Who is Lizzie Borden?

Lizzie Borden was born in 1860 to an upper-class family in Fall River, Massachusetts. Lizzie Borden was a New England spinster who is infamous for her alleged role in a savage murder. Lizzie Borden, whose mother died when she was a youth, was extremely fond of her successful father who raised her with unconditional love.

The Gruesome Murders:

On August 4th, 1892, Andrew Borden (Lizzie’s father) returned home at around 10:45 a.m. after running his routine errands around tine. Around 11:15 a.m. Lizzie Borden discovered her father’s body savagely disfigured on the family couch.

Shortly after discovering her father’s corpse, Bridget Sullivan—the Borden’s twenty-six year old maid—discovered the dead body of Abby Borden (Lizzie’s Stepmom) in the guest bedroom. Both Andrew and Abby were killed by crushing blows to their skulls from a hatchet—Andrew Borden’s body was massacred in such a way that the incident was described as “the crime of the century.” The murders remain famous to this day because of the lack of evidence, the inconsistencies during trial, the savageness of the slayings, and the media coverage surrounding the trial.

Motives and Methods Surrounding the Murders:

The two Borden sisters grew frustrated with their father when he decided to create a will that would effectively divide the family’s assets and valuable properties among relatives. Lizzie Borden’s stepmother, whom both girls despised, was the primary beneficiary of this will. As a result of his financial success and cold demeanor, Andrew Borden was disliked around town.

Shortly before the murders took place, the entire Borden household became violently ill. Due to his unpopularity, Abby Borden believed that citizens of Fall River were attempting to poison Andrew and the Borden family. Although this seemed somewhat logical, autopsies and samplings of the family’s food revealed now traces of toxins or poisonous materials.

The Borden Trial:

Lizzie Borden was arrested and sentenced to jail on August 11, 1982. During a police investigation of the Borden household, the police found the murder weapon (a hatchet) in the family’s basement. Although no blood-soaked clothing was found at the scene, Lizzie Borden tore apart and burned a dress in the family’s kitchen stove—Borden claimed she burnt the dress because she had brushed up against fresh baseboard paint. As a result of inconclusive links to Borden, the young woman was originally acquitted from the charges.

After the trial, Emma and Lizzie Borden moved to a new home in Fall River. The girls gave Abby’s family everything they wanted to avoid further lawsuits. The two sisters eventually grew apart due to changes in lifestyle. Following a surgical procedure, Lizzie fell ill and eventually died of pneumonia on June 1, 1927. The Lizzie Borden murder case still remains a mystery. As a result of the gruesomeness and overall ambiguity enshrouding the case, several theories have arisen to elucidate upon the guilty party. One such theory pins the murders on Sullivan, while others claim that Lizzie Borden indeed was the killer.

The Background of Meyer v. Nebraska:

Meyer v. Nebraska was a landmark Supreme Court case that terminated a 1919 Nebraska Statute that restricted foreign-language education. The decision of Meyer v. Nebraska stated that the previous law violated the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

On April 9, 1919 the state of Nebraska enacted a statute, commonly known as the Siman Act. This piece of legislation imposed restrictions on both the use of a foreign language as an educational subject of study and as a medium of instruction. The act, with respect to teaching foreign languages in schools, provided that “no person, individually or as a teacher, shall, in any private, denominational, parochial or public school, teach any subject to any person in any language other than English.”

On May 25, 1920, Robert Myer, an instructor at the Zion Parochial School, taught German to a 10-year-old student. A Hamilton County Attorney entered the classroom and discovered the boy reading from the Bible in German. The attorney, upon observing this interaction, charged Meyer with violating the Siman Act. Meyer was tried and convicted—he was fined $25. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed this conviction in a 4 to 2 vote.

Meyer later appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States; oral arguments on behalf of Meyer, attributed the Nebraska law to “hatred, national bigotry and racial prejudice that was engendered by the World War.” The opposing counsel claimed that the law was enacted to have the entire population of Nebraska effectively be “American.”

The Case Profile of Meyer v. Nebraska:

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

Date of the Trial: Meyer v. Nebraska was argued on February 23, 1923

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 the State of Nebraska against Robert Meyer within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

The state of Nebraska, under the Siman Act, fined Robert Myer $25, for teaching German to a student—the Siman Act outlawed all use and teachings of foreign languages in any school setting within the state.

