By: Joel Stephen Mattson
Most Americans walk into court thinking they’re stepping into a legitimate judicial forum. A place where the Constitution rules, justice is blind, and their rights will be honored.
But what if I told you that nearly every court proceeding you’ve ever seen or experienced wasn’t a judicial court at all, but an administrative tribunal operating under corporate rules? What if I told you that the entire system was designed to function only when you unknowingly consent?
Welcome to the world of the Magistrate Act — the backdoor that turned Article III courts into Article I franchises, and your constitutional protections into privileges, stripped away by your silence.
The Lie: That You’re in a Judicial Court
Judicial power in the United States is defined by Article III of the Constitution:
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution…” — Article III, Section 2, Clause 1
This clause means that only Article III courts — with judges appointed for life, immune from political pressure, and bound by the Constitution — can lawfully decide real controversies involving rights, liberty, or property.
But most of the courts you’re dragged into aren’t Article III at all. They’re Article I courts — legislative, administrative courts created by statute, not the Constitution.
They are corporate courts.
Enter the Federal Magistrates Act
Passed in 1968 and “modernized” in 1979, the Federal Magistrates Act (28 U.S. Code § 636) created a class of judicial officers known as magistrate judges. They were designed to help federal courts with minor, noncontroversial duties.
Originally, the Act required the courts to inform litigants that they could withhold consent to have their case heard by a magistrate.
In 1979, Congress silently removed that requirement.
Now, if you don’t object, the system assumes you’ve consented.
Let that sink in: They removed your right to be told you had a right.
Why They Needed the Magistrate Scheme
Here’s the truth: real courts — Article III courts — are bound by due process, grand juries, trial by jury, judicial ethics, constitutional limitations, and case precedent.
That’s expensive. That’s slow. That’s fair.
So they built Article I corporate courts that function like processing centers for policy enforcement. Not justice.
- These courts enforce code, not law.
- They process transactions, not trials.
- They assume contract, not consent.
- They operate by silence, not authority.
How You’re Tricked Into Jurisdiction
When you walk into court, you’re not told:
- “This is an Article I tribunal, not an Article III court.”
- “You’re being treated as a corporate fiction.”
- “You have the right to withhold consent.”
Instead, they say:
- “Please step forward.”
- “Do you understand the charges?”
- “Do you waive your right to counsel?”
And the moment you answer? They presume you consented to the tribunal.
This is not lawful jurisdiction — it’s a fraudulent presumption.
“Consent is not valid if obtained by deceit, coercion, or omission of essential facts.”
How to Spot an Article I Court
Here are red flags:
- The judge is called a “Magistrate.”
- The courtroom seal reads “STATE OF…” in all caps.
- You were charged via Information, not Grand Jury.
- There’s no jury present — or you’re told you must “qualify” for one.
- The judge issues rulings based on rules of procedure, not law.
If you see this, you’re not in a court — you’re in a policy enforcement center, and your rights are hanging by a thread.
They Converted You Into a Corporate Entity
The moment they refer to you as the NAME IN ALL CAPS, they’re not talking to the living man or woman. They’re addressing a legal fiction — a corporate shell created when your birth certificate was securitized.
Under this deception, you are presumed to be:
- A subject of their rules
- A party to their contract
- A debtor under their commercial law
Unless you rebut this presumption on the record, the machine proceeds.
“He who fails to assert his rights has none.”
Why This Is a Violation of Due Process
Due process under the Constitution requires:
- Notice
- Opportunity to be heard
- A neutral tribunal
But in these courts:
- Notice is falsified (they use codes, not actual law)
- Opportunity is denied (you’re told what you can’t say)
- The tribunal is biased (a corporate entity protecting revenue streams)
“No man can be judge in his own case.” — Common law maxim
If the court has a financial interest in your conviction, it has no jurisdiction.
Tactical Remedies: What You Can Do
- Challenge Jurisdiction Immediately. “I challenge the jurisdiction of this court and require proof that this is an Article III court under the Constitution.”
- File an Affidavit of Status. Declare that you are a living man or woman, not a corporate fiction, and do not consent to administrative proceedings.
- Demand Proof of Contract. If they claim jurisdiction, demand the contract that binds you.
- Use Constitutional Authority. Cite Article III, Section 2 and Article VI — the Constitution is supreme.
- Refuse to Contract Silently. Under UCC 1-308, you must reserve all rights in writing and by oral objection.
Why They’ll Panic When You Do This
The moment you force the court to admit it’s not an Article III court, its authority evaporates.
They may:
- Threaten you
- Try to intimidate you
- Attempt to railroad you anyway
But everything that follows your jurisdictional challenge becomes void if they cannot prove authority.
“When jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven.” — Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F.2d 906 (10th Cir. 1974)
“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak.” — U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297 (5th Cir. 1977)
Final Thought: You Were Tricked Into Contracting With a Fiction
The Magistrate Act didn’t empower you — it empowered them to skip your rights by getting your silent consent.
They turned justice into a business. They turned law into policy. They turned you into a customer.
But the Constitution never left. And the only thing that activates it is a living man who speaks up and demands the truth:
“Where is your jurisdiction?” “Where is the Article III authority?” “Where is the injured party?”
They have no answer.
And when they have no answer — you win.
Next Article in the Series: [The Grand Jury Trap: Why Prosecution by Information Is Fraud]
Back to Consent Trap Series Overview: [Consent Trap Landing Page]