✉️ to Linn County Presiding Judge
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
TWENTY THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT — LINN COUNTY
Honorable Thomas McHill
Presiding Judge, Twenty Third Judicial District
Linn County Circuit Court
PO Box 1749
Albany, Oregon 97321
Re: Logan Martin Isaac v. Pacificorp, Case No. 26SC00051
Subject: Administrative Letter Regarding Demonstrably Erroneous Findings of Fact and Selective Evidentiary Analysis in Judge Pro Tem Ryan Lucke's May 27, 2026 Opinion
I. Preliminary Statement
I write to you in an administrative capacity, not as a further appellate pleading, but to place before this court's presiding authority a documented record of factual findings in Judge Pro Tem Ryan Lucke's May 28, 2026 opinion that are directly contradicted by evidence in the case record — evidence that was submitted by plaintiff, received by the court, and then selectively disregarded in favor of two isolated lines from a single transcript.
I am Logan Martin Isaac, a pro se plaintiff, a disabled combat veteran with six years of active duty military service, and current owner of The Chapter House, a bookstore at 250 Broadalbin Street SW, Suite 104, Albany, Oregon. I brought this action against Pacificorp d/b/a Pacific Power in good faith, with a documentary record assembled over months, and submitted to this court for consideration.
The opinion entered on May 28, 2026 does not reflect that record. It reflects a selective reading of it. This letter documents, with precision and citation to the record, the specific points at which the opinion's findings diverge from what the submitted evidence actually shows.
I do not raise this letter as a legal challenge to the judgment. I raise it because the record should be complete, and because the administration of justice requires that someone with supervisory authority over this court's pro tem appointments be aware of what occurred in this proceeding.
II. Procedural Background and the Evidence Before the Court
This case arose from a dispute over commercial electrical service at 250 Broadalbin Street SW, Suite 104, Albany, Oregon. The core facts are as follows:
On July 21, 2025, plaintiff called Pacific Power in connection with setting up a future business account. Plaintiff did not occupy the premises until October 2025. Plaintiff did not open for business until November 7, 2025.
Pacific Power began billing plaintiff for electrical service from July 21 through September 16, 2025 — a period during which plaintiff was not operating at the address and the meter had never been physically disconnected between the prior tenant and plaintiff.
Plaintiff disputed the charges, attempted to establish service from October 1 forward only, and was refused service unless the disputed $999.94 balance was paid. This refusal is the subject of OAR 860-021-0335, plaintiff's central legal claim.
Pacific Power referred the disputed balance to Bonneville Collections, which continued collection activity after plaintiff's written FDCPA dispute — a strict-liability violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b).
On March 2, 2026 — after Pacificorp had filed its answer in this proceeding — an employee (Joe, #63499) appeared at plaintiff's business and the meter was disconnected. This occurred after plaintiff had placed Pacific Power on written notice of active litigation and after the court had accepted this complaint.
Plaintiff filed this action on January 2, 2026, seeking $2,000 initially, and amended to $10,000 at trial to reflect post-filing harm.
The evidence submitted to the court included: (1) audio transcripts of the December 4, 2025 call with Pacific Power representatives Justin and Jade, as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2; (2) audio transcripts of the March 2, 2026 in-person encounter with employee Joe (#63499), as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3; (3) audio transcripts of the March 3, 2026 call with representatives Sasha and Christian, as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4; (4) plaintiff's original complaint and supplemental post-trial filings; and (8) the July 21, 2025 call transcript introduced by the defense at the hearing, as Defendant’s Exhibit 105.
The opinion references item (8) extensively. Items (1) through (4) are addressed in the opinion only where they support the defense's position or not at all.
III. The Opinion's Findings of Fact Are Contradicted by the Record
What follows is a systematic analysis of each material finding in Judge Lucke's opinion that is not supported by — or is directly contradicted by — evidence submitted to and received by this court.
A. Finding: "The account was eventually disconnected after prolonged nonpayment and lack of an active customer on the account."
This finding is contradicted by two separate Pacific Power representatives on the record.
