AUSTIN, Tx. — A man cheated of his million-dollar jackpot wants the Texas Lottery to pay up.
The case of Willis Willis drew widespread attention a week ago after a store clerk was indicted for allegedly keeping Willis' winning ticket and claiming the 67-year-old Grand Prairie man's prize in June.
The clerk, identified as Pankaj Joshi, is considered a fugitive.
And Willis is still waiting for his money.
"It's been amazing what's going on," Willis, who said he does maintenance work at apartment buildings, said Tuesday. "I need the money, but no, I'm not upset. I'd just like to get the money that's due me."
Texas Lottery Commission spokesman Bobby Heith declined comment on the issue Tuesday. Willis and his lawyer, Sean Breen of Austin, said the lottery's general counsel agreed to meet next week.
"We're cautiously optimistic the Texas Lottery Commission is going to do the right thing and pay Mr. Willis the money he won fair and square," Breen said.
"We believe the Texas Lottery Commission had a duty to properly and thoroughly investigate what amounts to a major red flag — the presentation of a million-dollar winning ticket by one of its own agents — rather than simply pay that agent money that belongs to Mr. Willis," Breen wrote in a Monday letter to the agency's general counsel. "Mr. Willis did nothing wrong, and therefore the lottery should pay him immediately."
Willis said his plans, assuming he gets his winnings, are simple: Get attention for some dental problems; pay his bills from a hospital stay this year; and take care of the education of his daughter, who intends to go to college.
He bought the winning Mega Millions ticket May 29 in Grand Prairie, according to the Austin Police Department, one of the agencies that investigated the case. On May 31, Willis asked a clerk to check whether it and two others were winners. He was told he had won $2.
Co-workers blew whistle
On June 25, the clerk, identified as Joshi, presented the winning ticket at the commission in Austin. The ticket was validated, and $750,006, after taxes, was transferred to Joshi's bank account.
When Joshi's co-workers became suspicious of his good fortune and called the commission, investigators determined that Willis had bought the ticket, and they gave their findings to the Travis County District Attorney's Office, according to police. A Travis County grand jury indicted Joshi on the offense of claiming a lottery prize by fraud, a second-degree felony.
"He's considered a fugitive, and we're continuing to search for him," said Travis County Assistant District Attorney Patricia Robertson, chief of the White Collar Crime Unit.
So far, $365,000 has been recovered from U.S. banks, officials said.
"That money is being held in an account. We're going to be returning that to the victim at some point," Robertson said. "We hope to be able to return the money to him as quickly as possible."
Hopes to avoid a lawsuit
She said officials are trying to recover the rest of the money.
Breen said Willis "played by the rules," and his jackpot claim should be paid in full, regardless of whether the rest of the funds are recovered.
Breen said in his letter that Willis "should not be forced to sue to collect his prize."
The state generally has protection from individuals' lawsuits unless the Legislature gives permission to sue. Breen said in some instances that immunity may be waived, but he hoped the matter does not come to that.
as they say , Everything is BIG in Texas, Why not this BIG mistake.
I'm sure the guy will get his funds, since it went thru the investigative and court stages.
I just Hope Texas gives this man a BIG ole apology for such a fiasco.
Mr.Willis won the money fair and square, and should be paid the full amount regardless wether or not this clerk has some of his funds.
The Lottery should pay the amount due and then go after the clerk for their money, not Mr Willis waiting for the rest of the money, or waiting for whatever funds are being held for this investigation.
The Texas Lottery Commission seems to be an Example of the Lack of Integrity in Government!
Come On Texas: Pay the Guy Already!
Wonder how much the lawyer is going to rip him for now?
I wish Willis the best but he seems maybe just a little bit slow and I hope he doesn't fall victim to a feeding frenzy after he gets the money.
And the Texas Lottery ought to give him his money immediately. It was stolen by someone who was a de facto agent for the Lottery.
at least 20%
Did I miss something somewhere in the first story about this village idiot?!!!! Mr. Willis should be grateful for any money he gets from the Lottery Comnmission!! As I recall it was Mr. Willis, who couldn't find the channel that televised the drawings (TXCN shows the lottery results all day everyday here in TX), stopped purchasing the newspaper, was too da-mn lazy to pick up the results printout on the counter/on the playslip kiosk, or scan his own frickin ticket at the scanner attached to the counter. All this sorry P.O.S. did was hand over his ticket because he trusted the store clerk!! He was too G.D. lazy to even sign the da-mn thing (the ticket)!!!!!
