Eyewitnesses Say Ex Attorney General Bryant Intentionally Killed Darcy Sheppard: Watch the shocking videos here.

            The following are videos of interviews with two eyewitnesses to the incident in which former Attorney General Michael Bryant’s killed bicyclist Darcy Sheppard.  The eyewitnesses testify that:

1)       Former Attorney General Bryant was the aggressor – he started the fight by ramming bicyclist Darcy Sheppard with his car.

2)      In a fit of Road rage – Attorney General Bryant intentionally killed Darcy Sheppard. 

Watch the videos here:

               Former Attorney General Bryant tells us that Darcy Sheppard was the initial aggressor – eyewitnesses who were there at the scene say that Bryant was the initial aggressor.  

               Bryant tells us that he was just acting out of fear.  Eyewitnesses say that he was acting in anger.

               Why does everything Ex-Attorney General Byrant told us about the incident contradict what the eyewitnesses  say happened?  How come Attorney General Bryant can’t just be honest with us and tell us what really happened?

Murder is Officially Legal in Canada: How a former Attorney General got away with killing a father of four

In an unusual move, Canadian prosecutors dropped against former Attorney General Michael Bryant.  The defendant Bryant who killed bicycle courier Darcy Allen Sheppard in a road rage incident is walking free before the trial even began[i].   

                                               Below is a picture of the victim, Darcy Sheppard. 

While driving in his convertible, former Attorney General Bryant got into an argument with Cyclist Darcy Sheppard.   During the fight, he hit cyclist Darcy Sheppard twice with his convertible.  Understandably angered, Darcy Sheppard grabbed onto Mr. Bryant`s convertible to confront him about it.  With Darcy Sheppard was still holding onto the car, Attorney General Bryant sped up and drove against oncoming traffic for half a minute.  Darcy Sheppard was killed and his killer, Attorney General Bryant, walks free without having to answer for his crimes[ii].  

The prosecutors decided to forsake the formalities of having a fair trial to judge Mr. Bryant’s guilt. . .  They decided instead to proclaim Mr. Bryant’s Innocence themselves[iii]

 The prosecutors tell us that a trial is unnecessary in this case because Darcy Sheppard was the aggressor in this case[iv].  Darcy Sheppard was riding his bike when Attorney General Bryant drove up and hit him with his car, not once but twice.   In what court of insanity does that make Darcy Sheppard the aggressor?

The prosecutors also point to evidence that Darcy Sheppard was an angry man.  Specifically there is photo, video, and eyewitness evidence that Darcy Sheppard had been an “angry man[v].”  This fails to consider the common sense fact that – anyone would be angry if you hit them over with your car twice.  It would be absurd to expect a calm response in such a situation. 

The prosecutors claim that Darcy Sheppard was a drunk and a drug addict[vi].  They presented no evidence of this.  Darcy Sheppard is the father of four children who worked as a bicycle courier to support his kids[vii]. He is sorely missed by his girlfriend, his kids, and his friends who all remember him fondly. 

In a last stab of callous disregard for human life, the  prosecutors presented Attorney General Bryant as the real victim in this case[viii].  They said Darcy Sheppard was attacked by Mr. Sheppard who was the first aggressor[ix]

To evaluate this claim let’s go through an eye witness account of what happened.  After being hit twice by Bryant’s car, Sheppard went around and grabbed onto the driver side to confront his attacker.   With Sheppard still hanging on, the car veered and mounted the curb hitting several trees and poles.  Finally he smashed against the road and his body bounced as Bryant’s car ran over him with its rear tires before sped away from the scene of the accident[x].  Who is the victim? 

