The Supreme Court recently chose to take up a controversial settlement case involving Purdue Pharma. The pharmaceutical giant filed for bankruptcy after a massive lawsuit found them responsible for unethically pushing an extremely addictive opioid medication OxyContin. Some of the families who lost loved ones as a result of the drug are calling for more accountability from the billionaire family that owned the company, the Sacklers.

In this episode, we talk with a member of one of those aggrieved families, Judge Bill Nelson, who has testified against the Sacklers about the Supreme Court choosing to take up this case. I'm Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief John Bickley with Georgia Howe. It's Friday, December 29th, and this is a special edition of Morning Wire.

In an era where safety and security are paramount concerns, it's essential to be well-informed about the options available to us. Packshield is a ballistic insert that fits into backpacks, messenger bags, and briefcases. They come in three different sizes with their 11 by 14 as their best seller. These inserts meet the National Institute of Justice and 3A standards to stop up to a 44 Magnum round. So pack some protection and some peace of mind with Packshield. Check them out for yourself at Packshield. Com with promo code wire for 20% off. That's P-A-K-Shield. Com, promo code wire for 20% off today.

Joining us to discuss the controversial Purdue Pharma OxyContin settlement is Judge Bill Nelson. He's testified about the case after having lost his stepson to an opioid overdose. Judge Nelson, thank you for coming on. First, what was your reaction when you heard the Supreme Court would take up this case involving Purdue Pharma?

Surprised, yet ecstatic. I didn't think they would take up such an issue, especially knowing how powerful the Sacklers are and how they bought their way through the court system up until that point. But we were very glad that the Supreme Court did the right thing.

Now, your stepson, Brian, was 20 years old when he died of an overdose. Can you tell us specifically why you believe the Sackler family is to blame and not just Purdue Pharma?

Well, they were the sole owners of Purdue Pharma at the time. It was 2009. And the Sackler family were the sole owners of the company. And they were pushing, especially Richard Sackler, this OxyContin like it was candy, even though they knew it's addictive of qualities, and they denied it, and they falsified the packaging, they falsified the labeling, they bribed FDA officials to push it through, they incentivized their salespeople to push it through, knowing that it was so addictive and that it was killing people. The Sacklers were produce pharma. So that's essentially why we blame the Sacklers.

Now, legally, why do you think a bankruptcy court should not have been able to approve this deal in in the first place?

They shouldn't have approved the deal because generally, when a corporation files bankruptcy, it doesn't protect the individuals that do not file bankruptcy. The way the bankruptcy code is written, these types of releases can only release individuals under extraordinary circumstances. The Sacklers are billionaires. Today, they're worth $11 billion. They took $11 billion with them when they left Purdue Farm at the time of filing bankruptcies. I don't know how you can protect someone from bankruptcy when they walk away with $11 billion. These are called non-consensual third-party releases. Non-consensual meaning people like me and other families don't consent to our property rights being relinquished in bankruptcy. That's essentially what's happening. The Sacklers would forever be barred from being sued civilly for damages they've caused families. And that's just not right. It's unheard of in this type of situation.

In your legal opinion, what should public policy look like regarding the issue of drugs and opioids?

That's a very difficult question to answer. Opioids are still today killing 200 people a day. I don't know what type of policy you can institute because there are people that still need opioids, cancer patients, people with unbearable pain, but they need to be regulated more. I've seen people that walk out of a dentist office after having a tooth with a prescription for 60 opioid pills. Now, that's totally unnecessary. You could take a Tylenol. So the doctors need to be educated a little more on prescribing practices. Pharmacists need to be a little educated more on what to prescribe and what not to prescribe. But you don't need an opioid. You don't need a strong painkiller for every single little pain, a little discomfort. But they should be regulated. They should be issued to those who need it. These prescription opioids have, as you know, led to the strong comeback of heroin, and now the unprecedented problem with the fentanyl. Heroin and fentanyl are a lot cheaper. It's coming across the border in unprecedented amounts. So We need to control that as well.

