I invited you without knowing anything about you, but I saw the table with public cases that you keep. By the way, I would really like my case to appear there too.
As for these names, I know nothing about them. Let it be - yahoo62278
It will be updated as soon as I have free time at hand. And when it is updated, you can rest assured that your case [as well as each and every cases] will be there. I just can't right now.
Normally, on a weekend, either on Saturday or Sunday, I do a sweep through scam accusations board to see if there is a thread or two that I didn't oversee [thus was not added to the list, as I am not aware of them], update status of cases [from "in progress" to "resolved", or to "unresolved"] or made follow ups with cases that's been dormant for a while, to make sure everything works smoothly.
This past few weeks though, my weekends are crazy. And not exaggerating. Just today, for example, I have to leave home and drive when the sky is literally still dark, couple hours before dawn, with almost nonexistent sleep the "night before", and I just home few minutes ago.
I still have to handle my IRL issues as they're not attended the entire day today. So yeah, I am quite sure I still can't update my list [again] this weekend. But rest assured that it will be updated... you know what, since you're adamant that your case being on the list, I'll add them right now and do updates for other entries later when I have free time at hand.
I would really like to get an answer from you in private messages at least once. Because I have already written 3 letters and I do not know if they reach you. While we are playing "guess what needs to be proven", I will at least try...
A bit redundant and no brainer, no? Me writing here, mentioning about your PM and addressing several matters that you pointed out on that PM kinda make it crystal clear that I
do get your PM. How else would I know what you wrote there if they didn't reach me? But again, sure, let me made a reply to make it diamond clear that I get it.
Now let's talk about the process.
Anything starts with someone having some claims and these claims have grounds. I have my own view of the case and it is also private. I do not want to talk about every action I take in order to guess for what reason the bookmaker decided not to pay me! And I hope you clearly distinguish between objective reasons and subjective ones!
Your PM kinda describe in extensive manner of your objective and subjective reasons. And though I'll address that in PM just to make that diamond clarity that I get the PM, I'll say and address it here that your explanation on PM sadly didn't touch what they provided to me.
You're guessing how they tied you to multi-acc through... IP address, passport, payment method, and others. What they show me, though, is something else, yet clearly connect many accounts.
If BK8 do not have a problem with you sharing the information with a DT member then they really should have no problem listing the same information to send to the OP. Keeping that aside, according to the OP he wants to receive the money he feels he is owed ($1140) therefore it is not exactly a small amount. In order for him to find closure, BK8 should have settled the matter long before the OP brought it here.
No matter how this matter moves forward it is clear BK8 will not change their mind therefore the OP does seem to be wasting his time.
Once you agreed with the name of the DT, I'll ask BK8 if they're ok with me sharing what they shared to me to them. With that permission from BK8, I'll reach each of the DT and ask their willingness to help validate the data provided, and see what their verdicts are.
I am not trying to see myself as highly like someone that BK8 trusted so much that they choose to share what should be otherwise private on both occasions [the past case and this one], but I am very sure they will have problem listing the same information to OP.
Remember those "excuses" that casino gave whenever they detect multi-acc? The ones that many sceptic will say it's an invented rebuttal and they should at least give something to substantiate their claim? Yeah, I saw it, and I can say in confident that once multi-acc abuser [at least particularly who uses this kind of method] saw it, they'll learn how to avoid detection.
So, sorry, but I don't think BK8 will not have a problem sharing with OP. Otherwise, they'll already share it here instead of privately to me through PM.