DaytonDailyNews.com

By The Lion

September 9, 2009 1:23 PM | Link to this

I run a pool at work and ALWAYS keep track of who played when and the amount of the “carryover”. I send a sheet out with the carryover tickets clearly marked - keeps things separated. The problem here is that the carryover winnings were mixed in with the pool so you don’t know who has a claim to what. I say they take the winnings and divide it into 34 shares. The 15 that paid for the 9th & 12th each get two shares (about 12 million) and the other 4 get 1 share (about 6 million).

By jim slife

August 29, 2009 10:56 PM | Link to this

i know each of the winners i haved worked with them all are hard workers and giving i dont think anyone should be whinning about them i proud they won i didnt win because i retired to soon ha ha to me and many congrats to them ps who knows one of you whinners my hit it yourself one day good luck to all! jim slife

By Bun Bo Hue

May 2, 2009 2:49 PM | Link to this

Who ever paid for lottery tickets should get a share money. For those people did not play and pay will not at a cent.

By IT DONT MATTER

April 25, 2009 12:46 AM | Link to this

seems to me that i so happen to see 2 of the winner’s at local piqua bars or clubs all the time. what a life to live.have all the damn money and turned out to be nothing but drunks.I BET THEIR WIFE’S LOVE IT JUST WATCHING THEM ROT AWAY AND THEY WILL GET ALL THE REST WHAT IS LEFT.YOU WOULD THINK THEY WOULD GET A LIFE BUT I RATHER WATCH THEM PUKE AND ROT AWAY.

By angie

January 16, 2009 6:20 AM | Link to this

I feel bad for the ones not in but if you don’t pay for tickets you cannot rely on someone else to pay for you. It may seem unfair to some but in reality you cannot go to the store and say you’ll pay later. Best wishes to the winners and their families. I see nothing wrong with family members in the pool if they pay they can play. If someone doesn’t like family in then they should purchase their own tickets have you ever thought how much work goes into buying, collecting,@ checking

By million dollar man

January 14, 2009 6:12 PM | Link to this

Pat you are 100% right about no carryover. They had had a $14.00 winner two weeks prior to winning the big one. So there was no winner on Dec9th. Everyone had already ruled the 14.00 over for the dec5th drawling and there were no winners. Then only some of them got in the dec 9th drawling and there were NO WINNERS FOR that one. So everyone needed to pay for the dec 12th drawling and 4 of them didnt. So I agree with Pat, don’t settle out. Fight the 4 till the end. It’s sad but true.not-in yourout

By Pat

January 14, 2009 5:56 PM | Link to this

I am a cousin of one of the winners. He says that they had no winners in the drawing immediately preceding the Friday drawing that they won on. I told him to not try and throw some money to settle things. Fight these guys the whole way.

By millio dollar man

January 14, 2009 5:48 AM | Link to this

NO. I’m not the guy in the santa claus hat. I personally know him also, way better than you I know for sure. He might be annoying sometimes or what not,but it’s people like you guys talking about him that were either a friend or co-worker or a coach with him. That are now very jealous of him since his winnings. ” Loyal i’m glad you were part of the winnings, and I hope you and your family will use it wisely.” Don’t get caught up in all this media attention like I do. Forget about all the HATERS.

By Wait, what?

January 13, 2009 11:18 PM | Link to this

Sounds like million dollar man is the “fat bastard in the santa hat.”

But really, the fat one in the Santa hat is quite annoying. I know him personally..

By DLB

January 13, 2009 11:27 AM | Link to this

Like Tom Mac and JZ, I head the office lottery pool. Each drawing is played as a stand alone pool; previous redemptions are played in the new pool. Working in a large law firm, this scenario is joked about each time we begin a new pool (we wait until Powerball is at 150M). I publish our “rules” along with the initial email inviting players, which goes to everyone in this office. Not in; not a winner.

By million dollar man

January 11, 2009 11:12 AM | Link to this

Roger, you seem a little jealous my man. You must of had a bad Christmas. Or your related to one of the 4 trying to get there money for nothing, And your hoping to get your paws on some of the money that don’t belong to you niether. I happen to know the fat guy in the santa claus hat your talking about, And he is a good person. So Roger quit being a little hater, And maybe the fat guy with the santa hat might let you guide his sleigh some day. You pay you win, If you don’t, you lose.

By Roger

January 10, 2009 7:01 PM | Link to this

GREEDY BASTARDS people like this fit in perfect with all the crooks that have ruined this country with there greed…and I would start by smacking the little fat bastard with the santa clause hat if I was one of those 4 co-workers that were left out!

By Someone

January 10, 2009 1:14 AM | Link to this

Yeah the whole asking amount made by the 4 is not reasonable in the least. I wouldn’t believe a verbal agreement was in place that allowed people at will to not buy in, but on any win claim part of the prize. So someone plays 5 times during the year, another person plays every pot. Yet the 5x a year person can claim an equal share anytime they win? Sign me up, sounds like a sweet deal.

