school. Although I was not interested coz of our last fighting on phone I still met her friends. On meeting me their first question was what prompted me to say yes to their friend due to obvious look wise differences. Infact one of her cute girlfriend was full-on hitting on me…. I absolutely did not mind as these girls were sloshed after few rounds while I did not have any drinks. When the night ended these girls went with another girl’s husband who was dropping them while Y stayed back as she wanted to talk to me. I thought she wanted to thank me for coming & maybe she wanted to say sorry for our fight last week but the minute she entered my vehicle her voice turned into something like a violent wild animal…. I was too stunned to react for a second & was afraid what if somebody might hear our conversation & she was drunk too. I tried to pacify her but she want all gaga on how I dared to insult her priest. I tried to reason with her how he was manipulating her but she would hear no ill word against him & kept on abusing me. I somehow was finally able pacify her & we agreed to have the engagement her way as we agreed before but there would be no negotiation on the marriage part. The engagement day arrived and we hardly invited any relatives from our side to witness except a handful of relatives while she had 90% plus relatives from her side. Luckily the priest who officiated the engagement was different from the one who had instigated her so there was no awkward moments. We exchanged rings as she wanted & also turned the dance floor like crazy…. She was a fantastic dancer no doubt but I was again disappointed that she was more dancing with her other male friends instead of me. While I danced a few minutes with all her girlfriends but I was hardly comfortable with all of them as I hardly knew any of them & plus I’m not so great dancer. More than often I would quietly slip back on the chair & the compere would literally had to grab me from my seat to get me up & back on the dance floor. Our engagement pics were also just okay I personally could hardly feel any chemistry between us in our photos (obviously due to our fights from the previous week). However there was an incident which left a bad taste involving her mother… where I overheard her relative asking her mother as to why they are allowing the marriage to take place around the guys place as it was bit far travel wise… to which her mother replied in sly way that there was still time to sort that issue. I was absolutely furious with her & her relative but I was obviously did not want to spoil the atmosphere around. Anyways now I hated both her parents. After the engagement I planned on going out for rom-com movie with her & even had booked the tickets but when I called her she tells me that she had already seen that movie immediately the next day with her ex-office gang who had come down for the engagement. So I went alone for the movie with one ticket wasted. I was again furious with her to say the least. At our next meet she finally realises (possibly her friends must have told) that we lacked chemistry…She even tells me that I’m not romantic as her ex as he use to wooh her with poems & what not & she even told me that she was in contact even until end of last year after he was married. (Another red flag) I told her that we can make a fresh start however I will not tolerate any more dilly dallying around our previously agreed terms. She agrees and then says that we should get more pictures clicked on our outing trips but then she points out how her phone is bad that it crashes often. Realizing her birthday is few days away I gift her a mobile phone without my parent’s knowledge. The phone was super expensive which met all her requirements around music playing and amazing camera quality… she was absolutely pleased with her phone. With this I hoped things would change but I was in for ride. When my folks shortlisted the wedding reception venues & they invited her folks to visit & review…. and no matter whichever places we showed they would find one or other reason saying that the place is not nice (although these were 5 star hotels) or spacing capacity was not big enough to accommodate large crowds while they said there were bigger places at her place. In one instance when we asked her entire family to come together & visit this place her father again started dictating his term by saying this place is also too small… or you need to limit your guest list, we only have one child so we want to celebrate in a certain fashion while you have 2 more kids where you can do as you wish for them… He even goes to suggest that we should make it even more memorable by putting in more money as a certain 7 star hotel near their place could be available cheaply as they have some internal contacts there but when we inquire further it turns out to be all ruse & the costing would be double that of what he said… I seriously couldn’t understand why a person could spread such lies given his weak financial status. Almost 1 week goes by again and there is sort of a cold war between with both sides not talking again as whenever my parents would call they would avoid communication. I finally asked my parents to speak to her relatives who were present during the finalization of dates requesting them to intervene or we can go our separate ways. So almost a day before my birthday our families meet & they come to their senses & agree to all our terms without any negotiations. With that sorted I was looking forward to my birthday celebration at home. But then Y calls me at the ninth hour to meet in the evening for dinner. I agreed but her body language clearly showed she was not happy to be with me and also with the compromise she had to make. While she even forget to get me a birthday present which she claimed she had forgotten to carry with her. Anyways I didn’t mind. A few weeks later her father goes to her native place due to family get together. While there he has a heart attack which requires multiple angioplasty & he is admitted in a Govt. hospital on the recommendation of his brother who also happens to be the dean of that hospital. He has operations over multiple days. Although he survives he continues to be there for couple of months as he is advised complete bed rest. The girl & her mother to travel to native to be with him during this time. I constantly speak with her during this tough time. On her return I shower her with even more gifts while she stayed with her relatives. Later on she finally gives me the gift she had got for me as birthday present – a watch with not so great brand name with its back case rusted a bit. Although I was not pleased but I still wore it for its sentimental value I felt that time. During this time I tried to agree to all her demands (as I wanted her to be happy) about our future plans & I agreed to her wishes of having home base which was near to her work & relatives place so that it becomes easier for her to travel by selling my current owned home property. (Although this meant that my work travel time would now be 8X to what it was before) And also because I also felt that since she would not anyways get along around my family & that it was the best thing to do. We also discussed about honeymoon plans and also how we could have an international trip every year like her peers as she sort of felt jealous of them & she also very much loved travelling more than anything else. During these discussion I also came across her real intention which she finally admitted that the real reason for opposing our marriage venue plans was because she wanted it to take place at the same place where her parents got married which was near to her place. (Talk about girls and their fairy tale wedding aspirations) She also made it clear even though she would get married into my community she would not be joining any of our ceremonies or functions & that she & our future children would be raised as per her own community values & she also expected me to tow the same line. While visiting her at her relatives I constantly did not like her aunty also meddling her nose in our matters as she wanted to know where I had planned on taking her niece for honeymoon & that she had places in mind where I should definitely take her… or even where we should be buying our home… she even wanted to know my bank balances and also wanted to design our home & that I should give her my cheque book & credit card for getting all these done. I absolutely detested all her these advance while the girls silence in these matters again made me wonder her true intentions in these as she never said a word to her aunt. Once her father was better her mother also returned back. And then even she joined the parody in ridiculing me about some ideas about I had about our future. However as days went by situation became worse & worse by the day & I constantly started getting migraine attacks thinking about all her demands & her family behaviour. I decided to take a break & avoided her for a week in the meantime her wilful gold digger of aunt called me to know if there is any problem & I frankly told her about my feeling towards her & her parents as she offered confidentiality (big mistake) & she added more masala to the story & spread this all her relatives side & also arranged a meeting with me & the girl at her place. As soon as I reached she pounced on me like a wild animal again started cussing & abusing at me every instance in a loud voice & she was more annoyed that I involved her aunt. But I told but it was only her aunt’s insistence that I came to talk. She started gaslighting every argument I made (she was sort of prepared as she had spoken about me in a negative light with all her girl gang to gain sympathy & advice – I came to know about this much later as I had some common friends with her friends.) I made up mind then & there itself that I should call quits to this abusive relationship as she was not the same person as I initially spoke with and that her sweet talking was only a facade for an even more sinister manipulative personality like her parents. Too make things easy I said some more things that would make her hate me & my family & told her that I was to be soon laid from work soon. (At that same time there were lot of layoff happening in the IT sector so it was a believable story) We parted that night very late & decided not to speak with each other for month. Around the same time after a month her father also came back from her native place fully recovered from his condition. Later on she asked her father to communicate to my folks that we are calling of the wedding. For the first time in my life I was Happy to be rejected by girl. I had lot of explaining to do at home but eventually they also were okay with this not going through. Looking back I think I gave this girl too many chances & I should have broken this relationship the minute we had first big fight in my car. I also quit my job & I had to do the same laid-off lies to my parents as well (I feel much guilty now about it) as I just did not want any further arranged marriage proposals again.Moral of the Story:· Do not marry someone below your financial status. (Good poor girls from Rajshri Production only exist in movies)· Money is not the root cause of all evils it is the mentality & the character of people with or without money which makes money look evil.· You will never be happy if you always please others.· Marriage is not just about two couples joining together but two families as well. If you cannot get along with the families then it’s truly not worth your time.————————————————————————————————Responses to Comments————————————————————————————————@ Priyana – I went anonymous as I did not want any more attention to me or to the people involved in this. Already as it is my parents have been embarrassed a lot in front of lot of people & while I have lost respect amongst my siblings. While most of my relatives & friends have also started distancing from me even to the extent of ignoring my presence in social occasions. (This has definitely help me understand the people who really care for me from the ones who claimed so.) I guess it is pretty much to be expected in our patriarchal society where a man without a job is like a man without his honour. And when these things happen it was always the guys fault (especially when it has happened to me twice) is what the usual chinwag that goes around in my circle. So just thought maybe Quora might be the right place to rant out all my heart out. Thanks for your words & thanks for reading! :-)———@ Abhinav Gupta – I didn’t mean to say Atheist = Immoral. But all I can say… For a believer; (irrespective of any religion) if you study any of the religious books minus the rituals i.e. just study the pure philosophy (I have doing this lately) then you will find that they all preach around common themes about following the codes of good conduct which pleases God & the rewards for the same. But an atheist since they do not believe in any Religion or God; they lacks a framework which will guide their moral compass unless they have taken a course in Philosophy 101. With that being said the person in this question has displayed varying degrees of duality & deception which certainly cannot claimed to be morally correct.