The time is now 8:07 am
You last visited
April 18, 2024, 7:55 am
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.
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
excuse my French...but "what the hell is that"???????lolololololololololol I can't even pronounce it
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.
Following the excellent points made by you and "LADY C".....I remember when this story was printed on here, during 2005, when it initially occurred, and I stated in one of my postings, that you would be surprised the number of people, within families...only family members, who continue to use the "Credit Cards" of deceased family members...they pay for their purchases of course, but continue to use the credit as it has already been established and is "good credit." They use those Cards to pay all kinds of Bills, as well as over the phone purchases.
This is not in and of itself an isolated case. The only real difference is that she decided to use it this time to purchase a "narcotic" which is clearly unlawful. Again, playing the "Devil's Advocate" if she and her husband had been on good terms at the time of the occurrence of this incident, it would never have been an "incident at all" because he would not have called the Police and they would have lived happily ever after with the $$$$$$....Because we do not know the"whole story", I am wondering, quite frankly if she refused to share the $$$$$$$ with him, or 99% of it, before she spent it..If she had been willing to share, we wouldn't have had this opportunity to comment.
Some other interesting things I found on her...
Medford police detectives began tracking Goodenow on Oct. 26 after receiving information that she had used the credit card to purchase items at several gas stations, restaurants and other stores.
An investigation determined that she had used the stolen credit card to purchase the lottery tickets. They were able to link her to the scratch-its because she had signed her real name on the back of the tickets.
They also got her for computer crime and a parole violation. This isn't her first time at "game playing" and I don't mean lottery games! hehe <-- but sad.
Happy Saturday Libra!
I agree with you there. Not only that, but had she lost using that credit card, this would be a non-issue. The potential fraud remains the same, but the principle is that this wouldn't have been an issue if she had not won that kind of ca$h.
Happy Saturday Libra!
I agree with you there. Not only that, but had she lost using that credit card, this would be a non-issue. The potential fraud remains the same, but the principle is that this wouldn't have been an issue if she had not won that kind of ca$h.
1/14/2006
Isn't it so,......and as "MommaCat"....pointed out she signed her actual name to her scratch offs, that she paid for with the Card. Anyone, clever enough to use "credit cards" of deceased family members should know that you never purchase anything, that you will have to "sign for" outright....and again , I do not condone fraud or theft of any kind, but if she is using her "Mother-in-laws" card she should have been more careful. The outcome of this case should be very interesting.............................
However, somehow I am thinking that like the Review Booth in the NFL, the prosecution may not have enough conclusive evidence to strip her of that prize. Just a gut feeling...
GameGrl - If you were to use my credit card you would first have to pay the bill before you could charge anything!!! LOL
Once again, I understand that a fraud was committed (allegedly), I am not sure that it is as cut and dry as some of the responses have indicated. Yes the credit card company has rules, but it's situations like this one that makes everyone go back to the drawing board and make some adjustments, because no one saw this type of infraction coming! This is what I call an unforeseen circumstance and I would not be surprised by what happens as a result. Think about loopholes. There are probably several in this whole situation, regardless of the credit card agreement, their rules, or regulations. We don't have all the details about the lady, the police, or the allegations. We are merely spectators
Let's suppose that this is a small town in OR (population 1,000 SALUTE!) and since lottery winnings become a matter of public record, someone found out and felt she was not worthy to win the prize and as a result made all her business a matter of public record!
I really like this forum and the exchange of information helps us all! The fun thing about lottery issues is how it brings out the best and the worse in some people.
To keep the winnings or not keep the winnings..THAT is the real question!
GameGrl - If you were to use my credit card you would first have to pay the bill before you could charge anything!!! LOL
Once again, I understand that a fraud was committed (allegedly), I am not sure that it is as cut and dry as some of the responses have indicated. Yes the credit card company has rules, but it's situations like this one that makes everyone go back to the drawing board and make some adjustments, because no one saw this type of infraction coming! This is what I call an unforeseen circumstance and I would not be surprised by what happens as a result. Think about loopholes. There are probably several in this whole situation, regardless of the credit card agreement, their rules, or regulations. We don't have all the details about the lady, the police, or the allegations. We are merely spectators
Let's suppose that this is a small town in OR (population 1,000 SALUTE!) and since lottery winnings become a matter of public record, someone found out and felt she was not worthy to win the prize and as a result made all her business a matter of public record!
I really like this forum and the exchange of information helps us all! The fun thing about lottery issues is how it brings out the best and the worse in some people.
To keep the winnings or not keep the winnings..THAT is the real question!
What part of the case isnt cut and dried if the story is accurate? What is there about the case that would make anyone go back to the drawing board, and what are the loopholes you think they might close?
People have been dying since long before credit card companies existed, so it isn't a surprise to them that some of their cardholders will die in any given year, and they've already covered it in the agreement that governs use of the card. You can't transfer your card to anyone else, and the account terminates when you die because the company can't expect dead people to make timely payments. That makes the use of a dead person's card a fraudulent use.
Being a criminal has nothing to do with whether or not she's entitled to the winnings. How she acquired the ticket does. If she acquired the ticket through fraudulent use of a credit card, then she stole the ticket, isn't the owner of the ticket, and doesn't have any rights to the winnings.
Happy Saturday Libra!
I agree with you there. Not only that, but had she lost using that credit card, this would be a non-issue. The potential fraud remains the same, but the principle is that this wouldn't have been an issue if she had not won that kind of ca$h.
What is it, exactly, that would be a non-issue since it's still fraud? It sounds like you're suggesting that she would have been able to continue using the card, even though you agree that it's still fraud. That might be true, but if she was turned in by family members its not likely that the ticket had anything to do with it, unless perhaps they're foolish enough to think that they would become the owners. There's a chance that she could have continued to use the card and would have paid it off and eventually cancelled it, but if she was ever caught everything from the first fraudulent charge would come back to bite her in the ass. The items she bought with the card don't have any bearing, one way or the other, on the fraud.
