Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.

i3 Interactive Inc BLITF

i3 Interactive Inc. is engaged in the business of providing customers with an online and mobile gaming platform, which provides sports fans worldwide with an engaging social gaming product, and sports betting and casino product offering. The Company operates in three geographical jurisdictions: India, Canada, and the United States. The Company operates through brands and platforms, including Blitzbet, Blitzpoker, and Blitzpools. Blitzbet is an online sports book and casino brand operated by the Company’s subsidiary, Deluxe Crown B.V., under a master license granted by Curacao. The Company operates Blitzpoker through its subsidiaries in India, Redrush Online Private Limited and Esperanza Gaming Private Limited. Blitzpoker is an online poker platform, which provides residents of certain Indian states with free to play poker games, as well as pay to play poker games. Blitzpools is an online fantasy platform available on Android, iOS, and desktop.


GREY:BLITF - Post by User

Bullboard Posts
Post by BadMedicineon Apr 02, 2017 11:57am
37 Views
Post# 26064746

Devils advocate AllAboard

Devils advocate AllAboardPutting aside for the moment, the clear shakedown attempt of Fairmont and its executives, the entire scope of the discrepencies the courts found in documents has not been discussed here other than getting the corrupt Javier's charges on the whole thing.

The issue with the notary stamp, if it is factual, this needs clearing up and without a doubt, the company has submitted the chain of documents evidence that explains what took place. 

(A) A legal document 

(B) Signatory for the company is Michael Dehn

(C) Notarized (this is where the suggested discrepancy arises)

AllAboard, if we are to take this charge at face value, what are the potential explanations for the discrepency?











Bullboard Posts