By HH

January 9, 2009 12:18 PM | Link to this

People do not understand what a pool is. 14 People and 16 tickets means two people bought two extra tickets for themselves not for all pool memebers. If you win the 14 get 1/16th each and the two get 2/16th each. The four that claim to be part of the pool need to show their ticket copy. I bet they don’t have one. If they claim it to be from the last weeks rollover they need to show their copy from that week, but that does not give them a full share either because the winnings belong to all.

By Pete

January 9, 2009 2:29 AM | Link to this

I agree with the emailer “something stinks”. The two guys who claimed they each put in an ADDITIONAL dollar will cause the other 4 to have a case and this should go to trial. I know people talk about the group’s honesty and integrity but I say $207 million dollars can bring out the worst in people instead of the best. There is no known agreement written or verbal on how winnings were to be handled whether small or large. Let a jury decide.

By ALICE

January 9, 2009 2:03 AM | Link to this

If there was money won from the previous lotto and it was not paid out then it appears that money was used to purchase the winning ticket and the other 4 should get a share. Two of the guys supposedly put an extra dollar in - one for a 90 year old Mother and the other for his Father in Law (ha) The two guys that did this -one bought the tickets and the other guy was holding them. So you see who gets the extra money - these two for relatives. All they had to do was agree to the story.

By Someone

January 8, 2009 11:37 PM | Link to this

The guy didn’t get two shares if there’s 15 winners. But they allowed the mother to be a winner because a dollar was put in for her. If his mother is very old, it would make more sense to have him take her winnings and provide for her from then on. Plus how could you deny him a share for each dollar he put into the pool? If I put in a 100 dollars every single pool do I still only get one share?

By HH

January 8, 2009 10:37 PM | Link to this

Judges have always kicked these cases out. In Garden Grove, CA 315 million 7 pool members (Lucky 7)- all of a sudden there were 3+1 new pool members, the judge not only dismissed the case he fined the lawjer taking the case. In Lubbock, Texas, 6 pool members all of a sudden had a new friend. The judge kicked it out. The media always runs with these stories but never tells how it ends. Either the 4 here have proof of their winning ticket or they do not. Show me the receipt! No receipt, no case!

By Somethin Stinks

January 8, 2009 7:43 AM | Link to this

Again, why did he get two shares? His mom or whoever should have got one share and he should have got one share. That’s what will lose this case for the group.

By Heather

January 8, 2009 12:02 AM | Link to this

If the “four” paid in the previous week and 10 bucks was rolled over, and the player who bought the extra ticket for mom bought the extra ticket for mom the week before (which is important because she would otherwise not be entitled to rollover money) The money should be divided like this: 15 new shares plus 19 roll over shares = 34 shares 207/34 = 6.09m per share 15 office workers get 2 shares (1 roll&1 new) = 12.8m 4 office workers get 1 share (1 roll) = 6.09m total 207 million

By Someone

January 7, 2009 8:00 PM | Link to this

Read the article again, the guy who put in two dollars put one in for “The 15th winner, who is retired and did not work for the city, is not named in the suit.” Which other articles have said is his mother.

It’s pretty telling of the whole situation really. Guy puts in for someone else and that person is included as a winner, the other people who didn’t put in are left off the winner’s list. If previous winnings were involved, they get less than an equal share if they only contributed then

By Somethin Stinks

January 7, 2009 7:00 PM | Link to this

I’m still trying to figure out how one guy gets two shares and the other ones get one share. The fact that he put money in for two shares will cause the group to have to compensate the other four. Why did he put in extra money that week? If they hadn’t won, he would have asked somebody for re-imbursement. Somethin ain’t right!!

By by rj

January 7, 2009 6:27 PM | Link to this

Does anyone know what the 4 were doing at the time so they could not get into the pool??? After 5 years of working together and doing the lottery pool you would think someone would have the decency to include them. I live in the Piqua area and know the story behind why they were not included and the “winners” should be ashamed of themselves for not including everyone.All of them should split the money and go on with their lives. Was their council informed of the circumstance?

By JZ

January 7, 2009 2:39 PM | Link to this

It is understood that when the Mega gets over $100m, I collect. If you want in, I’m at my desk, or contact someone to cover for you. I’m not a bank. Everyone has already filled out a 5 wager slip with their name on it. On Mondays, I collect $10 for the week. Any winnings from that drawing are rolled over into EZ-Picks. An electronic version of the photocopied numbers with a list of current participants is sent. There’s a seperate section for the previous drawing’s EZ-Picks and participants.

By K Jennings

January 7, 2009 2:09 PM | Link to this

Further, even if only $15 worth of tickets were bought in that tranche, in which the jackpot win-line was nestled, then the plaintiff quartet may STILL be able to prove that their hold-over winnings, from the 9 Dec draw, went towards the 12 Dec purchase. The winning 14 or 15 people will have to be honest and say that there was an outstanding ‘kitty’ from 9 Dec which had never been distributed in cash, to each member. (See also plaintiffs v. Max Ossei-Wasu & others, Atlanta, GA, mid-90s).

