Request for Senior Review: Case #198515 (Raging Bull) Rejected despite $90 in Cash Deposits

I am posting here because my Raging Bull complaint was just closed as "Unjustified" based on a "Multiple No-Deposit Bonus" rule. However, this ruling completely ignores the financial facts of my account, which were provided in my very first post 4 weeks ago.

The Facts of the Case:

The "Cleanse" Rule: The case was rejected because I allegedly used consecutive free bonuses. This is incorrect. Between my bonuses, I made three separate cash deposits of $30+ each. Per standard industry T&Cs, a cash deposit "cleanses" the account and resets eligibility.

Deposit-Incentive Winnings: The $100 I attempted to withdraw was won from Deposit-Incentive Spins (7 days of spins rewarded for a $30 cash deposit). These are NOT "No-Deposit" bonuses.

Identity Verification: The casino representative (Nick) argued about a name sync error from my initial registration. However, I was manually verified by a human agent at Royal Ace and my information was updated BEFORE I made these Raging Bull deposits. The casino accepted my $90 in cash after knowing my true identity.

Auditor's Admission: Most importantly, in a related thread on March 16th, the casino representative (Nick) admitted he was "presumptuous" and "did not even open the account" for Raging Bull before arguing against it.

I have email receipts for every $30 deposit. It appears the mediator (Kristina) simply copy-pasted the rejection from my Planet 7 case without reviewing the actual transaction ledger for Raging Bull.

I am asking for a Senior Mediator to look at the Transaction Ledger and the initial screenshots I provided. You cannot confiscate winnings from a cash-playing customer based on a "No-Deposit" rule.

Kristina, your complaint resolver, actually is a senior mediator, if you'd like to call it this way, and she has investigated your complaint well according to our guidelines before she came to the conclusion that your case was rejected.

I'm sorry we were not able to help this time.

Romi, I respect the 'Senior' title, but titles don't change bank statements. If the investigation was 'well done,' please explain how these specific items were handled under your guidelines:

The $107 in Cash: I have receipts for $44, $30, and $33 in deposits addressed to my real name, 'Nickolas.' How is this a 'No-Deposit' violation?

The Tournament: I paid a $30.50 cash buy-in for a tournament. Does Casino Guru consider a cash tournament entry a 'free bonus'?

The Admission: The casino rep (Nick) admitted he didn't even open the account before arguing the case. How is an investigation 'well done' when it relies on an auditor who admittedly didn't check the data?

I am not looking for an apology; I am looking for an audit of the actual transaction ledger that proves I am a depositing, verified customer.

Unfortunately, I don't see into your case, so I am not able to answer your questions.

If you feel that the case was not closed as it should have been, you have the option to reopen the case. You need to provide a detailed explanation, though, regarding the reason.