text:
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Georgia Case Law › Supreme Court of Georgia Decisions › 2017 › Smith v. Northside Hospital, Inc.
Smith v. Northside Hospital, Inc.
E. Kendrick Smith, an Atlanta lawyer, brought this action to compel a corporation, Northside Hospital, Inc. and its parent company, Northside Health Services, Inc., (collectively, "Northside"), to provide him with access to certain documents in response to his request under the Georgia Open Records Act ("the Act"). A government agency owns and operates a large and complex hospital as part of its mission to provide healthcare throughout Fulton County. The agency leased its assets (including the hospital) to the Northside for a 40-year term at a relatively minimal rent. All governmental powers were delegated to Northside with respect to running the hospital and other assets. Northside's organizing documents reflected that its purpose aligned with the agency's: to provide healthcare for the benefit of the public. Thirty years into the arrangement, the corporation became "massive," and owned other assets in surrounding counties. In resisting Smith's request for records, Northside argued it no didn't really do anything on behalf of the agency (in part because the now nearly-nonexistent agency has no idea what the corporation is doing), and thus the corporation's records of a series of healthcare-related acquisitions weren't subject to public inspection. The Georgia Supreme Court surmised that if the corporation's aggressive position were wholly correct, it would cast serious doubt on the legality of the whole arrangement between Northside and the agency. Smith argued everything Northside did was for the agency's benefit and thus all of its records were public. The Supreme Court concluded both were wrong: Northside's operation of the hospital and other leased facilities was a service it performed on behalf of the agency, so records related to that operation were public records. But whether the acquisition-related records sought here were also public records depended on how closely related the acquisition was to the operation of the leased facilities, a factual question for the trial court to determine on remand.
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA Atlanta November 2, 2017 The Honorable Supreme Court met pursuant to adjournment. The following order was passed: It appearing that the enclosed opinion decides a second-term appeal, which must be concluded by the end of the August Term on November 18, 2017, it is ordered that a motion for reconsideration, if any, including any motions submitted via the Court's electronic filing system, must be received in the Clerk's Office by 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, November 9, 2017. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA Clerk 's Office, Atlanta I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Supreme Court of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: November 2, 2017 S16G1463. SMITH v. NORTHSIDE HOSPITAL, INC. et al. PETERSON, Justice. A government agency owns and operates a large and complex hospital as part of its mission to provide healthcare throughout Fulton County. Perhaps concerned that providing healthcare might not be the sweet spot of government competence, the agency decides that a private, nonprofit corporation should be created to do it instead. The agency leases its considerable assets (including the hospital) to the newly-created corporation for 40 years at a relatively minimal rent, and delegates to the corporation nearly all of its governmental powers and responsibilities. The corporation's organizing documents reflect that its purpose aligns very well with the agency's: to provide healthcare for the benefit of the public. Thirty years later, the corporation has become massive, with considerable assets in surrounding counties. With the agency barely even a dwindling dot in the rear-view mirror, the corporation now argues that it doesn't really do anything on behalf of the agency (in part because the now nearly-nonexistent agency has no idea what the corporation is doing), and thus the corporation's records of a series of healthcare-related acquisitions aren't subject to public inspection. If the corporation's aggressive position were wholly correct, it may well cast serious doubt on the legality of the whole arrangement between the corporation and the agency. A lawyer who seeks records from the corporation under this state's sunshine laws, on the other hand, takes the opposite (but equally aggressive) position, contending that everything the corporation does is for the agency's benefit and thus all of its records are public. Both are wrong. The corporation's operation of the hospital and other leased facilities is a service it performs on behalf of the agency, and so records related to that operation are public records. But whether the acquisition-related records sought here are also public records depends on how closely related the acquisition was to the operation of the leased facilities, a factual question for the trial court to determine on remand. E. Kendrick Smith, an Atlanta lawyer, brought this action to compel the corporation — Northside Hospital, Inc. and its parent company, Northside Health Services, Inc., (collectively, "Northside") — to provide him with access 2 to certain documents in response to his request under the Georgia Open Records Act ("the Act"). The trial court dismissed Smith's action after a bench trial, and a divided Court of Appeals affirmed. Smith v. Northside Hosp., Inc., 336 Ga. App. 843 (783 SE2d 480) (2016). We granted certiorari to consider whether the lower courts erred in concluding that the documents in question were not "public records" within the meaning of the Act. After oral argument and considerable briefing, we conclude that the Court of Appeals and trial court applied the wrong legal standard, reverse the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case for the trial court to apply the correct legal standard. The facts relevant to this appeal are largely undisputed. In 1966, the Commissioners of Roads and Revenues of Fulton County passed a resolution creating the Fulton County Hospital Authority (the "Authority"), which would "have and exercise all of the powers granted and prescribed in the Hospital Authority Laws." The Authority was created because of the need in Fulton County for improved and increased hospital facilities to serve the community. And to that end, the Authority opened Northside Hospital, which it owned and operated for approximately the next 25 years. In the early 1990s, the Authority, recognizing "the rapidly changing healthcare environment in which it 3 operate[d]," undertook a study to determine how best to improve the hospital's operations. Ultimately, the Authority concluded that the best option to achieve its goals was to restructure through a long-term lease of the hospital and related assets for operation by a private, charitable, nonprofit corporation. The Authority further determined that "[r]ecent developments and opportunities affecting the ability of the [h]ospital to remain competitive and to enhance its position as a principal provider of specialty healthcare services . . . reinforced the importance of restructuring to the long term competitive position of the [h]ospital." Based on the foregoing assessments, the Authority on November 1, 1991, executed a lease and transfer agreement ("the Agreement") with the newlyformed Northside Hospital, Inc., a private, nonprofit corporation. Under the Agreement, the Authority leased the hospital's facilities and transferred all of its "Operating Assets" and "Existing Operations" — terms defined in the Agreement as discussed in detail below — to Northside for a term of 40 years. The "Leased Facilities" — again, a defined term in the Agreement — included certain tracts of real property in Fulton County and the facilities located thereon: Northside Hospital, a surgery center, office buildings, and improvements. The 4 Authority agreed to use its best efforts to cause the issuance of tax-exempt revenue anticipation certificates or other evidences of indebtedness in order to fund Northside's operation and expansion of the hospital system. The Authority also gave Northside the power to act for the Authority. Northside was to operate the hospital subject to certain restrictions, pay all of the Authority's debts and assume all of its liabilities incurred in connection with the Leased Facilities, Operating Assets, and Existing Operations, and make a yearly rent payment of $100,000. It appears from the record that the Authority and Northside have continued to renew their 40-year agreement each year. In so doing, the Authority reaffirms its determination that its agreement with Northside will promote the public health needs of the community and gives the Authority sufficient control to ensure compliance with the law and the fulfillment of its mission. To the extent the Authority has maintained a post-lease existence apart from Northside, it is minimal. Northside board members and officers serve as Authority members. The Authority has no employees or staff of its own. Northside's director of legal services serves as the Authority's secretary and maintains the Authority's records, which are stored at Northside's legal offices. 5 The Authority generally holds quarterly meetings (usually at Northside) of about 30 minutes each. Relevant to this dispute, between 2011 and 2013, Northside entered into transactions to acquire four privately-owned physician groups.1 In 2013, after learning of these transactions, Smith sent a letter to Northside and the Authority, entitled "Open Records Request," seeking access to financial statements and other documents related to the acquisitions.2 The Authority responded by informing Smith that it did not possess any records or documents that were responsive to his request. Northside also responded to Smith, declining to comply with his request. Northside told Smith that it is a private, nonprofit hospital that is not subject to the Act and that even if it were subject to the Act, 1 Northside asserts that only some of the practices' assets have been acquired and that the practices remain independent, for-profit entities. But Northside acknowledges it has a fee simple interest in assets and/or operations related to the transactions. 2 Specifically, the letter identified 15 different categories of requested documents related to each acquisition, including, for example, "[a]ll contracts, agreements, instruments, or other documents by which the [a]cquisition was effected in whole or in part"; "any indemnification agreements and any agreements concerning the management or operation . . . of any medical or healthcare practice acquired . . ."; documents that "constitute, evidence or reflect any consideration, compensation, or remuneration of any type provided by or on behalf of [Northside]"; and "[a]ll documents that constitute, evidence, or reflect any strategic plan or business forecast for assets, membership interests, or any other property or interest acquired in the [a]cquisition" for the 24 months preceding the acquisition. 6 the requested documents, which are "highly sensitive," would be exempt under various provisions of the Act, including the trade-secrets exemption. In addition, Northside informed Smith that it had entered into binding confidentiality agreements that prohibited disclosure of the requested documents. Smith subsequently filed this lawsuit against Northside, requesting that the trial court compel Northside to comply with his open records request. The trial court later permitted three of the four private practices that Northside acquired to intervene in the case, two as defendants and the third as a third-party plaintiff seeking declaratory relief. The case ultimately proceeded to a bench trial, which was bifurcated to resolve the two dispositive issues before the trial court: (1) whether the documents in question were "public records" under the Act; and (2) if so, whether the records contained exempt trade secrets. After Smith presented his evidence as to the first issue, Northside and the intervenors moved for an involuntary dismissal of the case, and the trial court denied the motion. But when Northside and the intervenors renewed the motion after the close of all the evidence on the first issue, the court granted it. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and we granted certiorari. 7 "In reviewing a bench trial, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's rulings, defer to the trial court's credibility judgments, and will not set aside the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous." Gibson v. Gibson, 301 Ga. 622, 624 (801 SE2d 40) (2017). A trial court's involuntary dismissal of a claim pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-41 (b) "may be reversed only if the evidence demands a contrary finding." Id. (citation and punctuation omitted). But a trial court's conclusions of law are subject to de novo review. Second Refuge Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Inc. v. Lollar, 282 Ga. 721, 724 (2) (653 SE2d 462) (2007). And the application of the wrong legal standard may be reversible error. See Great Amer. Dream, Inc. v. DeKalb Cnty., 290 Ga. 749, 752 (1) (727 SE2d 667) (2012). 1. A public agency need not always have direct involvement in or even knowledge of a particular action of a private entity for that action to qualify as the performance of a service or function "on behalf of" the agency. Under the Act, "[a]ll public records shall be open for personal inspection and copying, except those which by order of a court of this state or by law are specifically exempted from disclosure." OCGA § 50-18-71 (a). The Act previously defined public records as only those records "prepared and maintained or received in the course of the operation of a public office or 8 agency" or "received or maintained by a private person or entity on behalf of a public office or agency[.]" See Ga. L. 1992, pp. 1061, 1064 § 5 (codified at prior version of OCGA § 50-18-70 (a)). In 1999, the Legislature amended the statute to include records "received or maintained by a private person, firm, corporation or other private entity in the performance of a service or function for or on behalf of an agency[.]" Ga. L. 1999, pp. 552, 553, § 1. OCGA § 50-1870 has since been amended, see Ga. L. 2012, pp. 218, 226, § 2, but the Legislature retained the "in the performance of a service or function for or on behalf of an agency" language; it now defines "public records" to include "all documents . . . prepared and maintained or received by an agency or by a private person or entity in the performance of a service or function for or on behalf of an agency[.]" OCGA § 50-18-70 (b) (2). The definition of "agency" employed by the statute includes "[e]very . . . authority" of "every county . . . of this state." See OCGA § 50-14-1 (a) (1) (B), (C); OCGA § 50-18-70 (b) (1). The parties agree that the Authority is an "agency" and Northside is not; the only question posed by this appeal is whether the documents sought by Smith were "prepared and maintained or received by" Northside "in the performance of a service or function for or on behalf of" the Authority. In 9 construing a statute, "we must afford the statutory text its plain and ordinary meaning, we must view the statutory text in the context in which it appears, and we must read the statutory text in its most natural and reasonable way, as an ordinary speaker of the English language would." Deal v. Coleman, 294 Ga. 170, 172-173 (1) (a) (751 SE2d 337) (2013) (citations omitted).3 Dictionaries define "on behalf of" as including "as the agent or representative of," "on the part of," and "in the name of." See Black's Law Dictionary 184 (10th ed. 2014); Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern American Usage 78 (1998); see also Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 141 (9th ed. 1991). In the context of the statute, a private entity acts "on behalf of" a government agency when the agency arranges for the private entity to perform a government function that the agency would otherwise have to perform. But nothing in this statutory text requires that the agency direct the private entity in the specific details of its work, or even know those details, in order for the records of that work to be 3 The General Assembly has directed us to construe the Act broadly in favor of making "governmental records" available to the public. OCGA § 50-18-70 (a). Drawing a distinction between the terms "public" and "governmental," Northside argues that a private entity's records could never be deemed "governmental records," and urges us to construe the statute narrowly in its favor given the availability of criminal penalties for noncompliance. We need not resolve this question of statutory construction here; instead, we simply construe the Act reasonably. 10 public records; it is certainly possible for an entity that has been given a broad charge to work on an agency's behalf to do that work without informing the agency about everything.4 Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals employed a narrower standard, requiring Smith to show that the Authority approved, directed, or was involved with the specific transactions at issue. In concluding that Smith had not shown that the documents that he sought were public records, the trial court stated that there was no evidence that Northside "entered into or performed any of the transactions for or on behalf of the Authority, or exercised any of the Authority's powers when doing so[,]" no evidence "that the Authority discussed in advance, requested, approved, or authorized Northside to enter into the transactions at issue[,]" and no evidence that "the Authority was involved in any way in the negotiating of the transactions or preparing, executing, maintaining, or receiving the documents sought." The trial court found that it could not 4 In the analogous context of a principal/agent relationship, an agent may bind its principal without the principal's knowledge. See OCGA § 10-6-56 ("The principal shall be bound by all representations made by his agent in the business of his agency and also by his willful concealment of material facts, although they are unknown to the principal and known only by the agent."). 11 conclude "that Northside functioned under the direction and control of the Authority as its vehicle to implement the Authority's duty to provide public health, or that there is a shared ownership and control between the Authority and Northside such that the documents at issue were generated or maintained by Northside on behalf of the Authority." In affirming the trial court, the Court of Appeals wrote: Smith seeks documents related to commercial transactions between private entities, which the Authority had no knowledge, interest, or involvement in to any degree. Indeed, these acquisitions were negotiated and executed solely by Northside for its own private purposes, and it did not seek the Authority's approval or even inform the Authority of its plans in advance. Moreover, Smith presented no evidence that any public officials participated in the negotiations, and it was undisputed that no public funds were used to finance the acquisitions. Northside Hosp., 336 Ga. App. at 856-857 (1). Evidence that a public official directed or had knowledge of a particular action may be one way to determine that the action was undertaken on behalf of a public agency, but it isn't always necessary. When the work a private entity does for an agency is a relatively discrete task, looking for specific government involvement or approval may well be appropriate. But when the scope of the task given to a private entity is much broader, it's less reasonable to require 12 specific government involvement at every step as the sine qua non of whether the private entity is performing a service or function on behalf of the agency. Considering a hypothetical example of a more typical contractual arrangement between a public agency and a private entity helps explain how this is so. A city ordinance charges city government with collecting trash in city parks. The city elects to contract with a private waste management company to perform that function; records related to the company's performance of that contract would be public records. The company also collects trash from nearby residents; a rumor gets out that the city is paying for it. To determine whether the company's records related to the collection from residents are public, a court would consider whether the government had approved, knew about, or was otherwise involved in extending the company's service from city hall to the residents. On the other hand, an arrangement with a broader scope would entail a different analysis. The same city is charged with providing waste management services to its residents, but determines that the private sector would do the job more effectively. The city contracts with the private company to provide waste management services for all the city's residents. The city's direction to the 13 company is both broad and simple: pick up the trash. Records of the private company related to the company's provision of waste management services to the city's residents pursuant to the contract with the city would be public records under the Act (while, of course, other records of the private company would not). And if the private company decided it needed more help and hired subcontractors to assist on the city contract, records related to that arrangement would be public records regardless of whether the city council knew about it. It's difficult to imagine an arrangement with a broader scope than the Authority's lease of virtually all of its property and delegation of nearly all of its authority to Northside, for the stated purpose of better fulfilling the Authority's mission. And so whether evidence of specific Authority involvement in a particular transaction is present here is the wrong question to ask, given the nature of the relationship between the Authority and Northside and the complex task with which Northside is charged under that relationship. 