Tag: Color of Law

  • “Safety Plan” or Trap? How CPS Uses Fake Agreements to Strip Parental Rights

    By: Joel Stephen Mattson “They call it a safety plan. But it’s a weapon — and they don’t want you to know you can say no.” Child Protective Services (CPS) has mastered the art of coercion. They don’t need a warrant. They don’t need evidence. And most of the time, they don’t even go to…

  • Fraud By Omission: How Courts Violate the Constitution by Withholding Truth About Consent

    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…

  • Why Court Orders Are Often Color of Law

    By: Joel Stephen Mattson How Most Court Rulings Violate Due Process, Jurisdiction, and the Constitution 1. What Is “Color of Law” and Why Does It Matter? “Color of law” refers to actions taken by government agents under the appearance of legal authority that have no lawful basis. Many court orders, especially from administrative and lower…

  • The Organic Act of 1871 and the Corporate Government Takeover

    How Congress Quietly Converted a Constitutional Republic Into a Private Municipal Corporation 1. The Silent Coup of 1871 If the 14th Amendment was the bait, the Organic Act of 1871 was the hook. Passed quietly and without national debate, this act transformed the governing structure of Washington, D.C. into a private municipal corporation under the…

  • Pro Se Liberation: How Families Can Challenge Unlawful Incarceration Without an Attorney — And Win

    By: Joel Stephen Mattson – Constitutional Advocate & Scholar of Constitutional Law **Pro Se Liberation: How Families Can Challenge Unlawful Incarceration Without an Attorney — And Win** Every year, thousands of families are left devastated by wrongful convictions, unjust plea deals, and rigged proceedings where the truth was never allowed to surface. The common belief…

  • HOW TO USE THE MAGISTRATE ACT TO REVERSE JURISDICTION

    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…

  • HOW TO USE THE CLEARFIELD DOCTRINE TO EXPOSE GOVERNMENT FRAUD

    By: Joel Stephen Mattson There’s a doctrine most attorneys don’t talk about—and most judges hope you never find out. It’s called the Clearfield Doctrine, and it blows a hole through nearly every act taken by the government in a commercial capacity. The truth is, when government agencies act as corporations, they lose their immunity and…

  • HOW THE MAGISTRATE ACT WAS WEAPONIZED AGAINST YOU

    By: Joel Stephen Mattson Most people walk into a courtroom without realizing they’re not standing in front of a judge—they’re standing in front of a magistrate. A corporate employee. An administrative agent. And the scariest part? You probably gave them permission without even knowing it. In this article, we’ll break down how the Federal Magistrate…

  • Millions of Inmates, One Hidden Rule: Consent Makes or Breaks the Entire System

    By: Joel Stephen Mattson There’s a reason the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world—and it’s not just about crime. It’s about jurisdictional fraud, hidden consent, and a silent legal presumption that traps millions of people without them even realizing it. The foundation of nearly every conviction in America is this one…

  • You Never Consented: Why Silence Is Not a Contract in Court

    By: Joel Stephen Mattson Most people believe that by simply showing up to court, they’re complying with a lawful process. But what they don’t realize is that just stepping into the courtroom—especially an Article I court—is being interpreted as consent to that court’s jurisdiction. Not because you agreed in writing, not because you signed a…