Chris Barnett and the Selective Outcry of Lawfare: When the Law Only Matters If It Works for You
By: John Oliver
Josephine County Commissioner Chris Barnett
has been sounding the alarm in recent weeks about becoming a victim of “lawfare”—a term commonly used to describe the strategic use of legal systems as weapons to suppress, discredit, or exhaust political adversaries. He has claimed that he’s been unfairly targeted, persecuted, and burdened by legal scrutiny. On the surface, this might sound like a legitimate concern for anyone in public office.
But dig deeper, and you’ll find a narrative where the definition of “lawfare” seems to shift depending on whether Barnett is playing offense or defense. When laws or legal mechanisms serve his interests, Barnett embraces them with both hands. When they don’t—when they impose oversight, reveal uncomfortable facts, or fail to support his version of events— he waves the lawfare flag and cries foul.
In short, Chris Barnett may be right that lawfare is happening in Coo’s County. But not quite in the way he wants the public to believe.
The Convenient Embrace of the Law Barnett has demonstrated a keen ability to use the law when it serves his political agenda. When critics call out his conduct as a public official, he responds with defamation threats. When a reporter publishes unflatter-
ing but factual articles, Barnett claims he’s the victim of character assassination, and demands legal intervention. When legal protections such as the corporate veil offer him a shield, he eagerly stands behind it.
In the civil case Adelsperger v. Elkside Development LLC, for instance, Barnett invoked LLC protections to argue that he bore no personal responsibility for the elder financial abuse and broken promises tied to lifetime campground memberships sold to dozens of seniors. But the Oregon Court of Appeals disagreed, twice affirming that LLC protections
don’t shield individuals from personal liability when fraud or abuse is involved. Instead of accepting that legal reasoning, Barnett went to the media and cried “lawfare,” suggesting he was the one being wronged.
That’s not lawfare. That’s the law doing exactly what it’s designed to do—protect vulnerable citizens and hold power to account.
In Barnett’s world, accountability appears to be a zero-sum game: If he’s not the one holding the legal sword, then someone must be unfairly targeting him with it. But public office doesn’t come with a legal immunity
card. Commissioners, like any other citizen, are bound by rules of conduct, public records laws, ethics regulations, and the state constitution.
When journalists and watchdogs file public records requests to investigate how ARPA or airport grant funds were distributed under Barnett’s watch, he characterizes those inquiries as part of a political witch hunt. When constituents demand transparency, he labels them "activists" or "trolls." And when legal claims arise—from lease disputes to ethics complaints—Barnett paints himself as a martyr, a victim of lawfare rather than a participant in the democratic process of checks and balances.
The irony is sharp. Barnett isn’t facing lawfare. He’s facing accountability.
If lawfare is the use of legal mechanisms to silence, punish, or outlast your opponents, then perhaps the most egregious example of it is Barnett’s own approach toward local journalists and civic critics. Legal threats against the Grants Pass Tribune have become routine. Political pressure has been exerted on advertisers to abandon independent media. And behind closed doors, sources allege that local officials have coordinated efforts to discredit those who dare to speak out.
That’s textbook lawfare—wielding the
• see CHRIS, page 3
Grants Pass Gas Prices: Where Logic Goes to Die and Wallets Go to Cry
By: Leaf Barret
If you’ve filled your tank in Grants Pass lately, odds are you’ve walked away muttering words not fit for print. That’s because this charming Southern Oregon town, nestled in the Rogue Valley and known for its small-town appeal, now enjoys the dubious distinction of having some of the highest gas prices in the state. While Oregon’s average gas price hovers around $3.93 per gallon, Grants Pass drivers are dishing out nearly $4.41 — sometimes more, depending on which station has decided to play “who can gouge the most” this week.
So, what’s the excuse? Is it greed, logistics, politics, or all of the above? As it turns out, it’s a cocktail of causes — shaken, stirred, and served with a garnish of corporate opportunism and government inertia.
First, there’s the annual ritual that happens every spring: the switch to summer-blend gasoline. This is the more environmentally friendly version of fuel, required by federal law to reduce smog during warmer months. Unfortunately, it’s also more expensive to produce. Add in scheduled refinery maintenance that tends to conveniently overlap with this seasonal switch, and wholesale prices spike across the West Coast — especially in supply-choked regions like ours.
