Monty Roberts Victims Forced to Drop Lawsuit

Monty owns the Judge!

by John Dolan

Two victims of fraud and breach of contract by Monty Roberts were forced to drop their lawsuit against him the same day testimony began after the judge openly and deliberately prejudiced the jury against the plaintiffs and then refused to declare a mistrial. This travesty of justice occurred on March 29, 2000 in Santa Maria, California, Monty Roberts’ home district.

The couple said the judge earlier showed clear preferences for the horse trainer and against them even going so far as to order them to negotiate settlement points that had absolutely nothing to do with their case. Also cited were remarks by the judge that he would be “irritable” if he had to hear their case. The assigned judge also was predisposed against horse injury cases no matter what the circumstances. An injury was merely what precipitated the lawsuit after Monty Roberts and his personnel had admitted that they had duped the victims into believing that their mustang horse had been trained when all along it had not been.

During an initial court ordered settlement conference the victims’ attorney told them that neither plaintiff nor defendant was allowed to address the judge, that only the attorneys had that privilege. But at its conclusion the victims discovered that Monty Roberts had personally spoken with the judge at length while they were forced to wait in a conference room in another building.

When the judge refused to declare a mistrial, Monty Roberts and his son Marty, who is also charged in the case, smirked at the plaintiffs as if to send a clear signal that they knew all along the plaintiffs had no hope of ever receiving a fair trial in Monty Roberts’ territory.

The judge was enormously pleased that the case was promptly dropped. It should be noted that re-election is coming up in that district. Perhaps the judge felt the need to keep his constituents happy. The plaintiffs, after all, are out-of-towners.

Note: Isn’t there an enormous conflict of interest in having the judge who created the prejudice be the same person who might then issue the ruling on the mistrial? Why would the judge want to impeach himself for wrongdoing? Answer: He wouldn’t!