elmwood park boe & njea; mistrial and fraud upon the court; en banc hearing in appellate court

8/6/2019 Elmwood Park BOE & NJEA; MISTRIAL AND FRAUD UPON THE COURT; EN BANC HEARING IN APPELLATE COURT

1/67

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CIRCUIT

Irandokht Toorzani;Petitioner /Plaintflf,

v .Elmwoodpark Board of Education, et al;

Respondents/Defendants:

))) Case No.: 11-1858)))))

PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR EN BANC HEARING

I (Irandokhdt Toorzani, who is representing herself involuntarily 1, pro se) am respectfullywriting this letter to request this Court to reconsider its order (Appellate Court Doc. No.

1 Under the influence of the economic and pol itical power of one of the Respondents, NewJersey Education Association (NJEA), Petitioner's former attorneys participated in a conspiracywith the Respondents against Petitioner. Petitioner's former attorneys fraudulently concealedPetitioner's evidences to obtain rulings in Respondents' favor and get Petitioner's complaintdismissed. When Petitioner realized and revealed participation of her former attorneys and theRespondents in a conspiracy against her via the direct physical evidences and informed theDistrict Court [Judge Shipp and Judge Chesler], both Petitioner's former attorneys who were notable to serve the Respondents anymore were permitted by Judge Shipp and Judge Chesler towithdraw without being held accountable for their fraudulent conduct and violation of laws andrules. Not to mention that they were also permitted to take Petitioner's money, more than$25,000 which Petiti oner had paid those fraudulent attorneys to represent her based on Iws andrules of professional conduct. These two Judges disregarded Petitioner's direct physicalevidences regarding the fraudulent conduct of her attorneys and did not show any interest whatso ever in even examining those evidences. These Judges' actions cannot even be justified byContinued On The Next Page

Page 1 of 57


2/67

Page 2 of 57

003110515921) issued April 29, 2011, dismissing the Petitioner's Notice of Appeal 2 (AppellateCourt Doc. No. 003110493866) due to lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioner filed her Notice of Appeal with the u.s. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit to file aMotion for Mistrial and Transferring her Complaint to another u.s. District Court of New Jerseyin the interest of Justice [because of 20 months injustice andfraud upon the Court].For 20months there have been ongoing violation of laws, local and federal rules, code of judicialconduct, code of conduct for judi ciary emp loyees, rules of professi onal condu ct, and ongoingfraudulent concealment of the Petitioner's submitted evidences [by the District Court,Respondents and Petitioner's former attorneys], making false statements of laws deliberately,making false statements of the facts on the sworn and unsworn responses, motions, papers andpleadings deliberately (when Petitioner's submitted direct physical evidences to the DistrictCourt clearly were showing falseness of those statements) and so many other misconduct, withthe intent to prevent Petitioner from having a fair hearing in the District Court which deprivedher from her constitutional right and immunity under the 14th Amendment of constitution.Despite the fact that Petitioner have been constantly notifying the Judges about all the fraudulentconduct [which were supported byAffidavits and Exhibits, as examples District Court Doc. Nos.119, and 120, is attached hereto as Exhibi1: A and District Court Doc. No. 135] , all thosefraudulent conduct and violation of laws and rules have been willfully condoned and permitted to

stating that it was improper for them to interfere with the attorney-client relationship since theseJudges had been notified by Petitioner about the fraudulent conduct and they had a duty to stopthe fraud on the court.2 Petitioner sent a letter (Appellate Doc. No. 003110504490) in support of her notice of appealin response to letter dated 4/1112011 in regard to possible dismissal due to a jurisdictionaldefect ...


3/67

Page 3 of 57

be continued by Judge Shipp and Judge Chesler to aid and abet the Respondents to obtain rulingsin their favor and to defraud the Petitioner.

All these cumulative fraudulent conduct and violation of laws, rules, and codes by theDistrict Court and Respondents, were amounting to manifest injustice (extreme prejudice) whichwould lead a reasonable person to conclude and believe that a fair and impartial hearing andadministration of justice were impossible, and accordingly caused Petitioner to believe that if theproceedings of this complaint continued under those circumstances as it did, Petitioner would notsee the justice that any U.S. citizen is expected and deserved as guaranteed by the U.S.Constitution. Therefore as the last resort 3, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal with the AppellateCourt to file a Motion for Mistrial and Transferring her Complaint to another u.S. District Courtof New Jersey.

But, surprisingly when Petitioner FOR THE FIRS T TIME called to the U.S. Court of Appeals 3rdCircuit to speak with the assigned Case Manager, while she was rude, deliberately discouragingand deceptive, she told Petitioner that Appellate Court does not accept phone call anymore andAppellants must put their Court Procedural questions in writing and mail them to the Appellate

3 First Petitioner assumed that the fraudulent conduct and the conspiracy against her was justbetween Respondents and her former attorneys and she thought by informing Judge Shipp thosefraudulent conduct would be taken care of and stopped. But unfortunately that was a wrongassumption since when Petitioner informed judge Shipp numerous times regarding all thosefraudulent conduct and violation of laws, she was ignored and her direct physical evidences werealso disregarded by Judge Shipp. Therefore Petitioner decided to inform Judge Chesler regardingall those fraudulent conduct, but again Petitioner was ignored and her motions, affidavits,exhibits, letters and her direct physical evidences were disregarded by Judge Chesler as well.The Court aided the Respondents and showed favoritism toward the Respondents by creating andadding defenses for them; Judge Shipp's and Judge Chesler's actions denied Petitioner's dueprocess of law and denied Petitioner a fair and impartial tribunal.


4/67

Page 4 of 57

Court and then wait to get the response back in writing via mail, when based on the informationposted on the Appellate Court website for Pro Se litigant that was not the truth.In addition, an interlocutory order [District court Doc. No. 125 dated 3/23/2011 in regard toPetitioner's depositions] was deliberately attached by the Appellate Court to the Petitioner'sNotice of Appeal without Petitioner's knowledge [Tampering with Public Records orInformation andforgery] and accordingly a false docket text was entered in the Appellate CourtDocket [Tampering with Public Records or Information] which is implying that Petitionerappealed that interlocutory order which consequently caused Petitioner's Notice of Appeal to bedirected to a wrong pan el to be dism issed because of lack of Jurisdiction on 4/29/2011, whi lePetitioner's Notice of Appeal was to file a Motion for Mistrial because of 20 months fraud uponthe court which was reviewable by the Appell ate Court 4.

When Petitioner learned that an interlocutory order (District court Doc. No. 125, dated3/23/2011) had been attached to her Notice of Appeal, she called the clerk office of the U.S.Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit to find out why that order had been attached to her Notice ofAppeal. Surprisingly they did not have any response and they removed the order but they did not

4 "The "final decision" rule in 28 USCS 1291 entitles a party to appeal not only from a FederalDistrict Court decision that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing more for theDistrict Court to do but execute the judgment, but also--pursuant to the collateral order doctrine,which is best understood as a practical construction of 1291--from a narrow class of decisionsthat do not terminate the litigation but that, in the interest of achieving a healthy legal system,nonetheless must be treated as "final"; such narrow class comprises only those District Courtdecisions that (1) are conclusive, (2) resolve important questions completely separate from themerits, and (3) would render such important questions effectively unreviewable on appeal fromfinal judgment in the underlying action; immediate appeals from such orders are consistent with1291 's object of efficient administration of justice in the federal courts." [ Digital EquipmentCorp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 114 S. Ct. 1992, 1995(1994)]


5/67

Page 5 of 57

change the false Docket Text on the Appellate Docket which still is implying that Petitioner hasappealed that interlocutory order.

On 4/26/2011 (when Petitioner's Notice of Appeal for filing a motion for mistri al because of 20months fraud upon the court was still pending in the Appellate Court), Respondents with thepermission of the District Court and by relying on a false claim that Petitioner had disobeyed theCourt order, moved and filed a motion 5 to ask the District Court to dismiss Petitioner'scomplaint with prejudice (District Court Doc. No. 131, dated 04/26/11) while Petitioner hadnever disobeyed any of the District Court order and Petitioner's Notice of Appeal for filling amotion for mistrial because of fraud upon the court (to defend her constitutional right andimmunity under the 14th Amendment of constitution which guarantees the fundamental rights ofcitizens to due process and fair and impartial trial and equal protection) was still pending in theAppellate Court and District Court did not have jurisdiction to proceed the complaint.

"only one tribunal handles a case at a time. "[A] federal district court and afederal court of appeals should not attempt to assert jurisdiction over a casesimultaneously. The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictionalsignificance- -it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests thedistrict court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in theappeal." Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58,103S.Ct. 400, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982)"

5 While Respondents improperly had affirmed matters that they or their clients had nopersonal knowledge of, did not state any fact and therefore did not have any evidentiary value,one more time they willfully and maliciously made false statements of facts and concealedmaterial documents (Exhibit) to create a false impression to mislead the court and change theoutcome of the court proceedings, in addition to the improper using of exhibits and baselessclaims.


