Elmwood Park BOE & Tomko (MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF Due To Fraud, Filed With Commissioner of Education)

I randokht Toorzani (Respondent, pro se) Date: January 28, 2012
175 Oxford Ter race #2

River Edge, NJ, 07661 ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Page 1 of 90!
!

NE W JERSE Y DEPART MENT OF EDUCATI ON

I n The Matter Of The Tenure Charges Against
I randokht Toorzani,
Filed By:

Elmwood Par k School Dist rict Board Of Education,
Bergen County, New Jersey
Agency Ref. No. 170 -6/11
OAL. Docket. No.: EDU 09713-2011N
VI A CERTI F I ED MAI L
------------------------------
MOTI ON F OR E MERGENCY RE LI E F DUE T O L AC K OF
JURISDI CTI ON I N LI EU OF RESPONSE T O JUDGE
STRAUSS` CORRESPONDENCE/ORDER DATED
JANUARY 3, 2012, WHI CH IS VOI D DUE T O OF FI CI ALS
MISCONDUCT, DENI AL OF MY DUE PROCESS, AND
FRAUD UPON T HE C OURT
------------------------------
Dear commissioner Cerf:
I am respectfully writing this letter to move and file this motion for emergency relief in
lieu oI response to Judge Strauss` correspondence/order dated January 3, 2012, which is null and
void due to oIIicials` misconduct, denial of my due process, and fraud upon the court.
Since June 30, 2011, that Elmwood Park BOE certified the tenure charges (which had been
initially procured by perjury
1
and violation of N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 et seq), there have been ongoing
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
Department of Education had been informed in regard to these violations through my requests for an
extension to Directors Boyle and Duncan and through my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the
tenure charges which was never reviewed by Department of Education officials.
As I stated in my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges:
Continued on the next page!
Page 2 of 90
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A) All 28 tenure charges, (which are the same issues and claims of my Federal Complaint, Doc. No. 94; CASE #:
2:09-cv-04262-SRC MAS, and bars Elmwood Park BOE from re-litigating or filing a new case involving the same
parties and subject matter) were/are refuted one by one by my direct and circumstantial evidences submitted to
Elmwood park BOE and the Department of Education. SOME OF THESE TENURE CHARGES (which have been
brought under oath against me by Richard D. Tomko [superintendant]) are BLATANT PERJURY (they are not
Statements of interpretation of facts) that can be proved instantly and easily by just taking a glance at the direct
physical evidences.
As j ust a few examples:
Richard D. Tomko, superintendent, has willfully and intentionally lied under oath to bring the following false
charges under oath against me. He has stated,

'I, Richard D. Tomko, Superintendent oI Schools oI the Elmwood Park School District Board oI Education
("Board"), of full age and capacity, and having been duly sworn by the undersigned authority, depose and say that I
have personally reviewed the evidence set forth in the within Sworn Statement of Evidence, in support of the
accompanying Tenure Charges against Irandokht Toorzani, which evidence is summarized as Iollows:

'Memo, January 7,2011, to Irandokht Toorzani, from David Warner, which, among other things, describes Ms.
Toorzani`s Iailure to notiIy either the Substitute Service or Principal, David Warner, that she would be absent.
to accuse me falsely. WHEN my PHONE RECORD proves that I had made the call to the Substitute Service on
1/06/2011 @ 10:19 PM for 2 minutes and my following email proves that I had also informed the school that I
would be absent.
'From: Toorzani, Irandokht
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 7:23 AM
To: Proto, Cheryl
Cc: Kaplan, Judy
Subject: RE: SUB

Good morning,

I just want to let you know that I will not be in today. I called for sub, the following is the
plan for today.
Thanks,.
And also ON THE SWORN TENURE CHARGES AGAINST me, Richard D. Tomko, superintendent, has stated,
'I, Richard D. Tomko, Superintendent oI Schools oI the Elmwood Park School District
Board of Education ("Board"), of full age and capacity, and having been duly sworn by the
undersigned authority, depose and say that I have personally reviewed the evidence set
forth in the within Sworn Statement of Evidence, in support of the accompanying Tenure
Charges against Irandokht Toorzani,.
'In or about January 11, 2011, Ms. Toorzani failed to notify the Substitute Service or
Principal, David Warner, that she would be absent.
to accuse me falsely. WHEN my PHONE RECORD proves that I had made the call to the Substitute Service on
1/11/2011 @ 1:20 AM for 2 minutes and my following email proves that I had also informed the school that I would
be absent.
Page 3 of 90
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 7:14 AM
To: Toorzani, Irandokht; Proto, Cheryl
Cc: Kaplan, Judy
Subject: RE: SUB
Attachments: work for students.doc‎ (78 KB‎)‎[Open in
Browser‎]

Good morning,
I just want to let you know that I will not be in today. I called for sub, I attached the class
work for students to this email, please make 100 copies and provide the sub with them (Mr.
Warner knows about this, he asked me to email the work).
Ms. Irandokht Toorzani

In another charge brought against me by Richard D. Tomko, superintendent, he has stated,
'Memo, February 3, 2009, to Irandokht Toorzani, Irom Richard D. Tomko which, among
other things, describes Ms. Toorzani's insubordination including, Ms. Toorzani's allegations
that Ms. Jackter is not "brave enough to tell the truth" and has made "false stories to justify
themselves [herself] and cover up their [her] wrong doings," her attempt to leave an in-
service early without permission or explanation and her statement that to her colleagues that
ms. jackter is a "slave driver."
to accuse me falsely. WHEN IN FACT I had stated in my letter (dated January 29, 09; following paragraph) in
response to the reprimand letter written by Allison Jackter which contained false and falsified information and
falsification of fact (I had got frustrated and overwhelmed because of constant harassing and discriminatory
conduct and conspiracy of a few administrators who were under influence of Richard D. Tomko, superintendent,
and were working in collusion with him for their personal gain), that:

'.could you please let me know what is insubordination and what is intolerable Ior you?
Is it that I want not to let you offend me and treat me like a slave anymore? As I remember
when I got hired in Elmwood Park district my title was 'Teacher not 'Slave. AIter
working in this district for four years, at the time of converting the old salary guide to the
new one, my step in salary guide was decreased one step more than the steps of the teachers
that I knew, now iI you know that my title has also been changed Irom 'Teacher to
'Slave that allow you to treat me like one, please let me know then I will not have any
complaint regarding your offensive behavior toward me.Sincerely,Toorzani CC: My
personnel Iile
And when Richard D. Tomko`s memo dated February 3, 2009, which was written in response to my above letter
states that:
'.You continue to tirade, expressing that you would accept oIIensive behavior towards
you if Mrs. Jackter could confirm that your job title has been changed from "teacher" to
"slave." you have painted a picture to your colleagues that mrs. jackter is a "slave driver,"
an extremely offensive and unprovoked statement.
As Richard D. Tomko`s above statements shows, Richard D. Tomko, superintendent, interpreted my above
response (dated January 29, 09) to Alison Jackter and attributed his own statements to me under oath.
And much more.
Page 4 of 90
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

'18 U.S. C. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully
subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution
or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of
such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the
punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year,
or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if
such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon,
explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts
include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to
commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or
imprisoned Ior any term oI years or Ior liIe, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
'18 U.S. C. 241. Conspi racy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any
State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment
of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or
because oI his having so exercised the same; or..
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if
death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include
kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or
"# 1. I received a rice letter dated 6/20/2011, from Richard D. Tomko (superintendent) that:
'.Dear Ms. Toorzani:
Please be advised that the Elmwood Park Board of Education may, at their Work and
Regular Meetings scheduled for Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. and 8 p.m. in the
Memorial High School Teachers' Faculty Room & Media Center, discuss matters in your
terms of your employment.
The board will discuss this in closed session. This is to afford you adequate notice that you
may request, in writing, that your matter be discussed in public session. Said written request
should be delivered to the board secretary's office not later than 4 p.m. on the date of said
meeting.
which was a notice to me that Elmwood Park BOE was going to discuss the matter of tenure charges in June 28,
2011, BOE meeting and was NOT a notice in regard to withholding my increments, since on or about 6/23/2011, I
received the contract for 2011-2012 school year which was not implying anything about withholding my increments
for 2011-2012 school year.
$% On 7/9/2011, I received a letter dated 7/8/2011, that Elmwood Park BOE had withheld my increments
based on Richard D. Tomko`s (superintendant`s) recommendation Ior the 2011-2012 school year in their meeting of
June 28, 2011, without giving me any prior notice. I had never been advised at any time that Richard D. Tomko had
recommended Elmwood Park BOE to withhold my increments or they were going to discuss the matter of
withholding my increments in their meeting of June 28, 2011.
Page 5 of 90
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
&% On July 11, 2011, I wrote a letter to Richard D. Tomko (superintendent) and William Moffitt (board
secretary) about not being served with a Rice Notice in regard to Richard D. Tomko`s recommendation to Elmwood
Park BOE for withholding my increments prior to June 28, 2011, BOE meeting. After I did not get any response to
my letter, on 8/01/2011 I called Elmwood Park Board office to request a copy of draft of minutes of June 28, 2011,
BOE meeting, but the Business office secretary told me that minutes had not been approved by the board members
yet since no board meeting had been held after June 28, 2011 BOE meeting, therefore they could not provide me
with a copy of the board minutes of June 28, 2011. I told the Business office secretary that I needed to know about
the decision which had been made about me in that meeting. Then she looked at the minutes of June 28, 2011, and
said, the only decision which had been made about me in that meeting, was withholding my increments and nothing
else. Therefore I asked her what about the Tenure Charges that Richard D. Tomko had bought against me and BOE
members adopted them in their June 28, 2011, BOE meeting? Business oIIice secretary surprisingly asked me 'June
28, 2011?! and I said, 'Yes, then she said, 'let me |Business oIIice secretary| connect you to the superintendent`s
oIIice, she connected me to superintendent`s oIIice and I spoke with Ms. Hayes (BOE secretary), Ms. Hayes asked
me to hold on and when she came back, she took my phone number and she said, she was going to call me back, but
she never called me.
'% On or about August 4, 2011, after about 3 days, I called the Board Office again to ask for a copy of minutes
oI June 28, 2011, board meeting and I was connected to the superintendent`s oIIice, I talked to Mrs. Levinson
(superintendent`s secretary), she put me on hold and then Richard D. Tomko (superintendent) answered the phone.
In that phone conversation that I had with Richard D. Tomko, he told me that there was no information either in the
agenda or in the minutes of June 28, 2011, meeting about the Tenure Charges brought against me by him, since the
decision about the Tenure Charges had been made in the closed session of the June 28, 2011 meeting, and Richard
D. Tomko added that both agenda and minutes of June 28, 2011 meeting contained information in regard to the
matter of withholding my increments since it had been discussed and voted in the OPEN SESSION of June 28,
2011 (the same meeting).
And when I asked Richard D. Tomko (superintendent) how the matter of withholding my increments had been
discussed in an open session, Richard D. Tomko told me, if I had not wanted them to discuss the matter of my
increments withholding in the open session, I should have made a request and asked them to take the matter to the
closed session.
All the aforementioned show that Elmwood Park BOE knowingly and intentionally violated the Law and Richard D.
Tomko (superintendent) knowingly and intentionally made the above statements which are contrary to law.
(% Elmwood Park BOE and its secretary, William Moffitt certified that:
'AIter consideration oI the Sworn Tenure Charges and Statement oI Evidence against
Irandokht Toorzani, together with the response thereto filed by or on behalf of Ms. Toorzani,
the Board of Education determined at a duly convened meeting held on June 28,2011 at 8
p.m. at the Memorial High School Teachers' Faculty Room & Media Center, 375 River Drive,
Elmwood Park, New Jersey 07407, during the closed executive session portion of the
meeting, that there was probable cause to credit the evidence in support of the charges and
that the Sworn Tenure Charges are sufficient, if credited, to warrant dismissal and/or
reduction of salary of Irandokht Toorzani. Accordingly, the Board further determined to
proceed to certify the Sworn Tenure Charges to the Commissioner of Education for a hearing
pursuant to law. The determination to certify the said Sworn Tenure Charges to the
Commissioner of Education was authorized by a majority vote of the full membership of the
nine (9) member Board which vote was: 9 ayes 0 nays 0 abstentions and 0 absent
WHEN based on what I was told by confidential executive secretary, who is taking note of minutes during
Elmwood Park BOE meetings that, the matter of tenure charges had NEVER been discussed in the June 28,
2011, BOE meeting and NOTHING about tenure charges against me was in the minutes of June 28, 2011, BOE
Page 6 of 90
!
violations of laws, local and federal rules, code of judicial conduct, and rules of professional
conduct; ongoing fraudulent conducts, making false statements of laws deliberately, and making
false statements of the facts on the sworn and unsworn responses, papers and pleadings
deliberately (when I had submitted direct physical evidences that clearly prove falseness of
those statements); and so many other misconduct, with the intent to prevent me (pro se
Respondent) from having a fair hearing in this administrative proceeding which has deprived me
from my constitutional right and immunity under the 14th Amendment of constitution.
Despite the fact that I have been notifying the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and
Department of Education officials about all the fraudulent conducts [letter to Director Boyle
June 27, 2011; letter to Director Boyle September 21,2011; letter to Director Duncan dated
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
meeting and the board had passed just the resolution of the agenda of June 28, 2011 (which had no indication or
statement about the tenure charges against me).
'N.J.S. A. 10:4-12. Meetings open to public; exceptions.
(8) Any matter involving the employment, appointment, termination of employment,
terms and conditions of employment, evaluation of the performance of, promotion or
disciplining of any specific prospective public officer or employee or current public officer or
employee employed or appointed by the public body, unless all the individual employees or
appointees whose rights could be adversely affected request in writing that such matter or
matters be discussed at a public meeting.

'18 U.S. C. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

~18 U.S.C. 241. Conspiracy against rights
State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of
any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or
because oI his having so exercised the same; or.

Page 7 of 90
!
September 13,2011 ; letter to Chief Judge Sanders dated September 18, 2011; appeal to
Commissioner of Education dated September 26,2011; letter to Commissioner of Education
dated October 12, 2011; motion to disqualifv Elmwood Park BOEs attornevs dated October 3,
2011; and letter to Judge Strauss dated October 21, 2011 ] , all these fraudulent conducts and
violations of laws and rules have being willfully and intentionally condoned and permitted to be
continued by OAL and Department of Education officials to aid and abet the complainant,
Elmwood Park BOE, to obtain rulings in their favor and defraud me (pro se Respondent).
I filed a motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges (hereafter 'motion to
dismiss`) dated August 10, 2011[about 460 pages of brief, Exhibits and direct physical
evidences and CD of recorded voice; postmarked August 11, 2011] on the ground of Doctrine of
Res Judicata
2
and based on the Doctrine of Res Judicata the instant matter must have been
resolved and dismissed even before being transferred to OAL. But unfortunately my motion to
dismiss was not reviewed by Department of Education and on the same day that it was received
by the Department of Education, was transferred to OAL.
During the phone conference of September 12, 2011, I learned that after the instant
matter had been transferred to OAL, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assigned to the instant
matter, Judge Strauss, via an Ex Parte communication with Elmwood Park BOE, had asked
Elmwood Park BOE not to respond to my motion to dismiss. Judge Strauss` misrepresentation oI
the facts and the laws during phone conference of September 12, 2011, his misrepresentations of
the Federal Judge`s (Judge Cheslers) Order and Opinion dated May 19, 2011, in his
correspondence/order dated September 19, 2011, and his misrepresentation of the facts in his
correspondence/order dated January 3, 2012, Prove that Judge Strauss has willfully and
intentionally ignored the facts and direct physical evidences and misrepresented the facts, court
records and laws to aid and abet complainant, Elmwood Park BOE.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2
The submitted direct physical evidences and circumstantial evidences were refuting all the tenure charges
one by one and Elmwood Park BOE failed to challenge those facts and direct physical evidences in its
response to my motion to dismiss.
Page 8 of 90
!
A few examples of fraudulent conducts oI Elmwood Park BOE`s attorneys during this
administrative proceeding which have been condoned by the OAL and Department of Education
officials involved in the instant matter when they were aware of them are as follows:
i. Knowingly and intentionally making false statements of the facts in their sworn written
documents and entering those false statements and information in the Court Record with
the purpose that it be taken as a genuine part of information or records,
ii. Knowingly and intentionally making false statements of the facts, laws and public records
(court records) in their sworn/unsworn written documents and entering those false
statements and information in the Court Record with the purpose that it be taken as a
genuine part of information or records,
iii. Knowingly and intentionally presenting false evidences/exhibits and improper using of
case law in their submitted written documents and entering them in the Court Record with
the purpose that it be taken as a genuine part of information or records,
'Canon 3: A Judge Should PerIorm the Duties oI His OIIice Impartially and Diligently
(A) Adjudicative Responsibilities. A judge should accord to every person who is legally
interested in a proceeding, or his lawyer, full right to be heard according to law. He should
not permit private interviews, arguments or communications designed to influence his
judicial action, where interests to be affected thereby are not represented before him, except
in cases where provision is made by law for ex parte application.
(B) Administrative Responsibilities. (3) If a judge shall become aware of unprofessional
conduct by a judge or a lawyer
(a) he shall, in the instance of a judge, report his knowledge to the Chief Justices of this
court and of the court of which the judge in question is a member, and
(b) in the instance of a lawyer, he shall initiate appropriate investigative or disciplinary
measures.
I, pro se Respondent (Irandokhdt Toorzani) hereby state upon information, direct physical
evidences, and belief as follows:
I. The Ci rcumstances of the Case and Relevant Legal Provisions
A. BAC K GROUND
Page 9 of 90
!
Since 2003-2004 school year that Richard D. Tomko became EP high school principal, I
have been working in a state of perpetual despair due to constant discrimination and
harassment that eventually has eroded my emotional and physical wellbeing (I have been so
blessed with parents and students support who placed their confidence in me, to be able to
cope with this constant discrimination and harassment). I have been derided and retaliated
against by Richard D. Tomko and a few administrators who have permanently ruined my
health, my reputation and my career and continue to do whatever it takes to force me out.
On August 20, 2009, as the last resort I filed a complaint against Elmwood Park Board of
Education et al. for their several years of harassing and discriminatory conducts (including
but not limited to placing false and falsified information in my personnel file and my
observation and evaluation reports and, falsely accusing me of insubordination and etc IN
ORDER TO BRING TENURE CHARGES) against me (on the basis of National Origin,
Religion, Sex, Disability and Retaliation; District Court Docket # 2:09-cv-04262-SRC
MAS, Doc. NO. 94), which was in the US District Court of NJ almost for 2 years.
While I have been suffering from severe anxiety and I had provided the Federal Court
Judge, Judge Chesler, with medical note which legally was exempting me from an oral
deposition, then-defendants (Elmwood park BOE and NJEA) and Federal Court Judge, Judge
Chesler, were coercing me to attend oral depositions, with the intention of taking unfair
advantage of my health conditions and disadvantages.
When, I let the court know that because of my inability (my health condition, severe
anxiety which has affected on my speech ability; I had also provided the federal court with a
medical note in regard to that matter) and not because of bad faith, I was not able to attend
the oral deposition and I did not attend, Elmwood Park Board of Education that did not want
my complaint against them to proceed and be adjudicated before JURY (Elmwood Park BOE
and NJEA did not hesitate to commit any type of Fraud to prevent my complaint against
them to proceed and be tried before Jury), moved and asked the Judge to dismiss my
complaint WITH PREJUDICE and in response to that motion brought by Elmwood Park
BOE (then-defendant) and not by the court SUA SPONTE, my complaint was dismissed
Page 10 of 90
!
with prejudice in favor of Elmwood Park BOE and NJEA on May 19, 2011, under existed
Fraud Upon The Court.
On May 19, 2011, Federal Judge, Judge Chesler ordered that:
'.ORDERED that this action be and hereby is DISMISSED WI T H PREJUDI C E; and
it is further ORDERED that this action be and hereby is C L OSED.
I never appealed Judge Chesler`s Iinal Judgment (dated May 19, 2011) since I was not able
to do so, due to my emotional and physical health conditions. Not to mention that I had filed
a Notice of Appeal on April 4, 2011, FOR MISTRIAL AND FRAUD UPON THE COURT
(Court of Appeals Docket # :11-1858) with the US Court of Appeal 3
rd
Circuit, but
fraudulently an interlocutory order was attached to my Notice of Appeal (without my
knowledge) to cause my Notice of Appeal to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the
appellate court and on July 12, 2011, My request to US Court of Appeal 3
rd
Circuit for En
Banc Hearing in regard to Mistrial And Fraud Upon The Us District Court And Fraud Upon
The Us Court Of Appeal 3
rd
Circuit was denied.
But in RETALIATION, on June 7, 2011, after 19 days that my complaint had been
dismissed with prejudice
3
, Elmwood Park BOE brought the same issues and claims of my
Federal complaint within the tenure charges (while ELMWOOD PARK BOE had not even
brought any counterclaim when they [as the defendant] were mandated
4
to bring any claim
arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of my suit as a
counterclaim since Elmwood Park BOE did not have any legitimate claim against me and
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3
'Dismissal with prejudice constitutes adjudication on the merits and operates as iI the
case had been fully tried and decided. An order dismissing a case with prejudice has full res
judicata and collateral estoppel effect, barring subsequent relitigation of the same causes of
action or issues between the same parties.
4
The transactional approach mandates that a defendant bring as a counterclaim any claim arising
out oI the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter oI the opposing party`s suit. A counterclaim
is compulsory if: (1) it is within the jurisdiction of the court; (2) it is not at the time of the filing of the
answer the subject of a pending action; (3) the claim is mature and owned by the defendant at the time of
filing the answer; (4) it arose out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the
opposing party`s claim; (5) it is against the opposing party in the same capacity; and (6) it does not
require the presence of third parties over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.
Page 11 of 90
!
they did not want my complaint to be tried before JURY at all), when Elmwood Park BOE
were barred from relitigating or filing a new case involving the same parties and subject
matter on the ground that it was/is Res Judicata.
But the instant matter was not dismissed since Judge Jesse H. Strauss misrepresented the
facts and the Federal Judge`s (Judge Chesler`s) Order and Opinion dated may 19, 2011 in his
argument in order to deny my motion to dismiss which was on the ground of Doctrine of Res
Judicata and then based on his misrepresentation of the facts and the Federal Judge`s order
and opinion, Judge Strauss concluded that:
' there is no basis Ior a dismissal oI the instant matter on the basis oI res judicata.
Judge Strauss, A.L.J., in his order dated September 19, 2011, page 6, 1 misrepresented the
facts as follows:
'. See, Toorzini v. Elmwood Pk. Bd. oI Educ. et aI., No. 09-4262 (O.N.J. May 19, 2011)
and Order, No. 09- 4242 (O.N.J. May 19, 2011), aff'd. Toorzani v. Elmwood Pk. Bd. of
Educ., et aI., No. 11- 1858) (3'd Cir., July 12, 2011) As set forth in an Opinion and Order of
the Honorable Stanley Chesler, U.SD.J., this suit was never litigated on the merits of
Respondent's claims.
WHEN no such statement 'this suit was never litigated on the merits oI Respondent's
claims was stated either in Judge Chesler`s Opinion (dated May 19, 2011) or in his Order
(dated May 19, 2011). And also Judge Strauss, A.L.J., stated that:
'aII'd. Toorzani v. Elmwood Pk. Bd. oI Educ., et aI., No. 11- 1858) (3'd Cir., July 12,
2011)
CONTRARY to what Judge Strauss has claimed in his order dated September 19, 2011,
that the matter was appealed to the 3
rd
Circuit Court of appeals and subsequently affirmed, I
never appealed Judge Chesler`s Iinal Judgment (dated May 19, 2011) since I was not able to
do so due to my emotional and physical health conditions. Not to mention that I had filed a
notice of appeal on April 4, 2011, with the US Court of Appeal 3
rd
Circuit, for mistrial and
fraud upon the court (Court of Appeals Docket # :11-1858) but fraudulently an interlocutory
order was attached to my notice of appeal (without my knowledge) which caused my notice
of appeal to be dismissed because of lack of jurisdiction by the appellate court and on July
Page 12 of 90
!
12, 2011, My request to US Court of Appeal 3
rd
Circuit for En Banc Hearing in regard to
mistrial and fraud upon the US District Court and fraud upon US Court Of Appeal 3
rd
Circuit
was denied.
Judge Strauss did not erred about not applying Doctrine of Res judicata on the instant
matter BUT he knowingly and intentionally misrepresented
5
the facts, laws (in the phone
conference of September 12, 2011) and the Federal Judge`s (Judge Cheslers) Order and
Opinion dated May 19, 2011, in his correspondence/order dated September 19, 2011, in order
to deny my motion to dismiss which was on the ground of Doctrine of Res Judicata.
'N.J.S. A. 2C:30-2. Official misconduct
A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with purpose to obtain a benefit
for himself or another or to injure or to deprive another of a benefit:
b. He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is
clearly inherent in the nature of his office.
Official misconduct is a crime of the second degree. If the benefit obtained or sought to
be obtained, or of which another is deprived or sought to be deprived, is of a value of
$200.00 or less, the oIIense oI oIIicial misconduct is a crime oI the third degree.
~N.J.S. A. 2C:30-6. Cri me of official deprivation of civil rights
2. a. A public servant acting or purporting to act in an official capacity commits the
crime of official deprivation of civil rights if, knowing that his conduct is unlawful, and
acting with the purpose to intimidate or discriminate against an individual or group of
individuals because of race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation or
ethnicity, the public servant: (2) denies or impedes another in the lawful exercise or
enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity.
d. Proof that a public servant made a false statement, or, if the agency that
employs the public servant, the Attorney General or the county prosecutor having
supervisory authority over the agency required a report to be prepared, failed to prepare a
report concerning the conduct that is the subject of the prosecution, shall give rise to an
inference that the actor knew his conduct was unlawful.
e. For purposes of this section, an act is unlawful if it violates the Constitution of
the United States or the Constitution of this State, or if it constitutes a criminal offense
under the laws oI this State.
Doctrine of Res Judicata provides that a final judgment on the merits is conclusive as to
the rights of the parties, constituting an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the
same claim, demand, or cause of action. When res judicata is established as a bar against the
prosecution of a second action between the same parties upon the same claim or demand, it is
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5
'"Fraud" or "Iraudulent" denotes conduct that is Iraudulent under the substantive or procedural
law of the applicable jurisdiction and has a purpose to deceive.
Page 13 of 90
!
conclusive not only as to every matter that was offered to sustain or defeat the claim or
demand, but as to any other matter that might have been offered for that purpose.
'The principles oI Res Judicata are reinIorced in New Jersey by the entire controversy
doctrine
6
which requires that all issues of a single dispute between the parties must be
completely determined in one action. Culver v. Insurance Co. of N. Am. , 559 A.2d 400, 406
(N.J. 1989). Under New Jersey law, Res Judicata or claim preclusion applies when (1) the
judgment in the first action is valid, final and on the merits; (2) there is identity of the parties,
or the parties in the second action are in privity with those in the first action; and (3) the
claim in the later action grows out of the same transaction or occurrence as the claim in the
first action. See Watkins v. Resorts Int'l Hotel & Casino, Inc. , 591 A.2d 592, 599 (N.J.
1991); Culver , 559 A.2d at 405-06. It is evident that none oI the requirements listed above
to apply res judicata is at issue in this case.
Fi rst requi rement 'the judgment in the Iirst action is valid, Iinal and on the merits has
been met in the instant (tenure) matter since:
'Dismissal with prejudice constitutes adjudication on the merits and operates as iI the case
had been fully tried and decided. An order dismissing a case with prejudice has full res
'F RCP 41. Dismissal of Actions: (b) Involuntary Dismissal ; Effect.
If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant
may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states
otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule
except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule19
operates as an adjudication on the merits
'I n Lawlor, the Supreme Court held that a judgment dismissing a suit with prejudice
constitutes an adjudication of the merits as fully and completely as if the order had been
entered after trial and bars a later suit between the same parties on the same cause of
action.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6
RUL E 4:30A. Enti re Cont roversy Doct rine: Non-joinder of claims required to be joined by the entire
controversy doctrine shall result in the preclusion of the omitted claims to the extent required by the entire
controversy doctrine, except as otherwise provided by R. 4:64-5 (foreclosure actions) and R. 4:67-4(a)
(leave required for counterclaims or cross-claims in summary actions).

