Internet Expert: DonaldBest.CA visitor stats ‘astonishing’
An additional 10.8% of first-time visitors spend from 5 minutes to an hour.
Last week an Internet Expert examined the visitor statistics and records for DonaldBest.CA and became visibly excited about some of his observations.
My personal website has been online since July of 2014, but all this is new to me so I never really looked at anything other than the number of daily visitors, along with making notes of visits from some of the law firms and other defendants that I am suing in the civil lawsuit known as ‘Donald Best v. Gerald Ranking et al’. (Superior Court of Justice, Central East Region: Barrie, Court File No. 14-0815)
The fact the expert finds ‘most astonishing’ is that 20.1% of first-time visitors to DonaldBest.CA spent over an hour clicking through the website and downloading documents and exhibits. Apparently this is first-time visitor behaviour that major websites would kill for; but what did I know about this?
Add to that an additional 10.8% of first-time visitors that spent from 5 minutes to an hour and, according to the expert, you have an “astonishing” 30.9% of first-time visitors spending major time to examine my website in detail.
This is, I am told, visitor performance that major websites would gladly pay through the nose for if it were that simple.
What is the reason for this visitor behaviour? The expert has a few theories.
Law Firms are Major Visitors to DonaldBest.CA
Some of the most dedicated visitors to my website are the Canadian law firms that are defendants in my civil lawsuit Best v. Ranking. These defendant law firms have visited my website hundreds of times in the past year; sometimes spending hours on each visit reading articles and downloading legal documents and photographs. Of course, I have a list of the files they have downloaded, and the time they spent on the website each day.
We are able to identify these law firms and other large entities visiting my website because many of them have assigned ‘IP’ (Internet Protocol Numbers) registered and used only by them. For instance, as shown above, one of the IP numbers assigned to Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP is ‘188.8.131.52’.
The stats software also shows the type of computer and often provides enough information for an expert to identify whether it is the same computer or a different computer than used on a previous visit. For instance, in the above example a person from the law firm of Fasken Martineau Dumoulin visited on May 6, 2015, at 1:20 pm, using a computer running Windows 7. This visitor was interested in articles about Toronto lawyers Paul Schabas and Gerald Ranking.
Twenty-one minutes later, another Faskens visitor used an Apple iPhone to read an article about how Faskens lawyer Gerald Ranking lied to Justice Shaughnessy of the Ontario Superior Court and how I was sentenced to three months in solitary confinement based upon Mr. Ranking’s fabricated false evidence, placed before the court when I wasn’t present.
Visits by uninvolved legal firms
Many of the first-time visitors who spend over an hour at my website arrive from large law firms all over the world. Sometimes they are referred by search engines such as Google or YAHOO! but often they arrive directly without a referring link. This, according to my internet expert, means that they have obtained the website link to DonaldBest.CA from some other source, perhaps from a friend or colleague.
For instance, the above shows a few of the dozens of visits from the Philadelphia, USA law firm of Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis (Wikipedia page here). I have no idea why personnel from this large law firm were so intensely interested in my story, but they spent many hours at DonaldBest.CA. Over the course of nine days, Schnader Harrison personnel downloaded every document and article. Schnader Harrison personnel used several different computers and smartphones, often at the same time. My computer expert says that this appears to indicate that personnel were coordinating their efforts so as not to duplicate work or downloads.
Law Society of Upper Canada regularly visits DonaldBest.CA
The Law Society of Upper Canada also has fixed IP numbers. In the above example, you’ll see that person(s) at LSUC visited on November 7th and 12th, using two different computers. In both cases, the visitors went directly to an article about how law firm personnel at Miller Thomson LLP sent anonymous threats to my witnesses via the Internet. The law society has known all about this for years, yet has never seized evidence, interviewed witnesses or examined the computer records of the Miller Thomson law firm.
This type of corrupt cover-up is apparently standard operating procedure for the Law Society of Upper Canada, as documented in the Toronto Star’s ‘Broken Justice’ series. My case is just one of hundreds where the executive and senior members of the LSUC have set aside their duty to the public in favour of a protected class of senior lawyers and large law firms.
As I explained in another article, some lawyers and law firms are too big to jail.
By a strange coincidence, Paul Schabas (one of the lawyer defendants in my civil case) is the Chair of the LSUC’s Proceedings Authorization Committee that makes the decision to prosecute or not to prosecute lawyers.
Am I surprised that investigators from the Law Society of Upper Canada never seized or examined Miller Thomson’s computer network records to discover which personnel sent the anonymous threats to my witnesses?
Am I surprised that the law society never launched an investigation into senior lawyers fabricating evidence and lying to the courts?
No, I’m not surprised at all.
That’s what happens when we allow professionals to regulate and discipline themselves without civilian oversight, transparency or accountability to ordinary Canadians.