Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 3, 2016, 1:41 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Judge orders new trial in Arkansas lottery ticket suit

Topic closed. 102 replies. Last post 5 years ago by KY Floyd.

Page 7 of 7
52
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar
NY
United States
Member #23835
October 16, 2005
3474 Posts
Offline
Posted: May 29, 2012, 1:12 am - IP Logged

"After the check was issued" is too late to prove any of the tickets Jones found in the trash bin was the one she cashed unless Jones said it was.

The point is that Jones wasn't bragging about it. The lottery's knowledge of how she got the ticket appears to be a result of the investigation that happened after she got the check.

    Avatar
    NY
    United States
    Member #23835
    October 16, 2005
    3474 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: May 29, 2012, 1:13 am - IP Logged

    Stack, it may have had something to do with the ticket's batch number. When the rolls of tickets are dispersed they're more or less registered to the store and can be tracked in terms of numerical sequence. However, in supporting your statement, how can they know that the ticket found was the same one tossed by Mrs.Duncan? It could've been anyone for, that matter, who threw away the ticket in question. All they really know is that the ticket was registered to that location.

    Maybe they're gonna check for Mrs. Duncan's fingerprints on the ticketsWhat? All I know is that the two magic words still haven't risen to the occasion in this matter...BEARER INSTRUMENT.


    L.L.

    You need to learn what a bearer instrument really is. Simply being in possession of a bearer instrument and owning in aren't the same thing.

      Avatar
      Kentucky
      United States
      Member #32652
      February 14, 2006
      7295 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: May 29, 2012, 8:42 am - IP Logged

      The point is that Jones wasn't bragging about it. The lottery's knowledge of how she got the ticket appears to be a result of the investigation that happened after she got the check.

      Jones could have bought the ticket in a vending machine or from the clerk, but the only way they could know where Jones got the ticket is from what she said. There is a reason stores put trash dumpster as far away from the store as they can and if Jones said she got the ticket out of the dumpster, she was bragging.

      Since the footage was viewed after the check was issued, there was no reason for Jones to say anything.

        Lucky Loser's avatar - bucks
        Texas
        United States
        Member #86154
        January 30, 2010
        1648 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: May 29, 2012, 9:13 pm - IP Logged

        You need to learn what a bearer instrument really is. Simply being in possession of a bearer instrument and owning in aren't the same thing.

        Wow. Well, excuse the hell out of me, Sir...for imposing on your intelligence. I figured these (3) definitions were pretty self explanatory:

         

        1)

        What is  bearer instrument definition  and  meaning

        www.businessdictionary.com/definition/bearer-instrument.html

        Definition of bearer instrument: Negotiable instrument payable to its holder, on demand or presentment, regardless of to whom it was issued originally.

         

        2)

        Bearer Instrument  Law & Legal  Definition

        definitions.uslegal.com ›  Legal Definitions Home    B

        A  bearer instrument  refers to an instrument that is payable to anyone possessing the instrument and is negotiable by transfer alone. For example, shares and  ...

         

         

        3)

        bearer instrument financial  definition of bearer instrument. bearer  ...

         

        financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bearer+instrument

         

        A security that contains no ownership information and whose physical bearer is presumed to be the owner.  Bearer instruments  may be bought and sold without  ...

         

         

        L.L.

          Lucky Loser's avatar - bucks
          Texas
          United States
          Member #86154
          January 30, 2010
          1648 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: May 29, 2012, 9:32 pm - IP Logged

          You need to learn what a bearer instrument really is. Simply being in possession of a bearer instrument and owning in aren't the same thing.

          I'll say it again...this time in lotto lingo:

          >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

           


          Bearer Instruments

          Lottery tickets in most countries, if not all, are classified as “bearer instruments”. This means that the ticket legally belongs to the person in possession of it (that is, the one who “bears” it) irrespective of whether or not that person actually bought it.

