By: Joel Stephen Mattson
You probably assumed that any judge in a black robe, sitting behind a bench, is a constitutional authority. You thought the courtroom itself was a place where your rights were supreme. But in over 80% of cases, you’re not in a constitutional court at all. You’re in what’s called an Article I court—a legislative tribunal operating under administrative rules, not constitutional law.
And they don’t tell you that.
Article III vs. Article I – What’s the Difference?
Article III courts are the only courts authorized under the Constitution to carry out the full judicial power of the United States. Judges in these courts:
- Are appointed for life
- Can only be removed by impeachment
- Are independent from Congress
- Must uphold constitutional protections in every case
In contrast, Article I courts are created by Congress to handle administrative functions. These include:
- Tax Court
- Bankruptcy Court
- Immigration Court
- Magistrate Courts
Article I judges:
- Serve term limits, not for life
- Are often not confirmed by the Senate
- Are subordinate to Congress
- Follow rules of procedure, not constitutional mandate
So when you walk into a courtroom and find out it’s an Article I tribunal, you’re standing in a corporate venue, not a constitutional one.
Why It Matters: Jurisdiction by Consent Only
Here’s the critical truth: Article I courts have no jurisdiction over you unless you consent. They were designed for efficiency—not justice. Their power only exists because you walk in, speak, and participate. That’s presumed to mean you’ve agreed to their authority.
But how can you agree to something you don’t even know is happening?
It’s like showing up to a Monopoly game, and everyone else knows the rules except you—and the punishment is prison.
Where Does This Authority Come From?
Congress created these courts to manage its own legislative responsibilities. The idea was to relieve the burden on Article III courts. But over time, these administrative bodies began hearing full criminal, civil, and constitutional matters. That’s where the fraud crept in.
Because Congress can’t create courts that override the Constitution—but it did. And it only works if you let them.
The Role of Magistrates — Wolves in Judge’s Robes
Federal magistrates are not constitutional judges. They are judicial assistants empowered to conduct trials and hearings only with your consent. That’s baked into the original Magistrate Act of 1974. If you do not consent, they can’t proceed. Period.
(See: The Magistrate Act: How You Were Tricked Into Corporate Court)
But over time, consent became a presumed default. The courts stopped informing you. They just kept going.
And if you don’t object? You’re deemed to have agreed.
Why Most People Never Know the Difference
- The courtroom looks the same
- The judge sounds the same
- The prosecution acts the same
- But the rules are entirely different
What’s being administered is not law—it’s policy. Internal procedures, codes, and commercial rules are applied in place of your constitutional protections.
And unless you challenge the jurisdiction, it goes on unnoticed.
The Hidden Danger: You Think It’s Fair. It’s Not.
Because these courts aren’t bound by Article III, you’re not guaranteed:
- An impartial judge
- Protection from legislative overreach
- Proper adjudication of constitutional violations
You’re in a legal echo chamber. They make the rules, enforce the rules, and profit from the outcome.
How Joel Stephen Mattson Fought Back
In Joel’s case, the judge never disclosed that the court was Article I. But when he filed paperwork objecting to the tribunal’s jurisdiction and demanded Article III authority, the courtroom ground to a halt.
Joel’s refusal to consent—backed by constitutional argument and video evidence—forced the court to expose its own fraudulent posture. That action became part of a larger strategy to undermine the system from the inside out.
What Others Have Done to Win Their Case
- Demanded proof of jurisdiction in writing
- Filed notices refusing consent under penalty of perjury
- Recorded proceedings to hold the court accountable
- Requested transfer to an Article III court under due process grounds
Final Word: If It’s Not Article III, It’s Not Justice
The Constitution doesn’t say you “might” get a real court. It says you’re guaranteed one. If you’re in front of a court created by Congress that doesn’t follow the Constitution—you don’t owe them your time, energy, or freedom.
Withdraw your consent.
Because once you do, they lose everything.
Next Article in the Series: You Never Consented: Why Silence Is Not a Contract in Court
Back to Consent Trap Series Overview: Consent Trap Landing Page