text:
Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Eastern District Salazar v. Kokor et al Filing 41
Salazar v. Kokor et al
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 32 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART re 18 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/12/2017. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EFRAIN SALAZAR, Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 Case No. 1:14-cv-00211-AWI-MJS (PC) WINFRED KOKOR, Defendant. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 32) FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE 16 17 18 19 I. Procedural History Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 20 rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter proceeds against 21 Defendant Dr. Winfred Kokor on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment medical indifference 22 claim. (ECF No. 19.) 23 Before the Court is Defendant's October 20, 2016 motion for summary judgment. 24 (ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No. 38.) Defendant filed a reply (ECF 25 No. 39) and objections to parts of Plaintiff's evidence (ECF No. 40). The matter is 26 deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). 27 For the reasons set forth below, the Court will recommend that the motion be 28 granted in part and denied in part. 1 2 II. Defendant's Evidentiary Objections Defendant objects to several statements in Plaintiff's declaration and to all of the 3 exhibits attached to the declaration, namely Exhibit A, Plaintiff's administrative and 4 health care appeal records, and Exhibits B through F, Plaintiff's medical records. 5 To the extent Defendant objects to Plaintiff's exhibits on grounds of 6 authentication and foundation, the objections are unpersuasive. Defendant himself 7 includes many of the same medical records in support of his motion. Nothing about the 8 documents Plaintiff submits calls their authenticity into question. Moreover, Plaintiff may 9 authenticate such documents at trial and need not do so at this stage. See Burch v. 10 Regents of Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1120 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ("[Rule 56] 11 requires only that evidence 'would be admissible,' not that it presently be admissible. 12 Such an exception to the authentication requirement is particularly warranted in cases 13 such as this where the objecting party does not contest the authenticity of the evidence 14 submitted but nevertheless makes an evidentiary objection based on purely procedural 15 grounds.") 16 With respect to Defendant's objections to the relevance of the exhibits, the Court 17 finds them relevant to the extent discussed below. 18 Defendant also objects that the exhibits contain inadmissible expert medical and 19 legal opinions. Defendant does not elaborate on this objection or specify which portions 20 of the records he finds objectionable. The Court will not, in any event, rely on any expert 21 opinions reflected in Plaintiff's medical records in reaching its conclusion. 22 Most of the statements in Plaintiff's declaration to which Defendant objects 23 consist of Plaintiff's characterization of or opinions about medical treatment rendered by 24 Defendant. The Court will not rely on any such characterizations or opinions in reaching 25 its conclusions here. Accordingly, with one exception discussed below, the Court need 26 not and will not address these objections for the purposes of this motion. 27 Defendant makes numerous objections to the following statement by Plaintiff: "In 28 response to paragraph 11, plaintiff alleges that morphine was clinically indicated for 2 1 post-polio pain syndrome by M.D. Nina Willis, UC Davis Appeals Coordinator Pain 2 Management Specialist. See Exhibit." (ECF No. 40 at 2.) Defendant contends that this 3 statement is not relevant, contains inadmissible medical and legal opinion, and that 4 statements made by Dr. Willis constitute inadmissible hearsay. 5 Only evidence that would be admissible may be considered in ruling on a motion 6 for summary judgment. Orr v. Bank of America, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002); see 7 also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In determining admissibility for summary judgment purposes, 8 it is the contents of the evidence rather than its form that must be considered. Fraser v. 9 Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1036-37 (9th Cir. 2003). If the contents of the evidence could 10 be presented in an admissible form at trial, those contents may be considered on 11 summary judgment even if the evidence itself is hearsay. Id. (affirming consideration of 12 hearsay contents of plaintiff's diary on summary judgment because, at trial, plaintiff's 13 testimony of contents would not be hearsay). However, a court may not consider 14 inadmissible hearsay evidence which could not be presented in an admissible form at 15 trial. See Medina v. Multaler, Inc., 547 F. Supp. 2d 1099, 1122 (C.D. Cal. 2007) 16 ("Medina bases much of her declaration on hearsay evidence that will not be admissible 17 at trial. Medina will not, for example, be able to take the witness stand at trial and 18 recount statements that constitute hearsay, double hearsay, or triple hearsay."). 19 Plaintiff is not competent to testify regarding which medications are medically 20 appropriate to treat his condition. See Fed. R. Evid. 701, 702. To the extent Plaintiff 21 offers his own opinion regarding appropriate medications, it will not be considered here. 22 Id.; see also Calloway v. Contra Costa County Jail Correctional Officers, No. C 01-2689 23 SBA, 2007 WL 134581, at *19 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2007) (sustaining defendants' 24 objection to plaintiff's declaration testimony when considering a motion for summary 25 judgment, where plaintiff stated a medical conclusion regarding the condition of a bone 26 in his arm). Plaintiff may testify regarding matters over which he has personal 27 knowledge, Fed. R. Evid. 602, such as the fact that he previously was prescribed 28 morphine. However, he may not testify regarding what he was told about this 3 1 medication, because such testimony, when offered for the truth of the matter asserted, 2 constitutes inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), 802; see also McCoy v. Spidle, 3 No. CV-07-198-SMM, 2011 WL 1486560, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2011) ("Witnesses 4 generally cannot testify about out-of-court statements introduced for the truth of the 5 matter asserted . . . ."). Thus, Plaintiff may not testify that he was told by Dr. Willis that 6 he was being given morphine for purposes of treating his post-polio pain since the only 7 relevance of such a statement would be to suggest that the medical expert deemed 8 morphine an appropriate treatment for such a condition. Plaintiff presents nothing to 9 suggest that such testimony could be presented in admissible form at trial. The Court 10 has before it no declaration from Dr. Willis, nor any medical records to suggest that 11 Plaintiff previously was prescribed morphine for the pain at issue in this action. 12 Plaintiff has made no showing that this fact could be presented in admissible 13 form at trial, and thus, that his testimony should be considered for purposes of summary 14 judgment. Cf. Fonseca v. Sysco Food Servs. of Arizona, Inc., 374 F.3d 840, 846 (9th 15 Cir. 2004) (concluding that hearsay evidence could be presented in admissible form at 16 trial); Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1037 (9th Cir. 2003) (same). His testimony is 17 therefore inadequate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. See Block v. City of Los 18 Angeles, 253 F.3d 410, 418-19 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that an affidavit which contained 19 hearsay statements that were not based on personal knowledge and failed to set forth 20 facts that would be admissible in evidence did not meet the requirements of Rule 56). 21 Thus, this Court will consider the challenged statement to show only that Plaintiff 22 was prescribed morphine in the past, but for no other purpose. 23 III. Legal Standard 24 Any party may move for summary judgment, and a court shall grant summary 25 judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact 26 and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); 27 Washington Mut. Inc. v. United States, 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Each 28 party's position, whether it be that a fact is disputed or undisputed, must be supported 4 1 by: (1) Citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including but not limited to 2 depositions, documents, declarations, or discovery; or (2) Showing that the materials 3 cited do not establish the presence or absence of a genuine dispute or that the 4 opposing party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed R. Civ. P. 5 56(c)(1). Plaintiff bears the burden of proof at trial, and to prevail on summary judgment, 6 7 he must affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than 8 for him. Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). 9 Defendants do not bear the burden of proof at trial and, in moving for summary 10 judgment, they need only prove an absence of evidence to support Plaintiff's case. In re 11 Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010). In judging the evidence at the summary judgment stage, a court may not make 12 13 credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence, Soremekun, 509 F.3d at 984, 14 and it must draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, 15 Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 942 16 (9th Cir. 2011). 17 IV. Factual Background 18 Based on the submissions of the parties, the Court finds the following facts to be 19 undisputed unless otherwise noted.1 At all times relevant to Plaintiff's complaint, Plaintiff was incarcerated at California 20 21 Substance Abuse Treatment Facility ("CSATF") in Corcoran, California. Defendant 22 Kokor was a physician and surgeon employed at CSATF. Plaintiff was diagnosed with poliomyelitis at a young age, although the precise 23 24 age of diagnosis, which is immaterial here, is disputed. He was also diagnosed with 25 26 27 28 1 Both parties present facts regarding Defendant's denial of Plaintiff's request for a wheelchair. However, no claim related thereto is raised against Defendant Kokor in Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 18). The Court dismissed, with prejudice, Plaintiff's claims against a separate defendant regarding denial of a wheelchair. (Id. at 8.) This case, and this motion, proceeds only on the claim that Plaintiff was provided inadequate medical care. (ECF No. 19.) 5 1 post-polio syndrome in 2006. The condition resulted in left foot deformity and chronic 2 lower back pain. Before he arrived at CSATF, Plaintiff was seen by non-party physician 3 Dr. Nina Willis, who prescribed him morphine and gabapentin. After his arrival at 4 CSATF, however, Plaintiff's medication was discontinued by non-party Physician 5 Assistant Byers. Defendant Kokor did not discontinue Plaintiff's medication, but did 6 serve as Plaintiff's medical provider while Plaintiff was at CSATF from 2011 to 2014; 7 Plaintiff saw Kokor approximately fifteen times for pain and post-polio syndrome 8 symptoms during this period of time. To treat Plaintiff's post-polio syndrome and the pain associated with it, Kokor 9 10 prescribed a number of medications, including oxcarbazepine, Cymbalta, Tylenol, 11 Tylenol 3, naproxen, and ibuprofen. Kokor also referred Plaintiff for orthotics and 12 podiatry consultations. Throughout the time Kokor treated Plaintiff, Plaintiff consistently 13 complained of pain in his back and left foot. (ECF No. 38 at 43, 49, 58, 67, 70-74, 111, 14 116.). Kokor, however, recorded his skepticism regarding Plaintiff's pain several times, 15 noting, for instance, that he "doubt[s] if [Plaintiff] has any real pain," (ECF No. 32 at 28), 16 that he is "[n]ot entirely sure if patient has pain," (ECF No. 32 at 32), and that Plaintiff "is 17 narcotic seeking" (ECF No. 32 at 28). Additionally, Kokor consistently noted that 18 "narcotics are not indicated for his condition." (ECF No. 38 at 49.) However, Plaintiff 19 submits evidence indicating he received morphine for pain while he was hospitalized in 20 Bakersfield in 2014, within the time period Kokor treated Plaintiff. (ECF No. 38 at 142.) 21 Defendant Kokor, however, refused to prescribe Plaintiff morphine or any other opioid 22 medication. 23 24 25 26 V. Discussion A. Medical Indifference 1. Legal Standard Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth 27 Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 28 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), 6 1 overruled on other grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th 2 Cir. 1997) (en banc). A determination of "deliberate indifference" involves an 3 examination of two elements: (1) The seriousness of the prisoner's medical need; and 4 (2) The nature of the defendant's response to that need. McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059. A 5 serious medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner's condition could result in 6 further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Id. The 7 existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and 8 worthy of comment or treatment, the presence of a medical condition that significantly 9 affects an individual's daily activities, or the existence of chronic and substantial pain 10 are examples of indications that a prisoner has a serious need for medical treatment. Id. 11 at 1059-60. 12 A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knows that a prisoner faces a 13 substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable 14 steps to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison official must 15 not only "be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial 16 risk of serious harm exists," but he "must also draw the inference." Id. For deliberate 17 indifference to be established, therefore, there must be a purposeful act or failure to act 18 on the part of the defendant and resulting harm. McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060. 19 Deliberate indifference may be shown when prison officials deny, delay, or intentionally 20 interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown in the way in which they provide 21 medical care. Id. at 1062. A claim of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to 22 make out a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 1059; Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 23 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). 24 An allegation that prison officials deliberately ignored a prisoner's complaint 25 about the ineffective nature of prescribed pain medication and the pain being suffered 26 as a result can, in some circumstances, give rise to a constitutional claim. See Chess v. 27 Dovey, No. CIV S-07-1767 LKK DAD P., 2011 WL 567375, at *21 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 28 2011) (denying summary judgment on Eighth Amendment claim where the doctor 7 1 "ignored plaintiff's complaint about the ineffective nature of the Tylenol, aspirin and 2 other medications he was being given and the pain being suffered as a result"); Franklin 3 v. Dudley, No. 2:07-cv-2259 FCD KJN P., 2010 WL 5477693, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 4 2010) (holding that a triable issue of fact existed as to whether defendant violated 5 Eighth Amendment, precluding grant of summary judgment where plaintiff was 6 previously prescribed narcotic pain medication but now was given only Motrin, 7 Naprosyn, and Tylenol under prison's no-narcotic policy). However, a prisoner does not 8 have a constitutional right to the medication of his choice, and a mere difference of 9 opinion regarding appropriate treatment and pain medication is insufficient to give rise 10 to a constitutional claim. Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058; Wilson v. Borg, No. 95-15720, 11 1995 WL 571481, at *2 (9th Cir. Sept. 27, 1995); Smith v. Norrish, No. 94-16906, 1995 12 WL 267126, at *1 (9th Cir. May 5, 1995); McMican v. Lewis, No. 94-16676, 1995 WL 13 247177, at *2 (9th Cir. Apr. 27, 1995). 2. Serious Medical Need 14 15 Although not directly raised in Defendant's motion for summary judgment, there 16 appears to be a dispute between the parties as to whether Plaintiff suffered from a 17 serious medical need. In the declaration submitted in support of his opposition, Plaintiff 18 asserts Defendant Kokor "did not ever believe" Plaintiff was in pain. (ECF No. 38 at 7.) 19 In medical records submitted in support of the motion for summary judgment, Defendant 20 Kokor regularly notes his skepticism about Plaintiff's pain. For instance, Kokor noted 21 that Plaintiff is "narcotic seeking" (ECF No. 32 at 28; ECF No. 38 at 111), that he 22 "doubt(s) if [Plaintiff] has any real pain" (id.), and that Plaintiff is "a great manipulator" 23 (ECF No. 32 at 32; ECF No. 38 at 74). In his declaration attached to the motion, 24 Defendant states that post-polio pain ranges from mild to moderate and that his 25 treatment of Plaintiff was appropriate and consistent with Plaintiff's symptoms. (ECF No. 26 32 at 5-6.) 27 The issue of whether Plaintiff suffered from a serious medical need cannot be 28 resolved at summary judgment. Plaintiff states that he suffered from extreme pain, and 8 1 the record—including Plaintiff's medical records, his CDCR health care services request 2 forms, and CSATF patient encounter forms—indicates that Plaintiff regularly 3 complained of severe pain. (ECF Nos. 32, 38.) Defendant, a medical doctor qualified to 4 give medical opinions, states that the pain was at most mild to moderate. (ECF No. 32 5 at 5.) A jury could credit either interpretation. At the very least, a reasonable juror could 6 conclude that Plaintiff's complaints indicated a serious medical need. Jett v. Penner, 7 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating that a "serious medical need" may be 8 shown by demonstrating that "failure to treat a prisoner's condition could result in further 9 significant injury or the 'unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain'"); McGuckin, 974 10 F.2d at 1059-60 ("The existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would 11 find important and worthy of comment or treatment; the presence of a medical condition 12 that significantly affects an individual's daily activities; or the existence of chronic and 13 substantial pain are examples of indications that a prisoner has a 'serious' need for 14 medical treatment."). Defendant has not shown an absence of evidence to support 15 Plaintiff's case in this regard. See Professional Programs Group v. Department of 16 Commerce, 29 F.3d 1349, 1353-54 (9th Cir. 1994) ("[A]t summary judgment, the moving 17 party bears the burden of showing there is an absence of evidence to support an 18 element that the nonmoving party must prove at trial.") (citation omitted). 19 20 3. Deliberate Indifference Defendant characterizes Plaintiff's claim as a demand for morphine. Defendant 21 states that Plaintiff's condition is not susceptible to treatment with morphine, that 22 morphine was not indicated, and that his decision to deny morphine was therefore 23 appropriate and not deliberately indifferent. This is, however, an oversimplification of 24 Plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff is not merely asserting that he was improperly denied 25 morphine, but rather that he was denied adequate pain medication and, thus, that 26 Defendant was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need. 27 28 9 1 2 a. Whether Morphine Should Have Been Prescribed To the extent Plaintiff claims that the denial of morphine constitutes an aspect of 3 his broader medical indifference claim, the Court will recommend summary adjudication 4 in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff argues that morphine was indicated for his back and foot 5 pain. However, as discussed above, he is not qualified to give such a medical opinion 6 and he submits no opinion evidence from a qualified expert or any other evidence, such 7 as that showing other physicians prescribed morphine for this post-polio pain, upon 8 which a reasonable juror could find that morphine was medically indicated. While 9 Plaintiff submits medical records from 2014 to show he received morphine at a hospital 10 in Bakersfield, the records indicate that it was administered for diagnosed chest pain, 11 not for post-polio pain. (ECF No. 38 at 142.) On the other hand, Defendant has 12 presented uncontroverted declaration testimony that morphine was not indicated for 13 Plaintiff's post-polio condition. (ECF No. 32 at 19.) Thus, the Court finds no competent 14 evidence before it upon which a reasonable juror could find that Defendant was 15 deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical need by failing to provide morphine. 16 Accordingly, the Court will recommend that any claim based on the denial of 17 morphine be summarily adjudicated in Defendant's favor. 18 19 b. Inadequate Medical Care With Respect to Plaintiff's Pain With respect to Plaintiff's broader inadequate medical care claim, there is no 20 dispute but that Plaintiff suffered post-polio pain. The issue, then, is whether 21 Defendant's skeptical and limited response to Plaintiff's complaints of such pain was 22 sincere and in good faith or whether it reflected a deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's 23 medical needs. Defendant's motion does not directly address this issue. 24 Kokor asserts that he "provided Plaintiff with medical care and treatment every 25 time he saw him" and that he was "never deliberately indifferent to any serious medical 26 needs." (ECF No. 32 at 6.) He further asserts that he has "never refused or denied 27 Plaintiff appropriate medical treatment or evaluation." (Id. at 5-6.) Plaintiff, however, 28 alleges that Kokor "did not ever believe" Plaintiff was in pain. (ECF No. 38 at 7.) This 10 1 assertion is supported by the record. Defendant Kokor recorded in a progress note 2 dated January 16, 2013 the following: "Patient is manipulative" and "[d]oubt if he is in 3 real pain." (ECF No. 32 at 30; ECF No. 38 at 67.) This is despite Plaintiff's assertion that 4 he "repeatedly informed [Kokor] that the medication that he was prescribing for [Plaintiff] 5 didn't work for his pain" and that Plaintiff has "suffered extreme severe sharp pains 6 since his arrival to [CSATF]." (ECF No. 38 at 6.) Kokor's own records indicate that 7 Plaintiff complained "of having severe pain" in his left foot on June 13, 2013, and that 8 such pain was "not being controlled on current regimen." (Id. at 36.) Other progress 9 notes record Plaintiff's consistent complaints of pain (id. at 38; 54), but also indicate that 10 Kokor may have deliberately ignored such pain, calling Plaintiff a "great manipulator" (id. 11 at 32). Based on such evidence, and drawing all inferences in the light most favorable to 12 the nonmoving party, Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d at 942, a reasonable jury could find 13 that Kokor was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's uncontrolled pain and thus render a 14 verdict in favor of Plaintiff. Because Plaintiff presents evidence that demonstrates a 15 genuine issue of fact, and because a jury could reasonably find in his favor on the basis 16 of such evidence, summary judgment should be denied. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 17 Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). 18 As genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Defendant Kokor was 19 deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical needs, the Court recommends that 20 Kokor be denied summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff's claim for medical 21 indifference. 22 B. Qualified Immunity 23 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability 24 where "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights 25 of which a reasonable person would have known." Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 26 231 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). To determine if an 27 official is entitled to qualified immunity, a court uses a two-part inquiry. Saucier v. Katz, 28 533 U.S. 194, 200 (2001). First, the court must determine if the facts viewed in the light 11 1 most favorable to the plaintiff state a violation of a constitutional right. Saucier, 533 U.S. 2 at 200. Then, the court must determine if the right is clearly established so that a 3 reasonable official would have known that his conduct was unlawful. Id. 4 The court is "permitted to exercise [its] sound discretion in deciding which of the 5 two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the 6 circumstances in the particular case at hand." Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. The inquiry as 7 to whether the right was clearly established is "solely a question of law for the judge." 8 Dunn v. Castro, 621 F.3d 1196, 1199 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Tortu v. Las Vegas Metro. 9 Police Dep't, 556 F.3d 1075, 1085 (9th Cir. 2009)). In deciding whether officials are 10 entitled to qualified immunity, a court is to view the evidence in the light most favorable 11 to the plaintiff and resolve all material disputes in his or her favor. Martinez v. Stanford, 12 323 F.3d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir. 2003). 13 Defendants may not be held liable for a violation of a right that is not clearly 14 established at the time the violation occurred. Brown v. Oregon Dep't of Corrections, 15 751 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2014). A constitutional right is clearly established when its 16 contours are "sufficiently clear [so] that a reasonable official would understand that what 17 he is doing violates that right." Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002). The court is to 18 look to the state of the law at the time the defendant acted to see if it gave fair warning 19 that the alleged conduct was unconstitutional. Hope, 536 U.S. at 741. The unlawfulness 20 of the official's act must be apparent in light of preexisting law. Id, at 739. The Supreme 21 Court has emphasized that it is often difficult for an official to determine how relevant 22 legal doctrine will apply to the specific situation that is faced and that is why qualified 23 immunity protects "all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the 24 law[.]" Estate of Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer, 301 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2002). 25 Qualified immunity shields an official from personal liability where he reasonably 26 believes that his conduct complies with the law. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 244. "'Qualified 27 immunity gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken 28 judgments.'" Stanton v. Sims, 134 S. Ct. 3, 5 (2013) (citations omitted). In determining 12 1 whether the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the court is to determine if "a 2 reasonable officer would have had fair notice that [the action] was unlawful, and that 3 any mistake to the contrary would have been unreasonable." Chappell v. Mandeville, 4 706 F.3d 1052, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Drummond ex rel. Drummond v. City of 5 Anaheim, 343 F.3d 1052, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2003)). 6 Because the Court has already determined there are sufficient facts upon which 7 a jury could conclude that Defendant Kokor violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights, the 8 Court considers only the second prong of the qualified immunity test: Whether the right 9 was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. 10 Here, the record reveals that Plaintiff consistently complained of pain and 11 Defendant consistently discounted and declined to provide relief for such complaints, 12 effectively ignoring them because he believed Plaintiff was engaged in manipulative, 13 drug seeking behavior. Plaintiff's right to adequate medical care was clearly established 14 at the time of these encounters. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059; Farmer, 511 U.S. at 15 837. These legal standards were well-established by the time Kokor committed his 16 alleged conduct. Plaintiff complained of "severe" pain. (ECF No. 38 at 7.) "[T]he 17 existence of chronic and substantial pain" demonstrates a serious medical need. 18 McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060. Any reasonable official would understand that to deny 19 treatment for such pain, or to ignore it, would constitute deliberate indifference to a 20 serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 21 The Court concludes that a reasonable official in Defendant Kokor's position 22 could not believe that such conduct, if found by the trier of fact to have been as Plaintiff 23 characterizes it, would be lawful in light of clearly established law regarding medical 24 indifference. See Lavender v. Lampert, 242 F. Supp. 2d 821, 842-43 (D. Or. 2002) 25 (denying medical providers summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity where 26 providers ignored plaintiff's complaints of pain). 27 The Court recommends that Defendant be denied qualified immunity on Plaintiff's 28 Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim. 13 1 VI. Conclusion and Recommendation 2 The allegations and supporting evidence demonstrate that questions of fact 3 remain as to whether Defendant Kokor was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious 4 medical needs by failing to provide adequate pain medication. However, the Court finds 5 that, to the extent Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim is based on 6 Defendant's decision not to provide Plaintiff with morphine, Defendant is entitled to 7 summary judgment as to that aspect of Plaintiff's claim. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant's motion for 9 summary judgment (ECF No. 32) be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 10 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States 11 District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. 12 § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and 13 recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy 14 on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's 15 Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed 16 within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that 17 failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on 18 appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 19 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 20 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 12, 2017 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 14


