12 ms·
Lottery winner asking a judge to let her keep the cash and remain anonymous
- edf13 9y agoCan't there be some way of trust/proxy setup to be used here? I'm available...
- weaksauce 9y agoShe already signed the ticket with her name on it. Altering it to be signed by an anonymous trust would invalidate the ticket.
- sosuke 9y agoIf you don't happen to read the article and think to mention the anonymous trust way of accepting the winnings. She can't do that either. "The state allows people to form an anonymous trust, NewHampshire.com reported, but it’s a moot point for the woman — she signed her name on the back of the ticket shortly after winning, and altering the signature would nullify the ticket." Oh and an excellent tidbit out of the story is that the attorney representing her actually blogged about the winner having been in NH and how the winner should not sign the back of the ticket. Apparently the ticket winner is now using that attorney to represent her in the courts. https://www.shaheengordon.com/New-Hampshire-Legal-Blog/2018/January/Attorney-William-Shaheen-Has-Advice-for-New-Powe.aspx https://www.shaheengordon.com/New-Hampshire-Legal-Blog/2018/...
- giarc 9y agoSo moral of the story is to never sign your ticket. Looks like some lucky person was smart enough to do that. "In 2016, the last winner of the Powerball followed that advice. The $487 million prize claimed through the Robin Egg 2016 Nominee Trust, which was created by Shaheen, and he serves as its trustee."
- donald123 9y agoNot exactly, it is advised by the lottery office to immediately sign your ticket. Otherwise it may create a lot of unnecessary troubles, like your ticket is lost, robbed, or some friend claims you had verbal agreement on splitting the rewards, etc.
- giarc 9y agoOn the extremely rare chance that you do win, avoiding the troubles of a newly minted public millionaire, not signing it seems like a good trade off.
- donald123 9y agoLosing the ticket is NOT extremely rare chance at all. Avoiding troubles going public, versus losing all of the million dollars rewards, it's obvious what people would choose.
- throw7 9y agoI think the moral is... do not talk/sign/call/anything, walk, no run, to a good lawyer well versed in the area of: "I've just won the lottery, please help."
- joezydeco 9y agoA lot of people are cheated out of their winning each year by sales clerks that check the ticket, tell the buyer "nope, it's a loser", then pull the ticket out of the trash once the buyer has left. Signing the back upon purchase is a strong defense against this fraud. So it's not as black-and-white as it seems.
- giarc 9y agoI can only talk about Canada, but in both Ontario and western Canada they scan your ticket and an audible sound is made if you are a winner (or loser). For both winners and non-winners, a receipt prints out and the clerk gives you both. Additionally there is a self scan kiosk where you can check your ticket. And there's always publicly listed winning numbers.
- wyldfire 9y ago> She can't do that either. But, why? Because she accidentally signed the ticket before realizing that it invalidated that option? She holds the winning ticket, just let her redact her signature from it legitimately and claim her winnings.
- wahern 9y agoThe question is whether the law establishing the lottery permits that, and if so what clear limits the court can put into place so that the agency operating the lottery doesn't have to contend with too many complex scenarios that could ultimately result. Money attracts litigation, especially when the rules aren't crystal clear. It sucks for this woman, but technically she could always forgo the winnings altogether. Nobody is forcing her to take the money, or to keep it. She wants to have her cake and eat it too. What's she's asking is reasonable on its face, but there are larger considerations at play. The legislature is still free to address this woman's concerns directly, as well as for future winners. Ideally that's what would really happen. Maybe she should pledge some donations to her friendly neighborhood representatives.
- baddox 9y ago> The question is whether the law establishing the lottery permits that But that’s shouldn’t be the question. The question should be whether that law is extremely dumb (obviously it is), and whether it threatens to place undeserved stress on an individual going through a major life event (it does).
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- gameshot911 9y agoThere are good reasons for forcing winners to be publicly named. One of which is that it helps the integrity of the game - harder for the lottery organizer to just not pay out, or to cheat and pay it to their lackeys every time.
- tlb 9y agoI understand why people don't want everyone to know they're rich. I'm rich (not $560M, but some) and you can figure that out from various news stories, and it does affect relationships somewhat. More so outside Silicon Valley. On the other hand, I understand why lotteries want to publicize winners in their marketing. A fair deal might be, that the publicity value is defined to be X% (say 10%) of the prize, and you can take the full prize with publicity, or the prize - X% anonymously.