Page 14 of 90
!
As I stated above my federal complaint was dismissed with prejudice upon the request of
Elmwood Park BOE. A dismissal for failure to comply with court order (not attending oral
deposition) pursuant to FRCP 41(b) 'operates as adj udication upon the merits unless the
court in its order for dismissal specifies otherwise and the US district court did not specify
anything in its order or opinion dated May 19, 2011.
'.ORDERED that this action be and hereby is DISMISSED WI T H PREJUDI C E; and it
is further ORDERED that this action be and hereby is CL OSED.
The second requi rement 'there is identity oI the parties, or the parties in the second
action are in privity with those in the first action has been met in the instant matter too.
The thi rd requi rement 'the claim in the later action grows out oI the same transaction
or occurrence as the claim in the Iirst action. has been met as well since Elmwood Park
BOE brought the same issues and claims of my Federal Complaint (Doc. NO. 94 , District
Court Docket # 2:09-cv-04262- my federal compl aint against Elmwood Park BOE and
NJEA) within the instant matter (tenure charges).
'In determining whether causes of action are the same for Res Judicata purposes there are
two tests, See Watkins v. Resorts Int'l Hotel & Casino, Inc. , 591 A.2d 592, 599 (N.J. 1991);
Culver , 559 A.2d at 405-06: a) The first test is whether the evidence needed to sustain the
second suit would have sustained the first or whether the same facts were essential to
maintain both actions. b) A second test, the "transactional approach," is whether both suits
arise from the same transaction, incident, or factual situation. The assertion of different kinds
or theories of relief still results in a single cause of action if a single group of operative facts
gives rise to the assertion oI relieI.
Cause of actions are the same for the Res Judicata purpose in the instant matter since the
evidences needed to sustain the instant matter would sustain my federal complaint and the
same facts were essential to maintain both actions.
'The transactional approach mandates that a deIendant bring as a counterclaim any claim
arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter oI the opposing party`s
suit. A counterclaim is compulsory if: (1) it is within the jurisdiction of the court; (2) it is not
Page 15 of 90
!
at the time of the filing of the answer the subject of a pending action; (3) the claim is mature
and owned by the defendant at the time of filing the answer; (4) it arose out of the same
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter oI the opposing party`s claim; (5) it is
against the opposing party in the same capacity; and (6) it does not require the presence of
third parties over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.
Elmwood Park BOE did not bring a counterclaim against me in Federal Court because of
lacking the requisite just cause and evidences to take them before JURY (except the fake
witnesses who have been doing everything for their personal gain) but Elmwood Park BOE
brought cross-claim against its codefendants NJEA and its Network attorney Nancy Oxfeld
Esq.
'Most oI the interpretive issues in applying the Doctrine oI Res Judicata concern the
requirements that the claims be the same in both suits and that the original judgment be on
the merits. Before the development of the unified civil action under the Rules, parties could
not always seek legal and equitable relief in the same proceeding. They were often forced to
split their claims between the law courts (for damage claims) and the equity courts (for
claims to equitable relief, such as specific performance or injunctions). See generally James
and Hazard at 14-17. In such cases, a party who had sought damages in an action at law was
not precluded from seeking injunctive relief based on the same transaction or occurrence
from a court of equity because she could not have obtained an injunction in the prior action at
law.
Even though it is unquestionable that Commissioner of Education has exclusive
jurisdiction over the matter of tenure charges, but Under the Federal Rules, parties may
almost always assert all their claims in a single suit. Res judicata bars not only those claims
that were asserted in the first suit, but also any others arising out of that transaction or
occurrence that could have been asserted but were not.
Elmwood Park BOE did not bring a counterclaim against me in federal court because of
lacking the requisite just cause and evidences to take them before JURY (except the fake
witnesses who have been doing everything for their personal gain), while they could bring a
Page 16 of 90
!
counterclaim and then split
7
the case and pursue their assertion of different kinds or theories
of relief in the Administrative Court. Not to mention that the assertion of different kinds or
theories of relief still results in a single cause of action if a single group of operative facts
gives rise to the assertion of relief, which is exactly what we have in the instant (tenure)
matter.
My motion to dismiss the tenure charges was denied by relying on the misrepresentation
of the existing facts and laws Elmwood Park BOE and Judge Strauss failed/refused (to set
forth) to state any sustainable reason for denying my motion to dismiss which was on the
ground of Res Judicata.
B. F A CTS AND FRAUD UPON T HE COURT
1. On June 7, 2011, 19 DAYS after my complaint had been dismissed with prejudice
8
, in
retaliation and in a fraudulent attempt
9
, Richard D. Tomko and Elmwood Park Board of
Education (that had asked the Federal Court Judge to dismiss my Federal complaint with
prejudice) brought the same issues and claims of my Federal Complaint within the tenure
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
7
F RCP 42(b) Separate Trials. For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the
court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, cross claims, counterclaims, or
third party claims. When ordering a separate trial, the court must preserve any federal right to a jury trial.
8
'Dismissal with prejudice constitutes adjudication on the merits and operates as if the case had
been fully tried and decided. An order dismissing a case with prejudice has full res judicata and
collateral estoppel effect, barring subsequent relitigation of the same causes of action or issues
between the same parties.
'In Lawlor, the Supreme Court held that a judgment dismissing a suit with prejudice
entered after trial and bars a later suit between the same parties on the same cause oI action.
9
While Elmwood park BOE was aware of being barred by the Doctrine of Res Judicata to bring the same
issues and claims of my Federal Complaint within the Tenure Charges before another court to be litigated
and adjudicated one more time to get multiple judgment, they instigated this administrative proceeding
(bringing tenure charges) against me to adjudicate the issues and claims of my Federal Complaint which
had been brought within the tenure charges by them in the administrative court again to get multiple
judgments in their favor and use the Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U.S.C. 1738, in order to prevent me
from taking any possible independent action against them in future (Since my federal complaint was
dismissed under fraud upon the court).
Page 17 of 90
!
charges (while Elmwood Park BOE [then- defendant] was mandated
10
to bring any claim
arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of my suit as a
counterclaim. They did not bring any counterclaim since Elmwood Park BOE did not have
any legitimate claim against me and they did not want my complaint to be tried before JURY
at all).
2. On June 27, 2011, I submitted my Sworn Response to the tenure charges to the Elmwood
Park BOE. My Sworn Response was/is refuting (using direct physical evidences) the tenure
charges brought against me by Richard D. Tomko, superintendent, and was/is instantly
proving that Richard D. Tomko had perjured himself to bring me up on those tenure charges
to sway the decision makers to accept his defamatory remarks, accusation and lies as truths.
In my sworn response to the tenure charges which I had submitted to Elmwood Park BOE I
had stated that:
'.By reviewing the above documents board members would see the pattern oI
wrongdoing and falsification of the facts by Mr. Tomko and the administrators who have
been working under his influence and in collusion with him for their personal gain. The
board members have power and duty to prevent or aid in preventing recurrence of such
conduct, and iI they neglect or reIuse to do so they shall be liable as well.
3. On June 30, 2011, I was informed that Elmwood Park BOE had adopted the tenure charges
against me in its June 28, 2011, meeting (less than 24 hours after they received my 600 pages
sworn response and direct physical evidences which not only were refuting the tenure
charges but were also proving that tenure charges were procured by perjury) and certified the
tenure charges to the Commissioner of Education despite the fact that Elmwood Park BOE
had been advised (my sworn response along with direct physical evidences) that Richard D.
Tomko, superintendent had committed perjury to be able to bring me up on those tenure
charges.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10
The transactional approach mandates that a defendant bring as a counterclaim any claim arising out of the
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter oI the opposing party`s suit. A counterclaim is
compulsory if: (1) it is within the jurisdiction of the court; (2) it is not at the time of the filing of the
answer the subject of a pending action; (3) the claim is mature and owned by the defendant at the time of
filing the answer; (4) it arose out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the
opposing party`s claim; (5) it is against the opposing party in the same capacity; and (6) it does not
require the presence of third parties over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.
Page 18 of 90
!
4. On August 1 and 4, 2011, I contacted Elmwood Park BOE office to request a copy of the
minutes of its June 28, 2011, meeting, as a citizen. Richard D.Tomko, superintendent,
knowingly and intentionally misrepresented the law in order to deny my request for a copy of
the minutes of June 28, 2011, meeting (as I have explained in my motion to dismiss in lieu of
answer to the tenure charges which was never reviewed by the Department of Education or
OAL).
5. On August 11, 2011, I filed my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure on the
ground of Doctrine of Res Judicata (since each individual charge of those 28 tenure charges
was/is the same issue and claim of my Federal Complaint and Elmwood Park BOE was/is
absolutely barred from bringing them before another court to be re-adjudicated), and I
additionally refuted all those charges one by one by presenting the direct physical evidences,
which was never reviewed by the Department of Education or OAL.
6. On August 15, 2011, Department of Education received my motion to dismiss in lieu of
answer to the tenure charges [about 460 pages of brief and direct physical evidences and CD
of recorded voice; which had been postmarked August 11, 2011] and on the same day, on
August 15, 2011, Department of Education transferred my motion to dismiss to OAL without
even reviewing it
11
.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11
N.J.S. A. 18A:6-16 Proceedings before commissioner; written response; determination: Upon receipt
of such a charge and certification, or of a charge lawfully made to the commissioner, the commissioner or
the person appointed to act in the commissioner's behalf in the proceedings shall examine the charges and
certification. The individual against whom the charges are certified shall have 15 days to submit a written
response to the charges to the commissioner. .. If, following receipt of the written response to the
charges, the commissioner is of the opinion that they are not sufficient to warrant dismissal or reduction
in salary of the person charged, he shall dismiss the same and notify said person accordingly. If, however,
he shall determine that such charge is sufficient to warrant dismissal or reduction in salary of the person
charged, he shall within 10 days of making that determination refer the case to the Office of
Administrative Law for further proceedings, except that when a motion for summary decision has been
made prior to that time, the commissioner may retain the matter for purposes of deciding the motion.
N.J. A. C. 6A:3-1.10 Dismissal or transfer of petition: At any time prior to transmittal of the pleadings
to the OAL, in the Commissioner`s discretion or upon motion to dismiss Iiled in lieu oI answer, the
Commissioner may dismiss the petition on the grounds that the petitioner has advanced no cause of action
even iI the petitioner`s Iactual allegations are accepted as true or Ior lack of jurisdiction, failure to
prosecute or other good reason.
Page 19 of 90
!
The reasons that Director Duncan has mentioned on her letter dated September 20, 2011, for
not reviewing my motion to dismiss in Lieu of Answer to the Tenure Charges are as follows:
'.based upon a number oI Iactors, including our own staIIing limitations and current work
load. In addition, except for motions in very simple cases, we prefer that the parties have
the possibility for oral argument before the ALJ, something which is not an option
here.your motion to dismiss will be addressed at the OIIice oI Administrative Law.
WHEN Department of Education was obligated to review my motion to dismiss in lieu of
answer to the tenure charges based on N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.10 and N.J.S.A. 18A:6-16.
Not to mention that in addition to the Director Duncan`s above response, Judge Strauss`
statement which was made during the phone conference of September 12, 2011 (while he
was misrepresenting the facts of my motion to dismiss and the laws to be able to conclude
that Doctrine of Res Judicata does not apply to the instant matter), stating that:
'.we are going to proceed with the tenure case, I am disagreeing with your arguments, I
have read your papers and I`m disagreeing, I have been order by the Commissioner Ior this
hearing and I am going to conduct it we move on Irom there.
SHOWS that not only my motion to dismiss had been disregarded by the Department of
Education but also my Due Process had been denied by the Department of Education, since
Commissioner of Education had ordered Judge Strauss
12
to conduct hearing and move with
tenure charges without considering my motion to dismiss (which was/is simply proving that
Elmwood Park BOE was/is barred based on Doctrine of Res Judicata to conduct hearing
and move with the tenure charges and was/is also refuting all those charges one by one by
presenting direct physical evidences) when the Department of Education had not even
reviewed my motion to dismiss and accordingly did not have any knowledge regarding the
contents of my motion to dismiss.
Additionally, aIter I appealed Judge Strauss` decision in regard to denying my motion to
dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges and my oral motion for his recusal to
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
12
52:14F-1. Establishment; allocation within department of state; office defined:., the OIIice oI
Administrative Law is hereby allocated within the Department of State, but notwithstanding said
allocation, the office shall be independent of any supervision or control by the department or by any
personnel thereof. As used in this act, "office" shall mean the Office of Administrative Law.
Page 20 of 90
!
Commissioner of Education on September 26, 2011, and I filed a motion to disqualify
Elmwood park Board oI Education`s counsel for their constant misconduct (which was
never reviewed by Department of Education or OAL) with Commissioner of Education as
well, I received three letters at the same time, two of them were from Judge Sanders (dated
October 6, 2011, which had been postmarked October 11, 2011, one of those letters was in
regard to granting a review of mv appeal for Judge Strauss recusal which was denied bv her
on October 11, 2011, the same day, which clearly shows that these letters had been back
dated) and a letter dated October 7, 2011,(which had also been postmarked October 11,
2011) from Director Duncan, stating that:
'.As you know, your request Ior interlocutory review oI Judge Strauss's order denying
your motion to dismiss the tenure charges was untimely; your request for an extension of
time to file it was denied, and, accordingly, when you filed it anyway, it was not
considered. Likewise the Board's response to that request was not considered.
WHEN I had filed my appeal with the Commissioner of Education on time within 5-day
time limit (it had been postmarked Monday September 26, 2011). Therefore I sent a letter
dated October 12, 2011 to Commissioner of Education to inform him that I had filed my
appeal timely, but later I received a letter from him that Commissioner was not going to
review my appeal (they had not reviewed my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure
charges which I had filed with Department of Education On August 15, 2011, as well)
pursuant to his discretion under N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.10.
WHEN N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.10 states that based on,
'N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.6 (a) Where authorized by law and where irreparable harm will result
without an expedited decision granting or prohibiting some action or relief connected with a
contested case, emergency relief pending a final decision on the whole contested case may
be ordered upon the application oI a party.
8. On August 25, 2011, Judge Strauss had issued a scheduling order for discovery and hearing
in order to handle the instant matter in an expeditious manner, which was implying that my
motion to dismiss had already been denied by Judge Jesse Strauss WHEN,
i. Complainant Elmwood Park BOE had not responded to my motion to dismiss and,
Page 21 of 90
!
ii. I had not received any notice or reason from the Department of Education or Judge
Strauss, ALJ, indicating that why my motion to dismiss (which had been filed in lieu of
answer to the tenure charges with the Department of Education and not OAL) had been
denied.
9. A poly phone conference was scheduled for September 12, 2011, by the administrative law
Judge , Judge Strauss, and in that phone conference:
i. Judge Strauss informed me that he had exempted the Elmwood Park BOE from responding
to my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges via an ex parte
communication with Elmwood Park BOE (Proof: audio record of that phone conference).
~N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.5 Ex parte communications: (a) Except as specifically permitted by
law or this chapter, a judge may not initiate or consider ex parte any evidence or
communications concerning issues of fact or law in a pending or impending proceeding.
Where ex parte communications are unavoidable, the judge shall advise all parties of the
communications as soon as possible thereaIter '
ii. Judge Strauss stated that my Complaint filed with School Ethics Commission in regard to
Unethical Conduct of the School Administrators had been transferred to the Department of
Education and then to OAL because of lack of Jurisdiction of the School Ethics
Commission. (Proof: audio record oI that phone conIerence). Later Elmwood Park BOE`s
attorney, Jenna A. Rottenberg Made a false statement on her certification regarding the
above Judge Strauss` statement.
iii. I explained for Judge Strauss that my Federal Complaint had been dismissed with prejudice
based on Elmwood Park BOE`s request. I had also explained everything in details about
my federal complaint in my motion to dismiss in Lieu of Answer to the Tenure Charges
and the reasons that the instant matter should have been dismissed on the ground of
Doctrine of Res Judicata, since all the requirements of Doctrine of Res Judicata had been
met, but Judge Strauss was insisting that doctrine of res judicata would not apply in the
instant matter since there had never been adjudication of the claims and the District Court
never made any findings of fact. (Proof: audio record of that phone conference)
Page 22 of 90
!
Also Judge Strauss stated that I could not use the Federal Court Proceeding as in support of
my motion to dismiss since there were never specific findings of fact by Jury or Judge that
constitutes Res Judicata in the instant Administrative Proceeding. (Proof: audio record of
that phone conference)
And also Judge Strauss stated: Ms. Toorzani for the last time your lawsuit in Federal Court
was dismissed and it is not Res Judicata. (Proof: audio record of that phone conference)
WHEN law says,
may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states
otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule
except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19
operates as an adjudication on the merits
action.
iv. Judge Strauss was continuously calling the Elmwood Park BOE`s claims 'the Iacts
between his statements, which was obviously showing that Judge Strauss had already made
his decisions regarding what the facts were in regard to the instant matter. (Proof: audio
record of that phone conference)
v. Judge Strauss stated that he had been ordered by the Commissioner of Education to
conduct a preliminary hearing rather than to accept my motion to dismiss. (Proof: audio
record of that phone conference)
When a Judge should make an independent determination based on Law and not a
determination based on the orders, Judge Strauss was ordered by the Commissioner of
Education to conduct hearing and move with tenure charges without considering my
motion to dismiss (which was/is simply proving that Elmwood Park BOE was/is barred on
Page 23 of 90
!
the ground of Doctrine of Res Judicata to conduct hearing and move with the tenure
charges) when the Department of Education had not even reviewed my motion to dismiss
and accordingly did not have any knowledge regarding the contents of my motion to
dismiss (on August 15, 2011, Department of Education received my motion to dismiss in
lieu of answer to the tenure charges [about 460 pages of brief and evidences and CD
contained recorded voice] and on August 15, 2011, same day, transferred it to OAL)
13
.
vi. Judge Strauss was asking Elmwood Park BOE`s attorney, Nicholas Celso III, Esq.
(opposing partvs attornev) to provide him information regarding my Federal Complaint
against Elmwood Park BOE and NJEA(then-defendants), which demonstrated that Judge
Strauss had not even reviewed my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure
charges. And while Judge Strauss did not have any knowledge about my Federal
Complaint, he had already made a determination that Doctrine of Res Judicata would not
apply to the instant matter and my motion to dismiss had to be denied (Proof: audio record
of that phone conference)
During that phone conIerence, Elmwood Park BOE`s attorney, Nicholas Celso III, Esq.,
provided Judge Strauss with False information in regard to my federal complaint (against
Elmwood Park BOE and NJEA; then-defendants) to meet the goal, which was denying my
motion to dismiss. When Judge Strauss asked Nicholas Celso III, Esq. (opposing partvs
attorney) if Nicholas Celso was familiar with my federal complaint against his client
(Elmwood Park BOE, then-defendant), Nicholas Celso told Judge Strauss that I had
appealed the final judgment to the 3
rd
circuit and 3
rd
circuit had affirmed the dismissal,
which was Completely False since I had never appealed that final Judgment because I was
not able to do so due to my emotional and physical health conditions.
But on April 4, 2011, I had filed a notice of appeal with the US Court of Appeal, 3
rd
Circuit
for Mistrial and Fraud Upon the Court (Court of Appeals Docket # :11-1858) but
fraudulently an interlocutory order was attached to my notice of appeal (without my
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
13
When Department of Education was obligated to review my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the
tenure charges based on N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.10 and N.J.S.A. 18A:6-16.
Page 24 of 90
!
knowledge) to cause my notice of appeal to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the
appellate court and later on May 19, 2011, my complaint was dismissed with prejudice in
federal court in response to the motion brought by Elmwood Park BOE (then-defendant)
14

