What has Game Protect specifically to do with Eastern Europe?Originally Posted by JohnCommode
What has Game Protect specifically to do with Eastern Europe?
First of all, I'm saying that players should never send their usernames to anyone they don't know via the internet. You're being overly defensive saying that I'm making accusations specifically against you.You can contact Game Protect using a VPN or TOR, we don't care about your IP address.
5 people is the required number. The more people join, the higher the total claim is, the lower is the chance that Full Flush will pay. That is why we limit it to the required minimum of 5.
Your accusation would make sense, if Game Protect would ask for user names or any other personal details during the preselection process. But as this is not the case, your accusation makes no sense.
Secondly, your site, does in fact, clearly make it mandatory for those who are selected to give out their usernames.
You quoting the fraud law is very suspect to me that you are using a real lawyer. Lawyers tend to speak in terms of precedents rather than reciting laws. In practice, it's actually incredibly difficult to prove intent when it comes to that kind of fraud. If that weren't the case, a large proportion of US business people would be sitting in jails right now.
If you could post some of your successful litigations against poker sites, that would go a long way towards proving your legitimacy.
Your site also makes it clear that you are an affiliate, and as such, you are a competitor of Kahn's. Your chances of winning are practically nil. Your chances of making money from directing people to your site, however, are much greater than ever getting your 10% from any kind of legal settlement; so, yes, your motivations should be questioned.
I personally don't get the sense of this, because if you fear that the receiver will use your IP address to DDOS you, then simply use a VPN or TOR.
Alternatively, you could send a letter.
Sorry, I misunderstood...
...is not related to Game Protect and "elicit" is a full legitimate behaviour.
Yes, proof of the claim is mandatory by laws, but it is nowhere stated that you have to send the info using your original IP address.
You are not happy that the site clearly state in advance what steps are required, so if someone don't feel comfortable with step 2) he can save to proceed with step 1)?
Sorry, I can not follow your logic. I quote the fraud law while I am not a lawyer is suspect to you, because lawyers tend to speak in terms of precedents?
We have here 2 pair of shoes:
1) Someone is sentenced to prison and financially liable for damage accrued.
2) Someone is financially liable for damage accrued, while not sentenced to prison.
You have also the negligence paragraph in the US.
You think its difficult to prove that kahntrutahn knows that players don't receive their money in a timely manner or at all?
I don't know how this is handled in the US. In Europe it would be a walk to prove this. Kahntrutahn bought Full Flush account balances for 60% less of the value. Usually no one sells his account balance for 60% less, if he can receive it in a timely manner. Yes, it is possible that the first seller was of unsound mind. But that the second seller was also of unsound mind is very unlikely. And the chance that all sellers were of unsound mind is close to zero.
Therefore, in a court in Europe it would easy to prove that the buyer kahntrutahn knows very well that Full Flush is a criminal operation and customers don't receive their account balance in a timely manner = criminal offense of embezzlement.
Your logic makes sense:
Don't send user names to people you don't know, but publicise documents with sensitive personal details and parties involved, so people you don't know can read it worldwide.
No, we are not a competitor of Professional Cheat, for the following reasons:
1) Professional Cheat advertises gambling companies independant of whether they are legitimate or embezzled player deposits or act fraudulent and make false and misleading statements.
2) Professional Cheat do not offer dispute resolution, lawyer action, court proceeding and private investigation.
3) The business model of Game Protect is new and worldwide unique and therefore we have no competitors yet. We have haters, but this is normal.
Only people connected to Full Flush management could know whether they will pay or not. Did you just out yourself?
I don't know if Full Flush will pay or not. But if they don't pay and lose their license, then this is also a good result for me and all the other potential victims
Last edited by Game Protect; 06-23-2016 at 01:25 PM.
Who cares if people don't have to use their IP address? The fact of the matter is that most people don't normally use VPNs; and most players don't seem to be aware of the dangers of sending strangers their usernames and IP address. That is my concern. And that is what I'm warning players about. If you want to make it all about you, then great go for it.