          The implications of this fact should not be underestimated. If you buy a lottery ticket and lose it, the person who finds it is entitled to claim any prize that it wins. The same applies if you give your ticket to someone for safekeeping, or if you are a member of a syndicate. You could therefore potentially miss out on a jackpot if you don’t keep your ticket safe.

          A fairly recent development that related to the areas discussed is for lottery operators to offer “lottery cards”. These are similar to credit cards and are registered using the owner’s name and address. When an individual plays a lottery in conjunction with one of these cards, their entry is assigned to them personally, so the potential problems of “losing” a bearer instrument ticket or failing to claim before the due deadline are eradicated very effectively. We anticipate that such lottery cards will one day become the norm, but until then be sure to keep your ticket safe and to claim any prize before the deadline.

           

          L.L.

           

            Avatar
            New Member
            Arizona
            United States
            Member #128643
            May 30, 2012
            1 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: May 30, 2012, 3:04 am - IP Logged

            The lottery commision has stated the machines were working and worked for all the tickets before and after her ticket...therefore she must not have scratched off the ticket completely. When interviewed on today show and asked she said she did not know

            if she scratched off enough for it to scan. The trash lady said she scratches off all the tickets completely and many that she finds that are winners were not scratched off completely.

            So based on this and the news story and interviews------

            Woman A buys ticket, scratches off partially, scans and doesn't win, tosses it into the "lottery tickets only" trash bin. It was marked for lottery tickets only.

            Trash lady goes into the store and scoops up handfuls of the tickets from the "lottery tickets only" trash.

            Trash lady wins. This means the lottery commision tracks down the store the ticket was sold from (by serial number). Investigation shows she didn't buy it and she says she found it in the lottery ticket rash.

            After hearing that a ticket from her trash won a million the store owner decides to sue claiming the trash is store property. Epic fail.

            She contacts Woman A and tells her to join the suit. Judge rules Woman A is entited but the store owner is not entitled to anything...epic fail again for store owner.

            Lottery commision says equiptment perfect and would not fail on 1 ticket..it either works for all or fails for all because it is broken--so she made a ticket scratch error.

            Trash lady got around 600k and spent 190k of it on a car and money to kids. Rest of money frozen by judge.

            Woman A on good morning america saying she didn't feel bad for trash lady and she deserved every penny of the money. She never considered splitting it as all of it is hers and she earned it. What a witch.

            Last week Woman A tried to get judge to impound the car and seize the assets trash lady purchased.

            This week judge orders new trial. Woman A is probably wishing she cut a deal now. Store owner still trying to claim ownership of the trash.

            A soap opera waiting for jerry springer...................


              United States
              Member #111442
              May 25, 2011
              6323 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: May 30, 2012, 6:42 am - IP Logged

              The lottery commision has stated the machines were working and worked for all the tickets before and after her ticket...therefore she must not have scratched off the ticket completely. When interviewed on today show and asked she said she did not know

              if she scratched off enough for it to scan. The trash lady said she scratches off all the tickets completely and many that she finds that are winners were not scratched off completely.

              So based on this and the news story and interviews------

              Woman A buys ticket, scratches off partially, scans and doesn't win, tosses it into the "lottery tickets only" trash bin. It was marked for lottery tickets only.

              Trash lady goes into the store and scoops up handfuls of the tickets from the "lottery tickets only" trash.

              Trash lady wins. This means the lottery commision tracks down the store the ticket was sold from (by serial number). Investigation shows she didn't buy it and she says she found it in the lottery ticket rash.

              After hearing that a ticket from her trash won a million the store owner decides to sue claiming the trash is store property. Epic fail.

              She contacts Woman A and tells her to join the suit. Judge rules Woman A is entited but the store owner is not entitled to anything...epic fail again for store owner.

              Lottery commision says equiptment perfect and would not fail on 1 ticket..it either works for all or fails for all because it is broken--so she made a ticket scratch error.

              Trash lady got around 600k and spent 190k of it on a car and money to kids. Rest of money frozen by judge.

              Woman A on good morning america saying she didn't feel bad for trash lady and she deserved every penny of the money. She never considered splitting it as all of it is hers and she earned it. What a witch.

