Co-Worker Sues For Share Of Big Lottery Jackpot

[Walt Starr]

Co-Worker Sues For Share Of Big Lottery Jackpot
Winners Will Each Receive $25 Million

POSTED: 3:08 pm EST December 15, 2005
UPDATED: 3:20 pm EST December 15, 2005

SANTA ANA, Calif. -- Seven workers at a California medical lab who shared a $315 million Mega Millions lottery jackpot are being sued by a co-worker.

Jonathan De La Cruz said he wants a share of the pot.

In his lawsuit, he claims he had always been a part of the group when they bought lottery tickets before, but that he was off work the day they bought the winning ticket.

<snip>

http://www.theindychannel.com/money/5544478/detail.html

Having participated in office lotto pools, it's evident to me this guy is simply a piece of shit.

[400Years]

1. they must not like him very much or they would have given him a share

sad.

either he is a dick or they are real shitty friends.

[Heddi]

9. Why should they have to give him anything?

For that matter, are they obligated to give EVERYONE they know some chip of the money?

And how much should they give him? His "fair share" had he bought in to the ticket? $500,000? $5?

Sorry--I didn't play the lotto, even though I have in the past. They should give ME some of the money since I generally play lotto. They're shitty people if they don't evenly distribute that money amongst all people that they have known at any time in their life, and to all family members they've had, and to all their family members' friends, and to all my friends, and to everyone who has a last name A-M :eyes:

They're not obligated to give him anything, friendship or not. I had a friend a few years ago that inhereted around $5,000,000 (5 Million) from some relative she didn't even know she had. The LAST thing on my mind was 'Gee...where's my share?'. Even though there were people in her family that felt they were equally deserving of the money and, much like this guy, felt my friend was obligated to spread the wealth to them. And they were quite particular. One even went out and bought a house they could'nt afford then submitted a bill to my friend in the tune of about $900,000 and said something along the lines of "well, this is the least you can do for your favourite aunt!" and sued my friend when my friend refused to pay the house bill. Of course, the aunt was laughed out of court, the house was repossesed and now she's got a $900,000 judgement on her credit record.

Whoops.

[Occulus]

95. I think the argument against all that is more along the lines of

it would be kind if they did cut him in, normally being in it with them in the first place and all.

If kindness counts for nothing, upon what do we base the good we do?

[William769]

2. "piece of shit"

Is putting it lightly. You snooze, you lose.

[NC_Nurse]

3. Oh, brother!

I suppose it's par for the course to have shitheads come out of the woodwork when you come into a big windfall.

I don't suppose he could have just asked for a small cut....and then been philosophical about it if they said no....

NAH! That would take too much class.

[rd_kent]

4. You get NOTHING!!!!

I cant believe there are people like this. He didnt pay into the pot to buy tickets, so he dont get a cut!!!! If he wins his lawsuit, Im going to ask for my money back I paid into pools that never hit!!!

[WI_DEM]

5. Too bad, if you knew it was the day of the office lottery

you should have been there or else had somebody put your money in for you.

[SoCalDem]

6. In another time he would have sued Oceanic Steam Navigation Company

because he showed up late for the sailing of their ship, and was denied his place in history:)

[B Calm]

7. He should do like me and pay a week ahead..

[Heddi]

8. I read about something like this happening in the past

THese workers in, I think, Texas, used to always do a lotto pot and generally about 10-15 people who worked together would put in a few bucks every week and get a group lotto ticket. Some weeks some people wouldn't partake, and other weeks people generally not in the pool would chip in. It was an on-again-off-again thing--you never knew who was interested in chipping in until that day.

Well, low and behold, the last time they got a ticket, only 6 or 7 people chipped in. The other workers who usually did in the past didn't partake in the pool that week, and even lower and even more beholden, that was the week that the group won hundreds of millions of dollars in lotto money.

Some of the people who VOLUNTARILY didn't join in and chip in the $1 or $3 or whatever SUED those that won with pretty much the same premise as this guy--they always did (sometimes), so those that bought the tickets should have known that they (those that didn't win) would be interested in the pool and should have considered them PART of the pool even though they didn't contribute.

Of course, that was thrown out of court before it even got there.

I think another person ended up suing not because the group that won should have known they were interested in buying a ticket (even though they didn't chip in). Rather, they sued on the basis that these friends should have an OBLIGATION to spread the wealth to those who NORMALLY chipped in but didn't that time, because, you know, had the person suing won, THEY would have given their non-chipped-in co-workers their fair share :right-o!:

It was really interesting--the show about these people (I think it was on 48 hours or something). One of the guys had cashed in his winnings through one of those places that gives you lump sum payments for things that are spread-out (like lotteries, inheritance, etc). He had originally won (his share) several several hundreds of thousands of dollars. In the end, he got only $36,000 from the lump-sum payment company.

Other people who had won had lost all of their friends and weren't on speaking terms with their family members because friends & family felt that they were Owed part of the lotto money by virtue of being friends/family to those who won.

It was really sad to see just how little money improved these peoples lives, aside from alllowing them to purchase material things.

That being said, I still hope to win the lotto, as I don't have any friends to lose :D

[sandnsea]

27. lol

"I don't have any friends to lose." hehe. funny.

I had these friends who got two large settlements. The first one, they just sort of disappeared for several months. We had no clue what had happened. I don't remember if we finally just stopped by, or what, but we noticed they had all new stuff. They mentioned they had gotten their settlement. Ooooh.

Fast forward about 5 years. After they blew through that settlement, we were worthy of friendship again, or something. So anyway, we start noticing them acting weird again and wonder, wtf?? Well, one day they were just gone and a neighbor said they had bought a new RV, etc etc. They had gotten another settlement.

Haven't seen them since. Oh well. Good riddance I guess.

[Heddi]

32. I had a friend that inhereted millions from some relative

completely out of the blue. No one in the family even had a clue who this person was--not sure if they know now.

My friend got a certified letter one day from a law firm about an inheritance. She thought it was some bunk chain letter scam deal. SO she called the lawyer's office, and they were a real law firm, and they informed her that she was the sole heir of this estate. $5 Million, I believe, is what she got.

