#BarryJoeStull Motions Janauary 22, 2020 Final

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY

State of Oregon, )
Plaintiff, ) Case No. 15CR53749
) Case No. 18CR75140
v. ) Case No. 19CR21313
Barry Joe Stull, ) DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF
Defendant. )
Procedural Background
Defendant, Barry Joe Stull, pro se, appeared in Multnomah County Circuit Court for
scheduling in the above captioned cases. On January 8, 2020, Presiding Judge Bushong granted
the defendant in the above captioned cases, which were combined for the purposes of scheduling
and hearing defendant's motions, but are otherwise unrelated, leave to file the following motions:
a Motion to Dismiss case 15CR53749, a Motion to Dismiss case 18CR75140, and a Motion for
an Order Providing Defendant a Site Visit for a Pre-trial Inspection, in case 19CR21313.
Defendant's motions are due January 22, 2020, and the state's responses to the motions
are due January 29, 2020, with call scheduled for January 30, 2020 for hearings the motions on
January 31, 2020.
Motion to Dismiss Multnomah County Circuit Court Case Number 15CR53749

Defendant, Barry Joe Stull, appearing pro se in Multnomah County Circuit Court Case
Number 15CR53749, moves this court to dismiss the criminal charges filed and prosecuted
against declared public policy and defendant's civil rights guaranteed and protected by the
applicable statutes in Oregon Revised Statutes 659A, as interpreted and enforced by the Oregon
Page 1 - DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF

Bureau of Labor and Industries through Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 839, and Title II
Barry Joe Stull

10852 SE Stark Street Unit 5
Portland Oregon 97216
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12112, et seq. Title II of the ADA
imposes liability on a public entity for "not making reasonable accommodations to the known
physical or mental limitations" of a user of their services. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). ORS
659A.139 ties construction of ORS 659A.103 to 659A.145 to similar provisions of the ADA:
659A.139 Construction of ORS 659A.103 to 659A.145. (1) ORS 659A.103 to

659A.144 shall be construed to the extent possible in a manner that is consistent with any
similar provisions of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended by
the federal ADA Amendments Act of 2008 and as otherwise amended.
The Department of Justice's commentary on the ADA establishes that "[t]he general
regulatory obligation to modify policies, practices, or procedures requires law enforcement to
make changes in policies that result in discriminatory arrests or abuse of individuals with
disabilities." 28 C.F.R. Pt. 35, App. A, Subpart B. The City of Portland breached that regulatory
obligation and was subsequently joined in the unlawful discrimination and assisted by the State
of Oregon acting through the Multnomah County District Attorney and Multnomah County
Circuit Court.
In spite of the abuses evident in the public record, defendant successfully raised defenses
of choice of evils and self-defense, and won reversal of the convictions in the Oregon Court of
Appeals. The prosecution's closing arguments, which included facts not in evidence over
defendant's objection inappropriately over-ruled by the trial court, was not the type of error
which had little likelihood of influencing the jury and harmed defendant. Defendant was harmed
because defendant could have prevailed at trial based on the evidence and defenses presented to

the jury.
Barry Joe Stull

The District Attorney has elected to pursue a new trial, announced to defendant on
January 3, 2020, although no facts or law have changed since the reversal and remand reached
the trial court on April 24, 2019. Nothing but continued harassment of defendant could possibly
produce such a delay in announcing the intent to pursue a second trial. Defendant will prevail at
trial based on the evidence, but this case should be dismissed for being a violation of defendant's
guaranteed civil rights as a person with a disability.
The arrest and subsequent prosecution of criminal charges are a direct and proximate
result of the public agencies' failure to provide reasonable accommodation to defendant's known
severe disability, central pain syndrome, a neurological disease, and were against the law.
Each of the public agencies involved in defendant's arrest, incarceration in jail and
prosecution are subject to the requirements and limitations of the ADA.
Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F. 3d 668 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2001:
The ADA broadly "defines `public entity' as àny State or local government [and] any
department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States
or local government.'" Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting 42
U.S.C. § 12131(1)). This "include[s] every possible agency of state or local government."
Id. (quoting Crawford v. Indiana Dep't of Corrections, 115 F.3d 481, 485 (7th Cir.1997)).
Hence, the ADA applies to state prisons, see Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206,
209, 118 S.Ct. 1952, 141 L.Ed.2d 215 (1998); Bogovich v. Sandoval, 189 F.3d 999, 1002
(9th Cir.1999), and local law enforcement agencies, see Gorman v. Bartch, 152 F.3d 907, 912-
13 (8th Cir.1998).
Quite simply, the ADA's broad language brings within its scope "ànything a public
entity does.'" Yeskey v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr., 118 F.3d 168, 171 & n. 5 (3d
Cir.1997), aff'd 524 U.S. 206, 118 S.Ct. 1952, 141 L.Ed.2d 215 (1998) (quoting 28
C.F.R. Pt. 35, App. A, preamble to ADA regulations).
Both the ADA and Oregon laws recognize both intentional and unintentional acts can
constitute unlawful discrimination because of a person's disability.
Barry Joe Stull

Crowder v. Kitagawa, 81 F. 3d 1480 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1996:
A further indication of Congress' intent to cover both intentional discrimination and
discrimination as a result of facially neutral laws is the explicit mandate in the ADA that
federal regulations adopted to enforce the statute be consistent with the Rehabilitation
Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, an earlier congressional effort to combat discrimination against
disabled persons by public entities receiving federal financial assistance. Section 12133
of the ADA provides that "[t]he remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in [the
Rehabilitation Act] shall be the remedies, procedures, and rights" applicable to section
12132 discrimination claims. 42 U.S.C. § 12133. See also Collings v. Longview Fibre
Co., 63 F.3d 828, 832 n. 3 (9th Cir.1995) ("The legislative history of the ADA indicates
that Congress intended judicial interpretation of the Rehabilitation Act be incorporated
by reference when interpreting the ADA.").
The Supreme Court interpreted the Rehabilitation Act in Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S.
287, 105 S.Ct. 712, 83 L.Ed.2d 661 (1985). In Choate, the Court concluded that Congress
intended to protect disabled persons from discrimination arising out of both
discriminatory animus and "thoughtlessness," "indifference," or "benign neglect." Id. at
295, 105 S.Ct. at 717. The Court held, however, that judicial review over each and every
instance of disparate impact discrimination would be overly burdensome. Rather than
attempt to classify a type of discrimination as either "deliberate" or "disparate impact,"
the Court determined it more useful to assess whether disabled persons were denied
"meaningful access" to state-provided services. Id. at 302, 105 S.Ct. at 720-21; see also
Helen L. v. DiDario, 46 F.3d 325, 335 (3d Cir.), cert. denied by Pennsylvania Secretary
of Public Welfare v. Idell S., ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 64, 133 L.Ed.2d 26 (1995)
("Congress could not have intended to limit the [ADA's] protections and prohibitions to
circumstances involving deliberate discrimination.... Rather, the ADA attempts to
eliminate the effects of ... benign neglect, apathy, and indifference.") (internal quotations
omitted).
Oregon law is interpreted and enforced by the Bureau of Labor and Industries which
defines unlawful discrimination on the basis of a person's disability whether intentional or
unintentional. "A violation of discrimination laws against individuals with disabilities may
involve either intentional or unintentional discrimination. Discrimination against individuals
with disabilities need not be intentional to be unlawful." OAR 839-006-0340:
839-006-0340
Barry Joe Stull
Discrimination Theories: Discrimination against Individuals with Disabilities by State
Government or Places of Public Accommodation
(1) A violation of discrimination laws against individuals with disabilities may involve either
intentional or unintentional discrimination. Discrimination against individuals with disabilities
need not be intentional to be unlawful. Unintentional discrimination may occur, for example, in
situations involving adverse impact. To be protected from discrimination based on disability, an
individual must have a disability, as defined in ORS 659A.104 and the relevant rules.
(2) Substantial evidence of intentional unlawful discrimination against an individual exists if the
investigation of the Civil Rights Division (“division”) reveals evidence that a reasonable person
would accept as sufficient to support the following elements:
(a) The respondent is a respondent as defined by ORS 659A.001(10) and OAR 839-005-
0003(14) of these rules;
(b) The individual has a disability;
(c) The individual was harmed by an action of the respondent; and
(d) The individual’s disability was the motivating factor for the respondent’s action. In
determining whether the individual’s disability was the motivating factor for the respondent’s
action, the division uses whichever of the following theories applies:
(A) Specific Intent Theory: The respondent knowingly and purposefully discriminates against an
individual because that individual has a disability.
(B) Different or Unequal Treatment Theory: The respondent treats individuals with disabilities
differently than others who do not have disabilities. When the respondent makes this
differentiation because of the individual’s disability and not because of legitimate, non-
discriminatory reasons, unlawful discrimination exists. In establishing a case of different or
unequal treatment:
(i) There must be substantial evidence that the individual was harmed by an action of the
respondent under circumstances that make it appear that the respondent treated the individual
differently than comparably situated individuals who do not have disabilities. Substantial
evidence of discrimination exists if the division’s investigation reveals evidence that a reasonable
person would accept as sufficient to support that an individual’s disability was a motivating
factor for the respondent’s alleged unlawful action. If the respondent fails to rebut this evidence
with evidence of a legitimate non-discriminatory reason, the division will conclude that
substantial evidence of unlawful discrimination exists.

(I) Pretext: If the respondent rebuts the evidence with evidence of a legitimate
(II) non-discriminatory reason, but there is substantial evidence that the respondent’s
reason is a pretext for discrimination, the division will conclude there is substantial
evidence of unlawful discrimination.
Barry Joe Stull
(II) Mixed Motive: If the respondent presents substantial evidence that a legitimate, non-
discriminatory reason contributed to the respondent’s action, but the division finds the
individual’s disability was also a substantial factor in the respondent’s action, the division will
determine there is substantial evidence of discrimination.
(ii) The individual with a disability at all times has the burden of proving that the individual’s
disability was the motivating factor for the respondent’s unlawful action.
(3) Adverse impact by a place of public accommodation or by state government on the basis of
disability: Substantial evidence of adverse impact discrimination does not require establishment
of intentional discrimination as provided in (2) of this rule. Adverse impact discrimination exists
if the division’s investigation reveals evidence that a reasonable person would accept as
sufficient to support the following elements:
(a) The respondent is a respondent as defined by ORS 659A.001(10) and OAR 839-005-
0003(12) of these rules;
(b) The respondent has a standard or policy that is applied equally.
(c) The standard or policy has the effect of screening out or otherwise affecting members of a
protected class at a significantly higher rate than others who are not members of that protected
class; and
(d) The complainant is a member of the protected class adversely affected by the respondent’s
standard or policy and has been harmed by the respondent’s application of the standard or policy.
(4) Harassment by a place of public accommodation or by state government on the basis of
disability:
(a) Conduct of a verbal or physical nature on the basis of disability is unlawful when substantial
evidence of the elements of intentional discrimination, as described in section (2) of this rule, is
shown and:
(A) Such conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to have the purpose or effect of creating an
intimidating, hostile or offensive environment; or
(B) Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of
receiving services, accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges from a place of public
accommodation or services, programs or activities of state government; or
(C) Submission to or rejection of such conduct is used as the basis for decisions affecting that
individual.
(b) The standard for determining whether harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create
a hostile, intimidating or offensive environment is whether a reasonable person in the
circumstances of the individual against whom the harassment is directed would so perceive it.
Barry Joe Stull
Stat. Auth.: ORS 659A.805
Stats. Implemented: ORS 659A.103 & 659A.142
Hist.: BLI 8-2010, f. & cert. ef. 2-24-10; BLI 8-2011, f. 10-13-11, cert. ef. 10-14-11;
Renumbered from 839-006-0307 by BLI 15-2013, f. & cert. ef 12-30-13;BLI 12-2015, f. & cert.
ef. 8-28-15
Under both Oregon laws and the ADA each of the public entities was required to
investigate and consider what would constitute a reasonable accommodation to defendant's
disability once alerted defendant needed accommodation. None of the public entities conducted
any such investigation. In the absence of any fact-specific investigation, no decisions were made
informed by either defendant or other qualified experts, and the ADA was violated.
Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F. 3d 1124 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2001
When the [person with a disability] has alerted the public entity to his need for
accommodation (or where the need for accommodation is obvious, or required by statute
or regulation), the public entity is on notice that an accommodation is required...
A public entity's duty on receiving a request for accommodation is well settled by our
case law and by the applicable regulations. It is required to undertake a fact-
specific investigation to determine what constitutes a reasonable accommodation, and we
have provided the criteria by which to evaluate whether that investigation is adequate. "[M]
ere[] speculat[ion] that a suggested accommodation is not feasible falls short of the
reasonable accommodation requirement; the Acts create a duty to gather sufficient
information from the [disabled individual] and qualified experts as needed to determine
what accommodations are necessary." Wong, 192 F.3d at 818 (all but first alteration in
original; citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, the Attorney
General's regulations require the public entity to "give primary consideration to the
requests of the individual with disabilities" when determining what type of auxiliary aid
and service is necessary. 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(b)(2). Accordingly, a public entity does
not "act" by proffering just any accommodation:[14] it must consider the particular
individual's need when conducting its investigation into what accommodations are
reasonable.
VanValkenburg v. Oregon Department of Corrections:
Whether an accommodation is "reasonable (or even required) is necessarily a fact-
specific inquiry, requiring ànalysis of the disabled individual's circumstances and the
accommodations that might allow him to meet the program's standards.'" Castle v.
Barry Joe Stull
Eurofresh, Inc., 731 F.3d 901, 910 (9th Cir. 2013)(quoting Wong v. Regents of Univ. of
Cal., 192 F.3d 807, 818 (9th Cir. 1999)). See also Pierce, 526 F.3d at 1217.
Defendant is a Person With a Disability under Federal and Oregon Laws
Defendant has a disabling medical condition, a neurological disease, central pain
sydrome. The National Institue of Health National Institue on Neurological Disorders and
Stroke defines central pain syndrome: "Central pain syndrome is a neurological condition caused
by damage to or dysfunction of the central nervous system (CNS), which includes the brain,
brainstem, and spinal cord." available at:
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/central_pain/central_pain.htm last accessed January
20, 2020.
Defendant is a person with a disability afforded the protections of the ADA:
"Sec. 12102. Definition of disability

