Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 1 of 31

MY CONTACT INFORMATION: FIRST NAME: ADDRESS: RESPONDENTS: 1. Elmwood Park Board of Education; William Moffitt, board secretary; Richard D. Tomko, superintendent, 2. Elmwood Park BOEs attorneys Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. and Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq. (SCHWARTZ SIMON EDELSTEIN & CELSO LLC ); 3. Administrative Law Judge, Judge Jesse H. Strauss ADDRESS: 1. 60 East 53rd Street, Elmwood park NJ 07407; Tel. 201-796-8700 2. 100 South Jefferson Road - Suite 200 - Whippany, New Jersey 07981, Tel: 973.301.0001 3. 33 Washington Street, Newark, NJ 07102; Tel (973) 648-6033 COMPLAINT INFORMATION: NATURE AND DESCRIPTION OF COMPLAINT: a) Perjury (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) b) Tampering with witnesses and informants; retaliation against them (N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5) c) Violation Of Open Public Meetings Act (N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 et seq) d) Violation Of Open Public Records Act e) Tampering with or fabricating physical evidence (N.J.S.A. 2C: 28-6) f) Tampering with public records or information (N.J.S.A. 2C:28-7) g) Deprivation of rights under color of law (18 U.S.C. 242 ) h) Conspiracy against rights (18 U.S.C. 241) Irandokht LAST NAME: Toorzani

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 2 of 31

i) Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally (18 U.S.C. 2071) j) Official misconduct (N.J.S.A. 2C: 30-2) k) Crime of official deprivation of civil rights (N.J.S.A. 2C: 30-6) I. INTRODUCTION I, Irandokht Toorzani, bring this complaint upon information, direct physical evidences, and belief that Richard D. Tomko, superintendent; William Moffit, board secretary; Elmwood Park BOE; and Elmwood Park BOEs attorneys, Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. and Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq. (SCHWARTZ SIMON EDELSTEIN & CELSO LLC ) knowingly, willfully, and intentionally violated N.J.S.A. 2C:28-1; N.J.S.A. 2C:28-3.c; N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5;18 U.S.C. 1621 ;18 U.S.C 1001; 18 U.S.C. 1623; 18 U.S.C. 1622 ; N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 et seq; Open Public Records Act; 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, and Administrative Law Judge, Judge Jesse H. Strauss knowingly, willfully, and intentionally violated N.J.S.A. 2C: 30-2; N.J.S.A. 2C: 30-6; N.J.S.A. 2C:28-1; N.J.S.A. 2C:283.c;18 U.S.C. 1621 ;18 U.S.C 1001; 18 U.S.C. 1623; N.J.S.A. 2C:28-7; 18 U.S.C. 242; 18 U.S.C. 241; and 18 U.S.C. 2071 during the administrative proceedings of the instant (tenure) matter, since: 1. Richard D. Tomko knowingly, willfully, and intentionally made false statements1 (which were Material) under oath2 with knowledge of their falsity (I had submitted the direct physical evidences along with my sworn response to tenure charges that were proving those statements were/are false, to Richard Tomko, Elmwood Park BOE, William Moffitt, and their attorney, Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. and Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq. (SCHWARTZ SIMON EDELSTEIN & CELSO LLC ) to sway the decision makers to accept his lies as truths and used a few administrators (who I had filed complaint against them in court for their discriminatory, harassing and unethical conduct; they have been discriminating against and

There are direct physical evidences including but not limited to recorded voice which show Richard D. Tomko knowingly, willfully, and intentionally has lied under oath to bring those false, unfounded and defamatory Tenure charges against me. Richard D. Tomko sworn to and subscribed before Jenna A. Rottenberg, Attorney at Law in State of New Jersey, on June 7, 2011.

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 3 of 31

harassing me under Richard D. Tomkos influence and they have been working in collusion with him for their personal gain) to testify (based on the Elmwood Park BOEs attorneys claim) falsely against me. 2. Elmwood Park BOE 3 and its secretary, William Moffitt certified that:
After consideration of the Sworn Tenure Charges and Statement of 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 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). 3. Elmwood Park Board of Education (BOE) 4; William Moffitt, board secretary; and Richard D. Tomko, superintendent failed to comply with the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA, N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 et seq) since they failed to indicate anything about

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 of 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 if they neglect or refuse to do so they shall be liable as well.