Many studies show an association between alcohol outlets and violence, though fewer consider non-violent crime. We add to this literature using block group data from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to explore whether (1) on- and off-premise alcohol outlet density is related to thefts from vehicles and vandalism and (2) social disorganization moderates these associations. Using spatially informed regression models, we found positive effects of on-premise alcohol outlet density on thefts from vehicles. We also found positive effects of on- and off-premise alcohol outlet density on vandalism. Social disorganization was not a consistent moderator of these associations.


The Fit pourover kettle from Hario is their latest design focussed on usability. The Fit is designed to fit (get it?) your hand better than any other kettle and the spout is designed for an easier, more controlled pour. With a functional capacity of 800ml, it carried enough water for the biggest of coffee pourovers and, with it's sleek design, it'll look pretty good doing it.
Handle can be held two ways: with your thumb on the top of the handle, or wrapped around it.
Redesigned spout for even easier pouring.


Year-round safety is a top priority for us at Forever Houseboats. That is why all houseboat models in our Forever Fleet come equipped with onboard safety systems and equipment and why we provide a comprehensive overview for you before you embark on your houseboat adventure. But with the popular summer season approaching, we wanted to provide our recommendations to help you prepare for your exciting houseboat adventure.


At Decorating Den Interiors it's our goal to help you make your home in Reston all that it can be.
Reston is located in Fairfax County, Virginia with a population of 58,404. The internationally known planned community was founded in 1964, and was built with the goal of revolutionizing post–World War II concepts of land use and residential/corporate development in suburban America. The Reston Town Center is home to many businesses, with high-rise and low-rise commercial buildings that are home to shops, restaurants, offices, a cinema, and a hotel. In 2012, Reston was ranked 7th in the Best Place to Live in America by CNN Money Magazine.
Reston Historic Trust & Museum – The Reston Historic Trust was built in 1996 as a community-based non-profit organization to sustain the unique history of the award-winning, innovative, planned community of Reston. The Greater Reston Chamber of Commerce is the leader of a thriving business community that positively impacts the growth and prosperity of a vibrant and collaborative Region.
Reston Chamber of Commerce – The Greater Reston Chamber of Commerce is the leader of a thriving business community that positively impacts the growth and prosperity of a vibrant and collaborative Region. The Greater Reston Chamber of Commerce is the catalyst for business growth and entrepreneurship by providing quality programs, education, connections and advocacy for our members and organizations in the Dulles Corridor.
Taste of Reston – Taste of Reston is an annual event created by the Greater Reston Chamber of Commerce. The event is the largest outdoor food festival in the Reston area, and was voted "Northern Virginia's Best Food Festival" by Virginia Living Magazine 2012 – 2015. The two-day long festival consists of restaurants and community vendors, live entertainment on three stages, the Family Fun Zone! and our Wine 'n Dine area.


It was announced last Friday that four Mantle Group venues are in the running for Queensland Hotels Association (QHA) Awards for Excellence. The annual QHA Awards for Excellence program provides a forum for the public recognition of excellence in individual and group achievement by Queensland hotels. In doing so, the program encourages the pursuit of higher standards of service, presentation and trade practices within the hospitality industry.
The following Mantle Group venues are Finalists in their respective categories.
The winners of the above awards are announced at the QHA 2017 Awards for Excellence Gala Dinner & Presentation Evening on October 4.


