The totally off-topic thread

[Bindibuys]

No Cookies | The Courier-Mail

I hope her appeal to the High Court is successful and starts to change opinion about euthanasia in NZ. So brave to be fighting...

Whilst over here in Australia:

No Cookies | The Courier-Mail

and this story:

No Cookies | The Courier-Mail

both caught my breath this morning...we are so lucky not to be in their position...

I attended the Dying with Dignity NSW AGM on Saturuday.

Guest speaker was Dr Rodney Syme Doctor admits giving dying man the drugs to end his life

Some of the personal stories are just horrific.

 

[QF WP]

The story about the Lotto Powerball winner thickens...and named..

Powerball winner Gary Baron confronted by syndicate members

 

[QF WP]

This is a bit cheeky, "Airportman": 'Airportman' made nearly $30,000 a month preying on sympathetic travellers

 

[Julesmac]

The story about the Lotto Powerball winner thickens...and named..

Powerball winner Gary Baron confronted by syndicate members

Any danger this guy's set himself up for a meeting with the Karma bus??

 

[Pushka]

The story about the Lotto Powerball winner thickens...and named..

Powerball winner Gary Baron confronted by syndicate members

Lady Karma strikes again:
"In an extraordinary twist, a syndicate member and Toll Group courier was hired by Tatts Group to deliver champagne to Mr Baron shortly after the lottery win."

Shouldn't be too hard to prove the origins of the ticket that won.

 

[Cruiser Elite]

Have received this offer from a number of sources - Five-Star Opulence at Dubai’s Most Famous Resort | Luxury Escapes - seems they are shopping it around everywhere - any experiences?

 

[JohnK]

The silly season is here again.

This is the time that Queenslanders think winnng a silly rugby league match actually means anything.

 

[anat0l]

Lady Karma strikes again:
"In an extraordinary twist, a syndicate member and Toll Group courier was hired by Tatts Group to deliver champagne to Mr Baron shortly after the lottery win."

Shouldn't be too hard to prove the origins of the ticket that won.

If the winning ticket was purchased by a syndicate, then the latter must be registered so it should be a no brainer to determine where it came from. Although suffice to say the Tatts Group will likely not give that information willingly due to privacy concerns, requiring a court order etc.

On the other hand, if the winning ticket was not bought by the syndicate, then that also settles it, despite the rather unfortunate coincidence. Unless, of course, the man dishonestly used the syndicate money to buy his own tickets rather than a ticket for the syndicate, but then I don't quite see a legal case here, except perhaps theft.

 

[docjames]

If the winning ticket was purchased by a syndicate, then the latter must be registered so it should be a no brainer to determine where it came from. Although suffice to say the Tatts Group will likely not give that information willingly due to privacy concerns, requiring a court order etc.

On the other hand, if the winning ticket was not bought by the syndicate, then that also settles it, despite the rather unfortunate coincidence. Unless, of course, the man dishonestly used the syndicate money to buy his own tickets rather than a ticket for the syndicate, but then I don't quite see a legal case here, except perhaps theft.

The initial legal action is exactly that - to get Tatts to confirm the ticket and who purchased it.

If Tatts do confirm he bought a single ticket, then it's back to court for breach of contract (essentially).

 

[blackcat20]

If the winning ticket was purchased by a syndicate, then the latter must be registered so it should be a no brainer to determine where it came from. Although suffice to say the Tatts Group will likely not give that information willingly due to privacy concerns, requiring a court order etc.

On the other hand, if the winning ticket was not bought by the syndicate, then that also settles it, despite the rather unfortunate coincidence. Unless, of course, the man dishonestly used the syndicate money to buy his own tickets rather than a ticket for the syndicate, but then I don't quite see a legal case here, except perhaps theft.

If he bought a syndicate ticket and a personal ticket at the same time, how do you decide which is which?

 

[Bundy Bear]

After a really cough day at work; at least the evening was better.

Queensland 11, New South Wales 10.

Close game as always.

 

[drross]

After a really cough day at work; at least the evening was better.

Queensland 11, New South Wales 10.