As used in this chapter: (1) Disability The term "disability" means, with respect to
an individual (A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more
major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being
regarded as having such an impairment (as described in paragraph (3)). (2) Major Life
Activities ***(B) Major bodily functions
For purposes of paragraph (1), a major life activity also includes the operation of a
major bodily function, including but not limited to, ***neurological ***functions."
Defendant is a person with a disability afforded the protections of ORS 659A:

"659A.104 Description of disability for purposes of ORS 659A.103 to 659A.145.
(1) An individual has a disability for the purposes of ORS 659A.103 to 659A.145
if the individual meets any one of the following criteria:
(a) The individual has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits
one or more major life activities of the individual.
Barry Joe Stull

(b) The individual has a record of having a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities of the individual. For the
purposes of this paragraph, an individual has a record of having a physical or
mental impairment if the individual has a history of, or has been misclassified as
having, a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more
major life activities of the individual.
***
(2) Activities and functions that are considered major life activities for the
purpose of determining if an individual has a disability include but are not limited
to: *** (q) Communicating; *** (v) Interacting with others; ***(z) Operation of a
major bodily function, including but not limited to: *** (C) *** neurological ***
functions."
Facts
Defendant's central pain syndrome causes severe pain and disogranization as a result of
changes in defendant's physiology. Defendant's primary physician Dr. Robert J. Grimm, M.D.
testified in Multnomah County Circuit Court in Multnomah County Circuit Court Case
031035386 regarding how Dr. Grimm diagnosed and treated defendant which resulted in
defendant being acquitted of a felony charged by the Multnomah County District Attorney. The
Oregon Supreme Court recognized Dr. Grimm's qualifications in Jennings v. Baxter Healthcare,
for his having advanced degrees in neurology and neurophysiology, defined in a footnote in the
case as: “Neurology is ‘[t]he branch of medical science concerned with the various nervous
systems (central, peripheral, and autonomic, plus the neuromuscular junction and muscle) and its
disorders.’ Stedman's Medical Dictionary, 1202 (26th ed 1995). Neurophysiology is the
physiology of the nervous system. Id. at 1204.”
Dr. Grimm testified how defendant has physical changes in defendant's spinal cord pain
relay system where pain relays have been "rewired" by another otherwise unrelated nerve,
causing chronic pain, and episodic "flares" caused by the uncontrolled epileptic-like firing of the
Barry Joe Stull
rewired pain relays when subjected to circulating chemicals released by emotional stress. Dr.
Grimm testified defendant's condition, "dysesthesia", is "disorganizing."
Other people have observed peculiar aspects of defendant's disability. Multnomah
County Sheriff Corrections Deputy Meilissa Regehr testified, "Sometimes he does not talk at all,
or does not have the ability to talk." Tr. 1184. On November 25, 2015, inside Council Chambers,
when touched on the back from behind while pointing up to the nineteenth floor of the building
across Fifth Avenue from City Hall which housed the offices of Schwabe Williamson and Wyatt,
appointed by the federal court to represent defendant in defendant's Fair Housing Act action,
instead of vocalizing "nineteenth floor" defendant instead said "seventeen feet." " And Marc
Jolin is a defendant in my lawsuit. My lawyer is up there and I'll point, seventeen feet." -Davis
video at 20:47.
On Wednesday, November 25, 2015, defendant's central pain syndrome was triggered by
City Hall Security once again enforcing an illegal trespass exclusion. Defendant knew that that
illegal trespass exclusion was an ongoing effort to prevent defendant from public testimony when
defendant was on the City Council Agenda after defendant had signed up in advance in
accordance with the established procedures. Defendant also knew the exclusion was based on
misrepresentations of defendant’s actions inside City Hall on January 24, 2020, the day the
exclusion was issued by James Wood, when on security duty at City Hall.

Defendant had been diagnosed and treated for central pain syndrome at Emanuel Hospital
Emergency Department on Friday November 20, 2015 and again Sunday. November 22, 2015.
After defendant requested an ambulance to transport defendant back to Emanuel Hospital
Barry Joe Stull

on November 25, 2020, and that request appeared to be not taken seriously by City Hall
personnel, and although defendant offered to produce medical records when it appeared City
Hall personnel still did not take defendant's need for emergency medical treatment seriously, City
personnel refused defendant's offer to produce medical records.
Even after defendant informed City Hall personnel defendant's condition was life-
threatening defendant was not provided any emergency medical treatment or transportation.
Instead of providing defendant emergency medical transportation to Emanuel Hospital as
defendant repeatedly requested, Portland Police were dispatched to the scene and continued the
ongoing practice of interfering with defendant's access to emergency medical transportation or
treatment, as defendant had just experienced on November 22, 2015 and which continued the
ongoing practice defendant had reported to City Council over four years earlier on November 19,
2011.
Instead of relying on any available medical records or any fact-specific investigation as
required by law, responding Portland Police Officer Engstrom characterized defendant as a
mentally ill transient who was not in need of medical attention, with no facts to support his
determination, and defendant was not provided the emergency medical transportation or access
to the responding paramedics who arrived on the scene.
Instead, Portland Police Sergeant Axthelm first placed himself in close proximity to

defendant then pushed defendant in the chest, later claiming it was because defendant was too
close. Sergeant Axhelm's shoving defendant in the chest further triggered defendant's central
pain syndrome, and repeated the December 2011 experience defendant had with Multnomah
Barry Joe Stull

County Deputy Sheriff Maurry, who had also first placed himself in close proximity then also
claimed that space was too close and also responded to the situation he created by shoving
defendant, who does not like to be touched by people defendant does not know.
Defendant could also observe that Portland Police Officer Engstrom was out of uniform
because he failed to display his issued name tag on the outermost garment as required by policy,
but instead blocked his identification with a tazer, which defendant interpreted as hostile and
evidence of the ongoing practice of retaliation and abuse defendant had come to experience and
which defendant had just minutes earlier stated in Council Chambers was reported to the United
States District Court as part of the United States of America v. the City of Portland, Oregon. In
that case defendant participated in the federal court determined the Portland Police Bureau had a
practice of using excessive force on persons with mental illness or, as defendant, was perceived
to be mentally ill.
Police Officer Engstrom first told defendant to back up, then grabbed defendant by the
upper left arm and, following that, grabbed defendant by the left wrist, as defendant repeatedly
asked, "Where is my ambulance?" Police Officer Engstrom would not let go of defendant, and
defendant accurately predicted Police Officer Engstrom would arrest and physically harm
defendant instead of providing the emergency medical treatment requested over twenty minutes
earlier.

The 911 Dispatch Call, with the Bureau of Emergency Communications, or BOEC, is
illustrative of City employees making up things without any facts, where defendant is first
characterized as "It's Barry Stull, and he's fired up today." Tr 913. That speaker was subsequently
Barry Joe Stull

identified as Police Officer Engstrom. Another speaker said, "I think Barry's known to him, and
apparently he's off his meds today." Tr 914. The transcript of the 911 Dispatch Call has an
unidentified speaker saying "3806 [Sergeant Axthelm's number] I need an ambulance," and
another unidentified speakers respond, "I'll get you a code 3 ambulance." and "...looks like he
wants an ambulance."
The various comments on the network followed as, "It looks like the ambulance and
firetruck are already on the scene and have determined he needs you more," Tr. 918. "Did this
call come in from security?" "811 negative. It was a request from fire and EMS on scene."
"Okay." "Well, to correct that. It looks like security called about the drunk guy. He asked for
medical. Medical responded. Medical's asking for you." "Gotcha." Later the call has Sergeant
Axhelm saying, "...jail now that we're going to have at least one coming down, possibly two that
are uncooperative?" "Will do. What's your ETA there? " "About two blocks." "Okay"
Sergeant Axhelm testified when asked if he could have used a lower level of force
arresting defendant, "We tried. We tried to verbally talk with him in the mere presence. At, that
point, again, my whole purpose -- my whole plan was just to get him to leave the courtroom and
leave the building. That's what security there wanted even though they had probable cause for
trespass on him. But they request--they just wanted him basically to leave. It wasn't until the

incident with Officer Engstrom that then it bumped up to a different level."
Sergeant Axthelm did not explain why, if "they just wanted him basically to leave" why
defendant was not permitted to leave by the ambulance summoned and on the scene by then.
Although an ambulance had been dispatched and was outside City Hall, Portland Police
Barry Joe Stull

continued to falsely tell defendant they would get one.
Pages 830 through 834 of the transcript depict defendant's impressions how defendant
recognized Police Officer Engstrom as a "gargantuan thug" who blocked his nametag with his
tazer, evidencing he could do so with impunity although it was a violation of the uniform policy,
and that Officer Engstrom was blatantly exhibiting how he was not subject to supervision.
Sergeant Axthelm testified he was in charge of the Portland Police in the City Hall event and was
the top decision maker. Tr. 839, 849.
Sergeant Axthelm testified how he could not read Police Officer Engstroms name in the
photograph of Police Officer Engstrom submitted as State's Exhibit 5, because it appeared the
photograph was taken at an upward angle, and that if a person was taller or standing in a different
place Police Officer Engstrom's full name could have been read. Sergeant Axthelm testified "He
spells his name E-n-g-s-t-r-o-m, I believe. I can see E-n-g-s-t and part of the M. The shot -- if I
was standing normally, I could probably see his full name, because I would be looking straight at
his eyes as opposed to this shot appears like it's shot from an upward trajectory." Tr. 827. In the
photograph of Police Officer Engstrom entered as State's Exhibit 5 Police Officer Engstrom's
name tag can't be read because some of the letters are blocked by a tazer.