You would not BELIEVE how quickly the "oh poor me's" came a' calling. One aunt of hers went out and bought a $900,000 house and sent the bill to my friend basically like "oh thank you for buying me a house!" My friend didn't pay---not because she doesn't love her aunt, but what a shitty thing to do.

She bought her parents a new house (paid cash for) and new cars, and gave them several hundred thousand dollars to live off of. She did the same for her siblings. A large chunk of the money (several hundred thousands) went to various charities and while she didn't tell me which ones, I believe she gave HEAVILY to a non-profit community hospital to improve their services. The rest is in the bank, drawing more interest in a year than I'd make in a decade.

The thing is, she kept all the $$ in the family or with charity. She told me straight up that she hoped I wouldn't take this wrong, but she felt once she started handing out money to friends, she'd be overwhelmed by which friends to give to, and how much, and she'd rather have all of her friends than lose friends because of their greediness. I completely understood. As sweet as it would have been to get, like $100,000, I really understood her decision and never thought her "greedy" because of it.

However, according to some people on this thread, she should have given everyone in the world everything and kept narry a penny for herself, lest she be greedy and selfish and *gasp* keep the money that was rightfully hers.

Sadly, not all of her friends were as understanding as I and several others were. They flat out refused to talk to her or have anything to do with her until (as one friend put it) a check for $200,000 is sitting on my front step.

I guess the song "Money changes everything" was more right than some people think.

[LisaL]

40. That is so true. When someone becomes rich, he/she usually

gets tons of relatives he/she didn't even know existed.

[Heddi]

44. Cousins they never knew about...

what was amazing to her was that people she went to ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WITH were calling and writing her talking about how much they could use the money....every week we'd go through the littany of letters she got from people AROUND THE WORLD begging for money.

I'm not even sure how they found out. She didn't win a lottery, it was an inheritance. But people found out, and she finally had to get the post office to hold her mail and get a PO Box for "real" mail because she was so innundated with letters every day.

[sandnsea]

47. It's two different things

My neighbor across the street just inherited a bunch of money. I don't know how much, don't care, they're having a great time. But I wouldn't expect them to snub me just because they've come into some money, and lo and behold, they haven't. These other people did it, TWICE.

Regardless, this is entirely different from a group of people participating in a lottery, week after week after month after month, for years. They finally win and they're going to exclude somebody because he wasn't there that day?? As long as it was the same group and consistent, I think that's just shitty. I could never be so greedy as to do that. It has absolutely nothing to do with inheritances or other money situations, windfall or not.

[Heddi]

51. Read what the story says:

They said it was the first time they had bought tickets together and that it had been almost a year since any of them had pooled money with De La Cruz for tickets.

They also said that when they won, he didn't claim that he deserved a cut.

---

So it wasn't people participating in a lottery, week after week, month after month for years. It was once, and HE HAD NOT PARTICIPATED IN NEARLY A YEAR.

[sandnsea]

59. That makes no sense

If it was the first time, then how could it have been a year since De La Cruz participated.

Like I said, if it wasn't a consistent thing, then he has no case. If it was, the decent thing to do is split it.

[LisaL]

60. It has been a first time they bought tickets together as a group.

And it has been a year since ANY OF THEM POOLED with this guy. So, a year ago, one or two of them might have bought tickets together, but not as a whole group. And because of this he deserves 25 millions. Well, that's even easier than selling condo in Florida.

[Heddi]

61. It was the first time that group of 7 had pooled together

I made a new post downthread from 2 other articles I found about it.

Random groups of people would pool often, but not the same 7 week after week. He had not participated in any pooling in nearly a year.

[sandnsea]

67. Okay, I get it

Then that is silly. And he's being a jerk.

[Catherine Vincent]

10. I can see his point if they pooled their money for like...10 years

everytime there was a lotto drawing and the one week he missed, they win. But imo, he should have left a few dollars with someone to keep him in the pot. S/he must feel real strongly about that. I hope s/he doesn't get sick over this. It's kind of sad.

[Walt Starr]

46. This is why I document pools explicitly

IF you snooze, you lose. Only those who contribute are in and everybody who's in gets a copy of the tickets.

Those who will be missing and want in will make arrangements with me and cover it when they return. All of it is documented.

[Heddi]

52. read what the story says

They said it was the first time they had bought tickets together and that it had been almost a year since any of them had pooled money with De La Cruz for tickets.

They also said that when they won, he didn't claim that he deserved a cut.

---
So he obviously wasn't a die hard, every week type of lotto player. He hadn't played with them in nearly a year, and suddely, the day they win, he gets upset that he didn't win.

I notice he wasn't too upset in the past 11 months that they DIDN'T win and he DIDN't pool...

[Catherine Vincent]

73. Oh, thanks. I didn't read the link.

That's a different story. No, he shouldn't get any of the winnings.

[KansDem]

11. Man, this guy will now have to work alongside colleagues...

...who are millionaires 25 times over!

"Hey, Elmo, whadda doing this weekend?"
"Me and the family's going to fly to Switzerland do to some skiing. Then we're going to stop off at Jamaica on the way back to get a little sun..."
"Oh, you'll like Jamaica. We were there last weekend!"

"How about you, John?"
"Un, well, I thought I'd get the car waxed..."

[Heddi]

12. It always freaks me out when people who win lotto say

"oh, well even though I have won 87 Billion Dollars, I intend to continue working at my minimum-wage job"

:wtf: ???????????

If I won ANYTHING close to a superball or major jackpot, the first thing I'd do is go take a shit on my bosses desk and say "this is notice that I'm quitting effective now".

well, not really. I might just pee in her plants.

or just not show up the next day...

[KansDem]

13. The first thing I'd do is get an unlisted phone nunber...

Then I'd shit on the boss's desk. If fact, why bother to shit at all? I too might just not show up the next day...

edited to add: I like follow-up stories about someone who won the lottery and laments about losing friends and not being able to trust new ones. "Do you still have the money?" "Oh, yes!"

[Heddi]

14. I think I've subconsciously never had friends

in the event that if I were to win the lotto, I wouldn't have to have to make the decision to choose my friends or my money.