2. At least some of what Northside does is "on behalf of" the Authority. Northside would have us believe that the Act applies even less to its work than to the work of our hypothetical waste management company, because Northside isn't doing anything on behalf of the Authority; it simply is a tenant 14 of the landlord Authority. Northside is wrong. And we see why when we consider Northside's account of its relationship with Authority: that, "[a]s the Hospital Authorities Law authorized it to do, the Authority privatized the hospital and got out of the healthcare business altogether — removing politics and itself from hospital operations — and allowed Northside to independently conduct its private operations without interference, input, oversight, direction, or control." This is simply not a correct statement of the law or of what the Authority actually did. To understand the nature of the Authority's relationship with Northside, it is important to understand the Georgia Hospital Authorities Law (OCGA § 31-7-70 et seq.), the statute authorizing their arrangement. Known for the name of our decision explaining the parameters under which they are properly established, see Richmond Cnty. Hosp. Auth. v. Richmond Cnty., 255 Ga. 183 (336 SE2d 562) (1985), "Richmond County hospitals" are permissible under a provision in the statute that allows county hospital authorities "[t]o lease for any number of years up to a maximum of 40 years for operation by others any project[.]" OCGA § 31-7-75 (7). The statute requires that the hospital authority must first determine that the lease "will promote the public health needs of the 15 community by making additional facilities available in the community or by lowering the cost of health care in the community." Id. The authority also must retain "sufficient control over any project so leased so as to ensure that the lessee will not in any event obtain more than a reasonable rate of return on its investment in the project," in keeping with the statutory prohibition on hospital authorities operating or constructing any project for profit. Id. The law thus does not permit the Authority to get "out of the healthcare business altogether." The Hospital Authorities Law does not allow the Authority to surrender all "input, oversight, direction, [and] control" of its public assets to a private entity. And we must reject any interpretation of Northside's relationship with the Authority that is contrary to the Hospital Authorities Law. It is axiomatic that government officials are presumed to act in accordance with the law; we said as much in the first case decided by this Court. See Doe ex dem. Truluck v. Peeples, 1 Ga. 1, 1 (1846) ("the court will presume in favor of public officers, in the absence of all proof to the contrary, that they discharge their duty in compliance with the law"). "[U]ntil the contrary appears, it will be conclusively presumed that . . . a public officer[] not only acted within the scope of his legal authority but acted properly in the performance of such duty and 16 only when authorized so to act." Brantley v. Thompson, 216 Ga. 164, 165 (115 SE2d 533) (1960) (evidence that clerk marked bills of exception "tendered" on certain date created presumption that judge was absent from circuit at that time, given that clerk was authorized to accept the bills of exception only when the judge was absent); see also Fine v. Dade Cnty., 198 Ga. 655, 663 (32 SE2d 246) (1944) (presuming that governor was acting upon a request from a grand jury from one of two counties when he ordered a survey to fix the boundary between the two, even though there was no evidence that he received such as request, as such a request was required by law). As the Authority's decision to enter the Agreement with Northside was an act of public officials, we assume that the particulars of the agreement are legal, absent evidence to the contrary. At any rate, by its terms the arrangement between the Authority and Northside does not amount to the Authority's complete exit from the business of healthcare.5 In our first decision blessing a hospital authority's lease of its hospital to 5 Completely apart from the requirements of the Hospital Authorities Law, any suggestion that a lease of an exceptionally valuable hospital and related assets for minimal rent and the promise to operate the hospital wholly for its own purposes renders Northside simply an ordinary tenant might well raise constitutional questions. See, e.g., Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. III, Sec. VI, Par. VI (a) ("Except as otherwise provided in the Constitution, . . . the General Assembly shall not have the power to grant any donation or gratuity or to forgive any debt or obligation owing to the public[.]"). 17 a private corporation, we made clear the corporation was promoting the purpose of the government: "There is no apparent reason why a suitable private corporation could not properly operate the hospital, either as lessee or as owner, so as to likewise promote the public health functions of government." Bradfield v. Hosp. Auth. of Muscogee Cnty., 226 Ga. 575, 583 (1) (176 SE2d 92) (1970). The same is true here; notwithstanding Northside's arguments to the contrary, the Authority has entrusted Northside with far more than simply an ordinary lease of premises. As set forth in resolutions adopted by the Authority in August 1991, Northside was created because the Authority had "concluded that the accomplishment of its mission and its responsibilities under the Hospital Authorities Law, as well as the continuation of the high quality and level of its health care services, can best be accomplished by the lease and transfer of its projects, including its assets and operations to, subject to the assumption of its liabilities and other obligations by, a Georgia nonprofit corporation[.]" In accordance with that conclusion, the Authority gave Northside a broad mandate: operate and expand the Authority's health system in the Authority's stead. In the original Agreement, the Authority delegated to Northside "the power and 18 authority to stand in the place of the Authority and to do and perform all things that the Authority is authorized or empowered to do by law in the transaction of all business in connection with the operation of the Leased Facilities" and provided that "Northside shall have full power to act for the Authority, in the Authority's name, place and stead in any and all circumstances, except as prohibited by law or otherwise provided in this Agreement." Northside notes that the Agreement provided that Northside would operate the hospital system "in furtherance of Northside's purposes[.]" But the Agreement identified the only permissible such purposes as those "set forth in [Northside's] Articles of Incorporation and as otherwise permitted by this Agreement." Those Articles of Incorporation require Northside to "operate, directly and indirectly, health care facilities for the benefit of the general public[.]" Moreover, in assenting to its arrangement with Northside, the Authority affirmed in multiple instances that Northside's work was fulfilling the mission of the Authority: • In the August 1991 resolutions, the Authority certified that the arrangement with Northside would "promote the public health needs of the community by making additional facilities and services available in the community and by lowering the cost of health care in the community, and the proposed restructuring plan retains sufficient public control of the 19 Authority's projects as is contemplated by the Hospital Authorities Law to ensure the continued fulfillment of the Authority's mission of providing quality health care at reasonable costs to the community served by the Authority." • The Authority also certified in those resolutions that Northside's Articles of Incorporation and bylaws were "sufficient to promote the operation of the Authority's projects consistent with the Hospital Authorities Law, to safeguard the assets and operations of the Authority, and to carry out the mission of the Authority." • The original Agreement dated November 1, 1991, reiterated the Authority's determination that the Agreement would "promote the public health needs of the community by making additional facilities available in the community and by lowering the cost of health care in the community, . . . that this Agreement retains sufficient control by the Authority over the Hospital as is contemplated by the Hospital Authorities Law[,]" and that "continuation of the high quality and level of health care services currently rendered at the Hospital can best be accomplished by transferring the operations, assets and liabilities of the Hospital, as well as other Authority facilities and assets, to a nonprofit corporation[.]" • A November 1, 1991, assumption agreement among the Authority, Northside, and Wachovia Bank of Georgia, NA, whereby Northside agreed to assume the Authority's debt to Wachovia, said the Authority had determined that it could "best accomplish its mission and responsibilities under the Hospital Authorities Law" through its arrangement with Northside. The Authority has continued to reaffirm that its arrangement with Northside fulfills the Authority's mission, and that it retains sufficient control over the arrangement to ensure that continues to be the case: 20 • In a February 2, 2010, resolution approving the renewal of the lease, the Authority confirmed that it "retains sufficient control of the Authority's objects as is contemplated by the Hospital Authorities Law to ensure the continued fulfillment of the Authority's mission of providing quality health care at reasonable costs to the community serviced by the Authority and to ensure that all such leased projects are operated in a manner consistent with the mandate in the Hospital Authorities Law specifying that no authority shall operate or construct any project for profit." • The renewal agreement dated January 7, 2013 included the Authority's reaffirmation that the agreement "will promote the public health needs of the community by making additional facilities available in the community or by lowering the cost of healthcare in the community, and that this Agreement retains sufficient control by the Authority over the Hospital as contemplated by" the Georgia Hospital Authorities Law and that "the Authority believes that continuation of the high quality and level of healthcare services currently rendered at the Hospital can best be accomplished by transferring the operations, assets and liabilities of the Hospital, as well as other Authority facilities and assets, to a nonprofit corporation[.]" Although the Authority may not be involved in the day-to-day operations of the hospital system it leases to Northside, Northside remains accountable to the Authority — at least if it wants the relationship to continue. The Agreement between the two places a host of obligations on Northside, including that it will never attempt to operate the hospital as a for-profit business entity, and that it will charge rates consistent with that constraint. The Authority may terminate the Agreement prior to its expiration if Northside fails to fulfill any of those 21 obligations. In addition, a reversion provision in the Agreement requires that in the event of termination or expiration Northside must return more than just the real property and buildings that the Authority leased to it. It also requires the return of "Operating Assets," defined in the Agreement by a list that includes, with the exception of certain retirement plans, "[a]ll cash, bank accounts, savings and loan accounts, certificates of deposit, money market accounts, treasury bills, other investments and revenues . . . owned by the Authority in connection with the Leased Facilities or otherwise[.]" The Agreement specifies that the term "Operating Assets" includes "all subsequent accumulations and additions thereto, and less all deletions and deductions therefrom, as may have occurred in the ordinary course of business of Northside or as otherwise may have been permitted by the terms of this Agreement." The reversion provision also requires the return of "Existing Operations," defined as "all of the hospital, health care, administrative and related activities conducted by" the Authority or Northside "in the ordinary course of owning and operating the Leased Facilities." The reversion provision specifically provides for the disposition of assets the Authority cannot legally own or operate, with the proceeds going to the Authority. The reversion provision also provides that 22 the Authority will assume Northside's liabilities at the termination of the lease, to the extent it can legally do so. Thus, Northside stands to lose much of its efforts at the expiration of the Agreement — or sooner if it does not comply with the Agreement — and the Authority stands to gain.6 It follows that, even if the Authority has no day-to-day involvement in the healthcare system's operations, at least some of what Northside does is "on behalf of" the Authority. Nothing in the case law on which the Court of Appeals focused requires a different conclusion. Prior to this case, the Court of Appeals' case law was in accord with the notion that the records of Richmond County hospitals generally are considered "public records" under the Act, even under a prior, narrower definition of "public records." See Northwest Ga. Health Sys., Inc. v. Times- 6 Northside emphasizes that the Hospital Authorities Law allows a county hospital authority to not only lease, but sell, its facilities. See OCGA § 31-7-75 (6). Smith points out that a hospital authority's ability to sell assets is constrained, such as by a requirement for a hearing with the opportunity for public comment. See id.; OCGA § 31-7-400 et seq. But putting aside Northside's troubling suggestion that a hospital authority could truly "remove itself from the provision of healthcare services altogether[,]" that is not what has happened here. As detailed above, the Agreement provides that the Authority will retain control over the arrangement sufficient to ensure compliance with the law. The Agreement and Northside's Articles of Incorporation provide that Northside will operate so as to promote the health of the general public, and the Authority continues to certify that its arrangement with Northside is sufficient to carry out the Authority's mission. Moreover, as detailed above, the Agreement contains a broad reversion provision under which the Authority stands to recoup a wide variety of assets beyond the facilities that it leased to Northside. 23 Journal, Inc., 218 Ga. App. 336, 339 (1) (461 SE2d 297) (1995) (records of a private entity, its holding company, and subsidiaries were subject to the Act given that the subsidiaries contractually agreed to operate public hospital authority assets for the public good and the entity's stated corporate purpose was in part to operate those assets for the benefit of and performing the function of several hospital authorities). See also Richmond Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 255 Ga. at 192 (2) (c) (noting that open records and open meetings issues did not arise because the lease agreement made clear the corporation would comply with the laws). In this case, the Court of Appeals relied primarily on Corporation of Mercer University v. Barrett & Farahany, LLP, 271 Ga. App. 501 (610 SE2d 138) (2005), but that decision, later superceded by a statute that specifically addressed campus police records, see Ga. L. 2006, pp. 519, 522-523 § 5, came in a case in which the police force whose records were sought was established by an indisputably private entity, a private university; although the plaintiff pointed to the police force's obligations to report certain matters to other law enforcement agencies, there was "no evidence that any public office or agency ha[d] expressly requested the [police force] to perform a service or function on 24 its behalf." Mercer Univ., 271 Ga. App. at 505 (1) (b). In the other cases relied on by the Court of Appeals here, the appellate court ruled that the records sought were "public records," even though many of those were decided under a previous, narrower definition of that term. See Macon Telegraph Pub. Co. v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 256 Ga. 443, 445 (350 SE2d 23) (1986) (accounting records of association to which public university assigned task of operating its athletics program were "prepared and maintained in the course of the operation of a public office"); Hackworth v. Bd of Ed. for City of Atlanta, 214 Ga. App. 17, 20 (1) (a) (447 SE2d 78) (1994) (records of school bus drivers employed by private company were public records because they were "an integral part of the course of the operation of public agency"); Clayton Cnty. Hosp. Auth. v. Webb, 208 Ga. App. 91, 94-95 (1) (430 SE2d 89) (1993) (records of county hospital authority's corporate affiliates "received or maintained by a private person or entity on behalf of a public office or agency"; authority admittedly had the documents in its possession). The Court of Appeals also distinguished more recent cases in which records were deemed public under the current language and implied that those cases involved factors not present here. See United Healthcare of Ga., Inc. v. Ga. Dept. of Cmty. 25 Health, 293 Ga. App. 84, 87-89 (1) (666 SE2d 472) (2008) (records of private corporation relating to its contract with state agency for administration of state health benefits plan were public where administration of the plan involved "current and future expenditure of substantial public funds" and public officials were "actively" involved in plan issues even after contract executed); Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. v. Baker, 278 Ga. App. 733, 735-738 (1), 739-740 (3) (629 SE2d 840) (2006) (bids for NASCAR Hall of Fame and 2009 Super Bowl were public records where public officials involved in preparation and promotion of bids and significant public funds were involved in preparation and/or ultimate success of bids). But the presence of certain factors in a given case in which records were deemed public does not mean that those factors are necessary for such a finding. 3. A remand is required for the trial court to apply the correct standard. Which of Northside's actions qualify as "on behalf of" the Authority may be a trickier question. As alluded to by our earlier city trash collection hypothetical, the question would be easier to answer if the Authority had contracted an established nonprofit to manage Northside Hospital's operations; the nonprofit's other endeavors would not be subject to the Act. But here 26 Northside was created for the purpose of carrying out the Authority's mission. Moreover, as we observed in Richmond County Hospital Authority, seemingly tangential operations may actually be closely tied to the operation of a hospital: A hospital must attract private paying patients or else it will become a deficit-ridden, indigent-only hospital, dependent upon tax dollars to keep its doors open. The private paying patient is often located outside the bounds of Richmond County, and innovative health-care delivery systems are needed to attract these patients and their dollars to University Hospital. Maintaining physicians on the staff of University Hospital is essential to retaining a private-paying-patient base and ensuring the continued viability of the hospital. Joint ventures with physicians of University Hospital, permissible under the lease, are essential to maintaining the loyalty of such physicians. Joint ventures with physicians in health care, permissible under the lease, would allow the development of additional health-care facilities without the need to raise all of the capital in the public sector, thereby saving taxpayer dollars. Richmond Cty. Hosp. Auth., 255 Ga. at 191 (2) (a). It is plain that Northside's work in operating the "Leased Facilities," i.e., the original leased hospital complex in Fulton County and any improvements thereto, is work "on behalf of" the Authority. The Authority owns those facilities, and the definitions of the "Operating Assets" and "Existing Operations" that will revert to the Authority upon expiration or termination of the Agreement are tied to operation of those facilities. But other actions may 27 meet that definition as well, depending on how closely related those actions are to operation of the Leased Facilities. In dismissing Smith's action, the trial court decided no disputed issues of fact but, rather, resolved a legal dispute about the proper application of the Act to the undisputed facts. Because the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in so doing, remand is required. See Great Amer. Dream, 290 Ga. at 752 (1). Moreover, application of the right standard requires a fact-intensive inquiry made difficult in this appeal given the divergent, all-or-nothing positions taken by the parties. Northside argues that nothing it does is for or on behalf of the Authority. At the very least, however, Northside's operation of the Leased Facilities is done on behalf of the Authority. How closely the transactions at issue are tied to operating the Leased Facilities will determine whether documents are "public records." Smith argues that everything Northside does is for or on behalf of the Authority and thus all of its records are public. Because of this position, he has not endeavored to connect the particular records he seeks to the operation of the Leased Facilities. This is not an issue the parties have briefed in any meaningful way. We remand for the trial court to consider in the first instance whether the records in question are sufficiently connected 28 to the operation of the Leased Facilities to constitute public records under OCGA § 50-18-70 (b) (2), and, if so, whether the records may nevertheless be withheld pursuant to a statutory exemption. Judgment reversed and case remanded. Hines, C. J., Melton, P. J., Benham, Hunstein, Nahmias, Blackwell, Boggs, JJ., and Judge Meng H. Lim concur. Grant, J., disqualified. 29 S16G1463. SMITH v. NORTHSIDE HOSPITAL, INC. et al. MELTON, Presiding Justice, concurring. I concur fully in the majority opinion. However, I write separately to emphasize that the Authority in this case has so blurred the lines between its public functions and those that it has seemingly delegated to Northside that it cannot be credibly stated that Northside is so completely separated from the Authority that none of the records sought in this case could even possibly be classified as "public records." Indeed, it defies credulity that Northside could be completely separate from and do nothing "on behalf of" the Authority when it was the Authority itself that "created" Northside for the purpose of carrying out virtually all of its public duties. I question the extent to which the Authority itself, as opposed to its principals acting in their individual capacities, can legally create a private entity that is wholly independent of the Authority's legislatively imposed duties and responsibilities. However, at times, the Authority has hinted that it has done just that, perhaps relying on an overly broad reading of Richmond County Hospital Authority v. Richmond County, 255 Ga. 183 (336 SE2d 562) (1985), and the language in the Lease and Transfer Agreement through which the Authority established its ongoing relationship with Northside. Specifically, according to the Lease and Transfer Agreement: The restructuring plan adopted by the Authority is authorized under Georgia law. Georgia's Hospital Authorities Law (O.C.G.A. §§ 317-70 et seq.), as confirmed by the Georgia Supreme Court's decision in Richmond County Hospital Authority v. Richmond County, 255 Ga. 183, 336 S.E.2d 562 (1985), authorizes a corporate restructuring of a hospital authority through a lease and transfer of hospital assets to a new 501(c) (3) nonprofit corporation formed by the hospital authority. (Emphasis supplied.) However, nothing in Richmond County Hospital Authority stands for the proposition that an Authority itself can create a private entity to fulfill its public mission, or that any records generated by that private entity in connection with the Authority's public mission would not be subject to the Georgia Open Records Act. Nor could the Authority, by delegating the bulk of its responsibilities to a private entity to fulfill its public mission, avoid its other statutory responsibilities under the law. And where, as here, Northside was basically a de facto replacement for the Authority with respect to its public mission of providing health care throughout Fulton County, I believe that there may be several records related to Northside's fulfillment of that public mission that would be properly classified as "public records." See OCGA § 50-18-70 (b) 2 (2) ("'Public record' means all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, computer based or generated information, data, data fields, or similar material prepared and maintained or received by an agency or by a private person or entity in the performance of a service or function for or on behalf of an agency or when such documents have been transferred to a private person or entity by an agency for storage or future governmental use"). However, I agree with the majority that it is for the trial court to engage in the appropriate factual inquiry on remand to decide whether the records in question in this case constitute public records. 3


