Who is Stan Pluijmen? “Recently I got this question with this YouTube clip. Stan Pluijmen has been involved in the Joran van der Sloot case for a long time, but remains relatively (very) unknown. How I came to this specific blog, you can read in previous blogs, the first blog dates from 2015.
Stan Pluijmen was born on January 16, 1989 in Geleen in Limburg. Alternative spelling of his name is “Stan Pluymen”. According to Stan’s reports, he met Joran van der Sloot in 2008. Both are avid poker players.
Stan Pluijmen, older photo
In 2009, Stan’s name surfaced for the first time in the media as the security consultant who discovered in 2008 that there was a pizzas-for-one-cent security leak at Just-Eat.nl. Nu.nl also reports about this case.
Fast forward 2010: Van der Sloot had fled after interrogation in the Natalee Holloway case, and his thoughts and impulses about money, and his despair about the lack of it, grew ever greater. After his attempt to blackmail Beth Holloway in 2010, the FBI was on high legs regarding Joran. On the exact day, exactly five years after Natalee Holloway’s disappearance, on May 30, 2010, he killed Stephany Flores. Shortly before this act he had intensive contact with one “Stan”, this turns out to be Stan Pluijmen. It came out that Joran and Stan had wanted to extort a man with child pornography. According to Stan, he never intended to really extort that man. The extortion plan was intended to “help Joran van der Sloot from his murderous thoughts”, but Stephany Flores was still killed.
Stan was also questioned in the 2010 Stephany Flores case. As a direct result, he came under financial administration in 2011 and his computer and accessories were seized by the police.
From 2012 Stan Pluijmen starts to manifest himself in a different way. Hoeven’s “medium” Robbert van den Broeke, who was exposed in 2005 as the “Genverbrander” fraud, starts sending hate mails to critics and Stan Pluijmen suddenly turns out to be his spokesman. Stan had found Robbert van den Broeke and me through publicity surrounding that case, among other things through my involvement in the FOK and the Genverbrander.nl forum (mine at the time). Stan lived with Robbert for a while in 2011. From 2012 it would turn out that I would become Van den Broeke’s biggest hate target. When asked what was the matter with Van den Broeke’s hate mails, Stan immediately came up with the standard answer: “There is a hacker, Robbert does not do this himself“.
What binds the Pluijmen-Van den Broeke-Van der Sloot trio? Stan’s involvement with Joran van der Sloot’s “secrets” became clear when not Stan Pluijmen, but his friend Robbert van den Broeke suddenly came up with fantastic stories about Natalee Holloway repeatedly since 2014, because, according to his own words, he had been paranormally informed of where her remains were, namely in “Grave 15 at the St. Anna Churchyard in Aruba“. Here too however, Ockam’s razor can apply. Because who was cooing what and in whose ear (and why)?
“There is so much more”, with Robbert van den Broeke, but also with Stan Pluijmen and Joran van der Sloot!
From 2013-2014, major paranormal claims were now made by the trio Joran van der Sloot-Robbert van den Broeke-Stan Pluijmen, among other things that Van den Broeke would have appeared as a ghost to Van der Sloot in his cell.
2013: ties Joran van der Sloot-Robbert van den Broeke
Through Van den Broeke emerged that in 2015 Stan Pluijmen had given 35,000 euros to Van der Sloot to finance his book. The fact that the media picked up on this as being Van den Broeke who gave the money to Joran (where should he get that from with his Wajongbenefit?), and not Stan Pluijmen, contributed to the fact that Pluijmen was always out of harm’s way.
But the 2015-35,000 euros donation did not satisfy Van der Sloot, because he kept demanding more money from Pluijmen, and even threatened to throw “bombs”.
2015: Joran van der Sloot, letter to Stan Pluijmen (not to Robbert van den Broeke, as it seemed in the SBS6 media coverage). Source, Omroep Brabant and SBS6 Shownieuws (they reported about this more often)
Why did Joran van der Sloot strike such a crude tone against his apparent or actual benefactor Stan? And why did Stan give away so much money and how did he get it? Often heard was the claim of Van den Broeke and Pluijmen that criminals are also children of God, and that you should shower them with love, because hatred would only make them worse. Curious reports came to me, even that Stan Pluijmen had been to Aruba in 2005.
From California, where I assumed the American nationality in 2017, I had also filed a complaint with IC3 (internet crime department FBI) in January 2015, but I had not heard anything back.
Stan Pluijmen, who was co-suspect in the hate and threatening emails case, had left or fled to Malaga with his partner Alan exactly around Van den Broeke’s arrest date in 2016. After living there for about a year, he reported to the Dutch Police who questioned him, but let him go.
Received June 29, 2017 Money flows to Joran van der Sloot via Mary Hammer, Roy Boschman, (Stan’s former friend), A.O.M. Van der Sloot (Joran’s mother), and J.M. Sieradzka, now deceased grandmother of Alan Sieradzki (Stan Pluijmen’s husband)
For the eye of the outside world and certainly through my own blogs, the intimate connections in the devil’s fork: Joran van der Sloot-Stan Pluijmen-Robbert van den Broeke became increasingly clear. Stan kept dropping things into my mail or otherwise box, sometimes unintentionally, as in the case of the financial-sheet drop via Skype.
The case against Robbert van den Broeke was dropped “for lack of evidence”. The hate video clips by Van den Broeke alone seemed proof enough; but in October 2018, Van den Broeke was nevertheless acquitted and received compensation.
Crime journalists and tjakka guru
Then there is also the John van den Heuvel part who seems to have taken over from Peter R. de Vries in the Natalee Holloway case. Van den Heuvel never mentioned Stan Pluijmen’s full name and he never contacted me, although it seems that he was using the financial sheet of Joran van der Sloot, Joran van der Sloot prison photos, etc. for his research, which I published exclusively. The information I received through Stan was immediately picked up by crime reporters Martijn Mastenbroek and Vincent Verweij. I came with it in June 2017 (Twitter) and in August 2017 (blog) and John van den Heuvel in November 2018.
At the end of 2017 it became clear that Dutch TV-“guru” celebrity Emile Ratelband wanted to go to Aruba with Robbert to open the aforementioned Grave 15 at the St. Anna Churchyard. This plan was canceled. Realistic suspicions about the reason may be that the fact that a high-ranking judge-in-training was the father of Joran and that the effect of the Natalee Holloway case: causing lack of tourism at the time, prompted intense tension among the Aruban police and authorities towards the outside world. In short: cooperation towards opening a grave is not to be counted on.
End of 2017: Emile Ratelband en Robbert van den Broeke
Light at the end of the tunnel
llan Hoekstra, NPO Radio 1
On April 14, 2020, I was approached by the American-Dutch journalist llan Hoekstra, who’s interested in the story Stan Pluijmen-Joran van der Sloot. Hoekstra hoped to be able to interview Stan in addition to me, and wanted me to ask Stan. I then emailed Stan for the first time in five years on April 22, 2020. All other “communication” was via Twitter. On April 25, 2020, I listened to exactly two years of unheard audios from Stan (I had stopped doing that for my own peace of mind) and only now heard that he told me that he cut (most) ties with Robbert van den Broeke and also Joran van der Sloot. Incidentally; the gentlemen do have some contact with each other now and then, and the initiative also comes from Joran, who recently turned to Stan for help again, because he allegedly had the Corona Virus.
Stan is making a clean sweep in 2018-2020 and tells me in emails, audios, and since September 2020 in several chats too, that he tricks online casinos. He also adds that the reason he keeps getting away with it is that the online casinos don’t want reputational damage. Joran threatened to make this known, threatening to “throw bombs” if Stan wouldn’t give him money anymore. By now “coming clean”, Pluijmen pierced Van der Sloot’s threatening balloon (“bomb”). Stan says he robs ruthless, rich casinos with the idea of becoming a kind of modern Robin Hood and insists that I accept his money as help. He swears that I can write whatever I want and that he regrets his past actions against me, including hacks.
With a few bumps in the road, it came to a first, many hours (Telegram) chat between Stan and me on September 9, 2020. / I will mark the next part with a different color, because not everything has been proven, but nevertheless it’s worth considering, because the fact is that there are intimate relations between Joran and Stan. /
Stan answered many of my questions in a series of chats in September 2020, and I’m finally starting to understand everything that has transpired in this case. Because I have been involved in this case for so long, I can judge whether something is consistent with the rest. I will disregard large parts of our chats here. Stan starts with, among other things, that his “money uncle” has died of Corona Virus. When I ask, also at a later point, for clarification, he only says: “You can enlarge what I can”. Furthermore, Stan continues to swindle online casinos using various tactics. To do so, he uses someone else’s (with permission) or fake IDs. He shows an ID of a lady in Balen that the casino had a problem with due to a Belgium-Netherlands discrepancy. He says he is no longer hacking individuals. Stan Pluijmen also tells how he is constantly approached by “friends” who ask for money and says that he is not happy about it, because they just burn it very quickly and without proper judgement and furthermore, get addicted to getting it. He talks about that time that he had 40K in his closet, he had taken 20K to Holland Casino “for fun” and won, and thus possessed 40K cash. It was then stolen by a friend [name known to me, CO] and subsequently claimed that he had withdrawn the 40K from the ATM. This friend, just like Joran van der Sloot, Robbert van den Broeke and Roy Boschman, but also Rachid, had received a lot of money from Stan in the past and became addicted to it. Rachid for example had gotten 100K according to Stan. Stan also mentions that he no longer wants to live in big houses, because that attracts the attention of thieves etc.. He states he owns a couple of expensive houses and notes he’s happy with these nest eggs, because they cannot be sniffed like cocaine. In response to my previous blog “The Volcano” Stan declares [and sends footage of this also] he got a huge bang in the head because “they” had read that Stan paid me a modest “compensation”, but he could not prove X [name known to me, CO] was behind it, and that he is even afraid that he and/or his husband Alan will be kidnapped for money. Pluijmen in addition still claims that he is a sweet, modern Robin Hood, but now only to people who really need it and can handle gifts wisely.
According to Stan Pluijmen, Joran van der Sloot was a recruiter of girls “who could earn some extra money” at a pimp. The day Natalee disappeared, he went to the beach with Natalee, they had taken GHB and it had come to unplanned sex. However, Natalee became seriously unwell and unconscious from the GHB. Joran then contacted his father and he [the father, CO] transported Natalee together with that / a pimp to the St. Anna Cemetery, and placed her in an existing grave [number 15]. However, they also threw a stone on her. Stan says: “Actually it’s just murder”. Pluijmen continues to insist that people look into that grave.
Stan says that he hacked Joran’s cell phone in 2013-2014, that he installed a trojan horse and that way came across information about Natalee Holloway. Stan and co had also hacked my cell phone in 2015. The year 2013-2014 also explains why, since 2014, Natalee Holloway suddenly became one of the premium spearheads of “medium” Robbert van den Broeke. Had Stan Pluijmen with premeditated thoughts whispered things in Robbert van den Broeke’s ears about about the St. Anna Churchyard, “Grave 15”, in order to reveal sensitive information supposedly via a paranormal way? Stan never seemed to like Natalee’s fate. Stan says it is possible that he told Robbert van den Broeke in a drunken state. He further mentions to have only been on vacation in Aruba (and not in 2005) and that Micha Romijn spread that rumor to me out of revenge, because he did not get money anymore from Stan.
Stan Pluijmen Chat, 9 september 2020
Translated part of chat Stan Pluijmen and Constantia Oomen on September 9, 2020 DOWNLOAD .PDF
“Online casinos lost tons by fanboy Joran van der Sloot” Source: Casinovergelijker
I also asked Stan if he had been manipulating “paranormal” photos and videos with Robbert for years (see example below), but on this question he remained silent.
“Wie is Stan Pluijmen?” Onlangs kreeg ik deze vraag naar aanleiding van deze YouTube clip. Stan Pluijmen draait al een hele tijd mee in de Joran van der Sloot zaak, maar blijft relatief (erg) onbekend.Hoe ik tot dit specifieke blog gekomen ben, kunt u lezen in voorgaande blogs, het eerste blog dateert van 2015.
Stan Pluijmen wordt geboren op 16 januari 1989 te Geleen in Limburg. Alternatieve spelling van zijn naam is “Stan Pluymen”. Volgens Stans berichtgeving leerde hij Joran van der Sloot in 2008 kennen. Beide zijn verwoede pokeraars.
Stan Pluijmen, oudere foto
In 2009 komt Stans naam voor het eerst bovendrijven in de media als de securityconsultant die in 2008 ontdekte dat er een pizza’s-voor-één-cent-beveiligingslek was bij Just-Eat.nl. Ook Nu.nl maakt melding van deze zaak.
Fast forward 2010: Van der Sloot was na verhoren in de Natalee Holloway zaak op de vlucht geslagen, en zijn gedachten en impulsen over geld, en zijn wanhoop over het gebrek daaraan, werden steeds groter. Na zijn poging in 2010Beth Holloway af te persen, was de FBI ernstig op hem aangeslagen. Op de dag precies, exact vijf jaar na de verdwijning van Natalee Holloway, op 30 mei 2010, doodde hij Stephany Flores. Kort voor deze daad had hij intensief contact met ene “Stan”, dit blijkt Stan Pluijmen. Er kwam naar buiten dat Joran en Stan een man hadden willen afpersen met kinderporno. Volgens Stan had het nooit in zijn bedoeling gelegen die man echt af te persen. Het afpersingsplan was bedoeld om “Joran van der Sloot van zijn moordgedachten af te helpen”, maar Stephany Flores vond dus alsnog de dood.
Ook Stan werd verhoord in de 2010-Stephany Flores zaak. Hij kwam als direct gevolg hiervan in 2011 onder financieel bewind te staan en zijn computer en toebehoren werden door de politie in beslag genomen.
Vanaf 2012 begint Stan Pluijmen zich op een andere wijze te manifesteren. Hoevens “medium” Robbert van den Broeke, in 2005 door de mand gevallen als “Genverbrander“-oplichter, begint haatmails te sturen naar critici en Stan Pluijmen blijkt opeens zijn woordvoerder. Stan had Robbert van den Broeke en ook mij via publiciteit rondom die zaak gevonden, onder andere via mijn betrokkenheid op het FOK en het Genverbrander.nl forum (destijds van mij). Stan woonde in 2011 een poosje bij Robbert. Vanaf 2012 zou blijken dat ik Van den Broekes grootste haat doelwit zou worden. Op vragen wat er aan de hand was met de haatmails van Van den Broeke kwam Stan meteen met het standaard antwoord: “Er is een hacker, Robbert doet dit niet zelf“.
Wat bindt het trio Pluijmen-Van den Broeke-Van der Sloot? Stans betrokkenheid bij Joran van der Sloots “geheimen” werd duidelijk toen niet Stan Pluijmen, maar zijn vriend Robbert van den Broeke opeens herhaalde malen sinds 2014 met fantastische verhalen over Natalee Holloway kwam, omdat hij volgens eigen zeggen paranormaal had doorgekregen waar haar overblijfselen waren, namelijk in “Graf 15 op het St. Anna Kerkhof te Aruba“. Ook hier kan echter Ockam’s scheermes gelden. Want wie koerde wat en in wiens oor (en waarom)?
“Er is zoveel meer”, met Robbert van den Broeke, maar ook met Stan Pluijmen en Joran van der Sloot!
Vanaf 2013-2014 werden nu grote paranormale claims gedaan door het trio Joran van der Sloot-Robbert van den Broeke- Stan Pluijmen, onder andere dat Van den Broeke als geest aan Van der Sloot in diens cel zou zijn verschenen.
2013: banden Joran van der Sloot-Robbert van den Broeke
Via Van den Broeke kwam in 2015 naar buiten dat Stan Pluijmen 35000 euro aan Van der Sloot gegeven zou hebben om diens boek te financieren. Het gegeven dat de media dit oppikten als zijnde Van den Broeke die het geld gaf aan Joran (waar zou hij dat vandaan moeten halen met zijn Wajong uitkering?), en niet Stan Pluijmen, droeg bij aan het feit dat Pluijmen steeds maar weer buiten schot bleef.
2015: Joran van der Sloot, brief aan Stan Pluijmen (niet aan Robbert van den Broeke, zoals het in de SBS6 media verslaggeving leek). Bron, Omroep Brabant en SBS6 Shownieuws (zij berichtten hier vaker over)
Waarom sloeg Joran van der Sloot zo’n grove toon aan tegen zijn schijnbare of daadwerkelijke weldoener Stan? En waarom gaf Stan zoveel geld weg en hoe kwam hij daaraan? Veelgehoord was de claim van Van den Broeke en Pluijmen dat ook misdadigers kinderen zijn van God, en dat je ze met liefde moet overstelpen, want haat zou ze alleen maar slechter maken. Er kwamen curieuze berichten naar mij toe, zelfs dat Stan Pluijmen in 2005 op Aruba was geweest.
Vanuit Californië, waar ik in 2017 de Amerikaanse nationaliteit aannam, had ik zelf ook in januari 2015 bij IC3 (internetcrime afdeling FBI) een aanklacht neergelegd, maar daar niets meer op teruggehoord.
