Interesting "terms and conditions"

BOSTON - The winner of a $1 million lottery scratch ticket may not be so lucky after all: He's a convicted bank robber who isn't supposed to gamble. Timothy Elliott faces a Dec. 7 court hearing over whether he violated his probation when he bought the $10 ticket for the $800 Million Spectacular game at a supermarket in Hyannis.



Elliott was placed on five years' probation after pleading guilty in October 2006 to unarmed robbery for a January 2006 heist at a bank on Cape Cod. Under terms of his probation, he "may not gamble, purchase lottery tickets or visit an establishment where gaming is conducted, including restaurants where Keno may be played."

Elliott, 55, has collected the first of 20 annual $50,000 checks from the Massachusetts lottery commission. A picture of Elliott, holding his first check, was posted on the lottery's Web site Monday, though it was removed by Wednesday.

As part of his sentence, Elliott was put under the care of the state Mental Health Department and sent to a hospital for treatment, and state officials refused Wednesday to say whether he was still being treated.

A telephone number for Elliott could not immediately be located Wednesday, and it was not clear whether he had a lawyer.

The lottery routinely cross references the names of winners with the state Revenue Department to see if they owe back taxes or child support, lottery spokesman Dan Rosenfeld said. In those cases, winnings go straight to the Revenue Department.

But in this case, it will be up to the court to determine what will happen with Elliott's winnings.

"This is kind of new territory," he said.

I love how they wait until he wins and then take the money from him.  If he only he just continued to lose, then the state could keep taking his money and would not have stopped him from gambling.

Ain't Karma a bitch!!!!!

Good for them. If only they were om the ball and caught this before he got one thin dime.

He didn't have a problem stealing money and now it's being done to him!!!!!

TD

Quoted: I love how they wait until he wins and then take the money from him.  If he only he just continued to lose, then the state could keep taking his money and would not have stopped him from gambling.

Wow, what a great idea- if only the Lottery posted the names of Losers instead of Winners.

On a legal basis I would think that the ticket would be void since it was purchased by someone who was not legally able to gamble. It should be the same as a 15 year old buying a lottery ticket- they cannot win.

I hope he enjoys his prison stay- he'll get his money back through the Department of Corrections by way of his free room and board. Maybe they'll throw in a lifetime supply of Honey Buns while they're at it.

Who said buying a lotery ticket is gambling? It's all "just for fun" like the TV ads, isn't it?

Take the "winnings" and give it to the banks or insurance companies that payed out on the stolen funds.

I had a rant all worked up until I read that he was SPECIFICALLY forbidden to buy lottery tickets. I lost all excitement.

Thems the breaks.

The back taxes and child support thing going straight into revenue, though, I do not agree with. Take out the part he owes, give it to those he owes it to, then give the rest to the lawful winner.

I'm curious whether they can actually take his money or if they can just revoke his probation. His agreement not to gamble is a condition for staying out of jail. In theory he should be able to keep the winnings and just have whatever conditions they want to impose as punishment for breaking conditions of probation.


By the way I did beat Rush with this one today. Made his show about 1:20. DKing: show prep for the new media.

Quoted: I love how they wait until he wins and then take the money from him.  If he only he just continued to lose, then the state could keep taking his money and would not have stopped him from gambling.

So, until he won, how the hell did "the state" know he was gambling?  Duuuuhhhh!

Quoted: Quoted: I love how they wait until he wins and then take the money from him.  If he only he just continued to lose, then the state could keep taking his money and would not have stopped him from gambling. So, until he won, how the hell did "the state" know he was gambling?  Duuuuhhhh!

Well, my cynical belief is that if the really wanted to prevent him from gambling they would, but they don't actually care if he gambled.   By chance they find out he won and now they swoop in and take the money.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I love how they wait until he wins and then take the money from him.  If he only he just continued to lose, then the state could keep taking his money and would not have stopped him from gambling. So, until he won, how the hell did "the state" know he was gambling?  Duuuuhhhh! Well, my cynical belief is that if the really wanted to prevent him from gambling they would, but they don't actually care if he gambled.   By chance they find out he won and now they swoop in and take the money.

Just curious but how would a probation officer or anyone assigned to his case actually "prevent" him from buying an effing lottery ticket? I'd like to hear any constructive ideas.

I personally have about 300 people on probation and there is no way that I can prevent them from doing a damn thing- that's why I type 10-20 warrants a week- cause they do stupid shit.

Hm... if we can figure this out may State Troopers can actually *Prevent * people from speeding with those fancy laser guns they have in their cars.

hippie kicker, Would you want that as a condition on your probationers?

no gambling? or not doing dumb shit?

the no dumb shit will be harder then the no gambling. Let's start with gambling.

Quoted: the no dumb shit will be harder then the no gambling. Let's start with gambling.

