Georgia Party Condemns LNC, Seeks Removal of Flood from LNC

As found in Liberty for America October 2011, we are told this resolution was read into the the August LNC minutes, a unanimous resolution:

WHEREAS, the actions by the LNC appear to have exceeded its authority and is in gross violation of the guaranteed autonomy of a state party as stated in Article 6, Section 5 of the National Party Bylaws and Convention Rules adopted in convention in May 2010 in St. Louis, Missouri (National Convention);
WHEREAS, the LPGA ExCom finds the LNC has established a dangerous precedent by interfering in the actions of a state party; and,
WHEREAS, Mr. Stewart Flood did previously refuse to read into the LNC records the LPGA motion dated December 1, 2008 regarding LPGA disapproval of the LNC activities regarding Angela Keaton; and,
WHEREAS, Mr. Stewart Flood did previously refuse the re-quest of the LPGA to vote for the Libertarian Party’s National Convention for 2012 to be held with a Region 1 affiliate’s state; and,
WHEREAS, The delegates to the last National Convention from the Libertarian Party of Georgia, Inc. (LPGA) voluntarily joined Region 1 and elected Mr. Flood to represent the interests of this state party and the other the states which comprise Region 1; and,
WHEREAS, in light of these facts, Mr. Flood can no longer claim to represent the best interests of the LPGA.
Section 1. The Chairman is hereby authorized to vote for the removal of Mr. Stewart Flood from the office of Representative for Region 1 to the LNC.
Section 2. The Chairman is hereby further authorized to speak with the State Chairs of Region 1 in order to encourage them to vote to remove Mr. Stewart Flood from the office of Representative for Region 1 to the LNC.
Section 3. The LPGA ExCom encourages the Chairman to vote for a replacement that he believes will best serve the interests of the LPGA.
Section 4. The LPGA ExCom directs its remaining representatives to read this resolution into the record and provide a copy to LNC Secretary Alicia Mattson for inclusion in the minutes of the next LNC meeting.

Wherefore, this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon passage and shall continue to be in force until the close of Libertarian Party of Georgia’s annual convention on February 25, 2012, and no longer.


For history into the complicated situation in Oregon, the reader can do an IPR search on Oregon LP, and read the articles by date starting in February, 2011, or go to  this article.

The linked article lists other links.

35 thoughts on “Georgia Party Condemns LNC, Seeks Removal of Flood from LNC

  1. Here's a radical idea

    Georgia LP is a joke. Don’t they have better things to do, like get candidates elected.

  2. Doug Craig

    Georgia is one of the top state LPs in the country. First state to have a million votes in a single race. We always have the some of the top candidates for Gov. and US Senate. We just want national to leave us alone.

  3. CommonTater

    Georgia does have a relatively active State LP (compared with many others) but this resolution is, my guess, going nowhere.

  4. George Phillies

    @5 Indiana certainly has excellent fundraising, though as a consequence their operations have become more expensive. They also exploit well their state’s baroque ballot access laws.

    To hear officer reports for the year from my state, go to youtube and search for libpartyMA Libertarian Association of Massachusetts 2011 state convention. By the way, that is our state convention from last week, and the video of the convention including a Presidential debate is already up and available.

  5. Steven Wilson

    At least Georgia LP will be remembered for standing up against Force, unlike every other state party which does nothing. Until is happens to them.

  6. CommonTater

    So….a motion to remove a member of the LNC, which is unlikely to succeed, is in your opinion the most important action being undertaken by any state LP? Are you serious?

  7. Questions Man

    GP @12 (and anyone else):

    What are the other two (or three?) states that have passed these resolutions?

    What are the ones that haven’t?

    Which of those do you believe are likely to do so?

  8. Steven Wilson

    If you are not willing to fight exploitation of a state party by the LNC then you really are in the wrong place.

    The outcomes doesn’t measure the merit of the means. The LNC is just bullying state parties that don’t conform.

    Or maybe, If the LNC is Libertarian for moving people around at their own desire and controlling bank accounts of county affiliates with no hint of law, then maybe I am in the wrong place.

