Teacher:In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: sexual-explicit and non-sexual-explicit. A comment is considered sexual-explicit if it explicitly portrays sexual matters.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? Solve this instance: Comment: . . . money on lawyers (if they haven't already?).

Personally, I'd like to see that money preserved in the event the payback to the city provision kicks in at the end of L Kealoha's trial.

The thing that really interests me is this from the article, relative to the Kealohas getting a "loan": "Seabright told the couple, "the court will work with you on that. That option is there.""

What is the Judge going to do? Order some poor fool to lend the Kealohas money that will never be paid back? Is he going to promise that however the prosecution ends, he'll make sure the Kealohas can be out there earning income to pay back a loan?

Who in their right mind, unless coerced by a Federal Judge, is going to lend these people money? Isn't part of the indictment a specific allegation that their credit sucked in the first place? Before these charges were even leveled?
Student:
Non-sexual-explicit