Who is Colin Ferguson?

Colin Ferguson is a convicted mass murderer responsible for the murder and injury of commuters on the Long Island Railroad (LIRR), which took place in a single killing spree on December 7th, 1993. On the day of the murders, Colin Ferguson purchased a train ticket at New York’s Pennsylvania Station and boarded a commuter train; at approximately 5:30 pm on that day, he was reported as walking down the aisles of the train car and executing passengers at random – after he had killed 6 passengers and injured 19 others, he was subdued by 3 of his fellow passengers.

Colin Ferguson Profile

The following outlines the crimes of Colin Ferguson

Date of Birth: Colin Ferguson was born on January 14th, 1958

Residence: Flatbush, Brooklyn in the State of New York

Year of First Killing: Colin Ferguson’s only reported killings took place on a single day on December 7th, 1993

Year of Apprehension: Subsequent to being subdued by other passengers on the train, Colin Ferguson was apprehended the same day as the shootings took place

Notable Details and Personal Information: The following personal details have been considered to be contributory to the behavior and criminal actions undertaken by Colin Ferguson; in addition, these case details were made mention within Colin Ferguson’s criminal trial:

Both parents of Colin Ferguson had died within a short time of each other; as a result, Colin Ferguson was reported as being unable to obtain a sufficient work visa – this was said to have frustrated Colin Ferguson with regard to his lack of gainful employment

The defense team offering representation to Colin Ferguson stated that he had acted out of ‘Black Rage’ – a term adopted by the defense in order to associate racial motivation to Colin Ferguson’s killings

Locations of the Murders: A train passing through Garden City, which is a village on Long Island, in the State of New York

Victims:  Colin Ferguson was charged for the murder of 6 individuals and the injuring of 19 from gun shot wounds

Status as a Serial Killer: Colin Ferguson is not classified as a serial killer, but instead, he is classified as a mass murderer; this is due to the fact that he murdered upwards of 4 people in a finite period of time – a serial killer is defined as a n individual responsible for killing 3 or more people in a month’s time prior to killing again

Nature of Victims: The 6 victims of Colin Ferguson’s murder spree were commuters on the Long Island Rail Road car named as: Amy Federici, James Gorycki, Mi Kyung Kim, Maria Magtoto, Dennis McCarthy, and Richard Nettleton – all of Colin Ferguson’s victims were listed as being Long Island residents.

Punishment and Conviction: On February 17th, 1995, Colin Ferguson was convicted of the murder of 6 individuals, as well as the attempted murder of 19 other individuals; prior to his trial, he was held in incarceration without bail or bond. Colin Ferguson is currently serving his 315 and ½ year sentence at the Attica Correctional Facility in the State of New York; he is considered to be serving a natural life sentence, which presumes that he will live out the duration of his natural life incarcerated,

Who is David Berkowitz?

David Berkowitz is a serial killer who undertook his murderous spree within the State of New York; he is commonly known in accordance to his moniker ‘Son of Sam’, which he had given to himself as a result of his assumed possession by a demonic spirit named ‘Sam’ – David Berkowitz claimed that his possessing demon instructed to him to commit murders through the use of a neighborhood dog as a mouthpiece for such instruction. David Berkowitz’s murderous spree took place between July of 1976 and August of 1977; he was convicted of the murder of 6 individuals and the attempted murder of 2 other individuals.

David Berkowitz Profile

The following outlines the crimes of David Berkowitz

Date of Birth: David Berkowitz was born on June 1st, 1952 in Brooklyn, New York

Residence: 25 Pine Street; this apartment was located in Yonkers, New York

Year of First Killing: David Berkowitz’s first victim was a female named Donna Lauria on July 29th, 1976; Lauria was in a parked car at the time of her murder

Year of Apprehension: After several reports submitted by Yonkers residents, David Berkowitz was arrested on August 10th, 1977; as the time of his arrest, he had a .44 Caliber Bulldog handgun on his person – this weapon matched the ballistic reports submitted with regard to the investigation of Berkowitz’s other murders

Notable Details and Personal Information: The following personal details have been considered to be contributory to the behavior and criminal actions undertaken by David Berkowitz; in addition, these case details were made mention within David Berkowitz’s criminal trial:

David Berkowitz had continually sent correspondence letters to local newspapers and law enforcement agencies in which he demanded that the letters be printed; within the text of his letters, he undertook ranting about his demonic possession and nature of his murders

Subsequent to his arrest and conviction, a legal statute known as the ‘Son of Sam Law’ was enacted that prohibited criminals from profiting from their crimes. Prior to this law being passed, criminals were permitted to be paid for exclusive interviews, in addition to render profit from the sale of their possessions to collectors