6/67

Page 6 of 57

"Fraud upon the court consists of "such conduct as prevents a real trial uponthe issues involved." [Kramer, 96 Nev. at 762,616 P.2d at 397 (quotingSavage v. Salzmann, 88 Nev. 193, 195,495 P.2d 367,368 (1972))]", and"Extrinsic fraud consists of "conduct which prevents a fair submission of thecontroversy to the court." Jones v. Willard, 224 Va. 602, 607, 299 S.E.2d 504,508 (1983)"

After Petitioner learned that Respondents filed their motion with the District Court (DistrictCourt Doc. No. 131, dated 04126111)to dismiss Petitioner's complaint with prejudice, Petitionerimmediately contacted the Appellate Court clerk's office on 04126111, and notified the AppellateCourt regarding this matter.

On Monday 5/212011, Petitioner received an order from the Appellate Court (AppellateCourt Doc. No. 003110515921, dated: 0412912011)stating that Petitioner's Notice of Appealwas dismissed because of:

a) "The foregoing appeal is dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction. Our appellate jurisdictionextends only to appeals from final orders under.ZfU.S.C. 1291, from collateral ordersunder the doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 US.541, 546 (1949), andfrom appropriate orders relating to the grant or denial of injunctive relief under 28 US.C. 1292(a), as well as to questions certified pursuant to 28 D.S.C. 1292(b) or Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 54(b). See In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201,211 (3d Cir. 2006). As she makesclear in her April 18, 2011 letter to this Court, Toorzani's notice of appeal falls into none ofthe aforementioned categories .... Her request to have the appellate docket amended is alsodenied."

Not to mention, that interlocutory order [District court Doc. No. 125 dated 3/23/2011, in regardto Petitioner's depositions] was deliberately attached to Petitioner's Notice of Appeal withoutPetitioner's knowledge [Tampering with public records or information; forgery] in the AppellateCourt to give an impression that Petitioner did not want to comply with discovery (depositions)


7/67

Page 7 of 57

orders 6, to defraud the justice and public (misrepresentation offact by the Appeilate Court).Accordingly based on that deliberate action a false Docket Text was entered in the Appellate

G Judge Shipp violated FRCP 16(b) and issued an scheduling order based on ajoint discoveryplan which had been provided by Respondents without participating Petitioner or conferring itwith her (violation of FRCP 26CO)which Judge Shipp and Judge Chesler were aware of it(District Court Doc. Nos. 85, 98, 109,111,117,119, &120).

"FRCP 26(f) (2) : ... The attorneys of record and all unrepresented parties that haveappeared in the case are jointly responsible for arranging the conference, forattempting in good faith to agree on th e prop osed discovery plan, ... "."FRCP 16(b) Scheduling, (1) Scheduling Order. Ex cept in categories of actionsexempted by local rule, the district judge - or a magistrate judge whenauthorized by local rule - must issue a scheduling order:(A) after receiving the parties' report under Rule 26(f); or(B) after consulting with the parties' attorneys and any unrepresented parties at ascheduling conference or by telephone, mail, or other means.""FRCP 26(d)(1):A party may not seek discovery from any source before theparties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f)"

And in addition to all of these violation Judge Shipp denied Petitioner's request for providingand submitting a doctor note to the District Court regarding her inability to participate in an oraldeposition and when Petitioner appealed Judge Shipp's order to Judge Chesler and providedJudge Chesler with her doctor note that was stating,

" ... ,she is suffering of anxiety and depression and is being treated withantianxiety and antidepressants. Her concentration and speech will deteriorateunder stress therefore she should avoid stressful situations."

Judge Chesler willfully misinterpreted the facts (District Court Do c. No. 125, dated 03123/11)stated that," ... While this note was not filed until after the December 17, 2010 Order wasissued, this Court non eth eless finds th at it does not indicate that Ms. Toorzani' scondition is such that she cannot sit for a deposition where counsel takes dueconsideration of her condition allowing for reasonable breaks ... "

and disregarded all the violation of laws and fraudulent conduct on the court and issued anorder, District Court Doc. No. 125 (without any indication to the Petitioner's legal argument orthe content of Petitioner' s documents, Affidavits and Exhibits {District Court Doc. Nos. 117,119Continued On The Next Page


8/67

Page 8 of 57

Court Docket [Tampering withpublic records or information] which is implying that Petitionerintended to appeal that interlocutory order (District court Doc. No. 125, dated 312312011)whenPetitioner's Notice of Appeal clearly shows that Petitioner's intention was to file a motion formi strial because of 20 months fraud up on th e court in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey-Newark [also indicated on Petitioner's letter to the Appellate Court, Appellate Court Doc. No.003110504490, dated 411412011].Attaching that interlocutory order deliberately to Petitioner's Notice of Appeal causedPetitioner's Notice of Appeal to be dismissed because of lack of jurisdiction of the AppellateCourt (over that interlocutory order, District court Doc. No. 125) which deprived the Petitionerof her constitutional right and immunity under the 14th Amendment of constitution whichguarantees the fundamental rights of citizens to due process, fair and impartial trial and equalprotection, while the Appellate Court had power and authority to review the "Fraud upon thecourt" under the collateral order doctrine.

Based on Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 114 S. Ct. 1992, 1995(1994), a claimis sufficiently "important" to warrant immediate appeal as of right if it is an

& 120 on his orders and opinions] which had addressed and discredited Respondents'documents, Affidavits, and Exhibits by rebutting and disputing them) and stated that Judge Shipphad not erred in his judgment and on another order, District Court Doc. No. 126 (again withoutany indication to the Petitioner's legal argument or the content of Petitioner's document,District Court Doc. No. 117, 119, &120 on his order) he comp elled P eti tioner to attend in the oraldepositions to provide an opportunity for the Respondents to take advantage of Petitioner'sdisadvantage which was her medical condition (that she has been taking medication for them).When Petitioner's unrebutted evidences regarding fraud on the court was disregarded byJudge Chesler as well as Judge Shipp in order to aid and abet the Respondents, Petitionerrealized that all these actions of the District Court was an example of "given the pretense of ahearing when, in fact, no listening took place".


9/67

Page 9 of 57

"immunity rooted in an explicit constitutional or statutory provision orcompelling public policy rationale, the denial of which has been held to beimmediately appealable."and,b) "To the extent, however, that Toorzani wishes this Court to treat her notice of appeal as anapplication for a writ of mandamus, brought pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 D.S.C. 1651,we decline to do so; she has provided no basis for such an extraordinary remedy .... "Itwas not possible for the Appellate Court to conclude that Petitioner had not provided any basisfor her claim when Petitioner had not been even permitted or given a chance by the AppellateCourt to file her motion for mistrial to submit her documents and evidences in support of herclaim, to show whether she had a basis for her claim or not, unless the Appellate Court issuedthis order based on the information which had been obtained from the extrajudicial sources.and,

c) "And to the extent Toorzani requests that this Court issue a stay of the District Courtproceedings during the pendency of this appeal, that request is denied."This Appellate Court's order provided an opportunity for the District Court to dismissPetitioner's complaint with prejudice under the fraud and by relying on the misrepresentation offacts (District Court Doc. Nos. 136 and 137dated 511912011)that Petitioner disobeyed thedistrict court order and did not attend her depositions when Petitioner's Notice of Appeal wasstill pending in the Appellate Court for filing a motion for mistrial because of fraud upon thecourt and the District Court was stripped of its jurisdiction,

"Fraud upon the court consists of "such conduct as prevents a real trial uponthe issues involved." [Kramer, 96 Nev. at 762,616 P.2d at 397 (quotingSavage v. Salzmann, 88 Nev. 193, 195,495 P.2d 367,368 (1972]", and"only one tribunal handles a case at a time. "[A] federal district court and afederal court of appeals should not attempt to assert jurisdiction over a casesimultaneously. The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional


10/67

Page 10 of 57

significance--it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests thedistrict court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in theappea1." Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58,103S.Ct. 400, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982)", and"In Fisher v. Amaraneni, 565 So. 2d 84 (Ala. 1990), the court defined ajudgment as void if the court -acted in a manner inconsistent with dueprocess.", and"Extrinsic fraud consists of "conduct which prevents a fair submission of thecontroversy to the court." Jones v. Willard, 224 Va. 602, 607, 299 S.E.2d 504,508 (1983)", and"The question on an appeal under Forsyth is whether the defendant may besubjected to tria1. The justification for the interlocutory appeal is that the trialdestroys rights created by the immunity. Forsyth, 472 U.S. at 526, 105 S.Ct. at2815; Scott v. Lacy, 811 F.2d 1153 (7th Cir.1987). Itmakes no sense for trialto go forward while the court of appeals cogitates on whether there should beone. Griggs says that the notice of appeal "divests the district court of itscontrol over those aspects of the case involved in the appea1." 459 U.S. at 58,103 S.Ct. at 402. Whether there shall be a trial is precisely the "aspect[ ] of thecase involved in the appeal" under Forsyth. Itfollows that a proper Forsythappeal divests the district court of jurisdiction (that is, authority) to require theappealing defendants to appear for tria1. Cf. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818, 102S.Ct. at 2738 ("Until this threshold immunity question is resolved, discoveryshould not be allowed. ")."

