Major Toronto law firms block employee visits to DonaldBest.CA – “Coordinated their web filters”

Miller Thomson started strategy of blocking employee visits to DonaldBest.CA

I hadn’t noticed but it’s true: visits to DonaldBest.CA from the static IP networks of all the big Toronto law firms stopped a few weeks ago. Apparently the senior partners and management committees don’t want their lawyers and staff reading what is on this website.

Goodness! I wonder why? (He said knowingly. For clues read Anonymous online threats against 82 year old widow originated from Miller Thomson Law Office and Miller Thomson LLP client claims lawyer Andrew Roman suggested anonymous publication of privileged documents.)

Hmmmm…. haven’t seen any visits lately from the Law Society of Upper Canada either. Let me check… Oh yes. Once someone tells you where to look, things become quite clear.

A big thank you to ‘A little birdie’ who contacted me while sitting in a Tim Hortons somewhere.

It’s nice to know that I have support from inside some of Canada’s largest law firms.

Dear Mr. Best,

Do you wonder why visits from big law firms dropped off the chart? I’ll tell you why.

The big five IT sections coordinated their web filters to block visits to donaldbest.ca. Miller Thomson started and the rest followed. signed:

A little birdie

P.S. Keep up the good work!

UPDATE: The Streisand Effect

Another reader commented on this story:

This story will spread like wildfire in the legal community. What could be so bad that law offices have to block their employees from seeing it?

Hasn’t anyone at Miller Thomson heard of the Streisand Effect?

How long is it going to take before lawyers realize that the simple act of trying to repress something they don’t like online is likely to make it so that something that most people would never, ever see (like a photo of a urinal in some random beach resort) is now seen by many more people? Let’s call it the Streisand Effect. <<<Wikipedia link
— Mike Masnick

 

 

 

 

5 comments

  • George Martin's ghost

    This is hilarious that these big law firms block their staff from reading about how the law firms spit on the Rule of Law and manipulate the court system. I searched Google for Miller Thomson lawyers and the 5th hit on the first page brings people to this website and an article about Miller Thomson threatening a witness.

    Bravo Mr. Best!

  • Fraudulent Court Costs

    Well written Jenny. The fact that Mr. Best had called the court office and was told of the meeting scheduled indicates that the Court was well aware that Mr. Best was not attempting to be a fugitive of the court. Then Mr. Best called the offices of the lawyers the day of the hearing to have a tele- conference call. How does any of this indicate that Mr. Best was trying to avoid the hearing?? Wasnt Mr. Best’s explanation of the reason for not being there and not giving his whereabouts conclusive reason to the Court that Mr. Best was not a fugitive trying to avoid being cross examined but was scared for his safety? Very reasonable to everyone reading this website and that is why law firms are censoring their employees from accessing it at work. But just because you censor employees at work does not censor them at home. Its merely an intimidation so to any employees who feel threatened in any way come forward with your stories.

    Mr. Best’s lawsuit for wrongful imprisonment is probably at the top of the chain for examination by honest court people. The court costs that Mr. Best cannot pay are merely fraudulent court costs standing in the way of an appeal. All the documents Mr. Best has put out on this website prove the costs are based on fraudulent proceedings and fraudulent actions by all involved.

    Anyone trying to dispute this statement is nothing but a liar and a person covering up for crooked people and you all should be ashamed of yourself and your children do not even know that they shouldnt be looking at you in the eye because your nothing but liars and not examples to children of the morals we try to instill in our children.

    So the court that awarded these costs and denied Mr. Best justice your a sad and pathetic example of the dishonorable people in our government who we pay our taxes to have in office to uphold justice. You uphold criminal acts not justice.

  • They haven’t been able to take down your website. This is all that is left to them to ban your writing from their network. Congratulations!

  • Color me Barbra

    This story will spread like wildfire in the legal community. What could be so bad that law offices have to block their employees from seeing it?

    Hasn’t anyone at Miller Thomson heard of the Streisand Effect?

    Wikipedia has the definition and history.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

    The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. It is an example of psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware something is being kept from them, their motivation to access and spread the information is increased.

    Origin of the term

    Mike Masnick of Techdirt coined the term in 2005 in relation to a holiday resort issuing a takedown notice to urinal.net (a site dedicated to photographs of urinals) over use of the resort’s name.

