Its is evident that Azure and Microsoft cannot figure it out so now it’s time for the spending to get out of hand.

Per your previous emails referring to legal action, please send any and all legal action documents and communications to address:

Microsoft Legal Department, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA, 98052.  

We have done everything we can to assist you in this matter and resolve your issue,  We will now proceed with archiving this case.  Thank you.

I wonder if Microsoft realizes that fraud carries a rather stiff penalty:

380(1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,

  1. is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject- matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or
  2. is guilty
    1. of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
    2. of an offence punishable on summary conviction,

where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars.

Case law is clear:

In R. v. Zlatic, McLachlin J. (as she then was) defined “dishonesty” as follows:

… Dishonesty is, of course, difficult to define with precision. It does, however, connote an underhanded design which has the effect, or which engenders the risk, of depriving others of what is theirs. J. D. Ewart, in his Criminal Fraud (1986), defines dishonest conduct as that “which ordinary, decent people would feel was discreditable as being clearly at variance with straightforward or honourable dealings” (p. 99). Negligence does not suffice. Nor does taking advantage of an opportunity to someone else’s detriment, where that taking has not been occasioned by unscrupulous conduct, regardless of whether such conduct was wilful or reckless. The dishonesty of “other fraudulent means” has, at its heart, the wrongful use of something in which another person has an interest, in such a manner that this other’s interest is extinguished or put at risk. A use is “wrongful” in this context if it constitutes conduct which reasonable decent persons would consider dishonest and unscrupulous.1 (emphasis added)

In R. v. Théroux, McLachlin J. provided the following description of whether conduct is “dishonest”:

The requirement of intentional fraudulent action excludes mere negligent misrepresentation. It also excludes improvident business conduct or conduct which is sharp in the sense of taking advantage of a business opportunity to the detriment of someone less astute. The accused must intentionally deceive, lie or commit some other fraudulent act for the offence to be established. Neither a negligent misstatement, nor a sharp business practice, will suffice, because in neither case will the required intent to deprive by fraudulent means be present


Given the entire database is lost the damage to the site is extensive. A few decades of work has been confiscated thanks to the fraudulent acts of the accused. I was hoping it would not have to come to this but now the costs are going to be higher than the moon.

With over 1000 games reviewed and vast amounts of hardware reviews the loss of out site content really is a major setback that will take years to recover from.


Given the site is an example work product, this now ruins and attempt to use the site as an example of development skills. This harms forward earnings capability.