As an experienced NYC DWI Lawyer I am regularly asked what one should do if they drive into a police checkpoint. If you're driving around New York City, and you come upon a checkpoint and you don't want to go through the checkpoint, very often they have a chokepoint. A chokepoint is a space that doesn't allow you to turn around, so you're snagged in the checkpoint. If you have an opportunity to not be part of a check point and you turn back around, sometimes they have chase cars that will chase a car that turned away from a checkpoint.
That would be a very interesting case to determine whether or not there was probable cause to stop someone who did veer away from a checkpoint. Generally speaking, most people are snagged into the checkpoint, and that's how I get to meet them when they're charged in Manhattan with a DWI.
Have you recently gone through a checkpoint and been charged with a DWI? If so, contact the experienced New York DWI Lawyer Carl Spector.


When's the last time your family sat around the table and actually shared a full meal together? Everyone present, no phones or mad rushes to eat and run out the door to catch the school bus. For most of us, the last time our family gathered for this kind of meal was likely back in November for Thanksgiving. This is a shame, because regular family dinners are incredibly important! It's a time to bond with your loved ones, and this can have a positive impact on your kids' lives.
Let's clear off the dining table and learn how we can bring the family back together for at least one meal a day.
Family meals are more than just a time to eat; they're a moment to bond with your loved ones. These opportunities are so important, because eating together can honestly impact the development of your children and your connection as a family. From improved mental health to higher grades, here are a few reasons why family meals are so important.
Most families don't eat together often because of one reason: Time. Between work, school, extracurriculars, and social obligations, setting aside two hours to cook and sit still to eat is nearly impossible. Fortunately, your family doesn't have to choose between bonding over meals and maintaining an active lifestyle. With these simple strategies, you can make family meals a priority without rewriting your whole schedule.
Ways To Maximize Family Time — Because It Matters!
Meal times aren't the only occasion to create a meaningful connection with your family. No matter how busy our schedules seem, there are opportunities to spend a little more time with our loved ones. Check out these tips from Parents magazine and learn how easy it can be to make family time a priority again.
It shouldn't take a trip to Disney World to create lasting family memories. Laughing together over dinner can be just as rewarding. Fortunately, we have some of the best dad jokes the internet can provide. These gems are sure to make your kids roll their eyes — in the best possible way!


