141–150 of 230 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So moral of the story is to never sign your ticket. But doesn't this mean if someone can assault you and steal the ticket they can claim it themselves? Sounds like both have risks :/
Someone can assault you and steal your wallet. Does this prevent you from carrying a wallet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I hope she wins I'm not sure I do. She opted into a transparent system and gets the down side that comes with it (or opts out). If this was thrust upon her, I might feel different. I fear the precedent this would set for redacting names from Forbes lists and the like. It's one of those unfortunate occurrences where openness and privacy are in conflict and when it's government actions like this, arresting someone, a…
I agree she opted in. However, for your "Forbes" example the law makes a distinction between a public person and a private person. Many many "private" people successfully sue Forbes to get off their annual "kidnap and ransom" list. The key to being declared a private person is never making public comments or speeches, etc.
Citation needed. Something like that would be pretty big news, especially considering that Forbes will voluntarily redact names of individuals from their list if requested, no lawsuit required.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should ask our judges not to legislate from the bench by giving narrowly construed decisions contrary to the written law that apply to nobody else. Either every lottery winner in the state is legally right to remain anonymous and collect (be it via changing to a trust whilst remaining anonymous or however) or every one is not. This is not some extreme example and I can definitely see this coming up again.
Very few people talk about this, but there are two categorically different forms of judicial activism - one where judges carve out from themselves or the executive or legislature, powers (usually regulatory) from whole cloth . And one where judges restrict the power of the state (e.g. "the state cannot arrest someone for burning the flag, whether or not such a law exists"). Which one would you suppose a ruling on thi…
The latter hopefully/clearly. But I don't consider it activism to uniformly apply your interpretation of the law. The activism I was concerned about is narrow application in this supposedly "exceptional" circumstance. Is that a "third form" or is it an extension of the first except they carved it out for someone else?
In the UK, the National Lottery allows anonymous retrieval of the winnings and yet there is still a very large amount of trust that there is no fraudulent activity. The anonymity means you do not get financial advice from the lottery trust which seems like a pretty fair trade off.
That is simply not true. Any UK winner can opt for anonymity when collecting their prize. The National Lottery give financial and legal advice regardless of your choice. Only around 20% opt for publicity.
I hope she wins. There's a pretty funny (or sad, I suppose) reddit comment about winning the lottery that seems pretty true: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vzgl/you_just_... Winning the lottery (publicly, at least) seems to be a real monkey's paw wish.
> I hope she wins I'm not sure I do. She opted into a transparent system and gets the down side that comes with it (or opts out). If this was thrust upon her, I might feel different. I fear the precedent this would set for redacting names from Forbes lists and the like. It's one of those unfortunate occurrences where openness and privacy are in conflict and when it's government actions like this, arresting someone, a…
In this particular case, there is precedence where winning has been detrimental to the winners specifically for the sake of winning (scams, murders, etc.). I think that substantially outweighs the "need" for transparency of the lottery system to seem above board. Just continue to highlight where the ticket was sold and that it was a John/Jane Doe unless the person wants to opt into disclosing identity and call it a day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That Reddit thread is really great. One idea they don't mention is that perhaps the extreme transparency of winning the lottery should include anyone who begs for money. That is to say, the lottery winner should bring a camera with them everywhere they go, film every beggar and harasser, and post all the footage on YouTube. This would of course require a good bodyguard or two. I think that's what I would do. When som…
Except the biggest problem will be friends or family that suddenly all “need help” because they spend their money frivolously or suddenly their car breaks. That or you get totally pushed out because you weren’t generous enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are ignoring political risk eg in 15 years that state government changes the rules and sequesters the money - this actually happened in the UK to the SERP pension I lost mine for a small uplift in the state pension when they changed the rules. You also ignoring the time value of money 100 million to day is worth more than 10 million for 10 years
> You also ignoring the time value of money 100 million to day is worth more than 10 million for 10 years The "now" and "later" lottery payment options do not offer equal nominal amounts, so it doesn't make sense to just say "you're ignoring the time value of money". The regular payment pays out more nominal money because of the time value of money. You could argue that they're getting it wrong, but that's a radicall…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really appreciate skirting "technicalities", especially in a precedent-setting legal decision. If the law is wrong (or even if the spirit/intent of the law does not apply here), she should win and the law should change or be struck down. I wouldn't mind if the judge decided "it's illegal to make someone who signed a lottery ticket with their real name not change to a trust and keep their name hidden." But I w…
> If the law is wrong (or even if the spirit/intent of the law does not apply here), she should win and the law should change or be struck down. That's orthogonal. What you propose translates to that while the law is not changed (which can take decades in some cases) we should let people suffer rather than "skip technicalities" when we can. How about sodomy laws (still present in some jurisdictions). Should they be i…
Just as a practical matter, people are more likely to litigate an award _before_ the award is disbursed. "Dumb" rules that require an entity to disburse funds to a specific named person contingent upon some simple formality have actually arisen because more robust rules that carefully balance interests and facts (including fraud) can create too much litigation. Those more robust rules are important to keep, but sometimes simply deferring a challenge until after disbursement can cut down on the amount and overall cost of litigation. For one thing it completely removes one of the 3 parties; in this case the agency administering the lottery.
For example, there are rules (legislative and court made law) for things like life insurance policies and bank accounts that require the entities disbursing the funds to pay directly to a named beneficiary, even if ownership of those funds could be and actually is being challenged in, say, probate court. And you can't circumvent the rules by asking a court to change the named beneficiary; that would defeat the whole purpose of the rule, and courts normally won't do that even if they know that, ultimately, the challenger will ultimately be given the funds.
That's the question here, whether the rules being challenged here are the kind of rules intended to prevent litigation that ropes in the agency administering the lottery. If so and the court makes an exception here, it would be difficult if not impossible to prevent other scenarios where challengers try to force the agency to change the name of the winner rather than directly suing the winner after disbursement. The former is often less costly for the challenger and could easily invite more litigation that challenges rightful ownership of a lottery ticket.
Giving the winnings in a cryptocurrency would both preserve anonymity (pseudonymity?) and permit audit of the winnings.
Given all the issues in regards to exchanges i.e. fraud, theft and relative difficulty in getting out, I wouldn't trust cryptocurrency at all.
Transactions done only in the cryptocurrency have no such disadvantages, at all. Those are all issues with conversion to and from fiat, and thus arguments against fiat.
At some point, maybe not with Bitcoin, maybe not with Ether, but at some point, there will be a tipping point. Probably with the next country whose fiat fails (venezuela?)