Bill Blackham called yesterday to inform me that he had already got the decision from the appellate court. Actually, there was only one judge in this appellate court, which is something I have never heard of. Of course it is probably a violation of a statute and we could possibly put in a motion, and maybe even reverse the decision. Well, that isn't going to happen, because Mr. Blackham had already won this case, long ago, but he decided to waive his "speedy trial" victory in order to see how they would respond to the jurisdiction issue.

Well this judge, and I use the term very loosely, did the same thing that Mr. Blackham was complaining about. His opinion was basically that they did everything right and they have jurisdiction. Actually, this judge alleged that Mr. Blackham did not show how the court did not have jurisdiction. All the case law in the appeal stated that it was up to the plaintiff (the People of the State) to show jurisdiction, on the record, once it is challenged. Of course after challenging the jurisdiction at every stage and hearing, this judge says Mr. Blackham never challenged jurisdiction. I think I'm getting the picture now... Are you?

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.