Please immediately remove the website/domain name: DESIREECAPUANO.COM (and any others that may be created for the same purpose) by Mr. Patrick Fox of Burnaby, B.C., Canada.

I'm thoroughly disgusted that police need to provide "additional evidence" in order to have Desiree Capuano's case revisited. There is ample evidence within the two CBC News stories already: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/patrick-fox-web-attack-revenge-porn-criminal-harassment-desiree-capuano-internet-1.3444576 and http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/patrick-fox-desiree-capuano-revenge-porn-legal-experts-1.3457177

Not only has this man, Patrick Fox, impeded her ability to find a job (to support herself and their son), he's admitted publicly that he intends to "destroy" her. What's more, he's involving a minor (his 15-year-old son) in his abusive behavior.

When asked by his son if he would "ever shoot his mother" Fox replied he'd have "no qualms" about killing Capuano if that was legal. AND he posted this online. This would completely emotionally wreck any 15-year-old.

Fox even admitted "he often copies his son on emails to Capuano, including about his plan to hire somebody to obtain sexually explicit photos to post on the website."

How do we know that Patrick Fox doesn't intend to hire someone to kill her? Is that what it will take for authorities to help protect this woman and her child?

Come on Dan McLaughlin, spokesman for the Crown, this guy completely fits the profile of a dangerous offender. I'd definitely fear for my life – and my son's life – if I were this woman.

He wants to drive her to suicide or to becoming "destitute and homeless".

Yet B.C. Justice Minister Suzanne Anton told the CBC:

"This government takes online harassment seriously...a prosecution may occur regardless of the form that the alleged harassment takes.If the police provide additional evidence that might affect the Crown's decision on whether to approve charges, the case could be revisited."

Well, I just about lost my head when I heard Natalie Clancy state in the video: "The company that hosts the website won't take it down without a court order."

And she mentioned that his website has been promoted in Google Ads.

Hence, why I'm petitioning the host company WORLDNIC.COM and Google as well as ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). Obviously when laws have been broken and children are involved, the authorities need to act swiftly.

ICANN's core values state: "9. Acting with a speed that is responsive to the needs of the Internet while, as part of the decision-making process, obtaining informed input from those entities most affected."

A minor (their 15-year-old son) is involved; therefore speed to have this site taken down IS warranted.

I strongly feel this woman and her son are endangered. They've no doubt been harmed both financially and psychologically already.

Therefore, I'm appealing to all of those responsible for helping this man launch his "online campaign from his Burnaby, B.C., home" to put an end to it. Permanently.

I will quote the laws broken (so far), according to: http://www.justice.gc.ca/ eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/fv-vf/har/ part1.html

1.6.1 Online Criminal Harassment, Cyberstalking and a Related Typology
The terms "cyberstalking" and "online harassment" are often used to refer to three types of activities: direct communication through e-mail or text messaging; Internet harassment, where the offender publishes offensive or threatening information about the victim on the Internet; and unauthorized use, control or sabotage of the victim’s computer. In some cyber-stalking situations, criminal harassment charges may be appropriate; however, depending on the activity involved, charges under the following sections of the Criminal Code should also be considered:

I bolded three that you have ample proof of in the CBC reports I've linked to in my intro.

319(2) (wilful promotion of hatred)
372(1) (conveying false messages)

423 (intimidation)
430(1.1) (mischief in relation to data)
402.2(1) (identify theft)
403(1) (identity fraud)

Exposing a 15-year-old to a plan involving "the hire of someone to obtain sexually explicit photos to post on the website" must fall under SOME category of crimes involving children.

Thank you for taking the time to investigate this matter Natalie Clancy and Yvette Brend of CBC News.

Most respectfully,

Rose Webster