Oregon has no refineries of its own, which means fuel must be imported, typically from Washington or California. That puts us at the
tail end of the supply chain. Transportation costs pile on, especially in rural areas like Josephine County. The further fuel has to travel, the more you’ll pay for it — and in Grants Pass, with our isolated location and few supply alternatives, the cost gets passed down with interest.
But it’s not just the geography. Oregon’s gas taxes don’t help either. While not the highest in the nation, they’re high enough to matter, especially when every other factor is already stacked against the consumer. And unlike other states that have taken temporary steps to ease fuel costs, Oregon has mostly stayed the course, leaving residents to fend for themselves at the pump.
The real kicker in Grants Pass seems to be a perfect storm of low station competition, high demand, and what can only be described as price-point opportunism. In towns with a limited number of stations, prices tend to stay artificially high. There’s no real incentive to un-
dercut the competition when everyone’s playing from the same inflated pricing playbook. Toss in tourism traffic along the I-5 corridor and our reliance on personal vehicles due to limited public transit, and it’s a captive market. If you're going to fill up no matter what, why wouldn’t they charge as much as they can get away with?
Beyond state borders, international tensions are also fueling the fire. New tariffs on Canadian and Mexican oil imports have begun to ripple through U.S. markets, putting pressure on refineries to cover rising costs. While Canada supplies a huge portion of the oil refined on the West Coast, political friction has made that flow more expensive. And in the brilliant wisdom of supply economics, when refiners pay more, you pay more — period.
Even when crude oil prices fall, gas stations often seem slow to lower prices. There's a lag effect — when prices go up, they hike them overnight. But when prices drop? Sud-
denly, there’s a long, slow, mysterious process before the savings trickle down — if they ever do. That’s because many stations are still selling fuel bought at higher prices. Or so they say.
At the end of the day, Grants Pass residents are paying more because they can’t not pay more. It’s the kind of economic trap that frustrates working-class families and small business owners trying to stretch every dollar. Every delivery, commute, or trip to the store becomes an exercise in mental budgeting. It’s not just a number on a sign — it’s a weight on the local economy.
The question isn’t why gas prices are high in Grants Pass — we’ve answered that. The better question is: Why isn’t anyone doing anything about it? Between government silence, industry indifference, and market manipulation, consumers are left navigating a broken system. And until something shifts — a change in policy, infrastructure investment, or serious enforcement of price fairness — it seems the gas pump will remain the town’s most reliable source of daylight robbery.
Justice for Whom? Critics Say Oregon’s Legal and Political Systems Fail the Innocent and Protect the Powerful
By: John Oliver
In Oregon—and especially in Josephine County—the idea that the justice system serves the people equally is wearing thin. For many residents, a troubling pattern has emerged: victims pay the price, the guilty walk free, and elected officials rarely, if ever, face consequences for unethical behavior. What was once assumed to be a system built on accountability and fairness now looks, to some, like a well-oiled machine designed to shield the connected and punish the vulnerable.
The complaints are not without precedent. For decades, Oregon has experimented with tough-on-crime laws like Ballot Measure 11, passed in 1994. This law established mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes, including robbery, rape, and assault. While it was celebrated at the time for its promise of swift and consistent justice, critics have since pointed to disproportionate incarceration rates among minorities and juveniles. Nearly half of the state’s prison population growth in the early 2000s was due to this measure, prompting questions about whether mandatory sentencing has truly served justice—or merely created a conveyor belt to prison for certain groups.
Meanwhile, loopholes within the legal system appear to offer sanctuary for the guilty. In Multnomah County last year, outgoing District Attorney Mike Schmidt faced national scrutiny after attempting to reduce sentences for several violent criminals, including a convicted murderer. While Schmidt claimed the justice system should focus on rehabilitation, critics—including
the incoming DA—viewed his actions as leniency run amok. The public outcry was swift and bitter, reinforcing a growing perception that the state prioritizes the rights of the accused over those of the victims.
