Monsanto’s HUGE Mistake: How We Got the Secret Monsanto Papers - Episode 13

Listen to the Podcast:

In this week's episode...

This week's podcast reveals the courtroom drama of how The Monsanto Papers — their internal corporate documents — were exposed during the trial and then released to the public. Watch this moving tale of one attorney’s courage as he risks his law license and reputation to pierce Monsanto’s veil of corporate deceit and manipulation. Please note: this video occasionally contains strong language which may be unsuitable for children.

Want to watch more of this exciting and dynamic interview with Brent Wisner?  You can watch the entire video series by visiting our website at https://responsibletechnology.org/wisnerinterviews/

Notes for this week's Podcast

[1:45] Jeffrey interviews Brent Wisner, the chief attorney in the Monsanto trials, on today’s podcast. Find out why both of them consider being personally attacked by Monsanto, a badge of merit! 

[3:30] When faced with a trial, Monsanto attempted to claim all of their documents as classified. When mistakes were made by their lawyers at trial, they resorted to personally attacking Brent Wisner! 

[15:18] “I told him the truth. I told him my mind. I said, ‘Your honor, then you don't know what it means to be a lawyer. Because my job is not just about winning this one case, it's about a thousand other cases that are coming through my door, the people who have cancer because the truth hasn't been exposed. This is about the public interest. My father, he marched with Cesar Chavez to help farm workers in California who were exposed to DDT, and all the other terrible things that Monsanto exposed them to people who have no rights. I've been living this since the day I was born. And you think this is about PR?’ I went off. I spoke my heart and soul.” 

[24:25] “You know, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter how many documents I put out there. At some point, you just have to realize that they're lying. That they're poisoning people. Once you realize that, then it doesn't really matter what documents you have.”

This week's Transcript

Hi everyone. This is Jeffery Smith, Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and this is my Live Healthy, Be Well podcast. 

Today, I'm going to share one of a series of interviews I did with Brent Wisner who was the Chief Attorney for two of the three victorious Monsanto trials. In fact, he was the attorney for the first one with Lee Johnson, the one that set the trend and was a remarkable shot heard round the world. 

In fact, Bayer's stock price - as you remember, they bought Monsanto - their stock price plunged when the verdict came out. 

You can catch the whole series of my interviews at responsibletechnology.org. Right now, they keep delaying new trials hoping that Bayer and the lawyers can come up with a settlement. We will keep you up to date if that happens.

Jeffrey: Well, I have been exposing Monsanto for 22 years. I came out with Seeds of Deception and it became the world's best-selling book on GMOs and Monsanto was silent. They never admitted to actually having read it. 

No one said, "Well, I haven't read Mr. Smith's book, but I'm sure that he hasn't pointed out anything that the FDA hasn't know and whatnot." You know? There's this run behind the alphabet soup and the FDA and EPA. 

But eventually, I came out with my second book, Genetic Roulette, and I exposed their lies. I mean, I went through deep, deep understanding about the documented health risks of genetically engineered foods. And it showed that they lied and lied and lied. 

That's when they finally started to attack me and they were misquoting the book and they created an entire website and they have a whole anti-Jeffrey Smith wing. So it's a badge of merit. I just want you to know it means that I've actually awoken this sleeping giant. 

It means that I'm actually accomplishing something. So can you brag whether you, in fact, have been attacked by Monsanto?

Brent: Well, you know, it's really interesting because people don't really know the story behind the Monsanto papers.

Jeffrey: Oh, the Monsanto papers. So just explain what the Monsanto papers are and then give us this.

Brent: So it's a group of documents that were discovered and released publicly to the world, that was obtained in the litigation that we've been doing against Monsanto. So they deal with a whole bunch of basically all sorts of rampant corporate malfeasance, inappropriate contacts of the EPA, a whole host of really, really good stuff. 

It's created a lot of media, it's prompted an Office of Inspector General Investigation. Europe's regulatory agencies are considering -  it affected the renewal of glyphosate there. In California, the EPA used it. So it's created a big, big, big, big storm of controversy. Rightly so. But people don't actually know the story behind it. 

