@sarkonakj claims "a few doctors are trying to depose (now former) United Conservative Party provincial cabinet minister Tyler Shandro, who is a lawyer, by complaining to his professional regulator."
Except, the complainant was not a doctor nor was any witness at the hearing. 2
Furthermore, the doctors and Janice Fraser were legally compelled to testify by the @LawSocietyofAB, which independently decided to pursue the allegations against Shandro. So the people she false accuses of being complainants clearly didn't wish to "depose" Shandro 3
Which of course means the column's premise is false and @sarkonakj's attack on their motives and integrity is groundless. 4
It may be that the @LawSocietyofAB overstepped its authority, but the people @sarkonakj casually smears as political activists with an axe to grind had nothing to do with the impetus of the hearing.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's completely unfair. You're suggesting that anyone who criticizes the govt, is political. Dr. Zaidi was a UCP riding association board member, which is how he knew Shandro. How do you explain that contradiction? And you have no idea if the doctors are UCP supporters. 1
Carson states that even though they didn't file complaints, "based on their public statements about the government, it is fair to interpret their complaints as being coloured by politics." Except again, they didn't complain, they didn't offer to testify, they were compelled. 2
It's clear that even when confronted with the irrefutable fact that the witnesses had nothing to do with the impetus of the law society hearing, @nationalpost will not concede it engaged in an ideological hatchet job on them. 3
No, that is not what I said. No surprise that you're again being dishonest. You wrote a column based on the premise that some doctors, including Dr. Dukeshire, filed a complaint with the law society to "depose" @tylershandro. Except they didn't file complaints. That is a fact. 1
And another fact, the law society compelled them to testify in Shandro's hearing. But instead of admitting you made a major error and hung an entire sleazy attack on these people on that error, you're doubling down. 2
The other part of your premise, that the law society had no business getting involved because Shandro is a politician is also false and shows you didn't do even basic research before writing the column. 3
Remember this story? @ElectionsAB posted info about the equalization referendum that three constitutional law experts said was false, misleading and partisan. cbc.ca/news/canada/ed…#ableg#cdnpoli 1/
In the interview for the story, @electionab's Pamela Renwick insisted the info posted was accurate. She she said he it had been vetted by @trevortombe. Except, as I reported, I checked with him and he told me he didn't vet it and it was wrong. 2/
After the story appeared, several people, including @DrJaredWesley, told me they contacted @ElectionsAB as early as Oct. 8, the day advanced polls opened and 10 days before the election. They told @ElectionsAB the info they posted was wrong. One person even phoned twice. 3/
In response to popular demand, I'll take another crack at the series of chronological tweets about the kamikaze controversy I posted this morning. #ableg
@jKenney and Jeff Callaway have denied Kenney’s campaign ran Callaway as a so-called “kamikaze” candidate. And Kenney says he only learned Callaway was resigning to endorse him night before it happened. What does the chronology of events show? 1/ #ableg
Around early July 2017: This is when former UCP MLA Derek Fildebrandt says Kenney asks him to be a stalking horse candidate. Kenney denies this. 2/ #ableg