- jonlucc 9y agoIf I'm not mistaken, it's about more than just publicity; it's also about avoiding fraud. As someone put it before "come spend money on a chance to win a very large pot of money; don't worry, we have given some out before, but you just have to believe us".
- artursapek 9y agoYou'd think the government could keep records of this and catch fraudulent lotteries, without forcing the winners to be public.
- root_axis 9y agoIndeed, and we know people with privileged access have successfully abused the system in the past. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/programmer-pleads-guilty-theft-lottery-rigging-scandal-n771251 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/programmer-pleads-guilt...
- astura 9y agoDon't forget about the infamous McDonald's Monopoly fraud! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_Monopoly#Fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_Monopoly#Fraud >In 2000, the U.S. promotion was halted after fraud was uncovered. A subcontracting company called Simon Marketing (a then-subsidiary of Cyrk), which had been hired by McDonald's to organize and promote the game, failed to recognize a flaw in its procedures. Chief of security Jerome P. Jacobson[3] was able to remove the most expensive game pieces, which he then passed to associates who would redeem them and share the proceeds. The associates won almost all of the top prizes between 1995 and 2000, including McDonald's giveaways that did not have the Monopoly theme. The associates netted over $24 million.
- Waterluvian 9y agoMy understanding is that the lotto wants free advertising at the cost of the winners being made very public. It seems like this individual is doing a tremendous public service by taking this to court. I think most of us would balk at the risk of somehow losing the millions of dollars.
- Pharylon 9y agoThe point of it is to avoid fraud.
- Someone1234 9y agoThe point of oversight is to avoid fraud. The point of releasing a name is for publicity and nothing else. How does releasing someone's name and location even avoid fraud within itself? It only works if people invade that individual's privacy (e.g. job, associations, etc).
- Splines 9y agoBut how does making the winner's name public avoid fraud? I assume the government needs to look at something and say "looks legit". So couldn't they do that in private? Have some judge or gov't official put their stamp on it and say "yes, the winner was a real person not affiliated with the lottery" or whatever needs to happen.
- giarc 9y agoI think it's more unofficial than that. As other people have said in this thread, identifying the people publicly allows others to see their face, and see that they are real people. If it were simply "A judge has declared the winner legit" every time, people would get suspicious.
- IntronExon 9y agoWho cares if people are suspicious? People believe in chem trails and all kinds of crap, no one has to take a publicity hit to calm them.
- wgerard 9y agoI hope she wins. There's a pretty funny (or sad, I suppose) reddit comment about winning the lottery that seems pretty true: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vzgl/you_just_won_a_656_million_dollar_lottery_what_do/chba4bf/?utm_content=permalink&utm_medium=front&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=AskReddit https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vzgl/you_just_... Winning the lottery (publicly, at least) seems to be a real monkey's paw wish.
- Sniffnoy 9y agoNote: The text of this comments is (AFAIK) originally from this 2008 forum post: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/-/5-749519/ https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/-/5-749519/
- pronoiac 9y agoHeh, and that was a user reposting their previous comment: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/_ARCHIVED_THREAD____What_would_you_do_if_you_won_the_275million_power_ball_drawing_/5-686685/?page=2#i12473256 https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/_ARCHIVED_THREAD____What...
- dawnerd 9y agoBasically FWD:FWD:FWD Think we can assume none of it is true. Seems a bit alarmist. At most its no different than what any other wealthy person has to deal with. Welcome to being rich.
- meddlepal 9y agoThe follow up is pretty good advice too and is the advice I have been given by lawyers I know that are familiar with these problems... also they have all advised getting the hell out the country for awhile. Congrats, you are taking a two-week vacation in London or Paris. Long enough to get paperwork dealt with and short enough that it does not need explanation to family, friends or colleagues.
- kodablah 9y ago
- msie 9y agoToo bad, so sad. Potential top 1% problems. I live from paycheque to paycheque. I have no sympathy for her. Why did she play in the first place?
