Irandokht Toorzani, Pro Se Respondent

October 3, 2011

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

In The Matter Of The Tenure Charges Against Irandokht Toorzani, Filed By: Elmwood Park School District Board Of Education, Bergen County, New Jersey NEW JERSEY COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION Agency Ref. No. 170 -6/11 OAL. Docket. No.: EDU 09713-2011N Motion to Disqualify Counsel

Dear Commissioner of Education, Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.10(j) (5) 1; 26 U.S.C. app. 33; FRCP 11; L.Civ.Rs. 103.1 and 104; and Rule 1:4-8, I (Irandokht Toorzani, Pro Se Respondent) respectfully request Commissioner of Education to disqualify Elmwood Park BOEs counsel, Nicholas Celso, III, Esq; Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq; and SCHWARTZ SIMON EDELSTEIN & CELSO LLC from representing Elmwood Park BOE in the instant matter for their misconduct which has violated the relevant Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules of the Court. This request is supported by my (Irandokht Toorzanis) Certification and accompanying EXHIBITS. FACTS AND ARGUMENT On Friday September 30, 2011, I received Elmwood Park BOEs Opposition dated September 29, 2011, to my Appeal to Commissioner of Education. Elmwood Park BOEs counsel, Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. had knowingly and intentionally made numerous false statements of facts in that opposition which was along with Ms. Rottenbergs certification in
1

N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.10 Interlocutory review (j) In the following matters as they relate to proceedings before the Office of Administrative Law, the Director is the agency head for purposes of interlocutory review: 1. Disqualification of a particular judge due to interest or any other reason which would preclude a fair and unbiased hearing, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.12; 5. Disqualification of attorneys, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-5.3

October 3, 2011 which Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq. had also made false statements of facts and accusation knowingly and intentionally to deceive the court and public. In addition to making numerous misrepresentation of facts and baseless claims, improper using of Exhibits (as evidences) was evident, which knowingly, intentionally, and fraudulently had been designed by Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. to deceive the court and public. On page 12, 1 of Nicholas Celsos opposition dated September 29, 2011, to my appeal to Commissioner of Education, he had stated that: Close inspection of the Federal Complaint and the Tenure Charges show that while they may both involve the aspects of Ms. Toorzani's employment with the Board, the facts that make up the basis for the Tenure Charges are separate and distinct from the Federal Complaint. Therefore, Ms. Toorzani cannot show that the Federal Complaint is a res judicata bar to the Tenure Charges In that opposition Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. has knowingly, intentionally, and fraudulently used the old version of my Federal Complaint, Doc. NO. 1, as an Exhibit (Exhibit A), instead of using my Re-Amended Complaint (Doc. NO. 94 , District Court Docket # 2:09-cv-04262-SRC MAS; EXHIBIT 1), to deceive2 court and public and claim that the 28 tenure charges had not been the same issues and claims of my Federal Complaint. "Fraud" or "fraudulent" denotes conduct that is fraudulent under the substantive or procedural law of the applicable jurisdiction and has a purpose to deceive. Even though I had presented Elmwood Park BOEs counsels misconduct to them provided them several opportunities to justify their appearance in this matter before, but
3

and

When Nicholas Celso, III,Esq. had knowledge about my Re-Amended Complaint Doc. No. 94, since I had repeatedly mentioned about this document in the documents which I had filed with Department of Education in regard to the tenure charges and Nicholas Celso, III,Esq. had received a copy of all of them and also in my response to the tenure charges, submitted to Elmwood Park BOE. On my letter to Director Boyle dated June 27, 2011; On my letter to Director Duncan dated July 5, 2011; On my motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer to the tenure charges dated July 10, 2011; on my letter to Director Boyle dated September 21, 2011; on my appeal to Commissioner of Education dated September 26, 2011(Nicholas Celso, III,Esq. had received a copy of all of them).