Now, a key part of the claim here is that Purdue aggressively promoted these drugs in a very dangerous and reckless way. Can you unpack that a bit more for us?

They were incentivizing their sales force to do whatever they can to get these doctors to prescribe opioids, especially the 80 milligram, which at the time were the strongest pills, milligram-wise, that you can buy in the OxyContin pill. While at the same time, they were working on 160 milligram pills. I can't think of any instance where someone should be taking 160 milligrams of OxyContin when 80 milligrams pills were killing people. When Brian died, he was taking 80 milligrams pills. We found them after he passed away in his bedroom. We think at the time that he was taking four or five of them a day. So again, they were doing everything they can to get their sales force to sell to these doctors the need to push these 80 milligram pills and to convince these doctors that they were not killing people. They were not addictive, even though they knew damn well that they were.

What are your thoughts on criminal charges? The Sacklers have not specifically been charged. What charges should they see?

I believe it was seven Purdue Pharma executives were indicted. In 2020, there were some indictments, and I think all the way back, it might have been 2009. Not sure when the first set of indictments went down, but there were Some indictments for mislabeling. There can be some fraud, broad misrepresentation. There was a bribery of FDA officials. To this day, which really gets a lot of us as Sacklers, to have refused to admit absolutely any wrongdoing at all. I think that's what bothers most of us is that they still refuse to admit that they've done anything wrong when 200 people a day are dying.

Now, the pushback on disrupting this bankruptcy deal is that this settlement might be the only way a lot of these families get any money at all, or at best, this will result in years-long delays. What's your response to that?

I'm very sympathetic towards the families that want the settlement to go through for that very reason. Is the delayed in getting any type of money right now. This is the only way that any family is going to see any type of payment from these people. And it's very sad. It's a $6 billion settlement, which sounds like a lot of money, and it is a lot of money. But most of that money, all but 750 million, is going to the states, into local governments, into cities and towns, and to even Native American tribes for treatment, for opioid abatement, for treatment facilities, for life-saving drugs like NARCAN, et cetera. You hear about this $6 billion being paid out, but what you don't hear about is only $750 million going to the families who have a stake in this. That's over 140,000 families. Also, what you don't hear about is that money is payable over 18 years. What you don't hear about is the For the families that have these claims, the 140,000 families, are going to get anywhere from $3,500 to the maximum of $48,000. For the families that want the settlement to go through, yes, they could use some of this money, even though it's not much.

My family would fall within the $3,500 range. To say my son's life is worth $3,500 is a slap in the face, if you ask me. But for those who want the money, I understand I sympathize with them. They want to put it behind them. It's not going to bring their loved one back, but it will put closure. It'll give them some type of recompense, I guess. But it's not a lot of money. It's not going to make the problem go away. They're not going to see the money for 18 years. That was one of Justice Kavanaugh's questions is, why fight this when a majority of the people, the majority of those affected by this, want this settlement to go through? He said, It's a prompt way for them to get money. I don't think money over 18 years is very prompt. I don't think these justices... I don't want to speak badly of the justices because they've got quite a heavy burden on them. But I think they need to be educated a little more. I don't think they realize this money is payable over 18 years. I sympathize with those who want the settlement to go through.

I was a bit taken aback when Justice Kagan said pretty much the same thing. She referred to those against the argument as nut jobs. She goes, Why should one loan nut job hold up this settlement? I say to her, If I'm a loan nut job, then so be it. But I'm not going to put a $3,500 price tag on my son's life. I'll be the lone nut job if I have to be.

Well, a very complex and I know very tragic case for you personally. Judge Nelson, thank you so much for talking with us.

Thank you, guys. Thank you for your support.

That was Judge Bill Nelson, and this has been a special edition of Morning Wire.

At Jeremy's Razors, we're all about letting men be men and women be women. That's why we're introducing our brand new Women's Razors. Two genders, two razors. It's that simple. Get yours today at jeremysrazors. Com.