1 

2 

FILED' 15 DEC~ 2:31E:37USDC>ORr·1 

3 

4 

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

6 DISTRICT OF OREGON 

7 MEDFORD DIVISION 

8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, · Case No. 1:15- CR-00407-MC 

' 

9 Plaintiff, 

10 v. MOTION TO DISMISS 

11 KENNETH W. MEDENBACH, FORLACK OF 

12 Defendant. JURISDICTION 

13 

14 WHYWOULD, 

15 "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect 

16 Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the 

17 common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the 

18 Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, ordain and 

19 establish this Constitution for the United States of America." 

20 1 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 1 of 29
1 Then give the Judicial Department of the United States the power to 

2 tell "We the People," what the Constitution means?. 

3 WEDIDN'T! 

4 

5 On November 15,2015, the Defendant, Kenneth W. Medenbach 

6 appeared in United States District Court, Medford, Oregon on 

7 charges of Count 1 Unlawful Camping and Count 2 Unlawful 

8 Occupancy on alleged public lands of the U.S. Bureau of Land 

9 Management. 

10 Defendant pled not guilty and appointments and trial were set. 

11 

12 Defendant comes now to move to dismiss Plaintiffs Count 1 

13 Unlawful Camping and Count 2 Unlawful Occupancy on alleged 

14 public lands of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 

15 

16 Defendant contends the United States District Court lacks 

17 jurisdiction to decide this case because Defendant did not camp on or 

18 occupy public lands of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and 

19 because the Constitution does not confer upon federal courts the 

20 2 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 2 of 29
1 power to interpret the Constitution. 

2 

3 First, OREGON ADMISSION ACT 

4 ACT OF CONGRESS ADMITTING OREGON INTO UNION 

5 [Approved February 14, 1859] 

6 Section 1. Announcement of admission; ... 

7 "That Oregon be, and she is hereby, received into the Union on an 

8 equal footing with the other States, in all respects 

9 whatever.(emphasis added)(Equal Footings Doctrine of Article IV, 

10 Sec. 3, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution) 

11 The definition of 'a state' is found in the powers possessed by the 

12 original states which adopted the Constitution. 

13 As independent nation-states, the sovereign people of the original 

14 pre-Constitutional States took national title and dominion to the 

15 rivers, seas and lands within their territorial limits, which had been 

16 previously held by the Crown of England. 

17 When the original13 nation-states formed the Union, they entered 

18 the Union as free, independent, sovereign states, except for the 

19 enumerated powers given to the United States by the Constitution. 

w 3 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 3 of 29
1 Having to cede 70% of Oregon as a condition of statehood to enter the 

2 Union of the United States is not being received into the Union on an, 

3 "equal footing with the other States, in all respects 

4 whatever.(emphasis added) 

5 

6 The powers of Congress in respect to the admission of new states is 

7 found in, Article IV, Sec. 3 of the Constitution, it states: "New states 

8 may be admitted by Congress into this union;" The only 

9 constitutional expressed restriction upon this power is that no new 

10 state shall be formed within the jurisdiction of any other state, nor by 

11 the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the 

12 consent of such states, as well as of the Congress and in Article IV, 

13 Sec-4 which states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State 

14 in this Union a Republican Form of Government." These are the only 

15 powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution in relation 

16 to admission of new States. 

17 The power of Congress, in the Oregon Admission Act, "that five per 

18 centum of the net proceeds of sales of all( emphasis added) public 

19 lands lying within said State which shall be sold by Congress after the 

20 4 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 4 of 29
1 admission of States into the Union, and that any foregoing 

2 propositions, hereinbefore offered, are on the condition of a, 

3 disclaimer clause, "that the people of Oregon shall provide by an 

4 ordinance, irrevocable without the consent of the United States, that 

5 said State shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil 

6 within the same by the United States, II are powers not delegated to 

7 Congress by. the Constitution. 

8 The power to extract these terms and conditions from the people of 

9 Oregon for entry of Oregon into the union are not powers delegated 

10 to the United States by the Constitution, in violation of the 10th 

11 Amendment, which states: "The powers not delegated to the United 

12 States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are 

13 reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 11 

14 

15 Furthermore, 

16 

17 ACCEPTANCE BY OREGON OF PROPOSITIONS 

18 OFFERED BY CONGRESS IN ADMISSION ACT 

19 [Approved June 3, 1859] 

