6 minutes now past 11 Good morning, and welcome to mid-day on Minnesota Public Radio. I'm Gary I can glad you could join us. But I guess this hour is Minnesota's best known trial attorney Michael ceresi. Mr. Ceresi for those of you who've been out of the country for the last several months. So is Minnesota's lead trial attorney in the historic lawsuit brought by the state of Minnesota and Blue Cross Blue Shield against the major. Tobacco companies horse on Friday just hours before Michael cerussi was scheduled to deliver his much-anticipated closing arguments to the jury. The lawsuit was settled out-of-court agreement that's being characterized as a major victory for the state of Minnesota state will end up collecting 6.1 billion dollars from the tobacco companies Blue Cross Blue Shield will collect the better part of a half billion dollars. Meanwhile Michaels Reese's Law Firm Robins Kaplan Miller & ciresi, which took this case on a contingency basis no-win no-pay firm will collect 400. The six million dollars Michael cerussi has joined us this morning from his office in Minneapolis to talk about the case. And we invite you to give us a call with your questions and comments don't City area number is 227-6002 to 7 6008 side the Twin Cities. You can reach us toll-free at one eight hundred to +422-828-227-6000 or one 800-242-2828 our guests this morning Michael ciresi. Good morning, sir. Good morning, Gary. Thanks for joining us soon to congratulations. I guess one mid-morning program earlier this morning who frankly couldn't believe that you were going to be on the air this morning and he figured you'd be in Tahiti today. Why aren't you read a program said that I was in Palm Beach number one another Palm Beach type of person nor is he he T type for a second time. I'm at my desk if we're going over things and I'll continue to be here you had a few days now. Actor on on the end of the trial relax a little bit. Are you satisfied with the way the trial came to an end or are you still a little bit unhappy that you weren't able to deliver that closing summation and you're in such an intense environment that you like to see closure at just like the jury like to see it. I wanted to see you two in particular as a trial or are you like to give the the closing argument and let the jury decide what the settlement was sort standing on behalf of the state and Blue Cross that we would have been remiss had we not recommended that it be accepted. It leaves you emotionally and physically drained and it also leaves you with that sense that the jury had a little bit of empty nest because he didn't go all the way. Did you did you think the case was going to get settled. I never did Gary when we took this case on for years ago when we were at lone soldier in the woods out there. Everybody thought that we had taken leave of her senses. No one was rushing to our Aid and I talked to the attorney general at that time and to Andy Tchaikovsky Blue Cross and sit in my judgment. This case would never settle. We have to take it all the way and there would be a number of appeals afterwards because this industry is never settled. So no I did not think it would settle. So you're moving toward the end of last week. The tobacco companies have delivered their closing arguments. You're getting ready to give yours. When did you find out that a settlement was imminent? Well, I found out at settlement was imminent about 12:30 when my partner Bruce pins and came over to St. Paul with the documents which had been signed by the various Representatives. Tobacco industry and then attorney-general Humphrey and Maddie check house to myself sign them. There were sticking points right up to the end. I know that much have been reported in the press that a settlement was imminent, but they're very difficult points that needs to be negotiated in the Bruce on behalf of the firm in the clients to go with Jan conlon tomorrow office and Lee Sheehy guilty on behalf of Lacrosse. We're getting those negotiations right up to the end. And you are ready to go with your we are closing statement until the signatures were on the on the pieces of paper all night also, and I was in contact with them and also just polishing up the closing statement. So we anticipated giving the closing statement the right up until the end. How does the how does that work. Were you part of the negotiating team? Did you did you suggest things to them or is that a totally separate operation was part of the team that the out said to and all the way through until of course toward the end where they were negotiating would probably sometimes are the most difficult things in the paper and then new issues always come up one that's been reported in the paper is the issue of the industry asking for a release of any claims of counties are municipal. Bruce and Jan were negotiating on that pointed many many others. They really took over at that point in the last week. Michael ceresi is our guests. They're sour lead trial attorney in the state of Minnesota and Blue Cross Blue Shield in the historic lawsuit against the tobacco companies. If you'd like to join our conversation, if you got a question or a comment Twin City area number is 227-6002 276 thousand. I'll try the Twin Cities 1 800 to +422-828-227-6004 1 800-242-2828. I get to some callers here in just a second, but I should ask you to Mr. Eazi from your Viewpoint. What are the advantages of this settlement or any settlement for that matter versus taking escape to the case to the jury assuming you would have thought they would have returned a favorable verdict. To achieve number one we want to get out all of the information that were in the it was in the documents and that was a primary objective of this lawsuit to get the truth out what the industry do and when they do it. We wanted to have a awesome iron-clad agreement against marketing to children in the state which would be enforceable and we wanted the states and