Stan Pluijmen die medeverdachte in de haat- en dreigmails zaak was, was precies rond Van den Broekes arrestatiedatum in 2016 samen met zijn partner Alan naar Malaga vertrokken dan wel gevlucht. Na daar ongeveer een jaar gewoond te hebben, meldde hij zich bij de Nederlandse Politie die hem verhoorde, maar liet gaan.
29 juni 2017 Ontvangen Geldstromen naar Joran van der Sloot via Mary Hammer, Roy Boschman, (Stans voormalige vriend), A.O.M. Van der Sloot (Jorans moeder), en inmiddels overleden J.M. Sieradzka, de oma van Alan Sieradzki (Stan Pluijmens echtgenoot)
Voor het oog van de buitenwereld en toch ook zeker via mijn eigen blogs werden de innige verbindingen in de duivelsvork: Joran van der Sloot-Stan Pluijmen-Robbert van den Broeke steeds duidelijker. Stan bleef maar dingen in mijn mail of anderszins -box droppen, soms ook onbedoeld, zoals in het geval van de financial-sheet drop via Skype.
De zaak tegen Robbert van den Broeke werd geseponeerd “wegens gebrek aan bewijs”. De haat-videoclips van Van den Broeke alleen al leken bewijs genoeg; maar in oktober 2018 werd Van den Broeke desondanks vrijgesproken en kreeg een schadevergoeding.
Misdaadjournalisten en tjakka goeroe
Er speelt tevens het John van den Heuvel gedeelte die het stokje van Peter R. de Vries in de Natalee Holloway zaak lijkt overgenomen te hebben. Van den Heuvel noemde nooit Stan Pluijmens volledige naam en hij legde nooit contact met mij, ofschoon het erop lijkt dat hij de financial sheet van Joran van der Sloot, Joran van der Sloot gevangenisfoto’s enz die ik, via Stan ontvangen, als eerste publiceerde, gebruikte voor zijn onderzoek. De informatie die ik via Stan kreeg, werd wel meteen opgepakt door crime-reporters Martijn Mastenbroek en Vincent Verweij. Ik kwam er in juni 2017 (Twitter) en augustus 2017 (blog) mee en John van den Heuvel in november 2018.
Eind 2017 werd duidelijk dat Emile Ratelband met Robbert naar Aruba wilde om het genoemde Graf 15 op het St. Anna Kerkhof te openen. Dit plan werd afgeblazen. Realistische vermoedens omtrent de reden mogen luiden dat het feit dat een hooggeplaatste rechter-in-opleiding de vader van Joran was en dat het effect van de Natalee Holloway zaak: het toen uitblijvende toerisme, zorgden voor een intens spanningsveld bij de Arubaanse politie en autoriteiten richting de buitenwereld. Kortom: op medewerking richting het openen van een graf hoeft niet gerekend te worden.
Eind 2017: Emile Ratelband en Robbert van den Broeke
Op 14 april 2020 werd ik door de Amerikaans-Nederlandse journalist llan Hoekstra benaderd, die geïnteresseerd bleek in het verhaal StanPluijmen-Joran van der Sloot. Hoekstra hoopte naast mij ook Stan te kunnen interviewen, en wilde wel dat ik het aan Stan zou vragen. Ik mailde Stan daarop voor het eerst sinds vijf jaar op 22 april 2020. Alle andere “communicatie” was via Twitter gegaan. Op 25 april 2020 beluisterde ik precies twee jaar aan onbeluisterde audio’s van Stan (ik was daarmee gestopt voor mijn eigen gemoedsrust) en hoorde nu pas dat hij vertelde met Robbert van den Broeke en ook Joran van der Sloot gebroken te hebben. Overigens hebben de heren toch wel af en toe wat contact met elkaar, en het initiatief komt ook van Joran, die recent weer bij Stan aanklopte voor hulp, nu weer omdat hij het Corona Virus zou hebben.
Stan maakt in 2018-2020 schoon schip bij mij en vertelt in mails, audio’s en sinds september 2020 ook diverse chats aan mij dat hij online casino’s trukeert. De reden dat hij er steeds mee weg komt, aldus Stan, is dat de casino’s geen reputatieschade willen. Stan zegt dat Joran dreigde zijn casino-activiteiten bij de pers te onthullen. Door nu zelf “schoon schip” te maken, prikt Pluijmen in ieder geval die dreig-ballon (“bom”) van Van der Sloot door. Stan zou niets en niemand ontziende, rijke casino’s beroven met het idee een soort moderne Robin Hood te worden. Ook blijft hij aandringen dat ik zijn geld aanneem als hulp. Hij bezweert dat ik kan schrijven wat ik wil en dat hij spijt heeft van zijn vroegere daden richting mij, waaronder hacks.
Met het een en ander aan bumps in the road kwam het op negen september 2020 tot een eerste, urenlange (Telegram) chat tussen Stan en mij. / Het volgende deel markeer ik met een andere kleur, omdat niet alles bewezen is, maar mijns inziens is het wel het overwegen waard, omdat het feit is dat er intieme betrekkingen tussen Joran en Stan zijn. /
Stan heeft veel van mijn vragen beantwoord in een aantal chats in september 2020, en ik begin eindelijk te begrijpen wat er in deze zaak is voorgevallen. Een groot deel van onze chats laat ik hier verder buiten beschouwing. Stan begint er onder andere mee dat zijn “geldoom” aan Corona Virus is overleden. Als ik vraag naar verduidelijking zegt hij: “Je kan wat ik kan uitvergroten”. Verder tilt Stan nog steeds online casino’s onder gebruikmaking van diverse tactieken. Met dat doel gebruikt hij andermans (met toestemming) of fake IDs. Hij toonde een ID van een dame in Balen waar het casino een probleem mee had wegens een België-Nederland discrepantie. Hij zegt geen individuele personen meer te hacken. Stan Pluijmen vertelt ook hoe hij voortdurend wordt benaderd door “vrienden” die om geld vragen en zegt daar niet blij mee te zijn, omdat ze er niet mee om kunnen gaan en het alleen maar over de balk gooien. Hij vertelt een keer 40K in zijn kast te hebben liggen, hij had “voor de grap” 20K naar Holland Casino meegenomen en gewonnen en had dus 40K cash. Daarop werd dat gestolen door een vriend [naam bekend bij CO], en hij had vervolgens beweerd dat hij dat geld gepind had. Deze vriend had, net als Joran van der Sloot, Robbert van den Broeke en Roy Boschman, maar ook Rachid, in het verleden veel geld van Stan gekregen en was daar verslaafd aan geraakt. Zo heeft Rachid bijvoorbeeld volgens Stan 100K gekregen. Stan zegt niet meer in grote huizen te willen wonen, omdat dat de aandacht trekt van dieven enz. Hij vertelt wel een paar dure huizen te bezitten en zegt daar blij mee te zijn als appeltje voor de dorst, want huizen kun je niet opsnuiven zoals cocaïne. Naar aanleiding van mijn vorige blog “De Vulkaan” vertelt Stan [en stuurt tevens beeldmateriaal] een fikse klap gehad te hebben, omdat “ze” gelezen hadden dat Stan mij een bescheiden “schadevergoeding” had gestort, maar hij kon niet bewijzen dat het van X kwam [naam bekend bij CO], en dat hij zelfs bang is dat hij en/of zijn man Alan ontvoerd worden voor geld. Pluijmen zegt nog steeds dat hij een lieve, moderne Robin Hood is, maar nu alleen voor mensen die het echt nodig hebben en die zuiver met giften kunnen omgaan.
Volgens Stan Pluijmen was Joran van der Sloot een recruiter van meisjes “die wat konden bijverdienen” bij een pooier. Op de dag dat Natalee verdween, was hij naar het strand gegaan met Natalee, ze hadden GHB gebruikt en het was tot ongeplande seks gekomen. Natalee werd echter ernstig onwel van de GHB en raakte buiten westen. Hierop nam Joran contact op met zijn vader en die transporteerde Natalee samen met die/een pooier naar het St. Anna Kerkhof, en plaatste haar in een bestaand graf [nummer 15]. Echter gooiden ze ook nog een steen op haar. Stan zegt: “Eigenlijk is het gewoon moord”. Pluijmen blijft aandringen dat er in dat graf gekeken wordt.
Stan zegt dat hij in 2013-2014 Jorans mobieltje gehackt had, hij had een trojan horse geïnstalleerd en was volgens zeggen op die manier op dingen gestoten over Natalee Holloway. Stan en co hadden in 2015 ook mijn mobieltje gehackt. Het jaartal 2013-2014 verklaart ook waarom sinds 2014 Natalee Holloway opeens een van de blijvende speerpunten van “medium” Robbert van den Broeke werd. Had Stan Pluijmen Robbert van den Broeke met voorbedachte rade zaken over het St. Anna Kerkhof, “Graf 15” ingefluisterd om zo gevoelige informatie zogenaamd via paranormale wijze bekend te maken? Stan leek het lot van Natalee nooit lekker te zitten. Stan zegt dat het mogelijk is dat hij het Robbert van den Broeke in beschonken toestand vertelde. Hij zegt verder alleen in Aruba te zijn geweest op vakantie (en dus niet in 2005) en dat Micha Romijn dat gerucht uit woede naar mij had verspreid omdat hij geen geld meer van Stan kreeg.
“‘Online casino’s tonnen kwijt door fanboy Joran van der Sloot’” Bron: Casinovergelijker
Ik vroeg in de chat ook aan Stan of hij inderdaad jarenlang (zie voorbeeld hieronder) met Robbert “paranormale” foto’s en video’s getrukeerd heeft, maar op deze vraag bleef het stil.
This blog is also published on my Lion Hearts WordPress. If you wonder why this extensive piece also appears there: this is an important part of my life and it really has an impact. Moreover, it has a very direct overlap with Rob Nanninga since he was and is also working on this, if it is true that there is afterlife. Also, I get the impression that Rob is helping me in the “background”, that he is forcing the gentlemen to show their cards.
Robbert
I have been involved in this case for fifteen years now, an incredibly long time. There are a few notable developments.
The first one is that I finally have blocked Robbert van den Broeke from sending emails to me. His official acquittal in the threat case for which he was arrested, allegedly for lack of evidence, in October 20181 was no reason for Van den Broeke to choose a scold and threat-free path, and he just continued with his hate emails.
The harvest of Robbert van den Broeke hate emails since about the last blog on my Parameter Wordpress site
The harvest of Robbert van den Broeke hate emails since about the last blog on my Parameter Wordpress site
The harvest of Robbert van den Broeke hate emails since about the last blog on my Parameter Wordpress site
The harvest of Robbert van den Broeke hate emails since about the last blog on my Parameter Wordpress site
I know that Rob Nanninga had already given up on the “Genverbrander” case by 2012, now that Robbert had been definitively exposed as a con artist and it had also been demonstrated that Van den Broeke conducted online diatribes for which even the dogs would turn up their nose, but I kept it up much longer. For many years I remained curious about what Mr. Van den Broeke had to say to me and allowed his emails, admittedly only through a filter directly in a separate folder. But for some time already, it has been perfectly clear to almost everyone, except to his most loyal fans, that Robbert is a lost cause and that there’s not much honor left in investing energy in researching his actions. He got stuck and all he has been doing for a long time is endlessly repeating everything he once said and did, including his fraud tricks with fake spirit and “alien” photos, all his “loving” messages to his fans and all his hatred towards me and the skeptics in general.
Nowadays, he’s even going with mainstream conspiracy quacks, for example, about the link between 5G and Corona Virus. He did remove one crucial conspiracy clip about this later-on.2 These conspiracy theories are by no means innocent, as believers broker them in everyday life and, for instance, are no longer willing to get vaccinations because they think the government secretly implants chips or they are deliberately poisoned with mercury. Some people even torch 5G masts. Van den Broeke has been publishing many YouTube clips the last year, addressing all kinds of “spiritual” subjects, even addressing me a couple of times.3 It does seem quite innocuous, this new trend of endless preaching videos. I would prefer them any time over his ghost / alien photos and videos deception. Unfortunately, he still does those too, including auto-mutilations on his forehead that he claims are alien and christ signs. I must say he has built up a quite large motley collection of “spiritual” subjects and hence his interest in all these topics seems genuine. Still, in my opinion, there is not much reason left to invest a lot of time and energy in him.
Robbert van den Broeke videos, as seen on May 19, 2020
Robbert van den Broeke videos, as seen on May 19, 2020
Robbert van den Broeke videos, as seen on May 19, 2020
Robbert van den Broeke videos, as seen on May 19, 2020
Robbert van den Broeke videos, as seen on May 19, 2020
Robbert van den Broeke videos, as seen on May 19, 2020
Robbert van den Broeke videos, as seen on May 19, 2020
Robbert sent me a whole bunch of hate clips and emails again, a part is in the Google Drive. There’s one Van den Broeke activity I do want to mention. Still working with Johny Webb, yes, the man from the octopus, Van den Broeke published a “channeling” with Adolf Hitler. However, the accompanying text about it and the clip were posted on Webb’s Facebook and YouTube channel. I tweeted about it and then someone reported Webb to Facebook (it wasn’t me). Shortly after, Webb’s facebook went completely black. The clip is still there, but I uploaded a copy in Google Drive just in case:
Fall 2019, I expressed the idea on Twitter to turn the Robbert van den Broeke blogs into a book and I had indeed already worked on it several times (that has come to a standstill). Obviously, this idea was immediately picked up by Van den Broeke and I got his hate emails about that too. Also Stan emailed about it a few times.
Geneburner, the book
I suddenly couldn’t digest Van den Broeke’s emails anymore. After another hateful email from Robbert on December 14, 2019 I decided to block him completely. Every time Robbert e-mails me now, his email is instantly deleted and Gmail sends an automated message that he has been blocked and why. Since then, not one single email from him has popped up ever again and I have no idea if he sent them. I am very happy with this decision!
The automated Gmail reply
Stan, Alan and others
Email Constantia to Martin, May 24, 2020, about the email of Stan Pluijmen, in which Stan states he has 9M
Constantia about Stan Pluijmen’s email to Constantia, January 18, 2020
Stan Pluijmen in email to Constantia, January 18, 2020
Stan Pluijmen is another matter. Stan never seemed hateful in the emails he signed with his own name. It’s a long story, and I don’t feel like repeating everything here. In short, I did not block Stan. I always hoped he would come around, detach himself from Robbert and would no longer participate in their shared lying and cheating games. But Stan has been bouncing like a yo-yo. Stan increasingly emailed me messages that he had changed and in which he admitted to (some) deception by and with Robbert van den Broeke. According to Stan, there is this part to Robbert that’s really “psychic” though. Anyway, Stan and Robbert are no longer a cheating duo together. At least, I see no signs that they still are. Stan even seemed burdened about the past, because he knows better than anyone how much hatred I received through Robbert and through his own, questionable to say the least, network. He even started offering me financial “compensation” in BTC, but I only wanted official compensation, through a notary. For literally years he kept on pushing me to take his money, through email, this started with him offering me money if I deleted the blogs on Parameter, see previous blogs on my Parameter WordPress.4
Stan seemed quite desperate about the existence of my Parameter blogs, he approached it differently too and tried to lure me into a “deal” that if he/they were able to “channel” the code word I would think up for myself and make that official by entrusting somebody with it, I would remove all my blogs. But I didn’t take the bite.
Stan wants code word: “and promise if the code is correct, remove your twitter and all blogs. Deal? No bluff.”
In 2020, for a reason I don’t know, he upped his BTC effort considerably, he said/says it was/is because he likes and loves me, and wants to help me. I did kind of become curious (again) if he was just saying things (again), and posted my BTC wallet address publicly on my Genverbrander10 Twitter account (account name changed to RobConstantia on October 14, 2020).
That wasn’t the first time I did that though, I did that in 2018 too. I discovered bitcoin in 2017 when I was trying to order my allergy medicine Ebas from a foreign country, because it’s not available in the United States and they asked for bitcoin or wire payment. Wire payments are expensive here, so I thought to give bitcoin a shot, and with BTC payment, they offered a standard 10% discount. It was all very new to me, and on one day I even posted my bitcoin wallet address on my Twitter account ConstantiaUSA. I tried to find the specific tweet, but I guess I deleted it. I only recently (April 2020) learned that you can indeed publish your BTC wallet address safely after you properly secure your BTC wallet. Though I did that in reverse order, nothing happened. I guess I hoped some magic pigeon would deposit BTC in my wallet. This all must have been mid 2018.
Starting with bitcoin
In my Parameter blog I already mentioned the fact that I on impulse and more or less jokingly asked Stan for 1.5 million in 2018, because only then would I feel compensated for all their nuisance and remove my blogs. The underlying idea was that with such a fortune that I could start living very differently, and that I could actually see this as a serious enough compensation and move on.
Behind The Scenes Of Robbert Van Den Broeke, Part IV (August 2018)
I didn’t email Stan about it, in fact, I didn’t email him at all, everything went through Twitter.
