The human rights report in regards to Stephen Bell in BS 98-693/2016

Introductory
In this report I will break down the situation in regards to the district court of Esbjerg position on, and
active involvement in withholding any information regarding the program and the states persecution of
me, despite this information being established public facts. The district court of Esbjerg has for all
intents and purposes been corrupted by the intelligence agencies, so much so that the intelligence
agencies administer all the courts legal procedures through the court, and in the name of the court, in
any case regarding me Stephen Bell.
This has come to light in a manner that makes the above absolutely clear, in the case Stephen Bell VS
the municipality of Esbjerg BS 98-693/2016 which is now no longer ongoing.
This report will be about how the case against the municipality of Esbjerg evolved into that legal
problem, that the district court of Esbjerg are actively and willfully not only denying established facts of
immense importance, but also in the same regard, withholding and concealing the information which I
as a plaintiff, has given as testimony to the district court of Esbjerg on the 16th of December 2016, in my
defense for not complying with the order to seek legal counsel, in the above civil suit against the
municipality of Esbjerg.
The original case against the municipality of Esbjerg will be filed again in a more suitable manner, this is
legally possible because the case has not actually been tried in reality, because the case was dismissed
because I did not comply with the order to seek legal counsel, why the case never really began.
However, this is not as unfortunate as one may have thought, and even more so because how the
original case also morphed into a separate coming civil suit against the court of Esbjerg, for outright
denying and withholding established public facts, and furthermore my testimony and documents which
the court has received from me regarding my factual circumstances of relevance and immense
importance to my legal and human rights.
In this report I will break down the events that transpired in a chronological manner, I will also reference
to all the annexes which are relevant to this case, so my claims are documented and not some baseless
accusations.
Be aware that the annexes are in Danish because that is after all the spoken legal language here in
Denmark, however I have given short summary descriptions in English, furthermore I standby my
descriptions against any competent translations of my documents, now lets begin
The case against the municipality of Esbjerg was filed on the 27th of July 2016, the municipality of Esbjerg
motioned the court to dismiss the case in full, and also submitted a subsidiary claim that the court was
to give me an order to seek legal counsel, which the court granted the municipality.

Annex 1: Court record from the 23-09-2016.

The municipality of Esbjerg motion to the district court was for most part accepted, therefore I was
given an order to seek legal counsel, furthermore in this regard I had six weeks to find an attorney and
correct my court applications claims, it is also stated that if I did not comply with the order my case
would most likely be dismissed.

Annex 2: My letter to the court of the 03-10-2016

In this document I express that the civil procedure Law had been diverted from to an extent that gave
the municipality a favorable advantage, and in regards to the order to seek legal counsel, I expressed
that it would be irresponsible of me to comply with the order on the basis of the factual circumstances
surrounding my situation and status, to seek legal counsel, because of the fact that my situation and
status prohibited any attorney from truly fulfilling his duties in the interests of the client, and in this
regard I submitted legal arguments in support of this claim, in a professional and thorough manner.

Annex 3: letters from the district court to me of the 27-09-2016 and 27-10-2016
On 27 September the court sent me my court application back to me, without officially dismissing the
case despite annex one and two, and finally the fact that the court application was sent back to me,
which is what the courts do, when they dismiss a case before it has been tried in reality.
On 27 October the district court suddenly wanted the court application back again, without really giving
any explanation why, all of this is very unusual, and certainly a major indication that from 27 September
to 27 October major deliberations were occurring regarding me, and the case against the municipality of
Esbjerg, without I the plaintiff having any part whatsoever in these deliberations.

Annex 4: Court record from the 04-11-2016

The first part is regarding my claims, as I have stated in annex 2, that my counterpart and the court have
not specified which claims were unclear and, too unspecific.
The second part which is the more important pertains to my status and situation, in this regard the court
acknowledges that they received my document from annex 2, however the court did not find my legal
arguments for not complying with the order to seek legal counsel were valid.
Finally, the court record states that there was going to be held a court meeting on 16 December 2016.

Another fact: the court does not mention anything at all, on the substance of my letter and the legal
arguments within this document of the 03-10-2016 to the court of Esbjerg, which is yet another clearcut indication that my documents to the court, are likely being replaced by other documents written on
my behalf, that are much more suitable to a specific narrative, and these replacements will be put in
place in the instance when I am disempowered, or I have lost my life, or freedom, this is not as you say
admissible in court but is a clear indication of what is going on behind the scenes.