[i] Former Attorney General in Canada is Cleared in Traffic Death, by Ian Austen for the  New York Times,

Article was published in the May 25, 2010 edition of the times and can be found on:


[ii] Event’s as reported by quote from prosecutors in:

Former Attorney General in Canada is Cleared in Traffic Death, by Ian Austen for the  New York Times,

Article was published in the May 25, 2010 edition of the times and can be found on:


and also,

Michael Bryant charged in Cyclist’s death, by Robyn Dolittle, Danielle Wong and Nicole Baute for the Toronto Star

Article was published on the September 2009 edition of the Star and can be found on:



[iii] This is taken from several sources but for convenience can be found on :

Former Attorney General in Canada is Cleared in Traffic Death, by Ian Austen for the  New York Times,

Article was published in the May 25, 2010 edition of the times and can be found on


[iv] See Supra text accompanying note i.

[v] The source in particular is a CBC news coverage that aired in Toronto on Tuesday, May 25th at 6:00, the same info can also be found on the following National Post article:

Darcy Allan Sheppard taunted other drivers before Michael Bryant, by Shannon Kari for the National post

Article was published on the May 25, 2010 edition of the Post and can be found on:


[vi] Id. (appearing both on CBC and the National post)

[vii] A Plea for Justice, by Mark Bonokoski for the Toronto Sun.

Article was published on the September 27th, 2009 edition of the Sun. and can be found on:


[viii] See Supra text accompanying note i.

[ix] Id.  

[x] Michael Bryant charged in Cyclist’s death, by Robyn Dolittle, Danielle Wong and Nicole Baute for the Toronto Star

Article was published on the September 2009 edition of the Star and can be found on:




Outsourcing Legal Work – A Survey Of The Good, The Bad And The Ugly

On April 29, 2009 the law firm of Smith, Dehn & Dunbar filed a motion for summary disposition that the firm touted as both historic and groundbreaking[1].  The case itself was nothing new –  it was libel action seeking damages for statements made by a television character[2].  What was exceptional about the motion is that it is the first high profile U.S. case in which a motion was researched and drafted by foreign attorneys at an offshore legal outsourcing company[3]

            Legal outsourcing occurs when a lawyer contracts with someone living abroad to perform legal services[4].   The legal services outsourced can range from document management, to preparing motions, or even developing legal strategy for litigation[5].

            There are several ways in which firms can outsource their legal work.  Under one model, known as captive-direct off shoring a firm or a corporation will create an organization in a foreign nation that performs its legal services[6].   Direct-third party is another model of outsourcing under which a corporation or law firm contracts with a third party provider located a foreign nation to provide legal services[7].  Finally there is Indirect Third Party Outsourcing – under this model, an outsourcer enters into a contract with a domestic service provider who subcontracts all or most of the work to an offshore company[8]

            Today, law-firms outsource legal work to offshore locations like India, South Korea and Australia[9].  Currently, India is poised to become the leader for legal outsourcing[10].  The Indian legal system is based on the British common law system that England and the US are[11].  Further, the Indian bar counsel reports that, as of 2007, there were almost one million lawyers enrolled with various state bar counsels.  [12]  This gives an enormous pool of talent to draw from.    

            The obvious advantage of legal outsourcing is cost.  The reduced costs of outsourced legal services can provide clients with more than just saved money.  Frank Dehn, one of the founding members of SDD global noted that outsourcing legal work has allowed them to help their clients fight frivolous lawsuits[13].   He says that often, it is cheaper to settle frivolous lawsuits than it is to fight them.  However, outsourcing to cheaper foreign lawyers allows his clients to economically litigate against frivolous lawsuits[14].   

            Outsourcing can also allow clients overcome the expenses of discovery.  This can lead to a leveling of the playing field between opposing parties with vast financial disparity.  David Thickett, founder of the outsourcing firm, Tusker explains that “one of the strategies in David and Goliath cases is, if you are the Goliath, you want to demand tremendous amounts of information from the much smaller David[15].  Then, in turn, you snow them with documents, which is financially crippling to a small company.” [16]  With foreign lawyers to economically review documents, a smaller company can effectively deal with otherwise burdensome discovery requests. 