Nowhere does that perception burn hotter than in Josephine County, where allegations of corruption, ethical misconduct, and political favoritism swirl around the county courthouse like dust in a courtroom. When formal ethics complaints are filed against elected officials, they often disappear into the void. No disciplinary action. No findings of guilt. No justice.
In one glaring example, a complaint filed against Commissioner John West alleged that he used his public position to benefit his private business by influencing a vote to suspend fire code restrictions.
This, critics argued, was a clear conflict of interest. But the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC) ultimately dismissed the complaint, just as it had dismissed a
prior complaint alleging commissioners held an illegal executive session behind closed doors. Each time, the public was left with the same outcome: no accountability.
Compounding the issue is a climate of fear and retaliation for those who speak out. In August 2024, former Public Health Director Michael Weber filed a formal retaliation complaint against two Josephine County commissioners. An outside investigation found his allegations credible. Yet months later, Weber and Community Development Director Mark Stevenson were both abruptly fired. The official explanation was “departmental restructuring,” but many viewed it as payback—especially when the restructuring was not applied county-wide but selectively aimed.
Even staff who tried to uphold ethical standards found themselves pushed out. Former Administrative Secretary Trish House filed a federal lawsuit this spring alleging wrongful termination. She claims her
Chris Barnett and the Selective Outcry of Lawfare
From page 1
threat of legal or economic ruin to control a narrative.
When Barnett uses the law to retaliate, he doesn't call it lawfare. He calls it justice. But when someone else uses the law to challenge him, investigate public funding questions, or seek legal redress for real harm, he rebrands it as persecution.
There’s a difference between being subject to the law and being targeted by it. Being sued for potential wrongdoing doesn’t automatically make one a victim of lawfare. Being investigated for ethical lapses or misuse of public resources is not the same as being harassed. It’s what happens when you hold a powerful position in a democracy.
The laws Barnett now decries as “unfair” are the same laws that protect his right to due process, that allow him to defend himself in court, and that shield his business operations when they serve his financial in-
terest. But laws are not tools to be selectively applied based on political convenience.
In multiple interviews—including a recent appearance on the Bill Meyer Show—Barnett argued that legal scrutiny against him amounts to political sabotage. Yet he offered little evidence that any legal action he’s faced was unwarranted, false, or strategically abusive. Instead, he relied on rhetoric and repetition, turning “lawfare” into a buzzword to stir public sympathy and distract from ongoing scrutiny.
If Barnett truly believes in the dangers of lawfare, he might begin by reflecting on how he uses—or misuses—his own legal and political tools. The selective deployment of lawsuits, legal threats, and procedural loopholes to silence criticism is the very essence of lawfare. And yet, he seems unwilling to recognize that dynamic when the power is in his hands.
Ultimately, Chris Barnett’s loudest com-
plaints about lawfare seem less about defending the integrity of the legal system and more about shielding himself from its consequences. That’s not a victim speaking. That’s a tactician trying to control the board.
Chris Barnett is correct about one thing: the law is being used in Josephine County. But it’s not being wielded as a weapon against him—it’s functioning as a shield for the public, a flashlight in the dark corners of local governance. The real danger isn’t lawfare. It’s the erosion of trust when public officials attempt to redefine accountability as persecution.
In the end, democracy only works if laws apply to everyone—even County Commissioners. And if Barnett finds himself frequently on the receiving end of legal attention, perhaps the question isn’t who’s launching the attacks. It’s whether the laws are finally doing their job.
dismissal came only after she supported whistleblower complaints and pushed back on what she saw as improper conduct by top officials.
In Grants Pass, the battle between government authority and vulnerable residents has also played out in court. In the case City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, the city’s strict anti-camping ordinances were ruled unconstitutional because they punished homeless individuals for sleeping in public places when no shelters were available. The ruling affirmed what many had long argued: criminalizing poverty is not a solution.
All of this points to a fundamental question: who is Oregon’s justice system actually working for?
When victims feel ignored, when whistleblowers are fired, and when elected officials escape unscathed from ethical misconduct, public confidence erodes. The perception that justice is reserved for those with connections—and not for those who have been harmed—undermines the very foundation of democracy and civil order.