Locations of the Murders: David Berkowitz’s murderous spree spanned many of the 5 Boroughs of New York City, including Manhattan, the Bronx, and Brooklyn

Victims:  David Berkowitz was charged for the murder of 6 individuals, as well as the attempted murder of 8 individuals

Status as a Serial Killer: David Berkowitz is classified as a serial killer due to the fact that David Berkowitz was convicted of the murder of 3 or more individuals within the duration of a single month; subsequent to these murders, David Berkowitz undertook a break or a ‘rest’ for varying durations of time prior to continuing to murder

Nature of Victims: With regard to the 6 victims murdered by David Berkowitz, 5 of them were females named as Donna Lauria, Christine Freund, Virginia Voskerichian, Valentina Suriani, Stacy Moskowitz; 1 of Berkowitz’s victims was a male named Alexander Esau –  all of his victims were seated in parked cars prior to their respective murders

Punishment and Conviction: On June 12th, 1978, David Berkowitz was sentenced to 365 years in prison without the possibility of parole; he is currently serving his life sentence in the Attica Correctional Facility in the State of New York

Who is Dennis Rader?

Dennis Rader is a convicted serial killer who is also known by his moniker ‘The BTK Killer’, which is an anagram symbolizing ‘Bind, Torture, and Kill’; this nature of killing was considered to be one that Dennis Rader employed in each of his 10 killings, which took place between the years 1974 and 1991 in the State of Kansas. Dennis Rader was known for his method of binding and subduing his victims with rope or pantyhose prior to strangling them; apart from only 1 of his murders, Dennis Rader strangled or caused the suffocation of all of his victims.

Dennis Rader Profile

The following outlines the crimes of Dennis Rader

Date of Birth: Dennis Rader was born on March 9th, 1945 in Pittsburgh, Kansas

Residence: During the time of his killing spree, Dennis Rader was presumed to reside in Wichita, Kansas

Year of First Killing: Dennis Rader’s first killing took place on January 15th, 1974; his victim was named Joseph Otero – a 38 year old male resident of Wichita, Kansas. Otero was reported to have been suffocated by Dennis Rader through the use of a plastic bag.

Year of Apprehension: Dennis Rader was arrested on February 25th, 2005 – more than a decade after his last reported murder

Notable Details and Personal Information: The following personal details have been considered to be contributory to the behavior and criminal actions undertaken by Dennis Rader; in addition, these case details were made mention within Dennis Rader’s criminal trial:

Dennis Rader began sending correspondence to local law enforcement agencies and newspapers with regard to his murderous spree; a spree that was assumed to have become a ‘cold case’ – a cold case is a term for criminal investigations that have neither been solved nor are currently undergoing investigation

Subsequent to sending correspondence to law enforcement agency in the form of an electronic file, Dennis Rader mistakenly left an electronic document bearing his first name; this prompted a reopening of the ‘BTK Killer’ investigation

Dennis Rader was not only married, but also was a father; he served as a troop leader for his son’s Cub Scout troop

Locations of the Murders: All of Dennis Rader’s murders took place in Wichita, Kansas

Victims:  Dennis Rader was charged for the murder of 10 individuals

Status as a Serial Killer: Dennis Rader is classified as a serial killer due to the fact that Dennis Rader was convicted of the murder of 3 or more individuals within the duration of a single month; his murderous spree lasted almost 2 decades with breaks or ‘rests’ being taken in the interim

Nature of Victims: The nature of Dennis Rader’s 10 victims ranged in both gender and age; he victims were named as: Joseph Otero, Julie Otero, Joseph Otero, Jr., Josephine Otero, Kathryn Bright, Shirley Vian, Nancy Fox, Marine Hedge, Vicki Wegerle, and Dolores Davis.

Punishment and Conviction: Dennis Rader was convicted of all 10 of his murders, which resulted in 10 consecutive life sentences; he is currently serving what is considered a ‘natural life’ sentence – this means that he will presumably die will incarcerated in the El Dorado Correctional Facility in the State of Kansas.

Who is Ed Gein?

Ed Gein was a murderer residing in Lacrosse County, Wisconsin who was convicted of murdering a single individual due to the fact of the severity and disturbing nature of his crimes; in addition to murder, Ed Gein was also convicted of kidnapping, illegally-exhuming corpses from local graveyards, necrophilia, and the defacement of human bodies. Although Ed Gein may be responsible for other murders, he was deemed to lack the mental capability required to stand trial.