On March 3, 2026, plaintiff called Pacific Power after the March 2 disconnection. Representative Christian stated explicitly:
"It's not automatic... It will remain on and then if it's at least a minimum, usually it's a few months before — but it can be sooner. It can be later. Just depends on that meter reader and when they act upon the fact that there's electrical use occurring without anybody signed." (March 3, 2026 call, transcript submitted to court.)
Representative Mike, on March 2, 2026, confirmed the mechanism:
"My records indicate there is no applicant... if there's usage without anybody signing for it, we send someone to notify to sign for service or we will disconnect." (March 2, 2026 call, transcript submitted to court.)
Representative Sasha, also on March 3, 2026, confirmed the disconnection was not a nonpayment action:
"We thought it was off... if it's still on, it's just a matter of luck. Somehow it — we thought it was off." (March 3, 2026 call, transcript submitted to court.)
The disconnect was triggered by a meter read showing usage without a signed customer — a system procedure, not a collection action for nonpayment. More critically, it occurred on March 3, 2026 — after Pacificorp had filed its answer in this proceeding on February 14, 2026. The opinion characterizes this as a routine billing consequence. The submitted transcripts establish it was a discretionary act taken after Pacific Power had notice of active litigation. The opinion contains no reference to these transcripts on this point.
Moreover, the disconnect notice left by employee Joe (#63499) on March 2, 2026 — a Pacific Power form document, checks "No applicant" as the stated reason. The form does not check "Past due." The opinion's finding of "prolonged nonpayment" as the cause is directly refuted by Pacificorp's own field documentation.
B. Finding: "Electrical service nevertheless continued at the premises for months despite the unpaid balance; plaintiff continued receiving the benefit of electrical service during that period."
The opinion treats the continuation of service as evidence of plaintiff's benefit. The submitted transcripts establish a different cause entirely.
Representative Mike confirmed on the March 2, 2026 call:
"My records indicate we spoke with Logan Isaac in September to cancel service. Apparently the actual service was not shut off though. Uh, just the billing was canceled." (March 2, 2026 call, transcript submitted to court.)
Representative Sasha confirmed on March 3, 2026:
"We thought your power was off. We thought we had disconnected it." (March 3, 2026 call, transcript submitted to court.)
These admissions establish that service continued because Pacific Power failed to physically disconnect the meter when it closed the account in September 2025. Plaintiff did not take any action to continue receiving service. Plaintiff did not circumvent a disconnection. Pacific Power's own system failed to execute the disconnect it had ordered. To characterize this as plaintiff "receiving the benefit" of service implies an element of choice or acceptance on plaintiff's part that the record simply does not support.
The opinion cites none of these admissions. They were in the submitted record.
C. Finding: "Plaintiff's landlord eventually put the service back into the landlord's name and power was reconnected."
The opinion does not cite any evidence for this finding. The submitted transcripts do not support it. Representative Christian stated on March 3, 2026 that an account could not be established without verifying information — suggesting no account existed after the March 3 disconnection. No submitted document reflects a landlord-initiated reconnection.
If this finding was based on testimony offered at the hearing, it was not sourced from the submitted documentary record, was not subject to cross-examination in a meaningful way, and contradicts the only available contemporaneous documentation — the March 2026 call transcripts — which establish a system-initiated disconnection rather than a voluntary account change.
A finding of fact must have a basis in the evidentiary record. No such basis is identified in the opinion.
D. Finding: "The PUC resolved the matter in defendant's favor and found no company violations."
This characterization misrepresents the nature and scope of the PUC proceeding. The PUC record was never submitted to the court, but the copy in Plaintiff’s possession documents the following:
The PUC conducted no independent investigation. Analyst Kim acknowledged she was taking Pacific Power's representation at face value without verification.
Kim stated directly: "There is no written contract" — and appeared to find this unremarkable.
The PUC's process placed the burden of proof on the consumer to disprove Pacific Power's account of the July 21 call, despite Pacific Power's refusal to produce the recording.
The PUC's closure of the complaint was an administrative action, not a factual adjudication. Kim did not make a finding that no violation occurred — she accepted Pacific Power's version of events without verification.
To characterize this as the PUC finding "no company violations" inflates an unverified administrative intake decision into a regulatory exoneration. No submitted record supports that characterization.
