She knew the law. Live with it.
To all the people reluctant to express sympathy to this woman's plight: Not everyone thinks SUPER clearly when they hold a winning lottery ticket for over $500 million. She might live alone, might have panicked, certainly didn't let anyone she knew in on the secret, and before she she knew it, was in a bit of a pickle. My guess is that she's scared to death about her personal safety - after all, she can't hire round the clock security detail until she accepts the money. She might not have the means to even pay her rent this month without it. Who knows? She might also have intentions to donate the bulk of it to charity or set up a foundation of some kind to do good work. Point is: Walk a mile in her shoes, people.
9
winner should immediately adopt new name and claim prize using that moniker
I find it almost impossible to believe she did not speak with an attorney before she did anything at all. People just don't stop to think.
1
No, No, No, You won half a billion dollars, you are not the same as everyone else. Dont want your friends to ask for money? Shouldnt have played the lotto. You take the bad with the good. You wanted the big jackpot, now you have to take everything that comes along with that. Suck it up.
I totally buy the argument that the State's need for disclosure (to prevent fraud) melts away in light of the State permitting an anonymous trust to claim the ticket. I hope the judge sees it that way, too.
3
They don't ask my name when I buy a ticket. Why would they want to publicize it if I won?
1
She sets up a trust where she is the trustee, then adds a “, trustee, Anonymous Living Trust”
The right to keep information private is a right granted by the law. And the laws that grant people this right are limited to a very small and specific set of facts. Such as medical records. Other than that there is no law protecting people from anyone, including the state, from publicizing anything they want about any person.
And the fact is that states make available to the public the most private aspects of people's lives. Their criminal records, how much debt they have on their homes, whether they ever declared bankruptcy, not to mention children born out of wedlock. The only difference between those things and revealing who won the lottery is that in general it is of no public interest how much a person owes on his home or the criminal record of any given individual. So the media doesn't report it.
On the other hand who won the lottery is something the media would report on. So they will have a reporter check the state record to find out who won the lottery. And since who won the lottery will be a matter on the public record which the media will report the state is doing no harm by making a formal announcement.
Wow there is a lot of cynical and hostile people. The argument that if you bought the lottery, you should know you name will be public; if you come into a lot of money, your name should be public... Why?
There seems to be this idea now she is a 1%er, she deserves to be punished. She owes you nothing. Rich people owe you nothing. Trust fund babies owe you nothing. Celebrities owe rly nothing. They have the right to privacy like the rest of us.
It is a very schadenfreude attitude to say she deserves all the hassle and hostility she is getting and I hope I don't meet those that take please in it in real life. You'll probably wish ill of me if I told you a good news.
3
No it's not fair given how easy it is to track people down and subject them to harassment, kidnapping and worse.
I agree with the commenter who said the lottery should be many smaller prizes such as xxx prizes at 5 million a piece. Also readily available information on how to set uo a trust so you can remain anonymous.
3
Saying that she must've known what she was getting herself into by just participating is a bit absurd. Yes, we all have problems that could possibly be easier to solve with extra money, but what if she's in a difficult situation where it's for her own safety that she better not release her name? Like, if she's in an abusive relationship or is a dependent adult? She should be allowed to remain anonymous. Also, I agree with other comments: if at the bank (which is a deeply regulated entity) you're able to cross out, initial and date a correction, how is the lottery above this?
1
it would be much easier and cheaper just to learn to say the word "NO".
This sounds like bureaucracy at its best. Reminds me of a dispute I've had with eBay. The customer service manager finally agrees with me eBay overcharged me $140 in seller's fee because a promotion's rules was self-conflicting but say there is nothing he can do. He have no way of contacting the billing department besides sending in a request but the request will be rejected because he cannot attach any message to my case. Billing is responsible for collecting fees, CS is responsible for answering questions. They don't work together. I was like what's the point of CS if they cannot really do anything?
1
Then why doesn't she just give it all away? She didn't have it before and she does not deserve the money more than the public deserves to know who won.
1
If you buy the ticket based on the rules in effect, then those are the rules in effect. If you don't like it, don't collect the money.
2
This is ridiculous. The State can satisfy its need to know the winner in order to make sure there is no impropriety by doing it privately. There is no real legitimate reason that the State must make the winner’s name public. Especially in this day and age of internet hacks and loss of privacy. By having to release her name, the winner becomes an immediate target for theft and hacking. Just let the winner claim their prize in private. Shame on New Hampshire.
14
Oh Lord. Count your blessings which is 568 million dollars and send the help to the grocery store!
2
Someone asked: "Could she legally change her name and then change it back." Just guessing, but that doesn't sound like it would work because she signed the ticket under her original name.
As some others have stated, this is now a much bigger deal than it would have been if she had just claimed the ticket under her own name once she realized she had signed it and nullified the trust option. Then she could change her name, move, whatever.
I want to sympathize with her, but she really closed the barn door after the horse had left. From the moment she played the ticket should already have had a plan in place for what to do if she won. As draconian as the lottery people are being, that doesn't excuse the fact that the woman probably did not plan enough because she correctly knew at some level how low the odds are of winning.
But given that she chose to play, she also must have given at least a little thought to the chance that she could win. That was the point where should also should have considered her desire for privacy, and what she could do to preserve it as much as possible in the unlikely event that she got the winning ticket.
1
It is a fantasy to think that you can take $560 million without changing your life pretty radically.,
1
She is entitled to live in peace. It's that simple. Regardless of how she came to have the money; inherited, earned or won.
The NYT quote from her attorney is the best advice I've read anyone offer during this process, "Mr. Shaheen, one of her lawyers, told reporters that his advice to her was simple: “If you like your family and you like your friends and you like your relatives, don’t tell anybody.”."
And no doubt having received such sound advice, your attorney's have probably already told you, but in case not, whether you win your case to maintain your privacy & peace, you need to go off the grid...off FaceBook, off Twitter, off Instagram, off the Internet Whether you win your case or not, someone is going to figure it out and maybe they can keep a secret, maybe they can't, maybe they don't want to.
If you haven't already, delete/request deletion of any picture of you that exists on the www.
And in case you don't win your case, you're close enough to the City and have the resources to hire someone to create you an indistinguishable disguise.
5
I will cash it for her, for ten percent plus any taxes I might incur.
1
No one can 'help' her as your subtitle proclaims, so any offers are absurd - which the winner already knows: this entire problem is due to her having already signed the ticket.
GDP or Good Document Practices is used to make changes to all sorts of documents in the pharmaceutical world. Black or blue ink. Single line through the text being corrected, clearly write in the correction, date and initial. Good enough for the FDA, why not NH?
1
Poor Jane Doe... Definitely a "be careful what you wish for" moment! Imagine, to have all that money but all of the chaos that goes with it... Such a tough situation!
2
The winner can claim the prize and do a Trump style coping with the hassles of her name being public.
Deny, lie, say it wasn't her.
Claim the lottery got their facts wrong.
Make up a different winning amount.
Say you donated it to charity.
Not only deny it, but "totally deny" it.
Say you are "under audit" for eternity.
Pretend the Russians faked the whole thing.
And deny ever even knowing about anything called a lottery.
2
If you sign your name on the back of a check you can also say "pay to the order of..." to allow someone else to cash it. I wonder why they can't treat a lottery ticket the same way. She should be able to transfer it to a trust in this manner.
3
Before this anonymous winner brought this case to court, my understanding, and I think also, the general public' s was to sign the back of the ticket immediately lest you lose it, or it is stolen.
Now if I'm ever lucky enough to win, I know I have to find a trustworthy lawyer and set up a trust. Thanks for letting us regular people know how to protect ourselves and extended family.
5
Oh, I wish I had that kind of problem. Good luck Jane Doe! Spread your wealth out into the world. Lots of wonderful causes.
1
Welcome to America where they massively tax you on already taxed lotto systems where your chances of winning are less than getting struck by lightning twice on Sunday and then refuse to allow privacy. That’s just wrong!
5
Transparency is key in public programs like this. When you play the lottery, you go in knowing that if you win big sums, you also win the heartache and hassles that come with it. Movie stars know it. Forbes top 100 know it (they're named too). I guess I'm just a cynic, but a world where near unlimited wealth, influence, and/or power does not have even a little downside to it is one without balance.
I think the states who allow anonymity are on the wrong track. As someone pointed out, who remembers who won? Nobody, so if it was anonymous and mysteriously only certain anonymous trusts kept winning month after month, don't tell me some organized crime wouldn't try to get in on that scam.
1
You are just cynical. The state knows who won even from a trust, they just don't publish the name and instead the trust's name.
I think they should let her claim the prize in the name of a trust and make it more clear on their website so future winners don't sign the ticket before learning they can do it through a trust. Letting someone claim the prize through a trust completely invalidates the idea that publicizing the winner is necessary to prevent corruption.
2
When she bought the ticket, Jane Doe KNEW her identity would be public. Ignorance is no excuse
I've always thought I would make a good lottery winner. You know, I'm prudent with funds, I already do work that I love so I keep doing that, I like giving generous and thoughtful gifts to friends and family. But this article has such a great tip: have the TRUST sign the lottery ticket. Thank to you, my skills as a lottery winner are even better! Now I just need to work on envisioning it and then I know that it will happen...
5
She followed the directions on the back of the ticket and signed her name. But the directions provided by the state lottery commission were incomplete. They do not make clear that a trust can be the winner or that by signing the ticket, the winner loses her anonymity.
