CONCORD, N.H. — A judge ruled Monday that a New Hampshire woman who won a Powerball jackpot worth nearly $560 million can keep her identity private, but not her hometown.
Judge Charles Temple noted that the case's resolution rested on application of the state's Right-to-Know law, which governs access to public records for the woman. She was identified as "Jane Doe" in a lawsuit against the New Hampshire Lottery Commission.
Temple wrote he had "no doubts whatsoever that should Ms. Doe's identity be revealed, she will be subject to an alarming amount of harassment, solicitation, and other unwanted communications." He said she met her burden of showing that her privacy interest outweighs the public's interest in disclosing her name in the nation's eighth-largest jackpot.
However, Temple noted that nothing in his order could be interpreted to prevent the lottery commission or its employees from "processing, maintaining, or accessing Ms. Doe's ticket in the normal course of business."
The woman signed her ticket after the Jan. 6 drawing, but later learned from lawyers that she could have shielded her identity by writing the name of a trust. They said she was upset after learning she was giving up her anonymity by signing the ticket — something the lottery commission acknowledged isn't spelled out on the ticket, but is detailed on its website. The woman ended up establishing the Good Karma Family Trust of 2018.
Temple found that the commission's argument that revealing her name to ensure the public she's a "bona fide" lottery participant and "real" winner was not persuasive, because a trustee claiming a prize on someone's behalf is certainly not a "bona fide" participant or a "real" winner.
Last week, the commission handed over $264 million — the amount left after taxes were deducted — to the woman's lawyers. They said she would give $150,000 to Girls Inc. and $33,000 apiece to three chapters of End 68 Hours of Hunger in the state. It is the first of what her lawyers said would be donations over the years of between $25 million to $50 million during her lifetime.
The woman's lawyers have only said she is from southern New Hampshire and doesn't want the attention that often comes with winning a big jackpot.
Todd, you must have read the story same time I did.
I wonder if she'll be outed through FOIA?
Maybe my late Mum's old saying 'loose lips sink ships' will prevail. Somebody will blab.
While I am glad she has been given anonymity (at this point) I am thinking on appeal this may get overturned. Time will tell on what the state decides to do
This is an example of the rich getting what they want through the court system. I would vote against her being able to remain anonymous. I am not against rich people, but the rules are the rules.
That's how it works in SC--name is not given but city the person lives is given.
The store that sold the ticket is always given.
Good, I think all states should do this.
Pandora's box has been opened - watch who sues next to get the state to change the rules after the fact.
All states need to protect the identity or the least the winner should HAVE THE CHOICE to remain anonymous.
I don't like this decision. You should know the rules before you play, especially with this amount of money on the line. I do believe this would be overturned on appeal if they do appeal but it doesn't sound like they want to.
I'm sure Georgia is watching this closely.
I think this was a fair and respected by the court. Case closed!
I am so thrilled for her and what a tremendous precedent it sets for all lottery players. The few of "us" who predicted the outcome, seemed to understand that a court does not just simply apply the law and rules. As I predicted, the equities or basic fairness principles also played a role. If a judge simply read a law and applied it...if A, then B... you could have grade school dropouts do this....but that is not how case law, precedents and carve outs are created.
No, her name cannot be obtained under FOIA since it falls under 1 of the 9 exemptions...unwarranted invasion of personal privacy...and a court already ruled on the privacy issue so it is directly applicable to FOIA.
Next steps:
An appeal? Possible but it would anger a lot of lottery players. There is a big risk for the lottery in appealing to a higher court since one could bring in all the dirty laundry...lottery murders, etc. So, since the judge slammed the hypocrisy of allowing claims via trusts to support their claims of transparancy, the state lottery might try to change the law to ban trusts. The state lottery will also try to tell the next person who tries this that well, that was an unique case. No, it is not.
But this is a big win for all of us!!!
If you live in this state, make certain all your lottery playing friends know of this decision !!!
I hope they appeal and she loses. She shouldn't of played if she didn't want her name released.
I wish 100% that it could be that way in California. But no, they want to parade you around like a circus monkey... minus the chain.
but I wish her tons of luck and many years of silent bliss
Good for her!!! Every player should be given the option to remain anonymous or not, when they claim their winnings.
