Whatever happened to the defamation lawsuits against London Mayor Randall Weddle?
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Weddle seeks dismissal of Phelps lawsuit under Kentucky's anti-SLAPP law.
- Phelps brothers have until June 24 to respond; hearing set for July 15.
- Jarvis suit remains active; court ruled city must control disputed documents.
Editor’s note: “Whatever Happened To” is a new Herald-Leader feature, updating readers on prominent stories that grabbed headlines and attention. If you want to know the latest on a big story from the past, contact our managing editor at avalentine@herald-leader.com.
London Mayor Randall Weddle has had a busy nine months.
His town experienced a large manhunt for an interstate mass shooter last fall, a controversial, fatal police shooting last winter, and a devastating tornado killed 17 Laurel County residents last month.
But also on Weddle’s plate are a pair of defamation suits, filed after he claimed three residents were part of a pedophilia ring.
The plaintiffs — brothers John and James Phelps, who filed a joint suit, and Elijah Jarvis — have been longtime critics of Weddle. Their attacks ramped up after police shot and killed resident Doug Harless just before midnight Dec. 23, 2024, while trying to serve a search warrant to a different person.
In a podcast and other public appearances, Weddle accused the three men of being pedophiles. All three filed lawsuits denying Weddle’s accusations, and they have not been charged with any crimes.
But after the suits were filed in mid-February, Weddle doubled down. He and his personal lawyer, Jeremy Bryant, held a news conference and gave the media hundreds of pages of documents they claimed proved the critics were part of “deep corruption,” including a pedophilia ring, in the town of about 7,600 residents.
Jarvis amended his lawsuit after the news conference to include Bryant.
Weddle also demanded at the news conference that the lawsuits be dropped, or he would line Main Street in London with the trio’s alleged victims.
But Weddle’s threat never materialized, and no one has spoken publicly about the defamation suits since the initial flurry of publicity in February.
No one involved — Weddle, his lawyer, a spokesperson for his office, a lawyer for the Phelps brothers, a lawyer for Jarvis, or a lawyer for Bryant — responded to requests for comment about the status of the suits.
So where do they stand?
Phelps brothers v. Weddle
The lawsuit filed by the Phelps brothers has seen the most activity of the two suits in recent months.
Weddle responded to the initial complaint, arguing his statements were true and that his actions were “reasonable, proper, justified, legal and undertaken without any wrongful intent, impact or effect,” according to court documents.
Weddle requested the lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice because it fails to state a claim against Weddle that would warrant relief.
Then, on June 3, Weddle asked for expedited relief to dismiss the suit, court records show. When a defendant files a special motion like Weddle’s, the court is required to pause all other proceedings, including any pending hearing or motion, and proceedings can’t continue until a ruling has been issued and appeals have concluded.
The memorandum invoked a Kentucky law called the Kentucky Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, which protects defendants in lawsuits that aim to silence free speech on matters of public concern, known as Strategic Lawsuit(s) Against Public Participation.
Weddle argued that his statements addressed issues of public concern, specifically the integrity and conduct of local police officers, so they are protected under the First Amendment.
Weddle also argued his statements were not defamatory or false because:
- Some statements are opinions or hyperbolic language, not provably false facts.
- The statements are not specifically “about” the Phelps brothers.
- There is a basis in fact for some of the statements, referencing prior court findings of misconduct by one of the plaintiffs.
The misconduct Weddle referenced was a previous court case in which John Phelps allegedly coerced a witness to change his testimony by threatening him with a perjury charge while working as a detective with the Laurel County Sheriff’s Office, according to court documents. Weddle said John Phelps’ actions could be characterized as corruption.
“Therefore, as the subject Facebook post concerning ‘corruption’ unquestionably has a substantial basis in true facts, such statement is not actionable under either a defamation or false light theory,” Weddle said in the memorandum.
Weddle also cited a previous lawsuit between a Kentucky pool company and several defendants as an example of derogatory statements protected as free speech.
In that case, the defendants called the plaintiff’s business and its owners “thugs,” “snarky,” “unprofessional,” and “embarrassing,” and one of the defendants said the company was operating a Ponzi scheme, according to court documents.
A trial court dismissed the lawsuit based on the anti-SLAPP law, and the decision was upheld by a Kentucky appeals court.
Weddle argued that some of his statements in the Phelps’ suit — such as “Like I’ve always said, keeping Jimmy and Doug Phelps on me might keep them from messing with young girls” — are upheld by the anti-SLAPP law and are not provably false facts.
The Phelps brothers have until June 24 to respond to Weddle’s motion for immediate relief, and a hearing is scheduled for July 15 to discuss the motion.
Jarvis v. Weddle
Both Weddle and Bryant responded to Jarvis’ complaint in April, arguing that their statements were truth, privilege and opinion, and not eligible for relief, according to court documents. They also said any damages Jarvis suffered were the result of his own actions.
Weddle and Bryant both requested the lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice, according to their responses.
In March, Jarvis asked the court for a restraining order and temporary injunction after he claimed he suffered irreparable harm from some of Weddle’s actions.
Among Jarvis’ accusations were that Weddle shared with the media an interview and files related to a court case in which Jarvis was interviewed by police when he was 16.
The files were supposed to be expunged under Kentucky law, according to court documents. Jarvis submitted an open records request to the city of London seeking to find out who accessed the records, but the request was not fulfilled.
It was later determined that the city of London did not possess Jarvis’ requested documents and Weddle obtained them from somewhere else, according to court documents. The court ordered that documents related to the case should not be possessed by the city, by any employee, agent, or elected official.
The motion for a restraining order and temporary injunction was dropped shortly after the court’s ruling, according to court documents.
Jarvis’ lawsuit does not have a scheduled court date, according to court records.
This story was originally published June 23, 2025 at 5:00 AM.