4
If lottery officials are so determined to reveal the winner in the name of public integrity, then they should also clearly and regularly reveal how lottery revenue is spent by the government. In the name of public integrity, of course.
5
I'm having trouble empathizing with this person, a simple Google search would have told her all she needs to know. She signed her ticket and used her name, the ticket cannot be changed after it's been signed. She can go to court but the law is pretty clear. There is so much publicity I'm betting she'll be outed before long anyway.
1
People want to know who won only for nefarious reasons and to prey upon the winners. And putting a disclaimer that depending on some states, signing the ticket means loss of remaining anonymous is not dispensing legal. This person does not want to become prey and it is sad that the lottery does not realize it. It was definitely an eye-opener for me on how to handle a winning ticket.
2
What is the smallest possible unit of measurement on the sympathy scale? That's what I feel for this winner.
2
As a great believer in privacy I understand where she is coming from. Im sure they will resolve it, but I would have claimed on her behalf for nothing. Just so she could stay private.
1
If you don't want people to know that you won the lottery, the easiest method is just not to buy any lottery tickets.
1
It's a non-issue to me.
Sucker that I am,
I bought ten tickets
And if you publish my name
Expect ten pickets!
2
The state has a valid reason for disclosing the names of lottery winners. It provides transparency to the public and helps insure that there is a perception that the games are not rigged. In addition, state lotteries usually feature winners in advertising to promote the games. The New Hampshire Lottery undoubtedly could sell more tickets, which benefit the public goals for which lottery proceeds are dedicated, by featuring Ms. Doe in its advertising. Ms. Doe's position is a little absurd. She wants the money but demands anonymity. She should not have purchased a lottery ticket then.
1
The real winner of this jackpot will be her attorneys. If this drags on to the 180 day expiration, the attorneys for Ms. Doe will get a windfall for themselves on billable hours.
Laws mandating public disclosure of jackpot winners’ names are insupportable in the internet age. They were devised when the options for finding out someone's address were primarily the phone book (from which one could be unlisted) or going in person to a county courthouse to search paper records. Now, criminals, con artists, and stalkers can use dozens of “people search” websites to instantly find names, addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, and other personal information of almost anyone (or their relatives), putting entire families at serious risk for harassment, kidnapping, or worse when a winner’s name is revealed. Even if the winner were to move, hire security detail, change his or her name, and implement other privacy practices, his or her relatives (including minors) would still be sitting ducks. People with uncommon names might never be able to live a private life again.
Lottery proceeds supposedly benefit the public. It’s ironic that the few people who actually do win the jackpot are forced, in most states, to sacrifice security and normal relationships in order to collect their winnings. Proper verification laws and procedures can and should be implemented to prevent fraud, but the “fraud” argument made by the states and their lottery commissions is specious; their main goal in publicizing winners’ names isn’t to prevent fraud — it’s to boost lottery sales. This New Hampshire woman deserves the right to live an anonymous, quite life if she so chooses.
6
I understand the legality, but couldn't she meet behind closed doors with officials, who then publish her name the next day?
It gives Jane Doe a chance to buy a quick (flashy) getaway car out of New Hampshire.
Sounda like someone needs to have her lawyers find a cozy little maison in rural France, with close enough access to trains for weekend get-aways and visiting family and chill for about a year. OK, that's my fantasy solution for the day I have the same burdensome problems as this lady.
1
$560,000,000 X 3.5% / 365 = $53,698 (per day)
1
It's a thirty year annuity so unless she takes the thirty one installment option, she only gets the basis cost amount which, after mandatory withholding, is far less.
This is utter nonsense. The Court could make a finding that she is who she says she is and there is no corruption. Every state has all kinds of laws that protect people's privacy, even in public proceedings (e.g., the names of domestic violence victims are withheld from court pleadings, same for minor crime victims, witnesses to crimes, etc.). The risk to the winner is extremely real. Kidnapping, threats against family members, fraud: these things happens all the time to the ultra wealthy and someone who has simply had all of this thrust on her is at very high risk. And the fact that New Hampshire allows trusts to collect the funds totally undermines their "corruption" concern. In fact, trusts are the favorite tool of kleptocrats the world over. That's just pretext now being used to defend rules that were poorly thought out when they were adopted. And telling her she can hire a security detail is absurd. The point is that she shouldn't have to. In fact, the liability should be on the State. Are they willing to guarantee her safety? Of course not, because they know the risk to her is very real. This is nothing but petty bureaucracy run amok,
17
The state wants the publicity, this individual wants safety and peace, and the ability to continue to conduct her affairs in relative privacy rather than face an onslaught of known and unknown solicitations for donations.I think woman seserves privacy. In fact, I think that states conducting lotteries should offer advice to winners of huge windfalls, most all of whom have no experience in managing this much.
3
I can fully understand the winner's worry about the enormous harassment she would be prey to. At the same time, it is important that there be transparency in these matters, and the winner be publicly recorded. Winners should be informed of the option they have of establishing a trust before signing.
1
Winners’ names should always be kept anonymous by the lottery commission by default. Outside auditing firms (such as “The Big Four” firms) should be used to monitor the officials involved with dispersing lottery winnings. The default way of acceptance of lottery winnings should be by way of an automatic trust created by the lottery commission. Those who hold a winning ticket should be able to walk into one of several respected law firms pre-established by the state and hire the firm accordingly to be the representative of the lottery winner, and at a pre-established and reasonable fee. The funds should be wired from the lottery commission to the law firm/trust account on behalf of the winner. The “Big Four” accounting firm(s) should oversee the process and reveal accordingly that the process(es) have been followed properly (or not). There is no reason why a lucky lottery winner should have to live in fear. (BTW… The people who are commenting on this with comments like “Tough luck… no you can’t change the rules… so give it all to charity,” etc. are just envious and that’s not a good way to live). I hope the lottery winner here will be able to collect anonymously and I wish her good health, happiness and 100% privacy with her winnings!
10
States must be required to ask winners to separately and specifically agree to allow their names to be used AFTER they win. One has to sign the ticket immediately to prevent theft or loss. It's simply criminal that they sign away their right to privacy by signing a ticket.
Perhaps this court case decision will uphold a citizen's right to privacy.
Hope so.
11
My privacy is worth a lot and if I had a winning ticket I would consult with legal consul before doing anything.
To many crazy people out there
13
Thank you Jane Doe for inspiring us all to think through what we would do if we were ever (un)fortunate enough to be in your situation.
6
For some reason, the Sweepstakes comm seems to think knowing this winner's name will increase sales of tx in NH which is not a good enough reason to publish her name. They're always looking to make more money. No worries about the safety and security of the recipient. Hope she wins her case.
8
I believe, from reading about this elsewhere, that it is at least in part based on state open government laws that dictate transparency and trust in government. It's a very New England thing, like requiring a town council quorum to replace a worn out stop sign.
The NH Lottery Commission can put whatever conditions it wants when giving away free money. If someone doesn’t want to abide by the conditions, simple, don’t play. It would appear the winner has something to hide. Perhaps she actually bought the ticket as part of a group and wants to keep the entire prize herself? Who knows. Regardless, she will have more than enough money to pay for a team of personal assistants to help shield herself from any issues that come up from being recognized as the winner. It’s absurd that she gets any sympathy for this “problem” she’s dealing with.
1
Its not free.
You PAY to PLAY.
Otherwise you dont have a chance.
1
Seriously? You obviously have never read the myriad articles illustrating how large jackpot winners’ lives are turned to chaos after news of their “luck” is made public. Let the poor woman create the trust.
2
Knowing that the state allows for Trusts to sign the ticket, her signing it can be considered a minor technicality. Let her void the signature and set up a trust.
5
She knew the law. Sort of like petitioning to increase the speed limit after you got caught speeding?
Bottom line: You have a lot of money, people want to wrestle it away from you. Welcome to the world. Would you rather be anonymous and broke? Everything in life has a cost. Want to avoid the problem? Give it all way to charity and claim destitution. You'll make plenty of people happy and won't have anybody bothering you. There are people in this world with real problems. You are not one of them.
10
I should have such a problem.
2
I understand her desire for privacy. I've often wondered how one would maintain a semblance of an ordinary life after an event like this.
I do appreciate NH trying to keep their operations as open as possible. Being secretive is never a way to instill public trust in anything. But she did agree to the NH lottery rules when she bought their tickets.
Having said these things, the whole discussion seems pointless: In the internet age, she will inevitably become known to all.
1
I will step in. I will. I am willing to sacrifice.
1
A) Why buy a ticket if you don't want to win?
B) You can always form an iron-clad charitable trust with trustees to oversee it and go back to your normal life while the trust does wonderful things with the money.
C) You can give the money to me and I'll deal with the publicity.
5
I think the judge will rule in her favor which is correct based on the facts in the article.
New Hampshire was clearly remis in not being clear about a winner's options.
On the top of the website homepage or the page you access if you are a winner put this in large type:
IF YOU HAVE WON THE LOTTERY, BE ADVISED!
Then the rudimentary information about privacy and signing the ticket and trusts etc.
What's so hard about that New Hampshire?
Judge, teach those idiot bureaucrats a lesson.
6
“When somebody wins a public lottery of $560 million, there is a public interest in knowing who the winner was, and that it is a fair and equitable process."
