John West will walk back into a Josephine County courtroom Monday afternoon carrying something he has never obtained in his lawsuit against Grants Pass Tribune publisher John Oliver Riccio: a verdict reached after both sides were heard.
West has a default judgment. He does not have a verdict finding that Riccio defamed him after witnesses testified, evidence was challenged and Riccio was permitted to present his defenses. That difference now sits squarely before Josephine County Circuit Court as Riccio asks a judge to set aside the default and allow West’s accusations to face the scrutiny of contested litigation.
The hearing in West v. Riccio, Case No. 24CV52856, is scheduled for Monday, August 10, at 1:30 p.m. Riccio has filed a Renewed Motion to Set Aside the Default Order and Judgment under Oregon Rule of Civil Procedure 71, along with an Answer and Affirmative Defenses. He is also requesting a jury trial if the court restores the case to active litigation.
Riccio is simultaneously withdrawing his Renewed Motion to Dismiss. He is no longer asking the court to end West’s lawsuit through that motion. He wants the default removed and the case opened so West can attempt to prove what he has alleged and Riccio can finally defend himself against it.
For a lawsuit built around accusations of defamation, journalism, political criticism and the conduct of a public official, that would fundamentally change what has happened so far.
The judgment West obtained was entered by default. No jury listened to West’s allegations and Riccio’s response. No jury examined the disputed publications in context. No jury determined whether the challenged statements were false statements of fact, protected opinion, truthful reporting or otherwise protected speech. No jury heard the evidence from both sides and returned a verdict declaring that Riccio had defamed West.
Riccio argues that circumstances involving notice, disruptions involving his housing and mailing address, missed court communications and his attempts to obtain legal representation contributed to the procedural failure that resulted in default. Those assertions are now before the judge, who must decide whether they satisfy Oregon’s requirements for setting aside the judgment.
If Riccio fails, the judgment remains. If he succeeds, West still has his lawsuit. What West would lose is the procedural advantage of having a judgment entered without a fully participating defendant. He would then have to litigate the allegations he chose to bring.
That prospect arrives after years in which West’s political disputes have repeatedly found their way from Josephine County government into Oregon courtrooms.
West was removed from the Josephine County Board of Commissioners in December 2024 after approximately 62 percent of participating voters chose to recall him. His departure was not ordered by a newspaper publisher, former commissioner, recall petitioner or political adversary. It was ordered by the electorate through a public election.
Yet the years surrounding West’s political downfall have produced litigation against multiple people connected in different ways to criticism of him and the lawful, state constitutionally protected recall campaign to remove him. West brought very similar lawsuits against Riccio, former Josephine County Commissioner Lily Morgan, Jay Meredith and JJ Scofield. West also brought a lawsuit against the Josephine County Clerk for the State-prescribed methods used to verify recall petition signatures.
The outcomes have not produced the sweeping courtroom vindication that such a collection of litigation might suggest. In fact, in the almost 22 months since the first lawsuit was filed, no judge or jury has yet upheld any of West’s lawsuit allegations based on a full review of such evidence; a default judgment is not a ruling based on facts or evidence. On the contrary, Josephine County Circuit Court judges have actually ruled against West in certain cases and in many of the allegations claimed by West.
West pursued claims against Morgan involving statements connected with the recall campaign. Most of the challenged claims were struck under Oregon’s anti-SLAPP law, which provides an expedited mechanism for confronting certain lawsuits arising from protected speech and participation in matters of public concern. Morgan prevailed on almost all of those claims and was ultimately awarded $28,721.50 in attorney fees. However, each side has appealed the portion of the anti-SLAPP case which didn’t go their way.
West also pursued litigation involving Meredith and Scofield. It started in the summer of 2025 for a combined filing against the two, then several months later West removed Scofield from the case and filed a separate case against him about eight months ago. The case against Meredith was dismissed, primarily because it was essentially an elections-related case similar to the case brought against Lily Morgan and it was too late to file such a case. However, given the allegations were very similar to Lily Morgan’s case, the end result would likely have been similar.
In Scofield’s case, where West sued for $2 million for a simple statement on Facebook that in my opinion hardly anyone even viewed (the post or reply could not be located shortly after the case was filed), the local judge allowed the case to go past the Anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss. But this Anti-SLAPP case is also being appealed and it will be some time before the full evidence is actually heard if the Anti-SLAPP case ruling is not reversed by the appeals court.
These results do not decide West’s case against Riccio, nor should they. Every defendant is entitled to have a case decided on the evidence and law applicable to that particular dispute. But West’s litigation history cannot erase the political event from which much of this conflict emerged.
John West was recalled by the voters. That fact has survived every lawsuit.
Morgan may have advocated against West. Meredith may have opposed him. Scofield may have criticized him. Riccio may have reported aggressively on West and his administration. None of those individuals possessed a ballot box capable of producing 62 percent of the vote. The citizens of Josephine County did that.
