Phoebe Prince was a recently arrived Irish immigrant, 15 and emotionally fragile, when high school bullying over two boys she dated apparently drove her to hang herself with a scarf in her Massachusetts home.

Tyler Clementi was an 18-year-old violinist with a bright future. He jumped off the George Washington Bridge into the Hudson River after his roommate at Rutgers University allegedly used a webcam to spy on his same-sex liaison.

They never met each other, but together their ordeals put a spotlight on the harm caused by bullying and helped strengthen laws to crack down on what had until then been treated as a rite of adolescence.

"This prosecution has also shattered the myths that bullying is just part of growing up, that it affects only a small number of kids, and that kids can work it out themselves," said David Sullivan, a prosecutor in the Prince case. "The era of turning a blind eye to bullying and harassment is over."

Last week, five teenagers charged in the Prince case admitted in court that they participated in her bullying. In plea deals with prosecutors, they received probation and were ordered to perform community service. If they successfully complete their probation, the charges will be dropped. A statutory rape charge against a sixth teenager was dropped.

The California Supreme Court has lifted legal deadlines for smokers who later develop diseases like lung cancer.

Lawyers who filed the lawsuit say Thursday's unanimous ruling in San Francisco will likely allow new smoker suits to be filed against the tobacco industry and keep alive lawsuits that may have been thrown out because of expired legal deadlines.

The case before the court involved former smoker Nikki Pooshs, who was diagnosed in 1989 with smoking-related chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in 1989 and a couple of years later with periodontal disease.

But Pooshs didn't sue the tobacco industry until she was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2003.

Cigarette makers argued the suit should be dismissed because California law gives people two years to file suit after discovery of an injury.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday limited the ability of people to combine forces and fight corporations together when they want to dispute contracts for cell phones, cable television and other services, a move consumer advocates called a crushing blow.

In a 5-4 ideological split, the high court's conservatives said businesses can block their customers from using class actions. The court said the federal arbitration law trumps state laws that invalidate contracts banning class actions.

The decision came in a dispute between AT&T Mobility and a California couple who objected to being charged around $30 in sales tax for what they were told was a free cell phone.

Businesses commonly require arbitration clauses in consumer contracts to protect them from facing their customers in court. The Supreme Court's decision means that corporations now won't need to worry about consumers, shareholders or even employees banding together and fighting them using lawsuits or arbitration, consumer groups said.

"Now, whenever you sign a contract to get a cell phone, open a bank account or take a job, you may be giving up your right to hold companies accountable for fraud, discrimination or other illegal practices," said Deepak Gupta, a Public Citizen lawyer who argued the case.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the decision would hamper the rights of consumers to be protected by state laws.

"Class actions are an effective way to ensure consumer protection, but today's opinion by the Roberts court continued to move in a direction that undermines this access to justice for hard-working Americans," Leahy said.

Every morning, they don their black robes, take their seats and listen to the pleas of a long line of immigrants desperate to stay in America. The pace is fast, the pressure intense, the stories sometimes haunting. The work, these judges say, is exhausting:

"The volume is constant and unrelenting.' ... 'There is not enough time to think.' ... 'Nobody gives a damn about us!' ... 'I know I couldn't do this job if I were not on medication for depression or did not have access to competent psychological care myself.' ... 'I cannot take this place anymore. What a dismal job this is!'"

These are the voices of immigration judges who determine the fate of tens of thousands of people every year - illegal border crossers, visa violators, refugees who flee China, El Salvador, Iran and other countries, each making a case to remain here.

These judges are at the heart of a bloated immigration court system saddled by explosive growth, a troubled reputation and a record backlog, according to one estimate, of nearly 268,000 cases. The problems are drawing increased scrutiny of a little-seen world where justice can seem arbitrary, lives can remain in limbo for years - and blame seems to be in abundance.

Gov. Chris Christie is warning that if the state Supreme Court rules the way it usually does on a long-running school funding case, it could doom other state services. The build-up about the immediate consequences gives the chapter of the court case known as Abbott v. Burke even more significance than many of the 20 other decisions in the case dating back to the 1980s.

The question now before the court is whether the state's cuts in aid to schools for the current academic year were so deep that New Jersey didn't live up to its constitutional requirement of providing a "thorough and efficient education" to all students.It's not clear when it might be decided.

But lawyers for the state and for children in the poorest school districts filed legal papers last week laying out their sides. Oral arguments are scheduled for April 20. Over the long history of the case, the state Supreme Court has consistently ruled that New Jersey should provide more money to the state's poorest school districts.

The rulings have led to free preschools for 3- and 4-year-olds in those cities. Those programs are often cited as national models and given credit for improving test scores of grade-school students. The infusion of money has also brought replacements and repairs for many of their decrepit school buildings, extra help for teaching key areas such as reading.

The INSIDER EXCLUSIVE will produce a Network TV Special on this tragic story of Injustice... detailing the "illegal activities" of the New Orleans DA's Office, and examine the "mindset" of the five Justices who sanction prosecutorial misconduct in America today.... putting innocent people in jail.

"Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere"  - as John Thompson personally tells his own "nightmare story of injustice".

Last month, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 to overturn a case John had won against Harry Connick Sr's New Orleans DA Office who oversaw his case, ruling that they were not liable for the failure to turn over that evidence — which included proof that blood at the robbery scene wasn’t John Thompson's.

The prosecutors involved in his two cases, from the office of the Orleans Parish district attorney, Harry Connick Sr., helped to cover up 10 separate pieces of evidence. And most of them are still able to practice law today.

In addition, of the six men one of John's prosecutors got sentenced to death, five eventually had their convictions reversed because of prosecutorial misconduct.

In America today......This could happen to you 

Because of that, prosecutors are free to do the same thing to someone else today.


Read John's personal NY Times Opinion essay "The Prosecution Rests, but I Can’t".... and remember "Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere".

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/opinion/10thompson.html?pagewanted=2&src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB

Please visit John's website:  Resurrection After Exoneration   http://www.r-a-e.org/home