By K Jennings

January 7, 2009 2:03 PM | Link to this

To modify my comment of 5 January, IF it can be proven, through lottery-computer records, that there was a bunching of in excess of 15 ticket-lines bought, in the seconds, and nearest minute, to the winning line, then the plaintiffs may be able to prove that the small win from 9 Dec, which they contributed to, went toward the 12 Dec big win. Giardina v. Bowe (and related cases, mid-90s, Florida), saw the plaintiffs win a big lottery prize share with just such evidence. acelotteryclubs.com

By NUGENT

January 7, 2009 12:00 PM | Link to this

How would you feel if you normally played in an office lottery pool and the one time you are absent everyone wins??? I know that if I won I would share the winnings with the absent people. If you put yourself in the others shoes you usually come up with the right thing to do.

By dks

January 7, 2009 1:26 AM | Link to this

With 15 winners receiving $207,000,000, each person will receive $13,800,000 minus taxes. If 19 winners won the $207,000,000, then each person would receive $10,894,737 minus taxes. Bottom line, each of the 15 people would have to be willing to share $193,684 of their $13,800,000 to split the money 19 ways. It’s a shame that for about the price of a house, they are willing to sacrifice friendship due to their greed (although some of them may claim it’s the “principle”). A shame!

By Just me

January 6, 2009 9:21 PM | Link to this

This lawsuit will change the way that the office organizers setup and run their office lottery pools, my office included.

I’m just curious as to why none of the 15 did not pony up the money for the 4 and put them in the pool.
We do it in our lottery pool for those regular players who are out of the office.

As for the 4, I’m afraid they don’t have a chance with only a verbal agreement.

By geo

January 6, 2009 6:33 PM | Link to this

from either side, i c this as greed

By Tom Mac

January 6, 2009 6:08 PM | Link to this

It’s very simple… I manage the lottery pool at my job when the pot gets big… Any winnings from a drawing is rolled over to the next drawing. that is 1 pool! Tickets are bought and copied for THAT rollover pool… A new pool is started. Anyone can elect to participate in that next pool… There may be some that never got in the first pool and some that now are in both… But the nubers for both pools are seperate. The winning number is won by everyone in THE POOL that won. end of story.

By Amy Cunningham

January 6, 2009 4:58 PM | Link to this

I think legally, the 4 shouldn’t win, for the reason that anyone can say that “I was apart of the pool”. This will be a slippery slope if the 4 win,then every lottery winner is in jeopardy of any family member or friend stating that had a stake in it.Legal & morals are 2 different things.They’ve been doing this for 5yrs & if the 15 who won were out that day, would appreciate it if the roles were reversed.What’s $2mil in the scheme of things?It’s the holidays, share!

By DigDug

January 6, 2009 4:51 PM | Link to this

Yup, that’s right, let’s all blame the lawyers. Let’s see, a bunch of ragtag non-chalants get into a poorly planned and documented lotto pool. Then they win. Then greed sets in. Suddenly there is a conflict. In a nano-second, lawyers are CALLED in BY THE PLAYERS (on BOTH sides) to represent the players’ own stupidity, carelessness, and greed. So typical…the moment anyone gets into any kind of trouble they call a lawyer - yet then the lawyers take the ‘heat’ for being HIRED to sort it out.

By Julie

January 6, 2009 2:41 PM | Link to this

PJ, can you not make up your mind on who should get the money? I agree with you first post, if they took $1 from the previous week to put in with the next drawing, they are entitled to their share, without that $1 they may have not won. If it was such an issue, they shoud distribute the money after each drawing, everyone gets there 20 cents and then put up the dollar the next drawing, they created it, and probably all agreed that any winnings from any drawing goes towards the next drawing.

By PJ

January 6, 2009 1:54 PM | Link to this

The 15 winners should definitely counter sue these scumbags that are preventing them from getting their winnings. There are guidelines that Mega Millions laid out if you are in an office pool and these 4 do not have copies of the winning tickets like they should. I hope the 15 do not settle out of court and i hope they win the counter suit so that the 4 have to pay all the lawyer fees. And the greed in this case is coming from the 4 people suing for money they dont deserve.

By PJ

January 6, 2009 1:45 PM | Link to this

If the 4 co workers had put in on the Dec 9th tickets and the winnings from that drawing was used on the Dec 12th jackpot win, then these 4 are entitled to their share. If the Dec 9th tickets were cashed but this group only used the money they collected from each of the 15 winners for the Dec 12th jackpot then the 4 should not be paid.

If these 4 people care enough about the drawing, they should have called a co worker to put in the money for them while they were out of work.

By Rene's Baby Daddy

January 6, 2009 12:25 PM | Link to this

Rene, I don’t know why you’re dogging Piqua when we all know you have 5 kids from 5 different dads, all of which are on state assistance. As the embarrassed father of just one of your children, I would hope you would have enough shame to shut up and go use your food stamps to buy a clue.