You claim to be using a lawyer. I would assume that you've spoken to him and that your reasoning would be the result of those discussions. Instead you seem to be basing your case on google searches.
What I find really strange about your postings is that you've completely blurred the line as to whether you are suing Kahn or you are suing FullFlush. You don't seem to even know who you are suing.
When I say that it's weird that you are limiting a class action suit to just 5 people (and yes it is very strange), you state that you need to because that is all that FullFlush will pay. But then when you need to, you switch over to saying that it is Kahn whom you are suing.
In all capitalistic countries the burden of proof is on you. It's not a walk in the park in Europe any more than it is in the US to prove intent. A lot of people who have never been in a court before think that it is as simple as pointing out some incongruity in someone's actions and then the justice will say, 'Ah hah! Guilty!'. It takes a lot more than that. You really need to consult your lawyer.
And if your lawyer is working on contingency, why hasn't he himself written up the request for victims to come forward?
How on earth is telling us what cases you have won disclosing sensitive information? At this point you are clearly trying to deceive by implying that there are in fact cases that you can't disclose.
If you are an affiliate, you are in fact a competitor to Kahn; and you are an affiliate. I've seen first hand how nasty some of these affiliate battles can get.
Most affiliates claim that part of the reason that they are in business is to protect their players. There is really nothing new in your business model. The only difference is that you claim that you are taking entities to court which you refuse the back up with any evidence.
In the past Kahn has refused to advertise for a number of shady sites, so there is no difference there either. It's just that currently his dealings with FullFlush are very shady.
Implying that I work for FullFlush is the most idiotic and childish thing you could possibly say. Have you even bothered to read this thread.
And once again in the above quote you switch back to suing FullFlush. Do you even know who those 5 selected people are even going to be involved in suing?
Last edited by SantaCruz; 06-23-2016 at 05:25 PM.
You wouldn't be able to sue kahn in Europe. He doesn't live there.
kahn's purchase of funds at 40% is scummy, but it would not bury him legally. He could simply claim that he believed in the company, and was confident this would result in a profit for him in the long run. If anything, he could use his purchase of funds as "evidence" that he wasn't knowingly promoting a scam, since he was buying up funds which he thought were worth something.
However, kahn COULD successfully be sued for fraud and misrepresentation. This was because, as the site's only affiliate, he continued to promote Full Flush as a safe and legitimate place to play poker, for several months after he was made fully aware of the cashout issues. In fact, he still promotes it that way to this day. kahn could not claim ignorance, because he participated in the no-pay discussions both on 2+2 and here, and never once denied that the stories were true.
Given his history of bashing Lock Poker for doing the EXACT SAME THING, he also could not claim that he was naive and fooled by Full Flush ownership's promises to him.
So, yes, anyone who signed up through kahn and deposited (ESPECIALLY during the troubled period) could sue him, and most likely win.
However, this would require a US-based lawyer, and preferably either one in Louisiana (where kahn lives) or in the state of where the victim lives (since internet fraud can be said to be a two-state transaction, if the victim lives in a different state from a perpetrator.)
You could NOT sue him in Europe, as a judgment there would have no legal standing in the US.
It's not as easy as simply showing that his website conflicted with the facts. To show intent it would need to be shown that Kahn truly didn't believe in the viability of FullFlush. His own website can simply be written off as Kahn being too lazy to update it. There's liability in negligence but that doesn't reach the stature of fraud.
Someone would literally need to come forward and testify that Kahn had stated (or something like an email written by Khan) that FullFlush was scamming players. To prove intent, it has to be shown what is actually going on in Kahn's head. It really isn't that easy to do that.
