AZ-
I have no issue with your legal statements now as I did not know that you were actually discussing Florida law until your third response (and if you are familiar with the bar there, you obviously can run a better time comparison between the administrative, civil and criminal systems - I know the systems in the northeast and Texas). Your extraneous advice rubbed me the wrong way, so I explained in my jurisdictions why the comments were not inaccurate.
And also as I stated initially, I was not questioning whether the e-mail message supported Moss's position. I raised those questions for purposes of forum discussion (and am now starting to understand how Bork may have felt during his hearings over law review article comments).
Given only the public information, I believe Moss and tend to think the attorney on the other side is a hack. Once commentary goes public however, it is hard to know what to believe based on unsworn statements and statements, even those in an e-mail messages to a third party, that do not give context to comments. As such, I tend to believe Moss but will wait until all these proceedings work out.
By the way, if you did research or are familiar with these procedures, do these proceedings allows for money awards to aggrieved parties and would you happen to know if Moss can accept a default judgment putting this order in permanent form or stipulate to the order while not admitting the underlying facts (I suspect Moss could care less if he ever sees this woman again, so such an order would mean little to him)? At that point, he can deal with the problem publicly in saying the order is an empty threat and he is happy to address the issue in any other forum if she wishes to try to face the music in court. That would seem to eliminate the short term issues for Moss (no hearings in the next few weeks) and push the problem into a more distant war, during which the aggrieved would face the music if she is found to be lying about facts.
