By: Joel Stephen Mattson
Most Americans have no idea that the courtroom they walk into isn’t a constitutional court at all. It’s an administrative tribunal—a private corporate court operating under Article I, not Article III of the Constitution. And the most insidious part? These courts require consent from both parties to proceed. That means if you never consented, they have no jurisdiction.
But here’s the catch: they never told you.
The Original 1974 Magistrate Act — What It Required
When Congress passed the Federal Magistrates Act of 1974, it had a key provision: the court clerk was required to inform both parties that the magistrate was not a judge under Article III, and that both parties had the right to withhold consent. If either party objected, the case could not be heard by a magistrate. It had to go before a constitutional judge.
This was in line with the core principle that administrative courts have no authority unless both parties agree to be governed by their rules. That’s the very definition of consent.
(See related article: What Is an Article I Court? And Why You’re Being Tried in One Without Knowing)
Then They Changed It — Silently
Later amendments removed the requirement that parties be informed. Instead, they slid in a legal presumption: because all law is public, the burden was now on you to know the court wasn’t a constitutional court. They invoked the phrase that’s destroyed millions of lives:
“Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
They claimed your silence meant consent. But consent under deception isn’t consent at all—it’s fraud. And fraud vitiates everything it touches.
Why This Matters: The Trap of Article I Courts
Over 80% of all federal cases are heard by magistrates. That’s millions of people appearing before judges with no Article III authority—no lifetime appointment, no constitutional power, and no jurisdiction unless you give it to them.
And once you’re inside, you’re bound by corporate policy—not constitutional law. Statutes, codes, regulations, and internal rules take precedence. The Constitution becomes irrelevant.
You’ve just walked into a private administrative hearing run by a government subcontractor—and didn’t even know it.
(Explore the fraud further in: Fraud By Omission: How Courts Violate the Constitution by Withholding Truth About Consent)
What Happens When You Don’t Know the Rules?
You don’t know you’re allowed to refuse.
You don’t know that the court has no jurisdiction until you consent.
You don’t know that you can withdraw consent at any time.
And most people learn this after they’ve lost their case, their property, or their freedom.
(Check out: You Never Consented: Why Silence Is Not a Contract in Court)
Why You Can’t Waive Inalienable Rights
Even if you did unknowingly consent, there’s a constitutional firewall: you cannot waive inalienable rights—not knowingly, and certainly not unknowingly. Any court that proceeds without fully informed, voluntary consent is violating your Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process.
This is more than a procedural error. It’s a structural fraud baked into the system.
How Joel Stephen Mattson Fought His Personal Case of Police Misconduct
When Joel discovered he had been hauled into court without ever consenting to its jurisdiction, he didn’t just fight back—he exposed the system. By refusing to grant consent to an Article I tribunal, Joel forced the issue into the open and demanded either dismissal or transfer to a constitutional court.
That refusal—backed by bold filings and evidence of fraud—rattled the courtroom and exposed the fundamental flaw in the court’s jurisdictional claim. His case is now part of a growing wave of resistance against administrative court deception.
(See also: First Amendment Violations and How to Fight Back)
What Others Have Done to Win Their Case
- Withdrew Consent in Writing – Filing an affidavit that explicitly states, “I do not consent to be heard by a magistrate and reserve all constitutional rights” has stopped cases in their tracks.
- Filed Motions to Transfer to Article III Court – Several Pro Se litigants have won this motion simply by invoking their right to a constitutional tribunal.
- Used the Record Against the Court – Demanding proof of jurisdiction and placing the burden on the court to prove authority has caused dismissals.
Final Thought: Knowledge Is Consent’s Worst Enemy
If every person walking into court knew this one fact—that they don’t have to be there unless they consent—the system would collapse overnight. That’s why they hid it.
But the law is still on your side. You can revoke consent, demand jurisdiction, and restore your rights.
And this is just the beginning. Stay tuned for the rest of the series.
Next Article in the Series: What Is an Article I Court? And Why You’re Being Tried in One Without Knowing
Back to Consent Trap Series Overview Consent Trap Landing Page