Restraining order granted preventing Mel Tucker from releasing text messages
As the title states, brenda tracy was granted a restraining order to stop Tucker and his legal team from releasing anymore text of tracy’s messages with her friend/assistant.
Her taking this action supports the sworn witness testimony that brenda tracy tried to obtain her friend phone and computer in order to delete the messages while her friend was on her deathbed.
“As detailed in the new witness’ sworn statement, while Ms. Tracy’s supposed friend lay dying in a hospital, and even after death, Ms. Tracy sought to sleep over at Ms. Alvarado’s house (in her room) and repeatedly asked Ms. Alvarado’s family for access to Ms. Alvarado’s phone and computers,” the letter says.
“It really struck me as odd that she would want Ahlan’s things and would be asking Ahlan’s family for them as Ahlan lay dying in her hospital bed,” the witness said, according to Tucker’s lawyers in the letter.
“Ms. Tracy’s shocking efforts to obtain access to Ms. Alvarado’s electronic devices containing evidence against her reveals how desperately she wanted and needed to ensure their contents were never disclosed,” the letter reads.
It’s easy to pile onto Mel and it should go without saying that he is a massive idiot.
I think tracy’s actions and all of this coming forward will be a blow to victims going forward. People will seize and point to this as a reason to not believe victims. Just as Mel should be held to a higher standard, she should to. She is a sexual assault victim and advocate. It seems like she was motivated by money first rather than the mission.
People are already drawing parallel’s between this and the Trevor Bauer- Lindsey hill situation. That makes an already uphill battle even steeper for victims.
October 7th, 2023 at 8:01 AM ^
The only evidence of her wanting money that I've seen is the mention of $10,000, which is her speaking fee. He cancelled her speaking engagement, thus depriving her of that fee. It's entirely plausible that the relationship ended badly because he misread her social cues (i.e. masturbated without her knowledge or consent), Mel got pissed, and cancelled the engagement. Her wanting that fee given the circumstances isn't exactly being motivated by money.
October 7th, 2023 at 8:40 AM ^
This.
Whether or not they had some kind of relationship doesn't matter - if she says 'no', the answer is 'no'. If a married woman can still be abused sexually (and she sure as hell can), then so can a vendor. IMO, so what if she's trying to cover up some sort of relationship with the guy? Hell, I'd be embarrassed to have that out in public, too! But so what? She was trying to salvage a business that has now been burned to the ground.
So what if she deleted text messages from an abuser after the abuse? I don't know that feeling, and likely never will, so I won't pretend to tell you how she 'should have' reacted (which certainly doesn't equate to my point of reference).
At this point, the only thing Mel should be thinking of is salvaging whatever he can from the payoff, err, settlement he'll get from MSU. And embarrassing Tracy doesn't seem to affect that.
October 8th, 2023 at 3:57 AM ^
"All of this" as in defending himself from what he says are false accusations to destroy him?
October 6th, 2023 at 11:32 PM ^
her taking an action in the case is newsworthy. I don't know about the rest of the post but it strikes me that if he can show this was consensual behavior at any time it is material to his firing.
...appreciate the info. I haven't been following this closely but that was my first thought. No offense meant to anyone.
October 6th, 2023 at 11:55 PM ^
Consensual or not, it's cause for firing. He simpy can't get into a sexual/romantic relationship with what amounts to his employee.
October 7th, 2023 at 12:00 AM ^
Exactly. I am not sure why throwing shade at her strengthens his claims. MSU can just point out their policy, assuming they have one on this, and tell Mel to fuck off.
October 7th, 2023 at 12:05 AM ^
1) The released texts do not show it was consensual and if anything show it was not consensual. Her texts talk about her relationship with Stoudamire—not Tucker. Her texts about Tucker show interest on some level but more in a “keep him on ice” kind of way. Not anything active.
2) MSU very clearly fired him for cause without caring if it was consensual so it being consensual does not change their position. Maybe it factors into a judge’s decision, don’t know, but we also still don’t know what the result of this RVSM hearing will be. And even if he’s found innocent of violating the policy that does not prove it was a consensual act.
October 7th, 2023 at 12:13 AM ^
It seems like Tucker’s legal strategy is to show that she tried to extort him and the school. She explicitly stated that her lawyers told her to pump the brakes because her actions were extortion.
She said that she wanted Tucker and the msu to pay her anonymously and say it was a donation if the payment leaked.
She shopped the story and gave it the green light.
I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know the ins and outs of the various lawyerings. But it seems like there’s an angle so show that she created the cause and ridicule in an extortion attempt.
Also, the sworn witness testimony stated that it was consensual phone sex. Maybe that’s in some of the texts that she wants suppressed
October 7th, 2023 at 12:31 AM ^
Dude. All of the money and extortion stuff happened after the phone call. If someone harasses you and then you turn around and blackmail them they still harassed you. Both things are bad.
(Not saying she was extorting him or wasn’t, just saying even if she did.)
