The

Citizen and its publisher have filed a

counterclaim seeking damages in the latest round

of litigation against the Peachtree City law firm

of Webb, Stuckey & Lindsey.

According

to documents filed Monday in Fayette County

Superior Court, the plaintiffs "have used

their position as city attorney to make public

statements and contentions to the City Council

and elsewhere to the harm and detriment of

defendants Calvin N. Beverly and Fayette

Publishing" and "have acted under color

of law in an effort, joint and severally, to

violate and impede rights guaranteed by the First

and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States

Constitution."

This

latest filing comes less than a week after senior

Superior Court Judge William F. Grant of Elberton

was appointed to hear the case, following the

voluntary recusal of Griffin Judicial Circuit

judges Johnnie Caldwell, Chris Edwards, Paschal

English and Ben Miller.

Webb,

Stuckey & Lindsey, city attorneys for

Peachtree City since 1992, filed a libel suit

last month along with senior partner James Webb

against The Citizen, Beverly and Peachtree City

resident Stephen Brown concerning two letters

Brown wrote that were published in the newspaper.

Brown

suggested in his letters that Webb's position on

the board of directors of the new Bank of

Georgia, with local developers who have been

involved in litigation against Peachtree City at

various times, could appear as a conflict of

interest.

Webb

wrote a letter to The Citizen demanding a

retraction, and filed suit a week later when no

retraction was made.

Attorney

Rick Lindsey announced at the March 2 City

Council meeting that the suit had been filed,

saying that the litigation would be "long

and expensive." That statement was

referenced in the counterclaim, filed by

Fayetteville attorney Don Johnson and attorney

Christopher D. Balch of the Atlanta firm of

Swift, Currie, McGhee and Heirs.

"Plaintiffs,

acting in concert with others, have instituted

this action without justification, for the

improper purpose of trying to silence discourse

about issues of public concern, and to annoy,

harass and to cause unnecessary and needless

expense to defendants," the counterclaim

states.

The

defendants also are claiming "special

damages," such as legal fees and damage to

their business and reputation by what they called

"the unprivileged and unlawful conduct of

plaintiffs in an amount to be proved at

trial."

In

answering the original charges filed by Webb,

Beverly and The Citizen maintain that his

complaint did not specifically state what

language is allegedly false, libelous or

defamatory.

As

city attorney, Webb "is a public

figure," the counterclaim asserts, and as

such he must "prove actual malice in the

publication of opinion letters on matters of

public concern."

The

counterclaim states that the language in Brown's

letters is true, but also constitutes statements

of opinion that cannot be proved or disproved.

"Plaintiffs'

claim and complaint is interposed for improper

purposes, to annoy, harass or silence speakers

and public commentators on issues of public

concern," the counterclaim reads.

"Therefore, the claim must fail."

<!--

-----------