United States Reports Case Number: 262 U.S. 390

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: Myer v. Nebraska was decided on June 4 1923

Legal Venue of Meyer v. Nebraska: The United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William H. Taft

Verdict Delivered: The United States Supreme Court ruled that the 1919 Nebraska law, which prohibited the teaching of modern foreign language to school children, to be in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The Background of Edwards v. Aguillard:

Edwards v. Aguillard was a landmark legal case, which concerned the teaching of creationism. Edwards v. Aguillard was heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1987.

The concept of creationism arose out of modernist higher criticism and its rejection of Fundamentalist Christian movement. Teaching of evolution became a part of the public school curriculum and was primarily based on “Darwinism.” Many states rejected this principle, for they feared that “Darwinism” caused German militarism; this ideology was observed as a threat to traditional morality and religion. As a result, several states passed legislation to ban the teaching of evolution.

As the United States, during the 1960s, attempted to catch up in science, the country introduced new teaching standards that ultimately reintroduced evolution, and an overall movement away from creationism. Although attempts were made to reintroduce legal bans directed towards the teaching of evolution, the Supreme Court ruled that bands on teaching evolutionary biology are unconstitutional for they violate the establishment clause of the United States Constitution, which effectively forbids the Federal Government of the United States from advancing a particular religion. 

In the 1980s, several states attempted to introduce a curriculum based off creationism through the teaching of evolution; however, the Louisiana legislature passed a law, entitled the “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act.” The Act did not require the teaching of creationism, but did require that when evolutionary science was taught “creation science” must be taught as well.

Edwards v. Aguillard Trial:

Lower courts ruled that State’s purpose for passing the law was to promote the religious doctrine of “creation science” and in response to this belief; the State appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.

On June 19, 1987 the United States Supreme Court, in a 7-2 majority opinion, ruled that the Act contained an unconstitutional infringement in regards to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, based on the three-pronged Lemon Test.

The Case Profile of Edwards v. Aguillard:

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

Date of the Trial: Edwards v. Aguillard was argued on December 10, 1986

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: 482 U.S. 578

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: Edwards v. Aguillard was decided on June 19, 1987

Legal Venue of Edwards v. Aguillard: The United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard ruled that the teaching of creationism in public schools is unconstitutional because it attempts to advance a particular religion, and as a result, infringes on the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

What is the Mississippi Burning Case?

The Mississippi burning case refers to a series of murders that were racially charged during the civil rights movement. During 1964, a civil rights movement, called Freedom Summer, was launched to get African Americans in the southern United States registered to vote. Thousands of students and activists joined the organization to help register black register voters. This atmosphere, ultimately led to the Mississippi burning case was three civil rights workers were killed by members of the Ku Klux Klan.

The Ku Klux Klan’s Involvement in Mississippi Burning:

The activities and success of the civil rights movement enraged in an area of Mississippi where the Ku Klux Klan was prominent. Michael Schwerner, a 24-year old Jewish man from Brooklyn and 21-year old James Chaney from Mississippi, were loyal members of the Freedom Summer organization; both men worked in and around Neshoba County to register blacks to vote. In addition to registering black voters, the two men organized several black boycotts of various white-owned businesses throughout Meriden, Mississippi.

Michael Schwerner eventually became a prime target of the Ku Klux Klan; Schwerner’s success in organizing black voters prompted the Ku Klux Klan to initiate an offensive against the young man.

The Klan was extremely active in Mississippi during the 1960s; many of the members were legitimate business owners, law enforcement agents and prominent men in their respective communities. Sam Bowers, who was the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan during this time, grew an intense hatred for Schwerner.

The Ku Klux Klan initiated a plan (known as Plan 4) to kill Schwerner. On June 16, the Klan learned that Schwerner had a meeting with member at the Mount Zion Church in Longdale, Mississippi. At 10 p.m. as many members of the church left the meeting, they were met by 30 Ku Klux Klan members, each wielding a shotgun.

The Klan was misinformed to Schwerner’s whereabouts for he was actually in Oxford, Mississippi. Frustrated by the lack of Schwerner’s presence, the Klan decided to beat many of the church’s member and burn the structure to the ground. Hearing of the news, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Scwerner decided to return to Longdale, Mississippi to investigate the chaos.

The Arrest:

While on their way to Longdale, the three men were stopped by Klan member and Deputy Sheriff, Cecil Price. The driver of the car, James Chaney, was a prominent black activist in the area and hated by the Klan. Price pulled the car over, arrested and jailed the three young men for being under suspicion of setting the church on fire.