Stan Pluijmen, I will remove my blogs abt Robbert & your crew members for €1,5 MILLION. You once offered me €15000. Let me see what you have got. I could use the money and I think I've endured enough of your mails and Robbert's hatemails et cetera to consider this compensation.
— Constantia Oomen’s skeptic and personal account (@Genverbrander10) June 29, 2018
Stan thinks 1.5 M is too much
But in 2020, things were different. I suddenly received a bitcoin amount deposited on April 8, 2020. Stan had made a deposit! And the next day, after some tweets from me that I was willing to receive Stan’s compensation as an official gift, two more “donations” came, bigger ones, not a fortune, but significant. Well, in total it was about half a bitcoin. It was worth about euro 3200 at the time Stan deposited it. For connoisseurs: of cryptocurrency, this could be literally nothing or it could be quite something, in the future.
I see it as Stan’s free-will compensation that still is on the symbolic side. His compensation doesn’t come close to the real disturbance I had. My critical attention to this case – I literally spent thousands of hours – was indeed my own free choice and everything I did was public. In my opinion, I always stuck to the facts and kept my criticism fair and decent. But it was no choice of mine to be stalked for so many years: 2012-2019. I received hundreds of hate and death threats from a whole bunch of different mailboxes and names, both known and unknown to me, with photos of beheaded, run over and battered (dead) bodies, scolding videos, I was hacked and even threatened with hitmen.5
I can’t be sure where Stan got his money, in emails he says he got it from tricking online casinos. Stan Pluijmen claims he’s a modern Robin Hood, stealing from the rich and giving it to the poor.
Stan Pluijmen (left), the modern Robin Hood
Stan about the hacker and the casinos, Robin Hood…
Stan about the hacker and the casinos, Robin Hood… (translation Google)
“Stan, the modern Robin Hood…stealing from crook casino’s, giving it to the poor”
“Stan, the modern Robin Hood…stealing from crook casino’s, giving it to the poor” (translation by Google)
“Rather robbing a casino a million than a granny 300 euros, do you get it?”
On April 25, 2020, I decided to listen to exactly two years of unopened audios of Stan, a rollercoaster of several hours in the afternoon and evening. Since April 2018, I wasn’t listening anymore, because I got angry with Stan, again, since through yet another unsolicited email, he “offered” to ask “medium” Robbert van den Broeke for my Google drive password. As you can understand, I don’t believe in Van den Broeke’s “medium” password reading skills, I do kind of believe in Stan’s or .?.’s hacking skills, so that pissed me off. I really hadn’t been listening secretly, as Stan suggested in many of these audios, he even stated in his audios he was willing to bet a lot of money (did you say one million, Stan?:)
on the (not existing) “fact” I was still listening, So, now Stan is owing me even more. 😉
Not listening for two years and then all of two years at once, in one day, really turned out to be a golden shot. So instead of getting everything in pieces, I now got everything at once, which gave me a much better overview and the distance created in the time dimension was also very good for me to be able to view everything much more at a distance. The audios were insightful, I listened to about hundred audios and their line was consistent: first I heard one year of the old fashioned Stan woo-woo, but since April 2019, Stan started singing to a different tune. This was ushered in by a series of very curious emails in which Stan seemed to have stepped outside of himself and somewhere in the deep universe, as a miracle of mega interpretation of the secrets of the cosmos, spoke about synchronicity, mythical symbols, God, Satan, extraterrestrials and our shared destiny.
Stan turning point
Because I was receiving hatemails of Robbert van den Broeke about Stan and Alan simultaneously in which Robbert was kicking furiously at Stan and Alan, even sending me an audio from Stan in which Stan could be heard crying and completely beside himself, I could tell something was going on. In his audios, Stan’s tune changed and; in the most favorable way interpreted for Stan, you can say that he indeed seemed awakened from a bad dream or spell, he used phrases like: “I embarrassed myself, I let go of Robbert, what have I done? Robbert brought me to things, I am no longer under Robbert’s trance, your blogs may stay online because they are correct, the curse of Robbert…, there is no hacker, I’m sorry, I admit to my mistakes … “. Of course in this case, it’s hard to tell truth from lie, but Stan’s Spring 2019 and beyond audios were indicators that the firm trinity Robbert-Stan-Alan (Stan’s husband) had dissolved. Both Van den Broeke and Stan Pluijmen were suddenly emailing me the(ir) “whole truth”: (click on gallery images, this is how I received it)googletranslationrvdbthetruth
Robbert van den Broeke “Hello Constantia the truth with whatever consequences”
Robbert van den Broeke “Hello Constantia the truth with whatever consequences”, translation by Google
Robbert van den Broeke about the casino scams
Robbert van den Broeke about the casino scams (translation by Google)
Robbert van den Broeke email, stating Stan is using fake ids to trick online casinos
Robbert van den Broeke email, stating Stan is using fake ids to trick online casinos (translation by Google)
Robbert van den Broeke about the casino scams
Robbert van den Broeke about the casino scams (translation by Google)
Sent by Robbert van den Broeke, alleged SMS Joran about money laundering
When you merge these Robbert van den Broeke mails with the following Stan Pluijmen audio:
10:40: Stan “There is no hacker” (> in Robbert van den Broeke hate and death-threat case)
12:20: Stan: “I admit, I was Micha Romijn”.
in which Stan states that he has not been hacking casinos, like Van den Broeke claims, but that he did trick casinos, I think the following could be a realistic model of what really happened: working theory: Stan discovered some weak spots in online casino mechanism and cashed out a lot of money. With a number of fake IDs or other people’s IDs (people knowing about it and collaborating and who he generously compensated for it), he was able to repeat the casino trick. From the Robbert van den Broeke clan respectively from somebody mailing with a “Micha Romijn” mailbox I had been receiving two complete IDs, one of “Micha Romijn” one of a female family member of Alan Sieradzki, an old lady who has since passed away. This “Micha Romijn” stuff was much more sinister and like reported in my Parameter blogs.
Mails “Micha Romijn”
Mails “Micha Romijn”
Mails “Micha Romijn”
Mails “Micha Romijn”
Mails “Micha Romijn”
Mails “Micha Romijn”
WordPress later-on in 2017 removed the fake Micha Romijn ID pics I uploaded in my Parameter blogs. Somebody had complained and I doubt WordPress sees the difference between a real and a (well-recreated) fake ID. So if someone came with the same ID to complain, they had no reason to act differently than usual.
Somebody had complained with Wordpress about the fake Micha Romijn ID pics, Wordpress removed them
Stan Pluijmen confesses in this audio that (indeed) he was “Micha Romijn”. But I could tell by the emails I received there is another person involved, because I recognize Stan’s language and tone of voice, and there were quite some that were not from his pen.
After many years of experience with this whole group around Robbert van den Broeke, the facts (so no suspicions) are that the men are playing battleship with each other’s mailbox, wanted or unwanted. For example, I got a picture of Stan that, according to Stan, was very ugly and it seemed that someone in the room had seized his phone and sent it secretly. This is just one of many examples and I have also explained and substantiated this in my Parameter blog(s) In this regard, it is actually best to read all my Parameter blogs. Because of the enormous chaos that arose from this and which I think was also erected partly intentionally as a smoke screen on the side of Stan, the men ended up in a kind of large, inextricable tangle of cohesive material.
It seems that the gentlemen are holding each other in a delicate balance of compromising facts, and that they may well be quite afraid that the other person will leak information to me, or whoever wants to expose the truth. The many snitch mails to me could be explained by the tense atmosphere between the men, in the spirit: “If you do or don’t do that, I’m going to leak (mis)information about you, watch me, I am not bluffing.”
The “Micha Romijn” person was a piece of the puzzel that didn’t sit well at all with Stan. International police should investigate the motive of “Micha Romijn”. Because WordPress acted upon the complaint from I have to assume possibly the real Micha Romijn, that the (fake) ID pictures should be removed, it appears Micha Romijn must (have) know(n) that his ID was being abused (i.e., it was sent to me, and was it used for playing in online casinos?). In my opinion, all likely scenarios should be investigated. Two important ones: 1. it should be investigated whether Micha Romijn received money in exchange for the use of his ID or 2. that he is a victim of ID fraud. If latter would be the case, then why wasn’t any of this on the news or emailed to/communicated with me or other journalists in any way with convincing evidence? Because I had made some real public fuss about this MR ID, that it was sent to me, just like that, I had extensively tweeted about it with even the un-blurred images of the several ID photos. Moreover, the ID pictures were published on my WordPress site, for everybody to see.
Rachid is another person involved. I even received an email from Jan Willem Nienhuys, my good friend from Skepsis.nl because Rachid was trying to contact me in vain (?) and he tried his luck with Jan Willem Nienhuys. This Rachid seems to be somebody close to Robbert, Stan and Alan, who has been hitchhiking along on this whole case. Robbert van den Broeke claims in his email that Rachid received a lot of money.
Jan Willem Nienhuys was called by Rachid
Jan Willem Nienhuys was called by Rachid, translation by Google
I then received a lot of emails from Rachid too, but call it intuition or experience, I didn’t like communicating with him, it felt pointless and like speaking to a twisted mind. Nothing came out of my communication with him and I discontinued it.
Mails Rachid
There is also this thing with Dutch crime reporter John van den Heuvel in Stan’s audio. I conclude from the aforementioned audio that Robbert van den Broeke has been spilling some beans towards John van den Heuvel and said to Van den Heuvel that Stan is hacking casinos. As known, John van Heuvel was visiting Joran van de Sloot in his jail cel in Peru, so there we have it again: the circle Joran, Stan and Robbert.6
The two audio files of Leydi Figueroa Uceda sent to me by Stan Pluijmen fit seamlessly into the picture Stan has or had power over Joran and Leydi, because if someone, especially imprisoned or poor like Joran and Leydi, gets very large sums of money, such as these two from Stan,6 this person/they will be more readily inclined to do “weird things” for their benefactor.
And it all fits with Stan’s strange sense of humor and his obsession with me.
To return to Stan’s “confession clip”: Stan says in this audio he had been set up about this casino story, but that he wasn’t arrested, “Just ask John van den Heuvel, it’s true”, which would confirm that he is innocent of hacking casinos.
Stan had confided through emails earlier on that with Joran van der Sloot too, he had cut ties. Alan had his say in this audio also:
and both seemed scared of Robbert, they seemed to think or acted that Robbert had put some sinister curse on them.
I haven’t talked much about Alan, Stan’s husband. The truth is, I like him, just like Stan, but I don’t like their covering up of fraud and deception (Robbert van den Broeke, Joran van der Sloot, et cetera related). That makes all of this extra incomprehensible, I mean, they spent many years in the make-the-other-crazy-but-often-not-in-a-fun-way game. There were and are some sidelines with Alan, like the time I talked to him through his Twitter account. That didn’t end very well and he even deleted that account. Later, and in line with what Stan often did, he denied, but also confirmed that he had been that person on Twitter. I also received emails from him, but most were obviously from Stan using his email address. I could tell not only from the language used, but in these emails Stan simply wrote about the he-person: Alan. Some of the emails were from Alan and in these emails he always seemed very friendly and truly reaching out to me as an independent person (from Stan), although he seemed outraged a couple of times at some of my responses on Twitter. It can certainly be called a fact that he is an absolute insider in everything, since, as Stan’s husband, he lives with Stan day after day.
Emails Alan Sieradzki
Translation provided by Google
Emails Alan Sieradzki’s mailbox
Stan kept saying, over and over again, that he loves me, even calling me an “universal source of love”.
The “old” Stan, December 25, 2018:
Sending emails from the mailbox of Robbert van den Broeke:
Stan emailing audios from the mailbox of Robbert van den Broeke
And, same day:
The “new” Stan:
My firm impression is that many more people are involved in the Robbert van den Broeke-Stan Pluijmen-Joran van der Sloot and so on (than the already in this and previous blogs mentioned names) case, possibly even well-known names from the Dutch and international conspiracy and para world, and that casino fraud and para-fraud are not the only illegal business. Also consider Stan’s rare stubbornness about Natalee Holloway’s alleged remains in Grave 15 at the St. Anna Churchyard in Aruba. Even Joran briefly mentions that St. Anna in the clip Stan via the mailbox of Robbert van den Broeke dropped in my mailbox: (I provided English captions):
Joran van der Sloot talking to Stan Pluijmen about “St.Anna”
In April 2020 I received an invitation from a Dutch radio maker to talk about all this and Stan also received an invitation. Stan doesn’t want to and again only communicated this to me:
Stan says some interesting things in these audios and especially in this audio “15”: that he hates the web of lies he got into, and that he is threatened from all sides, but that it’s okay by him when/if I publish all his audios because he loves honesty. He also says that he had already recorded an entire audio for me, was “too honest” – and wonders if there is such a thing as “too honest” – and that he consequently deleted this audio. He talks (again) about his (former) drink and coke problem, and says the audios between 2018 and now on average were recorded with this addiction slur. He also asks if I don’t want to make fun of him and that he loves me. He goes on to say that he doesn’t think he can buy everything off with money. He doesn’t feel like thrill journalism about Joran van der Sloot, and that he’s not exactly boosting himself for being Joran’s friend ,and that this journalist who invited both him and me to talk about Joran van der Sloot and co must think he’s retarded. And also in this audio you can notice that he wanted to say something, but then “caught” himself, something “too honest” again?, and then his sentence stops.
To me it all seems the tip of the iceberg, and my hunch based on the thousands of emails and media files I received in total, is that this whole case has been a smoldering volcano that will erupt once. My personal hope is that this eruption will be thorough and that the whole cesspool will really open. There will be many “losers”, but also some big winners, and I hope Natalee Holloway’s parents will be among those winners to get the information about their daughter Natalee Holloway, which they have been entitled to for all these years, but never got. It is now (on May 30, 2020) exactly 15 years ago that she disappeared.
Something else to conclude this with: to this day, Stan never got my “secret request” (and no, this request is not about money). I asked something from Stan on Twitter, but it is up to him to see what it is, and because they claim to be clairvoyant, I was amazed that this wasn’t, and still isn’t, the case. And Stan, yes, this secret request still stands.
[2] His turn to conspiracy theories with regard to the Corona Virus didn’t go unnoticed and was picked up by several media groups. NRCGeenStijl Mentionable is the fact that only a fraction of the YouTube commenters on this GeenStijl clip knows Robbert, some even think it is staged or that Robbert is an actor. It could also be they don’t recognize him, as he has changed very much in appearance. Van den Broeke received more publicity in May, 2020 when he was interviewed by Ybeltje Berckmoes of aspiring Dutch broadcaster “Ongehoord Nederland“, “channeling” Right-Wing leader Pim Fortuyn who was murdered by Volkert van der Graaf on May 6, 2002. Both aspiring broadcaster “Ongehoord Nederland” and Robbert were buried under severe criticism and scorn directly after this was aired.
Appreciate my blogs! If you appreciate my Parameter blogs and want to show your appreciation with a small contribution: you can! In this way you help to maintain independent writing. Go to my personal website to donate (see sidebar).
🌟 With many thanks to Rob Nanninga, Sjaan, Manfred and Luciënne (the latter for what she did in the Robbert van den Broeke & co case in 2016) 🤗
Dit blog is ook gepubliceerd op mijn Leeuwenharten WordPress. Als u zich afvraagt waarom dit toch aanzienlijke blog ook op de Leeuwenharten website verschijnt: dit is een belangrijk deel van mijn leven en het heeft als zodanig ook een echte impact. Bovendien heeft het een zeer directe overlap met Rob Nanninga, aangezien ook hij hiermee bezig was en is, als het klopt dat er een leven na de dood is (in wat voor vorm dan ook). Ik krijg regelmatig de indruk dat Rob me helpt in deze zaak, als het ware de heren dwingt hun kaarten op tafel te leggen.
Robbert
Al vijftien jaar ben ik met deze zaak bezig, een ongelooflijk lange tijd. Er zijn een paar noemenswaardige veranderingen en ontwikkelingen.
Het eerste noemenswaardige feit is dat ik Robbert van den Broeke definitief geblokkeerd heb in het zenden van emails naar mij. Hij werd in oktober 2018, naar verluidt wegens gebrek aan bewijs, vrijgesproken in de haat- en dreigmails zaak1, en kreeg zelfs een schadeloosstelling, maar dit was geen enkele reden voor Van den Broeke om nu een scheld- en dreigvrije zone in te wandelen en hij bleef doodleuk doorgaan met zijn haatmails richting mij.