Blue Cross to be fully compensated for their back damages. Those are the three primary objectives so that we could fundamentally change the way the industry was conducting business in the state of Minnesota and we were able to accomplish that with this settlement. So once you achieve all of your objectives, it's pretty hard to say no to the offer that's on the table with a verdict have had more oomph in the in the in public opinion and public opinion. Now why I think it's fair to state that it probably wouldn't some respects Gary, you know, there are people out there who want the industry out of business. This case was never about prohibiting the sale of tobacco. We said that at the very outset we said then what was going on? Is that a legal product which tobacco is was being sold illegally in the state of Minnesota in violation of the state laws and we intended to rectify that situation. So we never set out to put the industry out of business. There are those who feel that way who probably would have like to seen a verdict and hopefully a very large verdict which may have had the impact of putting some of the companies into bankruptcy one last question here before we get to our callers. There was some indication from the five jurors who met with reporters Friday afternoon some indication that they weren't prepared to return a verdict that would have awarded the state nearly as much money as a settlement provided effective are some indications that they were questioning some of the some of the complaints against Tobacco companies did this surprise you was that a result of your not having had an opportunity to give your closing statement. How do you read that conference of the five jurors? I've read some reports of a tie-dye guess my reading of it was not the same as you just stated. They did say they probably one of them. I think it said that they didn't think they would have awarded that much to keep in mind. They are only heard the compensatory side of the case. The case itself was for back damages and that was 1.7 billion dollars. The settlement is not only for back damages, but it's good for going forward damages. So we accomplished more in the settlement then the suit was actually about in that regard. Secondly, they didn't hear anything about the issue of Damages which would have been outlined in detail in my closing argument. The night I fully believe that you would have phone for the playlist Michael ceresi is our guests. This our again. If you have a question or comment for mr. Ceresi Twin City area number is 227-6001 cities one. 802-422-8284, Minneapolis. It was illegal or Legal Eagles in my book live with pulmonary congestive heart failure for about 4 years of tobacco and he passed away last year, but every day and heard him into the this is the lock. He's at the Zimmerman firm to the attorney general and then I heard undercurrent that Congress May cancel class action lawsuits. Is there any narrative that serve with have you heard from public policy issues? Is that going to be one of the I'll come to the federal legislation or right let me know it just briefly tell you what the national said it was about time. And what why we were opposed to it. Hey, it would prohibit in the future people from joining together in a class-action or an aggregation of claims in a 10 15 20 people who may want to bring a claim so that you were you would be limiting the amount of resources that could be brought against the industry the end of she wanted immunity undergoing four bases with respect to any punitive damages in any amount that they would pay in any given year. They wanted to curtail the FDA and its regulatory Authority. So there were many many factors that were included in that national settlement with LEDs, which led the state lacrosse to oppose the national settlement what it did do is it provided that those with Been a part of a class-action. Did it already been brought would receive some type of conversation. We just didn't feel it would be appropriate or enough and for that reason because of the curtailing of due process of individual rights. We oppose the international settlement Susan your question, please like my first simple question is that how does 3C Stadium sounds you are in a position to save baseball for Minnesota will be putting the substantial amount of money into our foundation and and directing that towards smoking-related cessation programs and also the public health care in Minnesota navigation to the community and I don't understand why BlueCross is getting money. When they collect from us a substantial amount, they are turning around and paying the medical bills. What did where is there laws in this mean? It's our laws especially since they are not paying for many of the allergy treatments that I think are are my problems from secondhand smoke. I just don't understand that part of the connection trusted have a direct cause of action because they not only contract with the people like you to provide for their health care, but they also contract with the doctors and they are the entity that is most able to bring the cause of action as opposed to individuals. Now, they're taking a look at how they're going to spend this money to the to the benefit of all of their policyholders and I think that's something that you need to just sit back for a while see how that works out. I would obviously I'm not involved in those decisions, but they are outstanding people and I think we should keep in mind that it was Blue Cross before years ago stepped up to the plate with nobody else would But they stepped up to the plate and said we have to take this industry on and they have as a result of that been a partner in promoting profound change on this issue and will I think as a result limit they cost that we may see in the future but I'd wait that one out Susan to see how Blue Cross decides what they're going to do with it with the recovery. I read somewhere that one