This is a long ass article and definitely worth your time.
7.14.19 update:
Without further delay - we present some additional research. This article isn't about suspensions. This is now 100% about daylighting wrongs and helping someone caught in a tangled web of manipulation and pain. https://t.co/bQNC8Cyju4
— Chiefs Kingdom Editorial Board (@1_ChiefsKingdom) July 14, 2019
This morning at 6am PST, we received images labeled States Evidence & Court Transcripts from Tyreek's March 9, 2015 Probable Cause hearing. You can read about how Tyreek asked Crystal to leave his place on 12/11/14 before stuff went down & more .... https://t.co/jz0Hqj052i
— Chiefs Kingdom Editorial Board (@1_ChiefsKingdom) July 16, 2019
Originally Posted by mr. tegu:
I think not being there was part of his plan to accomplish what seems to make sense from his possible perspective. I don’t think he was just accidentally not there, especially given all the attention to his parenting.
He may have not even been told she was having them. Who knows? [Reply]
If Tyreek's lawyer is worth his salt (something I tend to question ... Pettlon is not David Boies), he may well have been advised NOT to be present, NOT to sign the BC, and NOT to have any direct dealings whatsoever with Baby Mama going forward.
Tyreek's direct, unsupervised contact with her could easily cause serious problems with any current investigation as well as any future civil action against her. Hopefully, Pettlon has advised him thus and Tyreek is taking the advice.
Originally Posted by FAX:
If Tyreek's lawyer is worth his salt (something I tend to question ... Pettlon is not David Boies), he may well have been advised NOT to be present, NOT to sign the BC, and NOT to have any direct dealings whatsoever with Baby Mama going forward.
Tyreek's direct, unsupervised contact with her could easily cause serious problems with any current investigation as well as any future civil action against her. Hopefully, Pettlon has advised him thus and Tyreek is taking the advice.
Originally Posted by Hammock Parties:
The kids have her last name, BTW.
Their plan is take the kids, the money, and RUN and just try to keep the child support gravy train flowing and stay as far away from Tyreek as possible so it's harder and harder for him to get custody. Shit, they might make a break for Mexico.
They want to steal Tyreek's kids from him. The whole family stayed in KC until now for this very purpose.
Won't work. Rosenhaus lawyers are going to drop the hammer on these fucks.
This is going to be GLORIOUS.
I hope they try to escape in a White Ford Bronco.
Cheetah's fasterthanya.
theres a reason the children have her last name, the courts dont know who the father is... [Reply]
Reading between the lines ... while acknowledging that there are tons of enormous gaps in this tale of woe to read ... I think it's fair to assume one of the following is true;
1) Baby Mama is clinically insane.
2) Baby Mama is not clinically insane but has very severe psychological problems.
3) Baby Mama is evil.
4) Baby Mama is not entirely evil, but is manipulated by her evil parents.
5) Baby Mama is a succubus.
6) Baby Mama cannot run a 4.25 40, so she just needs to return to Texas asap.
It's quite telling how she would use his last name to pay for a house, and yet give his children her name though...isn't it?
Fucking Jezebel.
were they together at that point?
if she was using his last name (without researching the laws in ks. so 'm not sure) and they lived together would she be considered common law wife? [Reply]
Originally Posted by SAUTO:
were they together at that point?
if she was using his last name (without researching the laws in ks. so 'm not sure) and they lived together would she be considered common law wife?
IIRC, in most states there's more than just a cohabitation component to common law marriage. Filing joint tax returns, as an example.
I was looking at this last night, and I remember seeing something in Kansas about needing a shared intent to be married.
They may have had that as they were engaged, but then Crystal made it clear in the paternity petition that they "aren't married, and are never going to get married." [Reply]
A*common law marriage*will be recognized in*Kansas*if the couple considers themselves to be*marriedand publicly holds themselves out to be*married*and if they are legally eligible to marry. No minimum period of cohabitation is required.