Oh a truthfull basis I like to believe that any sentence can be summed up with the one liner "Don't Piss off the Probation Officer."

So far as gambling goes I could really give a crap. It's no worse than the other vague conditions like
"No alchoholic intoxication"
"No direct or indirect contact with [insert your favorite person/place here]"
and my personal favorite
"No association with persons or places of disreputable or immoral character"

And hell, I'm only a MISDEMEANOR PO. How in the hell am I gonna catch people actually doing these things when they happen?

Bottom line is that there is no red phone in my office that rings when one of our 600 probationers [I run half the county] jaywalks, speeds, slaps their kids around, or smokes a joint.
In order to have an actual violation the defendant [that's what we call 'em] has to be caught doing something that they were ordered not to do in their sentence. Or quit paying their court fines- which is how most of them end up back in jail.

I find you tend to catch the ones who are trying and are honest about their failures. And of course the ones who get caught violating another law or not payign fines.

Quoted: I find you tend to catch the ones who are trying and are honest about their failures. And of course the ones who get caught violating another law or not payign fines.

You are right on both counts. I do tend to take it easier on the ones who are honest rather than those that lie right to my face or quit reporting.

Quoted: Just curious but how would a probation officer or anyone assigned to his case actually "prevent" him from buying an effing lottery ticket? I'd like to hear any constructive ideas. I personally have about 300 people on probation and there is no way that I can prevent them from doing a damn thing- that's why I type 10-20 warrants a week- cause they do stupid shit. Hm... if we can figure this out may State Troopers can actually *Prevent * people from speeding with those fancy laser guns they have in their cars.

So I admit that I don't know how the probation system works.

But there are ways to prevent people from doing things like buying lottery tickets, the problem is that it places a burden on the innocent.  For example:  We could implement a system where every person has to show proof of identity when buying a lottery ticket.  The identity is then someone checked against a list of people who cannot buy tickets if they are not on the list then they can buy a ticket, if they are then they get denied and a note is sent to their probation officer.

Now, I have no idea how many people are not allowed to buy lottery tickets, but I assume it is a very small percentage of the population, probably much less than 1 in a 100 and it seems to me that the cost (in $ and burden on the innocent/privacy concerns) of this fictional ID system would be too high to implement.

Also, in general I have a problem with laws and rules that are unenforceable or so difficult to enforce that violations go unpunished more often than not.  I think it leads people to think that they can break laws without getting caught and we want people to think they will get caught and punished, thats one way we deter crimes.

Quoted: Quoted: Just curious but how would a probation officer or anyone assigned to his case actually "prevent" him from buying an effing lottery ticket? I'd like to hear any constructive ideas. I personally have about 300 people on probation and there is no way that I can prevent them from doing a damn thing- that's why I type 10-20 warrants a week- cause they do stupid shit. Hm... if we can figure this out may State Troopers can actually *Prevent * people from speeding with those fancy laser guns they have in their cars. So I admit that I don't know how the probation system works. But there are ways to prevent people from doing things like buying lottery tickets, the problem is that it places a burden on the innocent.  For example:  We could implement a system where every person has to show proof of identity when buying a lottery ticket.  The identity is then someone checked against a list of people who cannot buy tickets if they are not on the list then they can buy a ticket, if they are then they get denied and a note is sent to their probation officer. Now, I have no idea how many people are not allowed to buy lottery tickets, but I assume it is a very small percentage of the population, probably much less than 1 in a 100 and it seems to me that the cost (in $ and burden on the innocent/privacy concerns) of this fictional ID system would be too high to implement.

That and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would shit a rainbow if you wanted people to show ID to buy lotto tickets.

The number is probably more like 1 in 10,000[excluding underage people, of course]. This was the first time I have heard of it, but then again I don't live in a major gambling area like AC or Vegas.

Ever heard of Motor Voter?

Also, in general I have a problem with laws and rules that are unenforceable or so difficult to enforce that violations go unpunished more often than not. I think it leads people to think that they can break laws without getting caught and we want people to think they will get caught and punished, thats one way we deter crimes.

If you think about it in the large scheme of things most laws are only enforced after they are broken. Do you get a speeding ticket *EVERY* Time you go above 55? How many Jaywalking tickets have you ever gotten? How about *gasp8 downloading that new Eagles Album you couldn't wait for?

I'm saying that on probation or off probation most people break "unenforceable" or difficult to enforce laws on a daily basis. Reality is that probationers usually break laws that a mouse with a funny hat and a magnifying glass could easily deduce and get caught, then I get called, then they get a warrant for a new offense then they go back to the booty house.

We don't require the lotto thing in Georgia. Maybe Ikickhippies can put up the general terms and conditions of probation for everyone education. I'm sure he has a copy on his desk right now.

