When single father Thurman Williams needed help filling out papers in a custody suit recently, he didn't look to his lawyer for help. He walked to a computerized kiosk at the Lamoreaux Justice Center in Orange and started tapping the keys. As part of a legal experiment, litigants without lawyers across California are using computerized video kiosks to prepare common court filings and seek basic legal advice. The kiosk used by Williams is part of a statewide effort to cope with a flood of litigants who cannot afford or refuse to hire lawyers. Court officials statewide fear the number of self-represented litigants has reached crisis levels and threatens to clog court calendars. Like Williams, more than 6,000 Orange County litigants have initiated court actions on I-CAN! kiosks or accessed the programs on the Internet, using home computers. Similar programs are operating in Sacramento, San Diego and Ventura. A recent study of the kiosks' first 18 months of operation concluded it is too soon to tell if the system will relieve pressure on court calendars. But the report, by UC Irvine's School of Social Ecology, said users were overwhelmingly positive about the free legal assistance. "It's made life a lot easier for me," Williams said. "It's helped keep me from going to the poorhouse." The 29-year-old Orange resident was directed to a kiosk in the Lamoreaux Justice Center by court staff. After putting on headphones and following the directions of a videotaped instructor, Williams filled out a quarter-inch stack of paternity and custody documents. The exercise took 20 minutes; it would have cost him about $800 if he had relied on a lawyer, he said. "It was a lot easier than I thought." Whether they can't afford a lawyer or just want to save money, more Californians are going to court without a lawyer. "I'm just amazed at the numbers," said Commissioner Salvador Sarmiento, who hears between 40 and 90 child-support cases a day in Lamoreaux Justice Center.

Question: "How old is Williams?"

Response: "In his 20's"
OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

A: no

Problem: Surviving being shot and stabbed at the end of the previous film , the stepfather has been institutionalized in Puget Sound , Washington since , spending his time building model houses in the workshop . Assigned a new doctor named Joseph Danvers the stepfather begins confiding in him to gain his trust , ultimately murdering the doctor during a session by stabbing him in the neck with a blade smuggled out of the workshop . After killing Danvers the stepfather beats a suspicious guard named Ralph Smith to death with his own nightstick with only two strikes and takes his uniform , successfully sneaking out of the sanitarium . Checking into a hotel after robbing and murdering a traveling salesman the stepfather alters his appearance , takes the name Doctor Gene F. Clifford from the newspaper obituaries and travels to Palm Meadows , Los Angeles after seeing an ad for it on an episode of Dream House . Gene arrives in Palm Meadows and meets real estate agent Carol Grayland and leases a house just across the street from her and her son Todd . During a session with the wives of the neighborhood , Gene learns Carol 's dentist husband , Philip had absconded with his mistress the previous year . Gene begins courting Carol , eventually winning over her and Todd . Gene 's plan to marry Carol is soon complicated when Phil returns , wanting to reconcile with his wife . Needing Phil out of the way , Gene persuades Carol to send Phil over for a meeting , during which Gene kills him with a broken bottle , covering up Phil 's disappearance afterward by arranging it so that it looks as though he simply ran off again .

Question: "Who did the stepfather murder after he killed the new doctor, Joseph Danvers?"

Answer: "Doctor Gene F. Clifford"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Answer: no

Input: I had drunk too much, I confess, though we all had. Somehow, Tasha and I began to argue the worth of Solevgrad jazz, as inconsequential a topic as I can imagine. She had studied it in school, so she thought herself as an expert. I once had a neighbor who played it constantly, loudly, and badly, so I thought I knew it better. Malaquez tried to mediate, but I saw him as siding with Tasha. So, I think, did she. The subject shifted from music to Tasha's obsession with fame, undoubtedly by a leap that I made. She had no choice but to follow. (I do not remember any of this well, just now, nor do I care to. Those who are truly curious may look at the last act of "Captured Moments.") I remember suggesting, with characteristic tact, that she add Emil to her small list of major accomplishments. Malaquez glanced away, embarrassed. Tasha looked at me as if to say, "I will." She said, "I feel sorry for you, Nardo. I'll see Emil home." "Yes," I said, "Do that," and did not care what she did, or why. Emil asked, "You're all right?" I muttered something he must have interpreted as assent. They both walked up to Emil's home while I watched the scarlet moonlight ripple on distant waves. Disgusted with Tasha but more disgusted with myself, I finally realized she would not return that night and went into The Sleeping Flamingo to drink myself to sleep. She had not come home when I woke in mid-morning.

Does the response "Nobody" correctly answer the question "According to Nardo, who did Tasha feel took her side of the argument?"?

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