The purpose of this post is to address false and defamatory allegations made by a member of elected office against a citizen of Newmarket.

After asking Councillor Vegh to contact me through a broker last week to arrange transfer of all domain sites, his reply: "these direct communications (are) over and all future communication will be through legal representation or any other forum of my choosing."

Here is the Explanation:

Earlier this year, I decided to encourage Councillor Vegh to post a web site (after being in office for 10 years). To my amazement, Councillor Vegh had never bothered to purchase these domain names. I purchased a domain name being as openly transparent as I possibly could be: I registered it in my own name, I was very easily identifiable via website whois (as reported in the media) and I drew a big arrow to "whodunnit" by directing the domain to  My goal was to rattle Vegh into action.  I felt, like many other residents, he should own his own web site so that Newmarket residents can evaluate his job performance.

As I said previously, Councillor Di Muccio was unaware of my actions.

After purchasing the domain name, I waited patiently.  Approximately three weeks ago I received an email copy of a letter written by Blake Cassels addressed to CIRA.  Vegh himself did not contact me but he went to an expensive Bay Street lawyer instead. I knew then that I had Vegh's attention but he still did not post a website. To give him a nudge, I purchased another 6 domain names. 

A week ago, after 10 years, Vegh finally posted a web site.

You are free to disagree with my tactics, but you cannot argue with the results. Ward 1 residents can finally weigh in on their Councillor's job performance. 

Accountability triumphs.

When I was contacted by the Era on Tuesday about this story, my first reaction was "It must be a slow news day."  When the Era reporter's line of questioning seemed to be more focussed on getting the gossip and innuendo, I told her "no comment."  I believed (and time has subsequently proven me correct) that anyone who reads the Era's story would see it for what it is -- funny.  This is what people have been telling me ever since. 

Along with my "No comment" response to the Era reporter in my email I asked her to relay a message to Vegh to contact me to make arrangements to transfer the 7 domains over.  I achieved the goal I wanted (i.e. a website on and I could see no further need to hold onto these extraneous domain names.   

On March 21, Vegh sent an e-mail addressed to me, Councillor Di Muccio, and the Era Reporter. He asked me to outline my "proposal".

I responded within minutes.  I explained to him I had only two "demands" -

1) He wanted something that I owned. Therefore discussions should be between him and I (and neither the Councillor, the reporter nor anyone else should be included).

2) I recognize that I don't have the technical know-how to transfer ownership of a domain so we needed a broker to do so.  I asked him to contact a domain name broker to make sure that things were done properly.

On March 22, Vegh wrote back that what I had asked for was unacceptable to him and then he demanded that I never speak to him again (except through his lawyer). 

Please see these emails in the tab above entitled E-mails.

Councillor Vegh is claiming that myself and Councillor Di Muccio are demanding money in exchange for domain names. Ward 1 voters should ask Councillor Vegh to provide them with proof of this allegation.  (He won't be able to, because no such communication ever took place between Vegh and myself nor Councillor Di Muccio).

To have someone in elected office make blatantly false, defamatory comments of private citizens and accusations of actions that are borderline corrupt is a gross misconduct.  It is clear, judging by the tweets of certain members of Newmarket Council, that Vegh is using his foolhardy decision of not securing his domain name as an attempt to impugn the name of Councillor Di Muccio.  I don't think we should tolerate his behaviour any longer.

To Summarize -

1) Vegh sent 2 e-mails

2) I sent 1 e-mail

3) Councillor Di Muccio sent 0 e-mails and had absolutely no contact with him on the matter.

4) As per Vegh's instructions, there have been no other conversations (verbal or written) since.

5) Councillor Vegh is making claims that he owned his domain names. He didn't. They were open for the public to purchase. And that's what happened. That's called irresponsible leadership.


If you are interested in reading the actual e-mails sent between Vegh and myself, please click on the E-Mails tab.


On March 22, Councillor Vegh made the following tweet, (which was subsequently tweeted by Councillor Jane Twinney and other members of the public):


"Councillor Maddie Di Muccio and her husband said I can have my name back if I give them money."!/tomvegh


THIS IS COMPLETELY FALSE  (Just click on the E-Mails tab for certain proof that Councillor Vegh is making things up).


I hope that by posting this web site members of the public will judge Vegh for themselves. Read what was discussed and determine if you find any mention of the word "money" in this correspondence.  Decide if you see any evidence that Councillor Di Muccio had made any demands what-so-ever.  I think, faced with the evidence, you will have to agree that Vegh crossed the line and behaved in a manner that is inappropriate for an elected official.

I believe it is dangerous to let a politician get away with spreading falsehoods.  I conclude that Councillor Vegh abused his elected office to garner media attention to tarnish my reputation and the reputation of Councillor Di Muccio.  You don't have to agree with the tactics I used to force Vegh to post a website, but there can be no justification to the libellous accusations Vegh has levelled against me and/or Councillor Di Muccio.


John Blommesteyn



Make a Free Website with Yola.