When the 3 activists went missing, the community sparked an uproar, which eventually gained national attention. Learning of the disappearances, President Lyndon B. Johnson urged J. Edgar Hoover to investigate the case.

Through the investigation, the FBI learned that the 3 men were shot and killed and buried on a 253-acre farm that possessed a dam site.

The Mississippi Burning Trial:

The FBI arrested 19 Ku Klux members that were believed to be involved in the Mississippi burning case. Within a week of the arrest, a federal grand jury in Jackson, Mississippi upheld the indictments; however, Federal Judge William Harold Cox (a die-hard segregationist) said that only two men acted under the color of state law and he threw out the other 17 indictments.

In March of 1966, the United States Supreme Court over-ruled the Cox decision and reinstated the other indictments. On October 20, 1967, the verdict was delivered to find seven Klan members guilty and eight not guilty. The other 3 indictments in the Mississippi burning case were thrown out. The lenient punishments and the overall feel of the Mississippi Burning case prompted wide-spread protest; many people in Mississippi are still enraged over the legal travesty that took place during the Mississippi burning case.

The Background of Employment division v. Smith:

The Employment Division (Department of Human Resources of Oregon) v. Smith  was a landmark United Supreme Court case that ultimately determined that the state cannot deny unemployment compensation to an individual who was fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote—a hallucinogenic—even though the drug and using the drug was part of a religious ritual. Individual states in the US have the power to accommodate such illegal acts if done in pursuit of a religious belief; however, they are not required to do so.

Employment Division v. Smith Case:

The majority opinion delivered by Justice Scalia stated that the First Amendment forbids the government from prohibiting the “free exercise of religion.” By this ruling, the government is not permitted to regulate beliefs as such, either through compelling certain beliefs or by forbidding them. This opinion ultimately stated that the government could no more ban the performance of a religious act–even if it included an illegal activity, if the act itself was for a direct religious purpose—than it could ban the religious beliefs that mandate the performance of such acts. That being said, the United States Supreme Court reversed this ruling by stating that the Free Exercise Clause allows the State to prohibit sacramental drug use, thus permitting the government to subsequently bar the individual from receiving public funding or government aid.

The Case Profile of Employment division v. Smith:

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Employment division v. Smith’:

Date of the Trial: The Employment Division v. Smith case commenced on November 6, 1989

Legal Classification: The Employment Division v. Smith tested the liberties and rights latent in the 1st Amendment and specifically those privileges that revolved around the ability to practice whichever religion the individual sees fit.

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by the state of Oregon against Alfred Smith and Galen Black within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

The case was brought to life when the state of Oregon placed on an indictment on Galen beck and Alfred Smith (members of the Native American Church) for illegally consuming peyote, which was an important aspect of a ceremony aligned with the religion.

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: The Employment Division v. Smith was decided on April 17, 1990.

Legal Venue of Employment division v. Smith: The United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Verdict Delivered: The United States Supreme Court stated that the Free Exercise Clause permits the State to prohibit sacramental peyote use and thus may deny unemployment benefits to individuals who are discharged for using the drug. These laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Who is Mumia Abu Jamal?

Mumia Abu Jamal is a former journalist and Black Panther who is most famous for the murder of Philadelphia Police Officer, Daniel Faulkner, in 1981. Although Mumia Abu Jamal was ultimately convicted of the murder, the former Black Panther has maintained innocence since the onset of the trial.

The Murder of Daniel Faulkner:

The murder of Daniel Faulkner occurred sometime between 3 and 4 a.m. in December of 1981. The altercation occurred when Officer Faulkner initiated a routine traffic stop. The car that Faulkner pulled over was being driven by Mumia Abu Jamal’s younger brother, William Cook. According to the prosecution during Abu Jamal’s trial, Cook initiated a physical altercation with Faulkner. Noticing the altercation, Mumia Abu Jamal (whose car was parked across the street) was said to have emerged nearby, shooting Faulkner in the back.

Mumia Abu Jamal’s shot only wounded Faulkner, allowing the officer to return fire. Faulkner’s return fire wounded Abu Jamal, but the former Black Panther was able to get in close range of Faulkner. From closer range, Mumia Abu Jamal fired several shots at Faulkner. One bullet struck Faulkner in the face, killing the officer on impact.

