By: Joel Stephen Mattson
The Constitution guarantees you a real judge—one with life tenure, lawful authority, and the power to hear a case under the Constitution itself, not corporate policy. But most people never see one.
Why? Because courts have replaced real judges with administrative officers, magistrates, and state-licensed actors who operate under Article I or Article IV—not Article III. And if you don’t object, they pretend the substitution is valid.
But it’s not. And this article shows you how to call it out and force the system to comply with the law it claims to follow.
What makes an Article III judge different
Article III of the U.S. Constitution defines the judicial power. It requires:
- Judges who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate
- Lifetime tenure, unless impeached
- Protection from salary reductions
- Jurisdiction limited to cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States
These judges are the only ones constitutionally empowered to hear real legal controversies. Everyone else—magistrates, administrative judges, traffic court referees—is operating under legislative or executive authority.
How courts trick you into accepting substitutes
If you walk into court and don’t object, the system assumes you consented to:
- A magistrate or administrative judge
- Summary hearings with no due process
- Rules of procedure that override constitutional rights
- Limited jurisdiction under state policy, not federal law
They never tell you the judge isn’t Article III. They let you assume everything’s legitimate—unless you demand proof.
Supreme Court and constitutional rulings that support your right
- Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982): Article III courts are required for cases involving constitutional and federal claims.
- Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962): Congress cannot assign Article III jurisdiction to legislative courts.
- Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858 (1989): Consent must be affirmative and informed.
- Article III, Section 1: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
If they can’t prove your judge is Article III, you have the right—and the duty—to challenge it.
How to file and serve your Article III demand
To shut down fake jurisdiction and force compliance:
- File a written objection titled: “Demand for Article III Judge and Constitutional Court”
- Declare that no consent has been given to substitute authority
- Request proof that the presiding judge meets Article III criteria
- Demand confirmation of oath of office and commission
- Assert that any further action without an Article III judge violates due process
- Reference the constitutional and Supreme Court authorities above
- Reserve all rights and demand dismissal if the judge lacks proper authority
If they fail to respond or continue anyway, they’ve just violated your constitutional rights on the record.
How Joel Stephen Mattson used this strategy
In my federal lawsuit, I invoked Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, which mandates that where a state is a party, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. That alone forced the issue: they could not assign me to a lower court without consent.
In my response to Callahan County’s lawsuit, I challenged jurisdiction from the start. I denied consent, demanded constitutional authority, and required all claims be proven under Article III standards.
They didn’t respond. Because they couldn’t. No real judge. No valid jurisdiction. No case.
What others have done to win with Article III challenges
Pro se litigants across the country have:
- Challenged state and municipal courts as lacking constitutional authority
- Demanded real judges and had magistrates removed
- Forced courts to admit limited jurisdiction under legislative authority
- Sued judges and court officers for fraud under color of law
- Had cases dismissed when proof of Article III jurisdiction was not provided
They didn’t beg. They demanded compliance with the Constitution—in writing, served, and recorded.
How to apply this in your own case
- Identify the type of judge presiding over your case
- Research whether they meet Article III qualifications
- File a written demand for an Article III judge and constitutional forum
- Object to all presumed authority or implied consent
- Challenge jurisdiction as void if authority is not proven
- Retain all filings and responses as evidence
This doesn’t just protect your rights. It exposes the fraud that most people never even see.
Related Articles
These resources pair directly with this strategy:
- How to Use the Magistrate Act to Reverse Jurisdiction
- The Courtroom Consent Game: How Silence Becomes Your Enemy
- How to Shut Down Jurisdiction with a Single Filing
- Why the Constitution Still Protects You Even if the Courts Ignore It
Final thoughts
If the judge isn’t Article III, the court isn’t real. And if they can’t prove authority, you don’t owe them obedience.
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 Challenge the Court’s Assumed Authority with One Affidavit
Back to Consent Trap Series Overview: Consent Trap Landing Page