Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

NEW: Regents Meeting, Benson Decision, Investigation Report -- Monday, 6/12

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think that the athletic department goes around looking for public records in the tens of nearby towns... especially over Christmas Break. So not knowing about the restraining order is excusable.

The only real question to me here is the lawyer, Mr. Banashek. What precisely was his relationship to the University while representing Tumpkin? The SI article made it sound that Banashek was representing the university, even if he was only representing Tumpkin. The alleged victim certainly thought that Banashek was speaking for the University, and he did clearly talk to the athletic department.
 
Clean Undies said:
Yup. Agree about ethical issues regarding kept in the loop about the case.

The existence of a TRO is different.

Do we know which attorneys were representing CU?

Per SI, Banashek is reaching out to the victim and representing conversations with Mac. Wouldn't Banashek know who CU's attorneys might be?
Click to expand...
 
Lawyers aren't allowed to discuss a clients case with anybody that's not directly involved. It is tumpkins responsibility to notify his employer, not his lawyers.
 
Pbuffdiddy said:
Lawyers aren't allowed to discuss a clients case with anybody that's not directly involved. It is tumpkins responsibility to notify his employer, not his lawyers.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting question for the investigators, too.

What date was Tumpkin served? And what did he say to whom about it?

This gets to the point as to whether CU was truly ignorant or willfully and intentionally ignorant about the 12/20 TRO
 
This thread

giphy.gif
 
8Jah said:
I don't think that the athletic department goes around looking for public records in the tens of nearby towns... especially over Christmas Break. So not knowing about the restraining order is excusable.
Click to expand...

We still don't have an explanation for what MM did with the last text and vm he got from the victim saying she was coming to CO and going to the police. I guess he could've had her number blocked. But if he got those messages then that should have given them heads up that some police action could be coming down.
 
I don't pretend to know what went on but fix it and move forward. I don't know the policies at CU but it's looking like a cluster****. Get it handled and quit dicking around.
 
TDbuff said:
We still don't have an explanation for what MM did with the last text and vm he got from the victim saying she was coming to CO and going to the police. I guess he could've had her number blocked. But if he got those messages then that should have given them heads up that some police action could be coming down.
Click to expand...

All those continuing texts to MM, even after it was clear that he could not return any of them or discuss anything further with her, are very suspicious. She was clearly being advised to send those texts to establish a record of her actions and a timeline.
 
Last edited:
tante said:
I thought a TRO was not public record. Was that not accurate?
Click to expand...

After poking around, a TRO appears to be a public record.

However the order is not publically posted. An individual who is not the victim or respondent may be subjected to a court fee to obtain a copy.
 
Ok, so here's a weird thing that just occurred to me: why did she have to come all the way to Broomfield to get a restraining order? Why not just avoid Broomfield and get the restraining order in her home town in Michigan?
It's kind of like traveling from Wyoming to California to buy shark repellant.
 
sackman said:
Ok, so here's a weird thing that just occurred to me: why did she have to come all the way to Broomfield to get a restraining order? Why not just avoid Broomfield and get the restraining order in her home town in Michigan?
It's kind of like traveling from Wyoming to California to buy shark repellant.
Click to expand...

I assumed it was because that was where the alleged incidents occurred so Broomfield had both jurisdiction and the ability to investigate.
 
Banashek had no obligation to report to CU about the existence of the TRO. Everything he does needs to be in the best interests of his client. I am just assuming that telling your client's employer about the TRO and getting him fired is not in his best interests. Especially if he wants to be paid. CU should have been checking legal records to find out themselves considering they already knew about the allegations.

If Banashek misrepresented himself to the victim by making it seem like he was representing CU then I certainly expect CU to never throw another referral his way.
 
Buffnik said:
I assumed it was because that was where the alleged incidents occurred so Broomfield had both jurisdiction and the ability to investigate.
Click to expand...
They don't need a restraining order to investigate, do they? She can file charges in Broomfield, but getting a restraining order seems odd to me. It's not like she has to worry about him coming over to her house. It just seems weird to me.
 
sackman said:
They don't need a restraining order to investigate, do they? She can file charges in Broomfield, but getting a restraining order seems odd to me. It's not like she has to worry about him coming over to her house. It just seems weird to me.
Click to expand...

There are some very interesting actions on the victim side that no one wants to talk about. The case against JT seems strong and legitimate. I guess we will see, but I think that JT probably did beat this poor woman and she demonstrates a lot of the classic behaviors of a domestic abuse victim. I realize I am trying to walk a fine line here...but the strategic way the TRO was brought and the careful establishment of a time-line does not seem like it came from her head.
 
The only thing MM did wrong here was bump up Tumpkin's responsibilities for the bowl. He reported to his superior, Rick George, who in turn reported it to DiStephano. That is how this thing is supposed to be handled per the current OIEC guidelines, at least how they were being interpreted. DiStephano should be under the microscope for why it stopped with him and the University needs to examine and revise their OIEC guidelines.
 
FightCu1414 said:
This is dragging out way too long. Such an unneeded distraction.
Click to expand...
Eh, I think the only people talking about it right now are the people on this site. That obviously changes if anything dramatic happens, but Mac's been doing media spots with Vic Lombardi and I'm sure they're pretty busy with the SEP coming up. I'd also imagine Mac and RG have a fairly good idea of the findings and or "recommendations" from the investigation.
 
Last edited:
TSchekler said:
Eh, I think the only people talking about it right now are the people on this site. That obviously changes if anything dramatic happens, but Mac's been doing media spots with Vic Lombardi and I'm sure they pretty busy with the SEP coming up. I also imagine Mac and RG have a fairly good idea of the findings and or "recommendations" from the investigation.
Click to expand...
If I could like what @TSchekler wrote 50 times I would.
 
PAHIBuff said:
And if not, and If CU chooses to go "all CU" on MM, he will have a lot of job opportunities. This is totally CU's thing to F up.
Click to expand...


I would like to see some protests if this was even a snowballs chance in hell of happening...
 
PAHIBuff said:
And if not, and If CU chooses to go "all CU" on MM, he will have a lot of job opportunities. This is totally CU's thing to F up.
Click to expand...
Only thing I am really worried about CU is they just scold MM and RG in such a bad way that when another opportunity arises, they will jump on it. Both men need to be here for the long haul. Were mistakes made? Of course, but to compare them to Baylor or Penn State is laughable. Those schools' situations are far worse because it wasn't just a cover up, but a flat out denial of what had happened. CU admitted they did wrong things and JT was fired within 4 weeks of everything surfacing in the media. As far as allegations go, you can't fire someone simply based off allegations. If you do and those allegations turn out to be unfounded, you have a wrongful termination lawsuit. CU suspended JT as soon as they found out there was a PPO and he was fired as soon as charges were going to be filed.
 
Pbuffdiddy said:
But if jt is found not guilty, can't he still file a wrongful termination lawsuit?
Click to expand...
I don't believe so because CU would have legal documents (PPO and charges being filed) as to why they fired him. They would say more than likely that they could not have waited for trial, since this whole process will probably last till next Fall.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top