BREAKING: James Cleaveland Arrested in Virginia

UPDATE @ 8:30pm: James has been arrested for Klonopin allegedly found in the truck. According to an officer Lee at the Dinwiddie sheriff’s department, this is a class 1 misdemeanor. James is facing a $1,000 fine and up to six months in jail if the state can prove he “knowingly” possessed the drugs. He has a $1,000 bond and will likely be transported to the Meherrin regional jail.

Original post from this afternoon:

Free Keene blogger and owner of 101 Deals Thrift Store, James Cleaveland, is currently stranded in Dinwiddie, VA after armed men calling themselves “sheriffs” stole his yellow box truck. Initially the armed men asked James to search, which he refused. They then informed him they will be getting a warrant to search, because of terrorism, human trafficking, and serial killers. He is currently at the Dinwiddie county sheriff’s office and is currently streaming live video on Bambuser:

James says the Dinwiddie gang brought out a dog which they claim alerted on the vehicle and further claims that the tag is expired, so they towed it to the sheriff’s department. That’s where he is right now, awaiting the search of the truck. He has not been arrested or charged. James has said on his livestream that the “bad cop” Sgt. David Williams prevented him from retrieving his wallet from the cab of the truck. Later however “good cop”, name unknown at this point, did retrieve his wallet for him. Early on in this situation, I called the sheriff’s department to inquire on the whereabouts of the truck. The lady who answered the phone told me that the truck was indeed there and that Williams had been involved in the stealing. I asked to speak to Williams and at that point recorded the call. He acted like he didn’t know what I was talking about:

James says he’s okay with activists calling the Dinwiddie sheriff’s department if they feel so inspired: (804) 469-4550

Virginia Cop Block has sent out an alert.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


91 Comments

  1. Jason Free 123

    Driving 2500 miles with an expired registration isn’t a very intelligent life decision.

    Why put your liberty and finances in jeopardy.over 35 bucks?

    Reply
    • Closer

      Why should one have to pay 35 bucks?

    • Jason Free 123

      To avoid this maybe?

      $175 municipal tow fee
      $115 impound fee
      $175 citation
      ___________________________
      = $465 +/-

    • Closer

      I am not disagreeing with you, but the problem is the tax itself.

    • Jason Free 123

      Do you practice civil disobedience with your own personal auto registration?

      If no, why not?

    • TheOutlawJoseVela

      Pick your battles.

    • ChristCrusader

      if ever, why more than once, when you first buy the vehicle?!
      Why should it expire and require renewal?!
      And is that a VA law? Why would VA care if a vehicle is current on its registration in VT?

    • Sammy

      Because VA law – as is in all states – states that only registered vehicles can drive on their roads. I know you dipshits think you’re above the law – but get a fucking clue.

    • ChristCrusader

      Do you ever ask, why is it a law?
      Should it be a law?

    • Sammy

      Do you ever ask why your parents were also siblings?

    • Sammy

      But it is the law, shithead. That’s something you douchebags don’t seem to get.

    • Snowdog

      Actually, I’m surprised they just didn’t ticket him. I haven’t been stopped by the police in 30 years. So I don’t even know what that’s like any more, but I’ve driven out of state with an expired registration when I had forgotten to renew it. I’m surprised they towed his car. That should be just a ticketable offense.

    • Jason Free 123

      I agree.

      But ‘Cop Blockers’ tend to put out bad karma when they try to strong arm and intimidate cops with cameras, disrespect and non-cooperation.

      If James had just shared with the police some smiles, congenial respect, and some laughs he very likely would have gotten just a warning and he’d be in Georgia by now.

    • James Williams

      I don’t know what to make of a man who thinks people with cameras are even capable of ‘strong arming’ or ‘intimidating’ people with guns.

      Check your premises homey.

    • Jason Free 123

      You may want to review what is good human nature and positive behaviour for interactions with ALL people (not just cops).