———@ Siddharth Ravindran – Lets clarify your pointsWhat I said “Later on she finally gives me the gift she had got for me as birthday present – a watch with not so great brand name with its back case rusted a bit. Although I was not pleased but I still wore it for its sentimental value I felt that time.”What you said “You are “brand” minded not broad minded. (like 3 Idiots Donkey)”The Context of My Statement – I’m a watch connoisseur and I own more than 200 plus watches. Many of these are of the vintage category which have been restored. Some of these passed on to me as family heirlooms or from some well-meaning relatives & friends due to my fascination with watches & their inner workings. I love to tinker around by opening the case to see the watch movement used or to admire the level of inner complication. Also majority of my collection is from an Indian brand - HMT (I don’t know if you know this brand at all or would even consider this as a brand?) But anyways back to the brand of watch that I was gifted was actually from a very well-known international fashion house who are pretty known to create run of the mills watches which use pretty sub-standard watch movements, the quality & finish is nothing great to be written about & they carry huge MRP while they often retail at 1/4th the price during Sale days & so you can’t imagine the angst a true watch collector will experience. Add to that the watch came with a rusted back case; I mean common even my grandfather’s 50 year old HMT Janata has still no signs of rusting while a watch that was manufactured only few months ago could have such grievous signs of aging. Speaks highly of the care with which the watch was purchased & of the brand in question.My Charge against your Statement – With that being said if I was indeed a “brand” minded & not broad minded (like 3 Idiots Donkey) then I would have straight away thrown the watch at her. Instead I wore that watch as I felt sentimental about it coz it was the first gift from my would-be. If this does not count broad minded then please kindly explain the meaning of broad minded? Or you please sharpen your reading & comprehension skills.With regards to your first atheist argument; please already see my explanation to Abhinav Gupta. While with regards to your second comment about “some religious peoples don’t have morals and ethics [example : Nithyananda swami and recent rape cases of church fathers in kerala].” I can only say that these people do not represent religion but only represent the rituals that is associated with these respective religions as they been charged with the responsibility of exercising them. The problem that has happened here is that since only they have the authority/power to perform these rituals; some of their minds & ego have been corrupted & they think they have become Gods as people venerate them as Holy God men & people follow them with blind faith. And here is where the problem comes as we also need to understand that even these people are human and bound to commit mistakes – after all we all humans have the problem of choice. With that being said the only way we can discern through this is by reading our scriptures (each to his own not promoting any religion) rather than blindly follow the words of these so called conniving spiritual masters who may cheat you even if you may have a Masters in Advanced Mathematics or any other worldly knowledge.So to sum it up I find your comments quite amusing coz you taken only a few bits of my words & turned it up-side down to suit your interest & conveniently passed disparaging comments about my character. Anyways I don’t blame you for that coz we live in an age where paid news media has turned everything into a banana Republic where people are shown how to take things out context & then blow them out of proportion. And so in a similar light if your motive was to earn a few brownie up-votes with your Pseudo Feminist friends then please go ahead & shit on my face (post)…. I don’t give a d**m!!! ­———@ Abhienav Sehgal – I’m sorry to hear even you experienced similar situations. Since you have not mentioned your present details all I can say is don’t lose hope. If you are already in abusive relationship then seek out professional help (counsellor/lawyers etc.) If not then consider it as God given opportunity to begin anew.———@ Vineet Setia – LOL… I knew some would say that! Thanks for reading! :-)———@ Anoop Siddhartha – Agree... For me well let’s just say I had some Karmic lessons to be learned the hard way! :-)———@ Shilpa – Didn’t expect so many people to read my story…. But thank you for reading & also your well wishes…. Well I know not all girls are like that & I’m not stereotyping anybody… I’m just stating the consequences of some of my ill thought choices & the consequences of the same. Maybe some can read & learn from it or some can even have a good laugh over it. :-)———@ Radhika Harlalka – Exactly… I totally agree to what you said…. I also think these problems have been compounded with our generation’s fascination to show off on social media & also with easy loans accessible to everyone & everything… people are being pushed into an endless pit of debt to enjoy a few fleeting moments & a lifetime of slavery in paying off these debts. We can only pray & hope that common sense will prevail someday. Thank you for your kind words & well wishes! :-)———@ Sachin – To answer your first question this may not be relevant to the A2A of the original question but my answer to this will provide some context and clues which effected my decision making which led me to these ladies & situations. So early on in my life during college days I hate to admit but I was pretty immature who ran after the eye candies (instead of the real diamonds whom I ignored) but the problem with these girls is that they are pretty high on maintenance & they really knew how to push the right buttons to get what they wanted, most of them pretty narcissistic, the attraction was mainly physical, so the company was good but deep inside I never felt happy and there was constant fear when the girl would dump me when I was no longer the biggest gorilla in the room. I never learned from this & so thus this continued as an end-less cycle from one girl to another… from my late teens to most of my 20s. So my biggest learning is failing to understand beauty is only skin deep. And that candies have a small shelf life while as they say diamonds are for ever.———@ User-12103751891262240490 / @ Sachin / @ Abhinav Gupta – To answer around your question as to why I endured this second girl for so long; below were some of the multiple factors influencing this. I know some of these may sound lame but I was not really in a rational frame of mind.· Parental & Family Pressure – Well I already had a broken arranged relationship which was pretty much publicised as we both were from the same caste & community & both our families are pretty well-know. So my folks were putting a big pressure on me to get married as soon as possible before the other would get married. Plus I had two younger siblings who were also line in to get married & hence I was termed as blocker on their path to marital bliss.· Weekend Getting Ruined – I was tired of the constant weekend trips to see girls… I think I must have seen more than 60 plus girls in a single year before I said yes to this girl.· Marriage Another Item on Checklist – I was just desperate to tick this off without any utter regard to what might be the future repercussions.· Hoped things might improve after Marriage – This one’s the classic why so many married couples are still in marriage as they hope that things will be better in future.· Thought she was the answer to the Beauty is Skin Deep problem – Based on my initial perception I felt she was the answer to the Beauty is Skin Deep problem… besides she was an antithesis of the statement in its literal sense but she also turned out be so even in its metaphorical sense.· My Ego was completely destroyed – My first arranged experience was completely humbling & it destroyed my ego… I felt my personal self-worth was questioned a number of times due to the constant validation they sort about me & in the end the fact that the first girl questioned even my love for her made me question whether my heart was correct.· I let my mind decide in matters of heart – With my heart broken first time I decided to let my mind decide in matters of heart… I thought since the 2nd girl came from a not so well to do family her folks would respect me but it turned the other way around (Despite us treating them on equal terms & not expecting anything from them). And hence needless to say I felt no attraction towards her at any levels baring some meaningful conversations we had which also never evolved from friend zone to two lovers.· A case for confidence – The first girl despite everything she had was still pretty insecure about herself & would often tell me that she might not be good enough for me. While the second girl despite all her fallacies was a picture of supreme self-confidence & didn’t care what others thought about herself. Sh­e knew what she wanted & was very assertive in asking & getting things her away. This was a turn-on in the beginning but as things progressed this became a deal breaker as she was not willing to make any compromises or adjustments which is a basic requirement in a relationship.· Independence – The first girl was completely dependent on her father & she even said she would always love her father more than anybody else. And so when the relationship broke (due to our parental fights) she sided with her father completely. Hence the second time I wanted someone who was pretty independent & hence enter girl two. She was completely independent of her father partly as he was working faraway initially in armed forces & then abroad in oil rigs pretty much all throughout her early age. She also didn’t like him as he was drunkard & a chain smoker. And hence I knew that the only way this proposal would break is only if we the two people involved in this would decide to part ways & which is what that ultimately happened.· Her Father’s Health Condition – With her father critically hospitalized & with multiple heart operations within weeks after our engagement I did not want to put her father or her family to go through any other emotional turmoil over our engagement breaking. So I endured as far as I could & also tried my best to make the relationship work but finally when things were beyond my tipping point I had to take some actions which resulted in this end result.So to summarise I would say that I gravitated from one polar opposite to another opposite in the hope that I would get a different result but in contradiction it just went on to prove the Horseshoe theory which states that people in extreme left and the extreme right are closer to each other than either is to the political centre.Anyways I have learnt my lessons the hard way now & that a pragmatic approach is needed ­­& not to vilify one quality just because I had one bad experience with them. Like for example see my change in perspective about Money & People (i.e. Moral Number 2… which has transformed from Case 1 to 2). So the answer lies in balance…. We need a bit of everything in our lives be it Money, Beauty, Knowledge, Health, Spirituality, etc… and the levels of these in our lives can be determined by our own qualities, values & aspirations around the same and this should be in sync with our partners qualities & expectations around the same.I recently came across this short fable written by an ancient Indian sage in the 3rd century from the book of Panchatantra which pretty much expounds the same.http://www.talesofpanchatantra.com/the-wedding-of-the-mouse———@ User-12103751891262240490 / @ Arvind Acharya – Yeah absolutely….:-):-) There is something magical about Love marriages…:-):-) Maybe these experiences were all meant to show what I was truly meant for… :-):-)———@ Sachin – Yes truly I’m grateful to God…. It almost seemed to me like there was always a hand of God guiding me away from these wolves like a good shepherd. I shudder to even think now of what could have happened if any one of these could have materialised into marriage. The pain that the children in these marriages that have to go through is even worse than the pain faced by two couples in the relationship. So certainly life has come a full circle & given me much maturity & one more opportunity to fulfill my destiny & my mission in this lifetime! :-)———Peace Out Folks!! God Bless You All!

