Buyer who tossed $1m ticket "Its my money" - May Karma visit soon and often

[Ruby the Liberal]

71. I am not justifying anything

If someone throws something in the trash, they have disposed of it. Sorry - I never sat for the bar, but if the media/LEO can legally pick through the trash, Imma go with this tidbit not needing years of precedence and case law.

Why you are so intent about (again) adding "facts" that are not documented is simply beyond me, unless the game is to argue for the sake of arguing. I know yall are trained to do that - but isn't it expected to at least back up these "facts" being entered (and asked to be accepted as such) into the conversation?

Here is what we know about this case:

1. Woman #1 scans ticket, machine says 'not a winner', woman throws ticket into the used ticket bin.

2. Woman #2 picks through used ticket bin and retrieves used tickets, one of which is a winner.

3. Settlement talks commence - and no agreement is made.

4. Judge rules in favor of woman #1 who threw away the ticket

5. Woman #2 has already spent $190k of the winnings paying off bills and who knows what else - and is on the record as unemployed, and does not have that money in cash any longer.

6. NBC Anchor asks woman #1 if she would be willing to work with woman #2 on the money already spent

7. Woman #1 says no - that it is "her money" and she will continue the lawsuit to get every dime she feels she is owed.


Now - you want to make these assumptions about woman #2, her motives, her offers (or lack thereof), and her positions.

Line items 1-7 have been documented in the NBC video in the OP. The shit you keep wanting to add in here (to impune motives on woman #2 as well as on *me* for even bringing this up) are not listed in items 1-7 and a google shows that they don't seem to be readily available from any other source as well.

Thought you guys were supposed to argue cases from items in evidence, but in this thread, all you keep doing is making assumptions as if they were facts.

Why?