This is complete and utter nonsense. In other countries, you can win lotteries anonymously. Aren't they concerned about "fair and equitable" processes?
It's not only safety but a matter of keeping one's sanity. That's all this woman wants.
How come names can be anonymous "John" or "Jane Doe"s in court, which are also, like lotteries, public records? Why do you get protected in court but not in this case?
This is the same argument, but from the other side, that keeps handguns killing Americans at a daily pace.
Other countries have banned handguns and no one complains about safety or self-protection.
If other countries can live like that with guns and lotteries, there is NO reason we can't.
3
Ironically, by making such a fuss, she’s drawn national attention to herself and she’ll always be remembered as the woman who didn’t want to be known. Once this woman claims her prize, everyone will remember her name.
Lol...
Also, ever notice that as soon as someone becomes rich, they instantly feel that they receive special treatment?
The rules are the rules, lady. Why should they change them just because you didn’t think things through before signing your winning ticket?
4
Why didn’t she just add a comma and trustee after her signature once she found out the issuue of public disclosure?
The real reason for the state insisting on publicizing the winners is exactly that: publicity. It's a great encouragement to persuade other ordinary people to throw their money into the state lottery.
One wonders what she'll have left after her lawyers take their share? If you win that money all of it should be yours and without hassles and money grubbing hangers on.
2
Yeah, cuz she worked sooooo hard for it.
The lesson: Don't sign your winning ticket until you're sure of who or what you want to be the "public face" associated with your winnings to be. She could have setup a trust, had an officer of the trust sign the ticket and then never had to disclose her name.
1
Disclose your name to the lottery board. Disclose her name to the public? Never. For some people, privacy is priceless.
2
I think its only fair that winners be allowed to remain anonymous. Look at the murders, so-called family members coming out of the woodwork, friends and strangers with their sob stories. Its really not fair to the winner and puts them at odds and in danger by all these strangers. I am keeping this article and speading the word about getting a trust attorney and getting the money that way.
5
i think the argument that the public forgets about lottery winners shortly after their names and faces splash across the news is valid, but it's missing something crucial. the winners have families, live in communities, and may work or volunteer. the "public" at large will almost certainly forget who the winners are; however, the people who see the winners all the time, grew up with them, work with or used to work them, and live near them will certainly not forget. therein lies the rub.
46
Recipients of publicly administered funds should be named, no exceptions.
6
The funds originated from private individuals, not the government. the administration thereof is irrelevant
1
Taking your statement, without further qualification, would mean that the names and dollar amounts disbursed to/for/on behalf of welfare recipients, SNAP clients and Medicaid patients should likewise be freely available.
1
In the Bay Area I know of a couple who won a huge lottery payout. They have done wonderful things with the money, specifically, in supporting the arts. But, they had to move after winning because a lot of people showed up unannounced on their door step. It was a big security risk. I don't blame the winner in trying to maintain her privacy.
4
If I bought a lottery ticket KNOWING that I'd be the center of publicity if I won, why would I go to these lengths to avoid the consequences of my victory?
That's like buying a very cute dog with a history of munching on ankles.
1
I don't understand this. I knew a man who won what I believe was a California Lotto many years ago. He requested and received privacy. It was never an issue.
1
She had that option of privacy, she could have signed her ticket using a 'Blind Trust', just like the man in California did which protected his privacy. The problem is she signed the ticket and used her name. According the rules of the lotto, changing a signature on already signed ticket voids the ticket. Her case is about allowing a signed ticket to be changed.
WHAT'S IN A NAME? How about $560 million? I'd sure change my name and identity real fast! Unfortunately, the recipient did not choose to retain an attorney before doing anything. In that way for a nominal fee she could have been advised to set up a trust so that her identity could remain private. One solution would be to give the money away in one lump sum to charity as a heritable family trust. Many charities and philanthropic organizations would gladly receive the funds and pay a substantial interest yearly for generations of the family to come if the trust were so structured. If the charity paid 10% per year, that would be a measly $560 million. I think I could live on that. I could even live on $14,000 per day, though I might need an entire week or two to get through each year, if that were paid as interest. I believe that if people know that the lump sum no longer belongs to the winner, but rather to a well organized charity with strong legal connections, they would be dissuaded from attempting to steal.
3
There is no crime in anonymity. She paid her money and won. Avoidance of corruption is possible without revealing the winner's name. There are no doubt thousands of lawyers who can make it work.
9
I agree with the state, anyone who purchases lottery tickets automatically agrees to the rules by purchasing. Purchasing lottery tickets is a completely optional non essential activity. If she has such a problem with the rules she can always just relinquish her lottery ticket without claiming the prize.
Although I completely understand why she would want to remain anonymous, the reason for making lottery winners public to prevent any corruption is understandable. With seemingly ubiquitous corruption it is refreshing to know that such a system is in place for a game that has much potential for fraud.
8
This is the epitome of a first world problem.
4
A sure way to avoid the problem - don't buy lottery tickets.
5
the state's reason is simply not true. if a trust can sign it, It is simply not true. it is unfortunately human nature and the nature of law that when challenged, instead of conceding a point, we double-down to defend whatever point just as the state doubled-down to justify its policy which, if a trust can sign it has no merit, but they defend it just because that's what we do.
5
The back of the ticket needs to advise of the pitfalls of signing the ticket. "Signature also consents to disclosure of your identity. You may wish to consult counsel before signing." Easy. Of course Concord is being indifferent about it, as they are with almost everything that goes on there. Jane Doe has retain US Sen. Jeanne Shaheen's husband's law firm and they are pretty no nonsense and well connected so she has good counsel.
10
A simple and elegant solution.
1
Maybe I don't understand the dilemma.
Jane Doe has a chance to make a real difference in people's lives. Give to charities, send a bonus to all the local school teachers, provide free textbooks to the poor, provide scholarships, help homeless shelters, tutoring programs, etc. etc.
4
She might want to do all the things you listed, but keeping her anonymity allows her to choose and research what to do, rather than drowning in sad letters and scams. There’s also the threat of harassment, since the prize is so large. Do you give your name, knowing that you’d probably have to leave town, hire guards for you and your loved ones, and shut down most forms of communication? Or do you fight to keep your identity?
It’s not much of a dilemma in that one horn is normalcy and the other is life-altering.
3
Who said she would do ANY of this? She is blowing money she hasn't even touched trying to hold onto every single penny she can.
1
It really doesn't matter. Even if the two sides can agree on some degree of privacy this woman's life is ruined.
I highly recommend everybody to view the documentary, the curse of the winners of the big lottery pay out.
From drug addiction to divorce, to loss of job, to murder, suicide, loss of friendships etc. etc. it is a nightmare because 99% of people really do not know the consequences of the winnings until they get it.
Don't ask for what you want, you may get it.
10
In the old days when someone won $5 million it was a big news story but no more. Many of those people end up broke or dead. They bought houses or cars and luxury items for friends. So they became poor so no one wanted to hound them. But this lady is different. I don't buy New Hampshire's argument. Let's say they wanted to be corrupt they can just hire someone to collect the prize even though they never won. I mean it's enough money to corrupt anyone. Lottery winners have been murdered or had their lives destroyed.
5
There was a general contractor who won a few years ago who let the money destroy him and his family. He would ride around with hundreds of thousnds of dollars in his pickup and at least once he was robbed. His daughter died from a drug overdose.
I believe he declared bankruptcy because he'd blown all the millions he'd won.
I really hope she wins her case. No one needs the hassle of publicity after winning money.
10
I wouldn't want the public know I either. Money makes people sociopaths. Suddenly everyone is your best friend and needs money. Questioning her motives means you aren't acknowledging a basic truth.
13
Why does the public have to know? Leave the woman alone.
13
I believe we have a new definition of "first world problem".
6
For all we know, this is her introduction to the first world - we don’t know her circumstances. It’s a “good” problem to have, of course, but don’t jump to conclusions.
2
Why does a lottery commission want a name that they can make public? Marketing. Look at a state lottery website. Those names and faces in the pictures with the oversized novelty check help sell more tickets.
“Joe Schmo from Podunk”...people can relate to that. “Lottery Winner Irrevocable Trust,” not so much.
11
For someone so saavy as to hire a lawyer, so adamant as to go to trial, so adroit as to let her lawyer deal with the media, Ms Doe has nothing to worry about.
Right now, the only person making money is Ms Doe's lawyer.
Give up the lawyer, collect your prize, enjoy your life. You've more than shown you can handle the stress.
7
Now that the winner believes they have the money, they believe they also have the right to buy privacy. As we know, wealth is king in our nation of inconvenienced millionaires. Doubtless that with all the people demanding their fees to work the system, the winner will find a way. This is not to say that anonymity is not a desirable, preferable, or rational outcome, but it does demonstrate again how our society values those with illusory resources such as money/pieces of paper like lottery tickets over those who do not, because of the imagined support even in the form of lawyer's fees they'll bring to the system.
3
I believe (at least in NY) the winner can place the winning ticket into a blind trust, and does not have to be identified.
1
Yes, and she had that option as well but she signed the ticket using her name. According the rules of the lotto, changing the signature on already signed ticket voids the ticket. Her case is about allowing a signed ticket to be changed.
2
"For each day that passes, Ms. Doe is forgoing about $14,000 in interest on the unclaimed winnings."
Do you really think she currently cares about this?