Close game as always.

wonderful result.. flew in from Darwin and managed to catch th end of the second half - excellent

 

[anat0l]

If he bought a syndicate ticket and a personal ticket at the same time, how do you decide which is which?

The syndicate ticket, my guess is, would be registered in the name of the syndicate (or at least flagged as such). Registered tickets have all the information on it, including the numbers on the entry. That's why registered tickets can be attached to a winner straight away, whereas non-registered ones need someone to actually check their ticket then march up to the agency (or write in) to claim the prize (the agency may know someone bought a winning ticket, but not sure who).

So the man implicated here apparently has submitted the relevant ticket (or tickets) to his legal team. They can compare these against that registered in the system. They can also see which was the winning ticket.

After a really cough day at work; at least the evening was better.

Queensland 11, New South Wales 10.

Close game as always.

Field goal to break the tie?

Oh well. That's one. Still need to win another one.

And hey, "it's just a silly game"....

 

[medhead]

Anything that has my "friends" telling me to stick it up my A-hole is wonderful. Queenslander!!!!!

 

[blackcat20]

The syndicate ticket, my guess is, would be registered in the name of the syndicate (or at least flagged as such). Registered tickets have all the information on it, including the numbers on the entry. That's why registered tickets can be attached to a winner straight away, whereas non-registered ones need someone to actually check their ticket then march up to the agency (or write in) to claim the prize (the agency may know someone bought a winning ticket, but not sure who).

So the man implicated here apparently has submitted the relevant ticket (or tickets) to his legal team. They can compare these against that registered in the system. They can also see which was the winning ticket.



Field goal to break the tie?

Oh well. That's one. Still need to win another one.

And hey, "it's just a silly game"....

And what if neither of them are registered, ie just two over the counter tickets?

 

[anat0l]

And what if neither of them are registered, ie just two over the counter tickets?

Then that could be really tough to prove.

However, if they are over the counter tickets, that means the "syndicate" didn't use the system from the lottery company, as the latter requires a register of details of the participants in the syndicate. This means it's just a bunch of people who agreed (verbally as it may be) to chip in for a ticket which was bought, with a just-as-weak agreement to divide the winnings in the case of a success.

 

[RAM]

Then that could be really tough to prove.

However, if they are over the counter tickets, that means the "syndicate" didn't use the system from the lottery company, as the latter requires a register of details of the participants in the syndicate. This means it's just a bunch of people who agreed (verbally as it may be) to chip in for a ticket which was bought, with a just-as-weak agreement to divide the winnings in the case of a success.

It mentions purchased online.

If the guy regularly bought the ticket for the work syndicate, and there are many people to bear witness to that (not just those in the syndicate but other workers who can say that they knew a syndicate had existed for many years) then it becomes one person's word against many. As this is a civil matter not criminal then it is just balance of probability not beyond reasonable doubt.

As the circumstances around his departure, as written by the journalist, and the guy's denials of winning initially all IMHO would appear to favour the other members of the syndicate.

The only way I can see it favouring him is if the 'Syndicate's' ticket is a Systems XX each week and the winning ticket was a single game or a different Systems ticket. Also if as an online purchaser, there should be a record over time, it showed that he regularly purchased in the same way - it may go in his favour.

However, if he had a habit (especially if only for major draws) of buying two identical systems tickets online immediately after work and on the day of the draw then that could be argued that he had a premeditated plan to rip off the syndicate all along.

It just depends how switched on the guy was.

Spending up so soon after winning suggests he's not the sharpest tool in the box.

 

[chelzmalee]

It just depends how switched on the guy was.

Spending up so soon after winning suggests he's not the sharpest tool in the box.

And quitting so soon after winning. If you're trying to keep it quiet I would suggest calling in sick the day after winning then quitting the next week are not smart moves.

Watching this with interest, though. I have been in a few work verbal syndicates, and it just goes to show how hard it can be to prove you had one.

 

[JohnK]

I think there's a lesson to be learnt there. Be careful who you trust.

 

[Pushka]

I believe I saw it was purchased online. The guy seems to have made some poor choices with his dollar spend so a smart lawyer might well get the case across the line.

Galbraith today said the syndicate did not need to be in writing.