IRANDOKHT TOORZANI

PLAINTIFF, Pro se 175 oxford ter. #2 River Edge, New Jersey 07661

Page 2 of28 June 28, 2012

which have been committed by the Officers of the Court to deprive me from my civil rights and NOT BECAUSE I was not satisfy with Judge Doyne's Decisions, BUT Mr. Keitel was not interested in listening to my report or even looking at the related direct physical evidences and he kept saying that the matter was Civil and not Criminal and the direct physical evidences (related Court Documents and Records) were my opinions.' As much as I was permitted and I could
4,

I reported the following intentional violations

of the Laws and the Rules ofNJ Superior Court which have been committed by the Officers of the Court in order to aid and abet the Defendants (Elmwood Park BOE et al.) and to deprive me (pro se PlaintifJ) from my civil rights. Since I was not heard by Mr. Keitel, Assistant Prospector, in the meeting of June 20, 2012, I am writing this letter to you, the Bergen County Prosecutor, to report the following intentional violations of the Laws and the Rules ofNJ Superior Court and criminal conduct committed by the Officers of the Court which deprived me of my civil rights and caused me to lose my property (my reputation and my job). PROOFS for all of the followings are the Court Documents and Records (related direct physical evidences) which I had taken with me to submit to Mr. Keitel, Bergen County Assistant Prosecutor, in the meeting of 6/2012012 (1cannot annex all of them to this letter because they are voluminous). 2C:30-6:Crime Of Official Deprivation Of Civil Rights& 2C:30-2. Official Misconduct & Obstruction Of Justice& Conspiracy Against Rights

Not to mention when on 10/25/2012, I reported the criminal conduct committed by my employer to the Bergen County Prosecutor Office (my employer violated NJ Statute "OPMA" and PERJURED himself to bring false tenure charges against me which caused me to lose my property! my reputation and my job ]), Mr. Keitel sent me a letter dated 12/2112011 informing me that the Bergen County Prosecutor Office declined to exercise their authority under the NJ statutes, due to limited prosecutorial resources and informing that I was free to pursue other avenues potentially available under the statutes, including pursuing the matter in Superior Court.
4

My sister's presence in that meeting could help me.

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se 175 oxford ter, #2 River Edge, New Jersey 07661

Page 3 of 28 June 28, 2012

A)

2c:28-7. Tampering With Public Records Or Information & 2c:28-6. Tampering With Or Fabricating Physical Evidence &

1. Many documents have been kept off the record and have not being reflected in AeMS until I (''pro se plaintiff" or "plaintiff') complained to the clerk's office on or about 4/6/2012 (proof

see the document #s of this case in ACMS [DOCKET: BER L -008966 11J) 2. Still many documents (written by: Judge Doyne, the Court, the Defendants, and the Plaintiff [meJ) have been kept off the record, as few example: a) Judge Doyne's letter dated 1117/2012to the parties, stating that:
" ... Staff has alerted the undersigned that the plaintiff wishes to file a summary judgment application .... A case management conference is scheduled for February 2,2012 at 3:00 p.m ..... "

b) My (Plaintiff's) letter dated 3/22/2012, in objection to judge Doyne's false statement in his letter dated 3/16/2012. c) Judge Doyne's letter dated 3/27/2012. d) Defendants' opposition dated 3/20/2012 (Filed 3/22/2012) to my motion to amend the complaint, which was entered into ACMS on 6/6/2012 about 11 days after my (plaintiff's) complaint had been dismissed, as DOC NUM 046. (See the highlighted row of the following table)

VENUE CASE TITLE : TOORZANI

BERGEN VS

COURT ELMWOOD

LAW CVL PARK BD OF ED

DOCKET #: L 008966 II

DATE FILED 02 02 02 03 03 03 03 24 27 28 02 02 13 15 2012 2012 1012 2012 2012 2012 2012

DOC NUM 022 010 011 012 020 013 019

DOCUMENT

TYPE

MISCBRIEF MISCBRIEF MOTNMISC ORDR RECONSIDER ORD CRG TR ASGN MOTN FL AMD CMP ORDR CSE MG

03
03 03

22

21)12
2012 2012

26
27

046
014 018

LTIRMEMRD
MISC BRIEF ORDR OTH CSE MG

orn

FILINGff ARGET PARTY NAME ELMWOOD PARK TOORZANl TOORZANl TOORZANI COURTINIT TOORZANl COURTINIT TOORZANI ELMWOOD

ATTORNEY NAME NIRENBERG PROSE PROSE PROSE PROSE

&

ELMWOOD PARK
PARK

NIRENBERG
PROSE NIRENBERG

MUL PTY Y N N N N N N

DOC STA

WD GR GR GR GR

& &

Y
N

GR

e) Judge Doyne's letter dated 5/16/2012. which that letter was to coerce me (pro se plaintiff) participate in deposition (while default had already been entered and motion for default

to

JRANDOKHT TOORZANI
PLAINTIFF, Pro se

Page 4 of2S

175 oxford ter. #2 River Edge, New Jersey 07661

June 28, 2012

judgment had already been filed) and to respond to the defendants' non-conforming motion to dismiss (which wasfiled by the defendants consequent to entry of default) to aid and abet the defendants who had no rights for any defense after default had been entered except filing a timely motion to vacate the default, before plaintiff moves and files a motion for default judgment, which defendants did not. f) Defendants' letter to Judge Doyne dated 5/22/2012, (asking Judge Doyne not to accept the my (plaintiff's) certification and brief which were in objection to defendants' conformingfilings non-

which had been filed consequent to entry of default and consequent to motionfor default judgment).

filing my (Plaintiff's)

g) My (Plaintiff's) letter dated 5/23/2012 in response to the above letter. h) Defendants' letter dated 5/23/2012 (stating, defendant withdrew their requestfor oral argument, which defendants had requested for their non-conforming motions which had been filed subsequent to entry of default and subsequent to filing my (plaintiff's) motionfor default judgment). i) Two letters to Ms. Stylianou and her responses (regarding Tampering with Documents, Public and Court Records in the Jacket and ACMS). 3. In violation of Rule 1:6-2, per defendants' request Judge Doyne prohibited me (pro se plaintiff) from filing any motion without Judge Doyne's prior permission (proof defendants' letters to Judge Doyne and defendants' oppositions to my (plaintiff's) motions which are the Court Documents and they are not my (plaintiff's) opinion as Mr. Keitel, assistant prosecutor was calling them when he had not even looked at them, EXIllBIT 1) 4. In violation of rule 4:69-4, not only Judge Doyne coerced me (pro se plaintiff) into discovery without determining the factual and legal dispute and marking the exhibits, but he was tricking and intimidating me (pro se plaintiff) to coerce me to sign a prepared trial and discovery schedule form belong to chancery division. And also in Violation of rule 4:69-4, Judge Doyne prohibited me (pro se plaintiff) from filing an application for summary judgment while he was coercing me (pro se plaintiff) to file unnecessary motions and letters with the Court to prohibit me from representing my case in fair and orderly manner (proof the taped records of two case

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se 175 oxford ter. #2 River Edge, New Jersey 07661

Page 50f28
June

28,2012

management conferences of2/2/2012 and 3/15/2012 which are public records and are also in the possession of the court). 5. In violation of rules 4:46 and 4:69-2, Judge Doyne prohibited me (pro se plaintiff) from filing an application for summary judgment (proof the Court Documents, as one example defendants' letter dated 2/22/2012, EXHIBIT 2 ) by the time that I (plaintiff) put my request for Judge Doyne's permission to file an application for summary judgment on my motion to amend the complaint dated 3/13/2012 which was opposed by defendants' opposition dated 3/20/2012 (EXHIBIT 3). The Court mischaracterized my (plaintiff's) motion to amend the complaint as the motion for summary judgment (EXHIBIT 4) returnable on 4/13/12 (when I had notfiled any application for summary judgment and I had just simply asked for judge Doyne 's permission to file an applicationfor summary judgment) to cover up Judge Doyne's violation of Rules 4:46 the Court change the document

and 4:69-2, when I (plaintiff) questioned this mischaracterization,

type and then rescheduled it. (See the highlighted rows of the following table)
VENUE : STATEWIDE COURT: LAWCVL DOCKET # : BERL 008966 11

