Question:
California lags far behind comparable states in funding legal services for the poor, a situation so dire that only 28 percent of the civil legal needs of the state's poor and lowerincome residents are being addressed. That figures translates into 2 million people without the ability to access the justice system, according to a new study by the California Commission on Access to Justice, which also found that despite increased spending, the gap between need and services remains substantial. "As a practical matter, in most cases there can be no access to justice without access to legal assistance," said Jack Londen, past commission chair and a partner with Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco. "Whether we like it or not, sometimes landlords illegally evict tenants, children with disabilities are denied proper care, veterans don't get services guaranteed to them, and elderly people need legal assistance to escape the abuse of a caregiver." California has the highest number of people in poverty in the nation - 6.4 million, including nearly one in five children. Half the nation's increase in poverty in the 1990s, when the number of poor jumped 30 percent, occurred in California, and nearly 25 percent of the nation's poverty increase occurred in Los Angeles County alone. Even those with jobs are suffering: 26 percent of California workers earn poverty level wages. The commission's report, "The Path to Equal Justice: A Five-Year Status Report on Access to Justice in California," examined how the legal needs of the state's poor have changed in the last five years as well as both the shortcomings of the justice system and the improvements during that period. Despite increases in state funding to meet the legal needs of the poor, low interest rates (which have reduced the IOLTA fund), high unemployment and the present economic downturn have threatened any gains. After reading the above, is "Virginia" the correct answer to the question "High unemployment and the present economic downturn have threatened any gains in which state?"?

Answer:
no

Question:
Washington (CNN) -- The Pacific island nation of Palau has agreed to take in 17 Chinese Muslims held at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the country's ambassador to the United States said Wednesday. The map shows the Pacific island nation of Palau in relation to China. Details of the transfer are still being worked out, Ambassador Hersey Kyota told CNN. But Kyota said his country, a former U.S. Pacific trust territory, has agreed to take in the ethnic Uighur detainees "for humanitarian reasons" and because of the "special relationship" between Palau and the United States. U.S. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly would not comment on the announcement, telling reporters, "We're still involved in ongoing discussions." The agreement includes some U.S. aid for Palau, Kyota said, but he said those details remained to be worked out as well. The country, with a population of about 20,000, is about 1,000 miles southeast of Manila, Philippines, and about 4,600 miles west of Hawaii. Palau has received nearly $900 million in U.S. aid since independence in 1994, according to congressional auditors, and depends on Washington for defense. The "Compact of Free Association" between Palau and the United States is up for review, but Kelly said any additional aid offer "is not linked to any other discussions we may be having with the government of Palau." The Uighurs were accused of receiving weapons and military training in Afghanistan. After reading the above, is "Uighurs" the correct answer to the question "What are the Chinese Muslims called?"?

Answer:
yes

Question:
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. After reading the above, is "FBI and NSC" the correct answer to the question "What government agencies were involved in tracking financial funding for al Qaeda?"?

Answer:
yes