When asked if he was the person on the recordings of the BOEC (dispatch), Sergeant
Axhelm said, "I don't remember saying Barry Sull, off his medication, because I had never met
you before. So I wouldn't know if you were on medication or not. Tr. 866. Sergeant Axthelm
didn't challenge the recording of him, saying," I'm not contesting that that was said. But me
knowing that you were off your meidcation I would have no idea. It could have been somebody
Barry Joe Stull

relayed it to me, you know, that told me, hey, Mr. Stull is off his medications and I simply related
that to the BOEC. But I have no first-hand knowledge that you're on any medication. Tr. 867.
Continuing the explanation of the decisions made and what informed him, Sergeant
Axthelm testified, "Again, like I mentioned, I could have said that. But again, that would have
been something relayed to me, somebody saying that Mr. Stull is off his medication. And then I
would have to say hey, Project Response is not the ambulance. It's actually a social service
agency that comes--- to assist us with people in mental crisis. But the ambulance was also
called."
During encounters with City personnel, "central pain syndrome" were the only words
defendant used describing the need for emergency medical treatment. Various City employees
created their own versions of defendant's medical condition, and none of them used "central pain
syndrome." Those same City employees exaggerated regarding defendant's actions, including
depictions defendant punched a police officer in the face, as stated by the District Attorney in
opening argument, although that never happened.
City personnel also claimed either defendant refused medical treatment or was provided

medical treatment, when neither of those claims were true. Defendant did not get medical
treatment or medicine from the time of the arrest November 25, 2015, until after release from jail
February 9, 2016, after the state moved to dismiss the felony charge. Dr. Grimm testified it
would be a short time, a matter of hours or perhaps a day or two, before defendant would
experience intractable neuropathic pain without medicine, due to the nature of defendant's
disease, a fixed problem in the spinal cord, which was a whole new disease on a molecular basis
Barry Joe Stull

second only to cancer pain in its difficulty to manage.
James Wood produced a report on the events on November 25, 2015 and wrote, "***
Barry Joe Stull went on a yelling rant about Sergeant Cohen's presence triggered his PTSD, his
brain damage which caused him confusion and fear." *** "Stull started pulling out manilla
folders going on about his condition s and today's incident and that it was going to cause him to
have a nervous breakdown." *** "Stull started throwing punches at the offficer and struck him in
the face with one of the punches."
Michael Cohen produced a report on the events on November 25, 2015, and wrote, "***
At this point I looked over just in time to see S-1/ Stull throw several punches directed at the face
of Officer Engstrom and at least one punch clearly struck the face of the officer." *** " Both S-
1/ Stull and S-2/ Davis were escorted out of the build by Portland Police Bureau officers. AMR
Ambulance #M328 arrived at the location per Police Bureau request to check out both suspects.
Both suspects refused medical treatment and werre transported to for booking under
file #15-406345. It should be noted that the entire incident was witnessed by an unknown
number of individuals, including Josh Alpert, Chief of Staff for Mayor Hales and Ben Walters,
Esquire, of the City Attorney's office bothh witnessed the entire incident and they corroborated
my (Sgt Cohen) account of this incident."
Jon Rhodes, an investigator with the Internal Affairs office of the Portland Police Bureau
conducted a number of interviews as part of IA #2015-0365, following a complaint by David Kif
Davis. While conducting a telephone interview with David Kif Davis on February 26, 2016, and
when Davis mentioned how Stull had been provided no ambulance as requested, Rhodes
Barry Joe Stull
responded, "Well, they were on the way and they did get there. I don't know if you ever saw
them, but they got there and BARRY -- as I understand it, refused medical intervention." -at page
2 of 12.
When Jon Rhodes interviewed Ben Walters, Walters said, "And so and [Stull] wanted an
ambulance, and that was before anything had happened and he was yelling about he needed an
ambulance." -at page 2 of 8. "*** you know at that point BARRY Joe was very loud about, you
know, you're - the cuffs are too tight. Your doing a pain release that's too much, you know, you're
killing me. I need an ambulance. He was very loud and very vocal." -at page 4 of 8.
When Jon Rhodes interviewed Portland Police Officer Parik Singh, Sigh said, "I saw
[Stull] hit [Police Officer Engstrom] on the shoulder or something like that."- at page 4 of 8.
Officer Singh testified that EMS checked Davis for signs of injury after his arrest and before
transport to jail.- at page 9 of 12. Singh said, "I just know we charged Mr. Stull for assaulting a
police officer, so it's a felony."- at page 10 of 12.
When Jon Rhodes interviewed Portland Police Sergeant Rodger Axthelm, Axthelm
testified, "*** and BARRY had been asking for an ambulance when he was on his--his
dissertation shall we say... in the middle of the floor. I had called for medical to stand by. So
when we got him out to the car, AMR was there to check both of them. Mr. DAVIS denied he
was hurt. Didn't want anybody to look at him and that was basically the end."-at page 6 of 11.
Jon Rhodes asked, "Okay. Do you remember you've asked for an ambulance-- do you remember
given that Mr. Stull seems to have mental health history, do you recall asking for any other kind
off resource response such as..." Sergeant Axthelm interrupted with, "Yeah, I believe- I believe I
Barry Joe Stull
asked for an ECIT to come, if I remember right, on it at point because I was - like I said,
preparing that we were going to have some time with Mr. Stull that we could wait out and talk
-- ... stuff with him. I just need to get other people out of chambers so we could do that."- at
page 6 of 11.
Police Officer Todd Engstrom prepared a report where he wrote he had repeatedly said to
defendant, "You need to calm down, Barry."
None of the City employees interviewed or otherwise making reports accurately stated
defendant had central pain syndrome.
During cross examination at the trial, when asked, "What's central pain syndrome?"
Sergeant Axthelm answered, "I'm not a doctor." When asked if he knew what central pain
syndrome is Sergeant Axthem answered, "No."
Sergeant Axthelm testified he is a certified EMT but did not ask defendant about the
nature of defendant's reason for asking for an ambulance and didn't inquire what defendant's
medical condition was. Sergeant Axthelm testified his observations were defendant was not in

pain, and otherwise had no reason for a code 3 ambulance. Sergeant Axthelm testifed he had
the ambulance wait and would not let the EMT personnel attend to defendant because it was not
safe for them to enter City Hall until defendant was in handcuffs. Tr. 872.
Although Sergeant Axthelm testified the only intent of the police was to ask defendanat
to leave, Police Officer Engstrom is seen in the video placing his hand first on defendant's hand
then defendant's arm, although Sergeant Axthelm testified defendant was not under arrest, yet.
Barry Joe Stull

When asked if he felt defendant could have left with Officer Engstrom holding defendant,
Sergeant Axthelm testified, "I believe he would have let you go if you would have walked." Tr.
851 Asked, "What if I tried to get him to unclasp from holding my hand?" Sergeant Axthelm
testified, "Again, I believe that he --- if you would have said, hey, I'm leaving, he probably would
have let you just walk out. That isn't what took place."
What did take place was the ongoing practice of the Portland Police retaliation by
falsifying reports and promulgating false information about defendant, resulting in arrest and
prosecution of charges that can't be supported on judicial review.
The Portland Police retaliated by interfering with defendant's access to emergency
medical treatment in retaliation for defendant having received emergency medical treatment and
retaliation because defendant participated in processes and procedures calling attention to
government and racist police corruption.
In case 9002-31186, current District Attorney Rod Underhill made an appearance in
1992. Defendant challenged the Portland Police Drug and Vice Division, and Portland Police
Officer
Page19 - DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF

Cheryl Arnold, and identified the Confidential Reliable Informant as Elizabeth Susan Johnson, a
known heroin addict liar and thief paid with drugs and money to inform. Defendant was found
not guilty of two felony charges. Following sexual abuse by Portland Police Bureau personnel,
Police Officer Arnold suffered emotional stress and was permanently disabled by health
conditions which ended her career.
In case 0310-35386 defendant was found not guilty of a felony in a case brought by
Barry Joe Stull

Portland Police Officer Jason Sery, who put in his September 1, 2003 Police Report, that the
issue of Stephen Dons came up and it sounded like defendant had "inside information" about the
matter. Mr. Dons died in custody. Stephen Dons was arrested and jailed in Multnomah County
Detention Center after the Portland Police Marijuana Task Force effected a warrantless entry
which resulted in the death of Portland Police Officer Collien Waible. Many people believe
Police Officer Waible was fatally shot by other police officers on the scene, and Mr. Dons' did
not die by suicide as claimed, but was murdered to cover uo the mistaken shooting by police.
Police Officer Jason Sey fatally shot the unarmed black motorist James Jarhar Perez in March
2004, prior to Dr. Grimm's testimony in June 2004, which cleared defendant of a felony charge
brought by Police Officer Sery.
Portland Police have long intentionally discriminated against defendant because of
defendant's disability and refused to enforce an Elderly Persons and Persons With Disabilities
Abuse Prevention Act restraining Paris Lamont Collins and instead arrested defendant in 2010,
and refused to enforce an Elderly Persons and Persons With Disabilities Abuse Prevention Act
restraining order restraining Troy Anthony Thompson in 2011 and 2012, and instead repeatedly

arrested defendant for reporting Thompson had violated that restraining order, first on February
22, 2012 when defendant was arrested for trespassing in the Central Precinct, when defendant
reported the restraining order was violated by Thompson, and defendant was subsequently found
not guilty because defendant had done nothing illegal.
On a second occasion on July 17, 2012, when Thompson was again violating that
restraining order while Thompson had a warrant for his arrest, Portland Police again arrested
Barry Joe Stull

defendant with Thompson present after defendant reported Thompson violated the restraining
order, under the pretext defendant had violated the City Hall exclusion policy. Judge Simon
found that trespass exclusion policy to be unconstitutional on its face in Walsh v. Enge in 2015
while defendant was in custody after the November 25, 2015 arrest built on an illegal trespass
exclusion.
On November 25, 2015, City employees, including the Portland Police, made no effort to
provide defendant the services defendant was entitled to through it's pretext defendant didn't
appear to need medical attention. The Portland Police failed or refused to engage in any
reasonable effort to enquire with Emanuel Hospital, where defendant had requested an
ambulance to return, or engage in any inquiry at all regarding the nature of defendant's identified
disability, central pain syndrome, although defendant identified that medical files were in
defendant's possession.
All of the documents and extensive files defendant possessed in City Hall November 25,
2015 were destroyed along with all of defendant's possessions in the care of the Portland Police,
on February 5, 2016, while defendant was in custody and charged with a felony which could not

withstand judicial review. On February 8, 2016, defendant accepted the state's motion to dismiss
the felony charge of assault on a public safety officer.
Defendant was filmed by David Kif Davis and that video was entered as an exhibit.
Within the first minute defendant explained that the actions of the staff at City Hall on November
25, 2015 triggered defendant's disability and defendant needed emergency medical transportation
to return to Emanuel Hospital Emergency Department. Over twenty minuutes later, the Portland
Barry Joe Stull

Police on the scene were still telling defendant they would get defendant an ambulance.
At the time of the events in City Hall on November 25, 2015, defendant had already endured an
episodic flare in October 2011, which resulted in defendant's pulse being radioed in by
ambulance attendants as 90 beats per minute while enroute to Emanuel Hospital, which then
spiked to over 175 beats per minute while in Emanuel Hospital Emergency Department, which
took "45 minutes of exclusive critical care" to get under control due to the particular nature of
defendant's neurological disease, in an effort to prevent "circulatory failure."
Never-the-less, defendant did not receive the ambulance as was requested within the first
minute following City personnel enforcing the illegal trespass exclusion while defendant was on
the City Council Agenda.
Defendant repeatedly stated the nature and severity of defendant's central pain syndrome
Beginning with the first minute of the Davis video recording of the events, defendant
said, "I have a disability and they're triggering it right now. 00:37. "Call 911. I need emergency
medical transport to Emanuel Hospital. Do you want to see my medical paperwork, or do you
think I'm joking?" 00:44. To the Council Clerk, sitting at a desk with a telephone, "I need you to
call 911 right now. I could die from this. Oh, you're going to laugh, I could die from this?" The
Council Clerk responded, "It's not my job." Defendant then asked, "Well, is it your job to call
911?" 01:00. "I'm going to get my medical paperwork out and we're going to find out what's
going on in this city."
Defendant then reported how he had endured a delay by Portland Police on the scene in
Barry Joe Stull

getting transported by ambulance on November 22, 2015, as defendant repeated "Central Pain
Syndrome" (at 01:23), which shocked defendant's neighbors who first witnessed that event and
reported to defendant afterward how the refusal to transport defendant was shocking to even
witness.
Defendant repeated, "Call 911. I could die from this!" 01:36. Defendant produced a file
and quoted how it read, "Suicide potential equals low. Suicide by cop equals high." (at 02:05)
and pondered how if defendant's suicide potential was low, what was defendant supposed to do?
Defendant said, "I still don't know why I'm not getting medical attention." 03:20.
Defendant said, "I can't even get a ride to the god damn hospital." 06:27. "Does anybody here
know how to call 911" 06:30. "Does anybody in this room know how to call 911?" 06:37.
Defendant said, "I'm on the agenda at 9:30 and I'm here and they're not because I'm right and
they're not. And as long as you all think I'm the problem and their media won't put anything on
about it and as long as I can't get a ride to the Emergency Room." 07:12. Defendant said, "Why?
Because I already said to you people in this room that this could kill me." "None of you hear

them calling an ambulance." 08:29. "And everyone of you heard I could die from this!" 08:34.
"I'm supposed to be out of here in an ambulance that nobody's called yet!" 14:35 "Yet"
"They're going to let me die here." 14:17.
Defendant said to the Portland Police, "Come on guys, carry me out of here. You guys
were supposed to call me an ambulance." 21:38. Sergeant Axthelm responded, "I got one
coming. Come on down." 21:43. Defendant then said, "I'm waiting for you to clear the room."
21:44. Sergeant Axthelm then said, "We're not going to clear the room." 21:45. "Defendant said,
Barry Joe Stull