ANd thankfully, my family is poor and gets excited over $30 in Target Gift Cards. I'm sure I could give them, like $100,000 each and they'd be set for life.

My husband's family is generally wealthy and I completely see them as being the types to come with their hands out, begging for a new house AND a new car AND this and that, and get pissed if we "only" gave them $100,000.

If I win the lotto, can I shit on my husband's family's desk?

[Sydnie]

18. I would HIRE someone to shit on the bosses desk!

And pay them handsomely too! :rofl: Great visual, btw.

[Heddi]

33. I can be there tomorrow if you need me to

I'm on vacation til Jan 3 :D

[Vanje]

43. i'll do that!

when you win the lottery and need a professional to make dirty on your boss's desk, call me.

[Tactical Progressive]

20. For alot of people work is their social environment

outside of their family. That's where your friends are, the people you socialize with and work with towards something day after day. At each stage of your life you accumulate friends from activities you do in conjunction, whether school or teams or hobbies, or earlier jobs.

And that's the way it should be. The trend towards being some replaceable automaton without connection to the workplace or your fellow workers isn't natural and it's not good.

You have friends throughout life based on who you do things with, and your job is part of that in many cases. Not always of course, but more often than not. It's not surprising to me that some people wouldn't just toss it away. It depends on the situation.

[Heddi]

29. I guess I've always had jobs I hated, and worked with less than

interesting people that I would actually take a cut in pay to get to work AWAY from....

I've heard about jobs that people like, where they work with at least ONE person they get along with....I've never had them. Then again, I've always had jobs where I"m the only one that actually WORKS, while everyone else that shares recycled air gets credit & commissions for the hard work I do.....which is why I'm out of sales jobs and going to school for nursing :D

Maybe I'd enjoy working once I had a job that, was, you know, not something that a marginally-skilled monkey could do....

[dogfacedboy]

89. Will they still be working together? I doubt if all will. n/t

[MrSlayer]

15. That's the nightmare scenario.

Being left out when everyone else wins. When we do the pools at work we always put in for the guys who aren't there that day if they play regularly. It has got to suck being this guy.

[Heddi]

16. Isn't that life, though?

I mean, not everyone is going to "get theirs". Either he didn't chip in on the pool at work, or didn't stop by 7-11 on the way home, or did stop by 7-11 and had he been there 5 minutes earlier, he would have gotten the lucky numbers. Or maybe he married the pretty girl with no brains instead of the ugly one with intellect and gets his bank account cleared out by her unscrupulus clandestine boyfriend.

Or maybe he ran back inside the house before leaving for work, delaying his departure by 2 minutes, which caused him to be in the middle of an intersection at the same time a semi-truck ran a red light and creams him and leaves him paralyzed from the eyelids down :shrug:

Not everyone is "lucky". He's bitching because he's not a millionaire. At least he has a job, and a house. Those are 2 things that many people in this country don't have and he thinks he's "unlucky"????

Sorry. No pitty for him. Yeah, it would suck to be him, but then again, I guess it would suck even more to be a terminal cancer patient who is homeless and dying a painful death because they don't have the luxury of health insurance or a warm fire or food or.....

[MrSlayer]

19. Certainly it could be worse.

I guess his co-workers didn't think enough of the guy to put him in when he wasn't there. It's easy to say "It could be worse". It always could be worse but think of how much better it would be with millions of dollars. I can see why the guy is salty, it doesn't mean he's entitled to anything but I understand his bitterness. I always make sure I get in for the drawings for that very reason.

[LisaL]

23. It's the freaking lottery. If I play the same stupid numbers for

years, and the one day I don't play those numbers win millions, do you think I should have a case? LOL. That's the whole nature of the lottery.
This guy is suing-ridiculous. I don't see how he can get anything out of it.

[MrSlayer]

28. I didn't say he had a case.

Just that it has to suck being left out of it. Seeing everyone else go off to live a luxurious life while you are stuck in the pit has to blow.

[LisaL]

42. Yes, it sucks. But lottery is pure luck, and he was out of it.

[Tactical Progressive]

17. If they were nice

he wouldn't have to sue. How greedy do you have to be to not split $300 million one more way for someone who was always part of the group? Pretty fucking greedy, that's how much.

I'm sure they all consider it their 'hard-earned' money by now.

[LisaL]

22. Oh please!

He didn't pay for the winning ticket. I don't see how this guy has any case at all. Completely ridiculous.

[Tactical Progressive]

34. Oh please yourself

which is what this is all about. You're espousing the attitude that underlies all Republican greed - I got mine, no matter how, and you can go to hell.

It's no different than the attitude that underlies their belief that there should be no Social Security, Medicare, minimum wage, unemployment insurance or any aspect of social economics. Really, why should I have to pay for Social Security if I don't need it - it's mine not yours.

Usually it is masked by such tripe as how they 'earned' their money even if it was by inheritance, but this is even WORSE - these people didn't earn anything, they just got lucky and he was part of the group.

Assuming he played as regularly as anybody else in the group then he has a stake. This isn't 300 dollars, it's participation in a group's efforts to get the windfall of a lifetime.

The very LEAST these people can do is take a million off of each of their 'earnings', leaving them with only $22 mil, and he gets $7 million. And they should probably set aside ten or twelve million to divvy up between occasional participants in their lottery efforts.

Or maybe just the person holding THE winning ticket thinks they should get it all? That sounds about as fair as your attitude.

The whole point of playing the lottery in a group, aside from the social aspect which is being violated as well by these crumbs, is that by increasing the number of lottery tickets they increase their chances of winning, so even if you didn't buy THE lottery ticket, you contributed to the odds of getting A winning lottery ticket. That applies accross lottery attempts as well as it does within a single lottery attempt. This guy contributed to the odds of winning that ticket every time he played along. If he only played once for every one-hundred times the other seven played then he is entitled to 1/700th of the winnings. If he played as much as them, just not on that particular day, then he is entitled to as much as they are.

Besides it being wrong on the merits, their attitude is so fucking greedy I can't comprehend it.

[LisaL]

39. Gee, I play lottery too. Which, according to you, means I

increase the odds of winning. Maybe they should send those 7 millions to me?
If he played as much as them, he is entitled? Says who? Lots of people play, lose tons of money, never win anything. Why aren't they entitled, and this guy is?

