"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.

Question: "Who raised Zelon for her thorough understanding of the law?"

Response: "Wong"
OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

A: no

Triumph and Disaster: The 20th century saw a stupendous release of energies that had been pent up for the 250 years of Tokugawa isolation. By 1930 raw-material production had tripled the figure of 1900, manufactured goods had increased twelve-fold, and heavy industry was galloping towards maturity. Britain led the World War I Ailies in large orders for munitions, while Japan expanded sales of manufactured goods to Asian and other markets cut off from their usual European suppliers. Merchant shipping doubled in size and increased its income ten-fold as the European fleets were destroyed. Setbacks in the 1930s caused by the European postwar slump were only a spur to redouble efforts by diversifying heavy industry into the machine-making, metallurgical, and chemical sectors. Even the terrible 1923 Tokyo earthquake, which cost over 100,000 lives and billions of dollars, provided another stimulus due to the construction boom that followed. Riding the crest of this economic upsurge were the zaibatsu conglomeratesa dozen family-run combines, each involved in mining, manufacturing, marketing, shipping, and banking. These tightly controlled commercial pyramids were the true heirs to the old feudal structures. Japan's progress toward parliamentary democracy was halted in the 1930s by the growing nationalism being imposed on government by the generals and admirals. They proclaimed Japan's mission to bring progress to its backward Asian neighbors in language not so very different from that of the Europeans in Africa or the US in Latin America. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Soviet Union was regarded as a major threat to Japan's security, and the army felt it needed Manchuria and whatever other Chinese territory it could control as a buffer against Russian advances. In 1931 the Japanese occupied Manchuria. And then in 1937, with the popular support of ultra-right-wing groups, the army overrode parliamentary resistance in Tokyo and went to war against the Chinese Nationalists. By 1938, they held Nanking, Hankow, and Canton. Japanese expansionist policies were leading to direct confrontation with the West. Japan hoped that war in Europe would divert the Soviet Union from interference in East Asia, giving Japan a free hand both in China and, through its alliance with Germany, in French IndoChina after the defeat of France. The US responded to the Japanese invasion of IndoChina with a trade and fuel embargo, cutting off 90 percent of Japan's supplies. The result was the attack on the American fleet at Pearl Harbor (7 December 1941) and total war.

Question: "How long after occupying Manchuria did Japan hold Nanking?"

Response: "December 7, 1941"
OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

A: no

After the 1998 embassy bombings, the U.S. government tried to develop a clearer picture of Bin Laden's finances. A U.S. interagency group traveled to Saudi Arabia twice, in 1999 and 2000, to get information from the Saudis about their understanding of those finances. The group eventually concluded that the oft-repeated assertion that Bin Laden was funding al Qaeda from his personal fortune was in fact not true. The officials developed a new theory: al Qaeda was getting its money elsewhere, and the United States needed to focus on other sources of funding, such as charities, wealthy donors, and financial facilitators. Ultimately, although the intelligence community devoted more resources to the issue and produced somewhat more intelligence, it remained difficult to distinguish al Qaeda's financial transactions among the vast sums moving in the international financial system. The CIA was not able to find or disrupt al Qaeda's money flows. The NSC staff thought that one possible solution to these weaknesses in the intelligence community was to create an all-source terrorist-financing intelligence analysis center. Clarke pushed for the funding of such a center at Treasury, but neither Treasury nor the CIA was willing to commit the resources. Within the United States, various FBI field offices gathered intelligence on organizations suspected of raising funds for al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. By 9/11, FBI agents understood that there were extremist organizations operating within the United States supporting a global jihadist movement and with substantial connections to al Qaeda. The FBI operated a web of informants, conducted electronic surveillance, and had opened significant investigations in a number of field offices, including New York, Chicago, Detroit, San Diego, and Minneapolis. On a national level, however, the FBI never used the information to gain a systematic or strategic understanding of the nature and extent of al Qaeda fundraising. Treasury regulators, as well as U.S. financial institutions, were generally focused on finding and deterring or disrupting the vast flows of U.S. currency generated by drug trafficking and high-level international fraud. Large-scale scandals, such as the use of the Bank of New York by Russian money launderers to move millions of dollars out of Russia, captured the attention of the Department of the Treasury and of Congress. Before 9/11, Treasury did not consider terrorist financing important enough to mention in its national strategy for money laundering.

Question: "Which U.S. agency was not able to find or stop al Queada's money flow and also was unwilling to commit resources for an all-source terrorist-financing intelligence analysis center?"

Response: "Treasury"
OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

A:
yes