When Faulkner was initially wounded he called for backup; when the additional officers arrived on the scene, they immediately apprehended Mumia Abu Jamal and took him to jail.

Mumia Abu Jamal’s Trial

The Faulkner murder case has long been filled with controversy and inconsistencies. The complexities and ambiguity surrounding the case are due in large part to witness testimonials; several individuals who were present during the murder, stated that Mumia Abu Jamal was unconscious at the time his supposed confession was made. A number of supporters of Mumia Abu Jamal and the Black Panthers use these inconsistencies to state that Mumia Abu Jamal was set up or frames because of his political activism. That being said, there are also numerous individuals who believe that Mumia Abu Jamal was guilty of killing Officer Faulkner.

Despite the fact the murder occurred in Philadelphia, PA, the Mumia Abu-Jamal case, due to the inconsistencies of evidence and the overall feel of the trial, has garnered International intention.

Mumia Abu-Jamal was originally ultimately found guilty for the murder of Officer David Faulkner and sentenced to death; however, his sentence was ultimately overturned in December of 2001. That being said, while the case was overturned, the Judge ordered repeat sentencing at the same time. Mumia Abu Jamal appealed this ruling as did the state of Pennsylvania. Since the appeal, both sides of the David Faulkner trial have attempted to make changes to Mumia Abu Jamal’s punishment.

The Mumia Abu Jamal case has been appealed numerous times and has been heard in the state’s Supreme Court. Although the death sentence was ultimately appealed, each subsequent trial found Mumia Abu Jamal guilty of the slaying. With that in mind, new evidence has been brought to attention of the courts of Pennsylvania and the Mumia Abu Jamal case still remains somewhat ambiguous to this day.

What is Espinoage?

Espinoage is simply another term for ‘spying’; the act of espinoage is practiced and carried-out by an individual or group of individuals for the purpose of obtaining information that is considered confidential or secret. As a result of this classification, the information sought through espinoage is otherwise not obtainable or held privately (the owner or subject of the information will not permit viewership).

The act of espinoage is inherently covert and clandestine; these characteristics however, will irreparably alter if the holder of the information changes plans or initiates countermeasures once it has been acknowledged that the desired information has reached unauthorized hands.

Who engages in Espinoage?

In most instances, acts of espinoage are typically part of an institutional movement or effort, carried-out by a government body or business entity. That being said, the practice of espinoage is most commonly associated with the state of spying on potential or actual threats, primarily for military objectives or purposes.

When a business entity partakes in espinoage, the act is known as industrial spying. Within this classification exists numerous forms of espinoage, such as: Government surveillance of ordinary civilians or civil society groups, the evaluation and surveillance of social movements or individuals involved in political activism.

Effective Forms of Espinoage:

One of the most fundamental, yet effective ways, to retrieve and subsequently compile information concerning an enemy (or threat) is by infiltrating their particular organization’s ranks. This undercover job is initiated by the spy who engages in espinoage techniques. A spy. When effectively operating, can obtain all sorts of information concerning the size and strength of a potential enemy armt. Additionally, spies who engage in espinoage, can find dissidents within the enemy’s forces and encourage them to defect from the regime. When a spy engages in this effort, they can effectively obtain confidential information regarding the army’s ultimate objectives or strategy concerning the underlying situation.

In times of crisis, those who engage in espinoage can also be used to steal resources and technology from the enemy. This form espinoage is coupled into sabotage and when initiated, can effectively thwart and enemy army’s objectives and overall mission.

Targets of Espinoage:

Those who engage in espinoage are typically trained experts who target a specific field or industry. This exacting relationship enables espinoage agents to differentiate between mundane information and those documents or resources that yield an intrinsic value to the underlying organization. Correctly identifying a target or revealing some sort of illegal maneuver is the key purpose of espinoage. The broad areas concerning prospective targets are as follows:

Natural Resources: espinoage efforts will attempt to label and assess various food and energy sources or the materials that keep an organization or enemy alive.

Popular Sentiment: Agents in this field will evaluate attitudes directed towards various domestic and foreign policies. These agents are typically recruited from journalistic crews or network stations.

Military Espinoage: The agents within this field are trained by special military education facilities and subsequently posted in areas with covert identities to prevent prosecution.

Laws associated with Espinoage:

If a spy is caught conducting espinoage, they may be subjected to the host country’s laws regarding espinoage. In these instances, the spy may be deported, imprisoned or even executed. If the spy is caught in his or her home country, they may be imprisoned or executed for committing espinoage if the tactics were used to extract confidential information concerning the home country’s governing body.