            Today outsourcing is a growing business.  Ten of England’s top 30 law firms have outsourced back office functions or legal work to India.[17]  Companies that outsource their legal work include General motors , DuPont,and Oracle.  The American Bar Association reports that outsourcing grew by 60% between 2005 and 2008[18].  Another study by Forrester Research suggests that by 2015 there will be 4 billion dolloars worth of legal work going in India and that [19] 79 thousand legal jobs will have moved offshore.[20]  

Ethics of Outsourcing

            The growing use of legal outsourcing has prompted ethics opinions from the ABA as well as the New York, San Diego, Los Angles and Florida bar associations.  All of these ethics opinions have maintained that the key is supervision[21].  However, the opinions differed on the supervision required. 

            The San Diego held that outsourcing legal work is acceptable so long as the lawyer retains full professional control over the work[22].  The Los Angeles bar association also required the lawyer to retain full control went further to say that an outsourcing lawyer should have an understanding of the legal training and business practices where the work will be performed[23]

            The New York and American Bar Association Opinion adopted the similar rules, the attorney of record bears responsibility for the results of the legal team, including the work product of outsourcing partners.[24]  Therefore, if an outsourcing firm makes an error in the document, releases confidential information it is the attorney that will be liable.

            The Florida Opinion is narrower in the type of work that can be outsourced.   The opinion states that if an activity requires the independent judgment and participation of the lawyer, it cannot be properly delegated to a non-lawyer employee[25].   This is a turn from the other opinions which allowed for a broad range of work to be outsourced[26]

            Although the opinions were unanimous in requiring supervision, supervising outsourced work may not be an easy task.  Robert R. Simpson, a Co-chair of the ABA’s Corporate Counsel Committee points out that it’s hard enough to supervise people in your own office[27].   There are certainly legitimate questions about how well a lawyer will be able to supervise work being done an Ocean away. 


            Another concern about legal outsourcing is the ability of foreign firms to protect confidential information. On the issue of confidentiality, the San Diego and Los Angles opinions maintained that an attorney that outsources work has the duty to maintain the clients confidential information[28].  The Florida, New York and American Bar Association opinions took a stronger position holding confidential information may not be revealed to a Third party outsourcer without the clients informed consent[29].  

It was the issue of confidential information that led to the biggest challenges to legal outsourcing.    In May of 2008 Newman McIntosh & Hennessy filed suit against Indian legal outsourcer Acumen[30].  The suit alleged that since foreign individuals did not have 4th amendment protection, and foreign transmissions are being monitored by government systems, companies that outsource their work are waiving their clients fourth amendment rights[31]

            The suit was lost in a motion to dismiss – however, Joseph Hennessy, a former partner at Newman McIntosh & Hennessy maintains that any lawyer who outsources work to foreign nations has waived a client’s attorney client privilege[32]. He argues that in America, federal law prohibits communications from being intentionally intercepted by the government[33].  However, this law does not protect against interception of  overseas communications because foreign citizens who do not reside in the United States have no Fourth Amedment rights[34].  Because of this, international communications can be freely intercepted by the government, and often are intercepted by the government. 

            Currently, there have been no reported incidents of government intercepting and using  confidential information transmitted overseas.  However, the fact that confidential information sent overseas is being freely exposed to government interception is a troubling ethical issue.         

            Another concern when outsourcing legal work is the possibility of foreign companies breaching a client’s confidentiality.  Although the legal profession has not yet experienced any reported breaches of confidentiality as a result of this, the medical profession has[35].  In 2003, Lubna Baloch, who resides in Pakistan sent an e-mail to the University of California medical center in San Francisco threatening to post its confidential patient records on the internet unless she received money she was owed for transcribing their medical records[36].  With the e-mail, she included the confidential discharge summaries of two UCSF patients[37]

             The surprised workers at UCSF contacted Transcription Stat, a California based firm that had been doing their medical transcription work for over 20 years[38].  Neither the University medical center nor Transcription Stat had any knowledge that the work had been sent to Pakistan[39].  Transcription Stat had outsourced the work to a Californian transcriber who in turn outsourced to Lubna Baloch in Pakistan. 