and not by the court Sua Sponte. (Proof: audio record of that phone conference)
'The denial of constitutional and civil rights of unrepresented party not only is absolutely
not a judicial function and conflicts with any definition of a judicial function but also raises
a claim oI denial oI equal protection under the Iourteenth amendment.
vii. After I realized that Judge Strauss was misrepresenting the facts of my federal complaint,
facts of my motion to dismiss and the Laws in order to deny my motion to dismiss in Lieu
of Answer to the Tenure Charges and after he started yelling at me to deter me from
defending my legal rights, I asked Judge Strauss if he was going to give me the basis for
denying my motion to dismiss in writing, but Judge Strauss was not interested to give me
any reason in writing
15
. (Proof: audio record of that phone conference)
'The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)
stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal
Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he
is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his
person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to
him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States."
viii. I was not heard by Judge Strauss in that phone conference, when I told Judge Strauss that
because of my emotional distress and lack of concentration which had also affected on my
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
14
When, I let the court know that because of my inability (my health condition, severe anxiety which has
affected on my speech ability; I had also provided the federal court with a medical note in regard to that
matter) and not because of bad faith, I was not able to attend the oral deposition and I did not attend,
Elmwood Park Board of Education that did not want my complaint against them to proceed and be
adjudicated before JURY (Elmwood Park BOE and NJEA did not hesitate to commit any type of Fraud
to prevent my complaint against them to proceed and be tried before Jury), moved and asked the Judge to
dismiss my complaint WITH PREJUDICE and in response to that motion brought by Elmwood Park
BOE (then-defendant) and not by the court SUA SPONTE, my complaint was dismissed with prejudice
in favor of Elmwood Park BOE and NJEA on May 19, 2011, under existed Fraud Upon The Court.
15
And when Judge Strauss issued his order dated September 19, 2011, in writing, he knowingly and
intentionally misrepresented (page 6, 1) the Iederal Judge`s (Judge Chesler`s) Order and Opinion dated
May 19, 2011, to fraudulently misuse the FRCP 41, to deny my motion dismiss and justify why he had
denied it.
Page 25 of 90
!
speech and memory, I would not be able to defend myself in any type of verbal
conversation and hearing but I had provided the evidences attached to my motion to
dismiss as Exhibits which could be reviewed by them, Judge Strauss asked me to stop
talking and he did not respond my concern and he said that if I had any trouble
concentrating he would be issuing a prehearing order that would reflect what was discussed
in that phone conference and also setting for hearing dates, which shows that Judge Strauss
even was not listening to me when I was talking about my concerns. (Proof: audio record
of that phone conference)
ix. Elmwood Park BOE`s attorney, Nicholas Celso III, Esq. was acting as Judge Strauss`
attorney and advocate.
During that phone conIerence, when I realized Judge Strauss` blatant partiality and I
noticed that Judge Strauss was misrepresenting the facts of my Federal Complaint, the facts
of my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges and the laws, in order to
deny my motion to dismiss, I asked Judge Strauss to give me his legal reason in writing
that why my motion to dismiss should be denied but each time I asked, I was ignored by
Judge Strauss which caused me to move and ask Ior Judge Strauss`s recusal.
Finally after several times that I moved and asked Judge Strauss to recuse himself from the
instant matter and I insisted Ior his recusal, Elmwood Park BOE`s counsel, Nicholas Celso
III, Esq., interfered and acted as Judge Strauss` attorney (advocate) and Nicholas Celso
directed and told Judge Strauss that:
'Judge beIore you respond to that iI I might this would help the court. We would be happy
to submit a reply to the motion to dismiss that your honor can rule on that. We can have out
that to you by the end oI this week, Judge
but I stated that I still wanted Judge Strauss to recuse himself from the instant matter and I
stated my reasons for that, but I was ignored by Judge Strauss again. And Judge Strauss
told Nicholas Celso:
'All right Mr. Celso, iI you want to Iile a response to the motion to dismiss that`s Iine and I
will deal with that, in rather that put in the prehearing order, but OK we are going to
proceed on the 18
th
and 19
th

Page 26 of 90
!
(Proof: audio record of that phone conference)
10. On September 12, 2011, during the phone conference, I was informed by Judge Strauss that
my complaint to school Ethics commission (which was supposed to be reviewed by School
Ethics Commission on September 27, 2011) had been transferred to OAL (because of lack of
jurisdiction) as well as my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to tenure charges.
Therefore on September 14, 2011, I wrote a letter to Director Boyle and I informed her
that there was no point to respond to Elmwood Park BOE`s motion to dismiss my complaint
to the School Ethics Commission (which was against Richard D. Tomko, superintendent, and
a few administrators who have been working under his influence and in collusion with him
for their personal gain) since I had been informed by Judge Strauss on the phone conference
of September 12, 2011, that my complaint to School Ethics Commission had been transferred
to OAL because of lack of jurisdiction (Proof: audio record of that phone conference).
Later, I received a letter dated October 26, 2011, from School Ethics Commission stating
that my complaint with school Ethics commission had been dismissed after they had
reviewed Elmwood Park BOE`s motion to dismiss and my reply to their motion to dismiss in
their meeting of September 27, 2011, WHI L E I had never responded to the Elmwood Park
BOE`s motion to dismiss as I explained above.
11. On September 19, 2011, I received a copy of Nicholas Celso`s letter dated September 19,
2011, along with the Certification of Jenna A. Rottenberg Esq. to Director Boyle. Jenna A.
Rottenberg had made false statement of fact regarding the phone conference of September
12, 2011, on her Certification which I responded to that letter on September 21, 2011.
12. On or about September 17, 2011, Elmwood Park BOE posted the minutes of its June 28,
2011, meeting on the school website without mentioning anything about bringing the tenure
charges against me at all (when Elmwood Park BOE had claimed that they had discussed and
voted for the tenure charges against me in its meeting of June 28, 2011).
The action of Elmwood Park BOE violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-13 when they did not indicate
anything in regard to the matter of tenure charges in the minutes of the June 28, 2011,
Page 27 of 90
!
meeting (Tenure charge documents filed with the local School Board's secretary pursuant to
N.J. Stat. Ann. 18A:6-11 are " public records" ) when Elmwood Park BOE had already
claimed that the matter of tenure charges had been discussed and voted in closed session of
June 28, 2011, board meeting.
'Closed sessions are limited to discussion; all formal actions must be made in the open,
regardless of subject matter. Prior to any closed session, the body must adopt a resolution
stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed and the time when the discussion
can be disclosed. The precise nature of the matter discussed may be withheld until the need
for the closed session has passed.
1. Resolution must be adopted - N.J.S.A. 10:4-13
a. General nature of subject, and time and circumstances under which
discussion can be disclosed. N.J.S.A. 10:4-13.
b. Simply reiterating exceptions is not enough. Council of New Jersey State
College Locals v. Trenton State Bd. of Trustees, 284 N. J. Super. 108 (Law
Div. 1995)
William Moffitt (Board secretary) has certified that the matter of tenure charges had been
discussed and voted in the closed session of June 28, 2011 BOE meeting and accordingly the
tenure charges were filed with the commissioner of education on June 30, 2011. WHI L E I
was told by confidential executive secretary, who is taking notes of minutes during Elmwood
Park BOE meetings that the matter of tenure charges was not discussed in the June 28, 2011,
BOE meeting and nothing about tenure charges against me was in the minutes of June 28,
2011, board meeting, therefore the action of William Moffitt (certifying false statements and
file it with Department of Education) constitutes PERJURY.
13. On September 19, 2011, Judge Strauss issued an order and in that order Judge Strauss
misrepresented the facts of my Federal Complaint.
Judge Strauss misrepresented the facts in his argument to deny my motion to dismiss which
was on the ground of Res Judicata and then he concluded based on his misrepresentation of
the facts that:
' there is no basis Ior a dismissal oI the instant matter on the basis oI Res Judicata.
Judge Strauss, A.L.J., misrepresented the Iederal Judge`s (judge Chesler`s) Order and
Opinion (dated May 19, 2011), in his order dated September 19, 2011, page 6, 1 as follows:
'. See, Toorzini v. Elmwood Pk. Bd. oI Educ. et aI., No. 09-4262 (O.N.J. May 19, 2011)
and Order, No. 09- 4242 (O.N.J. May 19, 2011), aff'd. Toorzani v. Elmwood Pk. Bd. of
Educ., et aI., No. 11- 1858) (3'd Cir., July 12, 2011) As set forth in an Opinion and Order of
Page 28 of 90
!
the Honorable Stanley Chesler, U.SD.J., this suit was never litigated on the merits of
Respondent's claims.
WHEN such statement 'this suit was never litigated on the merits was NEVER stated either
in Judge Chesler`s Opinion (dated May 19, 2011) or in his Order (dated May 19, 2011). And
Judge Strauss knowingly and intentionally made the above misrepresentation of federal
Judge`s (Judge Chesler`s) Order and Opinion to Iraudulently misuse the Iollowing FRCP 41
to justify why Judge Strauss had denied my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure
charges which was on the ground of Doctrine of Res Judicata.
may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order
states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not
under this rule except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a
party under Rule 19 operates as an adj udication on the merits
action.
And also Judge Strauss, A.L.J., stated that:
'aII'd. Toorzani v. Elmwood Pk. Bd. of Educ., et aI., No. 11- 1858) (3'd Cir., July 12,
2011)
CONTRARY to what judge Strauss had claimed in his order dated September 19, 2011, that
the matter was appealed to the 3
rd
Circuit Court of appeals and subsequently affirmed, I never
appealed Judge Chesler`s Iinal Judgment (dated May 19, 2011)since I was not able to do so
due to my emotional and physical health conditions. Not to mention that I had filed a notice
of appeal on April 4, 2011, with the US Court of Appeal 3
rd
Circuit, for Mistrial and Fraud
Upon the Court (Court of Appeals Docket # :11-1858) but fraudulently an interlocutory order
was attached to my notice of appeal (without my knowledge) to cause my notice of appeal to
be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the appellate court, and on July 12, 2011, my request
Page 29 of 90
!
to US Court of Appeal 3
rd
Circuit for En Banc Hearing in regard to Mistrial and Fraud Upon
the US District Court and Fraud Upon US Court oF Appeal 3
RD
Circuit was denied.
'When an oIIicer oI the court is Iound to have fraudulently presented facts to court so that
the court is impaired in the impartial performance of its legal task, the act, known as "fraud
upon the court", is a crime deemed so severe and fundamentally opposed to the operation of
justice.
~18 USC 1001: (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter
within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government
of the United States, knowingly and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any
materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves
international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8
years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or
117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not
more than 8 years.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel,
for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to
a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection
(a) shall apply only to - (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter
related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or
support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the
Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch.
~2C:29-1. Obst ructing administ ration of law or other governmental function
a. A person commits an offense if he purposely obstructs, impairs or perverts the
administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a
public servant from lawfully performing an official function by means of flight,
intimidation, force, violence, or physical interference or obstacle, or by means of any
independently unlawful act. This section does not apply to failure to perform a legal duty
other than an official duty, or any other means of avoiding compliance with law without
affirmative interference with governmental functions.
b. An offense under this section is a crime of the fourth degree if the actor obstructs the
detection or investigation of a crime or the prosecution of a person for a crime, otherwise it
is a disorderly persons oIIense.
14. On September 26, 2011, I filed an Appeal with Commissioner of Education (as Judge
Strauss had directed me in his order dated September 19, 2011) regarding A.L.J., Judge
Strauss` order denying my motion to dismiss which was on the ground oI Doctrine oI Res
Judicata and my motion Ior Judge Strauss` recusal due to his misconduct and partiality in the
instant matter.
15. On or about October 3, 2011, I moved and filed a motion for disqualification of Elmwood
Park BOE`s attorneys Nicholas Celso III, Esq. and Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq. (SCHWARTZ
Page 30 of 90
!
SIMON EDELSTEIN & CELSO LLC) with the Commissioner of Education. I had to file my
motion Ior disqualiIication oI Elmwood Park BOE`s counsel with the Commissioner oI
Education
16
since I had also appealed the denial oI my oral motion Ior Judge Strauss` recusal
due to Judge Strauss` blatant misconduct and partiality in the instant matter to the
Commissioner of Education, but my motion Ior disqualiIication oI Elmwood Park BOE`s
counsel was never reviewed by any official of Department of Education or OAL.
Since Elmwood Park BOE`s attorneys were not able to refute the facts of my motion to
dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges which was submitted along with the direct
physical evidences, they violated many rules of professional conduct and the laws in order to
deceive court, public and I (pro se Respondent). Elmwood Park BOE`s attorneys have
violated: N.J.S.A. 2C:28-1; N.J.S.A. 2C:28-3.c ; N.J.S.A. 2C:28-7; N.J.S.A. 2C:28-6; 18
U.S.C. 1621 ;18 U.S.C 1001; 18 U.S.C. 1623; 18 U.S.C. 1622; and 18 U.S.C. 2071 and
also violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, RPC 3.3(a)(1&2&4&5); RPC 3.4(a); RPC
3.5 (a),(b)&(c) ; RPC 4.1 (a)(1&2)&(b) ; RPC 5.1(a),(b)&(c) and RPC 8.4
(a),(b),(c),(d),(e)&(f) as I have stated in my motion to disqualiIy Elmwood Park BOE`s
attorneys, Nicholas Celso III, Esq. and Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq. (SCHWARTZ SIMON
EDELSTEIN & CELSO LLC).
16. Not only Elmwood park BOE`s counsel, Nicholas Celso III, Esq. and Jenna A. Rottenberg,
Esq. (SCHWARTZ SIMON EDELSTEIN & CELSO LLC ) filed the tenure charges with the
Commissioner of Education on behalf of Elmwood Park BOE, while they knew that Richard
D. Tomko had lied under oath and had perjured himself to bring me up on those tenure
charges (I had submitted the direct physical evidences along with my sworn response to the
tenure charges to them, but they did not even try to at least modify the tenure charges based
on the submitted direct physical evidences before filing them with the Commissioner of
Education) but also they have made False Certification, Tampered with Evidences,
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
16
2A:4-30.82. Forwarding of documents to appropriate tribunal.
If a complaint, petition or comparable pleading is received by an inappropriate tribunal of this State, it
shall forward the pleading and accompanying documents to an appropriate tribunal in this State or another
state and notify the petitioner and the initiating tribunal, if any, where and when the pleading was sent.
Page 31 of 90
!
Tampered with public records, made False Statements of Law and made False Statements of
Facts in their pleadings and their papers during the current administrative proceedings .
As a few examples:
i. During the court hearing (in phone conference of September 12, 2011), Elmwood Park
BOE`s counsel, Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. provided Judge Strauss with false information in
regard to my Federal Complaint (against Elmwood Park BOE and NJEA, then-defendants)
to meet the goal which was denying my motion to dismiss. Nicholas Celso told Judge
Strauss that I had appealed the final judgment to the 3
rd
circuit and 3
rd
circuit had affirmed
the dismissal, which was completely false.
'N.J.S. A. 2C:28-7. Tamperi ng with public records or information. a. Offense defined.
A person commits an offense if he:
(2) Makes, presents, offers for filing, or uses any record, document or thing knowing
it to be false, and with purpose that it be taken as a genuine part of information or records
referred to in paragraph (1)
ii. Elmwood Park BOE`s counsel, Nicholas Celso, III, Esq (SCHWARTZ SIMON EDELSTEIN
& CELSO LLC ) knowingly and intentionally misrepresented the facts in his response to
my motion to dismiss and affirmed them by using false/improper Exhibits and baseless
claims, in that response (dated September 16, 2011; page 8, footnote 2) Nicholas Celso
stated:
'This matter was appealed to the Third Circuit Court oI Appeals and subsequently aIIirmed.
See Toorzani v. Elmwood Park Bd. of Educ.. et al. No. 11-1858 (3d Cir. July 12,2011)
|attached hereto as Exhibit C|
and he also attached a false/improper evidence as Exhibit C to deceive court and public,
since that Exhibit (Exhibit C) was not indicating that my appeal and my request for En
Banc Hearing were in regard to Fraud Upon the Court and not in regard to any order
(including order dated May 19, 2011, which dismissed my complaint with prejudice).
~N.J.S. A. 2C:28-6. Tamperi ng with or fabricating physical evidence
A person commits a crime of the fourth degree if, believing that an official proceeding or
investigation is pending or about to be instituted, he:
(2) Makes, devises, prepares, presents, offers or uses any article, object, record, document
or other thing of physical substance knowing it to be false and with purpose to mislead a
public servant who is engaged in such proceeding or investigation.
Page 32 of 90
!

