For readers unfamiliar with the unfolding political and legal tensions in Josephine County, this dispute formally entered the courts on December 17, 2025, when County Legal Counsel Wally Hicks filed a petition for injunctive relief on behalf of County Commissioner Chris Barnett. Brought under Oregon Revised Statute 30.405, the filing asks the Circuit Court to intervene not through criminal prosecution, but by issuing a civil court order intended to restrict contact.
In the petition, Josephine County outlines its position that an elected official fears for his personal safety and the safety of his family, and it characterizes a private citizen’s conduct as escalating, menacing, and disruptive. The filing references an affidavit and attached materials, including descriptions of online posts and in-person interactions, which the county states form the basis for its request for court intervention. The relief sought is a one-year civil injunction restricting personal, telephonic, and certain online contact between the respondent and Commissioner Barnett, representing a formal legal escalation of a dispute that had previously unfolded in public meetings and on social media.
But as with most legal conflicts that spill into the public square, there is another narrative, one that sharply contests both the facts and the motivations behind the petition.
Stephen Eric Fitch, the respondent named in the injunction request, disputes the characterization of his conduct and is preparing a counter-response that he says will include civil litigation. Fitch acknowledges being served with the injunction papers by a Josephine County deputy and confirms that he is actively working on his legal reply. He argues that the county’s filing represents not a neutral act of public safety, but an extension of what he describes as a long-standing pattern of retaliation against outspoken critics.
According to Fitch, his actions over the past several years have centered on what he calls a growing public safety and civil rights concern within Josephine County, concerns he says have repeatedly been reviewed by the Grants Pass Police Department and dismissed without charges. He claims multiple incidents were investigated and closed within hours, reinforcing his belief that his conduct, while confrontational, remained lawful.
Fitch maintains that his speech at public meetings, including raising his voice and using profanity, is constitutionally protected. He argues that neither forceful language nor sharp criticism of elected officials constitutes criminal behavior, and that removal from meetings on multiple occasions amounted to unlawful suppression of public participation. In his view, the injunction effort is not about safety, but about silencing speech that unsettles those in power.
In a written statement responding to the county’s filing, Fitch explains that his decision to speak out stems from what he describes as a much larger constitutional issue. “The reason why I am speaking out is due to the August 25, 2025 federal violations of U.S.C. Title 18, subsections 241 and 242, depriving hundreds, possibly thousands, of people of their civil rights while they were practicing constitutionally protected activity inside the courthouse,” Fitch wrote. He further claims that court administration staff acknowledged that Commissioner Barnett “violated the structural integrity and safety of the courthouse for civilians who come to file documents without fear of retaliation or harassment,” adding that, in his view, “it was Barnett who escalated harassment, intimidation, and menacing of civilians at and off courthouse grounds.”
Central to Fitch’s rebuttal is his claim that the most serious physical confrontation cited by the county did not unfold as described. He alleges that during the elevator incident referenced in the petition, it was Commissioner Barnett who initiated physical aggression, not the other way around. This allegation stands in direct contrast to Barnett’s affidavit, which asserts fear of imminent physical injury and portrays Fitch as the aggressor. As of now, no criminal charges have been filed against either party stemming from the encounter, and the competing claims remain unresolved. The Tribune reached out to the Josephine County Sheriff’s Office regarding the elevator incident and was told there would be no comment.
Fitch further contends that the decision to have Josephine County itself file the injunction, rather than Barnett acting solely in a personal capacity, dramatically expands the scope of the dispute. In his view, this move implicates the county and its agencies in what he characterizes as collective inaction in the face of alleged civil rights violations. He says he previously filed public notices and criminal complaints accusing county entities of failing to respond to serious misconduct, notices he claims were ignored.
The county’s petition, however, is narrowly framed. It does not seek criminal penalties, nor does it attempt to adjudicate broader allegations of institutional wrongdoing. Instead, it asks the court to determine whether the specific conduct alleged meets the statutory threshold for injunctive relief. Under ORS 30.405, the judge must decide whether it is more likely than not that prohibited conduct occurred and whether an order is necessary to prevent harm.
That legal reality underscores the tension at the heart of this case. If Commissioner Barnett’s fear is credible and supported by evidence, the injunction may be justified. If, however, the court finds that the conduct falls within the bounds of protected speech or that factual disputes are too significant to resolve through an injunction, the petition could be denied or limited.
What remains undeniable is the broader question raised by this dispute. Barnett has previously faced criticism for confrontational behavior toward critics, including a widely circulated incident in which he pursued and filmed a journalist from his vehicle, conduct that resulted in no injunction or court action. That contrast has fueled public concern over whether the legal system is being applied consistently, or whether Barnett is abusing his position.
What makes the situation especially troubling is the stark hypocrisy underlying Barnett’s conduct. In recent months, Commissioner Barnett has publicly accused residents of engaging in doxing, casting himself as a victim of online harassment and intimidation. Yet evidence reviewed and collected by the Tribune indicates that Barnett himself engaged in the very behavior he now condemns, including publicly disclosing a private citizen’s street location and directing readers to third-party databases containing personal identifying information, while also labeling a resident a “pedophile” on social media. Doxing is not defined by who claims victimhood, but by the act itself. When an elected official weaponizes private information while simultaneously accusing others of the same misconduct, it reveals a double standard that undermines any claim of good faith. This contradiction raises a fundamental question for the public: whether Barnett’s outrage is grounded in principle, or simply in a desire to control the narrative.
As this case moves forward, the court will weigh affidavits, exhibits, and legal arguments. Outside the courtroom, residents are left to weigh a separate and more consequential question: whether accountability in Josephine County is determined by conduct alone, or by who holds power when the paperwork is filed. Two wrongs do not make a right, and this escalating cycle of “he said, he said” has no place in a courtroom. Yet here the county finds itself once again, with a sitting commissioner invoking the judicial system to advance his own interests over circumstances he helped create, while taxpayers are left to absorb the financial cost.
The following court documents were filed by Josephine County legal counsel Wally Hicks on 12/17/2025. Readers are advised that the materials include explicit language and content that some may find offensive or disturbing. Viewer discretion is strongly recommended before proceeding.
