United States v. Van Dyke, Civ. No. 83-157-RE.

• Decision Date: 20 May 1983
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 83-157-RE.
• Citation: 568 F. Supp. 820
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Lyle H. VAN DYKE; Robert C. Randolph, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Oregon

568 F. Supp. 820

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Lyle H. VAN DYKE; Robert C. Randolph, et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 83-157-RE.

United States District Court, D. Oregon.

May 20, 1983.

Charles H. Turner, U.S. Atty., Herbert C. Sundby, Asst. U.S. Atty., Portland, Or., Larry Meuwissen, Trial Atty., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for U.S.

Lyle H. Van Dyke, pro se.

Robert L. Randolph, pro se.

Alan S. Bachman, Asst. County Counsel, Hillsboro, Or., for defendant Mason, County Clerk of Washington County.

John B. Leahy, County Counsel, Portland, Or., for defendant Wilcox, County Clerk of Multnomah County.

Michael E. Judd, Asst. County Counsel, Oregon City, Or., for defendant Orr, County Clerk of Clackamas County.

OPINION

REDDEN, District Judge:

The United States brought this action to deter persons commonly described as "tax protesters" from filing various documents with county clerks. The documents in question are meaningless, void writings designated as "Common Law Liens." The forms upon which some of the liens are drafted are copyrighted to one Gerald Hanson, who delights in filing frivolous lawsuits. See Hanson v. Goodwin, 432 F.Supp. 853, 856-858 (D.Wash.1977). The "Common Law Liens" are primitive affairs, basically consisting of captions such as "Common Law Lien on the Property and Hand Signature of the Following Persons," followed by a list of people. There is no explanation of how the "lien" arose, nor a recital of any legal action pending or concluded against the named parties. Tax protestors apparently obtain the names and addresses of employees of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and other federal employees, and file these "liens" out of spite against the named individuals.

The so-called "liens" are of course invalid and of no legal force or effect. However, they are used by persons such as Mr. Van Dyke and Mr. Randolph to harass IRS employees and deter them from enforcing the tax laws. The tax protestors, while claiming to act in the interests of freedom and personal liberty, use this weapon to harass private individuals in their private lives, as part of the tax protestors' campaign. See United States v. Hart, 545 F.Supp. 470, 473-475 (D.N.D.1982), aff'd, 701 F.2d 749 (8th Cir.1983).

The United States brought this action to obtain a declaration to the effect that such "common law liens" are invalid, and that so-called "garnishments" filed at certain banks where the IRS employees have accounts are of no legal effect. The United States also seeks an injunction barring such harassment of federal employees in the future.¹ The case was tried before me on May 12, 1983. I find that the United States is entitled to the relief requested.

Specifically I find, based upon the events of the hearing² before me, the documents made a part of the record by the government, and my judicial notice of the contents of the file in Van Dyke v. Moore, Civ. No. 82-1433 (D.Ore. March 1, 1983), that Van Dyke and Randolph and others in concert with them have embarked upon a campaign of harassment against employees of the IRS and other federal employees. That campaign of harassment takes the form of filing frivolous and nonsensical suits and documents against named employees of the federal government, in order to harass them in their private lives, force them to hire counsel to respond to frivolous lawsuits, cloud title to their real estate with "common law liens," and interfere maliciously and unjustifiably with the rights of these federal employees to hold bank accounts and real property. Van Dyke and Randolph and others have sought to create "hand signature liens," which are supposedly documents which have mystical power to prevent the target individuals from signing letters, checks, deeds, contracts, and the like. The purpose of this campaign is to deter employees of the federal government from enforcing the tax laws against them.

It is clear that the various filings of Van Dyke and Randolph in pursuit of their vengeance against federal personnel are void and of no legal effect. A declaration to this effect shall issue.

I also find that the actions of Van Dyke and Randolph, in filing these lawsuits and documents, impose irreparable harm upon the employees of the federal government with whom these tax protestors quarrel. Titles to real estate have been clouded, banks have been the subject of frivolous attempts at "garnishment," and in general the employees of the federal government have been harassed in their personal lives for doing their jobs. I find that the public interest will be served by an injunction forbidding this harassment in the future, and such an injunction shall issue. In framing...