Monsanto Trial Update

This entry is part 20 of 22 in the series Whom do your elected officials represent???

Statement on behalf of Baum Hedlund & The Miller Firm


Although we believe a reduction in punitive damages was unwarranted and we are weighing the options, we are pleased the Court did not disturb the verdict. The evidence presented to this jury was, quite frankly, overwhelming. And, as we saw in recent days, this jury was intelligent, diligent, and followed the letter of the law. We are happy the jury’s voice was acknowledged by the Court, even if slightly muted. We are still reviewing whether we will accept the proposed remittitur or retry the punitive damages. That said, today is a triumph for our legal system.  We care deeply for Lee and his family, and we are excited to share this important win with them and all those who supported this case….

The above update courtesy law firm listed 10/23/2018

Will Monsanto once again squirm out from under liability???

Since 1928 when the US Government threw the towel in on Monsanto v. USA for there first patented product Sachrrin being in the food supply vertually uncheck, without any type of testing at all Monsanto has been able to wiggle out from under not only Responsibility and Liability, they have continued to churn grotesque profits for products they are being sued over. Case in point. D. Johnson v Monsnato, glyphosate is the culprit here…billions are being profited while people fall apart and die.

Once again Jurisprudence appears to be in peril. Here is an update of activites in the most recent trial involving Monsanto…

I would like to thank Glyphosate Girl for a big assist here…Thank you Young Lady..

From the Hearing on Motion for retrial


Bolanos enters the courtroom, and I rise though I don’t feel like doing so. At the end of her filed tentative ruling, she posed 5 questions to both sides to be discussed today:

  • Can the Court exclude Dr. Nabhan’s testimony on the basis that his differential diagnosis is legally insufficient to establish causation?
  • Both parties agree that the epidemiological evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding of liability. Can the Court grant a new trial based on the lack of epidemiological evidence to support the verdict?
  • Is the exclusion of the EPA reports sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial? If so, how?
  • Were Mr. Wisner’s comments during closing argument regarding “changing the world,” comparisons to the tobacco industry, and champagne in the boardroom at Monsanto, sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial?
  • Is the $33 million award for future non-economic damages based on Plaintiff’s argument to award $1 million for each year of lost life expectancy? If so, is this award improper as a matter of law?


Lombardi is given the floor first, because the Defendants filed the motions for JNOV and New Trial. He proceeds in the order of the questions. Note that throughout Lombardi’s argument, Bolanos has a pleasant, neutral expression on her face.

Question 1

In an unsurprisingly persuasive monologue, Lombardi discusses the outrageousness of Dr. Nabhan omitting a highly likely “idiopathic” cause of Johnson’s MF. He gives supporting arguments from case law. He says the omission is wrong as a matter of law. Lombardi continues that because the world experts in MF at Stanford say that there is no known cause of MF, ignoring the “idiopathic” possibility is like not considering the elephant in the room. (GG SIDEBAR – Stanford specialist physicians also told me that I’d need to be on a bunch of medication for my nerve and stomach issues because my discomfort was “idiopathic.” I cured myself with clean food. Stop with the be-all, end-all of Stanford physicians.)

During Nabhan’s testimony, he told Lombardi upon cross examination that consideration of idiopathic causes was implied. Because of the omission, Lombardi concludes that Nabhan’s evaluation was “fatally flawed” and therefore is grounds to exclude his testimony entirely.

Question 2

Lombardi says that both parties agree that the epidemiological evidence is insufficient to establish causation. Further, that Dr. Neugut, Plaintiff’s expert epidemiologist, concluded that there is only a 1.3-1.5 risk ratio range in those studies supporting the Plaintiff position, not the 2.0 necessary to meet the burden of proof.

In concluding that the epidemiology was insufficient, Lombardi argues that the animal data can’t compensate for the lacking epidemiology. Lombardi throws major shade on Dr. Portier, downplaying his professional and educational pedigree, and says that redoing a statistical analysis is “something we don’t do in science.” To do it afterwards is cherrypicking. Furthermore, Lombardi claims that Dr. Portier did not connect the animal or cell studies to a human being, and couldn’t even get the same result between mice and rats.

Question 3

Lombardi stresses the importance of the EPA to the case as a counter to IARC. He says that Plaintiff claimed IARC to be “the greatest thing ever in science,” and that IARC should not dictate the result in this case. Against Monsanto’s wishes, a 2017 EPA document was not admitted into evidence. Lombardi is upset that Wisner mischaracterized the omission of the 2017 EPA document as something that Monsanto wanted excluded because there was something to hide. In fact, Lombardi argues, it was Plaintiff that got the 2017 document excluded from evidence.

Bolanos says that she does recall Wisner’s misrepresentation on the EPA report “quite distinctly,” and asks if that is “sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial?”

