Problem: Victims of domestic violence will have access to quality legal representation through a campaign undertaken by Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice Linda Copple Trout and corporate leaders. "Thousands of times a year, Idahoans are victims of domestic violence. The victims are often women and their children and they frequently have few resources with which to pursue their legal rights," Trout said Tuesday. "This campaign helps fill that gap in legal services for women who need the help at a time when they are in crisis." The Idaho Partners for Justice Project has already secured pledges of more than $35,000 from law firms, attorneys, corporations and individuals. The goal is $100,000. The drive to pay for free legal services will continue for the next two months. The money goes to Idaho Legal Aid Services and the Idaho Volunteer Lawyers Program. Last year, more than 5,000 petitions were filed in Idaho for protection orders in domestic violence cases. More than 12,000 victims contacted shelters or crisis hotlines. Joining Trout in the announcement was Idaho Bar Association President Fred Hoopes of Idaho Falls and Ida-West Energy Co. Chief Executive Officer Randy Hill, members of the project's executive committee. Also on hand were some women who were victims of such violence, but benefited from free legal services. Last year's campaign generated enough money and resources to help more than 450 victims. The help ranged from representation in protection order hearings to legal assistance in divorce, visitation and child support cases. The donations are tax deductible.

Question: "What kind of help did 450 victims receive last year?"

Answer: "Legal assistance"
Answer: yes

Problem: French and British Ties and Occupation: The daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella married the son and heir of the Holy Roman Emperor, Maximilian of Hapsburg. The Spanish crown duly passed to the Hapsburgs, and Spain remained in their hands until the feeble-minded Carlos II died in 1700, leaving no heir. France seized the chance to install the young grandson of Louis XIV on the Spanish throne. A rival Hapsburg claimant was supported by Austria and Britain, who saw a powerful Spanish-French alliance as a major threat. In the subsequent War of the Spanish Succession (17021713) most of the old kingdom of Aragon, including the Balearics, backed the Hapsburgs. Britain seized Gibraltarin the name of the Hapsburg claimantand retained it when the war was over. In 1708 Britain captured Menorca, and the magnificent harbor of Mahon (Mao), for the Royal Navy. England clung to it even when Bourbon forces captured Mallorca at the end of the war. Menorca changed hands between Britain, France, and Spain five more times in less than a century. Britain finally ceded the island to Spain in the year 1802, under the terms of the Treaty of Amiens. By 1805, Spain was once more aligned with France, and Spanish ships fought alongside the French against Nelson at Trafalgar. Napoleon came to distrust his Spanish ally and forcibly replaced the king of Spain with his own brother, Joseph Bonaparte. A French army marched in to subdue the country. The Spanish resisted and, aided by British troops commanded by the Duke of Wellington, drove the French out. What British historians call the Peninsular War (18081814) is known in Spain as the War of Independence. In the 19th century, practically all of Spain's possessions in the Americas broke away in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars, and the few that remained were lost at the end of the 19th century. The Balearics, further neglected, were beset with poverty and outbreaks of disease. However, toward the 20th century, things began to improve on the islands, with Mallorca reaping the rewards of successful agricultural crops and Menorca launching an export shoe industry.

Question: "What island did Britain finally cede to Spain in the year 1802?"

Answer: "Gibraltar"
Answer: no

Problem: If you beat a dog in Schuylkill County, you'll probably get a $100 fine. If you repeatedly beat a woman, you'll probably get the same fine. In 2001, county judges heard 98 Protection From Abuse cases, finding the defendant guilty in 48 percent of those cases, either after a hearing or through a technical violation or plea. Of those found guilty, the majority were ordered to pay court costs, plus a $100 fine. No defendants were ordered to pay more than a $250 fine for violating the court order. In 27 percent of the cases, the charges were dismissed or the defendant was found not guilty. In the rest of the cases, charges were withdrawn or the matter is not yet resolved. Sarah T. Casey, executive director of Schuylkill Women in Crisis, finds it disturbing that in most cases, the fine for violating a PFA is little more than the fine someone would get for cruelty and abuse toward an animal. "In most of the counties surrounding Schuylkill County, the penalties given for indirect criminal contempt are much stiffer than those in Schuylkill County," Casey said. "What kind of message are we sending those who repeatedly violate Protection From Abuse orders? That it's OK to abuse women in Schuylkill County, because you'll only get a slap on the wrist?" Under state law, the minimum fine for contempt of a PFA is $100; the maximum fine is $1,000 and up to six months in jail. Like others who are familiar with how the county's legal system does and doesn't work for victims of domestic violence, Casey believes some changes are in order. Valerie West, a manager/attorney with Mid-Penn Legal Services, with offices in Pottsville and Reading, regularly handles domestic violence cases. She finds fault with the local requirement that a custody order must be established within 30 days after a PFA is filed. West said she feels a custody order should be allowed to stand for the full term of the PFA - up to 18 months - as it does in many other counties in the state. "It places an undue burden on the plaintiff, in terms of cost, finding legal representation and facing their abuser - not to mention a further burden on the system to provide those services," West said. "It may be difficult for the parties to reach an agreement so soon after violence has occurred.

Question: "What kind of message is being sent to those who repeatedly violate Protection From Abuse orders?"

Answer: "A thank you note."
Answer:
no