of the tobacco companies hasn't settled with Blue Cross Blue Shield is that correct sitting with them during the course of this week league is in precarious Financial condition. So we'll be looking for some other issues with regard to them to keep in mind. It was the company who admitted that cigarette smoking is addictive and causes disease and that was very very helpful. They were the first company that does step up to the plate say look we've been wrong in the past. And we believe that the cigarette smoking does cause disease and that it's addictive in addition Bennett Lebow their CEO testify during the trial and what he said, is he expected to be out of business in 25 to 30 years in the reason he did his they're not selling the children and the only way you can sustain this business is by selling the children because in effect over 80% of people who become regular smokers is it don't start under the age of 18. What happens is there any kind of provision in the settlement that so that the state would get its money? Even if these companies go bankrupt going to verdict and got a large verdict. They wouldn't get their money. Either would be an appeals for a number of years. What does that what the sediment does provide is that if any given company goes bankrupt in the payments for all other companies are accelerated so they would become due until that. That's the protection that the that the state has a question for ya think you spell profession of being loyal to find own kind of tricks how to get out the application and one you just mentioned going bankrupt creating new companies Aurora kind of other tricks that they may find it. How are type? Directions how are tight that there's always a potential that a company could go bankrupt the settlement that provides that payments in the future will be by market share. And if one of them goes bankrupt, you'll see payments in the future. I'll being picked up by others because you would expect that other individuals individual companies with pick up those market share. So there is protection in that regard. Secondly, we did not Sue the parent companies of the tobacco us tobacco companies, so they were never parties to the lawsuit anyway, but there would be the end there are certain protections under the law if they attempt to secrete assets away from those companies in order to protect them from from the settlement. How did you get involved in this in the first place? So do you have a special dislike for the tobacco companies? Is that why you decided to get involved in this or how did that come about? 1989 we finish this litigation and we were just looking at what you know what was going on in this country and in the number one preventable Health cause in the Smokey and we had felt for a long time that the industry was using its economic and political might just simply squash people who brought a lawsuit against them and they're very few firms in the country who could devote the resources both people and financial to take them on and we felt one of the best ways to do with this if you could have a very pronounced effect and we did not think I could be done by bringing individual. So we started looking at the potential type cause of action that might be brought. We then got involved in some other matters. For example, I was representing the Honeywell in the camera litigation and I took a couple years and then in 93 we started looking at this again and in 94, we got together with the state and Blue Cross and we heard we're also looking Potential of taking some type of action against the industry and that's how we brought the lawsuit. Did you have much trouble convincing your partner's to get involved in this because you folks did put up a lot of money has done that in the past. We believe individuals corporations governments and you know, we talked to the attorney general Humphrey. We talk to Andy Tchaikovsky. They weren't very committed to it. We had certain principles that we wanted to achieve. They had the same or interest. We're confident that regard and it didn't take a lot of convincing. I think everybody felt that this was a cause that needed to be addressed and can we were at that time basically the only stayed out there Mississippi and shoot a couple months before it's but there's there lost. It was a lot different than ours. National settlement was proposed the proudest moved the national debate substantially. I mean if we had not stood against that National a settlement there wouldn't have been anybody out there except of course doctor is over there American Lung Association stand and other public health officials were against it, but it was a real Groundswell to push that national settlement and it took a great deal of courage to stand against it and I'm very proud that we did that had the hit somebody else brought this suit in the tobacco companies come to you folks. Would you have defended them? Would we have defended the tobacco companies philosophical difference in what about the representing other states and now in their suits against the year to a company's approached by a number of health organizations other states? In fact, we were probably the law firm. That was one of the most white people out there, but did we passed up those opportunities? We have made our commitment to the state of Minnesota into Blue Cross and we felt that we could stay with them so that we didn't put ourselves in a position where you know, the number States want to settle in one wouldn't and it was much better to just stick with clients who knew what their objectives were with their principles were and we could stick to those throughout the litigation. So we gave up those opportunities John your question for Michael, sireci. Please gone to a jury verdict and gone again. the tobacco companies would the issue that have been precluded as far as being real educated by the tobacco companies if other states suit on the same same grounds and if