Irandokht Toorzani (Petitioner)

Date: February 13, 2012 Page 1 of 6

Office of The Attorney General Division of Criminal Justice Attn: Records and Identification (R&I) Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market Street - PO Box 085 Trenton, NJ 08625-0085 609-984-6500

RE: Filing A Complaint Against The Commissioner of Education, Christopher Cerf For His Violation Of N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2, N.J.S.A. 2C:30-6, 18 U.S.C 1001, 18 U.S.C. 1623, N.J.S.A. 2C:28-7, 18 U.S.C. 242, and 18 U.S.C. 241 (Regarding 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)

I (Petitioner, Irandokht Toorzani) hereby certify as follows: I (petitioner, Irandokht Toorzani) am respectfully writing this complaint in regard to Commissioner Cerfs violation of the laws concerning the above captioned matter which was initially procured by perjury and was certified with Commissioner Cerf on June 30, 2011. These violations are including but not limited to: a) Condoning and ratifying fraudulent and criminal conducts of ALJ, Judge Strauss1 and my adversary; and

When based on the doctrine of res judicata the tenure matter must have been initially dismissed, Judge Strauss changed and misrepresented the Federal Judges order and opinion (Judge Cheslers order and opinion dated 5/19/2011) in order to misuse FRCP 41 and say that my federal complaint had not been adjudicated on merit ,to be able to render an order that the doctrine of res judicata would not apply to the instant (tenure) matter and deny my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges. The above Judge Strauss actions constituted Tampering with Public Records and Information and Fraud upon the court which I reported to the Commissioner of Education and Chief Judge Sanders but it was condoned by both of them and they acted in deliberate ignorance of the truth and falsity of the information when they had actual knowledge of the laws:

Irandokht Toorzani (Petitioner)

Date: February 13, 2012 Page 2 of 6

b) Making false statements of the facts and restating and relying on Judge Strauss misrepresentation of the facts and misrepresentation of the court records to make the final decision, when the direct physical evidences in regard to falseness of those statements had been given to Commissioner Cerf. Despite Commissioner Cerfs actual knowledge of the information, he acted in deliberate ignorance of the truth and falsity of the information; and c) Not complying with the laws, not reviewing my documents and not showing any interest to examine my direct physical evidences for different reasons (excuses) including but not limited to lack of staff or Commissioners discretion.
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 of the law.

; And d) Changing the name (title) of my documents which were filed with the Department of Education, in order to either not reviewing them at all or reviewing them but not, for the purpose that they had been filed, to enable himself (Commissioner Cerf) to use improper provisions in order to deny my rights (as a few examples commissioner has called and treated my motion for emergency relief due to lack of Jurisdiction [attachment 1], as

Fraud. An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of 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 Fifth Edition, page 594. 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." [Emphasis supplied in original]. By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person).

Irandokht Toorzani (Petitioner)

Date: February 13, 2012 Page 3 of 6

Exceptions and my letter to Commissioner Cerf dated February 6, 2012 [attachment 2] as response to the Board's reply exception to be able to state that there is no provision for such a submission in order to not reviewing my letter). 2 On January 28, 2012, I filed a motion for emergency relief due to lack of Jurisdiction of the Department of Education and OAL in accordance with N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.6 with the following title;
Motion For Emergency Relief Due To Lack Of Jurisdiction In Lieu Of Response ToJudgeStraussCorrespondence/Order Dated January 3, 2012, Which Is Void Due To Officials Misconduct, Denial Of My Due Process, And Fraud Upon The Court

But Commissioner Cerf in his final decision stated that he deemed my motion for emergence relief due to lack of jurisdiction as exceptions to Judge Strauss initial decision and not as a motion for emergency relief, and to justify his action, Commissioner Cerf has misrepresented my statement and stated that:
By way of a 6-page facsimile - dated January 9, 2012 and entitled "Request for Extension" respondent requested a 13-day extension to file exceptions to the Initial Decision.' Respondent was granted her requested extension. Upon expiration of the 13-day extension period on January 30, 2012 - rather than submitting exceptions respondent hand delivered a 90-page document entitled "Motion for Emergency Relief Due to Lack of Jurisdiction in Lieu of Response to Judge Strauss' Correspondence/Order Dated January 3,2012, Which is Void Due to Officials [sic] Misconduct, Denial of My Due Process and Fraud Upon the Court." In that there is no provision for emergent relief after the issuance of an Initial Decision, respondent's submission is being deemed her exceptions.

While in my 6-page facsimile dated January 9, 2012, I had stated:

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: a. He commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized or he is committing such act in an unauthorized manner; or 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 offense of official misconduct is a crime of the third degree.