referring to Commissioner Amanda Fritz, "She just did. So obviously you're not in charge."
21:47.
Defendant said, "I'm on the agenda, fellas." 22:20.
Police Officer Engstrom grabbed defendant by the upper left arm. 22:56.
Defendant again said, "Call me the ambulance!" 23:00. After defendant asked the
Portland Police, "What about the ambulance?" another citizen in the gallery shouted, "Where's
the ambulance?" 23:05. While Police Officer Engstrom held onto defendant's left hand,
defendant again shouted, "Call me the ambulance!" and Police Officer Engstrom replied, "We
will," Defendant tried to back away from Police Officer Engstrom, who was holding onto
defendant's left hand, and again shouted, "When is my ambulance going to get here?"
At the point Police Officer Engstrom grabbed defendant it had been over twenty minutes
after defendant requested emergency medical transportation back to Emanuel Hospital for central
pain syndrome and offered to produce medical records. Defendant was again told the police

would call defendant an ambulance, meaning an ambulance hadn't been called for yet.
Defendant reasonably calculated the Portland Police, as was the practice, had no intention
of allowing defendant access to emergency medical treatment, and were instead going to arrest
defendant and again subject defendant to excessive force before jailing defendant where
defendant would be denied medical treatment, and access to an attorney as defendant had
experienced many times by that point in life, and which happened as defendant predicted.
Police Officer Engstrom, after placing himself in a vulnerable position, was asked by
defendant, "Do you want your thumb back?" as defendant showed Police Officer Engstrom his
Barry Joe Stull
vulnerability to defendant grabbing Police Officer Engstrom's right thumb as it was on
defendant's left hand by reaching it with defendant's right hand, and Police Officer Engstrom left
go of defendant and, although trained, was unable to better defendant who punched Police
Officer Engstrom in the balistic vest, instead of the nose. All evidence to the contrary, Deputy
District Attorney McMahon told the jury in opening arguments that defendant "raises his fists
and twice strikes Officer Engstrom in the head and chest." Tr. 498.
Defendant later testified, "“And as soon as [Engstrom] got more aggressive, I punched
him, right her[e] in his ballistic vest, because I wouldn’t be grabbing at his taser, I knew,
wouldn’t be physically injuring him in any way. And that was a room full of people. And people
were going to get hurt. I knew what was going to happen. I was going to punch Officer
Engstrom, and he was going to try to pull some moves on me, and that was going to be very
short lived because his other officers would respond and I would be out of there.” Tr 1231.
Defendant testified how what happened was unnecessary use of pain compliance: “I can
do self-defense. I’ve done * * * citizen’s arrests. I can, you know, if appropriate, use force. But I
don’t hurt people more than I need to in custody, and I had that happen that day with Todd
Engstrom, as I predicted.” Tr 1239.
The City agents were subsequently joined by the District Attorney in the mischarterizaton
of the events. Rather that accept that United State'ss District Court Judge Michael Simon
determined the Portland City Hall trespass exclusion policy was "unconstitutional on its face" in
2015, the District Attorney told the jury in 2016 defendant refused to obey the exclusion and,
although defendant never said anything of the sort, told the jury during opening arguments
Barry Joe Stull
defendant said, "fuck you, fuck you, I have a disability." Tr. 498, 499.
The Deputy District Attorney knew the City Hall trespass exclusion policy had been
declared unconstitutional by the federal court, when he said to the jury, "And despite the
statements of, ‘Oh, you're triggering my disability,’ at the very beginning of that video, it
happens at about the second minute, did he leave? Did he walk out? Did he follow that exclude
order that he knew was in place? No. He stayed there and he continued to talk, to rant, to revel in
that moment."
The record of the trial proceedings established that on Tuesday, November 24, 2015,
defendant had gone into the City Hall Office of Neighborhood Involvement, where staff answer
the telephone number 503-823-4000 with "City/County Information." James Wood, working
security was present when defendant inquired after a Multnomah County Health Department
Medical Transport ride, which the City then falsely characterized as defendant asking them to
provide a City service of a ride home. As part of that ordeal, which defendant reasonably found

to be harassment, James Wood also imposed a twenty four hour exclusion, knowing defendant
was on the City Council Agenda in less than twenty four hours. Defendant replied that the
trespass exclusion was illegal and defendant would not follow it and intended to testify to City
Council as scheduled.
Wood testified at trial. The Deputy District Attorney asked, "Very briefly, sir. I just want
to talk a little bit about what happened the previous day. Approximately how long were you
speaking with Mr. Stull when he was at the Office of Neighborhood Involvement?" Wood
testified, "About over five minutes, between five and ten minutes at the most." When asked if
Barry Joe Stull

Wood gave defendant an opportunity to leave, Wood testified, "yes." Asked what was defendant's
demeanor at that point in time, Wood testified, "Go ahead and call the police. Let them come."
Asked if defendant was upset or was defendant yelling, Wood testified, "He wasn't yelling. His
-- he appeared anxious. He wasn't yelling. He appeared very nervous. He was -- how you put
words to somebody. I wouldn't say he was losing his temper so much as that he was not getting
what he felt he needed and the people there were not able to negotiate his needs and so that he
was getting more and more frustrated. And it was to the point where the witnesses listed in my
report there were saying we cannot help him, we cannot honor his request. He's going to have to
leave. "
It's clear the City staff, including Wood, observed the very symptoms of central pain
syndrome defendant was seeking a Multnomah County Health Department Medical
Transporthome for, and for that reason, refused to provide services ordinarily provided to the
public by that office, instead of providing the auxiliary services or other reasonable

modifications, including removing administrative barriers.
Important to any analysis is the appreciation that "direct threat" as defined in the various
regulations, is to be determined only after the reasonable accommodation process is applied to
reduce or eliminate any such direct threat. Instead, the City's continuing and repeating practice
was to deny engaging in the mandated investigation process by claiming a direct threat first,
when it is clear that only the City actors felt that way where none of the members of the public
did, evidenced by the calm manner of the citizens in Council Chambers prior to and after the
Portland Police arrived on November 25, 2015.
Barry Joe Stull

When defendant arrived the following morning to testify as part of the City Council
Agenda, Wood told defendant defendant was excluded, and defendant replied, "I know I am but
I'm not leaving," TR. 506-508. Defendant knew both that the trespass exclusion policy itself
was illegal, but it's application that day was based on the fraud of City staff twisting defendant's
inquiry requesting information from the office staffed to provide the public Multnomah County
information , requesting information on a Multnomah County Health Department Medical
Transport service, which did exist. Instead, with no reasonable basis, City agents turned the
event instead into as one where defendant demanded the City staff to give defendant a ride home,
which never happened.
The court ruled that no events prior to the arrest were relevant to defendant's defense,
even if the trespass exclusion was illegal and based on fraud or mistake, or "anything."
Defendant then, as now, argued the City acted illegally against defendant's protected civil
rights:

"Because, Your Honor, the pattern that we already have established by the video is that I,
on Sunday night, as it showed, that I had been drugged instead of getting emergency
medical transport. How long did it take for me to get into the ambulance, I don't know.
Then we have on Tuesday, the witness testimony that I sought from my medical
condition, which then led to the following day when I requested an ambulance. And the
one thing that's common to every one of these is city of Portland agents, one, interfering
with my access to medical treatment for my central pain syndrome; or -- and/or, two,
retaliating against me for having made that request."
The court ruled, "I'm not finding it relevant. That's not a defense and that's not an issue
on this charge." Tr. 571.
The District Attorney filed an Affidavit of Probable Cause to Support Continued
Detention of Defendant, which stated in part, "That Sergeant Axthelm asked Mr. Stull to calm
Barry Joe Stull
down several times."
Defendant requested emergency medical transportation back to Emanuel Hospital
Emergency Department because during an episodic flare a feedback loop is created where
defendant's body responds to the epileptic-like uncontrolled firing of spinal cord pain relays
creating the severe pain the way the human body responds, with the same circulating catachols
which triggered the flare, which Dr.Grimm testified doesn't respond to usual controls. Travis
Sewell was under employ as a Deputy District Attorney in 2015 in the office of that same District
Attorney, and was aware of the particular physiology defendant has since participating in the
prosecution Dr. Grimm responded to by testifying on behalf of his patient, who was operating
within the bounds of the law, in June 2004. A public entity cannot avoid duty under
the ADA by assigning the matter away from an employee aware of the person's disability to one
ignorant of it.
The duty to investigate and provide a reasonable accommodation is triggered when the
public entity becomes aware of the person's disability, even if only through direct observation of
the person with a disability.
When touched on the back from behind while pointing up to the nineteenth floor of the
building across Fifth Avenue from City Hall which housed the offices of Schwabe Williamson
and Wyatt, appointed by the federal court to represent defendant in defendant's Fair Housing Act
action, instead of vocalizing "nineteenth floor" defendant instead said "seventeen feet." " And
Marc Jolin is a defendant in my lawsuit. My lawyer is up there and I'll poinr, seventeen feet."
Barry Joe Stull

-video at 20:47.
The duty to accommodate a person’s disability continues after arrest. "I have a disability.
I have a disability. I have a disability. Call an ambulance. Call 9-1-1. Central pain syndrome.
Central pain syndrome. Central pain syndrome. These handcuffs are too tight. Central pain
syndrome," "You're killing me!" and so on, still did not result in access to medical treatment.
Police Officer Engstrom placed defendant into the patrol car, which was parked in front of the
ambulance, and Police Officer Engstrom did not give defendant medical attention because Police
Officer Engstrom did not think defendant needed it. Tr.640.
The City of Portland violated defendant's civil rights as a person with a disability, and this
case should be dismissed for being in violation of ADA Title II, and ORS 659A.142.
Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 839 interprets and enforces the provisions of ORS
659A through the enabling statute ORS 659A.805. The definitions for ORS Chapter 659A
include ORS 659A.101 (12), which defines “Unlawful practice” to include "a practice that

violates a rule adopted by the commissioner for the enforcement of the provisions of this
chapter."
Defendant argues this case has a defect in jurisdiction, because defendant is a person with
a disability and the place of public accommodation violated defendant's civil rights prior to
arrest, and then again with the arrest and, against Oregon and federal law, through subsequent
prosecution, possible only once the public accommodation was aided and abetted by the state
through this case, against the policy the state guaranteed to protect:
"659A.103 Policy. (1) It is declared to be the public policy of Oregon to guarantee

individuals the fullest possible participation in the social and economic life of the state, to
Barry Joe Stull
engage in remunerative employment, to use and enjoy places of public accommodation,
resort or amusement, to participate in and receive the benefits of the services, programs
and activities of state government and to secure housing accommodations of their choice,
without discrimination on the basis of disability.
(2) The guarantees expressed in subsection (1) of this section are hereby declared to be
the policy of the State of Oregon to protect, and ORS 659A.103 to 659A.145 shall be
construed to effectuate such policy. [Formerly 659.405; 2003 c.254 §2; 2007 c.70 §290;
2009 c.508 §4]"
OAR Chapter 839 interprets and enforces the provisions of ORS 659A, including
discrimination by state government and the Oregon Judicial Department, defined as part of state
government in OAR 839-006-0280 (3). OAR 839-006-0290 (5) states "Discrimination against
individuals with disabilities by places of public accommodation, which include public bodies
with some exceptions, is subject to ORS 659A.142(4), 659A.400 and OAR 839-006-0300 to
0335."
As defined in ORS 659A.101 (9)(b), for the purposes of ORS Chapter 659A, Oregon is a
"person."
Defendant is a person with a neurological condition, central pain syndrome, and
sometimes can't vocalize, and meets ADA and ORS 659A.104 criteria and has a disability.
Required reasonable accommodations or modifications are determined on a case by case basis.
Oregon's public policy and civil rights legislation guarantee to protect persons with
disabilities, including disabilities of people maintaining other abilities, and disabilities from
conditions which are episodic or in remission. ORS 659A.104(3):

