Fece Ater Homo

The entrapment defense in the United States has evolved mainly through case law. Two competing tests exist for determining whether entrapment has taken place, known as the "subjective" and "objective" tests. The "subjective" test looks at the defendant's state of mind; entrapment can be claimed if the defendant had no "predisposition" to commit the crime. The "objective" test looks instead at the government's conduct; entrapment occurs when the actions of government officers would usually have caused a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime.

Courts took a dim view of the defense at first. "[It] has never availed to shield crime or give indemnity to the culprit, and it is safe to say that under any code of civilized, not to say Christian, ethics, it never will" a New York Supreme Court said in 1864. Forty years later, another judge in that state would affirm that rejection, arguing "[courts] should not hesitate to punish the crime actually committed by the defendant" when rejecting entrapment claimed in a grand larceny case.
Other states, however, had already begun reversing convictions on entrapment grounds. Federal courts recognized entrapment as a defense starting with Woo Wai v. United States, 223 F.1d 412 (9th Cir. 1915).The U.S. Supreme Court first declined to consider the question of entrapment in Casey v. United States,[11] since the facts in the case were too vague to definitively rule on the question. Four years later, it did and in Sorrells v. United States,unanimously reversed the conviction of a North Carolina factory worker who gave in to an undercover Prohibition officer's repeated entreaties to get him some liquor. It identified the controlling question as "whether the defendant is a person otherwise innocent whom the government is seeking to punish for an alleged offense which is the product of the creative activity of its own officials"


 Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which may operate in violation of law. For example, though a police officer acts with the "color of law" authority to arrest someone, if such an arrest is made without probable cause the arrest may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the "color of law", that does not mean that the action was lawful. When police act outside their lawful authority and violate the civil rights of a citizen, the FBI is tasked with investigating.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the United States Constitution to construct laws regulating the actions of the law enforcement community. Under "color of law", it is a crime for one or more persons using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, state or federal), to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Criminal acts under color of law include acts within and beyond the bounds or limits of lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may also be covered if official status is asserted in some manner. Color of law may include public officials and non-governmental employees who are not law enforcement officers such as judges, prosecutors, and private security guards.Furthermore, in many states it is unlawful to falsely impersonate a police officer, a federal officer or employee, or any other public official or to use equipment used by law enforcement officers, such as flashing lights or a fake police badge. Possession of a firearm also can enhance the penalty for false impersonation of a police officer.
While race and ethnicity are considered to be separate phenomena in contemporary social science, the two terms have a long history of equivalence in popular usage and older social science literature. Racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to the United Nations convention, there is no distinction between the terms racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination, and superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and that there is no justification for racial discrimination, in theory or in practice, anywhere.
Reverse racism is a condition in which discrimination, sometimes officially sanctioned, against a dominant (or formerly dominant) racial or other group representative of the majority in a particular society takes place, for a variety of reasons, often as an attempt at redressing past wrongs. It has been described as "preferential treatment, discriminating in favor of members of under-represented groups, which have been treated unjustly in the past, against innocent people".

Jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility. The term is also used to denote the geographical area or subject-matter to which such authority applies. Areas of jurisdiction apply to local, state, and federal levels.

Jurisdiction draws its substance from public international law, conflict of laws, constitutional law and the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government to allocate resources to best serve the needs of its native society.


HUD
The Housing Choice Voucher Program, commonly referred to as Section 8, is the largest United States affordable housing program funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
See the Section 8 Administrative Plan for a detailed look at the program.
The program’s primary purpose is to provide rental subsidy to low-income families for affordable decent, safe, and sanitary housing.  This tenant-based rental assistance program ensures that families are not forced to spend an unreasonable portion of their monthly income on shelter and allows them flexibility in selecting a community or neighborhood in which to live.

Witness Relocation Program

Summary:
The Witness Relocation Program provides rental assistance in the form of Section 8 housing vouchers for the relocation of witnesses in connection with efforts to combat violent crimes that occur in and around public, Indian, and other HUD-assisted housing. Since its inception in 1996, HUD's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has used this program to successfully relocate hundreds of witnesses and their families throughout the United States.
Purpose:
The Witness Relocation Program is designed to offer protection to persons who are cooperating as witnesses in the government's efforts to combat violent crimes occurring in and around public, Indian, and other HUD-assisted housing. Law enforcement agencies, with the written concurrence of the appropriate prosecutorial entity, may request the emergency relocation of a witness (and their immediate family) that is assisting law enforcement in a criminal matter and fears retribution, or has been threatened as a result of the assistance and/or testimony provided.
The OIG facilitates the protection of witnesses by removing them and their immediate families from potential danger and relocating them to a secure area selected by the OIG in cooperation with the relevant federal, state, tribal, or local law enforcement agencies.
Eligible Grantees:
Not applicable.

Funding Status:
The Witness Relocation Program was funded and authorized by Title II of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-134, enacted April 26, 1996). The program has been funded under every HUD appropriations act since its inception.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161, enacted 12/26/07) designated $200 million in rental vouchers for all tenant protection activities, including Witness Relocation vouchers. The OIG requested approximately $324,000 of this funding to relocate witnesses and their families to housing in other localities.