Elmwood Park BOE is a Public body and all meetings of Elmwood Park BOE are subject to the Open Public Meetings Act.

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 4 of 31

bringing tenure charges5 against me in the published agenda for June 28,2011, BOE meeting; Elmwood Park Board of Education (BOE); William Moffitt, board secretary; and Richard D. Tomko, superintendent also failed to indicate anything regarding the tenure charges in the published minutes of June 28, 2011 BOE meeting (which was published for public on or about September 17, 2011), while they have claimed that the matter of tenure charges had been discussed and voted in the closed session of June 28, 2011, BOE meeting; additionally they failed to provide me a notice (Rice notice) prior to the BOE meeting of June 28.2011, that the matter of withholding my increments would be discuss in that same meeting; and also they failed to comply with the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) by discussing the matter of withholding my increments in the open session of June 28, 2011, BOE meeting (based on superintendents [Richard D. Tomkos] statement) without my consent or request. In addition they failed to publish the draft of minutes of June 28, 2011, BOE meeting on time (it was published on or about September 17, 2011) and failed to comply with the requirements of OPMA by censoring the public comment in regard to their actions against me during the BOE meeting of June 28,2011. Respondent also denied my request for a copy of draft of minutes of June 28, 2011, which I requested on or about August 4, 2011 (a month after June 28, 2011, BOE meeting) without giving me any explanation in writing or verbally. 4. Not only Elmwood park BOEs attorneys, Nicholas Celso III, Esq. and Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq. (SCHWARTZ SIMON EDELSTEIN & CELSO LLC) filed the tenure charges (unlawfully

Tenure charge documents filed with the local School Board's secretary pursuant to N.J. Stat. Ann. 18A:6-11 are "public records" . 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. N.J.S.A. 10:4-13.

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 5 of 31

and fraudulently 6) with the Commissioner of Education on behalf of Elmwood Park BOE, while they knew that Richard D. Tomko had lied under oath since I had submitted the evidences along with my sworn response to the tenure charges and they did not even try to at least modify the tenure charges based on the direct physical evidences before filing them with the Commissioner of Education to miscarry justice, BUT ALSO during the current administrative proceedings they have made False Certification, Tampered with Evidences, and Tampered with Public Information, and made False Statement of Law and Facts in their pleadings and their papers. As few example: i. During the court hearing (in phone conference of September 12, 2011), Elmwood Park BOEs counsel, Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. provided Judge Strauss with false information in regard to my Federal Complaint (against Elmwood Park BOE and NJEA) to meet the goal which was denying my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges. Nicholas Celso told Judge Strauss that I had appealed my Federal Complaint to the 3rd circuit and 3rd circuit had affirmed the dismissal, which was completely false.
N.J.S.A. 2C:28-7. Tampering 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)

Tenure charges were/are the same issues and claims of my Federal Complaint (Doc. NO. 94, District Court docket # 2:09-cv-04262-SRC MAS), which in first place Elmwood Park BOE was/is 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. In 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. Not to mention that the instigating administrative proceedings against me by Elmwood Park BOE was/is also a deliberately planned scheme to get multiple judgments in their favor and adjudicate the issues and claims of my federal complaint one more time in the administrative court to 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 had been dismissed under fraud upon the court and based on law no judgment is final under fraud upon the court.

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 6 of 31

ii.

Elmwood Park BOEs counsel, Nicholas Celso, III, Esq (SCHWARTZ SIMON EDELSTEIN & CELSO LLC ) knowingly and intentionally misrepresented the facts and affirmed them by improper using of Exhibits and baseless claims in his response [dated September 16, 2011, (page 8, footnote 2)] to my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges by stating that:
This matter was appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and subsequently affirmed. See Toorzani v. Elmwood Park Bd. of Educ.. et al. No. 11-1858 (3d Cir. July 12,2011) [attached hereto as Exhibit C]

and attaching false 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 was for Fraud Upon the Court and not for appealing any order including order dated May 19, 2011, which dismissed my complaint with prejudice.
N.J.S.A. 2C:28-6. Tampering 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. N.J.S.A. 2C:28-7. Tampering 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)

iii. Elmwood Park BOEs counsel, Nicholas Celso, III, Esq (SCHWARTZ SIMON EDELSTEIN & CELSO LLC ) in his legal argument on his response [dated September 16, 2011, (section A, page 7, 4)] to my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges , and in his opposition [dated September 29, 2011, (section A, page 10, 4)] to my appeal to Commissioner of Education, has 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)]. The above cited case law by Nicholas Celso, III, Esq., in NO way is comparable with the instant (tenure) matter which contains the same issues and claims of my Federal Complaint (which was dismissed with prejudice following Elmwood Park BOEs motion which constituted a full adjudication on merits based on FRCP 41).

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 7 of 31

Elmwood Park BOEs 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 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.
"Fraud" or "fraudulent" denotes conduct that is fraudulent under the substantive or procedural law of the applicable jurisdiction and has a purpose to deceive. 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

iv. In addition to improper using of Exhibits (as evidences) Elmwood Park BOEs counsel, Nicholas Celso has made numerous misrepresentation of Facts on his papers and pleadings, which knowingly, intentionally, and fraudulently has been designed by Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. to deceive the court and public. On page 12, 1 of Nicholas Celsos opposition dated September 29, 2011, to my appeal to Commissioner of Education, he had stated:
Close inspection of 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

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 8 of 31

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), instead of using my Re-Amended Complaint (Doc. NO. 94 , District Court Docket # 2:09-cv-04262SRC MAS; to deceive 7 court and public and claim that the 28 tenure charges had not been the same issues and claims of my Federal Complaint.
"Fraud" or "fraudulent" denotes conduct that is fraudulent under the substantive or procedural law of the applicable jurisdiction and has a purpose to deceive. N.J.S.A. 2C:28-6. Tampering 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. N.J.S.A. 2C:28-7. Tampering 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)

v.

Elmwood Park BOEs counsel, Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq. has intentionally made false statements of facts on her certification dated September 19, 2011, by stating that:
At no time during that telephone conference did Judge Strauss inform 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. Rottenbergs statement on her certification is false (proof: audio record of the phone conference of September 12, 2011). vi. Elmwood Park BOEs counsel, Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq. intentionally misrepresented the facts on her certification dated September 29, 2011, by stating the following:

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 tenure charges and 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 and my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer the tenure charges.

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 9 of 31

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. Rottenbergs above statement stated on her certification is false (proof: audio record of the phone conference of September 12, 2011). vii. Jenna A. Rottenbergs following statement has been made on her certification 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 partys attorney) 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 conference 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.

viii. Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq. made the following false statement on her certification 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 of the conversation.

Jenna A. Rottenbergs (Esq) certification made on September 19 and 29, 2011, contained false statements which fraudulent denotes 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;

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 10 of 31

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.

5. 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 (Proof: audio record of that phone conference). I was not communicated (copied) regarding that communication between Judge Strauss and complainant (Elmwood Park BOE) which makes that communication an Ex Parte communication between Judge Strauss and complainant Elmwood Park BOE.
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 thereafter

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 of that phone conference). Later Elmwood Park BOEs 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 BOEs request and I had also explained everything in details about my federal complaint in my Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer to the Tenure Charges, 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 finding of facts. (Proof: audio record of that phone conference)

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 11 of 31

Also Judge Strauss stated that I could not use the federal court proceeding as in support of my motion to dismiss the tenure charges since there were never specific finding of facts 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,
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. FRCP 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 Rule 19 operates as an adjudication on the merits In 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.

iv. Judge Strauss was continuously calling the Elmwood Park BOEs claims the facts 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 (tenure) 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 the tenure charges. (Proof: audio record of that phone conference)