              Last week Woman A tried to get judge to impound the car and seize the assets trash lady purchased.

              This week judge orders new trial. Woman A is probably wishing she cut a deal now. Store owner still trying to claim ownership of the trash.

              A soap opera waiting for jerry springer...................

              Excellent summary of events slayyer!

              Or perhaps good fodder for a comedy/drama, entitled 'Whose Money Is It Now?"   Jester Laugh

                Avatar
                Kentucky
                United States
                Member #32652
                February 14, 2006
                7295 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: May 30, 2012, 8:42 am - IP Logged

                The lottery commision has stated the machines were working and worked for all the tickets before and after her ticket...therefore she must not have scratched off the ticket completely. When interviewed on today show and asked she said she did not know

                if she scratched off enough for it to scan. The trash lady said she scratches off all the tickets completely and many that she finds that are winners were not scratched off completely.

                So based on this and the news story and interviews------

                Woman A buys ticket, scratches off partially, scans and doesn't win, tosses it into the "lottery tickets only" trash bin. It was marked for lottery tickets only.

                Trash lady goes into the store and scoops up handfuls of the tickets from the "lottery tickets only" trash.

                Trash lady wins. This means the lottery commision tracks down the store the ticket was sold from (by serial number). Investigation shows she didn't buy it and she says she found it in the lottery ticket rash.

                After hearing that a ticket from her trash won a million the store owner decides to sue claiming the trash is store property. Epic fail.

                She contacts Woman A and tells her to join the suit. Judge rules Woman A is entited but the store owner is not entitled to anything...epic fail again for store owner.

                Lottery commision says equiptment perfect and would not fail on 1 ticket..it either works for all or fails for all because it is broken--so she made a ticket scratch error.

                Trash lady got around 600k and spent 190k of it on a car and money to kids. Rest of money frozen by judge.

                Woman A on good morning america saying she didn't feel bad for trash lady and she deserved every penny of the money. She never considered splitting it as all of it is hers and she earned it. What a witch.

                Last week Woman A tried to get judge to impound the car and seize the assets trash lady purchased.

                This week judge orders new trial. Woman A is probably wishing she cut a deal now. Store owner still trying to claim ownership of the trash.

                A soap opera waiting for jerry springer...................

                "The lottery commision has stated the machines were working and worked for all the tickets before and after her ticket...therefore she must not have scratched off the ticket completely. When interviewed on today show and asked she said she did not know"

                We've already come to the conclusion that Duncan isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and we're talking about a $20 scratch-off ticket with a playing area that clearly shows whether the ticket won or not. I provided a link that shows the game ticket; simply match two numbers and win the prize under the number. On the back of the ticket is says how to cash it.

                99.9% of all scratch-off players would see one or more of the game numbers matched "your numbers" and would known they won that prize. Maybe Duncan falls into the 0.1% that just scratches the bar code area at the bottom of the ticket and hands it to the clerk to scan, but unless the clerk is as dumb as her, they would scratch off that entire area. Because the lottery commission said the the machine was working properly, the only logical conclusion is Duncan handed the clerk a losing ticket and not the one Jones found.

                "Trash lady goes into the store and scoops up handfuls of the tickets from the "lottery tickets only" trash."

                You didn't read the article; the trash bin was outside the store and probably as far away from the store as they could put it. Buried underneath who knows what other trash were discarded lottery tickets.

                "Investigation shows she didn't buy it and she says she found it in the lottery ticket rash."

                Since the lottery commission paid Jones, it doesn't look like it mattered to them how she got the ticket. After that the store viewed surveillance footage and saw Jones with a handful of discarded tickets from the Dumpster. When asked, Jones told the store manager the winning ticket came from the discarded tickets in their dumpster and that's when the lawsuit was filed.