    How long is it going to take before lawyers realize that the simple act of trying to repress something they don’t like online is likely to make it so that something that most people would never, ever see (like a photo of a urinal in some random beach resort) is now seen by many more people? Let’s call it the Streisand Effect.
    — Mike Masnick

    The term invoked Barbra Streisand who had sued photographer Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for violation of privacy. The US$50 million lawsuit endeavored to remove an aerial photograph of Streisand’s mansion from the publicly available collection of 12,000 California coastline photographs.

    Adelman photographed the beachfront property to document coastal erosion as part of the California Coastal Records Project, which was intended to influence government policymakers.Before Streisand filed her lawsuit, “Image 3850” had been downloaded from Adelman’s website only six times; two of those downloads were by Streisand’s attorneys. As a result of the case, public knowledge of the picture increased substantially; more than 420,000 people visited the site over the following month.

    • Hi Donald, Barbara,and the Little 🐦,

      I understand the Streisand effect but how come cases like Donalds and BRITISH COLUMBIA
      Citation:

      J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development),
      2015 BCSC 1216
      Date: 20150714
      Docket: S118923
      Registry: Vancouver
      Between:
      J.P. and as Litigation Guardian for BT.G., K.G., BN.G., and P.G.
      Plaintiffs
      And
      The Director of Child, Family and Community Services and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia

      Defendants
      And
      B.G.

      Third Party
      Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Walker aren’t getting proper coverage?

      Corruption taking place in many funded government programs and establishments needs the Streisand effect, but in the first place; the public should have demonstrated concern, called for accountability and refused to allow secrecy by demanding the almighty transparency.

      Canada has such a problem here with the abuse of “qualified privlege” and the reluctance of the Charter of Rights to exemplify that once this QP has been used against you that the Honourable Court will consistently follow like a duck to protect all the law rules while throwing an innocent person under the bus without any regard for whether an error or misrepresentations was made.

      Donalds case shows he wasn’t even in the court room, and did not attend court via himself, a lawyer or any representatives. If this was family law there would have been a follow up court date scheduled in case Donald was not served.

      Donalds rights were not respected and protected.

      BC case demonstrates how child protection services goes out of their way to tamper with a police investigation and deter the family court laws on dad that molested 3 of his kids, did spousal abuse to his wife and ended up molesting their 4th child when given access via child protection services permission , with this is mind the #CPS agency also enjoys the secrecy that goes along with their screw ups, and the Honourable Court does nothing to broadcast this to the rest of #Canadians about the abuse of the children’s rights, the mom’s parental rights, the abuse of qualified privlege being used to remove another person’s rights & abuse of power even being exemplified by the Honourable Court for not having any balances and checks in place to ensure that one doesn’t abuse “qualified privlege”, and to stop passing cases through courts following like a duck and instead actually read, study and investigate materials before the court.

      Donalds case and JP should have been dealt with appropriately, and justly, but instead we end up seeing the Honourable Court facilitating more courtdates to keep itself full, and sustain its own existence but not in the interest of justice, nor fairness.

      Fairness would be looking at the record and seeing that Donald never did a “no-show” before, and adjourning proceedings to find out if he was aware of proceedings- I bet not even a phone call was made- I know that when court happened and my situation was the same – I wasn’t served with anything to be in court, court proceeded without me, and the court (Family) didn’t even call, but our phone number, fax, email all have to be present as our contact info yet the court doesn’t use it.

      These law firms denying access to your server; thats understandable with Facebook, but you being a self represented litigant at times I’m sure is something to be feared because at some point the Canadian laws are either going to be exercised for everyone, or they will have to be rewritten.

      “Qualified Privlege” given to the opposing lawyers in Donalds case was unfair to Donald; add to this the ” qualified privlege” of the Honorable Justice presiding and it clearly demonstrates how Donald rights are trampled over, and this happens when you allow undisputed qualified privlege to lead a case thru the courts blindly.

      Blindly because people assume that once your case has been before the courts that you actually get justice, or fairness, or that you are heard and this is not the case.

      The Honourable Court bills for the time of every employee in the courtroom, but also the courthouse the clerks, security guard, janitor, then theres lights, heat, rent, water and this establishment is run like a business.

      Just like the library they want returns.

      There is no incentive for not having a revolving door at the court house & family law is the highest grossing right now.
      I imagine Miller Thompson’s choice for censoring your site is that too much honesty in the Ontario courts proceedings may be overwhelming for others to see.

      such display of constitutional rights being violated in civil and claims court being dragged into criminal court

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.