CASE TITLE: TOORZANI VS ELMWOOD PARK BD OF ED

PROCEEDING TYPE STATCONF MOTIONHRG MOTIONHRG MOTIONHRG MOTIONHRG MOTIONHRG MOTIONHRG MOTIONHRG MOTIONHRG MOTIONHRG

MOTION DOCrrYPE

MOTION STATUS

SESSION DATE 091312

COURT ROOM 426 426 426 426 426 426 426 426 426 426

PROCEED TIME 03 00 0900 0900 0900 0900 0900 0900 0900 0900 0900

JUDGE
ID

PROCEEDING STATUS BY:VIA: CANCEL RSCHED COMPLETED COMPLETED COMPLETED COMPLETED COMPLETED RSCHED COMPLETED CANCEL

PEDOI PEDOI PEDOI PEDOI PEDOI PEDOI PEDOI PEDOl PED01 PEDOI

34MKl 37 MH3 GRANTED 34 MKl DENIED 33 MAl GRANTED 25 M99 DENlED 24 M99 DENlED 13MB3 13 MB3 GRANTED 11 M99 WTHDRW MTN

0615 12 052512 0525 12 0525 12 05 11 12 05 11 12 041312 0330 12 031612

IRANDOKHT

TOORZANT

Page 6 of28 June 28, 2012

PLAINTIFF, Pro se
175 oxford ter. #2 River Edge, New Jersey 07661

6. Judge Doyne violated the Rules 4:43 (Default) and 1:5-6 (filing), when judge Doyne accepted the non-conforming filings from defendants including a motion to dismiss which had a nonconforming affidavit in violation of rule 4:23-5(a)15 in its support and had been filed consequent to entry of default on 5/9/2012, an answer to verified amended complaint which was a general denial
6

filed on 5/10/2012

(consequent to entry of default on 5/9/2012), and a certification

contains false statements filed on 511112012 (consequent to filing my (plaintiff's) motion for default judgment on 5/10/2012@ 2:38 PM). Once a default is entered, the defendant has no right to participate in a lawsuit until the default has been set aside. The only motion that a defendant can file is a timely motion to be relieved from default before the motion for default judgment be filed. The court has no authority to consider any other pleading or motion.

7. Judge Doyne violated the Rules 4:43 (Default), 1:6-3(a) (filing motion), and 1:6-3(b) (filing cross motion) when he relied on the defendants' non-conforming certification filed on 5/1112012 (which was filed after default had been entered by the Court Clerk on 5/9/2012 and after I (plaintiff) hadfiled my motionfor default judgment on 5/10/2012) and unlawfully struck

(EXHIBIT 5) the default on 5115/2012, in violation of Rule 4:43 and then let the defendants file a non-conforming motion (Motion Vacate Default/Extend Time Answer) out of time on 5116/2012 (returnable on 5/25/2012) without existence of any Court Order permitting that filing, in violation ofthe Rules of Court and under guise of cross motion to my (plaintiff's) motion for default judgment (not to mention that the ACMS indicates that my (plaintiff's) motionfor default judgmentfiled on 5/10/2012 was rescheduledfor the next cycle 6/15/2012 by the Court, which I

(plaintiff) did not have any knowledge about it). The proofs are the Court Documents and Records, and not my (plaintiff's) opinion as Mr. Keitel was calling them in the meeting of 6/20/2012. (See the highlighted rows of the following table)

The defendants were IN DEFAULT in discovery obligations owed to plaintiff (defendants were in default in the requested admissions dated 2/2/2012 propounded to defendants by Plaintiff). Even Defendants' proposed responsive Answer to the verified amended Complaint was not illustrating to the court that the Defendants have a meritorious defense to the Plaintiff's verified amended complaint.

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAfNTIFF, Pro se 175 oxford ter. #2 River Edge, New Jersey 07661

Page 7 of28

June 28, 2012

VENUE : STATEWIDE COURT: LAW CVL DOCKET # : BER L 008966 CASE TITLE: TOORZANI VS ELMWOOD PARK BD OF ED PROCEEDING TYPE STATCONF MOTlONHRG MOTIONHRG MOTlONHRG MOTIONHRG MOTIONHRG MOTIONHRG MOTIONHRG MOTIONHRG MOTIONHRG MOTION MOTION DOCrrYPE STATUS 34MKI 37 MH3 GRANTED 34 MK1 DENIED 33 MAl GRANTED 25 M99 DENIED 24 M99 DENIED 13MB3 13 MB3 GRANTED 11 M99WTHDRWMTN SESSION DATE 091312 061512 052512 052512 052512 05 11 12 0511 12 041312 033012 031612 COURT ROOM 426 426 426 426 426 426 426 426 426 426 PROCEED TIME 0300 0900 0900 0900 0900 0900 0900 0900 0900 0900

11

JUDGE ID PEDOl PEDOI PEDOI PEDOI PEDOI PEDOI PEDOl PEDOI PEDOI PEDOI

PROCEEDING STATUS BY:VIA: CANCEL RSCHED COMPLETED COMPLETED COMPLETED COMPLETED COMPLETED RSCHED COMPLETED CANCEL

Although the trial court has broad discretion to set aside the entry of a default or default judgment, but the Court can only utilize that discretion, if the defendant establishes the proper ground for relief, follows the appropriate procedure, and [des the motion (motion to vacate the default) within the mandatory time limits, which here in this case defendants did not, as the Court Documents and Records prove it. 8. Judge Doyne violated the Rules 4:23-5(a)1 and 4:23-5(c), when he accepted the defendants' nonconforming motion to dismiss, filed on 5/912012 consequent to entry of default. The motion was non-conforming since: a) It had been filed consequent to entry of default. b) Even regardless of part (a) of this paragraph (~8), defendants' motion to dismiss was not supported by a conforming affidavit
8
7

in accordance with Rule 4:23-5(a)1.

Not to mention that the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's verified amended complaint was filed after the date that the answer to verified amended complaint was due which consequently could not toll the time to answer the verified amended complaint and accordingly defendants were in default and after the entry of default, defendants had no right to any defense except filing a timely motion to vacate the default before a motion for default judgment be filed. This non-conforming affidavit, in violation of rule 4:23-5(a)l, intentionally was not citing that the defendants were IN DEFAULT in discovery obligations owed to the plaintiff (defendants were in default in the requested admission by Plaintiff) and was not stating that Plaintiff had already responded to all the propounded interrogatories by the defendants and she had produced all the documents requested by the defendants. However defendants' attorneys

Continued on the next page

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se 175 oxford ter, #2 River Edge, New Jersey 07661

Page 8 of28 June 28, 2012

9. Making False Documentation And Record: on 5/25/2012, three orders were filed by the Court as follows: (See the highlighted row of the following table)
DATE FILED DOC NUM DOCUMENT TYPE FILINGfT ARGET PARITNAME ORDR DISM CMPL ORD ENT DEF JUD ORD VC DF EX TM ELMWOOD TOORZANI ELMWOOD PARK PARK ATTORNEY NAME NIRENBERG PROSE NIRENBERG & & MUL PIT Y N DOC STA GR DN GR

