Due to the private nature that it contain, I'll further discuss this matter through PM later tonight when I have more time at hand to look and cross-check things, to dots the i's and cross the t's. For the time being, do you mind to send me a newer photo of them? As in the one that's completely new and not used for previous KYC. Let's say just to be sure that every angle is tried. I think I intended to ask them on my previous post [the one you gave to BK8 as well as different, newer photo, but I guess I missed that]
To be clear with the public, BK8 sent me a PM last night with proof to show their findings that substantiate their ruling, so here I am, trying to prove from both sides, simultaneously.
[...]
Iam too tired to fight with fucking site scam. They dont want to pay for the winner. That is all. They are scammers !
Unfortunately, the problem here, BK8 supplied me with valid points that allows some questions and doubts for the credibility of some elements of your KYC. They gave some pointer of what they suspected to be fabrication, of which in spite of that, I'm still looking for my own source to validate/invalidate their claim.
You supplying another version of the document is one of my attempt. Which I'll appreciate if you'll comply, because otherwise, with the current documents provided as my only source to prove/disprove the situation, I have to lean toward their findings and rulings.
Of course, if you want to, to maintain sense of fairness, I can share the documents provided --I'll censor other private elements and only highlight the ones I find questionable, if you want to-- with 2-4 other DTs [suppose they're willing] and see what they think of it.
Kindly let me know what you think of the two proposal above.