IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se Honorable Peter E.

Doyne Superior Court of New Jersey Bergen County Justice Center Suite 425 Hackensack, New Jersey 07601-7699

Page 1 of 5

MAY 4, 2012

Re:

Toorzani v. Elmwood Park Board of Education, et al Docket No. L-8966-11 Defendants opposition dated 5/2/2012 to Plaintiffs Motion for Judge Doynes recusal Dated 4/16/2012 (Plaintiffs letter to request Your Honors recusal dated 4/5/2012)

Dear Honorable Judge Doyne: I (Plaintiff, Irandokht Toorzani who represents herself (Pro Se) in the above-captioned matter) am respectfully writing this letter in regard to Defendants opposition dated 5/2/2012 to Plaintiffs motion for Your Honors recusal dated 4/16/2012 (Plaintiffs letter to request Your Honors recusal dated 4/5/2012). Not only Defendants Attorneys have not been able to address and refute any of Plaintiffs legitimate and legal reasons (misrepresenting the facts and overruling the Rules of NJ Superior Court per Defendants request to prevent the Plaintiff from filing an application for summary judgment1, etc) for Your Honors recusal but also they handpicked documents (which
1

While Defendants have been well aware of Plaintiffs disability (severe anxiety), they influenced Your Honor to coerce Plaintiff into discovery to take advantage of her disability. Your Honor simply prohibited Plaintiff from filing an application for summary Judgment in contrast to the Rules of NJ Superior Court, when prompt and expeditious disposal of matters under submission is important to the administration of justice. Canon 3(A)(7): A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court. When Your Honor had never asked for List of Facts and Exhibits and Your Honor were aware that the instant matter should have been filed In Lieu Of Prerogative Writs, Your Honor have been referring to the instant matter as a summary action in order to deny Plaintiffs Jury demand and in order to prohibit and prevent Plaintiff from filing an application for summary judgment. And while Plaintiff was entitled to file an application for summary judgment in accordance with the Rules of Superior Court and Plaintiff had informed Your Honor numerous times that her claims were well-founded based on the undisputed facts supported by the direct physical evidences and the law and there was no need for discovery, Your Honor set up and designed two case management conferences (on 2/2/2012 and 3/15/2012) to coerce Plaintiff into discovery when at the same time a scenario had been designed to make this belief that Plaintiff requested the Footnote Continued on the next page

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se

Page 2 of 5

MAY 4, 2012

are irrelevant to the instant matter from two prior cases between Plaintiff and Defendants in the NJ Federal District Court and the Administrative Court) in regard to Plaintiffs objections to the Defendants attorneys, Judges, and Officials Misconducts and Criminal Conducts and their responses to Plaintiffs objections (which were offering just a convenient pretext for giving force and effect to their responses/orders and stating that all submitted papers/materials had been reviewed, without specifying what had been reviewed), to question Plaintiffs creditability and to provide Your Honor with something to rely on in order to deny Plaintiffs motion for Your Honors recusal. In accordance with U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment,
Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

this is the constitutional right of any citizen including the Pro Se Plaintiff to object to Fraud Upon The Court and ask Judges recusal as many times as Fraud Upon The Court occurs. Defendants attorneys have tried to question credibility of Plaintiffs motion for Your Honors recusal by bringing those handpicked irrelevant documents to the instant matter from two prior cases between Plaintiff and Defendants in the NJ Federal District Court and the Administrative Court, while those handpicked documents along with the other documents (which had been filed during the proceedings of those two prior cases between Plaintiff and Defendants) prove that these Defendants are corrupt, fraud and perjurer and they have been hiring corrupt attorneys to distort and misrepresent the facts and make false certifications (without even being afraid of its consequences) and influence as many as judges and officials they can. These are the facts and not just Plaintiffs claims as they have been supported by the direct physical evidences and it does not take a Nobel prize winner to figure that out (even though it is irrelevant to the instant matter but to prove that Defendants attorneys lack credibility and to illustrate the Fraud Upon The Court, Plaintiff refers to just one example. Administrative law judge, Judge Strauss,
discovery (when Plaintiff was insisting to file an application for summary judgment but she was being prohibited to file one by Your Honor per Defendants request). Proof is the taped record of case management conference of 2/2/2012.

