I can see that about 3, not really about 1, and not at all about 2. Ideally, 2 wouldn't be necessary but I don't see how that approach makes things worse, in particular when the "middle-man" mentioned is accurately described as "unqualified". There isn't any reason the person's conduct (opinion-forming ability?) couldn't be discussed constructively in such an instance.
Personally, 3 is a complete non-starter and I'd just spend my efforts elsewhere.