N.J.S. A. 2C:28-7. Tampering with public records or information. a. Offense defined. A
person commits an offense if he:
iii. The following is another example of making false statements of facts by Elmwood park
BOE`s counsel, Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. He had stated in his opposition (dated September
29, 2011; page 9; 2) to my appeal to Commissioner of Education that:
'.SpeciIically, Respondent states that the Board's Charges should be barred by the
doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel because some of the allegations contained
in the Tenure Charges relate to her Federal Complaint.
The above statement which Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. has attributed to me is not my
statement. All my documents which I have filed with the Department of Education show
that I have always said that AL L the issues and claims brought within the 28 tenure
charges are the same issues and claims of my Federal Complaint (Doc. NO. 94 , District
Court Docket # 2:09-cv-04262- against Elmwood Park BOE and NJEA) . I have proved
that all the elements of Res Judicata have been present and met for the instant matter in my
motion to dismiss in Lieu of the Answer to the Tenure Charges and in my Appeal to
Commissioner of Education (by using legal arguments based on law).
iv. Elmwood Park BOE`s counsel, Nicholas Celso, III, Esq (SCHWARTZ SIMON EDELSTEIN
& CELSO LLC ) knowingly and intentionally cited an unrelated case law ['Longo v.
Reilly, 5 N.J. Super 405 (App. Div. 1957), cert. denied, 25 N.J. 45 (1957)`] in the legal
argument of his response (dated September 16, 2011; section A, page 7, 4) to my motion
to dismiss, and in his Opposition (dated September 29, 2011; section A, page 10, 4) to my
appeal to Commissioner of Education.
The above cited case law by Nicholas Celso, III, Esq., in NO WAY is comparable with the
instant matter which contains the same issues and claims of my federal complaint (which
was dismissed with prefudice following Elmwood Park BOEs motion which constituted a
full adjudication on merits based on FRCP 41).
Page 33 of 90
!
Elmwood Park BOE`s counsel, Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. had made this unscrupulous
attempt to deceive, defraud, and coerce me (Pro Se Respondent) to give up my legal rights
by incorrectly citing this case law when this case had been dismissed on the grounds that
the court had No Jurisdiction to entertain that action. Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction
does not constitute adjudication on merits based on FRCP 41 and that was why res judicata
would not apply to the cited case law by Nicholas Celso III, Esq.
~18 USC 1001: (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter
within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government
of the United States, knowingly and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any
materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves
international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8
years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or
117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not
more than 8 years.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel,
for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to
a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection
(a) shall apply only to - (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter
related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or
support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to
the Congress or any oIIice or oIIicer within the legislative branch.
v. In addition to using false/improper Exhibits (as evidences) Elmwood Park BOE`s counsel,
Nicholas Celso has made numerous misrepresentation of facts on his papers and pleadings
which knowingly, intentionally, and fraudulently have been designed by Nicholas Celso,
III, Esq. to deceive the court and public. On page 12, 1 of Nicholas Celso`s opposition
dated September 29, 2011, to my appeal to Commissioner of Education, he stated that:
'.Close inspection oI the Federal Complaint and the Tenure Charges show that while they
may both involve the aspects of Ms. Toorzani's employment with the Board, the facts that
make up the basis for the Tenure Charges are separate and distinct from the Federal
Complaint. Therefore, Ms. Toorzani cannot show that the Federal Complaint is a res
judicata bar to the Tenure Charges.
In that opposition Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. has knowingly, intentionally, and fraudulently
used the old version of my Federal Complaint, Doc. NO. 1, as an Exhibit (Exhibit A),
Page 34 of 90
!
instead of using my Re-Amended Complaint Doc. NO. 94 , District Court Docket # 2:09-
cv-04262-SRC MAS; to deceive
17
court and public and claim that the 28 tenure charges
had not been the same issues and claims of my Federal Complaint.
'"Fraud" or "Iraudulent" denotes conduct that is Iraudulent under the substantive or
procedural law of the applicable jurisdiction and has a purpose to deceive.
~N.J.S. A. 2C:28-6. Tamperi ng with or fabricating physical evidence
(2) Makes, devises, prepares, presents, offers or uses any article, object, record, document
or other thing of physical substance knowing it to be false and with purpose to mislead a
public servant who is engaged in such proceeding or investigation.
N.J.S. A. 2C:28-7. Tampering with public records or information. a. Offense defined. A
person commits an offense if he:
vi. Elmwood Park BOE and its counsel fail to address my concern in regard to a certified mail
(article # 70110110000076257507) that they had sent to me when I was away. Even
though, when I got back, I contacted and I asked Elmwood Park BOE for that certified mail
but they never re-sent it to me. I do not know why Elmwood Park BOE refrained from re-
sending those materials to me but those materials must have been important that had been
sent via certified mail.
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 11:32 AM
To: abrown@sseclaw.com; ncelso@sseclaw.com
Subject: RE: Irandokht Toorzani; SEC DKT. NO. C29-11; Agency Ref. No. 170 -6/11
OAL. Docket. No.: EDU 09713-2011N

Dear counsel,
In attachment please find copies of all my communication regarding the above captioned
maters since September 12, 2011.
In addition, your client Elmwood Park BOE had sent me a certified mail (article #
70110110000076257507) when I was out of US on 8/25/2011, which was returned to them
on 9/9/2011. When I came back I contacted your client regarding that certified mail and I
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
17
When Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. had knowledge about my Re-Amended Complaint Doc. No. 94, since I
had repeatedly mentioned about this document in the documents which I had filed with Department of
Education in regard to the instant matter (including but not limited to motion to dismiss) which Nicholas
Celso, III, Esq. had received a copy of all of them and also in my response to the tenure charges,
submitted to Elmwood Park BOE.
Page 35 of 90
!
asked them to re-send it to me but by now I have not received it. I appreciate if you take
care of this problem. Also when I called Elmwood Park BOE (human resources office) to
ask about the first and last day of my suspension I was connected to the superintendent
office and I was told by the secretary to call your office to get an answer to my question
which I did so, I left a message but I have not received any response yet. Respectfully,
Irandokht Toorzani
'2C:28-6. Tamperi ng with or fabricating physical evidence

(1) Alters, destroys, conceals or removes any article, object, record, document or other
thing of physical substance with purpose to impair its verity or availability in such
proceeding or investigation; or.
The following conduct of Elmwood Park BOE and its counsel is also another violation.
~From: Irandokht Toorzani <irandokhttoorzani@yahoo.com>
To: "superintendent@epps.org" <superintendent@epps.org>
Cc: "Justiniano@epps.org" <Justiniano@epps.org>; "mcordero@epps.org"
<mcordero@epps.org>; "ncelso@sseclaw.com" <ncelso@sseclaw.com>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 10:14 AM
Subj ect: RE: disabling school email account
Mr. Tomko,
Yesterday I realized that under your order my school email account had been disabled
without giving me any notice. As you and Board attorney know my school emails are legal
documents and legally you cannot deprive me from having access to my legal documents
when a legal action is pending in the court. Yesterday, I contacted the Elmwood Park Board
of Education office but I was told nobody was there to respond me and then later, they told
me that Mr. Tomko had said to contact Board attorney regarding that matter. As you may
very well aware, Board attorney has not responded to any of my call or email which I had
to make and send after you had referred me to them (since I do not have an attorney and I
am representing myself in the matter of tenure charges that you have brought against me).
My school emails are my legal evidences and documents which I need to have access to
them. Please make proper arrangement so I can have access to my legal evidences and
documents. Ms. Toorzani
And their proper arrangement was, accessing to my emails and saving my emails (if my
emails have not been manipulated) on a CD and sending it to me.
vii. Elmwood Park BOE`s counsel, Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq. has intentionally and knowingly
made false statements of facts on her Certification dated September 19, 2011, by stating
that:
Page 36 of 90
!
' At no time during that telephone conIerence did Judge Strauss inIorm Ms. Toorzani that
the above referenced matter was "transferred to the Department of Education and then to
the OAL because of lack of Jurisdiction of the School Ethics Commission."
Jenna A. Rottenberg`s statement on her CertiIication is false (proof: audio record of the
phone conference of September 12, 2011).
viii. Elmwood Park BOE`s counsel, Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq. intentionally and knowingly
misrepresented the facts on her Certification dated September 29, 2011, by stating the
following:
'On September 1, 2011, Judge Strauss's secretary contacted me to advise that due to the
factual discrepancies raised in Respondent Irandokht Toorzani's Motion to Dismiss in Lieu
of an Answer, Judge Strauss would treat Ms. Toorzani's submission as an Answer, rather
than a Motion to Dismiss.
The statement which Judge Strauss made during the phone conference of September 12,
2011, in regard to Judge Strauss` Ex Parte communication with Elmwood Park BOE,
proves that Jenna A. Rottenberg`s above statement stated on her CertiIication is false
(proof: audio record of the phone conference of September 12, 2011).
ix. Jenna A. Rottenberg`s Iollowing statement has been intentionally and knowingly made on
her Certification dated October 12, 2011, to deceive court and public and to cover up the
unlawful and awkward situation which happened during the phone conference of
September 12, 2011, in which Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. (opposing partvs attornev) was
directing Judge Strauss how and when to rule on my motion to dismiss. (proof: audio
record of the phone conference of September 12, 2011).
' During that telephone conIerence Judge Strauss requested that the Board submit an
Opposition to Ms. Toorzani's Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of an Answer no later than
September 16, 2011.
WHEN I N F ACT, it was the following conversation which took place between Nicholas
Celso and Judge Strauss during that phone conference. In that phone conference, after I
asked Judge Strauss to recuse himself, Nicholas Celso (opposing partvs attornev)
interfered and acted as Judge Strauss` attorney and advocate and stated:
'Judge beIore you respond to that iI I might this would help the court. We would be happy
to submit a reply to the motion to dismiss that your honor can rule on that. We can have out
that to you by the end oI this week, Judge (Note: end oI week was September 16, 2011)
Page 37 of 90
!
and then Judge Strauss stated:
'All right Mr. Celso, iI you want to Iile a response to the motion to dismiss that`s Iine and I
will deal with that, in rather that put in the prehearing order, but OK we are going to
proceed on the 18
th
and 19
th

x. Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq. knowingly and intentionally made the following false statement
on her Certification dated October 12, 2011, when she had no knowledge of facts and did
not represent any evidence for her statement. A Certificate shall set forth only facts to
which the person, who has made it, is competent to testify.
'At no time during the September 12, 2011 telephone conference did Ms. Toorzani reveal
that she was making a sound recording oI the conversation.
Jenna A. Rottenberg`s (Esq) Certification made on September 19 and 29, 2011, and
October 12, 2011, contained false statements which denotes fraudulent conduct and had the
purpose to deceive.
'18 U.S.C. 1621. Perjury generally: Whoever
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in
which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify,
declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or
certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes
any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as
permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true
any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall,
except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or
subscription is made within or without the United States.
~2C:28-1. Per j ury
a. Offense defined. A person is guilty of perjury, a crime of the third degree, if in any
official proceeding he makes a false statement under oath or equivalent affirmation, or
swears or affirms the truth of a statement previously made, when the statement is material
and he does not believe it to be true.

b. Materiality. Falsification is material, regardless of the admissibility of the statement
under rules of evidence, if it could have affected the course or outcome of the proceeding or
the disposition of the matter. It is no defense that the declarant mistakenly believed the
IalsiIication to be immaterial. Whether a IalsiIication is material is a question oI law.

17. On or about October 12, 2011, I received 3 letters. 2 letters from Judge Sanders dated
October 6, 2011, (postmarked October 11, 2011), one was asking Nicholas Celso III, Esq. for
a response to my letter dated September 18, 2011, in regard to my request for an
Page 38 of 90
!
investigation regarding relationship between the Elmwood Park Board of Education, its
attorneys and the ALJ (Judge Jesse H. Strauss) in connection with the instant matter which
made ALJ, Judge Jesse H. Strauss, to misrepresent the Laws in order to aid and abet the
complainant, Elmwood Park Board of Education, and another letter was in regard to granting
a review oI my appeal Ior Judge Strauss` recusal which was denied by her on October 11,
2011 (same dav that Judge Sanders had granted to review mv appeal for Judge Strauss
recusal, that clearly shows that these letters had been back dated). And one letter from
director Duncan dated October 7, 2011 (postmarked October 11, 2011) which was informing
me that the review of my Appeal to Commissioner of Education had been denied with the
excuse that my appeal had not been filed timely when it had been filed timely and within the
five business day time limit. Therefore I sent a letter dated October 12, 2011, to
Commissioner of Education and explained that I had filed my Appeal on time and requested
the Commissioner of Education to review my appeal. But later, on or about October 25,
2011, I received a letter dated October 21, 2011(postmarked October 24, 2011) from
Commissioner of Education that Commissioner was not going to review my Appeal pursuant
to his discretion under N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.10.
WHEN N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.10 states:
1:1-14.10 Interlocutory review
(a) Except for the special review procedures provided in N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.6 (emergency
relief), and 1:1-12.5(e) (partial summary decision), an order or ruling may be reviewed
interlocutorily by an agency head at the request oI aparty..
' N.J. A. C. 1:1-12.6 (a) Where authorized by law and where irreparable harm will result
without an expedited decision granting or prohibiting some action or relief connected with a
contested case, emergency relief pending a final decision on the whole contested case may
be ordered upon the application oI a party.
and when the instant matter had initially been procured by perjury and by violating
OPMA
18
and was involved with criminal conducts including but not limited to perjury
and my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges had been fraudulently
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
)*
!! Department of Education had been informed in regard to these violations through my requests for an extension to
Directors Boyle and Duncan and through my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges which was
never reviewed by Department of Education officials.!
Page 39 of 90
!
denied by misrepresenting the facts (including but not limited to the contents of Federal
Judges order and opinion dated Mav 19, 2011) and laws.
18. On or about October 13, I received a letter from Judge Sanders dated October 11, 2011 (same
day that Judge Sanders letter, in regard to granting a review of my appeal for Judge
Strauss recusal, had been postmarked), stating that she had denied my appeal for Judge
Strauss` recusal.
19. On or about October 21, 2011, I contacted Attorney General and Bergen County Prosecutor
office to file a complaint for Perjury, and violation of Open Public Meetings Act and Open
Public Records Act against Elmwood Park BOE; William Moffitt, board secretary; and
Richard D. Tomko, superintendent, and consequently I filed a complaint with Bergen County
Prosecutor Office to pursue Criminal Charges against them, for knowingly and intentionally
lying under the oath and violating OPMA and OPRA.
20. On or about October 25, I received two letters. One letter from Commissioner of Education
dated October 21, 2011 (postmarked October 24, 2011) denying my request (dated October
12, 2011) for reviewing my appeal (which was regarding my appeal in regard to Judge
Strauss denying my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges and my motion
for his recusal, which had been already denied to be reviewed for no cause) and another
letter from Judge Sanders dated October 21, 2011(postmarked October 24, 2011) as the
response to my request (dated September 18, 2011) for an investigation regarding Judge
Strauss` misconduct. In that letter Judge Sanders had stated that based on Nicholas Celso`s
Certification Nicholas Celso had never been retained by Judge Strauss as an attorney or in
any capacity, when I had NE VER said that Judge Strauss had retained Nicholas Celso Esq.
as his attorney but I had CL E ARL Y said that during the phone conference of September 12,
2011, Nicholas Celso Esq. was acting as Judge Strauss` advocate and attorney and was
advising Judge Strauss what to do and what to say.
21. On October 28, 2011, I filed a Civil Complaint with Superior Court of NJ against Elmwood
Park BOE; William Moffitt, board secretary; and Richard D. Tomko, superintendent for their
violation of Open Public Meetings Act and Open Public Records Act. On Monday November
7, 2011, I sent the complaint to Bergen County SheriII`s OIIice to be served to Elmwood
Page 40 of 90
!
Park BOE and additionally I emailed a copy oI the complaint to Elmwood park BOE`s
attorney; William Moffitt, board secretary; and Richard D. Tomko, superintendent, on
November 13, 2011.
'N.J.S.A. 10:4-15.b. Any party, including any member of the public, may institute a
proceeding in lieu of prerogative writ in the Superior Court to challenge any action taken by
a public body on the grounds that such action is void for the reasons stated in subsection a.
of this section, and if the court shall find that the action was taken at a meeting which does
not conIorm to the provisions oI this act, the court shall declare such action void.
22. On November 10, 2011(about 23 days after October 18, 2011), I called Judge Strauss`
chambers to inform him that I had not received any letter or communication (Except the
Commissioner of Educations and Judge Sanders correspondence/orders in regard to my
appeal which I had received on October 25) from OAL, Department of Education, or
Complainant Elmwood Park BOE, and I told Judge Strauss` secretary that it was very strange
that there had not been any activity regarding the instant matter, then she told me (while her
voice was indicating that she was anxious) that they had not sent me anything.
23. On November 13, 2011, I informed Elmwood park BOE; William Moffitt, board secretary;
and Richard D. Tomko, superintendent, via email that I had filed a complaint (Docket No.
BER-L-8966-11) against them with NJ Superior Court for their violation of OPMA and
OPRA.
24. On Saturday November 19, 2011, I received a copy oI Elmwood Park BOE`s correspondence
to Judge Strauss which had been postmarked November 18, 2011(while there was not any
exhibit attached to that 20-page correspondence, the contents of that correspondence were
referring to Exhibits), and had been called a 'unopposed Iindings oI Iact Ior 'hearing oI
October 18 and 19, 2011 while there had not been any hearing Ior the instant matter to
submit a brieI so called 'unopposed Iindings oI Iact SINCE:
i. I had Iiled an appeal with the Commissioner oI Education and requested 'stay oI
proceedings, that Commissioner oI Education denied to review it via a letter dated
October 21, 2011 (postmarked October 24, 2011), and
ii. I had informed the ALJ, Judge Strauss and the Officials of Department of Education via
following communications and letters (which all had been copied to Judge Strauss, the
Page 41 of 90
!
Officials of Department of Education, and complainant Elmwood Park BOE) and given my
explanation and reasons why I would not attend October 18 and 19, 2011, hearings :
a. For the fi rst time during the phone conference of September 12, 2011.
After I realized Judge Strauss was misrepresenting the facts and laws during that phone
conference and I noticed that he was ignoring me and was not hearing me out, I told
Judge Strauss (when he was setting up an schedule for tenure hearing) that because of
my emotional distress and lack of concentration which had also affected on my speech
and memory, I would not be able to attend and defend myself in any type of verbal
conversation and hearing but I had provided them with the evidences attached to my
motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges as Exhibits which could be
reviewed by them. Judge Strauss asked me to stop talking and he did not respond my
concern and he said that if I had any trouble concentrating he would be issuing a
prehearing order that would reflect what was discussed in that phone conference and also
setting for hearing dates, which proves that Judge Strauss even was not listening to me
when I was talking about my concerns.
When:
'A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or that
person's lawyer, Iull right to be heard according to law
b. For the second time in my appeal (dated September 26, 2011) to Commissioner of
Education regarding Judge Strauss` order denying my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer
to the tenure charges and denying and my motion for his recusal. In that appeal I stated:
'I feel that I (as an unrepresented party who is not even competent to defend herself
verbally because of severe anxiety as Judge Strauss was witness of it during the phone
conference of September 12, 2011) am being forced against the law by Judge Strauss into
proceeding which is in the first place is barred by the law. No person with a common
sense appears before a court and a j udge who does not follow the law, misrepresent it
and rules against it. Therefore I am respectfully requesting the Commissioner of
Education to stay the proceeding of this case due to blatant prej udice against me. And
for all oI the reasons stated in this letter and Respondent`s CertiIication (attached),
Wherefore Respondent, Irandokht Toorzani, respectfully prays that the Commissioner of
Education find that Justice requires to review my appeal in regard to Judge Strauss` order
dated September 19, 2011, denying my motion to dismiss the tenure charges which was on
the ground of res judciata, and my motion to recuse Judge Jesse H. Strauss from this case
due to his blatant partiality (including but not limited to misrepresentation of the facts, and
Page 42 of 90
!
law in order to mislead me to deny my motion to dismiss the tenure charges based on res
judicata and conduct tenure charges proceedings by disregarding the law).
19

c. For the 3
rd
time in my letter (dated October 12, 2011) which I wrote to Commissioner of
Education to prove that I had filed my appeal to him timely and requested a review of my
appeal (dated September 26, 2011) since reviewing my appeal to commissioner of
Education had been denied with the excuse that my appeal had not been filed timely.
In that letter I stated that:
'I believe as every other citizen I have the right to defend my constitutional rights and
immunity under the 14th Amendment of constitution which guarantees the fundamental
rights of citizens to due process and fair and impartial trial and equal protection of the
laws.. All these injustices have been poisoning my health and I have had enough of Fraud
upon the Court in the Federal Court for almost two years. Now, again if I am not supposed
to be entitled to equal protection of the Laws and due process, I prefer not to participate in
any proceeding in which I do not have any right since I do not want to be harassed and get
injured more, physically and emotionally.
I am hoping that I will be treated as a citizen who has the right of equal protection of the
laws and due process and Department of Education and OAL are not going to break the
laws and their own rules oI conIlict oI interest in order to help Elmwood Park BOE.
In addition Elmwood Park BOE`s attorney, Nicholas Celso, stated in his correspondence to
Judge Strauss dated November 17, 2011, that:
' . Per your (Your Honor`s) request, Board has prepared an Unopposed Findings of Fact
as well as an analysis of the underlying legal basis in support of the Board's tenure charges
against Respondent, Irandokht Toorzani.
WHEN:
i. I had opposed and refuted all those tenure charges (one by one) in my motion to dismiss in
lieu of answer to the tenure charges (dated August 10, 2011, postmarked August 11, 2011)
by submitting direct physical evidences (about 460 pages of brief and evidences and CD
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
19
1:1-14.10 Interlocutory review
(a) Except for the special review procedures provided in N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.6 (emergency relief), and 1:1-
12.5(e) (partial summary decision), an order or ruling may be reviewed interlocutorily by an agency head
at the request oI aparty..
' N.J. A. C. 1:1-12.6 (a) Where authorized by law and where irreparable harm will result without an
expedited decision granting or prohibiting some action or relief connected with a contested case,
emergency relief pending a final decision on the whole contested case may be ordered upon the
application oI a party.
Page 43 of 90
!
contained recorded voice) which Elmwood Park BOE failed to challenge those facts and
direct physical evidences in its response to my motion to dismiss. And
ii. I, as one party to the instant matter, had NEVER been advised of such a communication
between Judge Strauss and Elmwood Park BOE in regard to preparing an 'Unopposed
Findings oI Fact by Elmwood Park BOE.
From November 10, 2011(when I called to Judge Strauss chambers as I mentioned
above # 22), to November 19, 2011, I also did not receive any letter or call from OAL,
Department of Education or Complainant, Elmwood park BOE. But after I informed
Elmwood park BOE; William Moffitt, board secretary; and Richard D. Tomko,
superintendent, on November 13, 2011, via email that I had filed a complaint (Docket No.
BER-L-8966-11) against them in NJ Superior Court for their violation of OPMA and OPRA,
SUDDENLY on November 19, 2011, I received a copy oI Elmwood Park BOE`s
correspondence dated November 17, 2011 (so called unopposed findings of fact) which was
stating that it was in response to Judge Strauss` request Ior 'an Unopposed Findings of Fact
. (I had NEVER received a copy of such a request). WHILE by November 19, 2011, there
were no indication that a hearing had been held on October 18 and 19, 2011, or no indication
that Elmwood park BOE had requested Judge Strauss an initial decision on the merits and
asked Judge Strauss for permission to submit brief and proposed finding of fact as Judge
Strauss has claimed on his Correspondence/order dated January 3, 2012, page3, 2, or no
indication of any order or request from Judge Strauss, as complainant, Elmwood Park, BOE
has claimed in its correspondence dated November 17, 2011.
20

