Vaccine Injured and Bereaved: Pay close attention to "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy."

Is there a future voice for the vaccine injured in this Supreme Court case?

I have provided a quote from this morning’s Epoch Times article, “ 3 Supreme Court Cases Could Shake Up the Administrative State,” for you to consider the possibility of its importance in vaccine injury and vaccine death cases.

I paid particular attention to "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy" in which the Epoch Times article states, “Loper Bright will have major implications for citizens fighting administrative agencies in courts, but it won’t have much of an effect if citizens can’t get their cases into courts. Agencies prosecute many of their cases before tribunals within the agencies themselves. There, agency employees called administrative law judges decide those cases in the first instance, and other judge employees hear appeals.

Jarkesy may limit the use of these in-house tribunals. The Securities and Exchange Commission suspected that George Jarkesy Jr. and his investment advisor committed fraud, and it brought an enforcement action against them before one of its judges. The defendants argued that the in-house tribunal violates their Seventh Amendment right to have a jury trial. That right applies to “suits at common law,” of which fraud is one. So, the defendants argue, the Constitution forbids the SEC from bringing their case to its in-house tribunal.

They also argued that Congress gave the agency too much discretion to choose whether to bring cases to courts or to administrative law judges. Under a seldom-enforced rule called the nondelegation doctrine, Congress can’t give an agency power without setting “intelligible” limits on how the agency can use it. Here, the defendants argued, Congress set no limits at all on the SEC’s ability to decide where to send its enforcement cases.

If the defendants win their Seventh Amendment claim, agencies will have to send more of their enforcement cases to federal court. This probably wouldn’t affect that many cases. There aren’t many suits at common law, and most agencies don’t bring them. But for those that do, a win for the defendants would partially dispel the specter of bias that haunts administrative law judges, who rule in their employers’ favor 90 percent of the time.

If, on the other hand, the defendants win their nondelegation claim, the future of agency tribunals would be in more doubt. Besides the SEC, would other agency administrative law judges be implicated? Would administrative law judges be off limits to agencies until Congress amends their statutes? If not, when could agencies use them? These are all questions that need answers.

Together with a decision in Loper Bright that limits Chevron deference, a decision in Jarkesy that limits administrative law judges would be a double blow to agencies that want to act like self-contained legislatures and courts.”

LINK: Epoch Times article: 3 supreme court cases could shake up the administrative state

In reading the above and knowing that vaccine injured and bereaved are bound to administrative decisions in their “cases” through the CICP (and later possibly the VICP) as well as the constraints laid out in my last article regarding the PREP Act, my thought is, if "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy" successfully allows such administrative cases to a court trial, could it be used in arguments for the vaccine injured to receive court trials? I'll let you know when I hear back from the experts.

In the meantime, this is a good example of a constitutional challenge where Jury trials are withheld even in the case of fraud. We must keep pushing forward and pushing our legislators and “leaders” by writing and calling. Ask questions and be more than the squeaky wheel; be a force that can not be moved by being one of many/multitudes of voices that push on our leaders to do the right thing and allow justice under the law to the vaccine-injured and bereaved.

---

The writer is not a doctor, and even though guest writers may be medical professionals, the information in this document and this publication is not a substitution for personal or individual medical care, treatment, medical advice, or diagnosis. Always contact your own medical care provider for individual care and consultation. This document does not diagnose medical conditions, treat illnesses, or prescribe medicine or drugs. Any information contained in this document, related links, or attachments is not a substitute for seeking adequate medical care, diagnosis, and/or treatment from your own medical doctor.

---

Click the link here to find your representative: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

Click the link here to find your senator: https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm