Posted on 11/29/2007 7:08:30 AM PST by nuconvert
Lottery winner wasn't supposed to gamble
By MARK PRATT, Associated Press Writer
Nov 28, 2007
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.
All he needed to do was have someone trusted cash in the ticket, and arrange to have them give him the money (less a small handling fee, of course).
A surrogate winner would have solved his problem, although I don't see how buying lottery tickets (as dumb as that is) is somehow a "parole violation".
“I don’t see how buying lottery tickets (as dumb as that is) is somehow a “parole violation”.
“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.”
I’ll take it off his hands...
It's a parole violation because it violates the explicit terms of his parole agreement.
I thought that was pretty obvious.
Apparently it is only a violation if he wins. nobody cares if he loses...
At least he can afford a decent lawyer this time.
It doesn't matter since he agreed to the parole agreement. He violated it plain and simple. Now the real question would be if he gets to keep the money. I'm sure the state will do everything in its power to return that money to the general fund for pork...I mean good causes...
Maybe he robbed the bank to pay for his gambling addiction? I would assume that he has a gambling problem if his parole went into enough detail to list restaurants with keno inside.
Knowing nothing about this case, I’m going to take a guess, that he was offered a plea because he has a history of gambling and used gambling debts as an excuse for why he robbed the bank.
just a guess
He won. Give him the money.
It was an "unarmed" robbery and it sounds like someone said "stop" and he surrendered.
I find the "no lottery clause" to be "cruel and unusual"....a whim of the judge. Give the man the money.
He simply did no wrong. Violating probation? Happens every day!! Find me 10 people that were forced to turn over a million dollars because they violated probation. Find me one!!
Buying a lottery ticket is gambling? My state tells me it’s just fun, fun, fun.
A bank robber? Give his winnings to the bank.
But I thought the lottery was just a tax on the stupid, not gambling.
The big question I have is, what are the “or else” terms of his probation? I’d be very surprised if it explicitly states that winnings will be confiscated. I’d take a deal where I have to back to jail but get to keep the cash.
Well, he’s cost the city/state money between his trial and hospitalization, etc - so why not use the money to reimburse for those expenses, and then have the future checks go to various local charities?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.