Page 2 of 14

October 3, 2011 unfortunately they have continued to deceive the court and public. The following is another example of misrepresentation of facts by Elmwood park BOEs counsel, Nicholas Celso, III, Esq., he has stated in his opposition dated September 29, 2011 (page 9, 2) to my appeal to Commissioner of Education that: Specifically, Respondent states that the Board's Charges should be barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel because some of the allegations contained in the Tenure Charges relate to her Federal Complaint Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. believes that since I am a Pro Se Respondent, no one will look at my documents and they can claim whatever they want. The above statement which Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. has attributed to me is not my statement. All my documents filed with the Department of Education show that I have always said that all the issues and claims brought within the 28 tenure charges are the same as issues and claims of my Federal Complaint. I have proved that all the elements of res judicata are presents for the instant matter in my Motion to Dismiss and my Appeal to Commissioner of Education (using legal arguments based on law). Since Elmwood Park BOEs counsel have not been able to refute my legal arguments (which have been based on the doctrine of res judicata) in regard to existence of absolute bar for Elmwood park BOE to bring those 28 tenure charges, they do whatever it takes even committing fraud upon the court to deceive the court and public with their fraudulent conduct. I (Irandokht Toorzani, Pro Se Respondent) contend that Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. and Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq. (SCHWARTZ SIMON EDELSTEIN & CELSO LLC ) are attempting to tamper with the administration of justice and obstruct it. Apparently Elmwood Park BOE and its counsel Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. and Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq. (SCHWARTZ SIMON EDELSTEIN & CELSO LLC) believe that Department of Education and OAL are going to break their own rules in order to help Elmwood Park BOE to get away with fraudulent activities as Elmwood Park BOE did in the Federal Court Action. "In a government of laws," said Mr. Justice Brandeis, "existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it Page 3 of 14

October 3, 2011 teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." 1) Elmwood Park BOEs counsel violated RPC 3.3 RPC 3.3. Candor Toward the Tribunal (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal; (2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting an illegal, criminal or fraudulent act by the client; (4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures; or (5) fail to disclose to the tribunal a material fact knowing that the omission is reasonably certain to mislead the tribunal, except that it shall not be a breach of this rule if the disclosure is protected by a recognized privilege or is otherwise prohibited by law.. The following conduct of Elmwood Park BOEs counsel is violation of RPC 3.3(a)(1&2&4&5): i. During the phone conference of September 12, 2011, Elmwood Park BOEs counsel, Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. provided Judge Strauss with false information in regard to my Federal Complaint (against Elmwood Park BOE et al.) to meet the goal which was denying my motion to dismiss. Mr. Celso told Judge Strauss that I had appealed my Federal Complaint to the 3rd circuit and 3rd circuit had affirmed the dismissal, which was completely false. (Toorzanis certification EXHIBIT 2 ; Proof: audio record of the phone conference of September 12, 2011, which is available in OAL) ii. Also Elmwood Park BOEs counsel, Nicholas Celso, III, Esq (SCHWARTZ SIMON EDELSTEIN & CELSO LLC ) knowingly and intentionally misrepresented the facts and affirmed them by improper using of Exhibits and baseless claims in his response dated September 16, 2011, (page 8, footnote 2) to my motion to dismiss the tenure charges by stating that: This matter was appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and subsequently affirmed. See Toorzani v. Elmwood Park Bd. of Educ.. et al. No. 11-1858 (3d Cir. July 12,2011) [attached hereto as Exhibit C]

Page 4 of 14

October 3, 2011 and attaching false evidence as Exhibit C to deceive court and public, since that Exhibit (Exhibit C) does not show that my appeal and request for en banc hearing was for FRAUD UPON THE COURT and it was not for appealing any order including order dated May 19, 2011, which dismissed my complaint with prejudice. I never appealed Judge Cehslers final Judgment (dated May 19, 2011) since I was not able to do so, due to my emotional and physical health conditions. Not to mention that I had filed a Notice of Appeal on April 4, 2011, with the US Court of Appeal 3rd Circuit, FOR MISTRIAL AND FRAUD UPON THE COURT (Court of Appeals Docket # :11-1858) but fraudulently an interlocutory order was attached to my Notice of Appeal (without my knowledge) which caused my Notice of Appeal to be dismissed because of lack of jurisdiction by the appellate court ( EXHIBIT 3 & 4) and on July 12, 2011, My request to US Court of Appeal 3rd Circuit for en banc hearing in regard to MISTRIAL AND FRAUD UPON THE US DISTRICT COURT AND FRAUD UPON US COURT OF APPEAL 3RD CIRCUIT was denied (EXHIBIT 5& 6). iii. Elmwood Park BOEs counsel, Nicholas Celso, III, Esq (SCHWARTZ SIMON EDELSTEIN & CELSO LLC ) in his legal argument on his Response dated September 16, 2011, (section A, page 7, 4) to my Motion to Dismiss Tenure Charges, and in his Opposition dated September 29, 2011, (section A, page 10, 4) to my Appeal, has knowingly and intentionally cited an unrelated case law [Longo v. Reilly, 5 N.J. Super 405 (App. Div. 1957), cert. denied, 25 N.J. 45 (1957)] as follows: When a prior action is dismissed on grounds that do not go to the merit of matter asserted in any subsequent action, judgment in the prior action will not be a res judicata bar in a subsequent action. Id.; See also, Longo v. Reilly, 5 N.J. Super 405 (App. Div. 1957), cert. denied, 25 N.J. 45 (1957) (where a subsequent action dealing with a grievance was permitted to proceed when the initial action was dismissed on grounds that did not go to the merits of the grievance.) Elmwood Park BOEs counsel, Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. had made this unscrupulous attempt to deceive and coerce me (Pro Se Respondent) to give up my legal rights by incorrectly citing this case when this case had been dismissed on the grounds that the court had No Jurisdiction

