public nuisance doctrine outside of the context you described, which is the land owner context. but certainly this is a landmark case and an extremely important case, and the law adapts to changes in society. and so where as 100 years ago perhaps public nuisance was limited to the land owner cases, we believe the court, as the court did yesterday, will adapt and apply this appropriately to this circumstance of opioid abuse. let s talk about the award. $572 million. the state asked for $17.5 billion. and we were talking during the break that you said that the state did not make the case for or to support the 30 years of abatement and that s what the judge found here, but also that the state can come back year after year and ask for more. well, that certainly is the implication of the very end of the judge s opinion, because he
tell you i m somewhere between 4 and 5 and i think i could speak on behalf of a lot of members of my community and people impacted when i say that. i met 4 or 5 because the state determines what they needed was $17 billion over the course of 30 years to actually curb this crisis and clean up this mess the johnson & johnson and other drugmakers created. $572 million sounds like a big number to a normal person, the judge said this in his verdict yesterday, only the cost for a 1-year abatement, one year worth of services to curb this crisis. that still leaves us with 2, three, four, five. what are we doing with that $572 million? how is the state of oklahoma going to make sure this doesn t happen again and another drug
for. but [ inaudible ] this is a landmark to sue big pharma for the role they played in fuelling the opioid epidemic killing hundreds of thousands of people in the last 20 years and success for the state of oklahoma, the first state to take a big pharmaceutical company to trial making those allegations. they claimed that johnson & johnson had created a public nuisance, one that cost the state billions of dollars and claimed thousands of lives. after eight weeks of testimony and more than a hundred witnesses the judge said the state had met its burden. erica, the state was seeking $17.2 billion worth of abatement that would go toward programs within the state for prevention and treatment and other addiction services. the judge in the end ordered $572 million, still a big number. not what the state was looking for. not clear how exactly the judge came up with that number. he said if more money needs to be allocated to the crisis it is
reporter: wolf, you cannot overstate the significance of it. it appears the state of oklahoma has just written the playbook that dozens of other states could follow in seeking to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for fuelling the opioid epidemic. in court today the judge said that the state had made its case that johnson & johnson had created a public nuisance and the tate argued that the pharmaceutical company cost the state of oklahoma billion dollars, devastating thousands of lives. the judge seemed to be of that opinion as well. talking about the misleading marketing practices of johnson & johnson and an epidemic ravaging this state through death and addiction and in the end the state was pursuing a $17.2 billion settlement against johnson & johnson but the judge orders that johnson & johnson pay $572 million. less than the state wanted. but it appears that is the amount that the judge feels is necessary for one year of abatement statewide. those are prevention, addiction
all of this can be corroborated and that is the key. this whole situation has to be corroborated. the best thing about john durham s he has a full picture of everything in this investigation? martha: do you think is credible? it s hard for me to say. martha: were you aware of him when you are at the doj? only that i knew of the company overstock and that was only as a citizen who buys stuff off the internet. it wasn t a name that crossed my transit but i was supervising the mueller investigation. we weren t looking at the origins until we had the investigation done. martha: it doesn t sound like he was ever asked any questions about the investigation, do you think that s odd to? a little bit, i do. the question boils down to in 2016, why did the feds let this entire russian interference operation continue without abatement?