We were never supposed to look like this.Until 1965, immigration to the United States was determined by a blatantly discriminatory national quota system. The brainchild of Congressman Albert Johnson, this system used the findings of a 1907 Congressional Report, the "Dictionary of Races or Peoples", to determine what ethnicities to prioritize for entry into the United States.People coming from Northern and Western European countries were heavily favored over those from countries like those Trump now derides. More than 50,000 immigrant visas were reserved for Germany each year. The United Kingdom had the next biggest share, with about 34,000.Ireland, with 28,000 slots, and Norway, with 6,400, had the highest quotas as a share of their population. Each country in Asia, meanwhile, had a quota of just 100, while Africans wishing to move to America had to compete for one of just 1,200 visas set aside for the entire continent.Despite fierce opposition from President Truman in 1952, this system continued mostly unchanged until 1965, when, in the wake of the Civil Rights movement, advocates sought to bring immigration policy in line with other anti-discriminatory measures.Congress found itself in a pickle. There was sizable pressure to undo the codification of discrimination in immigration law, yet few wanted to change the ethnic makeup of the country.“The people of Ethiopia have the same right to come to the United States under this bill as the people from England, the people of France, the people of Germany, [and] the people of Holland,” complained Senator Sam Ervin, a Democrat from North Carolina. “With all due respect to Ethiopia,” Ervin said, “I don’t know of any contributions that Ethiopia has made to the making of America.”Representative Micheal Feighan, a Democrat from Ohio, came up with a compromise. Instead of using national quotas, America would prioritize the family of United States citizens. It was simple, the vast majority of Americans were white, and prioritizing their relatives meant that the vast majority of future migrants would be white. This would prevent an officially discriminatory policy, while retaining the then current ethnic makeup of the United States. As described in an issue of The American Legion Magazine:It preserved the bulk of the national-origins base of immigration to the United States, but keyed it to a system of preferences rather than quotas.But Feighan had made a huge miscalculation.In the following decades, immigration from Europe would fall flat, while immigration from Asia and Latin America would rise drastically. The phenomenon that followed, in which these immigrants would migrate to the United States and go on to sponsor other members of their family, would result in the exact diversification that many supporters of this bill sought to prevent.This law is still the basis for our immigration system today, and while refugees and employment-based migrants do represent sizable portions of our legal non-citizen population, the majority still come via family-based migration.Of the more than 1 million new green-card holders in 2016, 48 percent were immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, 20 percent entered through a family-based preference, and 12 percent via an employment-based preference. Another 13 percent adjusted from refugee or asylee status, and 4 percent were diversity lottery winners.It is this prioritization scheme that President Trump, with his proposed expansion of the public charge rule, hopes to undercut. This executive order would give the Trump Administration great leeway in determining the makeup of immigrants to the United States, without legislation from Congress.The impact of this change would go far beyond incoming migrants, with potentially severe ramifications for public health, intergenerational mobility, and the American Economy. This would be the most significant change in federal immigration policy in decades and among the most consequential decisions of Trump’s presidency.What is a Public Charge?The best description would be an immigrant deemed an excessive cost to the United States government. Under the current federal policy, if an immigrant is deemed excessively dependent upon government benefits, they can be considered a “public charge” and thereby made inadmissible to the United States.For purposes of determining inadmissibility, “public charge” means an individual who is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.The current policy was set following the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, under which the public benefits available to recent immigrants were drastically reduced. Right now, only cash benefits (TANF) and government-funded institutional care are considered, with only 3% of current immigrants using benefits that could be used in a public charge determination. The Trump Administration intends to modify this rule, with the proposed revision including cash, healthcare, food, and tax benefits.Below is an overview of the proposed changes.In light of these changes, there would be a new determination scheme with the following negative and positive factors.NegativeAuthorization to work without employment prospectsCurrent use or receipt of one of these benefits/tax credits.Use or receipt of public assistance within the last 36 monthsPresence of a medical condition and presumed necessity of government means in paying or treatmentA previous public charge determinationOther factors as warranted, according to DHS discretionPositiveFinancial assets. resources, and support of at least 250 percent of the federal poverty levelWork authorization and current employment with an annual income of at least 250% of federal poverty guidelines.Other factors as warranted, according to DHS discretionBenefit use by individuals and their dependents would be considered.This would drastically increase the number of immigrants that could be deemed a public charge, going from 3 to 47% of the non-citizen population. States with larger immigrant communities and more immigrant-friendly welfare systems, like California and New York, would be especially affected.The latest draft indicated that the Administration has not decided if a public charge determination should be grounds for deportation. If this were to occur, the number of unauthorized immigrants within the United States could drastically increase, and many previously legally present immigrants could face deportation for their or their families use of public benefits.Children's HealthThe ramifications of this rule change go far beyond these migrants. Millions of them have citizen children, a significant portion of whom have Medicaid/CHIP coverage.Most of these parents work, yet 67% have incomes below 250% the FPL encouraged by these new guidelines. This could make permanent entry into the United States very difficult for these parents, and risks destabilizing the lives of their American children.This policy could drastically reduce use rates of benefit programs among immigrants, even among those who couldn’t be deemed a public charge. After the 1996 bill several non-determinable immigrants and their relatives (refugees, beneficiary children) stopped using welfare benefits, a decline not accounted for by increased naturalization or rising income.The fear of losing future citizenship, coupled with the possible threat of deportation, and the hostility surrounding immigration today, could result in a massive exodus of children from public benefit programs. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that around 75% of disenrollees would become uninsured. If the dis-enrollment rate is high enough, millions of American children could lose access to health services.The positive effect of healthcare on children’s health is well documented, and such a mass exodus could spark a miniature public health crisis. Current immigration rhetoric and fear towards this proposal has already sparked a downturn in benefit applications in Central Texas.Under the proposed change, if family members receive government services — even if those family members are citizens — it would ding the applicants' chances of approval for permanent residency. “We are seeing families having to make this impossible choice,” says Maria Hernandez, the founder of Vela, a non-profit in Austin that helps parents who have children with disabilities.Moreover, widespread withdrawal's from SNAP could result in these children losing an essential means of combating food insecurity. As noted by the Children's Health Watch:These data suggest that young children from families that have been cut off from SNAP or had their SNAP benefits reduced when their income exceeds eligibility limits are significantly more likely to be in poor health, be at risk for developmental delays and experience child food insecurity than those whose families currently receive benefits.These changes could harm the prospects of some of our greatest economic contributors, second-generation immigrants.Generational View of ImmigrantsWhile immigrants may, on average, earn less than American citizens, it’s important to consider their fiscal impact from a generational perspective.The tax contributions of first generation immigrants are significantly lower than the native born. However, their descendants’ tax contributions are noticeably higher than their own, and are even greater than third-plus generation immigrants.Wages across immigrant generations reflect this trend, with second-generation immigrants again outperforming their predecessors and successors.We see the same in education, though our incoming immigrant population is more educated than it was in the past, resulting in less of an educational disparity than previous generations.However, first-generation immigrants compare remarkably well when considering federal benefit use per capita, with these immigrants likely to use less federal benefits over the course of their lives. This is particularly noticeable among the elderly, with elderly immigrants averaging thousands less per year in received benefits than succeeding generations. While the first generation is more costly to the government due to smaller tax contributions, their lower benefit usage does not support the notion of excessive dependency.Moreover, low TANF usage rates and high employment rates in immigrant families suggests that immigrants are likely to use welfare policies as work supports, with non-citizens and naturalized citizens in benefits receiving families being employed at higher rates than U.S born citizens.Altogether, we see clear evidence here of upward progression across generations. Many immigrants come here poor, yet they work at higher rates when receiving benefits, average less benefit use per capita when factoring in age, and their children tend to earn more and make higher tax contributions than other natives.Role in the American EconomyHowever, it would be a mistake to delineate the contributions of first-generation immigrants to some tax dollar to benefit use ratio. Immigrants, poor and wealthy, make up sizable portions of many American industries. They work in numerous sectors that are unpopular to American citizens, and increasing specialization has seen their representation in several fields go up over time.Over time, low-skilled immigrants have become more specialized in particular lines of work. The share employed in immigrant-intensive sectors in 2015 reaches 14.8 percent in construction (from 7.8 percent in 1990), 11.3 percent in eating and drinking establishments (from 8.7 percent in 1990), 7.2% in personal services (from 6.9% in 1990), and 6.9 percent in agriculture (from 5.7% in 1990).That isn’t to say all aspects of immigration are positive. Immigrants may slightly decrease the wages of similarly skilled natives, and costs associated with immigration are disproportionately assigned to state governments. Yet the benefits provided by these immigrants are manifold. They are responsible for the continued growth of our labor force, increase aggregate demand, increase productivity, are critical to the “care economy”, and their communities often serve as fertile grounds for new businesses.These communities are especially important. They provide a social and economic bedrock for these immigrants and serve as incubators for many hopeful entrepreneurs among them. Immigrants account for 90% of self-employment growth since 2000, with growth among “low skilled” immigrants being especially high. Altogether immigrants are on average far more entrepreneurial than American citizens, and as noted by Representative Zoe Lofgren,I often say I am glad that Google is in Mountain View rather than