so, was that a big issue or big motivation for the tobacco companies to settle Oki what you're asking about his issue preclusion. We calling a lot collateral estoppel another States and the answer is no it would not have acted as a binding precedent in other states. But what it would do is it would have had a tremendous practical impact in other states as it has in any of it. But if a verdict would have come in here psychologically that would have been a tremendous impact in other judges. In other states would have looked even more strongly at what was being developed here. So it it it had that potential impact for them, but it would not as a matter of law preclude them from re-litigating the issues under different states laws. I think that's one thing we need to keep count of the legislature here over the years has done a an excellent job fantastic job in passing laws, which protect consumers in Minnesota. We have some of the best consumer protection laws in the in the nation. So our laws are a little bit different than you might find in other states and that's enough. Reason why you wouldn't find preclusion second part of your question John. I think the truck because it's not just the pure legal but the Practical impact of a settlement psychologically I think was a very high motivating factor for them to resolve the case here for Michael sireci expenses incurred to the treatment of alcoholism that I have by people getting cancer from cigarettes. So I wonder if there's any difference between the legal liability of the tobacco companies as compared to the liquor companies. And when are you going to take after them give this a world of difference between the cigarette industry and the tobacco industry the cigarette when used as intended kills and causes diseases and in fact it is that the health care What caused by tobacco dwarf the any diseases caused by alcohol has no intention of our for the liquor industry. The liquor industry sells a product which is legal. It sells it legally. They're not violating laws in the state of Minnesota and there's never been any attention. I've heard that from a number of people but that's just it just doesn't have any basis. In fact or in law. Michael ciresi is our guests this our mr. Seriously the lead trial attorney for the state of Minnesota and Blue Cross Blue Shield and their lawsuit against the major tobacco companies that case course was settled out of court on Friday, right before Michael ceresi was due to deliver his closing arguments to the jury. He's joined us today from his office in Minneapolis in if you'd like to join our conversation. If you've got a question or comment give us a call Twin City area number is 227-6002 276 thousand outside the Twin Cities. You can reach us toll-free at 1 800. 242-282-8227 6000 or 1 800-242-2828 and we'll get to some more colors and just a moment. Anna Benson on the next All Things Considered celebrating the wonders of rural Minnesota through poetry a plaque and a roadside rest. Stop that story and all the rest of the day's news on the next All Things Considered weekdays at 3 on Minnesota Public Radio know FM 91.1 in the Twin Cities. By the way over the noon hour today second hour of our mid-day program are going to hear from Stephanie kunze. One of America's best Nolan researchers on family issues and she'll be talking about the how changes in public policy or making it increasingly difficult for families in today's society and some suggested solution as well as coming up over the noon hour today Major funding for Minnesota public radio's documentary fund just provided by Phyllis paler in memory of Walter stremmel. There is a chance for a shower or thundershower in Western Minnesota, otherwise partly cloudy through the afternoon with highs in the seventies the Twin City forecast partly cloudy today with a high temperature in the mid-70s, by the way, there's a good chance for some showers and thunder showers across the state tomorrow right now. St. Cloud has a cloudy Sky 62 Rochester sunny and 69 light rain out west in both Fargo and Sioux Falls 59 at Fargo. 63 at Sioux Falls Duluth with a cloudy Sky 54 the Twin City temperature is 70 and skies are partly cloudy. Michael ceresi is our guests this hour talking about the big tobacco lawsuit that was settled on Friday. And again, if you have a question or comment give us a call. 227-6000. Side the Twin Cities one 802-422-2828. Now that the trial is over. Mr. Ceresia, as you well know the tobacco companies were very critical of the way judge Fitzpatrick handled the case of do you think that they got the Treated unfairly. Did they get more than their fair share of adverse rulings from the judge. They did not country for 27 years. I don't think there's anybody that tries more cases and different parts of the country than I do. And if I went back to the dalkon shield days were the states and federal Judiciary here was just a shining example for the entire nation, you know. Judge yells at that time to 11 off on the end of an County Court. They were just outstanding and they did what judges are supposed to do judge Fitzpatrick is one of The Shining examples of the Judiciary. He handled OverWatch 200 motions. They took him to the United States Supreme Court twice to the Supreme Court of Minnesota twice to the quarterback. Deals at least 15 times and he was never ever reversed. He gave them all the rope and room they wanted what happened here was you had a rogue Renegade industry through his lawyers trying to take every advantage of the law that they could they do what I said when I called Dancing In the Shadows of the ambiguity of the law, they abused the process. He was totally there to them. He couldn't have been more fair. And that was the I think The Shining Light of this case that industry that we had the worst part of this case was Lawyers and where is here in Minnesota signing a motion to recuse him claiming he had been biased it was meritless had