      Here are a few good behaviour traits for a human being…Cop Block doesn’t seem to be teaching proper police interaction conduct from this first “good” list…

      cordial
      beneficial
      good
      amiable
      helpful
      affectionate
      receptive
      neighborly
      favorable
      welcoming
      affable
      attentive
      amicable
      kind
      sociable
      auspicious
      benevolent
      benign
      civil
      conciliatory
      convivial
      genial
      kindly
      peaceable
      propitious
      confiding
      on good terms
      well-disposed

      Cop Blockers seem to be using this “bad” list….

      unfriendly
      unsociable
      aloof
      hostile
      surly
      unkind
      inaccurate
      antagonistic
      cold
      disagreeable
      unhelpful
      disliking
      distant
      unreceptive

  2. Sammy

    LoL … douchebag is what a douchebag does. What a moron.

    Reply
    • Sammy's mother

      LoL … douchebag is what a douchebag does. What a moron.

  3. herman

    Good Job V.P.D!!!

    Reply
  4. herman

    Media credentials and broken down pawn shop ownership doesn’t grant extra rights! Pay that registration!

    Reply
  5. 4Peas

    So why not just issue a ticket for the expired registration and let him continue on his way? My brother-in-law was detained in Dinwiddie for over an hour for failure to wear a seatbelt. The cop tore his truck apart but couldn’t find anything else to charge him with. He was asked if he had a prescription for a bottle of Tylenol….

    Reply
    • Sammy

      LoL … and that story would be false. Any other false stories you would like to share?

    • Snowdog

      If you don’t believe that the cops are overwhelmingly corrupt, then you’re living in a different country.

    • James Williams

      Alright piggy. Get back to “work.” We have to at least pretend those checks aren’t welfare for the otherwise unemployable “high school graduates” among us.

    • Mike

      Hey little boy: What is with the gay name “Jacques” anyway? Are you one of those Canadian douchebag pussies?

    • Guest

      You too pig. Get back out there on the streets. The general public isn’t going to sexually assault itself.

    • Miles Coleman

      You ever been to Louisiana Mike…..if not i suggest if you ever got there that no Cajun ever know you posted that………you’d be hogtied and cooked up with the gator. MMMMMMMMM….spit roasted pig………oooooohhhhhhhweeeee!

  6. matriarch morlock

    The ballad of James cleaveland

    Reply
    • Sammy

      The ballad is simple but catchy: “He was a moron”.

  7. Junior V

    So what is the nEws? Not far from me. Have a bondsman retained that hates cops and respects our constitution

    Reply
  8. Sammy

    Unless dipshit here can produce a prescription for that drug, he’s screwed. You guys just never learn, do you? Driving around with unregistered cars, drugs in the car and you all think that you’re untouchable. Well surprise, surprise. Have a nice time in jail in VA, James … you moron.

    Reply
    • Snowdog

      That’s got to be a plant. James is quite a straight arrow.

    • Rob

      LMHO … right – “a plant”.

      Y’know, if Cleaveland just kept his car registration current, none of this would have happened.

      I hope this is a lesson learned for all the other Free Keene minions who think they can ignore the law without consequences.

  9. Junior V

    Whatever, jail is not fun anywhere, especially va. Anyways, where can i get an update? I must not be seeing all video either. I’m going to look it up on a regular computer (I’m on my phone) before i make anymore judgment comments also.

    Reply
  10. Richard Bauman

    Has anyone considered what this does to the “suspended sentence” James got recently in Keene? He may be in more trouble than you realize.

    Reply
    • Drac Vermell

      Cleveland’s case is currently under appeal. Any restrictions he is under with his suspended sentence will not apply until his case is decided upon by the Court of Appeals.

    • Richard Bauman

      And if a conviction for this misdemeanor in VA is after the appeal is decided – what happens then? The only way it will not affect it is if the appeal is decided in James’ favor.

    • Drac Vermell

      Yes. Should the appellate board reject James’s appeal or the appellate court affirm the judgment of the lower court, then any sentencing restrictions will apply.

    • Richard Bauman

      What appellate board are you talking about? James doesn’t need approval from an appellate board.

