Question:
"The impact of her interest and work on the provision of legal services in the state of California is immeasurable," said Patricia Philips, senior of-counsel for Los Angeles' Morrison & Foerster. "Its value is felt every day by someone who would otherwise be floundering around in the legal system yet dealing with very serious problems." Zelon's public-interest work has not gone unnoticed. Several organizations that share her commitment to public service - including the National Legal Aid & Defender Association and the State Bar of California - have honored her. Two years ago, Zelon received the Laurie D. Zelon Pro Bono Award, which had been named for her one year earlier by the Law Firm Pro Bono Project, which she'd helped found. "I didn't find out until I was standing in the great hall of the Supreme Court, surrounded by 300 people who were there, that the award had been named for me and was thereafter going to be given in my name. It's very hard to believe, for anyone who knows me well, but I was actually speechless for a period," Zelon said. Zelon faced one of the greatest challenges of her legal career, she said, when her appointment to the bench forced her to switch gears from civil litigation to criminal law. "It was a steep learning curve for me," she said. "It's a whole different set of processes. The rules are different. The case law is a whole body unto itself." Attorneys praise Zelon for her thorough understanding of the law. "She's extremely well-versed in the law," Leon said. "She's very thorough in her research," Wong said. Of course, not all attorneys concur with every decision Zelon makes in court. Some city attorneys disagree with her interpretation of evidentiary statutes when Zelon puts limits on their use of hearsay testimony. But lawyers who have appeared before her say that they appreciate her intelligent interpretation of the law. After reading the above, is "Is immeasurable" the correct answer to the question "How did Patricia Philips' work and interest make an impact on the provision of legal services in the state of California?"?

Answer:
yes

Question:
According to the radar reconstruction, American 77 reemerged as a primary target on Indianapolis Center radar scopes at 9:05, east of its last known position. The target remained in Indianapolis Center's airspace for another six minutes, then crossed into the western portion of Washington Center's airspace at 9:10. As Indianapolis Center continued searching for the aircraft, two managers and the controller responsible for American 77 looked to the west and southwest along the flight's projected path, not east-where the aircraft was now heading. Managers did not instruct other controllers at Indianapolis Center to turn on their primary radar coverage to join in the search for American 77. In sum, Indianapolis Center never saw Flight 77 turn around. By the time it reappeared in primary radar coverage, controllers had either stopped looking for the aircraft because they thought it had crashed or were looking toward the west. Although the Command Center learned Flight 77 was missing, neither it nor FAA headquarters issued an all points bulletin to surrounding centers to search for primary radar targets. American 77 traveled undetected for 36 minutes on a course heading due east for Washington, D.C. By 9:25, FAA's Herndon Command Center and FAA headquarters knew two aircraft had crashed into the World Trade Center. They knew American 77 was lost. At least some FAA officials in Boston Center and the New England Region knew that a hijacker on board American 11 had said "we have some planes." Concerns over the safety of other aircraft began to mount. A manager at the Herndon Command Center asked FAA headquarters if they wanted to order a "nationwide ground stop." While this was being discussed by executives at FAA headquarters, the Command Center ordered one at 9:25. The Command Center kept looking for American 77. At 9:21, it advised the Dulles terminal control facility, and Dulles urged its controllers to look for primary targets. At 9:32, they found one. Several of the Dulles controllers "observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed" and notified Reagan National Airport. FAA personnel at both Reagan National and Dulles airports notified the Secret Service. After reading the above, is "Looked in the wrong direction" the correct answer to the question "What was one of the mistakes besides the air traffic control search that lead to America 77 flying for 36 min. undetected?"?

Answer:
yes

Question:
Former Long Beach Executive Director Toby Rothschild, now a policy wonk in Iwasaki's outfit, agreed. "To some extent, I did look at it and say, 'We are the littlest kid on the block, and we don't want to get beat up so we need a bigger protector,'" Rothschild said. "Once we got past that, it became a real positive for the Long Beach program and Long Beach clients." But to the San Gabriel-Pomona Valley legal aid program, the positives of merging with Dudovitz's program, San Fernando Valley Neighborhood Legal Services, were never obvious. A meeting in late 1999 between Dudovitz and the San Gabriel-Pomona Valley program's board showed how little the two programs had in common and how difficult bridging the gap between their ideologies would be, Dudovitz recalled. Although no merger plans were discussed, board members at the smaller program knew of Dudovitz's preference for impact litigation over direct services. "We had a discussion about what our separate views were," Dudovitz said. "The message we got was that they wanted their program to stay as it was." Lauralea Saddick, former executive director of the San Gabriel-Pomona Valley program, said her board simply did not share Dudovitz's desire to spend money influencing social policy and participating in high-profile litigation over poverty-related issues. "Our board's philosophy was that the money given by the federal government was to help people with basic everyday needs," Saddick said. "It might take a little bit of humility to take those kinds of cases. Impact work is very important ... but what was the good of getting the law changed if no one is there to help the individual?" Before the San Gabriel program was subsumed by Dudovitz's group, it offered to merge with the Legal Aid Society of Orange County. The boards of both organizations eschewed impact litigation in favor of the 1960s model of providing direct client services. Supported by resolutions from the Pasadena, San Gabriel, Eastern and Foothill bar associations, the two programs drew up plans to merge and submitted them to the Legal Services Corp. Dudovitz won Iwasaki's backing to oppose the deal, and Legal Services Corp., the national funding source, overruled the proposed San Gabriel-Pomona Valley/Orange County merger. On Jan. 27, 2001, the federal agency awarded the San Gabriel-Pomona Valley service area to Dudovitz under the umbrella of an expanded San Fernando program, citing the location of both programs in Los Angeles, which would allow "better coordinated and more effective advocacy on county government policies." The San Gabriel-Pomona Valley program sued Legal Services Corp. to stop the takeover, claiming the federal program based the decision on favoritism for the politically active Dudovitz and the politically powerful Iwasaki. Though the federal suit accomplished little, it effectively suspended the end of the old program and the start of the new one for nearly a year. After reading the above, is "San Gabriel-Ponoma Valley program and Legal Aid Society of Orange County" the correct answer to the question "A meeting in late 1999 showed that which two programs had very little in common?"?

Answer:
no