8
"There is a public interest in knowing who the lottery winner was." Really? Take a poll and see how many of us want to know who the winner is. Even when winners are about to be announced how many of us sit in front of the tv to see the winner or troll the internet to see the winner? And 24 hours after the winner is announced how many of us remember who they are? Sounds like a lame excuse to me.
17
I sincerely hope the court finds in favor of my lovely intelligent future wife.
48
Oh please, there are attorneys who specialize in hiding an identity of a person. For what ever reason a person is hiding, ex-wives, bad business deals, or excessive wealth. Hire a broadway makeup artist to dress you up as Bozo the clown, claim the prize and hire said attorney to be your identity filter. Unless you are Barbra Bush, it should work.
2
We are fully capable of auditing and investigating prize winners to see if the outcome was lawful. In fact this should be common practice. The real reason for disclosure is to drum up more business. I support the winner’s desire for privacy.
16
I find this fascinating as in the United Kingdom there are several Lottery competitions held every week, including a European wide lottery. The prize for the latter was this week in excess of £120 million, such sums are not uncommon and there have been several winners from the UK.
If the winner of these lotteries requests anonymity, the request is granted and in a country which is famed for its tabloid papers hounding both private and public figures alike, even they do not make any real efforts to identify the winners. As far as one can tell, there has never been any real question of corruption as it is felt that the people who are tasked with handling the administration of it were suitably vetted when being granted the role.
Obviously there are different rules governing lotteries in the States, but to suggest that disclosure of the persons identity would remove any suggestion of fraud isn't necessarily true and the State could just as easily allow other federal level agencies review their handling of the award to ensure that it was all transparent without the need to name the winner, who it would appear, is having some difficulty adjusting to their good fortune. While it is easy to say they should count their blessings there is the possibility it could impact upon someone's mental well being (Hire a shrink I hear you cry). With this in mind the state should at the very least take steps to ensure that is not the case if it insists upon naming someone.
46
My state, North Carolina does everything possible to keep the lottery honest.
One inspector noted sarcastically that convenience store owners where most lottery tickets are sold seemed to be the luckiest people since so many were winners annually. He was being sarcastic of course and his group started a sting operation.
First they printed up a load of tickets that would "win" some amount of money. They took them to convenience stores to be checked and in some stores they were told that the ticket was a loser. Usually the counter had so much merchandise on it that the process of checking was obscured from the customer. The vendor would then send a family member to cash it in elsewhere.
In other cases the customer was informed he'd won but he didn't want to win because the state would confiscate some or all of the money to pay off unpaid child support or fines owed the courts. The vendor would then buy the ticket from him at a discount and cash it in himself.
The lottery prosecuted all of them for theft and/or tax evasion and all were heavily fined and not allowed to sell lottery tickets again.
You forgot to mention that UK lottery winnings are TAX FREE, in one of the most highly taxed nations in the world.
1
If I win the next Powerball Lottery I’m gonna buy my wife a sewing machine, pay off the $728.55 I owe VISA for my Christmas shopping and invest the rest in Bitcoins. President Trump and Paul Ryan are our leaders. These are perilous times, and one cannot be too careful.
4
They should leave her alone!!!! (I live in Woodbury, Ct. sugarplum.)
4
Lottery winners as a cohort have higher rates of bankruptcy and suicide than the general public. A large percentage of them blow through all the money in a relatively short time frame. Many are miserable and no longer able to trust family, friends and loved ones. Always heed the old warning of being careful what you wish for.
6
While I acknowledge she has a problem, we will have to agree that given that problem most or all of us would take it. Not a bad problem to have.
9
Just accept the money and then release a statement that you've doanted every penny of it, anonymously, to various unnamed charities, but don't. Tell your friends you've kept a few hundred grand as mad money which would explain the new car and clothes. Then do whatever you want to do.
8
what the NH lottery commission seems to be saying is that
the public needs to know the winners specifically so that no one things the COMMISSION is internally corrupt.
In other words, the commission's concern is how they look to the public. Hence their lack of concern about a winner's privacy after winning.
It is a critical point that the article and many comments do not seem to get.
10
Which is strangely contradicted by their rules allowing a Trust to claim the winnings (as long as that's done before using their website it seems). All rather strange and mixed up messaging by the Commission and their lawyers.
6
yes for sure. I suspect there is someone high up in the lottery pushing for one policy and another also high up pushing for the other.
Lotteries in general are a scourge to humanity. Greed begets greed.
First of all, the percentages ( at the absolute very least ) should increase progressively ( just like taxes ~ imagine that ) to a point of 100% for flowing money back into the community. Let's say beyond 10 million all the money goes to public schools (which are crumbling) and health care\hospitals. (which are also crumbling)
A very popular billionaire was asked a few years ago, if he could have given up all of his billions and what makes him happy. He said that he could easily have made due with 2 million, and either would have gone lived on a beach somewhere, or start over. That's it. We don't really need anymore.
Not only is there so much waste on the front side, but there is incalculable waste on the back side. There is the advertising, ( do we really need to advertise a lottery ? ), there is the vast administration, the lawyers and the high paid executives. ( which really have to do nothing )
Then, when someone wins, they have to follow byzantine rules that essentially opens their lives up to anyone ( who may or may not be a threat ) and if they resist, then the lawyers start sharpening their talons.
It's a vicious cycle that preys ( disproportionately on the poor ) that needs to be closed, or at least addressed to the points above.
*rant off
4
What did she think she was buying? A .99 can of soup. She isn't old enough to know that money means power, and publicity? She wants her cake and to eat it as well.
8
On its license plates New Hampshire has the motto State of Exception.
2
We don't know her situation. What if she's running from an abusive spouse? Maybe she's a criminal witness in hiding. Sure, she could be fighting this on principle, but I can't imagine feeling so strongly about it to not take the money and run, unless I had another reason.
4
Lotteries in general are a scourge to humanity. Greed begets greed.
First of all, the percentages ( at the absolute very least ) should increase progressively ( just like taxes ~ imagine that ) to a point of 100% for flowing money back into the community. Let's say beyond 10 million all the money goes to public schools (which are crumbling) and health care\hospitals. (which are also crumbling)
A very popular billionaire was asked a few years ago, if he could have given up all of his billions and what makes him happy. He said that he could easily have made due with 2 million, and either would have gone lived on a beach somewhere, or start over. That's it. We don't really need anymore.
Not only is there so much waste on the front side, but there is incalculable waste on the back side. There is the advertising, ( do we really need to advertise a lottery ? ), there is the vast administration, the lawyers and the high paid executives. ( which really have to do nothing )
Then, when someone wins, they have to follow byzantine rules that essentially opens their lives up to anyone ( who may or may not be a threat ) and if they resist, then the lawyers start sharpening their talons.
It's a vicious cycle that preys ( disproportionately on the poor ) that needs to be closed, or at least addressed to the points above.
*rant off
1
How much money does this lady need all to herself? There is plenty of money for her to pay off absolutely everyone! What a predicament. How to be stingy and keep it all for herself? Ask Warren Buffet and Bill Gates for advice.
That attitude is the dilemma that leads to a lot of winners going bankrupt. Everyone wants money from them. Let her learn how to be wealthy, then she can donate if she wants to.
By having her name out, she won’t get much of a chance to learn.
3
I am so tired of these self entitled people. You win 1/2 billion dollars you did NOT work for. And now you want the world to change the rules of every game just for you? What. A. Brat. I say publish her name in every paper. Maybe then people will learn that if you are going to play a game read the rules and don’t whine after you WIN. I though the president was the only sore winner in America. I stand corrected.
8
Absurd waste of tax payer money and the court system. The winner needs to count their blessings. they're drawing more attention to this than not. Typically of the rich....
5
I value my privacy intensely. I am not even worth a million (but zero debt!) and still I am aggravated by numerous annoying (and sometimes frightening) people who are all trying to hustle me for something. Because I subscribe to Lexis Nexis for work, I can quickly review the lengthy criminal records, civil judgments, and other assorted ills in their pasts. Particularly annoying are the hucksters who upon realizing I have no children, make bold attempts to be designated as my heir. All I can say is that the lottery winner has it proportionally about 700 times worse. She is lucky that the first lawyer she contacted didn't fleece her. Years ago, I owned a valuable waterfront property and I was shocked at how many attorneys devised schemes to have me quit claim it to them for "safekeeping". As if...
11
The old saying goes, if you want to lose a friend, loan them money.
So, you've got some portion after taxes of 560 million. Friends, cousins, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles and people you meet on the street all want some of it. What could it hurt for you to loan out a few million?
So, you do that. The cousin who told you a good story as to why they needed it will spend it, most likely quickly, and then resent that you didn't give them more. Why only a million? Then, they will really resent it if you actually expect them to pay it back. End of friendship.
Most people who have little money and work paycheck to paycheck imagine that having a lot of money would solve all of life's problems. It is true that more money would solve many, or make them less bothersome, but having a great deal of money takes away the organizing principle of their lives. Someone who suddenly has hundreds of millions doesn't know what to do, moment to moment, day to day. So, they go shopping.
Buying when you don't have can be fun and gives a small sense of power. Buying when you have everything and can buy almost anything loses its pleasure. It becomes excessive, habitual and you have to, as with a drug, buy and spend more to get the same feeling you had when you spent 50 dollars for a new appliance.
The most important thing in life is to have a sense of purpose and to know why you are doing it. If you don't then massive money will not resolve anything except petty problems and bring confusion.