Moscow. Like eBay, Intel and Yahoo!, Google was founded by an immigrant. But it’s worth noting that none of the founders of these companies came to the U.S. because of their skills.There’s also evidence to suggest that low-income migrants exude an upward pressure on natives in an increasingly automatized economy, causing them to pursue higher wage productive occupations and protecting them from many of automation’s pitfalls.The increasing number of low-wage positions, such as manual-intensive personal services, was mostly filled by immigrants, thus moderating the resulting upward wage pressure. This contributed to push natives to upgrade their skills and join better paying production occupations, even as employment of computer capital continued to rise. This reduced the ‘de-routinisation’ of native employment and boosted natives’ routine and analytical wages through an increase in aggregate demand.The benefits provided by low income immigrants might not be obvious when only considering taxes. But they are an important cog in the American machine, and their loss would be felt.Looking AheadIn threatening the legal status of these immigrants, we risk increased unemployment, an increased unauthorized population, a labor shortage in several key American industries, a loss of entrepreneurship, a spike in the uninsured population, increased hunger, increased child poverty, and endangering some of our most productive future taxpayers.These immigrants are not on the periphery waiting to enter, they are contributing inhabitants of our country. They work in our fields and hospitals, our homes and restaurants, our roads and our factories. Their children attend our schools and share our playgrounds.The Trump administration has often questioned the place of immigrants in the United States, and in light of this proposal, Americans have an important choice to make.These immigrants have worked to become ours.Will we allow them to?Glossary and Miscellaneous InformationNon-Citizen: Any person in the United States, legally or illegally, who is not a citizen.Non-Determinable Immigrant: immigrants who cannot be determined a public chargeBeneficiary children: benefit receiving children with non-citizen parentsCare Economy: “Part of human activity, both material and social, that is concerned with the process of caring for the present and future labour force, and the human population as a whole, including the domestic provisioning of food, clothing and shelter. “Graphs showing wages, tax contributions, education and benefit usage display averages per age.SourcesEverything you need to know about family-based migrationHow the Immigration Act of 1965 Inadvertently Changed Americahttps://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43145.pdfFrequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United StatesPublic ChargeChilling Effects: The Expected Public Charge Rule and Its Impact on Legal Immigrant Families’ Public Benefits UsePotential Effects of Public Charge Changes on Health Coverage for Citizen ChildrenMPI: Public Charge EstimatesFearing Deportation, Some Immigrants Opt Out Of Health Benefits For Their KidsMPI: WebinarPresident Trump's Idea Of Good And Bad Immigrant Countries Has A Historical PrecedentWhy Are Immigrants More Entrepreneurial?THE EFFECT OF CHILD HEALTH INSURANCE ACCESS ON SCHOOLING: EVIDENCE FROM PUBLIC INSURANCE EXPANSIONSFifty Years On, the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act Continues to Reshape the United StatesAmerican Legion ExcerptThe Economic and Fiscal Consequences of ImmigrationRecent US Trends (2017 APPAM Fall Research Conference)https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/06/05/how-medicaid-lowers-high-school-dropout-rates-and-leads-to-more-college-grads/?utm_term=.c6cdd9a2f9a3http://www.nber.org/papers/w20178.pdfhttp://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/27/the-effects-of-immigration-on-the-united-states-economyImmigration in the era of automationPunishing Hard Work: The Unintended Consequences of Cutting SNAP Benefits - Children's HealthWatchhttps://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2_hansonetal.pdfJennifer Hu's answer to How do immigrants who come to the U.S. with nothing start a business?Care economyThe Advantages of Family-Based ImmigrationThe Economics of Immigration: A Story of Substitutes and Complements10 demographic trends that are shaping the U.S. and the worldSpecial thanks to Mac Tan for the help, Habib for his graphs, and Jennifer Hu for her excellent answer.

Our boy Trump has spent a lot of time and money in and out of court. The following very long and ongoing list of court cases won and lost, is compliments of Wikipedia:Trump and his businesses have been involved in 3,500 legal cases in U.S. federal courts and state court, an unprecedented number for a U.S. presidential candidate.[1]Of the 3,500 suits, Trump or one of his companies were plaintiffs in 1,900; defendants in 1,450; and bankruptcy, third party, or other in 150.[1]Trump was named in at least 169 suits in federal court.[2]Over 150 other cases were in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida (covering Broward County, Florida) since 1983.[3]In about 500 cases, judges dismissed plaintiffs' claims against Trump. In hundreds more, cases ended with the available public record unclear about the resolution.[1]Where there was a clear resolution, Trump won 451 times, and lost 38.[4]The topics of the legal cases include contract disputes, defamation claims, and allegations of sexual harassment. Trump's companies have been involved in more than 100 tax disputes, and on "at least three dozen" occasions the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance has obtained tax liens against Trump properties for nonpayment of taxes.[1]On a number of occasions, Trump has threatened legal action but did not ultimately follow through.[5]Of Trump's involvement in the lawsuits, his lawyer Alan Garten said in 2015 that this was "a natural part of doing business in [the United States]",[5][6]and in the real estate industry, litigation to enforce contracts and resolve business disputes is indeed common.[5]Trump has, however, been involved in far more litigation than fellow real-estate magnates; the USA Today analysis in 2016 found that Trump had been involved in legal disputes more than Edward J. DeBartolo Jr., Donald Bren, Stephen M. Ross, Sam Zell, and Larry Silverstein combined.[1]The Trump lawsuits[5][6]have attracted criticism from Trump's opponents, who say that this is not a trait that conservatives should support.[5]James Copland, director of legal policy at the conservative-leaning Manhattan Institute, states that "Trump clearly has an affinity for filing lawsuits, partly because he owns a lot of businesses" and has sometimes used litigation as a "bullying tactic".[5]Although Trump has said that he "never" settles legal claims, Trump and his businesses have settled with plaintiffs in at least 100 cases (mostly involving personal injury claims arising from injuries at Trump properties), with settlements ranging as high as hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars[1]and recently as high as tens of millions of dollars.[7]Among the most well-known Trump legal cases was the Trump University litigation. Three legal actions were brought alleging fraud, one by the New York State Attorney General and the others by class action plaintiffs.[8]In November 2016, Trump agreed to pay $25 million to settle the litigation.[7]In 1985, New York City brought a lawsuit against Trump for allegedly using tactics to force out tenants of 100 Central Park South,[17]which he intended to demolish together with the building next door. After ten years in court, the two sides negotiated a deal allowing the building to stand as condominiums.[18]In 1988, the Justice Department sued Trump for violating procedures related to public notifications when buying voting stock in a company related to his attempted takeovers of Holiday Corporation and Bally Manufacturing Corporation in 1986. On April 5, 1988, Trump agreed to pay $750,000 to settle the civil penalties of the antitrust lawsuit.[19]In late 1990, Trump was sued for $2 million by a business analyst for defamation, and Trump settled out of court.[20]Briefly before Trump's Taj Mahal opened in April 1990, the analyst had said that the project would fail by the end of that year. Trump threatened to sue the analyst's firm unless the analyst recanted or was fired. The analyst refused to retract the statements, and his firm fired him for ostensibly unrelated reasons.[21]Trump Taj Mahal declared bankruptcy in November 1990, the first of several such bankruptcies.[22]After, the NYSE ordered the firm to compensate the analyst $750,000; the analyst did not release the details of his settlement with Trump.[23]In 1991, Trump sued the manufacturers of a helicopter that crashed in 1989, killing three executives of his New Jersey hotel casino business.[24]The helicopter fell 2,800 feet after the main four-blade rotor and tail rotor broke off the craft, killing Jonathan Benanav, an executive of Trump Plaza, and two others: Mark Grossinger Etess, president of Trump Taj Mahal, and Stephen F. Hyde, chief executive of the Atlantic City casinos.[25][26][27]One of the defendants was owned by the Italian government, providing a basis for removing it to federal court, where the case was dismissed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the dismissal in 1992, and the Supreme Court denied Trump's petition to hear the case in the same year.[28]In 1991, Trump Plaza was fined $200,000 by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission for moving African American and female employees from craps tables in order to accommodate high roller Robert LiButti, a mob figure and alleged John Gotti associate, who was said to fly into fits of racist rage when he was on losing streaks.[29]There is no indication that Trump was ever questioned in that investigation, he was not held personally liable, and Trump denies even knowing what LiButti looked like.[29]In 1991, one of Trump's casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, was found guilty of circumventing state regulations about casino financing when Donald Trump's father bought $3.5 million in chips that he had no plans to gamble. Trump Castle was forced to pay a $30,000 fine under the settlement, according to New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement Director Jack Sweeney. Trump was not disciplined for the illegal advance on his inheritance, which was not confiscated.[30]In 1993, Donald Trump sued Jay Pritzker, a Chicago financier and Trump's business partner since 1979 on the Grand Hyatt hotel. Trump alleged that Pritzker overstated earnings in order to collect excessive management fees.[31]In 1994, Pritzker sued Trump for violating their agreement by, among other ways, failing to remain solvent.[32]The two parties ended the feud in 1995 in a sealed settlement, in which Trump retained some control of the hotel and Pritzker would receive reduced management fees and pay Trump's legal expenses.[33]In 1993, Vera Coking sued Trump and his demolition contractor for damage to her home during construction of the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino.[34]In 1997, she dropped the suit against Trump and settled with his contractor for $90,000.[35]Coking had refused to sell her home to Trump and ultimately won a 1998 Supreme Court decision that prevented Atlantic City from using eminent domain to condemn her property.[36][37]In 1996, Trump was sued by more than 20 African-American residents of Indiana who charged that Trump reneged on promises to hire 70% of his work force from the minority community for his riverboat casino on Lake Michigan. The suit also charged that he hadn't honored his commitments to steer sufficient contracts to minority-owned businesses in Gary, Indiana. The suit was eventually dismissed due to procedural and jurisdiction issues.[38][39]In the late 1990s, Donald Trump and rival Atlantic City casino owner Stephen Wynn engaged in an extended legal conflict during the planning phase of new casinos Wynn had proposed to build. Both owners filed lawsuits against one another and other parties, including the State of New Jersey, beginning with Wynn's antitrust accusation against Trump.[40][41]After two years in court, Wynn's Mirage casino sued Trump in 1999 alleging that his company had engaged in a conspiracy to harm Mirage and steal proprietary information, primarily lists of wealthy Korean gamblers. In response, Trump's attorneys claimed that Trump's private investigator dishonored his contract by working as a "double agent" for the Mirage casino by secretly taping conversations with Trump. All the cases were settled at the same time on the planned day of an evidentiary hearing in court in February 2000, which was never held.