Remember, FullFlush has admitted to cashout issues caused by previous owners. So it's not just an issue of slow payments. The problem is that FullFlush has been dishonest with the players contacting support. Proving that Kahn has first hand knowledge of the inner workings of FullFlush as opposed to being fooled himself by FullFlush's PR would be real difficult. In a courtroom, it takes more than a logical argument, it takes solid proof.
His 40% (now down to 30%) buyouts are the closest thing to a smoking gun but even that's not enough considering that he's doing those under the guise of helping out distressed players; even though it's pretty obvious that he's really just taking advantage of distressed players not to mention the questions it raises about his real outlook for FF. But there's a big difference between what can be proven in a court of law versus what can be proven in the court of public opinion.
Years ago I spent a lot of time in the courtroom helping people. An awful lot of people that I watched wanted to show that their opponents were guilty of some kind of fraud. I've seen a lot of judges simply toss accusations of fraud aside often accompanied by sarcastic comments aimed at the accuser by the judge.
I don't think that this Game Protect guy has his shit nearly together enough to succeed in what he says he intends to do. And I have serious doubts as to whether he is being entirely straightforward with us about some of the things that he is saying.
I don't agree that it would be hard to prove intent when it comes to kahn's complicity here.
The following facts could be established in court, beyond any reasonable doubt:
- Kahn has a run an affiliate company for years, and has a lot of knowledge of the industry.
- Kahn was repeatedly made aware of Full Flush's cashout issues, and acknowledged those concerns on two different forums.
- Kahn went on record numerous times in the past calling Lock Poker a scam for very similar circumstances.
- Kahn has updated his website several times, including the Full Flush page, since the cashout problems started. He still omitted any mention of the issues, and portrayed the site as safe.
Given all of the above, Kahn could not play the "naive dope" card in court. People like Melanie Weisner and Bryan Pellegrino played that card -- that they were just bamboozled by a convincing Jennifer Larson -- but they would have had more credibility in court due to their lack of experience in dealing with scam poker sites. Kahn inserted himself into the Lock situation and was highly critical of their slow/nonexistent cashouts. He cannot credibly claim to be "fooled" simply because he's profiting from it.
Besides, claims of being fooled by your business associates is not always a defense.
If I'm working for a company selling computers, and making sales for them, I am not criminally or civilly liable if the customers pay and the computers never show up, provided that I didn't know of this situation.
However, if numerous customers complain to me that they paid but never received their computers, I would become liable if I continued to sell them to others, even with the knowledge that this was likely a scam.
The "I didn't know what I was doing" argument only works if you can show that you really didn't know what you were doing.
Kahn knows exactly what he's doing, and that is easily provable.
With that said, "Game Protect" seems highly questionable, and they also suffer from jurisdictional issues.
I went through a jury trial. We spent the entire first day simply going over what couldn't be talked about. Unless a lawyer, plaintiff, or defendant inadvertently opens a door very little can actually be talked about. No one in that room is likely to know anything about Lock or FullFlush and no judge will give the time to anyone to say very much about those sites.
There's little chance that anything about Lock Poker could be brought up. And until there's a court ruling against FullFlush, there's very little about FullFlush that wouldn't be considered opinion or hearsay and deemed inadmissible. Nothing written in the forums or newspapers would be even close to being admissible. You'd also need proof that Kahn's website had been updated and exactly when it had been updated in order to bring that up.
Basically all you would have are victims saying that they weren't paid. And if there are only 5 victims, FullFlush could just pay them anytime before the trial to simply turn those 'non-payments' into 'late payments' which would weaken a fraud case immensely.
If I run out on paying my rent, it could be argued that I defrauded my landlord. But if I'm late with my rent, even if I'm chronically late, it would be hard to argue that I defrauded anyone.
You generally can't try to convict someone in court by trying to profile them using past behavior. If a person denies the past behavior it can be brought up; but the person can't be asked about that past behavior, he'd have to bring it up on his own in order to open that door. Even in murder trials, past murders are usually withheld from the jury. Convictions have to be made with hard evidence. Judges keep people on very short leashes in regards to what they can talk about. Judges are not going to let any witness put together any kind of argument. So there is no opportunity to bring up a lot of things that might help show what is happening.