25. On Monday November 21, 2011, after I received the Elmwood Park BOE`s correspondence
dated November 17, 2011 (mentioned above #24), I called Judge Strauss` chambers to ask
what that correspondence was about and how many days I had to respond to that
correspondence but I was told by Judge Strauss` secretary that I could not respond to the
Elmwood Park BOE`s correspondence dated November 17, 2011, and then at that time for
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
20
My due process has being denied by OAL and Department of Education during the whole proceeding of
the instant matter.
Page 44 of 90
!
the first time I heard from them that an ex parte hearing had been held on October 18 and 19,
2011. ThereIore I Iaxed a letter to Judge Strauss` chambers to request his permission and
asked him to let me respond to the Elmwood Park BOE`s correspondence (so called
'unopposed findings of fact`).
In that letter which I Iaxed to Judge Strauss` chambers I also inIormed Judge Strauss that the
Elmwood park BOE`s correspondence dated November 17, 201, was referring to exhibits
when there was NO EXHIBIT attached to that correspondence; and also informed him that I
had moved and filed a Civil Complaint with the Superior Court of New Jersey on October
28, 2011, against Elmwood Park BOE, superintendent, board secretary in regard to their
violation of Open Public Meetings Act and based on Law, Commissioner of Education
lacked/lacks jurisdiction to hear challenge to school board meeting based solely on the
Sunshine Law and proper jurisdiction was/is with the Superior Court; and also I informed
Judge Strauss that I had also moved and filed a complaint with Bergen County Prosecutor
Office to pursue Criminal Charges against Elmwood Park BOE; William Moffitt, board
secretary; and Richard D. Tomko, superintendent, for their violation of the Open Public
Meetings Act and Open Public Records Act and Perjury since they perjured themselves in
order to bring me up on those tenure charges which was/is causing the proffered tenure
charges to be unworthy of credence.
But unfortunately I did not receive any response from Judge Strauss to my request dated
November 21, 2011, by January 5, 2012, that Judge Strauss disregarded all the facts
surrounding the instant matter and laws and issued an order in favor of complainant,
Elmwood Park BOE, when Judge Strauss had the knowledge that the instant matter had been
initially procured by perjury and by violating OPMA (he had been informed through my
motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges).
26. On December 19, 2011, I received a check for pay from October 26, 2011, through
December 15, 2011, when in accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:6-14, Elmwood park BOE must
have returned me to paid status on October 26, 2011.!
27. On December 23, I received the Bergen County Prosecutor`s Correspondence (dated
December 21, 2011, postmarked December 22, 2011) in response to my complaint to Bergen
Page 45 of 90
!
County Prosecutor`s oIIice in regard to PERJURY and violation oI OPMA and OPRA
(against Elmwood Park BOE; William Moffitt, board secretary; and Richard D. Tomko,
superintendent) which I had filed with them on October 25, 2011, stating that:
'.this oIIice respectIully declines to exercise our discretionary authority under the
statutes of New Jersey, as we decline to in many request of this nature, due to limited
prosecutorial resources.
For numerous time I contacted and left messages for Bergen County Prosecutor Office
officials to know based on what New Jersey Statute, Prosecutor Office can decline to
investigate or prosecute criminal conducts (perjury and violation of OPMA and OPRA)
because of lack of prosecutorial resources (they had not even asked for the direct physical
evidences which I had mentioned in my complaint), but no one gave me a call back.
By not bringing criminal charges against Elmwood Park BOE; William Moffitt, board
secretary; and Richard D. Tomko, superintendent, for their criminal conducts, Bergen County
Prosecutor Office aided the OAL and Department of Education to not lose their Jurisdiction
over the instant matter (which initially had been procured by perjury and by violating
OPMA). The Bergen County Prosecutor Office actually attempted to secure the jurisdiction
for the OAL and Department of Education.
On January 5, 2012, after I received Judge Strauss` correspondence/order dated January 3,
2012, I went to Bergen County Prosecutor Office to talk to someone to get a response but
they were even refusing to give me any kind of information.
28. On January 5, 2012, I received a correspondence/order from Judge Strauss (Decided:
December 28, 2011 and postmarked January 3, 2012) stating that record was closed on
November 17, 2011, (exactly 4 days after I notified Elmwood Park BOE that I had filed a
complaint against them with NJ Superior Court for their violation of Open Public Meetings
Act and Open Public Records Act; Docket No. BER-L-8966-11)
21
and at the end of his
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
21
!!!! 'N.J.S.A. 10:4-15.b. Any party, including any member of the public, may institute a proceeding
in lieu of prerogative writ in the Superior Court to challenge any action taken by a public body
on the grounds that such action is void for the reasons stated in subsection a. of this section, and
Page 46 of 90
!
correspondence/order, Judge Strauss (who I had asked for his recusal several times through
verbal and written motion because of his blatant misconducts and partiality in regard to the
instant matter) has stated that:
'I CONC LUDE that Irandokht Toorzani should be dismissed from her tenured teaching
position with the School District oI the Borough oI Elmwood Park.
Also at the end of that (Judge Strauss) correspondence/order postmarked January 3, 2012,
Judge Strauss has listed witnesses (a few administrators who I had filed complaint against
them in the court for their unethical, discriminatory and harassing conduct) and Exhibits for
Elmwood Park BOE, while in the same correspondence/order Judge Strauss has claimed,
NO Exhibits and witness for Toorzani (me, Respondent), despite the fact that I had furnished
the Department of Education and accordingly Judge Strauss with about 460 pages of brief
and direct physical evidences included CD of recorded voice (Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of
Answer to the Tenure Charges) which prove that the instant matter had been initially
procured by perjury and by violating OPMA and refute all the tenure charges (one by
one),which had been brought against me by Richard D. Tomko, superintendent, who had
perjured himself to bring me up on those tenure charges.
22

Judge Strauss (who I had several times moved and asked for his recusal because of his
blatant partiality and misconduct ) in his correspondence/order dated January 3, 2012, has
intentionally and willfully stained my personal and professional reputation
23
when all my
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
if the court shall find that the action was taken at a meeting which does not conform to the
provisions of this act, the court shall declare such action void.
!
22
"Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is
deprived of juris."
'The state Supreme Courts have held that those who aid, abet, advise, act upon and execute the
order of a judge who acts without jurisdiction are equally guilty. They are equally guilty of a
crime against the U.S. Government.
23
While during my 9 years with Elmwood Park Memorial High School, I have been fully,
adequately and completely performing all of the functions, duties and responsibilities of my
employment with Elmwood Park BOE based on the State and District requirements in a
Page 47 of 90
!
records (Direct Physical Evidences) prove that I have been a Victim of Discrimination and
Retaliation (For Engaging In Protected Activities) and in contrast to what Judge Strauss has
stated in his correspondence/order, I have been the one, who has been exposed to a toxic
environment created by a Iew administrators under Richard D. Tomko`s inIluence, and got
injured emotionally and physically.
'18 U.S.C. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or
.
On November 10, 2011(about 23 days after October 18, 2011), that I called Judge Strauss`
chambers to inform him that I had not received any letter or communication (Except the
Commissioner of Educations and Judge Sanders correspondence/order in regard to my
appeal which I had received on October 25) from the OAL, Department of Education, or
Complainant, Elmwood Park BOE, and I told Judge Strauss` secretary that it was very
strange that there had not been any activity regarding the instant matter, she told me (while
her voice was indicating that she was anxious) that they had not sent me anything and she
did not mention anything either about any Ex Parte hearing on October 18 and 19, 2011, or
about Judge Strauss` request Irom complainant Ior an 'unopposed Iindings of fact, or about
complainant`s verbal request Irom Judge Strauss to submit a brief and proposed findings of
fact , or about Judge Strauss` verbal permission and granting complainant`s verbal request.
While during all this time the court (Judge Strauss) had not informed me (Respondent, one
party to this matter) of any of the above.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
professional and outstanding manner (the good reputation which I have developed and the
students and parents respect which I have earned [EXHIBIT 20 of motion to dismiss ] and the
results of the State Exams for my classes during the time of my service in this District are the
proofs of that) and while my outstanding recommendations from different High Schools (Bergen
Academies, Paramus summer School, Garfield summer School, and Bergen Community College)
which are in my Iile in Elmwood Park BOE`s possession, state that I have been highly
professional and highly cooperative with my administrators and coworkers, and I have had high
level of integrity and morality.
Page 48 of 90
!
'18 U.S.C. 241. Conspiracy against rights
because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with
intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so
secured
imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
29. On January 12, 2012, I sent an email to Elmwood Park BOE`s attorneys in regard to
their correspondence dated November 17,2011, which had been sent to me without
its exhibits, that:
~From: Irandokht Toorzani [mailto:irandokhttoorzani@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:49 PM
To: Jenna Rottenberg; Nicholas Celso
Subj ect: Re: Exhibits of so called post hearing
Mr. Celso/ Ms. Rottenberg,

This is Ms. Toorzani. I am writing this email to inform you again that on November 19,
2011, I received a copy oI Elmwood Park BOE`s 20-page correspondence to Judge Strauss
dated November 17, 2011 (so called post hearing) which had no Exhibit attached while the
contents of that correspondence were referring to Exhibits. Please provide me a copy of
those exhibits as soon as possible, since I have not received those exhibits and I do not have
any idea what those exhibits are about.Ms. Toorzani
30. On January 13, 2012, I received the following response to my above email:

~From: Jenna Rottenberg <JRottenberg@sseclaw.com>
To: 'Irandokht Toorzani' <irandokhttoorzani@yahoo.com>
Cc: Nicholas Celso <NCelso@sseclaw.com>
Subj ect: RE: Exhibits of so called post hearing

Dear Ms. Toorzani:

Unfortunately, the Exhibits that we have cited to in our Post Hearing Submission refer to
the Exhibits that were admitted at hearing. As these documents were presented to the Court
and became part of the record, we are no longer in possession of them. These documents
are either in possession of the Court or have been transmitted to Acting Commissioner
Chris Cerf.

Best,
JENNA A. ROTTENBERG, Esq.
Schwartz Simon Edelstein & Celso LLC
Page 49 of 90
!
31. On January 13, 2012, also the following three emails were sent back and forth between me
and Elmwood Park BOE`s attorney, Jenna Rottenberg.

~From: Irandokht Toorzani [mailto:irandokhttoorzani@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 2:19 PM
To: Jenna Rottenberg
Cc: Nicholas Celso; Jennifer Bergeron
Ms. Rottenberg,

Your response to my email was an insult to me since every firm keeps a copy of each
document which they file with the court in their file. Since I am in rush to get the exhibits to
provide my response to the Judge Strauss correspondence dated January 3, 2012, as you
advised me I contacted Department of education and Judge Strauss' chambers but none of
them wanted to provide me with those exhibits. Based on law you have an obligation to
provide your adversary with a copy of the document that you file with the court. Now if you
don`t mail those exhibits to me (or email them to me) by the end oI today, it means there
had not been any exhibit in first place and you want to provide yourselves more time to
make them up which is against the law.

Ms. Toorzani

F rom: Jenna Rottenberg <JRottenberg@sseclaw.com>
To: 'Irandokht Toorzani' <irandokhttoorzani@yahoo.com>
Cc: Nicholas Celso <NCelso@sseclaw.com>
Subj ect: RE: Exhibits of so called post hearing

Ms. Toorzani:

We can only provide you with copies of what we presented to the Court. Please be advised
that these are not the official record. Had you attended the hearing, you would have been
provided with same.

Please provide me with an address that you would like these documents sent to and further,
be aware that our providing these documents is with a full reservation of rights regarding
your right to participate at this juncture of the proceedings.

JENNA A. ROT T ENBERG, Esq.
Schwartz Simon Edelstei n & Celso L L C

~From: Irandokht Toorzani <irandokhttoorzani@yahoo.com>
To: Jenna Rottenberg <JRottenberg@sseclaw.com>
Cc: Nicholas Celso <NCelso@sseclaw.com>; "jbergeron@sseclaw.com"
<jbergeron@sseclaw.com>

Ms. Rottenberg,

As you are aware perfectly, based on law you are obligated to provide your adversary with
the document which you file with the court. And in addition based on law Judge
Page 50 of 90
!
Strauss was obligated to provide me a copy of his verbal order but he didn't which makes
his order void and null in first place.

Ms. Toorzani

32. Elmwood Park BOE`s attorney, Jenna A. Rottebberg, Esq. has been communicating with me
since July, 2011 via mail and perfectly knew what my address is (she had sent their
correspondence dated November 17, 2011, without its exhibits to my address which I
received on November 19, 2011), but to provide more time for herself and others to make up
those exhibits, she claimed that she did not have my address to mail those document to me
after she had initially claimed that she did not have those exhibits in her possession. Not to
mention that I contacted the Department of Education and OAL and asked for a copy of those
exhibits but my request was denied by the officials of both agencies.
~18 U.S.C. 2071: Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys,
or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding,
map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of
any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer
of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years,
or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document,
paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates,
falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office
under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term "office" does not include the
oIIice held by any person as a retired oIIicer oI the Armed Forces oI the United States.
~18 U.S.C. 241. Conspiracy against rights
because oI his having so exercised the same; or.
33. On January 19, 2012, due all the criminal conducts surrounding the instant matter, I filed a
petition and a criminal complaint with the Office of Attorney General to be reviewed by
them since Bergen county prosecutor had refused to investigate and file criminal complaint
(because of their discretion and lack prosecutorial resources) against Richard D. Tomko,
Superintendent; William Moffitt, Board Secretary; Elmwood Park BOE; and Elmwood Park
BOE`s attorneys Nicholas Celso III, Esq. and Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq. |SCHWARTZ
SIMON EDELSTEIN & CELSO LLC ] for their criminal conducts including but not limited
Page 51 of 90
!
to PERJURY and violation of OPMA and OPRA, which were clearly inherent in the nature
of that Office.
I I. Ruling of the Administrative Court
34. All the aforementioned specially 9 and 13 prove that all Judge Strauss` deliberate
conducts have been illustration of wrongful use of judicial authority, abusing the judicial
discretion and failure to comply with the laws and his duty, which have denied my due
process and the equal protection of the laws and severely prejudiced me during this
administrative proceeding.
35. With respect to Judge Strauss` statement in his correspondence/order dated January 3, 2012,
2, page 2, stating that:
'The District certiIied charges against Toorzani to the Bureau oI Controversies and Disputes
oI the Department oI Education (Commissioner) on June 30, 2010.
WHI L E not only Judge Strauss had knowledge
24
that the tenure charges brought by
complainant, Elmwood Park BOE, against me, had been initially procured by perjury and by
violating OPMA and they had been unlawfully certified to the Commissioner of Education,
but also he had knowledge that complainant, Elmwood Park BOE, had not even discussed the
matter of the tenure charges in the Board of Education meeting of June 28, 2011 ( contrary to
what William Moffitt, board secretary had claimed on his certification) in violation of
provisions of N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 et seq; N.J.S.A 6A:3-5.2; and N.J.S.A. 18A:6-16., Judge
Strauss decided to condone all these violations of the laws and also decided not to address
any of them in his correspondence/order dated January 3, 2011.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
24
Department of education and consequently Judge Strauss had been informed in regard to these violations
through my letters to Directors Boyle and Duncan and through my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to
the tenure charges (about 460 pages of brief and direct physical evidences and CD of recorded voice)
which was never reviewed by Department of Education officials.
Page 52 of 90
!
Complainant, Elmwood Park BOE, unlawfully certified the tenure charges to Commissioner
of Education while they had actual knowledge of requirements of N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 et seq;
N.J.S.A 6A:3-5.2; and N.J.S.A. 18A:6-16.
~N.1.S.A. 18A:6-16. Proceedings before commissioner; written response;
determination.
18A:6-16. Upon receipt of such a charge and certification, or of a charge lawfully made
to the commissioner, the commissioner or the person appointed to act in the commissioner's
behalf in the proceedings shall examine the charges and certification. .
3, page2, stating that:
'I conducted a telephone conIerence with Toorzani and counsel Ior the District on September
12, 2011, in accordance with the expedited requirements of N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.1. At that
conference I orally denied Toorzani's Motion to Dismiss because she raised issues of
disputed. facts and erroneously relied on the doctrines of res judicata and collateral
estoppel[s][to contend that the tenure charges must be dismissed because of the prior
dismissal with prejudice oI a Iederal suit Toorzani had initiated against the District.
'The Prehearing Order established October 14, 2011, Ior the completion oI discovery. Rather
than answer the District's interrogatories, Toorzani, by letter received on September 23,
returned them to the District unanswered.

On August 25, 2011, Judge Strauss had issued a scheduling order for discovery and hearing
in order to handle the instant matter in an expeditious manner, which was implying that my
motion to dismiss had already been denied by Judge Jesse Strauss WHEN,
i. Complainant Elmwood Park BOE had not responded to my motion to dismiss and,
ii. I had not received any notice or reason from the Department of Education or Judge
Strauss, ALJ, indicating that why my motion to dismiss (which had been filed in lieu of
answer to the tenure charges with the Department of Education and not OAL) had been
denied.
On September 12, 2011, a poly phone conference was scheduled by Judge Strauss, and in
that phone conference as I explained in details in the above ( 9), Judge Strauss informed me
that he had exempted Elmwood Park BOE from responding to my motion to dismiss in lieu
of answer to the tenure charges via an Ex Parte communication with Elmwood park BOE.
Page 53 of 90
!
During that phone conference, Judge Strauss was willfully and intentionally misrepresenting
the facts regarding my federal complaint and the laws in order to deny my motion to dismiss
which was on the ground of Doctrine of Res Judicata and in an attempt to deceive, defraud,
and coerce me (Pro Se Respondent) to give up my legal rights, as he did in his order dated
September 19, 2011, when he misrepresented the Iederal Judge`s (Judge Chesler`s) Order
and Opinion dated May 19, 2011, in order to enable himself to conclude that Doctrine of Res
Judicata would not apply to the instant matter and justify his order denying my motion to
dismiss (as I explained in details in the above [ 13]).
'Osborn v. Bank of the United States - 22 U.S. 738 (1824):
Judicial power, as contradistinguished from the power of the laws, has no existence. Courts
are the mere instruments of the law, and can will nothing. When they are said to exercise a
discretion, it is a mere legal discretion, a discretion to be exercised in discerning the course
prescribed by law; and, when that is discerned, it is the duty of the court to follow it.
Judicial power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge,
always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the legislature; or, in other words, to
the will oI the law.
But as I explained above , after phone conference of September 12, 2011 , I waited for Judge
Strauss` order to appeal it (I had asked Judge Strauss legal reason for denying my motion to
dismiss in writing), after I received the order, I appealed Judge Strauss` order denying my
motion to dismiss and my motion Ior Judge Strauss` recusal to Commissioner of Education
and in that appeal I asked Ior 'stay of proceedings, but in the meantime I received the
District's interrogatories, I sent them back and I wrote to Elmwood Park BOE`s attorney that
my due process had been denied and that:
'..I am going to request for conducting an investigation regarding all the above matters
and relationship between the Elmwood Park Board of Education, you (its attorneys) and
ALJ, Judge Jesse H. Strauss in connection with this case which made him to misrepresent
the law and facts to aid and abet the Elmwood Park Board of Education and you (its
attorneys) and in the meanwhile I am respectfully asking you to hold on to your
interrogatories which I am sending it back to you since based on law there is an absolute
bar to adjudicate (one more time) the same issues, facts and claims of my Federal
Complaint which you and your client have brought within the tenure charges to get multiple
judgments.

After Elmwood Park BOE`s attorney informed Judge Strauss about my above letter, Judge
Strauss issued an order dated September 23, 2011, stating that:
'.To the extent appropriate, Ms. Toorzani may refer to her Motion to Dismiss as to
statements made therein and documents attached thereto which may relate to specific
interrogatory answers. To the extent that interrogatory questions are not answered by
Page 54 of 90
!
the Motion to Dismiss, Ms. Toorzani must additionally supply appropriate responses to
the interrogatories and documents within the time frame set forth in the Pre-hearing
Order.
But since my motion to dismiss had addressed and refuted all the allegations of Elmwood
Park BOE one by one by using direct physical evidences, Elmwood Park BOE`s attorney
never requested for additional information (not to mention that Elmwood Park BOEs
response to my motion to dismiss clearly proves that they had failed to challenge the facts
and direct physical evidences of my motion to dismiss).
'On October 21, 2011, the Acting Director determined not to grant interlocutory review to my
determination that the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel[s] did not bar the
prosecution oI the tenure charges.
WHEN I noticed that Judge Strauss intentionally and willfully was disregarding the laws and
misrepresenting the facts and laws (as I explained in details in 9 and 13) in order to deny
my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges dated August 10, 2011, to aid
and abet complainant, Elmwood Park BOE, I appealed Judge Strauss` order denying my
motion to dismiss and denying my motion for his recusal, to Commissioner of Education, but
unfortunately Commissioner of Education denied to review my appeal as the Department of
Education officials had initially denied to review my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to
the tenure charges (dated August 10, 2011).
WHEN:
~N.1.S.A. 18A:6-16. Proceedings before commissioner; written response;
determination.
18A:6-16. Upon receipt of such a charge and certification, or of a charge lawfully made
to the commissioner, the commissioner or the person appointed to act in the commissioner's
behalf in the proceedings shall examine the charges and certification. The individual against
whom the charges are certified shall have 15 days to submit a written response to the
charges to the commissioner. Upon a showing of good cause, the commissioner may grant
an extension of time. The commissioner shall render a determination on the sufficiency of
charges as set forth below within 15 days immediately following the period provided for a
written response to the charges.

