UnNews:Woman to State: Lotteries "misleading"
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
9 May 2007
OREGON, USA - It's the dream of many on skid row to finally earn the two dollars for a lottery ticket. The advertising would have them believe that fortune, fame, and one of those jumbo-sized hot tubs were in store. That's why a developing lawsuit is creating a great deal of controversy. One woman, Jane Jones, reportedly walked into a local place of business, confidently presented her two dollars, and received a slip of paper. But when she tried to redeem it, she received nothing at all, in what her family is calling "a ripoff."
"I had already measured out the space for my olympic swimming pool. We'd decided how much to set aside for college, how much for the living room set and the 55" folding television. It was a shock," she commented. "I felt like my rug was pulled out from under me and repossessed."
Her lawyer has filed suit with the county court in the sum of $1.5 million, the jackpot published by the lottery association. The trial is one of the highest profile in years.
The attorney said to the press, "This is an outrage. My client deserves her winnings." The MSLA representative, on the other hand, bellowed to reporters, "That's preposterous. We can't afford to pay millions of dollars out to every single John Schlub and Judy Ola who walks in here!"
The plaintiff put forth the argument that the "Play and Win" slogan printed on every ticket was an express written contract to deliver the jackpot as advertised. However, the defendant's advocates made the convincing opposing argument that people do have a high chance of winning, albeit a penny, and at any rate, large print "doesn't count." The defense backed up its verbal powerhouse with a cavalcade of eighteen witnesses, all having duly won the lottery in the past two decades. Jane countered with a hypnotist who demonstrated the small numbered balls' mind control effects.
Expert witness Jacob Marredbywhistle explained, "The lottery could, in theory, furnish the value of large jackpots to every consumer via this economical financial-type methodology." Marredbywhistle gave this expert opinion for the plaintiff in return for a small process fee. He explains the full workings of this revolutionary theory in his book, "The time interest release of confidence pricing rallies in value-added bubble stocks."
Meanwhile, the woman's husband confided, "If the verdict is unfavourable, we shall sue the clerk who sold the ticket, our idere being he has hoarded the monies for himself whilst fabricating the odds." He then stubbed his toe on a rock.
Though consumers partake in games of chance and fancy by their own free will, think tanks allege a sociological impact from lotteries. "They should be banned, or at least played in the privacy of people's own homes, so one is not bothered by the offending smoke cloud."
The case awaits a decision from the judge.