When I was on the stand years ago, my entire focus was in getting the lawyer grilling me to give me the opportunity to open doors for all the things that had been suppressed on the first day. I was up against a fanatical right wing NRA chapter president that I had provoked. I easily won my case; but I know from an experience that took 7 months of my life that all the things that I thought that I could use to show what a shyster that guy was couldn't be discussed.
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with some of your points.
The "past" involving Lock Poker would only be excluded if it involved some kind of alleged past bad behavior by Kahn which was never proven in a court of law, and didn't have direct relation to this case. So for example, had kahn been helping Larson defraud people on Lock, that couldn't be used in court against him. However, since the Lock situation would only be used as proof that Kahn was so familiar with these type of scams that he called them out himself for a different site, that would typically be admissible (provided that Kahn's defense was, "I just believed in Full Flush as a business, I didn't try to scam anyone.")
Similarly, if I became an exclusive affiliate of a scam site, and continued to refer people long after being made aware that cashouts had stopped, I could never claim ignorance or an optimistic view of the business. Everything I've written on this forum or said on my radio show about other scam sites could be used to prove that it was highly unlikely that I could have been fooled in such a case.
There is also a lesser burden of proof required for a civil case than a criminal one. This would be a civil case.
A civil case against Kahn would seek to prove:
- He made money each time a new player signed up and played real money on Full Flush.
- He was aware that Full Flush Poker was not cashing people out for as long as a year, yet was still promoting it as "safe" on his website.
- He was not simply an advertising platform for Full Flush. He was their exclusive affiliate, and claimed to have a special relationship with ownership.
- He stood to gain financially by misleading people into depositing into a scam online poker site which clearly did not pay anyone.
- He had been very vocal in the past in his criticism of other sites which exhibited the exact same behavior, calling them scams.
Full Flush also could not get the lawsuit dismissed just by paying late. These players could continue the lawsuit based upon damages suffered by not having the money in a timely fashion as promised.
This post practically screams Eastern Euro to me and, more importantly, to Haley, who is a lot smarter than I am. In the later posts, it seems like you brought in your American cousin Ivan to edit them. Admit it, you're two favorite athletes are Ilya Nastase and Nadia Comanecci.
My trial was a civil trial. The guy that I was up against was on radio and TV all the time. I wasn't allowed to bring up anything that he said in the media whatsoever. If there was some factual statement that he had made that conflicted with something that he said on the stand, I probably would have been able to bring that up. But even then we would have had to stop the trial ask the jury to go outside and while we debated exactly what could be said. But there was no way in the world I could simply have brought up something that he had said in the media to help paint some kind of picture of his character.
One thing that I'm saying is that you'd have to first take FullFlush to court and get a judgement against them before you'd be able to claim that it's a scam site in court. Putting Kahn on trial would be putting the cart before the horse.
Clearly there is something incredibly fishy about Kahn having exclusive rights to FullFlush. But even in a civil trial suspicions don't lead to a conviction. And yes he stood to gain but intent is a huge hurdle to overcome in a fraud case and unless Kahn himself has indicated in someway that he intended to defraud his customers it can be argued that his actions were the result of blind faith or himself being defrauded by false promises.
That he was vocal in the past about other sites could actually work in his favor. It could be argued that going along with a scam site would be out of character for Kahn. But again, that's exactly the type of thing that probably wouldn't even be allowed in since there is no direct connection between Lock and FullFlush. No one on the jury is going to know what Lock is. And there was never a judgement against Lock, so any description of Lock or Jennifer Larson would probably be way too long winded for a judge to allow it in. Time is incredibly tight in a civil trial. It's extremely unlikely that a judge is going to take the time to learn anything about Lock unless it's simply a case that he can look up.