I. FACTS AND FRAUD UPON THE COURT

Petitioner brought a prima facie case to Newark-District Court (considering all her directphysical and circumstantial evidences) which could have been resolved injust a few months, butunfortunately this complaint was deliberately and fraudulently stalled and kept in pre-trial stage


11/67

Page 11 of 57

in the District Court for 21 months, with so many docketing 7 and no progress 8while as a fewexample:

7 i.The duplicate documents which have been filed with the District Court are including but notlimited to the following: District Court Doc. Nos. 15; 16; 37; 38; 41; 42; 56; 61; 87; 90; 99;104 and ...ii. The docket of this complaint has been intentionally designed in a way which creates a bigconfusion for whoever wants to track the progress ofthis case.a) The docket numbers, which have been assigned to the documents and letters that have

been filed in the district court docket, are not based on the order that the court havereceived them (as an example District Court Doc. Nos. 135 and 134)b) Some of the docket texts are not accurate or some of them are false.

Entering false docket text (as Petitioner has mentioned in Doc. No. 97) and as anotherexample the following docket text:"APPEAL OF MAGIS1RATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court byIRANDOKHT TOORZANI re 106 Order on Oral Motion, (Attachments: #1Letter)(tjg, ) (Entered: 01/1012011)"

this docket text is implying that the order had been rendered on an oral motion whenthere has never been any oral motion and Petitioner's motions (including motion forprotective order) had been submitted to the District Court in writing via certified mail andfax (on 12/11/2010) Distri ct Court Doc . Nos. 109 & 108 (misrepresentation of the fact bythe District Court).

c) Some of Petitioner' s documents have not been filed on time for example, Petitioner'smotion for protective order, District Court Doc. No.1 09 which was faxed to JudgeShipp's chambers on 1211112010.

d) Some of Petitioner' s documents have been mutilated and are illegible (for exampleDistrict Court Doc . No. 119-3, page 17 to 21; District Court Do c. No. 87, page 1 and 3).e) Some of Petitioner's documents have been filed, as a document and its attachments while

the wh ole has been just a few pages document. Fo r example District Court Doc. No. 85,which is only 3-page document and have been filed as Doc. No. 85; 85-1; and 85-2.f) Some of Petitioner's documents have been re-entered with the different text order(duplicate of same documents) in the district court docket to have excessive filing(District Court Doc. 87 and 90 are the same document with different text order).

Continued On The Next Page


12/67

Page 12 of 57

10/20/2010 87 APPLICA TION!N10TION for Reconsiderati on denying pltf's opposition(Doc. Nos. 85 &72) to deft. Oxfel d's demand for compelling pltf. to obtainan affidavi t 0fmerit for pltf's legal malpractic e claim against deft. Oxfeld re86 A:MENDED SCHEDULING ORDER byIRANDOKHT TOORZANI.(dc,) (Entered: 10/2112010)

10/25/2010 90 Letter from Irandokht Toorzani. (dc,) (Entered: 10/25/2010)

Which was fixed by the District Court after Petitioner brought this matter to the attentionof the District Court again, but this time as a question on her affidavit supporting herrequest for mistrial (District Court Doc. No. 135)

10/25/2010 90 APPLICA TION!N10TION for Rec onsideration denying pltf's opposition (Doc. Nos. 85 &72) to deft. Oxfeld's demand for compelling pltf to obtain an affidavit of merit for pltf'slegal malpractice claim against deft. Oxfeld re 86 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDERfrom Irandokht Toorzani. (de, ) Modified on 11122/2010 (dc). (Entered: 10/25/2010)

g) Entering vague docket text for Petitioner's document which was not even showing whatthe subject of Petitioner' s document was about. As one example the District Court Doc.No. 135 which was received by the District Court 4 days sooner that District Court Doc.No.134, not only it was not given a proper docket number based on the date that it hadbeen received by the District Court but also a vague docket text was entered for thisdocument (Doc. No. 135). After Petitioner called the District Court clerk office andbrought the above matter to the attention of clerk, Petitioner was given different excuses,to not to ask them to change the docket number or docket text until at the end the clerkaccepted to change just the vague docket text.

05/12/2011 135 AFFIDAVIT ofIrandokhdt Toorzani byIRANDOKHT TOORZANI. (Attachments: #1Exhibits 1 to l1)(dc,) (Entered: 05117/2011)

05/16/2011 134 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE byIRANDOKHT TOORZANI.(Attachments: #1.S. Postal Receipt, # 1.Env.)(dc,) (Entered: 05/17/2011)

05/12/2011 135 AFFIDAVIT byIRANDOKHT TOORZANI in support of her position, in regard to filinga motion for mistrial and transferring her complaint to another U.S. District Court ofNJ inthe Interest of Justice and to Renew Platif's cross motion for sanctions against defts. and inopposition to defts' joint motion for sanctions against pltf.( doc. No. 119) (Attachments: #1Exhibits 1 to l1)(dc, )TextModified on 5/23/2011 per pltf.(mn). (Entered: 05/17/2011)

05/16/2011 134 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE byIRANDOKHT TOORZANI.(Attachments: #1.S. Postal Receipt, # 1.Env.)(dc,) (Entered: 05/17/2011)

h) Keeping Petitioner's former attorneys' names on the docket as a lead attorneys andattorneys to be noticed for several months after they had been permitted by the DistrictCourt to withdraw as Petitioner's counsel.

Continued On The Next Page


13/67

Page 13 of 57

i) While Petitioner's "Cause of Action" for her complaint had been chosen as the "TitleVII, Discrimination" (District Court Doc. No. 1-1 Filed 08120109), the District Court hasreflected the Cause of Action of Petitioner's complaint as "Cause: 42: 12101 Americanswith Disabilities Act" (which is one of the natures of her suit) on all the documents on theDistrict Court docket.

"Canon 3. A Judge Should Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and DiligentlyB. Administrative Responsibilities. (2) Ajudge should require staff, court 0fficials, and others subject to thejudge's direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judg e and torefrain from manifesting bias or prejudi ce in the perfonnanc e of their official duties."

8 A) Unnecessary extension and adjournment requests which have been filed with the DistrictCourt to stall the case (and were permitted by Judge Chesler and Judge Shipp) are including butnot limited to District Court Doc. Nos. 12; 13; 21; 26; 27; 31; 43; 52; 56; 61; 65; 66; 67; 74.District Court Doc No. 72which was written to Judge Shipp, is one example that Petitioner hadbeen informing the District Court regarding this matter that

" ... your Honor I do not believe that this adjournment has been requested in agood faith since the settlement conference had been scheduled on May 21,2010,and after 47 days, on July 6, 2010 (a few days, 6 days before this conference) Mr.McCoy realized that he would be out of the state on a pre paid vacation and Mr.Deratzian not only did not oppose this request but also made a request on July 7,2010, to adjourn this conference further to August 17, 2010 (which makes thiscase slow) even without consulting with me ... "

B) Adjourning the status conferences every time that Petitioner's former attorneys announcedthat they had decided to withdraw, to keep the case without any activity and stall the proceedingsof this complaint, Petitioner's first attorney (Serene Hennion) formally informed Petitioner on3/5/10 that she had decided to withdraw, due to the postponements she withdrew on 5/6/10; andon 612811 0 Petitioner's second former attorney (David Deratzian) who was retained by Petitioneron 5/17/10 inform ed Petitioner form ally that he had decided to withdraw and due to thepostponements he withdrew on 8123/10 (Petitioner had contacted the District Court andinformed both Judges (Judge Shipp and Judge Chesler) regarding the fraudulent conduct of hertwo former attorneys, but Petitioner and her direct physical evidences were ignored anddisregarded by these Judges)."Canon 3. A Judge Should Perform the Dutie s 0fJudicial 0 ffice Impartially and DiligentlyA.Adjudicative Responsibilities.(7) A judge should dispose promptly ofthe business of the court.Commentary: Prompt disposition of the court's business requires a judge to devote adequate time to duties, to bepunctual in attending court and expeditious in determining matters under submission, and to insist that courtofficials, litigants and Iwyers coop erate to that end. Indisposing 0f matters promptl y, a judg emust demonstrate dueregard for the rights of the parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without unnec essary cost or delay."


14/67

Page 14of 57

1. Under the influence of the economic and political power of one of the Respondents, NewJersey Education Association (NJEA), Petitioner's two former attorneys:

a) Concealed Petitioner's (their own client's) direct physical evidences to not to make claimsbased on them (see attachments of District Docket Doc. No.72, page 9 to 15; District CourtDoc. No.1 08 9, page 5, ~3 andfootnote 3;pages 3 and 4,footnotes 1 and 2).

