“…A defendant facing a fraud suit has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers before a neutral adjudicator. Rather than recognize that right, the dissent would permit Con- gress to concentrate the roles of prosecutor, judge, and jury in the hands of the Executive Branch.
That is the very op- posite of the separation of powers that the Constitution de- mands. Jarkesy and Patriot28 are entitled to a jury trial in an Article III court. We do not reach the remaining consti- tutional issues and affirm the ruling of the Fifth Circuit on the Seventh Amendment ground alone.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion…”
It is so ordered.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. JARKESY ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 22–859. Argued November 29, 2023—Decided June 27, 2024
In the aftermath of the Wall Street Crash of 1929, Congress passed a suite of laws designed to combat securities fraud and increase market transparency. Three such statutes are relevant:
The Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. These Acts respectively govern the registration of securities, the trading of securities, and the activities of investment advisors. Although each regulates different aspects of the securities markets, their pertinent provisions—collectively referred to by regulators as “the antifraud provisions,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 73a, 202a— target the same basic behavior: misrepresenting or concealing material facts.
“To enforce these Acts, Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC may bring an enforcement action in one of two forums. It can file suit in federal court, or it can adjudicate the matter itself.
The forum the SEC selects dictates certain aspects of the litigation. In federal court, a jury finds the facts, an Article III judge presides, and the Federal Rules of Evidence and the ordinary rules of discovery govern the litigation. However, when the SEC adjudicates the matter in-house, there are no juries.
The Commission presides while its Division of Enforcement prosecutes the case. The Commission or its delegate—typically an Administrative Law Judge—also finds facts and resolves discovery disputes, and the SEC’s Rules of Practice govern.
One remedy for securities violations is civil penalties. Originally, the SEC could only obtain civil penalties from unregistered investment advisers in federal court. Then, in 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The Act authorized the SEC to impose such penalties through its in-house proceedings.
Shortly after the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC they initiated an enforcement action for civil penalties against investment adviser George Jarkesy, Jr., and his firm, Patriot28, LLC, for alleged violations of the “antifraud provisions” contained in the federal securities laws.
The SEC opted to adjudicate the matter in-house. As relevant, the final order determined that Jarkesy and Patriot28 had committed securities violations and levied a civil penalty of $300,000. Jarkesy and Patriot28 petitioned for judicial review. The Fifth Circuit vacated the order on the ground that adjudicating the matter in-house violated the defendants’ Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. When the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securi- ties fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial. Pp. 6–27.
(a) The question presented by this case—whether the Seventh Amendment entitles a defendant to a jury trial when the SEC seeks civil penalties for securities fraud—is straightforward.
Following the analysis set forth in Granfinanciera, S. A. v. Nordberg, 492 U. S. 33, and Tull v. United States, 481 U. S. 412, this action implicates the Seventh Amendment because the SEC’s antifraud provisions replicate common law fraud.
The “public rights” exception to Article III jurisdiction does not apply because the present action does not fall within any of the distinctive areas involving governmental pierogi- times when the Court has concluded that a matter may be resolved outside of an Article III court without a jury.”
ATTORNEY JOHN FLANNERY REPRESENTING REBECCA SNYDER, et. al VS. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, et. al. BOGUS JUDICIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS AND SYSTEMS
The Court System of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), which has slipped through both Judicial review and Congressional oversite, operates outside the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedures and is in contempt and violation of those protections of the Constitution of The United States of America needs serious Judicial/ Congressional Review
As officers of the Court, their mission is not to seek out the truth but to promote injustice by eliminating the truth and supporting bias; disguising their racism with the use of enablers (filter negroes).
The DEA has thus gained the powers over the entire field of medicine(healthcare science) to redefine medical procedures and medical science.
These Bogus Judges in DEA’s Bogus Courts make their own rules which permitted DEA Agents, and diversion investigators act as rogues to which no federal or constitutional protection they are bound to respect or abide.. in Associate Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch wrote …“
“So what is this court is it supposedly a Civil Court or Criminal Court but doesn’t function under Federal civil rules and procedure? It further operates as a Federal Criminal without six amendment constitutional protections.
This belongs to Congressional,
THE FAILURE OF CONGRESSIONAL FOOT DRAGGING AND OVERSIGHT
The DEA enforces two sets of laws. They enforce federal laws and DEA laws. Under federal laws, there are constitutional laws and guidelines.
What is so unique about the DEA courts are criminal search warrants are signed by DEA Judges. Thus when the properties are seized, the hearing is an administrative hearing.
What further makes this so confusing is that there is no clear distinction between the enforcement of criminal laws and DEA laws and all DEA cases in these courts proceeding are solely based on the “numbers of Pills” received and filled.
1. Diversion Investigation often interviews no patients or prescribing practitioners and violates patients’ right to seek care by tracking their travel to seek medical using google maps.
2. These Courts never address the disease states of the Patient receiving the narcotic analgesic medications. This important information and facts are excluded from Court Testimony.
3. The DEA created a law called Pharmacist corresponding responsibility “under the Controlled Substances which compels the Pharmacist to practice medicine by withholding medical treatment from a patient based on MME unscientific guidelines, without reviewing radiographs, physicians progress notes or conducting a physical examination of the patient.
4. The DEA has set arbitrary prescription limits on the amounts of medications Black Owned, Hispanic, and Asian Pharmacies are permitted to fill and the distance their patients can travel. While large predominately white owned pharmacies are allowed to fill narcotic medications into millions of tablets, capsules, and liquids without being questioned by DEA Diversion.
The DEA System is blatantly biased and unfair. Sickle Cell patients are often times profiled as addicts and have been accused, harassed, charged, and prosecuted for being involved with the diversion of prescribed narcotics necessary for treating their painful condition. While patients, suffering intractable chronic pain are profiled by DEA for specific control medication prescriptions and their treating physicians are labeled drug dealers in white coats or ” pill mill doctors” particularly medical providers of color. Racism and assets plays and essential component in their enforcement policies of the DEA and Federal Law Enforcement.
Moreover, AI-based over-policing of Black and Brown neighborhoods has fueled the expansion of the private prison industry, where legal professionals profit from prolonged incarceration. AI models using Bayesian probability and reinforcement learning have been used to determine sentencing risk, often recommending harsher sentences for marginalized individuals based on biased historical data.
5. The resulting criminal records hinder employment opportunities, further entrenching economic inequality and ensuring a steady supply of individuals for the legal system to process.
FOR NOW, YOU ARE WITHIN
THE NORMS