[42]Personal and sexualIn 1992, Trump sued ex-wife Ivana Trump for not honoring a gag clause in their divorce agreement by disclosing facts about him in her best-selling book. Trump won the gag order.[43][44][45]The divorce was granted on grounds that Ivana claimed Donald Trump's treatment of her was "cruel and inhuman treatment".[46][47]Years later, Ivana said that she and Donald "are the best of friends".[48]A sexual assault claim from 1994 for child rape was filed against Trump on October 14, 2016,[49]a case that was dropped and refiled, remaining in suspension as of November 4, 2016.[50]In April 1997, Jill Harth Houraney filed a $125,000,000 lawsuit against Trump for sexual harassment in 1993, claiming he "'groped' her under her dress and told her he wanted to make her his 'sex slave'". Harth voluntarily withdrew the suit when her husband settled a parallel case. Trump has called the allegations "meritless".[51][52]Lawsuits 2000–2009[edit]In 2000, Donald Trump paid $250,000 to settle fines related to charges brought by New York State Lobbying Commission director David Grandeau. Trump was charged with circumventing state law to spend $150,000 lobbying against government approval of plans to construct an Indian-run casino in the Catskills, which would have diminished casino traffic to Trump's casinos in Atlantic City.[53][54]From 2000 on, Trump tried to partner with a German venture in building a "Trump Tower Europe" in Germany. The company founded for this, "TD Trump Deutschland AG" was dissolved in 2003, several lawsuits following in the years thereafter.[55]In 2001, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission brought a financial-reporting case against Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Inc., alleging that the company had committed several "misleading statements in the company's third-quarter 1999 earnings release". Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Inc. consented to the Commission's cease-and-desist order, said the culprit had been dismissed, and that Trump had personally been unaware of the matter.[56][57][58]Trump sued Leona Helmsley,[59]and Helmsley counter-sued Trump[60]due to contentions regarding ownership and operation of the Empire State Building. In 2002, Trump announced that he and his Japanese business partners, were selling the Empire State Building to partners of his rival Leona Helmsley.[61][62]In 2003, the city of Stuttgart denied TD Trump Deutschland AG, a Trump Organization subsidiary, the permission to build a planned tower due to questions over its financing. Trump Deutschland sued the city of Stuttgart, and lost. In 2004 Trump's German corporate partner brought suit against the Trump Organization for failure to pay back a EUR 200 million pre-payment as promised. In 2005, the German state attorney prosecuted Trump Deutschland and its partners for accounting fraud.[63][64][65]In 2004, Donald Trump sued Richard T. Fields in Broward County Circuit Court (in Florida); Fields was once Trump's business partner in the casino business, but had recently become a successful casino developer in Florida apart from Trump. Fields counter-sued Trump in Florida court. Trump alleged that Fields misled other parties into believing he still consulted for Trump, and Fields alleged improprieties in Trump's business.[66]The two businessmen agreed in 2008 to drop the lawsuits when Fields agreed to buy Trump Marina in Atlantic City, New Jersey, for $316 million,[67]but the deal was unsettled again in 2009 because Trump resigned his leadership of Trump Entertainment after Fields lowered his bid.[68]Fields never bought the company, which went into bankruptcy about the same time and was sold for $38 million.[69][70]Trump's lawsuit was dismissed after a hearing in 2010.[71]In 2004, the Trump Organization partnered with Bayrock Group on a $200 million hotel and condo project in Fort Lauderdale Beach, to be called Trump International Hotel & Tower. After proceeding for five years, real estate market devaluation stymied the project in 2009 and Trump dissolved his licensing deal, demanding that his name be removed from the building. Soon after this, the project defaulted on a $139 million loan in 2010.[72]Investors later sued the developers for fraud. Trump petitioned to have his name removed from the suit, saying he had only lent his name to the project. However his request was refused since he had participated in advertising for it.[73]The insolvent building project spawned over 10 lawsuits, some of which were still not settled in early 2016.[74]In 2006, the Town of Palm Beach began fining Trump $250 per day for ordinance violations related to his erection of an 80-foot-tall (24 m) flagpole flying a 15 by 25 feet (4.6 by 7.6 m) American flag on his property. Trump sued the town for $25 million, saying that they abridged his free speech, also disputing an ordinance that local businesses be "town-serving". The two parties settled as part of a court-ordered mediation, in which Trump was required to donate $100,000 to veterans' charities. At the same time, the town ordinance was modified allowing Trump to enroll out-of-town members in his Mar-a-Lago social club.[75]Trump International Hotel and Tower in ChicagoAfter the 2008 housing-market collapse, Deutsche Bank attempted to collect $40 million that Donald Trump personally guaranteed against their $640 million loan for Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago. Rather than paying the debt, Trump sued Deutsche Bank for $3 billion for undermining the project and damage to his reputation.[76]Deutsche Bank then filed suit to obtain the $40 million. The two parties settled in 2010 with Deutsche Bank extending the loan term by five years.[77]In 2008, Trump filed a $100 million lawsuit for alleged fraud and civil rights violations[78]against the California city of Rancho Palos Verdes, over thwarted luxury home development and expansion plans upon part of a landslide-prone golf course in the area, which was purchased by Trump in 2002 for $27 million.[78]Trump had previously sued a local school district over land leased from them in the re-branded Trump National Golf Club, and had further angered some local residents by renaming a thoroughfare after himself.[78]The $100 million suit was ultimately withdrawn in 2012 with Trump and the city agreeing to modified geological surveys and permit extensions for some 20 proposed luxury homes (in addition to 36 homes previously approved).[79][80]Trump ultimately opted for a permanent conservation easement instead of expanded housing development on the course's driving range.[81]In 2009, Donald Trump sued a law firm he had used, Morrison Cohen, for $5 million for mentioning his name and providing links to related news articles on its website. This lawsuit followed a lawsuit by Trump alleging overcharging by the law firm, and a countersuit by Morrison Cohen seeking unpaid legal fees.[82]The suit was dismissed in a 15-page ruling by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Eileen Bransten, who ruled that the links to news articles concerned "matters of public interest."[83]In 2009, Trump was sued by investors who had made deposits for condos in the canceled Trump Ocean Resort Baja Mexico.[84]The investors said that Trump misrepresented his role in the project, stating after its failure that he had been little more than a spokesperson for the entire venture, disavowing any financial responsibility for the debacle.[85]Investors were informed that their investments would not be returned due to the cancellation of construction.[84]In 2013, Trump settled the lawsuit with more than one hundred prospective condo owners for an undisclosed amount.[86]Lawsuits 2010–presentConstruction and property law matters[edit]In 2011, Donald Trump sued Scotland, alleging that it built the Aberdeen Bay Wind Farm after assuring him it would not be built. He had recently built a golf course there and planned to build an adjacent hotel. Trump lost his suit, with the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom unanimously ruling in favor of the Scottish government in 2015.[87][88]In 2013, 87-year-old Jacqueline Goldberg alleged that Trump cheated her in a condominium sale by bait-and-switch when she was purchasing properties at the Trump International Hotel and Tower.[89]In 2015, Trump initiated a $100 million lawsuit against Palm Beach County claiming that officials, in a "deliberate and malicious" act, pressured the FAA to direct air traffic to the Palm Beach International Airport over his Mar-a-Lago estate, because he said the airplanes damaged the building and disrupted its ambiance.[90]Trump had previously sued the county twice over airport noise; the first lawsuit, in 1995, ended with an agreement between Trump and the county; Trump's second lawsuit, in 2010, was dismissed.[90]Trump is suing the town of Ossining, New York, over the property tax valuation on his 147-acre (59 ha) Trump National Golf Club Westchester, located in Briarcliff Manor's portion of the town, which Trump purchased for around $8 million at a foreclosure sale in the 1990s and to which he claimed, at the club's opening, to have added $45 million in facility improvements.[91]Although Trump stated in his 2015 FEC filing that the property was worth at least $50 million, his lawsuit seeks a $1.4 million valuation on the property, which includes a 75,000-square-foot clubhouse, five overnight suites, and permission to build 71 condominium units,[91]in an effort to shave $424,176 from his annual local property tax obligations.(91A) Trump had to pay nearly $300,000 in attorney’s fees in Doral painter’s lawsuit related to unpaid bills brought by a local paint store against the Trump National Doral Miami golf resort, ordered the billionaire politician’s company to pay the Doral-based mom-and-pop shop nearly $300,000 in attorney’s fees. All because, according to the lawsuit, Trump allegedly tried to stiff The Paint Spot on its last payment of $34,863 on a $200,000 contract for paint used in the renovation of the home of golf’s famed Blue Monster two years prior.[92]Trump filed the action after separately being sued by Briarcliff Manor for "intentional and illegal modifications" to a drainage system that caused more than $238,000 in damage to the village's library, public pool, and park facilities during a 2011 storm.[92]In October 2016, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that Trump, together with two principals of a connected developer, could be sued for various claims, including oppression, collusion and breach of fiduciary duties, in relation to his role in the marketing of units in the Trump International Hotel and Tower in Toronto, Canada.[93]A subsequent application for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada in March 2017.[94]Also in October 2016, JCF Capital ULC (a private firm that had bought the construction loan on the building) announced that it was seeking court approval under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to have the building sold in order to recoup its debt, which then totaled $301 million.[95]The court allowed for its auction[96]which took place in March 2017, but no bidders, apart from one stalking horse offer, took part.[97]Defamation mattersAlso in 2011, an appellate court upheld a New Jersey Superior Court judge's decision dismissing Trump's $5 billion defamation lawsuit against author Timothy L. O'Brien, who had reported in his book, TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald (2005), that Trump's true net worth was really between $150 and $250 million. Trump had reportedly told O'Brien he was worth billions and, in 2005, had publicly stated such.[98]Trump said that the author's alleged underestimation of his net worth was motivated by malice and had cost him business deals and damage to his reputation.[99]The appellate court, however, ruled against Trump, citing the consistency of O'Brien's three confidential sources.[100]In 2014, the former Miss Pennsylvania Sheena Monnin ultimately settled a $5 million arbitration judgment against her, having been sued by Trump after alleging that the Miss USA 2012 pageant results were rigged. Monnin wrote on her Facebook page that another contestant told her during a rehearsal that she had seen a list of the top five finalists, and when those names were called in their precise order, Monnin realized the pageant election process was suspect, compelling Monnin to resign her Miss Pennsylvania title. The Trump Organization's lawyer said that Monnin's allegations had cost the pageant a lucrative British Petroleum sponsorship deal and threatened to discourage women from entering Miss USA contests in the future.[101]According to Monnin, testimony from the Miss Universe Organization and Ernst & Young revealed that the top 15 finalists were selected by pageant directors regardless of preliminary judges' scores.