You’re using so much conjecture to get to the idea that she intentionally baited him into it so she could extort him. And not only is there no evidence for that available to us, there’s evidence—released by Tucker—that contradicts it.
How can you possibly value the sworn testimony of a person who was not present during the phone call about if the act was consensual or not? Because you invented a belief that he saw an incriminating text that confirms it? Do you not think Tucker’s lawyer would have released that particular text? And even if they had such a text but (inexplicably) held that one back, none of US have seen it.
I don’t care if you want to spin some theory about what could be, but you are acting as though it’s case closed or somehow he now has the upper hand (pun intended, not intended, I don’t care anymore).
He does not. He landed a blow, he introduced some incriminating things about money that put her on the defensive (still nothing proven) but NOTHING has changed from what we can see regarding the harassment claim, other than that her credibility is not pure. But I would remind you, neither is his.
October 7th, 2023 at 12:42 AM ^
He said that she initiated the phone sex. She said that he initiated it. The sworn witness testimony stated that it was 100% consensual. It obviously doesn't change what he did or how big of an idiot he is. But there’s a big difference between consensual and non-consensual. Consensual is inappropriate in this situation. Non-consensual may be outright illegal.
October 7th, 2023 at 12:48 AM ^
Illegal? Well, he’d be violating a policy and could potentially be sued in a civil case. It wouldn’t be a criminal act. It wasn’t assault.
October 7th, 2023 at 12:50 AM ^
Fair point. There’s just a huge difference between consensual and non-consensual.
October 7th, 2023 at 8:06 AM ^
Consensual in this situation would be Brenda Tracy knowing that it was about to happen, and then explicitly saying she was good with it. That's consent.
October 7th, 2023 at 9:23 AM ^
And that is exactly what Mel says happened.
October 7th, 2023 at 10:35 AM ^
Well, it doesn't have to be "explicit." It should be, probably, to avoid confusion or misunderstanding, but it is, of course, possible to consent to something implicitly.
And hell, Tucker, I guess, assumed that's what was happening. He was, it appears, wrong. :-)
October 7th, 2023 at 8:17 AM ^
I still don’t understand the concept of non-consensual phone sex. If it wasn’t consensual, she would have hung-up rather than stay on the call while he, um, finished the conversation.
October 7th, 2023 at 8:48 AM ^
You should go read the very detailed post on this very blog about that. Fight, flight, and FREEZE are our common responses to things like this.
October 7th, 2023 at 10:29 AM ^
It’s over the phone. Thousands of miles away.
October 7th, 2023 at 12:26 PM ^
Hence 'freeze'
October 7th, 2023 at 3:50 PM ^
The experts disagree with your bad take. Stop being a living example of dunning Kruger.
October 7th, 2023 at 10:05 AM ^
She explicitly stated that her lawyers told her to pump the brakes because her actions were extortion.
No, her lawyer told her not to contact Mel herself, if there's going to be any money talk it's transacted through the lawyers. Even the $10,000 in lost fees for the late cancellation of her talk, that goes through the lawyers.
Good legal advice, and as far as we know she took it.
October 6th, 2023 at 11:32 PM ^
That last paragraph though...
People will seize and point to this as a reason to not believe victims.
Regardless of Brenda Tracy's actions in this case or anywhere else AFTER the assault she endured, the fact remains that she did endure a sexual assault, and anyone who uses an argument like "Well, this happened to one person once" to shame victims from coming forward is automatically an asshole.
October 7th, 2023 at 10:11 AM ^
You say that it is a fact that she was sexually assaulted and I say it is a fact she set a honeytrap
October 7th, 2023 at 11:40 AM ^
One of those is definably provable. One is not.
October 7th, 2023 at 1:10 PM ^
Nothing has been proven as fact is the point.
October 7th, 2023 at 3:27 PM ^
I'm referring to the assault she suffered in her past, which led her to her advocacy work. That's a matter of record. In this case, the details are a little murky, but it's pretty well established that Tucker (someone who was responsible for employing her services as an advocate) acted inappropriately with her.
October 8th, 2023 at 4:08 AM ^
Young people today think the word FACT means "something with which I agree". 😆
It's not a fact that she endured anything, it's an allegation. None of us were there. And nothing has been proven. A judge will decide if it's true or not.
October 6th, 2023 at 11:33 PM ^
I uh. I uh. Man it’s late on a Friday night to comprehend this. But, let’s not all get on the Office Space jump to conclusions mat.
I was talking to my wife earlier about the Fitzgerald/Tucker issues and lawsuits. There is no way either of these schools want to go actual court about them, especially MSU.
October 6th, 2023 at 11:38 PM ^
Just a start. Unfortunately, it'll get uglier.
October 6th, 2023 at 11:39 PM ^
It shouldn’t be a blow to victims going forward. What Tucker’s case should be is yet another example of why no one should immediately presume to know the truth about something they have no personal knowledge of when there is no evidence other than what someone says. It seems that no matter how many times sensational claims people immediately believed later turn out to be false, many don’t hesitate to immediately believe the next thing that comes down the road.
