l find it fascinating that the California lottery would withhold the names of these winners. The lottery out here is pretty adamant that winners have to be identified.." transparency" they say.l fear it is because of the upheaval created by that winner from the north East, who went to court to shield her identity. California better come around to the idea, that there are winners out there who do not want the exposure.This balls to the walls attitude better stop, hopefully this starts a trend moving forward.

*Perhaps this means l can ditch the Gorilla suit after all.

Keep the gorilla suit. Transparency with gaming is key in being above board. Once secrecy happens more fraud blossoms. True fact. 

It was eluded that the winners worked in finance. Wells Fargo has years to go to clean up its act. I can see why these winners didn't want to name the financial entity. I'd be embarrassed if I worked for them . Hope they enjoy the fruits of this win.

For some reason you and others believe because a group of people agreed to share any prize winnings, there was more than ONE jackpot winning ticket. You're basically suggesting the California lottery should publish a list all the people that might share the jackpot.  And it appears you missed the August 4 news article on LP identifying Roland Reyes as the person purchasing the ticket.

If there were 11 signatures on the back of the ticket, you have a point, but I believe Reyes signed for the group. Full disclosure means publishing the names of all prize winners including "winning" a free scratch-off ticket and that will never happen.

My post has nothing to do with how many people won or not. My post is about the CA hanging back from publishing their names, not that l want that, but that for ONCE they backing off.l love privacy & think everyone is entitled to it, whether they win a jackpot or not. There is not a single post out there from me ASKING to know who won, ever since l joined LP. I find CA lottery commission exhibiting strange behavior,considering that their own handbook stresses in strong terms “ even if you form a trust.. we will expose you.” I like seeing multiple winners for large jackpots. I think you confusing my posts with some other character, but that’s alright Stack, l can flow with it.

One person claimed the money. Knowing who received a cut after the initial claim is not the role  of the lottery office.  I am sure there were separate private agreements between the sole claimant and the other winners.

These winners seem to be the most level headed winners I have seen to date.

Nope.  In addition to Reyes, the winners were identified as Marigold Villaruz, Rita Sinha, Murad Kureshi, Nga Lam, My Nguyen, Solonachchige Dissanayake, Isabel Dominguez, Alejandra Villanueva, Alice Socorro and Joji Ziegele. They all work for a Wells Fargo branch in San Jose.

.

Boy, I sure hope if I ever win anything, that I can remain anonymous in my state.
I'm afraid I'm in the hot seat as far as being sued goes. Not for anything serious, I guess
but the n/hood has gotten filled with jealous people, like "me only" people. I may have to come up with some kind of plan, but thanks to some of the comments here, if the unthinkable happens, I may have a bit of clue as to what to do.

But please folks, continue on providing clues if you could.

I never hurt anyone. I never damaged anyone's property. Neither do I intend doing either.

Mr. Groppo

You said: "l find it fascinating that the California lottery would withhold the names of these winners." so it certainly looks like (to me any ways) you're wondering why the California Lottery didn't publish the names of anyone that might share the winnings.

From what I've read so far, 11 people have equal shares in the jackpot, apparently Reyes bought the ticket and was the spokesman for the group. Regardless of how many people may eventually share in the jackpot, there was only ONE winning ticket and the California Lottery probably thought publishing ONE name was sufficient.

I'm not so sure if that's a good move.  Bank full of millionaires sound good to a bank robber.

Good point, Artist77.

According the lottery winner's handbook that I printed some 15 years ago, so may have changed, California will cut up to 100 separate checks for lottery pools.  States like Massachusetts only cut one which I find unacceptable as it places all the tax burden on the purchaser rather than that of the individuals.  My bottom line is this is the 21st Century, take care of the consumer.

^{Stack, would it have made a difference if l used the word " interesting" instead of fascinating, given that the words are interchangeable? Perhaps you should look up the CA lottery handbook on rules & regs to see how l came to my statement of ...}

^{It says : Even if you form a trust, we will publish your name, where the ticket was purchased & the amount. I cannot recall them ever not following through on their word. That sir, is the Sole reason for my post. Are we on the same page now sir, or are you going to " beat a dead horse" so to speak?}

^{Good day.}

Thanks Bleuchien. Glad someone got what I meant.

