In his comment of 17th Nov. at 6:26 am. John O’Sullivan talked about Andrew Skolnick’s dismissal from Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). What John omitted to mention is that Andrew had successfully held a position as associate editor with JAMA pretty-well throughout the 1990s when that journal was highly regarded globally under the leadership of George Lundberg (http://www.bmj.com/content/318/7178/210.extract).
Investigative journalist Andrew has never had any hesitation in providing evidence to substantiate his claims about his qualifications, his achievements and his articles. On the other hand I am still waiting for lead “Slayer” John O’Sullivan to provide “ .. links to irrefutable evidence of your educational, academic and professional claims and telling us precisely which articles of yours featured in the National Review and which appeared in China Daily and The India Times .. ” (see my comments of 25th Oct. at 9:27 am and 19th Nov. at 2:43 pm.
On 10th Nov. John O’Sullivan said “ .. The Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC) has now ruled that green activist Andrew Skolnick’s official complaint concerning Dr. Tim Ball’s libel attorney, Michael Scherr and science writer, John O’Sullivan, was baseless .. ” (see http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/41331.html and numerous other sites). John then provided a link to the copy of the LSBC decision that Andrew made available on his web-site (http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/BC_LawSociety_4-nov311_Skolnick.pdf).
My interpretation of that LSBC decision is somewhat different to John’s, as it apparently found that there was no misconduct by Mr Scherr. In its “Analysis” the LSBC said that “ .. There is no evidence that Mr Scherr .. was responsible for the false assertions published by Mr O’Sullivan .. ”. That does not seem to me to support John’s claim that the “ .. lies filed against me with the British Columbia Law Society has now been dismissed in its entirety .. ”. It appears reasonable to me to understand the LSBC to consider that Mr. O’Sullivan made false assertions. Of course I could be misreading what the LSBC said and if so I will apologise to John.
Before doing that I’ll await the response that Andrew gets from the LSBC to what appears to be his complaint about John (not Mr Scherr). As Andrew has advised us (29th Nov. at 12:23 am.)
QUOTE: ..
John O’Sullivan spins another whopper: “Skolnick and Ridley need to face the facts that the British Columbia Law Society thoroughly investigated all the above allegations against me and then dismissed them all as baseless.”
The Law Society of British Columbia confirmed today that the complaint I had filed against John O’Sullivan – not Michael Scherr – was NOT closed. It is still being investigated:
“As we are in the midst of reviewing a complaint of unauthorized practice, we cannot comment specifically. … The Law Society investigates complaints of people who aren’t lawyers engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. These investigations are based on specific facts and circumstances. Where there is a question of public protection the Law Society seeks undertakings from unauthorized practitioners that they cease. If someone refuses to sign an undertaking we may seek an injunction from the courts.”
.. UNQUOTE.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
