Mike Seebeck <mike.seebeck@gmail.com>
In re: Adoption of Special Investigatory Report and Other Resolutions Adopted at June 9, 2025 Special Meeting (Roos et al. vs. LNC)
Regarding this appeal, the Judicial Committee has reached the following decisions:
| Question on Reliefs Requested | Vote | |
| A | Should the LNC adoption of the SIC report on June 9 be voided for violation of Article 3 of the Bylaws and the Statement of Principles? A YES vote is to void the adoption, a NO vote is to sustain it. | NO, 6-0 |
| B | Should the LNC adoption of the SIC report on June 9 be voided and not part of official party records? A YES vote is to void the adoption, a NO vote is to sustain it. | NO, 7-0 |
| C | Should the LNC adoption of the SIC report on June 9 be voided and remanded back to the LNC for further consideration? A YES vote is to void the adoption, a NO vote is to sustain it. | NO, 7-0 |
| D | Should the Judicial Committee void the adoption of the SIC report on June 9 even if it is procedurally valid? A YES vote is to void the adoption, a NO vote is to sustain it. | NO, 7-0 |
| E | Should the Judicial Committee void the censure motion of August 24 even if it is procedurally valid? A YES vote is to void the censure, a NO vote is to sustain it. | NO, 7-0 |
| F | Should the Judicial Committee void the funds recovery motion of August 24 even if it is procedurally valid? A YES vote is to void the funds recovery motion, a NO vote is to sustain it. | NO, 6-1 |
| G | Should the Judicial Committee declare that Party actions based on alleged material representation be null and void even if they are procedurally valid? A YES vote is to make such a declaration, a NO vote is to not make such a declaration. | NO, 7-0 |
| H | Should the Judicial Committee declare that McArdle did not violate any fiduciary duty or commit embezzlement? A YES vote is to make such a declaration, a NO vote is to not make such a declaration. | NO, 7-0 |
Opinions are posted at https://lpedia.org/wiki/In_re:_Adoption_of_Special_Investigatory_Report_and_Other_Resolutions_Adopted_at_June_9,_2025_Special_Meeting_(Roos_et_al._vs._LNC)
For the Judicial Committee,
Michael Seebeck, Chair
Correction – deprivation of property.
Jonathan, because he doesn’t understand the SoP, doesn’t see his vacuous argument WAS rejected when it mentioned deification of property. That is the whole point. If he understood the basics of the SoP he tried to lecture everyone on, he would know that. There is good reason he is increasingly unwelcome.
As I said previously, yes they rejected Jonathan McGee’s claim that the SoP did not apply to the LNC.
They rejected Jonathan’s ahistorical and acontextual ganesmanship about the SoP. Thus is what happens when one does no activism, has no root in thus party, with a mercenary membership.
They did reject Jonathan McGee’s view that the SoP did not apply to the LNC.
That’s not what McGee stated. You’re misrepresenting. Again.
The SoP applies to all members.
Corporations, political parties and nonprofits are governed by their bylaws and these bylaws are legally binding.
They are the “foundational legal documents” of said corporation, political party or nonprofit.
The LNC is governed by its bylaws, not its platform/SoP.
The platform/SoP are philosophical documents, not a legally binding document governing the LNC.
That was McGee’s point and he was/is correct.
That’s his game. He lost badly with his games. The party is telling him to get the net.
From the decisions, the JC determined that its was out of scope for the JC:
“With regard to Appellants’ first request, we find that, indeed, as an organization founded on libertarian principles, everyone, LNC and Party members alike, are bound by the basic principles of human
interaction upon which the philosophy of libertarianism is founded, such as to eschew the intentional use of force or fraud or breach of contract to violate rights or entitlements or to unjustly take possession of rightfully owned property. However, not every act that may legitimately be proscribed by the Party Platform is necessarily addressable by the LJC to overturn a decision of the LNC.
In this case, there have been accusations of “misrepresentation.” Is such conduct violative of some basic principle of human interaction upon which the philosophy of libertarianism is founded?
Depending on intent and other factors, perhaps it is and perhaps it is not. Unfortunately, due to its nature and constitution, the LJC is limited as to what matters are within its competence and capability to address. Absent clear and convincing documentary evidence evincing intentional, malicious
misrepresentation to deprive someone of their rightful property or ntitlement, the LJC is unable to conduct the type of inquiry necessary to determine whether such conduct has occurred. As the question therefore lacks justiciability, it must be resolved in the political arena.
Tarnoff, et al
>Unfortunately, due to its nature and constitution, the LJC is limited as to what matters are within its competence and capability to address.
“Unfortunately?”
No. Seebeck pointed out rather clearly:
Was the SIC report incorrect or incomplete? That is not for the JC to judge, and such judgement is invariably tied to subjective perspective regarding the factions and persons involved. The JC should not wade into that battle; it is for the Delegates to sort out. Nor is a context dispute relevant here. The questions before the JC are straightforward: Did the motions violate the Bylaws? I conclude that the adoption motion and the censure motion did not violate the Bylaws, but the motion regarding funds recovery as worded did violate the Bylaws, and any conclusions or allegations of sloppiness or inaccuracy or bias of the SIC are beyond our scope—the JC is not an investigative committee of the investigative committee.
There’s nothing unfortunate about it at all. It’s designed that way.
But it is likely to be brought up in Grand Rapids as a last-ditch effort by the MC to regain power they are rapidly losing. It will take up way too much time and energy of the convention, and it will all be a lot of MacBeth, Act V, Scene V, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Seebeck said, “Whether or not there was misrepresentation in the SIC report or its presentation to the LNC is ultimately a question to be resolved by the LNC itself by reconsideration of the question, or by the Delegates themselves. The JC’s jurisdiction under 7-12 and 8-2-d is limited to violations of procedure and Bylaws, not subjective interpretation of the contents of a commissioned report to the LNC.”
“However, the Respondents claim that per the Bylaws the LNC is not bound by the Statement of Principles. While it is technically correct that there is no explicit direct bounding of the LNC as a group in the Bylaws like there is for affiliates in 5-4, the claim is incorrect because all LNC members, being members of the Party themselves, are bound by the Statement of Principles and/or the Pledge per 4-1, 6-1, and 7-4—regardless of whether or not they are on the LNC.”
Only Latham said that that the SoP was not applicable.
So? It was irrelevant to the case, as was almost everything the petitioners argued.
The JC soundly rejected the claims of Hector Roos and J.M. Jacobs.
They did. It was a bad appeal.
Like I told JM Jacobs in another thread, there was no evidence of intentional misrepresentations or violation of SoP regarding the SIC.
The JC saw that as well.
Roos, Martin and JJ were grasping for straws trying to protect Angela McArdle.
And I am not sure why.
She was a complete failure as LNC chair and embezzled membership funds on her way out.
Hopefully, this is now over and LNC can move on.
Although, I would like them to try to go after the money she stole.
Jonathan tries to be a white knight to “damsels in distress.” I foolishly feel for it. He then did it with Goodman and McArdle. He did it with another person in the past. Lonely man. He’s skilled no doubt. It could be put to better use. Somewhere else.