Jeffrey: These are memos, emails, even the texts. 

Brent: That's right. Text messages. That's right. 

Jeffrey: For how many years? 

Brent: Uh, this goes back about four or five years. It's not super timewise, but it really shows you what's happening within Monsanto. 

Jeffrey: How many pages are there? 

Brent: Oh gosh. I know there are about 80 - probably up to 150 documents now. It grows as we get more and more documents, really. 

Jeffrey: But you had to sort through millions? 

Brent: Oh! Tens of millions of pages.  So the way it works is - people don't realize this, but when you're litigating against a company like Monsanto or a drug company or whatever, they take pains to make these things confidential, classified. 

So they produce 10 million pages of documents to me. But every one of those documents cannot be seen by anybody but the lawyers, right? We cannot show them to you. We can't show them to regulators. We can't show them to scientists. They're attorney's eyes only.

The reason why is because they designate them confidential

Jeffrey: Confidential business information. 

Brent: Yeah. The story behind that is actually a pretty complicated one. The law is actually very, very hostile to this, right? 

Our court systems are supposed to be public. Everybody has a first amendment right to see what's happening in a court - to see what judges are deciding things on and decide if they agree with it. That's actually part of our checks and balances system, and it's a constitutional right. 

But there's one exception to it, and that is if the document relates to a trade secret - a patent, the KFC secret recipe, right? That's a trade secret. And if that was publicly exposed, then the company will lose money. I mean, that's part of their business and that understandably can be kept confidential, but it's a very narrow group of things that can be deemed confidential. 

Of the 10 million pages that Monsanto produced, they designated all but maybe 50 documents confidential. Okay? So everything is a trade secret. But it's not, right? 

So what they've developed are mechanisms by which the courts can sort of fix that problem, and that's called a protective order. In the federal case, the judge had issued a protective order. It actually was stipulated. 

The parties had come together and agreed on how we're going to deal with this issue, and the procedure was very simple. The plaintiffs, us,  identify documents that we think are improperly designated that should not be confidential. We give those documents to Monsanto and we say, "Please retract your designation. Make them public." 

Then Monsanto has to meet with us within 14 days and go over document by document and explain to me why this is actually a trade secret? Why does this deserve confidentiality? Which none of them did. Then if they don't take any action, say we disagree with each other - I think it should be out, they don't think it should be. We come to an impasse. 

Then they have 30 days to file a motion with the judge. They have to say to the judge, "Hey judge, these documents, they're actually confidential. And here's why." They have to prove why they're confidential. 

If they fail to do what the protective order says, black and white - failure to do this results in them automatically be waived. So it's automatic. 

Jeffrey: So let me just be sure. So they say something's confidential. You say, "No, there's a B and C that shouldn't be confidential." They have to get back to you within 14 days to argue it. 

Brent: Exactly. 

Jeffrey: And they don't argue it with you?  

Brent: Well, I'll tell you what actually happened. I'm just telling you the procedure. 

Jeffrey: Alright. 

Brent: Then they have to file a motion if we can't agree. If they don't do that within 30 days, it's waived automatically. That's the procedure, right? 

So here's what happens -  I'm in the federal MDL here - 

Jeffrey: MDL? 

Brent: The multidistrict litigations. Where all the cases filed in federal court, around the country are all consolidated or centralized into a central court. It's actually here in San Francisco, in front of the honorable judge Chhabria.  

I'm not on the leadership of that litigation. There are other lawyers who are the leaders, but I'm all about getting documents out from under shields. It's part of the philosophy of our law firm. We've been doing it for years in pharma and we were going to do it here, but a lot of the other lawyers are like, "Brett, why are you making trouble?" 

Right? Like, "Why?" Like we don't care about these documents being out, they're not really a part of our litigation, you know? Focus on dealing with the case in front of, and I said, "No, I think it really is."

Jeffrey: So again, the big lawyers are saying, "No, no." It's just whacking a mole. 