The KUMC Research Institute is pleased to announce the availability of grant funds for research conducted by faculty members of the University of Kansas Medical Center at Kansas City, Wichita and Salina. Funding for this program is derived from Research Institute income and through the generosity of the Lied Foundation Trust.
The objective of the Lied Basic Science Grant program is to develop new and innovative ideas that have a high probability of leading to the submission of a new application for national peer-reviewed funding.
Applications will be assigned NIH-type priority scores and awards will be based upon those scores and availability of funds.
The type of research may include, but is not limited to, basic biomedical and preclinical investigations in topics related to health, disease, therapies and outcomes in animal models and/or in human subjects, populations, or specimens. Outside of the emphasis on basic pilot research, the particular scope is defined by the faculty member.
faculty at the University of Kansas Medical Center (Kansas City, Wichita and Salina campuses) are eligible to apply if their applications meet the following criteria. Adjunct faculty with primary appointments at another university may be co-investigators but may not submit a proposal as Principal Investigator.
1. Face Page (Page 1): Include project title and Principal Investigator/Program Director information.
d. Travel is not permitted unless clearly needed to collect data, and specifically documented.
5. NIH Biographical Sketch. For each investigator, use the current NIH format including a project-specific paragraph concerning the role of each investigator. Include information about past grant support and effort allocation on pending applications and current research projects.
7. Appendix: Include measurement instruments and other ancillary items. The Appendix may not be used to provide additional data or information that should be part of the 5 page proposal.
8. Letter(s) of Collaboration and support: From the collaborator(s), if any, explaining their role(s) in the proposed research and confirming their agreement to participate in the project. From any program, center, or institute directors that commit critical resources to the study.
9. Letter(s) from the Respective Chair(s) or Institutional/Organizational Official: Indicating support for time allocation of the investigator(s) to do the research and any other contribution to the project. If applicable, documentation indicating any commitment of matching or contributed funds to support the research project. Departmental or other contributed funds are highly encouraged and may be factored into the evaluation of the application, but not required.
10. Status of IRB or IACUC submission: Please provide updated documentation on where the proposal is in the approval process. If approval has been granted, include confirming documentation. If approval is not complete, indicate whether or not it is currently in process and if so submit documentation and a copy of the IRB application.
Well-crafted proposals are given higher priority than those that are poorly written and difficult to understand. The RI Research Committee strongly recommends that new investigators take a grant-writing course prior to submission. The KUMC RI Research Committee also recommends that proposals be reviewed by mentors and colleagues.
Projects should be designed for completion in one year.
· Qualifications and research experience of the Principal Investigator and staff, particularly, but not exclusively, in the area of the proposed research.
The KUMC RI Research Committee in conjunction with the Faculty Assembly Research Committee will seek peer review of proposals by qualified research-intensive faculty. Applicants may submit the names of up to three (3) persons they wish to exclude as reviewers, although no assurances can be made. Final scores will be assigned by the Frontiers Institutional Voting Panel, and the final determination on funding will be made by the Frontiers Funding Council which included member from the RI Research Committee, Faculty Assembly Research Committee, and various stakeholders representing KUMC funding programs. It is possible that successful proposals will be funded from multiple sources.
· We will be using REDCap to upload both the LOIs and the applications in this grant cycle.
· Please go to the following site to access REDCap (https://redcap.kumc.edu/surveys/?s=HA89T8E7XM). This will get you to the REDCap LOI submission form. Please read the letter accompanying the LOI Application, fill out all of the required data blocks and then upload your LOI (MS Word, MS Excel; pdf). Make sure that your LOI briefly (200 words or less) but adequately describes the research project to facilitate identifying expertise needed for the review of your application. Please also make sure that the keywords that you list adequately summarize the work proposed.
· The LOI is mandatory; applications failing to submit a LOI will not be accepted.
· Please contact Kelly Robertson at the KUMC Research Institute if you have any questions or problems (krobertson@kumc.edu).
· Once the LOI has been submitted through REDCap, an e mail will be immediately sent to the KUMC email address listed in the LOI application. The REDCap link to the full application will be supplied in this e mail.
· Applicants should use this link to upload the requested information and the full application in the same manner as described above.
Announcement of Awards: June 2017.


Unfortunately we do not have any hay for new customers until we begin cutting in the spring. Please check back with us in early May.
We raise our fescue/orchard grass hay on our farm in eastern Chatham County outside of Pittsboro. We keep the hay under shelter and out of the weather. We have square bales ($5.00/bale at barn) or 5 x 4 round bales ($40/bale at barn for 1-4 rolls) available for pick-up or delivery (please call for delivery fees).


Gynescope Specialist Hospital offers a complete gamut of infertility disorders' treatments including surrogacy programs and comprehensive gynecological services. The center has good infrastructure, technology, and lab & equipment set-up. Gynescope Specialist Hospital offers a full range of services to treat complex problems related to infertility. With state-of-the-art technology, an exceptionally caring and affordable environment, internationally trained doctors and associated staff, alongside individualized treatment plans Gynescope Specialist Hospital has an experienced team of infertility specialists, embryologists, and gynecologists led by Dr. Jude Okohue.
G U Ake Road, City Centre, Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Rivers, Nigeria.
2, Finima Street, Old GRA, Opp. Leventis Bus-Stop,, Port Harcourt, Rivers, Nigeria.
7, National Supply Road, Bewac Junction, Trans Amadi Industrial Layout, , Port Harcourt, Rivers, Nigeria.
Abuloma, Okrika, Port Harcourt, Rivers, Nigeria.
44 Trans Amadi Industrial Layout, Port Harcourt, Rivers, Nigeria.


What it can give, so much 'tis worth.
Gives paths, gives fishes, rivers, bays.
When it stops giving, in comes death.
Who gives not is not living.
Only by giving is it reap'd.
If pent in by a selfish rind.
Give love, give tears, and give thyself.


text:
SXSW – Drone Umbrellas, Flying Cars, AI, Robots and Mobile Everywhere
Festival, party, conference, job fair or start-up bonanza? I don't think anyone can agree what SXSW Interactive is so I won't even go there. This year's event was attended by about 5,000 hipsters, 5,000 start-up geeks, 5,000 "trendspotting" brand managers, 10,000 agency creatives and business developers selling to the brands, 5,000 big corporate "recruiters" and 2,000 investors. For the real demographics from 2014 see this demographics breakdown.
Here are my key take-outs on trends, insights and announcements to watch from SXSW 2015.
1. Internet of Things (IoT)
There were over 70 sessions this year mentioning IoT. Every presenter started their session with "I hate the term IoT, but the industry seems to have adopted it, so let's talk about what it really is….". Session titles include "Making the Internet of Things A Reality", "Designing the UI for the Internet of Things" and "Exploring the Future of Connected Objects". Just like with MWC there were lots of gadgets presented but mostly it was about best practice and discussions around designing hardware, user interfaces and managing security. Silicon Labs ran some of the most exciting sessions including 3D printing, drones and biohacking branded as SX Create. One useful thing was the Bluetooth beacons that were used around SXSW to activate the app with relevant information based on location.
The winner in the IoT category was Plum who makes a software-enabled light switch—call it a smartswitch, if you will—that works like a touch screen on a smartphone. Swipe up with a single finger to turn a light on, use two fingers to control all lights in the room, and pinch to turn off all the lights in the house
2. Wearables
There were less wearables than 2014 at the conference. Perhaps because everyone is waiting for the Apple Watch? In a panel titled "Beyond Wearables: Future Fabrics and Fashion Design", wearable experts including Wearable Experiments, discussed smart fabrics and e-textiles.
The winner in the wearable category was Tinitell from Stockholm, Sweden, who offers a "wristphone for kids." Made to be small enough to fit on a child as young as toddler age, and to accept voice commands as small as "Mom" or "come here," the device was designed with today's parenting methods in mind whatever that means.
The opposite to this was a "Smartwatch for elder people" by UnaliWear Inc. who presented its UnaliWear Kanega smartwatch designed specifically for independent seniors.
3. Mobile Health Revolution
With at least 30 sessions on healthcare there was a lot of interesting discussion and technology around mHealth. Subjects included "Finding a Cure for Cancer: What Needs to Change" and "Patient Power: A Data and Mobile Health Revolution". As everything is now defined as IoT and mobile, here are the winners and runner-ups relevant in the mHealth category:
Admetsys who has developed a first-of-its-kind artificial pancreas for hospital and surgical care, leveraging adaptive learning algorithms and counterbalancing treatment of insulin and glucose.
Procyrion is a Houston medtech startup that develops a circulatory support pump that is thinner than a pencil and can be implanted in the aorta, the major artery coming from the heart, through a catheter.
Nanopore Diagnostics has built a test for bacterial infections, helping physicians and hospitals determine which antibiotics to use on patients.
4. Live Streaming Apps
As you've probably read elsewhere there is currently a Meerkat craze in the US because of Twitter temporarily blocking the live streaming video app Meerkat originally launched 21st February this year. This happened during SXSW where the tech journalists were hanging out. Otherwise it probably wouldn't have been such a big deal considering that live streaming apps have existed since 2007 including Swedish Bambuser and these have never taken off as the interest in a personal broadcast is usually fairly limited.
5. Cars
Car manufacturers attended SXSW as well. Among the start-ups the only one that stuck out was Cargo who have built a device that connects to the computer system of, in theory, any and all cars. The software can do anything from locate a car that is missing to unlock it using a smartphone. The question is how that connection will actually happen considering that the car manufacturers are very protective about access to their system other than controlling music through CarPlay and Android Auto.
6. Flying Cars, Drone Umbrellas, Robot Zoo and More Craziness
Yes, I promised you flying cars, robots and drone umbrellas.
Our competitor Frog presented bluesky ideas about how drones can be used in the future including drone umbrellas, flying air filters and a guide when you're lost. Read more here.
Slovakian company Aeromobil presented its mission to create a flying car which will be on the streets by 2017.
And finally there was a robot zoo where you could pet machines. Although it probably sounds a bit more exciting than it was, you can find more information on this here.
Whatever SXSW really is, one thing is for sure. People had fun!
Tags: insights internet of things IoT trends wearables
What's So Great About Responsive Web Design?
7 tips for a successful m-commerce strategy
Take Another Look at Tumblr for Brands