FullFlush paying the 5 victims late might not free FF from liability of damages to those players but it could render accusations of fraud a moot point.
If you would be able to read, then you would realize Full Flush 70:30 litigation attempt. Not one word about Kahn litigation attempt.
- Limit a legal action to 5, to have the highest chance of payment is not weird or strange at all. But for a google legal expert it could indeed sound weird or strange.
- I have never stated that I need to.
- I have never stated that Full Flush will pay. The opposite is the case:
- I have never said that I will sue Kahn.
Europe has a lot of capitalistic countries and in criminal cases the burden of proof is not on you. The only thing you need is a sufficient initial suspicion and then the police has to investigate. A google legal expert like you, of course can not know this.
Most countries in Europe uses Roman law and "Ignorantia legis non excusat" is part of it. As I already have stated, I don't know how such cases are handled in the US, but I highly doubt that the US uses the Roman law.
Telling would be enough, no documents, no proof?
I have neither seen or heard of any affiliate announcing legal action to claim the rights of its members, nor that ever anyone did it. Therefore, the business modell of Game Protect is worldwide unique.
The Full Flush Poker case could back up the evidence within a few weeks. But you as an alleged part of the management or silent share holder obviously have no interest that this will come true. Your persistently bad mouthing of Game Protect is another indication.
1) Only Full Flush management know whether they will pay or not
2) You claim to know that Full Flush will not pay
If you count 1) + 2) together, then this implies that you are either a part of the management or a liar.
If you are not able to understand what Full Flush 70:30 litigation attempt means, what else can I say?
I'm still trying to understand which jurisdiction you will be suing Full Flush Poker in.
For example, I could get a judgment against them in the US, and it would be meaningless.
Game Protect:
First of all, most of your post is just gibberish so I'm not going to waste my time replying. But the Kahn stuff is laughable.
What I said is that you keep switching back and forth between Kahn and FullFlush like you don't know who you are suing.If you are not able to understand what Full Flush 70:30 litigation attempt means, what else can I say?
Not one word about suing Kahn, eh? You certainly weren't responding to anything that I said about Kahn in the below quote. I had only referred to your litigation, nothing more. The below quote was in defense of your litigation. Once again I'll say that you don't know who the hell you are suing.
Let's be honest. You're an affiliate with an angle.
I'm still waiting for you to tell us who you are, who your lawyer is, and what court cases you have successfully litigated or even taken part in.
Last edited by SantaCruz; 06-25-2016 at 07:15 PM.
If you would be able to read, you would have read the following:
Victims can sue him, not one word about Game Protect will sue Kahn.
5 five words about Game Protect offer a Full Flush litigation attempt.
Exactly. Not one word about Game Protect suing Kahn.
You informed the public (based on your google knowledge) that:
And I informed you that it would be a walk at a court in Europe to prove the intent of kahntrutahn (if he would have acted out of Europe).
Furthermore, I informed you that even if he could be not successfully sentenced to prison, there is still the possibility that he is financially liable based on civil rights.
So far, you doubted everything I have stated. A 5 year old can see that you would never accept my word as proof of anything, especially at such an important point of successful cases.
You refer to Haley who made a false and misleading statement?This post practically screams Eastern Euro to me and, more importantly, to Haley, who is a lot smarter than I am. In the later posts, it seems like you brought in your American cousin Ivan to edit them. Admit it, you're two favorite athletes are Ilya Nastase and Nadia Comanecci.
Would publicise the name of the lawyer prove the legitimacy of Game Protect in your eyes?
Game Protect:
First of all, I haven't googled anything about the laws so what you are saying there is complete bullshit.
Considering that I didn't bring up any litigation against Kahn, your claim that you were somehow responding to something that I had referred to is also complete bullshit.
I also realized from the beginning that your initial post referring to Jonathan Brown was just a hook to draw in customers. People in this thread, including myself, were criticizing Kahn so that's what you baited your hook with. It was obviously just a bait and switch, so I never bothered to respond or refer to that post.