Now he expect the TLC to give a million?!!! If it was not for his sorry azz this sh-it would not be happening now!!!! And if it was not for the store owner and the other store clerk this ungrateful puppy would not be getting the 365K. A million bucks?!!! Willis doesn't need a million bucks, he need a keeper. I hope it goes to court and get ate up in court costs and lawer fees!!! If the TLC does decide to give his careless behind a million dollars, I would be surprised.
Everywhere you look: on the playslip, print out results, back of your ticket, you will see the words "Sign ticket before claiming." Which part of that is so difficult to do?!! What the lotteries need to do is start making all of these careless people pay by giving them not-a-thing. Why should they be rewarded because they are too lazy to sign their ticket?
I do not in no way condone what the crooked store clerk did, but why excuse Willis? Whatever happened to accountability? It was Willis' resonsibility to check his ticket and to make sure he signed his ticket. He does not deserve the full amount. The only thing he deserves is the amount that could be recovered. The TLC should not have to pay for his carelessness!!
The TLC doesn't owe this man an apology because they did not refuse him payment nor did they cause this problem. What the TLC is doing is no different than what an insurance company would do when it comes to paying on a large claim of this magnitude.
As I recall Willis went on living his life even though he had no knowledge of his win. Now all of a sudden he is in a hurry to get paid? He'll get paid when he gets paid. Not a day before. Not a day later.
If Willis's lawyer decide to take this to court, who do you think is gonna win? I'll tell ya. The TLC because they can tie this thing up in litigation for years and they have deep pockets and lots and lots of lawyers and politicians. Willis' lawyer will only be on the bandwagon until he realizes the money has been used up. Do you actually believe this guy will hang around once his fees surpasses the amount they are going after? If this thing ends up in litigation Willis' case will hit the "to-be-continued" file real quick. And you know litigation can last so long that your great-great-grandchildren will be drawing a social security check by the time this thing is resolved.
As my highschool english teacher used to tell us, "A hint to the wise is sufficient." So here is your hint: Sign your tickets!!!! IN INK NOT PENCIL OR CRAYON OR FELT PEN!!!!!
The winner of this whole pathetic saga is the IRS. And once again I'll say, congratulations IRS U R A Winner!!!!!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the last story about him say "He is being very patient about this"? Now he's getting antsy?
I guess I'm slow on the uptake here, but isn't the ticket holder the barer here? I understand the clerk stole it and I understand it belongs to Willis (there is so much proof pointing at him) but how is the Texas Lottery to know all of that until it is explained to them? They gave the money to the person with the legitimate winning ticket. I guess I'm trying to say I'm not seeing the Texas Lottery people being the bad people here.
What they do now, is another story. Personally, I see this as a between Willis and the clerk type of issue. See it from a slippery slope aspect, if they pay Willis, how many other people will attempt to come out and say so and so stole it from them and demand the lottery to pay them? More and more money will have to go to the lottery lawyers and the jackpots will rise a hellava lot slower.
Or I could be WAY off...
Either way Mr. Willis is losing roughly 1/2 of his money to taxes and lawyer fees. Maybe he'll demand that the lottery will pay for his lawyer too.
A few years back a player bought 13 Buckeye5 tickets with the same numbers and all his tickets were jackpot winners. The minimum jackpot payouts were $100K per ticket or if there were more than 10 winners a cap of $1M would be divided equally by all the winners. There was another winning ticket so this guy got even less then the $1M. He sued the state and the store claiming he didn't know about the cap (which was printed on the back of the play slips) so the clerk as an agent of the lottery should have explained the rules to him before he bought his tickets. He was hoping to get $100K for each of his winning tickets but the court decided it was his responsibility to read, understand and follow the those rules, the state could not be held responsible for his stupidity.
Since this guy could end up only getting what can be recovered and paying 35% of it to the IRS before paying his lawyer and local taxes. The IRS will be paid twice from the same jackpot winnings.