What was the My Lai Massacre?

The My Lai Massacre was a brutal event in the Vietnam War where 347-504 unarmed citizens (mostly women and children) in South Vietnam were savagely murdered. The My Lai Massacre was conducted by a unit of the United States Army on March 16, 1968.

A number of the victims of the My Lai massacre were beaten, raped, tortured and some of the bodies were mutilated post mortem. The My Lai Massacre occurred in the hamlets of My Lai and the My Khe village during the Vietnam War. Originally 26 soldiers of the United States armed forces unit were initially charged for these criminal offenses, only soldier William Calley was convicted. Calley, who was convicted with the killing of 22 civilians during the My Lai massacre, was originally given a life sentence; however, the soldier only served three years under house arrest.’

When the My Lai Massacre tragedy went public, the news prompted widespread outrage throughout the globe. The My Lai Massacre also augmented the domestic opposition towards the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War.

The Operation:

On the morning of March 16, 1968 Charlie Company landed in the hamlets of My Lai where they found no enemy resistance. The troops initially figured that the opposition was hiding underground in their family’s homes; a belief that prompted the American soldiers to enter homes and start shooting. Once the first civilians were killed by indiscriminate fire, the soldiers went on attack, shooting at humans and animals of the village with heavy firearms, bayonets and grenades.

Large groups of villagers were rounded up by the 1st Platoon and executed via orders given by Second Lieutenant William Calley. In addition to these egregious orders, Calley also shot two other groups of civilians with a weapon he took form a soldier who had refused to participate in further killings.

After the initial killing executed by the 1st and 2nd Platoons, a 3rd platoon entered to deal with any “remaining resistance.” Over the next two days, the battalions were involved in additional destructions as well as the mistreatment of prisoners of war. While the majority of soldiers had not participated in these crimes, they neither protested nor complained to their superiors to halt the brutal killings.

Aftermath and Cover Up:

The total body count of the May Lai massacre was never made tangible; the memorial at the site lists 504 names, but the United States’ investigation revealed 347 deaths. The first reports of the May Lai massacre, in an effort to cover-up the savage slayings, claimed that “128 Viet Cong and 22 Civilians” were killed in the village during a fire fight.

On November 17, 1970 the United States Army charged 14 officers involved in the May Lai massacre with suppressing information related to the incident. The majority of these were later dropped; only a Bridge commander stood trial relating to the cover-up.

Captain Medina William Calley was convicted for his chief role in the May Lai Massacre on March 29, 1971. Calley was charged with premeditated murder for ordering his troops to execute the civilians. Although calley was initially sentenced to life in prison, President Richard Nixon released him from prison, pending an appeal of his sentence.

The Background of Abington School District v. Schempp:

Abington School District v. Schempp was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that declared school-sponsored bible readings (in public schools) to be unconstitutional.

The case of Abington School District v. Schempp began when Edward Schempp filed a suit against the Abington School District in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to prohibit the mandatory enforcement of a Pennsylvania state law that required public school children to hear and sometimes read portions of the bible as part of their daily education.

During the initial trial, which was heard in federal district court, the court ruled in Schempp’s favor and struck down the Pennsylvania law because it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The school district appealed the ruling and the legislature of the state amended the state law to allow children to be excused from the exercises upon the delivery of a written request.

Due to the change in the state’s law, the United States Supreme Court responded to the district’s appeal by vacating the first ruling and remanded the case back to the district courts. The district court, subsequent to this remanding, favored once again for Schempp. The School district then appealed again, and, on appeal, the case was agglomerated with a similar Maryland case initiated by Madalyn Murray.

After this consolidation, the Supreme Court of the United States decided in a unanimous 8-1 favor for Edward Schmepp. The United States Supreme Court declared that the enforcement of sanctioned and organized Bible readings in a public school system in the United States is unconstitutional.

The Case Profile of Abington School District v. Schempp:

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Abington School District v. Schempp’:

Date of the Trial: Abington School District v. Schmepp was argued in the United States Supreme Court on February 27-28 of 1963.

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: 374 U.S. 203

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: Abington School District v. Schempp was decided on June 17, 1963

Legal Venue of Abington School District v. Schempp: The United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Earl Warren

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court, in unanimous fashion, declared that organized and sanctioned Bible readings in public schools (in the United States) are unconstitutional.