Thanx Artist for the added info. I was wondering if FOIA would still apply. I agree, this is a win for all of us.
Those that arent happy and say that when you buy a ticket you understand the rules and while I agree, it is getting more and more dangerous to have lunatics get your information. And those who want their exposure for their 15 minutes or days of fame, hey, just call the media, I am sure they would love to accommodate you.
We live in a world where its so easy to make a mistake. I'm happy that her mistake was one that could be fixed without causing damage to herself or family. When I first read the initial case info more than a month ago my first thought was that she should have paid more attention but then I had to take a step back and remember all the times where I made a mistake and was given a second chance. She received her second chance this day and I'm overjoyed that her case turned out in her favor. Also like someone mentioned laws are not forever they change and "usually" improve with time so maybe this will start a chain effect to really scrutinize how some aspects of the various lotteries are operated.....or maybe nothing happens lol!!
I;m so glad she won this case. The judges summary was spot on, the undue public attention, solicitations, damaged relationships, on and on. I'm glad where I live Maryland allows you the choice. I don't want the attention, nor the drama and danger.
"While we were expecting a different outcome and believed the state had a strong argument, we respect the court's decision. That said, we will consult with the Attorney General's office to determine appropriate next steps regarding the case."
People will find out who she is.
She is not anymore special than anyone else.
She lives in Merrimack NH. which has a population of around 25,000.
Right now we know that she is a female, so that cuts the odds down to 12,500.
Look for people that are suddenly driving a new car or spending more money than they normally do.
Somebody has seen her going into the lawyers office a number of times.
People at her bank will notice that her bank account has grown a lot lately.
Can anyone in New Hampshire who wins $600 or more refuse to have their name publish, since their life could be in danger?
It will take some time but, we will find out who this woman is.
"While we were expecting a different outcome and believed the state had a strong argument, we respect the court's decision," said a statement from the New Hampshire Lottery. "That said, we will consult with the Attorney General's office to determine appropriate next steps regarding the case."
Awesome!
I doubt she had the money deposited to her local bank. People can take wild guesses, but they will likely be wrong. How many times have you been convinced a certain person did this or that and you were wrong ??? And guessing is not the same thing as worldwide publication of your name and pic and town in perpetuity.
This has nothing to do with her being better than anyone else. Meow!!!!!
This was not about changing the law or getting around a law. NH already allows winners to be anonymous. This will stand. There was no question that she was the one who bought and won the ticket, so this is just allowing her to have her right to be anonymous.
I'm pretty surprised at the number of LP readers who are rooting against her or disagree with this verdict.
I agree.
They lottery is RIGGED
How so when Powerball and MegaMillions both are ball drop drawings which are televised for everyone to see? Have you ever seen videos about the safety precautions they use when handling and storing balls which have been weighed to within micro tolerance of one another?
Here is the rule for claiming a prize of $600 or more.
(e) Prizes exceeding $599, shall be claimed at the lottery commission headquarters only.
(f) The claimant shall complete a winner claim form with the following:
(1) Name;
(2) Address;
(3) Telephone number;
(4) Social security number; and
(5) Claimant signature and date.
they're just olive drab with envy and ticked that it wasn't them
but this too will pass
The claim form info is completely different from what info a state lottery may be allowed to release publicly.. Most states it is just your name and town.
This is both stunning and pleasing! If it were not for the state's already "anonymous" option for winners, the result might have been different.
I agree. Beware of "jerks". The Green Eyed Monster, Jealousy, Envy, resentment, killjoys. Jerks.
I am in favor of this Woman's win in Court. May God bless her with safety.
I wish I was surprised of all the LP readers that were rooting against her but we are humans and in sooooo many cases in the world people really want negative outcomes. The funny thing is that rather the judge ruled in her favor or not it literally holds no value to any of us unless in some rare instance she's your wife and owes you money i guess. Especially since the people rooting against her were mainly saying how they wanted her to loose simply because she didn't read up on the official rules and such.
This so much I agree with all my heart. I feel like their reasoning is that they feel like had they won they would have taken the correct steps and none of this would have happened and since they didn't win this woman should get no leeway due to her negligence. Which makes her win so much better baby !!!!
Good, I would want the same thing if I ever came into that kind of money. A matter of life and death imo.
