Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 10, 2016, 9:32 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

MUSL seeks to dismiss lawsuit over rigged jackpot

Topic closed. 37 replies. Last post 8 months ago by KY Floyd.

Page 3 of 3
54
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar
New Member
Maryland
United States
Member #155454
May 19, 2014
13 Posts
Offline
Posted: April 7, 2016, 9:05 am - IP Logged

If you have to pick between Dawson, unknown players that might have won, or the the states keeping the money for themselves, my vote would have to go to Dawson. As far as I am concerned, his is the only legitimate claim, even though it is unlikely he would have won it if it had rolled over past the jackpot hat Tipton cheated on. How can any other person or entity claim any part of it? The states didn't earn the right to keep it.  It should have gone to a player. Dawson is the only one with a logical claim.

    Avatar

    Slovenia
    Member #172924
    February 9, 2016
    46 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: April 7, 2016, 11:25 am - IP Logged

    If you have to pick between Dawson, unknown players that might have won, or the the states keeping the money for themselves, my vote would have to go to Dawson. As far as I am concerned, his is the only legitimate claim, even though it is unlikely he would have won it if it had rolled over past the jackpot hat Tipton cheated on. How can any other person or entity claim any part of it? The states didn't earn the right to keep it.  It should have gone to a player. Dawson is the only one with a logical claim.

    There are more logical solutions. Giving the money back to cheated players who participated in the rigged drawing for example (those that can provide proof of purchase). If the argument here is that those can't be found and they had to give it to someone anyway, then giving it to charity is another solution.

    To say that any money that no one has a legitimate claim on should go to the already rich is a non sequitur. Unless of course if that rich person actually does demonstrate that the money would be his if it weren't for the rigging (which he didn't).

    Why would he have a more rightful claim to the money than players who were cheated and provided that amount of money for the rigged drawing in the first place?

      Avatar
      NY
      United States
      Member #23835
      October 16, 2005
      3475 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: April 7, 2016, 6:43 pm - IP Logged

      "my vote would have to go to Dawson."

      As has been explained over and over, the problem with that is there's nothing to prove that Dawson won less than he would have if the drawing hadn't been rigged. There's absolutely no question that drawing a different set of numbers might have produced a legitimate winner, in which case Dawson won what he should have, because the jackpot would have been reset as a result of the legitimate winner. There's also absolutely no question that if the jackpot hadn't been reset there would have been more tickets sold, in which case there might have been a winner between the rigged drawing and the one that Dawson won, which would have resulted in his prize being smaller.

      While it can't be proven, chaos theory suggests that Dawson might not have won at all if any of the things that happened before he won had been different. That not only included everything  directly related to the lottery, but even whether or not some guy in Detroit supersized his lunch at McDonald's. Had the drawing not been rigged it's possible that Dawson would have been hit by a bus instead of won the lottery.

      The one thing that is certain is that there was prize money that should have gone to one or more lottery players, but didn't. That's a reason to distribute that amount of money to players in some fashion, but not to just give it to Dawson. The sensible thing would be to pay it out as increased prizes for Hot Lotto.

        Avatar
        New Member
        Maryland
        United States
        Member #155454
        May 19, 2014
        13 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: April 7, 2016, 8:27 pm - IP Logged

        The MUSL should have used the money to pay for switching to ball drawings at the very least.

          Teddi's avatar - Lottery-008.jpg

          United States
          Member #142499
          May 13, 2013
          1186 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: April 7, 2016, 8:36 pm - IP Logged

          There are more logical solutions. Giving the money back to cheated players who participated in the rigged drawing for example (those that can provide proof of purchase). If the argument here is that those can't be found and they had to give it to someone anyway, then giving it to charity is another solution.

          To say that any money that no one has a legitimate claim on should go to the already rich is a non sequitur. Unless of course if that rich person actually does demonstrate that the money would be his if it weren't for the rigging (which he didn't).

          Why would he have a more rightful claim to the money than players who were cheated and provided that amount of money for the rigged drawing in the first place?

          Well considering that MUSL is allowed to exist in the states so that money raised is given towards education, healthcare and/or the maintenance of vital infrastructures, then your request that the money be given to charity is (one could argue) what was done. He can't prove he would have won had the drawing not been rigged and MUSL did what policy dictate they do with unclaimed winnings.

            Teddi's avatar - Lottery-008.jpg

            United States
            Member #142499
            May 13, 2013
            1186 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: April 7, 2016, 8:50 pm - IP Logged

            If you have to pick between Dawson, unknown players that might have won, or the the states keeping the money for themselves, my vote would have to go to Dawson. As far as I am concerned, his is the only legitimate claim, even though it is unlikely he would have won it if it had rolled over past the jackpot hat Tipton cheated on. How can any other person or entity claim any part of it? The states didn't earn the right to keep it.  It should have gone to a player. Dawson is the only one with a logical claim.

            Except that he doesn't have a legitimate claim. That's like saying that the lady who allowed Gloria to skip the line has a legitimate claim to Gloria's winnings. 

            There are too many hypotheses that would have to hold true for him to have a legitimate claim, and he can't prove any of them. The most he can say is that out of fairness of the game and its players, he is deserving of both jackpots.

              Avatar

              Slovenia
              Member #172924
              February 9, 2016
              46 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: April 8, 2016, 6:21 am - IP Logged

              Well considering that MUSL is allowed to exist in the states so that money raised is given towards education, healthcare and/or the maintenance of vital infrastructures, then your request that the money be given to charity is (one could argue) what was done. He can't prove he would have won had the drawing not been rigged and MUSL did what policy dictate they do with unclaimed winnings.

              Well ok if that was what the policy was. But then I don't understand why the policy is the way that it is. Usually if person A steals money from person B's bank account, and the police uncovers person A and returns the money to the bank, I would expect that the policy dictates that of course the bank now gives this money back into person B's bank account. Only if person B can't be found anymore, should charity come into consideration.

              So the money went back to the states like the policy dictates, but why does it not dictate that the states should now try to return this stolen money to all these B persons first?

              It's like I get robbed, the police finds my money, but the bank then instead of looking for me gives it to charity, because it says in the statutes of this bank that it is non profit or something and is to forward all earnings to charity. What difference does that make? My money is not already their earnings. My fees from this money will be their earnings. Unless of course I can't be found. But the policy apparently doesn't dictate that they should at least try to find them first. Even if you can't find more than 5% of those players it's still better than nothing.

                Avatar
                NY
                United States
                Member #23835
                October 16, 2005
                3475 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: April 8, 2016, 6:28 pm - IP Logged

                "MUSL did what policy dictate they do with unclaimed winnings."

                The problem is that there were no unclaimed winnings. There was prize money that wasn't won.