By: Joel Stephen Mattson
What if the biggest fraud in the American legal system wasn’t what courts do—but what they don’t tell you?
That’s the reality of modern courtrooms: silence, omission, and manipulation of legal presumptions. Courts are built on one thing—consent—and if they told you the truth about how jurisdiction actually works, the entire system would collapse overnight.
The Original Rule: Consent Must Be Informed
In 1974, Congress passed the Federal Magistrates Act, which made it clear: Article I courts require consent from both parties. More importantly, it originally required written notice to the parties of their right to withhold consent.
Without that consent, magistrate judges had no lawful authority to preside over your case.
Then Came the Amendment — and the Fraud Began
Over time, key changes to the statute eliminated the duty to inform. Today, 28 U.S.C. §636 no longer requires courts to disclose that you’re being heard by a magistrate judge in an administrative (not constitutional) court.
The result? Millions of people have unknowingly entered courtrooms believing:
- They were in a constitutional court
- The judge had lawful authority
- They had no right to say no
None of those things were true. But nobody told them.
This is fraud by omission. A court that conceals the need for consent is operating under false pretense and color of law.
The Legal Definition of Fraud by Omission
Fraud by omission occurs when:
- One party has a duty to disclose material information,
- Fails to do so,
- And the other party acts or suffers harm based on the belief that all material facts were disclosed.
In the context of the courts:
- The court has a duty to disclose that jurisdiction is consensual.
- The court fails to notify you.
- You participate under a false belief—and may lose your property, liberty, or rights.
That is not due process. That is fraud.
Why This Violates the Constitution
Under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, you have a right to:
- Due process
- Fair notice
- An impartial tribunal
A system that withholds material facts about its own jurisdiction violates all three.
Further, your right to not be compelled without consent is protected by the very framework of Article III, which grants exclusive original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court when a State is a party—yet countless state cases are heard in lower administrative courts without consent, and without disclosure.
(For example: You Never Consented: Why Silence Is Not a Contract in Court)
Presumed Consent Is Not Real Consent
Presumed consent is a legal fiction. It assumes:
- You know the law
- You understand the structure of the court
- You waived your rights by not objecting
But without being informed, none of that holds water. No one can waive inalienable rights unknowingly.
This Is Why the System Is Silent
If the court told you:
- You have the right to refuse a magistrate judge
- You have the right to demand an Article III court
- The court can’t proceed without your informed agreement
…most people would say NO. And the entire system of administrative justice would grind to a halt.
So instead, they say nothing—and hope you never ask.
Final Word: Omission Is a Weapon of Tyrants
Courts don’t need to lie if they can simply keep you in the dark. That’s the heart of fraud by omission.
By refusing to disclose your right to withhold consent, courts are not just violating statute—they’re shredding the Constitution in silence.
Demand disclosure.
Withdraw consent.
Challenge jurisdiction.
Because the only thing more powerful than consent is the refusal to give it.
Next Article in the Series: Millions of Inmates, One Hidden Rule: Consent Makes or Breaks the Entire System
Back to Consent Trap Series Overview: Consent Trap Landing Page