- MachinShinn- 9y agoYour lack of emotional depth is one of the many reasons you will likely remain out of the 1% wealth cohort. Best of luck.
- ryanianian 9y agoThe point isn't to have sympathy for her. The point is to call out violations of privacy for anyone - no matter how much money they have.
- msie 9y agoReally? She knew what she was getting into. No one is forcing her to play the lottery.
- ryanianian 9y agoI don't think she did know what she was getting into or else she wouldn't have signed the back with her name. I didn't know you basically had to get outed or setup an anonymous trust etc. If nothing else, this story and court-case will make this information more commonly-known. Before/when you win millions, setup a trust and let the trust do the winning.
- msie 9y agoShe still has the choice to refuse the money. She can't have both in this case. Sometimes the world isn't fair. I really wish to hear other people talk about the "threats to liberty this entails" because I'm being down-voted to oblivion.
- fourstar 9y agoYou play the game. You accept the rules. That's how it works. You ever use Google? You are complying to their TOS.
- tompetry 9y agoI understand the desire to be anonymous, but things like this get out. While taking this route might benefit future winners, it will likely make her own situation worse via the "Streisand effect": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
- rhizome 9y agoThis is essentially an argument against altruism.
- tclancy 9y agoThe Streisand Effect would apply if her name was being bandied about because she was trying to suppress the news. That's not the case.
- user5994461 9y agoAnd sending a request to a couple of newpapers to have your full name redacted will most likely just be done without further questioning.
- tabeth 9y agoI honestly don't see the issue. The only reason the lotto works is because people know you can win and it's not rigged, and the only way you can know that is by making the winners public. Finally, the only reason said lottery was $XXXM is because of the people who tried and failed, funding it. I doubt lotteries would pay such large amounts long term if anonymous lotteries were standard as fraud is inevitable. Being able to take half a billion dollars of free money anonymously and safely is hardly a right. I mean, you could simply not take it. Seems fair to me. Am I missing something?
- bachmeier 9y agoIf the only way to prove the lottery is legit is to make the names of winners public, why not just make up a name?
- eesmith 9y agoBecause, and I'll quote from article, "she signed her name on the back of the ticket shortly after winning, and altering the signature would nullify the ticket." That is, she could have formed an anonymous trust, but now it's too late.
- thaumasiotes 9y agoThis is completely unrelated to the question you're supposedly responding to. Some people are advancing the argument that it serves an important societal interest to publish this woman's name. Specifically, it builds trust in the lottery by publicizing that somebody won. bachmeier is pointing out that you could accomplish this equally well by making up a name and publishing it as the lottery winner. The fact that somebody signed a ticket has no bearing on that.
- eesmith 9y agoI totally did not get that. I thought the suggestion was for the lottery winner to make up a name - an option which was no longer available. Even looking at it now, while I can see that interpretation, it doesn't come easily to mind. Thanks for pointing that out!
- draw_down 9y agoPresumably that rule was in place when she played, so I don't see why she should win. Even if I sympathize with the desire to not have all of humanity know you're now worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
- keketi 9y agoAren't court proceedings public record? Her name would come out that way even if she wins. Can she grant another person the authority to sue on her behalf and remain anonymous?
- eesmith 9y agoThe article points out "In court documents obtained by NewHampshire.com, the plaintiff is fittingly identified only as Jane Doe." See also https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/filing-a-lawsuit-anonymously.html https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/filing-a-laws... or use your search engine of choice for '"anonymous plaintiff" lawsuit'.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- nebulous1 9y agoThe lottery/state officials' story seems to be somewhat at odds with itself. They say that they have to be open (makes sense) but they also allow you to claim via an anonymous trust, but she can't do that because she signed it. Feels like they could privately identify her to make sure she's the name on the ticket and then do the public part via a trust. This might not fit the way the relevant laws are written, but they can't say that they're fighting in the interest of openness by not allowing this but allowing the anonymous trust in the first place.
- jvagner 9y agoBecause the lottery commission isn't responsible for the legalities of the anonymous trust, state law is. They don't want to be involved in that, but they're willing to use an externally valid mechanism, which they can't influence. Personally, there was a way to stay anonymous, and she goofed it up. No sense in changing the system for someone who can't help themselves. The lottery commission shouldn't be allowed to hide results.