De oogst aan Robbert van den Broeke haat e-mails sinds het laatste blog op mijn Parameter Wordpress-site
De oogst aan Robbert van den Broeke haat e-mails sinds het laatste blog op mijn Parameter Wordpress-site
De oogst aan Robbert van den Broeke haat e-mails sinds het laatste blog op mijn Parameter Wordpress-site
De oogst aan Robbert van den Broeke haat e-mails sinds het laatste blog op mijn Parameter Wordpress-site
Aan Rob Nanninga kon ik merken dat hij tegen 2012 wel een beetje een streep had gezet onder de Genverbrander zaak; voor hem was de kous sok wel (bijna) af
nu Robbert definitief ontmaskerd was als oplichter en ook nog eens aangetoond was, dat Van den Broeke online tirades afstak waar de honden geen brood van lustten, maar ik bleef de deur veel langer op een kier, dan wel open, houden. Al geruime tijd is het eigenlijk voor iedereen, behalve voor Van den Broekes meest loyale fans, kraakhelder dat Robbert van den Broeke in feite een verloren zaak is, en het in die zin logisch bekeken niet veel zin meer heeft noch eervol is zijn capriolen te onderzoeken en tegen het licht te houden. Van den Broeke is muurvast komen te zitten, en het enige dat hij nu alweer jarenlang doet, is het eindeloos herhalen van zijn kunstjes: het afsteken van diverse “spirituele” preken, het faken van geesten en buitenaardsen in zijn foto’s en video’s, al zijn “liefdevolle” boodschappen voor zijn fans en al zijn haat richting mij en skeptici in het algemeen.
Tegenwoordig sluit hij zelfs bij de mainstream complotkwaks aan, bijvoorbeeld wat betreft de gehypte verbinding tussen 5G en het Corona Virus. Een van zijn eerste, gewraakte complot-clips hierover had hij toch nog verwijderd.2 Deze complottheorieën zijn verre van onschuldig aangezien complotgelovigen ze meenemen in hun dagelijkse leefstijl en keuzes, en hun kinderen of zichzelf vervolgens niet meer laten vaccineren, omdat ze bang zijn dat de staat in het geheim microchips bij hen inbrengt of dat ze vergiftigd worden met kwik. Sommige mensen gaan zelfs zo ver dat ze 5G masten, of wat ze daarvoor aanzien, in de hens steken. Van den Broeke heeft in het afgelopen jaar een zeer grote hoeveelheid YouTube clips gepubliceerd, waarin hij allerlei “spirituele” thema’s behandelt en hij heeft zelfs mij een paar keer publiekelijk aan de schandpaal trachten te nagelen.3 Toch lijkt de nieuwe trend bij hem de “preekvideo’s” te zijn, en ik zou dat eigenlijk best heel prima vinden als het daarbij bleef. Hey, iedereen mag op zijn preekstoel gaan zitten, niet waar? Maar helaas blijft het daar dus niet bij, want Van den Broeke levert ook nog steeds zijn bedrog kunststukjes af, inclusief zelfbeschadigingen op zijn voorhoofd waarvan hij beweert dat het buitenaardse dan wel Christus tekens zijn. Ik moet zeggen dat zijn verzameling aan “spirituele” onderwerpen op YouTube onderhand indrukwekkend bont begint te worden, en zijn interesse in dit soort onderwerpen lijkt dus niet gespeeld. Toch blijft er voor mijn indruk weinig reden over nog veel tijd en energie in hem te steken.
Robbert van den Broeke-video’s, zoals te zien op 19 mei 2020
Robbert van den Broeke-video’s, zoals te zien op 19 mei 2020
Robbert van den Broeke-video’s, zoals te zien op 19 mei 2020
Robbert van den Broeke-video’s, zoals te zien op 19 mei 2020
Robbert van den Broeke-video’s, zoals te zien op 19 mei 2020
Robbert van den Broeke-video’s, zoals te zien op 19 mei 2020
Robbert van den Broeke-video’s, zoals te zien op 19 mei 2020
Robbert stuurde me dus weer een complete vrachtlading aan haatmails en clips, een gedeelte is in de Google Drive. Er is één Robbert van den Broeke activiteit die ik niet onvermeld wil laten. Toen Van den Broeke nog steeds actief met Johny Webb samenwerkte, die van de octopus, presteerde hij het om met een “channeling” van niemand minder dan Adolf Hitler te komen. Echter, de begeleidende tekst en clip werden op Webbs Facebook en YouTube gepubliceerd. Ik tweette hier vervolgens over en hierop hebben een of meerdere mensen (ik was het niet) Webb bij Facebook gerapporteerd. Hierna ging de Facebook pagina van Webb, waarop hij voorheen dagelijks zeer actief was, definitief op zwart. De clip staat echter nog steeds op zijn YouTube kanaal, en ik zette ook een kopie ervan in de Google Drive, je weet maar nooit:
In de herfst van 2019 liet ik op Twitter het idee vallen de Robbert van den Broeke blogs die ik geschreven heb in een boek om te zetten, en ik was hier zelfs al een aantal weken mee bezig geweest (dit ligt op het moment stil). Vanzelfsprekend zat Van den Broeke er direct met heel zijn gewicht bovenop en kreeg ik een aantal haatmails hierover binnen. Ook Stan Pluijmen liet zich niet onbetuigd en had het er een paar keer over in emails, maar hij uitte zich meer in de zin van: “Dat boek komt er niet, toch?”
Genverbrander, het boek
Opeens brak er iets in me op 14 december 2019, toen er weer eens mail van Van den Broeke binnenkwam waar de haat letterlijk vanaf droop. Ik besloot hem geheel te blokkeren. Elke keer als hij me nu mailt, wordt zijn email ogenblikkelijk roemloos afgevoerd door Gmail, die daarop een automatische boomerang naar Robbert terugstuurt met het berichtje dat hij geblokt is en waarom. Sinds ik deze filters zo instelde, is er geen enkele Robbert van den Broeke mail meer binnengekomen en ik ben erg blij met deze beslissing!
Het automatische Gmail antwoord
Stan, Alan en anderen
Stan Pluijmen zegt dat hij 9M heeft. Email Constantia naar Martin, 24 mei 2020.
Stan Pluijmen is echter een andere zaak. Stan leek nooit hatelijk of een hater, zoals Van den Broeke, in de emails die hij met zijn eigen naam ondertekende. Het is een lang verhaal en het voert te ver alles “weer” te gaan herhalen. Het komt er kort gezegd op neer dat ik Stan niet geblokkeerd heb en nog steeds een kans geef. Ik hoopte altijd dat hij toch nog over de brug zou komen, dan wel komt, dat hij zich los zou maken van Robbert en dus niet meer zou meedoen aan het para lieg-en bedriegspelletje. Maar Stan gaat toch wel op en neer als een jojo. Stan mailde mij echter in toenemende mate mails met teksten waaruit af te leiden viel dat hij veranderd was en dat hij zelfs deels toegaf dat er sprake was van bedrog bij en met Robbert van den Broeke. Ondanks dat blijft Stan stug volhouden dat er een deel in Robbert zit dat echt “helderziend” is. Hoe dan ook, Stan en Robbert zijn geen bedrogskoppel meer, dat wil zeggen: ik zie daar geen aanwijzingen (meer) voor. Stan leek zowaar bezwaard door het verleden, en natuurlijk weet hij als geen ander hoeveel ernstige haatmails ik heb binnengekregen van Robbert en van zijn eigen, bedenkelijke, nog erg behoudend uitgedrukt, netwerk. Hij begon me financiële compensatie aan te bieden in de vorm van BTC (bitcoin), maar lange tijd hield ik die deur gesloten en liet vallen dat ik alleen in officiële schenkingen via een notaris geïnteresseerd zou zijn. Al jaren was hij bezig met het geldaspect van deze zaak en het mij voorhouden van dikke geldvissen, mij geld aanbiedend als ik al mijn blogs op Parameter zou verwijderen, zie daartoe ook mijn vorige Parameter blogs.4
Stan leek behoorlijk wanhopig te worden over het bestaan van mijn Parameter blogs, hij probeerde het ook op een andere wijze en trachtte me te verleiden mee te gaan in een “codewoord” deal: als hij/zij instaat waren een codewoord te raden dat ik in gedachten zou nemen, en aan één iemand officieel zou toevertrouwen als bevestiging, dan zou ik al mijn blogs moeten verwijderen. Echter hapte ik niet in het aas dat Stan voor me uitgeworpen had.
Stan wil codewoord: “en beloof dat als de code correct is, je twitter en alle blogs verwijderen. Deal? Geen bluf.”
In 2020 begon Stan zijn BTC pogingen om een reden die ik niet ken aanzienlijk op te voeren, hij zei/zegt dat het was/is om me te helpen omdat hij me mag en van me houdt. Ik werd toch wel weer wat nieuwsgierig of hij zomaar (weer) iets zei en ik postte mijn BTC adres publiekelijk op mijn Genverbrander10 Twitter account (Twitter naam op 14 oktober 2020 veranderd naar RobConstantia).
Dit was overigens niet de eerste keer dat ik dat deed, ik deed het ook in 2018. Ik leerde bitcoin in 2017 kennen toen ik probeerde bij een buitenlandse website mijn allergiemedicijn Ebas – ook wel bekend onder de marktnamen Kestine en Ebastine – te bestellen. Dit medicijn is helaas dus echt niet te krijgen in Amerika en de doktoren die ik hierover in Davis raadpleegde, kenden het zelfs nog niet. Op deze buitenlandse website vragen ze of om BTC, en dan krijg je standaard 10% korting op je gehele bestelling, of om een bankoverboeking, en die zijn hier, in tegenstelling tot Nederland, aan de zeer prijzige kant. Daarop trok ik de stoute schoenen aan en creëerde een account bij Coinbase (ik zit overigens tegenwoordig meer bij een andere cryptocurrency “bank”). Net als voor veel andere mensen toen was dit allemaal zeer nieuw en onwennig voor me, en op een gegeven moment publiceerde ik zelfs mijn BTC wallet adres op mijn Twitter account ConstantiaUSA. Ik heb geprobeerd de betreffende tweet terug te vinden, maar ik meen me ook te herinneren dat ik die na een poos toch maar weer verwijderd had, want ik kom hem inderdaad niet meer terugvinden. Pas recent, in april 2020, begon ik het cryptocurrency gebeuren iets meer te begrijpen. Je kunt, als ik het goed heb, best je BTC wallet adres publiceren, maar dan is het wel raadzaam vooraf even je BTC account dicht te timmeren tegen hackers die op slinkse wijze zouden kunnen proberen je geld weg te sluizen via een storting naar een ander BTC adres (maar houd me ten goede). Toen ik hier recent wat over aan het lezen was, besloot ik maar snel even wat extra veiligheidsstappen te doorlopen in mijn actieve BTC account. Maar destijds in midden? 2018 hoopte ik stiekem dus dat iemand BTC in mijn wallet zou storten, wat natuurlijk niet gebeurde.
De start met bitcoin
In mijn Parameter blog maakte ik al melding van het feit dat ik geheel op spontane impuls en min of meer grappend op Twitter tegen Stan Pluijmen had laten vallen dat ik bereid was voor 1.5 miljoen mijn Parameter blogs inderdaad weg te halen. Slechts met een dergelijke grote som aan geld zou ik mij dan echt gecompenseerd voelen voor alle haat en ellende die zij mij aangedaan hebben. Het onderliggende idee hierbij was dat ik met een dergelijk fortuin heel anders zou kunnen gaan leven, en dat ik dit werkelijk kon zien als een échte, serieuze schadevergoeding, voldoende om dit alles achter me te laten.
Achter de schermen bij Robbert van den Broeke, deel IV, augustus 2018
Ik mailde Stan hier niet over, en ik mailde hem helemaal niet, alles ging via Twitter.
Stan Pluijmen, I will remove my blogs abt Robbert & your crew members for €1,5 MILLION. You once offered me €15000. Let me see what you have got. I could use the money and I think I've endured enough of your mails and Robbert's hatemails et cetera to consider this compensation.
— Constantia Oomen’s skeptic and personal account (@Genverbrander10) June 29, 2018
Stan vindt 1.5 miljoen te veel
Maar in 2020 was alles toch anders. Ik ontving opeens een bitcoin bedrag op 8 april, 2020. Stan had een storting gedaan! En de volgende dag kwamen er nog twee stortingen binnen, nadat ik in een paar tweets gezegd had dat ik dingen op het internet had opgezocht rondom schenkingen naar Amerika en dat ik bereid was zijn BTC als officiële schenking te accepteren. De tweede en derde storting waren groter dan die van de dag ervoor, het was allemaal geen fortuin, maar ook niet heel weinig, in het totaal stortte Stan mij BTC op dat moment ter waarde van 3200 euro, bijna een halve bitcoin. Voor de kenners van cryptocurrency: dit kan letterlijk tot niets verworden, maar ook tot best veel, in de toekomst.
Ik zie het als Stans vrije-wil compensatie die overigens nog steeds eerder aan de symbolische kant is. Zijn compensatie schuurt niet eens aan tegen de daadwerkelijke overlast die ik gehad heb. Mijn kritische aandacht voor deze zaak – waaraan ik letterlijk duizenden uren heb besteed – was inderdaad geheel mijn eigen, vrije keuze en alles wat ik deed, deed ik publiekelijk. Naar mijn mening bleef ik hierbij altijd eerlijk en beschaafd. Maar het was zeker niet mijn keuze om vele jaren: 2012-2019 gestalkt te worden. Ik ontving immers honderden haatmails en doodsbedreigingen die vanuit een hele keur aan verschillende mailboxen kwamen, van zowel namen die mij al bekend waren als mij geheel onbekende namen, met foto’s van onthoofdingen à la ISIS, lijken die lijken waren omdat ze als mensen overreden werden door vrachtwagens, scheldvideo’s en ik ontving zelfs meerdere, tamelijk gedetailleerde emails over huurmoordenaars die mij in Davis een kopje kleiner zouden komen maken.5
Ik kan niet zeker weten waar Stan zijn geld vandaan heeft, in emails zegt hij zelf dat hij dat verworven heeft door online casino’s in de luren te leggen. Stan Pluijmen zegt dat hij een moderne Robin Hood is, die van de rijken steelt en het aan de armen geeft.
Stan Pluijmen (links), de moderne Robin Hood
Stan over de hacker en de casino’s, Robin Hood …
“Stan, de moderne Robin Hood … steelt van criminele casino’s en geeft het aan de armen”
“Stan, de moderne Robin Hood … steelt van criminele casino’s en geeft het aan de armen”
Op 25 april 2020 besloot ik om naar precies twee jaar aan ongeopende audio’s van Stan te luisteren, dit bleek een rollercoaster te worden van vele uren in de middag en avond. Sinds april 2018 had ik niet meer naar zijn audio’s geluisterd (en hierover uitvoerig bericht op Twitter), omdat ik pisnijdig werd op Stan toen die me in een audio van 2018 “aanbood” “medium” Robbert van den Broeke om mijn Google Drive wachtwoord te vragen, van den Broeke zou dat wellicht kunnen “channelen”. Zoals u misschien al bevroedde, geloof ik niet in Robbert van den Broekes wachtwoord “channelings”vaardigheden, maar wel geloof ik min of meer in Stans of … s? hacking capaciteiten. En ik had daarvoor ook echt niet meer stiekem geluisterd, zoals Stan vele malen gesuggereerd bleek te hebben in de audio’s van april 2018-2020 (wat ik dus pas in april 2020 te weten kwam). In een van deze audio’s bleek hij zelfs te zeggen dat hij wel een miljoen op “het feit” wilde inzetten dat ik mijn nieuwsgierigheid niet kon bedwingen en echt wel luisterde:
Dus, Stan, ik denk nu dat je mij nog veel meer schuldig bent. 😉
Het voor twee lange jaren niet luisteren naar Stans audio’s en dan op één dag al die audio’s tegelijk, en natuurlijk in chronologische orde van binnenkomst, bleek een gouden greep. In plaats van steeds maar losse fragmentjes binnen te krijgen, kreeg ik nu dus opeens inzage in een groot geheel, en ook de tijdsafstand die ik voor mezelf op deze wijze gecreëerd had, bleek op figuurlijke wijze voor mij ook meer afstand en daarmee rust te creëren. De audio’s gaven mij een goed inzicht in wat er twee jaar lang zoal in Stan en zijn echtgenoot Alan was omgegaan. Ik luisterde naar ongeveer honderd audio’s en de lijn die ze lieten zien, was consistent: eerst hoorde ik exact een jaar aan de gebruikelijke Stan Pluijmen woo-woo, maar sinds april 2019 begon Stan opeens met een ander koor mee te zingen. Dat werd ingeluid door een reeks aan uiterst merkwaardige mails waarin Stan buiten zichzelf getreden leek en ergens in het diepe universum, als een wonder van megaduiding van de geheimen van de kosmos, begon over synchroniciteit, mythische symbolen, God, Satan, buitenaardsen en onze gedeelde lotsbestemming.