                  Lucky Loser's avatar - bucks
                  Texas
                  United States
                  Member #86154
                  January 30, 2010
                  1648 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: May 30, 2012, 9:44 pm - IP Logged

                  The lottery commision has stated the machines were working and worked for all the tickets before and after her ticket...therefore she must not have scratched off the ticket completely. When interviewed on today show and asked she said she did not know

                  if she scratched off enough for it to scan. The trash lady said she scratches off all the tickets completely and many that she finds that are winners were not scratched off completely.

                  So based on this and the news story and interviews------

                  Woman A buys ticket, scratches off partially, scans and doesn't win, tosses it into the "lottery tickets only" trash bin. It was marked for lottery tickets only.

                  Trash lady goes into the store and scoops up handfuls of the tickets from the "lottery tickets only" trash.

                  Trash lady wins. This means the lottery commision tracks down the store the ticket was sold from (by serial number). Investigation shows she didn't buy it and she says she found it in the lottery ticket rash.

                  After hearing that a ticket from her trash won a million the store owner decides to sue claiming the trash is store property. Epic fail.

                  She contacts Woman A and tells her to join the suit. Judge rules Woman A is entited but the store owner is not entitled to anything...epic fail again for store owner.

                  Lottery commision says equiptment perfect and would not fail on 1 ticket..it either works for all or fails for all because it is broken--so she made a ticket scratch error.

                  Trash lady got around 600k and spent 190k of it on a car and money to kids. Rest of money frozen by judge.

                  Woman A on good morning america saying she didn't feel bad for trash lady and she deserved every penny of the money. She never considered splitting it as all of it is hers and she earned it. What a witch.

                  Last week Woman A tried to get judge to impound the car and seize the assets trash lady purchased.

                  This week judge orders new trial. Woman A is probably wishing she cut a deal now. Store owner still trying to claim ownership of the trash.

                  A soap opera waiting for jerry springer...................

                  1) It's completely her fault for failing to follow through on scratching and validating a win/no win ticket of any amount.

                  2) The trash lady is simply savvy with scratch tickets and understands that people are so careless in this apsect which is why she said MANY THAT SHE FINDS ARE WINNERS NOT COMPLETELY SCRATCHED OFF...SHE'S WON MANY TIMES PRIOR TO THIS AND NO DISPUTE TOOK PLACE.Shocked

                  3) The store owner's A** END CLAIM OF WINNINGS FROM A TICKET THEY KNEW NOTHING ABOUT IS A COMPLETE CLUSTER F**K AND BULLSH*T!!! They just wanted a cut of something they never knew even existed until Jones opened her mouth.

                  4) As I said before, go back and re-scan the ticket and it must scan the same way it did when Mrs. Duncan supposedly scanned it the first time...i.e. "Scratcher Error".

                  5) Trash lady deserves the dough. She only capitalized and cashed in on someone else's carelessness as she's done before apparently...and it seems that the BEARER INSTRUMENT clause prevailed for Jones every time EXCEPT NOW and it's only due to the amount of the prize.

                  6) If Jones would've claimed a $20, $50, even a $100 ticket, we wouldn't even be discussing this case. There wouldn't even be enough for the store owner to think of trying to claim...and they'd care less about Jones hopping their nasty dumpster and finding a $20, $50, or $100 ticket. Duncan would've laughed and probably called her nasty, desperate, and everything else over this amount. 

                  $1,000,000 smack-a-roos will change anyone's train of thought and motive...count on it.


                  L.L.

                    Lucky Loser's avatar - bucks
                    Texas
                    United States
                    Member #86154
                    January 30, 2010
                    1648 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: May 30, 2012, 10:15 pm - IP Logged

                    "The lottery commision has stated the machines were working and worked for all the tickets before and after her ticket...therefore she must not have scratched off the ticket completely. When interviewed on today show and asked she said she did not know"

                    We've already come to the conclusion that Duncan isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and we're talking about a $20 scratch-off ticket with a playing area that clearly shows whether the ticket won or not. I provided a link that shows the game ticket; simply match two numbers and win the prize under the number. On the back of the ticket is says how to cash it.