Brent: Yeah. But to be fair, I convinced them that it was a good idea. And so they actually said, "Well, you know Brent, you're so God damn passionate about this and you care so much. Have at it, man. Go use the protective order and go do your thing." And I said, "Great." 

So I got their blessings and then they gave me the green light. So I prepare an 80-page document going through document by document explaining why it shouldn't be confidential, why it's relevant and has relevance. It's single-spaced 80 pages. 

I mean, this took me a lot of time. I actually had another lawyer at my law firm, my associate. 

Jeffrey: I actually read some of it because it's on your website. 

Brent: Yeah. So we prepare this whole thing and we give it to Monsanto and we say, "We're challenging these things." I think it was 80 documents. And they say, "Ah, okay, let's meet and confer." 

So we get on the phone with them - I get on the phone with them and they say, "Brent, we don't have to discuss these documents with you. We don't have to look at them. In fact, we can tell you to go away. So go away."

This is what they say to me on the phone. 

Jeffrey: Just like that. 

Brent: Just like that. I go, "Excuse me, you're telling me to go away?" They said, "Yeah." 

"But you have to talk about these documents with me. We have to go through -  explain to me why they're confidential." 

"No, we don't. We don't have to do any of that. Go away." We fight about this for about 30 minutes. 

Jeffrey: So basically they interpret the law as saying we just have to talk and you're interpreting the law as you have to actually talk about the substance. 

Brent: You have to, you know, engage in good faith. Good old fashioned civil litigation, which Monsanto has no interest in.

I actually, at one point go, "Can I actually quote you? I mean I can't believe you're saying, can I actually tell the judge and tell the people that you're telling me to go away?" And they said, "Go ahead." 

Jeffrey: My goodness, the arrogance! 

Brent: The level of hubris here is overwhelming. 

Jeffrey: Amazing. I love this story. 

Brent: Okay. So then I'm like, "All right." I get off the phone and I go back to the protective order and I go, "What's next? What's the next step?" 

I look at it and said, "Oh, they have to file this motion within 30 days." I've clearly met and conferred. We don't agree. Great. So I'll deal with the motion when they file it. Right?  

I'm curious to see what they're going to say because they have no legal basis for asserting confidentiality. They're going to lose. I'm going to crush them in front of the judge. 

Jeffrey: The judge makes the decision?  

Brent: Exactly. Sounds great.  So I wait, I wait, I wait - I wait 30 days. They don't file anything. I wait two extra days because I'm just a little worried that maybe I calendered it wrong or I'm not counting my days right. Some months are 30 days, some of them are 31. I just want to make sure I'm not messing anything up. 

They don't file anything and I go, "Oh, okay. They must just not care." Right? They must realize they have no leg to stand on, and that's why I told him me to go away. They knew they had nothing to say. So that's what's going on here. Great. 

So I sent them to the Department of Justice - the documents, I sent them to them. I sent them to the California EPA, sent them to the Parliamentarians in Europe, and I posted every one of those goddamn documents on my website.  

Jeffrey: Oh man! I love it! 

Brent: And these are important documents!  

Jeffrey: I know!  I've looked through them, they're incredible! They're smoking guns. 

Brent: Monsanto loses their mind - loses their mind because it turns out that the reason why they didn't file it was not because they didn't have a leg to stand on, it's because they just forgot. Right?  So these lawyers are now in this position - 

Jeffrey: How much do these lawyers get paid? 

Brent: They get paid a lot of money. More than I get paid, I'll tell you that much. These guys have just made - I don't know, just a blatant error I guess. I thought they had just given up. But no, no, it wasn't a deliberate thing. They just screwed up. 

So they file a motion with the federal judge here in San Francisco and they say, "Mr. Wisner is violating the orders. He's lied, he's acted in bad faith, and you have to take him out. In fact, your honor, take out the entire MDL leadership because they let him do this and take out Mr. Wisner, and you sanction him and you make him pay money."