Stan, keerpunt
Omdat ik gelijktijdig van Robbert van den Broeke haatmails ontving die voor de verandering eens over Stan en Alan gingen, en waarin Van den Broeke als een bezetene naar zijn voormalige vrienden aan het trappen was – hij stuurde me zelfs een audio waarin Stan gehoord kan worden die buiten zichzelf lijkt te zijn, jammert en huilt – kon ik wel horen dat er nu echt iets aan de hand was, wat waarschijnlijk niet gespeeld was. In Stans audio’s begon Stan echt anders te klinken, en, in de meest gunstige wijze voor Stan geïnterpreteerd, kun je stellen dat Stan inderdaad wakker leek geworden uit een nare droom of vloek, hij gebruikte zinnen als: “Ik heb mezelf voor schut gezet, ik heb Robbert losgelaten, wat heb ik gedaan? Robbert heeft me tot dingen aangezet, ik ben niet langer onder de trance van Robbert, je blogs mogen online blijven, want ze zijn correct, de vloek van Robbert…, er is geen hacker, het spijt me, ik geef mijn fouten toe…” Toegegeven, in deze zaak is het soms uitermate lastig om feiten van leugens te scheiden, maar de audio’s van Stan die van en na april 2019 kwamen, waren toch echt wel een stevige aanduiding dat de drie-eenheid Robbert-Stan-Alan niet meer bestond. Zowel Van den Broeke als Stan Pluijmen mailden me nu opeens hun “hele waarheid” (click op onderstaande galerij, dit is hoe ik het ontving, Robbert van den Broeke schrijft helaas zonder het gebruik van leestekens):
Robbert van den Broekes “Dag Constantia de waarheid met wat voor gevolgen dan ook”
Robbert van den Broeke email
Robbert van den Broeke email
Robbert van den Broeke email
Robbert van den Broeke stuurde dit per email
Wanneer je deze mails van Robbert van den Broeke over de volgende Stan Pluijmen audio heen legt:
10:40: Stan “Er is geen hacker” (> in de Robbert van den Broeke haat en doodsbedreigingen zaak)
12:20: Stan: “Ik geef toe dat ik Micha Romijn was”.
en waarin Stan zegt dat hij geen online casinos gehackt heeft, zoals Van den Broeke beweert, maar dat hij wel casino’s via een truc lichter van hun geld heeft gemaakt, denk ik dat het volgende een realistisch model kan zijn van wat er echt gebeurd is: werktheorie: Stan ontdekte gaten in het mechanisme van online casino’s en was in staat veel geld te cashen. Met een aantal valse IDs, dan wel bestaande IDs van andere mensen (die ervan af wisten, Stan hun toestemming gaven hun ID te gebruiken, en waarvoor Stan hun vorstelijk beloonde), kon Stan de casinotruc herhalen. Van de Robbert van den Broeke clan respectievelijk van iemand die mailde vanuit de mailbox van “Micha Romijn” had ik twee complete IDs ontvangen, een van “Micha Romijn” zelf (voor- en achterkant van de ID) en een van een oude dame, een vrouwelijk familielid van Alan Sieradzki (die inmiddels overleden is). Dit “Micha Romijn” gebeuren was nog veel meer sinister dan de rest van alles wat er gebeurde, en hierover heb ik uitvoerig geschreven in mijn vorige Parameter blogs.
Mails “Micha Romijn”
Mails “Micha Romijn”
Mails “Micha Romijn”
Mails “Micha Romijn”
Mails “Micha Romijn”
Mails “Micha Romijn”
In 2017 werden de fake Micha Romijn plaatjes die ik in mijn Parameter blogs had opgenomen, opeens verwijderd door WordPress. Iemand had geklaagd, en ik betwijfel dat WordPress in staat is het verschil tussen een echt en een (min of meer goed gelukte) fake ID te zien. Dus als iemand met diezelfde fake ID bij hen kwam aanzetten, hadden ze geen keuze dan dit als een echte klacht te behandelen.
Iemand had bij Wordpress geklaagd over de nep Micha Romijn ID-foto’s, Wordpress heeft ze verwijderd
Stan Pluijmen bekende dus in al genoemde audio dat hij inderdaad “Micha Romijn” was. Maar aan de hand van de mails die ik van deze persoon ontving, kon ik duidelijk merken dat er echt wel ten minste een tweede persoon betrokken was bij deze mails, omdat ik na zovele mails van Stan zijn taal en energie herken, en een aantal waren zeker niet uit zijn pennenkoker.
Zeeslag
Na zoveel jaren van ervaring met de hele groep rondom Robbert van den Broeke zijn de feiten (dus geen vermoedens) dat de heren Zeeslag spelen met elkaars mailbox (en meer, YouTube, social media enz.), gewild of ongewild. Zo kreeg ik bijvoorbeeld een keer een foto van Stan die volgens Stan erg lelijk was, en het leek erop dat iemand die zich in dezelfde ruimte als Stan bevond Stans telefoon had gepakt en die foto stiekem naar mij verstuurd had. Dit is slechts een van de vele voorbeelden, en ik heb dit ook uitvoerig in voorgaande Parameter blogs behandeld en onderbouwd. Wat dit betreft wil ik toch aanbevelen al mijn voorgaande blogs op chronologische wijze te lezen dan wel, bij tijdnood of anders, te scannen. Door de enorme chaos die door deze mailboxtoestanden ontstond, en die in mijn optiek deels ook bewust door Stan gecreëerd werd als een soort rookgordijn, kwamen de heren in een soort grote, onlosmakelijke kluwen van samenhangend materiaal terecht.
Het lijkt erop dat de heren elkaar in een delicate balans houden die bestaat uit compromitterende feiten die ze van elkaar weten, en dat ze zeer goed mogelijk behoorlijk bang zijn dat de ander informatie gaat lekken richting mij of wie dan ook die de waarheid aan het licht wil brengen. De vele matennaaiers mails die naar mij gezonden werden, kunnen de gespannen sfeer tussen de heren, die wellicht zelfs om te snijden is, boekstaven. U kunt daarbij denken aan een gedachtengang en gedrag als: “Als jij niet dit en dit doet, dan ga ik (mis)informatie lekken, let maar eens op, ik bluf niet!”.
De “Micha Romijn” persoon was een stuk van de puzzel dat Stan helemaal niet lekker zat. Internationale politie zou mijns inziens het motief van “Micha Romijn” moeten onderzoeken. Omdat WordPress handelde naar aanleiding van een klacht van mogelijk de echte Micha Romijn, dat de plaatjes van de (fake) ID verwijderd moesten worden, lijkt het mij dat Micha Romijn wist dat zijn ID op oneigenlijke wijze was/werd gebruikt (die werd immers naar mij gestuurd, voor- en achterkant, en was wellicht gebruikt voor het spelen in online casino’s). Naar mijn mening moeten alle mogelijke scenarios nagetrokken worden. Twee belangrijke daarvan zijn: 1. Het moet onderzocht worden of Micha Romijn geld ontving in de ruil voor het gebruik van zijn ID of 2. Is (de echte) Micha Romijn een slachtoffer van ID diefstal en fraude? Als het tweede het geval is, waarom was niets hiervan dan op het nieuws (nieuws op wat voor wijze dan ook), waarom werd er dan niets van dit alles met overtuigend bewijs naar mij of andere journalisten gestuurd of gecommuniceerd? Ik had immers een grote ophef over het feit gemaakt dat ik zomaar complete IDs van andere mensen in mijn mailbox gedropt kreeg, ik had erover getweet met de plaatjes die ik niet eens vervaagd had. Maar nog meer natuurlijk: ik had die ID plaatjes op mijn WordPress, voor de ogen van de hele wereld, gepubliceerd.
Rachid is een andere betrokken persoon. Ik ontving zelfs een email van mijn goede vriend Jan Willem Nienhuys van Skepsis.nl, omdat Rachid blijkbaar tevergeefs met mij in contact had proberen te komen (?) en een poging via Jan Willem Nienhuys waagde. Deze Rachid lijkt iemand te zijn die tamelijk nauwe banden heeft met de club Robbert, Stan en Alan en zoals het er uitziet, heeft hij als het ware op de hele zaak meegelift. Robbert van den Broeke beweert in zijn email dat Rachid veel geld heeft ontvangen.
Jan Willem Nienhuys werd gebeld door Rachid
Ik ontving daarop emails van Rachid, maar noem het intuïtie of ervaring, het communiceren met hem voelde meteen al niet goed, het voelde als zinloos en als het spreken met iemand met een verwrongen geest. Er kwam ook overduidelijk niets uit deze hele communicatie en ik brak die dan ook al vrij snel af.
Mails Rachid
En dan is er nog dat gedeelte in Stans audio met en over misdaadjournalist John van den Heuvel. Uit genoemde audio concludeer ik dat Robbert van den Broeke de vuile was heeft buiten gehangen richting John van den Heuvel en deze verteld heeft dat Stan casino’s gehackt heeft. Zoals waarschijnlijk of mogelijk bij u bekend, heeft Van den Heuvel Joran van der Sloot in diens gevangeniscel in Peru opgezocht. En daarmee komen we weer eens mooi full circle, de kring Joran, Stan en Robbert.6
De twee audio files van Leydi Figueroa Uceda die ik via Stan toegezonden kreeg, passen naadloos in het plaatje dat Stan macht heeft of had over Joran en Leydi, want als iemand, en zeker als die persoon in de gevangenis zit of arm is, grote sommen geld van een ander krijgt, zoals deze twee, Joran en Leydi, van Stan6, dan zal die iemand of zullen die ontvangers toch wel sneller genegen zijn “rare dingen” voor hun weldoener te doen.
Verder past dit ook allemaal uitstekend bij Stans vreemde gevoel voor humor en zijn obsessie voor mij.
Om nog een keer terug te keren naar Stans “bekentenisclip”: Stan zegt in deze audio ook dat hij erin geluisd is met dat Casino verhaal, maar dat hij niet gearresteerd was, “Vraag maar aan John van den Heuvel”, en dat dit zou bewijzen dat hij onschuldig is aan het hacken van online casino’s.
Stan had ook al in eerdere emails naar mij gezegd dat hij alle banden met Joran van der Sloot verbroken had. Alan doet overigens dus ook zijn zegje in deze audio:
en beide lijken al dan niet oprecht bang voor Robbert, ze leken te denken, of acteerden zo, dat Robbert een soort sinistere vloek over ze had uitgesproken.
Over Alan heb ik overigens tot dusver niet veel gesproken. De waarheid is dat ik hem mag, net zoals ik Stan mag, maar wat ik niet mag is hun toedekken van fraude en bedrog (Robbert van den Broeke, Joran van der Sloot et cetera gerelateerd). Dit maakt alles extra onbegrijpelijk, ik bedoel: hun jarenlange, zeer actieve deelname aan het maak-de-ander-gek-maar-meestal-niet-op-een-leuke-manier spelletje. Er waren wat zijlijnen met Alan, zoals die keer dat ik op Twitter met hem sprak. Dat liep niet erg bevredigend af en hij delete dat account zelfs. Later, en geheel in lijn met wat Stan vaak deed, ontkende maar tevens bevestigde hij dat hij dat geweest was op Twitter. Ook van hem heb ik emails ontvangen, maar de meeste waren overduidelijk van Stan die zijn mailadres gebruikte. Dat kon ik niet alleen concluderen uit de gebezigde taal, maar Stan sprak in deze emails doodleuk over Alan als hij-persoon. Maar een paar mails van deze Alan-mailbox kwamen wel degelijk van Alan. In zijn emails naar mij was Alan altijd erg vriendelijk en hij reikte oprecht naar mij uit als een persoon onafhankelijk van Stan. Een aantal malen was Alan echter zeer verbolgen over dingen die ik op Twitter gezegd had. Het mag als feit beschouwd worden dat Alan een absolute insider is, aangezien hij dag in dag uit met Stan samenleeft.
Mail van Alan
Mailoverzicht Alans mailbox
De “oude” Stan, 25 december 2018:
Emails sturend via de mailbox van Robbert van den Broeke:
Stan die (weer eens) mailt vanuit de mailbox van Robbert van den Broeke
En, op dezelfde dag:
De “nieuwe” Stan:
Mijn stellige indruk is dat er nog veel meer mensen dan de reeds genoemden betrokken zijn bij de Robbert van den Broeke-Stan Pluijmen-Joran van der Sloot zaak, waaronder mogelijk ook diverse kopstukken uit de Nederlandse en internationale complot- en para-gemeenschap, en dat de casinofraude en parafraude niet de enige twee illegale zaken zijn. Denk maar aan Stans zeldzame koppigheid in het blijven volhouden dat de overblijfselen van Natalee Holloway te vinden zijn in graf nummer 15 op het St. Anna Kerkhof op Aruba. Zelfs Joran van der Sloot noemt dat St. Anna in de clip die Stan via de mailbox van Robbert van den Broeke in mijn schoot dropte: (Ik heb die clip van Engelse ondertiteling voorzien)
Joran van der Sloot praat met Stan Pluijmen over “St. Anna”
In april 2020 ontving ik een uitnodiging van een radio-journalist om over dit alles te praten en Stan kreeg van hem ook een uitnodiging. Maar Stan wil niet, wat hij (alleen) via mij duidelijk liet weten, want hij stuurde er me weer audio’s over:
Stan zegt wat interessante dingen in deze twee audio’s en zeker audio “15”: dat hij het web van leugens waar hij in verzeild is geraakt, haat en dat hij van alle kanten bedreigd wordt, dat het okay is dat ik al zijn audio’s publiceer omdat hij van de waarheid houdt. Hij zegt hierin ook dat hij al een hele opname voor mij gemaakt had, maar deze vervolgens weer gedelete had, omdat hij naar zijn smaak “te eerlijk” was geweest, en meteen vraagt hij zich hardop af of er zoiets bestaat als “te eerlijk”. Opnieuw (dit had hij al een aantal maal gedaan) praat hij over zijn (vroegere) cocaïne- en drankverslaving en zegt dat de audio’s tussen 2018 tot ruwweg (april?) 2020 hierdoor gemiddeld zeker opgenomen waren met een dubbele tong. Hij vraagt ook of ik hem niet voor gek wil zetten en zegt dat hij van me houdt. Hij vervolgt ermee dat hij heus niet denkt dat hij met geld alles kan afkopen. En dat hij geen zin heeft in sensatiejournalistiek over Joran van der Sloot, dat hij er niet bepaald trots op is Jorans vriend te zijn (geweest) en dat de journalist die hem (en mij dus ook) uitnodigde voor die radio-uitzending beslist moet denken dat hij achterlijk is, want anders had hij hem toch niet zo gevraagd. In deze audio kun je verder ook horen dat Stan bezig was iets te zeggen, maar dan opeens zijn zin afbreekt, alsof hij zich realiseert dat hij weer “te eerlijk” aan het worden was.
Volgens mij is dit allemaal nog maar een topje van de ijsberg, en deze indruk krijg ik door de letterlijk duizenden emails en mediabestanden die ik in deze zaak ontvangen heb. Deze “ijsberg” is mijns inziens een vulkaan die al jarenlang vervaarlijk aan het pruttelen is en die eens goed gaat uitbarsten. Mijn persoonlijke hoop is dat deze vulkaanuitbarsting zeer grondig zal zijn en dat de beerput geheel open gaat. Er zullen daarbij veel “verliezers” zijn, maar ook een paar grote winnaars, en ik hoop dat de ouders van Natalee Holloway – die al zoveel jaar recht hebben op de informatie wat er nu echt met hun dochter gebeurd is – bij die tweede groep, van winnaars, zullen behoren. Het is nu (op 30 mei 2020) precies 15 jaar geleden dat zij verdween.
Iets geheel anders om dit mee af te sluiten: tot de dag van vandaag heeft Stan nooit “doorgekregen” wat mijn “geheime verzoek” aan hem is (en nee, dit verzoek gaat geenszins over geld). Ik vroeg iets van/aan Stan en ik zette dat op Twitter, maar het was en is aan hem om dit verzoek helderziend door te krijgen, aangezien ze immers beweren helderziend te zijn. Het verbaasde me dus wel dat ze er niet in slagen te weten wat dit verzoek is, en ja, Stan, mijn geheime verzoek blijft staan.
[2] Zijn draai naar complottheorieën over het Corona Virus bleven niet onopgemerkt en werd door diverse media opgepikt.NRCGeenStijl Noemenswaardig is het feit dat slechts een fractie van de mensen die op de Geen Stijl YouTube clip reageerden, weten wie hij is, sommige mensen daar lijken zelfs te denken dat het interview met Robbert in scene is gezet dan wel dat Robbert een ingehuurde acteur is. Het zou ook kunnen dat ze hem niet herkennen, want hij is inderdaad gigantisch veel veranderd qua uiterlijk. Van den Broeke kreeg nog veel meer publiciteit in mei 2020, toen hij werd geïnterviewd door Ybeltje Berckmoes die in dienst was bij de aspirant-omroep “Ongehoord Nederland”, terwijl hij Pim Fortuyn “channelde” die op 6 mei 2002 door Volkert de Graaf vermoord werd. Zowel de aspirant-omroep als Robbert werden onmiddellijk na de uitzending bedolven onder de negatieve kritiek en woede.
Waardeer mijn blogs! Als je mijn Parameter-blogs waardeert en je waardering wilt tonen met een kleine bijdrage: dat kan! Op deze manier help je onafhankelijke journalistiek te waarborgen. Ga naar mijn persoonlijke website, zie in de zijbalk, om te doneren.