            The problem this brings to light is the fact that outsourcing loses control.   Chris Hoofnagle, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington says “The problem is not that they’re in India, the problem is that American laws are not going to be enforced in India[40].”

            Protection of client confidential information is an important part of the legal profession.  Outsourcing legal services raises new challenges for protection of client confidentiality.  Challenges that the legal profession must adequately address if client confidential information is to be adequately protected when sent overseas.  

Client Consent

            One of the most shocking aspects of the USFC transcription case is that the client had no idea that their information had been sent overseas.  The bar opinions each addressed the requirements of Client consent when outsourcing legal work.  The opinions all held that when the client reasonably excepts that all the work will be handled by the lawyer, the lawyer has a duty to inform the client if the client’s work will be outsourced[41]

Conflicts of Interest

            Another difficult area in the outsourcing of work is the protection of confidential information.  Some outsourcing firms provide legal services for more than one domestic law firm.  This creates the possibility that an outsourcing firm will be providing services for clients who have conflicting interests.

            This is particularly a problem considering how some overseas outsourcers obtain clients.  In it’s complaint, Newman, McIntosh and Hennessey stated that Acumen had solicited them to provide legal services informed them that they already perform services to other attorneys in the area[42].  If legal outsourcing firms serve several law firms in a single area, there is a strong possibility that they will serve some clients whose interests conflicts. 

            The American Bar Association and the New York opinion held that, in order to prevent conflicts of interest a lawyer should ask the outsourcing company about their outsourcing procedures[43].  The Florida opinion also held that the attorney should take care to ensure that no conflicts exist[44].  The San Diego opinion did not directly address the issue of conflicts of interest.  Instead, they merely held that  the lawyer should make sure that anyone who assists on the case will not expose the assigning attorney to a possible violation of the rules of professional responsibility[45].

            It is a good idea to check to ensure that there are no conflicts with outsourcers – however the extent to which a lawyer can do this is limited.  Outsourcing firms have admitted that they are often required to be secretive about their client lists[46].  If outsourcing firms cannot disclose their clients – how will a lawyer be able to adequately ensure that none of the outsourcing firm’s client’s have interests that conflict with the lawyer’s client?  When outsourcing legal work, the extent to which a lawyer can ensure there are no conflicts of interests are limited.   


            Another important ethical question raised by legal outsourcing is the legal fees.  The opinions all talked the issue of what fee is reasonable for the outsourcing lawyer to charge. 

             The New York opinion holds that lawyers may not profit from outsourcing their work.  The outsourcing New York lawyer should only charge for the direct cost of outsourcing and associated overhead costs[47].   The Florida Ethics Opinion also maintained that an attorney may charge the actual costs, except that in contingency fee case, the outsourcing attorney may not charge separately for work they normally perform[48].

            The two California opinions were slightly more lax in allowing lawyers to bill for work that has been outsourced.  The Los Angeles Opinion maintained that an outsourcing lawyer must disclose all aspects of the bill to the client, including the parts that had been outsourced[49]. The San Diego opinion did not address proper billing methods[50].

            The ABA opinion took the stance that no markup are permitted if the firm decides to pass the cost of hiring a contract lawyer through to the client as a disbursement[51].  However, the opinion leaves the door open to a lawyer realizing a profit on outsourced work so long as the lawyer bills that work as a legal fee.


            Outsourcing does provide benefits, however, with these benefits also comes risks.  With the opportunities that outsourcing provides, there are also new challenges that the legal profession must meet in protecting the rights and interests of clients. 

            Bruce A. Green, member of the ABA litigation notes that the New York opinion addressed the new challenges of outsourcing by relying on rules and rulings already in place[52].  The ABA, San Diego, Los Angeles and Florida Bar[53] opinions too rely on rules and opinions in dealing with outsourcing legal work.  However, these rules did not contemplate work being sent to overseas locations.

            Sending legal work overseas raises new ethical challenges.  Challenges like of supervision of a non-lawyer who in some instances is half way around the World.  Challenges like protecting client confidential information in a foreign setting where American laws do not apply.  Challenges like adequately ensuring there are no conflicting interests when sending to work an outsourcer who is secretive about it’s client lists.  If outsourcing is here to stay, then new rules are required to meet the new challenges it poses for legal ethics.   