By Robert

January 6, 2009 12:17 PM | Link to this

If the 4coworkers can prove that their money was used in the pool to buy the lottery ticket then they should sue. If there was nothing in writing then how can the lottery winners be sued? If it is a “he said, she said”, court case then the evidence is not admissable in a court of law. Who says worker xyz does not want $41million and is lying to get $41million?

My Uncle tried to sue his mother because he wanted $3million and he was countersued by his family. His wages have been garnished.

By Ted

January 6, 2009 11:52 AM | Link to this

I hope they lose, and I hope the winners flaunt their money in front of the losers.

So if my coworkers chip in on lottery tickets on my day off, i can sue because I was out that day? that’s idiotic.. The claim that their money was good for future lottery tickets is BS. But since we live in a day and age where criminals can sue their victims, I’m sure this groups of losers will win the lawsuit, or get a hefty settlement.

By TED A

January 6, 2009 11:47 AM | Link to this

Even though they deserve NOTHING, I’m convinced there will be some kind of settlement. They were out the day their coworkers bought the tickets, and can’t reap the benifits. Too bad! At my job, when coworkers chip in to get lottery tickets- it’s for that day’s drawing, not upcoming drawings. Tough crap i say. The losers need to get over it and move on.

By Cheryl

January 6, 2009 11:41 AM | Link to this

Our company pool rule is that if you are not paid at the time of the drawing (no exceptions) you do not participate in that drawing no matter how much. If you were so worried about your place in the draw, you should of left your money with someone in the office as my co-workers do in the event of vaca etc. If they were sick, there is something called a phone that you can use to have someone put in your portion. To bad for the four, but they shouldnt get a penny.

By B Kelley

January 6, 2009 10:41 AM | Link to this

If the 4 that is suing did NOT put in their dollar for the drawing, then THEY DID NOT WIN ! For them to sue is rediculous and shows them to be greedy. If they had chipped in for the drawing then they would have won. right is right and wrong is wrong. and this lawsuit is totally wrong. If I were the judge I would throw the case out of court.

By GMan

January 6, 2009 10:23 AM | Link to this

They have a case. If they contributed to the earlier pool, and that pool won say $10 which was then rolled into the new pool… then they have a case. The only fair way to do it is to figure out how much each worker contributed. At a dollar a ticket, $1 contributed = 1 share. If 1000 shares were pooled, then each share wins $207 million / 1000. The four absentees would then split the ten shares from the $10 that was rolled over into the new pool.

By GABBY58

January 6, 2009 10:04 AM | Link to this

I hate to say this but, the four that was out of the office and did not contribute for this specific date… did not win! Verbal agreement or not, it doesn’t matter.

If it was a formal agreement they should have something in writing. Since no where in the article it suggest they have something in writing then they just lose out. Of course Lawyers are going to take this case. It is a feeding frenzy on their part.

If I was on this jury I would vote against these four receiving anything.

By Al

January 6, 2009 9:54 AM | Link to this

Let’s accept for the moment the argument that keeping all this money (as law and commonse sence allows) would be an act of greed and that greed is bad. The question remaining: why share it with the four coworkesr who didn’t participate in the LOTTO pool,instead of trying to find a more deserving party? I bet the winners could find plenty of other people in need. Why do these four particular people have a claim on the winnings?

By Funky E

January 6, 2009 9:35 AM | Link to this

Who cares? If you put your money in, you won. If you didn’t, well…you didn’t. Move on. Go earn your fortune, don’t win it.

By ROCKWOOD

January 6, 2009 8:46 AM | Link to this

I live in KCMO. Read this story on CNN. The winners have received a wonderful blessing, especially in these hard economic times. It’s a large amount of money. #1: Even with their winnings, Karma will haunt them for the rest of their lives. Greed and a lack of compassion are very toxic to the soul. #2: If the case does go to court, lawyers will eat away at their winnings. I hope the group will come to the conclusion to share their winnings with the other co-workers and walk with pride.

By SGT. E. G. ROCK

January 6, 2009 4:11 AM | Link to this

• We play the lotto to WIN, noone plays to lose. When pots get BIG, everyone wants to play, WHY ? We all want to win BIG! It’s bad enough to NOT WIN on your OWN ticket, but to WIN $207 million, and then have to share it, stinks, but IF in a ‘pool’, YOU DO! But then to have to share it with people who DIDN’T contribute to EVEN the CHANCE of winning (every dollar IN buys another chance/ticket).Well, thats WRONG! REGARDLESS of the amount. I want to keep whats MINE. It’s not greed, its WHY we PLAY!

