Listen to the Podcast:
In today's episode of Live Healthy Be Well Jeffrey discusses the stunning new ruling by the Appeals Court in the Lee Johnson case against Monsanto. Lee Johnson was the first plaintiff to sue Monsanto for Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Lee was a groundskeeper for the Benicia School District in the Bay area in California, and he came down with terminal Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma as a result of daily use of Roundup. They rushed his case to court so he could get justice before he dies. And Monsanto, which is now owned by Bayer has been saying all along that science is on their side, that the juries were just moved by emotional arguments and that science will win the day. This is what the Appeals Court said this week: "In our view, Johnson presented abundant and certainly substantial evidence that glyphosate together with other ingredients in Roundup products caused his cancer." Listen as Jeffrey breaks down the argument in this landmark case.
The Institute for Responsible Technology is working to protect you & the World from GMOs (and while we’re at it, Roundup®...) To find out exactly how we do this and to subscribe to our newsletter visit https://www.responsibletechnology.org/
Notes for this week's Podcast
This week's Transcript
Speaker 2: (00:07)
Hi everyone. This is Jeffrey Smith, and I'm speaking on Instagram and I'm speaking on Facebook live and we're describing now an appeals court decision we have been waiting for. We can now breathe out. Lee Johnson, the first plaintiff to Sue Monsanto for non Hodgkin's lymphoma. He was a groundskeeper at a Benicia school district in the Bay area in California, and he got terminal non Hodgkin's lymphoma. So they rushed his case to court. So he could get justice before he dies. And Monsanto, which is now owned by bear has been saying all along that science is on their side, that the juries were just moved by emotional arguments and that science will win the day. Well, let me read you this. This is what the appeals court said this week. They said that in our view, Johnson presented abundant and certainly substantial evidence that glyphosate together with other ingredients in Roundup products caused his cancer applause, please.
Speaker 2: (01:25)
Thank you. They said expert after expert provided evidence. Both at Roundup products are capable of causing non Hodgkin's lymphoma and caused the Johnson's cancer. In particular, you remember some earlier Facebook lives. We talked about how he ended up being drenched by Roundup. He was spraying his sprayer. He sprayed, I don't know, 150 gallons a day. Um, it broke the hose broke and he got drenched another time he was carrying a spray on his back and he got soaked and he would regularly get missed all over his body. And he contacted Monsanto and said, I have a rash. Is there any possible way that it's causing me a rash? And then he got non Hodgkin's lymphoma says that any possible way that it's causing not Hodgkin's lymphoma. And they did not tell him that the world health organization's chief cancerous or group had declared the glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.
Speaker 2: (02:20)
And so he continued to spray and his disease got worse. It shifted to a deadly version, and now he has a terminal case. So they also said this was great because the punitive damages are usually the largest amount that punitive damages were in order, because there was sufficient evidence that Monsanto acted with quote, willful and conscious disregard of other safety. They see it it's clear. And as you know, there's, there's more than a hundred thousand people, maybe 125,000 people that are either suing or waiting for a settlement from bear, which they announced recently. And I'll tell you more about that in just a moment. Now, there was one negative ruling and it makes me sad. Cause I want my Santo to pay Monsanto Bayer, to pay as much as they pot as we could possibly have to pay. I wouldn't mind seeing them go out of business.
Speaker 2: (03:22)
Um, originally the, um, jury awarded $39 million for a compensatory damages and 250 million for punitive damages. And this was reduced to 78 million by the judge. There's some law in, in California that you have a certain amount of balance between the putative and the compensatory. And so he actually made it the same. Now I was there in the courtroom when Brent Wizner asked for the amount of money that he asked for, um, he counted the expectation of how long Lee Johnson was supposed to live. And there's a quote here from Robert Howard, who was a member of that jury. He was, he has a blog, a guest blog at glyphosate girl blog. And he was told that the, they could pay for the loss of enjoyment of life. So they interpreted it as how many years he would have lived. Had he had the normal life expectancy, which is he would have lost 33 years of life in a healthy life. There is a California law.
Speaker 2: (04:40)
This is unfortunate that your, his short life expectancy means legally that future noneconomic damages have to be reduced because you can't pay for someone's missed years. So if they, if they're expecting to die sooner, they make less money. I know Brent Wizner who was there, that who was the main guy you may have seen me and him on the doctors TV show in 2007, uh, 18, I think you said, this is a deep flaw in California law. He said basically, California law does not allow a plaintiff to recover for a shortened life expectancy. This effectively rewards a defendant, Monsanto for killing a plaintiff, as opposed to just injuring him. It is madness. So yeah, they're going to see if they're, they may go to the Supreme, the, the court, the Supreme court of California, if there's another appeal. And then hopefully they will overturn this madness.
