BILLY J. WILLIAMS, OSB #901366 

United States Attorney 

District of Oregon 

ETHAN D. KNIGHT, OSB #992984 

GEOFFREY A. BARROW 

CRAIG J. GABRIEL, OSB #012571 

Assistant United States Attorneys 

ethan.knight@usdoj.gov

geoffrey.barrow@usdoj.gov 

craig.gabriel@usdoj.gov

1000 SW Third Ave., Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204-2902 

Telephone: (503) 727-1000 

Attorneys for United States of America 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 v. 

KENNETH MEDENBACH, 

 Defendant.

3:16-CR-00051-BR-16

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANT MEDENBACH’S 

AMENDED MOTION TO 

RECONSIDER ORAL MOTION 

TO DISMISS

 The United States of America, by Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney for the 

District of Oregon, and through Ethan D. Knight, Geoffrey A. Barrow, and Craig J. Gabriel, 

Assistant United States Attorneys, hereby responds to defendant Medenbach’s Amended Motion 

to Reconsider Oral Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 384). For the reasons set forth below, 

defendant’s Motion should be denied. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 405 Filed 04/13/16 Page 1 of 3
Government’s Response to Defendant Medenbach’s Amended Motion to 

Reconsider Oral Motion to Dismiss 

Page 2

I. Legal Argument 

 Defendant asks this Court to overrule Marbury v. Madison, 5.U.S. 137 (1803). 

Defendant has raised nearly identical claims before other federal courts. All of those courts 

have rejected defendant’s arguments as frivolous. See, e.g., United States v. Medenbach, No. 

96-30168, 1997 WL 306437, at *3 (9th Cir. 1997) (unpublished) (“We conclude that 

[Medenbach’s] argument against the constitutionality of judicial review is meritless.”). 

 Defendant also raises a claim that this Court’s oath of office is “inconsistent with the 

Constitution.” Again, defendant’s claim is without merit. See Medenbach, 1997 WL 306437, 

at *3 (“[W] reject Medenbach’s claim that the district court judge’s oath of office was 

deficient.”). 

 More recently, The Honorable Owen M. Panner rejected similar arguments by the 

defendant here in the District of Oregon, in Medenbach v. United States, Case No. 

1:14-CV-641-PA, which is attached as Exhibit 1. As Judge Panner stated: “[Medenbach’s] 

claim is wholly insubstantial because the slight difference in wording between the Constitution 

and the statute providing the oath of office has no legal significance.” Exhibit 1, at 4. In his 

present Motion, defendant is now simply advancing the same arguments about a “slight 

difference in wording” that were previously rejected by the Ninth Circuit and Judge Panner. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 405 Filed 04/13/16 Page 2 of 3
Government’s Response to Defendant Medenbach’s Amended Motion to 

Reconsider Oral Motion to Dismiss 

Page 3

II. Conclusion 

 This Court is bound by the two seminal holdings of Marbury v. Madison and United 

States v. Medenbach. Defendant has preserved this issue for appeal, but his Motion should be 

denied. 

 Dated this 13th day of April 2016. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 BILLY J. WILLIAMS 

 United States Attorney 

 s/ Craig J. Gabriel 

 ETHAN D. KNIGHT, OSB #992984 

 GEOFFREY A. BARROW 

 CRAIG J. GABRIEL, OSB #012571 

 Assistant United States Attorneys 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 405 Filed 04/13/16 Page 3 of 3