9 Er ome Serene Henni on To: ToorzaniSent:Wed, August 19,200910:20:18 AMSubject: RE: First Draft of ComplaintGood morning,Attaced is a revised Complaint. It includes your suggestions and I have revised some items onmy own. I still need to proofread the darft and finalize it before filing tomorrow or Friday.Here is the result of my conversation with the Labor attorney and Andy:1) We are going to file later the Complaint, Count One through Count Nine tomorrow.2) We are going to add by an Amendement, Count Ten (Defamation) and Count Eleven(emotional distress) in six months from now. We have to file a tort claims notice for these 2counts, wait six months, and then file them. It is just a procedural item. Ifwe file it now, theymay seek to have those Counts dismissed because we did not wait 6 months.3) We have sued the Union, but can also sue the for "Failure to properly represent."We must firstr do that through PERK (an organization that has the firstjurisduction). We candiscuss this when you get back. Ifwe file it with the Complaint, our fear is the entire complaintmay be moved to PERK and we don't want that.Please call me on my cell with any questions.Thank you, Serene

Note 1: This attorney, Serene Hennion, concealed Petitioner's direct physical evidences to helpthe Respondents, and in addition to that she never filed any tort claim notice against theRespondents.Despite the fact that the District Court was informed by Petitioner regarding all these fraudulentconduct, District Court never took any action to stop them which was not a matter of attorney-client relationship that Judges did not want to interfere, but it was a matter of fraud on the court.Eronu ToorzaniTo: Gary J. Chester ; Serene M. Hennion< [email protected]>Sent: Sun, December 6, 200910:45:09 AMSubject: Re: Irandokht ToorzaniConiinued On The Next Page


15/67

Page 15 of 57

Hi Serene and Gary,Hope my e-mails find you well.You sent me the response of the Elmwoo d Park Board of Education to the com plaint but I amwondering if you have received any response from NJEA (Rose Ann Spina and Nancy Oxfeld)since their name were on the complaint too? ....Er oms ToorzaniTo: Gary J. Chester < [email protected]>Cc: Serene M. Hennion ; [email protected]: Fri, December 11,20094:27:37 PMSubject: Re: Irandokht ToorzaniHi Gary, On Sunday December 6, 09, I sent you documents via 3 emails and I asked a question:"... I am wondering if you have received any response from NJEA (Rose Ann Spina and NancyOxfeld) since their name were on the complaint too?" but I did not get any response,therefore I am not even sure if you have received the emails. I appreciate you so much for yourresponse in advance ...Have a great weekend, IrandokhtEr ome "shennion@j ohnsonmurphylaw. com" To: Toorzani ; Gary J. Chester Cc: [email protected]: Fri, December 11,20094:37:36 PMSubject: Re: Irandokht ToorzaniHi Irandokht,We have not received an Answer from Nancy Oxfeld yet. She requested an extension of time toanswer, which is normal.We did receive your emails and are going through the documents ...SereneEr ome ToorzaniTo: shenni [email protected]; Gary J. Chester < [email protected]>Cc: [email protected]: Fri, December 11, 2009 4:55:01 PMSubject: Re: Irandokht ToorzaniHi Serene,... By the way have you got any response from Rose Ann Spina?IrandokhtEr oms ToorzaniTo: Serene Hennion Sent: Sat, December 26, 200911:51:09 AMSubject: Re: Irandokht Toorzani... I know you understand that if I asked a question about complaint against NJEA(even though Itrusted that you take care of this case to the b est of your ability) it's because my life has beenContinued On The Next Page
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected];mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected];mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


16/67

Page 16 of 57

Petitioner's first former attorney, Serene Hennion was not even informing the Petitioner ofthe status of her complaint until Petitioner had to sign up for PACER to check the status ofher complaint. At that time Petitioner learned that two of the Respondents (NJEA and itsnetworkattomey, Nancy Oxfeid) had filed motions to dismiss Petitioner's complaint,despite the existence of direct physical evidences against them which had been concealedby Petitioner's first former attorney, Serene Hennion. After Petitioner realized that herattorney was working against her own client (Petitioner) and she was concealingPetitioner's evidences to help Respondents, Petitioner insisted her former attorney, SereneHennion, to inform the Court of the existence of those evidences (recorded voice) toprevent her complaint from being dismissed. Petitioner told her attorney, if she did notinform the Court regarding the existence of those evidences against Respondents, Petitionerwould contact and inform the Court regarding that matter.

b) Knowingly made false statements of facts in their sworn written documents and enteredthose false statements and information in the Court Record and PACER with purpose that itbe taken as a genuine part of information or records,

miserable for last several years and this case is about my suffering and NJEA is at fault as muchas my employer.Thanks again, IrandokhtNote 2: Petitioner asked her first former attorney about the Respondent NJEA' s response to hercampi aint for the 6th tim es on 12 /2612009 but her first former attorney was still refu sing to giveher any information while Respondent NJEA had responded to the complaint on 10/22/2009 andRespondent Nancy Oxfeld (NJEA's network attorney) had filed a motion to dismiss Petitioner'scampi aint on 12 /1512009 .


17/67

Page 17 of 57

i. District Court Doc. No. 28-2, page 5, footnote 1 "Counsel has just received a clear copyof the tape ... " which was a total lie and an attempt to cover up her tPetitioners firstformer attorney's, Serene Hennion 's) fraudulent concealment of Petitioner's evidencesto help Respondents. The District Court was informed by Petitioner regarding thisfraudulent conduct through District Court Doc. No. 58 (or attachment #1 of DistrictCourt Doc. No. 72, page 9, which Petitioner had also faxed to Judge Shipp's chambersand email to all counsels as a separate document on May 3,2010, which was never filedby the District Court) .

ll. District Court Doc. No. 65, which was another fraudulent attempt of Petitioner's secondformer attorney, David Deratzian, to help Respondents. While Petitioner had clearlyasked that attorney not to take any action regarding affidavit of merit ill,he did against his

10 TIm, JlU1e 17, 2010 6:05:13 PMRe: Settlement ConferenceFrom: ToorzaniTo: [email protected]: [email protected]. Deratzian,Please ho ld on and do not do anything (especially do not request for an affidavit of merit) ....Regards,IrandokhtErom. "[email protected]" To: Richard Friedman ; Wendy Lario ; Bruce Wayne McCoyCc: ToorzaniSent: Tue, July 6,2010 12:14:08 PMSubject: Motion for ExtensionDear Counsel,Attached please find Plaintiffs Motion for an Extension to File an Affidavit of Merit, which hasContinued On TIleNext Page
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


18/67

Page 18 of 57

client's (petitioner's) will to require Petitioner to obtain one (when Petitioner wasprecluded from obtaining one based on common knowledge doctrine, and ...as Petitionerargued on District Court Doc. Nos. 90 and 95) while he was going to withdraw asPetitioner's counsel. Again the District Court was informed regarding that fraudulentconduct by Petitioner through District Court Doc. No. 72 but Petitioner was ignored andher letter was disregarded by Judge Shipp (Petitioner had previously informed JudgeShipp through attachment 2 and 3 of District Court Doc. No. 72, page 10 to 15, as aseparate document, regarding Petitioner's first and second former attorneys' fraudulentconduct which had beenfaxed to Judge Shipp's Chambers and emailed to all counsel ofrecord on June 28,2010, but this document was never filed in the Court Docket as well).Petitioner's first former attorney, Serene Hennion had also made several attempt todefraud Petitioner when she was going to withdraw as Petitioner's counsel, she wasattempting to require Petitioner to obtain an affidavit of merit for her malpractice claimagainst Respondent NJEA's network attorney, Nancy Oxfeld, by making false statement

been filed with the Court.David L. Deratzian~: Despite Petitioner's numerous objections to obtaining an affidavit of merit and despite thefact that Petitioner had not given her attorney any permission to ask for an extension to obtain anaffidavit of merit, when she had been asked by her attorney specifically regarding that matter viaemail, that attorney filed a motion for extension against his client's (petitioner's) will to serve theRespondents as his last attempt (to require Petitioner to obtain one when Petitioner wasprecludedfrom obtaining one based on common knowledge doctrine, and ...as Petitioner arguedon District Court Doc. Nos. 90 and 95) when hewas withdrawing as Petitioner's counsel.


19/67

Page 19 of 57

of Law fraudulently 11 to help Respondents NJEA and its network attorney, NancyOxfeld, and consequently Respondent Elmwood Park Board of Education.

11 From: Serene M. Hennion To: ToorzaniSent: Thu, April 29, 2010 11:45:51 AMSubject: RE: Affidavit ofMerit to be filedIrandokht,I must impress upon you the absolute need to move forward with the Affidavit of Merit. Asexplained inmy prior emails.itis absolutely necessary that an Affidavit of Merit be filed within sixty (60)days of the fil ing of the Am ended Compl aint (fi led March 23, 2010) or th e malpractice claimagainst Nancy Oxfeld will be dismissed, with prejudice. That means you will not be permitted torefile that claim ever. You cannot delay any longer on this issue. You must forward a checkimmediately to our Firm in the amount of $750.00 so that we can retain the expert on yourbehalf.Thank you,Serene HennionEr ome ToorzaniDate: TIm, 29 Apr 2010 22:06:32 -0400To: Serene M. HennionSubject: Re: Affidavit of Merit to be filedSerene,Thank you for your email. If! may ask, should the Affidavit of Merit be filed within 60 daysfollowing the date of fi ling of the answer to the com plaint by the defendant (Has Oxfeldresponded to the amended complaint?)? And may the court grant one additional period to file theaffidavit of Merit for a good cause (you decided to abandon me)?Thanks,IrandokhtErome "shennion@j ohnsorunurphylaw. com" To: Toorzani; [email protected]: Fri, April 30,2010 7:25:11 AMSubject: Re: Affidavit of Merit to be filedIrandokht,As stated in my hvo previous emails, the sixty (60) days is from date of the filing of theAmended Complaint. There are no extensions.I don't understand your reluctance to file an Affidavit of Merit. Whether you are represented byus, another firm or pro se, you need to have this document filed. Nancy Oxfeld has not filed herAmended Answer. Her counsel requested an extension. Regards, Serene Hennion
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


20/67

Page 20 of 57

The direct physical evidence (recorded voice) that Petitioner's first former attorney,Serene Hennion was concealing and was submitted to the Court and Respondents later[when Petitioner forced her attorney to do so], was strongly supporting Petitioner'smotion in opposition of obtaining an affidavit of merit [District Court Doc. No. 90 whichis duplicate of Doc. No. 87 dated 10/18/2010; and District Court Doc. No. 95]. Not tomention that this motion was never responded by the District Court.