[1] SDD Press Release, SDD Global Drafts Summary Judgment Brief For Defense In Doe V. HBO.   

http://www.sddglobal.com/lpo_legal_process_offshoring_news.htm [hereinafter SDD Press Release].

[2] Id                                              

[3] SDD Press Release

[4]New York City Bar Association, Formal Opinion 2006 -3 ( August 2006) [Hereinafter New York].

[5] ABA Formal Opinion 08-451 (August, 5 2008). [hereinafter ABA]

[6] Bharat Vagadia, Outsourcing to India, A legal Handbook,   17  (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007).

[7] Id.


[9] Krysten Crawford, Outsourcing the lawyers, CNN Money.Com http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/14/news/economy/lawyer_outsourcing (updated October 15, 2004).

[10] Jim Middlemiss, Contract with India: Legal outsourcing, Financial Post, Friday, April 25, 2008

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=472323 (accessed May 4, 2009).

[11]Niraj Sheth and Nathan Koppel, With Times Tight, Even Lawyers Get Outsourced, Wall Street Journal, B1 (November 26, 2008).

[12] Bar counsel of India website, http://www.barcouncilofindia.org/advocates/num-advocates.php (last updated 28/11/2007).

[13] SDD Press Release

[14] Id.

[15] Jean Kwon, Tusker outsources to India; $ 25 an hour for an attorney, Austin Business Journal, (April 18, 2008) http://www.tuskergroup.com/pdf/ABJ_Article.pdf (accessed April 21, 2009).

[16] Id  

[17] Live mint Top British law firms outsourcing back office to India, http://www.livemint.com/2008/12/11174138/Top-British-law-firms-outsourc.html

(last updated December 11, 2008).

[18] Debra Cassens Weiss, Indian lawyers handling outsourced work do more than document review, ABA Law Journal, Law News Now, (may 12, 2008).  http://abajournal.com/news/indian_lawyers_handling_outsourced_work_do_more_than_document_review

[19] Anthony Lin, Legal Outsourcing To India Is Still Growing, But Still Confronts Fundamental Issues.  New York Law Journal (January 23, 2008).  [Obtained from Law.com http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1200996336809]

[20] Suzanne Barlyn, Call My Lawyer … in India, Time Magazine  (Thursday, Apr. 03, 2008) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1727726,00.html.

[21] Florida Bar Profession Ethics Opinion 07-2 (January 18, 2008) [hereinafter Florida]; Los Angeles County Bar Association Ethics Opinion No. 518 (June, 2006) [hereinafter Los Angeles]; San Diego County Ethics Opinion 2007-1. [hereinafter San Diego]; New York; ABA.

[22] San Diego. (See Footnote 21).

[23]Los Angeles.  (See Footnote 21).

[24] Conrad J. Jacoby, Esq, . ABA Opinion 08-451; ABA Outsourcing OpinionWhat it means to You as a Litigation Support Professional, Litigation Support Today

Published: February 2nd, 2009


[25] Florida.  (See Footnote 21).

[26] New York; San Diego; Los Angles; ABA .   (See Footnote 21)

[27] Steven J. Mintz, Ethics Opinions Allow Foreign Legal Outsourcing, Litigation news Onlines, July2007,  http://www.abanet.org/litigation/litigationnews/2007/july/0707_article_outsourcing.html  (accessed April 28, 2009).

[28] San Diego; Los Angeles.   (See Footnote 21).

[29] New York; ABA; Florida.    (See Footnote 21).

[30] Newman McIntosh & Hennessey v. George W. Bush, Pl Compl. Pg 2 (May 12, 2008).

[31] Id.

[32] Joseph A. Hennessey, They’re Listening, XXVII  Legal Times, 39 (September 26, 2005).

[33] Id.  

[34] U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez  494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990).

