The focal point of my post was to get unbanned entirely since the initial ban reason was completely objectively false by Daniel, however if I have to settle for just getting my money back that it what I'll take. The owner is reluctant to see the evidence that his ban reason was false which in my opinion just proves my case. I'll even give YOU my bank statements to prove the amounts I play with are affordable. (Just put your email next response).
For something to be "objectively false" it can't involve any sort of opinion. In Devans view, you are a problem gambler. That's not objective, it's subjective. Obviously you can disagree with his definition of problem gambler (which could easily be different than yours) or that you fit his definition, but that doesn't make it objectively false. You simply disagree with his opinion. Which is fine. But it's his site, not yours. So it doesn't really matter if you disagree.
So, unfortunately, the focal point of your post is pointless.
The objective part is the fact that I can prove the amounts I play with are a fraction of a fraction of what I can afford to play. He assumes I am betting with more than I can afford to lose