What if the government admitted no one was harmed — and destroyed your life anyway?

My name is James E. Franklin, II. Picture this: you've done nothing wrong. Every investor made money. No one lost a dime. The government's own attorneys stand up in a courtroom and admit — on the record — "There are no victims. Everybody made money." And then, instead of dropping the case, they impose the most severe punishment in their arsenal: a lifetime ban from your entire industry.

Now imagine that happened twice — in two separate proceedings — and neither one gave you a fair jury. In federal court, I was tried before only 9 jurors instead of the 12 guaranteed by the Constitution. My attorney objected. The judge overruled it. And then, in a separate SEC administrative proceeding, the agency imposed a lifetime industry bar with no jury at all — zero. The agency that accused me also judged me — prosecutor, judge, and jury under one roof. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in Jarkesy that this exact process violates the Seventh Amendment. That's not my opinion. That is now the law of the land. And it has been my reality for twenty-seven years.

I refused to accept it. And in 2024, the United States Supreme Court proved I was right all along. In SEC v. Jarkesy, the Court ruled that what the SEC did — denying defendants a jury trial in enforcement proceedings — violates the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution. The process they used against me was unconstitutional.

My case is now before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The legal ground beneath the SEC is crumbling. Three Supreme Court decisions support my position. And the central question of my appeal — whether the SEC can destroy someone's livelihood when it admits no one was harmed — is now before the Supreme Court itself in Sripetch v. SEC. When you finish reading this page, you'll understand why this fight matters — not just for me, but for every American who believes that no government agency should have the power to take your rights without a fair trial.

"There are no victims. Everybody made money."

— The SEC's own attorneys. At trial. On the record. In my case.

These are not my words. These are theirs. The SEC's own attorneys acknowledged — under oath — that there were no victims and all investors profited. I made no trades. I had no personal gain. Every single fact the SEC needed to justify its actions was absent. And yet they imposed a lifetime occupational bar. Not five years. Not ten. Forever.

When I appealed to the Ninth Circuit in 2025, do you know what the SEC did? They didn't argue the merits. They tried to kill the appeal on a procedural technicality — claiming I had filed late. The court examined the facts and denied the SEC's motion. Now, for the first time in 27 years, the SEC must answer for what it did. They must respond on the merits. And they're running out of places to hide.

"After what I've seen over the past year … I'm ashamed of that association. As both a former Enforcement Attorney and as a citizen, I'm angry and repulsed by what I've uncovered."

— Stephan Jan Meyers, Esq., former SEC Enforcement Attorney
Letter to SEC Director of Enforcement, March 11, 2004

18 U.S.C. §1905 — Disclosure of Confidential Information. An SEC staff attorney allegedly leaked confidential investigation details to a friend in private practice, who used the information to coerce and intimidate in unrelated litigation.

18 U.S.C. §1001 — False Statements. An SEC trial attorney allegedly made a false statement to a federal court about "ongoing law enforcement activities" — a fabrication designed to force continued assertion of Fifth Amendment rights and guarantee a default judgment through preclusion.

Violation of Court Orders and Rules of Professional Conduct. SEC attorneys allegedly circumvented a court-ordered discovery cutoff by using a deposition in a separate case to interrogate me — outside the presence of my trial counsel — on matters in the Franklin case.

Fabrication of Obstruction of Justice Charge. An SEC trial attorney allegedly manufactured a false obstruction charge using testimony that the witness himself objected was being mischaracterized.