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 12 of 31

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 8 to conduct hearing and move with tenure charges without considering my motion to dismiss (which was plainly and simply proving that Elmwood Park BOE were/ are barred based on 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 the tenure charges and accordingly did not have any knowledge regarding the content of my motion to dismiss the tenure charges (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)9. vi. Judge Strauss was asking Elmwood Park BOEs attorney, Nicholas Celso III, Esq. (opposing partys attorney) to provide him information regarding my Federal Complaint against Elmwood Park BOE and NJEA, 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 (tenure) matter and my motion to dismiss the tenure charges had to be denied (Proof: audio record of that phone conference) During that phone conference, Elmwood Park BOEs attorney, Nicholas Celso III, Esq., provided Judge Strauss with False information in regard to my federal complaint (against Elmwood Park BOE and NJEA) to meet the goal, which was denying my motion to dismiss. When Judge Strauss asked Nicholas Celso III, Esq.(opposing partys attorney)

N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1. Establishment; allocation within department of state; office defined:, the Office of 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. 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.

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 13 of 31

if he was familiar with my federal complaint against his client (Elmwood Park BOE, then-defendant), Nicholas Celso III, Esq. told Judge Strauss that I had appealed the final judgment to the 3rd circuit and 3rd 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, 3rd 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 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)
10

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 of denial of equal protection under the fourteenth amendment.

vii. After I realized that Judge Strauss was misrepresenting the Facts of my Federal Complaint, Facts of my Motion to Dismiss and the Law 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. (Proof: audio record of that phone conference)

10

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 who 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.

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 14 of 31

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 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 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 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 BOEs attorney, Nicholas Celso III, Esq. was acting as Judge Strauss attorney and advocate. During that phone conference, I realized Judge Strauss blatant partiality when I noticed that Judge Strauss was misrepresenting the Laws, the Facts of my Federal Complaint, and the Facts of my Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer to the Tenure Charges in order to deny my motion to dismiss. Therefore 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 for Judge Strausss recusal. Finally after several time that I moved and asked Judge Strauss to recuse himself from the instant (tenure) matter and I insisted for his recusal, Elmwood Park BOEs counsel, Nicholas Celso III, Esq., interfered and acted as Judge Strauss attorney (advocate) and Nicholas Celso III, Esq. directed and told judge Strauss that:
Judge before you respond to that if 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 of this week, Judge

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 15 of 31

but I stated that I still wanted Judge Strauss to recuse himself from the instant (tenure) case and I stated my reasons for that, but I was ignored by Judge Strauss again. And then Judge Strauss told Nicholas Celso:
All right Mr. Celso, if you want to file a response to the motion to dismiss thats fine and I will deal with that, in rather that put in the prehearing order, but OK we are going to proceed on the 18th and 19th

(Proof: audio record of that phone conference) II. FACTS 6. On 6/11/2011, I received a letter from Elmwood Park BOEs attorney and learned that Richard D. Tomko (superintendent) had brought 28 tenure charges against me. 7. There are direct physical evidences including but not limited to recorded voice which show Richard D. Tomko knowingly, intentionally, wantonly has perjured himself and lied under oath to bring me up on those false, unfounded, and defamatory tenure charges. 8. 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 physical evidences. (Evidences will be submitted upon request) As just a few examples: Richard D. Tomko, superintendent, has brought the following charge under oath against me. He has stated:
I, Richard D. Tomko, Superintendent of Schools of 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, which evidence is summarized as follows:

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 16 of 31

Memo, January 7,2011, to Irandokht Toorzani, from David Warner, which, among other things, describes Ms. Toorzanis failure to notify either the Substitute Service or Principal, David Warner, that she would be absent.

When my PHONE RECORD shows 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.
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 of Schools of 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.

When my PHONE RECORD shows 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.
From: Toorzani, Irandokht 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,

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 17 of 31

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 charged brought against me by Richard D. Tomko, superintendent, he has stated:

Memo, February 3, 2009, to Irandokht Toorzani, from 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 inservice early without permission or explanation and HER STATEMENT THAT TO HER COLLEAGUES THAT MS. JACKTER IS A "SLAVE DRIVER."