    There was a time when being Libertarian was about the human and not the machine.

  9. GA too big for their britches

    There are 10 states in the region, making Georgia 1/10 of the region. Georgia is over-represented in the region, with one rep and one alternate. So they are 1/10 of the region, but they have 1/3 of the representation.

    Actually I seem to recall being told that California functions independently in the region. So if you take California out of it, the math becomes that Georgia is 1/9 of the region but has 1/2 of the representatives.

    But that’s apparently not enough for them. They want 100% of the region reps have to listen to only Georgia.

    Their resolution complains that Flood supposedly was elected to represent GA, but he isn’t doing that.


    Apparently Georgia thinks they get to boss around ALL the region reps, and no one is supposed to represent South Carolina, or Alabama, or Louisiana, etc.

    Perhaps the small states in the region should tell Georgia to take a flying leap if they think the small states shouldn’t be represented.

  10. Maybe they mean

    About other states, maybe they’re talking about Texas, where a Wrights for President staffer lied to the TX board telling them that all the other states want to remove Flood.

    So under that false impression Texas passed a resolution saying that Flood should be removed and guess who…Lee Wrights…should replace him…so Wrights could serve on the board while he runs for President.

    Nice attempted power play by the Wrights campaign team…

  11. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    GTBFTB @ 15: The Lp of Georgia is making a statement. Duh. I applaud it. I doubt if they really expected it to go anywhere, but they registered their dissatisfaction. How else will the LNC know they’re out of line if no one tells them? (Okay, I know that last sentence is rhetorical).

  12. Hugh Mann

    @16 Thanks

    So, it’s Texas and Georgia.

    What are the other state(s) that have passed this resolution?

    Other than the ones that have passed it, are any considering it, if so which ones?

  13. The Third

    #18 No, silly, TX and GA didn’t pass the SAME resolution. The TX one was a long time ago, and the Wrights campaign press secretary posted it here on IPR at the time.

    It had nothing to do with Oregon. TX ended up accusing him of things that were either demonstrably false or quite unfair because it was the job of the TX rep to do it instead of Flood. But the Wrights crew didn’t let a few facts get in the way of their assault on Flood’s reputation.

    I presume the “third” mentioned above is Lee Wrights home state of North Carolina. Again, they did not pass the same resolution as GA or TX. Remember they withdrew from the region about a year ago and blamed Flood because supposedly he had never contacted them as their rep. That was also demonstrably false. If you guys just ask Flood instead of gossiping about him without the facts, you’ll find out he has an email from the NC chair in which she thanked him for his phone calls and apologized for not being available to take them. Then they spread malarkey about him on the internet saying he had never contacted them.

    Lee couldn’t get elected at convention, so his best shot is to get his friends to damage Stewart enough to take his seat. The other states in the region have seen the bad behavior for what it is and have refused to play along.

    It is particularly hypocritical for the Lee Wrights team to be part of this reputational war after all the howling Lee did about how he thought he had been treated unfairly and his anti-all-kinds-of-war campaign theme.

  14. George Phillies


    States cannot withdraw from Regions. LNC Bylaws are very clear on this.

    Perhaps someone has a copy of the region formation agreement, to make clear if there are subregions or not. I am told that Region 5 made such an arrangement. In the absence of a specific agreement saying that each regional rep only is associated with some of the states, in some phrasing or another, the national party bylaws rule, and you need a majority of the ten states in the region to remove any or all of the regional representatives. I have not heard if there is such an agreement or not.

  15. Thomas L. Knapp

    GP @21,

    “States cannot withdraw from Regions. LNC Bylaws are very clear on this.”

    Yes, they are, if by “clear” you mean “do not refer to, mention or address the matter in any way, shape, manner or form.”

    There’s a specified window outside of which regions may not “dissolve,” but departure of a member state does not constitute “dissolution.”

