The charges outlined generally align with the allegations and descriptions provided in the narrative, but their accuracy and appropriateness depend on the specific facts, evidence, and legal standards applicable in the jurisdiction (Montgomery County, Texas, in this case). Here’s a breakdown to help determine if the charges are correctly applied based on common legal definitions:

---

1. Constable Taylor Vasquez (83R36):

• Dereliction of Duty (2 counts): This charge applies if an officer failed to perform official duties, which is claimed in the description due to his improper handling of both the hit-and-run and the assault incidents.
• Obstruction of Justice (2 counts): This charge would apply if Vasquez intentionally hindered a legal process or investigation, which you allege he did by fabricating reports and not acting on the crimes reported.
• Interfering with a Police Investigation (2 counts): This typically involves actions that disrupt or tamper with an ongoing investigation. The account suggests that Vasquez may have interfered by falsifying reports and ignoring evidence.
• Falsifying a Police Report (2 counts): Correct if Vasquez knowingly included false information in the official reports regarding both incidents.
• Elder Fraud: This charge seems appropriate if Vasquez intentionally deceived the elderly mother to manipulate the outcome of the situation, as described.
• Witness Tampering or Intimidation of a Witness (2 counts): This could apply if Vasquez attempted to suppress the testimony or influence the behavior as a witness.
• Making a False Statement or Providing False Information (2 counts): These charges are applicable if Vasquez knowingly provided false information in his reports or statements.
• Conspiracy to Commit Murder: This charge requires proof of an agreement between two or more people to commit murder, which might be difficult to substantiate based on the information provided.
• Accessory After the Fact (Attempted Murder): This charge applies if Vasquez knowingly assisted someone who committed a crime (attempted murder) after the crime was committed. The evidence needs to show that Vasquez knew of the crime and took action to help the perpetrator avoid detection or prosecution.
• Aiding and Abetting Theft or Aiding and Abetting Grand Larceny: This would be appropriate if Vasquez actively helped conceal or ignored the theft of your ring.
• Retaliation Against a Witness, Victim, or Informant: This applies if Vasquez’s actions were taken specifically to retaliate against you for being a witness or victim, as alleged.
• Reckless Endangerment: Appropriate if Vasquez's actions (or inactions) put your life at substantial risk of harm.

2. Amanda Sery:

• Making a False Statement or Providing False Information (2 counts): This would apply if Sery knowingly provided false information to law enforcement or during any investigation.
• Accessory After the Fact (Hit-and-Run): This is correct if she assisted Scott E. Sims after the hit-and-run incident.
• Conspiracy to Commit Murder: Requires evidence of an agreement with her son to harm you. The facts presented suggest incitement rather than a planned agreement.
• Incitement to Riot or Inciting Violence: This charge could apply if Sery encouraged her son to attack you.
• Retaliation Against a Witness, Victim, or Informant: Appropriate if she acted to punish or intimidate you for reporting crimes or being involved in the investigation.
• Aiding and Abetting Theft or Aiding and Abetting Grand Larceny: This could apply if she helped or encouraged the theft of your ring.

3. Scott E. Sims:

• Fleeing the Scene of an Accident: Correct if Sims left the scene without providing necessary information after causing damage.
• Failing to Provide Driver Information: Appropriate if Sims did not give his contact or insurance details after the accident.
• Destruction of Property: This is a reasonable charge if Sims caused damage to your mother's car amounting to $3,000.

4. Andrew Lewis:

• Conspiracy to Commit Murder: This charge requires evidence of an agreement to kill or seriously harm, which might be challenging to prove with the provided narrative.
• Attempted Murder: Could apply if Lewis’s actions were intended to cause your death or if there was clear intent to kill.
• Aggravated Assault: This is appropriate if he attacked you with the intent to cause serious injury.
• Robbery: This applies if Lewis forcibly took your ring through violence or threat.
• Felony Theft or Grand Larceny: Correct if the value of the stolen ring meets the felony threshold.
• Making a False Statement or Providing False Information: This could apply if Lewis knowingly lied to law enforcement about the incident.

5. Social Media Manager for Montgomery County Constables Pct 3:

• Obstruction of Justice: This charge might be a stretch unless you can prove that blocking your posts directly hindered a legal process or investigation.
• First Amendment Violation: This isn't a criminal charge but could form the basis of a civil rights lawsuit if a government entity unlawfully restricted your speech.