The state will be required to pay his legal fees. Many a judgment in favor of the plaintiff is handled that the losing team pays the fees for recovery. Since its clear this man is seeking his rightful claim
As to the previous poster- Your logic does not compute. The Lottery failed on many levels. The lastest being not paying the man after all protocals were followed. This case is clear in that it WAS STOLEN and then claimed fraudently. Yes folks can claim fraud, but this man and the lottery already had enough to CONVICT the man of this. Perhaps you need to read how this story clearly rings in favor of the gent who now seeks his winnings.
That pankaj Joshi should just refund back all the monies that he still has because they will catch up with him. He better return the loot and then maybe, just maybe they will be lenient with him. I'm pretty sure he still has most of the money somewhere in neat bundles.
I think the man being not too bright will be irrelevant in any legal proceedings.
I think the main issue will be that the clerk, acting as an agent for the TLC, stole his money.
If a friend, relative or stranger stole it that's a completely different case.
But it was an agent of the TLC that stole it.
He wins, they lose.
"Perhaps you need to read how this story clearly rings in favor of the gent who now seeks his winnings."
Perhaps you need to read up on when the ticket was claimed, when "the gent" found out that a ticket he had bought was a winning ticket, and when the lottery first heard that there was a problem. The Texas lottery has already paid the full value of the prize. At that time they had no way of knowing that the person claiming it stole it from the rightful owner.
Whether or not the lottery owes the guy anything will be up to the courts, but I don't see any liability on the part of the lottery. The person who stole the ticket worked for a retailer who sold lottery tickets. I'm very skeptical that the courts will find that to make the clerk an agent of the lottery. If he wasn't an agent of the lottery then the lottery has no liability, and this is no different than trying to blame the people who make Cracker Jacks because a store employee stole the prize from your box after you bought it, opened it, and left it on the counter.
There is a slim chance that the guy might have some success is in going after the store. As a clerk, the person who stole the ticket was an agent of the store, which would make the store liable for some damages caused to a customer by a clerk. Unfortunately, the damages in this case were caused by a criminal act, and not by the clerk simply doing his job poorly or incorrectly. Finding an employer responsible for acts that are completely outside of normal job duties is very unusual.
I think he should get all of his money. Someone STOLE his ticket whether he was dumb, blind or stupid..the win was still his.
"I'm very skeptical that the courts will find that to make the clerk an agent of the lottery."
The court has already made a ruling.
"investigators determined that Willis had bought the ticket, and they gave their findings to the Travis County District Attorney's Office, according to police. A Travis County grand jury indicted Joshi on the offense of claiming a lottery prize by fraud, a second-degree felony."
The article goes on to explain over half the money has been recovered.
As for the salesman being an agent, the retailer is still an agent for the state lottery whether the actual owner of the store sold the ticket or not. By your logic McDonald's could not be held responsible for the hot coffee that woman spilled in her lap because an employee sold the coffee.
That guy might be long gone, back to India, Pakistan or where-ever and so perhaps a lot of the money also.
The owner of the ticket should get the full amount of money owed to him, regardless, the Tx lottery is said to make more than enough money every year, but they are so greedy.
When a lottery clerk wins big, they should first be investigated good and the winning money put in hold for at least 2 to 4 weeks just in case somebody has claims to it, if after 4 weeks nobody comes forth, then give the money, this should be done just for those who sell lottery tickets and win more than $599.
This kind of thing might happen often, people just don't know about it, because they don't check the tickets themselves.
I though it was clear that my post was about Willis' case against the lottery. There hasn't been a trial yet, so there certainly hasn't been a court ruling. The part you've quoted is about the criminal case against the clerk for stealing the ticket. The Grand Jury's finding simply says that they believe there is enough evidence to warrant a trial. Calling that a court ruling is a stretch.
McDonald's is responsible for their coffee regardless of who sells it, because it's their coffee made and served to their specifications. That their employees are agents (exactly as any retailer's employees are agents of the retailer) has no relevance. Those McDonald's employes also sell Coca Cola, but neither the employees or McDonald's are agents of Coca Cola. I know that many people refer to lottery retailers as "agents," but as far as I know they are not agents of the lottery in the legal sense. If they aren't agents, then their employees aren't either.
