That got your attention now, didn't it?
Seriously though, I hereby publically criticize your policy not to publically discuss the moderators, their actions, and their policies, as this takes away an important control organ of the general forum population, and basically allows the moderators to crush all opposition simply based on the fact that it is opposition.
I know trainer is a good guy, and I don't assume he'll ignore complains - but a single, normal user that feels wrongly treated is always less well represented than a moderator, who, by default, enjoys a greater trust by the others - after all, he wouldn't have been chosen if he wasn't a good judge, would he?
And if the moderator then also conveniently deleted all evidence ("it was spam!"), then trainer has testimony vs. testimony, and the moderator wins by default because he's a moderator and enjoys greater trust.
Ordinary users need the possibility to get support from their peers. If a case is handled in private, behind closed doors, that's impossible.
This system cries for the creation of a moderator-cabal. The temptation to abuse your power is much greater if you know you not only have the right, but actually the duty to delete all complains about your work. And if somebody really does complain in private? Oh well, just tell trainer it's a hard job, that you might have overreacted a little, but the user is still the bad one and broke many, many rules. Promise. He did. Really. The posts are gone, but I tell you, he did.
Suppressing the opposition is always a sign of weakness.
P.S.: The fact that you locked the announcement-thread so I couldn't dispute it there is a pretty good example already.