If, following receipt of the written response to the charges, the commissioner is of the
opinion that they are not sufficient to warrant dismissal or reduction in salary of the person
charged, he shall dismiss the same and notify said person accordingly. If, however, he shall
determine that such charge is sufficient to warrant dismissal or reduction in salary of the
person charged, he shall within 10 days of making that determination refer the case to the
Page 55 of 90
!
Office of Administrative Law for further proceedings , except that when a motion for
summary decision has been made prior to that time, the commissioner may retain the matter
Ior purposes oI deciding the motion

N.J. A. C. 6A:3-1.10 Dismissal or t ransfer of petition: At any time prior to transmittal of
the pleadings to the OAL, in the Commissioner`s discretion or upon motion to dismiss filed
in lieu of answer, the Commissioner may dismiss the petition on the grounds that the
petitioner has advanced no cause of action even if the petitioner`s Iactual allegations are
accepted as true or for lack of jurisdiction, failure to prosecute or other good reason.

On August 15, 2011, Department of Education received my Motion to dismiss in lieu of
answer to the tenure charges [about 460 pages of brief and direct physical evidences and CD
of recorded voice; dated August 10, 2011; postmarked August 11, 2011] and on the same
day, August 15, 2011, Department of Education transferred my motion to dismiss in lieu of
answer to the tenure charges to OAL without even reviewing it. When Department of
Education officials had not reviewed my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure
charges how they could be of the opinion whether charges are sufficient to warrant dismissal
or reduction in salary of the person charged or not to send the tenure matter to OAL.
2, page3, 2012, stating that:
'Counsel Ior the District appeared on October 18 with witnesses. Toorzani neither appeared
nor contacted my office that day with an explanation for her failure to appear. I did not take
evidence on October 18. In accordance with N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.4, I held the matter for one day
before taking any action. I received no explanation for the nonappearance from Toorzani
within one day as required by N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.4(a).
All the cumulative fraudulent conducts and violations of laws, rules, and codes by the
Elmwood Park BOE, its attorneys and Judge Strauss amounted to manifest injustice
(extreme prejudice) which would lead a reasonable person to conclude and believe that a fair
and impartial hearing and administration of justice were impossible if the hearing of the
instant matter continued under those circumstances as it did in the phone conference of
September 12, 2011, and accordingly it caused me to believe that I would not see the justice
that any citizen is expected and deserved as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
In contrast to 1udge Strauss` above statement, I had already informed the ALJ, Judge
Strauss and the Officials of Department of Education via following communications and
Page 56 of 90
!
letters (which all had been copied to Judge Strauss, the Officials of Department of Education,
and complainant Elmwood Park BOE) and given my explanation and reasons why I would
not attend October 18 and 19, 2011, hearings:
i. For the fi rst time during the phone conference of September 12, 2011.
conference and I noticed that he was ignoring me and was not hearing me out, I told Judge
Strauss (when he was setting up an schedule for tenure hearing) that because of my
emotional distress and lack of concentration which had also affected on my speech and
memory, I would not be able to attend and defend myself in any type of verbal
concern and he said that if I had any trouble concentrating he would be issuing a prehearing
order that would reflect what was discussed in that phone conference and also setting for
hearing dates, which proves that Judge Strauss even was not listening to me when I was
talking about my concerns.
ii. For the second time in my appeal (dated September 26, 2011) to Commissioner of
to the tenure charges and denying my motion for his recusal. In that appeal I stated:
'I feel that I (as an unrepresented party who is not even competent to defend herself
for all of the reasons stated in this letter and Respondent`s CertiIication (attached),
iii. For the 3
rd
Page 57 of 90
!
laws.. All these injustices have been poisoning my health and I have had enough of Fraud
laws and their own rules oI conIlict oI interest in order to help Elmwood Park BOE.
Besides I had filed an appeal with the Commissioner of Education and requested ~stay of
proceedings, which was denied to be reviewed by the Commissioner of Education via a
letter dated October 21, 2011(postmarked October 24, 2011) 2 or 4 days after October 18
and 19, 2011, which were the hearing days.
'The question on an appeal under Forsyth is whether the defendant may be subjected to
trial. The justification for the interlocutory appeal is that the trial destroys rights created by
the immunity. Forsyth, 472 U.S. at 526, 105 S.Ct. at 2815; Scott v. Lacy, 811 F.2d 1153
(7th Cir.1987). It makes no sense for trial to go forward while the court of appeals cogitates
on whether there should be one. Griggs says that the notice of appeal "divests the district
court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." 459 U.S. at 58,
103 S.Ct. at 402. Whether there shall be a trial is precisely the "aspect[ ] of the case
involved in the appeal" under Forsyth. It follows that a proper Forsyth appeal divests the
district court of jurisdiction (that is, authority) to require the appealing defendants to appear
for trial. Cf. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 ("Until this threshold immunity
question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed.").
2, page3, 2012, stating that:

'In accordance with N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.4(d), because an Initial Decision is required in tenure
charge matters, I took ex parte proofs from the District on October 19, 2011. At the ex parte
hearing, the District requested, and I verbally granted as allowed by N.J.S.A. 52:148-10.1
(d), the opportunity to submit a brief and proposed findings of fact by November 21, 2011,
based on the hearing oI October 19.
Page 58 of 90
!
i. Judge Strauss abandoned proper procedure by abusing his judicial power and authority and
deprived me of my rights. Sanction should be used as a last resort, only for legally valid
reasons, and in strict conformity with procedural requirements of N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.4.
I must not have been sanctioned, since in accordance with N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.4 and all the
above facts (37), Judge Strauss was required by law not to conduct any hearing on
October 18 and 19, 2011. I had provided Department of Education, Judge Strauss, and
Elmwood Park BOE`s attorneys with my reasons several times in writing and explained
why I would not attend October 18 and 19, 2011, hearings (37) and additionally I had
asked Ior 'stay oI proceedings via my appeal which was denied to be reviewed by the
Commissioner of Education via a letter dated October 21, 2011(postmarked October 24,
2011) 2 or 4 days after October 18 and 19, 2011, which were the hearing days.
~N.1.A.C. 1:1-14.4 Failure to appear; sanctions for failure to appear
(a) If, after appropriate notice, neither a party nor a representative appears at any
proceeding scheduled by the Clerk or judge, the judge shall hold the matter for one day
before taking any action. If the judge does not receive an explanation for the nonappearance
within one day, the judge shall, unless proceeding pursuant to (d) below, direct the Clerk to
return the matter to the transmitting agency for appropriate disposition pursuant to N.J.A.C.
1:1-3.3(b) and (c).
(b) If the nonappearing party submits an explanation in writing, a copy must be served on
all other parties and the other parties shall be given an opportunity to respond.
(c) If the judge receives an explanation:
1. If the judge concludes that there was good cause for the failure to appear, the judge shall
reschedule the matter for hearing; or
2. If the judge concludes that there was no good cause for the failure to appear, the judge
may refuse to reschedule the matter and shall issue an initial decision explaining the basis
for that conclusion, or may reschedule the matter and, at his or her discretion, order any of
the following:
i. The payment by the delinquent representative or party of costs in such amount as the
judge shall fix, to the State of New Jersey or the aggrieved person;
ii. The payment by the delinquent representative or party of reasonable expenses, including
attorney's fees, to an aggrieved representative or party; or
iii. Such other case-related action as the judge deems appropriate.
(d) If the appearing party requires an initial decision on the merits, the party shall ask the
judge for permission to present ex parte proofs. If no explanation for the failure to
appear is received, and the circumstances require a decision on the merits, the judge may
enter an initial decision on the merits based on the ex parte proofs, provided the failure to
appear is memorialized in the decision.
ii. In accordance with N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.4(d), If there had been any hearing on October 18 and
19 (as it has been claimed) and I F Elmwood Park BOE had required an initial decision on
the merits and I F they had asked Judge Strauss` permission to submit ex parte proofs, in
accordance with N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.4(d), Judge Strauss should have denied their request since
Page 59 of 90
!
I had submitted my explanation why I would not attend October 18, and 19, 2011, hearings.
Not only Judge Strauss did not comply with provisions of N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.4(d), and did not
deny Elmwood Park BOE`s request (iI any) to submit ex parte prooIs, but also Judge
Strauss has stated in his correspondence/order dated January 3, 2012, (the following
statement) that he had accepted Elmwood Park BOE ex parte proofs on October 19, 2011,
and IN ADDITION TO that he had permitted them to provide and ex parte brief within 30
days (I had never been informed regarding any of these) As it clearly shows this
Administrative Proceeding has been an ex parte proceeding from the beginning. Judge
Strauss in his correspondence/order January 3, 2012, stated that:
charge matters, I took ex parte proofs f rom the Dist rict on October 19, 2011. At the ex
parte hearing, the District requested, and I verbally granted as allowed by N.J.S.A. 52:148-
10.1 (d), the opportunity to submit a brief and proposed findings of fact by November 21,
2011, based on the hearing oI October 19.
to justify why he had not rendered his order based on ex parte proofs which he had claimed
was submitted to him on October 19, 2011, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.4(d) and to
justiIy Elmwood Park BOE`s correspondence dated November 17, 2011, which was
provided after I informed Elmwood Park BOE that I had filed a complaint against them in
NJ Superior Court for their violation of OPMA and OPRA which would void their action in
regard to tenure charges. In accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.1 (d), briefs are supposed
to be submitted to the Judge by both parties after conducting a hearing and not by just one
party after conducting an ex parte hearing,
'N.J.S. A. 52:14B-10.1 (d): Transcripts if ordered by the parties shall be provided within 15
days of the conclusion of the hearing and all briefs shall be submitted to the Administrative
Law Judge within 30 days of the conclusion of the hearing or receipt of the transcripts by
the parties, whichever is later.
In an ex parte hearing a decision must be in strict conformity with procedural requirements
of N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.4(d) and must be made based on the ex parte proofs that Judge Strauss
has claimed was submitted to him on October 19, 2011, and not based on brief that Judge
Strauss has reIerred to that as 'a brief and proposed findings of fact which had been
requested by Elmwood Par k BOE in his correspondence/order dated January 3, 2012,
and Elmwood Park BOE has reIerred to that as 'Unopposed Findings of Fact which had
Page 60 of 90
!
been requested by Judge Strauss in its correspondence dated November 17, 2011.
'The District presented the Iollowing witnesses: Former Supervisor oI Guidance Joseph
Hulbert; Director of the Department of Testing and Assessment and former Supervisor of
Social Studies, Music and Family/Consumer Science Anthony lachetti; current High School
Principal and former Assistant High School Principal David Warner; current Elementary
School Principal and former High School Supervisor of the Math and Business Department
Allison Jackter; High School Assistant Principal Corinne DiMartino; and current
Superintendent of Schools and former High School Principal Richard Tomko. Neither
Toorzani nor a representative on her behalf appeared. No witnesses or evidence were
presented on her behalI.
And 2, page4, stating that:
'There was no basis presented in the record to consider the testimony and supporting
documentation to be anything but credible.Accordingly, based upon a review of the totality of
the evidence including many memoranda memorializing various situations and warnings, and
having had the opportunity to assess the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses who
testified, I make the following critical FINDINGS OF FACT.
And 6&7, page 19&20, stating that:
'The District bears the burden oI proving the charges upon which it relied by a
preponderance oI the competent, relevant and credible evidence. . The evidence must
be such as to lead a reasonably cautious mind to a given conclusion. . ThereIore, the
tribunal must "decide in favor of the I party on whose side the weight of the evidence
preponderates, and according to the reasonable probability oI truth. For reasonable
probability to exist, the evidence must be such as to "generate belief that the tendered
hypothesis is in all human likelihood the Iact.. Preponderance may also be described as
the greater weight of credible evidence in the case, not necessarily dependent on the
number of witnesses, but having the greater convincing power. ..

The following is the list of administrators, who I have worked under their direct supervision
since the time that I was employed as a Mathematics teacher at EP Memorial High School.

A. Joseph Casapulla: superintendent [ ? - June 2010 ]
B. Dr. James Durantee: Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum & Instruction [Sep. 2002-June
2005]
C. Dr.Douglas Bolton: Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum & Instruction [Sep. 2005- June
2006]
D. Dr. Gail Verona: Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum & Instruction [Sep. 2006-June
2007]
E. Dr. Randy Pratt: Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum & Instruction [Sep. 2007-June
2009]
Page 61 of 90
!
F. Mr. Michael Nazzaro: Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum & Instruction [ ? June
2003]
G. Richard D. Tomko: principal [Sep 2003 June 2010] ; Assistant Superintendent for
Curriculum & Instruction and at the same time EP High School Principal [Sep 2009 June
2010] ; superintendent [Sep 2010-present]
H. Laurence DeSantis: high school assistant principal [? June 2003] ; middle School principal
[sep 2003-present]
I. Thomas Rogasis: high school assistant principal [Sep. 2002- June 2003]
J. Anthoney Grieco: high school assistant principal [Sep. 2003 June 2004 & Sep 2010-2011 ]
and then director of special services;
K. Scott Cannao: high school assistant principal [Sep 2003- June 2005]
L. David Saper: high school assistant principal [Sep 2004 June 2005] and then as an
Assistant Principal/Athletic Director [SEP 2005- June 2010]
M. David Warner: high school assistant principal [Sep 2005- June 2010] and then as EP High
School Principal [Sep 2010 - present]
N. Caleb Rhodes: Hs history teacher[Sep2003 -June 2010] ;high school assistant principal [Sep
2010- Present]
O. Joseph Colangelo: high school assistant principal [Sep. 2010- Present]
P. Dr. John Burchill: Math supervisor [Sep 2002 June 2003];
Q. Thomas Bierman Math supervisor [Sep 2003 to June 2004];
R. Richard Stier Math supervisor [ Sep 2004 June 2006];
S. Alison Jackter Math supervisor [Sep. 2006- June 2010] ; EP Elementary Principal [Sep
2010-present]
T. Joseph Hulbert: Guidance supervisor [Sep. 2002- June2007] and then Director of Special
services [Sep 2007 June 2008];
U. Anthony Iachetti former EP High School History Teacher [Sep 2000- June 2005]; former EP High
School History Supervisor [Sep 2005 June2007]; former EP High School Guidance
Supervisor[Sep 2007 June 2010]; current EP Director of Testing [sep 2010- present]
V. Mohamed Saadeh(who was hired after I complained to EEOC): HS History supe r[Sep 2007 June
2010]; Guidance supervisor [sep 2010- present]
W. Corrine DiMartino: EP High School Science Supervisor[Sep 2007 - June 2010]; Director of
Curriculum and Instruction [Sep 2010- June2011]; Middle school assistant principal[sep 2011-
present]

When I have never been reprimanded even once verbally or in writing by any of the
above named Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum & Instruction (whom Richard D.
Tomko did not have any power and authority to control or influence them) or other
administrators who I have worked under their supervision, I have being reprimanded just by
Richard D. Tomko and a few administrators (Thomas Bierman, David Warner, Alison
Jackter, Joseph Hulbert, Anthoney Iachetti, and Corrine DiMartino) who have been working
under Richard D. Tomko`s inIluence and in collusion with him for their personal gain.
Page 62 of 90
!
And as it has been claimed, the witnesses of October 18 and 19, 2011, Ex Parte hearing had
been the following who I had filed a complaint against them with federal court and school
Ethic commission for their discriminatory , harassing and unethical conducts.
A. David Warner(who got his tenure and was promoted to principal position by
Richard D. Tomko),
B. Alison Jackter(who got her tenure and was promoted to principal position by
Richard D. Tomko),
C. Anthoney Iachetti (who got his tenure and was promoted several times: from
History teacher to History supervisor then was promoted to Guidance supervisor and
then again was promoted to EP Director of Testing by Richard D. Tomko),
D. Corrine DiMartino (who got her tenure and was promoted to Director of
Curriculum and Instruction, and then when her position was eliminated in district,
Richard D. Tomko kept her and gave her another position, Middle School assistant
principal position ; Not to mention since I had filed a complaint against her for her
unethical conducts with School Ethics commission, Elmwood Park BOE did not
reflect her new position on any board agenda or board minutes),
E. Joseph Hulbert (who before his retirement was promoted to Director of Special
services by Richard D. Tomko) and finally,
F. Richard D. Tomko, who have been giving special treatment, tenure, and/or
promotions to whom, who have been working in collusion with him.
It is obvious that it is the quality of the testimony that is controlling, not the number of
witnesses who testify and it is also obvious that there is no particular formula for evaluating
the truthfulness and accuracy of another person's statements or testimony, A witness may be
biased in favor of a party, or prej udiced against another party because of some family,
employment or other relationship that renders the witness incapable of obj ectivity. In
evaluating the truthfulness or accuracy of the witnesses` testimonies and statements the
following questions must be considered:
i. Do the witnesses have a motive to lie? And to what extent?
ii. Do the witnesses hope for or expect to receive a benefit for testifying? And to what extent?
iii. Do the witnesses have any interest in the outcome of the case?
Page 63 of 90
!
iv. Have the witnesses involved themselves in criminal conduct to change the outcome of the
case?
v. Did the witnesses testify to a fact (in so called hearing of October 18 and 19, 2011) that
they had omitted to state, at a prior time, when it would have been reasonable and logical
for the witnesses to have stated the fact?
The answers to all the above questions are 'YES. And in regard to that last question,
question (v), Richard D. Tomko and these few administrators in their testimony (if any) have
stated, 'On numerous occasions, Toorzani had expressed that she had a problem teaching
classiIied students claiming they were unmotivated and could not learn OR 'She had
previously had this student removed from her class due to attendance and behavior problems.
Rather than accept his reassignment to her class, she met the student in the hall and sent him
away without arranging Ior anyone to accompany that student to another location. OR
'becoming deIensive and angry and storming out oI the room during a meeting with a
parent which have never been stated before in either tenure charges or the reprimand
letters (which have being constantly issued by them for no cause to harass and defame me)
or anywhere else.
BUT, when I have submitted the direct physical evidences (my motion to dismiss in lieu of
answer to the tenure charges dated August 10, 2011, about 460 pages of brief and direct
physical evidences and CD of recorded voice) that prove the instant matter had been initially
procured by perjury and by violating OPMA and is involved with criminal conducts
including but not limited to perjury, WHY Judge Strauss has relied on the statements of the
individuals who perjured themselves to bring me up on tenure charges and stated that:
documentation to be anything but credible.Accordingly, based upon a review of the totality of
the evidence including many memoranda memorializing various situations and warnings, and
having had the opportunity to assess the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses who
testified, I make the following critical F I NDI NGS OF FACT.
The followings are a few examples how these witnesses have perjured themselves (which
also have been stated in my motion to dismiss) and how Judge Strauss intentionally and
willfully has accepted their lies under oath as the truth and stated that they are nothing but
credible when he had knowledge about the following facts.
Page 64 of 90
!
Richard D. Tomko, superintendent, has willfully and intentionally lied under oath to bring
the following false charges under oath against me. He has stated,

'I, Richard D. Tomko, Superintendent oI Schools oI the Elmwood Park School District
Charges against Irandokht Toorzani, which evidence is summarized as Iollows:

'Memo, January 7,2011, to Irandokht Toorzani, from David Warner, which, among other
things, describes Ms. Toorzani`s Iailure to notiIy either the Substitute Service or Principal,
David Warner, that she would be absent.
to accuse me falsely. WHEN my PHONE RECORD proves that I had made the call to the
Substitute Service on 1/06/2011 @ 10:19 PM for 2 minutes and my following email proves
that I had also informed the school that I would be absent.
To: Proto, Cheryl
Cc: Kaplan, Judy
Subject: RE: SUB

Good morning,

I just want to let you know that I will not be in today. I called for sub, the following is the
plan for today.
Thanks,.
And also ON THE SWORN TENURE CHARGES AGAINST me, Richard D. Tomko,
superintendent, has stated:
'I, Richard D. Tomko, Superintendent of Schools of the Elmwood Park School District
Charges against Irandokht Toorzani,.
'In or about January 11, 2011, Ms. Toorzani failed to notify the Substitute Service or
Principal, David Warner, that she would be absent.
to accuse me falsely. WHEN my PHONE RECORD proves that I had made the call to the
Substitute Service on 1/11/2011 @ 1:20 AM for 2 minutes and my following email proves
that I had also informed the school that I would be absent.
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 7:14 AM
To: Toorzani, Irandokht; Proto, Cheryl
Page 65 of 90
!
Cc: Kaplan, Judy
Subject: RE: SUB
Attachments: work for students.doc‎ (78 KB‎)‎[Open in
Browser‎]

Good morning,
I just want to let you know that I will not be in today. I called for sub, I attached the class
work for students to this email, please make 100 copies and provide the sub with them (Mr.
Warner knows about this, he asked me to email the work).
Ms. Irandokht Toorzani

I n another charge brought against me by Richard D. Tomko, superintendent, he has stated,
'Memo, February 3, 2009, to Irandokht Toorzani, Irom Richard D. Tomko which, among
other things, describes Ms. Toorzani's insubordination including, Ms. Toorzani's allegations
that Ms. Jackter is not "brave enough to tell the truth" and has made "false stories to justify
themselves [herself] and cover up their [her] wrong doings," her attempt to leave an in-
service early without permission or explanation and her statement that to her colleagues that
Ms. Jackter is a "slave driver."
to accuse me falsely. WHEN I N F ACT I had stated in my letter (dated January 29, 09;
following paragraph), in response to the reprimand letter written by Allison Jackter which
contained false and falsified information and falsification of fact (I had got frustrated and
overwhelmed because of constant harassing and discriminatory conducts and conspiracy of
a few administrators who were under influence of Richard D. Tomko, superintendent, and
were working in collusion with him for their personal gain), that:

'.could you please let me know what is insubordination and what is intolerable for you?
Is it that I want not to let you offend me and treat me like a slave anymore? As I remember
when I got hired in Elmwood Park district my title was 'Teacher not 'Slave. AIter
working in this district for four years, at the time of converting the old salary guide to the
new one, my step in salary guide was decreased one step more than the steps of the teachers
that I knew, now if you know that my title has also been changed Irom 'Teacher to
'Slave that allow you to treat me like one, please let me know then I will not have any
complaint regarding your offensive behavior toward me.Sincerely,Toorzani CC: My
personnel Iile
And when Richard D. Tomko`s memo dated February 3, 2009, which was written in response to
my above letter states that:
'.You continue to tirade, expressing that you would accept oIIensive behavior towards
you if Mrs. Jackter could confirm that your job title has been changed from "teacher" to
"slave." you have painted a picture to your colleagues that mrs. jackter is a "slave driver,"
an extremely offensive and unprovoked statement.
Page 66 of 90
!
As Richard D. Tomko`s above statements proves, Richard D. Tomko, superintendent,
interpreted my above response (dated January 29, 09) to Alison Jackter and attributed his
own statements to me under oath.
And much more which has been stated in my motion to dismiss (about 460 pages of brief
and direct physical evidences and CD of recorded voice) and has been deliberately
disregarded by Judge Strauss and Department of Education Officials. Judge Strauss and
Department of Education Officials never showed any interest to examine my evidences,
when these evidences have been direct physical evidences and have not been refuted by
Elmwood Park BOE, and have MORE weight than the testimony of witnesses who have
perjured themselves to bring me up on those tenure charges.
Judge Strauss has used laws and case laws in his correspondence/order dated January 3,
2012, 6&7, page 19&20; and 2, page 20 ;and 3&1, page 20&21; and 2&3&5&1, page
21&22 , to reach and conclude a legal end through materials which have been procured by
perjury and Judge Strauss has been fully aware of that (Judge Strauss has called them 'There
was no basis presented in the record to consider the testimony and supporting documentation
to be anvthing but credible`).
~52:14B-10. Evidence; j udicial notice; recommended report and decision; final
decision; effective date :
The agency head may not reject or modify any findings of fact as to issues of credibility of
lay witness testimony unless it is first determined from a review of the record that the
findings are arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or are not supported by sufficient,
competent, and credible evidence in the record.

