AOC lists fiancé as her spouse

[Thinker101]

AOC has listed her fiancé, Riley Roberts, as her “spouse” in disclosure forms filed this year — but her office says the two have never been “legally married,” a likely breach of House ethics rules.

The Bronx and Queens lawmaker referred to Roberts as her “spouse” while describing their travels to Japan, South Korea, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Italy, according to legal filings to the House Ethics Committee.

Sure hope some of you got a thank you note from AOC for footing the bill.

AOC lists fiancé as her ‘spouse’ on House forms â but office says she’s not married in likely breach of ethics rules

 

[shockedcanadian]

Don't you guys have common Law marriage or no?

 

[$ecular#eckler]

 

[Thinker101]

Don't you guys have common Law marriage or no?

Only a few States still allow new Common Law Marriages

• Colorado.
• Iowa.
• Kansas.
• Montana.
• New Hampshire.
• South Carolina.
• Texas.
• Utah.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. She is breaking the LAW.
2. And now she needs to be prosecuted.
3. And there must be some sort advantage to her claiming married, while not being.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[shockedcanadian]

Only a few States still allow new Common Law Marriages

• Colorado.
• Iowa.
• Kansas.
• Montana.
• New Hampshire.
• South Carolina.
• Texas.
• Utah.

Wow, I didnt know that. In Canada it is standard. 2+ Year living together and you are married.

 

[Thinker101]

Wow, I didnt know that. In Canada it is standard. 2+ Year living together and you are married.

Sorry to hear that. If not mistaken, in the US, if claiming common law, you also have to file taxes as married.

 

[BackAgain]

Don't you guys have common Law marriage or no?

In some states. NY isn’t one of them.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Don't you guys have common Law marriage or no?

Question is whether Federal law recognizes common Law and can it be applied to AOC’s bullshit claim

 

[DGS49]

Question is whether Federal law recognizes common Law and can it be applied to AOC’s bullshit claim

Not really. The Feds are bound by state law (whichever state has jurisdiction).

The fact is that Leftists have so corrupted the very idea of marriage so abominably that it is undefinable for reporting purposes. As long as the +1 is the same species, nobody is going to challenge the "spouse" designation.

Much ado about nothing, to coin a phrase.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Not really. The Feds are bound by state law (whichever state has jurisdiction).

The fact is that Leftists have so corrupted the very idea of marriage so abominably that it is undefinable for reporting purposes. As long as the +1 is the same species, nobody is going to challenge the "spouse" designation.

Much ado about nothing, to coin a phrase.

The bigger fact is that AOC and the Democrats think they are above the Law..

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Wow, I didnt know that. In Canada it is standard.

Who could have ever guessed that a Lefty from Canada with a Reagan avatar wouldn't know something?

 

[RhodyPatriot]

The bigger fact is that AOC and the Democrats think they are above the Law..

At least she didn't marry her brother.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. Did she divorce her brother?
2. Red hot monkey love to her brother, got old I guess.
3. Might have the wrong tramp.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Thinker101]

Not really. The Feds are bound by state law (whichever state has jurisdiction).

The fact is that Leftists have so corrupted the very idea of marriage so abominably that it is undefinable for reporting purposes. As long as the +1 is the same species, nobody is going to challenge the "spouse" designation.

Much ado about nothing, to coin a phrase.

Much ado about nothing? Apparently, you didn't read the link.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Sorry bout that,

1. Did she divorce her brother?

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Dude.

You liked my post, then still bothered to post that?

Hilarious shit

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. Just painting with my broad brush, they are all the same anyway.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Magnus]

AOC has listed her fiancé, Riley Roberts, as her “spouse” in disclosure forms filed this year — but her office says the two have never been “legally married,” a likely breach of House ethics rules.

The Bronx and Queens lawmaker referred to Roberts as her “spouse” while describing their travels to Japan, South Korea, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Italy, according to legal filings to the House Ethics Committee.

Sure hope some of you got a thank you note from AOC for footing the bill.

AOC lists fiancé as her ‘spouse’ on House forms â but office says she’s not married in likely breach of ethics rules

Let me guess, you didn’t read your own link? What’s with you retards and problems with reading?

“Roberts paid his own way on both trips, both trip sponsors confirmed to the Free Beacon.

In August 2022, the pol also footed the bill for a week-long vacation in Venice, Italy, with her fiancé — and was sponsored as a guest at an art conference hosted by a Los Angeles-based charity during that time.”

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Sorry bout that,

1. Just painting with my broad brush, they are all the same anyway.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

I dig the numerical sequencing.

Stylish shit.

 

[Thinker101]

Let me guess, you didn’t read your own link? What’s with you retards and problems with reading?

“Roberts paid his own way on both trips, both trip sponsors confirmed to the Free Beacon.

In August 2022, the pol also footed the bill for a week-long vacation in Venice, Italy, with her fiancé — and was sponsored as a guest at an art conference hosted by a Los Angeles-based charity during that time.”

Oh goodie, a looney that only reads select portions of the link. That only leaves Japan, South Korea, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Italy trips.