Page 5 of 14

October 3, 2011 to entertain that action. Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction does not constitute adjudication on merits based on FRCP 41 and therefore res judicata would not apply to the above case. The above cited case by Nicholas Celso, III, Esq., in no way is comparable with the instant matter since my Federal Complaint (which had the same issues and claims of the instant matter) was dismissed with prejudice following Elmwood Park BOEs motion which constituted a full adjudication on merits based on FRCP 41. 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 Rule19 operates as an adjudication on the merits iv. On Friday September 30, 2011, I received Elmwood Park BOEs Opposition dated September 29, 2011, to my Appeal to Commissioner of Education. Elmwood Park BOEs counsel, Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. had knowingly and intentionally made numerous false statements of facts in that opposition which was along with Ms. Rottenbergs certification in which Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq. had also made false statements of facts and accusation knowingly and intentionally to deceive the court and public In addition to making numerous misrepresentation of facts and baseless claims, improper using of Exhibits (as evidences) was evident, which knowingly, intentionally, and fraudulently had been designed by Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. to deceive the court and public. On page 12, 1 of Nicholas Celsos opposition dated September 29, 2011, to my appeal to Commissioner of Education, he had stated that: Close inspection of the Federal Complaint and the Tenure Charges show that while they may both involve the aspects of Ms. Toorzani's employment with the Board, the facts that make up the basis for the Tenure Charges are separate and distinct from the Federal Complaint. Therefore, Ms. Toorzani cannot show that the Federal Complaint is a res judicata bar to the Tenure Charges In that opposition Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. has knowingly, intentionally, and fraudulently used the old version of my Federal Complaint, Doc. NO. 1, as an Exhibit (Exhibit A), instead Page 6 of 14

October 3, 2011 of using my Re-Amended Complaint (Doc. NO. 94 , District Court Docket # 2:09-cv-04262SRC MAS; EXHIBIT 1 )to deceive4 court and public and claim that the 28 tenure charges had not been the same issues and claims of my Federal Complaint. "Fraud" or "fraudulent" denotes conduct that is fraudulent under the substantive or procedural law of the applicable jurisdiction and has a purpose to deceive. v. The following is another example of misrepresentation of facts by Elmwood park BOEs counsel, Nicholas Celso, III, Esq., he has stated in his opposition dated September 29, 2011 (page 9, 2) to my appeal to Commissioner of Education that: Specifically, Respondent states that the Board's Charges should be barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel because some of the allegations contained in the Tenure Charges relate to her Federal Complaint The above statement which Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. has attributed to me is not my statement. All my documents filed with the Department of Education show that I have always said that all the issues and claims brought within the 28 tenure charges are the same as issues and claims of my Federal Complaint. I have proved that all the elements of res judicata are presents for the instant matter in my Motion to Dismiss and my Appeal to Commissioner of Education (using legal arguments based on law). vi. Elmwood Park BOEs counsel, Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq. has intentionally misrepresented the fact on her certification dated September 19, 2011, by stating that: 3. At no time during that telephone conference did Judge Strauss inform Ms. Toorzani that the above referenced matter was "transferred to the Department of Education and then to the OAL because of lack of Jurisdiction of the School Ethics Commission."

