Last updated on August 30, 2025
The dismissal has now been granted.
You can read the very short document at
https://thirdpartywatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Dismissal.pdf
This is a request by Jacobs and the LNC to end without a hearing Jonathan Jacobs’ appeal of certain LNC actions at their June meeting, on the grounds that issue no longer exists.
Hector Roos has written the Judicial Committee on this topic. He writes:
Dear Judicial Committee Members:
A member of the JC has reached out to Mr. Jacobs who candidly shared with us their concern that the JC may not dismiss this appeal despite the joint request because doing so may not be in the best interest of the rights of members who signed onto the appeal.
It seems the issues of this appeal are also considered moot to some JC members since Mr. Seebeck wrote to us that “In light of the developments of the LNC meeting last night, Sunday August 24, the decisions appealed appear to be moot. Do you wish to withdraw your appeal?”
This week, we will be filing a second appeal on this matter based on the violations to the Statement of Principles which we decided to divide from the alleged notice violations. You may wish to wait to consider the dismissal request until after the second appeal is received to make a determination including hearing the two appeals together.
However, the JC may consider matters related to but not explicitly addressed to be considered for appeal. For example, I wrote in my amicus to this appeal that there is ambiguity on whether the motion to adopt the SIC report was properly noticed under Policy Manual Rule 1.02 (in that neither the purport at the previous session or the 5-day notice requirement were met). The JC can expand on their appellate review to every LNC action taken at the June 9th meeting to determine whether notice requirements were followed. As a result, the JC could consider to void the motion to adopt and any subsequent motions which depend on the adoption of the SIC report such as those passed on Sunday.
I also believe the LNC should also write the JC as to why they believe mootness is enough to dismiss the current appeal. The LNC taking actions that increase the scope of the controversy under appeal would seem to contradict the joint request for dismissal. After all, the LNC admitted to the notice violations mentioned in this appeal, voided the SIC resolutions of June 9th and adopted new resolutions on Sunday that have different language than the ones adopted on June 9th.
Thank you for your service to party members.
Yours in Liberty,
Hector C Roos
The Roos appeal will deal with different grounds, i.e. the substance of SIC. I also agree that there are problems with the substance of the report. I will almost certainly be filing, as an amicus, in support of that.
I do disagree, however, with any claim for improper notice with the SIC itself. I believe it received proper notice, as opposed to the resolutions.
I doubt they have heard the last of his procedural attempts to have the embezzler escape accountability. I would hope not, but past experiences teach me otherwise. He lives for this attention. There is no doubt he is beyond skilled. But also an agent of chaos in the Party.
For someone who benefited from the JC overturning their removal on hyper technical grounds (secured by the efforts of Dr. Phillies and Nick Sarwark), I believe you should rethink what you’re saying here.