[Tactical Progressive]

45. You're just being silly

You weren't in their pool; you don't deserve anything. Same with other 'lots of people'. And in fact you playing *decreased* their odds of winning.

If you want to purposely not understand the situation with inanities like that, I can't stop you.

[LisaL]

53. He wasn't in the pool either. Isn't that why he is suing?

He wants something that doesn't belong to him. The fact that he was a part of this pool in the past shouldn't matter, unless they had some sort of agreement to share the winnings even if the person didn't contribute to the pool. Have it ever occurred to you that there are most likely other people that could have been a part of this pool in the past? How about someone who quit the job a year ago, but till then, he was always a part of the pool? Should he get his share too? Maybe someone else contributed from time to time, but not this time? Should they share this pool? He wasn't the part of the winning pool, ant that's it. Why should he get anything?

[Tactical Progressive]

71. So you saying it doesn't belong to him makes it so.

Proof by assertion. Here: He wants what belongs to him.

These people have an ongoing, communal effort to win the lottery. Every ticket they buy increases the odds. That's why they pool their funds; that's why they do it week after week. And their strategy paid off.

If it were a one-shot deal that would be one thing. They would have spent seven dollars to win $300 million. But they didn't spend $7 to win $300 million. They spend hundreds of dollars trying to increase their odds of winning the lottery, some of which came from this guy.

Imagine they kept all of their lottery tickets from their pools in a shoebox. They've got roughly 100 tickets apiece in there from the years they've been playing, so there's 800 lottery tickets in there. (Or 799 because this guy didn't play one. Or maybe 820 because maybe he bought 20 more tickets than than they did, just not on this particular day.)

So the reporters come up to them and ask them how they feel; how much they play; blah blah blah. They pull out the box and say there's $800 dollars worth of lottery tickets in here so we did pretty good! $800 for $300 million! Except oops, they have to take 100 lottery tickets out of the box so that it's only $700 worth of tickets to get $300m, because his lottery tickets don't get to figure into their winning odds. They'd have to say that to make their legal case in court.

Do you see how silly that is? That's how ridiculous the contention is that he didn't contribute to the winning of that money just because he didn't put money in on that particular day.

And yes, as I said in another post, they should be divvying up rewards for other players who contributed to their effort to beat the odds.

Or maybe just the fifth guy to put his dollar into the effort to get the winning ticket, ticket #5, deserves it all. Because after all, the rest of the tickets didn't win, just the one he paid for.

[LisaL]

79. He didn't contribute week after week.

Last time he pooled, was a year ago. You clearly didn't bother to read the link, and now arguing about a scenario that only exist in your head.

[Walt Starr]

83. Even if he did, it changes nothing

Your odds of winning are not increased by participation drawing after drawing. Your odds are increased only wihtin a single drawing.

If you collect $300 each week and have 300 tickets, your odds are no different drawing to drawing. If one person fails to contribute thier $50 one week, your odds are actually SMALLER, and if you win, the guy who failed to contribute actually LESSENED the odds of winning.

If you fail to contribute on any drawing and the pool wins, you deserve NOT A RED CENT!

[Cats Against Frist]

81. EXCELLENT POST

This all, of course, hinges upon the frequency at which the man participated in the lottery. But, if, say there was a case where the workers pooled every week, for a substantial amount of time, and this guy was assed out on the one day he didn't show up, then for them not to share it is ASININE, and GREEDY and plain old shitty.

It's fun being the "greedy libertarian," around here, and having to tell DUers that sharing the money with the absent co-worker is what's "right."

I understand that this wasn't the case, with this man, but it seems some DUers are defending the group not sharing, even in the case of consistent group pooling. I have no words to describe how I would feel about a group of people who walked away with 20 million dollars, apiece, and didn't share it with the co-worker, if he was, indeed, screwed because of the one week he didn't play.

*edited for spelling

[Tactical Progressive]

87. It's the winner-take-all attitude

combined with the ethics of 'it's mine and it doesn't make a difference how I got it' that are both so prevalent in America.

It's the same underlying ethics that allows a new CEO and executives to take twenty million dollars in compensation out of a company as they send the jobs of people who have built the company up over thirty years overseas. All while reneging on their pensions and re-defining their guaranteed health-care benefits out of affordability. Those people deserve nothing. They contributed nothing. The new executives have earned it all.

They are a microcosm of Republicanism. Self-righteous greed wherever you think you can get away with it. It would be a sick comment of the ethics and morality of a few people, if this wasn't the underlying morality and ethics that America has grown into as a nation through its politics.

[Dorian Gray]

91. That WOULD be the case

if the man played the lottery every week. But, according to the article, Cats Against Frist, he hadn't participated in pooling for the lottery in over a year. So, it wasn't a week by week thing. If it was, and his only problem was missing the $1.00 payment because he was sick, then I would htink that they were greedy. But, why should he get a piece of the pie if he not only didn't participate in this pool, but hasn't for over a year? That's just ridiculous!

[Tactical Progressive]

92. Well, at least you admit

that would be the case if he had participated regularly, which is the premise of the original post that everyone here was debating. There are people here who don't even understand that.

Nobody's going to debate about a guy that wasn't a participant in a lottery-pool effort.

[Dorian Gray]

94. Well, the original article...

if you click on it, goes on to explain that this particular guy wasn't a regular contributor, as they didn't have a regular pool.

I also know, from participating in Superbowl pools, you gotta send your money in by the date, otherwise you are out. (Even if it's your brother running the damn thing, your box hits, and you'd win $1000 bucks! If they don't get the money, the win is moot! Trust me!) :) It may not be totally fair, but anything involving gambling isn't "fair." Especially the odds of winning.

[Walt Starr]

100. No, that WOULD NOT be the case if he participated regularly

I'm sorry, but that simply is not true from a legal standpoint. The pnly way it would be true is if prior tickets had won some money that was used to purchase tickets in this pool. Then it is an accounting calculation to determine his share of the pot.

But no money, no ticket. No ticket, no possible chance to win.

