55 ms·

> I hope she wins I'm not sure I do. She opted into a transparent system and gets the down side that comes with it (or opts out). If this was thrust upon her,

> I hope she wins I'm not sure I do. She opted into a transparent system and gets the down side that comes with it (or opts out). If this was thrust upon her, I might feel different. I fear the precedent this would set for redacting names from Forbes lists and the like. It's one of those unfortunate occurrences where openness and privacy are in conflict and when it's government actions like this, arresting someone, awarding some other monies to someone, etc I think openness should prevail.

baddox 9y ago
I don’t see the value in sticking to this legal technicality. She could have accepted the ticket using an anonymous trust, but since she signed it with her own name instead, she’s not allowed to change it. Since anonymous trusts are already legal there, there’s no threat of “losing openness.” I mean come on, that’s such a petty technicality for such a massive life event. Just let her set up the anonymous trust and move the ticket to it.
- wahern 9y ago
  The problem is allowing people to challenge the process, ex post facto, by which a winner is established. You can't think of any reason why making it easier to challenge that process--to change the outcome--might be problematic for an agency tasked with giving away hundreds of millions of dollars? Finality is one of the primary functions of rules and laws--of justice--often more important than getting a "correct" outcome in any particular case, especially in cases such as this where the woman is free to return to the status quo ante by forgoing the winnings altogether. And in as much as courts can make and change laws, they must do so on principle, almost always by applying or extending some pre-existing principle of law. It can be difficult to articulate a principle cabined to the particular facts of a single case. It's much easier for legislatures to do that--to craft a rule that literally recites the facts of this woman's case so that the exception only applies to her and to people facing her exact same circumstance. Maybe the court can do that in this case. We just shouldn't make the mistake of thinking it's an easy case to resolve.
  - baddox 9y ago
    I don’t get it. No one is challenging the owner of the ticket, as far as I can tell. This woman is the owner. So, assuming they can confirm that she is the rightful owner right now using whatever existing process is in place, then why not do that confirmation, then let her choose to assign the winnings to an anonymous trust?
  - dnautics 9y ago
    I can't say for sure but I doubt the court would let you challenge the process so easily if you didn't have a winning ticket, because you wouldn't have standing.
- kodablah 9y ago
  I don't really appreciate skirting "technicalities", especially in a precedent-setting legal decision. If the law is wrong (or even if the spirit/intent of the law does not apply here), she should win and the law should change or be struck down. I wouldn't mind if the judge decided "it's illegal to make someone who signed a lottery ticket with their real name not change to a trust and keep their name hidden." But I would mind if the judge decided "I feel sorry for her, in this one instance she can remain anonymous."
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - apaprocki 9y ago
    If you read any legal opinions in visible cases they are never just the judge feeling or not feeling sorry for the plaintiff (or defendant) and are deeply steeped in the law as written as well as precedent before even approaching making new precedent. Maybe a judge could comment but I’d venture they would almost avoid territory that would be ripe for appeal as much as possible.
    - ABCLAW 9y ago
      Judges that aren't on specialized tribunals aren't expected to, and mostly don't, know the law (because it's quite impossible) - they rely on the Barristers to inform them, then get their clerks to do some digging to see if the briefs are on point. The higher up you go in the chain, the more clerk time they have to research and the more control they have over how long they take to put out their ruling. Junior judges are more reticent to rock the boat - they have less resources, less understanding of how the judicial boards and other oversight mechanisms work, etc. Old greybeards generally stop caring - either about bothering to change things or about how 'safe' their ruling will be on appeal. The most active in tossing bad precedent out the window generally end up being the ones that get appointed to higher ranking courts.
  - baddox 9y ago
    I think this should set a precedent, and I am quite confident that it wouldn’t cause any problems other than the lottery being upset about losing publicity.
_red 9y ago
I agree she opted in. However, for your "Forbes" example the law makes a distinction between a public person and a private person. Many many "private" people successfully sue Forbes to get off their annual "kidnap and ransom" list. The key to being declared a private person is never making public comments or speeches, etc.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  Many many "private" people successfully sue Forbes to get off their annual "kidnap and ransom" list. Citation needed. Something like that would be pretty big news, especially considering that Forbes will voluntarily redact names of individuals from their list if requested, no lawsuit required.
  - madamelic 9y ago
    Something tells me that if you sue for privacy, you probably aren't going to want that fact widely or at all publicized.
dnautics 9y ago
Did the lottery ticket have an EULA on it giving all the conditions of the win? What was the mechanism in place making sure that the purchaser fully understood the provisions of the agreement prior to making the lottery purchase? Are you siding with the state on this merely because it's a state? Would you feel the same way if it were microsoft?
- kodablah 9y ago
  > Are you siding with the state on this merely because it's a state? No, and I definitely don't side with the state because it was in the rules. To me, what's legal matters, not what you signed away. When I say "opt in" vs "opt out" I am talking about the known inherent risks of publicity, not about whether you can change the name you sign or other fine print. I am just conceding the argument for transparency has merit.
dclowd9901 9y ago
I'm with you, but mostly because I hate the lottery system and think it's a shitty mechanism for the state to extract even _more_ money out of the poorest and most destitute by preying on their hopes and dreams. Not to mention, it's very possible it's being used as a mechanism for organized crime: http://www.pennlive.com/watchdog/2017/09/defying_the_odds_part_1.html http://www.pennlive.com/watchdog/2017/09/defying_the_odds_pa...
jsgo 9y ago
re: redacting names from Forbes lists and the like - and if it did? What is the point of said lists beyond a congratulatory pat on the back for those who want it? In this particular case, there is precedence where winning has been detrimental to the winners specifically for the sake of winning (scams, murders, etc.). I think that substantially outweighs the "need" for transparency of the lottery system to seem above board. Just continue to highlight where the ticket was sold and that it was a John/Jane Doe unless the person wants to opt into disclosing identity and call it a day.
- kodablah 9y ago
  This assumes you trust your government to actually award it to someone and you trust the ones running the lottery that who it was awarded to happened actually by chance. Because you'll never be able to investigate either without making the information available to someone outside the government (and even then, do you trust an "independent" auditor?). Transparency in government actions has value sometimes, even at the detriment of individuals. But it's not at all costs and I do agree a balance could be found between the public's right to know and scrutinize and a person's right to privacy.
  - jsgo 9y ago
    while that is very true, but what guarantees do I have that the people winning it publicly aren't actors, friends/family of lottery workers, etc.? If I'm willing to pony up money at absurd odds for a chance to win a larger stack of money, honestly, I don't know how much private/public disclosure of winner is going to affect that. People go to casinos to gamble where the games are inherently stacked against you yet continue to do so. I just think it is a concern for transparency that need not be there, honestly. Obviously, that's just an individual's opinion, but I don't think it benefits to the degree is assumed. There are some states in which you can win anonymously, and their lotteries are doing fine.
sp332 9y ago
I don't think it was that transparent. She followed instructions that she was given by the commission and the result was not what she wanted. She could have put the name of the trust on the ticket instead of her own name, but she was given bad advice by the official website.
prostoalex 9y ago
> If this was thrust upon her, I might feel different. While it’s not thrust upon her in the sense that someone held a gun to her head to force a ticket purchase, her options are severely limited due to state’s monopoly on lottery business. If some entity (including another state) came up with an anonymous lottery system to serve such market, most likely she would not be able to legally purchase such tickets in her home state.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
s73v3r_ 9y ago
Why? Can I ask why you feel entitled to know what other people are worth? And where can I see your name and net worth?