By SGT. E. G. ROCK

January 6, 2009 4:01 AM | Link to this

• When those four people didnt contribute, and the group lost(did they offer their dollar to leesen the loss)? The LOSS of $4 additional might have been the difference between winning or losing a pot.. Our group sometimes won more then one pot. So..should the PLAYERS sue the NON-PLAYERS for the money they MIGHT have won, HAD they had four dollar more to buy 4 additional tickets (and had 4 more chances)? I’m sure the four would disagree! They DON’T deserve, what they DIDN’T enter to win !!!

By SGT. E. G. ROCK

January 6, 2009 3:51 AM | Link to this

• At work, when you are in a “lottery pool”, you are ONLY in that “POOL” when you pay for that week. previous winnings rollover when small, But you still need to contribute to THIS WEEKS POOL to be in THIS WEEKS POOL ! Personality or religion or beliefs have nothing to do with the proper outcome. Your dollar counts, The one you put in EACH week, not the week before, not roll over winnings. That is extra tickets for THOSE who STAY in the POOL and PAY EVERY WEEK (Or pay in advance so you’re IN)

By SGT. E. G. ROCK

January 6, 2009 3:35 AM | Link to this

*Plus, Small amounts usually ‘rollover’ because splitting meager amounts between numerous people is time consuming & difficult task. So rollover winnings are only part of YOUR next pot, IF and ONLY IF you PAY to PLAY the NEXT POT. Every dollar you put in buys another ticket, if you skip a week, could the others who played and lost, sue YOU for the amount they could have won, had your dollar been there to PURCHASE another ticket! doh! NO! No dollar FROM you, No ticket FOR you - No chance for YOU

By SGT. E. G. ROCK

January 6, 2009 3:25 AM | Link to this

*You people are using your emotions to “think” what is right or correct. It doesnt matter if the amount was “so much “”they could split it. Why would it make a difference if they each got $6Mil a person verses $4.7Mil a person OR if it was $ 6 verses $ 4 ? The law doesn’t change by the amount. Under LAW, the ticket holder IS the only real & true winner.

You play,You PAY !

To win it, You’ve got to be in it !

By Adam

January 6, 2009 2:31 AM | Link to this

Love the comments big stories from little towns are always interesting when people from the little town comments about it. You are either in or your out. The 4 can be very glad i wont be on that jury, cause i’m from PA. How interesting the 15th winner wasnt named in the suit. This is a frevilous lawsuit. Horrible. SOUR GRAPES MUCH??! Get over it you 4 LOSERS.

By Rose

January 6, 2009 12:17 AM | Link to this

If those 4 suing were in on a pot Dec. 9th, then they should have been given a copy of the lottery tickets for that drawing. That is their proof. When we play, 1 person collects the money, buys the tickets and makes everyone a copy. I don’t care if they only won 1 buck and it was reinvested back into the next drawing, then the 4 should get their share. When we have someone out sick etc, they always put their 5 bucks in when they return to work. You play all the games, or none.

By marlene

January 5, 2009 6:27 PM | Link to this

I don’t know all the facts but I would think that with that amount of money that they would divide it equally, but with the way that we humans have greed it doesn’t surprise me. They need to pray about what they should do, the Lord will direct their hearts on what they should do. Do the right thing!

By BeanerECMO

January 5, 2009 6:21 PM | Link to this

Don’t let lawyers in or it’s all gone. On principle, they weren’t there to contribute, they didn’t win; however, if winnings from a previous draw were used and they participated in that drawing, they should share.

By Million Dollar Man

January 5, 2009 12:36 PM | Link to this

To Tibrius & all the other people that keep bringing up faith and greed. Listen god made the 15 that paid for the tickets the winners, So enough said about faith. And about greed, How about I ask you to give me half of your bank account, half your property, Your going to tell me hell no! The point I’m trying to make is i’m not intitled to something that is yours, So the 4 are not intitled to any of the 15 winners. I don’t care how much it is. You wouldnt want to give up something of yours 4nothg

By Million Dollar Man

January 5, 2009 12:35 PM | Link to this

To Tibrius & all the other people that keep bringing up faith and greed. Listen god made the 15 that paid for the tickets the winners, So enough said about faith. And about greed, How about I ask you to give me half of your bank account, half your property, Your going to tell me hell no! The point I’m trying to make is i’m not intitled to something that is yours, So the 4 are not intitled to any of the 15 winners. I don’t care how much it is. You wouldnt want to give up something of yours 4nothg

By Tiberius

January 5, 2009 10:58 AM | Link to this

Talk about greed. If they divide the jackpot by 19 instead of 15, it changes from $6Mil a person to $4.7Mil. In my opinion, its just bad faith/greed. With $4.7, you can live of the interest. Sad indeed.

By Karl Jennings

January 4, 2009 3:10 PM | Link to this

It is more than probable that the defendants will win any court case. Each case is situation-specific, but there seems to be enough that I have read to indicate that the stake-monies dues-collection was desultory, and that the ‘members’ were not organised properly to give any justification for plaintiffs to launch this suit.