20 5 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 5 of 29
1 Whereas, the Congress of the United States did pass an act, entitled 

2 "An Act for the admission of Oregon into the Union," approved the 

3 fourteenth day of February, one thousand eight hundred and :fifty4 nine; which said act contains the following propositions for 'the free 

5 acceptance or rejection of the people of the State of Oregon, in the 

6 words following: 

7 Section 4· "The following propositions be, and the same are hereby, 

8 offered to the said people of Oregon, for their free acceptance or 

9 rejection, which, if accepted, shall be obligatory( emphasis added) 

10 on the United States and upon the said State of Oregon." 

u Proposition 5: "That five per centum of the net proceeds of sales of 

12 all( emphasis added) public lands lying within said State, which shall 

13 be sold by Congress after the admission of said State into the Union, 

14 after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to 

15 the State of Oregon for the purpose of making public roads and 

16 internal improvements, as the legislature shall direct: Provided, That 

17 the foregoing propositions, hereinbefore offered, are on the 

18 condition" of a, (disclaimer clause), "that the people of Oregon shall 

19 provide by an ordinance, irrevocable without the consent of the 

20 6 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 6 of 29
1 United States, that said State shall never interfere with the primary 

2 disposal of the soil within the same by the United States, or with any 

3 regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in said 

4 soil to bona fide purchasers thereof; and that in no case shall non5 resident proprietors be taxed higher than residents." 

6 Oregon fulfilled their unconstitutional obligation, that it shall never 

7 interfere with the primary disposal of the soil within Oregon by the 

8 United States, or with any regulations Congress may find necessary 

9 for securing the title in Oregon soil to bonafide purchasers thereof; 

10 and that in no case shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher 

11 than residents. 

12 

13 The United States did not fulfill their obligation to Oregon that 

14 Oregon get five per centum of the net proceeds of sales of 

15 all( emphasis added) public lands lying in Oregon, which were to be 

16 sold by Congress after the admission of Oregon into the Union. 

17 In the ·1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act which clarified ", J~ 

18 and redefined the Bureau of Land Management's mission and 

19 authority. 

20 7 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 7 of 29
1 It's DECLARATION OF POLICY 

2 Sec. 102. [43 U.S.C. 1701] (a), states; "The Congress declares that it is 

3 the policy of the United States that the public lands be retained in 

4 Federal ownership." 

5 

6 The 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act repealed all prior 

7 laws related to homesteading in the Lower 48 states including the 

8 original1862 Homestead Act. 

9 Of the 61,441,280 total acres in the State of Oregon 10,513,945 total 

10 acres were homesteaded. And with the 1976 Federal Land Policy and 

n Management Act the United States Government now owns 

12 32,665,430 acres of Oregon, violating their agreement to the people 

13 of Oregon, of their obligation( emphasis added) that five per centum 

14 of the net proceeds of sales of all( emphasis added) public lands lying 

15 within the State of Oregon, which shall be sold by Congress after the 

16 admission of the State of Oregon into the Union. 

17 The United States through Congress was obligated to sell 

18 all( emphasis added) public lands lying within the State of Oregon .. 

19 Again, the United States did not fulfill their obligation. 

20 8 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 8 of 29
1 Since Oregon did not enter the Union on an, "equal footing with the 

2 other States, in all resects whatever( emphasis added) the terms 

3 and conditions of an unconstitutional disclaimer clause, in violation 

4 of the 1oth Amendment and the United States not fulfilling their 

5 obligation, to sell all( emphasis added) public lands lying in Oregon, 

6 the citizens of Oregon, do not have to fulfill their obligation to the 

7 United States, to comply with an unconstitutional ordinance, 

8 irrevocable without the consent of the United States, that the State of 

9 Oregon shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil 

10 within the State of Oregon by the United States. 

11 

12 Article VI, Sec. 2, The Supremacy Clause of the United States 

13 Constitution states; "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United 

14 States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties 

15 ·made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United 

16 States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;" 

17 The 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the policy of 

18 the United States that the public lands be retained in Federal 

19 ownership is not pursuant to the United States Constitution. 

