Rehearing

 MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS:

Movant, Babak Taherzadeh, respectfully requests rehearing en banc of the panel’s denial of his

petition for writ of mandamus rendered September 24, 2025, and in support would show as

follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

This case involves foundational jurisdictional defects, including a constitutionally disqualified

judge presiding ab initio and subsequent concealment of service. The panel denied mandamus

relief on procedural grounds under Rule 52, but in doing so committed an abuse of discretion

and sanctioned an ongoing denial of due process.

II. THE RULE 52 DUE PROCESS TRAP

1. The panel’s denial rests on strict enforcement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52’s

requirements for authenticating the record.

2. Movant has consistently argued that the entire record itself is corrupted by void acts,

beginning with the initial assignment of the case to a judge constitutionally disqualified

as the alleged victim.

3. It is logically and legally impossible to provide a “perfectly compliant” mandamus record

under Rule 52 when the very substance of the mandamus petition is that the record is

void and structurally defective.

14. Denial on this basis creates a due process trap: the Movant is forever barred from review

of a void proceeding because he cannot authenticate a poisoned record.

III. VOID JUDGMENT AND STRUCTURAL ERROR

5. The trial court proceedings at issue are presumptively void, not merely erroneous,

because of judicial disqualification. Texas law is unequivocal that a judgment rendered

by a disqualified judge is void.

6. A void judgment cannot be insulated from review by reliance on procedural defects in

mandamus filings. To permit this outcome undermines both due process and the

constitutional safeguards of impartial adjudication.

7. The panel’s denial, if left uncorrected, allows a void judgment to remain in effect and

compounds the structural error.

IV. EXTRAORDINARY RECORD EVENTS

8. The docket itself demonstrates extraordinary irregularities inconsistent with dismissal as

frivolous or final:

○

The original panel denied relief;

○

After that denial, Justice Koch recused;

○

The Court then issued a vacatur of the denial order;

○

A new denial followed under a reconstituted panel;

○

Movant timely filed a motion to disqualify thereafter.

9. These events are not ordinary. Recusal after ruling and vacatur of a denial are rare in

Texas appellate practice. Their occurrence here underscores the seriousness of the

underlying defects.

2V. NECESSITY OF EN BANC REVIEW

10. En banc review is warranted to secure the uniformity of this Court’s decisions and to

preserve the integrity of judicial administration. Tex. R. App. P. 41.2(c).

11. The case involves structural jurisdictional error, due process violations, and extraordinary

docket events. These cannot be resolved on a panel’s procedural ruling under Rule 52

without undermining public confidence in the courts.

VI. PRAYER

For the reasons stated above, Movant respectfully prays that the Court grant rehearing en banc,

withdraw the panel’s denial of September 24, 2025, and consider the petition for writ of

mandamus on its merits.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/

BABAK TAHERZADEH

_____

____

____