By: Joel Stephen Mattson

They Never Told You the Truth—Because the Whole System Rests on Your Ignorance

If you’ve ever stepped foot into a courtroom, chances are no one explained that your participation—your silence, your compliance, even your respectful tone—was being interpreted as consent to the court’s jurisdiction. This is not a mistake. It’s not an oversight. It’s fraud by omission, and it is the linchpin of how unconstitutional administrative courts operate in broad daylight.

The legal system thrives on what it doesn’t say. The courts, officers, and prosecutors all rely on one thing: that you don’t know you have the right to withhold consent. This is not just unethical—it’s unconstitutional.

The Constitution Requires Consent — Article III vs. Article I

The United States Constitution sets up two primary types of courts: Article III courts (constitutional courts) and Article I courts (legislative or administrative courts). Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 lays it out clearly:

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution… to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States…”

These are real courts, with judges who hold office during good behavior, and who are bound to follow constitutional due process.

Now contrast that with Article I courts, which are creations of Congress used to handle things like tax disputes, bankruptcy, and military matters. These are not constitutional courts. They are administrative venues functioning under legislative authority.

Here’s the deception: you are often pulled into an Article I court without being told that you have the right to refuse consent to that jurisdiction. That silence is then used against you.

The Magistrate Act: Originally Meant to Protect You, Now Weaponized

When the Federal Magistrates Act was passed in 1968 and amended in 1979, it allowed magistrate judges to oversee pretrial matters and even full trials—but only with the consent of the parties. Originally, the Act required courts to inform both parties that they had a choice.

But that duty to inform was quietly removed. Now, unless you specifically challenge jurisdiction or refuse consent in writing, your silence is taken as agreement to be ruled by a magistrate, not a constitutional judge.

This is consent under duress—consent through deception—and it violates every principle of due process.

Fraud by Omission Is Still Fraud

The Supreme Court has made it clear: deception by omission is still fraud. In United States v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297 (5th Cir. 1977), the court held:

“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”

Courts have a legal and moral duty to inform you of your rights—including the right to withhold consent to jurisdiction. When they fail to do so, every action that follows is built on fraud.

Consent Must Be Knowing, Voluntary, and Intelligent

Another bedrock legal principle is that consent must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent to be valid. This is true in contract law, criminal law, and constitutional law.

If a court never informs you that your silence is being used to assume jurisdiction… If you were never given an option to refuse… If the system is designed to make you believe you have no choice…

Then how can that be considered valid consent? It can’t. It’s legally defective.

Legal Fictions Used to Trap You

Courts rely on legal fictions to create the illusion of authority:

• That you are a citizen subject to federal jurisdiction
• That you entered into a contract with the government
• That your presence or response implies consent

But consent cannot be implied where it was never knowingly given. The very foundation of constitutional justice is that the people delegate limited powers to government—not the other way around.

When courts presume jurisdiction and fail to disclose your right to refuse, they reverse that principle. It’s tyranny dressed up as procedure.

Case Law That Supports the Right to Challenge Jurisdiction

The right to challenge jurisdiction is fundamental. Courts have repeatedly affirmed this:

• Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974): “The existence of subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that can be raised at any time.”
• Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998): “Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.”
• M’Intosh v. Marshall, 12 Wheat. 488 (1827): “Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine a cause. If no such power exists, any judgment is void.”

If a court never had valid jurisdiction—and never obtained lawful consent—then its rulings are void ab initio. That means they are null from the beginning.

Why This Matters to Millions of People

Millions of Americans are dragged into courtrooms every year under the false assumption that the judge has lawful authority. In reality, many of these proceedings happen in administrative venues where jurisdiction was never properly established.

Once you know this, you understand why so many innocent people lose their cases: they walk in thinking they’ll get justice, but they’ve already given up the one thing that matters most—consent.

What Others Have Done to Win Their Case

• Many have filed jurisdictional challenges citing Article III and demanding proof of consent.
• Some have used notices of non-consent served in advance, placing courts on legal notice.
• Others have documented fraud by omission as grounds to vacate judgments.
• A few have even demanded trials before constitutional judges—not magistrates—based on the original intent of the Magistrate Act.

These are not magic bullets, but they are powerful tools that have succeeded when used with precision and persistence.

Conclusion: Consent Isn’t a Technicality—It’s the Core of Law

The entire legitimacy of the legal system hinges on consent. Without it, courts are nothing more than corporate tribunals pretending to have power.

You were never told this because if everyone knew the truth, the illusion of authority would collapse overnight. But once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

Never forget: silence is not consent, and fraud by omission is still fraud.

---

Next Article in the Series: How the Legal System Uses Silence Against You
Back to Consent Trap Series Overview: Consent Trap Landing Page