7
No, of course not, god forbid NH is interested in the marketing aspects. No, no, no, not at all.
1
This story doesn't mention the fact that just last year, NH had another big lottery winner who did use the trust option. This is fairly common knowledge here.
5
I come from the Live Free or Die State. As a trust CAN collect for her on the ticket AND this was not made clear when she read the rules (they say “sign your NAME”), the argument is there that if rules are not clearly and entirely there in full to the players it is unfair to hold them to ridiculous standards. Arguments against corruption are ridiculous and make no sense, the right to know holds no water if you allow a trust to protect your name and collect for you, and you certainly will no longer allow someone to live free and have some semblance of privacy if you force their name out. It’s basically just that people are nosy and want to know. Why should we allow privacy to be so cheap?
It’s a known fact that lottery winners are submitted to harassment, stalking, frauds, etc. Most countries allow their citizens to remain private when collecting a lottery ticket for this reason. We can allow the same and let her just be “lucky”.
18
In this age of instant communication, it's understandable that many do not have the skills to protect their privacy. In times past, when your fortune changed, you could move somewhere else and start a fresh life. Now, whether it's the media deciding to 'out' them, bad fortune or good fortune, you are tagged, geo-located, tracked and bombarded. Exposure destroys lives. Perhaps, while the life of this winner is being wrecked, Powerball could take another look at how it guides the choices of future winners.
That's not to say Jane Doe hasn't got a working exit strategy - hopefully she has - there are many (expensive) tools and agents out there to help maintain privacy; it's just a pity the lottery doesn't recognise the world has changed.
Now (as a self-published writer) if only I could harness Jane Doe's publicity for my books - that'd be a fair and proportionate trade-off!
3
The potential problems associated with winning a huge lottery jackpot can be quite safely avoided by not purchasing a ticket. I would love to contend with these problems. The subject lottery winner could stand to grow up a little.
6
The easy answer is to cash the ticket, move, and do your best to keep yourself out of the public eye.
In 6-8 months, no one will remember you won except your family and friends.
6
I also feel sorry for the millions of people who wasted good money on losing tickets to fund this woman's "lucky" misfortune.
If you look at the tragic history of people who win enormous jackpots, you wouldn't buy a chance, even with very long odds.
Sadly, this woman's problems have just started.
1
How can she "already" be preyed upon if nol one knows who she is?
8
They are going through her lawyers. Just imagine if they actually had her name?
She’s made it ten times worse by making such a spectacle. How many half-billion dollar tickets have been sold in the last year? Several. I couldn’t name or pick any of the winners out of a lineup. If someone offered me $560,000,000 the answer would be, “yes, please.”
8
Listen, come forward and claim the money or don't......it is what it is. Stop being so delicate.
5
If she had set up a corporation in advance of signing she would remain anonymous. But she didn't so now she can't set up a corporation?! This is ridiculous. Just let her set up a corporation now and be done with it. It's only common sense. Forget the legal mumbo jumbo.
7
For all the people with no sympathy for the woman, do a quick google search of "lottery winner killed murdered". People are willing to kill for much, much less than this woman won. Two years ago one of our lotto winners was killed in a home invasion robbery. His jackpot? $400,000.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/29/seven-char...
10
If you don't like the rules, don't play.
6
And now her court case draws more attention to her ironically. I already knew that trusts and in some states, LLCs can claim lottery winnings but you can’t sign that ticket before you set up the structure. Sounds like her lawyer hit the jackpot via legal fees.
22
A bunch of bottom feeders. Keep up the stand and the best of luck. Where this sense of entitlement comes from is too sad
1
Is not the lottery commission's very vocal concern for corruption a prime indicator that the lotteries are already corrupt, or at the brink of corruption, especially with the monies coming on and going out? There should be red flags all over those self-regulating "commissions."
If the commissions are self-regulating (which I suspect they are), I would be wondering where the monies are going and where being spent and how.
2
While her predicament is understandable, the winner cannot altering the law retroactively just because she has 1/2 a billion of dollars. Imagine if people like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates go about disregarding the law and local ordinances because their privacy is impacted
The moral of the story is your signature on a legal document has meaning.
With regard to solving the problem, with that much money, the winner could change her identity. Sooner or later, she will be outed anyway. She may as well getting use to protecting herself with a full suite of lawyers, accountants and protection agencies
6
"Imagine if people like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates go about disregarding the law and local ordinances"
But they do - alot. If you follow news items about IT titans you would already know this. Basically if you hire enough lawyers in the USA, you can win by outspending. You can outspend towns and cities. This is not new news.
4
My Sponsor in AA would tell me this is a "Fancy Problem".
13
Great comment!!!
1
People are not created equal: As president of the USA you are not obligued to reveal your tax returns - as a plain citizen you're obligued to have your name on public display if winning a game.
7
Ha! Yes, "luxury problem" is how our area calls it. Great comment!
1
In a world where people share their toilet paper purchases with the world, it's refreshing to find someone content to keep their business private.
131
I don't believe in the hazards of 'the public' knowing you won millions in the lottery.
What are they going to do, inundate you with unsolicited emails and phone calls and letters all trying to sell you something?
I get that already anyway, and I'm poor.
It's easy to live immersed in sales pitches and to find various ways of ignoring or evading the same.
I've been doing it most of my life.
I believe the woman in question doesn't want everyone in her life now, and especially everyone in her past, to know she just came into half a billion dollars.
Why exactly might she or any of us not want former friends and coworkers and acquaintances and even former lovers and ex-spouses and estranged relatives to know we are suddenly rich?
Use your imagination.
I have been.
It's of course what is driving the interest in this story.
11
The notion that the ticket would be fatally altered by a change of signature is absurd. Everyone has passed on the validity of the ticket and if the signature is changed before the commission members, everyone knows the ticket is still valid. Surely if she had mistakenly written her address on the signature line and then covered it up with her signature they wouldn’t have deprived her of the $560 million.
19
And I thought I was having a bad day. She could always help kids who can't afford college. At least bank it and move.
7
I've taught my students and my son that you can't change the rules of a game in the middle or end. You play by the rules and enjoy the experience, otherwise, you can't play. Same applies to lottery tickets. There are others in the world that are worth far more than her and they must live their lives out in the open. Sorry, but there is a reason the lottery officials created these rules.
14
Suzanne, wealthy families and celebs use trusts for everything. Even their credits cards have a name of a trust on them. I dont think you know how the truly wealthy live on a day to day basis. Their names may be famous, but their personal names are legally on almost nothing. It is all trusts. Everything.
7
Huh?
“There are others in the world that are worth far more than her” (sic)...
1
But you actually can change the rules if you have the resources. These resources can be monetary or social, or based on intelligence. Sorry, but you are teaching the wrong lesson. Haven't you ever heard "rules are meant to be broken"? Have all rules remained the same forever? No.
1
Many years ago a family member, then around eighty years old, won $300 in the New York lottery. He said it was the worst thing that ever happened to him in his life. After his name was published, he was not merely hit up for thousands of dollars by myriad new "friends" and old acquaintances, but was mugged three times within the space of several weeks, no longer taking the elevator to or opening the door of his small Brooklyn apartment without justifiable fear.
This is an example of what happens when the government resorts to promoting gambling instead of the politically more difficult road of raising taxes for what the people would like their government to provide. On one level it boils down to craven politicians who, with no backbone, finance their programs and pork on the backs of the poorer members of society. On a more fundamental level it boils down to the electorate which accepts such perversity.
21
Broadcasting her name would completely disrupt her life, altering relationships with colleagues and coworkers, affecting every level of her social life, possibly fracturing her family, and likely assuring lousy restaurant service should she ever tip less than about 1,000 per meal or drink. Trusts are allowed to collect in NH; let her amend her claim.
36
Then she should have thought about that before signing
7
@MP:
No, she only signed because she followed the rules on the back of her ticket which instructed her to sign.
3
MP—as this piece states, she couldn’t have done that if she wasn’t aware it was an option. She followed the directions provided. Only lawyers and the most savvy individuals would understand not to follow the directions that the lottery itself had given.
8
Dear Jane,
Burn the ticket and go back to your normal life. I warned you NOT to play The Lottery just for “fun”! : (
12
Sorry. I have no sympathy whatsoever for Ms. Doe. Just claim the ticket and then hop on your new business jet or yacht to parts unknown until the hoopla blows over. What good she could have done with almost $500,000 in foregone interest since the drawing.
21
Literally this has already been repeatedly addressed. Did you read anything? She DOES NOT WANT to vanish, to move, to have her life changed to the degree which you suggest. She should have the right to live peacefully and safely in her small town or wherever she's from and BE ABLE TO EXIST NORMALLY WITHOUT HARASSMENT.
3
Actually, having read the story three more times, the piece says nothing of the sort. It says she is stressed and being preyed upon, not that she doesn't want to travel. Guess what? Welcome to the wonderful world of being extremely wealthy.
There are rules. She did not follow them or even have the sense to call a lawyer and a CPA. Rules exist for a reason.
She has virtually unlimited options. The one she doesn't have anymore, and of her own doing, is retaining her anonymity. And ironically, this episode will probably make her more notorious over the long run.
Your "argument" boils down to, "It's unfair." Alas, nowhere on your birth certificate does it say, "Life will be fair." I can't believe we wasted two valuable hours of court time over problems of the newly-minted 0.01%.
