Boyd Tinsley, former Dave Matthews Band violinist who was recently accused of using his industry clout to sexually assault, harass, and groom a young musician, is disputing allegations of sexual misconduct. In a statement issued through his publicist on Friday, Boyd said: “I’m truly hurt by the one-sided account that appeared on a blog about me yesterday. I only wish the reporter had spoken to me first, so they would have heard the truth.”“I will defend myself against these false accusations,” he added. “I can only assume the motivation for the article and the lawsuit filed against me. These accusations have caused embarrassment for my family, my friends and my fans. I will fight both in and out of court to repair the damage that has been done.”Originally published by Consequence of Sound on Thursday, the allegations were leveled by James Frost-Winn, a 28-year-old Seattle-based trumpet player who formerly worked with Tinsley in the band Crystal Garden in 2015 and 2016. Frost-Winn filed a lawsuit against Tinsley in Washington State on May 17th seeking $9 million in damages and alleging that Tinsley created a “hostile work environment” in which sex-based demands were intertwined with the band’s success.The author of the CoS story, Jessica Lipskey, “reached out to Tinsley and his representatives on four separate times prior to the story being published,” according to the publication. “She never received a response.”Responding to Tinsley’s statement of denial, a lawyer for Frost-Winn provided a statement to Rolling Stone: “We are disappointed in Mr. Tinsley’s complete lack of personal responsibility for his actions. Further, multiple media sources have indicated that they reached out to Mr. Tinsley and that he made no attempt to become a part of the conversation. His statement ‘I only wish the reporter had spoken to me first’ is disingenuous at best. Mr. Tinsley continues to show a lack of understanding of the obligation to not exploit an employee for sexual gratification. We will continue to move forward with our claims, and look forward to our day in court.”Furthermore, responding to Thursday’s news, Dave Matthews Band told Consequence of Sound that Tinsley is “no longer a member of the band”. They added that they were “shocked by these disturbing allegations and we were not previously aware of them.”Thursday’s report detailed Frost-Winn’s disturbing accusations, which go as far back as 2009. The story describes Tinsley’s attempts to groom Frost-Winn over many years by developing a friendship and working relationship with the young trumpeter. Frost-Winn also detailed numerous instances in which Tinsley sent him sexually suggestive and explicit text messages as well as one instance in which Frost-Winn allegedly woke up to find Tinsley masturbating next to him while grabbing his butt. (You can read the full report here).As previously reported, Tinsley announced a hiatus from Dave Matthews Band on February 2nd of this year (which turns out to be the same day that Frost-Winn issued his first demand letter to settle his assault and harassment claims against Tinsley outside of court). At the time, the 54-year-old violinist tweeted, “I need to take a break from the band & touring 2 focus on my family & my health 4 a while”.Dave Matthews first commented on Boyd Tinsley’s departure earlier this week—before the sexual assault and harassment allegations came to light—in an interview with Vulture. The Dave Matthews Band frontman explained, “I have a deep love for Boyd, and he has to deal with his stuff. In many ways I’m sure it would’ve been a lot easier for him to just say, ‘I’m good. Let’s go play.’ But you can’t just throw yourself away, your wellness away, because you play violin in a band. It doesn’t make any sense to do that.” Matthews also added that he didn’t know if Tinsley would be rejoining the lineup at a later date, though it now appears that the violinist has been officially removed from the band. Tinsley’s work will still be present on DMB’s upcoming album Come Tomorrow, due out June 8, 2018.
continue reading » Recently, I found myself in the market for a new hairstylist. After doing some homework, I landed on a salon with a great location and enticing service options.Being brave, I said, “Any stylist. First available Saturday appointment, please.” They quickly booked my appointment. Super!Haircut day arrives and I eagerly enter the salon, ready to meet my new stylist. She was friendly, greeted me by name and, best of all, acknowledged that I was new.Everything was going great. With my haircut underway, another employee came over to my stylist and began to complain about her client who had just left. Suddenly, the experience turned sour.This experience left me with a negative impression of not only these two stylists, but the entire salon.As I sat there listening to her describe annoyances with her previous client, I felt more and more awkward. My stylist had several opportunities to “flip the switch” and stop the negative rant in its tracks by reminding her she was with a client, but she didn’t. 10SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr
The properties were assessed to have a cumulative worth of P217.940 million. These include the Baldoza-La Paz substation; the General Luna substation; the Tabuc Suba, Jaro substation; the Bolilao, Mandurriao substation; and the Avancena Street, Molo substation. PECO went to the Court of Appeals (CA) twice for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop the expropriation case in the Iloilo RTC. After the implementation of the writ of possession, PECO then filed a supplemental petition with the CA asking that PECO be returned to possession with a status quo ante order, which was also denied. “Defendant PECO, in fact, had resorted to other legal remedies to question the said action of the court but as of this writing, there is no order from the higher court to rule otherwise. Wherefore, finding no cogent reason to set aside or disturb its earlier order, the motion for reconsideration is denied,” it added. In a March 5, 2020 order, the Energy Regulatory Commission revoked the company’s certificate of public convenience and necessity./PN PECO then went to the CA for the third time for a TRO to stop the implementation of the writ of possession issued by the Iloilo RTC, but was denied. The Iloilo RTC earlier ordered the sheriff to place MORE Electric Power Corporation (MORE Power) in possession of PECO properties identified for expropriation. To recall, the franchise of PECO – previously the sole operator in Iloilo City – expired on Jan. 19. ILOILO City – A regional trial court (RTC) here has dismissed the motion for reconsideration filed by Panay Electric Co. (PECO) on the court’s earlier decision against the company. RTC Branch 23 Judge Emerald Requina-Contreras reiterated that PECO has no more franchise to operate as power distributor for Iloilo City. The CA rejected its argument which cited constitutionality issues as a valid reason to stop the expropriation case. “Defendant PECO should know this better as this has been what they have been invoking and the very reason why the court crafted the addendum,” the decision read.