"(3) An individual is substantially limited in a major life activity if the individual
has an impairment, had an impairment or is perceived as having an impairment
that restricts one or more major life activities of the individual as compared to
Barry Joe Stull
most people in the general population. An impairment need not prevent, or
significantly or severely restrict, the individual from performing a major life
activity in order to be considered substantially limiting. An impairment that
substantially limits one major life activity of the individual need not limit other
major life activities of the individual. An impairment that is episodic or in
remission is considered to substantially limit a major life activity of the individual
if the impairment would substantially limit a major life activity of the individual
when the impairment is active. Nonetheless, not every impairment will constitute
a disability within the meaning of this section." (emphasis added)
The Oregon Judicial Department has been biased and operated outside the limitations of
ORS 659.142. Once defendant was identified as a person with a disability, the state had a duty to
investigate and explore reasonable accommodations, including modifications to policies and
practices to prevent adverse impacts.
Options available as accommodations included to choose not to prosecute the defendant
or dismiss-- or more appropriately, vacate--the case, or to limit the delays getting defendant out
of custody, before the court for the fewest number of appearances, and to a speedy trial, and to
have defendant appear before a judge able to understand the nature and complexity of the
defendant's disability and the defenses available to defendant.
Instead, defendant appeared in court dozens of times before over six different judges
hearing this case with even more different court appointed defense attorneys and many different
deputy district attorneys prosecuting this case. No one gathered institutional memory except
defendant, who was burdened to inform everyone else of having a disability each time and
should not have been. After a two and a half hour hearing on this case in April 2016, the only
person appearing at trial later who had been there was defendant, because the judge, deputy
district attorney and court appointed legal advisor had each been replaced and none had that
Barry Joe Stull

April experience, a product of defendant's efforts, to inform them.
This case harmed defendant. Whether by dint or doom, design or fault, as this case
progressed, defendant's limited resources were drained again and again when they needn't have
been and wouldn't have been with the reasonable modifications to policies and practices
mandated by law.
In addition to procedural policies and practices which harmed defendant as this case
progressed, defendant was harmed when discriminated against regarding defendant's medical
history and records. There is a conflict between the laws identifying and guaranteeing protection
to a person such as defendant, a person diagnosed with central pain syndrome, a neurological
condition subject to episodic disabling flares requiring emergency medical treatment, and the
laws as interpreted by the Oregon Judicial Department and Multnomah County District Attorney
operating as though any records documenting that physical condition and recording any such
previous episodes and emergency treatment aren't important for any number of pretexts, such as
the episode happened too long ago or the licensed medical professional is not present in court to
verify specific records.
Instead defendant person with a disability was expected and required to produce medical
evidence, and if and once produced, to validate records, including being able to have a physician
available to testify in court those records were valid, but additionally to have the means to have
had a prior and recent diagnosis by a physician the defendant can produce alive and in court.
Even though defendant was able to subpoena the most recent neurologist to diagnose
defendant, the court allowed that defense witness to quash that subpoena at a hearing defendant
Barry Joe Stull
had less than 24 hours’ notice of, and where defendant appeared and learned the court appointed
legal advisor had not made arrangements while issuing the subpoena either for the neurologist to
be subpoenaed as an expert witness or to be paid.
When medical records were produced by defendant, including records from Social
Security Administration and Multnomah County Health Department files and their authenticity
wasn't challenged by the state, the state argued that defendant's medical condition and
specifically defendant's disability didn't matter-- which, it follows, made the medical condition
and records documenting the medical condition not relevant. Clearly such an approach is against
interpreting ORS 659A and the ADA to afford the broadest possible protections to persons with
disabilities.
Defendant's experience has been one where interpretation which would allow medical
documentation as defendant's evidence permitted under the Oregon Evidence Code was denied,
against the guarantees to protect persons with disabilities from unlawful discrimination.
The case arose after defendant sought and received emergency medical treatment as a
person with a disability triggered as crime victim, and, following that, the actors in what became
this case violated defendant's civil rights as a person with a disability prior to the arrest and then
again with the arrest and yet again by and through the prosecution of this criminal case now on
remand.
ORS 659A.104 criteria qualifies an individual as a person with a disability if that
"individual has a record of having a physical or mental impairment." When appearing in court
those documents establish and invoke protections and status as a person with a disability but are
argued and deemed unsuitable as defense evidence as either outside the bounds of the Oregon
Barry Joe Stull
Evidence Code or not relevant because they don't relate to the time frame which has been
selected- inappropriately stripping protections of persons with disabling conditions which are
episodic.
This case has never been legal. From its inception through generation of dozens of
volumes of transcripts, this case has adversely impacted defendant with a disability beyond the
realm of societal tolerance. Following arrest, defendant's efforts to prosecute a defense were
repeatedly illegally hampered, as reported to Judge Bushong hearing defendant's motion to
dismiss, or otherwise contained in what was received at that hearing as defense exhibit 101, or as
identified in Appellant's Opening Brief and Excerpt of Record, or apparent in the record.
Defendant was held in jail without access to a telephone, as defendant reported at first
appearance before the court. Defendant was hampered by months of incarceration on a felony
charge the state knew it could not prosecute, and held in custody for over an additional month
prior to defendant being released from jail on that charge after the state and defendant knew the
felony charge would have to be dismissed, defendant's contacts in the community defendant
provided weren't contacted as part of the release from custody investigation recommending
denial because defendant lacked relationships in the community and the investigation was only
conducted after extraordinarily delay, defendant suffered the loss of and suffered sickening
emotional impact arising from the destruction of defendant's personal goods essential to
defendant's wellbeing which were seized at arrest and destroyed February 4, 2016 while
defendant was in custody as this case was pending, February 5, 2016 jail staff refused to accept a
cashier's check for defendant's bail while defendant was in custody on this case, defendant's legal
mail from custody wasn't delivered, jail staff refused defense attorney contact through either
Barry Joe Stull
visits or telephone calls and the court appointed defense attorneys acquiesced, defendant
received no medical treatment for central pain syndrome in custody which sickened defendant,
and court appointed counsel failed to obtain defendant's requested defense evidence.
After that the state interfered with and denied defendant's defenses to the charges
ordinarily available to any defendant as identified in Appellant's Opening Brief. In spite of all of
those assaults on defendant's protected interests and abilities, defendant has netted a reversal of
the trial court's conviction on appeal as a product of defendant's pro se representation at trial and
Appellant's Opening Brief prepared by the Oregon Office of Public Defense Services.
The trial court's conviction had to be reversed as required under the court's own rules and
obligations. More important to defendant is the recognition that our state cannot engage the
court processes as it has done, because of the adverse and harmful impact on defendant as a
person with a disability, because it is against the declared public policy of the state, and because
it is an ongoing violation of the ADA. This case should not have been reversed, but should have
been vacated.
Defendant's medical records and history are a specific element of the statute determining
defendant's status as a person with a disability, ORS 659A.104(1)(b). The court process instead
turned them into a burden by imposing impossible conditions on the indigent defendant with a
disability, who has always said he was obeying the law and should never have become a
defendant.
The court placed the burden on pro se defendant with a disability to subpoena records as
the pro se defendant person with a disability continued to report to the court the court appointed
Barry Joe Stull
legal advisors would not follow up to obtain defendant's evidence even after being appointed by
to court to assist defendant as a person with a disability specifically to obtain evidence. The court
permitted the dereliction of the court-appointed defense counsel in clear violation of defendant's
right to assistance of counsel and the duty imposed on those court-appointed defense attorneys
which both failed to act and did so with the knowledge of the court.
On February 9, 2016, defendant reported to the court the court-appointed defense counsel
didn't communicate with defendant regarding the November 2015 events, and didn't act toward
defendant's interests, and defendant was choosing to proceed pro se. Following an experience in
2012 when Portland Police refused to accept defense witness subpoenas, defendant needed
assistance and was provided a legal advisor to obtain defense evidence beyond defendant's
ability to obtain in a format acceptable to the court as evidence. As specified on the record
before Judge Marshall, the defense evidence was sought prior to the legal advisor being
appointed to assist defendant. Defendant waived right to counsel and appeared pro se with that
guarantee. Tr 62:
THE DEFENDANT: -- which would be the 9-1-1 calls; which would be my
medical records; which would be getting my expert witness, my neurologist;
getting the Emanuel Hospital emergency room doctor --
THE COURT: Okay.
By the time of the trial over six months later, defense evidence was not obtained by any

of the court-appointed attorneys who represented defendant, meaning defendant did all of the
work identifying and requesting evidence yet reaped none of the reward due to the failure or
Barry Joe Stull

outright refusal of the court-appointed counsel to act to secure defendant's evidence.
Statutory and administrative rules protect defendant's civil rights but the Oregon Judicial
Department continues to violate that declared public policy, and engaged in unlawful disability
discrimination whether intentionally or not. "Congress could not have intended to limit the
[ADA's] protections and prohibitions to circumstances involving deliberate discrimination....
Rather, the ADA attempts to eliminate the effects of ... benign neglect, apathy, and indifference."
(internal quotations omitted as in Crowder v. Kitagawa, 81 F. 3d 1480, 9th Cir. 1996).
Discrimination theories are set out in OAR 839-006-0340. Adverse impact is disability
discrimination even when unintentional. OAR 839-006-0340(3).
Defendant challenges the jurisdiction of the Oregon Judicial Department; the state
government is prohibited to assist in unlawful disability discrimination, which can be unlawful
even when facially neutral if it has an adverse impact on persons with disabilities.
The court also created a hostile environment. Any reasonable person in the situation
defendant faced would find the environment hostile, intimidating and offensive. See OAR 839-
006-0340 (b), "The standard for determining whether harassment is sufficiently severe or
pervasive to create a hostile, intimidating or offensive environment is whether a reasonable
person in the circumstances of the individual against whom the harassment is directed would so
perceive it." The Oregon Judicial Department and District Attorney engaged in disability
discrimination as the case was prosecuted and did so when the court lacked jurisdiction through
the operation of ORS 659A.142.
Jurisdiction may be raised at any time. The question presented is whether the Oregon
Barry Joe Stull
Judicial Department can exercise jurisdiction over this case when the state is prohibited from
assisting a place of public accommodation engaged in the unlawful practices of disability
discrimination and ADA retaliation.
Oregon's public policy regarding persons with disabilities as declared in ORS 659A.103,
guarantees persons with disabilities the right to "use and enjoy" places of public accommodation.
ORS 659A.400 (1) (b) defines "public accommodation" to include places operated by pubic
bodies, and (c) includes services offered by public bodies.
Defendant's diagnosis of having central pain syndrome is one way defendant is protected
as a person with a disability under ORS Chapter 659A and parallel language within Oregon
Administrative Rules Chapter 839. Those definitions include a person with a disability who
"has" the qualifying condition, ORS 659A.104(1)(a), or for having "a record" or "history," of the
qualifying condition, ORS 659A.104 (1)(b).
Defendant was diagnosed as having central pain syndrome on both November 20, 2015
and November 22, 2015. The trial court refused to allow the Emergency Department records as
defense exhibits. Never-the-less, defendant was diagnosed as a person with Central Pain
Syndrome at those two Emergency Department visits where defendant was admitted and
diagnosed, which the court and prosecutor knew prior to that argument and ruling. In addition,
defendant's documents and colloquy informed the court and prosecutor defendant survived a
2011 episode requiring emergency medical care for forty five minutes to prevent circulatory
failure.
The state and its court is prohibited from assisting or "acting on behalf of" the place of
Barry Joe Stull

public accommodation which violated defendant's rights as a person with a disability, whether
that be a government building or service or a hospital, or a security guard or a police officer.
The jurisdiction of the Oregon Judicial Department is limited by ORS 659A.142. It
cannot act if its actions alter its status to be a "person acting on behalf" of the place of pubic
accommodation engaged in unlawful disability discrimination. ORS 659A.400 (4), "It is an
unlawful practice for any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement as defined in
ORS 659A.400, or any person acting on behalf of such place, to make any distinction,
discrimination or restriction because a customer or patron is an individual with a disability."
There is no evidence in the record that prior to arresting defendant, the public
accommodation made any effort to engage in the required meaningful interactive process
triggered by the discovery defendant was a person with a disability. Failure to engage in that
interactive process is unlawful disability discrimination--because no required reasonable
accommodation or modification of administrative policies or practices or alternatively
establishing no reasonable accommodation is available can be determined without meaningful
inquiry. The determination of what constitutes reasonable modification is highly fact-specific,
requiring case-by-case inquiry. See Crowder v. Kitagawa, 81 F. 3d 1480, 9th Cir. 1996.
Instead, defendant endured arrest, incarceration and dozens of court appearances facing
the emotional damage of ongoing threat of an arrest warrant being issued for missing a court
appearance, even on the occasion defendant is a crime victim on the way to court, as occurred on
November 24, 2015, and which resulted in Judge Todd issuing a warrant for defendant. Tr 1.
Each of those dozens of mandatory court appearances required defendant to leave home,
travel to and enter the court house, and appear in court where and when the state required,

