Irandokht Toorzani (Respondent, pro se)

Date: February 6, 2012 Page 1 of 4

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

In The Matter Of The Tenure Charges Against Irandokht Toorzani, Filed By: Elmwood Park School District Board Of Education, Bergen County, New Jersey

Agency Ref. No. 170 -6/11 OAL. Docket. No.: EDU 09713-2011N VIA FACSIMILE

Dear Commissioner of Education Cerf: I (Irandokht Toorzani, Pro se Respondent) am respectfully writing this letter, following receipt of a copy of Elmwood Park BOEs correspondence1 to Commissioner of Education dated February 6, 2012, which as usual was filled with Sophistries and fallacious arguments and entirely filled with falsification of facts (again)2, to inform the Commissioner of Education that my document dated January 28, 2012, filed with the Department of Education Was Not An Exception In Any Way but it was a motion for Emergency Relief Due to Lack of Jurisdiction of OAL and Department of Education which I filed in accordance with N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.6 with the Department of Education.
1

Which was sent via hand delivery by a person (stranger and not a postman), who had trespassed on private property when I was not home, to leave the correspondence in my property. It raises the question, how these attorneys constantly making false statements of facts and laws on their sworn and unsworn pleadings and they are not even afraid a bit of being held accountable for their willful and intentional misconduct. As one example of the falsification of facts in their correspondence of February 6, 2012, they (Nicholas Celso and Jenna Rottenberg) have stated that: Therefore, because the previous suit was brought by Ms. Toorzani, involved a different factual basis, and did not result in a judgment on its merits,) When a close inspection of Document No. 94((CASE #: 2:09-cv-04262-SRC MAS) proves how these attorneys have been constantly making falsification of facts in their pleadings without any fear of being held accountable.

Irandokht Toorzani (Respondent, pro se)

Date: February 6, 2012

Page 2 of 4
N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.6 (Emergency Relief): (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 of a party.

So far my due process has been violated by the OAL and Department of Education officials involved in the instant matter. I am respectfully asking the Commissioner of Education to respect my rights under Fourteenth Amendments and review my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges3 dated August 10, 2011 and my motion for Emergency Relief due to lack of Jurisdiction dated January 28, 2011, page by page and line by line, since without reviewing those documents there is no way that Commissioner of Education find out about the credibility and validity of my documents and direct physical evidences. As I have mentioned in my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges and my motion for Emergency Relief, the instant (tenure) matter was procured by perjury which has been already proved by my submitted direct physical evidences. But Elmwood Park BOEs attorneys who have committed so many criminal conducts and misconduct (which has been explained in details in my motion for Emergency Relief) including but not limited to making false certifications4 during this proceeding, have questioned the validity of my direct physical evidences in their correspondence to Commissioner of Education dated February 6, 2012, now, after several months. If the Commissioner of Education ask the court to issue a subpoena to be submitted to Verizon, I can provide the Commissioner of Education with a formal phone record and in regard

Which has never been reviewed. My motion for their disqualification which was filed with the Commissioner of Education (since I had asked for Judge Strauss recusal as well) was never reviewed by any officials of either Department of Education or OAL with the excuse that my motion had not been filed with the proper tribunal. Even if that was the case, still that could not be used as an excuse to not to review my motion for disqualification of Elmwood Park BOEs attorneys SINCE the law says: 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.

Irandokht Toorzani (Respondent, pro se)

Date: February 6, 2012

Page 3 of 4 to my emails, on September 22, 2011, Richard D. Tomko, superintendent, deliberately disabled my school email account (to prevent me from having access to my emails) without giving me any prior notice when the instant (tenure) matter was still pending in Department of Education. Richard D. Tomko, superintendent, has had access to my emails, therefore IF I had lied under oath5 in regard to those emails, for sure Richard D. Tomko would have brought charges against me for perjury as I did and filed a complaint against him for perjury with the Office Of Attorney General for lying under oath. Despite the fact that I had informed the Department of Education officials involved in the instant matter and consequently OAL officials involved in the instant matter about these individuals criminal conducts including but not limited to perjury, HOW did no one question these individuals who had perjured themselves, to take a legal action against them and enforce 2C:51-2: Forfeiture of Public Office, Position, or Employment? And if my submitted direct physical evidences (including but not limited to emails and phone records) did not seem acceptable for those officials, WHY did not those officials ask for the direct physical evidences in the format that was acceptable for them? And WHERE on earth a Judge (ALJ, Judge Strauss) changes another Judges order (which has been explained in details in my motion for Emergency Relief) and tampers with public records and information to rely on those falsification to fraudulently aid and abet a party (Elmwood Park BOE) as ALJ, Judge Strauss did?
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 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 of the law.

Again, I am respectfully asking the Commissioner of Education to review my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges which was never reviewed and my motion for Emergency Relief due to lack of jurisdiction and declare not to be competent and grant me

The contents of my sworn (signed before notary) response to the tenure charges which I submitted to Elmwood park BOE on June 27, 2011, and its exhibits, is the same as the contests of my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges which both have been supported by the direct physical evidences.

Irandokht Toorzani (Respondent, pro se)

Date: February 6, 2012

Page 4 of 4 (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. 6 Date: February 6, 2012 respectfully submitted, Irandokht Toorzani (Respondent, Pro Se)

CC: Counsel of Record (via email)

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.