    • Drac Vermell

      State appeals processes usually have an appellate board that decides if the appeal will be heard. It can be accepted or rejected. If accepted the case goes to the appeals court where the evidence is reviewed. I believe New Hampshire uses this process.

    • Richard Bauman

      New Hampshire does not. Where are you located? What state do you know that has that process?

    • Sammy

      Absolutely false. Just because he’s appealing it doesn’t mean the conditions of his conviction and suspended sentence are not in force. There are plenty of people in jail whose convictions and sentencing are being appealed. He will soon be one of them.

      Stop commenting about shit you know absolutely nothing about, douchebag.

    • Drac Vermell

      No Sammy. In New Hampshire the strictures imposed on a suspended sentence are not in force until the appeals process is complete.

    • Sammy

      Wrong – RSA Title LXII Criminal Code Chapter 651 does not stipulate anything of the kind. It’s all up to the judge and what is typically done:

      “If you are convicted of a class A misdemeanor and received a jail sentence or a suspended jail sentence you may appeal to the Superior Court and have a trial by jury. The sentence typically will be stayed pending the appeal. However, you may still have to post bail or follow any other bail conditions set by the judge.”

      So again: it’s all up to the judge. Judge Burke was very clear about Cleaveland not getting into any more trouble during his appeal, but yet here he goes again.

      Given that the Free Keene Douchebag Squad has gone out of their way to harass and in general piss off Judge Burke and other officers of the court, I wouldn’t blame him one bit for wanting to make an example out of Cleaveland by ordering him into jail until his appeal. Karma is a bitch, boys – ain’t it?

      Oh, and by-the-way douchebag: pwned … again.

    • Rob

      It’s actually stated in the sentencing guidelines regarding a Class A misdemeanor, but yeah – with a suspended sentence the judge can pretty much do what he/she wants regarding setting conditions. If Judge Burke did admonish Cleaveland to stay out of trouble or else, then he is probably looking at some jail time down the road.

      It amazes me how stupid and short-sighted these Free Keene / FSP people can be. All this trouble because Cleaveland didn’t want to renew his registration and spend $35 or whatever it is. What an idiot.

  11. MARSHA MAINES

    For all the sucklers on the goobermint teets (ssACCOUNT-Holders still submitting to the SYSTEM)
    FYI: the “law” is not the same as man-made codes (legal).
    Irregardless – only the GOVERNOR can order a rendition, per § 20-88.79. Mr. Cleaveland is not DOMICILED in VA, nor is he a VA Resident – and the kidnappers took action under PRESUMPTION of Authority.
    They attempted to enforce a code that doesn’t exist in Va’s Codes. Both SB725 and HB1759 FAILED to pass the Legislature – only the Federal Corporation’s Codes – which, ever since 1997 – it’s been illegal (as well as always unlawful) for any local agent to enforce a federal program. Printz v U.S. AND for you members of the communist foreign owned entity not commonly exposed; the “bar” – and all your co-conspirator Usurpers operating the People’s courts like your own private banking monopoly outside the anti-trust laws and conspiring together as Seditionists – you might want to read up on the FACT – that any state who does not have a trained Militia, is in violation of The Supreme Law of these Lands and without any IMMUNITY for Personal Jurisdiction of the Individual gang, for Remedy. ARE YOU AWAKE NOW? Oh, and Yes – I behave like any other Human Being does when invited without my Consent – to having my Travel – “restricted”. Regulation is in place for the Corporation’s Employees (LEGAL PERSONS) – who are operating In Commerce…not – “men”. This is yet one more perfect example why the 14th needs repeal via Con Con – and the Fed needs to be Audited for posing as a government, when in reality it’s nothing more than a Foreign Owned corporation put in place to Administer the Public Trust (SSAccounts) – which was already declared Foreclosed. WHEW…Glad I got that off my chest..NEXT?

    Reply
    • Chad Connolly

      how was his freedom to travel “restricted”? if you are talking about going to jail, then every convicted murder can plead the same defense and that would be idiotic. if it was because he is required to have his vehicle registered, that is not actually infringing on his right to travel as he has other methods.

