Who is Jack Abramoff?

Jack Abramoff is an individual considered to be both an entrepreneur and lobbyist who undertook relations with a wide variety of Congressmen in the United States, such as Bob Ney, J. Steven Griles, and David Safavian; furthermore, Jack Abramoff retained his seat as the Chairman for the College Republican National Committee in the early 1980s. Jack Abramoff’s political ties are presumed to be responsible for his criminal activity, which involved a multitude of political-based corruption and fraud. Although Jack Abramoff was accused of a variety of fraudulent criminal activity, perhaps the most prominent was both his participation and masterminding of fraudulent conspiracy involving the misappropriation of over $85 million in illicit earnings with regard to Native American Gaming Institutions and Casinos:

Jack Abramoff, who acted as a lobbyist for the Native American Gaming Industry, participated in the receipt of illicit and unethical donations and bribes with regard to serving as a proponent for the inception of gaming facilities

Jack Abramoff also enacted a scheme in which millions of dollars were usurped from interest-based earnings rendered from the Native American Gaming Institutions for which he had purportedly served as a lobbyist

The Case Profile of Jack Abramoff

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

Date of Birth: Jack Abramoff was born on February 28th, 1958

Date of the Crime: Jack Abramoff’s many crimes – including lobbyist scandals involving Native American Gaming Institutions and Guam – took place between the 1980s and 2002 upon his apprehension

Criminal Charges: Jack Abramoff was found guilty of the following Financial Fraud:

Conspiracy; the involvement and participation of two or more individuals with regard to the creation and arrangement of a plan to commit a crime; an individual charged with conspiracy does not necessarily need to be at the scene of the crime to be found guilty

Money Laundering; the deceptive presentation of a source of income in order to conceal its origin

Legal Classification: The domain of both Financial Law and Administrative 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

Administrative Law; the legal field in which the interactions between the Federal Government and its citizens are regulated and subject to judicial review and oversight

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: March of 2006

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

In addition to Jack Abramoff, a variety of accomplices were indicted with regard to their participation

Jack Abramoff was convicted of Tax Fraud, which is a type of fraud conducted by Jack Abramoff in which illegal, unlawful, and fraudulent activity was undertaken in order to avoid the payment of taxes

Verdict Delivered: Jack Abramoff was found guilty on November 15th, 2006

Punishment and Conviction: Jack Abramoff was sentenced to 4 years in a minimum security prison camp in Cumberland Maryland; he was released from prison on December 10th, 2010

The Background of Near v. Minnesota (1931)

J.M. Near, a Minnesota resident who undertook the publishing of his newspaper ‘The Saturday Press’ was arrested as a result of the content of his publication, which was presumed to be comprised of racist, prejudiced, and objectionable hate-speech; as a result, he was arrested in accordance with his violation of The Minnesota Gag Law of 1925, which was an ordinance passed prohibiting media considered to serve as potential to cause public disturbance and civil disorder; this classification resulted from the presumption that its content is perceived to be objectionable, incendiary, illicit, or immoral by the applicable legislative authority or Government within the jurisdiction of the State of Minnesota – however, Near dismissed charges that his publication contained any intent of criminal behavior.

The classification of public censorship with regard to necessary or unnecessary censorship exists in tandem with the notion of the public sector, which is defined as any setting in which individuals of all ages inhabit that comply with legal statutes of accepted morality and proper behavior; this differs both in accordance to locale and content

Media involving the promotion or undertaking of criminal activity, threat, malice, or the promotion of illegal and damaging ideas with the intent to cause harm

The Case Profile of Near v. Minnesota

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

Date of the Trial: January 30th, 1930

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 J. M. Near – the owner and operator of the publication titled ‘The Saturday Press’ against the State of Minnesota within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

J. M. Near cited that the State of California had violated both his 1st and 14th Amendment rights upon his arrest; he explained that his expression was neither illegal nor criminal in nature

As a result, the process under which he was arrested was in direct violation of his freedom of expression. explaining that incendiary, vulgar, or profane expression absent of criminal intent cannot be deemed as criminal acts

United States Reports Case Number: 283 U.S. 697

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 1st, 1931

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

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes

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

J. M. Near; Plaintiff – Near v. Minnesota

The State of Minnesota: Defendant – Near v. Minnesota

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Near, stating that the Minnesota Gag Law was a direct violation of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. Within their ruling, the Supreme Court distinguished the difference between incendiary expression and incendiary acts – Near’s sentiments expressed within his publication were not considered to be of immediate danger, threat, or harm.