                    99.9% of all scratch-off players would see one or more of the game numbers matched "your numbers" and would known they won that prize. Maybe Duncan falls into the 0.1% that just scratches the bar code area at the bottom of the ticket and hands it to the clerk to scan, but unless the clerk is as dumb as her, they would scratch off that entire area. Because the lottery commission said the the machine was working properly, the only logical conclusion is Duncan handed the clerk a losing ticket and not the one Jones found.

                    "Trash lady goes into the store and scoops up handfuls of the tickets from the "lottery tickets only" trash."

                    You didn't read the article; the trash bin was outside the store and probably as far away from the store as they could put it. Buried underneath who knows what other trash were discarded lottery tickets.

                    "Investigation shows she didn't buy it and she says she found it in the lottery ticket rash."

                    Since the lottery commission paid Jones, it doesn't look like it mattered to them how she got the ticket. After that the store viewed surveillance footage and saw Jones with a handful of discarded tickets from the Dumpster. When asked, Jones told the store manager the winning ticket came from the discarded tickets in their dumpster and that's when the lawsuit was filed.

                    Stack, let's focus on your last paragraph.The first sentence is what this entire case should be based solely on...BEARER INSTRUMENT. The third sentence shows how they executed "hind sight action" in lieu of the clause which they had already honered in the first sentence. Sentence two describes how the store owner seemed to  care less about the bums and looters that certainly raided the dumpster before now. But, with a $1M ticket up for grabs......

                    "Okay, I'm gonna put up a NO TRESSPASSING sign on my dumpster so noone else can find another $1M ticket.Cussing Face This will also keep the bums and looters away which I cared less about prior to now. I now want all my cans, rubbish, and overlooked $1M tickets!!!Cussing Face Oh , I'm not gonna jump in thereNo No to do the dirty work but, NOW, noone else can either. That'll learn ya to benefit off my trash which will STILL leave without me knowing what's in it anyway!!!!Cussing Face It's MY trash and POSSIBLE WINNING TICKETS!!!!!Cussing Face

                    I truly hope the owner doesn't get an EFFIN' thing outta this deal!! All of a sudden, his d*mned dumpster is soooooo important and of the highest priority because of this woman's extremely rare luck.

                    Anyway, I dig your post.Cheers

                      Avatar
                      NY
                      United States
                      Member #23835
                      October 16, 2005
                      3474 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: May 31, 2012, 12:24 am - IP Logged

                      I'll say it again...this time in lotto lingo:

                      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

                       


                      Bearer Instruments

                      Lottery tickets in most countries, if not all, are classified as “bearer instruments”. This means that the ticket legally belongs to the person in possession of it (that is, the one who “bears” it) irrespective of whether or not that person actually bought it.

                      The implications of this fact should not be underestimated. If you buy a lottery ticket and lose it, the person who finds it is entitled to claim any prize that it wins. The same applies if you give your ticket to someone for safekeeping, or if you are a member of a syndicate. You could therefore potentially miss out on a jackpot if you don’t keep your ticket safe.

                      A fairly recent development that related to the areas discussed is for lottery operators to offer “lottery cards”. These are similar to credit cards and are registered using the owner’s name and address. When an individual plays a lottery in conjunction with one of these cards, their entry is assigned to them personally, so the potential problems of “losing” a bearer instrument ticket or failing to claim before the due deadline are eradicated very effectively. We anticipate that such lottery cards will one day become the norm, but until then be sure to keep your ticket safe and to claim any prize before the deadline.

                       

                      L.L.

                       

                      "This means that the ticket legally belongs to the person in possession of it (that is, the one who “bears” it) irrespective of whether or not that person actually bought it."

                      Then I trust we'll never hear you complaining when a clerk tells somebody their ticket won $3 and later turns it in to claim the big prize it really won. As an alternative you could reread the 1st sentence of the 3rd definition you posted.

                        Lucky Loser's avatar - bucks
                        Texas
                        United States
                        Member #86154
                        January 30, 2010
                        1648 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: May 31, 2012, 2:06 pm - IP Logged

                        "This means that the ticket legally belongs to the person in possession of it (that is, the one who “bears” it) irrespective of whether or not that person actually bought it."

