Judicial Fitness Complaint: Ryan Lucke
Witnesses
Honorable Thomas McHill, Presiding Judge, Twenty Third Judicial District, Linn County Circuit Court received Plaintiff's administrative letter on May 29, 2026 documenting the specific evidentiary omissions described above. That letter is public record at: pewpewhq.com/record/20260529-linn-judge.
Jim Belshe, Trial Court Administrator, Linn County Circuit Court — when informed of the conduct described herein on May 29, 2026, directed Plaintiff to the Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability as the appropriate mechanism.
Brief Summary
I allege violations of Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct Rules 3.2, 3.3(A), and 3.5(A) based on three documented failures by Judge Pro Tem Lucke:
1. Rule 3.2 — Failure to Afford the Right to be Heard
On May 20, 2026, prior to the issuance of the opinion, Plaintiff filed a formal Notice of Procedural Concern into the case docket. The notice flagged two critical procedural issues for the court’s consideration before ruling: - The court permitted the defense to litigate the factual contents of a July 21, 2025 call, over Plaintiff’s repeated relevancy objections, despite Plaintiff's central claim under OAR 860-021-0335 being independent of that dispute. - The court imposed an unannounced one-hour time limitation, leaving Plaintiff with approximately five minutes to address damages and deliver a closing argument. The May 27, 2026 opinion completely ignored this docketed filing. By remaining silent on these issues and failing to address the incomplete presentation of damages, the judge violated Rule 3.2’s mandate to accord every person with a legal interest the right to be heard according to law.
2. Rule 3.5(A) — Failure to Act Competently and Diligently
Under Rule 3.5(A), a judge must perform judicial duties competently and diligently, which requires an objective engagement with the submitted evidence. The opinion makes five material findings of fact that are directly contradicted by the defense's own admissions contained within Plaintiff’s Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 (seventeen pages of audio transcripts):
Finding: The account was disconnected for "prolonged nonpayment." Evidence: Ex. 4 (Field Notice) states the disconnection reason was "No applicant," not past-due balances.
Finding: Plaintiff "continued receiving the benefit" of service. Evidence: Ex. 3 and 4 establish that the continuation resulted solely from Pacific Power's operational failure to physically disconnect the meter.
Finding: The landlord reconnected service. Evidence: No submitted document supports this finding.
Finding: The PUC found "no company violations." Evidence: The record shows only an automated administrative intake closure, not an adjudicative regulatory finding.
Finding: Plaintiff "refused payment." Evidence: Ex. 2 establishes Plaintiff offered payment but Pacific Power admitted it could not segregate disputed balances from current charges.
Resolving these questions by ignoring extensive transcript exhibits violates the standard of diligence required.
3. Rule 3.3(A) — Failure to Act Impartially and Fairly
The opinion states Plaintiff's filings were "not credible" based on a July 21 transcript that the defense withheld until the hearing. The judge applied a strict standard of internal consistency to Plaintiff while entirely failing to evaluate the credibility of the defense, despite documented, contradictory admissions across four separate transcripts. This asymmetric credibility standard violates Rule 3.3(A)'s requirement of impartiality.
