A Void Conviction and a Trail of Suppressed Evidence
“A Void Conviction and a Trail of Suppressed Evidence”
FROM: Babak Taherzadeh
TO: The Fifth Court of Appeals, Dallas, Texas
RE: A continuing fraud upon the judiciary and the people of Texas
1. A Conviction That Never Existed in Law
The so-called “conviction” in State of Texas v. Babak Taherzadeh, Cause No. F16-12037, originates from a void proceeding — a case that began in the courtroom of Judge Brandon Birmingham, the alleged victim himself.
From that foundational defect, every act that followed — every reassignment, every order, every appeal — is null.
No lawful judgment can arise from a court that never had jurisdiction to begin with.
2. Perjury and Manufactured Record by Assistant District Attorney Jack Brown Jr.
Following that void trial, Jack Brown Jr., then a Dallas County prosecutor, committed documented perjury in multiple filings.
He swore to facts contradicted by both the record and his own prior statements — particularly regarding the handling of exculpatory material and the chain of custody of digital evidence seized by the Carrollton Police Department.
Brown’s false statements were used to maintain a fraudulent conviction, to deceive appellate courts, and to obstruct any attempt at post-conviction review.
Perjury under oath by a state prosecutor is not “harmless error.” It is a crime and a fraud on the court.
3. Suppressed Digital Evidence — The Computer They Hid
During the trial stage, the Carrollton Police Department seized a computer containing exculpatory digital evidence — material that directly undermined the prosecution’s entire narrative.
That computer, rather than being disclosed as required under Brady v. Maryland, was instead withheld, and later surfaced under federal custody.
To this day, federal authorities possess that same computer, knowing it contains evidence that would not only exonerate me but expose a coordinated cover-up between local prosecutors and law enforcement.
The concealment of this evidence was not accidental — it was deliberate. It served one purpose: to sustain a conviction that could never legally stand.
4. The Continuing Fraud and the Court’s Complicity
Since that unlawful conviction, the Dallas County criminal judiciary — including successive administrative judges and appellate justices — has acted as if this fiction were binding law.
Instead of confronting the void judgment, the courts have treated it as valid, citing it, extending it, and refusing to correct the record.
Every refusal to acknowledge the void nature of this case perpetuates a fraud on the public record.
Every silence from this Court compounds the harm.
5. A Call for Judicial Integrity
To the Fifth Court of Appeals, I say this directly:
You are not reviewing an ordinary appeal. You are standing at the mouth of a systemic fraud — one in which a sitting judge’s disqualifying interest was ignored, a prosecutor’s perjury was tolerated, and exculpatory federal evidence remains buried.
Voidness is not waivable. Fraud is not final.
A case born in disqualification, carried by perjury, and maintained by suppression cannot be saved by silence.
This Court has both the power and the duty to acknowledge what every lawful mind can see:
There is no conviction. There is only a record of deceit.
/s/ Babak Taherzadeh
Pro Se Relator and Author
Comments
Post a Comment