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se

Page 3 of 5

MAY 4, 2012

tampered with the Court 2 and Public Record in order to misuse FRCP 41 to conclude that Doctrine of Res Judicata would not apply to the matter of false tenure charges which had been initially established by perjury).

Plaintiffs federal complaint had been dismissed with prejudice upon the request of Elmwood Park BOE because of Plaintiffs inability to participate in oral deposition (even though Plaintiff had submitted doctors note regarding her medical conditions to Judge Chesler). A dismissal for failure to prosecute, pursuant to FRCP 41(b), operates as an adjudication upon the merits unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies and the US district court Judge (Judge Chesler) did not specify anything in its order or opinion dated May 19, 2011, which was stating, ORDERED that this action be and hereby is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and it is further ORDERED that this action be and hereby is CLOSED. When Judge Strauss, A.L.J. was aware of all the above facts , Judge Strauss, A.L.J., misrepresented the US district court Judges (judge Cheslers) Order and Opinion (dated May 19, 2011), in his order dated September 19, 2011, page 6, 1 as follows: See, Toorzini v. Elmwood Pk. Bd. 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 NEVER stated either in Judge Cheslers Opinion (dated May 19, 2011) or in his Order (dated May 19, 2011). And Judge Strauss knowingly and intentionally made the above misrepresentation of US district court Judges (Judge Cheslers) Order and Opinion to fraudulently misuse the following Rule (FRCP 41) to justify why Judge Strauss had denied Plaintiffs motion to dismiss in lieu of answer to the tenure charges which was on the ground of Doctrine of Res Judicata . 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. 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. And also Judge Strauss, A.L.J., stated in his order dated September 19, 2011, aff'd. Toorzani v. Elmwood Pk. Bd. of Educ., et aI., No. 11- 1858) (3'd Cir., July 12, 2011) Footnote Continued on the next page

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se

Page 4 of 5

MAY 4, 2012

Black's Law Dictionary Fifth Edition, page 594: 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). 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).

As Plaintiff has stated in her verified amended complaint, on 1/19/2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint supported by the direct physical evidences (which is still pending) with the Office of NJ Attorney General against 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 ) for their knowing, willful, and intentional violations of 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 against Administrative Law Judge, Judge Jesse H. Strauss for his knowing, willful, and intentional violations of 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 during the administrative proceedings of the false tenure charges AND on 2/13/2012, Plaintiff filed another complaint (certified) supported by the direct physical evidences (which is still pending) with the Office of NJ Attorney General and with the Governor Chris Christies Office against the Commissioner of Education, Christopher Cerf, for his violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:302, 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 and asked the Attorney General and Governor Chris Christie to exercise their

While CONTRARY to the above judge Strauss statement 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.

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se

Page 5 of 5

MAY 4, 2012

authorities under the laws in regard to all these criminal conducts and show that law-abiding citizens are also protected by law. Additionally, Although Plaintiff had provided sufficient legitimate and legal reasons for Your Honors recusal in her motion dated 4/16/2012 (Plaintiffs letter to request Your Honors recusal dated 4/5/2012) but Defendants attorneys in their opposition dated 5/2/2012 criticized Plaintiff for not referring to case laws in regard to Your Honors recusal in her motion when Pro se litigants' court submissions are to be construed liberally and held to less stringent standards than submissions of lawyers. If the court can reasonably read the submissions, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigant's unfamiliarity with rule requirements. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976)(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); McDowell v. Delaware State Police, 88 F.3d 188, 189 (3rd Cir. 1996); United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3rd Cir. 1992)(holding pro se petition cannot be held to same standard as pleadings drafted by attorneys); Then v. I.N.S., 58 F.Supp.2d 422, 429 (D.N.J. 1999). The courts provide pro se parties wide latitude when construing their pleadings and papers. When interpreting pro se papers, the Court should use common sense to determine what relief the party desires. S.E.C. v. Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992). See also, United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 (3rd Cir. 1999). Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Irandokht Toorzani, Pro Se Plaintiff

CC: Howard M. Nirenberg, Esq. via email Nirenbergvarano@aol.com