[35] David Lazarus, Looking OffshoreOutsourced UCSF notes highlight privacy riskHow one offshore worker sent tremor through medical system, San Francisco Chronicle, (March 28, 2004)  http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/03/28/MNGFS3080R264.DTL

(accessed April 27, 2009)

[36] Id.

[37] Id.

[38] Id.  

[39] Id.  

[40] David Lazarus, Credit Agencies Sending Our Files Abroad, San Francisco Chronicle, (November 7, 2003) 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/11/07/MNG4Q2SEAM1.DTL (accessed April 27, 2009).

[41] New York; ABA; Los Angeles; Florida; San Diego.  (see Footnote 21).

[42] Newman McIntosh & Hennessey v. George W. Bush, Pl Compl. Pg 2 (May 12, 2008).

[43] John M. Barkett, Ethics Of E-discovery, , copyright 2009, American Bar Association, pg 88

[44] Florida  (see Footnote 21).

[45] San Diego  (see Footnote 21).

[46] Daniel Brook, Are Your Lawyers in New York or New Delhi?, May-June 05 Legal Affairs, B1, (2005) 

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/May-June-2005/scene_brook_mayjun05.msp  (accessed May 3, 2009).

[47] New York  (see Footnote 21).

[48] ethics of e-discovery, john m barkett, copyright 2009, American Bar Association, pg 96

[49] Los Angeles.  (see Footnote 21).

[50] San Diego.  (see Footnote 21).

[51] ABA Formal Op. 08-451 Good News for US-based Independent Contract Lawyers and Hiring Attorneys

August 28th, 2008 ·, ethics of e-discovery, john m barkett, copyright 2009, American Bar Association, pg 96-97

[52] Steven J. Mintz, Ethics Opinions Allow Foreign Legal Outsourcing, Litigation news Onlines, July2007,  http://www.abanet.org/litigation/litigationnews/2007/july/0707_article_outsourcing.html  (accessed April 28, 2009).

[53] ABA; San Diego; Los Angeles; Florida.   (see Footnote 21).

Arizona’s New Immigration Bill: A Savage Journey into the Heart of the Leviathan


                  Politics can be likened to a carefully planned, highly diplomatic version of a knife fight.  In this context, Arizona’s latest immigration bill is a well aimed stab through the heart.  The only thing is the victim isn’t who everyone thinks it is.  Although much has been made of the bill’s tough stance on illegal immigrants, the brunt of the strike is not for the illegal immigrants.  It is aimed at Arizona’s local governments.

                   This may seem like a strange claim given all the press coverage about the bills harsh effects on illegal immigrants.   However, on closer inspection, the attacks on illegal immigrants aren’t as serious as they first appear –  they’re really just flesh wounds with no lasting effects.    

                  Take, for example, the provision of the bill that allows officers to “make a reasonable effort to verify a person’s immigration status if they have a reasonable suspicion that they are in Arizona illegally[1] [2].”   This provision of the bill does nothing to change the law; it merely restates the existing law.  The United States Supreme Court has already ruled that police may investigate any individual whom they reasonably suspect to be violating the law[3].   However by restating it only with regard to illegal immigrants, it has garnered a lot of media attention[4].    

                  Also take  the provision allowing police to perform a warrantless arrest of any individual whom they have probable cause to believe is in the country illegally[5].  The media has made must of this provision[6].  However, the United States Supreme Court has already ruled that warrantless arrests are legal[7].  The court has merely stated that it will scrutinize warrantless arrests heavier than arrests made with a proper warrant.  Again, this provision does nothing to change the law; it merely restates existing law in a manner that will garner media attention. 

                  A third provision that has received much media coverage is the one that states that police officers may stop a car if they have reasonable suspicion that it is being used to smuggle illegal aliens[8] [9].  The Supreme Court has already provided that police may stop a car if they reasonably suspect that the occupants are involved in illegal activity[10].  