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

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States ensures that every American citizen be granted the freedom to express themselves in accordance with applicable legislature enacted in order to preserve the safety and wellbeing of the general public; however, the right to free speech prohibits ideas, ideology, or creeds to be imposed on any individual without their respective and expressed consent

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 New Jersey v. TLO (1985)

In 1984, in the Piscataway Township High School in New Jersey, a female student who was classified as a minor at the time of her arrest was convicted of possessing illegal paraphernalia utilized for the consumption of Marijuana; the acronym ‘T.L.O’ was given to her as a result of her status as a minor. The arrest occurred after the student was caught smoking Marijuana; subsequent to her being caught, the high school administration enacted a search of both her and her belongings – as a result of the search, they discovered that she was indeed in possession of paraphernalia presumed to be drug-related:

Within the student’s trial, she maintained that the school had violated her 4th Amendment rights, which provide for the protection of citizens of the United States from unlawful searches and investigative measures undertaken by law enforcement and authoritative entities

The student maintained that the school retained no right to search her belongings, which resulted in what she had cited as an expressed violation of her privacy

The Case Profile of New Jersey v. TLO

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘New Jersey v. TLO’:

Date of the Trial: March 28th, 1984

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 ‘TLO’ against the State of New Jersey:

Although the student was caught smoking illegal narcotics on school grounds, she had maintained that her right to privacy had been violated as a result of the investigation undertaken by the school’s administration

United States Reports Case Number: 469 U.S. 325

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: January 15th, 1985

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the New Jersey v. TLO case:

The State of New Jersey was the plaintiff of the case

‘TLO’ – the acronym given to the high school student who was classified as a minor – was the defendant in the case

Verdict Delivered: The student was to remain guilty as charged; the Supreme Court stated that not only did her being caught smoking illegal narcotics serve as probable cause for the investigation, but events occurring on public school grounds are required to both be in adherence to legislation, as well as at the discretion of the institution

Associated Legislation with regard to New Jersey v. TLO: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the New Jersey v. TLO 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

Probable Cause is the legal instrument in which a law enforcement agent retains the right to search personal, private property belonging to an individual; this concept is rooted in suspicion and concern for the public well-being

The Background of Perry v. Schwarzenegger (2010)

In May of 2009, the County Court of Alameda County in the State of California had refused to allow same-sex couple Kristin Perry and Sandra Steir to receive a marriage license from the State of California, which would result in the legal recognition of their matrimony. As a result, Perry brought her case before the State Court of the State of California in order to dispute the illegality that she had maintained had befallen her and her partner. The ruling of the case rendered a verdict in favor of Perry, stating that Proposition 8 was in direct violation of her – and her partner’s – 14th Amendment Rights:

Proposition 8 was a proposed legislative Amendment to the State Constitution of California, which would remand preexisting legislature forbidding the marriage of couples of the same sex

The Equality Clause as expressed within the 14th Amendment to the Constitution allows the Federal Government to maintain authority over all legislation in the event that contrast and unfair advantage exists; this clause was imposed in order to ensure a uniform and equal legal treatment and process with regard to the general populace of the United States

The Due Process Clause as expressed within the 14th Amendment to the Constitution 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 bias and damage

The Case Profile of Perry v. Schwarzenegger

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

Date of the Trial: August 4th, 2010

Date of the Appeal: The appeal set forth by the State of California is currently pending to be heard before the Supreme Court of the United States

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 Kristin M. Perry against the State of California within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Perry claimed that Proposition 8 was in direct violation of the civil rights and liberties entitled to individual citizens desiring to engage in legally-recognized, same-sex marriage(s)

California Circuit Court Case Number: No. 10-16696

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: August 4th, 2010

Legal Venue of Perry v. Schwarzenegger: United States District Court for the Northern District of California

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

Kristin M. Perry; Plaintiff – Perry v. Schwarzenegger

The State of California; Defendant – Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Verdict Delivered:

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

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

What is Picture Editing?

Picture Editing is the procedure of altering, modifying, and adjusting visual images or pictures, which can include drawing, photographs, film cells, or paintings. Within the realm of artistry and media, Picture Editing can take place in a variety of settings absent of political or ideological methodology; in contrast, Picture Editing taking place within the realm of censorship will tend to do so in accordance to the applicable authoritative guidelines latent within a particular – or jurisdictional – institution.

What Causes Picture Editing?