Agent or no agent I predict that the TLC will avoid court for the sake of public relations and give Willis his money and then pursue recovery of the rest from the thief.
They can't win any other way, at least not in the court of public opinion which is very important for maintaining their credibility and stature.
It may be considered the politically correct way of resolving the issue but nonetheless it would be in their best interest for this issue to go away as quickly as possible.
I don't think they'll be concerned about setting a precedent due to the rare potential for cases like this.
Wel, I was not too far off, he is from Nepal which is very close to India and he did say that he was going back there.
They might never see him again, unless he was crazy enough to stay here on the US, but as Indians here stick together, even if he stayed, they might never see him.
-----
For some reason that just made me remember about D. B. Cooper., who they never found.
The grand jury answered the most important question when it ruled the ticket belonged to Willis. At this point it's not certain that Willis can sue the Texas Lottery Commission so using the McDonald's example is putting the cart before the horse. But if he can sue the evidence will be in his favor.
The TLC owns the lottery terminals so anyone selling or cashing tickets is acting as their agent. A retailer would be the business where the terminals are located.
I'm sure the TLC had complaints in the past about clerks cheating players so they should have done a more thorough investigation before paying off.
I'm sure the TLC had complaints in the past about clerks cheating players so they should have done a more thorough investigation before paying off.
Joshi was a student at the University of Texas at Arlington, I doubt if he told them he also worked at the store that sold the lottery ticket. It's not unusual for a student his age to buy a lottery ticket.
By "thorough investigation" I meant simply asking the retailer if they knew the winner. Joshi might not said he worked at that store but the store owner or manager would have confirmed it. Without any laws preventing clerks from buying and cashing tickets in their stores, the potential for fraud will always be there.
Coin Toss was a dealer in Vegas and I believe they will confirm that under the Nevada state gambling codes, they can't gamble in the casino where they work or in any casino owned by that company. We all know there is no record of payoffs under $599 so the only deterrent would be the state lotteries running sting operations. With a fine and/or suspension or removal of the license, the store owners and managers would police their own businesses.
"McDonald's is responsible for their coffee regardless of who sells it, because it's their coffee made and served to their specifications."
And that's my point, the Texas Lottery is responsible regardless of who sells or cashes their tickets.
The grand jury found there was enough evidence proving Willis was the rightful owner of the ticket and indited Joshi for fraud. A warrant was issued but since Joshi's whereabouts are unknown there will probably be a default judgment finding him guilty. At this point it's not clear whether the TLC can be sued but it's certainly clear they didn't payoff the rightful owner of the ticket.
Nobody is saying lottery retailers or the clerks running the lottery terminals are employees of the state lottery commission, but that's irrelevant because of the value of the ticket, it was validated at a regional lottery office by an employed of the lottery commission. The check was issued by the TLC too.
You're correct because at this time there is no court trial with Judge Ito, Marsha Clark, and Johnnie Cochran and McDonalds wouldn't have been on trial either if they believed a jury would award $millions in damages to someone that placed a hot cup of McDonalds coffee between their legs while driving and talking on a cell phone. The real trial is being conducted by the customers and I doubt McDonalds lost very many because they didn't put a warning label on their coffee cups "Very hot and shouldn't be placed between your legs while driving". On the other hand will the Texas lottery players still have confidence they will be paid their rightful winnings after hearing "oops, we accidentally paid off a clerk that defrauded one of our customers but we still won't pay the rightful winner"?
"I know that many people refer to lottery retailers as "agents," but as far as I know they are not agents of the lottery in the legal sense. If they aren't agents, then their employees aren't either."
Everybody knows sports agents act in the behalf of the players they represent and talent agents act in behalf of the entertainers they represent, but you're actually saying when a clerk sells or cashes tickets on the behalf of a state lottery, they aren't really agents. After filling out an 8 page application and being issued a Texas lottery sales license, a business becomes a lottery retailer. The definition of an "agent" is a person or business authorized to act on another's behalf. Simply put, anyone running a lottery terminal is an agent by any common or legal definition.
"And that's my point, the Texas Lottery is responsible regardless of who sells or cashes their tickets."