                        Then I trust we'll never hear you complaining when a clerk tells somebody their ticket won $3 and later turns it in to claim the big prize it really won. As an alternative you could reread the 1st sentence of the 3rd definition you posted.

                        Yeah, this is pretty much a fail on your part as well because it's already happened, and, is an active topic here on LP.Unhappy If you review my posts, you'll see where I wasn't biased one way or the other and found fault with both parties involved as any reasonable person should. First, the clerk/store was dead wrong for lying about the value of ticket and then trying to cash in on it. If this isn't FRAUD, it was very close to it.

                        Secondly, I faulted the customer, as well, for not excercising their full abilities to PROPERLY and ACCURATELY INTERPRET the ticket. Regardless of the scanner or the clerk, the customer had the responsibility of knowing full and well whether or not the ticket was, in fact, a winner AND THE AMOUNT OF THE PRIZE. Can't know one without the other, you know. If you know it's a winner, then you should also know how much...end of story.

                        You're comparing apples to bananas here. The store clerk, in the first incident, compromised the integrity of both the store and the lottery commission. Mrs. Jones, on the other hand, did nothing but hop this store's dumpster and got very, very lucky with her find and claimed it. The store clerk here is simply full of sh*t because they're not wanting to lose out on money they never even knew about from the start.No No No integrity was compromised here. Mrs. Duncan, more than likely, had a losing ticket from the start. The dumpster never had a NO TRESPASSING sign on it prior to this incident. AND, who's to say the dumpster isn't being LEASED by the store and just serviced by the company that REALLY OWNS THE DUMPSTER?Eek

                        Let's not make this overly complicated, okay. There are technical, actual, and legal aspects to consider in this case. 

                         

                        L.L.

                          Avatar
                          NY
                          United States
                          Member #23835
                          October 16, 2005
                          3474 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: June 1, 2012, 1:27 am - IP Logged

                          Yeah, this is pretty much a fail on your part as well because it's already happened, and, is an active topic here on LP.Unhappy If you review my posts, you'll see where I wasn't biased one way or the other and found fault with both parties involved as any reasonable person should. First, the clerk/store was dead wrong for lying about the value of ticket and then trying to cash in on it. If this isn't FRAUD, it was very close to it.

                          Secondly, I faulted the customer, as well, for not excercising their full abilities to PROPERLY and ACCURATELY INTERPRET the ticket. Regardless of the scanner or the clerk, the customer had the responsibility of knowing full and well whether or not the ticket was, in fact, a winner AND THE AMOUNT OF THE PRIZE. Can't know one without the other, you know. If you know it's a winner, then you should also know how much...end of story.

                          You're comparing apples to bananas here. The store clerk, in the first incident, compromised the integrity of both the store and the lottery commission. Mrs. Jones, on the other hand, did nothing but hop this store's dumpster and got very, very lucky with her find and claimed it. The store clerk here is simply full of sh*t because they're not wanting to lose out on money they never even knew about from the start.No No No integrity was compromised here. Mrs. Duncan, more than likely, had a losing ticket from the start. The dumpster never had a NO TRESPASSING sign on it prior to this incident. AND, who's to say the dumpster isn't being LEASED by the store and just serviced by the company that REALLY OWNS THE DUMPSTER?Eek

                          Let's not make this overly complicated, okay. There are technical, actual, and legal aspects to consider in this case. 

                           

                          L.L.

                          We're not talking about a particular ticket anymore. We're talking about what a bearer instrument is. You said that "the ticket legally belongs to the person in possession of it" , which isn't true.  That's why I told you to reread the first part of your 3rd definition. Do you think a clerk who lies about a ticket's value legally owns the ticket once they gain possession of it?

                          As for the current case that should also tell you something, since the judge didn't hold a 30 second trial and then award the prize to the woman who was in posession of the ticket and claimed  the prize.