I respect the laws ....unsure how that makes this lady one whom is to be envied? She has her burden to last a lifetime. Not an ounce of jealousy for her.
May she enjoy her privacy.
Guess this judge will see a contribution for his campaign
Given the negativity in this thread, the need for anonymity is clear.
Human nature has taught me that many of those against this decision if they themselves were to win a jackpot would be screaming to stay anonymous.
Those who believe that revealing winners is the only way lotteries can prove they are not fixed shouldn't be playing to begin with.
Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, North Dakota, Ohio and South Carolina allow winners to remain anonymous. Arizona lawmakers overwhelmingly approved a bill last year that shields lottery winners' identities for 90 days after they claim their prizes.
A growing number of other states, including Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont, will award prizes to a trust and allow a trustee — usually an attorney — to collect without disclosing the name of the ticket holder.
States including Illinois and Oregon have made exceptions to their policy of disclosure when winners demonstrate a high risk of harm.
U.S.News
Even an eye-popping jackpot isn't enough to buy anonymity for many lottery winners, whose names are often made public by state law
Jan. 15, 2016, at 5:22 p.m.
NH is no where on this list.
* Texas became a state to claim anonymously effective JAN 1st, 2018 on jackpots of $1 million or more.
Thank you
This is bs. She screwed up originally and she should not have been allowed to sue the lottery over her f-up.
You play the game you need to know the rules.
I am also guessing the courts found in her favor because she is a women.
They need to appeal.
Omg lol !
I believe if voters could get the issue on the ballot in those states without anonymity, the right to elect to remain anonymous would win hands down.
I agree the judge is going to get paid!!!! Money talks BS walk as they say!!!!
Wow really. Don't agree at all I couldn't be happier. She won fair and square so if she can get the money how she wants that makes it even better. Why is it b.s it's not like it impacts us at all unless you were like dying to see what she looks like or something. The average person who plays the lottery is someone just trying to be apart of jackpot fever and to that same average person they know two things. Sign the ticket and keep it safe. I can guarantee you that if she called the office and asked what to do they would say sign it first then attorney. But even if that wasn't the case she lived somewhere that does allow her to in a way claim anonymously its just her approach was off ;D
"I wonder if she'll be outed through FOIA?"
Maybe. At best the article is a very brief summary of the ruling and perhaps "description" is a better word. Of course it's what the ruling actually says that matters. Taking the article at face value, let's assume that the lottery can only use the name of the trust and her home town in any press release or marketing. What should we make of this?
However, Temple noted that nothing in his order could be interpreted to prevent the lottery commission or its
employees from "processing, maintaining, or accessing Ms. Doe's ticket in the normal course of business."
Why would anyone think that a ruling allowing her to shield her identity limit the lottery's normal treatment of the ticket? An early article said that the ticket is a public document. While a FOIA request won't get anyone her name perhaps it will let them see a copy of the ticket, and that would mean seeing her signature and possibly her name.
"NH already allows winners to be anonymous."
Did you notice that she had to file a lawsuit to prevent her name from being released? It should be extremely clear that NH doesn't allow winners to be anonymous. What's possible is claiming via a trust, but because anonymity isn't allowed the name of the trust is released. That's functionally the same as being allowed to remain anonymous, but legally it's quite different.
As above, without seeing the actual ruling there's no way of knowing how likely it is to be overturned if it's appealed. The article says that "Judge Charles Temple noted that the case's resolution rested on application of the state's Right-to-Know law". That law was enacted by the state legislature, and either directly or by granting the lottery (and other state agencies) authority to write rules and regulations makes the names of lottery winners public under that law. Judges have the authority to rule that laws are unconstitutional, and if such a ruling is based on a sound interpretation it's likely to be upheld on appeal. OTOH, the proper legal presumption is that laws are constitutional, that the legislature considers the laws they write, and that they write laws that do what the legislature intends. If this ruling is simply based on the unpleasant consequences to Jane Doe because of the law then the judge is probably substituting his opinion about what the law should be for what the legislature thinks the law should be. That's a textbook case of judicial activism that should be overturned on appeal. Unconstitutional laws can and should be struck down by judges. Bad laws should be changed by the legislative branch.