  16. Darryl W. Perry

    Article 8 section 2 b)
    …”Representative regions” may be formed or dissolved once every two years during a period beginning 90 days before the beginning of and ending on the second day of the National Convention, and notice of new formations or dissolutions must be given in writing to the national Secretary prior to the close of the Convention at which they take place.

    Article 8 section 8
    A National Committee Regional Representative may be removed and replaced only by the act of the affiliate parties which constitute the subject region. The voting procedure for the removal and replacement of regional representatives shall be determined by the regions. In the absence of any such procedures, a majority vote of the state chairs shall prevail.

    Nothing in the bylaws state that an affiliate party is not allowed to leave a region, nor do the bylaws state whether an affiliate party must be part of a region.

  17. Robert Capozzi

    25 TK, as did Mick Taylor in ’74. The brand was/is “Rolling Stones” principally, Mick and Keith next, the other three important, but not the headline.

    None of this seems to be much of an analogy to this situation. LNC members and region makeups might be more like which roadie handles the lights…or, perhaps, whether Nicky Hopkins or Billy Preston sat in and played piano on the studio session for that track.

  18. Thomas L. Knapp


    I didn’t think I was being that complicated.

    1) The LNC bylaws do not explicitly prohibit a state from leaving a region. They merely prohibit “dissolution” of a region outside a particular window of time. One member of a group leaving the group does not constitute “dissolution.”

    2) The LNC bylaws do explicitly prohibit abridgment of an affiliate’s autonomy except where provided for in the bylaws.

    QED, states are free to leave regions. Not that it would have any great effect, since the representational calculations relating to regions occurs only during the aforementioned window. The only real effect that I can see is that the state would lose its vote for removing, or selecting a new, LNC regional representative.

  19. Hugh Mann

    So….any more states?

    I’m guessing not.

    If I’m wrong let me know.


    Thanks for the additional details.

    @ Posts after 20

    Appears to me to be irrelevant.

    If TX, GA and NC are the only states that have passed or are seriously considering resolutions, whether NC’s vote counts or not is a distraction.

    Are other states considering resolutions or not?

    I will guess not unless someone wants to provide evidence that they are.

  20. Yo Ming


    “if you guys just ask Flood instead of gossiping about him without the facts..”

    Flood can post here either as himself or pseudonymously, he can email IPR, email individual people that write at IPR, or call one or more of them.

    All sorts of communication lines are open. If one side or the other chooses not to use them that is on them.

  21. Wiki Pete

    IPR is a big corporation that pays people a lot of money to post articles and monitor comments, so naturally it should be up to IPR to call Stewart.

  22. Moderate Pragmatic Libertaryan

    Have the Libertarian Parties of Armenia or Azerbaijan passed any resolutions about this yet?

  23. George Phillies

    In contrast to the troll at 31, is seems that there is a Libertarian Party now forming in Germany, the Partei der Vernunft. (Party of Reason). The front page features books by the like of Hazlett, Hayek, and their party founder. They are also in good obscurantist fashion global warming deniers.

    I did not try clogging through their web pages enough — my German is a half-century out of practice — to determine if they are infiltrated by central European far-righters, who are identifiable as extreme racists and antisemites.

  24. Hugh Mann

    In contrast to the troll at 31, is seems that there is a Libertarian Party now forming in Germany, the Partei der Vernunft. (Party of Reason).

    Have they passed any resolutions about Stewart Flood yet?

  25. BoorRatt 2008

    It very pleases me to announce Libertarian People’s Party of Glorious Kazakhastan Republic wishes to send message to our friends USA libertarians.

    We have pass resolution calling upon removal of Trotskyite heretic Stewart Flood from glorious peoples Libertarian National Committee of USA people’s republic.

    Furthermore we have pass resolution for removal of
    Trotskyite heretic Stewart Flood’s head and lower intestines from his living body.

    Our Stalinist and Maoist comrades of USA peoples libertarian party national committee will usher in glorious libertarian world revolution once this heretic and his friends are removed from LNC!

    All power to libertarian party people’s soviets!

    LP of Kazakhstan

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *