Just curious. You agree with the advice of MN lawyers recommending a legal consultation, but you simultaneously disagree with the same advice from two lawyers not licensed in your state. A bit parochial it seems, but no offense taken as I'm sure none was intended.

My apologies William. I only read the opinions of the Minnesota attorneys. Your comment and Donald's comment are spot-on and helpful as well. Again my apologizes.

NP Michael, and may I say I appreciate that you responded at all to my comment. I frequently go out of my jurisdiction to respond to open questions, and I normally make it clear in my response that I'm not licensed in the questioner's state and that they and I should pay close attention to what local counsel contribute. In the case of this particular situation, it appeared to me at first blush that there was likely hidden in there somewhere a Civil Demand for money from the offender. Civil Demand letters are one of the most frequently posted questions here and at other sites on the Internet. For whatever reason, I have a special interest in these "special interest" laws that on the whole operate as a scam for the law firms the churn out the letters and the retailers that split the proceeds with those firms. I main point was to try to tease out the presence of such a component in the young lady's situation, so that I could try to insure that she raised that separate issue with local counsel. I learn a tremendous amount in all of my participation here but especially when I go out-of-state. Btw, I highly recommend reading everything that gets posted on any question you choose to post a contribution. Sometimes the best stuff is buried deep in a long colloquy. Best of luck to you, and thanks again.

I did find your complete answer informative. I am still learning my way around this website. In fact, the above was my first post on Avvo. Thank you.

Welcome is in order then. Glad to have you aboard!!