FunBites is the first state of the art kitchen tool that instantly cuts food into fun-shaped bites. It's made of high- performance material designed for strength, sharpness and durability to create bite-sized meals in less than 10 seconds. This goes beyond bread and sandwich cutters! It's great for pancakes, burgers, fish ,deli, quesadilla, grilled cheese, pizza and more.
There are 3 easy steps to use these. First, place it on your food. Next, rock it firmly back & forth. Lastly, pop out bite-sized pieces! Yes, it is really that easy. Best of all, FunBites is BPA free, works on any surface, and is top shelf dishwasher safe.
Madison loves the heart cutter while Will likes the square cutter. I love that this is so easy to use that Madison (my seven year old) is able to use this without any help from me. She loved that she could make her snacks and sandwiches into hearts. I loved that it made it fun for her to eat.
If you can't wait, use coupon code Lisareviewsdec2011 for 20% off until Dec 17!


text:
Colter Anstaett, Reporter
Tags: Southside, News, Local
Projected city budget deficit could hit Danville Fire Department hard
New financial report suggests reducing fire stations, firefighters
DANVILLE, Va. – Danville Fire Department's fire station two on Piney Forest Road is one of seven fire stations in the city.
The five-year financial report presented to city council members Tuesday by the National Resource Network recommends closing one station.
According to the report, that would save the city $2.4 million between 2021 and 2023.
"Obviously, there'd be an analysis; the strategic locations, impacts to communities that would be involved (if a station were going to be closed)," Danville Assistant Fire Chief Steve Dishman said.
Dishman said that as of Thursday there is no one station that is more likely to be closed than any other if city council chooses to close a station.
Not surprisingly, residents 10 News spoke to Thursday are not in favor of reducing fire stations or firefighters.
"It concerns me. I don't think that should be an option," Jennie Watson said.
She suggested city leaders look at the River District to save money.
"I think it's beautiful, but if the city is putting money toward it, maybe they shouldn't put as much money and then leave the fire department alone," Watson explained.
The financial report points out that cities in the south that are about the same size as Danville have 1.6 firefighters per 1,000 residents.
According to the report, Danville needs 70 firefighters to meet that ratio but the city currently has 119, meaning 49 firefighters would have to go.
When asked if 70 firefighters is enough to handle all of the department's calls, Dishman said, "All I can say is, our resources are very busy."
When asked if the department would consider using volunteers if 70 full-time firefighters are not enough, he said he couldn't say yes or no, only that that would "have to be evaluated."
Copyright 2018 by WSLS 10 - All rights reserved.
Colter Anstaett
Colter Anstaett joined WSLS in January 2016 as the station's Southside bureau reporter.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Don't miss this upcoming webinar hosted by Dwight Merriam and his team at Robinson & Cole titled "Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act Claims - Strategies for Local Governments to Avoid or Defend RLUIPA Actions." Also on the faculty is Professor Marci Hamilton, one of the nation's leading church/state scholars and the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University.
The webinar will be held on March 13, 2012, but the early registration deadline (for a tuition discount) is February 17, 2012. Registration information here.


