Listed here are the 20 costs filed in opposition to Ken Paxton

Join The Temporary, The Texas Tribune’s day by day publication that brings Texas information to readers as quick as they want it.

---

Part 1, Neglect of official obligation

Part 2, Neglect of official obligation

Part 3, Neglect of Official Obligation

Part 4, Neglect of official obligation

Part 5, Neglect of official obligation

Part 6, Neglect of official obligation

Paxton violated the duties of his workplace by firing or retaliating in opposition to workers in violation of the Texas Whistleblowers Act.

Part 7, Misappropriation of Public Assets

Part 8, Neglect of official obligation

Part 9, Constitutional Bribery

Paxton engaged in bribery in violation of Article 16 of the Texas Structure, claiming he benefited from Paul’s determination to rent a girl “with whom Paxton had an extramarital affair.”

“Paul acquired favorable authorized help or particular entry from the Legal professional Normal’s Workplace,” the decision stated.

Part 10, Constitutional Bribery

Part 11, Obstruction of Justice

Part 12, Obstruction of Justice

Part 13, False statements in official information

Earlier than and after taking public workplace, Paxton made false statements to mislead the general public and public officers by mendacity to the state Securities Board throughout an investigation of Paxton’s failure to register as an funding adviser below state legislation.

Part 14, False statements in official information

Earlier than and after his tenure, Paxton made false statements about private monetary statements required by Texas legislation.

Part 15, False statements in official information

Part 16, Conspiracy and Tried Conspiracy

Whereas in workplace, Paxton conspired or tried to conspire with others to commit the crimes described in different articles.

Part 17, Misappropriation of Public Assets

The committee’s investigators discovered that Paxton diverted workers to work that benefited Paul, costing the state at the least $72,000 in taxpayer funding. He additionally employed Cammack for $25,000.

Part 18, Default

Part 19, ineligibility for workplace

The decision stated Paxton had engaged in private and public misconduct described within the articles, which “indicated that he was unfit for workplace.”

Part 20, Abuse of public belief