The lottery/state officials' story seems to be somewhat at odds with itself.
They say that they have to be open (makes sense) but they also allow you to claim via an anonymous trust, but she can't do that because she signed it. Feels like they could privately identify her to make sure she's the name on the ticket and then do the public part via a trust.
This might not fit the way the relevant laws are written, but they can't say that they're fighting in the interest of openness by not allowing this but allowing the anonymous trust in the first place.
I think nebulous1 is is pointing out that it's one thing to say "We're just following the letter of the law to the best of our ability, because we want to be 100% above board." It's another thing to say "We're fighting in the interest of openness."
That is to say: don't pretend to be some white knight for principles when you're actually just trying to CYA. Be honest.
They say that they have to be open (makes sense) but they also allow you to claim via an anonymous trust, but she can't do that because she signed it. Feels like they could privately identify her to make sure she's the name on the ticket and then do the public part via a trust.
This might not fit the way the relevant laws are written, but they can't say that they're fighting in the interest of openness by not allowing this but allowing the anonymous trust in the first place.