When Nicholas Celso, III,Esq. had knowledge about my Re-Amended Complaint Doc. No. 94, since I had repeatedly mentioned about this document in the documents which I had filed with Department of Education in regard to the tenure charges and Nicholas Celso, III,Esq. had received a copy of all of them and also in my response to the tenure charges, submitted to Elmwood Park BOE.

Page 7 of 14

October 3, 2011 As I wrote to Director Boyle on September 21, 2011, to make clarification in regard to Jenna A. Rottenbergs (Esq) above claim on her certification dated September 19, 2011, Ms. Rottenbergs claim on her certification is groundless. I never quoted any of Judge Strauss statements in my letters as Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq, has done on her certification, since I did not have a copy of audio record of the phone conference of September 12, 2011 [ As the attachment of this letter shows, I used Reported Speech not Quoted Speech in my letter dated September 14, 2011]. (EXHIBIT 7) Even though that my sister was witness of the phone conference of September 12, 2011 (with Judge Strauss permission) 5, but since there is a direct physical evidence (audio record of that phone conference) there is no need for a witness or certification, listening to the audio record of that phone conference proves that Ms. Jenna A. Rottenbergs claim on her certification dated September 19, 2011, is groundless. vii. Elmwood Park BOEs counsel, Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq., improperly certifies matters that either she has no personal knowledge of or do not state any fact and therefore do not have any evidentiary value. She has intentionally misrepresented the facts on her certification dated September 29, 2011, by stating the following: 2. On September 1, 2011, Judge Strauss's secretary contacted me to advise that due to the factual discrepancies raised in Respondent Irandokht Toorzani's Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of an Answer, Judge Strauss would treat Ms. Toorzani's submission as an Answer, rather than a Motion to Dismiss. The statement which Judge Strauss made during the phone conference of September 12, 2011, in regard to that Ex Parte communication, proves that Ms. Rottenbergs above statement stated on her certification is groundless. (Toorzanis certification EXHIBIT 2; proof: audio record of the phone conference of September 12, 2011, which is available in OAL) 6. During that telephone conference Judge Strauss requested that the Board submit an Opposition to Ms. Toorzani's Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of an Answer no later than September 16, 2011.

I asked Judge Strauss to allow my sister to be present during the phone conference of September 12, 2011, to assist me since I have been suffering from anxiety (as the result of several years discriminatory actions of my employer) which has affected on my memory and speech.

Page 8 of 14

October 3, 2011 Ms. Rottenbergs above statement has been made on her certification to deceive court and public and to cover up the awkward situation which happened during the phone conference of September 12, 2011, in which Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. was directing Judge Strauss how and when to rule on my Motion to Dismiss. (Toorzanis certification EXHIBIT 2; proof: audio record of the phone conference of September 12, 2011, which is available in OAL) 5. On September 12, 2011, I participated in a prehearing telephone conference with Nicholas Celso, III, Ms. Toorzani and Judge Strauss. With Judge Strauss permission, my sister was present during the phone conference of September 12, 2011, as well, but Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq. intentionally has not mentioned anything about this fact on her certification to be able to claim that: 7. At no time during the September 12, 2011 telephone conference did Ms. Toorzani reveal that she was making a sound recording of the conversation. Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq. made the above accusation on her certification when she has no knowledge of facts and do not represent any evidence for her accusation. A certificate shall set forth only facts to which the person, who has made it, is competent to testify. But a certification which has been made like the ones which Jenna A. Rottenberg Esq. made on September 19 and 29, 2011, denote conduct which is fraudulent and has a purpose to deceive. The filing by a lawyer of a false certification to induce a justice and public for his benefit is a fundamental breach of a lawyer's duty as an officer of the court. Such conduct diminishes public confidence in the legal profession and goes "to the heart of every attorney's obligation to uphold and honor the law. 2) Elmwood Park BOEs counsel violated RPC 3.4 RPC 3.4. Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel A lawyer shall not: (a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value, or counsel or assist another person to do any such act; The following conduct of Elmwood Park BOE and its counsel is violation of RPC 3.4(a). From: Irandokht Toorzani <irandokhttoorzani@yahoo.com> To: "superintendent@epps.org" <superintendent@epps.org> Page 9 of 14