no basis and it was a disgrace. Bob your question, please congratulations II. Is there any possibility of the public gaining access to your closing Arguments? For example to give a talk at the University who are part of it over MPR or at least publishing an outline something like that? Well. I'm giving consideration to that as you can well imagine. This is something that you know 19 hours a day. We were in this case the last eleven months. I've tried to to case in a roll back to back. I think I'm at home 15 days. My wife and I were counting them and there is not a closing argument in my entire career. I wanted to get more than this. So we're looking at some way to do something in that regard back to the phone. So another caller is on the line with the question for Michael ceresi had go ahead. Yes, go ahead Place. Yeah, I've got a question during the course of this trial. I had contacted the lieutenant governor by email and I didn't get an answer but I did get a call from a friend by she's I believe it's a human services. They open oversee State Hospital programs. And she know she told me that you'll probably two months ago that all state facilities Correctional lime chemical dependency in this word now going to be stay free smoke-free because my son 15 year old was in the Heart Unit in Fergus Falls at the chemical dependency unit there. And I was you know, I was pretty upset about that. Let my kid smoke it down there. So I had contacted all these people and now my question is who is going to be smoke-free. Glad I'm not sure if they are or not. We have to check with the health department to find that out. I hope they would be one of the first medical institutions in the country. That was the smoke-free was the Mayo Clinic and as you're probably aware. Dr. Richard heard from there was our leadoff witness. He's just a phenomenal physician an individual who committed his life to alleviating the suffering that comes from smoking and I would hope that all of the medical institutions here in this state have a smoke-free environment and I believe they will and we should be the leader in the nation. We were back in the 70s with a Clean Indoor Air Act and we should continue to be the deleter in the nation. Was there any concern on your part that the tobacco companies could make some hay in the courtroom over the issue of State? What amount of the state and governmental promotion of cigarettes over the years legally? It was not an issue that would go to the jury and and that that was taken away but there again is an examples of fairness judge Fitzpatrick. He allowed evidence on that issue to be presented. But this was not about the what the state did this was about what these defendants did for over 40 years when they knew back in 1953 that they were causing disease their documents show that they said we've been creating a health problem. And what are they decide to do what they decided to hide then? And instead to undermine information. It was put out into the public sphere by public health authorities. And in that was there a concerted strategy and they spent upwards of six billion dollars a year here in the 90s in doing that. The documents and the testimony and and the comments outside the courtroom all very critical of the the role that tobacco industry attorneys have played over the years were the attorneys that were in court here where they part of that conspiracy or they bad guys to work had been part of that for a number of years. They've been industry lawyers for a number of years. I'd like to say two things about that lawyers were acting inappropriately and that that should be looked at it and get you we talked about in law schools. That should be talked about bar association's there's also the lawyers who got the information out of his lawyers who started this action Congress start this the legislature didn't start this it was lawyers who sought to get out the truth with regard to this industry. So I'll people are highly critical of The lawyers who represent of the industry over a long. Of time. I died only hasten to point out that there's another side to Michael ciresi is our guests this hour, he was the lead trial attorney representing the state of Minnesota and Blue Cross Blue Shield and it's lawsuit against the major tobacco companies that case was settled on Friday and just hours before Mr. Ceresi was supposed to deliver his closing arguments to the jury right opportunity to get your questions and comments about the trial address. Give us a call to 276 thousand is our Twin City area number to 276 Thousand Oaks side the Twin Cities 1 800 to +422-828-227-6000 or one 800-242-2828 Steve your question, please the issue of marketing to to younger people particular teenagers and even younger than that the tobacco companies. We're breeding a generation of smokers. The maze that is the issue with the American public and that's why I feel that it would have been very important for it to go to trial. So the jury representing the people could send a message to the tobacco companies that you don't do that to children to to generate a generation of smokers that that's the issue here. You can talk all about the money and everything else. The issue here is marketing a product to children who often times can't make good decisions let alone adults. So that's where it's at. It's not the money. That's why I should have went to trial of Steve. I I couldn't agree with you more than this case was about children and I'm very proud of the fact that here in Minnesota. We got out the information which showed the pervasiveness of their marketing to children because they want to get them at an age where they are not mature enough to not at the judgment and the wisdom to make that choice as to whether the kind of smoke. Or not I think the other hand you've got to to look at what can be done and what I hope all the citizens of the state would urge the legislation to do with the funds that are not