When in fact I had stated in my letter in response to reprimand letter written by Allison Jackter which contained false and falsified information and falsification of fact (since 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 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. After 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 from 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 file

And when reprimand letter (memo) dated February 3, 2009, which was written by Ricahrd D. Tomko in response to my above letter states that:
You continue to tirade, expressing that you would accept offensive 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 the above statements show, 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 (Evidences will be submitted upon request).

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 18 of 31

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 for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. 18 U.S.C. 241. Conspiracy 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 of 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 imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

9. 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 Respondents were 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. 10. On 7/9/2011, I received a letter dated 7/8/2011, that Elmwood Park BOE had withheld my increments based on Richard D. Tomkos (superintendants) recommendation for the 20112012 school year in their meeting of June 28, 2011, without giving me any prior notice. I had

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 19 of 31

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. 11. 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. Tomkos 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 office secretary surprisingly asked me June 28, 2011?! and I said, Yes, then she said, let me [Business office secretary] connect you to the superintendents office, she connected me to superintendents office 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. 12. On or about August 4, 2011, after about 3 days, I called the Board Office again to ask for a copy of minutes of June 28, 2011, board meeting and I was connected to the superintendents office, I talked to Mrs. Levinson (superintendents 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

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 20 of 31

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 Respondents knowingly and intentionally violated the Law and Richard D. Tomko (superintendent) knowingly and intentionally made the above statements which are contrary to law.
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 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 for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. 18 U.S.C. 241. Conspiracy 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 of his having so exercised the same; or

13. On September 19, 2011, Judge Strauss issued an order and in that order Judge Strauss misrepresented the Facts about my Federal Complaint. Judge Strauss misrepresented the Facts in his argument to deny my motion to dismiss the tenure charges on the ground of Res Judicata and then based on his misrepresentation of the Facts he conclude that:

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 21 of 31

there is no basis for a dismissal of the instant matter on the basis of 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. of 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 such statement this suit was never litigated on the merits was NOT stated either on Judge Cheslers Opinion (dated May 19, 2011) or in his Order (dated May 19, 2011). And also Judge Strauss, A.L.J., stated that:
aff'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 3rd Circuit Court of appeals and subsequently affirmed, I never appealed Judge Cheslers final 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 3rd 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 to US Court of Appeal 3rd Circuit for en banc hearing in regard to mistrial and Fraud Upon the US District Court and Fraud Upon US Court of Appeal 3RD Circuit was denied.
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.

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 22 of 31

(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 N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1. Obstructing administration 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 offense.

14. 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 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 (tenure) 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 from complainant for an unopposed finding of facts; or about complainants verbal request from Judge Strauss to submit a brief and proposed findings of fact and also she did not mention anything about Judge Strauss verbal permission and granting complainants verbal request. While during all this time the court (Judge Strauss) had not informed me (Respondent, one party to this tenure matter) of any of the above. From November 10, 2011(when I called to Judge Strauss chambers as I mentioned above), to November 19, 2011, I also did not receive any letter or call from OAL, Department of Education or Complainant, 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 with NJ Superior Court for violation of OPMA and OPRA, SUDDENLY on NOVEMBER 19, 2011 I received a