    • Drac Vermell

      How would a convicted murderer use “right to travel” as a defense? If he’s been convicted, his defense has already failed. I think the word you wanted to use was “accused”, but your analogy is ridiculous on its face anyway since an accusation of murder would always be probable cause for a stop. Is it your belief that forcing people to purchase different color stickers on their license plates once a year would in some way make it easier for the state to capture murderers? And if so, wouldn’t that be a poor justification for such a law?

      As for the right to the freedom to travel, having requirements such as purchasing different colored stickers on your license plate once a year is by its very definition a restriction, since you can be prohibited from driving for not having those stickers. The point is the state says “buy our stickers once a year or we’ll harass you, fine you, and won’t let you drive anywhere.” How can prohibiting a freedom in this way not be be defined as a restriction? Are you claiming that the definition of the word “restriction” has somehow changed in this single instance Chad?

      I’m sure you’ll tell me that I’m free to walk, but again that places a restriction on travel since I can’t choose to drive. Again the word “restriction” applies here. Words mean things Chad. You’re either free to travel or you’re not. Apparently it’s your position that you’re not. Why is that?

    • Chad Connolly

      he is still free to travel all he wants, whether it is walking, getting someone else to drive, taking a train, an airplane or any other number of ways. his freedom of travel is not being restricted. this is just a lie in any sense.

      as to the murder analogy, it was put there as a preemptive evidence that being in jail is not a restriction of travel in case that was where the poster wanted to go with it.

      as far for the “right” to drive, please provide evidence that it is a right and not a privilege.

    • Drac Vermell

      It’s still a terrible analogy Chad, no matter how you try to rationalize it.

      And again Chad, words mean things. The freedom to travel means that I have the right to go where I want when I want and how I want. If I can’t choose my mode of travel, then that freedom is being restricted. How is limiting my choices in modes of travel not placing restrictions on it? Walking, taking a taxi, a bus, or a train, or having a friend drive me around is not the most efficient way of doing things, especially if I’m able to drive. Clearly you support the idea that the state should force me to pay a sticker tax once a year to drive my own car. But why stop there? Why not place the same restrictions on bicycles? Or shoes? Would that be any less ridiculous? By your logic I can walk wherever I want and not be taxed for it (at least not yet), but to want to be free to drive my own car without having to prove that I’ve payed yet another tax? That offends you?

      The only liar, Chad, is the state. “Driving is a privilege” is just DMV-speak for “pay us what we tell you or else”. While you parrot the DMV’s motto, you refuse to acknowledge what it means. By placing restrictions on your ability to drive a car, the state asserts more control over you by exerting leverage on your ability to earn a living. Driving is crucial for many people’s economic livelihoods. Impeding this places a burden on their own economic responsibilities making it an easy way for the state to get a person to do whatever it wants and just pay them so they go away. There is no justice in this regard. Were anyone else to do this, it would be called extortion. But like so many of the crimes the state perpetrates, it claims the power to do so with impunity. I’m tired of being lied to by these bureaucrats while they nickel and dime me. Aren’t you?

    • Chad Connolly

      do i agree that a vehicle should be registered, yes. please explain why making sure people have insurance in case they cause damage or death is a bad thing? please explain why making sure a vehicle is safe to drive around others is a bad thing? Both of those are actually in line with the NAP.

      those who depend on driving should be safe towards others do you not agree? If a simple check to make sure you and your vehicle are safe is to much of a burden, then you really do not deserve the privilege of driving.

      you are implying that those who are unsafe should be driving and risking the safety of others on the road. this is a huge violation of other peoples liberty. way to advocate for aggression against others.

    • Drac Vermell

      Please explain why you believe a vehicle needs to be registered every year. Vehicle registration is not the same as vehicle inspection.

    • Chad Connolly

      normally if a vehicle is registered it shows it was inspected, now would you like to try and answer my questions?

    • Drac Vermell

      Inspection stickers are separate. Usually displayed on the window. And again, vehicle registration is not an inspection. You’ve explained how vehicle registrations help cops stop people for other violations, not why vehicle registrations are necessary. Please elaborate further.

    • Chad Connolly

      since you need it barney style let’s begin.

      while in some states the inspection sticker goes on the window in some states, in others it goes on the bumper or other places. we have shown that those are important to show a safe driving vehicle.

      Now most states i know of require insurance on a vehicle before it is allowed to get registered. i cannot vouch for every state but the ones i have lived in. by having a valid registration, you are further showing others that you are insured an responsible.

      now i cannot speak for your driving or insurance holding habits, but i still can see the point. states also takes fees from registrations and puts them towards road upkeep. this road upkeep may or may not sit well with you but i could not care less.

      now why don’t you try and answer as to why we should not have these set in place to protect other drivers?

    • Drac Vermell

      Registration fees go to the DMV. They are used to pay for DMV employees and administrators. They are not used for road upkeep. The DMV’s sole purpose is as a record-keeping and enforcement branch. Road upkeep is handled locally or by the DOT. Many countries in Europe don’t even have DMV’s.

      Your interpretation of the NAP is incorrect. While having auto insurance is wise for the purposes of financial risk management, it is in no way an act of aggression to not have it. The NAP requires that the offending person compensate his victim. If harm is caused he must commit to restitution and make his victim whole. There are many ways that this can be done. Auto insurance is one way to do this, but many states don’t give the driver the choice in this matter. In these states auto insurance is required regardless of the driver’s financial capacities. To not have it incurs a fine. In some cases even if you’re not even driving.

      Inspection stickers are the same. Only 19 states require periodic vehicle inspections. The laws require that the vehicle be inspected once a year. You must pay for the state mandated inspection. If the vehicle is in working order, but the inspection has expired, it doesn’t matter. You are a target for a stop. Not because you’re driving an unsafe vehicle, but because your sticker has expired. You’re not asked to prove your vehicle is in working order. That is irrelevant. You must pay the fine. You’ve been consistent with the NAP. You’ve harmed no one. You’ve alleviated risk to others. It doesn’t matter. You must pay. There is no victim here. How is this justice?

      That’s the problem with centralized solutions such as these. The enforcers never focus on the task of making victims whole, they focus on collecting fees for compliance and fines for disobedience. The victims (or lack thereof) are irrelevant. Only obedience to the regulations matter. Enforcing obedience to regulations and demanding restitution (fines) when no victims exist violates the NAP. They’re not protecting drivers. They’re preying upon them. And that’s not justice. That’s extortion.

    • Chad Connolly

      so until there is a victim, there is no crime. by that theory, i could fire a gun over your head but as long as i don’t hit you, there is no crime.

    • Drac Vermell

      Another bad analogy. Attempted murder has a victim.

    • Chad Connolly

      how is it attempted murder? im shooting over your head, so unless i hit you, your not a victim. am i endangering your safety? not any more then driving drunk or with an unsafe car.

    • Drac Vermell

      Still a bad analogy. Firing a gun over someone’s head is attempted murder. There’s a victim. The person you shot the gun at doesn’t know your mindset, only that you’re shooting at him. Since there’s a victim, there’s a trial. If you claim it was an accident, that evidence will be presented during the trial. If you claim it was deliberate, but without the intent to kill him, that evidence will be presented in the trial. The point is there’s a trial.

      Many of the victimless crimes that the government accuses people of have no trials. There are only demands of fines and the stealing of property if the victim refuses to pay. That’s the incentive government and their enforcers have when enforcing victimless crimes. It’s why government focuses on this above all else, and it’s why government employs so many people to enforce them. Penalties for victimless crimes yield a high profit margin and the money goes straight into the bureaucrats’ pockets, yet it produces virtually nothing for the taxpayers who must put up with it. It’s wrong. They’re wrong. And you’re wrong for defending it.

    • Chad Connolly

      Where did i hit you or cause you physical harm? firing a gun over your head is no different then driving drunk or unsafe. until i cause physical damage to either you or property, there can be no victim right?

