Attorney Christina O'Neil & ShaRonda Davis of CDC #3

 

Seeking Justice and Transparency in Case F1612037

I’m pursuing lawful remedies in State of Texas v. Babak Taherzadeh (F1612037) because the record shows serious irregularities that have never been addressed on the merits. This post lays out what the documents show, the people involved in administrative handling, and the remedies I am seeking to restore due process.

What the record shows

• Timely Motion to Vacate. While confined, I mailed a Motion to Vacate on Sept. 1, 2022; the envelope bears a USPS postmark of Sept. 2, 2022. The Dallas County Clerk did not apply a file-stamp until Dec. 23, 2022. The four-month delay was outside my control. The motion remains pending and requires a ruling.
• Assignment and conflict. The initial appearance paperwork in F1612037 assigns all felony charges to Judge Brandon Birmingham’s 292nd District Court, while he was the complainant. Separate paperwork reflects him acting in his judicial capacity in related proceedings. Under Texas law, a judge who is the injured party is absolutely disqualified; actions taken under such a conflict are void, not merely voidable.
• Post-recusal activity. After a later recusal order, subsequent actions were still taken in my case by the recused court, including appointments and paperwork processing. Acts taken after recusal are void and must be unwound.
• Administrative handling and delay. Emails and notices reflect repeated outreach regarding the pending Motion to Vacate (including August 2025 follow-ups) and prior habeas filings that were renumbered or not acted on. These communications document non-judicial handling that has affected whether filings were received, docketed, or set for hearing.

Accountability of non-judicial actors

• Christina O’Neil has served as Senior Judicial Staff Counsel for the Dallas County Criminal District Courts. Her role includes administrative coordination among the courts. Documents reflect her involvement in communications related to my case. Allegations that my Motion to Vacate was suppressed or delayed in processing raise serious questions that require independent review.
• Sharonda Davis has been copied on and addressed in court correspondence regarding my filings with Criminal District Court #3. The absence of timely scheduling or written responses on a postmarked and file-stamped motion is not a trivial clerical issue; it directly affects my right to a ruling and the integrity of the docket.

Neither of these roles carries judicial immunity for administrative choices. Where the record shows non-judicial interference with filings or unexplained delays, accountability is appropriate and necessary.

Why this matters

This is not about technicalities. When a case is assigned to the complainant’s own court, when a disqualified or recused judge’s court continues to generate orders, and when a timely motion sits unruled due to administrative handling, the result is a breakdown in due process. The law allows jurisdictional defects to be raised at any stage, and it requires courts to rule on timely, properly submitted motions.

What I’m asking for

1. A written ruling from Criminal District Court #3 on my timely Motion to Vacate (mailed Sept. 1, 2022; postmarked Sept. 2, 2022; file-stamped Dec. 23, 2022).
2. Independent review by appropriate authorities into the administrative handling of filings and communications in F1612037, including the roles of Christina O’Neil and Sharonda Davis.
3. Restoration of a clean record: vacate void acts arising from judicial disqualification/recusal and ensure all subsequent proceedings are before a truly neutral court.
4. Transparency: docket every submission, index every exhibit, and provide written explanations for any renumbering, reassignment, or delay.

Exhibits available on request

• Initial appearance/assignment paperwork for F1612037.
• Protective-order and related filings reflecting Judge Birmingham’s dual role.
• Motion to Vacate (copy bearing Dec. 23, 2022 clerk file-stamp) and envelope with Sept. 2, 2022 postmark.
• Email threads and notices reflecting August 19 & 21, 2025 follow-ups seeking a ruling.
• Recusal order(s) and subsequent actions taken in the case.
• Docket comments reflecting modifications and date changes without a hearing.

I will continue to seek lawful and peaceful remedies. This is about more than one case; it is about ensuring that court administration does not override the Constitution, and that every litigant—no matter how unpopular—receives a fair, timely, and impartial adjudication.