If we were talking about a defect with a ticket or an injury caused by a defective ticket you'd be correct. Maybe you understand that the issue over the coffee was a product liability case? There was nothing wrong with the lottery ticket in question. It was a legitimate winner, and the lottery paid the prize in good faith. I expect that nobody would be arguing that the lottery is responsible if the ticket had been stolen in a muggin. If it had simply been lost, half of the posters would be screaming ignorantly about bearer bonds and claiming the lottery has to pay the person in possession of the ticket.
"Everybody knows sports agents..."
Again, simply calling somebody an agent doesn't mean they're actually a legal agent. Sports and talent agents negotiate on behalf of theirclients. Creating a legal obligation for their client would require apower of attorney, and would mean that the client then wouldn't have tosign any contracts negotiated by the "agent".
"Simply put, anyone running a lottery terminal is an agent by any common or legal definition."
Again, the "common" definition is absolutely meaningless. There's aspecific legal definition, and your concept of what that means doesn'tappear to be based in reality. Ownership of the terminal doesn't do anymore to make a retailer a legal agent of the lottery than having a soda cooler owned byCoke or Pepsi makes a retailer a legal agent for either of them. As is oftendone by other companies, the lottery supplies the retailer withequipment to facilitate the sale of tickets. If it hasn't occurred toyou yet, if we were talking about a scratcher your argument would becompletely nonexistent.
I see no benefit to the lottery in giving a retailer authority to do anything more than sell and redeem tickets, which doesn't require them to be legal agents of the lottery. As I said before, I don't know for a fact that retailers are never agents, but if an actual agency relationship exists it isn't for any of the reasons you've trotted out.
"There's aspecific legal definition, and your concept of what that means doesn't appear to be based in reality"
Lottery retailers are called licensed retail sales "agents" on the license application and in the Texas Revised Code chapter 466, section .002 DEFINITIONS (subsection (9): "sales agent" or "sales agency" means a person licensed under this chapter to sell tickets". It's obvious the person holding the license is in fact selling and redeeming lottery tickets on behalf of the TLC and I'm not wasting any more time checking the TLC licensed retailer guidelines to see how selling or redeeming lottery tickets applies to sales clerks.
As for being realistic, you want to compare losing change in a Pepsi or Coke vending machine to losing over $600,000 after being defrauded by a lottery sales clerk/agent. My only opinion is since over half the money is recovered, it would be good for business if the TLC made up the rest.
State lottery commissions buy or lease lottery terminals and distribute them to licensed retailers throughout their state. Anyone that prints out a lottery ticket from one of those terminals is acting on behalf of the state lottery commission. For sake of debate, you're making it sound like Willis walked up to someone on the street, asked them check his ticket, was told it was worth $2, and got $2. But you're wrong, Wilis went to a licensed Texas lottery retailer and asked the clerk to check his ticket and after checking the ticket, the clerk knew it was worth $1 million but lied to Willis and said it was worth $2.
"I see no benefit to the lottery in giving a retailer authority to do anything more than sell and redeem tickets, which doesn't require them to be legal agents of the lottery"
The act of giving a retailer the authority to sell, check, and redeem tickets under $599 is giving retailers the authority to act in the behalf of the state lottery no matter how you define it.
The authority of the retailers to sell tickets is given when the terminal goes online and the authority to redeem tickets is printed on the back of the ticket; they can redeem up to $599 on one ticket. The value of Willis ticket was more so the clerk had no authority to redeem or validate Willis' ticket, but Willis didn't know the value of the ticket and accepted the $2 the clerk told him it was worth. Apparently the clerk had the ticket validated and redeemed at a regional lottery office.
On the Texas website under "How to Play Lotto Texas" and on that page under "How To Find Out If You're a Winner", it clearly says "Winning numbers are available at Texas Lottery retailers". The same information can be found in the "How to Play" pamphlets at lottery retailers.
People are saying Willis was stupid for not checking the ticket before handing it to the clerk but even if we check our tickets here on Lottery Post, the news Paper, the state lottery website, TV, or anywhere else, we can only redeem them at an authorized lottery agency; a lottery retailer, a regional lottery office, or at the state lottery headquarters. Willis chose to check his ticket at the store where he bought it and where he thought he could redeem it for the full value if it was a winner.