2. Petitioner's first former attorney, Serene Hennion, made false statement of law regarding the

New Jersey Affidavit of Merit Statute (in regard to Petitioner's malpractice claim againstRespondent NJEA 's network attorney, Nancy Oxfeld) and its time limit in the presence ofJudge Shipp during the Status/Settlement Conference on 5/612010 (which had been arrangedto let this attorney(Serene Hennion) to withdraw) to mislead Petitioner as her last attempt toserve Respondents NJEA's network attorney, NJEA and consequently Respondent ElmwoodPark BOE and when Petitioner questioned her false statement of law, this attorney insisted onher false statement of law and Judge Shipp did not show any reaction what so ever.

" The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would createin reasonable minds a perception that the judge's ability to carry out judicialresponsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired."

Not to mention that, in that Status/Settlement Conference, Judge Shipp had also toldPetitioner that her case was going to be dismissed in front of all Respondents and Petitioner'sfirst former attorney, Serene Hennion, in his courtroom before beginning of theStatus/Settlement Conference which had been arranged to permit Petitioner's first formerattorney, Serene Hennion, to withdraw as Petitioner's counsel, while based on due process,


21/67

Page 21 of 57

"a court can only render an opinion after the parties have been afforded a fulland fair trial on the claims properly before th e court" .

3. Even though Petitioner have informed Judge Shipp and later Judge Chesler regarding all thefraudulent conduct of her two former attorneys [District Court Doc. Nos. 58, 72 (alsoattachment #2 and #3 of Doc. 72,page 10-15 which had been faxed to Judge Shipp'schambers as a separate document and was never filed by the District Court), 73, and 77] butunfortunately the Judges did not show any interest in even examining Petitioner's directphysical evidences regarding those fraudulent conduct and they ignored Petitioner anddisregarded her direct physical and circumstantial evidences and consequently her legal right.The District Court not only permitted those attorneys who had violated the Laws and Rulesto withdraw without holding them accountable, but also let them to take Petitioner's money(more than $25,000) and walk away easily (District Court Doc. Nos. 77, 73, and 59), whilebased on,

"Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of His Office Impartially andDiligently(A)Adjudicative Responsibilities. A judge should accord to every person whois legally interested in a proceeding, or his lawyer, full right to be heardaccording to law. He should not permit private interviews, arguments orcommunications designed to influence his judicial action, where interests tobe affected thereby are not represented before him, except in cases whereprovision is made by law for ex parte application.(B) Administrative Responsibilities. (3) If ajudge shall become aware ofunprofessional conduct by a judge or a lawyer(a) he shall, in the instance of ajudge, report his knowledge to the ChiefJustices of this court and of the court of which the judge in question is amember, and(b) in the instance of a lawyer, he shall initiate appropriate investigative ordiscipl inary measures."


22/67

Page 22 of 57

4 . No In i tial Disclo sure was eith er fi led or submitted for 16 month s that this com plaint had beenfiled in the District Court by Respondent Elmwood Park BOE in violation ofFRCP 26(a)(1).After Petitioner sent an email on 1/1412011 and asked the Respondent Elmwood Park BOEfor their Initial Disclosure, it took Respondent Elmwood Park Board of Education five daysto provide one and submit it to Petitioner via email while Respondent Elmwood Park BOEcalled that late submission a courtesy to Petitioner and then on District Court Doc. No. 123,Respondent Elmwood Park BOE claimed that Responded provided Petitioner with acourtesy copy ofInitial Disclosure upon Petitioner's request on 111912011.

5. A Telephone Status Conference was held on 9/28/2010 and Judge Shipp's ordered,

" ... ajoint proposed form of Scheduling Order_shall be submitted to the Courtby Friday, October 1, 2010 ... "

After Petitioner had to involuntarily represent herself, she announced her appearance as apro se litigant on 9/30/2010 at 12:30 AIVl,via email to Respondents and via fax to JudgeShipp and via certified mail to the District Court (District Court Doc. No. 84), butRespondents did not let Petitioner to participate in providing the amended joint discoveryplan (Petitioner's 3-page document which had been filed in the District Court, as Doc. No.85, 85-1, 85-2) and Respondents jointly provided the amended j oint discovery plan andsubmitted it to the District Court, without even conferring it with Petitioner which isviolation of FRCP 26(f) and subject to sanction based on FRCP 37 (f).

6. Petitioner informed Judge Shipp (District Court Doc. No. 85; 85-1; 85-2) that Respondentsneither participated Petitioner in providing the amended joint discovery plan nor conferred


23/67

Page 23 of 57

with her the contents of the amended joint discovery plan provi ded by them (violation ofFRCP 26(1)), but unfortunately Judge Shipp disregarded Petitioner and her legal right andJudge Shipp issued an amended scheduling order based on the Respondents' joint discoveryplan in violation ofFRCP 16(b)(1).

If Petitioner had to represent herself (as an involuntary pro se litigant), it did not mean thatthe District Court had the right to deny her due process when the Judges were expected touphold the Constitution as they were sworn to do and protect the fundamental rights to dueprocess as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

"Canon 2. A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance ofImpropriety in All ActivitiesA. Ajudge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all timesin a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartialityof the judiciary.B. Ajudge should not allow family, social, political, or other relationships toinfluence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should not lend the prestigeof office to advance the private interests of others; nor should ajudge conveyor permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position ofinfluence. Ajudge shall not testify as a character witness."

7. The following motions which had been filed by Petitioner, were never responded by theDistrict Court (which does not comply with FRCP 72) which shows that Petitioner has beenignored and never been heard by the District Court during 21 months that this complaint wasdeliberately and fraudulently stalled and kept in pre-trial stage in the District Court which isan example of "Given The Pretense Of A Hearing When, In Fact, No Listening Took Place".

a) Petitioner never received (even after about 7months) any response to her motion dated10/18/2010 (District Court Doc. Nos. 90 [which is a duplicate of 87) and 95) for


24/67

Page 24 of 57

reconsideration in regard to obtaining an affidavit of merit for her malpractice claim againstRespondent NJEA's network attorney, Nancy Oxfeld.

Petitioner was compelled to obtain an affidavit of merit by Judge Shipp's scheduling orderwhich was issued based on the amended joint discovery plan provided by the Respondentswithout participating Petitioner (violation of FRCP 26(f) &FRCP 16(b) (J)). RespondentOxfeld and her attorneys had been permitted by the District Court to make false statementsof facts regarding the direct physical evidence [Defendant Oxfeld's recorded voice, whichhad been submitted to all Respondents and the District Court by Petitioner] on their swornpleadings and papers which was not only perjury but was in vio lation of FRCP 11 (theDistrict Court has been notified about all those conduct by Petitioner through DistrictCourt Doc. No. 72, page 6, ~ 2 andfootnote 7; District Court Doc. No. 72, page Z , ~ 1; andDistrict Court Doc. No.1 01 ; is attached hereto as Exhibit B ) while the District Court hadthat direct physical evidence [Defendant Oxfeld's recorded voice] in its possession whichstrongly supports Petitioner's claims against all the Respondents specially NJEA'snetwork attorney, Nancy Oxfeld.

b) Petitioner never received (even after more than 7 months) any response to her motion forfilling Late Tort Claim Notice which Petitioner had initially moved for on 9/3012010 12(District Court Doc. No. 84, page 2, ~ 1; District Court Doc. No. 108 and District Court

12 Not to mention that since 6128/2010 (attachments of District Court Doc. No. 72. page 9to15) Judge Shipp was aware that under the extraordinary circumstance (petitioner's two formerattorneys' fraudulent conduct) no tort claim notice had been filed against the Respondents foralmost a year.


25/67

Page 25 of 57

Doc. No. 124), although Judge Shipp was fully aware that Petitioner would lose her legalright based on the Statute of Limitation if she would not file her Late Tort Claim Notice

(which ispermitted under the existence of extraordinary circumstances) against the publicentity within two years.

