6 ms·

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

by 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.

by baddox 9y ago

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.