IRANDOKHT TOORZANI, PLAINTIFF, Pro Se

Date: May 21, 2012 Page 1 of 6

Irandokht Toorzani, Plaintiff, vs. Elmwood Park Board Of Education; William Moffitt, in his official capacity as Board Secretary; Richard D. Tomko, in his official capacity as Superintendent For The Elmwood Park BOE Defendants Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Bergen County Docket No: L-8966-11 CIVIL ACTION Jury Trial Demanded CERTIFICATION: RE: IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS LETTER DATED MAY 21, 2012

I, Irandokhdt Toorzani (Pro Se Plaintiff), hereby certify that the following statements are true to the best of my ability. I am aware that if any of the following statements made by me is willfully false, I am subject to punishment. 1. Plaintiff is fully familiar with the proceedings of this complaint. 2. Defendants attorneys were served with the Amended Pleading on 3/13/2012, as the Plaintiffs certification of service shows. Defendants attorneys had acknowledged receipt of the Verified Amended Complaint (not only during the case management conference of 3/15/2012 in open Court but also by their Opposition to the Motion To Amend The Complaint). 3. In accordance with Rule 4:4-6, the Defendants attorneys had been properly served with the Plaintiffs Verified Amended Complaint on 3/13/2012 (Via E-mail address Nirenbergvarano@aol.com as the certification of service of 3/13/2012 as well as other certifications of service of other Plaintiffs motions, which all had been opposed and accordingly acknowledged by the Defendants attorneys, show) and again they were served via the same E-mail address with the same copy on 4/17/2012 (since Judge Doyne ordered the Plaintiff to file the same Verified Amended Complaint all over again). 4. Defendants attorneys had ample time (57 days from service of amended pleading ; 32 days after the motion to amend the complaint was granted on 4/5/2012 ; and 22 days after the same copy of amended complaint was filed all over again per Judge Doynes order on 4/17/2012) to respond to the Verified Amended Complaint but Defendants attorneys failed

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI, PLAINTIFF, Pro Se

Date: May 21, 2012 Page 2 of 6

to answer or otherwise defend as to the Verified Amended Complaint or file a motion for enlargement of time in which to respond to the Verified Amended Complaint. When in accordance with Rule 4:9-1,
A party shall plead in response to an amended pleading within the time remaining for response to the original pleading or within 20 days after service of the amended pleading, whichever period is longer, unless the court otherwise orders

5. On 5/9/12, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default. 6. On or about 5/9/2012(on the same day that Plaintiff had filed a request for entry of default), Defendants attorneys filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint claiming that Plaintiff had not produced the documents which Defendants attorneys had requested, while Defendants had already failed to admit the truth of the matters which Plaintiff had requested under R. 4:22 and consequently they had been IN DEFAULT in the requested admission by Plaintiff and while Plaintiff had produced all the documents, but Defendants attorneys were looking for an specific recording (oral statements made to Plaintiff by 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 looking for 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. 7. These several years tape recording had not been done secretly (during last several years in numerous occasions Defendants had been informed by Plaintiff that Plaintiff had been recording them to protect her reputation, since constantly she had being falsely accused o f being dishonest, deceitful, liar, and etc by the Defendants [her employer] who are corrupt, fraud, and perjurer [proofs along with a complaint were submitted and filed with the Office of Attorney General on 1/19/2012]). 8. In addition Defendants attorneys filed the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint ( 6 of this certification) without even attempting to compel the Plaintiff first.

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI, PLAINTIFF, Pro Se

Date: May 21, 2012 Page 3 of 6

9. Defendants attorneys stated that they filed the motion to dismiss the complaint per Judge Doynes permission but Plaintiff never received a copy of this Judge Doynes permission and that would constitute an ex-parte communication between Judge Doyne and Defendants attorneys. 10. On 5/10/2012, default was entered by the Court Clerk and Plaintiff moved and filed her Motion for default judgment. 11. On or about 5/10/2012, while Defendants were in default, Defendants attorneys filed an answer along with a certification which was entered into the Docket (the Docket was also showing that a certification had been filed with the Court by Defendants on 5/2/2012, when such a certification did not exist. Plaintiff contacted the Court and asked them to fix that error but they resisted and refused to fix the error until Plaintiff told them that they were responsible for their own actions and what they had been doing was tampering with the Court records). 12. On or about 5/10/2012, after Defendants answer along with a certification was entered into the docket, Plaintiff contacted the Court and asked them how Defendants answer had been filed with the Court and entered into docket while Defendants had already been in default, Plaintiff was told that it had been a mistake and the answer was going to be removed. 13. On 5/14/2012, Plaintiffs motion for Default Judgment which had been filed with the Court on 5/10/2012, had not yet been entered in the docket therefore Plaintiff contacted the Court and asked why her motion for Default Judgment had not been entered. Plaintiff was told that maybe there had been some finance problem. Since Plaintiff was sure that there was no problem with her check, she went to the Court to find out what the problem was. At or about 3:00 PM of 5/14/2012, Plaintiff talked to Ms. Mary E. Demmer, Assistant Civil Division Manager, and let her know that she had filed her motion for Default Judgment on Thursday 5/10/2012 but by that time her motion had not been filed yet when there had not been any problem with her filling including finance problem. In addition Plaintiff let Ms. Demmer know that there had been some tampering with the Docket of the instant complaint. 14. On 5/14/2012, after Plaintiffs conversation with Ms. Demmer, Plaintiffs motion for default Judgment was entered into the Docket.