41. With respect to Judge Strauss` statement in his correspondence/order dated January 3,
20122, page 21, stating that:
'I CONC LUDE that the District has met its burden of proving that Toorzani engaged in
conduct unbecoming a teaching staff member. Examples of unbecoming conduct were her
expression of having a problem teaching classified students; leaving assigned duties under
false pretenses; sending electronic correspondence concerning a non-instructional matter
during a class period; using a sick day to attend a legal proceeding; and becoming defensive
and angry and storming out of the room during a meeting with a parent. In each instance,
Toorzani has violated the implicit standard of good behavior that is expected of a teacher.
All Judge Strauss` statements in his correspondence/order dated January 3, 2012, prove that
Judge Strauss (who, I several times moved and asked for his recusal because of his blatant
misconduct and partiality) has deliberately ignored and disregarded my motion to dismiss
Page 67 of 90
!
(about 460 pages of brief and direct physical evidences and CD of recorded voice) and my
direct physical evidences, in order to enable himself to make defamatory remarks about me
in his correspondence/order January 3, 2012, and aid and abet Elmwood Park BOE. I am
respectfully asking again for a review of my motion to dismiss.
i. In regard to 'problem teaching classiIied students please refer to EXHIBIT # 8 and
POINT VIII of my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges to see how
Richard D. Tomko and those few administrators who have been working in collusion with
him for their personal gain, have not been even hesitant to sacriIice the students` saIety and
education for their own personal goals.
ii. In regard to 'leaving assigned duties under Ialse pretenses Please reIer to EXHIBIT #9
and POINT IX of my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges. Why Judge
Strauss believes statements of Richard D. Tomko (who perjured himself to bring me up on
tenure charges) over the medical diagnosis of the Neurologist which I had been visited by.
iii. In regard to 'sending electronic correspondence concerning a non-instructional matter
during a class period please refer to EXHIBIT # 12 and POINT XII of my motion to
dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges to see not only that email was about my
concern in regard to the education and safety of my students but I had also explained for
Richard D. Tomko via another email dated Sun 11/23/2008 (at 5:18 PM) all details
regarding that email and I explained to him that I had not spent even a minute of the class
time to send that email, as documents of Exhibit # 12 show (one of the administrators Mr.
Saadeh and student technician Joseph were witness too). Not to mention, later Richard D.
Tomko affirmed that he had talked to Mr. Saadeh in regard to this matter and Mr. Saadeh
had confirmed my statements.
iv. In regard to 'using a sick day to attend a legal proceeding please refer to EXHIBIT # 17
and POINT XVII of my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges to see
that the legal proceeding was after school not during the school day and also on April 28th
& April 30th and May 6th (court appearance, after school hours) & May 7th, 2010, I
was out sick and I had been even told by my physician to take 2 weeks off from school.
Page 68 of 90
!
However not only I did not take two weeks off to rest but I also dragged myself to go to
school and work, to not let my students be left behind.
v. In regard to 'becoming deIensive and angry and storming out of the room during a meeting
with a parent please reIer to EXHIBIT 11, page 165 to page 188 of my motion to dismiss
in lieu of answer to the tenure charges.
Richard D. Tomko and those few administrators, who were working in collusion with him,
have been forcing me to attend the meetings which were called 'Fact Finding Meeting to
accused me falsely, therefore I have been recording all those meetings arranged by them.
Those recorded voice can prove who had been angry, out of control, and abusive during
those arranged meetings.
Not only those few administrators were talking about my employment status (she will be
fired) to staff members but they were also providing opportunity for their relative (mother
and husband) to come to school (as parents) and abuse me verbally in front of them to
provide opportunity for those administrator to accuse me falsely. There were two parents,
Mrs. A (whose son was EP Middle School/High School Custodian and daughter was in my
class; EXHIBIT 11,
2nd
email on page 166 which I received from the substitute who covered
mv class when I was absent shows an example of this students conduct which was being
supported by those administrators) and Mr. S (whose wife is EP High School Assistant
Nurse and his son was in my class) whose relative were on the Elmwood Park BOE`s
payroll.
Leaving those two meetings with those two parents (which had been arranged to discuss
their kids disruptive behavior and performance in mv class) aIter I told them 'with all due
respect I cannot continue this meeting with this condition, to not to be SUBJE CT ED to
an abusive, insulting, and harassing language and behavior (yelling and being called a
liar, annoying, and etc), and letting those two meetings to be continued by the Guidance
counselor who was present in those meetings, cannot be interpreted storming out of the
meeting.!As a veteran teacher and as a professional, I know how to keep myself calm, that's
part of teaching profession not to get into an argument with emotional parents (who had
been manipulated by those administrators) especially when the discussion is about their
Page 69 of 90
!
child. As a teacher and as a professional I had to remove myself from that situation and
walk away until the situation became appropriate for a healthy conversation.
vi. In regard to 'Insubordination Please refer to entire 460 pages of motion to dismiss in lieu
of answer to the tenure charges (about 460 pages of brief, Exhibits and direct physical
evidences and CD of recorded voice).
The following are a few examples for what I have been accused of insubordination.
a. As I have mentioned in my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges
dated August 10, 2011, which has been deliberately disregarded by Judge Strauss and
Department of Education official, 'I had being reprimanded, accused of insubordination,
and harassed for not accepting to attend the one to one (individual) affirmative action
workshop with the staff member who had sexually harassed me in the presence of David
Warner (then-EP High School Assistant Principal; current EP High School Principal).
Richard D. Tomko was reprimanding me, harassing me and intimidating me (yelling at
me in the school hallway) to force me to attend that one to one (individual) affirmative
action workshop when I had informed him that I was not comfortable to participate in
that individual workshop with that man.
b. As I have mentioned in my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges
dated August 10, 2011, which has been deliberately disregarded by Judge Strauss and
Department of Education oIIicials: ' I was reprimanded and accused of willful
insubordination by David Warner for keeping my classroom door (which is so heavy)
open, by propping it by a foam rubber and not by my body (he was claiming that foam
rubber would damage the door, when all of them knew that I am a person with
disabilities, who suffers from herniated discs, partial desiccated lumbar discs, disc bulges
with annular tears, and partial stenosis) during the passing time. While the other teachers
have been using wooden door stoppers to prop their classroom doors open during the
whole school day and not just during the passing time and no one was questioning them
(students have been witness of this disparate treatment).
Page 70 of 90
!
c. As I have mentioned in my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges
dated August 10, 2011, which has been deliberately ignored by Judge Strauss and
Department oI Education oIIicials: 'I was reprimanded and accused oI insubordination
by David Warner for no cause. Contrary to what Mr. Tomko has claimed, documents of
Exhibit # 10, my Emails and my Phone Records, prove that I had informed both the
School (as all other teachers do; by sending email or calling the main office secretary,
Mrs. Proto, who is in charge of handling coverage for classes when their teachers are
absent) and the Substitute Services when I was out sick on 1/11/2011, but despite the fact
that I had inIormed both school and substitute services I was accused oI insubordination.
And much more.
!18 U.S. C. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
'18 U.S. C. 241. Conspi racy against rights
because oI his having so exercised the same; or..
50. Judge Strauss, who I had several times moved and asked for his recusal due to his blatant
misconduct and partiality, continued his correspondence/order dated January 3, 2012 (which
was filled with misrepresentation of facts and misleading statements) with defamatory
remarks about me, he preferred to disregard the direct physical evidences which I had
submitted along with my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges and
condone the criminal conducts of complainant, Elmwood Park BOE and its attorneys.
Page 71 of 90
!
Judge Strauss relied on the tenure charges which were initially procured by violating
N.J.S.A. 2C:28-1 (Perjury) and N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 et seq (Open Public Meetings Act) and relied
on the statements of individuals who perjured themselves to bring me up on tenure charges
and who I had filed a complaint against them with federal court and school Ethic commission
for their discriminatory, harassing and unethical conducts.
All of the above raise a simple and basic questions that:
i. Why did Judge Strauss violate the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Laws, to aid and abet
these individual who had willfully and intentionally perjured themselves to bring me up on
tenure charges, while Judge Strauss was fully aware of all their criminal conducts?
ii. Why did Judge Strauss have Ex Parte communication with complainant, Elmwood Park
BOE? And
iii. Why did Judge Strauss willfully and intentionally misrepresent the Federal Judge`s (Judge
Chesler`s) Order and Opinion dated May 19, 2011, in his order dated September 19, 2011,
to create a false impression to mislead the court and deny my motion to dismiss in lieu of
answer to the tenure charges to change the outcome of the court proceedings?
'Fraud. An intentional perversion oI truth Ior the purpose oI inducing another in reliance
upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A
false representation of a matter of fact which deceives and is intended to deceive another so
that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. It consists of some deceitful practice or willful
device, resorted to with intent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him
injury (Emphasis added) Black's Law Dictionary FiIth Edition, page 594.

I I I. Assessment and Conclusion
A. FRAUD UPON T HE C OURT
Since June 30
th
that Elmwood Park BOE certified the tenure charges (which had been
initially procured by Perjury and violation of N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 et seq), there have been
ongoing violations of laws, local and federal rules, code of judicial conduct, rules of
professional conduct, ongoing fraudulent conducts, making false statements of laws
deliberately, making false statements of the facts on the sworn and unsworn responses,
Page 72 of 90
!
papers and pleadings deliberately (when I had submitted the direct physical evidences which
clearly prove falseness of those statements) and so many other misconduct with the intent to
prevent me (pro se Respondent) from having a fair hearing in this administrative proceeding.
All these fraudulent conducts and violations of laws and rules have been willfully and
intentionally condoned and permitted to be continued by both the OAL and Department of
Education Officials involved in the instant matter while I have been constantly informing
them about all these fraudulent conducts [letters to Director Boyle dated June 27, 2011 and
September 21,2011; letter to Director Duncan dated September 13,2011 ; letter to Chief
Judge Sanders dated September 18, 2011; appeal to Commissioner of Education dated
September 26,2011; letter to Commissioner of Education dated October 12, 2011; motion to
disqualifv Elmwood Park BOEs attornevs dated October 3, 2011; and letter to Judge
Strauss dated October 21, 2011 ] to aid and abet the complainant, Elmwood Park BOE, to
obtain rulings in their favor and to defraud me (pro se Respondent) which gave me a good
reason to believe that Judge Strauss could not hear the instant matter in a fair and impartial
manner.
The Department of Education and OAL Officials involved in the instant matter never
addressed my papers, my documents, and my direct physical evidences filed with them, these
officials have been stating that all submitted papers/materials have been reviewed, without
specifying what had been reviewed and they have been offering just a convenient pretext for
giving force and effect to their responses and orders. The NJ Department of Education and
OAL Officials involved in the instant matter have not been supposed to disregard the laws
and act based on their discretions without explaining how those discretions apply in the
instant matter.
Page 73 of 90
!
Reasonable people can only conclude the OAL and Department of Education OIIicials`
refusal to act against the fraud and criminal conducts, as their intention to deliberately
deprive me (pro se Respondent) of my legal and constitutional rights.
'In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud
upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud
between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the
court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge
has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court
have been directly corrupted."
"Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace
that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud
perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the
usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication."
Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, 60.23.
The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence
a decision at all, and never becomes final."
B. ADMI NISTRATI VE COURT MISREPRESENT ED T HE F ACTS T HAT I
DISOBEYED 1UDGE STRAUSS` ORDER I N RE GARD T O AT T ENDI NG
OCT OBER 18 AND 19, 2011, HE ARI NGS T O FRAUDUL ENT L Y SANCTI ON ME
AND CONTI NUED HAVI NG E X PART E COMMUNI CATI ON WI T H E L MWOOD
PARK BOE
a) I (Respondent) Did Not Disobeyed 1udge Strauss` Order
All the cumulative fraudulent conducts and violations of laws, rules, and codes by the
Elmwood Park BOE, its attorneys and Judge Strauss amounted to manifest injustice (extreme
prejudice) which would lead a reasonable person to conclude and believe that a fair and
impartial hearing and administration of justice were impossible if the hearing of the instant
matter continued under those circumstances as it did in the phone conference of September
12, 2011, and accordingly it caused me to believe that I would not see the justice that any
citizen is expected and deserved as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
In contrast to Judge Strauss` statement in his correspondence/order dated January 3,
2012, I had informed the ALJ, Judge Strauss and the Officials of Department of Education
via following communications and letters (which all had been copied to Judge Strauss, the
Officials of Department of Education, and complainant, Elmwood Park BOE) and given my
explanation and reasons why I would not attend October 18 and 19, 2011, hearings:
Page 74 of 90
!
i. For the fi rst time during the phone conference of September 12, 2011.
conference and I noticed that he was ignoring me and was not hearing me out, I told
Judge Strauss (when he was setting up an schedule for tenure hearing) that because of
my emotional distress and lack of concentration which had also affected on my speech
and memory, I would not be able to attend and defend myself in any type of verbal
concern and he said that if I had any trouble concentrating he would be issuing a
prehearing order that would reflect what was discussed in that phone conference and also
setting for hearing dates, which proves that Judge Strauss even was not listening to me
when I was talking about my concerns.
ii. For the second time in my appeal (dated September 26, 2011) to Commissioner of
to the tenure charges and denying my motion for his recusal. In that appeal I stated:
'I Ieel that I (as an unrepresented party who is not even competent to defend herself
for all oI the reasons stated in this letter and Respondent`s CertiIication (attached),
iii. For the 3
rd
Page 75 of 90
!
laws.. All these injustices have been poisoning my health and I have had enough oI Fraud
laws and their own rules of conIlict oI interest in order to help Elmwood Park BOE.
Besides I had filed an appeal with the Commissioner of Education (since I [Respondent]
had the right to be heard according to law) and requested 'stay oI proceedings, which
Commissioner of Education denied to review it via a letter dated October 21,
2011(postmarked October 24, 2011) 2 or 4 days after October 18 and 19, 2011, which were
the hearing days.
'The question on an appeal under Forsyth is whether the deIendant may be subjected to
b) Judge Strauss Willfully And I ntentionally Ref rained From Stating The Facts Or
Misrepresented The Facts I n His Orders
i. Judge Strauss willfully and intentionally has withheld the facts and information in his
correspondence/order dated January 3, 2012, and stated that:
'The District certiIied charges against Toorzani to the Bureau oI Controversies and
Disputes of the Department of Education (Commissioner) on June 30, 2010.
Page 76 of 90
!
WHI L E Judge Strauss was fully aware
25
, he refrained from having any indication in his
correspondence/order dated January 3, 2011, to the fact that the tenure charges brought
by complainant, Elmwood Park BOE against me, had been initially procured by perjury
and by violating OPMA and had been unlawfully certified to the Commissioner of
Education.
Judge Strauss was also fully aware, that complainant, Elmwood Park BOE, had not even
discussed the matter of the tenure charges in the board of education meeting of June 28,
2011 ( contrary to what William Moffitt, board secretary, had claimed on his
certification) in violation of provisions of N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 et seq, N.J.A.C 6A:3-5.2, and
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-16, BUT Judge Strauss refrained from stating any of these facts and
decided not to address any of these in his correspondence dated January 3, 2012 and
condone all these violations of laws.
ii. Judge Strauss willfully and intentionally has withheld the facts and information in his
'At that conIerence I orally denied Toorzani's Motion to Dismiss because she raised issues
of disputed facts and erroneously relied on the doctrines of res judicata and collateral
estoppel[s][to contend that the tenure charges must be dismissed because of the prior
dismissal with prejudice oI a Iederal suit Toorzani had initiated against the District.
WHI L E Judge Strauss had exempted Elmwood Park BOE from responding to my
motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges via an ex parte communication
with Elmwood Park BOE, he refrained from having any indication about this facts on his
correspondence dated January 3, 2012. E VEN Judge Strauss willfully and intentionally
had misrepresented the Federal Judge`s (Judge Chesler`s) Order and Opinion dated May
19, 2011 (please refer to 13 for details), in his correspondence/order dated September
19, 2011, in order to enable himselI to state that 'Toorzani erroneously relied on the
doctrines oI res judicata and to conclude that Doctrine of Res Judicata would not apply
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
25
Department of education and consequently Judge Strauss had been informed in regard to the violations of
laws through my letters to Directors Boyle and Duncan and through my motion to dismiss in lieu of
answer to the tenure charges.
Page 77 of 90
!
to the instant matter to justify his order denying my motion to dismiss (as I explained in
details in the above [ 13])
iii. Judge Strauss willfully and intentionally has withheld the facts and information in his
'The Prehearing Order established October 14, 2011, Ior the completion oI discovery.
Rather than answer the District's interrogatories, Toorzani, by letter received on September
23, returned them to the Dist rict unanswered.
WHEN Judge Strauss was fully aware that after phone conference of September 12,
2011, I waited for his order to appeal it (I had asked Judge Strauss legal reason for
denying my motion to dismiss in writing ), after I received the order, I appealed Judge
Strauss` order denying my motion to dismiss and my motion for his recusal to
Commissioner of Education and in that appeal I asked Ior 'stay of proceedings, but in
the meantime I received the District's interrogatories, I sent them back and I wrote to
Elmwood Park BOE`s attorney that my due process had been denied and that:
'..I am going to request Ior conducting an investigation regarding all the above matters
and relationship between the Elmwood Park Board of Education, you (its attorneys) and
ALJ, Judge Jesse H. Strauss in connection with this case which made him to misrepresent
the law and facts to aid and abet the Elmwood Park Board of Education and you (its
attorneys) and in the meanwhile I am respectfully asking you to hold on to your
interrogatories which I am sending it back to you since based on law there is an absolute
bar to adjudicate (one more time) the same issues, facts and claims of my Federal
Complaint which you and your client have brought within the tenure charges to get multiple
judgments.