Barry Joe Stull
including two places at the same time, as on March 4, 2016 when defendant was on the docket
before Judge Maurer in one courtroom, Transcrpt Volume 9 of 26, and Judge Kantor in a
different courtroom, Transcript Volume and 10 of 26.
Defendant was arrested within a week after an episodic worsening of defendant's
neurological condition was triggered after being a crime victim as person with a disability.
Defendant had been admitted at the Emanuel Hospital Emergency Department twice days prior
to being arrested.
Defendant was arrested after defendant was admitted in the Emergency Department for
"central pain syndrome", and the public accommodation's arrest occurred without any effort
toward considering, determining, offering, or providing any form of modification to policies or
practices, provision of auxiliary services or other ordinary mandates against disability
discrimination.
The arrest, which occurred after defendant was identified as a person with a disability and
before and without a reasonable accommodation being offered or considered, was unlawful
disability discrimination in the form of retaliation, which worsened when the police, state, and
District Attorney joined and added to it; all in direct violation of the state's declared public policy
and defendant's protections under the ADA.
This case is an ongoing product of a failure of the state to either respect the provisions of
ORS 659A.142 or respect defendant's protections guaranteed by the ADA and Oregon law.
Through this case the state has aided, abetted, and joined in the public accommodation's unlawful
disability discrimination, having no legal authority to do so and against state policy and federal
law.
Barry Joe Stull
Conclusion
The case #15CR53749 should be vacated or dismissed.
Motion to Dismiss Case #18CR75140
Defendant moves this court to dismiss Multnomah County Circuit Court Case
18CR75140, because the state's evidence proves defendant was a crime victim of Kyle Dean
Shepard while seated in Priority Seating on Tri Met Bus #20, with paid fare and bearing valid
Honored Citizen ID. Defendant acted in self-defense, and effected arrest of Shepard as
authorized by ORS 133.225 and only used the level of force authorized by ORS 161.255. Kyle
Dean Shepard has been convicted of Theft, which means he is impeachable as a witness.
Additionally and importantly, Shepard's injury reported as a "1" on a scale of 1 to 10,
which Shepard also said, "It stings a little," does not give rise to a criminal charge of Assault IV,
which requires pain to be substantial, and there is no way the lowest possible level of pain
reaches that standard.
ORS 133.220 Who may make an arrest. An arrest may be effected by *** (5) A private person
***.
ORS 133.225 Arrest by private person. (1) A private person may arrest another person for any
crime committed in the presence of the private person if the private person has probabble cause
to believe the arrested person committed the crime. A private person making such arrest shall
without unnecessary delay, take the arrested person before a magistrate or deliver the arrested
person to a peace officer.
(2) In order to make the arrest a private person may use physical force as is justifiable under
ORS 161.255.
ORS 161.255 Use of physical force by a private person making a citizen's arrest. (1) Except as
Barry Joe Stull
provided in subsection (2) of this section, a private person acting on the person's own account is
justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person

reasonably believes is necessary to make an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an
arrested person whom the person has arrested under ORS 133.225.
(2) A private person acting under the circumstances prescribed in subsection (1) of this section is
justified in using deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary for
self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of deadly physical force.
In addition, the public entity failed its duties under the ADA, ORS 659A.142 and OAR
Chapter 839, because defendant is a person with a disability, and relies on the case law and
arguments in the foregoing motion to dismiss case #15CR53749, above.
Defendant supports this motion with the information contained in the following February
14, 2019 letter to District Attorney Rod Underhill, which was presented to the Deputy District
Attorney on duty in Judge Albrecht's court on on this case on February 25, 2019, in addition to it
being sent by email. The attachments to the email, which were provided as printed copies on
February 25, 2019, are not included with the letter copied here in this motion, but included the
portion of the transcript of Multnomah County Circuit Court case 0310-35386 which was Dr.
Grimm’s testimony, a “cheat sheet” of selected quotes from Dr. Grimm’s testimony with citations
to the transcript pages, the Tri Met Honored Citizen Application in effect on November 9, 2019,
when the incident occurred, which was authorized by Dr. Hutchinson for due to defendant’s
neuropathy, and the Emanuel Hospital Emergency Department chart from the October 2011
event requiring 45 minutes of exclusive critical care to prevent circulatory failure.
Barry Joe Stull

Multnomah County District Attorney Rod Underhill
1021 SW Fourth Avenue Suite 600
February 14, 2019
Re: District Attorney case # 2392053-1
Dear Multnomah County District Attorney Rod Underhill:
I studied the video from the bus #20 I boarded on November 9, 2018. I received the data disc in
court on December 19, 2018 and have provided you my analysis of events at particular points in
time. This case aganinst me never should have been initiated, and raises serious concerns. Any
review of the video will establish I was approached and threatened by Kyle Dean Shepard when
Shepard knew I was a person with a disability in Priority Seating.
My being treated as a criminal, and Kyle Dean Shepard being treated as my victim, is a product
of the police and prosecution relying on a single passenger on the bus, the woman seated in
Priority Seating across from where I sat when I got on the bus to my house. I've identified that
passenger as Queen in Green. Queen in Green took control because she had a chance to, and was
allowed to by the bus driver who did nothing to investigate or manage the situation.
Because of the public employees allowing Queen in Green to control the situation, no effort was
made to treat me as the person with a disability effecting a citizen's arrest upon being the victim
of a crime on a public bus I could not exit safely upon Shepard's threat of "I'm getting off at your
stop!" Shepard made that threat after placing himself in a position blocking me from getting out
of my seat.
I have reviewed the video of the event in detail and identified specific events by the time code
hour, minute and second, and camera or cameras. Although the time of the events were just past
six thirty on the evening of November 9, 2018, the time code on the video reads 7:33:59 at it's
start, and I've used that numbering scheme. I have identified particular cameras as indicated. My
comments appear between events identifed by time code as my reflections on these events which
for me, are sickening.
Barry Joe Stull

As a social justice activist and musician I have a lot of experiences with crowds and social
dynamics. I know from training and experience that panic in an enclosed area is often a greater
threat to public safety than any incident producing panic, and I have experience in crowd control
and maintaining the safety of large groups of public. In addition to being emcee at festivals with
thousands of attendees present, where my role was to set the tone, I have produced and managed
public events requiring crowd safety as part of permit approval, from Hemp Day in Pioneer

Courthouse Square in 1991 through 2016 and 2017 Ben Linder Energy Circus events in
Chapman Square Park. As with other events, I'm routinely dispatched or relocated as a Sunday
Parkways volunteer to known "trouble spots" because of my crowd management skills, and
managed thousands of people per hour at the intersection of bus, light rail, commercial railroad,
and auto traffic when Sunday Parkways' route included the newly opened Tillicum Crossing, and
was complemented by the police on duty for my skill. I also know that every crowd includes a
jerk, and a crowd of jerks is an uncontrollable mob, and it's important for leaders to set the tone
so the jerks don't run or ruin the show.
I have a severe disability. My status of being a person qualified for Tri Met Honored Citizen
status is for a "permanent" condition diagnosed in the included 2014 renewal as "post
laminectomy neuropathy" because I have a debilitating neurological condition, better known as
central pain syndrome. In addition to causing chronic pain, my disease is subject to episodic
flares triggered upon so called "fight or flight" catachols (adrenaline) causing an epileptic-like
uncontrollable firing of rewired pain relays in my spinal cord and reverberations as my brain
responds to that increased pain signaling even more of the triggering adrenaline. I have provided
a copy of the testimony of Dr. Robert J. Grimm describing my particular physiology and
mechanism of such a response, and his subsequent chart regarding my condition being worsened
by emotional stress.
Triggering my "fight or flight" makes me incredibly strong and able to think fast to protect
myself, or potentialy die from heart falure if those chemicals released aren't consumed by the
muscles they are designed to provide a power surge; although such a response is due to my
partucluar physiology and rewired neurological system, at this stage of my life, flares being
triggered is limited to when I am a victim of a crime, because unlike accidents or other
unpredictable issues, crimes against me are a product of another intentionally acting against
interests so important, voilating those protected interests is beyond the realm of social tolerance
and criminalized, and for that reason, owing to central pain being worsened by emotional stress,
my being subject of a violent attack pushes my central pain syndrome beyond my ability to
manage.
An important element of the emotional component worsening my central pain is my experience

with the Multnomah County District Attorney and/or Portland Police refusing to prosecute
Barry Joe Stull
crimes where I am the crime victim, and allowing known violent criminals to act against me,
including Paris Lamont Collins in 2010 and Troy Anthony Thompson in 2012.
Instead you prosecute me. Let's not forget as an alumnus with ID proving it, I was mugged in
2010 by three of Lewis & Clark College Campus Safety who used excessive force then
misprepresented facts as Judge Michael Marcus reported, and after an unsucessful effort to
prosecute me, they weren't prosecuted. When I reported Troy Anthony Thompson violated the
Elderly Persons and Persons With Disabilities Abuse Prevention Act Restraining Order
protecting me in February 2012, I was arrested for criminal trespass in Central Precinct and won
via my motion for judgment of acquital in May 2012, only to be arrested for trespass again when
I reported to City Hall Security Thompson violated that Restraining Order at a time Thompson
was both present and had a warrant for his arrest July 17, 2012. That July 2012 arrest was by
PPB Sergeant Georgioff, who had endorsed the February 2012 Police Report, and my arrest in
February 2012 was after PPB Sergeant Holbrook said to arrest me and posted my booking photo
in Central Precinct. In 2015 Judge Simon ruled the City Hall trespass exclusion policy I was
claimed to have violated was unconstitutional on its face.
My mug shot on display in Central Precinct with instructions to arrest me was from the bogus
arrest as I performed as a street musician in August 2011 which couldn't be charged, and
following that, November 2011, Portland Police Bureau posted on its web site I was arrested for
menacing with a hammer, which similarly could not be charged. Again recently, November 6,
2018, my landlord called to report crimes committed by my neighbor, and my neighbor wasn't
arrested or prosecuted when I was one of the crime victims.
Such episodes after I am a victim of an crime have typically taken a month for my neurological
system to recover, and are devistating. Pain destroys sleep and none of us does well when sleep
deprived. Episodes can also be life threatening, as evidenced in 2011 by my needing forty five
minutes of emergency department critical care to prevent circulatory failure once my
neurological system was sent out of control to the point my firing nerves depleted my potasium
to life-threatening levels in addition to the threat of my heart failure. That episode on October 15,
2011 was after I was attacked then subdued the attacker and held him until police arrived to the
Max stop on SW Yamhill Street in Pioneer Square. I got in an ambulance originally dispatched
to treat my attacker, because I knew the adrenaline surge, evidenced by the responding
paramedic because I was shaking, demanded immediate emergency medical treatment. I have
included that October 2011 chart.
I was attacked again by a stranger in Pioneer Courthouse Square on the afternoon of November
9, 2018 when I returned and obtained a new copy of my Honored Citizen ID upon discovering
Barry Joe Stull

the new holder for my older ID I got my first trip there November 9, 2018 couldn't be used since
my image from the ID transfered to the old ID holder. A bystander stayed with me and emailed
me the video of the attack he'd captured but that never appeared in my email inbox. I was
attacked a second time November 9, 2018 by a visibly intoxicated man I took refuge from inside
Machus, a retail store at 542 East Burnside, as witnessed by "Dylan" who was on duty there and
wrote his name on a card for me, moments before I boarded the #20 bus home to encounter
Shepard.
I have the ability to protect myself from harm through support from bystanders because I'm not
the source of the trouble, I am trained and able to effectively de-escalate the situation verbally,

and self defense. I used all of those skills repeatedly after I was approached and threatened by
Shepard on my bus ride home November 9, 2018. I was approached and threatened by Shepard,
a stranger who positioned himself blocking me in a closed area, and inportant to me, in the area
of the bus designated as Priority Seating for the most vulnerable passengers.
Certainly the event on the bus was exciting.but at no time during the incident were other
passengers placed into a direct threat from anyone yelling or shouting, or shoving, with the
exception of Shepard's efforts to flee. Passengers exited safely whenever they chose but many
stayed, and there were still over ten passengers on the bus when told by Queen in Green for
everyone to get off via the back door of the bus, although responding police vehicle had not yet
arrived and where the bus driver was the employee on duty to manage the bus and conduct of
passengers but failed to.
Queen in Green escalated the situation, particularly by first interupting the space where I had
been maintaining Shepard peacefully, and again stepping closer with verbal and physical acts
acts which were encouraging Shepard to bolt when passengers witnessing the situation knew that
I'd effected a citizen's arrest against Shepard. Queen in Green knew passengers were allied with
me in holding Shepard until the police arrived. The bus driver and police allowed Queen in
Green completely managing the witnesses to the situation by telling them to exit the bus, which
were actions taken first in the presence of the bus driver prior to police arriving on the scene,
then a second drive while both Officer Nipper and the bus driver acquiessed, as the video proves.
Office Nipper had his hands on me in seconds and handcuffed me in less than a minute, hardly
the product of any effort to establish facts. My analysis of the video was an effort to establish
facts, and the video record proves Shepard was the criminal, not me.
I eagerly await your response that you've moved to dismiss this case.
Respectfully submitted,
Barry Joe Stull

