The Legal Services Corp. (LSC), a quasi-governmental agency that provides legal aid for the poor, would receive $329 million in fiscal 2004 under President Bush's proposal - the same amount requested in 2003 and approved for 2002 and 2001. If approved, the hold-the-line request for LSC means its budget would erode with inflation for another year, but it could be worse for the organization: Many conservatives fought for years to do away with the LSC altogether, saying legal services attorneys were spending too much time fighting for liberal causes or pursuing politically charged cases against the government instead of representing the needy. Opposition to the organization has cooled since 1996, when Congress approved restrictions (PL 104-134) on the sorts of cases federally funded legal aid attorneys can take. (1996 Almanac, p. 5-36) Republicans cut the organization's budget deeply in 1996, but its funding has recovered slowly. Last month, in the omnibus spending bill for fiscal 2003, the Senate added a onetime increase of $19 million, which, if approved in the final version, would bring the LSC budget to $348 million. The money would go to help states, such as Michigan and Ohio, that lost money when the organization redistributed its funding based on census counts made in 2000 of poor households. If the extra money survives a conference with the House and makes it to the president's desk, LSC supporters may try to include it in the organization's fiscal 2004 funding. The federal government began funding some programs to provide legal assistance to the poor in the late 1960s; the Legal Services Corporation was created in 1974 (PL 93-355). LSC gives nearly all its money to state and local agencies, which provide civil legal assistance to those whose income is less than 125 percent of the federal poverty level - $11,075 a year for an individual and $22,625 for a family of four. Funding for legal services goes to defend needy clients in domestic violence cases, custody cases and other such matters, according to LSC. Since 1996, lawyers who receive money from Legal Services have been prohibited from such activities as lobbying legislatures, filing class-action suits, participating in political demonstrations or strikes, pursuing abortion-related litigation, representing illegal aliens or prisoners, or defending public housing tenants evicted because they were charged with selling drugs

Question: "Republicans cut which organization's budget deeply in 1996?"

Answer: "The Legal Services Corp"

Response: yes

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.

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?"

Answer: "The tenants were prohibited from entering their apartments to retrieve possessions"

Response: no

Reuters Holdings PLC said Michael Reupke resigned as general manager to pursue unspecified interests, a move the news organization termed an "amicable separation." Mr. Reupke, 52 years old and a 27-year Reuters veteran, had been the information-services company's general manager for only six months. His appointment to that post, which has senior administrative, staff and policy responsibilities, followed a several-year tenure as Reuters's editor in chief. No successor was named, and Mr. Reupke's duties will be split among three other senior Reuters executives, the company said. In a telephone interview, Mr. Reupke said his departure was for "personal reasons," which he declined to specify. "There is no business reason for my departure," nor any disagreement over policy, he added. He also rejected reports that his departure stemmed from disappointment the general manager's post hadn't also led to a board directorship at the London-based news organization. Mr. Reupke was one of three executives on Reuters's eight-person executive committee who didn't also serve on the company's board of directors. "If I were choosing the people of tomorrow, I would have chosen the people who are now on the board," he said. A Reuters spokesman said the departure reflects "no change in strategy or profits." Mark Shepperd, an analyst at UBS Philips & Drew in London, said, "I suspect (the departure) will be fairly irrelevant for the company. I would be very surprised if his departure signals any change in strategy or change in profit expectations." On London's Stock Exchange, Reuters shares rose five pence to 913 pence ($14.43). In the U.S. over-the-counter market, American depositary shares for Reuters, each representing three shares in the London market, closed unchanged at $43.875. The senior of the three executives who will assume Mr. Reupke's duties is Nigel Judah, 58, finance director and a Reuters board director. Peter Holland, 45, deputy general manager, becomes director of corporate affairs. And Patrick Mannix, 46, international technical manager, becomes director of group quality programs.

Question: "Who is the successor named following Michael Reupke's resignation?"

Answer: "Nigel Judah"

Response:
yes