05 05 05

25 25 25

2012 2012 2012

043 044 045

but I (pro se plaintiff) was given just two orders DOC NUM 043 (ORDR DISM CMPL) and DOC NUM 045 (ORD VC DF EXTM) which Judge ~oyne's finding and reasoning for granting those motions (the defendants' motions) had not been appended to those orders (Judge Doyne, orally had stated his finding and reasoning in the absJnce of parties, even though that I (plaintiff) and defendants had consented to not to have oral argument. I (pro se plaintiff) had to pay more than $100 to find out what Judge Doyne 'sfi~ding and reasoning had been). MORE IMPORTANTLY I (pro se plaintiff) was told by the Court's staff that NO Physical

Document for DOC NUM 044 (ORD ENT DEF JUD) existed, which consequently made me (plaintiff) unable to appeal Judge Doyne's order denying my motion for default judgment since Judge Doyne's physical order denying my motion for default judgment, which has been entered into ACMS as DOC NUM 044 fORD ENT DEF JUD, DOES NOT EXIST. 10. Making False Documentation And Record: Entering a certification (DOC NUM 027) into ACMS on 5/7/2012 by the Court when NO such Document existed (EXIllBIT 6). After I

were looking for an specific recording (oral statements made to Plaintiffby the witnesses who are available to the Defendants while the essence of what Defendants' attorneys were seeking, had been revealed to them through interrogatories, and Verified Amended Complaint, and was/is readily available to them direct from the witnesses for the asking) from several years tape recording (Defendants' attorneys were lookingfor those oral statements to help prepare themselves to examine the witnesses who are Defendants' employees and available to them and to make sure that they have overlooked nothing) which was a massive work and an undue burden on Plaintiff to produce it and was also protected by work product.

IRANDOKHT TOORZANT PLAINTIFF, Pro se 175 oxford ter. #2 River Edge, New Jersey 07661

Page 90f28
June 28, 2012

(plaintif}) learned about this matter and I went to the Court to ask for a copy of that certification,
I was told by the staff ofthe clerk's office that they did not know where that certification was

located (when ACMS was indicating that the said certification had been filed on 5/2/2012) and they could not provide me with a copy of that certification and I was told if I wanted to get a copy of that certification I had to go back to the Court after a week. Then, when I asked them how they could not provide me with a copy of that certification that they claimed had been filed almost a week before, they gave me a copy of defendants' letter dated 4/27/2012 addressed to Judge Doyne. Later, after several times that I complained to several places including the Bergen County Prosecutor Office regarding this matter (EXHIBIT 7), on 5/9/2012, Court changed the Document Type from "Certification" to "L TTR MEMRD" (EXHIBIT 8). (See the highlighted rows of thefollowing tables)
VENUE CASE BERGEN COURT : LAW CVL DOCKET #: L 00896611

TITLE: TOORZANI VS ELMWOOD PARK BD OF ED 11 DOC NUM 017 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 031 030 BERGEN DOCUMENT TYPE NONCONF ORDR FLAMD CMP COMP AMENDED MOTNMlSC MOTNMlSC MlSCBRlEF CERTIFICA nON MlSCBRlEF MlSCBRlEF REQDEFLT ANS JRY DEMAND COURT : LAW CVL FILINGfTARGET PARTY NAME TooRZANI TooRZANI TooRZANI TooRZANI TooRZANl ELMWOOD PARK ELMWOOD PARK TooRZANI TooRZANI TOORZANI ATTORNEY NAME PROSE PROSE PROSE PROSE PROSE NIRENBERG NIRENBERG PROSE PROSE PROSE MUL PTY N N N N N
& Y & Y

DATE FILED 04 04 04 04 04 05 05 05 05 05 05 16 16 19 30 02 03 04 09 10 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 201.2 2012 2012 2012

DOC STA GR DN DN

N N N

VENUE CASE

DOCKET #: L 00896611

TITLE: TOORZANl VS ELMWOOD PARK BD OF ED

DATE FILED 04 04 04 04 04 04 05 05 05 05 05 05 16 16 19 30 02 03 04 09 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012

DOC NUM 016 017 023 024 025

DOCUMENT TYPE MlSCBRlEF ORDR FLAMD CMP COMP AMENDED MOTNMlSC MOTNMlSC

NON CONF

2012
2012 2012 2012 2012

026
027 028 029 031

MISCBRIEF
LTfRMEMRD MlSCBRIEF MISCBRIEF REQDEFLT

FILINGfTARGET PARTY NAME TOORZANI TooRZANI TooRZANI TooRZANI TOORZANI TooRZANI ELMWOOD PARK ELMWOOD PARK TOORZANI TOORZANI

ATTORNEY NAME PROSE PROSE PROSE PROSE PROSE PROSE NIRENBERG NIRENBERG PROSE PROSE

& &

MUL PTY N N N N N N Y Y N N

DOC STA GR DN DN

fRANDOKHT TOORZANI

Page 10 of28 June 28, 2012

PLAINTIFF, Pro se 175 oxford ter. #2 River Edge, New Jersey 07661

12. Mischaracterizing the track

9

The Documents:

Court mischaracterized

my (plaintiff's) motion to change

filed on 2/14/2012 as "motion to reconsider"

10.

and also mischaracterized my proposed Then Judge Doyne created his own order

order attached to my motion as "order to reconsider"

dated 3/2/12, as "order to change the track initiated by court" (EXHIBIT 9) as his order and response to my motion to change the track assignment, in order to address and grant the defendants' demands which had been requested by defendants via their opposition to plaintiff's motion to change the track (Defendants had asked Judge Doyne to prohibit plaintiff from filing any motion without his prior permission, specially motion for summary judgment via their opposition; EXHIBIT 10) . In that created order dated 3/2/12, Judge Doyne stated:
" ... FURTHER ORDERED that nothing herein shall serve to modify the case management order heretofore entered and, more particularly but not by way of limitation, the provision that no motion can be filed absent court permission ... "

when even that case management order did not have such a provision that "no motion can be filed absent court permission" (EXHIBIT 11) (See the highlighted rows of the following tables).

VENUE CASE TITLE DATE FILED 10 12 12 12 01 01 01 02 28 15 15 15 04 II 13 06 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012

BERGEN TOORZANI DOC NUM 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008

COURT VS ELMWOOD PARK DOCUMENT TYPE COMP JRY DEMAND SUMMONS SUMMONS SUMMONS ANS JRY DEMAND NOTC APPEARANCE NOTC APPEARANCE MlSCOTHER

LAW CVL DOCKET #: L 00896611 BD OF ED ATTORNEY FILING/T ARGET PARTY NAME NAME TooRZANI PROSE MOFFITT NIRENBERG 99 NIRENBERG 99 ELMWOOD PARK NIRENBERG TOMKO 99 ELMWOOD PARK NIRENBERG ELMWOOD PARK NIRENBERG ELMWOOD PARK NIRENBERG TOORZANI PROSE

& & & & & &

MUL PTY N N N N Y N Y N

DOC STA

02
02

14
16

2012
2012

009
021

MOTN RECONSIDER
ORDR OTH CSE MG

TOORZANI
ELMWOOD PARK

PROSE
NIRENBERG &

N
Y

GR
GR

Originally the track assignment had been entered erroneously and despite the fact that Judge Doyne and the defendants' attorney had knowledge about it none of them took any action to fix that error. When plaintiff realize about that error she filed a motion on 2/14/2012 to change the track.

10

When plaintiff asked clerk's office for a copy of this order which had been mischaracterize as "order to reconsider"
(DOC NUM 012) plaintiffwas told that such an order did not EXIST.

