Judge's Response To Ken Medenbach
Judge's Response To Ken Medenbach
Judge's Response To Ken Medenbach
Document 1071
Filed 08/19/16
Page 1 of 7
3:16-cr-00051-BR-16
Plaintiff,
v.
KENNETH MEDENBACH,
Defendant.
BROWN, Judge.
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte regarding the
litigation practices of pro se Defendant Kenneth Medenbach.
At
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Id.
Document 1071
Filed 08/19/16
Page 2 of 7
Medenbach:
The Court: So do you understand that if you represent
yourself, you are bound by the rulings that I make,
whether you agree with them or not?
Medenbach:
Yes.
I understand.
Id. at 19.
At that Faretta hearing Medenbach raised for the first time
a motion to dismiss this matter the basis that, among other
things, this Judicial Officer took an unconstitutional oath of
office.
Id. at 24-33.
Id.
at 33.
On April 4, 2016, Medenbach filed a Motion (#361) for
Reconsideration on the same basis.
At the conclusion
of that hearing, the Court told Medenbach that the Court was not
going to reconsider this oath issue.
You need to
The government
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
2016.
Document 1071
Filed 08/19/16
Page 3 of 7
Medenbachs Motions.
At the monthly Status Hearing on May 4, 2016, Medenbach
again raised the issue regarding the sufficiency of this Judicial
Officers oath of office.
Im not going to
Have a seat.
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Medenbach:
Document 1071
Filed 08/19/16
Page 4 of 7
Okay.
Okay.
By
Order (#932) issued July 26, 2016, the Court denied Medenbachs
Amended Motion.
The Court
further stated:
If Medenbach again makes any such argument in any form,
he will forfeit the right of self-representation
because of his failure to adhere to the Courts Orders.
If that occurs, the Court will reinstate Standby
Counsel Matthew A. Schindler as Medenbachs counsel of
record for the remainder of these proceedings.
Order (#933) at 3.
On August 10, 2016, Medenbach filed a civil lawsuit in this
District against this Judicial Officer, the United States
Attorney for the District of Oregon, and three Assistant United
States Attorneys.
4 -
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
as Plaintiffs.1
Document 1071
Filed 08/19/16
Page 5 of 7
See also United States v. Mack, 362 F.3d 597, 601 (9th Cir.
2004).
It is clear that Medenbach is unwilling to follow this
Courts orders.
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1071
Filed 08/19/16
Page 6 of 7
Medenbach,
See Faretta,
6 -
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR
Document 1071
Filed 08/19/16
Page 7 of 7
show cause in writing no later than Noon, August 23, 2016, why
the Court should not terminate his pro se status and reinstate
Matthew A. Schindler as Medenbachs counsel for all purposes in
these proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 19th day of August, 2016.
7 -