It's clear the TLC gives retailers through a licensing process the authority to sell, check, and redeem TLC lottery tickets, they instruct players to check those tickets at lottery retailers on their website, in pamphlets where the ticket was bought, and where to redeem them on the back of the ticket. A Texas prosecutor had enough evidence of fraud they convened an grand jury and a warrant was issued. That means nothing to Willis because they is no current legislation allowing him to sue the TLC. There is no higher authority Willis can go to whether or not the TLC is responsible for the actions of one of their sales agents.
Again it would be good for business for the TLC to payoff Willis before an up and coming legislator takes up the cause and creates legislation that might result in the TLC being sued over scratch-off paper cuts.
Instead of wasting time on the retailer guidelines you'd be better off finding out the difference between a legal agent and many other types of "agents". Simply calling a retailer a sales agent or sales agency doesn't mean they are a legal agent. If you read the end of your quote it very plainly says that it means retailers are licensed "to sell tickets." If the lottery intended to make retailers legal agents of the lottery it would be carefully spelled out, describing exactly what powers retailers had to act on behalf of the lottery.
"As for being realistic, you want to compare losing change in a Pepsi or Coke vending machine"
I said absolutely nothing about vending machines. You claimed that having equipment supplied by a company makes another party using that equipment a legal agent of the company that owns the equipment. I simply pointed out that having a cooler (you know, a case, usually with sliding doors, that keeps thing cool) owned by Coke or Pepsi doesn't mean the corner store is an agent of Coke or Pepsi. I don't think it's a hard concept to understand.
"The act of giving a retailer the authority to sell, check, and redeemtickets under $599 is giving retailers the authority to act in thebehalf of the state lottery no matter how you define it."
Only in your imagination. The Coke analogy works fairly well here, too. Coke allows stores to sell Coke, and in many states, to redeem the empty bottles for 5 or 10 cents. Coke and Pepsi often have contests where people win a free bottle of soda. Those free bottles (you know, "prizes") can be redeemed at retailers, can't they? You'd have to be completely clueless to think that somehow allows the store to act on behalf of the Coca Cola company. The lottery allowing retailers to sell and redeem tickets is no different in terms of the retailers authority to create obligations for the lottery. The obligations of the lottery result only from the ticket, and the retailer's actions can do nothing to create an obligation for the lottery. Despite your confusion, there is absolutely nothing about selling or redeeming lottery tickets that requires a retailer to be a legal agent of the lottery.
When the topic is "man gets cheated out of a free can of Pepsi" we'll keep you in mind, but this topic is about a man that bought Texas state lottery tickets from a licensed Texas Lottery retailer, took the tickets to a licensed Texas lottery retailer to be checked, and was scammed/cheated/hoodwinked/bamboozled/defrauded out of the true value of one of the tickets.
Texas just like every other state issues licenses to various agents so in the Texas State law codes there is a legal definition of an agent as anyone acting on the behalf if an individual entity; insurance companies are licensed and a licensed Texas insurance agent is acting on the behalf of an insurance company when they write a policy for a Texas state resident. The Texas Lottery section of the code defines a licensed retailer as a "sales agent" so it's obvious according to Texas law, a licensed retailer is acting on behalf of the TLC.
The TLC validated a signed lottery ticket and wrote a check for the value of the ticket to the signer without knowing the signer was a clerk for a TLC sales agent or what he had done. Legally Willis can't sue the TLC even if it can be proved the TLC is responsible for the actions of one of their sales agents so any debate about Pepsi, Coke, McDonalds or responsibility is pointless. There is enough evidence for the criminal court to charge the clerk with fraud but the story doesn't say if the licensed retailer was charged too.
On the license application there is an investigation process and there are regulations licensed retailers must follow and the TLC can revoke or suspend the license and turn off the terminal. It's possible that Willis could sue the retailer but he would have to prove there was a violation and I doubt the regulations cover student sales clerks who have the opportunity to cheat a player and then flee the country.
Had Willis signed the back of the ticket, the clerk could have still told him the ticket was worthless and threw it in the trash so I guess the moral of this story is to know the value of a ticket before we redeem it.
rdgrnr:
GREAT ??????????
WHO know'$$$$$$$$$$(when he may R may NOT collect D LOTTERY)????????????????????????????????
