By: Joel Stephen Mattson

They never told you that magistrates only have power with your consent. They didn’t tell you that the entire magistrate court process is administrative, not constitutional. And they definitely didn’t tell you that the original Magistrate Act of 1974 required the court to inform you of your right to withhold that consent.

That’s because if they told you the truth, their game would collapse. The entire system of administrative railroading, plea deals, and code enforcement would stop cold. But here’s the part they fear:

You can still reverse their jurisdiction—even after it starts—by invoking the very Act they’ve tried to erase.

What is the Magistrate Act, and why does it matter?

The Federal Magistrates Act (28 U.S.C. § 636) was passed in 1968 and expanded in 1976. It allows magistrates to perform limited duties—but only with the consent of the parties.

Originally, the law required the court to inform you that:

• You are not obligated to accept a magistrate
• You may demand a constitutional Article III judge
• Any waiver of that right must be knowing, voluntary, and on the record

Later amendments quietly removed that duty. They stopped telling people. But the core principle remained: magistrate jurisdiction requires consent.

Why magistrate courts are administrative by design

Magistrate courts operate under Article I of the Constitution—not Article III. That means:

• They are not true courts of record
• They are administrative bodies functioning under corporate policy
• Their authority is limited and conditional
• Their rulings can be challenged as void if consent is missing

That makes your first line of defense simple: deny consent. If they already proceeded without asking you, you can still file a motion challenging the entire proceeding.

Supreme Court and federal rulings confirm your right to object

• Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858 (1989): A defendant must affirmatively consent to trial by magistrate.
• Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923 (1991): Consent must be explicit, not implied.
• Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833 (1986): Parties may waive Article III rights—but only knowingly.
• United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980): Magistrates may assist, but constitutional trial rights remain intact.

They know this. But if you don’t bring it up, they pretend it doesn’t exist. Once you do, they can’t proceed without showing proof of your consent—or they’re operating outside the law.

How to reverse jurisdiction using the Magistrate Act

You can still reclaim authority and undo their assumptions by:

1. Filing a motion titled “Notice of Non-Consent to Magistrate Jurisdiction”
2. Stating that you were never informed of your right to withhold consent
3. Demanding immediate removal to an Article III court of record
4. Citing the above Supreme Court cases and 28 U.S.C. § 636
5. Declaring that any rulings made without consent are void ab initio
6. Demanding proof of a signed waiver or agreement
7. Asserting violation of your due process rights

This filing doesn’t just object—it becomes part of the record, undoing every ruling made without your permission.

How Joel Stephen Mattson used this to expose jurisdiction fraud

In my own case, I didn’t walk blindly into a magistrate’s playground. I challenged jurisdiction from the jump. I demanded constitutional authority. I refused implied consent. And I documented every failure to disclose rights or produce authority.

That alone forced them into silence—and once I filed the lawsuit, they had no defense. Every move they made without consent became a federal violation, now backed by documented evidence.

What others have done to win using the Magistrate Act

Others have:

• Had charges dropped when magistrate jurisdiction was challenged
• Reversed prior rulings by showing lack of consent
• Sued judges and magistrates for due process violations
• Filed judicial complaints for failure to disclose Article III rights
• Demanded proper courts of record and forced administrative courts to stand down

You don’t need their permission to assert your rights. You only need to file and serve the truth.

How to apply this in your own case

1. Find out if your judge is a magistrate or administrative hearing officer
2. File a sworn objection to magistrate jurisdiction
3. Demand proof of a knowing waiver
4. Reassert your right to an Article III court
5. Object to all proceedings based on silence or assumption
6. Preserve all filings and create your record for federal court

Once the court sees you’re not playing their game, they either back off or break the law on record—and either way, you win.

Related Articles

Pair this strategy with these power tools:

• The Courtroom Consent Game: How Silence Becomes Your Enemy
• How to Force the Court to Prove Jurisdiction with One Filing
• How to Challenge Every Court Presumption in One Motion
• Why the Constitution Still Protects You Even if the Courts Ignore It

Final thoughts

They assumed you’d never read the law. They assumed you’d never object. They assumed you’d bow to a magistrate and accept their process.

But now you know the truth: they have no power without your consent.

Because the truth is: they’re only winning because you don’t fight back on paper.

Make the record yours.

And let their own filings take them down.

Next Article in the Series: How to Demand a Real Article III Judge and Force the System to Comply
Back to Consent Trap Series Overview: Consent Trap Landing Page