Blackham's Case

On Wednesday, the 19th, I went to an appeals hearing that was supposed to be a video conference, however the video part could not be set up, so it was done by audio.
The appellant, Bill Blackham, was appealing a conviction for a seat belt violation and the appellate court judge had already ruled that Mr. Blackham could not challenge the jurisdiction of the court because he did not previously request a verified complaint pursuant to 853.9 (b) of the California Penal Code.
In order to get to Wednesday’s hearing, Mr. Blackham had to petition the appellate court for a re-hearing, stating that he did, in fact, request a verified complaint under 853.9 (b), three times, and the last time was in the recorder’s transcripts and it reveals the lower court judge telling Mr. Blackham that he doesn’t get a formal complaint under 853.9 (b).
Mr. Blackham’s petition for rehearing was granted, because the other side, the district attorney’s office (appellee), did not oppose his request.

At the hearing, Mr. Blackham did not hold back. He lamented how the lower courts are not following the process and that they give circular arguments and responses that have no logic or basis in law. He showed how the appellate court’s understanding of the penal code is different than the lower court’s enforcement of the code. He pointed out that the only reason he was at this appeals hearing was because he had the knowledge of how to do some paperwork which most people don’t know how to produce and most people are unable to take the time to fight the unbelievable disdain for the law that most cops lawyers and judges have.
Mr. Blackham continued that whenever we challenge the authority of the court the response is only, “we are the authority and we have the power”. There is no relying on any law or argument… simply we have jurisdiction and that is it, period.
Mr. Blackham talked for nearly a half hour, running down the arguments and responses of the “status quo”. He wanted to know what he is supposed to do when the cops, judges, and lawyer refuse to follow the law and procedures set up for due process. All his questions were basically rhetorical.
The appellate court judge said he will re-read the file and give a ruling.
The opposing attorney, by the time Mr. Blackham was done, looked like a train had hit him. He looked extremely tired. I guess he really didn’t like what Mr. Blackham had to say. That might be a good thing.
I’ll let everyone know the outcome when I hear.