Annex 5: Court document from the 07-11-2016

On 13 November 2016 I was served by the district court of Esbjerg, and provided with the document
from annex 5 which is basically a reiteration of the previous court record.
Important to note: It its again stated, that if I met in court without legal counsel, that I would be
considered as been absent, and the case would be dismissed.
Which is the same procedural consequence for not complying with the order to seek legal counsel, that
the court now for the third time had repeated.
Important notes to bear in mind in this regard:
1: I had made it absolutely clear to the court, that I was not going to comply with the order to seek legal
counsel on the grounds that I had already submitted on the 03-10-2016 in Annex 2.
2: Annex 3: shows how the court of Esbjerg and whoever they were deliberating with were unsure on
how to proceed with the case and me.
3: The court record from 4 November explicitly states that my reasoning and legal arguments for not
complying with the order was not valid.
These factual circumstances show that the court and whoever they were deliberating with, wanted the
case to proceed, however in the same instance they demanded the case dismissed, which again shows
that there was an objective someone, or entity was trying to achieve and therefore needed the case to
continue despite the court had already dismissed the case, on the grounds that I did not comply with the
order to seek legal counsel.

Annex 6: My declaration to the court of the 23-11-2016.

In this declaration I basically state that any future court meeting including the scheduled court meeting
of 16 December 2016 was meaningless, unless the court revoked the order to seek legal counsel,
furthermore I also reference my letter to the court from the 03-10-2016 as the grounds for not being
able to comply, and how the court already was well aware of these facts, therefore I go on to say, that it
was clear the court wanted me to take some procedural steps, which could justify the order to seek legal
counsel, and how the courts procedural steps in this case were highly unorthodox, moreover it is
explicitly stated in my declaration that the court might as well actualize the decision of dismissal, which
the court already from 4 November 2016 at the very latest, had already decided upon, despite that all of
this is in black and white in writing in annex 6, the court never responded to this declaration.

Annex 7: My written request of 12-12-2016 to the court for permission to sound record the court
meeting of the 16th of December 2016.
I reason my request for permission to sound record the court meeting on the premise that it was very
likely that there would arise a legal twist between the court and me, in regards to my status and
situation, and because these kinds of matters ultimately can be decided in the European Court of human
rights, that it would be a good solution already at this stage to take evidence of the procedures.
As previous the court of Esbjerg did not respond to my written request, I therefore telephoned the court
on the 15th where I spoke to the judge Henrik Tosti who claimed not to have received my request from
the secretariat, and therefore this matter would be decided upon on the 16th under the court meeting.
Another important point: Because there is a reasoning behind this, which has come to light after-thefact as things typically do, you see because the court of Esbjerg and whoever they are deliberating with,
knew beforehand that I was likely going to invoke my factual circumstances under the court meeting,
where I would most definitely refer to annex 2 & 6 in support, And in the instance of this being recorded
in the court record, as proceedings normally are, it would give me legal opportunities for me to pursue
against the court, because of their stance of outright denying the factual circumstances surrounding my
situation and status, which is the big why the court did not process my written request of the 12th until
the actual day of the court meeting, and furthermore for not granting me permission to sound record
the court meeting. The court needed to wait to process my written request to sound record the court
meeting, because they wanted their decision to be in the court record of 16 December, where my actual
testimony and references to the annexes would be left out of the record for all intents and purposes.

Annex 8: the court record from the 16-12-2016

The first part of the court record pertains to my written request to the court from 12 December 2016,
the judges reasoning in this decision is based on jurisprudence, it is not permitted in Danish courts to
record court meetings unless permitted by request, and because there is no previous example in law of
my particular situation, the request was ultimately denied. This is the gist of Henrik Tosti reasoning in
this decision.
The second part and the last part of the court record pertains to the order to seek legal counsel
In which the first sentences, of this court record states, that the court notices that I hadnt complied
with the order to seek legal counsel, and then the court has dedicated a mere 35 words to my entire
testimony and references to the annexes.
It is also noted that the municipality of Esbjerg had the opportunity to comment, which they kind of did
by reiterating, that I hadnt complied with the courts order.
And finally it is stated that I was considered as being absent from the court meeting, and the court
therefore dismissed the case in accordance with the procedural law.