So you aren't going to provide any information about yourself, your lawyer or your litigations because I won't believe you? How convenient.
Do you really think that no one else reading this thread would be interested in those things? If you feel that no one is going to believe anything you write in this thread, why do you continue posting here? How much confidence do you think an anonymous affiliate with an anonymous lawyer with anonymous case histories inspires?
What country are you from? Where is your lawyer accredited to practice law? Why won't you answer any questions?
When you study right or contract laws, you learn how to interpret the laws. You are not able to interpret the laws properly, confirms that you are stating bullshit and you are obviously solely a google legal expert.
You are even not able to interpret the Fraud Act 2016 correctly:
We have here 2 parts:2 Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation—
1) dishonestly makes a false rerpresentation, and
2) intends, by making the representation
You say it is difficult to prove the intent or otherwise a large proportion of US business people would be sitting in jails right now,
but if it already happened you don't need to prove the intent:
a) If someone intent to make a bank robbery, it is indeed difficult to prove the intent
b) But if someone already did the bank robbery and got catched, you don't need to prove the intent anymore. It is not possible to do a bank robbery unintentionally, so the intent is automatically included, if catched.
As I already explained above, intent is only one part to commit a criminal offense and as soon as you have proved that he knew that Full Flush did not pay its customers in a timely manner, he committed the criminal offense of participation in a fraud.
And when How Quaint/kahntrutahn knew that Full Flush embezzled the account balances, he can not unintentionally promote it.
Kahn could theoretically say that he didn't know that embezzlement is a criminal offense and therefore he was not aware that he promoted an illegal operation. But in this case, I can inform that a businessman has a prescribed duty of care by laws. If you are unsure about the legal status of your business, you have to consult a lawyer.
If you do illegal things, it would be easy to say "Oh, I didn't know that it was illegal". Prosecutor: "Ah, you didn't know it was illegal? Sorry for the disturbance, never mind."
So you, as a google legal expert, think that it depend on the believe in the viability of someone, whether a criminal offense is committed or not?
First of all, for believes you better go to the church.
Secondly, Kahn believe in the viability of Full Flush, confirms that there is an issue with withdrawals. Because, if withdrawals are processed in a timely manner , there is no need to believe in anything. If withdrawals are not processed in a timely manner, indicating a financial issue, then people start to believe in the viability or not.
Your false accusation that I don't know who the hell I will suing is indeed complete bullshit!
If you would say that you don't know/understand who the hell I will sue, it would make sense (considering that you are not able to read), but to say that I don't know who I will sue is absurd and has nothing to do with the reality!Once again I'll say that you don't know who the hell you are suing.
I highly doubt that you are able to realize anything. But if you take a look at this...
...it should be clear that such a service requires a lot of money and time. So yes, one intent of the post was also to draw attention to Game Protect.Since claiming your rights, court proceedings and private investigation are time consuming and costly, we saw the need to inform and assist Game Protect members against shady online gaming operators.
http://game-protect.com
The intents of the post are:
a) Inform How Quaint/kahntrutahn victims that based on my knowledge and assessment they can sue him for damages accrued if they signed up within the at least 9 months.
b) Inform Full Flush victims about our 70:30 litigation attempt offer to show the competence and legitimacy of Game Protect
c) Draw attention to Game Protect and hopefully get customers to have a cash flow to pay the costs and the time to claim the rights of our members.
a) I will definetely not provide any info about myself
b) Publicise the name of the lawyer is possible and I already asked if publicising the name would confirm the legitimacy of Game Protect. Before I publicise anything, the requirements to consider Game Protect as legitimate must be clear. It is not working this way that I publicise something and thereafter people ask for another info or otherwise Game Protect is a scam.
The Full Flush 70:30 litigation attempt offer is to show the legitimacy of Game Protect. If publicising the name of the lawyer will confirm the legitimacy, then I will do this.