????????????????>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>WHO think's HE will ever get D>>>>>>MONY????????????????
remember..........HE is probably waiting 4 the "FREE">>>>>>>>>HEALTH>>CARE>>PLAN!!!!!!!!!!!!
2 PASS dis SATURADY$$$$$$$$$$$$!
free health cum'g dis week>END!!!!!!!
wait & wait til D CKECK>>>& you win a ####### 2 talk 2 DR. OBAMO!!!!!!
oh my GOD>>>>>????????????????????
why does NO>ONE like O'BAMA???????
Psykomo is 4>>>CHANGE>>>>>!!!!!!!!!!!!!
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
everyone must HATE >>>>o'BAMO ?????WHY???o'BAMA give's US>>>>>>>>>>>>CHANGE>>>>>$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
lottery post new'weeeeeeeeeeshodwould can>>>>
cut psyko>>>>>>OFF<<<<<cause he like'ssss$$$$!
O'BAMA@ this time!!!>>>>>.....................don't play!!
lol>>>>>>>>>>>>>!!!!
g@@D>>>>>>game'$$
The Texas Lottery can afford it easily, so pay up morons.
Sure they could afford it, but the state could "afford" to pay people for all kinds of losses. Giving away money they don't have to reduces how much goes towards government expenses, which is otherwise funded through taxes. Do you think the state should reimburse everyone who has something stolen from them? If I buy an Ipod at Best Buy and have it stolen, should Apple give me a new one?
It's too bad that the guy was ignorant enough to let somebody steal his ticket, but there's only one person at fault for that. It's his own fault, not the lottery's.
Actually no it isn't his fault. You can't blame the victim in a crime. Buying an Ipod and a once in a lifetime lottery jackpot ticket are two entirely different things, especially when that ticket is a winner. Not to mention A LOT more expensive than an Ipod. That kind of money should be insured by the lottery, and yes they are liable. Again, you don't blame the victim in a crime regardless of how incoherent they are.
I must disagree with you up to a point. In this case you can blame the victim. If you read the two previous stories, you will see that this crime against Mr. Willis could've been prevented or significantly reduced had he taken the time to check his own tickets and most of all had he signed his ticket. I do not condone the theft in any shape form or fashion. But there is no way on God's green earth you or anyone can excuse Mr. Willis' actions or lack there of.
Mr. Willis must be held accountable for his actions or lack there of and the price he is to pay is the money lost because of his carelessness.
Everywhere on the lottery paperwork players are told by the lottery commission to sign their tickets and that the lottery is not responsible for lost or stolen tickets. The lottery commission did not print this on everything just because they did not have anything better to do. They also state on the back of the playslips and other items that anyone who possesses an unsigned ticket may be able to claim a prize.
The Tx Lottery Commission has no reason to insure this kind of money. If you are gonna play the game then follow the rules. You have no right to cry foul when you leave yourself wide open the way Mr. Willis did. I compare this to laying down with dogs, getting up with fleas, and complaining about the smell and the flea bites.
The only thing Mr. Willis is entitled to is the $365,000 the state was able to recover. Nothing more. Nothing less.
My advice to anyone is, for the love of GOD people.........
SIGN YOUR TICKET!! SIGN YOUR TICKET!! SIGN YOUR TICKET!!
Umm no it is not the victim's fault at all, it NEVER is. If we went by your philosophy there would be a lot more empty jail cells. Preventing or preparing for a crime is irrelevant. Although it is certainly a good thing to do it still does not place blame on a victim because someone else decides to commit a crime. If that was the case we could all just go out and murder someone and say "Well they should have known it was coming and had their door locked, it is their fault!" Bullcrap. Willis did not sign the tickets because he did not know they were winners, he was getting them "checked" by what he considered to be an honest store clerk, who was actually a con-artist, thief, and a liar.
Not everyone has a lot of common sense or lottery knowledge, or access to a computer to check numbers. So they should be blamed if they are victimized? Please. Who is going to sign every ticket they get? Not many, as most tickets are losers. He is entitled to the FULL amount he won, not only the amount recovered, ESPECIALLY since the Lottery knos there was a crime comitted and who did it! It might be different if someone lost an unsigned ticket and had no proof it was theirs, but in this case all the evidence is there.