Lombardi responds with quotes from Wisner’s closing arguments. Calls the whole thing: “Classic new trial material.”

Question 4

Lombardi claims that during closing, Wisner should not have spoken about being part of history and changing the world, “an approach he has confirmed to the press.” He says that the article in the Daily Journal is important because it shows that the Plaintiff attorneys are congratulating themselves on not just the case of Mr. Johnson, but also the impact on the world.

Lombardi proposes that the language has an effect on punitive damages, because it sent a message that jurors can look beyond the courtroom and do things that society would like to hear about. He claims that: “None of that is proper.”

Regarding Wisner’s fabulously notorious “champagne” comment, Lombardi finds that prejudice was compounded. Lombardi claims that it was objected to at the time, but then Wisner continued, effectively “thumbing his nose.”

Lombardi concludes that Wisner’s comments at closing are sufficient for a new trial.

Question 5

Lombardi argues that it is unlawful to award $1 million/year for future non-economic damages for each year of lost life expectancy. The number was calculated based upon Johnson’s 33 years of lost life. Lombardi says that $33 million is an extraordinary number and that you are not entitled to get damages that extend 33 years in the future if your life expectancy is 2 years.

Bolanos asks if Lombardi would suggest the award of $2 million for the two years of expected life remaining, and he stands strong that while that would be better, it still seems rich. Bolanos ponders out loud whether a verdict of around $9 million might ultimately make sense.

Complete article Here

As many of you know I have a little firsthand experience with Jurisprudence. The issue here, MY understanding at least is that Monsanto’s attorney’s want the Judge in this matter to act as the 13th juror and overturn the verdict. I have only heard of this procedure in the criminal areana and there really does have to be a mountain of evidence to go against the jury’s decision or blatant misconduct b y the jury. Something that would indicate that the verdict is wrong.

If you have followed the trial you know there is absolutely no way that Monsanto can say they did not get a fair sake. That evidentry rulings did not favor them,  Here are a couple of folks that actually agree with me on this.

Juror #4

October 11, 2018

Hon. Suzanne Ramos Bolanos
Judge of the Superior Court
400 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: Dewayne Johnson Vs. Monsanto Company
Case No. CGC-16-550128

Dear Judge Bolanos,

First of all, thank you for your public service. And thank you for your letter asking me for any comments about the trial of Dwayne Johnson v. Monsanto. I was impressed with the manner in which you conducted the trial prior to the hearing on October 10 regarding the JNOV and request for retrial motions. (Ten jurors attended that hearing.)

It is with all due respect that I have to say that what transpired at that hearing was astonishing for several reasons. I feel it is my civic duty to address these reasons with her Honor.

First, on the differential analysis of Dr. Nabham. The fact of the idiopathy of NHL was made abundantly clear by more than one witness, as I recall. As Dr. Neugat testified, your Honor, there is a point where a scientist (and a juror I presume) has to use one’s head to assess the facts at hand. In other words, use common sense. Early onset NHL MF, with a relatively short latency, and a rare transformation: there certainly was an elephant in your courtroom room during the differential analysis and is called the “formulated product” that leached through Mr. Johnson’s skin during two soakings in the stuff.

Secondly, all parties agreed that the epidemiological leg of the tripod of causation was weaker than the other two, but a tripod with one weak leg stands nonetheless. Again, common sense.

Third, the whole discussion of non-economic damages was an embarrassment to the humanity of anybody who was there, except perhaps Monsanto. Any reasonable person in that courtroom, for the hearing or trial, would know that the $33 million in non-economic damages was awarded for the 33 years that Mr. Johnson is not going to enjoy. “Loss of enjoyment of life” was in your instruction to us, twice, as examples of non-economic damages claimed by Mr. Johnson. To alter this award on a technical issue would be a travesty. Common sense and decency.

Read the rest of Juror #4 statement here

Juror #1

October 14, 2018

Hon. Suzanne Ramos Bolanos
Judge of the Superior Court
Re: Dewayne Johnson Vs. Monsanto Company
Case No. CGC-16-550128


Dear Judge Bolanos:

As one of the 12 jurors in the above-referenced case, I urge you uphold the original verdict on both punitive damages and future non-economic damages. Monsanto’s attorneys have asked you to serve as the “13th juror” and vacate a “flawed judgment” where the size of the award “demonstrates the significant prejudicial misconduct that inflamed this jury.” I see absolutely no basis or credibility behind the arguments used by Monsanto’s attorneys.

Our verdict was not flawed or inflamed by either passion or prejudice. If you had been the 13th juror in the room when we reviewed all of the witnesses and evidence submitted for this trial, I believe that you would have been as impressed as I was by the level of due diligence and rational discussion. We followed your instructions carefully and took our responsibilities seriously. We decided to assess punitive damages only after determining there was clear and convincing evidence that Monsanto had acted with “malice or oppression” and that such conduct was authorized by “one or more officers, directors or managing agents of Monsanto.” The amount of such damages was the result of careful consideration and discussion, based on the court’s instructions and definitions.

