All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00) | Home -> Forums -> Lottery News -> Court dismisses lottery suit, orders man to pay fees Court dismisses lottery suit, orders man to pay fees Ohio Lottery: Court dismisses lottery suit, orders man to pay feesA man who sued the Ohio Lottery Commission, claiming that the lottery's promise of billions of dollars for public schools was false, not only won't get the $12 billion he sued for, but also will have to pay the lottery commission's legal fees. Ron Rembert III, of Carrollton, sued the lottery in March, saying he had been defrauded by the lottery's claims of funding public education and that the lottery incorrectly processed a ticket he bought in 2000. In its ruling last week, the Ohio Court of Claims wrote that because Rembert had bought the lottery ticket in 2000 — six years before filing his legal claim — the two-year statute of limitations had passed. The court did not comment on the claim regarding the alleged misallocation of lottery revenue. But it did order Rembert, 29, to pay the lottery commission's legal fees to defend the case. The court's ruling did not indicate what the legal fees were. Columbus Dispatch We'd love to see your comments here! Register for a FREE membership — it takes just a few moments — and you'll be able to post comments here and on any of our forums. If you're already a member, you can Log In to post a comment. 6 comments. Last comment 6 years ago by . mid-Ohio United States Member #9 March 24, 2001 13919 Posts Offline | | Posted: September 5, 2006, 1:42 pm - IP Logged | |
"In its ruling last week, the Ohio Court of Claims wrote that because Rembert had bought the lottery ticket in 2000 — six years before filing his legal claim — the two-year statute of limitations had passed." That's news to me, I thought a winner only had 180 days to file a claim for their winnings. * that which happens most *
* is most likely to happen again * 
| | |
New Member
United States Member #3758 February 12, 2004 10 Posts Offline | | Posted: September 5, 2006, 3:52 pm - IP Logged | |
They mean the two-year statute of limitations in order to file a law suit, not claim the winnings | | |
United States Member #10921 January 23, 2005 933 Posts Offline | | Posted: September 5, 2006, 8:41 pm - IP Logged | |
How did they "incorrectly process" his ticket? Is he saying he won and didn't get paid, or does he mean that he lost and that his losings were not correctly spent? Even if it didn't go to the Schools (which are failing even with the Lottery's help), it went someplace and made someone happier. At least, I hope so. I'm wondering when at some point will School property bear the inscription, "this item provided courtesy of your State Lottery" | | |
Pennsylvania United States Member #17377 June 10, 2005 2890 Posts Offline | | Posted: September 5, 2006, 10:10 pm - IP Logged | |
They mean the two-year statute of limitations in order to file a law suit, not claim the winnings Flame is correct in his fact. My comments: The guy actually can appeal and take his one part of the case further. If indeed its true that the lottery is not allocating its funds correctly as it advertises. Naturally the guy has the odds against him since the lottery commission can delay stuff in courts and break his bank for trying. Years ago Pennsylvania used to promote that 50% of its proceeds went to elderly programs. It has ceased making such a claim and now simply says " some of the proceeds go to senior programs". They were quick to change it before the public got wise to ask for an audit of allocations. Amazing how changing a few words can protect an entity and still allow it to come off as a do-gooder program. Thats just my two cents of an opinion in which luckily wont go to a tax or program :) ________________________________ Wanna Make God laugh? ..Tell him your plans. | | |
Delaware United States Member #30650 January 14, 2006 493 Posts Offline | | Posted: September 6, 2006, 9:52 am - IP Logged | |
Flame is correct in his fact. My comments: The guy actually can appeal and take his one part of the case further. If indeed its true that the lottery is not allocating its funds correctly as it advertises. Naturally the guy has the odds against him since the lottery commission can delay stuff in courts and break his bank for trying. Years ago Pennsylvania used to promote that 50% of its proceeds went to elderly programs. It has ceased making such a claim and now simply says " some of the proceeds go to senior programs". They were quick to change it before the public got wise to ask for an audit of allocations. Amazing how changing a few words can protect an entity and still allow it to come off as a do-gooder program. Thats just my two cents of an opinion in which luckily wont go to a tax or program :) Don't put a value on your opinion. Pennsylvania will try to find a way to tax it!  | | |
Wisconsin United States Member #1327 March 27, 2003 1508 Posts Offline | | Posted: September 6, 2006, 5:59 pm - IP Logged | |
Don't put a value on your opinion. Pennsylvania will try to find a way to tax it! Wisconsin wouldn't tax it..because the pols here know if they do any more taxing, the people will come for them with tar and feathers. Instead, the Wisconsin pols will put a "fee" on it. Then they will proclaim loudly that they are holding the line at tax increases. But of course, additional fees and hikes in fees will be soon following....... ============ How can you tell if a politician is lying? Answer: His lips are moving. | | |
|