Happy Saturday Libra!
I agree with you there. Not only that, but had she lost using that credit card, this would be a non-issue. The potential fraud remains the same, but the principle is that this wouldn't have been an issue if she had not won that kind of ca$h.
1/14/2006
Isn't it so,......and as "MommaCat"....pointed out she signed her actual name to her scratch offs, that she paid for with the Card. Anyone, clever enough to use "credit cards" of deceased family members should know that you never purchase anything, that you will have to "sign for" outright....and again , I do not condone fraud or theft of any kind, but if she is using her "Mother-in-laws" card she should have been more careful. The outcome of this case should be very interesting.............................
Hey Libra !
Sorry for the curveball :
Triskadekaiphobia is the fear of the number 13
and Friday was the 13th.
DD
PS, sorry bout your Redskins......
The story may be accurate, but it's details that will only be mentioned in a trial,( if it comes to that) that can make all the difference in the outcome. Not the part about the fraud, but the details that will make a difference in the outcome of the ticket. It appears everyone agrees with the fraud issue. It's ownership of the ticket and the remaining payments. I do not know of any specific loopholes that may need to be addressed with the exception of what the lottery will do, as they have never experienced anything like this This type of situation presents a new twist.
As loopholes go, I wouldn't begin to know what could be used, but they (loopholes) have been used in many a case that no one saw it coming and what supposedly was a tight case, fell apart over some little known detail. That's all I'm saying. If they print the outcome it will confirm or deny any of our points. All of you made some very good ones. Have a great week.
I'll bet she regret she didn't pay cash for that ticket now.
Happy Saturday Libra!
I agree with you there. Not only that, but had she lost using that credit card, this would be a non-issue. The potential fraud remains the same, but the principle is that this wouldn't have been an issue if she had not won that kind of ca$h.
1/14/2006
Isn't it so,......and as "MommaCat"....pointed out she signed her actual name to her scratch offs, that she paid for with the Card. Anyone, clever enough to use "credit cards" of deceased family members should know that you never purchase anything, that you will have to "sign for" outright....and again , I do not condone fraud or theft of any kind, but if she is using her "Mother-in-laws" card she should have been more careful. The outcome of this case should be very interesting.............................
Hey Libra !
Sorry for the curveball :
Triskadekaiphobia is the fear of the number 13
and Friday was the 13th.
DD
PS, sorry bout your Redskins......
1/16/2006
Thanks "DD"..... you're sweet......oh well, it was a great ride while it lasted, I just wish the
Happy Saturday Libra!
I agree with you there. Not only that, but had she lost using that credit card, this would be a non-issue. The potential fraud remains the same, but the principle is that this wouldn't have been an issue if she had not won that kind of ca$h.
1/14/2006
Isn't it so,......and as "MommaCat"....pointed out she signed her actual name to her scratch offs, that she paid for with the Card. Anyone, clever enough to use "credit cards" of deceased family members should know that you never purchase anything, that you will have to "sign for" outright....and again , I do not condone fraud or theft of any kind, but if she is using her "Mother-in-laws" card she should have been more careful. The outcome of this case should be very interesting.............................
Hey Libra !
Sorry for the curveball :
Triskadekaiphobia is the fear of the number 13
and Friday was the 13th.
DD
PS, sorry bout your Redskins......
1/16/2006
Thanks "DD"..... you're sweet......oh well, it was a great ride while it lasted, I just wish the
Go Panthers!!!
hey give the woman a brake .maybe she just forgot her mother-in-law died. sometime inlaws can become outlaws
However, somehow I am thinking that like the Review Booth in the NFL, the prosecution may not have enough conclusive evidence to strip her of that prize. Just a gut feeling...
I hope for her sake she was able to get her attorney to take the CASE on a "PRO-BONO" basis, which as you well know, means that if she loses they will not be paid a dime. Attorneys can be very expensive, and with such a huge "kitty" at stake here, she could lose and still end up paying a "Fortune in Legal Fees"
Happy Hump Day Libra!!
I hope for her case that is also how the attorneys get paid. I think for cases involving these types of matters it should almost be mandatory, as the blood-suckers, errrrrrrrr, attorneys can get rich and deplete a prize quickly regardless of who wins. The attorneys are in point the real "winners" of the lottery in these cases.
hey give the woman a brake .maybe she just forgot her mother-in-law died. sometime inlaws can become outlaws
HAPPY WEDNESDAY "GOCART"
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......you didn't really say that did you...LOLOLOLOOLOLOL
"maybe she just forgot her Mother-in-Law died"............LOLOLOLOLOL.....LOVIN IT........
Happy Hump Day Libra!!
I hope for her case that is also how the attorneys get paid. I think for cases involving these types of matters it should almost be mandatory, as the blood-suckers, errrrrrrrr, attorneys can get rich and deplete a prize quickly regardless of who wins. The attorneys are in point the real "winners" of the lottery in these cases.
BTW......yes and isn't so.........that's what I'm expecting to happen to the "7 co-workers" at KAISER in CALIFORNIA.........if you remember that 'FIASCO'....$$$$$$$315,000,000.00'FIASCO'.....where the 1 lone co-worker who claims he usually plays the M&M w/his co-workers as a collective body but wasn't at the office on the day they played this particular time......can't wait to see how that turns out.......either way.....the "blood sucking leeches"... will come out on top, as if they had won the $$$$$$$ themselves..................
Right on Libra! I bet they will end up with over a million in "legal fees"!!!
No offense meant for any practicing law on this board :)