[102]As part of the settlement, Monnin was not required to retract her original statements.[101]On January 17, 2017, Summer Zervos, represented by attorney Gloria Allred, filed a defamation suit against President-Elect Donald Trump for claiming that she had lied in her public sexual assault allegations against him.[103]Financial mattersIn July 2011, New York firm ALM Unlimited filed a lawsuit against Trump, who ended payments to the company in 2008 after nearly three years. ALM was hired in 2003 to seek offers from clothing companies for a Trump fashion line, and had arranged a meeting between Trump and PVH, which licensed the Trump name for dress shirts and neckwear. ALM, which had received over $300,000, alleged in the lawsuit that Trump's discontinuation of payments was against their initial agreement. In pre-trial depositions, Trump and two of his business officials – attorney George H. Ross and executive vice president of global licensing Cathy Glosser – gave contradictory statements regarding whether ALM was entitled to payments. Trump, who felt that ALM had only a limited role in the deal between him and PVH, said "I have thousands of checks that I sign a week, and I don't look at very many of the checks; and eventually I did look, and when I saw them (ALM) I stopped paying them because I knew it was a mistake or somebody made a mistake."[104]In January 2013, a judge ordered that the case go to trial, after Trump and ALM failed to settle the lawsuit.[105]During the trial in April 2013, Trump said that ALM's role in the PVH agreement was insubstantial, stating that Regis Philbin was the one who recommended PVH to him. Trump's attorney, Alan Garten, said ALM was not legally entitled to any money.[105][106][107]The judge ruled in favor of Trump later that month because a valid contract between him and ALM was never created.[107]Trump University litigationMain article: Trump University § Allegations of impropriety and lawsuitsIn 2013, in a lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Trump was accused of defrauding more than 5,000 people of $40 million for the opportunity to learn Trump's real estate investment techniques in a for-profit training program, Trump University, which operated from 2005 to 2011.[108][109][110]Trump ultimately stopped using the term "University" following a 2010 order from New York regulators, who called Trump's use of the word "misleading and even illegal"; the state had previously warned Trump in 2005 to drop the term or not offer seminars in New York.[111][112][113]Although Trump has claimed a 98% approval rating on course evaluations, former students recounted high-pressure tactics from instructors seeking the highest possible ratings, including threats of withholding graduation certificates,[114]and more than 2,000 students had sought and received course refunds before the end of their paid seminars.[114]In a separate class action civil suit against Trump University in mid-February 2014, a San Diego federal judge allowed claimants in California, Florida, and New York to proceed;[115]a Trump counterclaim, alleging that the state Attorney General's investigation was accompanied by a campaign donation shakedown, was investigated by a New York ethics board and dismissed in August 2015.[116]Trump filed a $1 million defamation suit against former Trump University student Tarla Makaeff, who had spent about $37,000 on seminars, after she joined the class action lawsuit and publicized her classroom experiences on social media.[85]Trump University was later ordered by a U.S. District Judge in April 2015 to pay Makaeff and her lawyers $798,774.24 in legal fees and costs.[85][117]Breach of contract matters2013]In 2013 Trump sued comedian Bill Maher for $5 million for breach of contract.[118]Maher had appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and had offered to pay $5 million to a charity if Trump produced his birth certificate to prove that Trump's mother had not mated with an orangutan. This was said by Maher in response to Trump having previously challenged Obama to produce his birth certificate, and offering $5 million payable to a charity of Obama's choice, if Obama produced his college applications, transcripts, and passport records.[119][120]Trump produced his birth certificate and filed a lawsuit after Maher was not forthcoming, claiming that Maher's $5 million offer was legally binding. "I don't think he was joking," Trump said. "He said it with venom."[119]Trump withdrew his lawsuit against the comedian after eight weeks.[121]2014[edit]In 2014, model Alexia Palmer filed a civil suit against Trump Model Management for promising a $75,000 annual salary but paying only $3,380.75 for three years' work. Palmer, who came to the US at age 17 from Jamaica under the H-1B visa program in 2011,[122]claimed to be owed more than $200,000. Palmer contended that Trump Model Management charged, in addition to a management fee, "obscure expenses" from postage to limousine rides that consumed the remainder of her compensation. Palmer alleged that Trump Model Management promised to withhold only 20% of her net pay as agency expenses, but after charging her for those "obscure expenses", ended up taking 80%.[123]Trump attorney Alan Garten claimed the lawsuit is "bogus and completely frivolous".[124][125]Palmer filed a class-action lawsuit against the modeling agency with similar allegations.[126]The case was dismissed from U.S. federal court in March 2016, in part because Palmer's immigration status, via H1-B visa sponsored by Trump, required labor complaints to be filed through a separate process.[123][127]2015[edit]In 2015, Trump sued Univision, demanding $500 million for breach of contract and defamation when they dropped their planned broadcast of the Miss USA pageant. The network said that the decision was made because of Trump's "insulting remarks about Mexican immigrants".[128]Trump settled the lawsuit with Univision CEO Randy Falco out of court.[129]In July 2015, Trump filed a $10 million lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court for breach of contract against Spanish celebrity chef José Andrés, claiming that he backed out of a deal to open the flagship restaurant at Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.[130][131]Andrés replied that Trump's lawsuit was "both unsurprising and without merit"[132]and filed an $8 million counterclaim against a Trump Organization subsidiary.[131][133]Also in July 2015, Chef Geoffrey Zakarian also withdrew from the Washington, D.C., project with Andrés in the wake of Trump's comments on Mexican illegal immigrants, and is expected to lose his own $500,000 restaurant lease deposit as a result.[132]Trump denounced and then sued Zakarian in August 2015 for a sum "in excess of $10 million" for lost rent and other damages.[134]Trump's lawsuit called Zakarian's offense at his remarks "curious in light of the fact that Mr. Trump's publicly shared views on immigration have remained consistent for many years, and Mr. Trump's willingness to frankly share his opinions is widely known".[134][135]Disputes with both chefs were eventually settled in April 2017.[136]In 2015, restaurant workers at Trump SoHo filed a lawsuit that from 2009 to at least the time of the filing, gratuities added to customers' checks were illegally withheld from employees. The Trump Organization has responded that the dispute is between the employees and their employer, a third-party contractor. Donald Trump has been scheduled to testify in court on September 1, 2016.[137][138]2018[edit]In 2018, Noel Cintron, the personal driver for Donald Trump before he became the President of the United States, filed a lawsuit Cintron v Trump Organization LLC with the Supreme Court of the State of New York (Manhattan). The lawsuit claims that during his 25-year employment by Trump, he was not compensated for overtime and the second time his salary was raised he was induced to surrender his health insurance, an action which saved Trump approximately $17,866 per year.[139]The lawsuit seeks $178,200 of overtime back pay, plus $5,000 in penalties that are seen under the New York State Labor Law.[140]Assault claims[edit]In September 2015, five men who had demonstrated outside of a Trump presidential campaign event at Trump Tower in New York City sued Donald Trump, alleging that Trump's security staff punched one of them. They also allege that Trump's security guards had been advised by city police that they were permitted to protest there. Several people videotaped the incident.[141][142]In June 2015, the Culinary Workers Union filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), alleging that the owners of Trump Hotel Las Vegas "violated the federally protected rights of workers to participate in union activities" and engaged in "incidents of alleged physical assault, verbal abuse, intimidation, and threats by management".[143]In October 2015, the Trump Ruffin Commercial and Trump Ruffin Tower I, the owners of Trump Hotel Las Vegas, sued the Culinary Workers Union and another union, alleging that they had knowingly distributed flyers that falsely stated that Donald Trump had stayed at a rival unionized hotel, rather than his own non-unionized hotel, during a trip to Las Vegas.[5][143]Poll watching controversy[edit]On October 31, 2016, a New Jersey federal judge, John Michael Vazquez, ordered the Republican National Committee (RNC) to hand over all communications with the Trump campaign related to poll watching and voter fraud. He asked for testimony and documents relating to Kellyanne Conway, RNC officials Ronna Romney McDaniel of Michigan, and Rob Gleason from Pennsylvania.[144]It is claimed Gleason, McDaniel, and Roger Stone recruited poll watchers to check for voter fraud. The state Democratic parties of Nevada, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Ohio filed lawsuits against Trump for encouraging illegal voter intimidation. The states' Democratic parties are also suing their respective Republican party counterparts, along with Roger Stone, who is allegedly recruiting poll watchers and organizing ballot security efforts in a number of states. Stone runs the group "Stop the Steal." It claims Trump supporters yelled at voters outside Las Vegas area polling places when they said they weren't voting for the Republican nominee, and that Stone is asking supporters to conduct an illegitimate "exit polling" initiative aimed at intimidating voters of color.Pat McDonald, the director of Cuyahoga County Board of Elections in Ohio, reported that "Trump supporters have already visited the county elections board identifying themselves as poll observers, even though they did not appear to be credentialed as poll observers as required under Ohio law." Election officials have expressed concern about "instability on Election Day," one lawsuit claims, and discussed the possibility of bringing police to polling sites to address conflicts. In Clark County of Nevada, a lawsuit claims: "A Trump supporter harassed and intimidated multiple voters outside of the Albertson's supermarket early voting location on Lake Mead Boulevard, repeatedly asking voters for whom they were voting, and then yelling at them belligerently and attempting to keep them from entering the voting location when they stated they were not voting for Donald Trump." When poll staffers told the Trump supporters to stop harassing voters, "the Trump supporter told poll workers that he had 'a right to say anything he wanted to the voters.'" Poll staffers called police, and the Trump supporter left. The lawsuit also claims similar incidents took place in neighboring Nye County as well. In Pennsylvania, Murrysville City Councilman Josh Lorenz supposedly posted instructions for the way Clinton supporters could vote online, even though there is no online voting in Pennsylvania. Eight registered electors, mostly from the Philadelphia area, challenged the portion of the state Election Code that prevents poll watchers from observing elections outside of the counties where they live.[145][146][147]In Pompano Beach, Florida, police asked two poll watchers to leave a polling site. Two precinct clerks were also fired for not adhering to policy and training. No arrests were made. No other incidents were reported in South Florida.