October 3, 2011 Cc: "Justiniano@epps.org" <Justiniano@epps.org>; "mcordero@epps.org" <mcordero@epps.org>; "ncelso@sseclaw.com" <ncelso@sseclaw.com> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 10:14 AM Subject: RE: disabling school email account Mr. Tomko, Yesterday I realized that under your order my school email account had been disabled without giving me any notice. As you and Board attorney know my school emails are legal documents and legally you cannot deprive me from having access to my legal documents when a legal action is pending in the court. Yesterday, I contacted the Elmwood Park Board of Education office but I was told nobody was there to respond me and then later, they told me that Mr. Tomko had said to contact Board attorney regarding that matter. As you may very well aware, Board attorney has not responded to any of my call or email which I had to make and send after you had referred me to them (since I do not have an attorney and I am representing myself in the matter of tenure charges that you have brought against me). My school emails are my legal evidences and documents which I need to have access to them. Please make proper arrangement so I can have access to my legal evidences and documents. Ms. Toorzani 3) Elmwood Park BOEs counsel violated RPC 3.5 RPC 3.5. Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal A lawyer shall not: (a) seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror or other official by means prohibited by law; (b) communicate ex parte with such a person except as permitted by law; or (c) engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal. The following conduct of Elmwood Park BOEs counsel is violation of RPC 3.5 (a),(b)&(c) i. I have been Severely Prejudiced by Ex Parte communication on substantive issues between Elmwood Park BOEs counsel (SCHWARTZ SIMON EDELSTEIN & CELSO LLC) and Judge Strauss which was probably just a small portion of Ex Parte communications between them which I became aware of it during the phone conference of September 12, 2011, (Toorzanis certification EXHIBIT 2; proof: audio record of the phone conference of September 12, 2011, which is available in OAL) although SCHWARTZ SIMON EDELSTEIN & CELSO LLC through its counsel, Jenna A. Rottenbergs certification (dated September 29,2011) has stated a different story regarding that Ex Parte communication and in addition has accused me of recording the phone conference of September 12, 2011, to Page 10 of 14

October 3, 2011 justify their misconduct, when at the same time Jenna A. Rottenberg, Esq. has knowingly and intentionally refrained from stating this fact on her certification that my sister was also present during that phone conference with Judge Strauss permission to be able to accuse me. ii. During the phone conference of September 12, 2011, when I asked Judge Strauss again to recuse himself, after I had been ignored for several times, Elmwood Park BOEs attorney, Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. acted as Judge Strauss attorney as well and asked Judge Strauss not to respond my question and Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. said maybe he could help Judge Strauss. Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. told Judge Strauss to let them respond to my Motion to Dismiss the Tenure Charges and then Judge Strauss could rule on their (Elmwood Park BOEs) Response to my Motion to Dismiss. But I stated that I still wanted Judge Strauss to recuse himself from this case and I stated my reasons for that, but I was ignored by Judge Strauss again. And then JUDGE STRAUSS TOLD MR. CELSO THAT, THAT WAS OK IF MR. CELSO WANTED TO FILE A RESPONSE TO MY MOTION TO DISMISS, AND THAT WAS FINE AND JUDGE STRAUSS COULD DEAL WITH THAT. (Toorzanis certification EXHIBIT 2; proof: audio record of the phone conference of September 12, 2011, which is available in OAL) 4) Elmwood Park BOEs counsel violated RPC 4.1 RPC 4.1. Truthfulness in Statements to Others (a) In representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or (2) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client. (b) The duties stated in this Rule apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by RPC 1.6. The following conduct of Elmwood Park BOEs counsel is violation of RPC 4.1 (a)(1&2)&(b) i. Elmwood Park BOEs counsel, Nicholas Celso, III, Esq (SCHWARTZ SIMON EDELSTEIN & CELSO LLC ) in his legal argument in his Response dated September 16, 2011, (section A, page 7, 4) to my Motion to Dismiss Tenure Charges, and in his Opposition dated September 29, 2011, (section A, page 10, 4) to my Appeal to Page 11 of 14