20 9 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 9 of 29
1 Pursuant to Article 1, Sec. 8, cl. 17; " Congress can exercise Authority 

2 over all Places purchased( emphasis added) by the Consent of the 

3 Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of 

4 Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings. 

5 

6 Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings 

7 are the, Property, referred to in Article IV, Sec.3, cl. 2. "The Congress 

8 shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and 

9 Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to 

10 the United States; ... " 

11 

12 There are no public lands of the United States in the State of Oregon. 

13 

14 Second, 

15 Defendant, argues the United States District Court lacks jurisdiction 

16 to decide this case because the Constitution does not confer upon 

17 federa:l courts the power of judicial review. The Constitution confers 

18 upon courts the power only to "support" the Constitution, not to 

19 interpret the Constitution. See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 3. 

20 10 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 10 of 29
1 In 1997, in an appeal from U.S. District Court in Washington State, 

2 (Case No.116 F.3d 487) I argued against the constitutionality of 

3 federal ownership of public lands in Washington State. I also argued 

4 that the Constitution does not confer upon federal courts the power of 

5 judicial review. I stated, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1 Cranch 

6 137) (1803), was wrongly decided. 

7 The United 'States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit concluded my 

8 argument against the constitutionality of judicial review was merit9 less, because I offered no reasoning or case law to support my 

10 contention that Marbury v Madison should be overruled. 

11 

12 I, now as defendant in the case at bar, offer reasoning and proof to 

13 support my contention that Marbury v Madison is overruled. 

14 

15 Article VI, Sec. 2 of the United States Constitution states; 

16 "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be 

17 made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be 

18 made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme 

19 Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound 

20 11 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 11 of 29
1 thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the 

2 Contrary notwithstanding. 

3 

4 Article VI, Sec. 3 of the United States Constitution requires, 

5 "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the 

6 Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and 

7 judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, 

8 shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to "support this Constitution;" 

9 but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any 

10 Office or public Trust under the United States." 

11 

12 These words, inserted when the whole frame of government, with the 

13 powers hereinbefore ·specified, had been adopted by the Convention; 

14 and it was in that form, and with these powers, that the Constitution 

15 was submitted to the We the People, of the several States, for their 

16 consideration and decision .... In the emphatic language of the pledge 

17 required, It is to, "support" this Constitution. And there is no power 

18 more clearly conferred by the Constitution of the United States than 

19 this power to "support" the Constitution. 

20 12 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 12 of 29
1 The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the 

2 first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, 

3 Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering 

4 certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and 

5 military officials to, "support the Constitution." 

6 The first oath prescribed by Congress (June 1, 1789) was simply, "I do 

7 solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will "support the Constitution," of 

8 the United States." 

9 The text now reads: 

10 "I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will, "support" 

11 and defend "the Constitution,"(emphasis added) of the United States 

12 against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith 

13 and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without 

14 any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and 

15 faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to 

16 enter. So help me God." 

17 

18 In the Judiciary Act of 1789, it took just 1 week short of 4 months for 

19 Congress to start perverting the Constitution. 

20 13 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 13 of 29
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

In the Judiciary Act adopted September 24, 1789, Congress 

prescribed an unconstitutional "SECOND"(emphasis added) oath of 

office to United States judicial officers towit; I, ___ , do solemnly 

swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to 

persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will 

faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties 

incumbent ripon me as , according to the best of my abilities 

and "understanding, agreeably to the Constitution" and laws of the 

United States. So help me God. (Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 

Sec.8) 

12 A judge swearing to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution 

13 of the United States was then defined in Marbury v Madison 

14 5U.S.137(1803), when the Supreme Court said, "Why does a judge 

15 swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the 

16 United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? 

17 If it is dosed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him? If such be 

18 the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To 

19 prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime". 

