The time is now 3:49 pm
You last visited
April 19, 2024, 2:10 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)
Jan 12, 2006, 8:42 am (35 comments)
A woman accused of using a stolen credit card to purchase a $1 million lottery ticket pleaded innocent this week to charges of identity theft and fraud.
Christina Elizabeth Goodenow, 38, of Central Point was arrested after police determined that she purchased the winning scratch-it ticket on Oct. 9 using a credit card that belonged to her dead mother-in-law, Inez Cornett.
Goodenow collected $33,500, the first installment of her winnings, from Oregon Lottery headquarters in Salem before her arrest. A search of her home by police yielded only $1,300 and some methamphetamine, Medford police said.
Because fraud was allegedly involved with the purchase of the ticket, police believe Goodenow will not be able to collect the rest of the prize money.
Oregon Lottery spokesman Chuck Baumann declined to comment, saying he will wait for a ruling from the Jackson County Circuit Court.
AP
Shocker! They found meth in her crib...that should explain a portion of the stolen credit card.
Because fraud was allegedly involved with the purchase of the ticket, police believe Goodenow will not be able to collect the rest of the prize money.
If she is found not guilty, no apology will be issued by any law enforcement agency involved.
Interesting that she is exercising her right to deny the charges. Most folks would do the same so they can plea bargain or at the least be given a lesser charge . Pleading guilty would be an automatic sentence with no chance of negotiation. Making sense of something doesnt necessarily mean its the sensible thing to do.
If she was on meth, I'm surprised she even had a dollar left.....
If she was on meth, I'm surprised she even had a dollar left.....
THAT's what I'm talkin' about!
If she was on meth, I'm surprised she even had a dollar left.....
HAPPY FRIDAY "DD".......1/13/2006
I would ask how you are, but I can see, and read, you are in great spirits.....you never let me down.......lolololololololololol....you are tooooooo naughty...........
1/13/2006
HAPPY FRIDAY.....EVERYONE......
I do not encourage or support breaking the law, in any capacity, however I believe, that if she and her husband were on good terms this would not be a case at all, and the Police would never have been called at all.
If she was on meth, I'm surprised she even had a dollar left.....
HAPPY FRIDAY "DD".......1/13/2006
I would ask how you are, but I can see, and read, you are in great spirits.....you never let me down.......lolololololololololol....you are tooooooo naughty...........
Libra, Of course I am silly....What else should I be on
Triskaidekaphobia day ?
DD
If she was on meth, I'm surprised she even had a dollar left.....
THAT's what I'm talkin' about!
She probably was on meth, since she bought an annuity-only ticket.
Wow! talk about a mess !!
I've got a few questions
If she was able to keep the credit card for more than a year and the card was in good standing, that means the bill had to be paid right? Soooo, if she was paying back the things that were charged, is it really theft???
If she could prove she was paying the bill and the bill showed payment for the lottery ticket, then doesn't that still make it her ticket legally??
If the bill wasn't paid and thereby rendering the use of the card for the ticket as theft, wouldn't she only be liable for the purchase price of the ticket? If the ticket had been a loser, this would not be an issue.
Don't get me wrong, a fraud was committed, but if the card suffered no damage and the credit card company did not lose any money as a result of her usage, then how can the thought be entertained to give the prize to the credit card company?
As crazy as this story sound I wouldn't be surprised if she is allowed to keep the ticket. The prize will have to be paid to somebody. If she is made to return the prize payment to the lottery, what will the lottery do with it? The ticket cannot be put back in circulation for someone else to try to purchase it?
Last one ..How can it be proved that particular ticket was purchased with that credit card. Wouldn't the bill merely state "lottery" or will it record the number of the ticket?l
One thing for sure she has enough meanwhile to hire an attorney!
"What a tangle web we weave, when we practice to decieve!!"
LadyC- Fraud allegations are for the exact verbage you are describing. This woman alledgedly used a card that she was neither authorized on or the card bearer. Even *IF* she supposedly made payments on it, she was neither the applicant or authorized to use the card. Read any cardholder agreement and maybe that will shed some light on how these charges are being comprised. Sure wish someone would pay my credit card bills, but not at the risk of them *assuming* my name or identity to gain wealth :) Capisca?
Just for the sake of arguement, if I went out and used your credit card...bought a Plasma tv. Shouldnt I be allowed to keep it? I mean why return it after its unboxed? Its such a hassle for a store to get credit from the manufacturer and/or distributor. I mean, I *was* going to pay you back....See the logic in that ? Lets hope not, because there really wasnt any.
The bottom line is the lady is execersing her right to defend herself on these allegations. Its up to the prosecution to provide evidence to back up the case against her.