    • Drac Vermell

      Anyone so insane that he equates discharging a firearm over someone’s head with driving a car is a troll I want nothing to do with. Having experienced such a situation in my youth, I think I’ve learned all I need to know about you.

    • Sammy

      And Chad pwns the douchebag Drac. Man that was actually kind of simple.

    • Chad Connolly

      you don’t wish to see that one harm is just as dangerous as another and that’s fine. keep on being ignorant and ignoring of the fact. it really doesn’t affect me but does have an effect on how others see your views when you present them. your failure, not mine.

    • Drac Vermell

      And you don’t wish to recognize that punishing others before harm is caused has never saved you or anyone else from that harm. But it has had other consequences. It has provided even more tools for tyrants to continue subjugating others. There’s never a shortage of things in the world that people must be protected from. Alcohol, recreational drugs, smoked meat, corn syrup, lack of exercise… The list becomes increasingly ridiculous and is seemingly endless. “We need more laws!” the politicians tell us. “Just let us take more of your money and give use more power so we can help you!” they insist. So you gleefully give up your own liberties just so you can feel safe. But in doing so you also give up the liberties of others as well, dismissing the consequences of what that loss of freedom has led to. You and others like you have failed to understand this, and this has made the continued subjugation of free people very easy work for tyrants. So while my beliefs don’t affect you, your beliefs have the opposite effect. I have less freedom because of it. This loss of freedom has made both of us even less safe from the very people you claim protects us from harm. For some reason you prefer this. I escaped from a country where this type of thinking was pervasive, particularly by those in power. “Too much freedom is dangerous!” they would tell us. We weren’t free to disagree so there was no one to stop them.

    • Chad Connolly

      But you are free to disagree here, in this country. you’re also free to vote to change things. as far as the recreational drugs go, i live in a state where we VOTED to allow them to a point.

    • Drac Vermell

      There is no freedom to disagree with the state. There is only freedom to complain. When you disagree with something, you can withhold consent and refuse to participate without fear of retaliation. Complainers can only”redress their grievances”. When such grievances fall on deaf ears, you still must do what the state tells you to do or else.

      You’re also dismissing the primary problem with voting: voters can also vote to take freedom away. One generation votes to take freedoms away, the next votes to restore them. Then later generations vote to take them away again. What’s right and wrong becomes what is popular with the mob at the moment. This is why libertarians emphasizes the importance of the principle that crimes should always require victims. That litmus test will remain consistent in every generation regardless of who or what’s unpopular at the moment.

      The demonstration of harm is important because this requires that the
      person harmed be the complainant. Victimless crimes circumvent this requirement. With a victimless crime the complainant is the state. The state is under no responsibility to prove harm
      was caused, only that the law was disobeyed. The burden of proof becomes easier and the only body standing in
      the way any injustice wrought is the jury. Since most jurors believe they are under the obligation to side with the state’s interests, it’s win-win for the tyrants.

      Governments should be protecting peoples rights, not manufacturing criminals out of thin air so they can waste the taxpayers’ money to cage them. Your concern is about being safe. My concern is about being free. Concerns for safety has allowed government to grow. Concerns for freedom prevents it from growing. And small governments are safer for everybody.

    • Chad Connolly

      crimes involve victims, i can understand but can you understand that sometimes things can be prevented before a victim needs to be a victim?

      Also, please show me a way that everyone can get their way and no body gets hurt feelings or disagrees with the out come for rules to live within a certain society.

      also i am not against a smaller government, i never said i was.

    • Richard Bauman

      “And you don’t wish to recognize that punishing others before harm is caused has never saved you or anyone else from that harm.”

      Do you not understand the concept of general deterrence in crime prevention?

    • Drac Vermell

      Laws don’t deter crimes. If they did there would be no crime. It appears that the basic concept of crime deterrence is false then, isn’t it?

      It’s illegal to murder. That law has never deterred murderers. It’s illegal to steal. That law has never deterred thieves. It’s illegal to possess drugs. People continue to possess, take, and sell drugs. They also have not been deterred.