20 14 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 14 of 29
1 According to Marbury v. Madison, it becomes a crime for a 

2 congressman to prescribe this oath and a crime for a judicial officer to 

3 take this oath, if the Constitution is closed upon him and cannot be 

4 inspected by him , thus, if a justice of judge takes this oath, the 

5 Constitution is not closed upon him and must be inspected by him or 

6 it will be a crime. This unconstitutional "SECOND"(emphasis 

7 added) oath ·of office, unconstitutionally delegated the power to 

8 interpret the Constitution to the judicial department of the United 

9 States. 

10 

11 In the 1990 Judicial Improvement Act, Congress replaced the phrase, 

12 "according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to 

13 the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God," to 

14 "under the Constitution." 

15 According to the Congressional Research Service of the Library of 

16 Congress, who works exclusively for the United States Congress, 

17 providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of 

18 both the House and Senate, prepares upon enactment into law, a 

19 final public law summary. 

20 15 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 15 of 29
1 Upon the enactment of replacing "according to the best of my 

2 abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of 

3 the United States. So help me God," with "under the Constitution," 

4 the Congressional Research Service stated, "This language proved 

5 reasonably more effective in tying the decisions of the judiciary to the 

6 authority of the United States Constitution." 

7 With this firial public law summary by the Congressional Research 

8 Service, "according to the best of my abilities and understanding, 

9 agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help 

10 me God," being replaced with, "under the Constitution," does this 

n then mean the oath language before 1990 of, "according to the best of 

12 my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and 

13 laws of the United States. So help me God," prove reasonably less 

14 effective in tying the decisions of the judiciary to the authority of the 

15 United States Constitution? 

16 

17 Are aU cases prior to 1990, unconstitutional? According to the 

18 Congressional Research Service, Yes! 

19 

20 16 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 16 of 29
1 All cases since the 1990 Judicial Improvement Act and the oath of 

2 office, "under the Constitution," are also unconstitutional because of 

3 Art. VI, Sec. 3; "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, 

4 and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive 

5 and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several 

6 States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to "support" this 

7 Constitution ... " 

8 And the Supremacy Clause Art. VI, Sec. 2, "This Constitution, and the 

9 Laws of the United S~ates which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; 

10 and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of 

11 the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land ... " 

12 The oath of office of, "under the Constitution," is no closer to the 

13 Constitutional oath to, "support the Constitution," than, 

14 "understanding, agreeably" to the Constitution, according to the 

15 Constitution. 

16 

17 If the unconstitutional SECOND oath of office of "understanding, 

18 agreeably to the Constitution," had never been prescribed in the 

19 Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, Sec.8, it would never have been 

20 17 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 17 of 29
1 available to the Supreme Court in 1803 and Marbury v Madison 

2 would have never come into existence. 

3 

4 The ploy, in the 1990 Judicial Improvement Act, of Congress 

5 replacing the phrase, "according to the best of my abilities and 

6 understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United 

7 States. So help me God," to "under the Constitution." worked very 

8 well in United States of America v Medenbach, (Case No. 116 F.3d 

9 487) where the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit stated, 

10 "Medenbach argues that the district court judge's oath of office was 

11 constitutionally deficient because the statutorily prescribed oath of 

12 office set out at 28 U.S.C. § 453 does not mirror the wording of the 

13 Constitution itself. 

14 The Constitution requires that, "all executive and Judicial Officers, 

15 both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by 

16 Oath of Affirmation, to support this Constitution." (U.S. Const. art. 

17 VI, cl. '3). The oath prescribed by statute requires that each federal 

18 justice or judge swear to "faithfully and impartially discharge and 

19 perform all the duties incumbent upon me ... under the Constitution 

20 18 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 18 of 29
1 and laws of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 453 (emphasis added). 

2 Medenbach argues that the district court judge who presided over 

3 Medenbach's bench trial lacked judicial authority because he did not 

4 swear to "support" the Constitution, only to perform his duties 

5 "under" the Constitution. The Constitution does not require that a 

6 judge swear verbatim to "support" the Constitution. Thus, we reject 

7 Medenbach's claim that the district court judge's oath of office was 

8 deficient.(u6 F.3d 487). 

9 

10 The defendant questions the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth 

11 Circuit, stating a judge not having to swear verbatim to "support the 

12 Constitution," being pursuant to Article VI, Sec. 2; "This 

13 Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made 

14 in Pursuance thereof;(emphasis added) and all Treaties made, or 

15 which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall 

16 be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall 

17 be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State 

18 to the Contrary notwithstanding. 

