"We the People," are the rightful interpreters of Constitution.

Kenneth Medenbach, 62, is a carpenter from Crescent and the first of those associated with the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation by the Citizens For Constitutional Freedom milita to be arrested.

^[0]

Officers took him into custody Friday, Jan. 15, 2016, and accused him of stealing a pickup from the refuge.

^[0]

Court records show Medenbach has faced federal charges in connection with occupying public land three times before.

The judge in one earlier case denied Medenbach's release while charges were pending because he had threatened armed resistance.

^[0]

Medenbach has been repeatedly charged with driving without a valid license, giving false information to law enforcement officers and failing to appear at court hearings, and he refused to pay fines associated with zoning violations at a Klamath County property adjacent to his first occupation, in 1995, where he dug out an underground bunker.

Medenbach's convictions include felony driving with a suspended license.

^[0]

My name is Kenneth Medenbach.

I'm one of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupiers.

I've been out of jail since July 15, 2016.

I came across an article dated May 4, 2016, *Oregon Refuge Occupiers Balk at Trial Date.

Karina Brown quoted me as saying, "* Medenbach said the Constitution prevents a federal judge from taking a second oath of office."

She is the only reporter who caught exactly what I said.

This is soo important.

In 1789 congress imposed a second oath of office on federal judges.

That oath was employed and defined in Marbury v Madison in 1803, on the last page.

It states; "*The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject.

It is in these words: "I do solemnly swear 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 all the duties incumbent on me as _____, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States."

The court goes on to say, "Why does a Judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government?

If it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery.

To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime."* The way I read this is, if this oath is prescribed by congress and a judge takes this oath, a judge has to interpret the Constitution, or it will be a crime.

But remember, there is no second oath in the Constitution.

The 10th Amendment states; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

There is nothing in the Constitution delegating to the United States the power to take a second oath of office, let alone an oath that will make it a crime if a judge doesn't interpret the Constitution Pursuant to Article VI, Sec. 3 of the Constitution states; "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." This is the only oath that is allowed and required by the Constitution for a federal judge to take.

At present there are five different oaths a federal judge can take, two combination oaths, two statutory oaths and one constitutional oath.

I had to keep bringing up the different oaths so my objections could be noted for the record in the district court so they would be preserved for appellate court.

Judge Brown, who is trying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupiers, knows this, but just wanted me to stop for that reason.

When I first mentioned this second oath in the1789 Judiciary Act, nobody had ever heard of it.

Judge Brown didn't know until I showed her her oath and she took this oath in 1999.

Marbury v Madison has never been challenged from this angle.

FYI.

It's great to see a reporter who is on top of things.

Thanks Karina