Petitioner had submitted the direct physical evidences to the District Court, which wereshowing that Petitioner's former attorneys concealed her evidences to not to file any claimbased on them and not to file any Tort Claim Notice against the Respondents+', eventhough both Petitioner's former attorneys had promised 14 Petitioner that they would amend

13 From:" [email protected]" To: ToorzaniCc: aprilc [email protected]: Mon, June 28, 2010 10:46:45 AMSubject: Re: Settlement Conference...1want to conclude this correspondence by stating the following, conclusively, and not subjectto further discussion:1) I will not attempt to amend the complaint to add any tort claims;2) I will not advise you how to do it yourself, and if you try, I will seek to withdraw from thecase.3) If you are not happy with the above, please feel free to find a new lawyer.I am attaching a statement of services rendered to date. Although you have exceeded theretainer, nothing is due as the rest is covered by the contingent agreement.Thank you. David Deratzian14 From: Serene Hennion To: ToorzaniSent: Wed, August 19, 2009 10:20: 18 AMSubject: RE: First Draft of ComplaintGood morning,Attaced is a revised Complaint. It includes your suggestions and I have revised some items onmy own. I still need to proofread the darft and finalize it before filing tomorrow or Friday.Here is the result of my conversation with the Labor attorney and Andy:1)We are going to file later the Complaint, Count One through Count Nine tomorrow.2) We are going to add by an Amendement, Count Ten (Defamation) and Count Eleven(em otional distress) in six months from now. We have to file a tort claims notice for these 2Continued On The Next Page


26/67

Page 26 of 57

her complaint and file tort claim notice against the Respondents (District Court Doc. No.72).

Which all of these conducts were in violation of Laws and Rules and punishable butunfortunately Petitioner, her direct physical evidences and consequently her legal rightwere willfully ignored and disregarded by both Judge Shipp and Judge Chesler.

c) Petitioner never received (even after more than 5 months) any response to her motion,(District Court Doc. No.1 08, dated 1211212010) for amending her complaint to have thesame claims but based on the New Jersey law against discrimination and New Jerseystatute.

d) Petitioner never received any response from Judge Chesler to her Cross Motion dated1124/2011, against the Respondents (District Court Doc. No. 119) .

e) Petitioner's letter (District Court Doc. No. 77, dated 812312010)to Judge Chesler regardingthe in-person Status Conferencel Oral Argument on Petitioner's 2nd former attorney'smotion to withdraw as counsel which was held on 8123/10 (this conference was arrangedafter Petitioner wrote a letter to Judge Chesler (District Court Doc. No. 73, dated 8119123)

counts, wait six months, and then file them. It is just a procedural item. Ifwe file it now, theymay seek to have those Counts dismissed because we did not wait 6 months.3) We have sued the Union, but can also sue the for "Failure to properly represent."We must firstr do that through PERK (an organization that has the firstjurisduction). We candiscuss this when you get back. Ifwe file it with the Complaint, our fear is the entire complaintmay be moved to PERK and we don't want that.Please call me on my cell with any questions.Thank you, Serene


27/67

Page 27 of 57

that there were direct physical evidences about her 2nd former attorney'sfraudulentconduct) was never responded.

"(B) Administrative Responsibilities.(3) If ajudge shall become aware of unprofessi onal conduct by a judge or alawyer(a) he shall, in the instance of ajudge, report his knowledge to the ChiefJustices of this court and ofthe court of which the judge in question is amember, and(b) in the instance of a lawyer, he shall initiate appropriate investigative ordisciplinary measures."

8. Existence of Ex Parte communication between the District Court and the Respondents (basedon direct and circumstantial evidences), which is the violation of Code of Conduct.

a) On 12128/10, an Ex Parte Notice (District Court Doc. No. 112) was sent by the DistrictCourt just to the Respondents (and not to the Petitioner) regarding redaction of transcriptsof the phone conference of 12/16/10. When this notice had seven days deadline for allparties (including Plaintiff) to file a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcriptwith the District Court, district court did not send either that notice or a copy of thattran script to Petitioner.

12/28/2010 112 Transcript of Proceedings held on 12/16/10, before Judge Shipp. CourtReporter/Transcri ber Lisa MulleniKLJ Transcription Service, Telephone numb er 201 7031670. Tape Number: Teleconference. NOTICE REGARDING REDACTION OFTRANS CRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court aN otic eof Intent to Request Redaction of this Transcript. Redaction Request due 1118/2011.Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1128/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for3/28/2011. (tjg,) (Entered: 12130/2010)

b) On 12130/10, Respondent NJEA filed a document (District Court Doc. No. 113) with theDistrict Court, which again Petitioner did not receive any copy of that document until


28/67

Page 28 of 57

January 4, 2010, that Petitioner checked the PACER and learned about that written ExParte communication.

c) On 1111 /10 , Respondent Oxfeld filed her opposition (to Petitioner's motionforreconsideration of scheduling order with regard to requirement of affidavit of merit,District Court Doc. Nos. 87 or 90) Ex Parte with the District Court (District Court Doc.No. 93, dated 11/1/10) without sending its copy to the Petitioner, to cause Petitioner to missthe deadline to respond to her oppositions.

d) On 1121111, which was the deadline to submit confidential settlement position letters, afterPetitioner faxed her confidential settlement position letter 15 to Judge Shipp's chambers (on1121111), Respondent Oxfeld on behalf of all Respondents moved and asked the Court toadjourn the settlement conference (this document was never filed in the District CourtDocket; is attached hereto as Exhibit C) when they could have asked for thatadjournment much sooner, because there were no changes in regard to the status of thecomplaint since 1/3/11 .

Not only Respondents' request for adjourning the settlement conference was never filed inthe District Court Docket but al so Judge Shipp issued an order stating:

"TEXT ORDER - The settlement conference scheduled for 1128 /11 has beenadjourned without date. Counsel for Defendant Oxfeld shall serve a copy of this

15 Not to mention that the last minute adjournment was to place undue burden on Petitionerand harass her, since Respondents knew that Petitioner had to meet four other deadlines to writefour papers, a settlement position letter by 1121111, reply to their motion to sanction by 1124 /11 ,reply to their opposition to Petitioner's appeal letter (which was filed 7 days after the deadlinewithout leave of District Court) by 1124 /11 , and also reply to their opposition to Petitioner'smotion to file tort claim notice by 1127111 .


29/67

Page 29 of 57

text order on Plaintiff. ORDERED by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Shipp on1126/11. (NR) (Entered: 01126/2011)""A Judge Should Perform the Duties of His Office Impartially and Diligently(A) Adjudicative Responsibilities.A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in aproceeding, or his lawyer, full right to be heard according to law. He shouldnot permit private interviews, arguments or communications designed toinfluence his judicial action, where interests to be affected thereby are notrepresented before him, except in cases where provision is made by law for exparte application."

9. Wrongful use of ju dicial authority or fai lure to comply with dutya) Deliberately not filing Petitioner's letters which had informed the District Court in regard

to the Petitioner's attorneys' fraudulent conduct including concealment of Petitioner'sdirect physical evidences for example,

1. District Court Doc. No. 72, page 9which had been faxed to Judge Shipp's Chambersseparately as one document (before being attached to document No. 72 as attachmentS#l)and was never filed (see Doc. No. 59 page 1, ~ 1 and Doc. No. 72 at page 1, ~ 1); and

11 . District Court Doc. No. 72 ,page 10 to 15 which had been faxed to the Judge Shipp'schambers separately as one document (before being attached to document No. 72 asattachments #2 and # 3) and also was never filed in the District Court Docket.

b) Deliberately Concealing Petitioner's letters which had been sent to the District Court andnot filing them until:

1. Petitioner contacted the District Court and proved them that she had the proof of theexact date and time of delivery of that document to the District Court (District CourtDoc. No. 117, which was filed after 21 days);


30/67

Page 30 of 57

11. Petitioner mailed the letter via certified mail again but this time asked for return receiptas well (District Court Doc. No. 73, which was filed after 9 days);

111. Petitioner called and also wrote a letter (District Court Doc. No. 59) to Judge Shipp andasked him to permit her letter which was regarding the misconduct of her first formerattorney and had been faxed to hi s chambers and emailed to all counsel of record on May3,2010, to be filed.But to cover up this action, not filing Petitioner's letter (which was in regard to her firstformer attorney's fraudulent conduct), Judge Shipp made false statement of fact on hisorder (District Court Doc. No. 57) that the District Court did not file Petitioner's lettersince Petitioner had not copied her letter to the counsel of record. While on the contrary,Petitioner had copied the letter to all counsel of record and had faxed it again to JudgeShipp's Chambers on May 3, 2010, after Petitioner had received a phone call from JudgeShipp's clerk on the morning of May 3,2010, that Petitioner's letter needed to be copied

to all counsel to make the District Court able to take action on that letter.c) Entering false information about Petitioner and Petitioner's communication with the

District Court in th e letters and orders issued by the District Court which some of theseorders sabotage Petitioner's character in the public record.District Court Doc. No. 57 (responded by Petitioner through District Court Doc. Nos. 12,pagel, ~ 1and page 9); District Court Doc. No. 91(responded by Petitioner throughDistrict Court Doc. No. 98, page 1&2); Distri ct Court Doc. No. 107 (responded byPetitioner through District Court Doc. No. 122-1,pagel, ~l and page 8, ~1 (which isduplicate of part of District Court Doc. No. 119; District Court Doc. No. 127 (respondedby Petitioner through District Court Doc. No. 128).