baddox 9y ago

I don’t see the value in sticking to this legal technicality. She could have accepted the ticket using an anonymous trust, but since she signed it with her own name instead, she’s not allowed to change it. Since anonymous trusts are already legal there, there’s no threat of “losing openness.” I mean come on, that’s such a petty technicality for such a massive life event. Just let her set up the anonymous trust and move the ticket to it.

wahern 9y ago
The problem is allowing people to challenge the process, ex post facto, by which a winner is established. You can't think of any reason why making it easier to challenge that process--to change the outcome--might be problematic for an agency tasked with giving away hundreds of millions of dollars? Finality is one of the primary functions of rules and laws--of justice--often more important than getting a "correct" outcome in any particular case, especially in cases such as this where the woman is free to return to the status quo ante by forgoing the winnings altogether. And in as much as courts can make and change laws, they must do so on principle, almost always by applying or extending some pre-existing principle of law. It can be difficult to articulate a principle cabined to the particular facts of a single case. It's much easier for legislatures to do that--to craft a rule that literally recites the facts of this woman's case so that the exception only applies to her and to people facing her exact same circumstance. Maybe the court can do that in this case. We just shouldn't make the mistake of thinking it's an easy case to resolve.
- baddox 9y ago
  I don’t get it. No one is challenging the owner of the ticket, as far as I can tell. This woman is the owner. So, assuming they can confirm that she is the rightful owner right now using whatever existing process is in place, then why not do that confirmation, then let her choose to assign the winnings to an anonymous trust?
- dnautics 9y ago
  I can't say for sure but I doubt the court would let you challenge the process so easily if you didn't have a winning ticket, because you wouldn't have standing.
kodablah 9y ago
I don't really appreciate skirting "technicalities", especially in a precedent-setting legal decision. If the law is wrong (or even if the spirit/intent of the law does not apply here), she should win and the law should change or be struck down. I wouldn't mind if the judge decided "it's illegal to make someone who signed a lottery ticket with their real name not change to a trust and keep their name hidden." But I would mind if the judge decided "I feel sorry for her, in this one instance she can remain anonymous."
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- apaprocki 9y ago
  If you read any legal opinions in visible cases they are never just the judge feeling or not feeling sorry for the plaintiff (or defendant) and are deeply steeped in the law as written as well as precedent before even approaching making new precedent. Maybe a judge could comment but I’d venture they would almost avoid territory that would be ripe for appeal as much as possible.
  - ABCLAW 9y ago
    Judges that aren't on specialized tribunals aren't expected to, and mostly don't, know the law (because it's quite impossible) - they rely on the Barristers to inform them, then get their clerks to do some digging to see if the briefs are on point. The higher up you go in the chain, the more clerk time they have to research and the more control they have over how long they take to put out their ruling. Junior judges are more reticent to rock the boat - they have less resources, less understanding of how the judicial boards and other oversight mechanisms work, etc. Old greybeards generally stop caring - either about bothering to change things or about how 'safe' their ruling will be on appeal. The most active in tossing bad precedent out the window generally end up being the ones that get appointed to higher ranking courts.
- baddox 9y ago
  I think this should set a precedent, and I am quite confident that it wouldn’t cause any problems other than the lottery being upset about losing publicity.