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se 175 oxford ter. #2

Page 11 ufl8 June 28, 2012

River Edge, New Jersey 07661

DATE FILED

DOC NUM

DOCUMENT

TYPE
-

02 02 02 03 03 03 03 03 03 03

24 27 28 02 02 13 15 22 26 27

-2012

21m

2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012

022 010 011 012 020 013 019 046 014 018

MISCBRlEF MISCBRlEF MOlNMISC ORDR RECONSIDER ORD CHG TR ASGN MOlN FL AMD CMP ORDR OTH CSE MG LTTRMEMRD MISCBRlEF ORDR OTH CSE MG

FILINGfT ARGET PARTY NAME ELMWOOD PARK TOORZANI TOORZANI TOORZANI COURTINIT TooRZANI COURTlNlT ELMWOOD PARK TOORZANI ELMWOOD PARK

ATTORNEY NAME NIRENBERG PROSE PROSE PROSE PROSE NIRENBERG PROSE NIRENBERG

&

& &

MUL PTY Y N N N N N N Y N Y

DOC STA

WD GR GR GR GR

GR

13. Removing and concealing Documents:

Removing and concealing a document from the jacket

which was indicating that default had been entered on 5/9/12, and was a notice addressed to defendants (Document Return/Nonconforming Document Notification), informing the

defendants' attorney that the defendants' answer was being returned to them and had been marked "received" but not "filed" as the result that defendants had been in default and default had been entered aft amended complaint on 5/9/12. This notice to the defendants' attorney had also directed the defendants' attorney to forward a copy of that notice to plaintiff but defendants' attorney willfully and intentionally failed to follow the Court's direction by not forwarding the copy ofthat notice to plaintiff (EXHIBIT The defendants' attorney did not forwarded a copy of that notice (Document Return/Nonconforming Document Notification) to me (plaintiff) in order to conceal that 12).

information from pro se plaintiff, and fraudulently claim that the defendants had not received any notice regarding the entry of default and claim that default had not been entered on 5/912012, to fraudulently hinder me (plaintifJ) from getting default judgment. (Once I was making copy of some documents from the jacket, I saw the said notice in the jacket but later after a few days I realized that the said notice had been removed from the jacket. I asked for that missing notice but nobody was responsive and I was asked if I had made a copy of that notice? [at the time I was not sure if I had a copy of that notice J and when I inform Ms. Stylianou, civil case manager, regarding this matter, she responded that she only was able to account for each document in ACMS, while that notice had not been reflected in ACMS).

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI
PLAINTIFF, Pro se 175 oxford ter. #2 River Edge, New Jersey 07661

Page 1l otl8 June 28, 2012

B)

2c:28-1. Perjury And Subornation Of Perjury &2c:28-2. False Swearing

14. On 5/16/2012, after default had already been entered on 5/9/2012 and after plaintiff's motion for default judgment had already been filed on 5/1 0/20 12, defendants filed a non-conforming motion ("motion to Vacate Default/Extend Time Answer")
12 11

out of time under guise ofa cross motion

to plaintiff's motion for default judgment.

The defendants' said motion ( "Vacate Default/Extend Time Answer", DOC NUM 037) had been supported by a certification contains false statements of fact. In that certification defendants' attorney knowingly and intentionally had made several false statements of fact and Rules, while

Judge Doyne had been aware of those falsifications of fact and Rules.
In that certification defendants' attorney (Sandra Varano, esq.J certified that:
"I hereby certify that the within statements made by me are true. 1 am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, 1 am subject to punishment."

and while defendants' attorney (Sandra Varano, esq.) has been aware that a certificate shall set forth only facts to which the person, who has made it, is competent to testify, defendants' attorney (Sandra Varano, esq.) certified in that certification on: i.

page 1, '2 & page 5, , 23 that,

"2. This certification is offered in opposition to the plaintiffs motion for default judgment and in support of defendants' cross-motion to vacate any default entered." "23. For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully requested that the plaintiff's motion for default and/or default judgment be denied and that any default previously entered be vacated. A proposed form of order is annexed hereto."

11

Non-confirming, since 1. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment had already been filed, and default had already been converted to motion for default judgment 2. The Court had scheduled this motion "Vacate DefaultlExtend Time Answer" for 5/25/2012, in violation of Rule 1:6-3(a), which says: " ... a notice of motion shall be filed and served not later than 16 days before the specified return date unless otherwise provided by court order. .. " when NO Court order had provided permission to the defendants to file this motion "Vacate DefaultlExtend Time Answer" out of time Even as cross motion it was non-conforming, since the subject matter of defendants' cross motion was different than the subject matter of plaintiff's motion which was a motion for default judgment.

12

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se 175 oxford ter. #2

Page 13 of28 June 28, 2012

River Edge, New Jersey 07661

'2 and ~ 23 (highlighted part) of the defendants' attorney's certification are false statements
of fact which denotes conduct which is fraudulent and has a purpose to deceive by intentionally making the impression that plaintiff had filed a motion for default and default judgment simultaneously. When in fact, default had been entered on 5/9/2012 (and defendants were aware of that; EXIllBIT 12) and plaintiff had moved to convert the default to default judgment on 5110/2012 by filing a motion only and only for default judgment (See plaintiff's proposed order which had been attached to her motion for default judgment;

EXHIBIT 13) and thereafter defendants could not legally file any application under guise of
cross motion to vacate the default consequent to filing plaintiff's motion for default judgment.
"RULE; 1:6-3(b),Cross-Motions. A cross-motion may be filed and served by the responding party together with that party's opposition to the motion and noticed for the same return date only if it relates to the subject matter of the original motion, except in Family Part motions brought under Part V of these Rules where a notice of cross-motion may seek relief unrelated to that sought in the original motion .... "

ii.

page 1,'4 that,

"4. The documents annexed as Exhibit A are the only documents I have received from plaintiff with respect to the entry of default. Thus, I have never been served with the Entry of Default (page 3 of 3 of Exhibit A) with a clerk's signature indicating that default had in fact been entered."

, 4 (highlighted part) of the defendants' attorney's certification is false statement of facts, since defendants had been served with the notice (Document Return/Nonconforming Document Notification) by the clerk's office, informing the defendants' attorney that the defendants' answer was being returned to them and had been marked "received" but not "filed" as the result that defendants had been in default and default had been entered a/t amended complaint on 5/9112. This notice to the defendants' attorney had also directed her to forward a copy of that notice to plaintiff but defendants' attorney willfully and intentionally failed to follow the Court's direction by not forwarding the copy of that notice to plaintiff

(EXHIBIT 12). The defendants' attorney did not forwarded a copy of that notice (Document
Return/Nonconforming Document Notification) to me (plaintiff) in order to conceal that information from me (pro se plaintiff), and fraudulently claim that the defendants had not received any notice regarding the entry of default and claim that default had not been entered on 5/9/2012, to fraudulently hinder me (plaintiff) from getting default judgment.

JRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se 175 oxford ter, #2 River Edge, New Jersey 07661

Page 14 of2N

June 28, 2012

iii.

page 2, ,- 5 &page 5, ~ 22 that,

"S. NQ such documentation has been filed with the plaintiffs motion for default judgment. In fact, it appears that the relief sought by the motion is for both default and default judgment. R 4:43-2
specifically provides that default and default judgment cannot be sought simultaneously." "22. That plaintiff should seek default judgment the day after she requested entry of default and without ever having provided proof that default was entered is further evidence of plaintiffs repeated attempts to avoid actually litigating the merits of her claim."