      Laws permit the state to punish others. That’s what they’re for. While this is acceptable when a crime has a victim, punishing others where no tangible evidence of harm exists is not. You don’t believe in law, you believe in obedience. They’re not the same thing.

    • Richard Bauman

      “Laws don’t deter crimes. If they did there would be no crime.”

      I think you’ve confused the term “deter” with “eliminate”. Laws do not eliminate crime but they do deter them. – do you think if we had no laws, crime (I’m not referring to crimes with victims – as you would term it) would be up or down?

    • Drac Vermell

      No. I didn’t confuse those two words. Deterrence was the proper word. No one, not even you, is stupid enough to believe that laws eliminate crime. My only concern is the existence of victimless crimes. I don’t care about real crimes. I have no interest in allowing real criminals escape justice. But I also understand that real criminals are not deterred by the laws. Real criminals don’t care about the law . That’s why they’re criminals. The law is already adequately designed to provide justice for any victims of real criminals which means any victims of real crimes already have adequate protection under the law. It’s the criminals that politicians manufacture through the passing of more laws that I find abhorrent. Ridiculous laws that allow peaceful people to be thrown in jail for using drugs, owning unregistered firearms, or even for not cutting their lawns. Such laws have become increasingly draconian. It’s those laws that need to go.

      To avoid future misunderstanding, I’ll repeat myself once more for emphasis: I don’t care if laws deter criminals or not. Laws should only exist to administer justice to the victims of crime. Criminal deterrence, incidental or not, is irrelevant. Crime will exist with or without governments. Do you really believe any community would ever allow a thief or murderer to ply their crimes unchallenged? My only concern is the existence of victimless crimes. Laws that create victimless crimes have absolutely no place in society. They are a purely government invention. They’re social-engineering tools. They’re meant to criminalize otherwise peaceful behavior, especially behavior that is unpopular or threatens the government’s interests. Social-engineering is not a legitimate role of government. I had my fill of it in Romania. Seeing it become the norm over the decades in my adopted country makes me sick to my stomach.

    • Sammy

      Driving drunk could be construed as attempted murder as well, but douchebags like Bernard and his other boot-licking minions try to push forward the idea that as long as someone driving drunk doesn’t damage any property or injure someone there is no crime.

      You’re all idiots. A group of big, fucking idiots. And you’re all too fucking stupid to realize it.

    • Drac Vermell

      Why stop there Sammy? Why not just have everyone carry a rationing card? Permit people to only have one alcoholic beverage per day. Clearly some people can’t be trusted to make those decisions on their own.

    • Chad Connolly

      going with financially responsible for damages, not everyone can afford to hit another car and replace it in a timely manner. this is why the use of insurance before registration.

    • Drac Vermell

      While I understood the first sentence, the second was gibberish. Are you trying to demonstrate to me that you understand why some people would wish to purchase insurance coverage? Am I supposed to congratulate you? Please re-clarify.

    • Chad Connolly

      playing dumb is not a good tactic for you. can you afford to replace a 2015 Audi A4 next week if you hit one this weekend?

    • Sammy

      He doesn’t have to explain anything – it’s the law. You don’t like it? Tough shit. Go find a majority of people and get it changed, then.

    • Richard Bauman

      No rights are absolute and all have restrictions and exceptions. Name me one right and I can name a restriction or exception. The question is whether they are reasonable restrictions. Just from your example –

      “The freedom to travel means that I have the right to go where I want when I want and how I want.”

      Could you travel on someone else’s real property without permission? No, so that is just one exception. So you can’t go where you want. A private land owner can also put restriction on your right to travel. The public roads are owned by the public and reasonable restrictions can be placed on that right – including registration, licensing and inspection.

    • Sammy

      Richard … I love you, man. You throw facts and reason into the freetard faces and they literally don’t know what to do with it.

      Of course, pseudo-intellectual-know-nothing Drac will attempt to twist your words and the facts, but no matter – he’s a moron, and the only one that hasn’t figured that out yet is himself.