This isn't the same as someone stealing money from your house. If what you suggest is the best way to do things, then I guess the lottery should hire a few million store clerks to work for them to cheat honest customers out of their jackpot wins, it would cost them a lot less money. They could just pay the amount recovered then after the clerk is done vacationing.
If what you suggest is the best way to do things, then I guess the lottery should hire a few million store clerks to work for them to cheat honest customers out of their jackpot wins, it would cost them a lot less money.
You assume a thieving store clerk would give everything he stole to the one who hired him. Well this store clerk was hired by the store owner and the store owner didn't get any of his loot. The lottery would be out of the same amount of money regardless of who collected the winnings, the customer or the thief.
The Lottery Commission may well be within their legal rights to withhold payment but for an agency that depends on consumer confidence I think it would be in their best interest to just pay the man his winnings in the spirit of good will and just doing the right thing.
Maybe they should keep a fund of all the unclaimed millions they haven't paid out as a contingency for just such an occasion as this.
Legalities aside (and I don't take them lightly), they should just do the right thing in this instance.
The Lottery Commission did pay out on the ticket. They honored their part of the transaction when they cashed the ticket. The problem here is the person collecting the money stole the ticket. The TX Lottery Commission has printed on their playslips, brochures, and other items that they are not responsible for any lost or stolen tickets. this is the direct quotation:
"Sign ticket before claiming. Unsigned tickets could be claimed by whoever possesses the ticket.
The Texas Lottery is not responsible for lost or stolen tickets."
For some reason folks seem to have a hard time accepting this. Once the TX Lottery paid out on the ticket they were removed from the equation. The problem now is for Mr. Willis to recover his funds from the state, who said they will give him the $365,000, and to try to get the remaining money from the thieving store clerk.
Ditto Perdue, you are absolutely right, he should have signed the ticket, he is the sole owner, it is his responsibility. I know that when I buy tickets I sign mine as soon as I get them and I always check my own ticket there has been too many instances where people have been frauded out of there winnings. Mr. Willis should take responsibility for his own lack security by not signing his ticket.
Maybe the TLC can give Mr. Willis a pair of hiking boots instead so he can negotiate the mountains of Katmandu with his team of lawyers in tow looking for the rest of his money then. Maybe that would be payment enough for trusting a de facto agent of the TLC.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
I would agree with you if one thing was not so obvious.
I would be one of the main people spamming the TLC saying give this man his million dollars had he signed the ticket and the clerk removed his name and inserted his name and then cashed in the ticket. But that did not happen. You know as well as I how easy a determined crook could finagle a way to remove Mr. Willis' name had it been on the ticket. But in this case no The TLC is not is the wrong here.
You have to keep in mind that Mr. Willis had sooooo many opportunities to check his own tickets before he went to get them checked at the store. Now the TLC is supposed to pay because he was too lazy to do it himself. Hell, if he has been playing the same numbers for years like he said he did, then all he had to do was look at a results slip and know that he had won. I mean he did say he played the same numbers so long that the play slip could not be read by the terminal.
If he had the strength to reach out and hand his tickets to the clerk to get his tickets verified. Then he had the strength to reach out and scan his ticket at the terminal attached to the counter that would have told him that he had a winning ticket.
If you sign every ticket you buy you must have a lot of free time or not play very much. As I said not many are going to do that, that is why clerks are at the store for to verify winning tickets, not steal them. It is bad enough how much money the IRS steals from winners let alone store clerks on top of that.
Au Contraire. It is because of the thefts of winning tickets, the TLC decided to install these scan machines in the stores. These scanners are used just like those price scanners you see posted in Wal-Mart. all you have to do is place your barcode on your ticket under the infrared and the screen will tell you if the ticket is a winner, hell it even plays a we're in the money jingle when you scan a winning ticket. And if your ticket is more than $599 it will tell you to go to the local lottery office. They are all over the place. They are in the mom and pop stores. The gas stations. The grocery store. Everywhere. Hell, we even have the lottery machine where you can purchase your own tickets. All you have to do is fill out your play slip run it through the machine and insert your money and it will print your tickets. This machine will even scan your tickets to see if they are a winner. And the great part is, neither your money nor your tickets have to touch the hands of a store clerk.