- snoman 9y agoI think nebulous1 is is pointing out that it's one thing to say "We're just following the letter of the law to the best of our ability, because we want to be 100% above board." It's another thing to say "We're fighting in the interest of openness." That is to say: don't pretend to be some white knight for principles when you're actually just trying to CYA. Be honest.
- xnet 9y agoIn the UK, the National Lottery allows anonymous retrieval of the winnings and yet there is still a very large amount of trust that there is no fraudulent activity. The anonymity means you do not get financial advice from the lottery trust which seems like a pretty fair trade off.
- oldcynic 9y agoThat is simply not true. Any UK winner can opt for anonymity when collecting their prize. The National Lottery give financial and legal advice regardless of your choice. Only around 20% opt for publicity.
- drcode 9y agoA cynic would say "only 20% are known for sure to not be fake identities of lottery administrators"
- thaumasiotes 9y agoThe fact that there's a person with a different name than a lottery administrator shouldn't give you any additional confidence that that person isn't just a fake identity of the lottery administrator. Based on the stated facts, 0% are known for sure not to be fake identities of lottery administrators. For example, family members of giveaway administrators are generally prohibited from winning, but how are you supposed to know who they are?
- brk 9y agoGiven the size of the prize involved, it seems like she could have had a duplicate "winning ticket" made, sans signature on the back. This would have had to have been done before all the publicity about the signed ticket though. Even with watermarks, etc., the cost to manufacture an exact replica ticket couldn't be more than a few thousand dollars. Even if it were $100K to buy some specialized equipment, it would still seem like a worthwhile investment.
- IncRnd 9y agoManufacturing a false winning ticket would be a sure route not to get paid.
- cestith 9y agoMore to the point, it would be an excellent way to earn about a dime per hour the next dozen years or so, but with housing and food provided.
- bonestamp2 9y agoToo risky. Surely they have unrevealed security measures to detect fraudulent tickets.
- yohann305 9y agoWhat a great problem to have!
- pmarreck 9y agoGiving the winnings in a cryptocurrency would both preserve anonymity (pseudonymity?) and permit audit of the winnings.
- jsymolon 9y agoGiven all the issues in regards to exchanges i.e. fraud, theft and relative difficulty in getting out, I wouldn't trust cryptocurrency at all.
- pmarreck 9y agoWhat you don't realize are that your arguments here are actually anti-noncryptocurrency. Transactions done only in the cryptocurrency have no such disadvantages, at all. Those are all issues with conversion to and from fiat, and thus arguments against fiat. At some point, maybe not with Bitcoin, maybe not with Ether, but at some point, there will be a tipping point. Probably with the next country whose fiat fails (venezuela?)
- jsymolon 9y agoNot sure what to say to that other than the Kool-aid must be good. Here's the thing, i want to be able to pay bills and be relatively insured against losing to a con man. Currency must be boring, reliable, trustworthy. Examples of the Wiemar Republic Mark, Zimbabwe Dollar and other examples of hyper-inflation are reasons why it must be consistent. Not 10,000 one day and 8,000 the next. That's gambling. Right now CC is a non-starter as i can't get my daily needs met using it. It's a pyramid scheme full of shysters and people trying to get rich quick. How do you vet that an exchange won't pull something ? I want a boring finances. Yes there are issues with fiat but i can go, put a dollar in, come back and still have a dollar. Not 0 and some excuse "hacked!". https://www.scambitcoin.com/blacklist/ https://www.scambitcoin.com/blacklist/
- kbutler 9y agoAnd suddenly the principals of the lottery company start spending huge amounts of cash...
- wenbin 9y agoThis is what Chinese lottery winners do :) https://www.google.com/search?q=%E5%BD%A9%E7%A5%A8%E9%A2%86%E5%A5%96&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjaycTGy6PZAhUqiVQKHUEvC6cQ_AUICygC&biw=1384&bih=740 https://www.google.com/search?q=%E5%BD%A9%E7%A5%A8%E9%A2%86%...