    • Drac Vermell

      Then they’re not rights. Rights are freedoms. Freedoms are absolute. Privileges are not. Words mean things. If it’s a freedom, than what is considered reasonable is for the individual to decide, not you. If the individual isn’t harming someone directly by the execution of that freedom, then you leave him alone. If the exercise of that freedom harms someone, then he should be held to task for the harm caused, not for exercising his freedom.

      If you trespass on someone’s property and he asks you to leave and you don’t you’re causing him harm. You’re infringing on his rights. Traveling on someone else property is not exercising freedom to travel. That’s because you’re not traveling, you’re trespassing. Again, words mean things.

    • Richard Bauman

      “Traveling on someone else property is not exercising freedom to travel.” Was James traveling on his own property or someone else’s? I’m pretty sure he doesn’t own the road he was traveling on. So, therefore, according to your logic, he was not exercising his freedom to travel;. Game. Set. Match.

    • Drac Vermell

      Who owns the roads?

    • Richard Bauman

      Not James, because if he did he would have the power to sell them, which he doesn’t. Who do you think owns them?

    • Drac Vermell

      Did you not understand the question? I kept it simple. I’m a little surprised that you don’t know the answer.

    • Richard Bauman

      The public owns the roads and therefore can make reasonable restrictions on their use.

    • Drac Vermell

      Who’s the public?

    • Richard Bauman

      I’ll quote you – “I kept it simple. I’m a little surprised that you don’t know the answer.”

      Are you that obtuse?

    • Drac Vermell

      That’s not an answer. Clearly the public is not a person. Is it a corporation? Yes? No? What is it? You claim the public can own things without explaining who they are or how they own it. I pay for the roads. You pay for the roads. Do we own them? Do the people we vote for own them? If you ask a bureaucrat, you’ll be told we pay for their services to build and maintain roads. Now these same people we pay to do this claim to own our rights to travel on them. Just because they say so. You’d think government would be happy to use our money to keep the roads maintained and be done with it. That’s supposedly their job. Yet they seem more intent on using the use of the roads to exert economic leverage on the taxpayers. Just like the highwaymen of old. Threaten to take a taxpayers right to travel on the roads and you can make them do anything. It’s hard to earn a living otherwise. Are you really this stupid to think that such leverage will ever be used to benefit anyone other than the state?

    • Rob

      Guys … stop arguing with this guy Drac. It’s obvious he cannot grasp the basic concepts of how our society operates, so rather than continue to feed into his narcissistic tendencies and delusional beliefs about his intellectual capabilities it would be better to just ignore him.

    • Sammy

      LoL. Blah, blah, blah. Pay the registration fee or don’t drive the car … or don’t pay the registration fee and take a chance driving the car anyway; it doesn’t matter. Freetards like yourself apparently just love paying fines for being dipshits.

    • Sammy

      Hey – thanks for taking time away from jerking off to images of little boys and playing XBox in your parents’ basement to post this message. We all really appreciate it. Tell me: do your parents know what you do down there all day?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. BREAKING: James Cleaveland Stranded in VA, Sheriffs Steal Truck | Freedom's Floodgates - […] By Ian Freeman […]
  2. James Released on $1,000 Bond | Free Keene - […] being arrested on an insane war on drugs charge for allegedly having prescription Klonopin pills in box truck regularly…
  3. A Tribute to James "Jimmy" Higgins - […] happened to be passing through traveling to Georgia to briefly reunite with his family, when he was pulled over…
  4. R.I.P. James "Jimmy" Higgins of Virginia Cop Block - […] happened to be passing through traveling to Georgia to briefly reunite with his family, when he was pulled over…
  5. Miss Piggy Goes to Hollywood | The Derrick J - […] and Nick Hazelton yak about useful Hollywood tropes of self-referentialism, pigs (the good kind), James Cleveland hijacked by highwaymen…
  6. All Virginia Charges Dropped | Free Keene - […] charges from the Commonwealth of Virginia against me have been […]

Care to comment?