Input: A government-sponsored coup last year made Bruce Iwasaki and Neal Dudovitz the kings of Los Angeles County's federally funded legal aid community. The two men emerged atop a changed landscape that resulted from a decade of begging for a share of shrinking public dollars doled out by an unsympathetic GOP-controlled Congress. That era was capped in 1998, when the Legal Services Corp. forced 275 legal aid providers nationwide to combine into 179. To comply with the orders from their main funding source, a new species of poverty lawyer emerged - a tech-savvy and button-down breed who swapped neighborhood walkin offices for toll-free phone lines, self-help kiosks and Internet access to legal advice. While some organizations made the dramatic change look effortless, for others, it did not come easy. And few programs provide more dramatic illustrations of the promise and pitfalls of government-funded legal services than Los Angeles County's two largest providers of federally funded services - Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles and Pacoima-based Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County. From his offices in Koreatown, Iwasaki, a soft-spoken former O'Melveny & Myers attorney, quietly engineered a merger between a much smaller Legal Aid Society of Long Beach and his program, the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles. The merger was completed peacefully within a year of the federal order. Today, the programs operate seamlessly, offering new innovations - including toll-free multilingual phone advisers, expanded hours for domestic-violence clinics, and renewed immigration and consumer aid - built on the foundations of the old program. The organization is Los Angeles' largest government-funded group, with a budget of $11 million leveraged into $40 million in legal services to the poor.

Does the response "Legal Warfare" correctly answer the question "What was the result of the change in funding?"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
***
Output: no

Input: Sam Farragut is a sociopathic business executive in Southern California who forces a team of advertising agency employees to embark on a dangerous dirtbike trip to the Baja California desert in order to compete for his business . The men are Warren Summerfield , a suicidal middle-aged ad executive who has been fired from the agency ; the straightlaced Paul McIlvain who is inattentive to his wife , and brash art designer Maxon who feels suddenly trapped after his girlfriend announces she is pregnant . There are numerous long sequences of motorcycle riding on desert backroads . Summerfield has been having an affair with McIlvian's wife . He has not told his wife that he was fired and is simply serving out his tenure at the agency while looking for a new position . His wife is actually aware of the affair . Farragut convinces the ad men to make the motorcycle journey on the pretext of looking for a location to shoot a commercial . In reality , Farragut is reckless and looking to involve the men in spontaneous edgy adventure of his own manipulation . After they leave , McIlvain's wife suspects that Summerfield is planning to kill himself for the insurance money , but she can not convince Summerfield's wife to instigate a search . The four men travel deeper into Mexico on isolated dirt roads . At one point Summerfield contemplates plunging off a cliff . After being humiliated by a young American couple in a Baja bar , Farragut tracks them down on the beach while accompanied by Maxon .

Does the response "3" correctly answer the question "How many men does Sam Farrugut travel to Mexico with?"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
***
Output: yes

Input: The violent arena of domestic abuse litigation has grown a bit more volatile here, now that a judge has decided to hold two women in contempt of court for returning to men who had been ordered to stay away from them. "You can't have it both ways," said Judge Megan Lake Thornton of Fayette County District Court in recently fining two women $100 and $200 respectively for obtaining protective orders forbidding their partners from contacting them, then relenting and contacting the men. Ruling that the order was mutually binding, Judge Thornton also cited the men for contempt. "It drives me nuts when people just decide to do whatever they want," said Judge Thornton, who is experienced in the state's thick domestic abuse docket, which produces close to 30,000 emergency protective orders a year. Kentucky officials say there is a virtual epidemic of abusive relationships in the state. Judge Thornton's ruling has alarmed advocates for battered women, who plan to appeal it. The advocates say the finding goes beyond existing law and is unrealistic because some renewed contacts often prove unavoidable in domestic abuse cases, which involve economic and family dependency and other complications of daily living. The state office on domestic violence has pointedly agreed, warning that the ruling could cause abused women to hesitate in bringing their plight before the courts for fear of being chastised for their trouble. "The reality is it's easy to say they should never have contact," said Sherry Currens, executive director of the Kentucky Domestic Violence Association, an advocacy and legal protection group. "But we're talking about people in long-term relationships. They may have children in common. It's pretty hard to say, 'Never speak again.' People have financial difficulties. They may love the partner. It's not an easy thing." But Judge Thornton declared in court, "When these orders are entered, you don't just do whatever you damn well please and ignore them." The ruling stunned Cindra Walker, the lawyer for the two women, who is with Central Kentucky Legal Services, which represents many of the thousands of indigent women caught in abusive relationships. "For over five years, I've been in court practically every day on these abuse cases," Ms. Walker said, "and I've never before had a victim threatened with contempt."

Does the response "The ruling to hold two women in contempt of court for returning to men who had been ordered to stay away from them" correctly answer the question "What ruling made by Judge Thornton are advocates for battered women planning to appeal?"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
***
Output: yes

Input: Captured Moments by Will Shetterly I remember Papa's stopbox, a teal blue Tiempo Capturado that Mama brought home for his birthday. It was huge and inefficient, and she should never have spent so many pesos on a toy, but Papa would not let her return it. He used it to preserve baby tomatoes, cucumbers, and strawberries in translucent cubes that he stored in the pantry for spring-time meals in the middle of winter. Mama kept her mink jacket, a family hand-me-down, safe from time in a stopbox, and lent the capturador to my uncle for his stamp collection. Sometimes they would let us little ones to seal a treasured toy or a last piece of birthday cake until we begged them for its release, usually a few hours after enclosing it. When my father died, a year after my mother, my sisters and I cleaned out their apartment. We found our baby shoes protected in stopboxes. I took mine home, where they sat above my computer while I worked on my first play. One night when I did not believe love had ever existed for anyone, I used my own capturador, a sleek titanium Sanyo Tardar Ahora, to undo the stopbox. Bringing my face close to the shoes, I breathed deeply of air that my parents had trapped while closing up that symbol of their love for me. The instant would have been improved had my baby shoes been cleaned before they were encased. But as soon as I coughed, I laughed, and I did not try to kill myself that night.

Does the response "Baby shoes had not been cleaned before they were encased" correctly answer the question "What reason did the author give for coughing after breathing in the air from the stopbox the baby shoes were stored in?"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
***
Output:
yes