- jonbarker 9y agoRelated: I wonder if any analysis on the life outcomes of another jackpot system, "sold company for a windfall", have been done. I appreciate the bad lotto result stories because they confirm my correct bias that lotto should not be played because it is a tax on not understanding probability (except at about 350M for powerball, in which case your enemy is not expected value but variance). However, no such analysis seems to have been done on the startup ecosystem, which generally relies on big exit stories for 'free marketing'.
- PaulRobinson 9y agoAs somebody who lived as a professional gambler for a while, I would agree that your assessment of value of most lotteries is correct: they are poor value and should be avoided. However, we're not expecting people to deploy Kelly criterion here, nobody is playing lotto for EV and a need to maximise returns on known value parameters. But I play lotto. And I know all this more than most. I have literally paid my rent with money earned from understanding this and exploiting it. WTF am I doing playing poor odd games? When you're playing $5k to win $5k on something where you think true odds are more like 55% in your favour, you are doing so most likely knowing $5k is 10% of your total bank (based on Kelly), and that you're 45% likely to lose. You're going to hopefully play over and over again and in the long run make money. When you're playing $2 to win $100m, do you actually care? The $2 is likely such a tiny part of your bank that you could literally lose it down the back of the sofa and not care, but the payout is so large and life-changing, that not having access to that very remote possibility - given the cost is so tiny and marginal and unnoticeable - is short-sighted. Yes, the maths don't work from a probability angle, but arguing that playing the lottery is a tax on ignorance is juvenile and short-sighted. Optimising your bank at that level is like trying to make sure you don't leave a single grain of rice on your plate at dinner. The maths of starting a business are pretty harsh, the costs of failure are higher and yet still, many people choose to do it. Are they fools? Perhaps. But they consider the cost and potential payouts to be worth it. See the bigger picture from time to time.
- sigstoat 9y ago> The $2 is likely such a tiny part of your bank... and when it isn't a tiny part? > Optimising your bank at that level is like trying to make sure you don't leave a single grain of rice on your plate at dinner. many individuals playing the lottery are in a position like that, and frequently spend significantly more than $2 in hopes of winning. > See the bigger picture from time to time. ...seriously? nobody cares if people like you or me burn a few dollars on a month on a lottery. the concern is for folks not in a position to do so.
- m3kw9 9y agoRemaining anonymous goes a long way to help you keeping sane and your friends and family intact
- United857 9y agoShe can likely afford some pretty good security with her winnings. Her problem is not unique; any wealthy celebrity has had to deal with the same after all.
- vinceguidry 9y agoSecurity is extremely difficult to buy safely if you are an un-savvy purchaser.
- dawhizkid 9y agoI wonder what happened to the 20yo from Florida who won a few months ago
- blitzo 9y agoThe lottery should provide 2 options: - Public + full money - Anonymous + half money Win-win for both parties.
- AngeloAnolin 9y agoI will bookmark this, and hopefully someone updates the story of what happened when the case has been settled. On one side, you can see why the lady was asking for anonymity - exposing her could really endanger her life. She would be a target for anyone, who would want a piece of that $500 million dollars of reason. On the other side, you see that the state wants to advertise and use this as a marketing ploy to entice other people to play.
- seanalltogether 9y agoI wonder if she can have her name legally changed prior to picking up the ticket, and then changed back afterwards. I'm not sure if the signature on the back matters in that case.
- rapfaria 9y agoI suppose people would recognize her from pictures anyways. She wants to protect her integrity and identity, not just the name.
- mc32 9y agoI wonder if she can temp change her legal name, receive the winnings and then change back her legal name afterwards.
- sharkweek 9y agoThis reminds me of a very, very complicated episode of 'Nathan For You' (a phenomenal show for those unfamiliar) - where he pays someone to legally change their name to a celebrity's name in order to open up a fake bank account with said name, then go into a restaurant and fake a "celebrity big tip" scheme to bring the restaurant some needed PR. But there's a snag! Nathan's lawyer lets him know he has to legally announce the name change in a circulated newspaper. This might draw attention to his scheme, right? So in order to get around that, he creates a fake newspaper, and circulates it around a handful of major cities for four weeks to make the name change announcement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU1U2Eyep_4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU1U2Eyep_4
- kingkawn 9y agoTake the money buy a new identity, wa la!
- bonestamp2 9y agoShe could. I think the point is that she likes her friends and wants to keep them.