Barry Joe Stull, pro se

Bus #20 Multi-Screen Video (Discovery)
07:34:12 I become visible on the sidewalk near the bus stop as viewed from the front camera
4.1.
07:34:27 I waive to flag the bus driver from the sidewalk via camera 4.1.
07:34:29 I am on the sidewalk as viewed through the driver seat view of the front door via
camera 1.1.
07:34:37 I enter with my paperwork in my left hand and a waive of my right hand to the driver,
who didn't ask me for proof of fare via camera 1.1.
I had, and still have, a transfer I valid for boarding theough 7:44 pm November 9, 2019
purchased on the #12 bus on West Burnside. I got off at the east end of the Burnside Bridge at
SE MLK Blvd. I always show my proof of fare and Honored Citizen ID before I get off, usually
by stepping up at a signal light after passengers clear, which only happens when I don't have
those ready because as I did that evening, I ran to catch the #20 bus I saw after leaving Machus
and caught it because of slow traffic at that hour.
07:34:50 I ask for an Honored Citizen seat and sit down via cameras 2.1 and 5.1.
07:35:00 The bus driver closes the door, which triggers the interior lighting change as I sort
through my paperwork where I had my ticket and two Honored Citizen cards via cameras 2.1
and 5.1.
07:36:04 Passengers standing in the front of the bus turn to look at the back of the bus after I
express I don't know why folk can't keep the Honored Citizen seats vacant so we don't have to
ask people to move and express the back of the bus has room via cameras 2.1 and 5.1. One seat
is vacant and nobody stands in the area behind the back steps via camera 3.1.
Barry Joe Stull
07:36:34 Shepard stands at his seat and looks to see me, my being the target of the Heckler, a
standing man in a brown coat and black hat who challenges my having asked for Honored
Citizen seating via camera 2.1.
I chat with Old Guy seated across from me as I continue banter with the Heckler.
07:36:52 I waive my Honored Citizen Card to the Heckler via cameras 2.1 and 5.1.
07::37:07 Shepard rises from his seat via cameras 2.1 and 3.1.
07:37:15 Shepard completes pushing his way through other passengers to the area in front of the
knees and feet of the passengers in Priority Seats via cameras 2.1 and 5.1.

07:37:16 Shepard grabs an overhead strap with his right hand, so he faces me, as he positions
himself in front of me via cameras 2.1 and 5.1.
07:37:17 Shepard uses the strap to support his weight with his right hand as he leans into me
with his body via cameras 2.1 and 5.1.
07:37:18 Shepard agressivelly waives his left hand with a pointed finger toward me repeatedly
as he tells me he doesn't want to hear about my Honored Citizen status and says "I'm getting off
at your stop!" through 07:37:23, commiting a crime via cameras 2.1 and 5.1.
I know Shepard's acts to be against Tri Met Code and was also a crime against me as a person
with a disability, Intimidation, and for any member of the public the crime of Menace. Although
I feel that ordinance is unconstitutional, Portland City Code 14A.40.020 criminalizes Offensive
Physical Contact without a required element of actual contact, and Shepard also committed that
crime.
07:37:24 I calculate then punch Shepard in the mouth as the safest and easiest way to negate
Shepard's threat to me and effect my citizen's arrest of Shepard for having committed crimes in
my presence I witnessed, and to prevent any passengers besides Shepard from having to endure
even a "stings a little" injury as Shepard reported to the police he received at my encounter via
cameras 2.1 and 5.1.
I had reason to be concerned Shepard had a knife if he felt confident to threaten me with "I'm
getting off at your stop!" in the tone and manner he had. Police had reponded several months
prior when a person pulled a knife on me as I bicycled home on a bicycle route one night, I knew
there were recent unsolved stabbings in the area I was in when Shepard approached me, and my
friend recently told me of his ordeal surviving being stabbed by a stranger decades ago.
07:37:24 Old Guy shows emotional reaction to the events while Queen in Green continues to
look at her paperwork and/or phone via cameras 2.1. and 5.1.
Barry Joe Stull

07:37:25 Queen in Green looks away from her handheld device via cameras 2.1 and 5.1.
07:37:25 I grab Shepard's coat with my right hand then begin the process of standing up, since I
was vunerable in a seated poition, and lift Shepard up to hold him so passengers could get out of
the way via cameras 2.1 and 5.1.
I knew from my training and experience that at that point my punch had disoriented Shepard and
that if I lifted his feet off the ground it would impress Shepard he was not in control and prevent
his attacking me as his brain was addressing the impact of the punch in his mouth on his vision
as well as forcing his brain to also address the loss of balance from the fact his feet were off the
Earth which I know Shepard would undergo, further limiting Shepard's ability to cogitate to
attack me.

07:37:37 Shepard throws the container from his right hand via cameras 2.1 and 5.1.
07:37:39 Shepard attempts a headlock with his left hand after letting go of the strap via cameras
2.1 and 5.1.
07:37:42 Shepard learns I have an extrordinarily strong neck and Shepard puts his right hand
over my face via cameras 2.1 and 5.1.
I can do a no- hand- headstand if I can lean my feet against a wall or an assistant supports me.
07:37:45 I break the headlock by setting Shepard down via cameras 2.1 and 5.1.
07:37:50 I set Shepard down, turn my back and walk away, knowing Shepard would establish
his footing and balance, find releif from having been returned to Earth, and would then likely
have the mental capacity to focus on his lip, and would, again reducing his ability to focus on an
attack or escape as the surprise of what Shepard just experienced was abating via cameras 2.1
and 5.1.
07:37:54 Queen in Green turns her head to look away from me and away from Shepard via
camera 5.1.
07:37:58 Queen in Green starts to stand to as if exit the bus via camera 5.1.
07:37:59 Shepard steps toward the exit and I arrest him as I grab his coat in my right hand, pull
him toward me and hold his left leg between my two legs as I remain seated with my package
still in my left hand as it was before Shepard approached via cameras 2.1 and 5.1. Through
07:38:12.
07:38:00 Queen in Green turns back to the left to look at Shepard and me via camera 5.1.
Barry Joe Stull

07:38:02 Shepard throws down his container from his right hand via cameras 2.1 and 5.1.
07:38:03 Shepard grabs at my throat with both hands via cameras 2.1 and 5.1.
07:38:04 Queen in Green talks to bus driver through 07:38:11 via camera 5.1.
07:38:05 Shepard tries to choke me with his left hand as I control Shepard with my right hand on
his left coat sleeve via cameras 2.1 and 5.1.
07:38:12 I again announce to my prisoner that he's under arrest via camera 5.1.
07:38:24 Queen in Green makes a telephone call and talks to the bus driver while on the
telephone at 07:38:35 through 07:38:36 via camera 5.1.
07:38:43 Bus driver turns to make comment to Queen in Green via camera 5.1.
07:38:47 Shepard asks bus driver for something to address the blood coming from his lip via
camera 2.1.
07:38:53 Shepard feigns punch with his right hand via camera 2.1.
07:38:54 Shepard feigns punch with his right hand again via camera 2.1.
07:39:11 I'm seated with Shepard as my prisoner with his left leg in a leg lock between my legs
with my right hand on his coat and still holding my papers in my left hand via camera 5.1.
07:39:16 Bus driver hands Old Guy a paper towell for Shepard's biohazard via camera 5.1.
07:39:18 Old Guy hands paper towell to Shepard via cameras 2.1 and 5.1.
07:39:36 Bus driver turns and makes a comment via camera 5.1.
07:39:49 Old Guy makes comment to bus driver via camera 5.1.
07:39:54 Bus driver responds to Old Guy by pointing to Queen in Green via camera 5.1.
07:39:58 I converse with the couple and other witnesses via cameras 2.1 and 5.1.
07:40:06 Bus driver gives Old Guy another paper towell for Shepard's biohazard via camera 5.1.
Barry Joe Stull

07:40:09 Old Guy hands another paper towell to Shepard via camera 5.1.
07:40:44 Bus driver turns in seat and looks backward via camera 5.1.
07:40:51 Queen in Green rings off telephone call after about two and a half minutes then makes
comment to bus driver via camera 5.1.
07:41:54 I set down the package held in my left hand via camera 5.1.
07:41:59 Queen in Green stands in front doorway looking outside via camera 1.1.
07:42:02 I talk to Shepard and hold my left hand palm open as I explain to him he's under arrest
and we're all waiting for the police as Shepard stands with his right fist clenched holding his
biohazard via camera 2.1.
07:42:07 Queen in Green rotates left and looks out front bus window via camera1.1.

07:42:10 Queen in Green rotates left and looks at Shepard and me via camera 1.1.
07:42:11 Queen in Green enters the bus behind the yellow line via cameras 1.1 and 5.1.
07:42:14 Queen in Green leaves frame of front door camera 1.1
07:42:15 Queen in Green interrupts me as I control the situation, and encourages my prisioner to
escape by her actions and words via cameras 2.1 and 5.1.
07:42:18 I respond to the additional threat caused by the distraction Queen in Green causes and
move Shepard's left hand from near my throat via cameras 2.1 and 5.1.
07:42:20 I remove Shepard's left hand from near my throat the second time via cameras 2.1 and
5.1.
07:42:21 Shepard pulls back and makes a fist with his left hand via cameras 2.1 and 5.1.
07:42:22 I block Shepard's left fist with my right hand and grab Shepards left coat sleeve with
my left hand while replacing my right hand grasp on the back of Shepard's coat via cameras 2.1
and 5.1.
07:42:23 Shepard swings his left fist down hard to the right as I block and control his punch
away from me as Shepard pulls back his right hand to make a punch via cameras 2.1 and 5.1.
07:42:25 Shepard grabs the strap with his left hand via cameras 2.1 and 5.1.
07:42:30 Queen in Green steps forward more and closes space between herself and Shepard and
Barry Joe Stull

me, and acts and speaks against my interests in keeping Shepard under arrest and calm until the
police arrive via cameras 2.1 and 5.1.
07:43:32 Shepard breaks free of my hold on his left leg with my legs as viewed via camera 5.1.
It's important to note that prior to Queen in Green entering into the space at 07:42:30 I had
maintained control of a dangerous situation and no one was hurt with the exception of Shepard's
lip, which Shepard qualified as the lowest on a scale of one-to-ten regarding pain as contained in
Transit Officer M's report. Once Queen in Green enters that space, Shepard bolts from my
custody where I had him calm and under control and as he ageed he would be as we waited for
the police. That Queen in Green interferrance resulted in a scramble, and Shepard climbing over
a barrier in the bus, and other passengers agreeing they would not allow Shepard to escape and
would be witnesses when the police arrived, as the timeline of those particular events reflects.
07:42:43 Shepard steps up on seat containing my paperwork and it scatters to the floor.

07:42:49 I get kicked from behind by Old Guy
07:43 (generally) I engage with other passengers and find those willing to be witnesses on the
part of my having efffected a citizen's arrest on Shepard, which included the couple of the man
and woman who were standing at the back steps when I got on, moved forward after my arrest of
Shepard began, and remained on the bus until Queen in Green told everyone to get off the bus,
although no police had arrived on the scene yet. Passengers agreed to ensure that Shepard did
not escape, and I let them do that, and returned to gather my belongings.
07:43:46 My hat is handed back to me by Old Guy.
After I make a comment to Shepard, Shepard grabs me and I defend myself and de-escalate.
(My hat was left on the floor inside the back door of the bus as the timeline reflects via camera
3.1.)
07:43:49 Shepard removes his hand from his mouth and reaches out after I pull away my hat.
Shepard rises toward me and puts his left hand on me as I pulled away via camera 2.1 and detail
in bottom left corner of frame via camera 3.1.
07:43:49 I block Shepard's left hand with the back of my left hand and grab Shepard's coat with
my left hand in bottom left corner of frame via camera 3.1.
07:44 (generally) I de-escalate that situation and other passengers agree to secure Shepard until
the police arrive.
Barry Joe Stull

07:44:30 Patrol car lights first appear in rear of bus driver side via camera 8.1.
07:45:21 My left hand on Shepard's coat is replaced by a passenger placing his left hand on
Shepard's chest to secure Shepard as we agreed via camera 5.1.
07:45:23 I conclude my conversation with the other passengers.
07:45:26 I return to my property via cameras 2.1 and 5.1.
07:45:35 I display my Honored Citizen ID again via camera 2.1.
07:45:39 Queen in Green reboards the bus via cameras 1.1. and 5.1.
07:45:42 Queen in Green announces for everyone to get off of the bus by the back door via
cameras 1.1 and 5.1.
07:45:48 Portland Police Patrol Car stops behind bus as viewed from driver side rear via camera
8.1 and through bus window via camera 5.1.

