Question:
Nine families displaced by a fire at Alamo Hills Apartments in March filed lawsuits Wednesday against the apartment complex. They allege that the complex could have done more to protect belongings they were forced to abandon in the aftermath of the blaze. Bernard Dempsey Jr., an attorney with Western Michigan Legal Services, the group that represents the tenants, said Alamo Hills gave the displaced families very limited opportunity to remove belongings. "They were given three days to get their stuff out, and if they couldn't get moved out in three days, their stuff was discarded," Dempsey said. "Alamo Hills just threw it out." Others, he said, lost possessions to looters after the March 23 blaze, which left 78 people temporarily homeless. According to the lawsuit, the tenants were prohibited from entering their apartments to retrieve possessions and were promised that the complex would provide security. A spokesperson for PM One, the company that manages Alamo Hills, could not be reached for comment. Nine separate suits were filed in 8th District Court, which handles civil claims of less than $25,000. "We're asking for the reimbursement of the value of their property and a small amount for stress -- $3,000 on top of their out-of-pocket expenses for their lost stuff," Dempsey said. "They're not looking to get rich off this. A lot of this is simply because they were treated so badly." Dempsey said most of the tenants who filed suits still live at the apartment complex, although many are trying to find homes elsewhere. "The new apartments (they were provided) were not in very good shape. That's actually one of the claims," he said. After reading the above, is "$22,000" the correct answer to the question "What is the difference in value between the maximum of a civil claim in 8th District Court, and the reimbursement requested by Dempsey on top of out-of-pocket expenses?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
yes

Question:
With a budget of $329 million, LSC provides civil legal assistance to low-income people in every county in America, Kleiman said. NLAP was created in 1968. A decade later, the agency used a $50,000 LSC grant to buy a building at 438 King St. in Charleston and $33,000 to buy a building at 201 King St. in Georgetown, according to Erlenborn's letter to Kaynard. In 1980, NLAP used $63,000 in LSC funds to buy property at 607 Main St. in Conway, the letter said. On Nov. 14, 2001, NLAP transferred title of the King Street building in Charleston to the Charleston County Bar Association, according to county property records. The local bar paid $5 for the building, which sits between a redeveloped office building and an antique shop. The local bar said it would maintain the building for "legal services to indigent residents of Charleston County and coastal South Carolina," the records said. The King Street building appears to be vacant. Notices at the entrance direct visitors to the equal justice center on West Montague Avenue in North Charleston. E. Douglas Pratt-Thomas, president of the local bar, was not available for comment. Charleston County has not appraised the King Street property because it is tax-exempt. But Randall Goldman, managing partner of Patrick Properties, which owns buildings from 440 to 456 King St., said he estimates 438 King St. would sell for between $700,000 and $900,000. "That building, which was purchased solely with federal legal aid dollars, should be used to provide legal services for poor people in South Carolina," Kleiman said. LSC wants the title to go to the equal justice center in Charleston or "we want 100 percent of the proceeds from the sale of the building to stay in Charleston. We are not contemplating taking that money out of South Carolina," he said. Kleiman said if the neighborhood legal program in Charleston "had honored their obligation, this would not be an issue." After reading the above, is "5 years later" the correct answer to the question "How many years after its creation did NLAP buy up some property at 607 Main St. in Conway."? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
no

Question:
The explosion, while killing one of the Cossacks and seriously wounding the driver and people on the sidewalk, had only damaged the bulletproof carriage, a gift from Napoleon III of France. The emperor emerged shaken but unhurt. Rysakov was captured almost immediately. Police Chief Dvorzhitsky heard Rysakov shout out to someone else in the gathering crowd. The surrounding guards and the Cossacks urged the emperor to leave the area at once rather than being shown the site of the explosion. Nevertheless, a second young member of the Narodnaya Volya, Ignacy Hryniewiecki, standing by the canal fence, raised both arms and threw something at the emperor's feet. He was alleged to have shouted, "It is too early to thank God". Dvorzhitsky was later to write: After reading the above, is "His position" the correct answer to the question "What caused the emperor to emerge shaken but uninjured?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
no