October 3, 2011 Commissioner of Education has knowingly and intentionally cited an unrelated case law [Longo v. Reilly, 5 N.J. Super 405 (App. Div. 1957), cert. denied, 25 N.J. 45 (1957)] as follows: When a prior action is dismissed on grounds that do not go to the merit of matter asserted in any subsequent action, judgment in the prior action will not be a res judicata bar in a subsequent action. Id.; See also, Longo v. Reilly, 5 N.J. Super 405 (App. Div. 1957), cert. denied, 25 N.J. 45 (1957) (where a subsequent action dealing with a grievance was permitted to proceed when the initial action was dismissed on grounds that did not go to the merits of the grievance.) Elmwood Park BOEs counsel, Nicholas Celso, III, Esq. had made this unscrupulous attempt to deceive and coerce me (Pro Se Respondent) to give up my legal rights by incorrectly citing this case when this case had been dismissed on the grounds that the court had No Jurisdiction to entertain that action. Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction does not constitute adjudication on merits based on FRCP 41 and therefore res judicata would not apply to the above case. The above cited case by Nicholas Celso, III, Esq., in no way is comparable with the instant matter since my Federal Complaint (which had the same issues and claims of the instant matter) was dismissed with prejudice following Elmwood Park BOEs motion which constituted a full adjudication on merits based on FRCP 41. 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 Rule19 operates as an adjudication on the merits ii. Elmwood Park BOE and its counsel fail to address my concern in regard to a certified mail (article # 70110110000076257507) which I never received it and I do not know why they refrained from sending those materials (which must have been important that they had mailed them via certified mail) to me again. From: Toorzani, Irandokht Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 11:32 AM To: abrown@sseclaw.com; ncelso@sseclaw.com Page 12 of 14

October 3, 2011 Subject: RE: Irandokht Toorzani; SEC DKT. NO. C29-11; Agency Ref. No. 170 -6/11 OAL. Docket. No.: EDU 09713-2011N Dear counsel, In attachment please find copies of all my communication regarding the above captioned maters since September 12, 2011. In addition, your client Elmwood Park BOE had sent me a certified mail (article # 70110110000076257507) when I was out of US on 8/25/2011, which was returned to them on 9/9/2011. When I came back I contacted your client regarding that certified mail and I asked them to re-send it to me but by now I have not received it. I appreciate if you take care of this problem. Also when I called Elmwood Park BOE (human resources office) to ask about the first and last day of my suspension I was connected to the superintendent office and I was told by the secretary to call your office to get an answer to my question which I did so, I left a message but I have not received any response yet. Respectfully, Irandokht Toorzani 5) Elmwood Park BOEs counsel violated RPC 8.4 RPC 8.4. Misconduct It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; (e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; (f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct or other law; All the aforementioned conduct of Elmwood Park BOEs counsel (SCHWARTZ SIMON EDELSTEIN & CELSO LLC) is violation of RPC 8.4 (a),(b),(c),(d),(e)&(f) 6) Elmwood Park BOEs counsel violated RPC 5.1 RPC 5.1. Responsibilities of Partners, Supervisory Lawyers, and Law Firms (a) Every law firm, government entity, and organization authorized by the Court Rules to practice law in this jurisdiction shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that member lawyers or lawyers otherwise participating in the organization's work undertake measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct. (b) A lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the Rules of Professional Conduct. (c) A lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyer's violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if: Page 13 of 14

October 3, 2011 (1) the lawyer orders or ratifies the conduct involved; or (2) the lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the other lawyer knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action. All the aforementioned conduct of Elmwood Park BOEs counsel (SCHWARTZ SIMON EDELSTEIN & CELSO LLC) is violation of RPC 5.1(a),(b)&(c) CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, I (Irandokht Toorzani, Pro Se Respondent) have been harassed and severely prejudiced by Elmwood Park BOEs counsels misconduct (violation of relevant Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules of the Court), Wherefore I (Irandokht Toorzani, Pro Se Respondent) respectfully pray that Commissioner of Education to disqualify Elmwood Park BOEs counsel (SCHWARTZ SIMON EDELSTEIN & CELSO LLC) and impose sanctions against them for their blatant and continuous misconduct according to law. Respectfully submitted, Irandokht Toorzani Pro Se Respondent

Certification: I (Irandokhdt Toorzani, Pro Se Respondent) hereby certifies as follows: I hereby certify under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my ability. Irandokht Toorzani Pro Se Respondent

CC:

Chief Judge Laura Sanders, Director and Chief Administrative Law Judge Judge Jesse H. Strauss, Administrative Law Judge Counsel of Record (Via Email)

Page 14 of 14