This is all a preview to them actually filing a lawsuit against us.  That's where they want to go with this. So the judge has a quick phone hearing, he reads their document, accusing me of all this stuff, gets us all on the phone and he says, "Well, I've read their papers and based on what they've said, it appears that Mr. Wisner has acted in bad faith, that he's deceived people, and that I want him to come up here in two weeks and told me to my face why I shouldn't sanction him. See in two weeks." 

Jeffrey:  Whoa, these two weeks must have been rather interesting for you! Did you sleep? 

Brent: Obviously, there's anxiety involved in it. There's, you know, did I do the right thing? Did I actually break a rule? But I checked everything and I did everything right. One hundred percent above board. 

I tell myself, "I don't care what this judge does because if he does sanction me, I'm going to go to the ninth circuit court of appeals. I'm going to get them reversed because I didn't do anything wrong. I followed the God damn order." 

It says it right there, "Automatically waived." They didn't do it. Now they want to blame me for their own incompetence? That's shame on them. 

I don't know what's going on. I ended up hiring a lawyer - this is up here in San Francisco, you know, one of these people who really know confidentiality is really ingrained in this stuff.  I tell him my case and he goes, "This is outrageous, Brent. We're going to go get him." And we'd go into court. 

The problem with the lawyer who was representing me is he's a good guy. He knows his stuff, but he didn't know this case very well. Judge Chhabria will start asking very pointed questions, very specific factual and technical questions, and my lawyer really couldn't answer them. He just didn't have the answer. 

He was kind of, "Well your honor, that's not really important,"  and he wasn't really answering the judge's questions. So the judge is getting pissed off - he's getting angrier and angrier and angrier. 

And then finally I stand up and go, "Your honor, maybe I should just try to - maybe I can help answer your questions." And he goes, "All right, let's hear from Mr. Wisner."

Then my lawyer is like, "I got this. I'm your lawyer, I got this." And I go, "I think I can do this." But the judge sees us kind of bickering, and he goes, "Hey Mr. Zitron, I'd like to hear from Mr. Wizner. So why don't you take a seat?" 

And he's like, "Your Honor, I'm his lawyer. I'm here to represent him. I want to make sure he's protected."  And the judge goes, "Oh, maybe I wasn't clear sir. Sit down or I'll put you in jail."

Jeffrey: This judge is - he's heated. 

Brent: He's hot and understandably so. I understand where the judge is coming from. I'm not trying to speak poorly of the judge. He has his viewpoint and I understand it. So Mr. Zitron was like, "I'll sit down, I don't want to go to jail." So he sits down, and the judge looks at me. So this is the first moment I've gotten to speak. 

This is the first time I've got to defend myself for what I've done and why I did it. And the judge is at a place where he's basically threatened to put my own attorney in jail. So we started going at it and the judge, he's angry. He thinks that I've done something wrong and he says pretty harsh things. 

At one point, I think there was a moment where he goes, "Mr. Wisner,  this case needs lawyers and you are so busy being a PR man trying to get your name out there in the news that you forgot what it meant to be a lawyer. And that's what this case is. This case needs lawyers, not PR men."

That's a pretty harsh statement from a judge. And so at that moment, I had two options, right? Sorry, your honor. I made a mistake, whatever. Apologize. Or stand up for what I did. 

Jeffrey: Let me guess. 

Brent: I told him the truth. I told him my mind. I said, "Your honor, then you don't know what it means to be a lawyer. Because my job is not just about winning this one case, it's about a thousand other cases that are coming through my door, the people who have cancer because the truth hasn't been exposed. This is about the public interest. My father, he marched with Cesar Chavez to help farmworkers in California who were exposed to DDT, and all the other terrible things that Monsanto exposed them to people who have no rights. I've been living this since the day I was born. And you think this is about PR?" 

I went off. I spoke my heart and soul. 

Jeffrey: And then you told him that you had waited for the 30 days. 

Brent: I told them a million times. I didn't do anything wrong, but the judge wasn't hearing that. But he did see me and I think he saw that I was speaking the truth, that I didn't actually engage in any deception, that I wasn't trying to be some slimy PR guy, that actually my heart was in the right place.  

To sanction me, you have to find bad faith - that I have, you know, wrongful intent, and I don't think he could see it in my face. What I was saying is that I had no bad faith. I did it honestly, and I thought I was following the rules a hundred percent.  

So the judge goes from being very angry to kind of like, "All right, all right." He kind of realizes that maybe I'm not such a bad guy, you know? He doesn't say that, but his disposition changes, you know? 

 At one point I said, "Your honor, you know, putting aside what I did, these documents show rampant corporate malfeasance." The judge goes, "Yeah, I agree." 

I mean, he's like, "I read them. I agree." Wow. Right? He was like, "All right, well let's hear from Monsanto now." So Joe Hollingsworth gets up and he - by the way, the transcripts are all online. 

Jeffrey:  Was Joe the guy who was arguing against you? 

Brent: Yeah. So, Joe Hollingsworth of the Hollingsworth Law Firm - this is the firm that represents Monsanto. He goes up and he's ready to freaking bury me, right? They're going to get their pound of flesh. They're going to take this little bastard Brent out. Mr. Wisner who is causing him all these problems. He's out as though he's ready to go. 

But before he gets started, the judge goes, "How in the universe did you tell Mr. Whisner to go away? How dare you, sir? After we're done with this hearing, we're going to potentially have a hearing about whether or not we sanction you guys for treating him that way. That's not how the order works." 

I'm like, "Well that's nice. At least he's being harsh to everybody. It's not just picking on me." Right? So, he starts getting into it and there was this incredible interchange, just amazing, where ghostwriting comes up and he goes, "Woah, your honor. That's the plaintiff's lawyer spin on it. There was no ghostwriting. We didn't do it."  

He goes, "Well, hold on a second, Mr. Hollinsworth. Hold on. I actually looked at these documents, I actually read them and there are Monsanto employees saying, 'I ghostwrote this article.' They use the word ghostwrite, right?" 

"Well, yeah, that's true." 

"So really it's not Mr. Wisner that's trying to mislead me about what they did. It's Monsanto's own employees that are misleading me, is that what you're saying?" 

"Well, but your honor, hold on. You're talking about this Williams article. That's the document you're talking about, but the Williams article is not real science." This is what he says to the judge. 

Jeffrey: He says the Williams article is not real? 

Brent: I have the transcripts! 

Jeffrey: This is cool. We're going to expose this, this is way cool! 

Brent: He goes, "The Williams article's not real science. It's just a review article. It's not real science. No self-respecting scientists would ever rely on the Williams article to support the safety of Roundup."

And he goes, "Well, Mr. Hollingsworth, you guys have been arguing and briefing stuff in my court. Have you ever cited the Williams article to support the safety of glyphosate?" 

"No, your honor, we never have." Right. It goes on for a little bit. Then someone says, "Excuse me, your honor." 

Jeffrey: It wasn't you? 

Brent: Actually, it was another person who had all the documents in front of them. I was up in the front, this is a guy was from the stands. "Excuse me, your honor." 

"Yeah?" And he hands up this, so we bring it to the judge's attention and go, "Your honor, this is the first brief they ever filed in this court. The first motion they ever filed, and the very first citation in this thing, your honor, look! Williams, it's the very first thing they ever cited to this judge in their first motion to the court." 

Mr. Hollingsworth, to the judge's face, lied. Lied to his face, he looked in his eyes and said, "We never cited that." That's not real science but it's the very first thing they cited. 

So anyway, it was a pretty dramatic day. 

Jeffrey: What happened next? 

Brent: Well, so the next part of the story you're going to hate because we take a break. The judge comes out and says, "I'd like to talk to you all on chambers". He brings us in the chambers and we have a confidential conversation. I can't talk about what was talked about there. 

Jeffrey: Yeah, I hate that. 

Brent: Yeah, I know. I'm sorry. But at the end of the day, I was not sanctioned. I was not sanctioned and we've been litigating the case - we obviously tried the case. So what's really interesting is what they've done. 