🌟 Met heel veel dank aan Rob Nanninga, Sjaan, Manfred en Luciënne (de laatste voor wat zij deed in de Robbert van den Broeke & co zaak in 2016) 🤗
When I arrived in Hoeven, Netherlands on Wednesday, August 15 th 2018, Robbert van den Broeke and I agreed that “now is the time”. It had been 16 years. I was ready to take him to the next level, gathering the core elements of a pilot for a TV series on Netflix, or Oprah’s network (OWN). The appropriate connections had been made, and Robbert was confident “the other dimensions” were ready to deliver. It was time to get “the money shots”. To finally capture on video the raw images of the most favorite stories- balls of light making crop formations, a craft
landing and creatures appearing…
I was so excited during the trip over that by the time I arrived I was bleary-eyed with intense jet-lag. Wednesday night I slept. Thursday night I went through the brand new camera Robbert’s friend Stan had bought for this excursion. Friday night- the 17 th – was our first night out in the fields. Robbert guided us to the Palingstraat, the same general area where the 2 largest crop circles ever to appear in the Netherlands had landed only several weeks prior. It
was around midnight. We parked, got out and walked a bit down the dike to the magical tree where Robbert had recently “made pictures”… apparition photos of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
He asked for my cell phone to use its camera, so people would know there was “no funny business”. I handed it to him, helping to make sure the flash was working. He wanted to use it in “selfie mode”, as he usually did (with everything on automatic). I found a nice comfy spot next to this huge, beautiful tree, sat down on the soft welcome earth, and sort-of nuzzled up to it with my as-yet to be resolved jet-lag, leaving Robbert to do as he would in the surrounding complete darkness. Everything felt good. I drifted off into a pleasant siesta. Not quite asleep, but not fully conscious either. It was a very sweet, safe and warm space. Lovely energy. He said later that the location of the tree was a portal. It certainly felt like it that night.
After awhile, he was done. He asked me to turn on the new video camera we’d also brought with us, and put it into “night-vision” mode so I could tape him doing what he was doing in the pitch black darkness. The camera we’d been using the previous trip had a button on the front, next to the lens, that when pressed put the camera into night-vision mode- that greenish/white palette of infra-red. On this new camera there was no such button to be found, and I’d not yet
delved that deep into the menus to know how to easily shift into night-vision. I feigned ignorance, saying I’d get it next time.
As we walked to the car he gave me my phone back, and I could see a screen full of thumbnails with many images of Mary and the classic lightball UFO, both against a pitch black background.
“Wow, that looks great!”, I said. He was like, “yeah, that’s the Billy Meier UFO” (which it was). “Please send me all the photos when you get back to your room tonight…” and, “I’m not sure if I want to release these yet or not”. I replied with, “sure, whatever you want. Just let me know”.
Easy peasy. I dropped him off at his place in Hoeven, and drove on to my room at the Golden Tulip in Bosschenhoofd. By then it was about 3 in the morning. I connected my iPhone to my MacBook Pro. It automatically opened an app called “Photos”, with the option of Sharing or Downloading from the phone to the laptop. For each shot, there were 2 files: a single jpeg still image, and a .mov file (moving image). I was not familiar with this, but soon became so. Turns out that beginning with the iPhone 6, the default setting when shooting stills is to also generate a short image sequence. Apple calls this the “Live” mode. It’s a nice feature that produces a 60-frame image sequence in addition to the one still image as usual. My first thought was, “nice… perhaps we’ll be able to see more of how “the other dimensions” work”. As I began to examine each shot taken by Robbert, my heart began to sink. I could see that he had been passing an image in front of the camera lens. Nothing paranormal about that.
Robbert left about 40 shots on the camera. He also deleted many before handing the phone back to me. The little .mov files show- without ambiguity- that he had been faking these “apparition” images. I placed all of them onto a timeline in my editing program (Adobe Premiere), so I could watch them in a continuous sequence. In that manner it was obvious that for every shot a similar movement could be observed. It’s easy to see the motion of a card or cutout passing in front of the lens.
I was dumbfounded and terribly disturbed by this. After 16 years of trusting Robbert, I now no longer could. I did not know what to do. I slept for a few hours, and then left him a message that I was not feeling well. I could not face him. I certainly could not pretend that everything was OK. I’m not capable of that sort of deception. So, I chose to retreat from the situation entirely. I called his sister Madelon, who with her husband Maarten came to visit and view the
material. They agreed that what was shown was Robbert manipulating prepared images in front of the camera lens. I also invited Danny and Dina of The Bigger Picture Event. At the time, they also agreed that the short videos show Robbert hoaxing. Apparently they have re- considered their opinion since then.
I have said and shown what I need to have considered. Thank you for reading. William Gazecki
To get straight to the point. I am a bit overwhelmed by this right now. After all those years that I have been devoting my time to the Robbert van den Broeke case. After my last blog I got more serious hate mail from Robbert and audios from Stan. But that has now all become redundant. Something or someone “out there” has sent William Gazecki on my path with the evidence that everyone has been craving for, that last missing piece of the puzzle.
In my last blog I told about William Gazecki, that he wanted to do a big project with Robbert, with lots of publicity (think of the biggest international things that you can think of, and then I say: yes, that!). Even a lot more than everyone thought, but I leave that open here. It is up to Gazecki if he wants to tell you about this “lots of publicity”.
What happened? Robbert is caught in the act, in moving images. With a fake Maria and a fake UFO “on sticks” in his hand. In the field. Waving in front of the camera.
I immediately give you the images and then the technical details. I want to keep this short. Images say more than words, and you know that I already have dedicated so many words to this.
The videos of the fake Maria and UFO independently of each other:
And this is what Robbert thought he left on Gazecki’s camera:
“Maria” – Robbert van den Broeke hoax
“UFO” – Robbert van den Broeke hoax
There is one thing that you really need to know. Exactly in the years that William Gazecki had no contact with Robbert, from 2011 to 2018, the dark Robbert van den Broeke came to life, for the whole world to see. Gazecki had no knowledge of this whatsoever, he was busy with other things in his life. He only knew “the old Robbert”. He is not to suffer any blame, on the contrary: he is the Godsend who got the proof and gave it to me, after he had read what Robbert and co have sent to me.
And here comes the (technical) explanation of William Gazecki:
“I’ve known Robbert a long time, always through Nancy Talbott. There’s a lot I know, and also a lot I *do not* know. I don’t want to hurt him, or see him hurt. However, the truth takes precedence, always. From what I’ve seen, you have been seriously manipulated and abused. Which I *do not* endorse or approve of. Very sick stuff.
I arrived last Wednesday. Had really bad jet-lag, so slept that night. Thursday we spent unpacking a new camera Stan had purchased. Friday was our first night going into the fields. We went out around midnight. Went to the tree that he had taken the “Mary” apparition photos previously (during the day).
He asked for my phone, to take photos… “so no one would suspect any camera tricks” (in his words). I gave it to him, which he wanted set-up to take selfies with flash. I say down next to the tree, and kind of crashed/spaced out. He walked around for a while, taking pics (I wasn’t watching). When he was done, he showed me that he’d captured a lot of images- of Mary (again), and of what we’ve always called a “lightball UFO“.
As we are leaving, he says, “Please send me all the images tonight”, and “I’m not sure whether to share these or not”. I was like, “Ok, sure, no problem”. I had absolutely NO suspicion of anything.
So I get back to my hotel room, and connect the phone (iPhone 6) to my Mac laptop. Immediately, it’s clear there are 2 files per shot- a jpeg still, and an mov (moving image quicktime). There’s an iPhone setting called “Live”, where every snap of the button in photo mode (not video) captures a still imager AND a short image stream (usually 60 frames or so). The LAST frame is what is displayed as your “shot”.
I’m like, “how cool! we can see how the other dimensions do their thing!” So, I start reviewing everything- the still images and the short image streams. Lo and behold, I see Robbert waving these things in front of the camera. I’m like, “oh shit…”. Also, “Live” mode is the default mode starting with the iPhone 6. I didn’t know much about it, and I’m certain Robbert knew NOTHING about it.
The long video is ALL of the short streams strung together, in order. You can see the pattern of waving in front of the lens.”
Of course, when Robbert was confronted with Gazecki’s disconcerting findings, he had his reply ready, just like with the octopus. He would only have wanted to demonstrate how deception would work; that William had asked him to demonstrate that. And even more sick insinuations towards Gazecki that I will not repeat here, because Robbert does not deserve it. William says that this is absolutely not the case, and that he did not know anything about the wave-in- front-of-the-camera-objects that Robbert apparently had in his pocket.
I think I can “predict” who you are going to believe in this matter: William Gazecki or the self-proclaimed medium, the “gene burner”, Robbert van den Broeke. Especially if you have seen the above images. Moreover, the day after William confronted Robbert, Gazecki received through Robbert himself (again) one of Robbert’s infamous photographs, “the demons-scream”. You can always look in my Google Drive to refresh your memory.
William Gazecki: “I don’t want to attack Robbert; I don’t want to hurt him. His life has not been easy, and I don’t want to bring more pain to him. I clearly have enough incontrovertible evidence to fully incriminate him, and it’s not my intention to take unilateral action towards him. The truth will speak for itself, however (and by whomever) it is presented. That said, I will defend and explain myself if or when attacked- be it by Robbert or Stan, or whomever. In that sense I am prepared to state the facts as required.”
tl;dr New hate speeches in videoclips and again in word by Robbert van den Broeke prove that he was an/the most important hate mailer all along and there is no hacker who hacked all his accounts, Social Media included. What’s really going on as far as Joran van der Sloot-Stan-Robbert are concerned remains unclear. Furthermore with Stan’s help, Robbert is busy getting a foothold in America.
A year has passed: August 2018. What has happened?
The publication of the Hanger blog was not received with cheers by Robbert, Stan and associates. In the immediate weeks following the publication of the blog, I received very hostile, vulgar mail of old acquaintances and new busybodies from the inner circle of Robbert van den Broeke.1 First Stan took off in many audios to come, pulling the trump card that he would slam me with a lawyer, demanding that I remove all my Robbert van den Broeke blogs, until I decided in mid-September 2017 to remove all surnames. Only Robbert van den Broekes surname, as a public figure, I kept intact. I then received two “thank you emails” from Stan.
Robbert
On August 25, 2017, Robbert checks in by email, whining about all my (> Constantia’s skeptical) work being in vain. On 12 September 2017, Robbert van den Broeke checks in again, hatred becoming visible again. His hatred will be culminating in the following months, and erupting like a volcano in December 2017, becoming extremely visible and undeniable , for the first time really in live images and sound. Anybody who has seen his recent video clips directed at me (and others), would find it impossible to deny that he was the (or: a) hate mailer all along, and that there never was a hacker in the sense that Robbert van den Broeke did not participate passionately. However: due to new hate mail received via other accounts than that of Robbert, it has become even clearer that a club around Stan must have been active as well.1
Important sideline in his recent videos is his glorification of America where, according to Robbert, he is going to be very big and famous. To cite a couple of Robbert’s phrases: “Reconstruction in America”, “Those people are intelligent”, “Sexy American media”. In his clips Robbert turns against the Netherlands, which in his view is only a small, insignificant country, that now ignores him in terms of media attention. But it turns out to be secretly bothering him, because on November 14, 2017 I receive an email in which Robbert wants to know if the Dutch media are conspiring against him and who told me that he was boycotted since all his * ahem * downward spiral movements. A Dutch media insider had indeed said that to me and I had referred to it briefly on Twitter without mentioning a name.
In December 2017, Robbert shows his depression medication in a video clip and says that Skepsis and I are partly responsible for his terrible life. Both his videos and email messages from December 2017 use exactly the same language (and some dirty pictures) as the hate mails I received from Robberts “hacker”. I have put all the concrete material (links to a selection of clips and numerous screenshots) in the footnotes. I posted the video clip on Twitter and Stan no longer repeated the hacker story. He c-alled Robbert’s behavior “problem behavior” or said that he did not approve that side of Robbert, but that was it.
NSFW, by way of illustration I give you phrases from the new hate mails andclips of Robbert: “Fuck you, wind, fart in your face, with your face in the shit, stupid box, twat, Rob Nanninga is a bastard, shut the f up! , bitch, God love me (Robbert, this should be “God loves me”, the way you say it means that you ask God to love you), stupid dumb woman, filthy dirty slut, (you are) snot on the door, old grumpy box, pooped out Aunt Sidonia, asshole, a pooped out Mihun bite, I wish you misery for 2018, throat inflammation, that you become blind and deaf, cunt, chemotherapy eyebrows, spiritual women’s gag: dirty cauliflower smell, dirty fart girl, rancor bitch, I writhe with pleasure, I feel the power taking off between my buttocks , Constantia excreted like turd, Hey lettuce head, Hey tart, gas in your face, Bitch Constantia I would prefer to sit on top of your stubborn face sitting down with my weight until I hear literally crack and you no longer move!!!” Anyway, I’ve probably forgotten a few more.1
The theory of Robbert and Stan that a hacker sent hate and death threats to numerous people via Robbert’s mailbox and Social Media accounts (Facebook and Twitter), and thus absolutely not Robbert, can be definitively and demonstrably relegated to the trash can. To my great surprise, Robbert and Stan had taken the trouble to re-upload their “hacker story” on YouTube on July 23, 2018, now with English subtitles, so apparently meant for the English-speaking public and the America that Robbert is drooling about like crazy. In my view, an attempt to clean their own house procatively for the purpose of the still fairly ignorant foreign countries.
Pietro Longhi, The charlatan (1757)
Van den Broeke is still actively and relentlessly continuing to “predict” and “find” crop circles, fake pictures of spirits and so on. The difference with the past is that he, just like charlatans who are not taken seriously (anymore) in their own country, shifts his ambitions to foreign countries and especially America. He already succeeds on a limited scale via someone who calls himself Johny Webb and filmmaker William Gazecki. Yet he is already stumbling upon the stone of reality. His “alien tentacles”, which according to many down-to-earth Dutch and non-Dutch people look damn much like octopus arms, turned out to be exactly that after DNA analysis: octopus-arms. 🐙
Screenshot YouTube, Robbert van den Broekes “alien” tentacles.
Webb went to offer them at the Natural History Museum in London and the result came back as: 100% Octopus Vulgaris. On his Facebook page, Robbert van den Broeke had broadly announced the upcoming alien tentacle DNA research, but then it remained suspiciously silent.
Robbert raises high expectations around the “alien” tentacles, but after that it remains suspiciously quiet.
When I critically questioned this silence on my Genverbrander10 twitter account, I received the following mail from Stan in my virtual mailbox, saying; “We are now making a documentary with William. The DNA results will be included in it.
We are not going to bring this news out cheaply was the deal. It is earth-shattering.”
Stan with his “earth-shattering” news
Suddenly, on 13 July 2018, Johny Webb in one of his videos did reveal the DNA result. He appeared to have felt social scrutiny to say something about it. Understandably, since these “alien tentacles” have been Robbert van den Broeke’s Waterloo since June 2015. Johny, however, felt duped by the Natural History Museum, nót by Robbert van den Broeke. Reason: in the accompanying letter the museum had not correctly described his octopus specimen, and he also found the DNA results suspiciously concise (they paid £408 (about $530) for this research).
The DNA analysis results from Robbert van den Broekes “alien” tentacles. Video screenshot.
Octopus is Octopus. But Robbert knows why!
Robbert rapidly overturned public embarrassment and did so on his new website (launched Mid-July 2018 with operating language: English):
Octopus is Octopus, but Robbert knows why!
Shortly after Johny Webb, American filmmaker William Gazecki also visited Robbert. Johny had reportedly seen a very small and unsightly crop circle emerging in Robbert’s company when they had looked away for a moment (uh no, so they didn’t see it “emerge”, and it may also be that Johny just did not look carefully beforehand). But this was only the prelude to something literally much bigger: “the largest crop circle in the Netherlands“. (Unfortunately not, Robbert) This one was “found” in the company of William Gazecki and actually predicted by no other than Robbert.2
Robbert’s crop circles at the time around the visit of Johny Webb and William Gazecki.
William Gazecki obviously refuses to establish a serious background check on Robbert and apparently never heard of partners in crime too: people who help Robbert, also when making crop circles. He is just as believer as Johny Webb and has started a Crowdfunding to make a “reality TV series” about Robbert.
William Gazecki’s Robbert van den Broeke Crowdfunding
Update Gazecki August 23, 2018: William Gazecki decided to end all collaboration with Robbert overnight. Reason as yet unknown.
Stan
Stan has sent me a lot of audios again, I uploaded some “highlights” on Soundcloud. Stan’s unctuous and in principle not at all unpleasant voice (he would talk a snake out of his skin)-audios could be put on “Repeat” without noticing the difference between any of them. They all ride the same hobbyhorses.
Because of the Oxygen series in August and September 2017, and in any case, It was again about Natalee Holloway, that she really is in Grave number 15(click!) (With small crack in the grave) on St. Anna in Aruba. Stan really wanted to talk to the FBI, but nobody wants to listen to them (Robbert and Stan). Stan finds it extremely annoying that in my Knaapje blog I made a link from Joran to him, Stan in Aruba. But in doing so, Stan always forgets that I did not come up with that theory, but he himself together with his Micha Romijn (whoever that is), for this purpose see the Knaapje Drive files (not complete).