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI, PLAINTIFF, Pro Se

Date: May 21, 2012 Page 4 of 6

15. On 5/15/2012, Judge Doyne Struck the default which had been entered on 5/10/2012 by the Court Clerk and later Judge Doyne sent a correspondence (dated 5/14/2012 and postmarked 5/16/2012) stating that:
On this date I was presented with Ms. Toorzanis application for entry of default and Ms. Varanos opposition. Premised upon my review of the same it appears service of the amended complaint was improperly effectuated and, accordingly, the request for entry of default is denied. Should any default have been entered, it is stricken and the proposed answer to the amended complaint, received on May 10.2012, shall be accepted for filing

When Judge Doyne has actual knowledge that in accordance with the Rules of NJ Superior Court, when the Court Clerk entered the default (which in this case Default had been entered), in order to vacate the entry of default Defendants had to file a MOTION and NOT an opposition or certification to set aside the default (R. 4:43-3). In addition as Defendants attorneys and Judge Doyne were 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 the Defendants attorneys 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 Sheriffs Office ) and Defendants attorneys NEVER OBJECTED to receiving the documents (which Plaintiff have been filing with the Court) via E-MAIL. All Plaintiffs certifications of service for Plaintiffs motions prove that those motions have been served to Defendants attorneys via E-mail address nirenbergvarano@aol.com and all the Defendants responses (oppositions) to Plaintiffs motions are the proofs of Defendants attorneys acknowledgment of receiving those documents which have being filed with the Court, via Email address nirenbergvarano@aol.com. The Court records of the instant complaint have been available to Judge Doyne to be examined by him all the time (anytime that Plaintiff has been in the Court and asked for the Jacket of this complaint, she has been told that the Jacket had been in Judge Doynes office and they had to contact Judge Doyne for his permission to bring the Jacket down to the Clerks office). No unbiased person can accept DEFENDANTS ATTORNEYS ILLEGITIMATE EXCUSES that Defendants attorneys failed to respond to the Verified Amended Complaint since Defendants attorneys had received the Verified Amended Complaint via E-mail and not on the paper. Defendants attorneys NEVER (even once) had

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI, PLAINTIFF, Pro Se

Date: May 21, 2012 Page 5 of 6

any objection to receiving everything via Email and Defendants attorneys NEVER requested any of them on the paper, but they acknowledged receipt of all those documents and motions by responding and opposing them, therefore the Defendants attorneys had been properly served with the Plaintiffs Verified Amended Complaint in accordance with Rule 4:4-6. 16. On 5/15/2012, Plaintiff sent (via email to Defendants attorneys, via Fax to Judge Doynes Office, via regular mail to the Court Clerk) a letter dated 5/15/2012, and stated among other things, her objections to striking the Default (by Judge Doyne after 5 days of the entry of the default) which had been entered by the Court Clerk on 5/10/2012 , when NO motion had been filed by the Defendants attorneys to ask Judge Doyne to either set aside the default or strike it. 17. On 5/15/2012, at the same time that Judge Doyne struck the default, Defendants answer along with a certification (which had been already removed from the Docket) again was entered into the Docket with its original filing date (5/10/2012). When in accordance with Rule 1:5-6(c)(2), the answer must have been returned received, but not filed since default had been entered on 5/10/2012 and the answer was thereafter submitted. 18. On 5/16/2012, Defendants attorneys filed a Non-Conforming Cross Motion with the Court, which is supposed to be returnable on 5/25/2012. 19. The above Cross Motion ( 18 of this certification) has been intentionally and fraudulently entered into the Docket, as MOT VAC DEFAULT , under DOCUMENT TYPE in the Case Document List and, as 37 / MH3 , under MOTION: DOC/TYPE in the Case Proceeding List. The code NH3 means Motion Vacate Default/Extend Time Answer when Defendants attorneys have NEVER filed such a motion. In fact, what Defendants attorneys had sent Plaintiff and apparently filed with the Court was/is a so called Cross Motion in regard to Plaintiffs motion for default Judgment which does not even meet the requirements of Rule 1:6-3(b) for a Cross Motion. In accordance with Rule 1:6-3(b), 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

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI, PLAINTIFF, Pro Se

Date: May 21, 2012 Page 6 of 6

only if it relates to the subject matter of the original motion and the subject matter of original motion (Plaintiffs motion) was/is default Judgment, which requires Defendants to wait (and if they desire they oppose to plaintiffs motion for default judgment but NOT to file a NON-Conforming so called Cross Motion with the different subject matter as opposition), if a default judgment is obtained against them then they can make application to vacate or void the judgment in accordance with Rule 4:50. As Plaintiff has stated in her letter dated 5/15/2012, All the actions which have being taken in this Court by the Officers of the Court in violation of the Rules of Court, Laws, and the Constitution, to aid and abet the Defendants, are blatant Fraud Upon the Court, Conspiracy Against Plaintiffs Rights, Depriving Plaintiff of Her Rights Under Color of Law, and Obstruction of Justice and for that Plaintiff requesting the following relief immediately: 1. Recusal of Judge Doyne 1, 2. Granting Plaintiff default Judgment, 3. Awarding Plaintiff compensation for all these criminal acts and violations of laws committed by the Officers of the Court. Date: May 21, 2012 Respectfully submitted, Irandokht Toorzani Pro Se Plaintiff

Cc: Counsel of record Howard M. Nirenberg, Esq. via email Nirenbergvarano@aol.com.

By now, Plaintiff has moved and asked Judge Doynes recusal twice via letter dated 4/5/2012 and via motion supported by Plaintiffs certification dated 4/16/2012, but Plaintiffs motion was denied by Judge Doyne without giving her any explanation orally or in writing. Judge Doyne simply denied Plaintiffs motion just by one sentence stating plaintiffs motion is denied for the reasons set forth orally on the record on 5/11/12 when Plaintiff had waived any oral argument on her motion and she has not been given any reason orally or in writing in regard to denial of her motion which was supported by her certification.