- criddell 9y agoI think you meant to say voila (or voilà).
- calvinbhai 9y agoWould it be possible to take the winnings non anonymously and immediately donate 100% to a ‘charity/foundation’ (that funnels money back to her at constant rate)?
- vpribish 9y agothe point is that everyone would know that she is now rich.
- stickydink 9y agoSure, you can do what you want with the money, right? But that doesn't solve the problem of her name being public.
- gamblor956 9y agoYes to the first part, no to the second as that would be tax evasion. She could put it all into a grantor trust (an asset holding entity which is not a charity or a foundation) which pays her an allowance at a constant rate.
- IncRnd 9y agoActually, the second part is very legal and is done all the time. In fact, people who donate large sums to University and other charitable causes do just that, receiving payments in return. FYI, when politicians say they donated XYZ to their personal foundation or trust, this is many times what has happened.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- gamblor956 9y agoA charitable trust is not a charitable organization for tax purposes but can receive deductible donations. It cannot send money back to donors. A foundation generally is a charitable organization and can receive deductible donations, and similarly cannot send money back to donors. In fact, people who donate large sums to University and other charitable causes do just that, receiving payments in return. Citation needed. What you have described is not a donation, and would indeed be a violation of the University's fiduciary responsibility with respect to donations. The consequence is generally that the University would lose its non-profit exemption. Most likely, you are conflating a contribution to a family trust with a contribution to a charitable trust. Transfers to a family trust can be revoked, and the trust can pay money back to its grantors or trustees because it's not a charitable organization and does not have a charitable purpose. A grant to a charitable trust is irrevocable, and cannot go back to the donor.
- DoreenMichele 9y agoI think this is a good argument for restructuring the lottery. From what I gather, the big jackpots used to be smaller and the small wins used to be more frequent. They changed how it works because the larger the payouts of the big jackpot, the more of a ticket buying frenzy you have. Everyone actually wants to win. But not necessarily life changing amounts of money of this magnitude. We should go back to more small wins and smaller jackpots.
- icebraining 9y agoThe Spanish Christmas Lottery (El Gordo de Navidad) has a curious system: rather than a different number per ticket, there are about 170 tickets with each number (it varies each year), and so the first prize is divided by them, which gives about 4M€ to each. But furthermore, each ticket is expensive (200€), so they sell tenths of each ticket individually. These tickets are also usually distributed sequentially, not randomly, so you end up with cases like a single village this December in which 50 winning tickets (=200M€) were sold to hundreds of persons (as tenths). Of course, it must be painful to live in the area and not have bought a ticket...
- eesmith 9y agoThere was a 99% Invisible piece about that lottery last year, at https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/el-gordo/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/el-gordo/ . It focused on the town of Sodeto, where everyone won in 2011, except for one person.
- zitterbewegung 9y agoI have a dissenting opinion to this and if you don't want to play by the rules of a game then you shouldn't play. The whole point of the rule is so that the State can advertise that someone won to make more participants in the lottery.
- sp332 9y agoThe rules explicitly allow her to accept the winnings anonymously, they only claim that she went about it the wrong way - by following the steps they gave her.
- loorinm 9y agoCouldn’t she just set up a trust where she only gets a set income each year, and has no access to the rest? Wouldn’t that solve the problem of being a target for stealing/violence?
- logfromblammo 9y agoI think the operator of a lottery-style gambling game has an obligation to publish its list of winners. It does not have an obligation to say how much they won. This prevents the operator from simply saying someone has won and never paying out. In theory, you could go around to everyone on the list and ask them if they won a lottery prize. If anyone denies it, the operator might be pocketing prize money. It is clear from the available evidence that publishing the amount that someone has won does harm to the winners. It becomes feedstock for a "people to rob or defraud" list. The same principle is applied to the secret ballot, wherein anyone can find out if you voted in an election or not, but they cannot know whom you voted for unless you tell them yourself. You can, of course, lie to them if you desire. Q: Ma'am, did you win the lottery this week? A: Yes. My name is on the list, isn't it? Q: How much did you win? A: A dollar. Q: You didn't win the jackpot? That's a new car, isn't it? A: Of course not. I got a good deal on the financing, that's all. Q: And the 12-foot bronze statue of David Hasselhoff's Baywatch character? A: I found it at a dump. Q: Clearly, you also hired Peter Dinklage to dress up as Tyrion for your birthday party. A: That's just an enthusiastic cosplayer. It's also difficult to enjoy being rich without making it glaringly obvious that you have money, so I'm not seeing any pressing need for the judge to anonymize this particular winner after the fact. It might be warranted for the state to look into legislation that places greater weight on the financial privacy of future winners.