Speaker 2: (05:57)
But what it meant was instead of getting paid 78 million, if Monsanto were to give up and say, okay, we're going to go forward. They reduced it to 20.5 million because you can't compensate Lee for the years. He dies. So instead of making 289 million from the jury or 78 million from the judge, he will get 20.5 million plus 10% interest based on the date of the jury verdict. Now let's say to tomato, peel it to the next level. I haven't heard whether they're going to or not. They usually do. And we'll see if the Supreme court allows them to allows Lee to recover more. I know lately I've been on stage with Lee. He's an amazingly beautiful man, and I'm sure he'd be happy to receive any amount that he can use to support his family. Uh, I would like him to receive more personally and I think you do too.
Speaker 2: (06:56)
Now there's another good news from the courts. How often does this happen? Good news from the courts, almost an oxymoron. The same judge, uh, that did the, did the Lee Johnson trial, Vince Vince [inaudible] rejected a settlement concoction or plan that was concocted. That was horrible. You see, there was these main attorneys that I know that have been running the show on this. And then there's these other attorneys that collect all of these plaintiffs through these massive TV shows and stuff, TV advertisements, and they organized, this is so lawyer like, Oh my God, they organized a deal with bear Monsanto to basically protect their Monsanto's interests. After the settlement of the first settlement of let's say 75 or 85,000 plaintiffs. And these lawyers concocted a plan or took bear's plan to create a scheme where no other law and order to trial would go forward for four years, they'd have a scientific panel of five people.
Speaker 2: (08:13)
Bear would choose to the lawyers would choose two and those two would choose one other. And they would decide on their own over a certain period of years, whether Roundup causes non Hodgkin's lymphoma. And if it did, then the trial can go forward, but it could not offer punitive damages. So it would be a lot less expensive by bear. And if they did find that it didn't cause [inaudible], there could be no more lawsuits. And the lawyers that decided to go to say that to work out this deal with bear, we're going to receive $150 million to screw the future plaintiffs to mess them up completely. So they can't receive their day in court, judge Chabra. And there was a lot of opposition. A lot of the, the attorneys were quite upset with this and they wrote letters to judge [inaudible] and he said, no, he's not going to allow this. And he pointed out for example, that science changes and let's suppose that this group of scientists in 2023, decided that Roundup didn't cause cancer, but then new information came out showing that it does. And let's say after that someone in 2030 decides to Sue, you know, does it make sense, as he says, is it appropriate to tell them that they are bound by the 2023 decision of the panel? Because they did not opt out of a settlement in 2020?
Speaker 2: (09:44)
Ridiculous. So this was so interesting that the attorneys were going to make $150 billion on this plan. I mean, it's amazing how creative Vera Monsanto is at and trying to figure out a way to use its money to change people's, uh, sense of fairness. So it becomes about personal enrichment and it will end up causing harm with other people. It's amazing. It's amazing. All right. Let's see if there's any, I don't see any comments either. They're not coming up. I see. Hello, Joyce. I see some, but okay. We're going to end in just a moment. Let me recap. If you came late, the appeals court upheld the, the, the jury decision that Lee Johnson, the first plaintiffs to Sue Monsanto's about Santo for their non Hodgkin's lymphoma causing Roundup. He, he is entitled to get paid. They have held that that Roundup does cause cancer and it caused his cancer.
Speaker 2: (10:52)
And that Monsanto had willfully acted in misconduct. It's malicious intent, et cetera. And that is great news. They reduce the overall amount from 78 million to 20.5 million. Not great, but news that might get reversed again and increased. If it goes to the California Supreme court, we will see, and they, the new another judge denied the scheme to limit the possible plaintiff awards in future non Hodgkin's lymphoma, uh, trials. Now it's interesting. There's one unanswered question. Bear offered this, this a settlement of over $10 billion with an understanding that there was going to be this limited ability for them to pay in the future because of this made up science panel. So now that the science panel has been struck down, are they going to uphold their settlement? You may remember that they offered a settlement and then COVID starts COVID was hit. And then they said, well, because of COVID, we're going to reduce the settlement.
Speaker 2: (12:02)
These guys are horrible. Anyway, there are a bubble and now the world knows it. The judges know it. The appeals courts know it. Humanity knows it. I thank Lee Johnson on behalf of all of us, who've been working to expose Monsanto for decades, his work, his bravery to go through this process while he was sick, caused an alarm bell to go around the world. Not only did the bear stock price plummet and remain plummeted, but countries and businesses around the world have jettisoned, glyphosate, jettisoned, Roundup. So I love Lee Johnson, and I really hope that he lives a long time and can receive lots of money from bear Monsanto as soon as possible. So hello, Donna. Hello, Jamie. Hello, Joyce. Hello, Jenna, John and OBE. Sweet Tom. Hello everyone. It's good to be giving you this primarily outstanding news today and remember safe eating by now. Thank you for listening to live healthy. Be well. Please subscribe to the podcast. Using whatever app you're listening to podcasts with, or go to live healthy, be well.com to subscribe. This podcast will inform you about health, dangerous corporate and government corruption and ways we can protect ourselves, our families and our planet. I interview scientists, experts, authors, whistleblowers, and many people who have not shared their information with the world until now, please share the podcast with your friends, able to enlighten and may even save lives. SAPD.