As a matter of fact: The court record is truly unreflective of the actual transpired court meeting of the
16th of December 2016:
1: The entirety of the court meeting has for all intents and purposes been left out of the court record,
the only subject which is reflective in the court record is the denial of my written request to sound
record the court meeting, however even here a crucial part of my actual statement is also left out, which
was my prediction that there would arise a legal twist between the court and I, in regards to the court
relying of all the information that transpired on the 16th under the court meeting.
1.1 As I stated previous the reasoning behind why the court of Esbjerg did not process my written
request, is because without the above reasoning, the actual court record would be almost
completely empty, and missing of substance, thereby it would have been impossible for the court to
claim, that court record of the 16th was a true representation of what actually transpired under the
court meeting, in Stephen Bell VS municipality of Esbjerg.
2: In regards to the order to seek legal counsel the court record is truly misconstrued in such a way that I
am presented as being incompetent, and furthermore my statement and references to annex 2 & 6 have
been left completely out of the court record, despite there was at least a 10 minute conversation
between the judge and I on this subject alone, where I of course invoke the factual circumstances of my
situation and status, as being the prohibitors for me not to comply with the order, and furthermore the
wider implications of this situation in regards to the program.
3: The third point of the court meeting there is no mention whatsoever in the court record (this is the
most important point), not even and out of context and misconstrued section.
My reasoning for my request in annex 8 to sound record the court meeting, was what this third and final
part of the actual court meeting was about, where I explicitly sought clarifying answers from the judge
Henrik Tosti in regards to annex 2 & 6 which obviously pertains to my particular situation and status in
regards to the program, and the states persecution of me, and the judge in this connection answered
my explicit questions, in which the judge responded by outright lying and withholding established public
facts of immense importance to this case and beyond, in completely obvious, in denial ways, therefore it
is not difficult to understand why the court of Esbjerg has left this out of the court record, as it is
extremely damning and explicitly proves, that I Stephen Bell do not have the same legal and human
rights as my fellow citizens.

Annex 9: My written request to the court of Esbjerg of the 27-12-2016

My request that the court record of 16 December 2016 be rectified to reflect my actual statement and
references to the annexes that I invoked, and finally the judge Henrik Tosti answers to my questions.
In this request I basically rely all the factual information that transpired under the court meeting of the
16th in a completely objective manner, by giving a summary description of the three subjects that were
discussed under this 20-minute court meeting.

Annex 10: Court record of the 30-12-2016.

In this court record it is stated that the court had received my written request from the 27-12-2016
however, the court again denied my request on the basis that the judge Henrik Tosti opinion was that
everything that transpired under the court meeting of 16 December 2016 was relied in the court record.

Final conclusion:
1: The order for me to seek legal counsel would under normal circumstances be proportional and
justified in this case against the municipality of Esbjerg, where I had raised 42 individual claims in one
suit.
My particular factual circumstances regarding my status and situation directly prohibited me from
attaining legal counsel, because of my factual circumstances prohibited me from attaining an attorney
who would truly fulfil his duties on behalf of my interests. There is no question about the validity of this
claim, as my status as an enemy combatant of sorts, and the situation which the states persecution of
me entails, directly causes anyone, attorney or not, to represent the state interests, instead of mine in
such a way that my legal and human rights under the law and the European Convention on human rights
article 6 and 13 are circumvented and/or violated, the courts like everyone else are well aware of my
status and the situation that entails, the court are explicitly aware of the legal problems that this
situation has on the entirety of my rights as a human being in Denmark, therefore the court of Esbjerg
and judge Henrik Tosti has an inherent obligation to see to, that my factual circumstances did not
prohibit me from receiving a fair trial, and having abilities to seek effective legal counsel.
This pertains to the obligations that the court has without me the plaintiff, invoking anything in the case
Stephen Bell VS municipality of Esbjerg.
2: From here you have my written statements to the court in annex 2 & 6 in which I directly invoke the
above factual circumstances. These circumstances have undeniable and extreme negative implications
on my legal and human rights, which I explicitly expressed to the court, for not being able to comply
with the courts order for me to seek legal counsel, in an ongoing case, the court under normal
circumstances would have an obligation to find out the voracity of my claims, in this particular instance
the courts are more than aware, that my claims are based on the actual circumstances surrounding the
situation and status which I find myself in, there is absolutely no question that the court has an
obligation to see to, that I receive a fair trial, and that the states do not interfere in any way shape or
form in the proceedings of an ongoing legal case, and all that entails, in regards to me, and my abilities
to have effective access to attorneys, and so on and so forth.

3: The court of Esbjerg should have initiated legal measures which could ensure that my legal and
human rights did not get violated, and that the state and its intelligence agencies did not interfere, in
this case in any way shape or form, instead of initiating these sort of measures, the court instead dismiss
the case as it is shown in annex 3 from 27 September 2016 when they sent back the court application to
me, without actualizing the decision of dismissal, here again is an indication, that the court of Esbjerg
instead of initiating safety measures, they instead directly underwent deliberations with the same state
bodies who actively were and are, interfering in an ongoing legal case, in which they are not party,
without I the plaintiff having any knowledge or say in the deliberations.

