Not true. That's a popular misconception though. First, Massachusetts doesn't recognize common law marriages and, even if we pretended they did, they don't meet any of the major criteria. Hell, they don't even live together.
Calm downWho gives a flying f*** what the State of Massachusetts recognizes or doesn't recognize? This state also holds onto the Blue Laws like a bunch of fools. Are we going to pretend like they are rational? Also...could it be that the reason they don't live together is because of the fact that Ime has been working on the East Coast and Nia doesn't want to move out there? Additionally, not as though personal anecdotes matter much but work with me, I had a friend who works in the trucking business who was in a common law marriage with his wife and he was barely home outside of the allotted time for rest with his company. Does that invalidate his relationship by your logic? Additionally, outside of a marriage certificate, what keeps the marriage of a traveling company man or any of these NBA players valid with their spouses?
Calm down
Understanding Common Law Marriage in MA
Common law marriage allows couples to be recognized as married by living with each other for a specific amount of time. However, the state of Massachusetts does not always recognize common law marriage. Read here to learn more about how the state handles this legal concept.www.apmillerlawgroup.com
If it’s criminal could the organization be complicit for negotiating a suspension settlement that contains a pubic statement of “consensual relationship”?I said this on one of the previous pages but I'll say it again. If Matt Barnes is apologizing AND saying this situation is bad? Then people better listen because it's legit.
For those who aren't followers of the NBA, Barnes is...notorious for things. Like driving a long distance, jumping a fence and punching Derek Fisher in the face because he was dating his ex. SO.
If that man is saying this situation is bad. It's BAD.
Unless I missed something the Celts have yet to use the word consensual, only Sham and Woj have.If it’s criminal could the organization be complicit for negotiating a suspension settlement that contains a pubic statement of “consensual relationship”?
Thank you for your response.“Was assigned the task” is bothering me.
He wasn’t assigned the task. He’s the f***ing president, the buck stops with him, and he was defending his employees who are unnecessarily being negatively affected.
Hi, could you explain what you mean by "spot on"? Thanks.Agreed.
NFL is gladiators. That is there
Spot on
Yeah agree that’s why I’m not really going over the top with praise for them, they let it sit for too long. Maybe the leak caught them by surprise or legal held them back from making any statements but it feels like they were in the dark too long while the whole thing was swirling online.I'm glad the Celtics finally addressed the situation, but they should have gotten out in front of it. They let the rumours sit out there and swirl for nearly 2 days while the women of the organization went through hell being harassed online and speculated about.
Yeah that’s fair it likely would have happened either way unfortunately.There’s nothing they could have done to stop rampant bullshit speculation without naming the woman. And they weren’t about to do that so a bunch of dipshits could harass her
I'm glad the Celtics finally addressed the situation, but they should have gotten out in front of it. They let the rumours sit out there and swirl for nearly 2 days while the women of the organization went through hell being harassed online and speculated about.
They knew about the issue in early July. They should have been out much sooner than three or four days before training camp. Same with the info about RW III.I'm glad the Celtics finally addressed the situation, but they should have gotten out in front of it. They let the rumours sit out there and swirl for nearly 2 days while the organization's women went through hell being harassed online and speculated about.
BMC could you explain more about the organization clearly did not have their (assume female employees) backs? What happened to all these female employees? Thanks. If you won't explain, how about someone else explaining. ThanksThis. I won't be surprised if some hand in their resignations- the organization clearly did not have their backs.
it's probably not public knowledge for the fanbase to know why this happened in regards to the why now or 48-72 hours ago when it was breaking because it's generally on court topics and player news and in July as Wyc said and why it blew up the way it didBMC could you explain more about the organization clearly did not have their (assume female employees) backs? What happened to all these female employees? Thanks. If you won't explain, how about someone else explaining. Thanks
Your attitude, approach and questions are spot on in this matterThank you for your response.
The owner, Wycliffe Grousbeck, spoke to the press at the same time Brad Stevens did. You were so upset the I said that Stevens was assigned the task. You also said that Stevens is the President and the buck stops with him. I believe that the President reports to the owner, so I am sorry to have upset you but the Owner is where the buck stops. I find it difficult that you got so upset. Human beings are searching the internet trying to find out who are the Celtic female employees and they are determining without any information who the female employee is that is involved. Why be upset with me because I said that the the Buck Stops guy, the owner, assigned his business president the task of addressing the need to defend the owner's female employees. It is the Buck Stops here owner that got the report outing the situation of the investigation by the legal firm he hired to investigate. Should the owner decide to remove Stevens the president the rest of the employees stay. So the female employees are not owned by Stevens, they are not his employees. So I concluded that after the Buck Stops Here owner read the report, discussed the report with his president that he assigned or told Stevens the president to address the other female harrassment publicly.
Now back to the original hypothetical question: can a season ticket owner get his or her money back based on the announcement in late September, that they, Celtics, have known about since July, that there were rules violated last year and maybe the early part of this year? What are your thoughts about this hypothetical qurstion? I hope I cleared up where the Buck Stops? I hope I have cleared up why I started that Stevens was assigned.
This was not a hostile feminist original post, then or now.
Hi, could you explain what you mean by "spot on"? Thanks.
The fan base here is talking about the female employees being harassed. More than one fan here is talking about it. So maybe they are just speculating BS, or they read something you and I haven't. So I keep asking and waiting for someone to tell me a specific incident of harassment of a Celtics female employee. I want to know what they know that makes them have strong feelings in support of the Celtic's actions to protect their female employees. Simple. Did I miss your point or question? Thanksit's probably not public knowledge for the fanbase to know why this happened in regards to the why now or 48-72 hours ago when it was breaking because it's generally on court topics and player news and in July as Wyc said and why it blew up the way it did
I thought you might be in a position to share information that is a fact regarding female harassment. Apparently, you want to play games; I don't. ThanksYour attitude, approach and questions are spot on in this matter
The fan base here is talking about the female employees being harassed. More than one fan here is talking about it. So maybe they are just speculating BS, or they read something you and I haven't. So I keep asking and waiting for someone to tell me a specific incident of harassment of a Celtics female employee. I want to know what they know that makes them have strong feelings in support of the Celtic's actions to protect their female employees. Simple. Did I miss your point or question? Thanks