A few of his audios were about former group member Roy. Stan came back several times to Roy’s statement that he had said that Stan had misused his bank account, claiming that he could prove that Roy was lying.3
On 30 November (Stan) and 23 December (Robbert) I received from both Robbert and Stan (integral recording) the announcement that Robbert had applied for a passport and would go to Aruba with Emile Ratelband to open Natalee Holloway’s grave. A quaint development that becomes even more quaint when you realize that Emile Ratelband was one of Robbert and co’s victims in terms of hate mail and hacks. Via Facebook I contacted Emile Ratelband about this, but he hardly responded and said he did not owe anyone an explanation. The trip was canceled not long afterwards.
On 22 February 2018 Stan reported by mail that a brick had been thrown through the window of Robbert’s window on the first floor. Robbert’s favorite tree on the Palingstraat was also damaged. He wrote: “It is not funny, he could have got it on his head”. Stan sent a video of Robbert showing this, not the same clip that they would post on YouTube later. Critical people wondered whether this was perhaps a kind of Munchausen syndrome, because it is physically almost impossible to throw a heavy brick through a window so high and accurately.
On April 12, 2018, I received the same mail message with “Stan” as the signed sender twice via Robbert’s mailbox, reporting that Robbert had been arrested by the police for open defecation; “Robbert had a great urge due to a blocked sewer in his house and practiced open defecation in the bushes near Breda airport Pangevaartbos” (whole text on request).
On April 22, 2018, I received an old-fashioned hardcore hate mail from Robbert van den Broeke, and when Stan claimed through an audio file that this was “humor” , I deployed a temporary Twexit. On May 1, 2018, I had an important Twitter announcement for Robbert and Stan, namely that I would not watch and listen to their clips and audios anymore and I have been adhering to that since April 22, 2018. I mentioned that I may continue reading their text-mails . Only during the writing of this blog, I briefly and fleetingly viewed the three clips of Robbert I hadn’t watched, following up on my own new “rule”. Despite my repeated Twitter communication, Stan sent me to this day a reasonable freight load (70 pieces after April 23, 2018) emails, of which twenty-nine audios and clips that I no longer listened to and watched (none, Stan!) . Robbert sent three emails after April 22, of which one email contained three clips.
On June 15, 2018, I had a very special request to Stan via Twitter, but then he and / or Robbert had to find out for themselves what that was. No problem would you think, for these two men who claim that they are highly sensitive / clairvoyant. But that was disappointing. Stan started to guess by mail and Robbert also made an attempt by mail. All wrong.
On June 29, 2018 I tweeted towards Stan an idea that I got on the spot because he kept demanding that I delete my blogs. I wanted € 1.5 million, then I would delete my blogs. Of course I did not expect to get that, and if I did, I would be the first to go to the FBI with the question of checking the money. I then received a mail from veteran “Sander de Graaf” (aka Stan) who countered my “requested sum of money” with €30.000 Euro. Stan denied not so much later that he was this Sander de Graaf (he had admitted to the “previous” Sander de Graaf). On Twitter, Stan’s husband Alan (or Stan under his account, or both) suddenly talked to me in detail on July 25, 2018, seemingly friendly, but with a hateful undertow, also about my requested sum of € 1.5 million, but deleted his entire account swiftly after he had said about Joran van der Sloot that Joran already received all the(ir) money. Alan also said he has “a rich family”. The tone of several tweets reminded me that Robbert van den Broeke probably did not quite hate mail all by himself. This too was followed by Stan’s denial that this was Alan, with the remark: “You are being manipulated by a 3rd.” I do assume that it was Alan and Stan, the account had been active on Twitter at least since March 2018 with Alans photos and Alan had also responded in March, and I had responded to that, and for months there was no denial on their side (and they have proven to spell out my Twitter account on a daily basis).
Update – One day after blog publication:
Robbert van den Broeke, hatemail August 9, 2018
Robbert van den Broeke hatemail August 9, 2018
Robbert van den Broeke
Footnotes
[1] The old acquaintances were Micha Romijn, Anne Kuiters, Sven (the brother of Stan) and Alan (the husband of Stan). The new unknowns involved one Harvey de M (full name known to me), “Mr Klijn” and “Floris Dutczak”. Language use of “Anne” and “Sven” made me unmistakably think of Stan again and was extremely obsceen (concrete texts on request). Language of “Mr Klijn” was even more serious and outright qualifiable as “threatening”. I also received part of his e-mails via Stan’s mailbox, under the guise of: “Look what I received …”. Through this account and a fake account in my own name (constantacriminal@gmail.com) I received very vulgar and threatening language, partly photoshopped in pictures. In September 2017 I also received a few long mails under this fake gmail account which supposedly explained how it really was with Stan and the hacker (texts on request).
Piquant detail in this is that in a a couple of these mails the disclaimer of the Donders Institute was used, an institute that, according to Robbert van den Broeke and Stan, would carry out scientific research with Robbert van den Broeke.
On June 25, 2018, I received a new email from “Micha Romijn”, four pieces (all documents can be requested by serious journalists).
The series I received via “Dhr Klijn”, Stan and a fake Constanta-gmail account in September 2017: (two most threatening removed in 2019)
Threatening language of the club around Robbert van den Broeke
Threatening language of the club around Robbert van den Broeke
Threatening language of the club around Robbert van den Broeke
Threatening language of the club around Robbert van den Broeke
Threatening language of the club around Robbert van den Broeke
Robbert emails (selection, click or swipe to be able to read it):
Robbert videos (selection, click or swipe to see / play) – when you click on the pictures, you get the playable link.
Note: if no links appear below the images, this is due to the method of opening this page. Try again by opening this page via a web browser.
Robbert van den Broeke- Arrest /// Wikipedia version June 6, 2017 by me, just a few sentences from previous contributor /// On January 6, 2016, Van den Broeke was arrested for alleged threat. There were seven reports, although more than seven people were actually threatened. According to various sources in the media, the people pressing charges were: Liesbeth van Dijk, Emile Ratelband, Ans Markus, Henk Verhaeren, Rinke Jacobs, Jan Willem Nienhuys en Bert Brussen.1 The by now American Constantia Oomen who was/is one of Robbert van den Broeke’s main victims, attempted to report in the Netherlands from the United States but failed to succeed because of her absence on Dutch territory. She did file a complaint at the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3). An example of some other people who were affected severely (Colin Andrews) or to a lesser degree (Andy Russell) by the hate mail of Robbert van den Broeke were the internationally known crop circle expert Colin Andrews2 and also crop circle expert Andy Russell3 and Viola Holt.4 Van den Broek’s house was searched and he was under arrest for six days in an Amsterdam detention cell. Robbert van den Broeke’s friend Stan was officially co-accused, among other things, due to a leaked conversation in possession of local broadcaster Omroep Brabant, that reveals the demeaning way Robbert van den Broeke and Stan talk about Irene Moors and Constantia Oomen. “I would like to kick her into a coma with steel noses.”5 His lawyer denied the threats and claimed his email box and Facebook page were hacked.6
My last update was dated February / March 2016 and covered the two hectic months of Robbert van den Broeke’s arrest and the interview that Robbert van den Broeke gave to local broadcaster Omroep Brabant on February 10, 2016, in which he confessed that it was indeed he and Stan who were discussing Irene Moors and myself in an almost satanic manner7
After the arrest
This update covers the period between this and the previous update. The day that Broadcaster Omroep Brabant published their intrusive report about Robbert van den Broeke, February 20, 2017 and June 24, 2017, the publication date of this update. Google Gmail tells me that at this time I received 222 emails from Stan (excluding his mails using a pseudo, because then there would be more) and 53 from his friend Robbert van den Broeke.
53 Robbert van den Broeke mails
222 Stan mails
Indeed, for the total first-reader of my blog (s): the (now hateful rather than simple “hate”) mails did not stop after the arrest.
When I received their mails exactly, can be seen in the hate mail charts. To me, these charts have been very helpful, because the mail chronology helps me to keep everything in check. This indeed is a confusing story if you do not keep your head cool.
I still call the charts hate mail charts, because I didn’t ask for their emails and they never cease to cause (some) anxiety. The real gruesome hatemails with severe death threats (whether or not by means of hit men threats) , coarse curses, photos of beheadings and dismembered corpses and faeces are not coming anymore (I say cautiously). Apparently, the arrest had made some impression on “Team Robbert van den Broeke”.
After Van den Broeke’s days in detention, the very severe death threats and hate mail were replaced by weird mail with lots of various attachments. I not only received them from Robbert van den Broeke and Stan, but from other mail identities too; from people clearly intimately involved in the case. So intimately involved that the boundaries between these people and Robbert and Stan were no longer clear, until I concluded that these people were the same as Stan or at least in close contact with Robbert and Stan. Hopefully you can still follow me.
Therefore, I also included the “Anne Kuiters“, “Micha Romijn“, “Sander de Graaf” and “Mieke Veen” mails in the hate mail tables of 2017. The explanation about these four people follows a little further in the blog.
Farewell to Enrico and Janny Post
Enrico
Janny Post
Back to the most unnerving Robbert van den Broeke months: January and February 2016. On February 14, 2016, Robberts Dutch promoterJanny Post passed away. And the week before, on February 7, 2016, Robbert had lost another important friend, Enrico , who had helped him with his English affairs and his website.
Moreover, Enrico, who knew he would soon die, had chosen a photo with Dave Haith to appear on Robbert’s camera as “proof” of Robberts “paranormal” gift and of course: the afterlife. Which photo was chosen was not communicated to Robbert. According to Colin Andrews, the photo of Enrico has never appeared in the “paranormal” pictures of Robbert van den Broeke.8
Text on website Colin Andrews
Further 2016
In addition, in February 2016, Robbert van den Broeke’s best buddies Stan and Alan (now: Alan …, who married Stan) went abroad, to Malaga, Spain. Probably nobody will deny that Robbert van den Broeke himself was in a difficult time of his life.
Stan explains why he left for Malaga:
(Translation: “Yes, I am in Malaga, Constantia. That was planned for a long time ago already with Alan. After your delusion that I had imitated Robbert with a voice actor, I just had enough of it all. All that injustice.”)
The police had interrogated and detained Robbert van den Broeke for six days, and the possibility to receive a similar treatment didn’t sit well with Stan. Indeed, he was officially co-accused in this hate and threatening case and the idea of the police interrogating and detaining him too, was not at all far-fetched. At least seven people had reported.
The reason he left for Malaga thus seemed to be caused/promoted by a mistake on my part. I suggested in a short update blog that he had imitated Robbert van den Broeke about Irene Moors and me with a voice actor. In other words, I did not believe that Robbert himself was on the leaked tapes. At that time, I’d psyched myself out so much about the Robbert van den Broeke gang, that I did not see it as clear anymore. But I really believed this and Stan felt that I was serious about this, and apparently was in shock that he was suspected of having backstabbed his mate Robbert. My mistake was probably something good, because it made the outside world clear that there was really something going on with Stan’s share in the whole. I removed this erroneous assumption when some skeptical friends convinced me that I was mistaken. And later, Robbert’s confession confirmed the authenticity of the leaked tapes. By then, Stan had already fled and he would stay away for a year.
I will only touch briefly on what was mailed to me in the past year. For some people, it’s hard to understand what exactly is the relationship between Robbert van den Broeke, Stan and myself, but I’m the unsolicited recipient of very many email messages with attachments in the form of pictures, photo shots, audio and video clips, by Robbert van den Broeke and Stan.
I report on all this on my Genverbrander10 account (Twitter name changed to RobConstantia on October 14, 2020), which regularly results in Stan’s reactions by mail. Robbert seems to be less logical responding and mails according to his own moods. I suspect they send this to make me mad and to intimidate me, to involve me, and out of sheer madness and craziness. Stan is even more fanatic than Robbert in terms of mails.
Part of public opinion seems to be, that I should have just blocked their mail, but this is simply not what I have in mind. If they want to email me all this stuff, so let them, but my goal with this is, to solve this “Genverbrander” case once and for all, so that Robbert and gang’s fraud goes away. All too too often, “paranormal offenders” continue their deception for a lifetime. James Randi of the former Randi Organization saw and predicted that very well (though rather in his own “unkind” choice of words), as far as Robbert van den Broeke is concerned:
The remainder of the year 2016 went along relatively quiet while Stan was in Malaga. Although he did not fail to email me regularly, it was not that grave and between October 2016 and February 2017 I was even not emailed at all by the two (at least not under their real name).
An overview:
March 2016 – 4 mails from Stan only. It is worth noting that he says to stay in Malaga because he would be arrested in the Netherlands to be interrogated by the police and at that time he would not be allowed to leave the Netherlands.
April 2016 – 7 mails from Stan only. Nothing noteworthy
May 2016 – 4 mails from Stan only, noteworthy only his unkind words about “Anne Kuiters” who mailed me (33 times in total) about Stan, but much later it will turn out that this Anne probably does not exist at all and is possibly even Stan himself.
June 2016 – 4 mails from only Stan, including an audio in which he discusses the research on Robbert and Fred Melssen (positively) en Pepijn van Erp (negatively).
July 2016 – Nothing
August 2016 – 12 mails from Stan, divided between two streams: “New and Many Witnesses”, proving that Robbert is genuine, and Stan’s suggestion that Robbert and he are completely innocent of threats and hacks.
September 2016 – A sudden upturn in mails with 35 mails including 9 from Robbert and the rest of Stan. Robbert reports that his friends Roy and Karin Swiers have left him. The resurgence seems to be reflected in one of Robbert van den Broeke’s paranormal trucages of that time and the fact that I reacted critically to that on my Genverbrander10 Twitter account, which apparently caused a lot of consternation in “Team Robbert van den Broeke”.
Stan e-mailed about the person who mailed me, “Micha Romijn” of whom I already suspected it was Stan himself (22 June, 2017: 69 mails) and accuses “Micha” of slander (see explanation below). In addition, he sends me a few mails asking me, emphasizing (too much), if I can email him back. However, I have never emailed him again since May 2015.
A contemptuous mail from Robbert revealing that he has discovered my love for plush lions (see my Lion Heart blogs) and ridiculing it.
Stan again mails about Robbert’s research, positive about Fred Melssen and again negative about Pepijn van Erp. A lot of Stan mail about “evidence” of Robbert’s “authenticity” and their “innocence”.
Robbert’s “paranormal” excesses in 2016
His first, really striking paranormal blunder of the year 2016 was made by Robbert on June 3rd, 2016, when he aired a clip of his so-called filmed out-of-body experience on his YouTube channel. The clip looked like a textbook example of a demonstration video of (how to achieve certain effects of) Adobe Premier Pro, because in this program it’s pretty easy to mix images as is demonstrated in this very similar video clip by a meritorious YouTuber.
Great hilarity arose among the more critical people, when they/we discovered that “astral Robbert” was casting a physical shadow on the wall and especially as he walked past a picture frame. Even some of his fans started to mutter and quite some ridiculing reactions were posted under this video. Stan later tried raising a defense that Robbert’s astral appearance was so strong that he cast a physical shadow, but to me this was a blunder of epic proportions comparable to Robbert van den Broeke’s octopus tentacles blunder just one year earlier. Stan, who manages – among other things, like Robbert’s email9 – Robberts YouTube Channel, suddenly removed the clip. Only the interview clip about the “out-of-body experience remained.
The paranormal / astral phenomenon of the out-of-body experience had triggered “Team Robbert van den Broeke” earlier on already in 2016, because in early May 2016 excited messages were emerging on Facebook that Robbert had appeared to Alan and Stan in their apartment in Malaga while Robbert was in the Netherlands and according to his own relay had fallen flat on the ground and then appeared to be “out of it”. Stan, as always vigilant and alert, immediately took a picture and captured an image of Robbert van den Broeke moving out of his body and in Stan and Alan’s apartment in Malaga.
On August 10, 2016 Robberts new video of an “orb making a grass circle” was briefly and modestly taking off internationally, but when the clip was a proven fake, after Team Robbert delivered the “raw file” to be researched (and maybe gambling their luck on underskilled receivers, with no such luck), fame turned ruin again. Shortly afterwards again, Team Robbert van den Broeke was trying their luck again with a similar clip, trying to prove it was really genuine, but this clip was even more fake than the first. To make a long story short, they had tampered with a file and then shot the photoshopped videoclip again from a computerscreen so the clip was one whole again and new “genuine”, “raw data” was obtained.
Adobe photoshop orb
Adobe photoshop orb
That fact that the first clip (and shortly after that, the second too) was tampered with, was proved on the Facebook page of Crop Circle Challenge and Stan, in response thereto was mailing me, but also on the Facebook page of Janez (the keeper of the page) he responded. However, when he discovered Janez wasn’t language-wise as delicate as me, he appeared to be heavily offended (“Slander, I will file a complaint against you, Janez!”) and quickly removed his online reactions. There is also an email from Robbert about Janez, a very technical story, but in terms of language, Stan seems to be speaking.