I’ve researched many stories like this for my book ‘Your Lottery Syndicate Book’ (2005). In my opinion, the plaintiffs should withdraw. Immediately. KG Jennings.

By Kat

January 4, 2009 1:16 AM | Link to this

I’m not sure why, but I just read most of the posts here…such a pitiful anthology! Half the comments came from people who didn’t care who won the suit but needed to express their expert opinions, a fourth came from those who bad-mouthed Piqua and its residents just because???…duh! The remaining posts were made by angry (probably former lottery-losers) and religious-evangelists (wearing ill-fitting undies) up at their pulpits espousing what God would do if He were chosen for the jury. Oy vey!

By Jim

January 2, 2009 10:23 AM | Link to this

Here is the real story. There were no winnings on December 9 and that is documented. The suit is led by the department manager. He seldom played and that is documented. He coerced, on threat of losing their jobs, two people to join the suit. They had never played. There is no basis for a case. The department manager is an a*s, has always been an a*s (ask his neighbors) and will always be an a*s. He is 45 with a 19 year old girlfriend, his daughter is 15.

By no name

January 1, 2009 11:14 PM | Link to this

I say none of you below actually know what happened and it is only “hear say”. None of us know what transpired between the collectors and the others who paid in. If they didn’t play regularly, then they snooze they lose. You can’t get in 1 pool and not the next and expect to win. If that is the case I want to get in everyones pool only when it is big and if you hit when I don’t play, then I want a piece of the pot since I play “MOST” of the time.

By Susan

January 1, 2009 2:15 PM | Link to this

An additional thought, I could understand better if the employees had only won a million or two that would not be much to split between 19 people. HOWEVER THEY WON 207 MILLION and they could not find it within themselves to split in the other 5 - maybe not a full share but something. If this goes before a jury and there is any reasonable doubt I would expect the average citizen to see this as very greedy and side with the 4 - I know I would.

By Susan

January 1, 2009 2:07 PM | Link to this

If I were a juror on this case I would want to know how many times other people put a dollar in for employees not there. I find it interesting that someone’s 90 year old mother won this week or wait is this the case that I put a dollar in for a co worker but it is now worth 6.3 million so now it is for my mother. If no one can prove what happened to that money won from the previous lottery - then the 4 are entitled since they had money on that lottery.

By BigDOG

December 29, 2008 8:36 PM | Link to this

they dont have a snow ball chance in hell no dollar no money

By Bold Resident

December 29, 2008 5:12 PM | Link to this

WOW !!! More taxpayers money down the drain. Let the people be winners and get the 4 out of the city dept for causing so much ruckus. Doug is supposed to be a leader (great way to show it ) LOSERS, get a life and a new job before you drag the city name down further.

By Diana S

December 29, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this

I am happy for the winners but my first reaction was the trouble and heartache that they will face will this kind of money. Time will tell if this will be a blessing or a curse. So far it seems to be a curse. I feel everyone should put the shoe on the other foot. I believe everyone had good intentions before the drawing and was very supportive of one another and sharing the wealth but once it became a reality all sense of unity scattered. I pray that the winnings will be blessings to share!

By annie

December 29, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this

I can’t tell you how many times we have joined in at work to win’ there have been times when my coworkers didn’t have money to play. I would say if you dont’ have it what makes you think I have it for you. You cannot go to the store and ask to pay later. If you are off you should take care of your business before you are off. I hope the four have learned a important lesson in all this.

By CRYSTAL

December 28, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this

THIS IS SO STUPID…IF THIS LAWSUIT ACTUALLY GOES TO JURY THEN IT SHOWS HOW SCREWED UP OUT JUSTICE SYSTEM IS. IF THATS THE CASE THEY’LL HAVE TO END THE LOTTERY. PEOPLE WILL BE GETTING A LAWYER TO SAY..”WHEN WE WERE IN THE 2ND GRADE MY FRIEND PROMISED ME HE WOULD SPLIT THE LOTTO WITH ME IF HE EVER WON” PLEASE…SUCK IT UP! YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT WORK…AND MAYBE THEY DIDN’T WANT YOU TO PLAY WITH THEM ANYWAY…THAT’S THIER RIGHT!

By BigDOG

December 27, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

Its my understanding that one of the four has religous belives agaist gambling .But it seems that you can change your religen when ever you want.Isnt that true Tammy.I know alot of the workers and they are very honest people.It just seems like to me maybe you four are just have the envy bug.

By Angelonmyshoulder

December 27, 2008 8:37 AM | Link to this

If there was a verbal agreement how do we know it was understood by all what it really meant? How do we really know for sure if this goes to court if the outcome will be right or wrong. After all we know in most cases it all depends on who the lawyers are if they win or lose the case. Or what kind of an impact the lawyers have on the judge. Even though we can sit here and say there was no verbal agreement how do we really know either way since we can not see it. But we can not see the air we breath but know it’s there. Most have a conscience and so we depend on that to show the truth. But then again I said most and those that don’t we shouldn’t expect them to come forward either way and say the truth. Money changes some in one way or another. Either they appreciate things and people more once they get it or they become the person who thinks they are better then the rest. Just as those that want the money they do not have. They either want it because they feel they deserve it or they want it out of greed. So who’s really right here?

