Ohio Woman Admits Lying in Lottery Case

Yahoo News ^ | 1/8/03

[glorgau]

"I'm not a bad person, I'm really not," she said. "Everyone has a past."

Yes, you are now.

[GMMAC]

Agreed - equally good!
Strange no one has quoted Lionel Hutz for a wealth of pertinent stuff like:
"Suprise witnesses ... each one more surprising than the last .... I tell you, the Judge won't know what hit him!"

[longtermmemmory]

What does the real winner want done? She was the one accused of being a theif.

[longtermmemmory]

I think the lawyer leaped before thinking or investigating. (just as bad) He must have had a slow month. It may also be that when all the information came in, he was stuck and read his client the riot act. Not defending him. Just trying to figure out what he was thinking as a lawyer beyond mere money.

If Battle's story was real, there would be a real case for a lost vs found property. It would be an interesting negotiable instruments case. He should have investigated teh story better. He should also have been a better reader of his client.

[Sloth]

"I like my beer cold, my television loud and my homosexuals fuh-laaaaming" - sounds like an excerpt from 'I Am A Bad American.'

[sandydipper]

Typical.

[ruoflaw]

Oh gee, she wanted to use that money to help her family and recently laid off Cleveland police officers. LOL I hope she has to actually do some time this time around!

[longtermmemmory]

You could not use that method of teaching these days. Even the smallest stores prosecute everyone. no exceptions. Its a sad testament to where we have reached.

[HHFi]

Or if she didn't waste so much money on the lottery!

Oh, she doesn't spend any money on the lottery. She just claims she does.

Personally, I say they should charge her with the attempted theft of $162 million. And since I am currently dealing with the aftermath of some scumbag stealing my Visa check card and running up hundreds of dollars in charges on it, I'm not that sympathetic to her claim that she's made a few teensy mistakes in her past. A "mistake" is when you put on socks of two different colors. Stealing somebody else's credit card is called a crime. This woman is nothing but a liar, thief and grifter, and she needs to be locked away before she does it again or until she gets the message to stop it.

[marshmallow]

Agreed.

This woman actually went to the trouble of retaining a lawyer and initiating litigation. That's not a spur of the moment whopper. It's an orchestrated program of fraud.

The real winner must have been on an emotional rollercoaster. Jubilant at her victory one moment, then despairing at having to battle a crook, the next.

[justlurking]

It would be an interesting negotiable instruments case.

Not at all. A lottery ticket is a bearer instrument until it is signed.

The Texas Lottery says it right on the back of the ticket:

"Unsigned tickets could be claimed by whoever possess the ticket."

I presume the Ohio lottery is similar. If so, the attorney should be disciplined by the state bar association for even taking the case.

[longtermmemmory]

there is case law about lost endorsed checks. I am not saying she would have a good case, just A case.

[justlurking]

there is case law about lost endorsed checks.

A lottery ticket is not a check (which is payable to order). It's payable to bearer.

I am not saying she would have a good case, just A case.

The Uniform Commercial Code makes a clear distinction between instruments payable to bearer and payable to order.

Again, the lawyer should be disciplined for wasting the court's time. But, he probably has fewer scruples than his client.

[doug from upland]

I have a past. I was born in Cleveland.

[damper99]

If you had the opportunity to see on TV her lawyer Sheldon Stark, he didn't come across as the brightest bulb on the string. Plus, he struck me as someone that is really slimy...probably tops in his profession in Cleveland, now that I think about it. He was out to grab some winnings as much as she was, IMO.

[justlurking]

He was out to grab some winnings as much as she was, IMO.

He also probably figured that he would get some publicity out of it, even if he knew his chances of winning were between zero and none.

Frankly, I think they were hoping that the real winner would agree to an out-of-court settlement just to make them go away and shut up.

[longtermmemmory]

I do remember the UCC regarding negotiable instruments. I don't realy disagree with you to the extent that her case is weak IF it had been true. She always had a weak hand to begin with. IF she had not been lying, it would still be an uphill battle.

That being said, the bearer distinction is true but there is an argument to be made about lost property, was this in her purse? is the person who found the lost property a holder in due course? is there a fraud in the factum issue in a claimant who knows the original owner wants the property returned?

It is all dependent on the original story being true. I don't want to give any law professors ideas. (as if they would really circulate on FR) I am just saying there are potential issues IF it was true.

As for the attorney, just proof that there are waaaaay to many attorneys than legit cases. Time to start reducing the number of law graduates or law licenses available in each state.

[longtermmemmory]

The hope for an out of court settment is only valid if the story is true. If the attorney KNEW it was a lie and he filed the papers anyways then his is in deep do do. Cando to the tribunal is a really big issue for judges. You do not lie in court when you are a lawyer. If you are caught you are burned beyond toast.

There is a body of lottery related case law. Those are mostly dealing with divorces. Generally the courts just split the baby and are done with it. The only exception is where the wife lied about winning and divorced her husband. (the judge awared all of it to him years after the fact due to her lie and fraud upon the court.)

I think it is a very valid question as to what this attorney knew and when did he know it. What happened to clinton's lawyer who introduced the false affidavit?

[justlurking]

What happened to clinton's lawyer who introduced the false affidavit?

Nothing, as I remember. When Clinton subsequently contradicted the affidavit, the attorney filed notice with court that the affidavit was false. It was posted here, but I couldn't find it in a quick search.

One can wonder if the attorney always knew it was false, but I guess he covered himself by filing the notice.

[justlurking]

That being said, the bearer distinction is true but there is an argument to be made about lost property, was this in her purse? is the person who found the lost property a holder in due course? is there a fraud in the factum issue in a claimant who knows the original owner wants the property returned?

I'm not sure about the rest of your questions, but I do remember that the original (fabricated) story was that she dropped her purse when leaving the store, and claimed that the ticket must have fallen out when that happened. So, even if it had really happened as she said, the person who found it couldn't have returned it.

A number of years ago, a convenience store sold a ticket to a customer. There was something wrong with the ticket (the wrong lottery game, or was supposed to be cash value, or something). The store's policy was to hold the ticket either for sale to another customer, and failing that, it was the property of the store owner.

An unsold ticket won the jackpot, and the clerk on duty pocketed the winning ticket. I had to do some searching, and found this:

http://www.newstribune.com/stories/020303/fea_0203030037.asp

The largest jackpot in South Dakota was a controversial $12.4 million Lotto America prize awarded in 1991 to Ionia Klein of Dallas.

Klein, who worked in a Gregory convenience store, first said she bought the ticket before the drawing. She later admitted claiming it the next day after realizing it had the winning numbers.

The ticket was left behind the counter two days earlier by another clerk who had punched it up for a customer who refused to buy it.

Store owners Michael and Diane Dacy and Scott and Julie Anshutz sued Klein for the jackpot. They eventually agreed to split the money; the owners got 58 percent, and Klein received 42 percent.

--- end cite.

This would tend to support your contention, although I think it's a little different, because there was an attempt at deception and I believe she violated a previous agreement about ownership of refused tickets (although the article doesn't mention it). I remember it, because I was living near there at the time.