The second email means nothing. We need the first.
We have the first line of the first, and as I said, if the rest of it said anything about requesting a self-exclusion, I'm sure OP would have included it in the screenshot, since that would be the most relevant form of evidence for his case.
You just learned about the rules today and don’t seem to have an understanding of the rules or how to interpret them so I’ll let it go after this.
You're wrong and your assumptions change nothing. You just keep saying one wrong thing after the other, similar to the quality of your involvement in other threads.
The tricky part in this case isn’t closed or self-exclusion, it’s that this case doesn’t have a time period for possible reinstatement.
You're making things overly complicated for no apparent reason.