available and that is to even more so educated and get the counter smoking ads out because we took those have been found to be effective and I share your deep concern about the fact that you're he didn't get a chance to speak as a collective Minnesota voice and I think anyone who knows me knows how strong the very fiber of my being I believe in the jury system, but when you're accomplishing all the eject objectives you set out it has wires would be remiss not to recommend. One of the things that immediately will be the fact that there won't be any more. Tobacco Billboards in Minnesota. Could that have been part of a a verdict jury in any way That there is some issues as to whether or not the judge could have ruled on that from an equitable standpoint, but keep in mind there's the concept of commercial free speech and the defendants have a right under the Constitution to commercial free speech the issue is how far is that right goal when you are presenting such a significant health risk to the public. So if you get into a gray area and we were able to to get these things such as a ban on a Billboards, no selling of the paraphernalia the t-shirts the hats all those things that they were selling in Minnesota to children in indeed 17% The statistics show children have these types of paraphernalia so that there is many things over cheese in that regard. So you mentioned the jurors and of course they sat there for what three and a half months better part and And then they didn't have an opportunity to render a verdict finally some of those people apparently suffered fairly significant economic loss. Should we review and change the way we compensate jurors? Yes. We should I put some comments that you don't pay the jurors, but you can't get into a situation where they did to perform. What is one of our basic service Civic responsibilities that we we pay them based upon outcomes, but I think should be looked at those when we ask people to serve for an extended trials that we find some way to compensate them equal to what their compensation is, or at least up to a level beyond what we do right now and that that's an issue that I intend to address over the near and long-term to start raising that and Bar Association meetings as to how we can find a way that better compensate you were so that they do not Have to sacrifice so significantly when they when they perform their civic duty and then you have to balance that against making sure that the administration of justice in the system. Would it cost a lot of money to do that? But when you get into the long trials, that's when you start running into a real hardships, and and I think that's what we need to look at it and maybe we can get some type of how long that the trial is going to go on. So that it we're not really putting people behind the eight-ball something that's going to take a lot of thought and I think the public has to be involved in that debate. Certainly the the bench Espeon body on the judges have to be involved in that in the bar association has to be involved when you're in the courtroom making your arguments examining Witnesses and so on. Can you tell by looking at the jurors? What kind of impact you're having or is it just purely guess where you're doing to it? It it said very unnatural situation because you can't say that you know that you get that one out. How can we move on now, you know all of us read differently than others some of us here better than others some of his see better than others and we bring common or if we bring a different life histories to the courtroom different knowledge and that's the beauty of the jury system is cuz all that comes together and combined but as a lawyer you're sitting there you're wondering why did everybody get this now? Can I move on or am I really frustrating them because I'm asking it too often and in so we can ask those questions and I think that's that's a constant concern of the trial lawyer. Is it enough or is it too much should be allowed to ask a question now and again. Things clarified is as you go along through the trial. The question should be asked or not. I would not be in favor of just the juror asking the question right from the the jury box because you could get into all kinds of error. I think it happened but I think we have to find a way to get the jurors more actively involved in it because otherwise many times we were started guessing if they if they got this. If we covered everything we needed to cover they may have a question that nobody thought of diet is there was an instance in the court here in this trial a teacher brought her class in and one of the young people had a question. It was a great question this fabulous question and gave it to a reporter and the report I gave it to me and said that there was a young child in here one day you'd ask a question. So I asked a question and we had the CEO of Philip Morris on the stand at the time and I asked him if he had seen the young children in the car when the day before he said yes. I had a question. Of course they objected right away for you. So then I asked him the question. Anyway. It was a great question and from from a younger adolescent was a question. That was very very good and I think juries have the same type of questions to offer your question for Michael Tracey. Well done, by the way these last two years ago, but I would like to ask the question and maybe it's been asked to hold on to all these things like incriminating documents for 40 years in the world would be. Alright David. Well, I don't think they did hold on to all of them. You know, we had document to were entered into evidence here that show that they would destroy them that they would rewrite them Etc. But once you start down that path, you can never throw your net wide enough somebody and some department is going to keep a copy and so are we found her in the course of this litigation as we have and others is that well, somebody