There is an enormous legal difference between proving that a particular person made an actionable defamatory statement and blaming political opponents or members of the press for the consequences of an election. A defamation plaintiff must prove a case against the person actually being sued. Political disappointment, public criticism and reputational damage do not automatically become defamation merely because they occur during a bruising fight for public office.
West certainly has the right to seek relief in court if he believes someone crossed that legal line. Public officials are not required to surrender their reputations at the courthouse door. But the people they sue have rights, too.
That becomes especially serious when the disputed speech concerns government, elections and the conduct of elected officials. The First Amendment was not written to protect only agreeable speech or flattering coverage of people holding public power. Political reporting and criticism frequently become harsh precisely because the subjects are consequential.
Riccio contends that his constitutional defenses have never been fully heard because West’s case reached judgment through default before the substance of the dispute was tried. His request Monday is aimed at changing that.
He is asking the court to put both parties in the arena.
If West has the evidence he says supports his allegations, he can present it. He can identify the statements he contends were false. He can establish the context in which they were published. He can attempt to prove the applicable standard of fault and the damages he claims resulted.
Riccio would have to answer that evidence rather than merely criticize it from outside the courtroom. He would have to defend the accuracy of his reporting, establish the factual basis for disputed statements, assert constitutional or other defenses and submit himself to the same evidentiary process.
That is not an escape from accountability for either man. It is accountability for both.
West’s current political circumstances make the confrontation even more striking. After being removed by voters in 2024, he is again seeking a seat on the Josephine County Board of Commissioners this year. The former commissioner is simultaneously asking voters to return him to public power while litigation connected to the bitter political conflicts of his previous tenure continues through the courts.
Running again is entirely within his rights. So is filing a lawsuit. But seeking elected power necessarily brings scrutiny with it. County commissioners control public money, shape county policy, make decisions affecting employees and residents and exercise authority granted to them by the electorate. A candidate asking citizens to entrust him with that authority cannot reasonably expect his previous conduct in office, political record and public controversies to disappear from public discussion.
The courthouse is not a substitute for that discussion. It has a narrower job: determine whether the law was violated.
West’s case against Riccio should therefore rise or fall on West’s evidence against Riccio, not on the bitterness of a recall campaign, the intensity of newspaper coverage or the fact that West suffered a substantial political defeat.
The recall itself already has an author: the voters. Thousands of voters signed a petition to be able to bring West’s recall to a full vote of the people.
And approximately 62 percent of those who participated in the recall election chose to remove West. No civil judgment can retroactively assign those ballots to Morgan, Meredith, Scofield, Riccio, a political party or anyone else who participated in the public debate surrounding West’s tenure.
Riccio has also sought relief from default in separate litigation involving recalled Josephine County Commissioner Chris Barnett. That case has its own record and must be decided independently. It neither proves nor disproves what should happen Monday in West v. Riccio, although Riccio has similarly sought the opportunity there to defend the underlying allegations rather than remain bound by default.
Monday’s West hearing is ultimately about whether Riccio has met Oregon’s legal requirements for reopening this case. The judge is not being asked to decide the recall again, determine whether West deserves another term as commissioner or conduct the full defamation trial at 1:30 Monday afternoon.
The judge will decide whether the default judgment should stand or whether the courthouse should reopen this dispute for contested litigation.
If the judgment is set aside, West will not have been defeated on his defamation claims. He will simply be required to prove them against a defendant who is present and defending himself. And Riccio will not have been vindicated. He will have earned the opportunity to prove his defenses.
That is where the histories involving Morgan and Meredith become impossible to ignore while remaining legally separate from Riccio’s case. Morgan faced West’s claims and prevailed on significant portions of them, eventually receiving $28,721.50 in attorney fees. Meredith faced litigation from West and prevailed when the case against him was dismissed.
Riccio is asking for his own opportunity to stand in court and contest West’s accusations.
For West, who has chosen litigation repeatedly in disputes connected to one of the most turbulent political periods in recent Josephine County history, Monday presents a remarkably simple test of that proposition. If the evidence against Riccio is strong enough to support the allegations, then allowing Riccio to defend himself does not weaken that evidence. It tests it.
Courts exist for precisely that purpose. Accusations are made. Evidence is produced. Defenses are heard. Witnesses are challenged. Judges apply the law. When appropriate, jurors decide disputed facts.
A default judgment can end a lawsuit without that full confrontation ever occurring. Riccio is asking the court to give this one its confrontation.
West has already had his day before Josephine County voters, and they removed him from office. He is now asking those voters to consider returning him to government.
His lawsuit against Riccio belongs somewhere else entirely: inside a courtroom, measured against evidence and law rather than political grievance.
On Monday afternoon, the court will decide whether it gets there.