E. Finding: "Plaintiff later disputed the resulting balance and refused payment."
The opinion frames plaintiff's non-payment as a refusal. The December 4, 2025 transcript — submitted and received by the court — establishes a different sequence. Plaintiff did not refuse payment categorically. Plaintiff:
Offered repeatedly to pay for service from October 1, 2025 forward, plus any applicable security deposit.
Requested that Pacific Power segregate the undisputed October-forward charges from the disputed July-September charges, so that plaintiff could pay what was unambiguously owed.
Was told by representative Jade that she lacked the capability or authority to segregate those charges: "I am not able to Logan. If I could, I wouldn't be doing this with you."
Pacific Power's own representative admitted on the record that she could not accept payment for October-forward service without bundling it with the disputed prior balance. The opinion characterizes plaintiff's resulting non-payment as a refusal. The transcript characterizes it more accurately as a lawful act to withhold payment of disputed charges under OAR because Pacific Power refused to separate them.
This is not a minor semantic distinction. It goes directly to the OAR 860-021-0335 question — whether Pacific Power conditioned new service on payment of a prior disputed balance. Pacific Power's own employee confirmed that is exactly what occurred.
IV. The Credibility Finding Is Built on an Incomplete Evidentiary Record
The opinion's credibility section states: "The court finds significant portions of plaintiff's testimony and written filings not credible," citing the July 21 transcript as direct contradiction. This analysis cannot be adequately assessed without addressing what the opinion omits from its credibility calculus.
A. The July 21 Transcript Was Surprise Evidence
Plaintiff has documented — in the post-trial Notice of Procedural Concern submitted May 20, 2026 — that the July 21 transcript was introduced at the hearing without prior disclosure. Pacific Power's own representatives had previously told plaintiff that obtaining the recording required a subpoena:
"We don't give out copies of that. You would need to submit a subpoena." (Jade, December 4, 2025 call, transcript submitted to court.)
Plaintiff had no opportunity before the hearing to review, prepare a response to, or contextualize the July 21 transcript. The opinion treats two lines from that transcript as the dispositive evidence in the case while finding plaintiff's contrary testimony not credible — based substantially on the same transcript plaintiff was denied access to prior to trial. That sequence presents a due process concern that the opinion does not acknowledge.
B. Pacific Power's Own Representatives Contradicted the Opinion's Key Findings
The opinion's credibility analysis focuses entirely on plaintiff's alleged inconsistencies. It does not address the inconsistencies within Pacific Power's own representations across the submitted transcripts. Specifically:
Justin (December 4) stated, and Plaintiff read aloud in his Opening Statement: "I can't guarantee it was you per se" when asked whether he could verify plaintiff had made the July 21 call. The opinion finds as fact that plaintiff made the call without addressing this admission.
Justin confirmed: "There's nothing that would've been signed. You're right. There's no contract that's signed at all." The opinion finds plaintiff established enforceable service liability without addressing the absence of documentation.
Jade stated she could not segregate October-forward charges from the disputed balance. The opinion finds plaintiff refused payment without addressing Pacific Power's refusal to accept segregated payment.
Mike confirmed the September account closure did not include physical disconnection. The opinion finds service continued due to plaintiff's ongoing usage without addressing Pacific Power's own failure to disconnect.
Christian confirmed the March disconnection was not automatic. The opinion omits the March disconnection entirely despite its submission as evidence of post-filing bad faith.
A credibility finding that holds plaintiff to a strict standard of consistency while ignoring documented inconsistencies by a regulated public utility’s representations is not a neutral evidentiary assessment. It is a selective one.
V. The Legal Analysis Mischaracterizes Plaintiff's Actual Claims
A. Section A: "Plaintiff Failed to Prove Wrongful Billing"
The opinion's Section A addresses whether defendant "improperly charged plaintiff for electrical service before plaintiff became responsible for the premises." The opinion then states: "The central premise of plaintiff's case is that defendant improperly charged plaintiff for electrical service before plaintiff became responsible for the premises."
This is not accurate. Plaintiff's complaint, filed January 2, 2026, states:
"In short, this case is about fairness: a utility should not be allowed to demand $1,000 based solely on its own undocumented interpretation of a phone call, while refusing to provide evidence and refusing to serve a customer willing to pay for current service." (Complaint, January 2, 2026.)