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
NewsNews5 Investigates
Homeowners say company paved their driveway without permission, then demanded $16,000
Retired couple feels paving company took advantage of them; Company denies wrongdoing
A retired couple in Black Forest says they were duped by a Colorado Springs paving company.
By: Eric Ross
EL PASO COUNTY — A retired couple in Black Forest says they feel they were duped by a Colorado Springs paving company.
Pam Deveroux and her husband say Kingdom Road Colorado, LLC showed up while they weren't home, re-paved their driveway and then demanded $16,000.
Under pressure, Pam pulled out her pocketbook and wrote them a check.
"We came home around 12:15 p.m. (on a Saturday afternoon in May) and they were here and had already paved the driveway," Pam said.
Pam was furious when she and her husband came home to find their driveway re-paved by a company that had been driving around the Black Forest area the previous afternoon.
Pam admits her driveway had cracks, which likely attracted the workers to her home.
She is adamant that neither she nor her husband ever authorized them to go onto their property and repave the driveway.
"I asked how much this was going to cost," Pam explained. "He came back and said $16,800 and I told him I don't have that kind of money. We don't even have half of that money. He left and came back and said I'll tell you what, pay us $6,500 and we'll eat the rest. Wanting them off our land and to be gone, I wrote them the check. He repeatedly said we're not scammers. We're good Christians."
After letting what just happened sink in, Pam and her husband canceled the check before the money could be taken out.
Pam then contacted the Sheriff's Office, Better Business Bureau and Colorado Attorney General's Office.
"You can't let intimidation let you fall for it because that's what I did," she said. "I finally got so tired of him arguing with me and saying he had permission---I just wanted them gone!"
Kingdom Road Colorado LLC is the company behind the work.
They listed their address at 109 Iowa Avenue in Colorado Springs.
However, when News 5 Investigates went to that address, it clearly was not a paving company or construction business.
We reached out to the company via email on Monday and received a call back Tuesday. The caller wasn't the owner, but a man named "Jack".
Jack told News 5 that Pam had signed a written contract for the paving job prior to work being performed.
We asked to see a copy of that contract, but he declined and stated he wasn't the owner and would pass along our message and request to the owner.
At the time of our broadcast, a response from the owner has not been received.
Pam disputes the fact that she agreed to the paving job and signed a written contract in advance of work being performed. She stated she only got an invoice receipt after she felt pressured to sign over a check.
Because the check was canceled, the company didn't receive any money.
However, if you think Pam got a "free" driveway out of this situation, she says that couldn't be further from the truth.
Pam says the repaving job has led to flooding issues in her driveway and house.
"When it rains, we have a huge puddle of water," she said. "The water just goes right into the door. We've had to mop it up once already when it comes into the house. We are in the process of taking out a home equity loan to pay for repairs."
Pam says the repairs will cost upwards of $20,000.
Kingdom Road Colorado LLC told Pam this was all a misunderstanding and they do not plan on pursuing her for the cost of the paving job.
If you have a problem or issue you'd like News 5 Investigates to look into, send an email any time to News5Investigates@KOAA.com.