Quoted: Quoted: Also, in general I have a problem with laws and rules that are unenforceable or so difficult to enforce that violations go unpunished more often than not. I think it leads people to think that they can break laws without getting caught and we want people to think they will get caught and punished, thats one way we deter crimes. If you think about it in the large scheme of things most laws are only enforced after they are broken. Do you get a speeding ticket *EVERY* Time you go above 55? How many Jaywalking tickets have you ever gotten? How about *gasp8 downloading that new Eagles Album you couldn't wait for? I'm saying that on probation or off probation most people break "unenforceable" or difficult to enforce laws on a daily basis. Reality is that probationers usually break laws that a mouse with a funny hat and a magnifying glass could easily deduce and get caught, then I get called, then they get a warrant for a new offense then they go back to the booty house.

I agree with what you are saying.  Laws are enforced after the fact.  After-all we shouldn't punish people before/when they have not committed a crime.

ETA:  I would love to see the standard terms of probation.

This is from GA probation website.

The court shall determine the terms and conditions of probation and may provide that the probationer shall: (1) Avoid injurious and vicious habits; (2) Avoid persons or places of disreputable or harmful character; (3) Report to the probation supervisor as directed; (4) Permit the supervisor to visit him at his home or elsewhere; (5) Work faithfully at suitable employment insofar as may be possible; (6) Remain within a specified location; (7) Make reparation or restitution to any aggrieved person for the damage or loss caused by his offense, in an amount to be determined by the court. Unless otherwise provided by law, no reparation or restitution to any aggrieved person for the damage or loss caused by his offense shall be made if the amount is in dispute unless the same has been adjudicated; (8) Make reparation or restitution as reimbursement to a municipality or county for the payment for medical care furnished the person while incarcerated pursuant to the provisions of Article 3 of Chapter 4 of this title. No reparation or restitution to a local governmental unit for the provision of medical care shall be made if the amount is in dispute unless the same has been adjudicated; (9) Repay the costs incurred by any municipality or county for wrongful actions by an inmate covered under the provisions of paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of Code Section 42-4-71; (10) Support his legal dependents to the best of his ability; (11) Violate no local, state, or federal laws and be of general good behavior; and (12) If permitted to move or travel to another state, agree to waive extradition from any jurisdiction where he may be found and not contest any effort by any jurisdiction to return him to this state.

The pen of a superior court judge can be magic!  I agree with Herr King, though, that the court might not have the authority to take the winnings, but merely to revoke the guy's probation and have him incarcerated.

I'm gonna have to agree too- my kneejerk reaction was wrong. He should be able to collect the money- unless there is a provision by the lottery commission that people in his position [convicted felons- hell, they can't vote] could not win the lottery. I'm sure there is some fine print somewhere that can screw him.

Ever read the back of a lottery ticket?

First reaction. Lotto isnt gambling!!! Then I saw it was in her terms of probation or whatever you want to call it.
Second reaction: He won the lotto, revoke his probation. But let him have his money.
Now I look at it like this, He knew he wasnt supposed to play, But he did anyways, When drug dealers get busted they take the money they made from commiting the crime. Therefore I feel that they should take all winnings, and use it to pay state workers and the like,  or put the money back towards whatever they use the lotto money for, like hope here.

Although I feel that those are stupid rules for him to follow, unless he robbed the bank to get money to buy lotto tickets, or gamble, They are totally unrelated. And should not be treated as so. Thats like you getting a speeding ticket, and them saying your not allowed to go to the races anymore

But the difference between drug dealers and this is the difference between illicit gain and regular gain. It'd be a better comparison to the people who commit a crime and then sell their story. Selling a story isn't illegal and the gains are not illegal, but they don't want certain people doing it.

But he committed the crime to get the money, as drug dealers do. Huge difference in selling his story to get the money. Unless that was in his probation, Not to sell his story.

Is violating probation illegal?

A probation violation isn't a new crime, unless you violate by committing a new crime. For example, if you hang around a former drug dealer that is not a crime, however if you were on probation you could be revoked for it. If you were a drug dealer then that would be both a new crime and a separate violation of probation.

Quoted: But he committed the crime to get the money, as drug dealers do. Huge difference in selling his story to get the money. Unless that was in his probation, Not to sell his story.

Playing the lotto isn't a crime. That's the point I'm getting at. It's a violation of his contract with the state to not do X while he's not in jail.

If it's not illegal, then it's not ill-gotten gains and he should be able to keep it.  He should be punished for breach of contract.

Quoted: I'm curious whether they can actually take his money or if they can just revoke his probation. His agreement not to gamble is a condition for staying out of jail. In theory he should be able to keep the winnings and just have whatever conditions they want to impose as punishment for breaking conditions of probation. By the way I did beat Rush with this one today. Made his show about 1:20. DKing: show prep for the new media.

Hmmm, great point. Of course, they will probably take the money AND revoke his probation. Sounds like he needs a good lawyer.