How can we truncate the products and categories cleanly within magento please?
To delete all products programmatically, please use the following code.
Or here is another method to do the delete categories.
(please use one above or below, both does the same job).
FROM " . $resource->getTableName("catalog_category_entity") . "


Black, Hannah Lucy (2016) Impact of tyrosine phosphorylation of Syntaxin 4 and Munc18c on GLUT4 translocation. PhD thesis, University of Glasgow.
Insulin is an important regulator of glucose homeostasis. Insulin stimulation of fat and muscle cells results in the rapid translocation of the glucose transporter GLUT4 to the plasma membrane from its intracellular stores, allowing uptake of glucose into the cells from the blood. This tethering, docking and fusion event is driven by the formation of a SNARE complex at the plasma membrane consisting of the t-SNAREs Syntaxin4 (Sx4) and SNAP23 and the v-SNARE VAMP2. The formation of this complex is regulated by the SM protein Munc18c. It has been shown that Sx4 is phosphorylated at residues Y115 and Y251 following insulin stimulation; however the effects of these phosphorylation events have yet to be studied. In addition phosphorylation of Y521 in Munc18c is also increased following insulin stimulation. This study aimed to first elucidate the effects of Sx4 phosphorylation on SNARE protein interactions and GLUT4 trafficking, then to begin to examine the impact of phosphorylation of both Sx4 and Munc18c.
I have used an in vitro approach to assess the affect Sx4 phosphorylation has on SNARE complex assembly. I have shown, using phospho-mimetic recombinant proteins, that the phosphorylation state of Sx4 affects the rate of SNARE complex assembly and its binary interactions with VAMP2 and SNAP23. Moreover, that this may be due to a conformational change in the protein. I have also shown, for the first time, that it is likely that Sx4 can be phosphorylated on Y115 and Y251 simultaneously. In addition I have used a HA-GLUT4-GFP expressing HeLa cell line to show that expression of phospho- mimetic Sx4 increases translocation of GLUT4 to the PM under basal conditions. Finally, I have begun to investigate the implications of both Sx4 and Munc18c phosphorylation on their in vitro interactions. This data provides insights into the direct regulation of membrane trafficking proteins by the insulin-signalling pathway. Increased understanding of the regulation of GLUT4 translocation could help to develop future therapies for type 2 diabetes, where GLUT4 trafficking is impaired.
Phosphorylation, Syntaxin 4, Munc18c, GLUT4, insulin, trafficking.


What is motion graphic design?
Motion design is everywhere, you see it on TV, online and films. Its the art of bringing graphics, type, images, logos, icons, anything to life with animation to tell a story, deliver a message in a visual, dynamic and engaging for the viewer.
Essentially what we want to do for you is engage with your customers and increase your sales and exposure, explain your message or service with an animated video and reach out to your customers.
How do we make videos with motion graphics?


text:
Tag: tig
On Foreign Policy, the Independent Group Will Offer Nothing But the Elite Consensus
Last week the leading opposition parties issued a joint demand for the suspension of arms sales to Saudi Arabia in the context of the war in Yemen. The absence of the Independent Group from the list of signatories, however, signals that the self-styled party of 'change' will offer nothing but conformity to the status quo on foreign policy, argues David Wearing.
To Overcome Despair, We Need to Build a Fighting Corbyn Movement
As the soft coup against Jeremy Corbyn grinds on, in recent months the Labour membership has become increasingly paralysed by despair. To overcome this, we need a fighting left capable of taking on the establishment both inside and outside the Labour party, argues Holly Rigby.
Re-Resign, When the Crowd Say De-selecta!
Max Shanly and Matt Zarb-Cousin return to consider the vapidity of Centrism 2.0, and the ideology of Chris Leslie, Gordon Brown's former photocopier.


text:
Okka Disk is an independent American jazz record company and label founded in Chicago by Bruno Johnson in 1994.

Okka began as a rock music label, but Johnson soon changed direction to record free jazz. Vintage Duets are the unreleased tapes recorded in 1980 by saxophonist Fred Anderson with drummer Steve McCall, and Caffeine, a trio featuring Chicago scene instigator Ken Vandermark. These were the albums that started the label. Okka Disk released many key early works by Ken Vandermark and was partly responsible for Fred Anderson's late-career renaissance.

The label also recorded European free jazz musicians such as Peter Brötzmann, documenting his transatlantic Chicago Octet and Tentet over ten albums. Since 2009, it organizes the Okka Fest, held in Milwaukee, where Johnson moved in 2002.

Releases
 OD12001 Fred Anderson/Steve McCall – Vintage Duets
 OD12002 Caffeine – Caffeine
 OD12003 Marilyn Crispell/Fred Anderson/Hamid Drake – Destiny
 OD12004 Peter Brötzmann/Hamid Drake– The Dried Rat–Dog
 OD12005 Steelwool Trio – International Front
 OD12006 Mats Gustafsson – Parrot Fish Eye
 OD12007 Fred Anderson – Birdhouse
 OD12008 Hamid Drake/Michael Zerang – Ask the Sun
 OD120010 Mats Gustafsson/Barry Guy/Paul Lovens – Mouth Eating Trees and Related Activities
 OD120012 DKV Trio – Baraka
 OD120013 Peter Brötzmann/Mahmoud Gania/Hamid Drake – The Wels Concert
 OD120014 Fred Anderson/ DKV Trio – Fred Anderson/DKV Trio
 OD120016 Joe McPhee/Ken Vandermark/Kent Kessler – A Meeting in Chicago
 OD120017 Evan Parker – Chicago Solo
 OD120018 Anthony Braxton/Georg Gräwe – Duo (Amsterdam) 1991
 OD120019 FJF – Blow Horn
 OD120022 Peter Brötzmann – The Chicago Octet/Tentet
 OD120023 Fred Anderson – Live at the Velvet Lounge
 OD120024 Georg Gräwe – Melodie und Rhythmus
 OD120025 Joe McPhee/Jeb Bishop – The Brass City
 OD120027 Joe Morris/DKV Trio – Deep Telling
 OD120028 Evan Parker/Georg Gräwe – Unity Variations
 OD120029 Jeb Bishop – Jeb Bishop Trio
 OD120030 DKV Trio – Live in Wels & Chicago, 1998
 OD120032 Peter Brötzmann Chicago Tentet – Stone/Water
 OD120033 Evan Parker/Joe McPhee – Chicago Tenor Duets
 OD120034 Loos – Armstrong
 OD120035 AALY Trio/DKV Trio – Double or Nothing
 OD120036 Joe McPhee/Hamid Drake – Emancipation Proclamation: A Real Statement of Freedom
 OD120037 School Days – Crossing Divisions
 OD120038 Kent Kessler – Bull Fiddle
 OD120039 Jeb Bishop – Afternoons
 OD120040 Territory Band 1 – Transatlantic Bridge
 OD120041 School Days – In Our Times
 OD120042 DKV Trio – Trigonometry
 OD120043 Peter Brötzmann Chicago Tentet + 2 – Broken English
 OD120044 Peter Brötzmann Chicago Tentet + 2 – Short Visit to Nowhere
 OD120045 Triage – Twenty Minute Cliff
 OD120046 Ken Vandermark – Furniture Music
 OD120047 Peter Brötzmann Chicago Tentet – Images
 OD120048 Peter Brötzmann Chicago Tentet – Signs
 OD120049 Atomic/School Days– Nuclear Assembly Hall
 OD120050 Territory Band 2 – Atlas
 OD120051 FME – Underground
 OD120052 Triage – American Mithology
 OD120053 Sonore – No One Ever Works Alone
 OD120056 Jim Baker/Steve Hunt/Brian Sandstrom/Mars Williams – Extraordinary Popular Delusions
 OD120057 Jeb Bishop/Dave Rempis/Nate McBride/Tim Daisy – The Engines
 OD120059 Peter Brötzmann Chicago Tentet – Be Music, Night
 OD120060 Territory Band 3 – Map Theory
 OD120061 FME – Cuts
 OD120062 Peter Brötzmann/Joe McPhee/Kent Kessler/Michael Zerang – GUTS
 OD120065 Ken Vandermark/Pandelis Karayorgis – Foreground Music
 OD120067 Peter Brötzmann Chicago Tentet – American Landscapes 1
 OD120068 Peter Brötzmann Chicago Tentet – American Landscapes 2
 OD120070 Territory Band 4 – Company Switch
 OD120071 FME – Montage
 OD120072 Peter Brötzmann Chicago Tentet – At Molde 2007
 OD120073 Atomic/School Days – DISTIL
 OD120075 Ken Vandermark – Collecting Fiction
 OD120076 Peter Brötzmann – Hairy Bones
 OD120077 Artifact iTi – Live in St. Johann
 OD120078 The Frame Quartet – 35 mm
 OD120079 The Engines – Wire and Brass
 OD120080 Territory Band 5 – New Horse for the White House
 OD120083 Sonore – Call Before You Dig
 OD120090 Territory Band 6 – Collide
 OD99721 Ken Vandermark Topology Nonet – Impressions of PO Music
 ODMAR001 The Margots – Pescado

Limited edition releases
 ODL10001 DKV Trio - DKV Live
 ODL10002 Günter Christmann / Mats Gustafsson - One to (Two)...
 ODL10003 Hamid Drake / Mats Gustafsson - For Don Cherry
 ODL10005 Peter Brötzmann / Hamid Drake / Kent Kessler - Live at the Empty Bottle
 ODL10006 Peter Brötzmann / Hamid Drake / Fred Hopkins - The Atlanta Concert
 ODL10007 FME - Live at the Glenn Miller Cafe
 ODL10008 Dave Rempis / Tim Daisy - Back to the Circle
 ODL10009 Paul Lytton / Ken Vandermark / Phil Wachsmann - CINC
 ODL10010 Peter Brötzmann/ Sonny Sharrock - Fragments
 ODL10011 Full Blast + Friends - Crumbling Brain

References

Notes

External links
 Official site

American record labels
Jazz record labels
Record labels established in 1994

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Q: One-to-many relationship in the same table in zend I have groupTable(group_id,group_name,group_date,group_parent_id)
in face each group have many group child.
I create groupModel and I want to begin coding is this right code to handle?
protected $_name = 'group';
protected $_dependentTables = array('Model_group');
protected $_referenceMap = array('Model_group' =>
    array('columns' => array('group_parent_id') ,
    'refTableClass' => 'Model_group' ,
    'refColumns' => array('group_id') ,
    'onDelete' => self::CASCADE ,
    'onUpdate' => self::RESTRICT)
);

A: One to many implies more than one table

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
<?php
/*
 * Styx - MIT-style License
 * Author: christoph.pojer@gmail.com
 */

define('ONE_DAY', 86400);
define('ONE_WEEK', 604800);

// Here's the basic configuration
Core::store(array(
	'styx.name' => 'Styx PHP Framework',
	'styx.link' => 'http://styx.og5.net',
	'styx.version' => '0.3beta',

	'path.separator' => ':',

	'app.version' => '1',

	'prefix' => 'styxapp',

	'debug' => false,
	'database.cache' => true, // Determines whether to use caching of database results or not

	'template.default' => 'tpl',
	'template.execute' => array('php', 'phtml'),
	'template.regex' => '/\\$\{([A-z0-9\.:]+?)\}/i',
	'template.striptabs' => true,
	'template.encode' => array('$' => '$'), // $ is escaped because user input might contain ${...} for Template-substitution. This prevents bad input.