[Preface] I beg leave to present your most sacred majesties, Antoninus and Verus, with this second book of Stratagems. You are yourselves well qualified to judge, how much labour and time I have employed to compile this collection; especially as the position, which I hold under you in the courts, allows me few leisure hours for other studies.
4 Agesilaus always told his troops to leave the enemy a door open for flight.
17 When he needed to march through Macedonia, Agesilaus sent envoys to king Aeropus, asking him for a free passage. But Aeropus, who had been informed that the Laconians were weak in cavalry, refused to enter into any treaty with him; instead, he replied that he would meet him in person, and ordered his own cavalry to take the field. Therefore Agesilaus, to give the impression of more cavalry than he really had, ordered the infantry to form the first line; and behind them placed all the horses that he could muster, forming them into a double phalanx, and augmenting them with asses, mules, and some horses which, though too old for service, were still used to pull the baggage. There were soldiers mounted on all of these, in complete cavalry armour, so that they gave the appearance of a large number of horsemen. When he saw such a formidable force, Aeropus agreed a treaty with the Lacedaemonians, which allowed them a free passage through his dominions.
20 In another battle with the Boeotians, when he noticed that his allies were on the point of yielding, Agesilaus ordered a retreat through a narrow defile in the mountains, with the Lacedaemonians leading the way. When the enemy fell upon his rear, the allies had no choice but to conquer, or die.
21 G When Agesilaus invaded Boeotia, he ordered the allies to destroy the timber, and to ravage the countryside; but when he saw how negligent and lax they were in executing his orders, he commanded them to desist from the devastation. At the same time, he moved his camp three or four times each day, and because of these manoeuvres, the allies were obliged to cut down wood for the purpose of erecting their tents. Thus they were compelled by necessity to do what they had failed to do earlier, and to inflict this damage on the enemy.
23 A battle was fought between the Lacedaemonians and Thebans, which remained undecided when it was brought to an end by the approach of night. In the night, Agesilaus sent a group of trustworthy soldiers, with orders to carry away from the field or secretly bury all the Spartans that they could find. After accomplishing this, they returned to the camp before daybreak. When it became light, the enemy saw that almost all the dead were Thebans, and as a result they were dispirited, because they assumed that they had been completely defeated.
25 In order to halt the invasion of their territory by Agesilaus, the Thebans fortified a camp, on either side of which were narrow defiles. Agesilaus formed his army into a square, hollow column and advanced against the pass on the left. After he had drawn the enemy's whole attention in this direction, he secretly sent small groups of soldiers from his rear, who occupied the other pass without opposition. Then he entered the Theban territory through the other pass, and thoroughly devastated it before retreating safely.
26 While Agesilaus was encamped near Lampsacus, there came to him some Greek deserters from the mines, who announced in the camp, that the inhabitants of Lampsacus had decided to send all the prisoners that they might capture to the mines. This so enraged the army, that they advanced right up to the walls of the city, determined to storm and plunder it. Agesilaus, who was unable to suppress their fury but wanted to save the city, pretended to join in the general resentment. He ordered his troops immediately to destroy the neighbouring vineyards, because they belonged to the leading citizens. While the troops were engaged in doing this, Agesilaus managed to inform the citizens of Lampsacus of their danger, and they took steps to guard themselves against the intended attack.
28 After marching into Messenia, Agesilaus sent out a spy, who returned with information, not only that the Messenians had left their city in order to oppose him, but also that they had been joined by their wives and children, and even by their slaves, who had been manumitted for the purpose. He therefore abandoned his attack, observing that men who were so desperate would always fight with the most determined courage.
29 When the Lacedaemonians were besieged in their city by the Thebans, they were indignant at being cooped up within their walls along with the women, and decided to sally out in a glorious attempt either to conquer or to die. Agesilaus dissuaded them from this rash intention, by reminding them, that they had once blocked up the Athenians in a similar way; but the Athenians, instead of throwing away their lives in such a wild attempt, had manned their walls and defended their city, until the Lacedaemonians, worn down by the opposition and delay, had been compelled to raise the siege and evacuate the country.
31 G Agesilaus surprised by night the city of Menda, which supported the Athenians, and occupied the strongest part of it. The inhabitants were enraged, and immediately gathered together in their assembly. Agesilaus stood up and said to them all: "Why are you so angry and resentful? Half of you belong to the conspiracy, which betrayed the city to me." This made the citizens of Menda turn to suspecting each other, and they submitted to the victor's terms without further resistance.
32 It was the practice of Agesilaus, to restore to their countries without ransom those captives, who had powerful connections in their respective states. In this way he reduced their influence and ability to incite rebellion, by creating suspicion of their loyalty in the minds of their fellow citizens.
33 When Agesilaus negotiated with the enemy, he always insisted that they should send their most important men to discuss the terms with him. He then conversed with these men in a friendly fashion, and entertained them lavishly, so that he created suspicion of them among the common people, and caused dissension within their state.
G Clearchus advanced with a numerous army to a river, which in one place was so easily fordable that the water would not reach higher than the knees, but in another place was deep enough to be breast-high. He tried first to force a passage where the water was shallowest. But when he found that the crossing was strongly contested by the enemy with slings and arrows, he marched his hoplites to the spot where the river was deepest. While they were crossing there, most of their bodies were concealed beneath the water, and the parts which were above the water were covered by their shields. Therefore they were able to cross the river without loss, and forced the enemy to retreat. Then the remaining part of the army crossed the shallow ford without opposition.
5 When he was returning from a raid with a large amount of booty, Clearchus was surprised by a superior force on a mountain, where he had halted. The enemy began to dig a trench around the mountain, and his officers strongly urged him to fight, before they were completely blocked in. Clearchus told them to be patient. As soon as the evening approached, he threw his baggage and booty into the most incomplete part of the trench, and there he attacked the enemy, as if on a narrow pass, and defeated them because they were unable to use the advantage of their superior numbers.
6 When Clearchus was returning with the spoils which he had captured in Thrace, he was unable to complete his retreat to Byzantium, and encamped near the Thracian mountains. Because he expected that the Thracians would pour down from the mountains and attack him in the night, he ordered his men to keep on their armour, and to wake up at frequent intervals during the night. In order to test their readiness to meet a sudden attack, he chose a very dark night and in the middle of it, he appeared before his own camp at the head of a small detachment, who brandished and struck their weapons against each other in the Thracian manner. His troops, assuming that they were the enemy, immediately formed up to resist them. Meanwhile the Thracians really did advance in the hope of surprising them while they were asleep; but the Greeks, being already dressed and armed, confronted the assailants. The Thracians were unprepared for such a ready and vigorous resistance, and were defeated with great slaughter.
9 When Clearchus's hoplites were being harassed by the enemy's cavalry, he formed his army eight deep, in a looser formation than the usual square. He ordered his men to lower their shields, and under cover of the shields to use their swords to dig ditches, as large as they could conveniently make them. As soon as this was finished, he advanced beyond the ditches into the plain which lay in front of them, and ordered his troops, as soon as they were pressed by the enemy, to retreat behind the ditches which they had recently made. The enemy's cavalry, charging eagerly after them, fell one over another into the ditches, and became easy victims to the troops of Clearchus.
10 When Clearchus was in Thrace, his army was seized by a groundless fear of attacks at night. To restore order in his camp, he ordered that, if any tumult should arise, no-one should stir; and if anyone rose and left his tent, he should be killed as an enemy. This order effectively put an end to the fears of a night attack, and the camp became quiet and tranquil again.
G Phoebidas, the officer in charge of the Cadmeia, conceived a passion for the wife of Epaminondas, who informed her husband of the advances he had made to her. Epaminondas told her to feign acceptance of his advances, and to invite him to dinner; she asked him at the same time to bring along some friends with him, to whom she promised to introduce ladies who were as easy and compliant as herself. Accordingly, Phoebidas and his friends came to dinner, and found everything as they had hoped. After they had eaten, and drunk freely, the ladies asked for leave to retire, in order to go to an evening sacrifice; they promised that they would return later. The men agreed, and told the doormen to let them in when they returned. After leaving, the women exchanged their clothes with some beardless youths; the youths then accompanied one of the women, who led them back and after a short conversation persuaded the doormen to let them in. The young men, as they had been instructed, immediately killed both Phoebidas and his companions.
2 In the battle at Leuctra, Epaminondas commanded the Thebans, and Cleombrotus commanded the Lacedaemonians. The battle remained finely balanced for a long time, until Epaminondas called on his troops to give him one step more, and he would ensure the victory. They did as he asked; and they gained the victory. The Spartan king Cleombrotus was killed in the fighting, and the Laconians left the enemy in possession of the battlefield.
5 After a successful expedition against the Lacedaemonians, Epaminondas had it in his power to capture Lacedaemon; but he retreated from the vicinity of the city, without taking advantage of the opportunity. When his colleagues threatened to bring him to trial for his conduct, he showed them the Arcadians, Messenians, Argives and other Peloponnesians. "If we were to destroy the Lacedaemonians," he said, "all these would become our enemies. They are at present our allies, not for the sake of helping Thebes, but to keep the Spartan power in check."
6 Epaminondas used to encourage the Thebans to try their strength with the Lacedaemonians, who lived amongst them, in wrestling and boxing. When the Thebans easily mastered them in these exercises, they conceived a contempt for the people; and so they learned to meet them on the battlefield with confidence in their own superiority.
7 While he was in the Peloponnese, Epaminondas constantly drew up his army at sun-rise, as if ready to fight; and thereby he gave the impression to the enemy that he intended to confront them openly in battle. After the Lacedaemonians had been deceived by this feint, he attacked them during the night, while they were quite unprepared to resist him.
11 G In a battle between the Thebans and the Lacedaemonians, when night came on and the victory remained undecided, both armies returned to their respective camps. The Lacedaemonians, who encamped in regular formation, in their own regiments and morae, could see who was missing and were aware of their losses, which greatly discouraged and concerned them. But Epaminondas ordered the Thebans, without regard to their particular regiment or company, to eat as quickly as they could, in whatever tent they could find, sharing with each other whatever provisions they could find. The next morning they advanced to the attack, well refreshed and in full spirits; and they obtained an easy victory over the enemy, who were so disheartened by the loss of their friends that they were like an army that had already suffered a defeat.
15 In order to encourage the Thebans to make a vigorous attack on the Lacedaemonians, Epaminondas produced a large snake, and crushed its head in front of the army. "If you crush the head," he said, "you see how impotent is the rest of the body. So let us crush the head of the confederacy, that is the Laconians, and the power of their allies will become insignificant.". The Thebans appreciated the force of his argument. They attacked and routed the Laconian phalanx; after which, the whole army of the allies immediately gave way and fled.
G Gorgidas was the man, who first established the sacred band in Thebes; it consisted of three hundred men, who were devoted to each other by mutual obligations of love. And such was the effect of the passion, which they had conceived for each other, that they scarcely ever turned to flight; but they either died for each other, or bravely conquered.
G Arxilaidas the Laconian was marching through an inhospitable country, where he thought it very probable that ambushes might be formed against him. Although he had received no direct intelligence of any ambushes, he told his army that he had been informed of it as a fact, and he ordered them therefore to march in order of battle. His suspicions were justified; a large force had been placed in ambush to surprise him. He immediately attacked this force, who were unprepared for any resistance, because they did not expect the other army to be prepared for action; and he killed many of them.
G After their decisive victory at Leuctra, the Thebans installed a garrison in Gytheium, the port of Sparta. Isidas the Laconian formed a group of a hundred youths of his acquaintance, who oiled themselves and bound wreaths of olive around their heads. Then they concealed daggers under their arms, and ran naked across the plain, with Isidas in the lead and the others following. The Thebans, who were deceived by their appearance, supposed that they were just exercising themselves. But the Laconians took out their daggers and fell upon them. After killing some of the Thebans, and driving out the others, they regained possession of Gytheium.
G In an expedition against Terina, Cleandridas the Laconian marched his army through a concealed valley, in order to surprise the city. But the inhabitants of the city, who were informed of his plans by deserters, marched out and appeared on the hills above him. His troops were disheartened by the advantageous position which the enemy had taken, but Cleandridas told them to take courage. He then ordered a herald to proclaim, "Those men of Terina, who answer the agreed signal, will remain safe." The inhabitants of Terina, who were induced by this proclamation to suppose that they were being betrayed, went back as quickly as possible to defend their city. Meanwhile Cleandridas continued his march in safety; and, after ravaging the countryside, he retreated without opposition.
2 Cleandridas, after the Thurians under his command had defeated the Lucanians, led his men back to the field of battle. He pointed out to them, on the spot where they had stood, the close and compact manner in which they had fought, and he told them that it was because of this that they had won the victory; but the enemy, who left their posts and loosened their ranks, had been unable to withstand their united attack. Meanwhile, the Lucanians rallied and advanced against him with a considerably larger force. Cleandridas retreated to a confined and narrow spot, where the enemy could not make use of their superiority in numbers, but his own men could extend their front to an equal length. By this manoeuvre he defeated the Lucanians a second time.
3 The inhabitants of Tegea suspected that their leaders secretly supported the Lacedaemonians. In order to increase this suspicion, when Cleandridas ravaged their territory, he scrupulously avoided damaging the estates of their leaders. As a result of these signs of favour from the enemy, the leaders were immediately charged with treason. When they found that the resentment of the people against them was running high, they feared that they would be condemned on this charge. Therefore the leaders were forced by the false suspicion to become real traitors, and betrayed their city to Cleandridas.
4 In the war against the Lucanians, Cleandridas, whose own army was one and a half times the size of the enemy, was afraid that he would be unable to bring them to battle, if they knew his true strength. Therefore he formed a deep phalanx, with a narrow front. The Lucanians, who were made over-confident by his supposedly small numbers, tried to block his retreat, by extending their ranks in order to surround him. After the Lucanians had (?) made their own retreat impossible by this manoeuvre, Cleandridas ordered his own officers to extend their formation as wide as they could. In this way he surrounded the enemy, who were all killed, except for a few who escaped with difficulty.
G Deiphantes ordered the Dorians to bring the Argives out to battle, by ravaging their territory. He himself sailed off with a detachment, and landed near a mountain, where he lay concealed. A scout was sent to inform the Argives of the damage which the Dorians had committed; they immediately set off to confront the raiders. Meanwhile Deiphantes rushed forwards from his ships with his detachment, and captured the camp which had been left without defenders. In this way the parent, children and wives of the Argive fell into the hands of the enemy. The Argives were forced to surrender their country and cities to the Dorians, in order to recover their families.