3
I found the comments comparing a sudden windfall like this to having old money kind of silly. Those who already have money also already have management and investment options in place.
As far as the lottery winner(s), why honestly do I need or have to know names? The state should be able to check the legitimacy of the winners.
The winner will be assaulted by "requests", and likely as well threats, over past slights real or perceived, as the idea that free, easy and frankly, undeserved bounty should be shared.
Keeping it anonymous makes sense.
Also the lottery officials stress signing a winning ticket immediately, so she followed their advice. Not her fault that she did so.
98
I’m sorry is she a toddler? She can’t both claim she’s old enough to accept the money and too young and helpless to take responsibility for her own actions.
8
MP - you do not understand what old money is. Read the comment again. It has nothing to do with her age.
2
My grandmother would often say, “Only stupid people play the lottery.”
I always replied, “you’re not stupid if you win.”
Sorry Grandma. You were right. As always.
13
So what was Ms. Doe's reason for partaking in this game of chance if it wasn't to win a copious amount of money? And did Ms. Doe not think winning such a vast sum of cash would not noticeably change her life? A new house, perhaps a new car or two, getting her teeth fixed? Bad news travels fast and while one may think they can hide behind a trust, cracks eventually develop in the façade and the name oozes out. The media coverage given to Ms. Doe most assuredly means Beth's name will be dinner table conversation in no time.
9
A winner should have a fundamental right of privacy as a matter of personal safety.
35
I understand the wish for privacy, and if I won the lottery - as if! - I'd want to form a trust (and I would have Googled to find that option). But this winner is acting like she's the only person who has ever won Powerball/MegaMillions. She's not the only one, and nearly everybody will forget about her the day after her name is released.
Do you remember the name of those recent Powerball winners who went on the Today show to announce it - *before* they flew home to claim the jackpot (which seemed like a dumb move)? Neither do I. There's a lot of winners out there; they come and they go.
All these lotteries do is release name and hometown (not address), with other details if you give permission. While this lady is suing, the 20-year old who just won $451 million in MegaMillions in January released a statement (with his name, through his lawyer), quit his job, and disappeared. I bet many people never even heard/read he that won. (I did love the detail that he wrote "Oh.My. God." on Facebook before anybody knew what he was talking about!)
And that's the key. We non-winners love the details, but don't remember the people. As for the people the winners actually know who might be shady - well, apparently the smartest thing for winners to do (according to past winners' articles on Google) is:
Put the ticket in a safe deposit box; get your affairs in order w/lawyer; make the claim/announcement.
Then immediately go on vacation for one month so people forget about you.
Easy!
64
Easy, except for the con artists, thieves, scammers and and kidnappers who will keep a winner of a this big a pile in their sights.
8
The general public will forget about her but people with ulterior motives will plot and plan against her for years to come. Your assertion that all you have to do is go on vacation for one month so people forget about you is naive at best. Do you have any idea how many lottery winners have been robbed or killed months and years after winning? Two years ago here in Georgia a lottery winner was killed in a home invasion robbery two months after he won the lottery. And his jackpot? A whipping $400,000. If only he had taken your advice...
18
You don't remember because you are not a thief or a murderer. People who are in business to make easy money I'm sure makes a list of everyone who wins lotteries. It's like one of those James Paterson novels.
7
In New Hampshire, Live Free Or Rich
5
The first instruction almost all official lottery sites give winners is to sign the back of the ticket, with absolutely no warning that this will destroy any chance of anonymity, should that be an option.
In New Hampshire anonimity is possible by collecting via a trust. A good lawyer should be able to argue that this winner was misled by this widely disseminated advice.
I hope she prevails.
32
Shhh!
I need anonymity because I'll be giving it all to The Resistance!
9
The lottery officials are being jerks.
21
-1- For one, what an excellent article!
-2- What I don't understand is this: She is losing $14,000 per day and is probably blowing an equal amount on legal fees. With $30K going out the door every 24 hours, how could she not justify giving $1M to someone else -- especially someone poor/homeless -- to claim the prize for her?
-3- Eventually, this woman is going to be living in a much nicer house or driving a much nicer car, correct? And eventually someone is going to wonder, "Where did ______ suddenly get the money for all this stuff?" Unless she is planning to live a very frugal existence, I cannot imagine she is going to fall into a few hundred million dollars and keep it a secret.
7
Winning a lot of money does not always or even often automatically lead to a life of conspicuous consumption. Your point is moot.
The rules should be more clear. If trusts are allowed to claim (and sign) the ticket it should be easier to know that. They are offering the choice of anonymity they are just keeping the path to anonymity obscure.
20
Egad! With that much money she can obtain as much privacy(or secrecy or isolation) as she wants. Jerry Salinger did as much with far less cash.
1
Is it fair? Yes. I think a better idea is to give lottery winners 3 years of privacy before their names are released. I think this would lead to better outcomes.
61
If you win that amount of money it should be relatively easy to use it and disappear for 3 years in another state or country. No need to change any lottery laws for that.
A first world problem.
I always thought signing the ticket was a requirement, not an option; therefore, let her create a trust to claim the prize. Place the original ticket under seal and publish the the trust information. There is no indication that this is an evasion, or a swindle, or even a dubious claim.
Just in case the $14,000 a day in interest is a baffling number: https://stfrancisbreadline.org/
6
There are a million ways for rich people to protect their privacy. As to trusts, if Ms. Doe has a computer, she should have gone to the Powerball website:
Can Powerball winners remain anonymous?
Each jurisdiction has its own law on winners remaining anonymous. Some jurisdictions are required by law to provide the winner's name, city of residence, game won and prize amount to any third party who requests the information. Other jurisdictions allow winners to create trusts to shield their names from the public, or otherwise claim prizes anonymously. Even if you keep your identity secret from the media and the public, you will have to be known to the lottery so officials can confirm you are eligible to play and win and for other legal requirements.
It appears to me that the fleecing of Ms. Doe has already begun. Hiring two high-powered attorneys -- including the spouse of a US senator -- when a timely phone call to the new Hampshire Lottery would have sufficed will probably cost her $100,000.
9
The law clearly states that if you sign, you can't go back. She failed to talk to a lawyer, and the only person to blame is herself. The winner can easily disappear, never to be seen again, and live a life of luxury.
This case is pointless and the judge should rule that the "winner" has to follow the rules that everyone else does.
4
But that's her point; she doesn't want to disappear never to be seen again. Rules that are arbitrary get challenged all the time
4
I met an old Irish man having a smoke outside of a highway rest stop restaurant.
He told me he was on his way to Nantucket, where he's always wished to go and that he'd won the Irish Sweepstakes lottery. As we departed he handed me a handful of Irish coins. I hoped that his luck of the Irish had rubbed off on me somehow. I think his name was Seamus.
3
There are other states in the U.S. where winners can remain anonymous and that does not seem to damage the lottery system.
Certainly a solution can be found, like having attorneys from reputable law firms, one representing the state and one the winner, with the winner present, so that there is no possibility of malfeasance, without revealing the identity of the winner.
It is strange that in a country and a world where many thousands of people have assets and fortunes in excess of $500 million who are not harassed and hounded, though many establish trusts, they are well known through media outlets. Yet lottery winners seem to be the ones stalked and picked on.
As others have noted, this is more of a marketing ploy for the lottery commission in that state, to splash the winner's name and picture, proclaiming 'See, people Do win!'
11
She could take the money and legally change her name, address and phone number.
20
Easier said than done....also, the process takes time. Her name would be "out there", and she would be a target for all sorts of bad people.
10
Sure, and none of her friends, neighbors, relatives, or co-workers would notice or suspect anything!
I think people should be able to choose.
41
Before clinging so steadfastly to their non-anonymity law, New Hampshire officials might wish to consider the case of an Illinois man who was murdered after publicly claiming a much smaller lottery prize.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-cyanide-poisoning-d...
60
Thank you! Here in Georgia a winner was killed for a $400,000 prize:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/29/seven-char...
2
I suspect the Illinois lottery winner was killed by a relative. If you read the accounts of doomed Powerball winners, they were usually done in by family, friends, and "friends," so anonymity provides little protection.
4
I think it's fair to have to disclose who won. One of the thing that attracts people to playing the lottery is reading the stories of winners and imagining yourself in that position. If it all gets hidden behind closed doors who the heck knows where the moneys going and if anyone is really winning it?! There has been documented cases of lottery corruption. I do understand the hardship in places on winners but there is a price to pay for winning the lottery.
19
So why should it be legal to have a trust claim the prize? That blows a hole in your argument and New Hampshire's!
10
The lotto is a state sanction scam on the poor. Anything that can reduce poor people wasting their money on it is a good and ethical thing
Yes, it is fair for NH to publicize the winner of the lottery jackpot. Full disclosure keeps lottery insiders and others from defrauding the public.
The woman has made her situation FAR worse than it had to be. If she had just claimed the prize, most people would have forgotten about it by now and her lawyers or security team could deal with anyone who was annoying her. Now her situation has gone viral and grifters and other ne'er-do-wells from across the country and other countries as well are contacting her lawyers. It is only a matter of time before she is identified on social media. If she thinks she is stressed now, her stress levels will increase exponentially once her name is out there.....
95
Excellent point. She would have just been a blip in the news upon her winning - now it will be coast-to-coast headlines when her name is revealed.
