How Hillary Clinton rigged court system so rapist was set free despite jail sentence

Hillary Clinton rigged court system so that rapist was set free despite jail sentence


How did Hillary Clinton ensure a rapist was released immediately after he was convicted and sentenced to 10 months in jail? Usually when you are sentenced to jail, you go directly to jail. But not in Hillary’s world. 


First let’s get acquainted with the facts we already know. Washington County Sheriff Herbert Marshall, the sheriff in the 1975 case where Hillary Clinton defended a rapist and arranged for a plea bargain says Thomas Alfred Taylor never served time in jail after he was sentence. This is despite the court order that sentenced Taylor to 10 months in jail. It’s just as Hillary Clinton said at the end of the 1980s audio with Roy Reed, that she “got him of with time served in the county jail,” which had only been two months in pre-trial custody.


However, Sheriff Marshall contends that he received a court order to release Taylor, even though the public court records appear to say that Taylor was sentenced to 10 months in prison. Even the local paper reported that Taylor received a year in jail. Therefore, either a court order was made but not recorded in the court documents, or a handwritten portion of the court order was overlooked by the public and deliberately misinterpreted by Hillary and the judge. Bear in mind that the judge wrote, on an unrelated court order regarding returning money to Hillary Clinton, that he has “no objection to defendant being released to work in day field,” and this may have been interpreted as permission to release Taylor.


Why not write, on a handwritten note, that you are releasing him outright, and why use convoluted language implying a work release? Why not type out the order? This is because it was their intention to release Taylor and not have the public know about it. It must have been accompanied by an oral agreement, which the judge may have been in on and the prosecutor too. 


One can excuse this release as a slip, an administrative error, if not taking into account how there was another court order that was not adhered to, regarding how evidence needs to remain in the custody of the prosecutors office. The June 9 court order read, “the request for independent testing of any objects is granted only if the plaintiff and defendant agree to a plan for the transfer of custody of (evidence) that does not interrupt the plaintiff’s (chain) of custody of said objects”. However Hillary Clinton admits to transporting the evidence to Brooklyn for a forensic expert of her choosing to take a look at it, and thus the plaintiff, being the prosecutor, lost custody of the object. So how was Hillary Clinton given control over this evidence, when the judge explicitly ruled that she is not to have sole custody of it?


Pittsburgh attorney Norma Chase, a Hillary Clinton supporter, writes in her procedural history of the case that, regarding the June 9 court order, that the follow-up July 15 compliance order does not have a motion corresponding to it, and thus, “there might have been an oral motion made in the course of a conference or a court argument.”


So what is this oral motion? It has been defined as “A written or oral application made to a court or judge to obtain a ruling or order directing that some act be done in favor of the applicant.” Are lawyers and judges obliged to write down oral motions and court orders responding to those motions?


Take a look at what neighboring Oklahoma decided in this case: “Mr. Mitchell contends that the oral court order issued by Judge Scroggins failed to conform to Oklahoma law (which requires a written court order) and therefore that the resulting arrest was itself illegal. Mr. Mitchell may be correct as a matter of state law, but the procedural defects of Judge Scroggins’s order do not suffice to strip a judge of absolute immunity under 1983. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-57, 359 (1978) (“A judge is absolutely immune from liability for his judicial acts even if his exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors.”).”


Does Arkansas law compel oral court orders to be written down? More research is needed on this topic. 

Comments are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner