Aug 5, 2003 By Jennifer Harr 4 min read

The Herald-Standard filed a response to a defamation lawsuit from Rep. H. William DeWeese denying allegations that the newspaper slandered DeWeese in a bevy of editorial caricatures and other editorial commentaries. Newspaper attorney Charles Kelly wrote that the newspaper in no way accused DeWeese of corruption or unethical behavior when it published editorial caricatures of the Waynesburg representative for nearly a year. Kelly also wrote that there were no declarative sentences in any of the writing about DeWeese that said he was criminal, unethical or any of the other negative terms he claimed the newspaper attached to his name.

The Monday filling also asks a Fayette County judge to dismiss the civil suit.

The caricatures in question kept a count of days that DeWeese did not give the newspaper an accounting of the $11 million House Minority Leadership Account. The account is administered by DeWeese, the House Minority Leader, on behalf of the Democratic Caucus.

While the newspaper maintains that DeWeese gave his word to release how the funds were spent during an October 2000 meeting with the Herald-Standard editorial board, DeWeese has said he never promised he would do so.

The basis of his suit is largely the caricatures of him that ran asking when he would honor his word and release itemized bills related to the Leadership Account.

In addition to the newspaper, Editor Michael Ellis and five unidentified John Does are also named as defendants.

Kelly also addressed DeWeese’s contention that use of the term “slush fund” frequently in the accompanying editorial commentaries was implied that he engaged in underhanded business practices.

“At all times material to this case, the Uniontown Herald-Standard used slush fund in connection with its common meaning of an undesignated fund capable of discretionary use,” wrote Kelly.

He further contended that when the word “slush fund” was use to describe the account in the editorial board meeting, DeWeese laughed at the reference.

“Mr. DeWeese did not contest the use of the word slush fund at the editorial board meeting or assert that the Herald-Standard was accusing him of any illegal, criminal, unethical or improper purpose by using the term slush fund,” wrote Kelly.

When DeWeese was confronted about the lack of specific accounting for the fund, he told the board that, “I think the criticism is probably on target, probably accurate and I think the system should be changed.”

Kelly wrote that the newspaper believed that DeWeese had made a commitment to release itemized records and receipts.

The ensuing commentaries and caricatures, which ran for nearly 300 days, were to “appeal to Mr. DeWeese’s honor to do what he said in the October 2000 editorial board meeting was the right thing to do, that is, produce detailed itemized records and receipts relating to expenditures from the House Leadership Account,” said the filling.

The filing explained that the issue of the leadership funds came from editorials written in the summer of 2000 criticizing DeWeese and House Majority Leader John Perzel for not releasing details of the funds. Neither is required to do so.

DeWeese said through his Chief of Staff Mike Manzo that he used the money for different reasons, including to help children find healthcare and to offset the cost of prescription drugs for senior citizens.

But in the newspaper’s reply, Kelly alleges that DeWeese “upon information and belief” has also used the money to assist in the election of other Democrats to the House of Representatives, to pay for political consultants, advertising, surveys and lawyers.

Kelly also wrote that anything that ran in the newspaper was protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. and state constitutions. The filing called the editorial commentaries “pure, political speech” and noted that DeWeese’s position makes him “libel proof.”

DeWeese, through his attorney, will have 20 days to answer the new matters raised in the complaint.