Ed Gein Profile

The following outlines the crimes of Ed Gein

Date of Birth: Ed Gein was born on August 27th, 1906; he died of pulmonary and respiratory complications while incarcerated in the State of Wisconsin – his death took place on July 26th, 1984

Residence: Lacrosse County, Wisconsin

Year of First Killing: As previously mentioned, Ed Gein’s crimes typically involved the unlawful and illegal removal of corpses from surrounding gravesites in order to construct household structures from their anatomical parts; the only 2 murders to which Ed Gein confessed were that of Mary Hogan in 1954 and Bernice Worden in 1957 – he was convicted of Worden’s murder

Year of Apprehension: November 16th, 1957; subsequent to the disappearance of hardware store clerk Bernice Worden, Ed Gein was named as the last individual to see her as she worked in the store; law enforcement agents searched Ed Gein’s home and discovered not only Worden’s corpse, but a multitude of mutilated corpses

Notable Details and Personal Information: The following personal details have been considered to be contributory to the behavior and criminal actions undertaken by Ed Gein; in addition, these case details were made mention within Ed Gein’s criminal trial:

A barn belonging to Ed Gein’s family was reported as destroyed in a fire in 1944; upon investigation, Ed Gein’s brother was found dead presumably as a result of injuries suffered from the fire – subsequent to his conviction, speculation was set forth stating that Ed Gein may have killed his brother

Ed Gein lived alone on their family’s farm until her death in 1945; subsequent to her death, Ed Gein was reported as posthumously carrying on conversations with his mother, in addition to preserving her corpse within his home

Locations of the Murders: Lacrosse County, Wisconsin

Victims:  Ed Gein was charged for the murder of 1 individual named Bernice Worden; however, he has been linked to as many as 2 other murders – only one other to which he had confessed

Status as a Serial Killer: Ed Gein is not classified as a serial killer due to the fact that Ed Gein was not convicted of the murder of 3 or more individuals within the duration of a single month; in contrast, Ed Gein’s murders were spread apart in periods of time exceeding a single month

Nature of Victims: Ed Gein primarily participated in the illegal robbery of corpses and their subsequent mutilation and defacement; however, he was believed to have murdered individuals whom he had perceived to share a resemblance to his deceased mother

Punishment and Conviction: On November 21st, 1957, Ed Gein was found guilty for the murder of Bernice Worden that had taken place earlier that year; however, he was found to be mentally insane and unfit to not only stand trial, but retain a conviction for the murder – he was sentenced to life incarceration in the Mendota Mental Health Institute in the State of Wisconsin. He dies there on July 26th, 1984.

What is the ENRON Corporation?

ENRON was a multinational energy corporation that was founded in Omaha, Nebraska; subsequent to a merger with a Houston-based Energy Company, ENROM moved its headquarters to Houston, Texas. The ENRON Scandal is considered to be amongst the most prolific and widely-recognized examples of financial fraud cases within the history of the United States; the crimes of ENRON involved the defrauding on investors and fellow employees of monetary losses estimated to exceed $72 billion:

Investors in the ENRON Corporation were deceived into the belief that their respective investments were rendering massive amounts of financial gain as a result of the figures illustrated by the fraudulent earnings reports – this is estimated to have contributed to a financial loss exceeding $70 billion

The executives of ENRON illegally obtained these funds in lieu of funneling them back into their rightful place in the corporation’s budget; this not only led to the bankruptcy of the ENRON corporation, but also liquefied pension funding set aside for upwards of 22,000 ENRON employees – this figure is estimated to have exceeded $2 billion

The Case Profile of the ENRON Corporation

The following is a case profile of both the crimes of certain members of the ENRON Corporation, as well as a legal classification of statutory legislation associated with the case:

Foundation of the Corporation: ENRON was founded in Omaha, Nebraska on 1985.

Location of ENRON: Houston, Texas

Date of the Crime: 1985 to 2002

Criminal Charges: Financial Fraud including Securities Fraud, Wire Fraud, Embezzlement, False Reporting, Investment Fraud, and Tax Evasion:

Securities Fraud; the production of fraudulent earnings reports reporting deceitful and fallacious figures with regard to gains rendered through investments

Embezzlement; criminal activity that involving the attainment of property, assents, monies, funding, or assets belonging to a business or commercial endeavor through illegal, unlawful, and illicit means as a result of the responsibilities latent within a specific position of administration

Money Laundering; a criminal act of deliberately concealing the nature – or source – of matters involving finance, which can include revenue, income, expenses, investments, and banking

Tax Evasion; the falsification of income and earnings in order to both conceal their earnings, as well as avoid the satisfaction of taxation due

Legal Classification: The ENRON Scandal spanned both Commercial Law and Criminal Law:

Criminal Law; a legal specialty that focuses on both the prosecution and defense of criminal activity conducted in both public, private, and electronic sectors

Financial Law; a legal specialty that focuses on legislation applicable to the activity, exchange, and the circulation of monies or currency

Date of the Trial: Subsequent to an investigation led by the Securities and Exchange Commission between 2001 and 2002, the masterminds of the ENRON scandal were charged and convicted in 2004

Notable Details and Personal Information: The following personal details have been considered to be contributory to the behavior and criminal actions undertaken by ENRON; in addition, these case details were made mention within ENRON’s criminal trial:

Ken Lay; Chief Operations Officer of ENRON (1985-2002) – sentenced to a 10 year prison term

Jeff Skilling; Chief Financial Officer of ENRON (1990-2001) – sentenced to a 24 year prison term

Who is John Gotti?

John Gotti was an individual who is considered to be one of the most notorious and prolific conspirators and participants within organized criminal activity within the United States within the 20th century; he is credited as serving as the head, a term commonly referred to as ‘Boss’, of the Gambino Crime Family – the Gambino Family is one of the 5 most recognized criminal families existing within the United States:

As a member of an organized criminal operation deeply rooted in family ties, this criminal operation was structured in conjunction with a ‘familial’ hierarchical system in which its members participated

John Gotti engaged in both outwardly illegal activity, as well as clandestine criminal activity under the guise of legitimate business activity; as a result, he is reported as participating in both mob and mafia activity criminal in nature

John Gotti was given the nickname of ‘The Teflon Don’ as a result of his multiple arraignments of criminal charges taking place within the 1980’s; this title was formed as a result of the nature of the material classified as Teflon – this material provides a slick and slippery surface

The Case Profile of John Gotti

The following is a case profile of both the crimes of John Gotti, as well as a legal classification of statutory legislation associated with the case:

Date of Birth: John Gotti was born on October 27th, 1940 in The Bronx, New York; he died while incarcerated on June 10th, 2002 in the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri – he had suffered from terminal throat cancer

Residence: New York, New York

Dates of Crimes: John Gotti’s first crime is reported as a hijacking offense that took place at John F. Kennedy Airport in Queens, New York in 1968; in conjunction with his apprehension, he was charged with the illegal seizure and possession of stolen goods

Criminal Charges: John Gotti was charged with the following crimes over the course of his involvement in criminal activity:

Murder

Conspiracy

Racketeering; violating the RICO statutes

Obstruction of Justice

Tax Evasion

Money Laundering

Date of the Trial: April 2nd, 1992

Legal Venue: United States Eastern District Court of New York State

Notable Details and Personal Information: The following personal details have been considered to be contributory to the behavior and criminal actions undertaken by John Gotti; in addition, these case details were made mention within John Gotti’s criminal trial:

John Gotti was charged and convicted with the murder of 13 individuals; evidence and testimony furnished by fellow crime family member Samuel Gravano assisted in John Gotti’s conviction – Gravano was later placed in the witness protection program

While in prison, John Gotti was suspected of bribery and the conspiracy to commit murder of a fellow prisoner

Verdict Delivered: April 2nd, 1992

Punishment and Conviction: Subsequent to his conviction, John Gotti was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole; prior to his death in a Medical Facility for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri, he resided in the United States Federal Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois

The Background of Katz v. United States (1967)

In 1967, Charles Katz used a public telephone in Los Angeles, California in order to place illegal gambling bets; within his telephone call, he placed wagers to individuals in Boston and Miami. Upon placing bets over the telephone, Katz was unaware that the Federal Government – through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) – was conducting an investigation through the electronic collection of data; the FBI was both monitoring and recording the – presumably private – conversations of individuals using the pay telephone. Subsequent to the Katz’s conversation, he was arrested and apprehended by the FBI. Charles Katz cited that the FBI had violated his personal privacy and private settings:

A reasonable expectation of privacy is a legal statute requiring governmental authorities to both preserve and protect the privacy of their individual citizens and residents; this entails the prohibition of measures and acts that may be deemed as violating the private settings and personal domains belonging to private individual citizens

The Case Profile of Katz v. United States

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Katz v. United States’:

Date of the Trial: October 17th, 1967

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field regulates ‘due process’, which is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizens in the event of an arrest. Both the Federal and State government must preserve and protect an individual’s human rights and liberties; this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue violence and harm

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Charles Katz against the United Stated through the FBI within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Katz cited that the FBI lacked sufficient probable cause with regard to their investigation, which is the legal instrument in which a law enforcement agent retains the right to search personal, private expressions and property belonging to an individual

United States Reports Case Number: 389 U.S. 347

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: December 18th, 1967

Legal Venue of Katz v. United States: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Earl Warren

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Katz v. United States case:

Charles Katz; Plaintiff – Katz v. United States

The Federal Government of the United Stated; Defendant – Katz v. United States

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Katz, stating that the investigation had indeed violated his right to privacy expressed within the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court stated that within the use of a public telephone is the implicit understanding that a personal telephone call is subject to privacy; however, in the event that probable cause or sufficient reasoning for such surveillance exists, the Federal Government will be permitted to conduct such investigations.

