Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
+Signature Bail Bonds
Things to Know Before Co-Signing a Bail Bond
You can co-sign the bail bond even if you live in a different state. Co-signing a bail bond can be done over the phone but there are certain facts you must know before you co-sign a bail bond agreement. #BailBond - http://bit.ly/2mkqnTE

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
+Signature Bail Bonds

New Year's Eve Safety Tips-Maximize Fun, Minimize Stress
New Year's Eve is the time to celebrate, have fun and enjoy time with your family and friends.
However, if you’re not responsible, you will put yourself at a higher risk of danger New Year's Eve.
Stay with Your Friends
Limit Your Drinks
Don't Drink and Drive
Get more tips...#NewYearsEve

http://blog.ibail247.com/5-safety-tips-to-maximize-fun-on-new-years-eve/

Post has shared content
Please Help.
2LEGAL ACTION CONTINUES.
Prosecutors Misconduct Maded The Resulting Conviction a Danial Of Due Process That Seriously affected the Fairness, Integrity or Public Reputation of Judicial Proceedings in this Case.
The Trial Court Denied Randy His Fundamental Right to A Fair Trial By Jury. With Giving Jury Instructions That Were Confusing and Incomplete on Essential Elements of The Charge Crime and Lesser- Included Offense Under Miss. Statutory Laws. Under The Due Process Clause it Requires Prosecution to Prove Beyond A Reasonable Doubt Every Element Of The Crime With Which a Defendant is Charged By The Grand Jury In Indictment. These Errors Violated Randy Right Under The U.S.CONST. Amend. 5th,6th,14th,. Contrary to Clearly Established Federal Law as Determined by The U.S.Supreme Court. See Written Law, (Screws v.U.S.,325 U.S.91,65 S.Ct. 1031(1945),In re Winship,397,U.S.358,364,90 S.Ct.1068(1970),Patterson v.New York, 432,U.S.197,210(1977), Sandstorm v.Montana, 442 ,U.S.510,99 S.Ct.2450(1979),Sullivan v.Louisiana, 508 U.S.275,113 S.Ct. 2078(1993),Neder v.U.S.,527 ,U.S.1,8,119 S.Ct.1827(1999),Middleton v.McNeil, 124 S.Ct.1830(2004) and Miss. Const. Art. 3,Sec. 31(1890).
Trial Defense Counsel Deprived Randy Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel, That Denied Randy, Due Process to A Fair Impartial Jury Trial, By Counsel Using Racial Comments during Voir Dire regarding Prejudice White Prospective Jurors. This Racial Influence had affects on the Jury to dislike Randy and His Trial Counsel who Were Both Black Males.Trial Counsel failed to do an Investigation By Preparing For Randy a Insanity Defense with His Medical Records. Under Miss. U.R.C.C.C. Rule 9.07 Adopted Fed.R.Crim. P.Rule 16, 21A.M.Jur.2d.Crim.Law 50. Trial Counsel failure to Have Subpoena issue for various Witnesses to Be Present at Trial to testify in Randy Defense, Trial Counsel Failure To have The Victim's Gun Pistol disclosed to Jury on the grounds of Justifiable Homicide In defense that would have shown unto Jurors the Imminent Danger being designed by The Victim at the Time Randy Pull the Trigger. This Exculpatory Evidence if disclosed would have Changed the outcome of the trial proceedings as to Guilt or Punishment of a reasonable doubt.It also would have Impeached State Witnesses Testimony .Trial Counsel Were Ineffective by Failure to adequately investigate Mississippi Crime Laboratory,With Non-Existing State Medical Examiner and Dr.Hayne not Being a Board Certified Forensic Pathology As A Unreliable Expert Witness. Trial Counsel failed To have Randy Statement suppressed as involuntary given to police. Coercion While Randy was under mental disorder and intoxication doing Questioning. Trial Counsel Ineffective Assistance of deficient performance prejudice Trial Outcome. In Violation of The U.S.CONST. Amend. 5th,6th,14th,(Contrary to Clearly Established Federal Law as Determined By The U.S.Supreme Court. See Written Law, Gideon v.Wainwright, 372,U.S.344-45(1963)
Strickland v.Washington, 466 U.S.668,104 S.Ct.2052(1984),Williams v.Taylor, 529 U.S.362,396-99(2000),Cullen v.Pinholster, 131 S.Ct.1388,1410(2011),
Harrington v.Richter,131 S.Ct.770,792(2011),Lafler v.Cooper,132 S.Ct. 1376(2012).
Randy Court Appointed Direct- Appeal Counsel Deprived Him Of A Fair Appeal Procedural that Prejudice His Appeal Outcome due to Financial Reason of Counsel Underfunded By The Madison County Public Defender's Office.See,
(27 A.M.J.Crim. L.13(1999),
74Miss.L.J.213(2004).Appellate Counsel Were Ineffective by Failure To Investigate Randy Case, Failed to raise Other non- frivolus Merit issues that appears in trial records,Counsel Failed to submit a supplemental briefing on behalf of Randy After Randy, being denied to do so. Randy had Advised Appeal Counsel of Other constitutional Issues that Deprived Him of A Fair Trial, but Counsel would not Assist Randy in Arguing These issues On Direct Appeal. After Miss.Supreme Court Justices Denied Randy To Proceed With His Supplemental Briefing, See, denied orders dated (8/9/00,10/3/00).That Violated Randy Due Process of Law Under Miss. Const. Art. 3,Sec. 26(1890)See Miss. Legislation limited to Compensation Appointed Counsel $500. FOR Representation on Appeal. (74 Miss. L.J.213(2004),78Miss. L.J.69(2008),Randy Right To Effective Assistance Of Appeal Counsel Were Deprived Under U.S.CONST. Amend. 5th,6th.14th,Contrary To Clearly Established Federal Law As Determined By The U.S.Supreme Court. (See Written Law. Anders v.California, 386, U.S.738(1967),Douglas v.California, 372 U.S.353(1963),U.S.v.Cronic