If you had been the 13th juror in deliberations, your negative vote would have meant at best a final tally of 12-1. Your vote would not have changed the verdict as the 13th juror, given that there were at least 9 votes for every count, but as the trial court judge if you grant Monsanto’s motions for JNOV and a new trial with regard to punitive damages then you will single-handedly nullify a large part of the jury’s verdict. I thought that such an extraordinary exercise of judicial power to quash a jury verdict was appropriate only in the case of jury misconduct or malfeasance. You may not have been convinced by the evidence, but we were. You and Monsanto’s attorneys may have been upset by some of Mr. Wisner’s more colorful closing comments, but we took them in stride and they played no part in our deliberations.

Read the rest of Juror #1  here

Juror #11

October 16, 2018

Hon. Suzanne Ramos Bolanos
Judge of the Superior Court
Civic Center Courthouse
400 McAllister Street
San Francisco, California 94102

RE: DeWayne Johnson v. Monsanto Company (Case No. CGC-16-550128)

Dear Judge Bolanos,

When I was called for jury duty over the summer, I figured it would be like every other time: spend a day or two in court, go home, and forget about the case immediately. Even after four days of jury selection process, and my eventual selection as juror #11, I didn’t know what the summer had in store for me. I had no idea I would learn so much about cancer, glyphosate, and the trial end of the legal system. I honestly felt that the trial was conducted very smoothly by Your Honor, and that both sides presented evidence that they felt would sway us their way.

In the jury’s opinion though, the plaintiff’s case was simply more compelling, and that is why after three days of very thorough and intense deliberation, we issued the verdict that we did.

When I found out through communications with the other jurors that you had tentatively overturned some portions of our verdict as part of the JNOV, I was floored. I have never worked with a group of people as diligent, rational, and intelligent as my eleven (plus four alternate) fellow jurors on this case. Both sides have pointed out that we were attentive and inquisitive throughout the trial, yet now the defendant is claiming we were inflamed by prejudice? It just doesn’t make sense to me.

While I am not an attorney, I have worked in the legal field for the last twelve years, and I have picked up a little peripheral knowledge. One piece of information that always stuck with me was the notion of “reasonableness” in the presentation and interpretation of evidence.

I know, for instance, that when Mr. Wisner used colorful language and theatrics during his opening and closing arguments, as a reasonable member of society and as a reasonable juror, I interpreted those as just his style of practicing law, and quickly set it aside as not relevant to the case. On the flip side, Mr. Lombardi also used his own personal style in both opening and closing arguments.

Another argument of the defense was that plaintiff’s witness Dr. Nabhan didn’t include idiopathic causes in his differential analysis. I believe most reasonable doctors and patients, the jurors among them, are capable of making the assumption that “unknown cause” is always a possible cause, especially when the carcinogen is not a 100% “known” carcinogen.

Read the rest of Juror #11 here

My 2 Cents

This is something I have also never seen in my years of firsthand jurisprudence experienmce is juror’s outraged that their work may be for naught. What is even more disturbing about this matter is the fact thast when it comes to understanding the intricacies of law and how it works, should be applied, is Monsanto’s Lawyers. Just as Monsanto is able to hire the brightest scientific minds on the planet so are they able to hire the best and brightest Legal Beagles on the planet.

US Senator Debbie Stabenow

I will ask this question once again, WHOM DO YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS REPRESENT????? Whether or not you want to accept it the reason that Monsanto has been able to become so successful in the courtroom is because our elected officials have pushed legislation threough the system that favors Monsanto. One needs to look no further than ther most recent failure by our Elected Officials S.2609 Or The Dark Act.

For those of you who may not know…food labeling. Something we still do not have. Something that 90% of the world wants. That means that 90% of all elected officials constituents want the same thing. This is not a Democrat ( or as I have dubbed them #DumocratLogic) or Republican, there is no divide here. This is truly a Bi-Partisan issue. So why don’t the American People have proper food labeling???

Pecuniary Greed. The reality is that our food is tainted and creates health issues that our elected officials turn their heads while lining their coffers and agrue about our health delivery systems while having the ability to purchase Non-GMO foods and receive free health care for life….

Until Next Time

Happy Gardening


PS: Be sure to check back in over the weekend for my interview with Award Winning Journalist Carey Gillam. We talk about coming home, food labeling, and the perversion of science…

Series Navigation<< Monsanto Trial UpdatesThe Verdict… >>
Organics Admin
Follow Me!!

Organics Admin

COO at Aladay LLC
Organic Farmer, Property Preservation Specialist and Custom Glass & Wood Worker. Blogger extraordinaire...
Organics Admin
Follow Me!!

Latest posts by Organics Admin (see all)