[Walt Starr]

82. Sorry, in any pool I;ve run you could contribute faithfully every drawing

and be out the day the tickets are bought and make no arrangements to be in the pool. If that happens, YOU ARE OUT AND HAVE NO SHARE IN ANY WINNINGS!

Any pool has a deadline to get your money in. Fail t meet the deadline and it's just too fucking bad.


If they make an exception for this guy they've opened themselves up to a lawsuit from anybody else who works at the place regardless of who they are, whether they've ever contributed to a pool, or whether they have ever had any contact whatsoever with the person while working.

If you are part of a pool and somebody gets pissed because they missed chipping in their money and made no arrangements, THEY ARE OUT AND HAVE NO ENTITLEMENT TO JACK SHIT! It's just how the game works. You cannot win if you do not play.

[Tactical Progressive]

86. Says you

and you are wrong.

Your entire argument seems to be 'because I say so', along with "jack-shit" and "you're shit out of luck is rule 1", backed up with nothing more than alot of exclamation points and bolding.

You take that in front of a judge or a jury and see what happens.


BTW, I assume we're talking about a case where a long-time participant misses a lottery feed, not a case where the supposed lottery pool player was simply lying about participating.

[Walt Starr]

98. We are talking your scenario

and you are wrong. It's already established precedent. You cannot win if you do not play.

[Walt Starr]

99. We are talking your scenario

and you are wrong. It's already established precedent. You cannot win if you do not play.

[sandnsea]

24. I agree

I could never do that to somebody. I don't even understand why one wouldn't share.

[Walt Starr]

84. If you share, then you open youself up to lawsuits from EVERYBODY

and that's serious. The guy who failed to contribute deserves nothingm, and deciding to share would mean those who won could lose everything.

[LSK]

25. i agree

$300 million. Geezzz. I would settle for $1million.

Nice to see so many DUers with the "me 1st" attitude! :eyes:

[Heddi]

30. I don't think it's necessarily a "me first" attitude

and I can see why this guy would feel...jealous, but seriously. You say "I would settle for 1 Million"--well isn't that kind of you. Of course, I'm sure you're aware that everyone who won the lottery has family members. And other friends they probably feel are more worthy than this guy (was he even 'friends" with them, or just someone they worked with that occasionally chipped into the pool?)

What isn't said is whether they (meaning the entire group, or one person, two people, etc) offered him any money and he turned it down. Maybe they DID offer him $1M but that wasn't good enough for him. He wants his share (or what WOULD have been his share had he been a part of the pool).

What's next--the cashier at the 7-11 suing because, well she was the one that rang up the sales, afterall. SURELY she should be a part of it, for if it weren't for her and her nimble fingers, none of this would be.

And then there's the bus driver who takes these schleps to work every day. If it wasn't for HIM, THEY wouldn't have been at work to get in the pool either. Surely HE's worth a cut.

What about the front desk receptionist who took calls while the buyer was out at lunch buying the ticket. She does alot for them. SUrely SHE could use a cut, too.

how about me? I THOUGHT about buying a ticket, but didn't. Had I bought a ticket, *I* might have won. But I didn't buy a ticket, but I thought about it. Where the hell is my cut?

---

No, I think this is people being greedy--not the ones who rightfully won the lotto, but the one who wasn't at work and didn't chip in to get in the pool. Completely sour grapes. I'm sure right now it's easy for him to sit and say "Well, if it was me, *I*'d give money to blah blah blah" but if that were the reality (and he was the one that won), would he? SHOULD he? Even morally, is there a moral obligation for ANYONE who won the lotto to give to people who didn't?

[LSK]

35. i dont know the details of his situation

Im just reacting to all the "you snooze, you loose" talk here. Apparently the guy always participated in the pool. So what are we saying now? That nobody should ever take a day off from work now???

[Heddi]

41. Take a day off...just leave your lotto pool money with someone

or pay a week in advance.

Or call your lotto pool friends if you know you're sick that day and ask someone to chip in for you and you'll pay them back the next day.

Or chalk it up to bad luck like most normal people would.

---

I called out of work once the day that our boss bought everyone lunch. I didn't demand lunch the next day because I missed out.

Equally, when I was in cooking school, I had a Dr's appt on the day when a cheese person came in and literally gave everyone in my class about $250 worth of really great cheeses--parmesan, mozarella, etc. I was so pissed that I missed out on that, but I didn't demand the guy come back and give me my share, and I didn't sue my co-students into divying up their cheese so that I could have my 'rightful share'

Shit happens. That's the way life works. Sometimes the cards are in your favour, sometimes they're not. You just can't go suing people because things didn't turn out your way.

[sandnsea]

49. Just don't trust your co-workers or friends

To just throw a couple of bucks in for you, because they'll stab you in the back every time. Nice life lesson.

[Heddi]

54. Did you read the article?

He had not pooled money with these people for a lotto in NEARLY A YEAR.

This isn't a case of after years of pooling, he gets sick and no one covers his $1.

HE HAD NOT POOLED MONEY WITH THEM IN NEARLY A YEAR>

Hardly co-workers stabbing you in the back.

[sandnsea]

68. Got it

Thanks!

[Tactical Progressive]

55. You really think the analogy of a lunch

equates to a lifetime change in economic position for you and your entire family? I can see why metaphors to defend this are so absurd; how could they be anything but?

To that point, not that it deserves much of a rejoinder, if your boss was nice he would give you a lunch coupon for when you get the chance to use it, especially if you were off doing company business, but even if you weren't because the lunch wasn't for your work on that particular day.

And what if, using an outlandish metaphor like you seem to prefer, your boss gave everyone a three-million dollar bonus at that lunch? You'd be OK for not getting one because you were out that day? Sure your would. Little bit of a difference there, huh?

[LisaL]

58. And the so-called pool didn't even exist. They didn't

buy lottery tickets regularly, and last time they did, was a year ago. So, because they bought lottery tickets together a year ago, this guy now deserves 25 millions? Give me a break.

[Heddi]

63. It's obvious that you haven't read the article

Read the article, and the additional 2 I posted further down in the thread.

You are making this guy out to be someone who routinely participated in office pools, week after week, year after year.