466 U.S.648(1984),Evitts v.Lucey,469 U.S.387(1985),McFarland v.Scott,512 U.S.1256-57(1994),Smith v.Robbins, 528 U.S.259,120 S.Ct.746(2000),Bell v.Cone,535 U.S.685,697-98(2002)
Randys Right were Denied By The Mississippi Supreme Court TO Due Process and Equal Protection of The Laws, Regarding The New Procedural Rights On Direct Appeal to File (Pro Se Supplemental Briefing) Under Miss. R.App.Proc. Rule 6,28 Amended Effective August 2,2012. That Applies To Miss. Const. Art. 3,Sec.14 ,Art. 3,Sec. 26.In Violation Of The U.S.CONST. Amend. 5th,6th,14,(Contrary to Clearly Established Federal And State Law as Determined by The Mississippi and U.S.Supreme Court's. (See Written Law, Smith v.Robbins, 528 U.S.280-81,120 S.Ct. 746(2000),Lindsey v.State, 939 so.2d.743(2005).
The Mississippi Supreme Court Also, Denied Randy His Right Under A NEW Change In Law That retroactivity Applies To Trial By Jury. Under Miss.Code. Ann.97-3-21(2),(S.B.2377), (2013). A Jury New Sentencing Proceedings That Was Previously Unavailable at the Time Of Randy 1999 Jury Trial. A Second Degree Murder Penalties of 20-40Years.However, At The Time of Randy Jury Trial There Were No "Minimum Sentence " Only One Sentencing Given By A Judge That Life Imprisonment. A Different Sentence is Appropriate.Under The New Change In Law. (See, The New Sentencing Reform Act Of 1984. Finding Sentencing Guidelines Advisory rather than Mandatory, Under U.S.v.Booker, 543 U.S.220,245-46(2005). Reversing application of Judicial Factfinding When Sentencing guidelines were Mandatory. See ,
Gall v.U.S.,552 U.S.38,49-50(2007),Dillon v.U.S.130 S.Ct.2683(2010),Pepper v.U.S.,131 S.Ct.1229,1241(2011).
Randy Submits his Trial Transcripts Has Errors of Omissions Of Certain Trial Proceedings That Hinders Randy Legal Right in Courts Of Law, unfairness done By Stenography Court Reporter, In Violation of Due Process And Equal Protection Under,
Fed. R.Civ.P.Rule 80. Adopted By Miss. R.Civ.P.Rule 80.(See STATE OF MISSISSIPPI V.RANDY DALE (DELL ) JACKSON ,CASE No.3148(February 22,23, 1999) Unfair Public Jury Trial Held In Canton, Mississippi of Madison County. For Other Cases Filings (See Direct- Appeal in Mississippi Supreme Court Case Jackson v.State, 784 So.2d.180(Miss.2001),Post-Conviction Relief Motion No.2002-M-1649(10/2/02),No.2008-M-1508(9/30/08,)(4/11/11), ,(5/14/14),(11/19/14),No.2014-M-00934(2/15/15)
IN THE U.S.DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ,WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS ,Jackson v.Epps, No.3:03-cv-270-WHB-AGN(2003),No.3:07-cv-625-HTW-LRA(2007),No.3:09-cv-117-HTW-LRA (2009),Jackson v.Waller,No.3:14-cv-485-HTW-LRA (2014),Jackson v.Fisher,No.3:15-cv-TSL-LRA (2015).
IN THE U.S.COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT (COA ),
Jackson v.Epps, No.04-60442(2004),In Re, Randy Dale Jackson, No.05-61007(2005) ,No.07-60967(2007),No.09-60338(2009),Jackson v.Waller, No.14-60683(2014),In Re, Randy Dale Jackson, No.15-60663(2/11/16). FAILURE TO PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS WITH RELEASE ORDER WILL RESULT IN FUNDAMENTAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.
WHEN A JUDGE FAILS TO ENFORCE THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES,HIS/ HER ACTION VIOLATES THEIR OATH OF DUTIES, UNDER LAW THAT CAUSES MANIFEST ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND BIAS. SEE FEDERAL LAW, 42 U.S.C.A.1981(a) (c),(1991).42 U.S.C.A.1985(2),(3)(1980),18 U.S.C.A.242.
Under ARTICLE II,SEC.1,AND VI CONSTITUTION OF BILL OF RIGHTS , Its Provides, This Constitution, and The Law Of The United States Which Shall Be Made In Pursuance thereof;And All Treaties Made, Or Which Shall Be Made Under The Authority Of The United States, Shall Be The Supreme Law Of The Land;And The Judges In Every State Shall Be Bound Thereby, Anything in The Constitution Or Laws Of Any State To The Contrary Notwithstanding.
Therefore, Accordingly ,These, Legal Errors Listed Herein Causes MR.RANDY DALE JACKSON TO BE UNLAWFULLY HELD IN CUSTODY , IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONS,LAWS OR TREATIES OF THE UNITED STATES.See 28 U.S.C.1651,28 U.S.C.2241(c) ,(3), 28 U.S.C.2254(a) ,(d) (1),(2), (e) Miss.Code. Ann. 11-43-1(2011),Miss.Code. Ann. 99-39-5 .,Miss. R.Civ.P.Rule 60 (b) 1-6,Adopted Fed.R.Civ. P.Rule 60 (b) 1-6. Remedy For Injunction Release From Custody. Under Due Process and Equal Protection Of The Laws Violations.
I ,RANDY DALE JACKSON, DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT, SO HELP ME GOD.

Post has attachment
Wait while more posts are being loaded