And at trial, plaintiff's opening statement made the legal theory explicit:
"Pacific Power is a regulated public utility. That status comes with obligations that exist precisely because customers have no alternative provider. This case is about whether those obligations mean anything." (Opening Statement, May 20, 2026.)
Plaintiff's central claim was not wrongful billing for a prior period. Plaintiff's central claim was that Pacific Power violated OAR 860-021-0335 by conditioning new service on payment of a disputed prior balance. The opinion devotes its primary legal analysis to refuting a claim plaintiff did not make, and addresses plaintiff's actual claim — Section B, OAR 860-021-0335 — on grounds that are also disputed.
B. Section B: OAR 860-021-0335 — The Residential/Commercial Distinction
The opinion holds that OAR 860-021-0335's protections do not apply to plaintiff because plaintiff established commercial, not residential, service. This is the opinion's most substantive legal analysis. It warrants a direct response.
Plaintiff does not dispute that the account was characterized as commercial. Plaintiff's argument was and remains: OAR 860-021-0335(5) prohibits a regulated utility from conditioning new service on a balance incurred before the applicant was present and operating at the address. The rule's text addresses "applicants" — and plaintiff was an applicant for new service in October 2025.
The opinion concludes that subsections (2) and (5) apply only to residential customers and that the plain language of subsection (5) — using the term "resided at" — makes this clear. This may be correct as a matter of statutory interpretation. But the opinion reaches this conclusion without addressing the following:
Whether subsection (1), which the opinion acknowledges "generally authorizes an energy utility to refuse service until overdue balances are paid," was satisfied here — given that the balance itself was disputed and the underlying "agreement" was unverified.
Whether OAR 860-021-0405 independently applies — a provision plaintiff cited governing refusal of service to customers willing to pay current charges, regardless of residential or commercial status.
Whether the conduct at issue — refusing to establish new service while withholding the only evidence of the prior obligation behind a subpoena requirement — constitutes a violation of the duty to serve under ORS Chapter 757 independent of OAR 860-021-0335.
The opinion's resolution of the OAR 860-021-0335 question may be legally defensible. But reaching that question without addressing the underlying evidentiary problem — that the "overdue balance" was based on a verbal agreement Pacific Power refused to document — conflates the legal authority to require payment with the factual question of whether the payment obligation was established. These are distinct inquiries. The opinion treats them as one.
C. Section D: FDCPA Allegations Dismissed as "Not Properly Before the Court"
The opinion declines to adjudicate the FDCPA claims on the grounds that "Bonneville Collections is not a party to this proceeding, and the alleged FDCPA issues were neither properly pled nor litigated at trial."
Plaintiff acknowledges that Bonneville Collections was not named as a defendant. However, plaintiff's supplemental filing, submitted May 20, 2026, raised the FDCPA issue not as a claim against Bonneville Collections but as a component of plaintiff's damages arising from Pacific Power's conduct — specifically, that Pacific Power's referral of a disputed, undocumented debt to collections, which then continued collection activity after a written FDCPA dispute, constituted actionable harm attributable to Pacific Power as the originating creditor.
The opinion does not engage with this framing. It characterizes the FDCPA allegations as an attempt to bring claims against a non-party and declines jurisdiction. Whether this is a correct procedural ruling is a separate question. What is notable for purposes of this letter is that the opinion's Section C — "Plaintiff Failed to Establish Entitlement to Damages" — lists the FDCPA statutory damages as speculative without addressing the fact that 15 U.S.C. § 1692k provides a fixed $1,000 statutory damages amount that does not require proof of actual harm. The opinion characterizes plaintiff's damages as "speculative" and "unsupported" in toto, without acknowledging that a component of those damages was statutory and non-speculative by definition.
VI. The Opinion Is Silent on the Post-Filing Disconnection
Plaintiff's supplemental filings placed before the court the following documented sequence:
January 2, 2026: Plaintiff files this action.
February 14, 2026: Pacificorp files its answer. Pacificorp is therefore on notice of active litigation.
March 2, 2026: Employee Joe (#63499) appears at plaintiff's place of business. When informed of the active litigation, Joe responds: "You'll be put on the dangerous customer list too." Audio submitted to court.