After Elmwood Park BOE`s attorney informed Judge Strauss about my above letter,
Judge Strauss issued an order dated September 23, 2011, stating that:
'.To the extent appropriate, Ms. Toorzani may reIer to her Motion to Dismiss as to
statements made therein and documents attached thereto which may relate to specific
interrogatory answers. To the extent that interrogatory questions are not answered by
the Motion to Dismiss, Ms. Toorzani must additionally supply appropriate responses to
the interrogatories and documents within the time frame set forth in the Pre-hearing
Order.
But since my motion to dismiss had addressed and refuted all the allegations of Elmwood
Park BOE one by one by using direct physical evidences, Elmwood Park BOE`s attorney
never requested for additional information (not to mention that Elmwood Park BOEs
Page 78 of 90
!
response to my motion to dismiss clearly proves that they had failed to challenge the facts
and direct physical evidences of my motion to dismiss). Judge Strauss has refrained from
indicating to any oI these Iacts and he has just stated that 'Toorzani, by letter received on
September 23, returned them to the District unanswered.
iv. Judge Strauss willfully and intentionally has withheld the facts and information regarding
my (Respondents) communications which via them (during the phone conference of
September 12, 2011; my appeal to Commissioner of Education dated September 26,
2011; my letter to Commissioner of Education dated October 12, 2011, which had been
copied to all OAL and Department of Education officials involved in the instant matter), I
had submitted my explanation to OAL, Department of Education officials, and
complainant, Elmwood Park BOE, why I would not attend the hearing of October 18 and
19, 2011, BUT Judge Strauss refrained from having any indication to any of those
correspondence in his correspondence/order dated January 3, 2012, to use N.J.A.C.
N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.4 to justify his claim in regard to conducting ex prte heari ng on October
18 and 19, 2011.
v. Judge Strauss willfully and intentionally has withheld the facts and information and
abandoned proper procedure by abusing his judicial power and authority and deprived me
of my rights Judge Strauss in his correspondence/order dated January 3, 2012, stated that:
documentation to be anything but credible.
WHEN he disregarded all the direct physical evidences submitted along with my motion
to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges (about 460 pages of brief, Exhibits and
direct physical evidences and CD of recorded voice [dated August 10, 2011, and
postmarked August 11, 2011] which Elmwood Park BOE had failed to refute them) and
he did not even show any interest to examine them.
Judge Strauss, in his correspondence/orders dated September 19, 2011 and January 3,
2012, willfully and intentionally withheld the facts and information which had been
brought to his attention by me, and refrained from having any indication to any of the
Page 79 of 90
!
Elmwood Park BOE`s violations oI laws. Judge Strauss disregarded and ignored the laws,
the direct physical evidences, the facts, and the legal arguments stated in my motion to
dismiss which has clearly addressed and discredited the Elmwood park BOE`s
allegations.
vi. Judge Strauss willfully and intentionally has withheld the facts and information and
abandoned proper procedure by abusing his judicial power and authority and deprived me
of my rights. When Judge Strauss should not have conducted any hearing in accordance
with N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.4 (a) (since I had submitted my explanation in writing), Judge
Strauss claimed that he had conducted one. Judge Strauss stated in his
correspondence/order January 3, 2012, that:
charge matters, I took ex parte prooIs Irom the District on October 19, 2011.
WHEN, N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.4(d) does not require an initial decision unless the appearing
party requests one and the appearing party should ask the Judge for permission to present
ex parte proofs. If no explanation for the failure to appear is received (which I had given
my explanation), and the circumstances require a decision on the merits, then Judge may
enter an initial decision on the merits based on the ex parte proofs.
I F Judge Strauss as he has claimed, had conducted the hearing on October 18 and 19,
2011, and I F in accordance with N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.4(d), appearing party (Elmwood Park
BOE) had requested Judge Strauss` permission to submit ex parte proofs and he had
granted the permission, WHY, as one party to the instant matter, I never received a copy
of that order? And WHY, as one party to the instant matter, I was never informed that an
ex parte hearing had been held until November 19, 2011, that I received a copy of
Elmwood Park BOE`s correspondence dated November 17, 2011, to Judge Strauss so
called 'Unopposed Iindings oI Iact requested by Judge Strauss? (When Judge Strauss
has claimed that he had received the ex parte proofs on October 19, 2011, 2
nd
day of the
hearing days and in accordance with N.J.A. C. 1:1-14.4(d) he had to make a decision
base on ex parte proofs)
Page 80 of 90
!
vii. In addition Judge Strauss has stated in his correspondence/order dated January 3, 2012,
that:
' At the ex parte hearing, the District requested, and I verbally granted as allowed by
N.J.S.A. 52:148-10.1 (d), the opportunity to submit a brief and proposed findings of fact by
November 21, 2011, based on the hearing of October 19.
WHEN in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.1 (d), briefs are supposed to be submitted
to the Judge by both parties after conducting a hearing and not by just one party after
conducting an ex parte hearing.
~N.J.S. A. 52:14B-10.1. Adj udication of certain contested cases.
1. Any statute, rule or regulation to the contrary notwithstanding, all contested cases, as
defined in section 2 of P.L.1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-2), except those cases in which criminal
charges are also filed, arising under the Tenure Employees Hearing Law, article 2 of
chapter 6 of Title 18A of the New Jersey Statutes, and referred to the Office of
Administrative Law shall be adjudicated pursuant to the "Administrative Procedure Act,"
P.L.1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq.), in an expeditious and timely manner except as
follows:
a. The discovery process shall begin immediately upon the notice of the referral of the
case to the Office of Administrative Law and a discovery request shall be initiated by
transmitting the request to a receiving party within 30 days of receipt of the notice of
referral. Answers to a discovery request shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of the
request, except that if the discovery is available only by motion, the answer shall be due
within 30 days of receipt of an order granting the motion. Additional discovery shall be
permitted by motion or upon the consent of the parties, but shall be filed with the
administrative law judge within 10 days of the filing of the answers to interrogatories. The
administrative law judge may extend discovery time by no more than 30 days for disputes
over sufficiency, completion or other just cause.
b. The pre-hearing conference shall be held within 30 days of the referral of the case to
the Office of Administrative Law.
c. The hearing shall be held within 30 days after the end of the discovery period.
d. Transcripts if ordered by the parties shall be provided within 15 days of the conclusion
of the hearing and all briefs shall be submitted to the Administ rative Law Judge within
30 days of the conclusion of the hearing or receipt of the t ranscripts by the parties,
whichever is later.
Judge Strauss abandoned proper procedure by abusing his judicial power and authority
and deprived me of my rights. I F I had not submitted any explanation about not attending
the hearing and consequently an ex parte hearing would have been conducted, in that ex
parte hearing a decision must have been in strict conformity with procedural requirements
of N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.4(d),
~N.1.A. C. 1:1-14.4(d): If the appearing party requires an initial decision on the merits,
the party shall ask the judge for permission to present ex parte proofs. If no explanation for
the failure to appear is received, and the circumstances require a decision on the merits, the
j udge may enter an initial decision on the merits based on the ex parte proofs, provided
Page 81 of 90
!
the Iailure to appear is memorialized in the decision.
and must have been made based on the ex parte proofs that Judge Strauss has claimed
was submitted to him on October 19, 2011, and not based on brief (in accordance with
N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.1 (d) within 30 days) that Judge Strauss has reIerred to that as 'a brief
and proposed findings of fact which had been requested by Elmwood Par k BOE in
his correspondence/order dated January 3, 2012, and Elmwood Park BOE has referred to
that as 'Unopposed Findings of Fact which has been requested by Judge Strauss in
its correspondence dated November 17, 2011.
Not to mention that this brief, had been an ex parte brief and I did not know anything
about it by the time that I received a copy of this brief without its exhibits (Elmwood
Park BOEs correspondence dated November 17, 2011) on November 19, 2011, after I
informed Elmwood Park BOE that I had filed a complaint against them in NJ Superior
Court for their violation of OPMA and OPRA which would void their action in regard to
the tenure charges.
'18 U.S. C. 241. Conspi racy against rights:
because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with
intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so
secured
C. ADMI NISTRATI VE COURT L AC K OF JURISDI CTI ON
a) Lack Of 1urisdiction Because Of ~ 455. Disqualification Of Justice, Judge, Or
Magistrate Judge: (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall
disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be
questioned.
On September 12, 2011, in the poly phone conference which was scheduled by Judge
Strauss, as I explained in details in the above ( 9), Judge Strauss informed me that he had
exempted Elmwood Park BOE from responding to my motion to dismiss via an Ex Parte
Page 82 of 90
!
communication with Elmwood park BOE. During that phone conference, Judge Strauss
was misrepresenting the facts regarding my federal complaint and the laws in order to deny
my motion to dismiss which was on the ground of Doctrine of Res Judicata and in an
attempt to deceive, defraud, and coerce me (Pro Se Respondent) to give up my legal rights.
Therefore I asked Judge Strauss to give me his legal reason in writing why my motion to
dismiss was denied (During that conference I realized that I was being forced against the
law by Judge Strauss into proceeding which was barred by the law in the first place . No
person with a common sense appears before a court and a judge who does not follow the
law, misrepresent it and rules against it) and when I received Judge Strauss` order dated
September 19, 2011, I noticed that Judge Strauss had failed/refused not only to cite
authority and to address the grounds for which he had denied my motion to dismiss but he
also had misrepresented the Iederal Judge`s (Judge Chesler`s) Order and Opinion in order
to enable himself to deny my motion dismiss.
During that phone conference of September 12, 2011, after I noticed Judge Strauss blatant
partiality and misconduct, I moved and asked him to recuse himself from the instant matter
but Judge Strauss denied my motion for his recusal, therefore I (Respondent) brought the
existence of fraud upon the court to ChieI Judge Sanders` attention (letter dated September
18, 2011) and Director Duncan`s attention (letter dated September 13, 2011) but I was
ignored. When Chief Judge Sanders and Director Duncan failed/refused to address my
concerns in regard to the existence of fraud upon the court for which I had sought relief, I
moved and appealed Judge Strauss` order denying my motion Ior his recusal and my
motion to dismiss to Commissioner of Education. Commissioner of Education sent part of
my appeal in regard to Judge Strauss` recusal to Chief Judge Sanders and on the same day
(same day that her letter had been postmarked, the letter which was informing me that she
had granted to review my appeal) that she granted to review my appeal, she denied my
appeal.
During the time that my Appeal to Commissioner of Education (in which I had also
requested 'stay of proceedings` for the instant matter) in regard to judge Strauss` order
denying my motion to dismiss and my motion for Judge Strauss` recusal and my motion for
Page 83 of 90
!
disqualiIication oI Elmwood Park BOE`s attorneys were still pending in Department of
Education (commissioner denied to review my appeal on October 21, 2011[order was
postmarked October 24, 2011]), Judge Strauss has claimed in his correspondence/order
dated January 3, 2012, that he had conducted hearing on October 18 and 19, 2011.

'In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "DisqualiIication is required iI an
objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a
judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and
impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v.
U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a
requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition
Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or
prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985)
(Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is
actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. 455(a), is not intended
to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in
the impartiality of the judicial process.").
That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any
proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady,
888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the
Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that
he believes that he has received justice."
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the
appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing
Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe
from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of
justice.
"Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of
recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated
circumstances. " Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking
for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think
that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion
or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to
follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has
given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies
the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second
judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified
himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law
would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of
no legal force or effect.
Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause
of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The
right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due
Process Clause.").
Page 84 of 90
!
Therefore if the Court does not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the
Judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he
has disqualified himself.
b) Lack Of Jurisdiction Because Of My (Respondent`s) Motion For Disqualification Of
Elmwood Park BOE`s Attorneys And My Appeal Of 1udge Strauss` Order Denying
My Motion To Dismiss And My Motion For 1udge Strauss` Recusal To Commissioner
Of Education, In Which I Had Requested For ~Stay Of Proceedings
During that phone conference of September 12, 2011, after I saw Judge Strauss blatant
partiality and misconduct, I moved and asked him to recuse himself from the instant matter
but Judge Strauss denied my motion for his recusal, therefore I (Respondent) brought the
existence of fraud upon the court to ChieI Judge Sanders` attention (letter dated September
18, 2011) and Director Duncan`s attention (letter dated September 13, 2011) but I was
ignored. When Chief Judge Sanders and Director Duncan failed/refused to address my
concerns in regard to the existence of fraud upon the court for which I had sought relief, I
moved and appealed Judge Strauss` order denying my motion Ior his recusal and my
motion to dismiss to Commissioner of Education. Commissioner of Education sent part of
my appeal in regard to Judge Strauss` recusal to ChieI Judge Sanders and on the same day
(same day that her letter had been postmarked, the letter which was informing me that she
had granted to review my appeal) that she granted to review my appeal, she denied my
appeal.
During the time that my Appeal to Commissioner of Education (in which I had also
requested 'stay of proceedings` for the instant matter) in regard to Judge Strauss` order
denying my motion to dismiss and Judge Strauss` recusal and my motion for
disqualiIication oI Elmwood Park BOE`s attorneys (to defend my constitutional right and
rights of citizens to due process and fair and impartial trial and equal protection) were still
pending in Department of Education (commissioner denied to review my appeal on
October 21, 2011[order was postmarked October 24, 2011]), Judge Strauss has claimed in
Page 85 of 90
!
his correspondence/order dated January 3, 2012, that he had conducted hearing on October
18 and 19, 2011.
'Each element constitutes fraud upon the court in the U.S., when an officer of the court is
found to have fraudulently presented facts to court so that the court is impaired in the
impartial performance of its legal task, the act, known as "fraud upon the court", is a crime
deemed so severe and fundamentally opposed to the operation of justice that it is not
subject to any statute of limitation.
'The question on an appeal under Forsyth is whether the deIendant may be subjected to
D. JUDGMENT OF ADMI NISTRATI VE COURT IS VOI D, BASED ON:
a) Lack Of Jurisdiction
'Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that iI a
court is "without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not
voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in
opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing
such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet.
328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)
'A void decree is one that has been obtained by extrinsic or collateral Iraud or was entered
by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties. HENRY M.
ELLETT v. CYNTHIA H. ELLETT (35 Va. App. 97; 542 S.E.2d 816; 2001 Va. App.)
b) Fraud Upon The Court
'Each element constitutes fraud upon the court in the U.S., when an officer of the court is
found to have fraudulently presented facts to court so that the court is impaired in the
impartial performance of its legal task, the act, known as "fraud upon the court", is a crime
deemed so severe and fundamentally opposed to the operation of justice that it is not
subject to any statute of limitation.

"Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court. The U.S.
Supreme Court has consistently held that a void order is void at all times, does not have to
be reversed or vacated by a judge, cannot be made valid by any judge, nor does it gain
validity by the passage of time. The order is void ab initio. Vallely v. Northern Fire &
Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S.Ct. 116 (1920). 'Fraud destroys the validity oI
everything into which it enters, Nudd v. Burrows (1875), 91 US 426, 23 Led 286,290;
Page 86 of 90
!
particularly when 'a judge himselI is a party to the Iraud, Cone v. Harris (Okl. 1924), 230
P. 721, 723. Windsor v. McVeigh (1876), 93 US 276, 23 Led 914, 918.
'Universal Oil Co. v. Root Rfg. Co., 328 U.S. 575, 580, 66 S. Ct. 1176, 90 L. Ed. 1447
(1946). "[A] case of fraud upon the court [calls] into question the very legitimacy of the
judgment." Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 557, 118 S. Ct. 1489, 140 L. Ed. 2d 728
(1998). Put another way, "[w]hen a judgment is shown to have been procured" by fraud
upon the court, "no worthwhile interest is served in protecting the judgment."
E. DEPART MENT OF E DUCATI ON AND OA L L AC K OF JURISDI CTI ON
a) Department Of Education And OAL Failed To Observe Safeguards And Amounted
To Denial Of Due Process Of Law.
All the aforementioned fraudulent conducts, violations of laws, rules and constitution have
been brought to the attention of the Department of Education and OAL Officials involved
in the instant matter but they have been deliberately ignored and disregarded by the
Officials of the Department of Education and OAL involved in the instant matter.
Since June 30
th
that Elmwood Park BOE certified the tenure charges (which had been
initially procured by Perjury and violation of N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 et seq), there have been
ongoing violations of laws, local and federal rules, code of judicial conduct, rules of
professional conduct, ongoing fraudulent conducts, making false statements of laws
deliberately, making false statements of the facts on the sworn and unsworn responses,
papers and pleadings deliberately (when I had submitted the direct physical evidences
which clearly prove falseness of those statements) and so many other misconduct with the
intent to prevent me (pro se Respondent) from having a fair hearing in this administrative
proceeding.
All these fraudulent conducts and violations of laws and rules have been willfully and
intentionally condoned and permitted to be continued by both the OAL and Department of
Education Officials involved in the instant matter while I have been constantly informing
them about all these fraudulent conducts [letters to Director Boyle dated June 27, 2011 and
September 21,2011; letter to Director Duncan dated September 13,2011 ; letter to Chief
Judge Sanders dated September 18, 2011; appeal to Commissioner of Education dated
September 26,2011; letter to Commissioner of Education dated October 12, 2011; motion
to disqualifv Elmwood Park BOEs attornevs dated October 3, 2011, and letter to Judge
Page 87 of 90
!
Strauss dated October 21, 2011 ] to aid and abet the complainant, Elmwood Park BOE, to
obtain rulings in their favor and to defraud me (pro se Respondent) which gave me a good
reason to believe that Judge Strauss could not hear the instant matter in a fair and impartial
manner.
All these cumulative fraudulent conducts and violation of constitution, laws, rules, and
codes by the administrative Court, Elmwood Park BOE and its attorneys amounted to
manifest injustice (extreme prejudice) which would lead a reasonable person to conclude
and believe that a fair and impartial hearing and administration of justice were impossible.
I have been informing the Department of Education Officials about the aforementioned but
the Department of Education and OAL Officials involved in the instant matter never
addressed my papers, my documents, and my direct physical evidences filed with them,
these officials have been stating that all submitted papers/materials have been reviewed,
without specifying what had been reviewed and they have been offering just a convenient
pretext for giving force and effect to their responses and orders. The NJ Department of
Education and OAL Officials involved in the instant matter have not been supposed to
disregard the laws and act based on their discretions without explaining how those
discretions apply in the instant matter.
Reasonable people can only conclude the OAL and Department of Education OIIicials`
refusal to act against the fraud and criminal conducts, as their intention to deliberately
deprive me (pro se Respondent) of my legal and constitutional rights and deceive me.
"Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law,
court is deprived of juris."
'The state Supreme Courts have held that those who aid, abet, advise, act upon and execute the order
of a judge who acts without jurisdiction are equally guilty. They are equally guilty of a crime against
the U.S. Government.
Page 88 of 90
!
b) Department Of Education And OAL Lack Over The Subj ect Of Crimi nal Matters
A court is competent to hear and decide only those cases whose subject matter fits within
the court's scope of authority.
The OAL and Department of Education were and are not competent to decide on the merits
of a case which had been initially procured by perjury and by violating OPMA and is
involved with criminal conducts including but not limited to perjury [I have filed a civil
complaint in NJ Superior Court (EXHI BI T 1) against Elmwood Park BOE; William
Moffitt, board secretary; and Richard D. Tomko, superintendent for violation OPMA and
OPRA and also a criminal complaint with Attorney General in regard to violation of
N.J.S.A. 2C:28-1; N.J.S.A. 2C:28-3.c; 18 U.S. C. 1621 ; 18 U.S. C 1001; 18 U.S. C.
1623; 18 U.S. C.1622; N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5; N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 et seq; OPRA; N.J.S.A. 2C: 28-6;
N.J.S.A. 2C:28-7; 18 U.S. C. 242; 18 U.S. C. 241; 18 U.S. C. 2071; N.J.S.A. 2C: 30-2;
and N.J.S.A. 2C: 30-6 (E XHI BI T 2 )] .
F. CONCLUSI ON
The authority of the Court and Department of Education comes from the NJ and US
Constitution and the Laws passed by the Legislature. It is the job of the Court and the
Department of Education to conduct a fair hearing for all parties and it is the duty of the
Court and Department of Education to take care of fraudulent conducts based on the laws
when those fraudulent conducts have being brought to their attention. The Court (OAL) and
Department of Education should be dedicated to the administration of justice in a fair,
equitable, and impartial manner in accordance with the rule of law, and in fulfilling this role
the Court and the Department of Education should conduct its business with integrity,
competence and a commitment to excellence in order to promote public trust and confidence
in the judicial system.
State officials have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution and laws of New Jersey. Their oath included a commitment to perform their
duties impartially, and to do this, they must remain independent of any special interest, being
Page 89 of 90
!
responsible only to the public, whose interest must be their primary focus. State officials and
employees should avoid even the appearance of impropriety to ensure that the public trust is
not compromised.
Judges take an oath to uphold the NJ and US Constitution and are expected to abide by the
Code of Judicial Conduct. All the aforementioned fraudulent conducts, violations of laws,
and rules were brought to the attention of the OAL and Department of Education officials
involved in the instant matter but they were deliberately ignored and disregarded. In light of
the behavior of the OAL and Department of education officials involved in the instant matter,
I (Respondent) could only conclude that the OAL and Department of Education officials
involved in the instant matter were on a mission that had nothing to do with the job the Law
mandates them to perform. If the OAL officials were not doing the work of the Court then
they did not have the authority of the Court and their decisions were therefore defective and
invalid.
A Judge who stands in the way of justice and the law is acting outside of all judicial
authority. The 14th Amendment guarantees the fundamental rights of citizens to due process
and such rights require strict scrutiny of the Court. Therefore I ( Respondent) asked for Judge
Strauss` recusal and appealed it to the Commissioner of Education and put OAL on notice
that the I (Respondent) intended to defend my rights and appeal to Commissioner of
Education for acts which Judge Strauss had taken against me (Respondent).
WHEREFORE, in light of the fact that the OAL and Department of Education were either
unwilling or unable to perform their duties as mandated by the Constitution and the fact that
Judge Strauss issued an initial decision under fraud, when the OAL had lack of jurisdiction, I
(Respondent) pray the Commissioner of Education to:
i. Recognize the extreme prejudice exhibited by the OAL and Department of Education
officials involved in the instant matter. And
ii. I (Respondent) ask the Department of Education that because of all the aforementioned and
because the OAL and Department of Education lack jurisdiction, allow I, Respondent, to
move and file this motion for emergency relief in lieu of response to Judge Strauss`
Page 90 of 90
!
correspondence/order dated January 3, 2012 (which is null and void due to officials
misconduct, denial of my due process, fraud upon the court, and lack of Jurisdiction), and
declare not to be competent and grant me (Respondent) an Order of Dismissal for Want of
Jurisdiction for the instant matter which is involved with criminal conducts and had been
initially procured by perjury and by violating OPMA in the interest of Justice and to
prevent any irreparable harm.
26

Date: January 28, 2012 Respectfully submitted,
Irandokht Toorzani (Respondent, Pro Se)

CC: Judge Jesse H. Strauss; ALJ
Counsel of Record (via email)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
26
Not to mention that the instant (tenure) matter must have been dismissed on the ground of Doctrine of
Res Judicata in the first place since the Elmwood Park BOE instigate this administrative proceedings
(bringing tenure charges) against me to adjudicate the issues and claims of my Federal Complaint which
had been brought within the tenure charges by them in the administrative court one more time to get
multiple judgments in their favor and use the Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U.S.C. 1738, in order to
prevent me from taking any possible independent action against them in future (Since my federal
complaint was dismissed under fraud upon the court), While Elmwood park BOE was aware of being
barred by the Doctrine of Res Judicata to bring the same issues and claims of my Federal Complaint
within the Tenure Charges before another court to be litigated and adjudicated one more time to get
multiple judgment.

Elmwood Park BOE & Tomko (MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF Due To Fraud, Filed With Commissioner of Education)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Elmwood Park BOE & Tomko (MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF Due To Fraud, Filed With Commissioner of Education)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

I randokht Toorzani (Respondent, pro se) Date: January 28, 2012

175 Oxford Ter race #2

You might also like