19 

20 19 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 19 of 29
1 "Support the Constitution," is pursuant to the Constitution, 

2 "under the Constitution," is not pursuant to the Constitution 

3 Since the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, panel 

4 unanimously found my case suitable for decision without oral 

5 argument, the Defendant is bringing this argument up now. Not to be 

6 directed to any judge, but to be directed to a jury, at trial. 

7 

8 Question? 

9 Suppose in Marbury v Madison, the Court found the discrepancy in 

10 that the legislative grant of power violating the Constitution's limited 

11 grant of original jurisdiction to the Court in Article III, Section 2 the 

12 court stated, " If congress remains at liberty to give this court 

13 postulant authority, where the constitution has declared their 

14 authority shall be authentic; and authentic authority where the 

15 constitution has declared it shall be postulant; the distribution of 

16 authority, made in the constitution, is form without substance." 

17 Instead of, "If congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate 

18 jurisdiction, where the constitution has declared their jurisdiction 

19 shall be original; and original jurisdiction where the constitution has 

20 20 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 20 of 29
1 declared it shall be appellate; the distribution of jurisdiction, made in 

2 the constitution, is form without substance." Because the 

3 Constitution does not require that a judge swear verbatim to 

4 "support" the Constitution, did appellant jurisdiction and original 

5 jurisdiction have to be used verbatim? Absolutely, yes! The same 

6 logic has to be applied to the oath of office in Art. VI, Sec.3 to, 

7 "support the Constitution" and Art, VI, Sec. 2, the Supremacy 

8 Clause, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which 

9 shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which 

10 shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the 

11 supreme Law of the Land." 

12 

13 This ploy also worked very well in Medenbach v United States of 

14 America in Case No. 1:14-cv-641-PA where Judge Panner states in 

15 regards to the statutory oath of office "under the Constitution," to the 

16 constitutional oath of office to "support the Constitution," that, 

17 "Plaintiffs claim is wholly insubstantial because the slight difference 

18 in wording between the Constitution and the statute providing the 

19 oath of office has no legal significance." 

20 21 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 21 of 29
1 My question is, how much is the slight difference? Is it the same as 

2 original and appellant jurisdiction verses authentic and postulant 

3 authority? 

4 

5 But the ploy doesn't work well in Medenbach v United State of 

6 America, Case No.1: 14-cv-00745-CL., "Report & Recommendation." 

7 Judge Panrier, in his ORDER, found no error and adopted 

8 Magistrates Judge Clark's Report and Recommendation that stated, 

9 "The Court has reviewed the complaint and finds that it is 

10 substantially the same claim as previously made in· the Complaint 

11 dismissed by Judge Panner," which stated "Plaintiffs claim is wholly 

12 insubstantial because the slight difference in wording between the 

13 Constitution and the statute providing the oath of office has no legal 

14 significance." 

15 This is saying that the constitutional oath, ... " all executive and judicial 

16 Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be 

17 bound by Oath or Affirmation, to "support this Constitution, .. "(Art. 

18 VI, Sec. 3), the statutory oath, "I, , do solemnly swear (or 

19 affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and 

20 22 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 22 of 29
1 do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and 

2 impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me 

3 as _____ "under the Constitution" and laws of the United 

4 States. 

5 So help me God." (28 USC @453) are substantially the same as the 

6 oath, "I, _____ , do solemnly swear or affirm that I will 

7 administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to 

8 the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially 

9 discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as 

10 , according to the best of my abilities and 

11 "understanding, agreeably" to the constitution and laws of the United 

12 States. So help me God." (1Stat. 73 Sec. 8). This oath being used in 

13 Marbury v Madison, as the justification of the power to interpret the 

14 Constitution. 

15 

16 Then, according to Magistrate Judge Clark and Judge Panner, if, 

17 "support the Constitution," "under the Constitution" and 

18 "understanding, agreeably to the Constitution," are substantially the 

19 same claim, then everybody in government has the power to interpret 

20 23 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 23 of 29
1 the Constitution, because everybody in government, takes this oath. 