Within the act of Picture Editing lies a variety of classification parameters undertaken by both the administration mandating the Picture Editing, as well as the subject matter of the picture being edited; regulations and ideologies may range in nature with regard to religion, intended audience, public – or private – guidelines of acceptability, and statutory legislation. For example, the following circumstances in which Picture Editing took place differ both in the setting of the Picture editing, as well as the authoritarian reasoning behind the Picture editing:

Picture Editing of the Photograph of Joseph Stalin and Nikolai Yezhov (1940)

In 1920, following a speech given by Vladimir Lenin, a photograph of Joseph Stalin was taken with cabinet leader Nikolai Yezhov; however, in 1940 – subsequent to Yezhov’s execution – Stalin ordered that Yezhov be removed from the photograph. Due to the fact that two versions of the photograph were in existence, this type of Picture Editing incited concern on the part of Russian citizens that arose with regard to the integrity of the information and media provided to them by the Russian leadership.

Picture Editing of the Cover of National Geographic Magazine (1982)

In 1982, National Geographic magazine had features the Pyramids of Egypt on the cover of their publication; however, prior to the pressing of the issue, editors had noticed that the distance between the two pyramids would disallow for both pyramids to fit onto the cover of the magazine. As a result, the editors enacted measures of Picture Editing that altered the natural distance between the two pyramids in order to successfully allow them to fit on the cover:

Subsequent to the release of the issue of the magazine, National Geographic found themselves to be the subject a vast array of debate with regard to both the integrity of their photojournalism, as well as the legality surrounding the Picture Editing employed

Arguments were presented questioning the authority of a magazine considered to be rooted within factual and truthful portrayal of media to be permitted to depict fallacious imagery

Critics of National Geographic argued that legislation regulating the integrity of pictures  advertised as fact should be uniform with the legislation regulating text advertised as fact

Picture Editing Legislation

The National Press Photographers Association, which is also known by its acronym NPPA, has instated a code of ethics and procedure with regard to both the process and procedure of Picture Editing; this code was enacted in order to ensure that images rendered through photojournalism would be presented in authentic and factual manners in conjunction with the subject matter.

The Background of  Lochner v. New York (1905)

Lochner v. New York is considered to be amongst the most landmark court cases occurring within the history of the United States, and arguably one of the most prominent with regard to labor laws enacted within the United States. Joseph Lochner, a baker in the city of Utica, New York, argued against the statutes imposed by New York legislature with regard to the hours permissible for bakeries to operate; this was in response to the Bakeshop Act passed in 1895, which prohibited bakeries to operate for an excess of 60 hours during a single week. Joseph Lochner contended that if both he and his staff willfully desired to work more than 60 hours, they should be permitted to do so in accordance with the tenets expressed within the 14th Amendment of the Constitution:

The time period in which Lochner v. New York took place is sometimes referred to as the ‘Lochner Era’ due to the fact that a multitude of labor legislation was argued

The Case Profile of Lochner v. New York

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Lochner v. New York’:

Date of the Trial: February 23rd, 1905

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 Joseph Lochner against the State of New York

Joseph Lochner contended that the statutes expressed within the Bakeshop Act of 1895 were unconstitutional and a direct violation of his civil liberties of ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’

United States Reports Case Number: 198 U.S. 45

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: April 17th, 1905

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Melvin Fuller

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Lochner v. New York case:

Joseph Lochner was the plaintiff in Lochner v. New York

The State of New York was the defendant in Lochner v. New York

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court found the Bakeshop Act to be in violation of the Constitution and mandated that the State of New York was unable to enforce labor stipulations with regard to operations not performed under duress or threat; furthermore, the Supreme Court had ruled that a State was unable to regulate legal employment

Associated Legislation with regard to Lochner v. New York: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Lochner v. New York trial:

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 Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Mildred Loving – an African-American woman – and Richard Loving – a Caucasian man – were married within Washington D.C. in 1958; although the two were residents of the State of Virginia, the District of Columbia allowed for the marriage of individuals who differed in race – conversely, the State of Virginia had expressly outlawed such a practice. Upon their return, the Lovings were arrested as a result of the presumed violation of statutory legislation prohibiting the marriage of individuals of differing races or ethnicities.