- BrandoElFollito 9y agoIs this standard practice in the US (forcing people out anonymity when they win at the lottery), or is this in this state only? Here in France you have the choice (the lottery is not even encouraging you that much to go public).
- MrZongle2 9y agoOn one hand, I can understand the winner's desire to stay anonymous -- it has to be quite a magnet for every estranged relative and con-artist, not to mention any anxiety that may arise in the future when dealing with immediate family and friends when it comes to holidays, birthdays, and even a simple meal out. And, on top of that, the stress of simply managing that amount of money so you don't end up as another "they blew it all" story about lottery winners. That said: I wish I had her problem. Most people probably would say the same. However, for a half-billion dollars I'd just assume that managing both the money and the people you have to interact with was my new job. And, at some point...things would have to improve. You change your phone number. You change your address. You identify the moochers and the honest friends. You've hired a lawyer and a financial planner. And, on top of all that, you know that you and your loved ones won't want for food, shelter or health care. Ever. And that you can use some of your fortune to make a positive impact on your community, as you see fit. I hope she wins her case, but if she doesn't...I'd still trade places with her in a hot minute.
- nodesocket 9y agoI never understood why they require you to release your name and picture. I would attempt and wear a costume or mask to the announcement event if I won.
- gumby 9y agoThere's an important reason to make these winners public: to prevent corruption. Otherwise it would be easier to bad actors to direct lottery "winnings" to their friends or as bribes (of course it can still happen: https://www.quora.com/Did-Whitey-Bulger-really-win-the-lottery https://www.quora.com/Did-Whitey-Bulger-really-win-the-lotte...) This is the same reason why arrest records are public everywhere in the US: secret arrests are dangerous. Of course this default-public provides opportunity for other kinds of abuse as well, but, at least in the lottery case, it's by definition opt in.
- _trampeltier 9y agoI think it's a terrible thing to be fully named to the public. Some people say here, it would be necessary, so people could trust the lottery. BS. The winning could be faked also, so if you don't trust your lottery so don't play. On the other side .. if you win such amount of money, you will lose all your friends and family member anyway. Nobody can keep up with your new lifestyle. So you have to go to far away anyway. Bad luck or so .. Somebody remember this .. Improbably Frequent Lottery Winners https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15262440 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15262440
- jandrese 9y agoI'm surprised you can't set up a shell corporation to collect the winnings and then pay you a monthly salary or something. Probably not proof against the most sophisticated of account thieves, but it keeps your name out of the papers. Is part of the law that the person who bought the ticket must be the one to redeem it? Or maybe just hire an accountant/lawyer to cash the ticket and transfer the funds to her account? I mean she's got the money now.
- wil421 9y agoRead the other comments on the thread. It’s possible to sign it as a trust as they are legal entities. Also, she already signed so she can’t use the trust option otherwise the ticket becomes nullified.
- Mankhool 9y agoBoth her, and Shane Missler, who won the Mega Millions in January should just disappear. I think her problem is that she wants her life to remain largely the same. Well it can't and it won't. But a few hundred million dollars gives you plenty of opportunities to start over, at any age, and take care of your inner circle from wherever in the world you want to live.
- msie 9y agoI wonder how some people here make it out to be a huge hardship for the winner.
- yuhong 9y agoThere is a story on /r/teslamotors about winning a Tesla. I wonder if Tesla itself knows who was the winner now.
- akuqnawa 9y agoI do not know the validity of other hackers because I got acquainted to the darkwebsolutions organization early. They provided me with a crypter and also they helped my niece with an untraceable grades change. i can tell you more about this as they provide a wide range of services. I have a circle of satisfied friends too. Mail darkwebssolutions at gmail dot com. I will help in any way I can to hook you up.