Even though I was never sanctioned and the judge took no adverse action against me, Monsanto takes some of those quotes where we were fighting, right? And they use those quotes in other cases to say why I shouldn't be allowed to be in that case. 

So for example, I have a class-action lawsuit in Wisconsin, involving the labeling of Roundup. It says the effects of enzyme not found in humans. We're suing them because that's factually incorrect. We can prove that it affects it. 

Jeffrey: The shikimate pathway. 

Brent: Yeah, it's nonsense. We have a class-action lawsuit and one of the things the court has to consider is the quality of counsel and they have a whole three pages talking about how Mr. Wisner is bad and they're quoting the transcripts from that hearing. 

There's the JCP proceeding in Oakland,  it's kind of like an MDL for state cases in California. The plaintiffs in that proceeding unanimously elected me to be the leader for that litigation, and Monsanto objected. The judge didn't care and ignored it.

It didn't go anywhere, but they came after me. And then again in the Johnson trial when they found out that I was going to try the case, they filed a motion saying that I couldn't be a lawyer in the case because I was so bad. Of course, it didn't work, but they've tried to use it against me every single time. 

I went through a lot of risks getting those documents out and they've tried to use that to come after me personally, and so far it hasn't stuck. Because at the end of the day they're attacks, they're all lies. If I can get someone who will listen to me for more than a second, I tell them what actually happened. Then they'll go, Oh yeah, it's garbage. 

I've had reporters come to me and go, they say, you did this and you did this. And I go, "Oh really? That's what they said? Well, let me show you the protective orders, the language. Let me show you what I did." 

And they go, "Oh, you didn't do anything wrong." I go, "I know." Okay?  I disabuse it. But I mean, they keep coming after me and keep attacking me. Mr. Partridge has said some pretty mean things. 

Jeffrey: Mr. Partridge is the head of PR for Monsanto? 

Brent: He's their spokesperson and he says a lot of mean things about me. They're all untrue and you know, it takes only about three or four minutes of talking to me to go. "Oh." I'm not bullshitting. 

Jeffrey:  By the way, this is why debating with Monsanto reps is hard because they can give one lie every few seconds and it takes three to four minutes to counter it. 

Brent: Didn't Mark Twain say something about that? It takes a second to lie and it takes an hour to undo one or something? There's a great quote about that. 

Jeffrey: But that's what I've found. It's like, well, if I'm debating someone and they just do all these different lies and then they give me the same amount of time to rebut - you know? They say, "Oh, the FDA says it's safe." 

Well, then I've learned how to say, "Yeah, it was the person who was in charge of the FDA who was Monsanto's former attorney, later Monsanto's vice president. He ignored the scientists and now we have documents to prove that." That took longer than saying the other. But you understand the situation. 

They've hired private investigators to try and look at my life and see anything that they can call a skeleton in the closet. They found out that I meditated and danced, so they use those against me. 

Brent: Oh well, in that case. What are we doing here? 

Jeffrey: Well, first of all, congratulations on being attacked by Monsanto. You're a man. 

Brent: It's a badge of honor. 

Jeffrey: It is a badge that you can hold very high - way beyond the Boy Scouts. It's major. Then secondly, thank you for exposing those documents. I mean I went through them, I have them on my PowerPoints. They're really important. 

They're really important and I'm sure more are coming out now for the next-  

Brent: We're working on it. There are only so many hours in a day. It takes a lot of work to get documents out, but I'm working on getting more out there. I think that there's even more to these stories and there's more corruption. 

You know, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter how many documents I put out there. At some point, you just have to realize that they're lying. That they're poisoning people. Once you realize that, then it doesn't really matter what documents you have. 

You've just got to get people on board and realize that this is something that needs to happen and real change needs to be done. It's my hope that through this litigation, that if we can change something globally, then it will really help the people who are dying from this. 

I mean, yeah, thousands of people have cancer and you know, the idea that they're all going to get a chance to have their day in court, like Mr. Johnson, is just unrealistic. So how do we turn this into something that really fixes the problem? 