6
"If she had just claimed the prize, most people would have forgotten about it by now and her lawyers or security team could deal with anyone who was annoying"
oh goodness no Lynne, have you read any of the real stories of what happens to folks who win large sums in a lottery? The problems do NOT go away in a year or two. Basically, they have to move far away and never tell anyone wherever they end up moving to.
"once her name is out there"
BUT her name is already out there per the rules of the lottery commission. You dont really get it.
5
I’m pretty sure she wanted to remain anonymous especially to neighbors and friends (and possibly some family) and in her broader community because she likes her life. I’d bet she lives in a small community. I hope her lawyers are able to prevail.
Of course, one would also prefer to remain anonymous to avoid scammers, grifters, and other unsavory characters.
9
She ought to reveal her name, take notes on all the jackals who try to steal from her, and then write a book about it.
9
No one feels sorry for her. She can always rip up the ticket. Or she could give all the money away.
22
She can give all the money away and they still would come for her thinking she must have kept some/she is already wealthy/she knows the secret to lottery. She'd be dead even sooner without the security the money can buy her.
1
I've lived in New Hampshire more of the time than I would have liked. It's cold, not conducive to social life, and it's regressive tax structure is rooted in the 18th century, just like the prevailing psyche...parochial, conservative and timid about any kind of reform. My advice to Jane Doe: take the money and get out. I would.
68
She followed the directions on the ticket, which apparently did not inform her of the trust option. So she followed official instructions that, it turns out, were incomplete and, one can argue, misleading. She isn’t responsible for the ineptitude of the lottery officials.
She isn’t asking to change the rules; she’s arguing that the directions on the ticket purporting to state the rules, failed to describe a key option. No one should be required to do legal research before buying a lottery ticket.
167
No one is “required” to do legal research before buying a lottery ticket, but the smart ones will contact legal counsel before they act to collect their winnings. She could have opened a safe deposit box and kept the ticket in it until she consulted a trusts & estates attorney and a CPA. It’s not that complicated.
9
The real absurdity here is the existence of a lottery prize that no person could possibly need. A rational lottery would have created 5600 winners of $100,000 each. That sum would have made a gigantic difference in many many lives. America fails, as usual, in recognizing its own absurdity.
402
Would you honestly feel that way if you won the 560M? Don't think so
7
They already have that. If 100,000 winners pick the same winning number.
7
After taxes I'm sure Nancy would be inclined to call it croutons instead of crumbs.
1
There's not enough money in the world to compensate me for letting the world know that I have it.
44
Sorry - the state is right in this case. The price you pay for playing is the willingness to be the public face of a publicly-run game run with the public's money. If she wants to gamble incognito she can go to a casino.
My advice to her is to become a beloved public philanthropist. Use your wealth to build great things in your community. Join the boards of local nonprofits. Become an advocate for a cause you are passionate about. There's a lot of promising disease research out there and a few million dollars may mean life-saving treatments can be available more quickly. Be a good-guy landlord who creates safe affordable housing. Save a beloved building from being condemned, a library from being closed, a struggling small town from having to lay off teachers or firefighters. Find a principled political candidate and donate to their campaign. Be a positive force in the world and people won't try to prey on you - or you'll be too busy to care if they do or not. I don't hear Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or Oprah Winfrey complaining about their security detail.
103
Seriously? Be a positive force and people won't try to prey on you? A local guy won the lottery here two years ago, a meager $400,000 comparatively, and was generous with his winnings. He was robbed and murdered in front of his children two months later. He begged them not to kill him in front of his kids but the did anyway. Your belief of being a positive force equating with no on preying on you is naive.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/29/seven-char...
10
With all due respect, isn't it possible that you don't hear Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or Oprah Winfrey complaining about security detail because they are part of franchises and companies that provide those sort of services? They rely on established practices to maintain their privacy, though I'm sure they still have problems with it; harrassment by paparazzi would be a great example. Imagine coming into this amount of wealth as an ordinary citizen who had nothing to fear but the recent Equifax hack or an email phishing scam. Who would even know the process to go about hiring a security detail? Sure, a lawyer would be able to recommend services, but you've already signed the lottery ticket with your personal name. That has to be scary to realize that everyone and their mother will now know you're probably the wealthiest individual in the state.
I, for one, hope she wins the case and is able to maintain her privacy. If she ends up performing all those good works you described, then it's purely out of the goodness of her heart and not a facade she now has to maintain in order to prove she 'deserves' the money she's won.
17
James, you do not have a clue about lottery winners and the vultures that descend. And this is not public money, it's private money spent by individuals that hope to win more than they put in. Legalized, private gambling. Just because the state runs it (and gets revenue from it), doesn't make it the public's money.
3
Powerball winners are required to identify themselves to avoid fraud and for advertising. One of the preventatives for the Tipton fraud was that the jackpot had to be collected by a named person, not an anoymous trust which attempted to collect. The fraudulently obtained jackpot was never collected.
I agree with other commentators that you agreed to the conditions of Powerball when you buy your ticket. One of the conditions is that you cannot be anoymous. If you don't want your name publicized, don't buy the ticket in the first place.
16
You sell your pb ticket to a financial institution, at a discount, and unsigned. No one knows but you, the buyer, and the irs.
3
Nearly every other developed country in the world allows lottery winners to remain anonymous. Why are they able to combat corruption while doing so, but we are not?
83
That's a pretty sweeping comment. Do you have a source? I mean, how developed countries handle their lottery winners seems like pretty esoteric knowledge. Curious how you know this.
2
I completely understand where Jane Doe is coming from. I think she is being very wise. The lottery officials are absurd and draconian considering the facts and circumstances of this case. Good luck Jane Doe! Hope you can remain anonymous :-)
256
The rules are posted for all to see, which she chooses to ignore. The greater public good of avoiding the lottery games being corrupted outweigh her desire to secretly win a lottery, which is not a right.
What is it that you really hope for? That she can continue to circumvent the rules to all because now she can afford an attorney? I am afraid that your ethical education failed to help you understand why you want something that is not good for the greater good of all.
A contract is a contract. If we are allowed to declare contracts null and void whenever we feel circumstances warrant it (except for illegal contracts obviously) then the value of contracts are lost and chaos explodes. The risk is worse than the reward in this case.
With everything else going on in this country and the world, here is a court battle about a woman who wants to remain anonymous in order to collect a lottery ticket worth $560 million dollars? Good grief, I could use a drink . . . of anything right about now.
I don't know one individual who plays the lottery and does not know that if he/she wins, the first thing they have to give up is their name. How can anyone NOT know this? Before claiming a winning ticket worth that kind of change, why not incorporate, why not change the home phone number, why not plan ahead before even purchasing a ticket?
Of all things to be highly stressed over, claiming a lottery ticket worth that much seems to be an oxymoron. I would gladly trade places with ANYONE if $560 million dollars is at steak. I feel a lot of emotions toward millionaire Jane Doe, but sympathy and understanding and empathy aren't anywhere near the list.
26
But they DO NOT have to give up their name ... they are allowed to have a trust claim the prize and remain personally anonymous. It is just that the website does not inform ticket buyers of this.
6
WOW - I did not realize that. Thanks for the insight. So, I wonder, why this Jane Doe does not go that route? It would be cheaper than the present route she is taking. Too bad her lawyers didn't informed her of that, but then, they if had, they would not have the opportunity of ripping her off so heavily. Thanks again for the intel WZ - I'll remember that if I ever win a big lottery.
1
Absolutely, that the NH courts have to waste time and money over this is absurd.
1
New Hampshire doesn't demand that lottery winners reveal themselves to the public -- they allow a trust to claim the prize. This winner put herself in this situation. I'm sure it will be far from the last stupid thing she does with respect to winning this money.
20
She did what is recommend and that is to sign the ticket right away. The ticket should indicate what winner's options are right on the ticket, not require website or an attorney right away.
56
A trust? Sounds like she has some kind of tax dodge in mind.
Take your hundreds of millions of after-tax dollars and live free, NH.
6
I fully support the winner's quest for privacy and I hope she gets it. The idea that a security detail for life is a solution is just awful - not only is your anonymity gone but so is all privacy and spontaneity in your daily life. In the age of the internet, there is nowhere to hide and threats can become very real.
Euromillions gives winners the opportunity to remain anonymous to the public and most do. No one contests whether the lottery is valid. We should have the same model as the Europeans where anonymity is accepted for the good of all.
79
So don't play American lotteries if you want to remain anonymous. Play in Europe where you can remain anonymous.
Remaining anonymous is not for the good of all. It draws into question that the lottery could be fixed.
8
Yes, and it should be tax free, like the European lotteries.
5
"The idea that a security detail for life is a solution is just awful"
I know; that solution offered by the commission shows how clue-less and/or how indifferent they are to the concerns of their winners.
3
Actually, even if both sides have valid reasons, the rules are set and all gamblers agree to them. It’s like arguing that the 2 minute warning should be changed to 3 minutes.
16
Donate a few thousand to some NH politicians; they’ll change that law in five minutes!
243
The rule applies to the entire Powerball game no matter what state it's in.
4
lol - I love this comment
3
No. If you read the article, it states:
"Most states view the names of winners of significant prizes as a matter of public record, though a few permit winners to keep their identities private."
5
I guess the "Live Free or Die" motto of New Hampshire is only that, a motto.
22
I rarely play the lottery but when I do, I make sure it is a game that will allow me to remain anonymous if I win. I'm told that the law exists because if people don't actually see a winner they don't believe that a pay out by the lottery has been made.