Associated Legislation with regard to Katz v. United States: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Katz v. United States trial:

The 4th Amendment prohibits the unlawful search and seizure of resident belonging to citizens of the United States of America; this amendment also defines the rights of privacy awarded to citizens of the United States

The Background of Korematsu v. United States (1944)

During World War II, President Roosevelt passed Presidential Executive Order 9066, which mandated the placement of Japanese residents and citizens within the United States into specialized facilities in which they were excluded from the general populace. Although, in a time of peace, this Presidential order would have been perceived as a direct violation of the 14th Amendment, Roosevelt explained that the order was instated in order to prevent any type of internal sabotage or damage caused by prospective measures of Japanese sympathy – this was in conjunction to the fact that Japan was considered to be an enemy of the United States during World War II:

Military Law is a legal field classified as a subgenre of Federal Law, which typically addresses the activity and behavior of military personnel; this can include sedition, treason, war crimes, criminal offenses directed towards fellow military personnel, and – in the case of Korematsu – the substantiation of martial law during a time of war within the United States

The Case Profile of Korematsu v. United States

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Korematsu v. United States’:

Date of the Trial: December 18th, 1944

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Fred Korematsu against the United States of America within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Korematsu cited that the forced residence into excluded camps and facilities was a direct violation of human rights and civil liberties afforded to American Citizens as was expressed within the 14th Amendment

United States Reports Case Number: 323 U.S. 214

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: December 18th, 1944

Legal Venue of Korematsu v. United States: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Korematsu v. United States case:

Fred Korematstu; Plaintiff – Korematsu v. United States

The United States of America; Defendant – Korematsu v. United States

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States of America, explaining that in accordance with Military Law, the protection and preservation of the safety and wellbeing of the general citizenship of the United States outweighed individual – and personal freedoms. The ruling included the explanation that the existence of war allowed for extenuating circumstances with regard to the translation of the Constitution

Associated Legislation with regard to Korematsu v. United States: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Korematsu v. United States trial:

The 5th Amendment states that subsequent to apprehension, the notion of habeas corpus entitles all individuals to the right to a trial in a court of law; in addition, each individual is granted the right to legal representation – pertinent details regarding any allegation should be discussed with a defense attorney

The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age

The Background of Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

On September 17th, 1998, two men – John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Gardner – were arrested in the area of Houston, Texas subsequent to the discovery of law enforcement agents that the two men had been engaged in consensual anal sex; an act that was considered to be illegal within the Texas Penal Code under a statute entitled ‘Homosexual Conduct Law’ – this prohibited sexual conduct between individuals of the same sex. Law enforcement agents arrived to the home of John Lawrence after a neighbor had issued a fallacious complain that an individual within the Lawrence residence was wielding a weapon; upon arrival, the law enforcement agents were made aware that the two men were engaging in sexual activity – they were subsequently arrested

The Case Profile of Lawrence v. Texas

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Lawrence v. Texas’:

Date of the Trial: March 26th, 2003

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner against the State of Texas within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

While the nature of the search and seizure of the two individuals was never made mention within the subsequent case of Lawrence v. Texas, both Lawrence and Gardner maintained that the Homosexual Conduct Laws were direct violations of both men’s 14th Amendment Rights

United States Reports Case Number: 539 U.S. 558

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 26th, 2003

Legal Venue of Lawrence v. Texas: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Lawrence v. Texas case:

John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Gardner; Plaintiff(s) – Lawrence v. Texas

The State of Texas; Defendant – Lawrence v. Texas

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled that the ‘Homosexual Conduct Laws’ were indeed a violation of the 14th Amendment with regard to the provision of equality within statutory legislation regardless of race, gender, creed, ethnicity, and sexual orientation

Associated Legislation with regard to Lawrence v. Texas: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Lawrence v. Texas trial:

The expressed restriction stated within Chapter 21, Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code states that any nature of oral or anal sexual intercourse undertaken between two individuals of the same sex is considered to be illegal; this was also referred to as the ‘Homosexual Conduct Law’

The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age

Due process is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizen in the event of an arrest; the government must retain an individual’s human rights and liberties – this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue violence and harm Contact Texas lawyers for legal advice and assistance.