Blogger’s Note – I received this email from multiple sources. Please also note that the Placer County Impact Republicans have endorsed Todd Irby for Judge.
May 16, 2018
RE: The Re-examination and Rescinding of the Endorsement of Kulvinder Singh for Placer County Superior Court Office #2 on the June 5, 2018 Ballot
Dear PCRCC Members and Alternates;
On Monday of this week, you received a Notice of a Special Meeting of the Placer County Republican Central Committee for Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 7:00 PM. This meeting was called as a result of the unanimous decision by PCRCC Executive Committee to Notice a Special Meeting pursuant to the PCRCC Bylaws for the exclusive purpose of re-examining and rescinding the PCRCC’s endorsement of Mr. Kulvinder Singh for Placer County Superior Court Office #2 on the June 5, 2018 ballot.
I am sure you are wondering what this is all about and why it is important that you be there or have your alternate attend in your place if you cannot.
In the event that you were not at the May 9, 2018 Regular Meeting, I had been contacted by Mr. Singh in advance of that meeting asking if he could attend. I advised him that it was a public meeting and he was welcome to attend and, if time permitted, I would allow him to introduce himself to the body at the conclusion of the meeting. As we approached the 9:00 PM hour, I gave the floor to Mr. Singh for two minutes. At the conclusion of his introduction, he was asked questions by members present and a motion was made by Tom Hudson and seconded by Mark Wright to endorse Mr. Singh. The Chair attempted to rule that motion out of order as being inconsistent with the PCRCC bylaws and the endorsement procedure the body had adopted in February 2018 as it related to endorsement for local candidates for the June 5, 2018 ballot. The body proceeded to endorse Mr. Singh by voice vote.
Since that evening, the Chair, as well as all members of the Executive Committee, have been besieged by phone calls and/or emails from judges, members of the bar, people who have had business or social interactions with Mr. Singh as well as a handful of PCRCC members and/or alternates, some of whom are lawyers. Universally, they expressed have concern as to Mr. Singh’s qualifications to be a Superior Court Judge and have either requested that the Executive Committee review certain public documents or, in some instances, have provided us copies of those public documents, and have requested that we revisit PCRCC’s decision to endorse Mr. Singh. Attached hereto please find a packet of documents, all of which are public record, which were either provided to the Executive Committee and/or we acquired in doing our own due diligence over that last seven days.
The first set of documents contains relevant pages of the State Bar of California’s disposition and order suspending Mr. Singh’s license to practice law because of his “dishonest conduct”. Highlighted in yellow are parts of the documents that set forth specific facts of his alleged misconduct and the State Bar’s findings and suspension order.
The second document is the decision of the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, rejecting Mr. Singh’s appeal from trial court orders against him in a proceeding to dissolve his marriage. Highlighted in yelloware facts that show (1) in 2010, he was held in contempt for violating court orders, (2) according to the court, there was “factually supported evidence of domestic violence” by him against his wife, (3) a clinical evaluation concluded that Mr. Singh is “narcissistic,” has “poor judgment” and “lack of insight” and has other serious character flaws, and (4) his legal work representing himself “failed to take into account the most basic rules of appellate review,” was “not persuasive and at worst not candid,” and “fail[ed] to present a coherent challenge to the trial court.” The court ordered the opinion “Not To Be Published” which simply means it cannot be cited as a precedent for other cases; it nonetheless is a public record of the case and the decision of the court.
The third document is the decision of the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, rejecting Mr. Singh’s appeal from a judgment and attorney fee order against him. Highlighted in yellow are the Court of Appeal’s findings that he made “false” claims, “misrepresent[ed] what happened in the trial court,” and filed a “frivolous” appeal to delay paying an attorney fee award.. Because of his “‘abuse of the legal system,’” Mr. Singh he was ordered to pay sanctions of $7,500. Those concerned individuals that the Executive Committee heard from argued that the decision also demonstrates he lacks the legal skills, judgment, and temperament to be a judge.
The fourth attachment is material from his law firm’s website and from the State Bar website indicating Mr. Singh implies that he graduated from the schools listed on his website. Mr. Singh’s website,http://www.singhlawoffice.com/events.html says he “attended Sierra College, California State University Sacramento, and University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law,” implying he graduated from those schools. Not so. He graduated from Queens College in Flushing, New York, and received his law degree from University of Northern California, Lorenzo Patino School of Law, an unaccredited law school that is now defunct.
The fifth attachment is material from his website showing photographs of Mr. Singh with prominent Democrats.
And last but not least is the link to a 2014 report on KXTV News about Mr. Singh claiming residence in Sutter County in 2014 when he unsuccessfully ran for election to be Sutter County’s District Attorney. Attached is a printout of Mr. Singh’s current declaration for his candidacy for Placer County Superior Court on his website in which he asserts that he has lived in Placer County for the last 14 years. (https://www.abc10.com/mobile/article/news/politics/where-does-the-sutter-county-da-candidate-live/103-277649682)
Obviously, at a minimum this experience should teach us that we are not well served to consider endorsements in support of or in opposition to candidates or issues without sufficient notice and opportunity for you and other members to vet the issues or candidates in advance of when you are expected to vote on them.
As you can see from the second set of attachments, copies of the emails to and from Mr. Singh with the Chair, Mr. Singh has made it abundantly clear that he would prefer that none of these public records be shared with you and instead he would like to decline PCRCC’s endorsement. Unfortunately, he has reached out to a number of you on social media with a request that you share news of his endorsement by the PCRCC with your family and friends. Furthermore, as the saying goes, “Life presents us with choices and we have to live with the consequences of those choices”. We now are faced with the consequence of a decision that we should not have made in the absence of more information and proper notice. The consequences are arguably that we endorsed someone that had we been aware of the above information we probably would not have endorsed.
The PCRCC Executive Committee is therefore requesting your attendance at the May 24, 2018 Special Meeting and your support and vote to rescind the endorsement of Kulvinder Singh for Placer County Superior Court Office #2.
Blogger’s Endnote: OUCH.
Sign up to receive RightOnDaily updates sent to your inbox.