By Someone

December 26, 2008 7:03 PM | Link to this

5) If most people had someone they played for years with, they’d make sure the person was in every pot. It’s a compulsive gamblers way. So I suspect these people were “big pot” players, and their co-workers are treating them as such. Personally I wouldn’t allow people who typically don’t contribute to pay in at all, because they will only show up when the pot is large…which your group helped build up with constant ticket purchases.

By Someone

December 26, 2008 6:57 PM | Link to this

4) If they were SERIOUS about this verbal agreement. They would not be asking for an even share. They would be asking for a share based on the buying power they contributed to the winning pot. Which for the 4 people bringing suit would be something less than a dollar and anyone who played both pots would be bringing more than a dollar. So at best the people who played winning pot would be counted twice, the 4 sueing would be counted once. And the guy who put in two dollars would be 3-4x.

By Someone

December 26, 2008 6:54 PM | Link to this

3) If they won 2 pots back, say 2 dollars, and put that 2 dollars into the 1 pot back. Then won 10, and put that 10 into the buying pot. Does that mean people who played 2 pots back are entitled to an even share as people who played each pot? Not in my opinion. And this is why I think the verbal agreement sounds like idle talk amongst people involved in the lotto group, and not something everyone agreed to.

By Someone

December 26, 2008 6:51 PM | Link to this

2) It doesn’t make sense that winnings from previous pots would count as an equal share in the next pot whether or not you contribute an additional dollar. Megamillions pays out in 2, 3, 7, 10, 150, 10k, 250k. I would assume 10 dollars or less would be replayed since people would be getting change back from their dollar for the “winnings”. So 19 people (assuming they are all consistent players, which we have seen they are not) have 10 dollars worth of ticket buying power.

By Someone

December 26, 2008 6:48 PM | Link to this

After reading the articles and comments and looking a few things up…. I feel that if their was a verbal agreement it was probably a water cooler discussion. I really doubt that they all sat down, discussed this and agreed verbally that this is how the money would be divided. Because:

1) When lottery pots get large 100M or more people buy more tickets (evidenced by the pot increasing faster). So it reasons that people in the office would start participating when they normally wouldn’t.

By Sigh

December 26, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this

Teri, you’re correct. The basic “fact” has been lost. But it’s no more in the article than in the comments. That the ticket was purchased with money rolling over from a previous win…is something the four are SAYING. It hasn’t been proven. If you were a greedy a*****e who wanted a cut, you might say the same. Also…why offer two excuses where one should do? If it really was rollover money, why should it MATTER if they were out of the office? Oh, wait. It didn’t. Because they’re lying.

By Teri

December 26, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

The basic fact has been lost. Remember, there was a previous ticket that won and used to go toward the winning ticket. Everyone that had a share in that previous winning ticket, owns a share in the winning ticket whether or not they contributed additional money for that particular winning ticket!!! POINT BLANK!!! Get over it ME-ME’s….glad I don’t know you or have to be around you.

By Angelonmyshoulder

December 26, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

Shouldn’t have anything to do with who was working that day only who’s money went towards that winning ticket including money used from a previous win.

By leigh

December 26, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this

OH-and Im not making a case for anyone, not like they cant find out who was working that day?! Duh!

By leigh

December 26, 2008 8:39 AM | Link to this

Not sure who Bruce is must think Im somene else, so like I say again you dont know what your talking about. LOL. Anyhow, like I said before, I don know all the facts, just like the rest of us. We will just have to c how this works out. I just wish ALL of them the best!

By Angelonmyshoulder

December 26, 2008 7:57 AM | Link to this

Seems all put a dollar in each game except the guy who won double with the big win cause he said he put a dollar in for his mother as well. So if the four played the previous game and if the win was enough to give all of those that played at least 1.00 back, since they all agreed to put it towards the next game then I’d say the four just like the rest did put money towards that winning ticket right? All your saying is they didn’t put any extra in towards that ticket so they shouldn’t get any.

By YnotliveinPiqua

December 25, 2008 6:02 PM | Link to this

First of all this is one great way to show why not to live in Piqua.Second it you do not put in you don’t get any put out. Third of all one of the workers(Tammy) what a great way to represent your faith! If you have an odd against your brother go to him no go to your lawyer and then sue the pants off of them. Money is the root of all evil and the four of them is purely showing that. I totally agree they should all 16 lose there jobs gambling on your taxpayers $.