Letting people shield their identities by claiming through a trust while releasing the names of winners is a bit similar to laws prohibiting retail sale of alcohol on Sunday mornings. The first punishes people who aren't smart enough to learn the rules, and the second punishes those who aren't smart enough to plan ahead. Based on the easy work-around both laws may be stupid. Prohibiting sale of alcohol on Sundays is probably based on religious views, so a judge would have a decent argument for striking down such laws. Unless there's a valid constitutional issue (which there might be based on privacy, but the judge doesn't seem to have ruled the law unconstitutional based on the article) changing the first is a job for the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.
Ha Ha, she screwed anyway. I admire she did the all the right things, hired a big attorney whose wife is a US Senator and I'm guessing money went the judge's way, the problem is too many people know who she is anyway and by letting this story get so big she gives people and the media incentive to find out who she is. First of all the store owner and whoever sold her the ticket knows who she is, people at the lottery know who she is, we already know what town she is from so she has to have friends and family that know she won it, maybe she worked somewhere etc etc. Unless she's paying off everyone well someone knows something. If your neighbor in that town all of a sudden quit her job and disappeared or had some security type guy show up at least for a few days you can kind of figure that out. If she has kids they are going to blab or showoff at some point. It will come out at some point who she is and then she will find out people will care for about 5 minutes and then move on and she will realize she went through all that hell and wasted all that money for nothing. Name that 18 year old kid that won all that money in Florida the other day without looking it up, bet you can't. The way she was fighting made it seem more like she was trying to screw someone out of some money than hide who she is for security purposes. I have several neighbors that are high profile guys from Fortune 500 executives to pro-athletes that make from $5 million to $25 million a year and you can walk right up to our front doors and no one has any security guards. One of them is a very high profile CEO of a Fortune 50 company and he's at the movies almost every Friday with his wife, by themselves and he's still alive and never been kidnapped. HA HA. The Attorney General for my state lives in my brother's neighborhood and you can roll right up to his house and knock on his front door too.
My one buddy that won the MegaMillions, his house is right on the street, everyone knows who he is, he was even on the lottery TV show and all he has is a no trespassing, no soliciting sign by his front door and that is it and he's just fine. People watch too much TV and Taken movies, that stuff's not happening in real life. What's funny is I have another house down in Boca Raton, the neighborhood is in the $350,000 to $500,000 range, nothing crazy and it has a ridiculous gated entrance with guards and all that nonsense because all the neighborhoods have that, but my one buddy has a $16 million house in Palm Beach looking onto the ocean and there's no wall, no gate and his driveway is right on the street and you can just stroll up to his front door, and a lot of houses out there are like that. He's still alive and to the best of my knowledge has never been kidnapped.
Everyone should be happy the lottery tried to fight this and i hope they continue to do so. She made the mistake, not the lottery. You don't get to change the rules because you think you are special.
....Jane Doe's attorney is the husband of the Governor of the State of NH.
LOL
Again just because there are laws in place doesn't also mean they are all perfect/fair/ not worth challenging. All the lady wanted to do was correct something that was correctable. How many laws in the history of forever have been changed or fought because they needed to be. This is just another one of those such cases. I feel like a lot of people would have made the same mistake and im happy her and her team fought for what she believed was right. If she legally won and she can claim with a trust than by god let her do it. But it doesn't matter that's why she won all you can do it be happy for her or um hate her for whatever weird reason.
Now everyone else can sue the lotteries into oblivion. That is not good for the game. If you don't like the rules.. don't play. When i buy tickets here in Kansas i can remain anonymous and i absolutely would, when i travel to Oklahoma i will play by their rules not try to make them up because i don't like them. Changing the lottery laws is completely different than what you are referring to like slavery, etc.
I knew they'd let her keep the money and stay anonymous. She must be a "very powerful woman".
Jane Doe's Attorney is Stephen M. Gordon of the firm https://www.shaheengordon.com/Attorney-Profiles.aspx
Also see:
www.newhampshire.com/nh-people/lawyers-to-pick-up-powerball-winners-check-say-shell-share-wealth-with-girls-inc-and-group-fighting-childhood-hunger-20180307
The current Governor of the State of N.H. is Chris Sununu since January 2017.His wife is Valerie, who is not an attorney.
Chris Sununu has no husband.