~ 5 (highlighted part) of the defendants' attorney's certification is false statement of fact which denotes conduct which is fraudulent and has a purpose to deceive. The defendants' attorney' has intentionally made this false statement (highlighted part) to justify their nonconforming motion (Motion Vacate Default/Extend Time Answer) which was filed out of time, under guise of cross motion in violation of Rules 4:43 (Default), 1:6-3(a) (filing motion), and 1:6-3(b) (filing cross motion). The defendants' attorney had been served with the notice (Document Return/Nonconforming Document Notification) by the clerk's office, informing the defendants' attorney that the defendants' answer was being returned to them and had been marked "received" but not "filed" as the result that defendants had been in default and default had been entered aft amended complaint on 5/9/12. (EXHIBIT 12)

This notice to the defendants' attorney had also directed the defendants' attorney to forward a copy of that notice to the plaintiff but defendants' attorney willfully and intentionally failed to follow the Court's direction by not forwarding the copy of that notice to plaintiff (EXHIBIT 12). The defendants' attorney did not forwarded a copy of that notice (Document Document Notification) to me (plaintiff) in order to conceal that

Return/Nonconforming

information from pro se plaintiff, and fraudulently claim that the defendants had not received any notice regarding the entry of default and claim that default had not been entered on 5/9/2012, to fraudulently hinder me (plaintifJ) from getting default judgment and to intentionally and fraudulently make this impression and belief that I (plaintiff) had filed a motion for default and default judgment simultaneously. When in fact, default had been

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI
PLAINTIFF, Pro se

Page 15 of28 June 28, 2012

175 oxford ter. #2 River Edge, New Jersey 07661

entered on 5/9/2012 (and defendants were aware of that; EXHIBIT

12) and I (plaintiff) had

moved B to convert the default to default j:ndgment on 51] 0/2012, by filing a illotion only and only for default judgment (See plaintiff's proposed order which had been attached to her motfonfor defarultjttdgmQl'7!; -VXHiBIT 13) and thereafter defendants could not legally file any application under guise of cross motion to vacate the default consequent to filing plaintiff's motion for default judgment.

~22 of the defendants' attorney's certification is again false statements of fact which denotes conduct which is fraudulent and has a purpose to deceive by intentionally making the impression that I (plaintiff) have been avoiding to litigate the merits of my claims when the Court Documents and Records prove otherwise (EXHIBIT 2 & 3) "in facts defendants have

been using their influence on Judge Doyne to coerce him to violate the Rules of Court in order to aid and abet the defendants since defendants have been the ones who have not had any meritorious defense and they had to violate the Laws and the Rules ofNJ superior Court to win this case. If defendants were not sure that plaintiff's claims had merits, defendants and Judge Doyne would never violate the Rules ofNJ Superior Court to prohibit plaintiff from filing an application for summary judgment or would never try to unlawfully dismiss the Plaintiff s verified amended complaint by using a non-conforming motion (which had been also supported by a non-conforming certification) which had been filed consequent to entry of default. to dismiss the plaintiff s verified amended complaint, when defendants had already failed to answer the plaintiff's verified amended complaint fu+ter 57 days from the service of a..'11ended pleading; or after 32 days that the motion to amend the complaint was granted on 4/5/2012; or after 22 days that the same copy of the verified amended complaint was flied allover again per Judge Doyne's order on 4/17/2012.

11

When T(plaintiff) called the Court to see why I had not received the page 3 of 3 of my request for entry of default with clerk's signature, I was told that the default had been entered but I had not received the copy of entry of default since I had not provided them with an extra copy and a return envelope.

JRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se 175 oxford ter. #2 River Edge, New Jersey 07661

Page 16 of28

June 28, 2012

iv.

page 2, 1T 6 &page 4,'16 that,

"6. Annexed hereto as Exhibit B is a copy of the defendants' answer to the plaintiffs amended complaint that was stamped "FILED" by the Bergen County Deputy Clerk on May 10,2012." "16. To the extent a default has already been entered, it is respectfully submitted that the defendants' cross motion to vacate same be granted and that defendants be permitted to file an answer to the amended complaint, although as set forth in Exhibit B, that answer has in fact already been filed."

~6 and ~ 16 (highlighted part) of the defendants' attorney's certification are false statement of fact which denotes conduct which is fraudulent and has a purpose to deceive. The defendants' attorney' has willfully and intentionally made these false statements (highlighted part) when there is the direct physical evidence which proves that the defendants' attorney had been served with the Court notice (Document Return/Nonconforming Document

Notification; EXHIBIT 12) by the clerk's office, informing the defendants' attorney that the defendants' answer had not been filed, the defendants' answer was being returned to them and the defendants' answer had been marked "received" but not "filed" as the result that defendants had been in default and default had been entered aft amended complaint on 5/9/12. (EXHIBIT
12)

This notice to the defendants' attorney had also directed the defendants' attorney to forward a copy of that notice (Document Return/Nonconforming Document Notification) to the plaintiff

but defendants' attorney willfully and intentionally failed to follow the Court's direction by not forwarding the copy ofthat notice to' plaintiff (EXHIBIT
12). The defendants' attorney

did not forwarded a copy of that notice (Document Return/Nonconforming

Document

Notification) to me (plaintiff) in order to conceal that information from pro se plaintiff, to fraudulently claim that the defendants had not received any notice regarding the entry of default and default had not been entered
OIn

5,j~)i/2m 2 and!the defendants' answer had not

been returned to defendants marked "received" but not "filed" as the result that the defendants had been in default" to fraudulently hinder me (plaintifJ) from getting default judgment and to intentionally and fraudulently make this impression and belief that I (Plaintiff) had filed a motion for default and default Judgment simultaneously. And also to justify defendants' non-conforming motion (Motion Vacate Default/Extend Time Answer) which was filed out oftime, under guise of cross motion to plaintiff's motion for default

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI
PLAINTIFF, Pro se 175 oxford ter. #2 River Edge, New Jersey 07661

Page 17 of28 June 28, 2012

judgment in violation of Rules 4:43 (Default), 1:6-3(a) (filing motion), and 1:6-3 (b) (filing cross motion). Defendants' answer was filed after Judge Doyne violated Rule 4:43-3 on 5/15/2012 and struck the default (which had been entered on 5/9/2012) based on defendants nonconforming certification which was filed on 5/11/2012 subsequent to filing plaintiff's application for default judgment. When Judge Doyne had actual knowledge that in accordance with the Rules ofNJ Superior Court, when the Court Clerk entered the "default" (which in this case "Default" had been entered on 5/9/2012), in order to vacate the "entry of default" defendants had to file a timely motion (and not a non-conforming out of time motion subsequent to filling plaintiff's motion for default judgment under guise of cross motion) and NOT an opposition or certification to set aside the default (R. 4:43-3). v. page 2,'6 & page 2,'8 that,
"6. ..... In the certification included in that answer, I specifically indicate that the answer was filed and served pursuant to R. 4:6-1 (d) "since no service of the amended complaint was effectuated in accordance with the requirements oiR. 1:5-2. "" 8. Specifically, it was noted that the plaintiff never served the amended complaint in accordance with the clear requirements ofR. 1:5-2 which addresses the manner in which service is to made of pleadings subsequent to the original complaint. Specifically, that rule provides in pertinent part: Service upon an attorney of papers referred to in R. 1:5-1 shall be made by mailing a copy to the attorney at his or her office by ordinary mail, by handing it to the attorney, or by leaving it at the office with a person in the attorney's employ, or, ifthe office is closed or the attorney has no office, in the same manner as service is made upon a party. [Emphasis added].