G Eurytion, king of the Lacedaemonians, found that the war which he had undertaken against the Arcadians was lasting longer than he had expected. In order to sow dissension amongst the Arcadians, he sent a herald, to inform them, that the Lacedaemonians would end the war, if they banished those who were guilty of killing Agis. Therefore those, who had been responsible for the death of Agis, banded together to avoid being punished by the people as the price of peace. They won the support of the slaves through the promise of their freedom, and put to death all of their opponents. After the people had been divided into two factions in this way, the party who were in favour of peace assembled in a particular quarter of the city of Mantineia, and threw open the gates to the enemy; and so by their help the Lacedaemonians obtained what they had been unable to achieve by force of arms.
G Hippodamas was besieged at Prasiae by the Arcadians, and reduced to great distress by the lack of provisions. The Arcadians intercepted a courier, whom the Spartans had sent to Hippodamas; they led the courier to the walls, and gave him permission to deliver his message, but would not allow him to enter the city. Hippodamas immediately called out to him from the walls, "Tell the ephors to deliver us from the woman, who is bound in the temple of Chalcioecus." The Arcadians could make nothing of this instruction, but the Lacedaemonians understood that he was asking to be delivered from famine. For in the temple of Chalcioecus there was a picture of Famine, who was shown as a woman, pale and emaciated, with her hands tied behind her back. In this way Hippodamas contrived to send a message which was clear to his fellow-citizens, but kept it secret from the enemy.
G Megacleidas, who was retreating from a superior force, took up position on a rough and woody mountain. When he was closely pressed by the enemy, he split up his army, and sent the most heavy-laden and useless part of it, to make their escape through the woods. When the enemy discovered this, they set off in pursuit of the fugitives; but Megacleidas with the best part of his troops took a different route, and retreated safely.
G A Lacedaemonian harmost, who was being closely besieged by the Athenians, had no more than two days' provisions left. The Athenians escorted a herald, whom the Spartans had sent to him, up to the walls, but would not allow him to go inside. The herald shouted from where he stood, "The Lacedaemonians command you to persist; for you will soon receive relief." To this the harmost replied, "Tell the Lacedaemonians to be in no hurry; for we still have six months' provisions left." The Athenians, because winter was now approaching and they did not care for a tedious winter campaign, raised the siege and disbanded their army.
G When Thibron was attacking a fort in Asia, he persuaded the governor to meet him, in order to try to negotiate a truce. And if they failed to reach agreement, he promised on oath to conduct him back to the fort. The governor accordingly went out to meet him, and while they were talking, the garrison became laxer in their duties because the expected a truce. The besiegers took advantage of this, and captured the fort by storm. Thibron, as he had promised, conducted the governor back to the fort; and there he ordered him to be executed.
G Ischolaus observed that the Athenian fleet at Aenus was waiting in strength close to the coast, and suspected that they intended to cut out some of his ships from the harbour. He ordered his ships to be attached by their masts to a tower, that stood on the sea-wall; the ships nearest the shore were fastened directly to the tower, and the others were attached to each other. In the night, the Athenians made the attempt which Ischolaus suspected. When the people of Aenus were informed of this by the guard, they immediately sallied forth and caused great havoc amongst the Athenians, both by sea and by land.
2 Ischolaus was marching through a country, which in one part was steep and craggy, with many precipices, while in the other part the enemy had taken an advantageous position on a mountain that commanded the plain below. When the wind was very high, he ordered a quantity of wood to be set on fire. The enemy were driven from their position by the smoke and fire, and Ischolaus took the opportunity to pass by them without loss or danger.
3 When Chabrias was besieging him at Drys, and was moving a battering ram up to the walls, Ischolaus gave orders for part of the wall to be demolished. He supposed that the effect of this would be two-fold: it would force his own soldiers to fight more resolutely, because they no longer had the protection of the wall; and it would discourage the enemy from carrying on with their siege-works, when they saw how little his men depended on their fortifications. This stratagem was so effective, that the enemy did not venture to enter into the city, whose inhabitants were acting with such desperation.
4 When Ischolaus was informed that some of the guards intended to betray the city, which was then being besieged by the Athenians, he ordered a mercenary to be posted with every sentry. By this means, without suggesting any suspicion, he thwarted any plans of treachery.
G The enemy caught up with Mnasippidas, who had a much smaller force, and attacked him in the night. He ordered his light-armed troops and trumpeters to wheel round. After they had gone round the enemy's flank, they sounded the charge and attacked them in the rear with a shower of missiles. The enemy, finding themselves in this way attacked both in front and in the rear, suspected that they were in danger of being surrounded by a numerous army, and made a precipitate retreat.
G While Agesipolis was besieging Mantineia, the Lacedaemonians were joined by their allies, who were sympathetic towards the Mantineians, but were obliged to help the Lacedaemonians because they were at that time the leading power in Greece. Agesipolis was informed that the allies were secretly supplying the defenders with whatever they might need. To prevent this happening in future, he let loose a number of dogs around the camp, and particularly around the part which faced towards the city. This stopped the communications with the defenders; because no-one ventured to cross between the camp and the city, for fear of being discovered by the barking of the dogs.
G Sthenippus the Laconian, pretending resentment at having been fined by the ephors, went off to Tegea, where he was readily received. While he was living there, he was able to bribe a group who were opposed to Aristocles, their ruler. With their assistance he fell upon Aristocles, while he was going to a sacrifice, and killed him.
G Callicratidas of Cyrene asked the commander of the citadel at Magnesia, to receive four of his sick. After this had been agreed, four men in complete armour, with swords hidden under their cloaks, lay down on stretchers, and twenty young men, with weapons concealed, carried the stretchers. As soon as they were let inside the walls, they killed the guards and gained control of the citadel.
2 When Callicratidas was being besieged at Magnesia, and the enemy were moving battering rams up to the walls, he ordered a breach to be made in the walls, in a place which was not easily accessible to the enemy. While the attention of the enemy was still fixed on the area where they were attacking, he sallied out through the breach. He vigorously attacked the rear of the enemy, drove them off with great loss, and made many of them prisoners. After his return to the city, he repaired the breach which he had made in the walls.
G # When Magas left Cyrene, to go on a foreign expedition, he left his friends in charge of the city. But he stored the missiles and other weapons of war in the fortress, and dismantled the walls; so that, if any revolution should be attempted in his absence, he should find it easy to re-enter the city on his return.
2 When Magas captured Paraetonium, he order the guards to kindle a "friendly" fire signal both in the evening, and early in the morning. By this deception, he advanced without resistance into the surrounding country, as far as the place that is called Chi.
G # When Cleonymus, king of Lacedaemon, was besieging Troezen, he posted expert marksmen against different parts of the city, and he ordered them to hurl javelins into the city, which carried this inscription: "I have come to preserve the freedom of Troezen." Also he sent the Troezenians, whom he had taken prisoners, back home without ransom, so that they might inform their fellow citizens of the happy news. However Eudamidas, an officer of experience and indefatigable vigilance, strongly opposed his plans. While the different factions in the city were engaged in arguments and discord, Cleonymus scaled the walls. Then he made himself master of the city, and placed a Spartan garrison in it.
2 # At the siege of Edessa, when a breach was made in the walls, the spear-men, whose spears were sixteen cubits long, sallied out against the assailants. Cleonymus deepened his phalanx, and ordered the front line not to use their weapons, but with both hands to seize the enemy's spears, and hold them fast; while the next rank immediately advanced, and closed upon them. When their spears were seized in this way, the men retreated; but the second rank, pressing upon them, either took them prisoner, or killed them. By this manoeuvre of Cleonymus, the long and formidable sarissa was rendered useless, and became rather an encumbrance, than a dangerous weapon.
G In order to gain permission to fortify a citadel in Heracleia, Clearchus ordered the mercenaries to go out by night, and plunder, rob, maim and do all the damage they could. Suffering from these injuries, the citizens complained to Clearchus, and begged his protection. He told them, it would be impossible to stop the depredations of the troops, unless they were confined within walls, which is what he wanted to recommend to them. The citizens agreed, and assigned part of the city, where he could raise a wall and build a citadel. In fact, this citadel offered no protection to the citizens, but it enabled Clearchus to maltreat them in any way he chose.
2 Clearchus, the tyrant of Heracleia, announced that he intended to dismiss his guards, and restore the republic into the hands of the council of Three Hundred. The Three Hundred accordingly met at the council house, in order to express their gratitude to him for the restitution of their liberty. Clearchus went to the council house, and placed an armed guard at the door. Then he ordered them to be called out one by one; the soldiers seized them as they came out, and took them away to the citadel.
3 Clearchus, who suspected that the number of citizens was too large for the safety of his government, but had no pretext for removing them, undertook an expedition against the city of Astacus in the middle of the dog-days. He recruited an army of men, aged from sixteen years to (?) sixty-five. When he came near to Astacus, he established a camp for the citizens on a flat marsh, full of dead and stagnant water. He ordered them to watch the movements of the Thracians, while he himself advanced with the mercenaries, as if to sustain all the danger of the siege; but he took up a position on a hill, which was shaded by trees, and refreshed by streams. Then he protracted the siege, until all the citizens were dead, from the fatal diseases which were inevitably caused by the stagnant waters in that hot season. Having achieved his purpose, he raised the siege, and pretended that the citizens had died as a result of an infectious disease.
G When Aristomenes of Lacedaemon was serving in a naval battle as an ally of Dionysius, he noticed that during a sudden retreat, some of the enemy's triremes had appeared in the middle of his squadron. Then he cried out to his officers, "Let them escape." When the enemy heard this, they assumed that they were utterly defeated; they gave up fighting, and turned to flight.
3 On another occasion, when Aristomenes the Messenian had been made prisoner by the Lacedaemonians, and was bound with cords, he went so close to a fire which was in the prison, that it burnt through the cords. Then he fell upon the guards and slew them. He proceeded secretly into Sparta, where he fixed up the guards' shields in the temple of Chalcioecus with this inscription: "Aristomenes has escaped from the Lacedaemonians unhurt." Then he returned to Messenia.
G In a battle near Mantineia, both the Thebans and the Mantineians claimed the victory. However the Mantineians wanted to send heralds to the Thebans, to ask for permission to carry off their dead. But Cineas the Athenian, whose brother Demetrius had died in the battle, opposed this suggestion. He said that he would rather leave his brother without decent burial, than surrender the honour of victory to the enemy. "My brother sacrificed his life," he added, "to prevent the enemy from erecting trophies to the disgrace of ourselves and our country." The Mantineians were moved by the brave words of Cineas, and decided not to send any heralds.
G The Thasians were closely besieged by the Athenians, and many of them were dying every day from war and famine; but none of them ventured to suggest a treaty with the enemy, because of a law which made it a capital offence to propose a treaty with the Athenians. Then Hegetorides put a rope around his neck, entered the assembly of the Thasians, and spoke as follows: "Fellow citizens, you can dispose of me as you think fit, and as best suits your interests. But in pity for the rest of the citizens, who have survived the slaughter, that famine and the sword have made among us, I ask you to repeal the law which forbids all discussion of peace." The Thasians took his advice; they acquitted Hegetorides, and repealed the law.
G Deinias the son of Telesippus, by birth a Pheraean, moved to Crannon a city of Thessaly, where he supported himself by catching birds on the lakes and rivers. From that lowly position he set out to establish himself as tyrant of the city, by the following devices. The citizens of Crannon used to pay by agreement a certain stipend every year for the watch and guard of the city. Deinias took on this duty; and for three years he performed his office so diligently, that the citizens could walk out more securely in the night, than by day. His conduct in this office gained him a great reputation; and to ingratiate himself further with the people, he hired more watchmen, in order to keep everything in greater security. When the task of collecting the tithe of corn was put out for contract, he persuaded his younger brother, who had never before held any public office, to take it on, by emphasising the profits which could be made from it. His brother, thus appointed collector, associated with him a number of young men, to survey the various tracts of land, and collect the corn. On the occasion of a festival, called Itonia, when the inhabitants of Crannon give themselves up to banqueting and merriment, Deinias gathered together his own dependants, the watchmen, and the gatherers of corn, who were connected with his brother. With this band of sober men he attacked and easily defeated the drunken citizens; he slew more than a thousand of them, and made himself tyrant of Crannon.
G After Nicon, a pirate from Pherae in the Peloponnese, had by frequent raids done great damage to the property of the Messenians, Agemachus, the Messenian general, at last surprised and captured him. When he was brought before their assembly, Nicon promised, if the Messenians would spare his life, to put them in possession of Pherae. To this they agreed: and choosing a dark night, he took with him a few attendants, with bundles of straw on their shoulders, but directed a greater number to follow him a short distance behind. During the second watch of the night, he arrived at the gates, called out to the sentinels, and gave them the password. They recognised his voice, as well as the password, and so they instantly opened the gates. When Nicon and his companions had entered, they threw down their bundles, and drawing their swords slew the sentinels; and the rest of the men, rushing in, took control of the city.
G # Dioetas, the general of the Achaeans, was unable to capture the city of Heraea by a regular siege, but contrived by a stratagem to achieve what he had attempted in vain by force of arms. By large bribes he won over some of the citizens to his purpose; they took frequent opportunities of visiting the sentinels of the gates: and while familiarly conversing and drinking with them, they managed to take an impression of the keys, which they sent to Dioetas, who made exact copies of the keys. He sent these copies back to his collaborators, and told them to fix a night, when they would open the gates to him. By this means he entered the city with a select body of troops, but he found it necessary to use yet another stratagem; because the citizens of Heraea, when they discovered what had happened, sallied forth in great numbers, and had the advantage of being well acquainted with every part of the city. Dioetas, seeing such formidable opposition, ordered his trumpeters to disperse to every part of the city, and to sound the attack wherever they went. The citizens of Heraea, hearing the sound of the enemy's trumpets on all sides, assumed that the enemy were already in possession of the whole city; and so they fled away. Afterwards they sent envoys to Dioetas, asking for permission to return to their own country; and they promised that they would remain subject to the Achaeans in the future.
G When the Boeotians were besieging Elateia, Onomarchus the Phocian ordered all the inhabitants to leave the town, and locked the gates. In one row he placed the fathers, mothers, children and wives; and in front of them he placed all those who could bear arms, in order of battle. Pelopidas realised, from such an appearance of desperation, that they were determined either to conquer or to die; and he retreated without risking a battle.
2 When Onomarchus was fighting against the Macedonians, he took up a position with a steep and craggy mountain in his rear; and on the top of the mountain he placed in ambush a number of men, who were expert in throwing stones, with a supply of huge stones and pieces of jagged rock for this purpose. He then advanced, and formed up his army on the plain. The Macedonians began the attack with their javelins, which the Phocians pretended they were unable to resist, and retreated half-way up the mountain. The Macedonians eagerly pursued them, until they came within reach of the men in ambush, who then emerged and started to attack the Macedonian phalanx with huge stones. Onomarchus then gave the signal to the Phocians to turn around and renew the fight. The Macedonians, who were vigorously attacked by the troops in front of them, and grievously harassed by those above them, with difficulty succeeded in making a rapid retreat. On this occasion, Philippus the king of Macedonia is said to have cried out, "We do not run away, but retreat like rams, ready to renew the fight with greater strength."
Attalus' home page | 03.04.19 | Any comments?