Oregon’s political and legal institutions are at a crossroads. The need for reform is clear—stronger whistleblower protections, a truly independent ethics watchdog, judicial oversight with real consequences, and a recommitment to balancing the scales of justice. Without these, the system will remain what many in Josephine County already believe it to be: a shield for the powerful and a hammer for the innocent.
Until that changes, one truth remains— justice in Oregon often depends not on what was done, but on who did it.
SUPPORT FREE SPEECH
Advertise with The Grants Pass Tribune!
Stand with us in defending freedom of the press and the 1st Amendment! The Grants Pass Tribune is facing political persecution, with lawsuits aimed at silencing our bold investigative journalism. We remain committed to uncovering the truth and keeping our community informed like never before.
Show
India Plans to Increase Tariffs on U.S. Goods in Response to Trump's Steel and Aluminum Tariffs
News Desk
In a formal communication to the World Trade Organization (WTO), India has announced its intent to raise tariffs on certain goods imported from the United States. This move comes as a direct countermeasure to the previous U.S. administration’s decision to impose high tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, a policy that has now spurred retaliatory actions from India.
The announcement was made after India conducted a review of the impact of U.S. tariffs on its trade, revealing that the 25% tariff on steel and 10% tariff on aluminum, imposed by former President Donald Trump's administration in 2018, had significant consequences for Indian exports. These tariffs were part of the Trump administration’s broader efforts to protect American manufacturers and reduce trade imbalances, a policy that drew criticism and prompted retaliatory actions from several countries, including India.
India’s response is a direct effort to protect its own economic interests and to counterbalance the U.S. tariffs on its steel and aluminum exports. The Indian government has yet to specify which products will face the increased tariffs, but it is expected that a variety of U.S. goods will be subject to the hikes, with particular focus on products that are of significant value to American manufacturers.
India’s move to increase tariffs is part of a broader pattern of retaliatory actions that have taken place since the U.S. first imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum in 2018. In that period, the U.S. launched trade measures that directly affected the global economy, and countries around the world were forced to respond. The Indian government, which has already made
previous attempts to negotiate a reduction of U.S. tariffs, has now opted for a more direct response by leveraging its tariff structure.
The Indian government’s statement to the WTO emphasized that it views these tariff increases as a necessary step in protecting the interests of its domestic industries, particularly in sectors such as steel and aluminum production, which have become increasingly competitive in global markets. In addition, India has raised concerns that the U.S. actions violate WTO rules, which allow for a fair and balanced approach to trade disputes.
The WTO, an organization designed to regulate international trade and resolve disputes, is likely to be a key battleground for these ongoing tariff disputes. While the organization’s primary goal is to encourage fair trade practices and resolve conflicts through negotiation and mediation, it has often struggled to enforce binding decisions in the face of rising nationalist economic policies. The WTO has
already been dealing with numerous cases involving tariffs and retaliations, and this new dispute between India and the United States will likely add further complexity to the global trade landscape.
Trade analysts note that while tariffs are a standard tool used by governments to protect domestic industries and balance trade relationships, they often result in unintended consequences. Increased tariffs can raise costs for both consumers and businesses, potentially leading to inflation and reduced demand for certain products. Furthermore, retaliatory tariffs often disrupt established trade relationships, complicating efforts for global cooperation on issues such as economic growth, job creation, and technological innovation.
The Trump administration’s steel and aluminum tariffs were part of a broader trade policy aimed at revitalizing U.S. manufacturing, but the measure was highly controversial.
Critics of the tariffs argued that they would hurt U.S. consumers and industries that rely on steel and aluminum imports, such as automotive manufacturers and construction companies. Others questioned whether the tariffs would effectively reduce the trade deficit or lead to the job creation that the administration had promised.
In response to the tariffs, India initially filed a complaint with the WTO, seeking to address the issue through formal dispute settlement mechanisms. While the WTO ruled in India’s favor on certain aspects, the Trump administration ultimately took a hardline stance, maintaining the tariffs and making them a central part of its trade policy. The Biden administration has not yet significantly altered these policies, although there have been signs that it is rethinking its approach to international trade relations.