Defendants' attorney willfully and intentionally made these falsifications of fact here and

(,-r 6

,-r8) and in her certification

of service included in the defendants' answer to the plaintiff's

verified amended complaint, when Rilles 1:5.2 and 1:5.3 say:

"Rule 1:5-2 Manner of Service: ... The specific facts underlying the diligent effort required by this rule shall be recited in the proof of service required by R. 1:5-3. If, however, proof of diligent inquiry as to a party's whereabouts has already been filed within six months prior to service under this rule, a new diligent inquiry need not be made provided the proof of service required by R. 1:5-3 asserts that the party making service has no knowledge of any facts different from those recited in the prior proof of diligent inquiry." Rule 1:5r3 Proof of Service: Proof of service of every paper referred to in R_ 1:5-1 may he made (l) by an acknowledgment of service, signed by the attorney for a party or signed and acknowledged by the party, or (2) by an affidavit of the person making service, or (3) by a certification of service appended to the paper to be tiled and signed by the attorney for the party making service. . .. "

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se

175 oxford ter. #2 River Edge, New Jersey 07661

Page 18 of28

June 28,2012

And Rule 4:4-says:

"Rule 4:4-6 (General Appearance; Acknowledgment of Service): A general appearance or an acceptance of the service of a summons, signed by the defendant's attorney or signed and acknowledged by the defendant (other than an infant or mentally incapacitated person), shall have the same effect as if the defendant had been properly served."

and in accordance with the above said Rules, the defendants had been properly served with the Plaintiff's Verified Amended Complaint via E-mail addressNirenbergvarano@aol.com. The proof of the proper service in accordance with the above said Rules is the plaintiff's certification of service of 3/13/2012, as well as other plaintiff's certifications of service of the Plaintiff's motions which show that those motions had been served to the defendants' attorney via the same E-mail address during last several months (since 1012812011 that plaintiff's complaint had been filed in Bergen County Superior Court) which had never been objected by the defendants (Defendants never requested any of the plaintiff'sfilings paper)
14.

on the

Therefore the manner of service of plaintiff's motions and filings which had never been objected by the defendants' attorney, had been considered proper by the defendants' attorney (those motions served via the said above E-mail address, had always been opposed and accordingly acknowledged by the defendants' attorney) and the Court since plaintiff had

never been served with any notice from the court that the manner of service of plaintiff's fillings had been non-conforming in accordance with the Rules of Court.

14

As Defendants and Judge Doyne are aware, this complaint was filed in the Bergen County Superior Court on 10/28/2011, and since then all the documents (which plaintiff has been filing with the Court) have being sent to Defendants via E-MAIL address nirenbergvarano@aol.com (except the original complaint, Summons, CIS, and TAN which were served to Defendants via BOTH E-mail and Bergen County Sheriff's Office) and Defendants NEVER objected to receiving the documents (which Plaintiff have been filing with the Court) via E-MAIL. All Plaintiff's certifications of service for Plaintiff's motions prove that those motions have been served to Defendants via E-mail address nirenbergvarano@aol.com and all the Defendants' responses (oppositions) to Plaintiff's motions are the proofs of Defendants' acknowledgment of receiving those documents which have being filed with the Court, via Email address cc nirenbergvarano@aol.com ". The above records have been available to Judge Doyne to be examined by him all the time (anytime that J (plaintiff) have been in the Court and askedfor the Jacket of this complaint, I have been told that Judge Doyne had the Jacket and they had to contact Judge Doyne for his permission to bring the Jaclwt down to the Clerk office).

illANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se 175 oxford ter, #2 River Edge, New Jersey 07661

Page 19 of28

June 28, 2012

vi.

page 2, , 7 that,
"7. Annexed hereto as Exhibit C is a certification I submitted to the Court by letter dated May 10, 2012, before receiving the plaintiffs motion for default judgment, explaining why the plaintiff was not entitled to default in this matter."

~ 7 of the defendants' attorney's certification is another false statement of fact since in this paragraph, the defendants' attorney stated that the defendant's certification is dated 5/10/2012 but she has concealed the fact and the information that this certification was filed with the Court on 5/1112012 (EXHIBIT 14), after defendants had received the copy of

plaintiff's motion for default judgment, which had been filed with the court on 5/1 0120 12 at 2:38PM. (EXHIBIT 15).

Additionally, in contrast to what defendants' attorney has claimed in ~ 7, the records prove that plaintiff had served the defendants' attorney with the copy of plaintiff's motion for default judgment via email on 5/10/2012 at 4:36 PM (EXHIBIT 16) while the defendants'

attorney sent Plaintiff the copy of defendants' certification via email on 5/10/2012 at 5:28 PM (EXHIBIT 17), after defendants' attorney had received the copy of plaintiff's motion

for default judgment. vii. page 2, , 9 that,

9. The only manner in which the plaintiff sought to serve the amended complaint upon my office was by email dated April 17, 2012, at 5:54 p.m. (See copy of email annexed as Exhibit D).

~ 9 of the defendants' attorney's certification is false statement of facts since in accordance with Rule 4:4-6 (General Appearance; Acknowledgment of Service); Rule 1:5.2 (Manner of

Service); and Rule 1:5.3 (Proof of Service) the copy ofthe verified amended complaint was properly served and also received by the defendants (it was served to the defendants properly via email address, nirenbergvarano@aol.com on 3/13/2012 along with the motion to amend

the complaint. as the plaintiff's certification of service of that motion dated 3/13/2012 as well as the other Plaintiff's certifications of service of the Plaintiff's motions which had been served via the same email address to the defendants during last several months show. All those motions had been opposed and accordingly acknowledged by the defendants' attorneys during last several months) and filed with the Court along with the motion to amend the complaint on 3/13/2012 for the first time, even defendants' attorney acknowledged the

mANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se 175 oxford ter, #2

River Edge, New Jersey 07661

Page 20 of28

June 28, 2012

receipt of the copy of the verified amended complaint in the open Court during the case management conference of 3115/2012. AS SUCH, the defendants had been in possession of the plaintiffs Verified Amended Complaint for exactly 57 days by 5/9/2012 that default was

requested by plaintiff and was entered by the Court. And again defendants' attorney was served with the same copy ofthe verified amended complaint on 4/17/2012 for the 2nd time via the same E-mail address (since Judge Doyne ordered the Plainti{[to file the same Verified Amended Complaint all over again). viii. page 3, , 11 that,
"11. Significantly, in the affidavit she submitted in support of the request for entry of default, the plaintiff never indicates the method by which the amended complaint was allegedly served as required by R. 4:43-1. Thus, if default was in fact entered, it should not have been as the plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of the court rule in this regard."

~ 11 of the defendants' attorney's certification denotes conduct which is fraudulent and has a purpose to deceive, since plaintiff stated in her affidavit dated 5/9/2012, that:
" A copy of the Verified Amended Complaint was served upon the Defendants' Attorney twice, once on 3/13/2012 along with the certification of service and the notice of motion to amend the complaint and for the second time on 4/17/2012 (Defendants' attorney acknowledged the receipt of the Verified Amended Complaint in the case management conference of 3/15/20

ill"
In addition to that fact that I (Plaintiff) had stated in my affidavit in support of my request for entry of default that "Defendants' attorney acknowledged the receipt of the Verified Amended Complaint in the case management conference of 3115/20 12", Clerk's Office had been well aware of all the plaintiff's certifications of service in which, plaintiff had been certifying that the defendants had being served with the copies of the motions and pleadings via defendants' attorney's E-mail address nirenbergvarano@aol.com months. Court Clerk entered the default on 5/9/2012 with the awareness ofthe fact that all the plaintiff's pleadings had being served to the defendants via "nirenbergvarano@aol.com" in during last several

complying with the Rule 1:5-2. (Manner of Service), Rule 1:5-3. (Proof of Service), and Rule 4:4-6. (General Appearance; Acknowledgment
IX.

of Service).

pa2e 3, , 13 that,

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se 175 oxford ter. #2

River Edge, New Jersey 07661

Page 21 of28
June 28, 2012

"13. It was not until AprilS, 2012, that an order was entered permitting the plaintiff to file the amended complaint. Thus, any claim by the plaintiff that the amended complaint was served on March 13,2012, or that I acknowledged receipt ofthe amended complaint at a case management conference held on March 15,2012, is irrelevant. This was with respect to the motion seeking leave to file the amended complaint and predates by approximately a month the actual filing of that pleading."