I got the following from the latest CA Lottery regulations:

“Designated Group Representative” means a group Winner who shares ownership of a winning Ticket with other Winners and who has been identified on a Multiple Ownership Claim Form as the authorized representative of an entire group of Winners.

5.6 MULTIPLE-WINNER CLAIMS

5.6.1. More than 100 Winners

If there is a group of more than 100 Winners of any one Prize, regardless of the value of the Prize, the Lottery will require the group to select a Designated Group Representative to receive and distribute the Prize. Payment of the Prize to the Designated Group Representative discharges the Lottery from all liability for payment of the Prize to individual members of the group.

5.6.2. Prizes of $1 Million or More

Prizes of $1 million or more, whether payable as annuity payments or lump sum cash payments, may be divided among and paid to up to 100 individual Winners provided the Lottery receives a valid Multiple Ownership Claim Form directing such payment. Payment will be made to each Winner as provided on the Multiple Ownership Claim Form.

5.6.3. Prizes of Less than $1 Million

All cash or merchandise Prizes valued at less than $1 million, Claimed by a group of Winners, will be paid to a Designated Group Representative pursuant to these regulations and Lottery rules. Such payment will discharge the Lottery from all liability for payment of the Prize to individual Winners.

It sounds like Reyes might be the "designated group representative" for the office pool (even though Section 5.6.2 doesn't explicitly mention a designated group representative), so only his info was released by the CA Lottery. The other ten members of the pool are winners too, so their info is public record and somebody requested that info from the CA Lottery and released that info to the public.

Or maybe there just wasn't enough room on the back of the winning ticket for all eleven pool members to sign...

Section 5.6.1-States that the designated group rep is the one who gets the entire check, then it is up to that individual to cut checks for the other winner’s in the group. That’s a little risky wouldn’t you say? What if this person skips town? I guess you better know your group rep really really well, or you could be searching huts in Tibet or Africa for this person who left the group high & dry. I love the section where the lottery States : They are not responsible for what happens once they hand the designated group rep the check.In other words: Please don’t come looking for answers from us, about your rep’s actions.

Thanks for proving my point. If Reyes signed the ticket and validated it, his name will be on the check and no legal reason for the California Lottery to publish the names of the other people in the pool.

"l fear it is because of the upheaval created by that winner from the north East, who went to court to shield her identity."

In the case of the PA winner that only had the name of their trust and its trustee announced the lottery did consider the NH case. With the CA winners that seems a bit unlikely since they did release the name of an actual person. OTOH, since it seems that the group rushed to claim the prize without forming a trust or other legal entity they probably had to release the name of an actual winner but may have offered the group some courtesy by only releasing one name. Of course neither PA nor CA had to withhold names because there wasn't a court ruling requiring them to.

"Reyes bought the ticket and was the spokesman for the group."

What part of "group" is confusing you? That the group (see that word again?) only had one ticket with the winning numbers is irrelevant. That ticket has 11 owners and the lottery knows it has 11 owners. If the lottery's normal policy is to release the name of winners (see that "s" there?) the lottery would be expected to release the names of all of the winners. In case you didn't know, there were 11 winners.

"California will cut up to 100 separate checks for lottery pools."

And it sounds like they'll be cutting 11 separate checks in this case. That makes it curious that they only released one name when their policyis to release the names of winners.

"States like Massachusetts only cut one which I find unacceptable as it places all the tax burden on the purchaser"

That depends on what you mean by "tax burden". If the lottery only cuts one check it's up to the group to handle the distribution of the money, but each person in the group gets a share of the prize. That means each person in the group has taxable income and each person owes income tax on their taxable income from the prize. The only burden is a bit of record keeping. That can be done by one person, split amongst the group, or farmed out to an accountant, lawyer, or homeless guy who hangs out on the corner.

"That’s a little risky wouldn’t you say?"