4: Then you have the issue which is stated in annex 4, That the court did not find that my legal
arguments pertaining to the negative implications which my status and situation has on my legal and
human rights, and furthermore my abilities to exercise these rights in the ongoing legal case, which the
court found not to be valid for not complying with the order to seek legal counsel, without the court
proposing other solutions, which could overcome these legal problems that my status as an enemy
combatant of sorts directly results in. The court is basically saying that they do not recognize my factual
circumstances as being a problem for my legal and human rights in the case Stephen Bell VS municipality
of Esbjerg.

5: Then you have the overshadowing issue that the court had irrefutably decided to dismiss the case on
the basis that I did not comply with the order to seek legal counsel, because of the fact, that the court
did not find my legal arguments against the order to be valid, and as a consequence as is stated in three
separate court records, that the case would be dismissed, and since annex 2 & 6 explicitly states that I
cannot responsibly comply with this order, there is absolutely no question that my failure to comply
directly results in the case Stephen Bell VS municipality of Esbjerg being dismissed, which by all accounts
should have happened at the very latest on 4 November 2016, however as I have previously stated that
the court, and most likely the intelligence agencies, who they were deliberating with, planned to
actualize a preventive measure against me personally, to stop further future litigation against the states
persecution of me, and all that entails, this is the why the case continued despite the case in reality
already being dismissed, I will hypothesize with great confidence that this objective which was planned
was a character assassination plot, in the courts of Esbjerg name, against my good psychological habitus
in a continuous effort to have me disempowered, and forced in to psychiatric institutionalization, in this
regard it is also safe to conclude, that this objective did not succeed in any way, despite the many
vigorous attempts.

6: The actual court meeting in contrast to the court record of 16 December 2016 are worlds apart, the
actual meeting was both tangible and legally prosecutable because of the character of the information
that transpired between the judge Henrik Tosti and I Stephen Bell. Firstly you have my request to sound
record the court meeting, which is a crucial element in this new morphed case, as I have stated, I reason
my request principally on the basis that there would arise a legal twist between the court and I, and
furthermore, under the meeting I argued it was likely that there also would occur a twist regarding the
courts relying of the transpired information in the court record, which is the exact point that manifested

itself, as I predicted because the transpired information is for all intents and purposes left out of the
court record, the only issue that is adequately recorded is the courts denial to grant me the permission
to sound record the court meeting, however again, the only reason why this decision was not decided
upon before the court meeting of the 16th, was for this exact purpose to fill op the court record with
this decision, which is based on jurisprudence and everyday normal judicial circumstances, of course
there is no comparison in reality, however the court are not working on the basis of the actual factual
circumstances, which is the reason the court of Esbjerg completely misconstrue and left out nearly but
all substance of the actual transpired meeting of the 16th in the court record, so in the record this case
does not reflect anything even resembling the actual circumstances, rendering me nearly defenseless in
pursuing justice, for the courts gross violations of my human rights in this case, you see my statement
and references to the annexes, in which I invoke the undeniable factual circumstances regarding my
status and situation which are of immense importance, is no longer present and therefore has not
legally speaking happened, the same goes for the judge Henrik Tosti answers to my clarifying questions,
regarding this issue and the implications this has on my abilities to exercise my legal and human rights.
Furthermore, it goes without saying that the court knew beforehand that they would not truthfully
record what actually transpired under the meeting, why my request to sound record the court meeting
was ultimately denied on this basis rather than the former.

7: Finally my request to the court of Esbjerg, that the court record of the 16th be rectified to include all
the transpired information of importance, which the court again has dismissed on the premise, that the
judge Henrik Tosti is of that opinion that everything that transpired has been recorded, which obviously
is an outright lie, the judge has instead effectively withheld all the indicting and implicating information
of immense importance to me and my legal and human rights, on the behest of unclarified state parties,
with the intent to perverse the course of justice, by rendering me nearly defenseless in pursuing legal
actions for the violations of my legal and human rights that have occurred in this case, this is a
systematic misuse of power as a means of preventing me from pursuing justified legal actions against
these violations of my legal and human rights.

This report should give you who care to know the truth, a great insight into these circumstances
as they have actually transpired in reality, and not some scripted propaganda narratives which is
being broadcasted through states sponsored propaganda networks.

Written by

12-01-2017