Posted on 10/13/2010 3:11:12 AM PDT by malkee
The Staten Island knucklehead who streaked in front of President Obama in a wacky $1 million dare may be getting a raw deal.
British billionaire Alki David was balking Monday at paying Juan Rodriguez, 24, the cash prize for his commando-in-chief stunt Sunday in Philadelphia.
"It's still not confirmed," David, 42, told the Daily News on Monday. "Whether he was in earshot and eyesight of the President is what's being debated right now."
He said it was not clear if Obama even noticed Rodriguez dashing through the massive outdoor crowd in his birthday suit with the name of David's website, Battlecam.com, written on his chest.
In August, David promised $1 million cash to the first person who streaked in front of Obama with the website printed on his body and while shouting "Battlecam.com" six times.
"Apparently, there is a law in Pennsylvania where someone isn't able to profit from an illegal act," said David, citing another likely obstacle to Rodriguez collecting the jackpot.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/10/12/2010-10-12_streaker_may_miss_his_1m_jackpot.html#ixzz12EQDX5LV
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Although, if he something about Sarah Palin or Tea Party written on him, we would be having a live Show Trial by now.
This was my first thought when I heard about this stunt.
The streaker should have gotten a tear-off business suit. Cast members on Saturday Night Live use them all the time, as they’re usually in a hurry to change characters between the commercials. That way he could have gotten close enough and gotten nude quickly.
But, then again, the guy who said he would pay him would probably come up with another technicality to get away with not paying him.
I actually feel kind of bad for the streaker. More so than I do the guy who was to pay him.
But the streaker should have thought this through better.
Let’s see, leave the state, offshore bank account, cash. It’s clear to me there are many ways this bet can be settled without knowledge of the state of PA.
Let’s see, leave the state, offshore bank account, cash. It’s clear to me there are many ways this bet can be settled without knowledge of the state of PA.
In addition to potentially losing the reward, under laws in some places, he could end up having to register as a sex offender.
Another latino undermining US law----thumbing his nose at the US (apparently, there is a law in Pennsylvania stating one cannot profit from an illegal act).
Shades of Whitman's whiney maid---she broke several laws to get on the gravy train, then demands Americans have sympathy for her.
Seeing these people in action.....is downright scary.
What I want to know is, why is it “illegal” to run without clothes on? DOesn’t that mean that the government is forcing you to buy clothes? :-)
I wonder if there is a law that prevents a person who committed an illegal act from making money on an unrelated lawsuit claiming fraud.
Because it seems clear that the person who offered this payment did not make any claims about the act having to be legal, and in fact the payment suggests that he knew it would be illegal.
Further, this was a very public offer of money — I remember reading about it in the news a while back. So if the public offer didn’t include specifics about how close he had to be, or whether the president could actually hear him, not paying up (or not TRYING to pay up) could be fraud.
And a fraud lawsuit wouldn’t be based on an illegal act.
On the other hand, if you offer to pay someone to commit an illegal act, aren’t you criminally liable for that illegal act? And it seems clear the guy DID offer to pay money to someone who did this.
Groups of us did streaking in college — I realise it was all the rage back then, but we never felt like we were really breaking a law, or worried about being arrested or being charged as sex offenders.
I had to stop streaking....kept getting a black eye.
And they actually gave all you shallow, empty-headed streakers a degree?
I’d never take a dare from someone named “Alki” Dave.
Facetious though it may be, your question goes to an important point:
The federal government can do only the things permitted to it by powers "enumerated" in the Constitution. And since there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the feds to require that you purchase anything, then the feds can't legally force you to buy clothing. Likewise, they can't legally require that you own or wear clothing.
On the other hand, the states have "police" powers that allow them to do virtually anything not prohibited by the Constitution.
So yes, it's perfectly legal -- and I dare say proper -- for a state to require that you wear clothing. Moreover, under its police powers, a state legally and constitutionally could require that you buy clothing, even though most of us would consider it totally foolish to have such a law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.