The problem is, Monsanto is going to have to finally take responsibility for what it's doing and say, "You know what? Let's make it right." They have the money and if they did it right, they could find a place in our culture for Roundup. I'm sure there's a place it belongs, but until they take responsibility and make right the harm that they've done, it's not going to end. 

It's my hope with this litigation - I'm a young guy, I'm only 35. I just turned 35 actually a couple of days ago. 

Jeffrey: Congratulations. 

Brent: I can try these cases until I'm 90 if I have to. It's my hope that I don't have to, it's my hope that we can really turn this around before we've gone over the cliff. So anyway, we'll see.

Jeffrey: Thank you, Brent. I love this story and thank you for your boldness and thank you for - you know, originally when you wanted to do this lawsuit in the first place, your fellow attorneys said it was not worth doing. 

When you wanted to get the documents, you convinced them. When the lawyer challenged you about whether you were just trying to get PR, you stood up for yourself there. 

As I said earlier, when we were on the doctors and the epidemiologist came up with some bogus thing, you stood up against him. You have an incredible tenacity to marry your thinking and your speech to the truth, with incredible velocity. It's so exciting to see you. 

Brent: It really helps when you're right. I mean, I don't mean to be coy, but I mean if I was lying I wouldn't be able to do this. I know what I'm saying. I've seen the documents, I've seen the science and it's there as plain as day and when you have that sort of surety and then you get Monsanto's lawyers up there just lying through their teeth -  the jury sees it.

Jeffrey: Yeah, and they saw it. In your closing arguments where you gave a whole talk for two hours, and then he spoke for three hours and you had like 35 minutes to respond. He had undermined every single statement that you said, and in 35 minutes you completely not only turned it around but exposed that he was selectively lying.

Brent:  Well, I mean, he made it easy. He would take quotes from testimony at trial. Right? But we have the transcripts. I can go look at it. Right? And he'd go, "This is what he said." And he'd put the quote up there and then it'd be dot, dot, dot, right? And then another sentence. Dot, dot, dot, right?

I'm like, I wonder what's in those dots? What's in the ellipsis there? What's going on? And you go to read it and it completely contradicts what he's saying. And so I was like, "Ladies and gentlemen, my rebuttal was like, this is about the power of the ellipsis."

Jeffrey:  I know, I remember. 

Brent: It's like, this is what he said, this is what was actually said. 

Jeffrey: Because you know, I was all nervous. I was all nervous when after he spoke he gave what seemed to be powerful arguments. 

Brent: He's a good lawyer. 

Jeffrey: But it was all smoke and mirrors. Congratulations. 

Brent: Thank you. 

Jeffrey: Oh man, good job. 

Brent: Thank you. 

Jeffrey: I want to say we've been talking to Brent Wisner who is the amazing attorney that won the $289 million lawsuit against Monsanto. It's as if nature has organized for this man to be the lead. You know, I mean the other attorney, having an accident so you had to pinch-hit with two weeks to go. Your tenacity, the way that you handled it. 

Your dedication. The fact that your father marched with Cesar Chavez on the impact of DDT, which is another Monsanto's product. I want you to know Brent, that we all stand behind you. That I am in touch with people all over the world about the GMO issue and we've had billions and billions of media contacts or media points and I know that the world is looking to you as a leader and I want to tell the world that this trial and this series are in good hands. 

Brent: Thank you. I want to say thank you for having me on and doing what you do. I think it's really important and I'm able to go and do this litigation and have these fights in the trenches because I know that there is a group of people who really care about this. Who, if I give them the documents, if I give them the tools that they need to do their work, I know it will get done. So it's a really great synergy between what you and other scientists and activists are doing. 

I think it's really a big part of this whole effort to really change the world.  

Jeffrey: It's great to be on the team with you. Thanks. Alright. Safe eating, everyone.

Jeffrey:  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 livehealthybewell.com to subscribe. 

This podcast will inform you about health dangers, 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. They will enlighten and may even save lives. 

Safe eating.

Downloads

Save this episode...

SUBSCRIBE