31/67

Page 31 of 57

"When an officer of the court is found to have fraudulently presented facts tocourt so that the court is impaired in the impartial performance of its legaltask, the act, known as "fraud upon the court", is a crime deemed so severeand fun dam entally opposed to the operation of justice ... ""Canon 3. A Judge Shoul d Perform th e Duties of Judi ci al Office Impartiall yand Diligently;B. Administrative Responsibilities. (1) Ajudge should diligently discharge theadministrative responsibilities of the office without bias or prejudice, maintainprofessional competence in judicial administration, and facilitate theperformance of the administrative responsibilities of other judges and courtofficials. ""Canon 2. A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance ofImpropriety in All ActivitiesA. Ajudge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all timesin a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartialityof the judiciary."

d) Some of the District Court clerk office staff or Judges' chambers' staff either have beenhesitant to answer Petitioner's questions regarding the Court Procedure or they have misledthe Petitioner regarding the Court Procedure, (District Court Doc. No. 128; District CourtDoc. No. 72, page 2, ~ 2 and page 3, ~ 1) 16 which is violation of Code of Conduct forJudiciary Employees to mislead a party.

16 Note: The following day of June 28, 2009, that Judge Shipp's chambers' staff hung up thephone on Petitioner when she was reporting her 2nd former attorney's fraudulent conduct to himto ask for help, Petitioner received the following email from her 2nd former attorney that:From: "[email protected]" To: ToorzaniSent: Tue, JlU1e29, 2010 6:55:51 AMSubject: Re: Toorzani v. Elmwood Park Board of Education, et al; Civil Action No. 2:09-CV04262It is my under stan ding from Judge Shipp's Chambers that he has no intention at all of havin g aconference about this. Itwas highly improper of you to take this to the Judge, and he would beprohibited from speaking with you while you are represented. That is why I said I was unwillingto represent you further. It is clear to me that no lawyer is going to satisfy you ...David L. Deratzian, Hahalis &Kounoupis, P .C.Continued On The Next Page


32/67

Page 32 of 57

Once that Petitioner FOR mE FIRST TIME called Judge Chesler's chambers since shehad been directed by the District Court clerk office to call Judge Chesler's chambers inregard to her appeal letter, District Court Doc. No. 117 (which was missing in the DistrictCourt for 21 days after it had been delivered to the District Court via certified mail),Petitioner was told by one of the staff of Judge Chesler's chambers th at, ""WE DO NOTDEAL WITH PRO SE LITIGANT".

"Canon 3. A Judge Should Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartiallyand DiligentlyB. Administrative Responsibilities. (2) Ajudge should require staff, courtofficials, and others subj ect to the judge's directi on and contro Io observe thestandards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge and to refrain frommanifesting bias or prejudice in the performance of their official duties."

II. ARGUMENT

1. FRAUD UPON THE COURTFor 20 months there have been ongoing violation of laws, local and federal rules, code of

judicial conduct, code of conduct for judiciary employees, rules of professional conduct, and

From: ToorzaniTo: [email protected]: Tue, June 29,2010 9:26:20 AMSubject: Re: Toorzani v. Elmwood Park Board 0fEducati on, et al; Civil Action No. 2:09 -CV04262Mr. Deratzian,I am still going to wait to hear from Judge Shipp's Chamber. I gave my request to his chambersince my request was not about the defendants or taking any action about my complaint (whichneeds to be processed by you as my attorney) but it was regarding the confusion that I have aboutyour representation and I do not think that was inappropriate, especially after your email which Ireceived on June 17, 18, and 28, 2010 and my experience with Mrs. Hennion and with all duerespect I do not need an attorney to satisfy me but I need an attorney to satisfy the Law and theUnited State Constitution.Regards, Irandokht


33/67

Page 33 of 57

ongoing fraudulent concealment of the Petitioner's submitted evidences [by the DistrictCourt, Respondents and Petitioner's former attorneyst, making false statements of lawsdeliberately, making false statements of facts on the sworn and unsworn papers and pleadingsdeliberately (when Petitioner's submitted direct physical evidences to the District Courtwere showing the falseness of those statements), and so many other misconduct, with theintent to prevent the Petitioner from having a fair hearing in the District Court. All thosefraudulent conduct and violation of laws and rules have been willfully condoned andpermitted to be continued by both Judges (Judge Shipp and Judge Chesler) while Petitionerhas been constantly informing both Judges about all those fraudulent conduct [as examplesDistrict Court Doc. Nos. 119, 120 and 135 which were supported by Affidavits and Exhibits]to aid and abet the Respondents to obtain rulings in their favor and to defraud the Petitioner,which gave the petitioner good reason to believe Judge Shipp and Judge Chesler could nothear this case in a fair and impartial manner.

The District Court refusal to act against the fraud can only be concluded by reasonablepeop le that it was intenti on of the District Court to deliberately derive the petitioner of herlegal and constitutional rights.

In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115,1121 (lOth Cir. 1985), the courtstated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicialmachinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents,false statements or perjury .... It is where the court or a member is corrupted orinfluenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed hisjudicial function --- thus wh ere the impartial functions of the court have beendirectly corrupted.""Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appealsto "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the courtitself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial


34/67

Page 34 of 57

machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudgingcases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689(1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ~ 60.23. The 7th Circuitfurther stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence adecision at all, and never becomes final. "

2. DISlRICT COURT MISREPRESENTED lHE FACTS THAT PETITIONERDISOBEYED TWO DISTRICT COURT ORDERS TO FRAUDULENTLY DISMISSPETITIONER'S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.

a) Petitioner Did Not Disobeyed Judge Shipp's Order1. On 11125 /2010 , Petitioner replied (District Court Doc. No. 98) to Respondents' letter

(District Court Doc. No. 96) regarding upcoming deposition and she objected her oraldeposition by relying on the fact that Respondents had violated FRCP 26(f) and byrelying on other related Federal Rules of Civil Procedure including FRCP 26(d)(1) andPetitioner's medical conditions (severe anxiety which she has been taking medication forthem).

11/23/2010 96 Letter from all Defendants regarding plaintiffs recent amended complaint and upcomingdeposition. (LARlO, WENDY) (Entered: 11/23/2010)

11/29/2010 98 Letter from Irandokht Toorzani in response to 96 Letter. (de, ) (Entered: 12/0112010)

But Respondents ignored Petitioner's objection for 19 days and they even missed thedeadline to reply to the Petitioner's obj ection. When Petitioner did not hear anythingabout her opposition to her oral depositions either from Respondents or Judge Shipp for19 days, Petitioner moved and faxed (District Court Doc. No. 109) her motion forprotective order on Saturday 12 /1112010 , to Judge Shipp's chambers.

12/14/2010 109 APPLICA TION/MOTION for Protective Order Against Deposition by IRAND OKHTTOORZANI. (de,) (Entered: 12/17/2010)


35/67

Page 35 of 57

Immediately on Monday 12/13 /2010, Judge Shipp scheduled a phone conference todiscuss Petitioner's motion for protective order when Petitioner had mentioned on herletters (District Court Doc. Nos. 58, 98, and 109) about her inability to express herselforally because of her medical condition (severe anxiety) and Judge Shipp had been evenwitness of Petitioner's inability in two in-person and one phone status conference.Judge Shipp himself has indicated in his order (District Court Doc. No. 127) that his staffwanted the Petitioner to have written communication with them to not to confuse them.

12/13/2010 103 TEXT ORDER - This matter is scheduled for a telephone status conference December 16,2010 at 4:30 p.m. Counsel for Elmwood Park Board of Education shall initiate the call to(973) 645 -3827. ORDERED by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Shipp on 12/13 /10. (NR )(Entere d: 12/13/2010)

And Respondents who had chosen to not to reply to Petitioner's opposition, opposedPetitioner's motion for protective order.

12/14/2010 105 Letter from Wendy Johnson Lario on behalf of all defendants in opposition to plaintiff's"motion for a prote ctive order against deposition". (Attachments: #1ertificate ofService)(LARlO, WENDY) (Entered: 12/14/2010)

While Petitioner did not have a chance to reply to the Respondent's oppositions to hermotion for protective order, she had to participate in the scheduled phone conference byJudge Shipp. In that Phone conference, not only Petitioner's legal argument stated on hermotion for protective order was not discussed but also Judge Shipp even deniedPetitioner's request for providing and submitting a doctor note to the Di strict Courtregarding her medical condition, severe anxiety, while petitioner's inability to expressherself orally was so obvious in that phone conference too (even though Petitioner hadalready provided everything in writing to defend her position).


36/67

Page 36 of 57

In that phone conference Judge Shipp denied petitioner's motion for protective ordertherefore Petitioner informed Judge Shipp and Respondent that she would appeal JudgeShipp's decision denying petitioner's motion for protective order.

Scheduling that phone conference, immediately after Petitioner filed her motion forprotective order by Judge Shipp when, Judge Shipp was aware of Petitioner's inability to express herself orally because ofher severe anxiety since he had been a witness ofpetitioner 's inability in 2 in- personstatus conference and one phone status conference, and Respondents had failed to reply Petitioner's opposition to her oral depositions by thedeadline,

and denying Petitioner's request for providing and submitting a doctor not to the DistrictCourt in regard to her medical condition and lastly denying Petitioner's request for

protective order against her oral depositions when,"FRCP 26 (c)(1)( C):"prescribing a discovery method other than the oneselected by the party seeking discovery"

shows that Judge Shipp have been acting as counsel for the Respondents.

