A man who sued the Ohio Lottery Commission, claiming that the lottery's promise of billions of dollars for public schools was false, not only won't get the $12 billion he sued for, but also will have to pay the lottery commission's legal fees.
- Home
- Premium Memberships
- Lottery Results
- Forums
- Predictions
- Lottery Post Videos
- News
- Search Drawings
- Search Lottery Post
- Lottery Systems
- Lottery Charts
- Lottery Wheels
- Worldwide Jackpots
- Quick Picks
- On This Day in History
- Blogs
- Online Games
- Premium Features
- Contact Us
- Whitelist Lottery Post
- Rules
- Lottery Book Store
- Lottery Post Gift Shop
The time is now 9:32 pm
You last visited
April 17, 2024, 9:26 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)
Court dismisses lottery suit, orders man to pay fees
Sep 5, 2006, 10:58 am (6 comments)
"In its ruling last week, the Ohio Court of Claims wrote that because Rembert had bought the lottery ticket in 2000 — six years before filing his legal claim — the two-year statute of limitations had passed."
That's news to me, I thought a winner only had 180 days to file a claim for their winnings.
They mean the two-year statute of limitations in order to file a law suit, not claim the winnings
How did they "incorrectly process" his ticket? Is he saying he won and didn't get paid, or does he mean that he lost and that his losings were not correctly spent? Even if it didn't go to the Schools (which are failing even with the Lottery's help), it went someplace and made someone happier. At least, I hope so.
I'm wondering when at some point will School property bear the inscription, "this item provided courtesy of your State Lottery"
Flame is correct in his fact.
My comments:
The guy actually can appeal and take his one part of the case further. If indeed its true that the lottery is not allocating its funds correctly as it advertises. Naturally the guy has the odds against him since the lottery commission can delay stuff in courts and break his bank for trying.
Years ago Pennsylvania used to promote that 50% of its proceeds went to elderly programs. It has ceased making such a claim and now simply says " some of the proceeds go to senior programs". They were quick to change it before the public got wise to ask for an audit of allocations. Amazing how changing a few words can protect an entity and still allow it to come off as a do-gooder program.
Thats just my two cents of an opinion in which luckily wont go to a tax or program :)
Don't put a value on your opinion. Pennsylvania will try to find a way to tax it!
Wisconsin wouldn't tax it..because the pols here know if they do any more taxing, the people will come for them with tar and feathers.
Instead, the Wisconsin pols will put a "fee" on it. Then they will proclaim loudly that they are holding the line at tax increases. But of course, additional fees and hikes in fees will be soon following.......