If you beat a dog in Schuylkill County, you'll probably get a $100 fine. If you repeatedly beat a woman, you'll probably get the same fine. In 2001, county judges heard 98 Protection From Abuse cases, finding the defendant guilty in 48 percent of those cases, either after a hearing or through a technical violation or plea. Of those found guilty, the majority were ordered to pay court costs, plus a $100 fine. No defendants were ordered to pay more than a $250 fine for violating the court order. In 27 percent of the cases, the charges were dismissed or the defendant was found not guilty. In the rest of the cases, charges were withdrawn or the matter is not yet resolved. Sarah T. Casey, executive director of Schuylkill Women in Crisis, finds it disturbing that in most cases, the fine for violating a PFA is little more than the fine someone would get for cruelty and abuse toward an animal. "In most of the counties surrounding Schuylkill County, the penalties given for indirect criminal contempt are much stiffer than those in Schuylkill County," Casey said. "What kind of message are we sending those who repeatedly violate Protection From Abuse orders? That it's OK to abuse women in Schuylkill County, because you'll only get a slap on the wrist?" Under state law, the minimum fine for contempt of a PFA is $100; the maximum fine is $1,000 and up to six months in jail. Like others who are familiar with how the county's legal system does and doesn't work for victims of domestic violence, Casey believes some changes are in order. Valerie West, a manager/attorney with Mid-Penn Legal Services, with offices in Pottsville and Reading, regularly handles domestic violence cases. She finds fault with the local requirement that a custody order must be established within 30 days after a PFA is filed. West said she feels a custody order should be allowed to stand for the full term of the PFA - up to 18 months - as it does in many other counties in the state. "It places an undue burden on the plaintiff, in terms of cost, finding legal representation and facing their abuser - not to mention a further burden on the system to provide those services," West said. "It may be difficult for the parties to reach an agreement so soon after violence has occurred. 
What question would one ask from this paragraph?

QUESTION: In 2001, county judges heard 98 Protection From Abuse cases, what was the max amount that they would have to pay?

"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. 
What question would one ask from this paragraph?

QUESTION: How many people surrounded Zelon when presented with the award?

The digestive system is the body system that digests food. It digest food in two ways, mechanically and chemically. Both help in the process of turning food into nutrients. The digestive system also eliminates solid food waste. The major organs of the digestive system include the mouth, esophagus, stomach, and small and large in- testines. These organs all work together to help you gain energy from the food you eat. Digestion starts in the mouth. When food is swallowed, it travels through the esophagus to the stomach. In the stomach, digestion continues and a small amount of absorption of nutrients takes place. Most chemical digestion and nearly all absorption of nutrients take place in the small intestine. This organ consists of three parts: duodenum, jejunum, and ileum. The large intestine is the last stop in the digestive system. This is where water is absorbed. The food not digested is released as waste. 
What question would one ask from this paragraph?

QUESTION: What are the three parts of the small intestine?

While this process moved along, diplomacy continued its rounds. Direct pressure on the Taliban had proved unsuccessful. As one NSC staff note put it, "Under the Taliban, Afghanistan is not so much a state sponsor of terrorism as it is a state sponsored by terrorists." In early 2000, the United States began a high-level effort to persuade Pakistan to use its influence over the Taliban. In January 2000, Assistant Secretary of State Karl Inderfurth and the State Department's counterterrorism coordinator, Michael Sheehan, met with General Musharraf in Islamabad, dangling before him the possibility of a presidential visit in March as a reward for Pakistani cooperation. Such a visit was coveted by Musharraf, partly as a sign of his government's legitimacy. He told the two envoys that he would meet with Mullah Omar and press him on  Bin Laden. They left, however, reporting to Washington that Pakistan was unlikely in fact to do anything," given what it sees as the benefits of Taliban control of Afghanistan." President Clinton was scheduled to travel to India. The State Department felt that he should not visit India without also visiting Pakistan. The Secret Service and the CIA, however, warned in the strongest terms that visiting Pakistan would risk the President's life. Counterterrorism officials also argued that Pakistan had not done enough to merit a presidential visit. But President Clinton insisted on including Pakistan in the itinerary for his trip to South Asia. His one-day stopover on March 25, 2000, was the first time a U.S. president had been there since 1969. At his meeting with Musharraf and others, President Clinton concentrated on tensions between Pakistan and India and the dangers of nuclear proliferation, but also discussed  Bin Laden. President Clinton told us that when he pulled Musharraf aside for a brief, one-on-one meeting, he pleaded with the general for help regarding  Bin Laden." I offered him the moon when I went to see him, in terms of better relations with the United States, if he'd help us get  Bin Laden and deal with another issue or two." The U.S. effort continued. 
What question would one ask from this paragraph?

QUESTION:
Why did the Secret Service and the CIA think it was a bad idea to visit Pakistan?