March 2, 2026: Call center representative Mike is placed on notice of the litigation and states he cannot guarantee Joe will not return to disconnect the power. Audio submitted to court.
March 3, 2026: The meter at 250 Broadalbin Street SW is physically disconnected. Representative Christian confirms this was not automatic. Audio submitted to court. A neighboring business is forced to close for several days.
March 3, 2026: Plaintiff places Pacific Power on written notice of $200/day in accruing damages.
The opinion is silent on all of this. The section addressing "Hearing Time and Opportunity to Be Heard" notes that plaintiff submitted post-trial filings and finds plaintiff was not denied adequate hearing time. It does not address the substance of those filings on the post-filing disconnection.
A party to litigation who takes an adverse material action against the opposing party after being served — particularly when that action is confirmed by that party's own representative to be non-automatic and discretionary — presents a question of bad faith that a fact finder is generally expected to address. The opinion's complete silence on this sequence is not explained.
VII. Summary: Evidence Submitted and Not Addressed
For the court's administrative reference, the following is a consolidated list of submitted evidence that appears in neither the findings of fact nor the legal analysis of the May 27, 2026 opinion:
Justin (December 4, 2025): Admission that Pacific Power cannot verify plaintiff made the July 21 call ("I can't guarantee it was you per se").
Justin (December 4, 2025): Admission that no written contract exists ("There's nothing that would've been signed. You're right. There's no contract that's signed at all.").
Jade (December 4, 2025): Admission that she cannot segregate October-forward charges from the disputed balance ("I am not able to Logan.").
Jade (December 4, 2025): Admission that the recording would not be provided without a subpoena — establishing that plaintiff had no access to the July 21 transcript prior to the hearing.
Sasha (March 3, 2026): Admission that Pacific Power believed the power had already been disconnected and it was still on "by luck" — directly contradicting any finding that service continued due to plaintiff's own account status.
Christian (March 3, 2026): Admission that the disconnection is not automatic, establishing that the March 3, 2026 disconnection was a discretionary act.
Joe (#63499) encounter (March 2, 2026): Threat of placement on "dangerous customer list" in response to plaintiff exercising litigation rights — submitted as evidence of bad faith and retaliation.
Pacific Power's internal account record: Disconnect reason listed as "MV Moved" — not nonpayment — directly contradicting the opinion's finding of disconnection "after prolonged nonpayment."
Bonneville Collections activity post-FDCPA dispute: Submitted as basis for $1,000 in statutory damages, characterized in the opinion as speculative without addressing the statutory fixed-damages provision.
Plaintiff's Notice of Procedural Concern (May 20, 2026): Raising the issue of surprise evidence introduction and incomplete hearing time — not addressed on the merits.
VIII. Purpose and Requested Action
I want to be precise about what this letter is and is not. It is not an appeal. It is not a motion for reconsideration directed to Judge Lucke. It is an administrative communication to the presiding judicial authority of this district, placing on the record a documented account of findings that cannot be reconciled with the evidence submitted.
A court opinion that builds its factual narrative around two lines from one transcript — while declining to address seventeen pages of submitted transcripts in which the opposing party's own representatives contradict that narrative — does not reflect the kind of thorough factual analysis that litigants, especially pro se litigants without counsel, are entitled to receive.
I am a disabled veteran. I spent six years in service to a country whose promise includes equal access to justice regardless of resources or representation. I built a business with my own hands and on personal savings. When a regulated public utility used its monopoly position to deny me service, undermine my credit, and disconnect my power after I exercised my legal right to seek redress, I came to this court. I prepared my case, I gathered evidence, and I submitted it.
The opinion does not engage with that evidence. That is what this letter documents.
I respectfully request that the presiding judge:
Review this letter and the attached case record in connection with any supervisory authority over the appointment and performance of Circuit Court Judges Pro Tem in this district.
Ensure that this letter and its documentation are preserved as part of the administrative record of Case No. 26SC00051.
Consider, if within the presiding judge's administrative discretion, whether the factual findings in the May 27, 2026 opinion warrant any further review, given the volume of submitted evidence not addressed therein.
I make no demand of this court's presiding judge beyond what the facts support and the rules of judicial administration permit. I ask only that the record be complete, and that the administration of this district be aware of what occurred in this courtroom.