text:
Cornulella santamartae är en svampdjursart som beskrevs av van Soest, Zea och Kielman 1994. Cornulella santamartae ingår i släktet Cornulella och familjen Acarnidae.

Artens utbredningsområde är havet utanför Colombia. Inga underarter finns listade i Catalogue of Life.

Källor

Horn- och kiselsvampar
santamartae

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


With our bespoke service you can be sure your new window will fit perfectly with your abode. Our unique designs are made with only your home in mind, so you can feel at ease knowing we have provided you with a range of double glazing Dunstable's homeowners will be absolutely delighted with for the long term. We understand how important the overall look and feel of your home is and we only offer solutions we think will compliment your existing property.
We invite you to visit our wide-range showroom in near by Aylesbury. As one of the most extensive of its sort you are likely to find in the South of England, you can be sure to view a style which will fit your individual needs. Only a short drive from your home, there's nothing we would rather be doing than creating windows Dunstable's residents can enjoy. With around 20,000 installations under our belt and a 45 person team, we are an experienced, well regarded company you can feel really trust to do you proud, every time.
We only employ the most skilled professional at Bergson and Eaton. They will ensure the construction procedure adheres to only the best standards. Our team has a wealth of experience and knowledge that they will be happy to share with you, giving you great advice on the design which will suit your individual needs. Our tailored windows will fit faultlessly to your home. It will look like it's been there for years!
Additionally, we only offer the best, hand selected resources to make our windows something you can be proud of. If you would like some specialist glass or a feature piece, a member of our friendly team will happily talk you through the options we have for you.
You can contact us today with any questions you may have on 03336 007 007. Otherwise, you can submit queries through our online form which you can find here.
Browse our website for photos, or if you would prefer to see our work in person, pop along to our showroom, the address can be found here.


text:
Page printed from https://youngfoundation.org/?in_the_news=from-invisible-hands-to-invisible-friends-my-happiness-heroes-and-heroines-huffington-post
From Invisible Hands to Invisible Friends: My Happiness Heroes and Heroines (Huffington Post- Laura Dosanjh)
We all want to be happy, and unhappiness can destroy lives. Jeremy Bentham talked about the 'greatest happiness principle' (the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people) and much of current happiness discourse is on the topic of a "new common good". Richard Layard, in his book "Happiness: Lessons from a new science (Penguin books, 2011)" astutely observes that "we are all somewhere in between feeling wonderful and half dead". So what can we do to help ourselves, those around us, and our communities, feel more wonderful, and less half dead, and work towards the common good on this first International Day of Happiness?
Research by John Helliwell at University of Columbia based on the World Values Survey has helped us to understand more clearly the sources of happiness. An important theme is the quality of our relationships, whether close family ties, friendships, our relationships with neighbours or even work colleagues. And these relationships are essentially based on trust.
My thought on this day of happiness is that each of us has a role in working towards the common good, using our own personal agency. Those that can, should seek to do more to aim for the greatest happiness through building trust between people, in our communities, at work and in our daily lives. And so my happiness heroes and heroines are those that are – sometimes visibly, but often invisibly – working in this way within their communities. They are so often the "invisible friends", working hard to counter the effects of the "invisible hand" of economic markets, in which self interest prevails to produce economic wealth. With more invisible friends we might build a happier society, that is more able to increase wellbeing, and not just wealth.
In my daily life these are the people who organise street parties, who secretly plant flowers round the trees, and my colleagues who take the trouble to organise events at work in their free time and make the workplace happier. I am constantly struck by how, even in a crowded city like London, as I travel home on a packed train, there is often a sense of solidarity. A typical example from Transport for London's Acts of Kindness website– a mum was stuck at the bottom of an escalator at Victoria Tube station with a baby in a pushchair and a frightened toddler who refused to go up. People walked around them until a man, in his 50s, with mum's approval, took the toddler's hand, stepped on with her and talked to distract her all the way to the top. There was a big smile from the toddler at her sense of achievement.
At the Young Foundation we are fortunate in being home to Action for Happiness, a movement of people committed to building a happier society. But we also see the effects of invisible friends in our work on community resilience, where some communities are more able to adapt to change than others, including supporting the most vulnerable. Last year in Camden one of my colleagues met Emma, who helps to runs a support group for parents with learning disabilities. The funding was cut, and the parents decided to run it themselves. They get the room free of charge, but no-one is paid. Emma says that, for some parents, this peer support makes all the difference and means their children do not need to be taken into care.
And policy makers are starting to embrace this way of thinking. In the UK the notions of wellbeing measurement and social action appear to be safely on the national agenda, with cross-party support. Let's hope that this extends to other areas of government policy, reaching out to those in society who could do with a bit more happiness in their lives. But in the end, in our personal lives and our relationships, we can all choose be part of the movement and be a happiness hero or heroine.
Read the original article on the Huffington Post.
Laura Dosanjh is the Director of Applied Innovation at the Young Foundation.