In re James Luecke

Filing 2

ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 3/6/15 that no further action will be taken on Lueckes notice and motion, and the clerk of court is directed to close this file. (cc: via USPS to James Luecke, 3845 W. College Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53221-4511)(dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

In re: JAMES LUECKE

Case No. 15-MC-009

ORDER
James Luecke, a pro se litigant, presented a document entitled “Vehicular Judicial
Notice and Motion to Compel Unrestrictive Travel” to the clerk of court. This document
requests an “order of protection” to “uphold” Luecke’s “right of unrestrictive travel.” No
adverse or opposing party is identified. Upon receiving this document, the clerk of court
opened a miscellaneous case and assigned the matter to me.
Luecke’s filing seems to be related to the “Sovereign Citizens” movement or to some
similar set of fringe beliefs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement
(last viewed March 6, 2015). Performing an Internet search for “vehicular judicial notice,”
I find on websites that appear to be affiliated with the Sovereign Citizens movement
documents that are very similar, if not identical, to the one Luecke filed. Luecke’s filing
displays other hallmarks of the Sovereign Citizens movement, such as the addition of the
Latin phrase “sui juris” to his name and frequent references to the common law. See
Southern Poverty Law Center, The Sovereigns: A Dictionary of the Peculiar, Intelligence
Report (Fall 2010), available at www.splcenter.org (last viewed March 6, 2015).
Luecke’s vehicular judicial notice seems to be based on the belief that because the
Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right to travel, state and local governments
are prohibited from requiring drivers to obtain licenses, register their vehicles, obtain liability
insurance, or obey traffic laws. This belief is, of course, misguided. See Matthew v.

Honish, 233 Fed. Appx. 563, 563–64 (7th Cir. 2007) (describing as “meritless” argument
that state licensure and registration requirements violate the right to travel). In any event,
Luecke’s vehicular judicial notice and motion to compel does not present any claim or issue
that could be adjudicated in this court or result in any form of recognized relief.
Accordingly, no further action will be taken on Luecke’s notice and motion, and the clerk
of court is directed to close this file.
SO ORDERED at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 6th day of March 2015.
s/ Lynn Adelman
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

2