	'cache' => array(
		'default' => 'apc',
		'engines' => array('apc', 'memcache'),
	),

	'layer.default' => array(
		'layer' => 'index',
		'event' => 'view'
	),

	'languages.cookie' => 'language',
	'languages.querystring' => 'language',

	'contenttype.default' => 'html',

	'contenttype.querystring' => 'handler',

	'identifier.internal' => 'id',
	'identifier.external' => 'pagetitle',

	'elements.prefix' => 'el',

	'expiration' => 31536000, // A long time
	'cookie' => array(
		'expire' => 8640000,
		'path' => '/',
		/*'domain' => '',
		'secure' => '',
		'httponly' => '',*/
	),

	'timezone' => 'Europe/Vienna',

	'feature.mbstring' => function_exists('mb_strlen'), // We check for support of a random mb_* method
	'feature.iconv' => function_exists('iconv'),
));

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
## Pseudo [**Back**](./../codrops.md)

#### Pseudo Elements

- [**::after**](./after/after.md)
- [**::before**](./before/before.md)
- [**::first-letter**](./firstletter/firstletter.md)
- [**::first-line**](./firstline/firstline.md)
- [**::placeholder**](./placeholder/placeholder.md)
- [**::selection**](./selection/selection.md)

#### Pseudo Classes

- [**:active**](./active/active.md)
- [**:blank**](./blank/blank.md)
- [**:check**](./check/check.md)
- [**:default**](./default/default.md)
- [**:dir()**](./dir/dir.md)
- [**:disabled**](./disabled/disabled.md)
- [**:empty**](./empty/empty.md)
- [**:enabled**](./enable/enable.md)
- [**:first**](./first/first.md)
- [**:first-child**](./firstchild/firstchild.md)
- [**:first-of-type**](./firstoftype/firstoftype.md)
- [**:focus**](./focus/focus.md)
- [**:fullscreen**](./fullscreen/fullscreen.md)
- [**:hover**](./hover/hover.md)
- [**:in-range**](./inrange/inrange.md)
- [**:indeterminate**](./indeterminate/indeterminate.md)
- [**:invalid**](./invalid/invalid.md)
- [**:lang()**](./lang/lang.md)
- [**:last-child**](./lastchild/lastchild.md)
- [**:last-of-type**](./lastoftype/lastoftype.md)
- [**:left**](./left/left.md)
- [**:link**](./link/link.md)
- [**:not()**](./not/not.md)
- [**:nth-child()**](./nthchild/nthchild.md)
- [**:nth-last-child()**](./nthlastchild/nthlastchild.md)
- [**:nth-of-type()**](./nthoftype/nthoftype.md)
- [**:nth-last-of-type()**](./nthlastoftype/nthlastoftype.md)
- [**:only-child**](./onlychild/onlychild.md)
- [**:only-of-type**](./onlyoftype/onlyoftype.md)
- [**:optional**](./optional/optional.md)
- [**:out-of-range**](./outofrange/outofrange.md)
- [**:read-only**](./readonly/readonly.md)
- [**:read-write**](./readwrite/readwrite.md)
- [**:required**](./required/required.md)
- [**:right**](./right/right.md)
- [**:root**](./root/root.md)
- [**:scope**](./scope/scope.md)
- [**:target**](./target/target.md)
- [**:valid**](./valid/valid.md)
- [**:visited**](./visited/visited.md)
- [**content**](./content/content.md)

#### Note

###### Different notations: (`:`) and (`::`)

- In CSS1 and CSS2, pseudo-elements were defined to start with one colon (`:`), just like pseudo-classes (for example `:hover`). To distinguish pseudo-elements from pseudo-classes, the double colon notation (`::`) is used in CSS3. (*`:` for pseudo classes, `::` for pseudo elements*)
- All browsers that support the two-colon notation also support the one-colon notation. **Internet Explorer 8**, however, does not support the two-colon notation. So, unless you need to support Internet Explorer 8, you can use the two-colon notation without having to worry about browser support.
- It's recommended that using `::` to distinguish them.

```css
/**
 * bad
 */
.example:after {
    /** css */
}

/**
 * good
 */
.example::after {
    /** css */
}
```

###### About accessability

- Content added using pseudo-elements is not inserted into the DOM—it is only visually displayed. Hence, screen readers won't be able to access and read the content generated using pseudo-elements. So, it is recommended that you don't use pseudo-elements to insert vital content into a page (such as footer notes that are relevant to the article, for example).
- Pseudo-elements are mostly used to insert and style cosmetic content, and should not be relied on to insert content that is relevant to the meaning and completeness of the content on the page.
- Also, since the content inserted using pseudo-elements is not inserted into the DOM, this means that you cannot attach any event handlers to it using JavaScript.

###### About IE compatibility

- Internet Explorer does not support using z-index on pseudo-elements.
- The two-colon syntax introduced in CSS Level 3 is not supported in **Internet Explorer 8** and earlier, only the single-colon syntax is supported in those versions down to version 5.5.


Verso Paper Corp. (NYSE: VRS) announced today that its wholly owned subsidiary, Verso Paper Holdings LLC (the "Company"), has entered into a $150 million asset-backed revolving credit facility (the "ABL Facility") and a $50 million cash flow credit facility (the "Cash Flow Facility"). The new senior credit facilities were used to repay the outstanding indebtedness under the Company's existing $200 million revolving credit facility and will be used to provide ongoing working capital for the Company and for other general corporate purposes.
The ABL Facility and the Cash Flow Facility will have a maturity date of May 4, 2017. However, if on any of the dates that is 91 days prior to the earliest scheduled maturity of any of the Company's existing second-lien notes, senior subordinated notes or amounts outstanding under the Company's parent term loan, an aggregate principal amount in excess of $100 million of indebtedness is outstanding under any such debt security or instrument, the ABL Facility and Cash Flow Facility will mature on such earlier date unless the maturity date of such specified debt has been extended to a maturity date that is more than five years and 91 days after May 4, 2012. The Company has the right to prepay loans under the ABL Facility and the Cash Flow Facility at any time without prepayment penalty, other than customary "breakage" costs with respect to eurocurrency loans.
Borrowings under the ABL Facility and Cash Flow Facility will bear interest at a rate equal to an applicable margin plus, as determined at the Company's option, either (a) a base rate determined by reference to the highest of (1) the U.S. federal funds rate plus 0.50%, (2) the prime rate of the administrative agent, and (3) the adjusted LIBO rate for a one-month interest period plus 1.00%, and (b) a eurocurrency rate ("LIBO") determined by reference to the costs of funds for eurocurrency deposits in dollars in the London interbank market for the interest period relevant to such borrowing adjusted for certain additional costs. As of May 4, 2012, the applicable margin for advances under the ABL Facility is 1.00% for base rate advances and 2.00% for LIBO rate advances. As of the same date, the applicable margin for advances under the Cash Flow Facility is 3.50% for base rate advances and 4.50% for LIBO rate advances. The Company will pay commitment fees for the unused amount of commitments under the ABL Facility at an annual rate initially equal to 0.50% and thereafter either 0.375% or 0.50%, based on daily average utilization, and under the Cash Flow Facility at an annual rate of 0.625%.The Company's direct parent and certain subsidiaries of the Company are required to guarantee borrowings under the ABL Facility and Cash Flow Facility. Debt outstanding under the ABL Facility and Cash Flow Facility is secured by substantially all of the Company's assets and those of each domestic guarantor. The security interest with respect to the ABL Facility will consist of a first-priority lien with respect to most inventory and accounts receivable of the Company and the guarantors (the "ABL Priority Collateral") and a second-priority lien with respect to all other collateral (the "Notes Priority Collateral"). The security interest with respect to the Cash Flow Facility will consist of a first-priority lien, pari passu with the Issuers' 11.75% Senior Secured Notes due 2019, with respect to the Notes Priority Collateral and a second-priority lien with respect to the ABL Priority Collateral.
Tags: The ABL Facility, Verso Paper Corp.


text:
Children of Men envisages a world one generation from now that has fallen into anarchy on the heels of an infertility defect in the population. The world's youngest citizen has just died at 18, and humankind is facing the likelihood of its own extinction.
Set against a backdrop of London torn apart by violence and warring nationalistic sects, Children of Men follows disillusioned bureaucrat Theo (Owen) as he becomes an unlikely champion of Earth's survival. When the planet's last remaining hope is threatened, this reluctant activist is forced to face his own demons and protect her from certain peril.
Directed and co-written by acclaimed filmmaker Alfonso Cuaron (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Y tu mamá también), Children of Men also stars Julianne Moore as the leader of an underground opposition group and Michael Caine as Jasper.
BRING IT ON: IN IT TO WIN IT THE GUARDIAN


text:
Lumpy virus kills 977 cattle in Gujarat, 30K affected
Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD) also known as Lumpy virus, has claimed lives of 977 cattle in Gujarat, state Agriculture Department said on Saturday
Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD) also known as Lumpy virus, has claimed lives of 977 cattle in Gujarat, state Agriculture Department said on Saturday.
Agriculture Department's Deputy Director (Animal Husbandry) Dr H. N. Modh told IANS: "The virus has spread in 14 districts, including all districts of Saurashtra region, Kutch and now Banaskantha. Checking of vehicles entering from Rajasthan and neighbouring states have been intensified to prevent infected cattle from entering the state. People living in border villages have been asked to inform the department if they see a cattle movement across the border."
Till Saturday afternoon, the state had lost 977 cattle, while some 33,561 are infected and undergoing treatment in 14 districts. A total of 2,48,189 cattle have been vaccinated, he added.
On July 19, Kutch District Development Officer Bhavya Verma had tweeted about the virus spreading in his district. Some 26,917 cattle were infected in the district, 81,633 vaccinated, and 1,14,079 vaccine doses used.
Virus spread is high in the district as it houses the highest domestic cattle population. According to the 20th livestock census, Kutch has 21 lakh animals, including 10.41 lakh bovines.
According to the Deputy Director, since Kutch is geographically the largest district of the state spread over 45,674 square kilometers, the cases here are higher as compared to other districts. In the remaining 11 districts, animal husbandry teams are working hard to vaccinate domestic cattle.
Also Read: Now Assam tackles Lumpy Skin Disease in cattle amid COVID-19
Lumpy Skin Disease


Cottage on Blackbird Lane: Birthday girl!
Today is Olivia's 3rd birthday. Three already. My little one is growing up so quickly. We will have a little celebration tonight and then a larger gathering this weekend.
Olivia ready to wish for some more birthday fun! She is so excited about her party this weekend.