That is not the case.

He had not participated in any lotto pools for nearly a year.

If he hadn't participated in any pooling in nearly a year, why would he be entiteled to ANYTHING>

And the chances of my boss giving everyone a $3M bonus is less likley than me winning the lotto even having bought a ticket.

Look--if his co-workers had PURPOSEFULLY screwed him out of the money, I would be on this guy's side 100%

But they didn't.

He wasn't a regular participant

He had not participated in nearly a year.

Why, after not participating in a work-lotto-pool in nearly a year, should he be entitled to ANY winnings?

They didn't take his $3 and then not list him as a winner

He didn't call and say "Hey, chip in for me because I'm not there" and they refused

He didn't participate. And had NOT participated in nearly a year.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

And is he only entitled to winnings if it's a life-changing amount? If everyone had only won $20, he wouldn't be entitled to a share (in your eyes), but $20 Million makes him entitled?

[Tactical Progressive]

72. No

I've been arguing this generically, as has everybody else so far. Everybody has been talking about 'missing a day' and 'pay in advance' and 'you snooze you lose'. I even made that explicit right up front when I said "Assuming he played as regularly as anybody else in the group then he has a stake." and "... for someone who was always part of the group". That's the point of this debate so let's stick with it.
______________________

Your response "And the chances of my boss giving everyone a $3M bonus is less likley than me winning the lotto even having bought a ticket." was a non-response. I already prefaced that as a hypothetical question certainly less outlandish than your comparing a sandwich to twenty-million dollars, or implicitly odds-wise to winning the lottery, so no points for calling it unlikely. Yours was no response at all. You didn't address the issue which goes to the general debate we've been having, you just side-stepped it.

That question, which is certainly a better metaphor than a sandwich bonus, stands as the answer to your question:

"And is he only entitled to winnings if it's a life-changing amount? If everyone had only won $20, he wouldn't be entitled to a share (in your eyes), but $20 Million makes him entitled?"

So again, answer that question. You tell me. Is it different? (on edit: the $3m corporate bonus instead of the lunch bonus, in case it wasn't clear)

[LSK]

75. guilty as charged

Didnt read the article.

[Walt Starr]

101. Actually, it's a perfect comparison

I'm sorry, wishing you would win even though you had no ticket doesn't make you win.

[Heddi]

65. Actually, he didn't always participate in the pool

and according to THREE articles (the original article, and the other 2 I found and posted downthread), he hadn't participated in a lotto pool at work for NEARLY A YEAR

[LisaL]

62. Settle for a million? For what? They did not have a regular pool.

And last time some of them played with the guy, was over a year ago. So, if you win the money, you would give everyone a million, if you ever played with them in the past? Hey, why don't you just send it to me?

[fishnfla]

50. i'd share-i kinda already do

we have a lottery pool at work. Me and a co-worker are "halvsies" on one share. She can't always make her payment so I cover her when she does not. If we win a big one I'd let her have more of my share ( I always say that for good luck ;) ) My wife has a full share in the same pool, so I'd give it up.

Its only money

[LisaL]

70. I find that it's always so easy to give away imaginary money

you don't have.

[Initech]

21. Sorry, jerkwad - ya snooze, ya loose!

[oasis]

26. A jury may be sympathetic and award him a piece as they did a few years

back in a case in Georgia.

A trucker who was a regular customer of a Waffle House would distribute tickets to employees in lieu of tips. He would give them tix from the Florida lottery which was part of a "Power--Ball" pool and had larger payoffs. The five employees agreed to share the proceeds if any of the tickets hit.

Months later, one of the employees discovered that she had a winning ticket from the previous day and called into work to say she was quitting.

Long story short, the other employees got a lawyer who got a court order put a stop on the payment of the Florida lottery ticket worth 10 million. The 4 employees proposed a settlement for half of the ticket to be distributed amongst them. The ticket holder turned it down. The case went to court and the jury split the winnings evenly 2 million apiece.

[Egalitariat]

48. You never know with juries. It's a crap shoot. And emotions win over...

real logic every day in the courtroom.

I bet he gets some cash.

[LisaL]

66. And I bet he wont' get anything.

Especially considering he wasn't contributing to the lottery pool in more than a year.

[oasis]

76. They may agree to throw him a crumb to settle the case out of court.

No use having your funds tied up when you could be partying. :party:

[LisaL]

78. I don't think so. Cause if they pay this guy, then they will have to

pay all the other people that at some point of time contributed to the lottery pool. They didn't have a regular group of people donating to the pool. I say, this guy gets-nothing, nada, zilch, zero.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

31. Another story along these lines happened a few years ago in New England

I hope I get most of the facts straight. As I recall, there were four couples vacationing together (I think on motorcycles). They came to a Powerball state with a huge pot. 3 of the couples threw in five bucks each but the fourth couple refused BECAUSE OF THE WIFE. Naturally, the three couples hit the Powerball bigtime. They declined to share with the fourth couple who made a conscious decision to not be part of the pool.

I always think of what life must have been like for that fourth couple. The wife, wandering around knowing that her cheapness/frugality/sanctimoniousness/lack of joie de vivre or however you want to characterize it. cost her family a chance at a life undreamed of. And the husband, wandering around wondering, what if I had just told her to shove it and threw in five bucks?
I have no idea what happened in real life.

We buy lottery tickets occasionally, usually when the pots are huge, because as my husband says, we wouldn't dream of demeaning ourselves by winning anything less than 100 million.

[Tactical Progressive]

36. Which is different than if they participated in a pool

just not on the day that that particular ticket was purchased. Completely different.

But even there you'd have to be pretty much of a schmuck not to share some of that windfall. What if that couple bought the first round of drinks in their little vacation together, or ordererd the cheaper meal but payed the same divvy, or drove and payed for the car parking at one of their little side-jaunts? I guess that wasn't 'the' lottery ticket.

That is a different situation to be sure, but even there it might not be so cut and dried.

[LisaL]

37. It does not matter he always participated in the pool, because

on the day it counted, he didn't participate. It's lottery for you. The other people in the pool are not obligated to pay him anything. He is out of luck. I don't see how he can get anything out of court for this either.