6
She loves NH and wants to keep living there, not Italy, not total anonymity, not security guards all her life. So forego the MONEY Honey!
7
What exactly is the state's interest in publicly naming the winner?
And does that interest outweigh the winner's interest in maintaining her privacy?
22
She knew the rules when she bought the ticket.
4
Without the public knowing the identity of the winner it brings up the question of the lottery being fixed. Should I ever be fortunate enough to win, I would want to remain anonymous. Tough.
I do not even like the idea of skirting the spirit of the rules by allowing a trust to be named the winner.
My feelings are simple. She can give up her anonymity or she can give up the ticket and donate it to charity.
4
I understand the state's reason for disclosure but it should be made more clear how to remain anonymous by not signing the ticket and accepting the prize as a trust. Could the winner take the money, immediately disappear abroad somewhere and then arrange to legally change her name?
47
You can't accept the prize as a trust. Part of the attempted Tipton fraud was an trust that attempted to collect the fraudulent prize. The trust was not permitted to collect the prize.
The article states that the state said it's not in the business of giving legal advice. That is why they don't do it and probably never will. They like the publicity.
1
The fact is new Hampshire allows anonymity by allowing a trust to sign. They make the rules, and they can make the exceptions. They can certainly figure a way to remove her signature and allow for a signature of the trust.
43
The lottery claims they need to reveal winners identities to curb potential fraud?
They dont need to prove that someone wins the lottery. They seek perverse revenge in forcing winners to attend a press conference thereby making them a target of every unscrupulous person in the world. You can no longer walk down the street because of that.
How about a compromise, that is, for the states where they force you to reveal yourself, and BTW, claiming as a trust is not allowed in many states.
The compromise: How about 90 days before your name is released? I would shoot for 120, because the lottery is going to lobby the state for 0 days. Lets meet in the middle. 60 days. Two months is enough time to get your house, your financial details, and everything else and everyone else protected.
If I won, Id gladly take the opportunity to show up and smile, but I would endeavour to make such a mockery of that press conference and the state lottery commission for forcing me to go through with it, they would probably seriously reconsider forcing winners to go through it in the future.
32
The issue here is she could have claimed it in the name of a trust in her state -- except she rushed into signing the ticket before speaking with a lawyer. This is a problem of her own making. She doesn't get a do-over once she's signed the ticket.
12
She can cross out her name and resign the WINNING ticket.
There is only ONE winning ticket and in this case, being resigned, Id like to see the lottery claim it is void.
1
If trusts can be established for winners in New Hampshire, and those trusts protects the names of winners, there is no acceptable reason not to allow her to set up a trust - even after signing the ticket - and avoid her name becoming public.
145
You are missing the point -- she signed the ticket. Her name is on the ticket. The ticket can be FOIAed by anyone, even if the State were ultimately going to allow the "trust" to claim it. Plus, it already seems like the winner's name is not exactly a secret where she lives. Otherwise. how would be know to be contacting her?
3
Cry me a river, as they say. This is ludicrous. I'm certain it says on the ticket that New Hampshire will reveal the identity of winners. If she didn't want to accept this, she shouldn't have bought a ticket. She cannot have her $560 million and her privacy too, but she knew or should have known that. Does anyone think she regrets winning?
40
You sound envious, jealous.
18
It’s unfair that only financially savvy lottery winners know to set up a trust to remain anonymous. She’s fighting to do something that should be universally known and explained to everyone.
6
Actually Sean, Barbara8101 sounds rational.
4
Reminds me of Steinbeck's Pearl.
17
I think that the state's reason for disclosure--avoidance of corruption--is valid. It's too bad, but I suppose that it's fair IF the state makes it clear that a winner can't remain anonymous.
40
But a winner can remain anonymous in NH if the trust signs.
24
An individual can't remain anonymous, but a trust can? The state can't have it both ways, it's either anonymous or it ain't.
2
But they allow anonymity--a trust can sign the ticket and the person who owns the trust does not have to be disclosed. The website doesn't reveal that.
3
That kind of money buys privacy and exclusivity. Take it, disappear and enjoy living in grand style anywhere you wish.
26
Exactly. All of this public battling is absurd, she is her own worst enemy. I'm sure all that the lawyers are thinking is Ka-ching.
10
Under NH's ticket validation rule: "The ticket must not be defectively printed, fuzzy, produced in error, counterfeit in whole or in part, altered, unreadable, reconstructed, tampered with in any manner, stolen, blank or partially blank, misregistered, or defective." This seems to apply to the ticket only. Common sense is that your signature is not part of the ticket and has nothing to do with the intent of this rule. Crossing out your own validated signature and replacing it with the name of a trust does not alter the ticket, and there is no requirement that the signature be notarized, so as long as you can prove its your markings, the crossed out signature can be considered part of the whole signature.
18
Attaching a name and face to the lottery winner lets potential ticket buyers share the fantasy that they might be the one in a billion who beats the odds.
10
Exactly. It's marketing the fantasy. I do feel sorry for her, though. I'm sure that they will reach an equitable solution.
11
I still wish I had this problem!
103
Think again. It could ruin your life.
2
Lesson learned: Don’t play the lottery if you’re not sure you can handle winning.
59
She is not the first person to have that kind of wealth. Many billionaires and almost billionaires manage just fine. There are ways to handle privacy if that is what she wants.
10
Many BILLIONAIRES AND MILLIONAIRES live anonymously with their billions and millions and are not FORCED to reveal themselves.
109
Apparently you've never heard of the Forbes List of wealthiest individuals....
8
Most ultra-wealthy people have enough experience with money—whether inherited or self-made—to understand how to protect themselves. These are also not the type of people who play the lottery. There should be protections for average people who have a blessing of a windfall that is also curse.
52
It can be hard for people to understand that money, certainly a lot of money, definitely an obscene amount of money like this, is not a good thing at all.
51
Speak for yourself. I would have no problem doing non-obscene good with it, from saving wildlife to funding cancer research to establishing birth control/abortion clinics in underserved areas.
3
Only a small fraction of people can handle excess money properly. You don't hear about most of them simply because they are using it to take care of themselves, their extended family, and their communities rather than blowing it on conspicuous consumption.
1
The lottery commission can easily determine the true identity of the winner without there being a need to disclose her name and/or picture. I don't for one moment agree with the idea in this instance that the public has any right to know. The state-and by extension the 'public'-are just being nosy. How rude!
126
S, I agree with you on what you say BUT what the commissions seems to be saying is that
***the public needs to know the winners specifically so that no one things the COMMISSION is corrupt.***
In other words, the commision's concern is how they look to the public. It is a critical point that the article and many comments do not seem to get.
3
Sisko, I wish what you're saying is true, but unfortunately in some cases it's necessary to publicly declare the winner. A con artist vendor at a trade show I attended held a phony prize drawing in order to collect contact information from as many people as he could. There was no prize. Someone became suspicious after the show and requested to know the name of the winner. He picked my name out of the pile and told the police I was the winner. I was contacted by the police to verify that I received the prize. Although I stated that I hadn't received anything, I was still investigated to determine I wasn't part of the fraud. I did not like it
7
So, set up a trust, and you CAN remain anonymous. Sign the ticket, as instructed ON the ticket, and you can't. Talk about stupid and conflicting advice. Just ridiculous, and almost enough to make some stop buying tickets. BUT: Kansas is one of the very few states allowing complete anonymity for winners. So there, I've said something nice about this place.
Don't get used to it. Seriously.
199
To X: There are no secrets. Once two know, no secrets. The wealthy are forgotten after the first interview. There are many with money, few with common sense. The balanced life comes only with self knowledge and caring, caring of others. $500 million will exacerbate unresolved issues, freedom to do as one wishes does about the same. Fame is a mixed blessing. See On Her Shoulders, Nadia Murad. See her OpEd in Sunday’s NYTimes. Nadia is poor. Her life is troubled, she is loved, she is 24, she needs an education. Her book was written here. Her life is respected and restricted. Sudden wealth does not bring happiness. Freedom comes only with education and discipline. Privacy comes in the crowd with anonymity. And, again, there are no secrets. Salinger tried secrecy after writing. Was miserable. Live and let live. You cannot take it with you. Avoid reporters. They’ve got their interests. Not yours. Sandy
3
Mr. Lewis, a couple of days ago something reminded me of the NYT article about you. I wondered what happened to you, and thought that it was good that none of your dire predictions came through. And now I see your comment here - what a coincidence. I was also wondering about your thinking about the current state of the economy. I hope you are well and enjoying the farm!
We should all have such problems.
I would claim the money & move to Italy. Problem solved.
48
Not so fast!
AND while entering Italy (the EU), when customs officials discover who you are (you would be surprised what comes up on their computer screens that you dont see, but they do) and this information trickles down to the local mafiosi, good luck with that one honey.
5 recommendations? Do you have any idea how Italy is run?????
22
My uncle the maffia boss could (and will) easily find you.
9
No. But I have statistics that show the violent gun crime rate in the U.S. is 7 times that of Italy. The murder rate here is 5 times greater than Italy.
Ciao!
13
Could she legally change her name and then change it back. Honestly who even remembers the last big winner from New England. Make it know you will not consider direct request for help. Arrange for a trusted third party to handle charitable request. Only let a few trusted financial people handle your money. In a year of two people will forget.
12