(CNN) -- Deposed Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya will not be reinstated as head of state, an overwhelming majority of the Honduran congress voted Wednesday. In an hours-long process, 111 lawmakers voted in favor of a motion not to return Zelaya to office. A majority of 65 votes in the 128-member body was required to reject his reinstatement. Zelaya was removed from office in a military-led coup on June 28 and replaced by congressional leader Roberto Micheletti. On Wednesday, lawmakers voted one by one and addressed the chamber as they cast their vote, making for a slow process. The vote was a key part of a U.S.-brokered pact that representatives for Zelaya and Micheletti signed October 29, giving Congress the power to decide Zelaya's fate. The United States expressed disappointment Thursday over the latest rebuff to its diplomatic efforts to end the political crisis in Honduras. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Arturo Valenzuela continued to call on the Honduran government to allow Zelaya's return and to create a unity government in the interim period before the new president takes office next month. "We are disappointed by this decision since the United States had hoped the [Honduran] Congress would have approved his return," Valenzuela said in a conference call with journalists in Washington. "Our policy since June 28 has been consistently principled. It has condemned the coup d'etat and continued to accept President Zelaya as the democratically elected and legitimate leader of Honduras throughout this political crisis." The United States continues to call for Honduras to engage in national reconciliation and creation of a truth commission to investigate the crisis, in addition to the unity government. "The absence of democratic, constitutional order is the unacceptable status quo," a senior U.S. administration official said on the conference call, remaining anonymous under the ground rules of the call and because of the sensitivity of the situation. "The election is a step toward a day where Honduras will have an electorally legitimate government in place." 

When did the coup d'etat that ousted President Zelaya occur?


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 is the minimum fine for abuse of an animal or woman in Schuylkill County?


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. 


Who made the following remark: "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."