The Anti-Miscegenation Statue, passed in the State of Virginia in 1924, mandated the illegality of ‘inter-marriage’, which was defined as individuals of differing races engaging in matrimony

The Case Profile of Loving v. Virginia

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

Date of the Trial: April 10th, 1967

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field regulates the legal instrument of ‘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 Richard Perry Loving and Mildred Jeter Loving against the State of Virginia within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

The Lovings accused the State of Virginia of a violation of the couple’s right to marital privacy through the violation of their respective – and collective – 14th Amendment rights; although the Lovings were initially sentenced to a year in prison, the State of Virginia Court offered to suspend the sentence in the event that the Lovings departed from the State of Virginia

United States Reports Case Number: 388 U.S. 1

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 12th, 1967

Legal Venue of Loving v. Virginia: 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 Loving v. Virginia case:

Richard Perry Loving and Mildred Jeter Loving; Plaintiff(s) – Loving v. Virginia

The State of Virginia; Defendant – Loving v. Virginia

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court overturned the Anti-Miscegenation Statute claiming that it was indirect violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, which requires that every individual citizen of the United States be entitled to equal, uniform, and unbiased protection and preservation with regard to the pursuit of happiness. The Supreme Court added that not only was the statute a violation of the 14th Amendment but also to civil liberties and rights allowing for the privacy and individual freedoms entitled to American citizens

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

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

What is Mapp v. Ohio (1961)?

Mapp v. Ohio is considered to be amongst the most famous Supreme Court cases to have taken place within the 20th century; this case was an appeal to the prior arrest of Dollree Mapp by the Cleveland Police Department. Prior to Mapp v. Ohio, Dollree Mapp – the plaintiff – was arrested after police officers had entered her home in order to search for a fugitive whom Mapp was believed to be harboring; the Cleveland Police Department – following several denials for entry on the part of Mapp – were reported to have falsified a search warrant and forcibly enter the residence of Dollree Mapp.

Subsequent to their entry, the police were unable to locate the alleged fugitive; however, they discovered material within the Mapp household that was determined to be “lewd and lascivious” according to police reports – these items were described as books

Dollree Mapp was arrested upon this discovery, but was not charged; however, she maintained that not only did the police lack the grounds to arrest her, but her 4th Amendment rights had been violated, as well

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 Case Profile of Mapp v. Ohio

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

Date of the Trial: 1961

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

United States Reports Case Number: 367 U.S. 643

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of the State of Ohio

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Earl Warren

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

Dollree Mapp – the plaintiff

The State of Ohio – the defendant

Verdict Delivered: The verdict ruled that Ms. Mapp’s rights were indeed violated as a result of the failure of the Cleveland Police Departments failure to adhere to the tenets of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

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

Subsequent to the delivery of the verdict in Mapp v. Ohio, a system of due process was outlined with regard to the search and seizure procedure undertaken within an investigation of a private residence

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. If you need legal advice and assistance, contact Ohio lawyers.

The Background of Massachusetts v. EPA (2006)

The State of Massachusetts, in conjunction with a variety of other States, petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – the federal department responsible for the regulation of domestic activities affecting the stasis of the environment, which are expressed and regulated within the statutes of Environmental Law – to regulate the emissions of greenhouse gases within individual States. However, the EPA maintained that Greenhouse gasses were not deemed to be ecological matters under their respective jurisdiction.

Greenhouse Gasses are defined as gaseous substances that are released on the surface of the Earth whose chemical makeup causes them to rise into the atmosphere; however, upon their integration into the atmosphere, greenhouse gasses do not dissolve – conversely, they serve as an ad-hoc shield preventing heat from effectively escaping from the Earth’s surface, which results in an unnatural alteration of climate and temperature:

The Case Profile of Massachusetts v. EPA

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

Date of the Trial: November 29th, 2006

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 citizen petitioners – via the State of Massachusetts against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

The State of Massachusetts mandated that the EPA was in direct violation of the precepts latent within Environmental Law, which is comprised of statues expressing the regulatory procedures with regard to the mitigation of pollution and the organization of federal measures undertaken in order to protect the collective human health within the United States upon the denial to regulate Greenhouse gasses

United States Reports Case Number: 05-1120

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: April 2nd, 2007

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

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice John G. Roberts

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

Citizen Petitioners – via The State of Massachusetts – Plaintiff(s) – Massachusetts v. EPA

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Defendant(s) – Massachusetts v. EPA

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Massachusetts, explaining that in lieu of the development of the science of ecology, which at times allowed for difficulty classifying circumstances and events, Greenhouse Gases were determined to be corollary to the assessment of ecological damage or proliferation resulting from their release and respective existence within the atmosphere

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

The Clean Air Act is a conglomeration of legislation establishing regulatory legislature with regard to the preservation and protection of the stasis of the ecology

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. If you need legal advice and assistance, contact Massachusetts lawyers.