The above link to the Sheehan-Gordon firm shows the list of current employees.
l try not to be untruthful when posting Stuff CDanaT- however taking a direct quote from LP, the article from March 7th says the following, 3rd paragraph : “ The winner’s attorney William Shaheen..
4th paragraph “ Shaheen, a former federal prosecutor who is married to NH Governor Jeanne Shaheen.
I don’t make this stuff up, if l am in error- let Todd know that his piece is putting out wrong information.After all, l live on the West Coast, what do l know.
Yes, Shaheen is a Senator, not the Governor. The article has an error. Regarding the attorney information, a partner at an attorney's office is often deemed the attorney, although they may not handle the day-to-day drudgery of the case.
A few things here clears throat
1. I was not referring to slavery as there are PLENTY of laws and such here in America that have been changed/modified/enhanced, etc..
2. People keep saying the same thing over and over again "If you don't like the rules...don't play but if you think real hard she wans't really trying to change the rules she wanted to alter the ticket by removing her name and replacing with the name of a trust. Which means had she did the trust first she could have claimed anonymously and no one would have said anything. All the lady wanted to do was alter the ticket to protect herself because of a small but drastic mistake. Now what I wonder is had she first wrote in ink the name of the trust and wanted to (white it out) and add her legal first/last name would people still be complaining. Would they say no she made a mistake i don't care "If you don't like the rules....don't play"? Again what she wanted to do was alter the ticket not just claim anonymously (although with the alternation she could do just that)
3. "Now people can sue the lottery into oblivion" Why just because she won the right to alter her ticket and use a trust which is legal in her state. I live in virginia which is completely transparent. Can ONLY use names of people claiming...no trusts/LLCs/etc. Now if I won and in turn went to sue (for anonymity) saying you know whatever my defense is (fearful of life/death threats/etc) I could see people being upset because im just up and changing the rules. To me what I would be doing and what she is doing although it has the same outcome they are very different.
"The way she was fighting made it seem more like she was trying to screw someone out of some money than hide who she is for security purposes. I have several neighbors that are high profile guys from Fortune 500 executives to pro-athletes that make from $5 million to $25 million a year and you can walk right up to our front doors and no one has any security guards."
It's possible "Jane Doe" spoke out against the lottery and/or gambling in general or something like that and why she doesn't want her name known. Are state governments responsible for the safety of large jackpot winners and if so why not all lottery winners?
sure a person can fight this and be an exception to any law made. Thats how MONEY works in this day and age.
I live on principles and ethics. This lady also has a new found ethic, With money she can buy off anyone and be beyond the laws.
Mind you we have some real humans behind keyboards, insisting anonymity is the wave of the future. which every crook is willing to stand behind ...crime is rarely out in the open but rather cloaked in anonymity. Old addage holds true...follow the money.
and yes I am happy that the state that abides by the laws written chose to challenge this ladys' case. While HER judge favored her, it can also be overturned ...since nothing is written in stone or going to pave the way to a new law....
"Temple found that the commission's argument that revealing her name to ensure the public she's a "bona fide" lottery participant and "real" winner was not persuasive, because a trustee claiming a prize on someone's behalf is certainly not a "bona fide" participant or a "real" winner."
A rational, clear-thinking judge. Kudos to him.
What sour grapes. No judge was bought off. If you think so, report it to the authorities. Being jealous of her money is not sufficient proof.
It is probable that lottery employees saw her name when payment was made, the processing etc..., but this was pursuant to their official duties. The state lottery is under a court order not to reveal her name. There would be a formal investigation if this happened and the lottery would be subject to fines, more formal oversight from a third party, etc.
Very true. A pleading will often have numerous attorneys listed for one side and the partner is listed first. 99% of the work is done by the associate attorneys...with oversight from the partner. A partner will usually be the lead in court for the actual trial with "second chair" associates.
Artist I love you just wanted you to know that and I'm grateful that other like minded intelligent people are out there. People need to realize that she lives/played in a state where being anonymous is lawful its just due to her ignorance on the correct steps she did it the wrong way and was just fighting to get the chance to correct that. Rather we know her name no not makes 100% no difference. I really hope we never find out who she is and she stays safe. Especially now hell one of these salty people might try to bring her harm.
