Posts

Posted on

Editorial on Neudorf’s Recall

Though I missed this last week, Darcy Logan has some good questions for Nathan Neudorf in his editorial on the fake recall.

If this is a fake process, they have now been denied their democratic agency by duplicitous and dishonest individuals. Nathan Neudorf publicly stated that “I’m not actively involved in my own recall.” This seems like a feeble equivocation. Were you passively involved, or were you aware it was going to happen before stepping back for plausible deniability?

Nathan Neudorf needs to answer two questions: Were you aware that someone was going to launch a spurious recall? Were any of your staff involved, and if so, how?

Posted on

The Great Recall Caper

I’ve been working on this video for the past few days.

From my video description:

On November 25, 2025, Lethbridge-East got an active recall petition campaign for Nathan Neudorf, but not everything is as it appears. Follow the unraveling of a real life conspiracy in this short explainer video.

As far as how I feel about the whole thing, it’s disappointing but I think that a fake recall might be more politically poisonous to Neudorf than our actual recall would have been.

I know this isn’t much of a consolation to folks that wanted to help but if you’re one of those people, consider signing up to help with the coal mining petition put forth by Corb Lund.

Posted on

Genny Steed and the Fake Recall

I played a part in handing out the pieces, but this guy put them together:

https://recallfan44.substack.com/p/867-53oh-my

[I]f you’re going to do shifty things, don’t brag about it to friends, because eventually someone is going to say something in passing, and there’s no way to put that toothpaste back in the tube.

Yesterday, I was emailing back and forth with another person who has also been investigating this situation, and received some very interesting information:

The rumour is (and this is just a rumour — I have no idea the reputation of the people spreading it) that she approached Ryan Tanner because she is friends with him and he doesn’t have a Facebook account. I’m looking into the rumour more asking around to try and find the person that said it.

Needless to say, we found what we were looking for.

Update: It turns out that Ryan Tanner has a Facebook account–it’s just one that is dormant/private. It has only one public facing post since it was started in 2007.

Posted on

All I want for Christmas

I’ve been hearing some concerning rumours about a former politician, someone the media hasn’t mentioned in this context yet, who might be behind the phony recall, but I’m waiting for some more evidence before I post about it here.

In the meantime, this editorial by Scott Sakatch in the Lethbridge Herald declares that he believes there is no way it’s a legitimate petition.

Update: This reddit thread shows what people think about this injustice.

Posted on

Neudorf Recall Mystery Deepens

The Lethbridge Herald has published the story, Neudorf recall mystery deepens, which details the story of a mysterious man who claims he got a call from Neudorf’s office to take the paperwork to willing canvassers for the petition.1

Shortly after 8 a.m., said Apperloo, a man walked in carrying a stack of papers. The man said he was “Mike” and apologized for being late, adding that he came from the west side.

According to legislation, canvassers involved in a provincial recall campaign must have lived in the electoral division for a minimum of three months prior to volunteering.

At the time, however, Apperloo didn’t think anything of it and proceeded to fill out an application.

While she was doing that, Phillips walked into the restaurant and introduced herself to Mike. She had experience with the Forever Canadian petition and had some questions for Mike, including who Ryan Tanner was.

Phillips told the Herald that Mike claimed he didn’t know who Ryan Tanner was, or how a recall petition worked.

There are so many red flags in this story that I’m still in disbelief that we have all the details.

After Phillips left, Apperloo had a brief conversation with Mike, who admitted he was unfamiliar with the recall process.

“I said I was kind of surprised there weren’t more people here because I know people wanted to sign and then he says, ‘I don’t even really know what all of this is about.’”

Apperloo said she explained the process to him, then asked where he got the forms if he’d never met Tanner. Mike replied that he’d got them from Nathan Neudorf’s office.

“He said, ‘well, Sariah gave me a call’ and I said ‘Sariah, like Nathan Neudorf’s office manager?’ and he says, ‘yeah, she gave me a call to come bring these papers down to you.’”

Confused, Apperloo said she asked Mike why Neudorf would be in on his own recall, then had to further explain recalls to him.

Some friends of friends tell me they were there that morning and talked to the mysterious Mike.

“[He] was coincidentally at Timmy’s that morning and chatted with Barb Phillips. At some point, [he] talked with this ‘Mike’ and he did get his last name [‘Richey’].”2.

Who is this Mike Richey? I want to meet him because I’ve got questions!

Update: It has been confirmed that this is the same Mike Richey.

  1. Previously[↩]
  2. Originally spelled as Ritchie in the email I received[↩]
Posted on

Overheard

My wife, talking to the kids, explained the basement is a complete mess and they need to clean it up.

Ian responded: Everyone in the family has to help clean up, not just the bad cleaners. It’s not fair that only the bad cleaners have to do all the work.

Posted on

Neudorf’s Changing Story on Why He Voted for the Notwithstanding Clause

A few weeks ago, my friend posted on Facebook that his wife had a meeting with Nathan Neudorf. I wrote about that meeting here.

She explained Neudorf’s position:

He told me he wasn’t personally in favour of the clause, but said that “due to the Democratic Process” he had to vote yes with his party. When I pressed him, he admitted that if he voted against, he would be removed from the UCP.

In this interview with Lethbridge News Now by David Opinko, published yesterday, Neudorf now conveniently ignores the part about needing to vote to take away teacher’s rights in order to stay in the party and instead says:

[A]lthough there might have been other avenues the government could have taken in its approach to labour negotiations, it was warranted due to the risk that students were facing.

“We had to take a fairly significant step to resolve that, to make sure that our 751,000 students got back to school and didn’t have to repeat an entire year. Sometimes, you have to take the good with the bad, and we have to work through that,” says Neudorf. “There’s more work that needs to be done to restore that relationship.”

But it’s pretty obvious which of those ways of framing it are more likely to be true. Nathan Neudorf is a smart guy who understands the severity of voting to use the notwithstanding clause. He knows it was a bad idea and that’s why he said he personally didn’t agree with it. Now he needs to own that and resign.