By PIQUA ALL MY LIFE

December 25, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this

HEY LEIGH, WELL THEN IT ALL SOUNDS LIKE YOUR MAKING GREAT COURT CASE FOR THE 15 WORKERS THAT WON. BECAUSE IF (JON) WAS AT WORK THAT DAY, THERE IS NO REASON HE COULD NOT HAVE PAID HIS DOLLAR. WHEAHER HE WAS ON THE STREET WORKING THAT DAY LIKE YOU SAID THEY ALL REPORT TO WORK AT THE SAME TIME. HE SHOULD HAVE PAID TO PLAY. THANKS LEIGH FOR THE GOOD INFO. BYE THE WAY TELL BRUCE HEY……

By leigh

December 25, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this

Hey “Piqua All My Life” Gets your facts-(Jon) wasnt absent that day, out working on the streets….and 2 he isnt 23, so I have to assume that you dont know what you are talkn about.

By fantastic

December 25, 2008 8:18 AM | Link to this

Lottery and/or any other gambling should NEVER be played at work. They should all lose their jobs. If you read the employee handbook you will find them all in violation.

By Jim

December 25, 2008 7:42 AM | Link to this

Doesn’t gambling bring out the best in everyone?

By MR

December 25, 2008 12:13 AM | Link to this

Someone tell me how a dept. can run when the supervisor (Harter) is suing all his employees?? I smell another lawsuit - this time the city will be sued for hostile workplace. What a freakin mess! The many pot holes thru out Piqua need fixed and whoever did the salting the last 2 days did not do a good job. There are piles of salt laying on some streets like they just dumped it??? This costs us $$$$! Clean house now and post these jobs! There are many EXCELLENT workers who need a job!

By Lisa

December 24, 2008 11:43 PM | Link to this

DenHee hit in right on the head. It really is that simple. I too find it hard to believe that not one of the winners would have suggested the four be added before claiming the prize if there indeed was a “pool” of previous winning monies to be used. I don’t know all the winners but I know a few- they are honest people with integrity and compassion. They would do the right thing. There has to be individual responsibility to make sure your $1 is in by drawing date.

By CIRCLE JERKS

December 24, 2008 10:09 PM | Link to this

PIQUA ” INDIAN ” GIVERS….

By snowman

December 24, 2008 7:49 PM | Link to this

It is such a shame the 4 decided to sue. I know some of the winners, they are good people that deserve to win a lottery with no problems attached. Hopefully it can all be settled without going to court.

By ken

December 24, 2008 6:52 PM | Link to this

about 20 years ago in Dayton a group of workers won a lottery, some of the peeps that used to play/pay tried the same thing. it cost every one money including the attorney that was handling the case. they ones doing the sueing lost in the end.

By sparkey

December 24, 2008 5:50 PM | Link to this

The case will be thrown out of court, and for one reason. The people who are suing did Not give their money for the tickets when they were bought. They were out of the office. If they knew they wouldn’t be there to give their money to buy the tickets, then they should have given the money before they left. They have no case, only hard feelings.

By PIQUA ALL MY LIFE

December 24, 2008 5:44 PM | Link to this

DEAR JUDGE. I HOPE THE HELL YOUR NOT A REAL JUDGE CAUSE YOUR SO FULL OF S**T. I FEEL SO SORRY FOR ANYONE THAT WAS WRONGLY ACCUSSED IN YOUR COURT. 1 OF THE GUYS SUEING (JON) HAS ONLY BEEN ON THE JOB FOR 8 WEEKS AND WAS ABSENT THAT DAY. WHO MISSES WORK IN THE 1ST 8 WEEKS AT A NEW JOB. HE ALSO DID NOT PLAY EVERY WEEK. HE IS JUST LOOKING FOR A FREE HANDOUT. 23 YEAR OLD LOSER NEEDS TO CONTINUE WORKING AND REALIZE HE IS NOT A WINNER. HE’S ONLY SUEING CAUSE THE OTHER 3 ARE.

By Herman Knows

December 24, 2008 3:56 PM | Link to this

I find it difficult to believe that out of the 14 Piqua city employed workers …. that at least 1 of the 14 would not come forward with the truth … even if the truth meant that that 1 individual would have his/her overall winnings, reduced. To believe the digruntled 4 you would have to believe that not-at least- 1 individual out of the 14 winners is a moral/ethical person. Piqua has always been a decent, moral community. Perfection ? Here on earth ? I don’t think so ….

By Carl

December 24, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this

Lets see if I got this right money,greed,lawyers=lawsuit O yes only in America Show me the money

By Travis Aker

December 24, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this

I didn’t say nothing about them putting in there money in the lottery stupid a*s f**ker. The reason I say they are bunch of greedy f**kers is because they cried about putting in there money but they didn’t at the right time, therefore not untitled too it period ready what I said first p-town

By jim

December 24, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this

Missed it by … …that much!! What a tough break for the four. It comes down to this.-If the WINNERS all agree that these people REALLY DO diserve a cut then they can work things out…or not. Why do the courts have to decide the truth when all parties know the truth.There is a lot of money there. They could be generous…or not.

By ace

December 24, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this

wow….we now have a new group of millionaires in town. It nice to know we have more than just slumlords in this town.