I already changed the procedure, so Game Protect will be rarely involved in the Full Flush litigation case:
I have a ton of sensitive documents/info on my pc and also emails stored confirming my competence and legitimacy. Why would I publicise it?2) If you are one of the selected five, you need to:
- Send a power of attorney and consent form that the lawyer will take 30% and you will receive 70% of any amount he is able to collect to the lawyer.
- Send proof of your account balance and pending withdrawal request(s) in form of screenshots and email conversation(s) to the lawyer.
The only thing I can consider is that a trustworthy person take a look at it per Teamviewer and then confirm my legitimacy.
c) As I have already explained to you, Full Flush could be the first public available case history of Game Protect, but you have nothing better to do, than to attack and bad mouth everything. So, if you want to see a case history, it might would make sense to downshifting a little bit?
I would assume that a lot of people have interest to claim their rights and probably get their damages compensated, especially when it is cost free. But so far, I have only seen bad mouthing, false and misleading statements and accusations that Game Protect is a scam.
It appears that a few organized criminals can cheat 1000s of victims and the 1000s of victims have nothing better to do than to attack the one who is going after these criminals and fight for their rights.
I have no feeling about how many people believe me or not. The only thing I am sure about is that you don't believe me.
If people have principally interest in Game Protect, but are concerned about this or that, then they can call it and we can discuss it.
Why is the confidence so important? How much can people lose?
Money:
a) If you register thru Game Protect, it cost you nothing
b) If you take the Bitcoin offer, yes, then you can lose 90€. But if you pay a yearly insurance fee and have no case, then this money is also lost. If you don't feel comfortable with b), simply do a)
Personal Data:
a) If you register thru Game Protect, we would appreciate if you send us your company user name/ID.
b) If you take the Bitcoin offer, then you are required to register a Game Protect account, stating your name and email address. This is required because the assistance service is for all gaming and betting accounts on your name.
Take a look at what data legal expenses insurances ask for and then you will see that we ask only for the required minimum. To avoid this, simply do a)
Despite from the point that this does not play any role, investigative expert Haley already found out that I am resident in Eastern Europe.
The website is not hosted in Bucharest, but the operator of a website is always resident in the country where the website is hosted (according to investigative expert Haley).
And as the gaming server/website of Lock Poker was hosted in Curacao, all the participants were resident in Curacao! LMAO
I am willing to answer questions, but it depend on the question. You can not reasonably expect from me to publicice sensitive info or data. If I would ask you to publicise your name and address, you likely would not respond. To say you are a scam, because you don't publicise your name and address is absurd.
You might also want to take a look at:
Privacy Policy
We do not forward or publicise any of the personal info or documents sent to us, without your explicit agreement
Game Protect:
Just another mountain of gibberish.
Intent is necessary to prove fraud. Yet you come up with the most bizarre rationalization that if something already happened, intent is no longer necessary. Intent simply means that the person's purpose was to steal from people rather than just having made ignorant business decisions. In the law that you quote both (a) and (b) are necessary, not (a) or (b).
Bank robbery and fraud are 2 completely different types of crimes. Fraud by its nature is deceptive. The necessity of proving intent in an overt crime plays a much smaller role that the necessity of proving intent in crimes based on schemes. You should already know that.
What I've said about fraud has been based on the Fraud Act which you early on in this thread stated was the basis for your case before then quietly deleting that statement. Then you went on and on about Roman law which has nothing to do with the UK's Fraud Act. Now you're back to the Fraud Act. You're just all over the place.
I just don't know who you are trying to fool. We all know that a group of players successfully suing a site that has run off with money would be a big news item. Yet you try to tell us that it's something that you commonly do as a perk of your affiliate program. If you actually did what you claim that you do, we would have heard about it by now.
It's amusing to watch you jump through all kinds of verbal gymnastics in order not to answer any real questions about yourself or what you claim that you do.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