                  Finally, there is the much written about trespassing provision of the immigration bill[11].  This provision decrees that anyone illegally present in Arizona is trespassing is liable for a 500 dollar fine[12].  This does change the existing law, and it is harsh change.  However, it will be difficult to enforce.  Courts already have trouble enforcing fines against documented persons who can afford to pay fines.  It is unlikely that undocumented immigrants most of whom do not have $500, will pay this fine. 

                   Arizona’s immigration bill is carefully crafted make it appear as if real harm is being done to Arizona’s illegal immigrants.  This is intentional; it’s the state government’s way of keeping everyone’s eye on the less popular illegal immigrant and away from its wanton battery of the more popular local governments.   

                   To understand this latest immigration bill, we must understand the vicious conflict from which it was spawned.   The fight began with conflicting state and local interests.  Arizona’s State Government has been under increasing pressure to deal with the illegal immigrant population.  Her cities, on the other hand, have large illegal immigrant populations and want good relationships with this population.   

                    Arizona’s cities instituted policies to protect illegal immigrants from Federal Immigration Laws.  These policies are not explicitly set out in any ordinance; they exist, instead, as shady unwritten rules.  For example, the congressional research service reported that the City of Chandler has policies that prevent local authorities from prosecuting illegal immigrants or revealing their identities to the Federal Government[13].  Watch-dog groups have accused Phoenix, Tucson and Mesa of having similar polices[14].      

                   Arizona’s State governments are left with the blame for the up-flow in immigration caused by the latest immigration bill is designed to combat these policies.  The bill states that it exists to encourage cooperation between the Federal Government and various levels of State Governments to fight illegal immigration[15].   These objectives are accomplished using three innocuously worded provisions that tear at the local pro-immigrant policies.  These include:

1) A provision that no local government in Arizona may have a policy that limits the enforcement of federal laws[16].  This destroys the ability of local governments to prevent their staff from prosecuting individuals under Federal Immigration laws.

 2)  A provision that no local government in Arizona may restrict their personnel from communicating with federal agencies with regard to an individual’s immigration status[17].  This destroys the ability of local governments to prevent their staff from revealing the identity of illegal immigrants to the Federal Government.

3) A provision creating a right for ordinary individuals to sue a local government that restricts Federal immigration laws[18]. This provision protects the State government from having to enforce the bill against the local governments.  It empowers ordinary individuals to enforce the bill.

            While everyone’s eyes are on the illegal immigrants.  The local government gets it.  The bill quietly dismantles every local policy that could be used to protect illegal immigrations.  While this does little to address the larger problems of how America deals with illegal immigrants; it does address the more pertinent political problem of who takes the blame. 

[1] Arizona Senate Bill 1070 at 11-1051(b).  

[2] Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration, New York Times, April 23, 2010 by Randal C. Archibald.

[3] See Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

[4] Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration, New York Times, April 23, 2010 by Randal C. Archibald.

[5] Arizona Senate Bill 1070, 11-1051(e).

[6] Arizona Signs in tough immigration bill despite criticism, BBC News, Updated Friday April 23, 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8641346.stm.

[7] See Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964).

[8] Arizona Senate Bill 1070, 12-2319(e).

[9] Arizona Immigration Enforcement Bill Stirs National Debate. Fox News,  Aril 20 2010, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/20/arizona-immigration-enforcement-stirs-national-debate/.

[10] See Michigan v. Long 463 U.S. 1032 (1983).

[11] Legalizing Racial profiling? Arizona Immigration Bill draws fire, ABC News, April 22, 2010, by Huna Kahn.

[12] Arizona Senate Bill 1070, 13-1509.

[13] CRS Report for Congress: Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law Enforcement, August 14, 2006, page 26.

[14] Sanctuary Cities USA, OJJPAC, http://www.ojjpac.org/sanctuary.asp, Steve Salvi.

[15] Arizona Senate Bill1070, Section 1. 

[16]  Id. at section 11-1051(a).

[17] Id. at 11-1051(f).

[18] Id at 11-1051(g).