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 23 of 31

copy of Elmwood Park BOEs correspondent (so called Post Hearing) which was stating that it was in response to Judge Strauss request for 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 present ex parte proofs or no indication of any order or request from Judge Strauss. 15. The Elmwood Park BOEs correspondence dated November 17, 2011 (which I received on November 19, 2011) has been called a Post Hearing Submission WHILE there has not been any hearing for the instant (tenure) matter to have a post hearing submission since by October 18, 2011, my appeal to Commissioner of Education for motion to dismiss the instant (tenure)matter, Judge Strauss recusal (because of Judge Strauss blatant misconduct and partiality) and disqualification of complainant Elmwood Park BOEs attorneys (because of their continuous misconduct and fraudulent conduct, included but not limited to making false certification which has not been responded yet) had not yet been responded by Commissioner of Education (I received the Commissioners response on November 25, 2011) and both Elmwood Park BOE and Judge Strauss were aware of that. 16. As one party to the instant matter I had never been advised of such a communication between Judge Strauss and Elmwood Park BOE in regard to preparing an Unopposed Findings of Fact by Elmwood Park BOE until November 19, 2011 that I received a copy of Elmwood park BOEs correspondence dated November 17, 2011(so called post hearing submission) which had no Exhibit attached while the contents of this correspondence were referring to Exhibits. I informed Judge Strauss and later Department of Education regarding this matter but as usual Elmwood Park BOEs attorneys illegal conduct was condoned one more time by officials of both agency Department of Education and OAL (Judge Strauss). 17. On January 12, 2012, I sent an email to Elmwood Park BOEs attorneys that:
From: Irandokht Toorzani [mailto:irandokhttoorzani@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:49 PM To: Jenna Rottenberg; Nicholas Celso Subject: Re: Exhibits of so called post hearing

Irandokht Toorzani
Mr. Celso/ Ms. Rottenberg,

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 24 of 31

This is Ms. Toorzani. I am writing this email to inform you again that on November 19, 2011, I received a copy of Elmwood Park BOEs 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

18. On January 13, 2012, I received the following response to my email:

From: Jenna Rottenberg <JRottenberg@sseclaw.com> To: 'Irandokht Toorzani' <irandokhttoorzani@yahoo.com> Cc: Nicholas Celso <NCelso@sseclaw.com> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 11:36 AM Subject: 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

19. On January 13, 2012, also the following three emails were sent back and forth between me and Elmwood Park BOEs 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 Subject: Re: Exhibits of so called post hearing 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 dont mail those exhibits to me (or email them to me) by the end of 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 From: Jenna Rottenberg <JRottenberg@sseclaw.com> To: 'Irandokht Toorzani' <irandokhttoorzani@yahoo.com> Cc: Nicholas Celso <NCelso@sseclaw.com>

Irandokht Toorzani
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 3:09 PM Subject: RE: Exhibits of so called post hearing Ms. Toorzani:

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 25 of 31

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. ROTTENBERG, Esq. Schwartz Simon Edelstein & Celso LLC

From: Irandokht Toorzani <irandokhttoorzani@yahoo.com> To: Jenna Rottenberg <JRottenberg@sseclaw.com> Cc: Nicholas Celso <NCelso@sseclaw.com>; "jbergeron@sseclaw.com" <jbergeron@sseclaw.com> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 4:14 PM Subject: Re: Exhibits of so called post hearing 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 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

20. Elmwood Park BOEs attorney, Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq. has been communicating with me since July, 2011 via mail and perfectly knew what my address is (she had sent the document without exhibits to my address 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 me those document 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,

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 26 of 31

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 office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States. 18 U.S.C. 241. Conspiracy 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 of his having so exercised the same; or

III. I HEREBY INCORPORATE PARAGRAPHS 1 THROUGH 20 HEREIN AND STATES THAT: 21. The willful and intentional conducts of Elmwood Park Board of Education (BOE); William Moffitt, board secretary; and Richard D. Tomko, superintendent violated N.J.S.A. 2C:28-1; N.J.S.A. 2C:28-3.c; N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5;18 U.S.C. 1622; 18 U.S.C. 1621 ;18 U.S.C 1001; 18 U.S.C. 1623; N.J.S.A. 2C: 28-6; N.J.S.A. 2C:28-7; 18 U.S.C. 242 ; 18 U.S.C. 241; and 18 U.S.C. 2071. 22. The willful and intentional conducts of Elmwood Park Board of Educations attorneys, Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. and Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq. (SCHWARTZ SIMON EDELSTEIN & CELSO LLC ) violated N.J.S.A. 2C:28-1; N.J.S.A. 2C:28-3.c; 18 U.S.C. 1622; 18 U.S.C. 1621 ;18 U.S.C 1001; 18 U.S.C. 1623; N.J.S.A. 2C: 28-6; N.J.S.A. 2C:28-7; 18 U.S.C. 241; and 18 U.S.C. 2071. 23. The willful and intentional conducts of Administrative law Judge, Judge Jesse H. Strauss violated N.J.S.A. 2C: 30-2; N.J.S.A. 2C: 30-6; 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; N.J.S.A. 2C:28-7; 18 U.S.C. 242; 18 U.S.C. 241; and 18 U.S.C. 2071. 24. The action of Elmwood Park Board of Education (BOE); William Moffitt, board secretary; and Richard D. Tomko, superintendent violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (b) (8) when they discussed the matter of withholding my increments in open session of Elmwood Park BOE meeting on June 28, 2011(I was told by superintendent that the matter of withholding my increments had been discussed and voted in the open session; Evidence will be submitted upon request).