[Tactical Progressive]

38. You're talking about a one-shot deal

in the post you responded to, which is different.

The guy in the OP situation can certainly get something out of it in court.

[LisaL]

56. They didn't even have a regular pool.

Last time they pooled money was a year ago. It's absolutely, completely, utterly ridiculous to suggest this guy should get anything out of it, considering that so-called pool wasn't even a regular thing to begin with.

[Heddi]

64. It is aparent that facts just aren't important

to those who view this guy as the poor schmuck who was robbed of his share of $37 Million or whatever.

He wasn't a regular player. He hadn't been for nearly a year. He has as much right to that money as does anyone else who didn't buy a lotto ticket that day: which is to say, NONE

[Tactical Progressive]

74. Nobody has been talking about that

as you are well aware. We've been talking about the generic case of a guy who missed a lottery feed. Those other conditions weren't in the original post, in fact the original post said this specifically: "In his lawsuit, he claims he had always been a part of the group when they bought lottery tickets before, but that he was off work the day they bought the winning ticket."

Can we assume that you and Lizzy changing the debate with these conditions means that you are conceding the debate on the general conditions we've been working from?

Then if you want we can debate the revised conditions you're now adding.

[LisaL]

77. I am not sure what you are discussing. We clearly are

discussing the original article. What revised conditions? How about reading an original article for a change? The original post had a link to the original article, which specifically says he hasn't pooled his money to buy lottery tickets for over a year, according to his co-workers. I am not sure how anyone can debate anything on conditions that don't exist.

[Tactical Progressive]

80. You lost the original debate

The original post said only this: "In his lawsuit, he claims he had always been a part of the group when they bought lottery tickets before, but that he was off work the day they bought the winning ticket." The debate immediately spun off into a discussion about the merits of that situation.

Everybody was arguing that premise. I explicitly addressed those conditions right up front when I said "Assuming he played as regularly as anybody else in the group then he has a stake." and "... for someone who was always part of the group". As did just about everybody else, including you (post #37 - "It does not matter he always participated in the pool, because on the day it counted, he didn't participate."). So stop trying to pretend that it's "a scenario that only exist in your head" (your post #79); it's 'a scenario' that exists in text, including your own, all through the thread.

You and Heddi lost that argument pretty convincingly, failing to address anybody else's points, instead shooting back inane metaphors like 'the girl down the street got an inheritance so that means I should have gotten some of it too'. Do you really think that won a debate, or even made a valid point in one? It didn't.

Then around about post 51 Heddi finally went out and read the rest of the article that basically said the guy lied, which doesn't address the extant debate let alone refute any of it. If you want to change the debate to one around the new assertion that this guy lied and wasn't part of the pool, that's fine. It doesn't go to any part of the debate we were all on regarding missing a lottery pool feed, though you two somehow seem to think you are scoring points on that original debate with it. You aren't in the least, obviously.

I could probably make a case that this guy might still have a claim on some of the money, but what's the point if you weren't even able to attend to the far more direct premise of the original post with anything more than hyperbole? The thread, which was interesting, is dead now because who cares whether somebody who never played the lottery didn't win the lottery.

You lost the original debate about the claims of someone missing a day of lottery pool participation, but if anybody wanted to argue this one about someone lying about participating in a lottery pool, I'm sure you could win it.

[Heddi]

88. I was never debating a false premise

I had read the article. I was debating what this guy said happened versus what three articles--the OP and the 2 I posted later on -- I NEVER debated that this guy had been in the pool since day one. I had NEVER debated that this was a case of shitty co-workers and their right to be shitty co-workers.

THe THREE articles state that this guy was NEVER in the pool, had not BEEN in a pool for nearly a year, and that there wasn't even a REGULAR pool with the same recurring characters.

I'm sorry that *YOU* didn't read the article(s) and YOU were debating some made-up scenario in your head.

I was posting my opinion on THIS story and THESE claims made in THIS case. It was not until *I* posted the relevant parts of the story and asked if anyone read the fsking articles did you come up with the "Oh, well, I was arguing a hypothetical, not necessarily this case." You certainly wrote and debated as if you were arguing about THIS instance, an instance that you did not read the articles about, which is why YOUR position throughout this thread has been flawed, since YOU DIDN'T KNOW THE DETAILS BEHIND THE CASE BEFORE I POINTED IT OUT. You even ADMITTED that you didn't read the articles.

It appears that you are the only one on this thread arguing "hypotheticals." Everyone else is dealing with THIS case and THESE circumstances with THESE People and THIS lotto pool with THIS guy.

[Tactical Progressive]

90. No Heddi

Everyone, was debating the case of a long-time participant in an office-pool lottery who missed one day, based on the EXACT wording of the original post. Nobody needed to read the article to do it.

They were doing that before I got here; I didn't 'make up any scenario in my head'. Anybody can read through the first 50 posts to verify that, even you.

Including lizzy and you btw. You spent an entire convoluted post on how it didn't make a difference if he was in some car accident on that one day. You certainly didn't mention that he hadn't even been in the pool.

It was only at post #51 when you posted that the guy lied, in effect discrediting the facts in the original post that everyone was debating about. Anybody can check that too.

How you can pretend not is beyond me, as you can read through the thread as easily as anyone can.

At post #51 you went on at tear posting everwhere about how he wasn't entitled because, in effect, the original post was wrong. Though you seem to think so, it doesn't in the least invalidate the discussion that was going on from the start about missing an office pool. It doesn't even address it. Not that it wasn't good to point that out - it was - just that it didn't in any way address what was being talked about.

As didn't just about every other post you made. As I read back through the posts it became apparent that you were just going off on extended rants about how selfish friends of yours never shared their windfall or about other selfish people incidents you read about. The closest you ever came to the debate was making inane constructs like how the cashier at the 7-11 or a bus driver or a receptionist should get your money if this guy got some of the lottery winnings - just irrational stuff. You haven't addressed one thing substantively.

You are wrong on the OP debate - the validity of claims of somebody missing a day of lottery pool, and you are wrong that the discussion wasn't about that from the start. You can check that second part out simply by reading back through the thread.