Wow! talk about a mess !!
I've got a few questions
If she was able to keep the credit card for more than a year and the card was in good standing, that means the bill had to be paid right? Soooo, if she was paying back the things that were charged, is it really theft???
If she could prove she was paying the bill and the bill showed payment for the lottery ticket, then doesn't that still make it her ticket legally??
If the bill wasn't paid and thereby rendering the use of the card for the ticket as theft, wouldn't she only be liable for the purchase price of the ticket? If the ticket had been a loser, this would not be an issue.
Don't get me wrong, a fraud was committed, but if the card suffered no damage and the credit card company did not lose any money as a result of her usage, then how can the thought be entertained to give the prize to the credit card company?
As crazy as this story sound I wouldn't be surprised if she is allowed to keep the ticket. The prize will have to be paid to somebody. If she is made to return the prize payment to the lottery, what will the lottery do with it? The ticket cannot be put back in circulation for someone else to try to purchase it?
Last one ..How can it be proved that particular ticket was purchased with that credit card. Wouldn't the bill merely state "lottery" or will it record the number of the ticket?l
One thing for sure she has enough meanwhile to hire an attorney!
"What a tangle web we weave, when we practice to decieve!!"
If you didn't see it, there's a link to a previous article about the case in the related stories box, and that article has more information. If the newspaper articles are correct, the woman got a check for $33,000 and two weeks later the cops could only find $1300. If that's any indication, the most she is likely to have done is make the minimum monthly payment so that the card wouldn't be cancelled, or perhaps she only started to use the card shortly before her arrest. Either way it probably won't matter, because as Game Girl pointed out it wasn't her card to use and any intentions she had to pay the bills won't do anything more than help when she's sentenced. At least half of the people who get arrested for embezzlement intended to pay the money back, too, but crimes are still crimes even if you return what you've stolen. Reasoning like yours is how embezzlers get started. If it turns out that she had been using the card for a while and actually made significant payments there's a chance that the charges will be dropped, but that only means the DA decided it wasn't worth prosecuting, and not that it wasn't a crime.
I'm also curious how they know that the ticket was bought with a credit card, though. God forbid a reporter writing a story would be able to think of some of the obvious questions and then answer them. If it's proven that she bought the ticket with the card, even if she had made payments there's a pretty strong argument that she isn't entitled to keep what she bought because the use of the card was fraudulent. If she wasn't making payments then there's no reason to treat the ticket any differently than any other merchandise bought with a stolen card. There is no option to just beliable for th eprice of the ticket. You don't get to simply pay back the money you stole and walk away. It doesn't belong to her, period, case closed. In that case it could get interesting figuring out what happens with the prize. In cases of fraud where the merchant followed the rules the merchant gets paid by the credit card company and they absorb the cost. It seems pretty reasonable that the company is therefore the rightful owner of any merchandise that is recovered. The other possibility is that the lottery department will say that tickets purchased fraudulently are invalid. Of course that's another problem, since they can't simply take a major prize out of the pool of available prizes, so they'd have to replace that prize. They could probably do that by simply adding an additional prize to any other game, rather than having to add it to the same game.If there isn't proof that the ticket was bought fraudulently, then the woman will almost certainly get to keep the prize (less any money that might be withheld for certain debts). Whether she'll be free to spend the winnings or have other obligations that keep her away from the stores (and her dealer) for the next few years is another matter.
The cops were probably watching her for awhile, waiting for the right moment.
If the store had decent video footage of the transaction and there weren't too many patrons at that particular moment, they could track the ticket printout with the credit printout quite clearly.
If you mess with drugs, you will eventually trip yourself up! Meth is especially bad.
One way that the state could avoid such problems is to not accept credit cards for lottery tickets. I know in South Carolina, it's CASH ONLY. And it will be the same in North Carolina when theirs cranks up this Spring. So buying a ticket with a credit card was a stupid thing on her part because she could get tracked. If nothing else, she should have received a cash advance somewhere and then bought a ticket elsewhere with the proceeds of said advance. Then the state/vendor looks stupid in that they accepted a credit cards for a ticket purchase, when in fact, there runs the risk of fraud AND chargebacks, and then who's left holding the bag?
Now, that being said, and being Devil's advocate...I have been under the presumption (and I could be wrong), that a credit card is an UNSECURED paying instrument, meaning that any purchases made with a credit card allows the purchaser to not be subject to repossession of ANY or all goods purchased with the card. I mean, let's say that you buy a gallon of milk with a credit card and default on it, how is the grocery store going to repossess that milk?
An interesting question to ponder. If that is indeed the case, then they cannot strip her of that ticket regardless of whether or not she bought it with the card.