India’s decision to increase tariffs is likely to be a point of contention in the coming months as both countries continue to navigate their complex trade relationship. It remains to be seen whether the WTO will intervene to mediate the dispute or whether further retaliatory actions will follow.
For now, the increased tariffs are expected to affect a range of U.S. exports to India, particularly those in sectors such as electronics, agricultural products, and industrial machinery. As India moves forward with this policy, it will be looking to leverage its growing market and economic influence as a counterweight to U.S. trade actions. The dispute also underscores the broader challenges facing global trade, particularly in an era marked by rising protectionism and growing tensions between major economic powers.
COMMUNITY
Letter from the Editor
How to Become Public Enemy #1 in Grants Pass
If you’ve ever wondered how to achieve infamy in a small town like Grants Pass, Oregon, I’ve got the perfect six-step plan for you. It’s easier than becoming prom queen in a high school with one student. All it takes is a spine, a newspaper, and a serious disregard for the unwritten rule of “shut up and sit down.”
Step one: Start a newspaper. Not a vanity blog, not a weekly coupon rag—an actual newspaper that dares to report on things that matter. The kind that doesn’t just regurgitate press releases from the County but asks questions like “Where’d the money go?” and “Who exactly made that decision, and why?” You know, journalism. The moment ink hits paper with a hint of accountability in it, congratulations—you’re officially on someone’s dartboard.
Step two: Investigate the powerful. Don’t worry, they’ll come to you. Just start following the money, the land deals, the no-bid contracts, the ethics complaints that mysteriously vanish into the ether. In no time, you’ll be digging into a rat’s nest of recycled leadership, shady alliances, and political hairballs that have been swept under the rug for decades. Pro tip: wear gloves.
Step three: Don’t back down. They’ll try everything. Advertisers will pull out, friends will go silent, and people you’ve never met will suddenly have a doctoral thesis on your alleged
character flaws. Still, don’t flinch. That’s how you know you’re close to something real.
Step four: Keep investigating the powerful, even when they come for your income, your sanity, and your peace of mind. You’ll be labeled “toxic,” “unhinged,” or “obsessed,” usually by people who haven’t had an original thought since dial-up. Keep going. If they’re screaming, you’re hitting nerves.
Step five: Still don’t back down. At this point, you’ll be public enemy number one. Not because you’ve committed a crime. No, your real sin is pulling back the curtain on a local government that thought nobody was watching. And they hate nothing more than someone who refuses to play by the unspoken rules.
Step six: Have a nervous breakdown— while not backing down. Sleep becomes optional. Trust is a luxury. You’ll find yourself dodging gossip like pancakes at a dodge-
ball breakfast fundraiser. Everyone’s flinging syrup-soaked lies with the enthusiasm of a toddler on Red Bull, and somehow you’re the problem.
Still want in?
It’s hard enough just surviving in today’s economy—skyrocketing bills, stagnant wages, and a gallon of gas that costs more than your self-respect after reading the online comments section. Add to that the local rumor mill, driven by folks who thrive on drama because their own lives are about as fulfilling as a soggy saltine, and you’ve got yourself a full-time circus.
But here’s the thing. Someone has to do it. Because silence doesn’t stop corruption. Politeness won’t reveal backroom deals. And the truth sure as hell doesn’t publish itself. So, if you’re brave, stubborn, or just stupid enough to care—welcome to the front lines.
GRANTS PASS WEATHER
5 DAY OUTLOOK
SOURCE: WEATHER.COM
WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY
Mostly sunny 75/50 Cloudy, early showers 62/45 Partly cloudy 66/41
SATURDAY SUNDAY Partly cloudy 71/45
Mostly cloudy 64/41
Tired of doing everything "right" and still feeling exhausted, bloated, and stuck?
At Elysian Women's Wellness, we specialize in helping women 35–55 balance their hormones, heal their metabolism, and lose stubborn weight without crash diets or two-hour workouts.
We use our Metabolic Optimization Method to help you feel like you again.
• Functional & traditional lab work
• Sustainable weight loss
• Hormone-friendly exercise & nutrition
• Expert support & accountability
TAKE A BREAK
Posting Date May 12, 2025 Posting May 12, 2025