[148][149]Nevada early voting Latino turnout controversy[edit]On November 8, 2016, Trump filed a lawsuit claiming early voting polling places in Clark County, Nevada, were kept open too late. These precincts had high turnout of Latino voters. Nevada state law explicitly states that polls are to stay open to accommodate eligible voters in line at closing time. Hillary Clinton campaign advisor Neera Tanden says the Trump campaign is trying to suppress Latino voter turnout. A political analyst from Nevada, Jon Ralston tweeted that the Trump lawsuit is "insane" in a state that clearly allows the polls to remains open until everyone in line has voted. Former Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller, posted the statute that states "voting must continue until those voters have voted". Miller said: "If there are people in line waiting to vote at 7 pm, voting must continue until everyone votes.... We still live in America, right?"[150]A Nevada judge denied Trump's request to separate early voting ballots. Judge Gloria Sturman, of the District Court for Clark County Nevada, ruled that County Registrar of Voters Joe P. Gloria was already obligated by state law to maintain the records that the Trump campaign is seeking. Sturman said: "That is offensive to me because it seems to go against the very principle that a vote is secret."[151][152]Diana Orrock, the Republican National Committeewoman for Nevada and a vocal Trump ally, said she was unaware of the lawsuit before Politico contacted her. "I know that the [Clark County] registrar was on TV this morning saying that anybody who's in line was allowed to participate in the voting process until all of them came through," she said. "If that's what they did, I don't have a problem with that ... I don't know that filing a suit's going to accomplish anything." Orrock doubts the lawsuit will have any impact.[153]Lawsuit for inciting violence at March 2016 campaign rally[edit]During a campaign rally on March 1, 2016 in Louisville, Kentucky, Trump repeatedly said "get 'em out of here" while pointing at anti-Trump protesters as they were forcibly escorted out by his supporters. Three protesters say they were repeatedly shoved and punched while Trump pointed at them from the podium, citing widely shared video evidence of the events. They also cited previous statements by Trump about paying the legal bills of supporters who got violent, or suggesting a demonstrator deserved to be "roughed up."[154][155][156][157]The lawsuit accuses Donald Trump of inciting violence against protesters in Louisville, Kentucky. The plaintiffs are Kashiya Nwanguma (21), Molly Shah (36) and Henry Brousseau (17). The suit is against Trump, his campaign, and three Trump supporters (Matthew Heimbach, Alvin Bamberger and an unnamed defendant). One defendant, Bamburger, who was wearing a Veteran's uniform in the video, apologized to the Korean War Veterans Association immediately after the event, writing that he "physically pushed a young woman down the aisle toward the exit" after "Trump kept saying 'get them out, get them out."[154]Trump's attorneys requested to get the case dismissed, arguing he was protected by free speech laws, and wasn't trying to get his supporters to resort to violence.[156][158]They also stated that Trump had no duty to the protesters, and they had assumed the personal risk of injury by deciding to protest at the rally.[154]On Friday, April 1, 2017, Judge David J. Hale in Louisville ruled against the dismissal of a lawsuit, stating there was ample evidence to support that the injuries of the protesters were a "direct and proximate result" of Trump's words and actions. Hale wrote, "It is plausible that Trump's direction to 'get 'em out of here' advocated the use of force," and, "It was an order, an instruction, a command." Hale wrote that the Supreme Court has ruled out some protections for free speech when used to incite violence.[159]Defendant Heimbach requested to dismiss the discussion in the lawsuit about his association with a white nationalist group, and also requested to dismiss discussion of statements he made about how a President Trump would advance the interests of the group. The request was declined, with the judge saying the information could be important for determining punitive damages because they add context.[154]Hale also declined to remove the allegation that Plaintiff Nwanguma, who is African-American, was victim to ethnic, racial and sexist slurs at the rally from the crowd. The judge stated that this context may support claims by the plaintiffs' of incitement and negligence by Trump and the Trump campaign. The judge wrote, "While the words themselves are repulsive, they are relevant to show the atmosphere in which the alleged events occurred."[154]The judge stated that all people have a duty to use care to prevent foreseeable injury. "In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that their harm was foreseeable and that the Trump Defendants had a duty to prevent it." The case was referred a federal magistrate, Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl, who will handle preliminary litigation, discovery and settlement efforts.[160]Heimbach filed a separate counterclaim in April 2017, arguing that Trump was "responsible for any injuries" he [Heimbach] "might have inflicted because Mr. Trump directed him and others to take action". Heimbach, "a self-employed landscaper", and a member of the Traditionalist Youth Network, "which advocates separate American 'ethno states', "spends much of his time" online writing "against Jews, gays and immigrants and urging whites to stand up for their race." He wrote his own lawsuit which requested that Trump pay Heimbach's "legal fees, citing a promise Mr. Trump made at an earlier rally to pay legal costs of anyone who removed protesters."[161]Heimbach's "counterclaim" against Trump has "probed the limits of free speech and public protest while confronting the courts with a unique legal argument".[161]On May 5, Trump's lawyers submitted legal filings that argue that Heimbach's "indemnity claim should be dismissed on the same grounds". According to a University of Virginia law professor, Leslie Kendrick, this indemnity or "impleader" case is "highly unusual."[161]New York University's Samuel Issacharoff, a professor of constitutional law, argued that care must be taken to not allow speech, in the "context of a political rally" to be "turned into something that is legally sanctionable."[161]Payments related to alleged affairs[edit]See also: Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal and Karen McDougal § Alleged affair with Donald TrumpAdult film actress Stormy Daniels has alleged that she and Trump had an extramarital affair in 2006, months after the birth of his youngest child.[162]Just before the 2016 presidential election Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, was paid $130,000 by Trump's attorney Michael Cohen as part of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), through an LLC set up by Cohen; he says he used his own money for the payment.[163]In February 2018, Daniels filed suit against the LLC asking to be released from the agreement so that she can tell her story. Cohen filed a private arbitration proceeding and obtained a restraining order to keep her from discussing the case.[164]According to White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump has denied the allegations.[165]On March 6, 2018, Daniels sued Trump in California Superior Court, claiming among other things that the NDA never came into effect because Trump did not sign it personally.[166]On March 16 Cohen, with Trump's approval, asked for Daniels' suit to be moved from state to federal court, based on the criteria that the parties live in different places and the amount at stake is more than $75,000; Cohen asserted that Daniels could owe $20 million in liquidated damages for breaching the agreement.[167]The filing marked the first time that Trump himself, through his personal attorney, had taken part in the Daniels litigation.[168]In early April 2018, Trump said that he did not know about Cohen paying Daniels, why Cohen had made the payment or where Cohen got the money from.[169]On April 30, Daniels further sued Trump for defamation.[170]In May 2018, Trump's annual financial disclosure revealed that he reimbursed Cohen in 2017 for expenditures related to the Daniels case.[171]In August 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance laws, admitting paying hush money of $130,000 and $150,000 "at the direction of a candidate for federal office", to two women who alleged affairs with that candidate, "with the purpose of influencing the election". The figures match sums of payments made to Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal.[172][173]American Media, Inc. had reportedly in 2016 bought for $150,000 the rights to a story by McDougal alleging an affair with a married Trump from 2006 which lasted between nine months to a year.[174][175][176]David Pecker (AMI CEO/Chairman and friend of Trump), Dylan Howard (AMI chief content officer) and Allen Weisselberg (chief financial officer of The Trump Organization) were reportedly granted witness immunity in exchange for their testimony regarding the illegal payments.[177][178]In response, Trump said that he only knew about the payments "later on"; Trump also said regarding the payments: "They didn't come out of the campaign, they came from me."[179]The Wall Street Journal reported on November 9, 2018 that federal prosecutors have evidence of Trump’s "central role" in payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal that violated campaign-finance laws.[180][181]Special Counsel investigation[edit]Main article: Special Counsel investigation (2017–present)The Special Counsel investigation is a United States law enforcement investigation of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and any Russian (or other foreign) interference in the election, including exploring any possible links or coordination between Trump's campaign and the Russian government, "and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."[182]Since May 2017, the investigation has been led by a United States Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, a former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI). Mueller's investigation took over several FBI investigations including those involving former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.It has been noted that Trump has experienced a high turnover with respect to the attorneys handling this matter, as well as a large number of prominent lawyers and law firms publicly declining offers to join Trump's legal team.[183][184]Attorneys known to have been approached include Robert S. Bennett of Hogan Lovells,[185]Paul Clement and Mark Filip, both with Kirkland & Ellis,[186][186]Robert Giuffra Jr. of Sullivan & Cromwell,[185]Theodore B. Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,[187]and Brendan V. Sullivan Jr. of Williams & Connolly.[186]Other firms with attorneys who have decided not to represent Trump include Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,[188]Steptoe & Johnson,[188]and Winston & Strawn.[citation needed]Former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing were briefly slated to join Trump's legal team, but withdrew their services from Trump in March 2018, citing conflicts of interest.[189]In an article describing the "unique circumstance" of Rudy Giuliani's unpaid leave of absence from Greenberg Traurig while representing Trump, possibly because of "potential conflicts", Christine Simmons said some other law firms may have turned down representing Trump in the Russia case due to "public relations headaches or business and recruitment concerns".[190]Trump has called such views a "Fake News narrative".[191][192]In a National Law Journal article, Ryan Lovelace described how white-collar lawyers must weigh the "risks" and "stigma" of joining the Trump team. He quoted a prominent defense attorney's concerns about "the constant shuffle of attorneys in and out of the president's legal team", and the possibility that an attorney could invest resources and reputation in such representation "only to find yourself on the sidelines a short time later because the president saw someone he liked better on Fox News".[192]The quoted attorney also noted "a stigma to being linked to this president" that might impact business with other clients.[192]A list of other reasons for not wanting to represent Trump is provided by Jill Abramson for The Guardian:The problem for the white-collar defense bar's crème de la crème is that Donald Trump is so blatantly the client from hell. He won't listen. He won't obey instructions. He is headstrong. He is a bully. Sometimes, he doesn't pay his bills. Most of all, it's possible that he isn't capable of discerning fact from fiction. This last foible could get any lawyer who represents him into very deep legal hot water. No one wants to get disbarred for the fame and fortune of representing President Trump. Then there's the justifiable concern over all the unforced legal errors that the defense side, led by Trump himself, has already committed.[193]An Above the Law article states that some law firms have refused to represent the President of the United States because "Donald Trump has somehow turned POTUS into a dog of a client self-respecting lawyers do not want to touch", expressing concern that "[i]f all the good attorneys — the ones with reputations to preserve and ethics to uphold — refuse to represent the president, what's left are the 'bad' attorneys. The ones who don't have the slightest idea what a moral and ethical principle is".[194]Allegations of business links to organized crime[edit]Journalists David Cay Johnston and Wayne Barrett, the latter of whom wrote an unauthorized 1992 Trump biography, have claimed that Trump and his companies did business with New York and Philadelphia families linked to the Italian-American Mafia.[195][196]A reporter for The Washington Post writes, "he was never accused of illegality, and observers of the time say that working with the mob-related figures and politicos came with the territory."[197]Trump helped a financier for the Scarfo family get a casino license, and constructed a casino using firms controlled by Nicodemo Scarfo.[198]Trump also bought real estate from Philadelphia crime family member Salvatore Testa, and bought concrete from companies associated with the Genovese crime family and the Gambino crime family.[195][196][197]Trump Plaza paid a $450,000 fine leveled by the Casino Gaming Commission for giving $1.6 million in rare automobiles to Robert LiButti, the acquaintance of John Gotti already mentioned.[29]Starting in 2003, the Trump Organization worked with Felix Sater, who had a 1998 racketeering conviction for a $40 million Mafia-linked stock fraud scheme, and who had then become an informant against the mafia.[199]Trump's attorney has said that Sater worked with Trump scouting real estate opportunities, but was never formally employed.[200]Use of bankruptcy laws[edit]Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy, but hotel and casino businesses of his have been declared bankrupt four times between 1991 and 2009 to re-negotiate debt with banks and owners of stock and bonds.[201][202]Because the businesses used Chapter 11 bankruptcy, they were allowed to operate while negotiations proceeded. Trump was quoted by Newsweek in 2011 saying, "I do play with the bankruptcy laws – they're very good for me" as a tool for trimming debt.[82][203]According to a report by Forbes in 2011, the four bankruptcies were the result of over-leveraged hotel and casino businesses in Atlantic City: Trump's Taj Mahal (1991), Trump Plaza Hotel (1992), Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts (2004), and Trump Entertainment Resorts (2009).[204][205]Trump said "I've used the laws of this country to pare debt.... We'll have the company. We'll throw it into a chapter. We'll negotiate with the banks. We'll make a fantastic deal. You know, it's like on The Apprentice. It's not personal. It's just business."[206]He indicated that many "great entrepreneurs" do the same.[204]1991[edit]In 1991, Trump Taj Mahal was unable to service its debt and filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy.[206]Forbes indicated that this first bankruptcy was the only one where Trump's personal financial resources were involved. Time, however, maintains that $72 million of his personal money was also involved in a later 2004 bankruptcy.[207]1992[edit]On November 2, 1992, the Trump Plaza Hotel filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and Trump lost his 49 percent stake in the luxury hotel to Citibank and five other lenders.[208]In return Trump received more favorable terms on the remaining $550+ million owed to the lenders, and retain his position as chief executive, though he would not be paid and would not have a role in day-to-day operations.[209]1994[edit]Trump Plaza Hotel and Casinoclosed in 2014By 1994, Trump had eliminated a large portion of his $900 million personal debt through sales of his Trump Taj Mahal and Trump Plazaassets,[210]and significantly reduced his nearly $3.5 billion in business debt. Although he lost the Trump Princess yacht and the Trump Shuttle (which he had bought in 1989), he did retain Trump Tower in New York City and control of three casinos in Atlantic City, including Trump's Castle. Trump sold his ownership of West Side Yards (now Riverside South, Manhattan) to Chinese developers including Hong Kong's New World Development, receiving a premium price in exchange for the use and display of the name "Trump" on the buildings.[211]2004[edit]Donald Trump's third corporate bankruptcy was on October 21, 2004, involving Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, the publicly-traded holding company for his three Atlantic City casinos and some others.[212]Trump lost over half of his 56% ownership and gave bondholders stock in exchange for surrendering part of the debt. No longer CEO, Trump retained a role as chairman of the board. In May 2005[213]the company emerged from bankruptcy as Trump Entertainment Resorts Holdings.[214]In his 2007 book, Think BIG and Kick Ass in Business and Life, Trump wrote: "I figured it was the bank's problem, not mine. What the hell did I care? I actually told one bank, 'I told you you shouldn't have loaned me that money. I told you the goddamn deal was no good.'"[215]2009[edit]Trump's fourth corporate bankruptcy occurred in 2009, when Trump and his daughter Ivanka resigned from the board of Trump Entertainment Resorts; four days later the company, which owed investors $1.74 billion against its $2.06 billion of assets, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. At that time, Trump Entertainment Resorts had three properties in Atlantic City: Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino (closed in 2014), and Trump Marina (formerly Trump's Castle, sold in 2011). Trump and some investors bought the company back that same year for $225 million. As part of the agreement, Trump withdrew a $100 million lawsuit he had filed against the casino's owners alleging damage to the Trump brand. Trump re-negotiated the debt, reducing by over $1 billion the repayments required to bondholders.[216][217]In 2014, Trump sued his former company to remove his name from the buildings since he no longer ran the company, having no more than a 10% stake; he lost the suit.[218]Trump Entertainment Resorts filed again for bankruptcy in 2014[219]and was purchased by billionaire philanthropist Carl Icahn in 2016, who acquired Trump Taj Mahal in the deal.[220]Campaign contributions[edit]According to a New York state report, Trump circumvented corporate and personal campaign donation limits in the 1980s – although he did not break any laws – by donating money to candidates from 18 different business subsidiaries, rather than giving primarily in his own name.[197][221]Trump told investigators he did so on the advice of his lawyers. He also said the contributions were not to curry favor with business-friendly candidates, but simply to satisfy requests from friends.[197][222]Donald J. Trump Foundation[edit]During the 2016 U.S. presidential election, media began reporting in detail on how the Donald J. Trump Foundation was funded and how Donald Trump used its funds. The Washington Post in particular reported several cases of possible mis-use, self-dealing and possible tax evasion.[18] [19] [20]Regarding the various irregularities in the Trump Foundation, former head of the Internal Revenue Service's Office of Exempt Organizations Division Marc Owens told The Washington Post: "This is so bizarre, this laundry list of issues.... It's the first time I've ever seen this, and I've been doing this for 25 years in the IRS, and 40 years total.[21]When interviewed for the Post's article, Trump spokesperson Boris Epshtein said that Trump did not knowingly violate any tax laws.[18]The office of New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman investigated the foundation "to make sure it's complying with the laws governing charities in New York."[22]Controversy over tax returns[edit]In October 2016, The New York Times published some tax documents from 1995. These documents indicate that Trump might have evaded paying taxes on as much as 916 million dollars in income at one time. Trump likely gave some of his creditors shares of his failing businesses to avoid taxes on hundreds of millions of dollars he was given in debt relief, which is illegal. Legal scholar Edward Kleinbard of the University of Southern California believes Trump forged tax documents. Trump claimed on his tax returns that he lost money, but did not recognize it in the form of canceled debts. He likely avoided paying 425 million dollars in taxes, says Steven M. Rosenthal, an attorney at the Tax Policy Center. Rosenthal claims he "borrowed other people's money and spent it in spectacular fashion." Trump might have performed a stock-for-debt swap. This would have allowed Trump to avoid paying income taxes for at least 18 years. An audit of Trump's tax returns for 2002 through 2008 was "closed administratively by agreement with the I.R.S. without assessment or payment, on a net basis, of any deficiency." Tax attorneys believe the government may have reduced what Trump was able to claim as a loss without requiring him to pay any additional taxes.[223][224]It is unknown whether the I.R.S. challenged Trump's use of the swaps because he has not released his tax returns. Trump's lawyers advised against Trump using the equity for debt swap, as they believed it to be potentially illegal.[225]Marc Kasowitz, name partner of the Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman firm, wrote a letter threatening The New York Times over publication of the 1995 documents. Kasowitz's action drew attention to the fact that the biglaw firm had done extensive legal work for Donald Trump and his businesses since at least 2001 including also bankrupt casino restructuring.[226]In early 2017, firm member and former Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman introduced Pres.-elect Trump's nominee for Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension committee.[227]Destruction of documents[edit]In June 2016, a USA Today article reported that Donald Trump and his companies have been deleting emails and other documents on a large scale,[228]including evidence in lawsuits, sometimes in defiance of court orders and under subpoena since as early as 1973.[229][230][231]In October 2016, Kurt Eichenwald published new research findings in Newsweek. The findings were first published by Paul Singer[232]on June 13, 2016[233]and gained larger attention[234][235]after a new report in Newsweek on October 31, 2016. According to Newsweek, Trump and his companies "hid or destroyed thousands of documents" involving several court cases from as early as 1973."Over the course of decades, Donald Trump's companies have systematically destroyed or hidden thousands of emails, digital records and paper documents demanded in official proceedings, often in defiance of court orders.... In each instance, Trump and entities he controlled also erected numerous hurdles that made lawsuits drag on for years, forcing courtroom opponents to spend huge sums of money in legal fees as they struggled—sometimes in vain—to obtain records."— Kurt Eichenwald, Donald Trump's Companies Destroyed Emails in Defiance of Court Orders Newsweek, October 31, 2016In 1973 Trump, his father and their company were in court for civil charges for refusing to rent apartments to African Americans. After their lawyers had delayed court requests for documents for several months, Trump, then being under subpoena, said his company had destroyed corporate records of the past six months "for saving space". In a court case beginning in 2005 against Power Plant Entertainment, LLC, an affiliate of real estate developer Cordish Cos., it was revealed that Trump's companies had deleted the data requested by court.[236]Cordish Cos. had built two American Indian[237]casinos in Florida under the Hard Rock brand and Donald Trump accused them of cheating him out of that deal. Nonetheless, Trump's lawyers had refused to instruct workers to keep all records related to the case during litigation.[229]Trump had established a procedure to delete all data from their employees' computers every year at least since 2003,[234]despite knowing at least since 2001 that he might want to file a lawsuit. Even after the lawsuit was filed, Trump Hotelsdisposed of a computer of a key witness without having made a backup of the data. A former general counsel of the Trump casino unit confirmed that all data were deleted from nearly all companies' computers annually. Trump and his lawyers claimed they were not keeping records and digital data although it was revealed that Trump had launched his own high-speed internet provider in 1998 and an IBM Domino server had been installed for emails and digital files in 1999.[229][235]