[rsclient]

From the article: yes, you do. Compare the SEC's actions to a simple traffic ticket: a police officer gives you a ticket with a pre-set fine. This is like an SEC officer giving you a fine for some infraction. You can argue it out for a bit if you like, just like you can argue a ticket with the desk Sargeant (not that people do that). Age you do that, you can take it to court.

The only difference is that the experts at the SEC that you have to go through are called "administrative judges". It's kind of like a cop being called an "officer" even though they aren't like an armed forces officer at all.

[thsksbd]

When I got my two "speeding tickets" in 25 years of driving what the officer really gave me was a summons to go to court. Or I could choose to plead guilty and pay the fine.

Both time I was always dealing with the courts. After the citation, never again do I deal with police until I have the chance to cross examine the cop in court.

Like this, any interaction with police unless the charge is serious enough that I need to be arrested until arraigned.

This entirely opposite to what happens with the EPA or SEC

[koolba]

> The only difference is that the experts at the SEC that you have to go through are called "administrative judges".

That and banning you for life from your chosen progression.

Pretty sure most people wouldn’t want a traffic cop to be able to do that on a whim with the only recourse being to beg his boss to step it back.

[rsclient]

Which, per the article, you can appeal to a real judge.

[koolba]

Yes, per the article:

> Only after an in-agency appeal can a defendant escape this regulatory Bermuda Triangle and seek redress in a federal appeals court. As evidenced by Jarkesy's case, this process costs defendants many years and untold legal fees.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

[rsclient]

All legal stuff is expensive. Source: was an expert witness, and made a nice sum.

SEC type stuff is guaranteed to be pricy because it's bound to be complicated, and require specialists.

[tptacek]

Says everybody who has ever tried to talk their way out of a traffic ticket with the strategy from the beginning of Good Will Hunting.

[YPPH]

On an error of process or because the outcome is wrong? An "appeal" can mean either of those things. If it's the former, that's a substantial limitation.

[pierat]

> Compare the SEC's actions to a simple traffic ticket:

Which is also extremely problematic. Supposedly in a real courtroom, police are no different citizen-wise, but in traffic court, they're sacred.

Traffic court is a kangaroo court, and an 'administrative loss of constitutional rights cause it would be too expensive'.

Regardless who this person is (a hedge fund manager), if the government is fining or otherwise punishing you, it absolutely should be under a jury trial.

(Of course, we then deal with what a jury of your peers are, but that's another SCOTUS challenge.)

[kevin_thibedeau]

I sustained serious injuries (deep lacerations, multiple fractures) last May when a driver on a suspended learner's permit abruptly turned in front of me when I had the right of way through an intersection. He and the cop never showed up for the trial which the traffic court prosecutor only notified me of three days days in advance.

I received the redacted body camera video a month after the trial and had the displeasure of watching the asshole cop being chummy and apologetic to the driver because he had to write a single ticket for the existing suspension. No tickets at all for the multiple traffic violations despite having talked to a witness who saw everything happen (conveniently redacted from the video). Instead the driver got the absolute bare minimum wrist slap of another suspension which I have no confidence will actually be processed consecutively.