That depends on whether the group is composed of idiots or has some smart people, and whether or not the group listens to the smart people. If they listen to the smart people they'll hopefully get professional help, which should steer them in the right direction. That would include creating a legal entity to collect the winnings, and each member of the group would be a member of that legal entity. The lottery should only be writing a single check to a single person if the members of the group are too stupid to get things done right. And it's unlikely that the lottery would actually cut a check for a jackpot. It's more likely that the money would be wire transferred, giving the group more control over the distribution.

And of course groups that big are very rare. The only one I can remember is the syndicate that tried to buy every combination in the VA (?) lottery. Maybe one of the groups that played the MA game with the roll down feature got past 100 members. Of course even if you're the sole owner of a winning ticket the only way to avoid  sending somebody else to collect the money is to collect it yourself. As of now that usually still prevents you from staying anonymous.

"Thanks for proving my point."

You're simply proving that you don't understand what you read or have a problem with thinking in general. The part you quoted is about groups with more than 100 members. I know you've been having trouble figuring out how many winners there are, but it's 11. That's more  than one but a lot less than 101. Even if there are 500 members of a group there's nothing in the rules posted here that say the lottery can't, or won't release the names of all the winners. It only says the lottery won't handle the prize distribution.

I looked a few other CA Lottery press releases where office pools won prizes of at least $1 million, and usually only one winner's name was disclosed. Sometimes there was a quote from another named winner from the group, but none listed the names of everyone in the group. Maybe the CA Lottery director is satisfied with naming one winner from the group (i.e., the designated group representative's name or the name of the person who signed the winning ticket)?

Here is additional info from the latest CA Lottery regulations:

5.4.1. Natural Persons

Winners must be natural persons.

5.4.2. Winner Defined

A Winner is a Player who is not a Disqualified Person, who legally acquires a winning Ticket and owns it at the time it is determined to be a winning Ticket either by a Draw or by scratching the play area. Except as otherwise provided in these regulations, a Winner need not have purchased the Ticket; however, the Winner must Claim the Prize. A 2nd Chance Winner is a person whose eligible entry is drawn in a 2nd Chance Draw and who is identified on the Lottery website as the Winner of that Draw.

5.8.1. Limited Release of Winner Information

In order to balance the Lottery’s desire for transparency with the privacy interests of individuals who play the Lottery, the Lottery may publish in any manner determined by the Director: Winners’ names; the names and locations of Retailers who sold winning Tickets or Registered Plays; and Prize amounts. The Lottery will not disclose additional personal information about Winners (e.g., age, home address, employer, phone number) without the Winners’ express consent, unless such disclosure is required by law.

6.1.2. Voluntary Assignment of a Prize to a Qualifying Trust

A. During his or her lifetime, a Payee may assign all or a portion of a Prize to a Qualifying Trust which is a revocable living trust established by the Payee for the benefit of the Payee as a beneficiary and governed by the laws of the State of California. Such trust may become irrevocable, in whole or in part, upon the death of either the Payee or any co-grantor as defined by the provisions of the trust instrument.

B. To be effective, the initial Assignment to a Qualifying Trust and any amendment to, or revocation of such Assignment must be executed by the Payee, in the presence of a notary public, on a Lottery-approved form and must be received by the Lottery during the Payee’s lifetime. If the Payee, at the time of the initial Assignment or any amendment or revocation of the Assignment, is married, the document either must be approved by the spouse, as evidenced by his or her notarized signature on the document, or must be accompanied by a certified copy of a valid, current court order determining the spouse’s interest in the Prize.

C. During the Payee’s lifetime, the Prize or portion thereof assigned to a Qualifying Trust will be paid to the trustee(s) of the trust.

D. The Lottery will make payment in accordance with an initial Assignment to a Qualifying Trusts, an amendment thereto, or revocation thereof, provided that the Payee has complied with the Lottery’s documentation requirements at least 60 days prior to the next prize payment date. If the Lottery receives less than 60 days’ notice, payment may be delayed.

E. A fee of $500 payable to the Lottery is required before an Assignment to a Qualifying Trust will be processed.

The latest CA Lottery Winner's Handbook says:

You can form a trust prior to claiming your prize, but our regulations do not allow a trust to claim a prize. Understand that your name is still public and reportable.