Even though Petitioner's motion for protective order was denied by Judge Shipp in thatPhone conference before even giving her a chance to reply to Respondents' opposition toher motion for protective order, Petitioner reserved her right and on 12 /19 /2010 , replied(District Court Do c. No. 111) to the Respondents' oppositi on.

12/21/2010 111 Plaintiff, Irandokht T'oorzani's Response to Defts' opposition to Pltf's Motion forProtective Order agst Defts' Depositions (jd,) (Entered: 12/28/2010)


37/67

Page 37 of 57

11. After that phone conference Petitioner received an email from Respondents' attorney thatif Petitioner would not attend her depositions, they would file a motion for contempt andsanctions up to and including dismissal of Petitioner's complaint and attorneys' fees forviolation of Judge Shipp's order.

Petitioner contacted the Distri ct Court regarding that email and let the Judge Shipp'schambers' staffknow that as Petitioner had already informed Judge Shipp during thephone conference, she was going to appeal Judge Shipp's decision to Judge Chesler.Judge Shipp's chambers' clerk told Petitioner that Petitioner had to attend her depositionsbut Judge Shipp's chambers' clerk deliberately did not mention to Petitioner about theCourt Procedure that if Petitioner wanted to appeal Judge Shipp's order, Petitioner alsoneeded to file a motion to stay (when Petitioner did not have any idea about that type ofmotion; U.S. v. Sanchez, 88 F.3d 1243 (D.C.Cir. 1996) and after that phone call, JudgeShipp issued another order,

12/17/2010 107 ORDER instructing PIaintiff not to engage in ex parte communi.cations. Signed byMagistrate Judge Michael A. Shipp on 12/17/10. (NR) (Entere d: 12/17/2010)

and on that order (District Court Doc. No. 107) Judge Shipp stated that:

" ..The Court's December 17, 2010 Order stands. Plaintiff is expected toappear for her deposition on December 21,2010. Failure to appear may resultin an imposition of sanctions, including a finding of contempt. .."When Petitioner had the right to be heard according to law,

"Civ. RULE 72.1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGESAny party may appeal from a Magistrate Judge's determination of a non-dispositive matter within 14 days after the party has been served with a copyof the Magistrate Judge's order"


38/67

Page 38 of 57

Petitioner appealed Judge Shipp's order denying her moti on for protecti ve order to JudgeChesler but Petitioner' s letter of appeal deliberately was not filed for 21 days. TheDistrict Court clerk office staff, Judge Shipp's Chambers' staff, and Judge Chesler'sChamber's staff were pretending that they did not have any knowledge regarding such anappeal, until Petitioner contacted the District Court and told them that Petitioner knewthat the District Court clerk office had received the appeal on 12 /21110 at 12:26 PM, asthe post office record was showing.

b) Judge Chesler Refrained From Stating The Facts or Misinterpreted The Facts On HisOpinions And Orders

i. While Judge Chesler addressed Respondents' arguments on his orders (District CourtDoc. Nos. 125, 126, 136, and 137), he has ignored Petitioner's arguments and the factsstated on Petitioner's documents, Affidavits, and Exhibits [District Court Doc. Nos. 109,111, 117, 119 (cross motion for sanctions against Respondents along with Affidavits andExhibits), 120 (along with Affidavits and Exhibits), and 135 (Affidavit for mistrial alongwith Exhibits )] which have addressed and discredited Respondents' documents,Affidavits, and Exhibits by rebutting and disputing them.

ii. Judge Chesler in his OPINION & ORDER (District Court Doc. No. 125, dated 03123/11)has stated that," Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Judge Shipp's decision to compel her deposition wasclearly erroneous or contrary to law, much less an abuse of his discretion."when,


39/67

Page 39 of 57

Judge Chesler willfully has withheld the fact and information regarding Judge Shipp'sviolation of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure, FRCP 16 (b) [ after Judge Shipp hadbeen informed by the Petitioner that the Respondents had violated the FRCP 26(1)which was subjecting the Respondents to sanction under FRCP 37 C O ] whichconsequently led to the violation of FRCP 26(d)(I), when all of these facts had beenbrought to Judge Chesler's attention by Petitioner through her cross motion forsanction against Respondents District Court Doc. No. 119, page. 15, dated 1124/2011;and through her reply to Respondents' opposition to her appeal District Court Doc. No.120, page. 3,4, &14, dated 1124/2011.

"FRCP 16(b)(1) Scheduling Order: Except in categories of actions exemptedby local rule, the district judge - or a magistrate judge when authorized bylocal rule - must issue a scheduling order:(A) after receiving the parties' report under Rule 26(f); or(B) after consulting with the parties' attorneys and any unrepresented parties ata scheduling conference or by telephone, mail, or other means."" FRCP26( d)(I): A party may not seek discovery from any source before theparties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f)""FRCP 26(f) (2): ... The attorneys of record and all unrepresented parties thathave appeared in the case are jointly responsible for arranging the conference,for attempting in good faith to agree on the proposed discovery plan, ... "."FRCP 37.Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery;Sanctions: (f) Failure to Participate in Framing a Discovery Plan. If a party orits attorney fails to participate in good faith in developing and submitting aproposed discovery plan as required by Rule 26(f), the court may, after givingan opportunity to be heard, require that party or attorney to pay to any otherparty the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by thefailure" .

Judge Chesler willfully has withheld the fact and information regarding Respondents'violation of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure, FRCP 26(f) [that was subject to


40/67

Page 40 of 57

sanction under FRCP 37 C O ] which had been brought to the Judge Chesler's attentionby Petitioner through her appeal to Judge Chesler, District Court Doc. No. 117, dated12 /191201 0; through her rep ly to Respon dents' opposition to her appeal District CourtDoc. No. 120, dated 1124 /2011 and through her cross motion for sanction againstRespondents Di strict Court Doc. No. 119, dated 1 /24 /2011 .

But Judge Chesler willfully withheld the fact and information which had been broughtto his attention by Petitioner and refrained from having any indication to any of thoseviolations of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure (which was subject to sanction underFRCP 37 C O ) and dismissed Petitioner's complaint instead under FRCP 37 based on themisrepresentation of facts.

iii. Judge Chesler's OPINION & ORDER (District Court Doc. No. 125, dated 03/23/11) hasstated that,"Indeed, Judge Shipp based his decision in part on the fact that Ms. Toorzani presentedno medical documentation demonstrating she was precluded from attending herdeposition."Judge Chesler willfully has withheld this fact that during the phone conference of1211612010 , Judge Shipp even denied Petitioner's request for providing and submitting adoctor note regarding her medical condition (anxiety disorder which has affected on herconcentration and speech) to the District Court, while petitioner's inability to expressherself orally in that phone conference was so obvious. (Even Judge Shipp himselfindicated in his order (District Court Doc. No. 127) regarding this matter and he hasmentioned that his staff wanted the plaintiff (Petitioner) to have written communicationwith them to not to confuse them).


41/67

Page 41 of 57

iv. Judge Chesler's OPINION &ORDER (District Court Doc. No. 125, dated 03/23/11) hasindicated that,

"The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's doctor's note describing her condition. [docketentry no. 117-1]. While this note was not filed until after the December 17, 2010 Orderwas issued, this Court nonetheless finds that it does not indicate that Ms. Toorzani'scondition is such that she cannot sit for a deposition where counsel takes dueconsideration of her condition allowing for reasonable breaks. As Judge Shipp stated,"[i]fyou need to take breaks during your deposition due to anxiety, the Court expects thatcounsel can accommodate your request for breaks." (Id. at 18:7-10)."Judge Chesl er wi llfully interpreted the Petiti oner' s doctor note in a way to denyPetitioner's appeal of Judge Shipp's order denying Petitioner's motion for protectiveorder, when Petitioner's doctor note states,

" ... .she is suffering of anxiety and depression and is being treated withantianxiety and antidepressants. Her concentration and speech will deteriorateunder stress therefore she should avoid stressful situations."Petitioner's medical condition is not such a condition that could have been resolved in ashort period of time even though she is under medication for these problems. Theseconditions have not manifested all of the sudden because of the depositions (DistrictCourt Doc. NO.58 dated 5/3/2010) and have been the results of several years intentional,malicious, and distressing conduct of her employer which have been ongoing and havenot even been stopped yet. As Petitioner stated before Petitioner' s medical conditi ons hasbeen the reason of her inability to attend the deposition s which considering Petitioner'smedical conditions these depositions were not only an undue burden on Petitioner butalso subjecting her to more humiliation by the Respondents who have been violating theLaws and Rules for 20 months in the district court without being even concerned thatthey might be held accountable and punished for their violation of Laws by Judge Shippor Judge Chesler.

v. Judge Chesler has stated on his order (District Court Doc. No. 136 dated 511912011)that,


42/67

Page 42 of 57

"On March 29, 2011 the Court issued an order stating that if Plaintiff failed to submit todeposition within the allocated time fr

elmwood park boe & njea; mistrial and fraud upon the court; en banc hearing in appellate court

Documents