2 "I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will "support" 

3 and defend "the Constitution"( emphasis added) of the United States 

4 against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith 

5 and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without 

6 any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and 

7 faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to 

8 enter. So help me God."(s U.S. C.§ 3331). How unconstitutional and 

9 chaotic that would be! 

10 

u The Constitution allows and requires only one oath of office to, 

12 "support the Constitution." 

13 Any second( emphasis added) oath of office for United States judicial 

14 officers is unconstitutional. 

15 

16 Any other oath of office for United States justices and judges, that 

17 does not have, "support the Constitution," in it, prescribed by 

18 Congress and taken by said judicial officers, is an oath of office to not 

19 support the Constitution, in violation of Article VI, Sec. 2, " This 

20 24 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 24 of 29
1 Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made 

2 in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, 

3 under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of 

4 the Land; ... ", Article VI, Sec. 3··· all executive and judicial Officers, 

5 both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by 

6 Oath or Affirmation, to "support this Constitution" ... and the 10th 

7 Amendment 

8 

9 The 10th Amendment, which is never mentioned in Marbury v 

10 Madison, states; "The powers not delegated to the United States by 

11 the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the 

12 States respectively, or to the people." 

13 In Marbury v Madison the Supreme Court, unconstitutionally, 

14 delegated to the judicial department, the power to interpret the 

15 Constitution, when it stated; "It is emphatically the province and duty 

16 of the judicial department to say what the law is, the power to look 

17 into the Constitution by the judges, the power to examine the 

18 Constitution, the power of other parts of the Constitution which serve 

19 to illustrate this subject, the unconstitutional "SECOND"( emphasis 

20 25 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 25 of 29
1 added) oath of office of, "understanding, agreeably to the 

2 Constitution" and anything else in Marbury v Madison that gives 

3 power to the United States, are all powers not delegated to the United 

4 States by the Constitution, they are powers delegated to the United 

5 States by the Supreme Court in Marbury v Madison who and which 

6 can not delegate that power. Only the United States Constitution can 

7 delegate that power! 

8 Once again! 

9 The Supreme Court in Marbury v Madison can not delegate the power 

10 to interpret the Constitution to the judicial department of the United 

11 States. Only the Constitution can delegate the power to interpret the 

12 Constitution to judicial department of the United States and it does 

13 not. 

14 

15 Marbury v Madison was wrongly decided and is thus, null and void. 

16 

17 All the above mentioned powers quoted in Marbury v Madison are 

18 powers reserved to the people, pursuant to the 10th Amendment, 

19 "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, 

20 26 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 26 of 29
1 nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States 

2 respectively, or to the people." 

3 

4 Since all state officers take an oath to, "support the Constitution," 

5 pursuant to Article VI, Sec. 3 of the United States Constitution which 

6 requires, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and 

7 the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and 

8 judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, 

9 shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to "support this Constitution;" 

10 but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any 

11 Office or public Trust under the United States," the above mentioned 

12 powers in Marbury v Madison are prohibited by the Constitution to 

13 the States, because the States have only the power to "support the 

14 Constitution." Thus are prohibited by the 10th Amendment to 

15 interpreting the Constitution, "The powers not delegated to the 

16 United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, 

17 are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 

18 

19 Thus the above mentioned powers quoted in Marbury v Madison, are 

20 27 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 27 of 29
1 reserved to, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a 

2 more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, 

3 provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and 

4 secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, who 

5 ordained and established this Constitution for the United States of 

6 America," thru jury nullification. 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

IJecw6e-t-_,2~.:2DIS' ~~q/(_ 

Kenneth W. Medenbach 

28 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 28 of 29
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on December 21, 2015, I made service ofthe following document: 

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 

By placing a copy in a first-class postage paid envelope in Crescent, OR for delivery by 

U.S. mail to the address set forth below: 

United States of America 

U.S. Attorney's Office 

310 West Sixth 

Medford, Oregon 97501 

Kenneth W. ed nbach 

135887 Main st., 0 Box 333 

Crescent, OR 97733 

Case 1:15-cr-00407-MC Document 10 Filed 12/23/15 Page 29 of 29