|Maura Larkins sued California
Teachers Association for fraud
forf false advertising to
teachers, causing teachers to
pay dues believing that CTA
would represent them if they
ever needed representation.
CTA refused to give Maura
Larkins equal representation,
and in fact used her dues to
oppose her rather than help
CTA advertised to teachers that
it would give them legal
representation as follows:
school law who
stand ready to
defend the rights of
all members who
also help CTA
with every type of
|In the Maura Larkins case, CTA
refused to do as it promised.
However, CTA dramatically
changed its advertising within a
short time after it was sued by
|CTA uses the union dues of
many teachers, not just Maura
Larkins, to pay lawyers to
prevent those teachers from
obtaining justice, instead of
helping them obtain it!
|The judge ruled in
825873 that PERB
with regard to
state law (EERA,
employees to give
The judge thus
PERB's ruling that
CTA HAS NO
DUTY TO GIVE
|The Superior Court ruled that
PERB should have enforced
the law when CTA violated it.
PERB refuses to enforce the
law which requires equal
representation by teacher
unions. PERB claims that
CTA is exempt from this law.
The Superior Court clearly
someone will appeal, to the
Court of Appeal, PERB's
blatant refusal to enforce the
law with regard to CTA.
But school teachers tend not
to have the necessary
money for such appeals.
Until someone appeals, PERB
can do whatever it wants.
And what it wants is to
violate the law on behalf of
|CTA lawyer Michael Hersh prepared the document
above in an attempt to trick the court into dismissing
his clients with prejudice NOT ONLY FROM THE
FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION, BUT FROM
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CAUSES OF ACTION
IN WHICH THEY HAD NOT EVEN BEEN NAMED!
|Note to Reader: I apologize for the
poor quality of the document
above. The original is a public
record, available at the hall of
Justice in downtown San Diego.
|CTA Attempt to Fool
San Diego Superior Court
|CTA Tried to Trick the Court into Throwing out
Obstruction of Justice Causes of Action
|For readers who are not familiar with court procedures:
It is completely outside the range of
allowed behavior for a defendant, in this
case CTA, to use the REQUEST FOR
DISMISSAL form as it was used here.
While Maura Larkins, the plaintiff, had the right to file this form at any time,
requesting that any or all of her causes of action be dismissed, only the judge
had the authority to dismiss a cause of action against the will of the plaintiff.
In this case, the judge had thrown out only the first three causes of action in this
case, on the grounds that it was PERB's job to enforce the law with regard to
CTA, not the job of the Superior Court. This document was completely
By filing this document, CTA attempted to trick
the court into PERMANENTLY dismissing CTA
clients from obstruction of justice causes IN
WHICH THEY HAD NOT EVEN BEEN NAMED.
Why would CTA want to do such a thing? It appears that Mr. Hersh was worried
that his clients WOULD BE NAMED IN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CAUSES OF
ACTION AFTER DISCOVERY TOOK PLACE.
Standard law enforcement theory holds that if someone behaves as if he is
guilty, it's probably a good idea to give him a closer look. CTA certainly merited
a closer look in this case.
As it happened, the clever Mr. Hersh was not smarter than the clerk of the court.
His attempt to trick the clerk failed. The court did not accept this document.
|By filing this document, CTA attempted to trick the
court into PERMANENTLY dismissing CTA clients
from obstruction of justice causes IN WHICH THEY
HAD NOT EVEN BEEN NAMED.
|Maura Larkins v. Chula Vista
Elementary School District
and Related Case Documents