OK. I think that you are saying that there was nothing dishonest about the manner in which you came to have the money.
In that event, your statement in your first post that "I acknowledged I owed her but didn’t admit to obtaining it by defrauding her" caused me (and possibly others) to misunderstand. The misunderstanding comes from a lawyer's scepticism at seeing a "non-admission" being used and not a denial.
In that event, your statement in your first post that "I acknowledged I owed her but didn’t admit to obtaining it by defrauding her" caused me (and possibly others) to misunderstand. The misunderstanding comes from a lawyer's scepticism at seeing a "non-admission" being used and not a denial.
Comment