07:45:50 Queen in Green deboards the bus via cameras 1.1 and 5.1.
07:45:59 Officer Nipper appears in frame behind bicyclist via camera 3.1.
07:46:00 Officer Nipper passes bicylist on sidewalk side of bike via camera 3.1.
07:46:01 Officer Nipper passes rear bus door via camera 3.1.
07:46:03 Officer Nippper appears beside bus as deboarding passengers block bike light glare via
camera 7.1 and steps out of camera frame at 07:46:06.
07:46:06 Queen in Green greets Officer Nipper via camera 1.1.
07:46:10 Officer Nipper boards the bus as he puts on his second glove via camera 1.1.
07:46:10 I continue to gather my belongings via camera 2.1.
07:46:16 Queen in Green agains boards bus via camera 1.1.
07:46:21 With Officer Nipper present, Queen in Green tells remaining passengers to leave the
bus via cameras 1.1, 2.1, 3.1 and 7.1.
07:46:21 Officer Nipper puts his hands on me via cameras 5.1, 2.1.
07:46:28 Queen in Green places her hand on the back of the last witness, the passenger sitting
Barry Joe Stull

next to me as Shepard threatened me, after repeatedly telling passengers to disembark, via
camera 5.1.
07:46:44 Officer Nipper takes his handcuffs out via cameras 5.1, 2.1.
07:47:01 I sit back in seat with handcuffs on via cameras 5.1, 2.1.
07:47:08 Officer Nipper approaches bus driver to interview via cameras 5.1, 1.1. and begins
interview at 07:47:09 concluding at 07:47:39.
07:47:32 Transit Officer M appears from glare of patrol car lights outside passenger side of bus
via camera 7.1.
07:47:35 Queen in Green greets Transit Officer M just behind outside of back door of bus
through window via camera 3.1.
07:47:36 Queen in Green and Transit Officer M walk together via cameras 3.1 and 7.1.
07:47:40 Transit Officer M appears in frame of camera 1.1, and begins conversation with Officer
Nipper.

07:47:50 Officer Nipper points out someone to Transit Officer M via camera 1.1.
07:47:57 Queen in Green presents card to Transit Officer M via camera 1.1.
07:48:05 Transit Officer M starts to intervicw Shepard via cameras 1.1 and 7.1.
07:50:19 Transit Officer M takes phone photo of Shepard via camera 7.1.
07:50:58 Transit Officer M concludes interview of Shepard via cameras 1.1 and 7.1.
07:51:01 Shepard turns and walks to look in the side of the bus at 07:51:09 via camera 7.1.
07:51:05Transit Officer M interviews Queen in Green via camera 1.1 through 07:53:00.
07:51:08 Transit Officer M appears in view of camera 4.1. through 07:52:55.
07:53:03 Transit Officer M boards bus via cameras 1.1 and 5.1.
07:53:05 Transit Officer M interviews bus driver through 07:56:28 via cameras 1.1 and 5.1.
07:54:10 Officer Nipper deboards bus and commences interview of Old Guy via camera 1.1.
07:55:42 Old Guy points out someone to Officer Nipper via camera 1.1. and interview concludes
at 07:56:00.
Barry Joe Stull
07:56:00 Officer Nipper commences interview of first of two women- black coat and light hair
via camera 1.1.
07:56:12 Woman steps up (Grey Coat and white hat) and at 07:56:24 puts her hand to her mouth
via camera 1.1 through 07:56:39. Officer Nipper and Grey Coat woman converse via camera 1.1
through 07:56:50.
07:56:32 Transit Officer M deboards bus via camera 1.1.
07:56:34 Queem in Green approaches Transit Officer M as viewed from camera 7.1.
07:56:35 Queen in Green appears in frame of camera 1.1.
07:56:36 Queen in Green initiates conversation with Transit Officer M through 07:56:44 via
camera 1.1.
07:56:51 Officer Nipper and Transit Officer M confer through 07:57:12 via camera 1.1.
07:57:28 Officer Nipper boards bus via camera 1.1.
07:57:43 Officer Nipper deboards bus via camera 1.1

07:57:44 Transit Officer M enters frame of camera 3.1 walking outside to the back of the bus
through 7:57:49 as Old Guy enters frame of camera 3.1 following him.
07:57:47 My hat is visible on the floor of the bus that is empty except for me and the bus driver
via camera 3.1 through end of recording.
07:57:56 Old guy leaves frame of camera 3.1 at back of bus as he follows Transit Officer M.
07:59:04 Officer Nipper boards bus via camera 1.1.
08:00:57 Bus driver leaves seat via camera 5.1. and appears in frame of camera 1.1.
08:01:15 Bus driver makes a hand signal and body language to Transit Officer M like "I don't
know," outside the bus via camera 1.1.
08:01:20 Transit Officer M starts to put on gloves via camera 1.1.
08:01:41 Bus driver boards bus via cameras 1.1 and 5.1.
08:01:44 Transit Officer M boards bus via cameras 1.1 and 5.1.
08:03:23 I am lifted from my seat by Transit Officer M via cameras 2.1 and 5.1.
Barry Joe Stull

08:23:31 I exit the bus in custody of both Officer Nipper amd Transit Officer M via cameras 1.1
and 5.1.
08:03:41 The police and I fade from view of camera 7.1.
Boarding at 07:34:37 to punch at 07:37:24 is two minutes and forty eight seconds.
Punch at 07:37:24 to Portland Police boarding bus at 07:46:11 is eight minutes and forty seven
seconds.
Police boarding bus at 07:46:11 to Oficer Nipper taking out his handcuffs at 07:46:44 is thirty
three seconds.
Police boarding at 07:46:11 to my exiting bus in custody at 08:23:31 is thirty seven minutes and
20 seconds.

Shepard's crimes, etc.:
ORS 166.155 Intimidation in the second degree (1) A person commits the crime of intimidation
in the second degree if the person *** (6) Intentionally, because of the person's perception of ***
disability of another *** subjects the other to alarm by threatening to inflict serious physical
injury upon or commit a felony affecting the other person. (2) Intimidation is a Class A
Misdimeanor.
ORS 163.190 Menacing (1) A person commits the crime of menacing if by word or conduct the
person intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.
(2) Menacing is a Class A Misdimeanor. [1971 c. 743 Section 95]]
Tri Met Code 28 D(6) Harassment and Intimidation:
(a) While on the District Transit System, no person shall engage in harassment or intimidation
through a course of conduct, including violent, threatening or disruptive behavior or conduct
intended and likely to provoke a violent response, which places another person in reasonable fear
of imminent physical harm, including, but not limited to, following such person around or about
a District Vehicle or platform, or by preventing or delaying the movement or departure of such
Barry Joe Stull

person through coercion or intimidation; ***.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, case #18CR should be dismissed.
Motion for an Order Providing Defendant a Site Visit for a Pre-trial Inspection,
in case 19CR21313
Defendant, Barry Joe Stull, pro se, moves the court for an order in Multnomah County
Circuit Court case #19CR21313, to allow defendant or defendant's agent to visit the crime scene
prior to trial to document the condition of the buildings, the affordable housing apartment
complex owned by Oregon nonprofit corporation Portland Community Reinvestment Initiatives,
Incorporated, otherwise known as PCRI, located at 4066 NE Grand Avenue Portland Oregon,

which defendant entered on April 1, 2019, with the express purpose of exploring and
discovering, and exposing that that housing was habitable with a minimum of rehabilitation. At
the time of defendant’s crime, April 1, 2019, the property at 4066 NE Grand Avenue Portland
Oregon was both vacant and listed on the Oregon Housing and Community Services inventory of
"affordable" housing as five apartments for "families", and the landlord, PCRI, was keeping
those five family apartments vacant during the City of Portland Oregon’s declared housing state
of emergency against the common good of the citizens of Oregon which chartered the nonprofit
corporation to act in the public good. Rather than providing the affordable housing it was listed
as by the state agency, the property was instead a vector for criminal activity, squatters and
squalor.
Since the date of the crime, which defendant announced beforehand and which defendant
Barry Joe Stull
intends to defend through the use of the choice of evils defense, the landlord has boarded all
access to the buildings, including covering the picture windows and other doors and windows
which defendant had nothing to do with, with the exception of the windows in Apartment 5,
which defendant looked out of as a tenant prior to the landlord PCRI evicting defendant through
the use of a so called 30 day no cause eviction filed under ORS 90.237(2) in express violation of
the statutory prohibition contained in ORS 105.120, because the case was filed when defendant's
rent was paid for the month of August 2005, and the landlord may not bring of file that type of
action under those circumstances as a matter of law.
Defendant's experience as a resident of the property and experience that PCRI acted
criminally with impunity, with the imprimatur of the Multnomah County District Attorney has

led defendant to believe the act of boarding up the buildings after they have been vacant since
2012 was an effort to prevent defendant from having an adequate defense to the criminal acts
charged.
I am competent to testify on these matters.
Conclusion
Defendant's motion in Multnomah County case #19CR21313 for an order inspect the
crime scene should be granted in the interest of justice.
Respectfully submitted,
Barry Joe Stull

___________________
DATED this _____________ day of January, 2020, ____________________

Barry Joe Stull


#BarryJoeStull Motions Janauary 22, 2020 Final

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

#BarryJoeStull Motions Janauary 22, 2020 Final

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY

January 31, 2020.

Motion to Dismiss Multnomah County Circuit Court Case Number 15CR53749

Page 1 - DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF

Barry Joe Stull

physical or mental limitations" of a user of their services. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). ORS

659A.139 Construction of ORS 659A.103 to 659A.145. (1) ORS 659A.103 to

regulatory obligation to modify policies, practices, or procedures requires law enforcement to

Page 2 - DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF

Barry Joe Stull

guaranteed civil rights as a person with a disability.

prosecution are subject to the requirements and limitations of the ADA.

constitute unlawful discrimination because of a person's disability.

Barry Joe Stull

defines unlawful discrimination on the basis of a person's disability whether intentional or

involve either intentional or unintentional discrimination. Discrimination against individuals

Page 4 - DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF

with disabilities need not be intentional to be unlawful." OAR 839-006-0340:

Page 5 - DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF

Page 6 - DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF

investigate and consider what would constitute a reasonable accommodation to defendant's

Defendant is a Person With a Disability under Federal and Oregon Laws

Defendant has a disabling medical condition, a neurological disease, central pain

brainstem, and spinal cord." available at:

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/central_pain/central_pain.htm last accessed January

Defendant is a person with a disability afforded the protections of the ADA:

"Sec. 12102. Definition of disability

Defendant is a person with a disability afforded the protections of ORS 659A:

Barry Joe Stull

disorders.’ Stedman's Medical Dictionary, 1202 (26th ed 1995). Neurophysiology is the

physiology of the nervous system. Id. at 1204.”

Page 9 - DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF

Grimm testified defendant's condition, "dysesthesia", is "disorganizing."

Other people have observed peculiar aspects of defendant's disability. Multnomah

Page 10 - DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF

After defendant requested an ambulance to transport defendant back to Emanuel Hospital

Barry Joe Stull

personnel refused defendant's offer to produce medical records.

Instead of providing defendant emergency medical transportation to Emanuel Hospital as

ongoing practice of interfering with defendant's access to emergency medical transportation or

Instead of relying on any available medical records or any fact-specific investigation as

required by law, responding Portland Police Officer Engstrom characterized defendant as a

to the responding paramedics who arrived on the scene.

Page 11 - DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF

Barry Joe Stull

Page 12 - DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF

Barry Joe Stull

Page 13 - DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF

Barry Joe Stull

the top decision maker. Tr. 839, 849.

Page 14 - DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF

Barry Joe Stull

opening argument, although that never happened.

Page 15 - DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF

Barry Joe Stull

the face with one of the punches."

Page 16 - DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF

my (Sgt Cohen) account of this incident."

conducted a number of interviews as part of IA #2015-0365, following a complaint by David Kif

police officer, so it's a felony."- at page 10 of 12.

Page 17 - DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF

defendant, "You need to calm down, Barry."

defendant had central pain syndrome.