have been destroyed you'll get a copy a draft of something. It was intended to be destroyed, but it wasn't and that starts then the unwinding of the conspiracy because you're able to follow that to the neck. Document to the next document so you can't destroy all of them. When you Embark upon that type of illegal contact sharing your question. I'd like to know how I could see the the case being more centered around the idea that it's the smoker versus the company's. It sounds like whatever I read the newspaper. It was more like these companies were the total villain. Whereas the smoker had no role in it all. Turn the outside of that is that it seems like you know, the smoker had a choice to and it's a hard choice to try to break. It's a you know, the hard habit to try to break but I don't see where the company and I also want to congratulate you two on the winning of the the the settlement but I also see here where the the company isn't really the total villain in the situation. When you start looking at the interaction between the smoker and the company is self. The company goes to one of the central defenses that the industry had but I think we need to remember this. Is that the people they go after are you 80% 82% Ashley according the best statistics in their own statistics show this of smokers start when they're under the age of 18 each one of the defendants. We got to admit on the stand said that if your under the age of 18, you do not have the Judgment. You don't have the wisdom to make that choice. They get them then they attack them not everybody gets addictive addicted but many many get addicted and then they can exercise that free choice when they become adults to quit or not to quit some are able to quit many quit and they relapse if they were going after just adults And they said here's everything we know about it. It's an addictive product. It's going to kill you. We know this it's been in our files for 40 years and they lay it all out. Then somebody makes a free choice and that's part of what this lawsuit was about get the information out go after if you're going to sell this product show it to adults don't sell at the children and tell those adults everything, you know about the product. That's your duty under the law. Time for one last call her a quick question Bob battle against big tobacco in the second question is you see another area of society in which you and your firm could make it's not as a larger contribution Society certainly well worth undertaking. Well, what will continue to answer your first question Bible continue to to look at the big tobacco. And in certain areas were certainly going to do things here in the state to help prevent the uptake of smoking by by young people with regard to other areas going forward. Yes that will look at other areas of there's none that I'm prepared to disclose right now that we would be involved in but yes, we will be looking at it that's been our that's the very philosophy of this law from what we are been very very proud to represent a number of major corporations. 99.99% of the corporation's out there would never even think of doing with this industry is done and we've been proud to represent those corporations that we've been proud to represent individuals and we think that's what you would should be done. And yes, we think we have a special obligation to look at in justices and to take those on and will continue to do that or some rumor and speculation that you might run for the Senate. Now in the year 2000. True, I'm not sure where that it was And the reporter asked me if you ever see yourself doing everything else. I said, the only thing I could see myself doing was maybe being in the United States Senate because I think that's a place we can have a profound effect on positive effect on people's lives. I didn't mean to imply that I was going to run and I think that's where that came from work back by now you think or what this could be going on and on and on paid unrelenting attention to detail. I just got done with a case on behalf of eunuch in California has ever seen earlier in the show and we were in trial there for about 5 months and I was a phenomenal jury. I thought one of the best I've ever had. I've had some great series here in Minnesota. And I thought I'd seen about as great of attention that people could pay during a long trial but this jury it was unbelievable and it's in it's in the details and I think they would have done the same thing in their deliberations. No, I do not believe they would have been done by now. I think they would have gone through that evidence as was their duty to do they would have been very deliberative about that and taken. Well, thank you, sir. Appreciate you joining us for the state of Minnesota and Blue Cross Blue Shield lawsuit against the tobacco companies the major tobacco companies that lawsuit was settled out of court, of course Friday actually negotiations concluded Friday morning right before Mr. Eazi was supposed to be delivering his closing arguments to the jury like to thank all of you who've been with us this hour, especially those of you called in or tried to call. Fun with your questions and comments will continue with midday in just a moment. browse through a Street Market in Vienna is a live operator in Prague sample the cuisine at a cafe in Old Budapest. It's all part of Minnesota public radio's European tour beginning October 21st. The 10-day package includes airfare lodging meals and a guided tour through some of Europe's most exciting cities make your reservations today for the NPR European tour. Call one 800-228-7123 Once you get an invitation to join us over the noon hour today second hour of midday will hear from Stephanie Kuhn Souza what a nation's leading social researcher. She's been looking at the family and some of the problems and challenges facing families in the 90s will hear from her over the noon hour time now for Garrison Keillor