October 6th, 2023 at 11:39 PM ^
The text messages that have been released are pretty damning for Tracy.
October 6th, 2023 at 11:46 PM ^
Do you remember the Jon Martin / Richie Incognito stuff from the Dolphins a few years ago? Incognito's team selectively released a bunch of texts a few days before the full report came out. The texts Incognito's team released, unsurprisingly, made it look like Martin lied about everything and Incognito was a good guy.*. The report that came out a few days later laid out a very different story.
I wouldn't take anything from the messages that Tucker chose to release.
*At least to Martin. He did admit to a bunch of nasty stuff in the texts he released.
October 7th, 2023 at 12:06 AM ^
That analogy goes to Tucker’s argument and release yesterday. His team said that Brenda Tracy submitted cherry picked texts to mislead investigators. So that means Tracy would be the equivalent to richie incognito.
October 7th, 2023 at 10:24 AM ^
Tucker’s team released a heavily redacted transcript which opens up the possibility that he too is equivalent to Richie Incognito.
October 7th, 2023 at 11:35 AM ^
The redactions were most likely for privacy reasons and may be the sensitive material that the Tracy team filed the restraining order for.
Tucker’s team submitted hundreds of pages of texts that included redacted messages. Tracy’s team only submitted a few texts that presented one side. There’s a difference
October 7th, 2023 at 12:08 AM ^
Which messages are damning?
October 7th, 2023 at 12:16 AM ^
We'll see how this all goes --- but I'm tending to believe Tracy's character/reputation is going to take some significant hits by the end of all this.
That said: Tucker not reporting any relationship up the chain, that's a firable offense.
October 6th, 2023 at 11:45 PM ^
I'm trying to decipher your OP, you appear to have included a quote that came from a source other than the linked WILX-TV10 story.
Could you give us the source and preferably also a link?
October 6th, 2023 at 11:57 PM ^
Hey, I’m not sure how to edit the op. it’s in this click on Detroit link though.
October 7th, 2023 at 12:07 AM ^
The top of the link includes this Editor's note as well:
Editor's note: This new information was sent to WDIV by Mel Tucker's legal defense team. WDIV has not independently verified the legitimacy of the text messages or whether they were sent by Brenda Tracy.
October 7th, 2023 at 12:42 AM ^
I don’t think Mel’s lawyer is looking to get disbarred so I kind of doubt they invented fake text messages. I suppose it’s possible their source of the texts invented them, but he would somehow have had to write them and get them on the phone with the proper time stamps.
October 7th, 2023 at 12:06 PM ^
Sure, I just think all the "wait and see" folks might benefit from doing so regarding these suddenly-discovered text messages that the newspaper can't verify.
October 7th, 2023 at 12:43 AM ^
Jfc it was a triple post!
October 7th, 2023 at 12:43 AM ^
double post
October 6th, 2023 at 11:46 PM ^
Is there a reason why you never capitalize Brenda Tracy's name in your post (but capitalize Tucker's throughout)?
October 7th, 2023 at 12:02 AM ^
I appreciate you pointing that out. I didn’t even notice to be honest. That’s on me. I don’t know how to edit the op to fix it.
October 7th, 2023 at 12:08 AM ^
You have to be a site moderator to edit OPs.
October 6th, 2023 at 11:50 PM ^
No. Her taking this action keeps Tucker and his lawyers from releasing any sort of private information they have from the texts which may or may not have to do with any of the sexual harassment claims.
October 6th, 2023 at 11:54 PM ^
Here's a more detailed article (USA Today).
TL;DR:
- It's an ex parte temporary restraining order. In non-lawyerese, Tracy's lawyer asked a judge for an emergency order preventing Tucker from releasing the texts. Tracy's lawyer persuaded the judge that it was such an emergency that an order should prevent Tucker from releasing the texts without giving Tucker the chance to argue. There will be another hearing shortly (the article says on the 17th) where Tucker's lawyers will be able to respond.
- Tracy basically seems to make two allegations here: whoever grabbed the texts violated a shit-ton of laws and is sharing them with Tucker illegally, and that Tracy's messages contain a lot of extraordinarily sensitive information from assault survivors, so releasing those messages could cause severe harm to survivors.
- The article suggests that Tracy's assistant's husband probably shared the messages with Tucker.
October 7th, 2023 at 12:07 AM ^
I don’t think it’s “blow” at all. Every situation should always be judged case-by-case. Anybody wanting to discredit a another victim simply based on this was probably looking to do so anyway.
People can be morally inconsistent. Even if you assume the worst, its possible for somebody like her to be 100% genuine about her “mission”, while also having zero problems using a man for his money and dating married men (allegedly).
All of this makes Mel Tucker look like a massive simp btw, lol. I assume Brenda viewed their relationship as a “sugarbaby/daddy with no sugar” type of deal. Mel is a multi-millionaire, why was he even resorting to that?…yet dude was taking those pics posted up with cigars like a boss, lol. C’mon dude.