There are many benefits to assisted living for both seniors and their family. Probably, the most important is peace of mind. For family members, it is knowing their loved one is in a safe environment with all their needs being met. For seniors it is knowing they can maintain their independence, while having a support system in place if they need it.
Also, many seniors feel assisted living helps take the burden of care off their friends and family. When family members are responsible for taking care of a senior the role of caregiver can overpower all other aspects of life.
Seniors often have financial concerns. Without the worry of such things as home repairs, increasing cost of utilities, or grocery shopping, assisted living may actually be more affordable than living at home. Compare the Costs PDF. Below is a list of features included in our monthly service fee.


Mountsterling (Ky) Jany. 12th. 1807.
I shall expect an answer to this informing me whether You design aiding me or not—and if you do not—the reason or reasons therefor, as I am of opinion that you could do it without any incommodation to yourself.


text:
Richard Zapp
(U-66)
Ordered 5 Jun 1941
Laid down 10 Aug 1942 Blohm & Voss, Hamburg (werk 179)
Launched 15 Apr 1943
Commissioned 20 May 1943 Oblt. Johannes Meermeier
20 May 1943 - 24 May 1945 Kptlt. Johannes Meermeier
3 patrols
20 May 1943 - 31 Jul 1944 5. Flottille (training)
1 Aug 1944 - 14 Oct 1944 9. Flottille (active service)
15 Oct 1944 - 24 May 1945 11. Flottille (active service)
Successes 1 auxiliary warship sunk, total tonnage 348 GRT
1 ship damaged, total tonnage 6,386 GRT
1 auxiliary warship damaged, total tonnage 5,969 GRT
Scuttled on 24 May 1945 in the North Sea south-east of Amrum, Germany, in position 54.36,5N, 08.21,7E, after running aground on a sand bank.
Final location
See the 3 ships hit by U-979 - View the 3 war patrols
The wreck of U-979 was still present in July 1991.
On attacking a small convoy, one of the escorts, the British anti-submarine trawler HMS St. Kenan, rammed and depth charged the boat. Damage to the periscope forced U-979 to return to Bergen. (Sources: Blair, vol 2, page 632)
1 recorded attack on this boat.
Schnorchel-fitted U-boat
This boat was fitted with a Schnorchel underwater-breathing apparatus and sailed equipped with it in August 1944 but it was of course installed prior to that date.
Read more about the Schnorchel and see list of fitted boats.
Unlike many other U-boats, which during their service lost men due to accidents and various other causes, U-979 did not suffer any casualties (we know of) until the time of her loss.


text:
<?php

/**
 * @author Nathalie De Sousa <nathalie.de.sousa@tessi.fr>
 * @author Gabriel BONDAZ <gabriel.bondaz@idci-consulting.fr>
 */

namespace Tms\Bundle\LoggerBundle\Logger;

use Tms\Bundle\LoggerBundle\Entity\Log;
use Doctrine\Common\Persistence\ManagerRegistry;
use Doctrine\ORM\EntityRepository;
use Doctrine\ORM\EntityManager;

/**
 * LoggerManager.
 */
class LoggerManager implements LoggerInterface
{
    protected $managerRegistry;

    /**
     * @param ManagerRegistry $managerRegistry
     */
    public function __construct(ManagerRegistry $managerRegistry)
    {
        $this->managerRegistry = $managerRegistry;
    }

    /**
     * @return EntityManager
     */
    public function getEntityManager()
    {
        return $this->managerRegistry->getManagerForClass('Tms\Bundle\LoggerBundle\Entity\Log');
    }

    /**
     * @return EntityRepository
     */
    public function getRepository()
    {
        return $this->getEntityManager()->getRepository('TmsLoggerBundle:Log');
    }

    /**
     * Get Object class name.
     *
     * @param LoggableInterface $loggable
     *
     * @return string
     */
    public function getObjectClassName(LoggableInterface $loggable)
    {
        $reflection = new \ReflectionClass($loggable);

        return $reflection->getClassName();
    }

    /**
     * Get entity change set.
     *
     * @param $entity
     *
     * @return array
     */
    public function getEntityChangeSet($entity)
    {
        $uow = $this->getEntityManager()->getUnitOfWork();
        $classMetadata = $this->getEntityManager()->getClassMetadata(get_class($entity));
        $uow->computeChangeSet($classMetadata, $entity);

        return $uow->getEntityChangeSet($entity);
    }

    /**
     * {@inheritdoc}
     */
    public function log(LoggableInterface $loggable, $action, $information = null)
    {
        $log = new Log($loggable, $action, $information);
        $this->getEntityManager()->persist($log);
        $this->getEntityManager()->flush();
    }

    /**
     * {@inheritdoc}
     */
    public function getLogs($hashOrLogi = null)
    {
        if (!$hashOrLogi) {
            return $this->getRepository()->findAll();
        }

        if ($hashOrLogi instanceof LoggableInterface) {
            return $this->getRepository()->findBy(array(
                'objectId' => $hashOrLogi->getId(),
                'objectClassName' => $this->getObjectClassName($hashOrLogi),
            ));
        }