Irandokht Toorzani (Petitioner)

Date: February 13, 2012 Page 4 of 6

I am respectfully requesting one cycle (13 days) extension of time, up to January 30, 2012 to file my response to Judge Strauss correspondence (order) which has been presently scheduled for January 16, 2012

Which clearly proves contrary to what Commissioner Cerf has claimed I had never asked for extension to file exceptions to the Initial Decision as Commissioner Cerf has misrepresented in his order (the word Exception cannot be found anywhere in my 6-page facsimile to Commissioner Cerf [attachment 3]). And again contrary to what Commissioner Cerf has stated in his final decision that there is no provision for emergent relief after the issuance of an Initial Decision, respondent's submission is being deemed her exceptions, the law says:
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. N.J.A.C.6A:3-1.6 (Emergent relief or stay (a) Where the subject matter of the controversy is a particular course of action by a district board of education or any other party subject to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, the petitioner may include with the petition of appeal, a separate motion for emergent relief or a stay of that action pendingtheCommissionersfinaldecisioninthecontestedcase.

These laws clearly state, pending a final decision (and not pending an initial decision) a party can apply for an emergency relief which I did in accordance with the above New Jersey Administrative Codes, but Commissioner Cerf disregarded my motion for emergency relief [attachment 1] anyway. In my motion for emergency relief dated January 28, 2012, I questioned the Department of Educations and OALs jurisdiction over the instant matter and I proved by the direct physical evidences that the OAL and Commissioner of Education lacked jurisdiction over the instant matter SINCE the tenure charges had been initially procured by perjury which is a 3rd degree criminal offense and the proceeding of the tenure matter has also been involved with criminal conducts, BUT Commissioner Cerf condoned 3 all these violations of the laws and acted in

N.J.S.A. 2C:30-6. Crime 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

Irandokht Toorzani (Petitioner)

Date: February 13, 2012 Page 5 of 6

deliberate ignorance of the truth and falsity of the information despite his actual knowledge of the information. Commissioner Cerf has jurisdiction to hear and determineall controversies and disputed arising under the school laws, N.J.Stat. Ann. 18A: 6-9, therefore Commissioner of Education and Judge Strauss (ALJ) had no jurisdiction over instant (tenure) matter which was procured by perjury and was involved with criminal conducts during its proceeding. But despite all these facts, ALJ, Judge Strauss, rendered an initial decision and Commissioner Cerf who had no jurisdiction over criminal matter (which is in exclusive jurisdiction of the office of attorney

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: (1) subjects another to unlawful arrest or detention, including, but not limited to, motor vehicle investigative stops, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, lien or other infringement of personal or property rights; or (2) denies or impedes another in the lawful exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity. b. (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection, a public servant who violates the provisions of subsection a. of this section is guilty of a crime of the third degree. (2) If bodily injury results from depriving a person of a right or privilege in violation of subsection a. of this section, the public servant is guilty of a crime of the second degree. (3) If, during the course of violating the provisions of this section, a public servant commits or attempts or conspires to commit murder, manslaughter, kidnapping or aggravated sexual assault against a person who is being deprived of a right or privilege in violation of subsection a. of this section, the public servant is guilty of a crime of the first degree. c. Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:1-8 or any other law, a conviction of official deprivation of civil rights under this section shall not merge with a conviction of any other criminal offense, nor shall such other conviction merge with a conviction under this section, and the court shall impose separate sentences upon each violation of this section and any other criminal offense. d. Proof that a public servant made a false statement, prepared a false report, 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 of this State. 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 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 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.

Irandokht Toorzani (Petitioner)

Date: February 13, 2012 Page 6 of 6

General) rendered a final decision4 based on Judge Strauss (who had tampered with the court records and information) initial decision to dismiss me from my tenure position5 unlawfully.
There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction. Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215 The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 533.

Dismissing me from my tenure position was a discriminatory dismissal which was initially procured by perjury, as it has been proved in my motion for emergency relief dated January 28, 2012 (and also my motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges dated August 10, 2011, which was never reviewed by the Department of Education) which are well supported by the direct physical evidences. WHEREFORE I am filing this complaint with the Office of Attorney General against the Commissioner of Education, Christopher Cerf, for his violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2, N.J.S.A. 2C:30-6, 18 U.S.C 1001, 18 U.S.C. 1623, N.J.S.A. 2C:28-7, 18 U.S.C. 242, and 18 U.S.C. 241 which consequently resulted in dismissing me unlawfully from my tenure position. I am respectfully asking the Attorney General to exercise his authority to investigate and take action against all the aforementioned criminal conducts. Thank you for your considerations. Respectfully Submitted, Irandokht Toorzani
4

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. 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 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 file in Elmwood Park BOEs 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.