~ 13 of the defendants' attorney's certification is false statement of fact since a copy of the verified amended complaint was received by the defendants (it was served to them via email nirenbergvarano@aol.com on 3/13/2012 along with the motion to amend the complaint) and

filed with the Court along with the motion to amend the complaint on 3/13/2012 for the first time, and defendants' attorney acknowledged the receipt of the copy of the verified conference of

amended complaint in the Open Court during the case management

3/15/2012. AS SUCH, the defendants had been in possession of the plaintiff's Verified Amended Complaint for exactly 57 days by 5/9/2012 that default was requested by plaintiff and was entered by the Court. x. page 3,'14 that,

"14: Notwithstanding the Court's repeated admonition that the parties are not to file motions without the prior permission of the Court, it appears that the plaintiff has filed the within motion for default judgment without such prior consent. At the very least, there is no indication in the moving papers that such permission was in fact sought and obtained."

Defendants' attorney knowingly and intentionally made the above false statement to fraudulently misrepresent the facts and affirmed them by baseless claims in her certification. Defendants' attorney has been filing defendants' motions without seeking Judge Doyne's prior permission. These defendants' motions are the non-conforming motion to dismiss the plaintiff's Verified Amended Complaint and the non-conforming and out of time motion to Vacate DefaultlExtend Time Answer which was filed under guise of cross-motion to plaintiff's motion for default judgment. In contrast to the defendants attorneys' above statement (~ 14) and as the Court Records show, Judge Doyne (under influence of defendants' attorneys) only prohibited plaintiff from filing any motion without his prior permission and from filing an application for summary judgment in violation of the Rules of the Court to hinder me (pro se plaintiff) from representing my case in fair and orderly manner to aid and abet the defendants.

~OKHTTOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se

Page 22 of28 June 28, 2012

175 oxford ter. #2 River Edge, New Jersey 07661

Xl.

page 4, 1[ 19 that,
19. This matter has not been delayed nor has plaintiff been prejudiced by the filing of the defendants' answer to the amended complaint on May 10, 2012 .

~19 of the defendants' attorney's certification is false statements of fact, since HOW plaintiff has not been prejudice when all the Rules of Superior Court mentioned in this letter have been violated by the Officers of the Court to aid and abet the defendants. HOW the matter has not been delayed and plaintiff has not been prejudiced when defendants failed to answer the plaintiff's Verified Amended Complaint (after 57 days from the service of amended pleading; or after 32 days that the motion to amend the complaint was granted on 4/5/2012 ; or after 22 days that the same copy of the verified amended complaint was filed all over again per Judge Doyne's order on 4/17/2012) and instead filed a Non-Conforming motion, to dismiss the plaintiffs verified amended complaint subsequent to entry of default on 5/9/2012. HOW plaintiff has not been prejudice when Judge Doyne violated Rule 4:43 (Default); Rule 1:6-3(a) (filing motion); and Rule 1:6-3(b) (filing cross motion) and relied on the defendants' non-conforming certification filed on 5/1112012 (which was filed after default had been entered by the Court Clerk on 5/9/2012 and after I (plaintiff) had filed my motion for default judgment on 5/10/2012) and unlawfully struck the default on 5115/2012, in violation of Rule 4:43 and then let the defendants file their answer on 5115/2012 (and not on 5/10/2012, defendants' attorney has falsely claimed that answer was filed on 5/10/2012 to conceal the fact that the Court had served the defendants with a notice that the Court had returned the defendants' answer and marked it "received" but not "filed" due to the entry of default) and a non-conforming motion (Motion Vacate Default/Extend Time Answer, which was filed out of time, WITHOUT existence of any Court's Order permitting that out of time motion) on 5116/2012 (returnable on 5/25/2012) under guise of cross motion to my (plaintiffs) motion

for default judgment (when the subject matter of defendants' cross motion was different than the subject matter of the plaintiff's motionfor default judgment), and more.

xii. page 4, ~ 20 that,

"20. I was admittedly surprised to learn that the plaintiff had sought default after 20days as I had been under the erroneous belief that the answer is due 30 days after proper service.

TRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se 175 oxford ter. #2

Page 23 of28

June 28, 2012

River Edge, New Jersey 07661

As the Court is no doubt aware, parties represented by counsel will as a matter of professional courtesy and good faith usually notify opposing counsel that he/she intends to file a default within a specified period so as to avoid excessive motion practice."

~ 20 (highlighted part) of the defendants' attorney's certification is false statement of fact since HOW an attorney who has been litigating in the Court for years does not know about the required time limit to answer to an amended complaint unless she knowingly and intentionally claims that she is incompetent to use it as an excuse for not responding to plaintiffs Amended Complaint timely. 15. Additionally defendants' attorney in her Certification ( in support of defendants' motion to dismiss[DOC NUM 033J the plaintiff's verified amended complaint) which was filed on 5/9/2012 consequent to entry of default, certified that:
"I hereby certify the within statements made by me are true. I am aware that of any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully fasle I am subject to punishment."

Verified

and while defendants' attorney (Sandra Varano, esq.) has been aware that a certificate shall set forth only facts to which the person, who has made it, is competent to testify, defendants' attorney (Sandra Varano, esq.) certified in that certification on: i. page 1,,3 that,
"3. the motion is being filed pursuant to permission granted by the Honorable Peter E. Doyne."

~3 of the defendants' attorney's certification is false statement of fact since on 4/27/2012, defendants' attorney Sandra Varano esq. sent a letter to Judge Doyne, stating:
" ... On behalf of the defendants, I am respectfully requesting the Court's assistance in this regard. It is submitted that the plaintiff is required to provide copies of these recordings or be barred from relying upon them for any purpose in this litigation. Should the Court require a formal motion on this issue, I will proceed to do so upon being so advised."

As the Court Records show, Judge Doyne NEVER issued any letter or order in regard to the above defendants' attorney's letter and additionally there is NO record of Judge Doyne's permission to defendants, permitting the defendants to file a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's verified amended complaint as defendants' attorney has falsely claimed in ~3 of her certification, unless, this permission which has been claimed by the defendants' attorney, has been granted to defendants via an Ex Parte communication between the defendants and Judge Doyne.

TRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se

175 oxford ter. #2 River Edge, New Jersey 07661

Page 24 of28
June 28, 2012

ii. page 2, , 8 that,

"8. Included among the bases for plaintiff's objection to this request is that the information sought is "subject to protection as trial preparation material" and "protected by privilege, including attorney work product and attorney's strategy, legal theories and legal reasoning." The Plaintiff, however, is appearing Pro se."

Defendants' attorney knowingly and intentionally make the above false statement in,8 of her certification in order to fraudulently take advantage of pro se plaintiff's lack oflegal knowledge about Law when Sandra Varano, Esq, is an attorney and has actual knowledge that a pro se litigant has the right to claim work product privilege as well.
111.

page 2,

,9

that,
of conversations she allegedly

"9. Moreover, it submitted that plaintiff's surreptitious

recordings had with the defendants is not protected by any such privilege"

Defendants' attorney knowingly and intentionally made the above false statement in, 9 of her certification to fraudulently misrepresent the facts and affirmed them by baseless claims. These several years tape recording had not been done secretly (during last several years in numerous occasions defendants had been informed by me (pro se plaintiff) that I (Plaintiff) had been recording the defendants (EXHIBIT 18) to protect my reputation, since constantly I had beingfalsely accused of being dishonest, deceitful, liar, and etc by the defendants [my employer 1 who are corrupt, fraud, and perjurer [proofs along with a complaint were submitted andfiledwith the Office of Attorney General on 1/19/2012 and while this

complaint is still pending in the Office of Attorney General, no investigator has yet been assigned to this complaint to investigate it). iv. page 3" 11& page 3,'13 that,
and surprise at trial so that cases are decided upon their merits rather than the skill and maneuvering of counsel. ... " "13. The plaintiff has offered no legitimate; legally cognizable basis for her refusal to respond to the defendants' notice to produce. As such, it is respectfully submitted that the Court enter an order dismissing her complaint and awarding counsel fees and costs to the defendants for having had to file this motion, consistent with R. 4:23-1 (c)."

