I'm guessing the reason they don't just acknowledge that proper procedures weren't followed in Monica's de-modding and rescind it, is that they don't want to set a precedent where they would feel expected to reverse unpopular decisions on a technicality if someone can think of a reason why correct process wasn't followed. There might be a case in future where they have legitimate reasons to take action against a popular user, and they don't want all that user's fans to start rules-lawyering them.
But I can't see why the heck they don't just say so. Yes, they don't want to comment on individual cases, but they could easily write something like this, as, say, an answer on the "Moderator re-instatement process" question:
Note that we do require users to go through the moderator re-instatement process even if there is reason to believe that we screwed up and correct procedures weren't followed in the original decision. This is because we need to make each decision based on the suitability of each individual for the sites they moderate: we can't simply re-instate individuals "on a technicality". We will however do our best to expedite such cases, and take even more care to handle them with the burden of proof firmly weighted towards a presumption of innocence unless proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt.
We need to be sure that if, in future, we had legitimate need to take disciplinary action against a popular individual, the conversation will be firmly about whether such action is necessary and appropriate. We don't want to create a precedent where that important conversation may be overshadowed by potential rules-lawyering about whether the initial process was followed to the letter. We're not saying that any such rules-lawyering has happened here, but it is something that has happened on other communities where necessary action was taken against a popular figure.
If we screw up and mishandle a difficult case again, we'll hold our hands up and apologise for it, but we'll never apply a "two wrongs make a right" approach and skip procedure in assessing whether the badly-implemented decision should be reversed.
We'll also try to do a better and faster job of admitting and apologising for the fault, too. As we've said before, we know we have fallen very short recently.
...and of course they desperately need to say something like this:
To avoid conflicts of interest, where possible individuals personally involved in the initial action will be recused from any involvement in evaluating the reinstatement process.
This applies to individuals at all levels. If a senior-ranking individual was personally involved in a particular case, and there is a danger that the people evaluating the reinstatement application might be (or, might appear to be) biased by that individual's professional authority, we will be careful to ensure that the process is entirely overseen by someone who all parties agree has no personal stake in the case - which may in extreme cases be an independent arbiter.
All in all, it feels like they've had literally hundreds of opportunities to sort this out in a fair way, and every time they've been thrown a lifeline, they've used it as a spade to dig deeper.
If there's an amicable resolution now, it's because they did the absolute minimum, extremely reluctantly, under the threat of legal action. And all because one individual didn't want to admit to simply misunderstanding someone's intent while under pressure.
They urgently need to do something to counter the lingering impression that staff won't lift a finger to repair harm they caused to users and sites unless forced to via >$20,000 of legal pressure. At no point in this have I seen any action to suggest that anyone ranked higher than community manager or developer even thinks of users as human beings - rather than merely troublesome, inconvenient, but expendable entries in a database.
While they won't do this, I see the problem as unresolved, and I'm still half-in, half out: minimal activity here, looking for a better-managed, trustworthy alternative network more deserving of my time elsewhere.