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 27 of 31

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. N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (b) (8)

25. The Elmwood Park Board of Education (BOE); William Moffitt, board secretary; and Richard D. Tomko, superintendent had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the requirements of N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (b) (8). And they are presumed to have knowledge of the law. They willfully and/or knowingly violated the OPMA when they discussed the matter of withholding my increments in open session of Elmwood Park BOE meeting on June 28, 2011(I was told by superintendent that the matter of withholding my increments had been discussed and voted in the open session) in violation of N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (b) (8). 26. The action of Elmwood Park Board of Education (BOE); William Moffitt, board secretary; and Richard D. Tomko, superintendent violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (b) (3) and (8) when they did not provide me with a notice (rice notice) to inform me that the matter of withholding my increments for 2011-2012 school year would be discussed in the meeting of June 28, 2011 (Evidence will be submitted upon request).
Prior to discussion of personnel, affected employees must be given notice, known as a Rice notice, which gives the employee the right to request a public hearing. N.J.S.A. 10:412 (b) (3) and (8).

27. The Respondents violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (b) (3) and (8) when they had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the requirements of N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (b) (3) and (8) and they are presumed to have knowledge of the law. They willfully and/or knowingly violated the OPMA when they failed to provide me with a notice (rice notice) to inform me that the matter of withholding my increments for 2011-2012 school year would be discussed in the meeting of June 28, 2011, in violation of N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (b) (3) and (8). 28. The action of Elmwood Park Board of Education (BOE); William Moffitt, board secretary; and Richard D. Tomko, superintendent violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-13 when they did not indicate

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 28 of 31

anything in regard to the matter of tenure charges11 (Tenure charge documents filed with the local School Board's secretary pursuant to N.J. Stat. Ann. 18A:6-11 are "public records") in the minutes of the June 28, 2011, meeting, when Respondents had 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) 2. Applies to discussion only. Vote generally must be taken in open session.

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. WHILE I was told by Mrs. Patricia Otten, confidential executive secretary, who is taking note 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(Evidence will be submitted upon request).

11

Not only some of those tenure charges which have been brought against me by Richard D. Tomko (superintendant) under oath, are BLATANT PERJURY (and they are not Statements of interpretation of facts) which can be proved instantly and easily by taking a glance at the direct physical evidences, but also all 28 tenure charges are the same issues and claims of my federal complaint and Doctrine of Res Judicata which absolutely bars Elmwood Park BOE from bringing the same issues and claims of my Federal Complaint within the tenure charges to adjudicate them one more time and obtain multiple judgments.

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 29 of 31

29. The Respondents violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-13, when they had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the requirements of N.J.S.A. 10:4-13 and they are presumed to have knowledge of the law. They willfully and/or knowingly violated the OPMA when they did not indicate anything in regard to the matter of tenure charges (Tenure charge documents filed with the local School Board's secretary pursuant to N.J. Stat. Ann. 18A:6-11 are "public records") in the minutes of the June 28, 2011, BOE meeting, and when Respondents had claimed that the matter of tenure charges had been discussed and voted in closed session of June 28, 2011, meeting in violation of N.J.S.A. 10:4-13. 30. The action of Elmwood Park Board of Education (BOE); William Moffitt, board secretary; and Richard D. Tomko, superintendent violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-14& N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1, when they denied my request for a copy of the draft of minutes of June 28, 2011 (6/28/ 2011) board meeting which I requested from Respondents on or about 8/04/2011 (a month after June 28, 2011, BOE meeting), as a citizen (Evidence will be submitted upon request).
Each public body shall keep reasonably comprehensible minutes of all its meetings showing the time and place, the members present, the subjects considered, the actions taken, the vote of each member, and any other information required to be shown in the minutes by law, which shall be promptly available to the public to the extent that making such matters public shall not be inconsistent with section 7 (N.J.S.A. 10:4-12) of this act. N.J.S.A. 10:4-14