"11. Our rules of discovery are designed to eliminate, as far as possible, concealment

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se

Page2S of28 June 28, 2012

175 oxford ter. #2 River Edge, New Jersey 07661

Defendants' attorney knowingly and intentionally made the above false statements in '11 and ~ 13 of her certification to fraudulently misrepresent the facts and affirmed them by baseless claims, This non-conforming certification of the defendants' motion to dismiss (motion to dismiss the plaintiff's verified amended complaint) which intentionally was NOT citing that the defendants were IN DEFAULT in discovery bligations owed to pro se plaintiff

(defendants were in default in the requested admission by me [pro se PlaintifJJ) in violation of Rule 4:23-5(a)1, also was not stating that I (P aintiff) had responded to all the propounded interrogatories by the defendants and I (plainti had produced all the documents requested

by defendants, BUT defendants' attorneys were ooking for a specific recording (oral statements made to me (pro se plaintiff) by the witnesses who are available to the defendants

had been revealed to them them direct rom the witnesses or the askin w ich could not be called in an wa a
(defendants' attorneys were lookingfor those or I statements to help prepare themselves to examine the witnesses who are defendants' emp yees and available to them and to make sure that they have overlooked nothing) which Plaintiff to produce it and was also protected by as a massive work and an undue burden on ork product,

and misa As the , last effort to aid and abet the defend ts to get the fmal judgment in the

defendants' favor, Judge Doyne in his oral finding and reasoning (which was tape- recorded in the absence qfboth parties and was not appended to his orders; both parties had waived oral argument) in regard to the defendants' non-conforming motion to dismiss, made false statements offact and stated that the plaintif:fs request for default was filed consequent to the defendants'

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se 175 oxford ter. #2 River Edge, New Jersey 07661

Page 26 of28

June 28, 20U

motion to dismiss WHEN the Court Records and ACMS (document list) clearly prove otherwise (EXIllBIT 19). I 5 (See highlighted rows of the following table)
DATE FILED DOC NUM DOCUMENT TYPE FILINGrrARGET PARTY NAME TOORZANI TOORZANI TOORZANI ELMWOOD PARK ELMWOOD PARK TOORZANI TOORZANI ELMWOOD PARK TOORZANI ELMWOOD PARK TOORZANI ATTORNEY NAME PROSE PROSE PROSE NIRENBERG NIRENBERG PROSE PROSE NIRENBERG PROSE NIRENBERG PROSE MUL PTY N N N Y Y N N DOC STA DN DN

OS OS
05 05 05

04 04 04 05 05 05

16 19 30 02 03 04 09 09 10 10 21

2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012

024 025 026 027 028 029 031 033 034 035 038

MOTNMISC MOTNMISC MISCBRlEF LTTRMEMRD MISCBRlEF MISC BRlEF REQDEFLT MOTN DISM COMPL MOT ENT DEF JUD ANSWER CERTIFICTN

& &

& &

N Y N

GR DN

Not to mention that On 6118/2012, after I listened to the taped record of Judge Doyne's findings and reasoning (in regard to graring the defendants' non-conforming and lor out of time

motions) which I had paid for and obtain; d from the Court, I went to the Court (finance office, clerk office, and Judge Doyne 's chamber and I provided them (the staff) with the following information Date filed: 5/9112 Payment #: 12227 CA ~ CC MO CG Amount $30 Payer: Ninenberg Batch/ref! case # 131

to get the exact time of filing of the defendants' motion to dismiss on 5/9/2012. I checked the copy of defendants' motion to dismiss which had been filed with the Court but that copy did not have any indication of the time of filing (No stamp with the exact time or No

15

Additionally Judge Doyne in his oral finding and reasoning did not mention anything about my (plaintiffs) affidavits and certification and even about my legal contentions which were based on the Rules of Court to justify granting the defendants' non-conforming and/or out of time motions.

TRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se 175 oxford ter, #2

River Edge, New Jersey 07661

Page 27 of28
.June 28, 2012

attached receipt) and I also talked to Court Staff and Mr. Dimakus'", Judge Doyne's Law Clerk, but no one was able to determine the time that defendants' motion to dismiss was filed on 5/9/2012, when judge Doyne has claimed on his tape- recorded oral finding and reasoning that the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint had been filed before the plaintiffs request for entry of default on 5/9/2012.17 I (as a member of public and this society) am just wondering, how many knowing and intentional violation of the Rules ofNJ Superior Court and NJ Statutes (Title 2C) an Officer of the Court should have had to be held accountable and be sanctioned with criminal penalties and/or rehabilitation efforts for his violation of Laws and his criminal conducts.
2C:30-6. Crime of official deprivation of civil rights: a. A public servant acting or purporting to act in an official capacity commits the crime of official deprivation of civil rights if, knowing that his conduct is unlawful, and acting with the purpose to intimidate or discriminate against an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation or ethnicity, the public servant: (1) ... or (2) denies or impedes another in the lawful exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity. ..... e. For purposes ofthis 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." "2C:30-7. Crime of pattern of official misconduct: a. A person commits the crime of pattern of official misconduct if he commits two or more acts that violate the provisions ofN.J.S.2C:30-2 or section 2 ofP.L.2003, c.31 (C.2C:30-6). It shall not be a defense that the violations were not part of a common plan or scheme, or did not have similar methods of commission. b. Pattern of official misconduct is a crime ofthe second degree if one of the acts committed by the defendant is a first or second degree crime; otherwise, it is a crime of the third degree, provided, however, that the presumption of non imprisonment set forth in subsection e. ofN.J.S.2C:44-1 for persons who have not previously been convicted of an offense shall not apply. Notwithstanding the

16

I informed Mr. Dimakus that there was no stamp with the exact time of filing or an attached receipt on the defendants' motion to dismiss my (plaintiff's) complaint and I asked him if he had detached the receipt, he responded, "No" then 1 asked him ifhe could provide me with the copy of the defendants' motion to dismiss which probably they had in Judge Doyne's chamber, but he said they did not have any copy in their office. Therefore 1 asked Mr. Dimakus, if there was no copy of the defendants' motion to dismiss with the exact time offiIing or there was no receipt of filing attached to defendants' motion to dismiss in the Court, how judge Doyne knew that my request for entry of default had been filed subsequent to the defendants' motion to dismiss, Mr. Dimakus responded, "I do not know". Not to mention that the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's verified amended complaint was filed after the date that the answer to verified amended complaint was due which consequently could not toll the time to answer the verified amended complaint and accordingly defendants were in default and after the entry of default, defendants had no right to any defense except filing a timely motion ,~ vacate the default before a motion for default judgment be filed.

17

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PL~TIFF,Prose

175 oxford fer. #2 River Edge, New Jersey 07661

Page 28 of28 June 28, 2012

provisions ofN.J .S.2C: 1-8 or any other law, a conviction of pattern of official misconduct shall not merge with a conviction of official misconduct, official deprivation of civil rights, or 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 ofN.J.S.2C:30-2 and sections 2 and 3 ofP.L.2003, c.31 (C.2C:30-6 and C.2C:30-7)." 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 ofa value of $200.00 or less, the offense of official misconduct is a crime of the third degree.

By writing this report I am hoping that the Bergen County prosecutor uses his authority under the NJ Statutes to take appropriate actions in regard to the above violation of laws and criminal conducts.