[akarnitz]

97. I've got to disagree w/you, TP.

I've scoured through this thread and I think , at least at the beginning(posts 1-7), people had clicked on the link. It appears the first few posters were deriding the claimant because they assumed he wasn't being forthcoming w/all the facts. Do I think it was important to check the link? Well, Walt Starr, the OPer makes some references (in later posts)to text found only in the full (linked) article. IMHO, TP, you're arbitrarily deciding that the linked text is secondary to the snippets presented in the OP. I'm assuming Walt edited per the DU guidlines on brevity when posting.

Poor editing by Walt Starr? Possibly(and I'm sorry if I'm stepping on your toes Walt). But please don't blame Heddi if you differ on somethig that is so (obviously) fuzzy.

Agreed that Heddi went off on a few tangents. But many threads on DU branch off topic. Is there a point of parliamentary procedure I've missed? I've never thought of this site as a debating society. It is a conversation board. Conversations tend to flow where they will. I found some of Heddi's anectdotes thought provoking. Folks who come into money often find themselves put under unexpected pressures, whether they're the folks who won the lotto(as in the OP) or Heddi's acquaintances. Seems pretty natural for Heddi to go off on that tangent.

I think there's an issue from the OP(the full story, not the edit) that should be adressed. Many posts, if not the majority, seem to assume the claimant isn' being "up front". What if he's being completely honest? Why not assume that the "winners" are looking for a way to keep the money to themselves? It's plausible, at least from the way the story was written.

BTW, if I won the lotto I'd build a whiffle ball stadium in the backyard of my new house. It would be a replica of Tiger Stadium, Wrigley Field or the Polo Grounds. I'll host a tournament;everyone at DU will be invited. Four players per team, we're not gonna argue over "ghost runners". I'm not covering your travel expenses. I'll pony up for food and refreshments.

See you all someday!

:party:

[Walt Starr]

102. If they did not win the debate it is only becauyse they do not know

the legal precedence.

If you fail to participate, you get no part of the winnings.

You are wrong wrong wrong.

[Dorian Gray]

93. Really?

I thought that this entire discussion was about the article, which is why I've been confused. (I posted well above this post, responding to a post that I assumed was about this case, not a "generic" lotter win.)

Oops....

I do think, generically, if a group enters a lottery together, every single week, and one person is absent and unable to contribute due to absence, then it should be covered as some sort of contractual obligation. (Sort of like a gentlemen's agreement.) But, in this case, that doesn't appear to be the situation at all. In this case, the gentleman in question does not deserve a penny of the money.

[Tactical Progressive]

96. Yes, I agree with you

about treating the legal implications like a contractual obligation.

The discussion has been about the 'generic' - that's how I characterized it but it's probably not the right word - case of missing a lottery-pool feed because that's what the original post set up for debate.

Since the original post proved untrue (credit to Heddi for revealing that), at least as far as we know - it's all legal contention now - we could either shut down the discussion on the topic here, or people can continue to weigh in on whether, and obviously how much, missed participation in a lottery pool still entitles a regular participant to a claim.

[Walt Starr]

85. You set and document the rules of a pool on day one

fail to contribute by the buying deadline and you;re shit outta luck is ALWAYS rule number one!

And seriously, I don't care if somebody faithfully contributes for ten years and misses one drawing. You snooze, you lose.

[Heddi]

57. Has anyone actually READ the article?

Those of you going on about this poor guy, chipping in every week for years, and getting shaffted by greedy co-workers need to READ THE ARTICLE.

In it, it says:

They said it was the first time they had bought tickets together and that it had been almost a year since any of them had pooled money with De La Cruz for tickets.

They also said that when they won, he didn't claim that he deserved a cut.
---

He had not pooled money in NEARLY A YEAR.

This is not the poor old guy some of you are making him out to be.

He hadn't pooled in nearly a year, which means that for nearly a year, he really didn't have any interest in winning.

I suppose he would like a judge/jury to believe that EVEN THOUGH he had not pooled in nearly a year, THIS ONE TIME that he was out sick was the day that he was going to start pooling again. After notifying no one. After not calling co-workers that morning and saying 'Hey, I know you're going to get lotto today, can someone cover me since I'm out".

No. That was THE week he was going to start playing again. After not playing in nearly a year. After not contributing in nearly a year.

I wonder if, in that 'nearly a year' that he didn't pool with his co-workers if he offered to give them his share of the pool since they lost?

This guy is a con. He's a greedy sour-grapes. He hadn't pooled with his coworkers in nearly a year and suddenly he's the poor, downtrodden little guy that's getting shafted by the rich, greedy lotto winners.

Hardly.

---

On Edit: More sources

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/orange/la-me-lottery15dec15,1,100285.story?coll=la-editions-orange&ctrack=1&cset=true

The seven winners were working a Saturday shift when they decided to chip in $3 each to buy a handful of lottery tickets for the Nov. 15 jackpot. But De La Cruz wasn't working that Saturday.

<snip>

In his suit, De La Cruz, 34, contends he and the others had a long-standing oral agreement that they all would be included whenever they pooled their money to buy lottery tickets. De La Cruz relied on the group so much that he stopped buying his own tickets and assumed that he didn't need to tell the group whenever he wanted to be in on their purchase, according to the lawsuit filed last month in Orange County Superior Court.

But the lottery winners say there was no such group that regularly bought tickets together. And on the occasions when they did buy tickets with De La Cruz, they said they always checked with him first.

<snip>

Michael J. FitzGerald, a lawyer representing the seven winners, agreed. "There was never any indication that he felt he was a winner. He never said, 'We all won, great.'

===================

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_893132.php

Cruz contends he had "an oral agreement" since 2001 in which he agreed to pay into a pool to regularly purchase lotto tickets, the lawsuit says. He also alleges his co-workers broke this agreement by not giving his name when claiming the winnings from California State Lottery.

Joyce Onori, 60, of Santa Ana disputed Cruz's claims, saying there was no organized pool. When the winnings were big, Onori said co-workers would randomly ask around who would want to play. Cruz would sometimes chip in, she added.

[sendero]

69. Good luck with that..

.... Mr. Sue Boy, and next time show up for work :)