_red 9y ago

I agree she opted in. However, for your "Forbes" example the law makes a distinction between a public person and a private person. Many many "private" people successfully sue Forbes to get off their annual "kidnap and ransom" list. The key to being declared a private person is never making public comments or speeches, etc.

gamblor956 9y ago
Many many "private" people successfully sue Forbes to get off their annual "kidnap and ransom" list. Citation needed. Something like that would be pretty big news, especially considering that Forbes will voluntarily redact names of individuals from their list if requested, no lawsuit required.
- madamelic 9y ago
  Something tells me that if you sue for privacy, you probably aren't going to want that fact widely or at all publicized.

dnautics 9y ago

Did the lottery ticket have an EULA on it giving all the conditions of the win? What was the mechanism in place making sure that the purchaser fully understood the provisions of the agreement prior to making the lottery purchase? Are you siding with the state on this merely because it's a state? Would you feel the same way if it were microsoft?

kodablah 9y ago
> Are you siding with the state on this merely because it's a state? No, and I definitely don't side with the state because it was in the rules. To me, what's legal matters, not what you signed away. When I say "opt in" vs "opt out" I am talking about the known inherent risks of publicity, not about whether you can change the name you sign or other fine print. I am just conceding the argument for transparency has merit.

dclowd9901 9y ago

I'm with you, but mostly because I hate the lottery system and think it's a shitty mechanism for the state to extract even _more_ money out of the poorest and most destitute by preying on their hopes and dreams. Not to mention, it's very possible it's being used as a mechanism for organized crime: http://www.pennlive.com/watchdog/2017/09/defying_the_odds_part_1.html http://www.pennlive.com/watchdog/2017/09/defying_the_odds_pa...

jsgo 9y ago

re: redacting names from Forbes lists and the like - and if it did? What is the point of said lists beyond a congratulatory pat on the back for those who want it? In this particular case, there is precedence where winning has been detrimental to the winners specifically for the sake of winning (scams, murders, etc.). I think that substantially outweighs the "need" for transparency of the lottery system to seem above board. Just continue to highlight where the ticket was sold and that it was a John/Jane Doe unless the person wants to opt into disclosing identity and call it a day.

kodablah 9y ago
This assumes you trust your government to actually award it to someone and you trust the ones running the lottery that who it was awarded to happened actually by chance. Because you'll never be able to investigate either without making the information available to someone outside the government (and even then, do you trust an "independent" auditor?). Transparency in government actions has value sometimes, even at the detriment of individuals. But it's not at all costs and I do agree a balance could be found between the public's right to know and scrutinize and a person's right to privacy.
- jsgo 9y ago
  while that is very true, but what guarantees do I have that the people winning it publicly aren't actors, friends/family of lottery workers, etc.? If I'm willing to pony up money at absurd odds for a chance to win a larger stack of money, honestly, I don't know how much private/public disclosure of winner is going to affect that. People go to casinos to gamble where the games are inherently stacked against you yet continue to do so. I just think it is a concern for transparency that need not be there, honestly. Obviously, that's just an individual's opinion, but I don't think it benefits to the degree is assumed. There are some states in which you can win anonymously, and their lotteries are doing fine.

sp332 9y ago

I don't think it was that transparent. She followed instructions that she was given by the commission and the result was not what she wanted. She could have put the name of the trust on the ticket instead of her own name, but she was given bad advice by the official website.

prostoalex 9y ago

> If this was thrust upon her, I might feel different. While it’s not thrust upon her in the sense that someone held a gun to her head to force a ticket purchase, her options are severely limited due to state’s monopoly on lottery business. If some entity (including another state) came up with an anonymous lottery system to serve such market, most likely she would not be able to legally purchase such tickets in her home state.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

s73v3r_ 9y ago

Why? Can I ask why you feel entitled to know what other people are worth? And where can I see your name and net worth?