Profile of Judge A. Wallace Tashima

Copyright and Trademark Notice | Disclaimer | Revised: 10/5/03

Use the Profile Comment Form to submit your own impressions for inclusion on this page.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Appointed by: President Clinton, 1996

Born: June 24, 1934 in Santa Maria, California

Education: BA, UCLA 1958; LLB, Harvard 1961

Law Practice: California Deputy Attorney General (1962-68); Amstar Corp. (1968-77); Morrison & Foerster (1977-80)

Judicial Appointments: United States District Court for the Central District of California (1980-96); Ninth Circuit (1996-present)

Opinions Reported in Appellate Decisions Noted:

• Dismissal of claims arising out of investigation and prosecution of child abuse charges affirmed
• Ninth Circuit explains elements of claim for discrimination based on military service
• Ninth Circuit approves arbitration in Title VII cases

Additional Sources of Information:

Comments from Visitors to the Appellate Counsellor Home Page:

Ronald Williams (11/14/97)

In Williams vs. City of Los Angeles, 90-1252 AWT, Judge A. Wallace Tashima, while sitting as a district judge, demonstrated that he may be without the temperament, to be deciding cases, as a judge of the circuit court.

Obviously motivated by a personal dislike of myself, Judge Tashima, summarily dismissed my discrimination case against the City of LA, and its' agents, even though I had presented myself to the federal court, as a plaintiff/party with an affirmed judgment from the State's superior court, that had already established the City's liability for a wrongful termination. See Williams vs. City of LA, Cal.Sup.Ct. No. C667976 (May 18, 1988); and Cal. App.2nd Civ. B035287 (Aug. 10, 1989) (affrm'ing # C667976). What Tashima did in my action for employment discrimination, was to enable one of the person defendants' (Castruita) to file a perjured declaration, that, literally changed the results of another California State Appeals decision - Williams vs. City of LA, 229 Cal.App.3d 1627: from what it really held, that being that I applied for and received a pension after being terminated from my employment, to it having held I voluntarily surrendered my employment. ("retired") Judge Tashima knowingly relied upon the perjured characterization of the 1991 State appeals opinion, in the face of what it really held, to justify granting the City's summary judgment motion against my discrimination complaint. Thereafter, the abuse of the federal process continued. Judges Beezer, Brunetti and Noonan, affirmed the conduct of then district judge Tashima. They simply misrepresented Williams vs. City of LA, 229 Cal.App.3d 1627 (May 10, 1991) as having found that I "voluntarily retired from the Los Angeles Police Department". To relieve the City of Los Angeles, and its all Caucasian cast of agents who were person defendants, of any liability, under 42 U.S.C. 2000e, 1983 and 1985. All of this, was a classic case of federal-court nullification of a complaining party's federally protected rights, to bring an action authorized under federal law. A clear case of violations under 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242. Since the authority the federal judges relied upon, was a single provision of the City of LA's pension plan, to preempt my right under federal law, to present federal action to a jury of my peers.

Privacy Policy

URL for this page http://www.appellate-counsellor.com/profiles/tashima.htm