Abortion: Law, Values, and the Infinite Debate

          Abortion brings up very important moral question that a society must grapple with.  Many people who are anti-abortion want to pass a law that prevents abortions.   Many people who are pro-abortion want law to facilitate abortions.  Often we as individuals expect laws to reflect our values. 

          Unfortunately there is a great abyss between values and law.  Values exist in the kingdom of the soul.  They need not compromise and a person should not compromise their values.  Values are black or white; we need only decide if we are for or against abortion, there is no middle ground. 

           Law does not exist in the kingdom of the soul.  They exist in an imperfect Earthly realm.  Laws are not for or against things.  They are only words on paper that put limitations on action or facilitate action.

          When we grapple with abortion as individuals, we need only look to our values and decide whether they support or are opposed to abortions.  Unfortunately, it is not that simple when we decide on laws regarding abortions:   

         For example, let’s consider a law that favors abortions.  When creating such a law, we must consider things like: 

1)      How will the law deal with social stigma and religious and political pressures that might prevent a woman from getting abortions?  If it does too little, it doesn’t create a meaningful right to choose.  If it does too much, it may restrict things like freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

2)      How will the law prevent scenarios in which women are pressured to get abortions?  These pressures may come from family members, or economic pressures.  If we allow for women to be pressured into getting an abortion, we haven’t created a meaningful right to choose.

          Anyone who wants a law favoring abortions cannot merely ask themselves if they want to allow abortions.  Instead, the law will demand a decision on how far we are willing to go to facilitate abortions.  How much are we wiling to restrict freedom of expression and religion?  How much are we willing to risk scenarios in which women are pressured into getting an abortion?   

          A similar story applies to a law that favors abortions.  When creating such a law, we must consider things like: 

1)      How will the law punish abortions?  The lower punishment, the less likely women are to obey the law.  However, even the harshest penalties cannot ensure 100% compliance with the law.

2)      Will the law prevent women from going to another country where abortion is legal to get one?  If so, how?  How much are we willing to restrict social freedoms like the freedom to travel in order to achieve our goal of preventing abortions?  If the law doesn’t include such restrictions, then is it really a serious attempt to protect fetal life?

            Anyone who wants a law opposing abortions cannot merely ask themselves if they want to prevent abortions.  Instead, the law will demand a decision on how far are we willing to go to prevent abortions.   How severely are we willing to punish people for abortions?  How much are we willing to restrict other freedoms like travel in order to prevent abortions?   

          We can see that in making a law, we are sometimes forced to compromise between our goals and other competing interests.  We are constantly being asked how much we are willing to compromise other social interests in order to achieve our goals. 

          We also find that law cannot perfectly mirror our values. Even the toughest anti-abortion law might not deter a determined would- be aborter.  Similarly, even the toughest pro-abortion law couldn’t erase the social stigmas attached to abortions.  It can’t also ensure that women were not pressured to get abortions. 

            Furthermore, there are many unforeseen issues that may accompany a law.  For example, in a world where abortions are legal, it may encourage unsafe sexual practices and lead to the spread of STDs.  In a world where abortions are illegal, it may encourage a thriving black market medical industry that provides illegal abortions. 

            Anti-abortion advocates do have valid points.  I do not deny their argument that it is killing babies.  Pro-abortions supporters also have valid points.  I do not deny their argument that society should not interfere with a woman’s choices.  However, both sides must remember that law is not meant to prevent every evil – nor is it here to facilitate every freedom.  The law is a limited tool that must compromise. It is also a tool that may have far reaching and unexpected consequences if it is not used with restraint. 

            Fortunately laws are not the only means of providing for a society’s values.  Institutions such as family and religion provide for a society’s values much better than laws do.  These institutions can teach values without compromising the way laws do.  They can also do so without the risk of large and unpredictable side-effects that accompany laws.

          The idea of changing the World by changing the law is appealing thought.  It seems like a quick, easy solution.  It provides a sense of power.  However, it is very foolish to believe that law can save us.  Matters of salvation must be left to God alone.  Law is not here take his place and we must be careful that we do not make an idol of the law.