31. The Respondents violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-14& N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1, when they had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the requirements of N.J.S.A. 10:4-14& N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 and they are presumed to have knowledge of the law. They willfully and/or knowingly violated the OPMA and OPRA when they denied my request for a copy of the draft of minutes of June 28, 2011 (6/28/ 2011) board meeting, which I requested from Respondents on or about 8/04/2011(a month after June 28,2011 meeting), as a citizen, in violation of N.J.S.A. 10:414& N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. 32. The action of Elmwood Park Board of Education (BOE); William Moffitt, board secretary; and Richard D. Tomko, superintendent violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-1, when they did not (post) provide public (and I as a member of public) with the draft of minutes of June 28, 2011,

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 30 of 31

board meeting on time12 (the draft of minutes of June 28, 2011, meeting was published (posted) on the district website on or about September 17, 2011, after two more board meetings which had been held on July 13, and August 23, 2011. Not to mention that the minutes of June 28, 2011, was approved during the meeting of September 27, 2011; Evidence will be submitted upon request).
Minutes must be provided within two weeks of meeting, subject to approval at next board meeting. N.J.S.A. 10:4-1. Matawan Regional Teachers Assn. v. Bd. of Ed., 212 N.J. Super. 328 (Law Div. 1986) 2 weeks/next meeting

33. The Respondents violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-1, when they had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the requirements of N.J.S.A. 10:4-1and they are presumed to have knowledge of the law. They willfully and/or knowingly violated the OPMA when they failed to (post) provide public (and I as member of public) with the draft of minutes of June 28, 2011, board meeting on time, in violation of N.J.S.A. 10:4-1. 34. The action of Elmwood Park Board of Education (BOE); William Moffitt, board secretary; and Richard D. Tomko, superintendent violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (a), when they censored the public comment/question in regard to my employment during the public comment portion of the meeting of June 28, 2011, that has been indicated and referred to, as Item H4 in the minutes of that meeting (Daniel Golabek 74 Godwin Avenue Questions and comments relative to: Item H4, Assistant to Athletic Director; Basketball Coach vacancies; Release of Coach, Tennis Program; Evidence will be submitted upon request).
When addressing the public body, the public body is not required to respond to your questions. The public body cannot censor your speech during a public comment portion because it does not agree with you or like what you are saying.

And also the action of Respondents violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (a), when they prohibited public from asking questions and making comments which were unrelated to superintendents agenda.

12

The minutes of May 17, 2011, BOE meeting was published for public on October 25, 2011.

Irandokht Toorzani

Date: January 19, 2012 Page 31 of 31

The public body cannot prohibit comments based on subject matter so long as the comments relate to any issue that a member of the public feels may be of concern to the residents of the municipality or school district. N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (a)

35. The Respondents violated N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (a) when they had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the requirements of N.J.S.A. N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (a) and they are presumed to have knowledge of the law. They willfully and/or knowingly violated the OPMA when they censored the public comment/question in regard to my employment during the public comment portion of the meeting of June 28, 2011, that has been indicated and referred to, as Item H4 in the minutes of that meeting (Daniel Golabek 74 Godwin Avenue Questions and comments relative to: Item H4, Assistant to Athletic Director; Basketball Coach vacancies; Release of Coach, Tennis Program.) and also when they prohibited public from asking questions and making comments which were unrelated to superintendents agenda, , in violation of N.J.S.A. N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 (a). Respectfully Submitted, Irandokht Toorzani