        return $this->getRepository()->findBy(array('hash' => $hashOrLogi));
    }
}


text:
Legends articles, Wookieepedia featured articles, Artificial disasters,
Battles in the Atrivis sector
Battles of Operation Skyhook
Destruction of Despayre
Attack on the first Death Star[1]
Mission to Danuta[2]
Skirmish in the Horuz system[3]
Galactic Civil War[4]
0 BBY[5]
Despayre[3][6][7]
Despayre destroyed, Death Star's power is tested, death of countless prisoners[6]
Galactic Empire[3][6][7]
Imperial prisoners[3][6][7]
Rianna Saren[7]
Wilhuff Tarkin[3][6]
DS-1 Orbital Battle Station[8][3][6][7]
Stormtroopers[7]
Security droids[7]
Probe droids[7]
Scout troopers[7]
Imperial officers[7]
Zeeo[7]
2 Probe droids[7]
Civilian casualties
The planet Despayre and all life on its surface[3][6][7]
Motti: "Engineering tells me that we can manage thirty percent power and, after a fast capacitor recharge for an hour or two, that much again."
Tarkin: "How strong will that beam be?"
Motti: "Theoretical. Nobody knows for sure."
Tarkin: "Well, then we need to test it before we embark."
Motti: "That would be wise. Do you have a target in mind?"
Tarkin: "Yes. I do."
―Admiral Conan Antonio Motti and Grand Moff Wilhuff Tarkin[src]
The Destruction of Despayre was a cataclysmic event that occurred in 0 BBY, following the attack on the first Death Star. The prison planet Despayre was the final construction site of the first Death Star, where assembly of the space station's superlaser took place. After discovery of the site by the Alliance to Restore the Republic, the project's leader, Grand Moff Wilhuff Tarkin, decided to move the station. The interior was near completion and the hyperdrive was functional, but the Grand Moff decided it was necessary to test the superlaser before getting under way. A proper test firing required a terrestrial world, and the penal colony was the only suitable location in sublight range. Tarkin decided without hesitation to sacrifice Despayre, and a few days before the Battle of Yavin, the planet was destroyed.
The destruction of Despayre was one of only three recorded uses of the Death Star's superlaser. The incident caused a shift in the gravitational configuration of the Horuz system, and was a major wound in the Force, as millions of lives were terminated almost instantly. The shock was felt by Force-sensitives, both trained and untrained.
Preparation Edit
"For practice? Just to see how well it'll work?"
―Tenn Graneet[src]
Prior to its destruction, Despayre was a world covered with life.
For approximately two years,[9] the DS-1 Orbital Battle Station,[8] more commonly known as the Death Star,[4] had undergone construction in orbit of the penal colony world of Despayre,[9] a site chosen for its location in a distant corner of the Outer Rim Territories where the Imperial Senate and HoloNet media would be unlikely to observe.[10] Slaves from all over the galaxy had labored long and hard in order to finish construction on Emperor Palpatine's newest superweapon.[9] Leading up to 0 BBY, the Alliance to Restore the Republic launched progressively grander efforts to stall the project. The Rebels captured the frigate Priam to learn the location of the construction site,[3] and then sent the Lucrehulk-class carrier Fortressa on a mission to destroy the Death Star, which led to the first operational use of the station's superlaser—bringing a swift end to the Rebel assault.[1] Following this, Grand Moff Wilhuff Tarkin, the overall leader of the Death Star project, made the decision to relocate the station. Admiral Conan Antonio Motti, the station's operational commander, concurred. However, Tarkin wished to test the functionality of the superlaser in a more controlled fashion than its first firing.[11]
Tarkin himself chose the site for the superlaser's first controlled test. The Horuz system had been largely emptied by the construction project's resource-gathering efforts, leaving Despayre itself as the only suitable target within sublight range.[12] The decision stunned personnel across the entire station, from Superlaser Fire Control to Admiral Motti himself. But ultimately, the decision was Tarkin's, and no one sought to challenge it.[13] In fact, Tarkin had long predicted that Despayre was doomed anyway,[14] as a cloud of industrial debris was already benighting the planet[15] and would have remained in orbit long after the construction ended.[14]
When Tarkin made the decision to move the station, the Death Star's engineering division wasn't quite prepared for a full-power discharge from the superlaser's main capacitors. A 33% charge was the best they were willing or able to manage. They knew 4% power was sufficient to destroy a Lucrehulk-class battleship,[16] but no one could be certain what kind of damage the superlaser could inflict at one-third of its full capacity.[17] What was certain, however, was that even at that strength, the first shot would kill millions of prisoners. The duty of firing the shot fell to Tenn Graneet, the chief of the gunnery crew for that shift. The commanding officer of Superlaser Fire Control was willing to allow alternate shift leaders Beller or Reshias to substitute for Graneet, but ultimately Graneet chose carry out the order himself.[17]
The Death Star orbits Despayre, shortly before firing the third superlaser shot.
As Tarkin considered any non-essential personnel a security risk, anyone whose usefulness ended with the termination of construction was shuttled to the planet. Prisoner work crews were returned to their compounds, and construction supervisors and other personnel were transported back to Despayre as well. As they awaited reassignment, they were unaware of their impending demise.[15]
One of those prisoners was Rianna Saren, a Twi'lek mercenary captured by the Zabrak slaver Zarien Kheev on the planet Tatooine. After being brought to the planet, however, Saren quickly orchestrated her escape. Using her secret weapon, a spring-knife called the Thorn of Ryloth, she killed the stormtroopers guarding her and tried to find a way off planet. Saren soon found her droid companion, Zeeo, in a trash compactor and met another Twi'lek slave, who informed her about a nearby air duct, which could be used in her escape. After surviving an encounter with a probe droid, Saren and Zeeo reached the surface of Despayre through the air duct and saw the Death Star orbiting the planet.[7]
After killing some scout troopers stationed on the surface, the Twi'lek stole a speeder bike and flew it to the landing pad used by Lambda-class shuttles, which carried Imperial personnel and supplies to and off planet. On the landing pad, Saren once again encountered Kheev, who shot at Zeeo before escaping on one of the shuttles. Not willing to stop her pursuit of Kheev, Saren, along with her droid, hid in a shipment crate, which was picked up by another shuttle and was then brought to the Death Star itself. After reaching the Death Star, Saren continued her search for Kheev, defeating many stormtroopers and another probe droid along the way.[7]
Destruction Edit
"You may fire when ready."
―Grand Moff Tarkin[src]
The Death Star's superlaser destroys Despayre.
The first one-third power shot from the superlaser was a planet-killer in itself. Though it didn't physically destroy Despayre, it did terminate all life on the surface. The atmosphere itself became a massive firestorm, and the planet's ground became unstable from the blast. The tectonic plates shifted, causing massive waves in the planet's oceans and extreme volcanic activity.[18] Tarkin was pleased with the results. When Motti questioned the destruction of one of the Empire's primary prison colonies, Tarkin dismissed it with the expectation that the Empire would employ the death penalty more frequently.[19]
One hour and fifteen minutes after the first shot, the Death Star fired a second time. This shot further intensified the seismic effects, causing mountains to rise and fall in a matter of minutes and the surface to be covered with oceans of lava.[20] Despayre had gone from a verdant world of deep green,[14] broken by rivers and seas,[21] to a lifeless sphere of red.[3]
The final shot was fired one hour and nineteen minutes after the second. When the final shot hit, Despayre shattered into billions of fragments ranging from pebble- to mountain-sized. The planet no longer existed as a single entity in terms of the star system's gravitational configuration. The Death Star itself recorded the impact of thousands of fragments against the station's shields, none of which caused damage worth mentioning.[20]
At the same time, Rianna Saren had at last found Kheev, who had been talking to Darth Vader. Hiding in the shadows, the Twi'lek overheard as Vader ordered Kheev to leave for the planet Danuta with the updated battle station plans, which had been requested by the engineers there. After witnessing the destruction of Despayre first-hand, Saren decided to inform the Rebellion about the Death Star and the threat it presented.[7]
Aftermath Edit
"Any attack made by the Rebels against this station would be a useless gesture, no matter what technical data they've obtained."
―Admiral Motti[src]
The remains of Despayre float in space.
Aboard the Death Star, untrained Force-sensitive Nova Stihl awoke screaming.[22] Darth Vader felt the planet's destruction while the Devastator, his flagship Star Destroyer, was in hyperspace en route to the construction site. He knew only that it was a terrible wound in the Force, until the ship dropped out of hyperspace and saw the expanding debris field on its scopes.[23] The planet had been home to countless plant and animal species, and was the only habitable world in the Horuz system.[21] Any native species that had not been transplanted would have been exterminated.[14] Some personnel aboard the Death Star, civilian contractors especially, were shocked.[24] Others, especially military personnel whose careers were heavily invested in the project, like Admiral Motti, considered the planet's destruction to be vindication of their faith in the project.[25]
Meanwhile, Rianna Saren managed to reach Death Star's communication center and contacted Princess Leia Organa, one of the major supporters of the Rebellion. Saren informed the Rebel Alliance about the battle station's destructive capabilities and, realizing that the Empire was her true enemy, not Kheev, asked Organa to send her to Danuta along with the other Rebel agents to steal the battle station plans. After that, Saren and Zeeo escaped the Death Star using a stolen Imperial ship.[7] Little did Saren know that near the same time, the Rebel Alliance had sent ships to follow up after the ill-fated Fortressa. However, when Rebel forces comprising the two CR90 corvettes of Ethar group arrived in the region, they found only the planet's remains. The Death Star was absent and the Rebels were captured by the Imperials that remained in the system. It was only thanks to the skills of Rebel pilot Keyan Farlander that those ships were later retrieved by the Alliance.[3]
The destruction of Despayre provided the operational testing necessary for the engineering division to clear the superlaser for full-power operation,[26] and a short time later a single shot at full capacity would be used to destroy the planet Alderaan.[4]
The planet Despayre as depicted in Star Wars: Rebellion, verdant and fully intact after the Battle of Yavin.
The location of the Death Star's construction around Despayre was first mentioned in the Death Star Technical Companion in 1991, and that mention was followed by the depiction of Despayre's destruction in Star Wars: X-Wing in 1992, where a single blast of the superlaser was shown destroying the planet. The planet itself was mentioned again in several works but no mention was made of the planet's demise. It was not until the Death Star novel that the event was recorded in more detail than the initial depiction in X-wing. The three successive shots detailed in the novel provide an explanation for the planet's transformation from a verdant world as described in the Death Star Technical Companion, Darksaber, and the Star Wars Encyclopedia into a featureless red ball in the visual depiction in X-wing. Conversely, Death Star introduces a contradiction of its own in that Darth Vader was aboard the Death Star when the shot was fired in X-wing, but was aboard a ship en route to the Death Star when the final shot was fired in the novel, seeing the debris field on arrival. The Nintendo DS version of 2006 video game Lethal Alliance also shows Vader aboard the Death Star during the final shot. However, he appears in hologram in the PSP version.
To further complicate the timeline, Death Star mentions the plans stolen from Danuta and shows Vader's capture of Princess Leia before the destruction, yet in Lethal Alliance Rianna Saren contacts the Princess after the destruction and informs her about the plans being held on Danuta.
The single moon of Despayre, only visually depicted in X-wing, was not named until the release of Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, which identified it as "Haroon." As no mention is made of the moon in the Death Star novel, the only source to chronicle Despayre's destruction in any significant detail, the fate of Haroon is not certain. As the Death Star was said to be able to "knock a moon out of orbit," it was presumably destroyed or at least severely damaged and displaced by the blast.[27]
A mention in X-Wing: The Bacta War of "the shipyard that built the Death Star" by Booster Terrik, a generally well-connected and well-informed individual, would seem to indicate that the role of Despayre in the station's construction and the planet's destruction were not public knowledge.
The game Star Wars: Rebellion includes Despayre as an intact planet, despite starting immediately after the Battle of Yavin. The game was published in 1998, well after Star Wars: X-wing, and lists Despayre as the construction site of the Death Star in the in-game encyclopedia, yet omits the planet's destruction.
Star Wars: X-Wing (First appearance)
Darksaber (Mentioned only)
Star Wars: Lethal Alliance
Death Star Technical Companion, Second Edition
The Essential Chronology
The Official Star Wars Fact File 74 (Pages CRE1-CRE4, Creation of the First Death Star)
Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy
Star Wars: Complete Locations
The Essential Atlas
Star Wars: The Clone Wars Comic UK 6.45
Death Star Owner's Technical Manual
↑ 1.0 1.1 Death Star (novel), page 236-241 (US hardcover)
↑ Star Wars: Dark Forces
↑ 3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 Star Wars: X-Wing
↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Star Wars: Episode IV A New Hope
↑ The Essential Guide to Warfare places the attack on the first Death Star in 0 BBY, so everything between that battle and the Battle of Yavin must fall in 0 BBY.
↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 Death Star (novel)
↑ 7.00 7.01 7.02 7.03 7.04 7.05 7.06 7.07 7.08 7.09 7.10 7.11 7.12 7.13 7.14 7.15 7.16 7.17 7.18 7.19 7.20 7.21 7.22 Star Wars: Lethal Alliance
↑ 8.0 8.1 Rebellion Era Campaign Guide, page 81
↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Death Star (novel), page 11-16 (US hardcover)
↑ The Movie Trilogy Sourcebook, page 46
↑ Death Star (novel), page 258 (US hardcover)
↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 Darksaber (novel)
↑ 15.0 15.1 The Official Star Wars Fact File 74
↑ 17.0 17.1 Death Star (novel), page 264 (US hardcover)
↑ Death Star (novel), page 268-269 (US hardcover)
↑ 21.0 21.1 Star Wars Encyclopedia, page 73
↑ Death Star (novel), page 68 (US hardcover)
Galactic Civil War
(2 BBY–19 ABY)
Destruction of the Death Star I and the Yavin blockade (0 BBY–0 ABY)
Early Campaigns: 0 BBY
Operation Skyhook
(1–0 BBY)
Star's End · Orron III · Cron Drift · First Corellia
Vergesso Asteroids · First Corulag · Circarpous
Second Death Star I · First Bothawui · Polis Massa · Sidral II
Repair dock · Corellian system · Defiance · Coruscant system
Kalla VII · Despayre · Destruction of Despayre · Horuz system
Danuta · Darkknell · First Ralltiir · Kattada · Toprawa
Independence · Desolation Station · Third Death Star I
Second Tatooine · Destruction of Alderaan · Fourth Death Star I
First Yavin 4 · Battle of Yavin
Yavin blockade: 0 ABY
Related topics and articles
Alderaan · Chewbacca · Darth Vader · Death Star I · Jan Dodonna · Galactic Empire · Obi-Wan Kenobi · Leia Organa · Rebel Alliance · Luke Skywalker · Han Solo · Tantive IV · Wilhuff Tarkin
Retrieved from "https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Destruction_of_Despayre?oldid=8310169"
Artificial disasters


text:
namespace audit.twitter.DTO.Search
{
    public class SearchMetadata
    {
        public double completed_in { get; set; }
        public long max_id { get; set; }
        public string max_id_str { get; set; }
        public string query { get; set; }
        public string refresh_url { get; set; }
        public int count { get; set; }
        public int since_id { get; set; }
        public string since_id_str { get; set; }
    }
}