It seems the CA Lottery won't allow trusts to claim prizes, but can a lawyer claim a prize and then instruct the CA Lottery to pay the prize to a trust with the "winner" as the beneficiary/trustee? Or would this be viewed (by the IRS or the CA Lottery) as the lawyer giving a gift to the "winner"? It sounds like Section 6.1.2(A) says the lawyer must be a beneficiary too? I'm not well-versed with trusts, trustees, beneficiaries, etc., so please forgive me if I'm talking nonsense here...

"What part of "group" is confusing you?"

I said "From what I've read so far, 11 people have equal shares in the jackpot," Are you having a hard time understanding that means I'm not claiming to have read everything on the subject or saying it as a fact?

I also said: "apparently Reyes bought the ticket and was the spokesman for the group." and again that was base on from what I've read so far. Is there a reason you're showing my quotes out of context?

"The part you quoted is about groups with more than 100 members."

I said "IF Reyes signed the ticket and validated it". "If" means I'm positive or saying it's a fact. And "was won by 11 members of an office pool that played on a whim....A Lottery statement Friday says Roland Reyes and the others showed up" was my possible reason why the other names were not published.  It doesn't say who the others that "showed up" were. Past jackpot winners showed up with their entire families and friends including their dogs

And again "from what I've read so far", a Multiple Ownership Claim Form was filled out and Reyes was the authorized representative for the entire group. I never quoted anything about groups with more than 100 members;

"And it sounds like they'll be cutting 11 separate checks in this case. That makes it curious that they only released one name when their policyis to release the names of winners."

Just a guess, but maybe not all of the 11 "showed up" and even if they did, the lottery people maybe decided to wait until they had all the names and signatures on the Multiple Ownership Claim Form and background checks of court records, child support, etc were made of all 11 members and the media based on their investigation probably released the names before that process was complete. 

"And of course groups that big are very rare. The only one I can remember is the syndicate that tried to buy every combination in the VA (?) lottery."

It's very rare that over 100 MM or PB players match 5 numbers in the same drawing, but "just in case", state lotteries have previsions if that happened. 

Ever think about nit-picking the people who demand anonymity in one thread and talk about jackpot winners using their names in another instead of those of us who are just speculating on what may or may not happened.

Thanks for what? As Floyd pointed out, you confusing the 11 winner's situation from the South Bay with section 5.6.1.

l know you don't want to hear this...but, you owe both Floyd and myself an apology. A "slight" genuflection will do.

You said "l find it fascinating that the California lottery would withhold the names of these winners." I had no idea why you were focused on "fascinating" because my only point was there are several logical reasons why their names were withheld.

"Thanks for what"

I said: "If Reyes signed the ticket and validated it, his name will be on the check and no legal reason for the California Lottery to publish the names of the other people in the pool" in reply to your "section 5.6.1" irrelevant stuff.

If I owe an apology it's for assuming you knew what MULTIPLE-WINNER CLAIMS are. I already explained to Floyd how the media published the names probably before the lottery finished their background checks. I suppose you want the California Lottery to apologize because the media published the names before the background checks were finished?

"Section 5.6.1-States that the designated group rep is the one who gets the entire check, then it is up to that individual to cut checks for the other winner’s in the group."

Section 5.6.1 applies to groups with over 100 and I never mentioned it, but you went off on a tangent, speaking of being confused. 

Have you every cashed a ticket valued over $5000 or more than $600 up to $5000? 

Some state claims forms for winnings more than $600 up to $5000 make you swear you don't own back taxes, court payments, child support etc. The difference between the two claims is prizes up to $5000 are paid the same day and over $5000 may take up to 6 weeks depending on the state.

Just wondering because some of your comments suggest you never filled out a claims form.

"As Floyd pointed out "

Floyd quoted me out of context trying to prove who know what. Do you now understand why the lottery didn't publish the names?

Sometimes just saying " l was in the wrong, not misunderstood " accomplishes much.

Why are you so fascinated about knowing the names of the people in the pool?

To quote Floyd's last post- aimed at you.

" You're simply proving that you don't understand what you read or have a problem with thinking in general."

Potblockers