Is the District of residence legally required to 'stay-put' and not TERMINATE a multi-handicapped and homeless students legal right to a 'Free Appropriate Public Education' and related 'special services' pending resolution of an Appeal filed by the parent?

question presented is: Is the District of residence legally required to “stay-put” and not TERMINATE a multi-handicapped and homeless students legal right to a “Free Appropriate Public Education” and related “special services” pending resolution of an Appeal filed by the parent? The second question presented is: Where government officials and officers of the court have intentionally corrupted the “judicial machinery” by false and misleading claims and evidence, are petitioners bound to plead and prove that the actors committed the crime of perjury in order to bring an independent action for fraud upon the court?