Awww thank you ppm. I used to think I 'd be thrilled if any lp member won a jackpot...but have since made that a smaller subset of members. Lol
PS Try to buy your tickets in DC or MD if you live in Virginia. You can claim via a trust in DC.
A rational, clear-thinking judge would not have said you are special and you get to fix YOUR mistake. The judge should have ruled based on the games rules. PERIOD.
The only time I will go out there is when the jackpot gets really big (400M+) like for all future draws until someone(s) wins I wasn't aware that I could use a trust in DC although since im in Alexandria going to MD isn't too far out of my reach. I usually just do online subscriptions here in VA but yes need to buy in MD more often. Haven't been playing that long, less than 18 months since i bought my first ticket. LOL is actually funny I haven't really thought that much about driving the extra 20-25 mins to reach MD and play. I've done it before but only when something brought me out that way anyways. Thanks for pointing that out.
Edit.....when you said thanks ppm I was thinking what does that stand for.....im an idiot;D
I love excercise! Keep jumping to conclusions ,you'll eventually get healthy .
Hmmm go back and read your post! Lol. "...when money can buy off anyone..."
yup, money can and does.
The judge ruled in her favor , entirely. Her goals were met: To cash in and to remain anonymous. Case closed.
To correct the statements:
Nope, not jealous.
Nope, No sour grapes here. Just good ole ability to READ, comprehend and state opinions.
I'm a bit confused, are you saying that you feel like no winner should be able to remain anonymous? Or is it that you are just saying that this recent winner shouldn't be able to? You must remember that many states allow you to claim anonymously through paying a percentage of your win/ trusts/ or just a state law to claim it that way. All the judge allowed this woman to do was alter the claim name on HER ticket to put the name of a trust which was already legal in her state. Its just that when she called the lottery office they told her to make sure she writes her name which she SHOULD have wrote the trust name. When asked if she could alter it even with proof that she was the sole winner she was told that any alteration would make her ticket invalid. Which is why she decided to sue.
You probably would feel a lot different if it was you. Oh well its not so when you do have a press conference and tell the world. When I win I will be signing the back of the ticket "?????"
In Australia,you do have a choice nationwide whether to be anonymous or not. Very rare that someone goes public. The reasoning why the anonymous choice was brought in was that the NSW lottery was owned by the NSW government,and enforced this choice as a duty of care. Now it is operated by Tatts Ltd,it still honors that status quo.
So if anything,I'm all for being private,no matter where in the world you are. Being anonymous does more good than harm IMO when it comes to personal safety. Not to mention the years of personal anxiety that a winner might go through.
Win - stay anonymous, live safe, and move on happily. Isn't that basically how we would all choose to proceed?
"Now everyone else can sue the lotteries into oblivion."
If you were hit in the head it's not because the sky is falling. This ruling probably has almost zero consequence for anything other than the next person who signs their own name to the back of a New Hampshire lottery ticket. It seems to address only this one particular case, so the next winner who signs their own name can claim it as precedent but would still have to establish that their circumstances are essentially similar. It may be easier for the judge to reach a decision, but the plaintiff will have to argue their case as if this one didn't exist.
In any jurisdiction other than NH courts aren't required to give this case any weight at all. They would be free to consider its value, but again any case before a court in another jurisdiction would be a completely independent case that would have to be argued as if Jane Doe's case had never happened. If a judge in another jurisdiction does take this ruling into account it will almost certainly be as minimal support for a position they would have reached anyway, and it's extremely unlikely that Doe's case would have any weight at all in determining whether the ruling stands on appeal.
There's also the difference in the law (or lottery rules and regulations) in other states. The important factors in this case (based only on the information in the article) seem to be application of the state's public records laws and the ability to claim through a trust. In any state that doesn't allow claiming through a trust or allows trusts but still releases the person's name an apparently key part of this case will be completely irrelevant. There's also the difference in how states permit/require public release of the winner's information. Reading between the lines, it seems that the public disclosure in NH may be based only on the state's public records laws. In many (most?) states the lottery rules (which you agree to by buying a ticket) specifically say that winners allow the lottery tp use their name and likeness for publicity. Arguing against that would be much more difficult than arguing that the balance between your privacy interest and the public's right to know should tilt in your favor.
And of course this case has absolutely no relevance to anything somebody might sue the lottery for other than the release of their name and picture.