Start bizarre clips in Fall 2016
In September 2016, Robbert scornfully mails me that no hate emails are sent anymore and hence I can not do anything against him anymore, and that Nancy Talbott will be sending a lawyer after me (which turns out to be untrue, because nothing of the sort happened):
Quick translation:“Pity for you, you don’t receive hatemails anymore, now you can’t do a thing. My computer is well protected, I am not hacked anymore, you are pestering me on the internet, and when I mail you back with funny responses, you still call them hatemail. Justice will know it isn’t hate. Nancy Talbott has hired a lawyer to go after you, so don’t be surprised when you see the police appearing on your doorstep. She (Nancy) isn’t as softhearted and forgiving as me.”
Furthermore, Stan’s tone of voice gradually becomes less pleasant and he turns out to be indignant about the suggested effects of my blog on his personal life:
Quick translation: “(some vague story about taking pictures of stars after people like Pepijn and me were criticizing a new “paranormal” event of Robbert). You won’t ever acknowledge the fact that you are wrong. But know something. Because of your blog I missed out on a house I wanted to rent. That woman found all your slander on the internet about me. She didn’t trust me anymore. I won’t stand for things like that.
Soon, I want you to remove that slander. You are causing damage in my life. I am serious! Stan”
October 2016 – A couple of hateful mails from Robbert and Stan making it clearer that he wants to talk to me on the phone. And then it became quiet until February 2017.
——————————————————————
Other strange mailers
At this moment, I will take the opportunity to review some other strange mailers in this case, because they are necessary for understanding the complete picture.
“Anne Kuiters” (33 mails) would have been a friend of Stan who once had received a great amount of money from Stan when she was experiencing hardship. “She” began to mail me about Robbert and Stan in 2015, and she was both positive and negative about them. “Her” four mails from 2015 were all received on the same day: September 28, 2015. Then I received 29 more of “her” mails in 2016 and 2017 after Robbert’s arrest date. For a while, I believed half-and-half or almost entirely that she was indeed an existing, fairly honest person. I kept it open because I just did not know. But the following and, in my view, very unlikely, “Stan-exculpating” mail from 2017 nevertheless troubled me:
Translation: “I have been treated I had psychoses. Everything I sent about Stan was false. I had just imagined it all. Greetings Anne Kuiters”
I also received from “her” a mail written by Stan, he apparently had her mailbox under control (see the gallery direct below).
Stan admitted in a couple of audios he was “Sander de Graaf” (2 mails in February 2017). I will pick up on this story a little below.
“Mieke Veen” admitted in “her” (15 mails, May-June 2017) mails of various kinds, including so-called remote assistance on a modem problem, which “she” knew about earlier than I did myself, and some obscene sex speeches, that “she” too was Stan and I received a mail from Stan from “her” address (see gallery pictures below).
And last for now, “Micha Romijn” sent me such split mails (69) about his identity, that I also counted his mail in the 2017 hate mail charts. He began to mail in August 2016, but I have not counted the 2016 mails. Also from his address, I received a mail from Stan (see gallery pictures under the piece about “Micha”).
This is by far the most intense “character”. He started out with the story about how he knew Robbert van den Broeke through a homo chat, and about Stan he remained very vague, even after I repeatedly asked him if he knew Stan or stronger yet: if he was Stan (!). Suddenly, at some point, he said he did not know Stan. But he sent me things Robbert would have sent him, like some clips. The mails were very confusing as a whole, and people interested in this figure may ask me to email them the full “Micha Romijn file”. Much later, he went to some extremes, saying he was hacked by Stan and that he would report Stan to the police.
Some example mails:
Short translations: in exact order as shown by the screenshot below:
September 6, 2016 – “Micha”: “Yes, I am Stan, I am impersonating Micha so I can hear you out. Just kidding! Why would he (Stan) run off to Spain? I do wonder about all these people who say they have witnessed Robbert’s paranormal events. I did read about Robbert hacking you. And then this Joran guy speaking from his prison cell, I find this very funny, I just can’t help myself. Don’t you think this is a bit funny? Greetings Micha”
September 6, 2016 – “Micha”: “I do not know Stan, I forgot to answer your question about it. I met Robbert through a homo chat, I didn’t tell you about it, because I didn’t want to appear weird, I am sorry. Robbert did know I had a problem with my left ear and he was right about it. I was interested only in this small gifted side of him. I asked him critical questions about obviously fake photos and other stuff. Articles about his exposure, I only read later on. I think he needs help when he posts nude pictures of himself on Facebook, don’t you agree? Micha”
September 7, 2016 – “Micha”: “Can you quote me where I was saying I know Stan? I am curious about him now, I will mail him, his email address is on your Twitter page. He (Robbert) is sick, he likes it when these clips of him are published, he likes being naked on Facebook just as he likes his fart to appear on YouTube. Like he doesn’t assess what he’s doing. It proves he is sick.” September 7, 2016 – Constantia: “But are you friends with Stan? i don’t understand. How could you know Robbert and don’t know Stan? So Robbert sends you clips, you send them to me, I publish them, so Robbert must know you gave them to me, and still he is sending you more stuff? Something doesn’t add up, sorry. Constantia”
May 21, 2017 – “Micha”: “Stan told me the truth about Robbert, that he is part real, part fake. Stan said he has shielded Robbert from a part of the tricks. He’s sorry he went along with it and that there’s no hacker, but that they can’t go back now. He would have liked to start all over, help Robbert prove his real gifted side. I’ve never seen Stan mad, but I did see Robbert very mad. Stan says Robbert has threatened him, but still Stan wants to help him, with scientific research too, he paid for.” May 21, 2017 – Constantia: “What kind of things did he tell you, violent, sexual, angry?” May 21, 2017 – “Micha”: “Give me your Skype name, then we can talk. This will establish trust. I will tell you things he told me you wouldn’t believe. I will give you audio if you promise you won’t publish it, because then he would know I leaked it to you.”
Strange enough, he sent me a copy of his Dutch ID, just without any reservations, even without urging me to keep it to myself , when I doubted him about his identity. The photo on that ID immediately struck me, because it looked photoshopped and, in my opinion, looked younger than what the ID said in the birth year. He wanted to talk to Skype with me, but I hold back for a long time. And when I finally agreed he did not show up anymore. I posted his full ID after a long wait and thought about it on Twitter and asked if anyone knew him.
Then he angry, or played angry, sent me several pictures of him and his ID (they had no usable exif data on them), which instead of reassuring me, confirmed that there was shit hitting the fan, because, in my opinion, he was disguised. He demanded that I removed his ID from Twitter, and threatened to go to the police. I exactly wanted him to do that, because I hoped that could lead to a breakthrough in this case.
His victim’s role suddenly shifted to that of perpetrator when I received hack-threats and other disturbed sounds and hate-speeches from him with distorted voice!10 There were no real-voice audios of him. And my modem indeed – probably with a ddos attaque – was undermined. Although he threatened to now report me instead of Stan to the police, because now suddenly he suggested I or my husband was the hacker, I never heard about that “police report” again.
His extremely schizophrenic mails, which varied between the poisonous friend (sending me Robbert stuff without Robbert knowing about it), victim (of hacks) and perpetrator (he threatened and hacked me himself), as well as his extremely remarkable ID “confirmations” would in my opinion rather alarm the police about him instead of helping him in his “case”. Stan, meanwhile, who read my “Micha Romijn notifications” through my Twitter account, claimed by audio (Dutch) that Micha Romijn was the hacker who was behind all the hatred. An unlikely chaos had arisen which, in my opinion, was deliberately created to raise a smoke curtain around the criminal case Robbert van den Broeke. See all “Micha Romijn” ID pictures that I was “allowed” to receive:
“Micha Romijn”
“Micha Romijn”
“Micha Romijn”
“Micha Romijn”
The evidence that Stan was literally everywhere in this case, or even was these other persons for a 100%, I found in these three simultaneously received mails from successively Anne, Micha and Mieke:
Pseudos around Stan, 1:08AM
Pseudos around Stan, 1:09AM
Pseudos around Stan, 1:11AM
Text in all three emails was almost the same (and thus from three different email addresses!):
Hi, I’m Stan, the person who was trying to badmouth me, gave me the logging data to come clean with me. Check the mail header, this is not a spoof. I have been wrongly trashed by this person.
On the “Sander de Graaf” personality, I’ll be back right here.
——————————————————————
The year 2017
Just a year later, around February and March 2017, the sky around Robbert van den Broeke suddenly darkened quickly, in my opinion not coincidentally coinciding with the moment Stan decided to turn his back to Malaga and return to his homebase.
On 21 and 24 February 2017, I received two mails from Stan under the mentioned pseudonym Sander de Graaf, in which he offered me 10K and then 15K in succession to remove my blogs about Robbert and him.
“Sander de Graaf” aka Stan
“Sander de Graaf” aka Stan
As I was not planning to mail, and still have no intentions to mail Stan, I did not respond to this. I did immediately inform Fred Melssen and John Bas (of BN De Stem) and a few days later Pepijn van Erp. Of course, I would never remove my blog for money because it is against my principles. In June 2017, I several times received a confession of Stan that he had indeed been “Sander de Graaf”, as can be heard on this recording of June 3, 2017.
So Stan was back in the Netherlands, and Robbert was very happy with that, and also literally said that in mails and clips, because from the end of March 2017 I suddenly received a significant flow of Robbert van den Broeke mails and especially videos that besides a lot of annoyance caused much hilarity and disbelief among the followers of my Twitter Genverbrander10 account. And of course, Stan played his part and sent me in particular incredible amount of audio recordings that shot into my mailbox (until publishing date of this blog: 80 audio recordings).
This was the first of Robbert van den Broeke’s mails “New Stile” and provided an adequate “genre” label for the forthcoming tumult:
Quick translation: “Hello Constantia. I am pleased that you stopped harassing me with which you didn’t achieve anything. Fortunately I’m able to see Stan again. He reported himself to the police and they have interrogated him for only three hours, not the six days they interrogated me. After three hours they let him go, and he is off the wanted list. We will continue with our paranormal events on Facebook and it pleases me to say there will be a new website. I am very happy that your tireless effort has led to exactly nothing, you learn from your mistakes now, bad lady. Greetings Robbert”
Videos and audios “Highlights”
The videos and audios of Robbert and Stan are so very numerous that it would take too long to describe them all. I will limit myself to a few “highlights” sorted around the main “themes”.
Robbert is having a baby/(with) Leydi Figueroa
“Storyline”: Robbert says he is expecting a child with a Dutch celebrity who would like to have a child with a high energy, he was just the donor, because he is still as gay as a hatter. However, he finds it very important that a new phase of his life has has started, and the child will certainly be a very high incarnation. For some time, it remains unclear who the lucky lady is.
Some time later, I receive two clips from Leidy Uceda, Joran van der Sloot‘s wife (all through Robbert’s mailbox). I want to emphasize that I do not know the lady at all, except through the news of course. Furthermore, I’ve never talked to Robbert and Stan (and I’d like to keep it that way). Leidy obviously knows me through Stan and Robbert who, as I have already made clear in previous blogs, are friends with Joran van der Sloot, in a clip she says she had a car accident and that she loves me, in the other clip she says in Dutch: “I’m pregnant from Broeke”, wherein it is not clear if she knows what she’s saying. Robbert tells me in an email that the child survived and that he is very relieved. There are also reports from Robbert and Stan that Leidy had a near-death experience in which I appeared to Leidy. Stan says via an audio file that he sent me later, he thinks Leidy is not the recipient of Robberts seed and that Robbert must have been hacked again (totally vague and raising a smoke curtain again).
* Received all these clips via mailbox Robbert van den Broeke *
Robbert is mad as hell and repeatedly calls me “cunt”. He explodes like a volcano talking about a photoshop I made in 2006, in which I was making a little fun of Randi . Robbert and Nancy Talbott were oblivious to this side of the story, because Nancy Talbott also describes my “bloodthirsty” photoshop ” “targeting Robbert” on her site and says how widespread it was not – * not * so. Randi is seen as Black Vulture preying on Robbert van den Broeke’s alleged body. Robbert has a lot of imagination, because he is talking about organs, blood and guts that can’t be seen on the low-resolution image it always was. It was one of my first photo shops and it was rather an underachievement in terms of craftsmanship. Robbert blames me that I would have started everything with this picture.
The “offending” photoshop I made in 2006
Related: In later (but also earlier) mails and audio files, Stan also emphasizes how many Robbert van den Broeke photo shops I made, according to him that is, because I’m afraid he’s confused with many other photo shoppers. I really didn’t make that many. One of these photoshops Stan mentions, is the one of “Robbert and me together”. As an old FOK veteran (because these photoshops do exist) I knew of course, which one he meant and I still have some of those pictures as well. At that time, like I am doing now, I tended to store files. Doing some research if he has things right, is not one of Stan’s assets.
Translation: “Robbert is once again corny, but of course, nobody sees it like that. You were allowed to photoshop for years, like the one with you and Robbert together, biggest silliness, that is considered healthy, but all jokes of Robbert are “sick”. What a joke.”
Stan nevertheless found it a nice excuse to send me neutral (?) photoshops (via) his own mailbox regularly, but also rather unpleasant ones and sometimes clips of me.
A photoshop that I received recently, but not directly via Stan, was a very vulgar one about alien sex with dildos and me and my book Through The Gate figuring. I received this from “Micha Romijn” who said he had it from Stan, but later corrected it in Sven (Stan’s brother). Six days before, I had received video clips from Stan about the fact that he bought my book Through The Gate and had put it under his pillow.11 I did not mention this on my Twitter Genverbrander10 account, but suddenly “Micha” mailed me with it (and I already linked him to Stan, above). I did upload the clips to the Genverbrander Google Drive.
* Received all these clips via mailbox Robbert van den Broeke *
Stan: “Look, Rens Hendriks, that’s also the man of whom Robbert received the divine gift …. but if he (Robbert) really gets into his divinity, then his brain activity is eliminated, and that’s how it was measured at Rens’s too. […]. And later, two people Hans and Klaas came, Hans Gerding and Klaas van Egmond […]. Hans and Klaas who have also done brain research on Robbert […] and they have admitted. ..] that Robbert was also brain death, just like Rens Hendriks […]. “
Stan is letting the cat out of the bag with the names of two well-known scientists and former professors, Klaas van Egmond and Hans Gerding, who had done scientific research into Robbert in the fairly distant past and would have concluded by an EEG measurement that Robbert van den Broeke was braindead during his mediumship. For years, both Robbert and Stan referred to this mysterious investigation, but never mentioned names before and nobody knew the good of it. Robbert van den Broeke’s patron Nancy Talbott also always was very eager in spreading the “scientific good news” about Robbert and, where possible, did a lot of advertising for Robbert by mentioning the “fact” he was investigated by serious scientists as Dr. Roll and further unnamed persons which would have resulted in spectacular findings.
The two scientists in question apparently had no reason to see the results coming out. Pepijn van Erp, who, like me, followes the Van den Broeke case fairly close and had heard about this “famous” research earlier on as well, picked up on this sound clip from Stan and devoted an article on Kloptdatwel.nl to it with a sharp observation in his closing sentence, namely that the Robbert van den Broeke saga needs to be unveiled step by step. Thanks to the mediation of Fred Melssen, who has been very valuable to me in this case for a couple of years now, Pepijn van Erp was able to quote them on this so-called braindead event of Robbert van den Broeke and they said no such thing as “braindead” had occurred . Stan then responded with: “They’re lying!” And “The Donders Institute is going to investigate Robbert”.
When I opened the book of Robbert van den Broeke again, searching for passages about Rens Hendriks, I found countless. They all express their great admiration for Rens; That Rens had saved Robbert from the mental institute and was sending Robbert “powerful energies” through the astral realm. When I read the book in 2005, I put comments in pencil everywhere and my eyes caught this page and underlined sentences:
Translation: “Rens Hendriks says that God wants to be human again to be more present in creation. He wants to be in everybody, even in criminals, to achieve that goal.”
Rens Hendriks mentioned on numerous pages in Robbert van den Broeke’s book
This statement did outset a full chorus of bells in my brain, because it exactly matches the ideas of Robbert and Stan, that criminals should be forgiven and that they mostly should get a lot of love. For example, look at this passage about Joran van der Sloot on Robbert’s website, and there were several other moments like these when Robbert and Stan talk(ed) about criminals:
Screenshot website Robbert van den Broeke
The question that comes to my mind is: if Rens Hendriks was really (as) clairvoyant as stated numerous time in Robbert’s book and elsewhere, why then could he not foresee that Robbert would derail completely in the future? And what has been the effect of him “sending power” to Robbert van den Broeke? Given the thoughts for example on “God and criminals” of Rens Hendriks as mentioned in this book, I wonder how and to what extend Robbert and Stan are really inspired by Rens.
Nancy Talbott’s setback and death Sandra Reemer
Nancy Talbott
Sandra Reemer Photo Wiki/MvdB
Also in this year, there were new setbacks in Robbert van den Broeke’s life, namely the fact that at the end of March 2017 his American promotor Nancy Talbott was affected by cerebral hemorrhage and is now rehabilitating. He made it known on April 1, 2017. And another important Dutch guardian, Sandra Reemer, well-known from television and music, died on June 6, 2017. Robbert wrote about it on June 12, 2017. However, this did not prevent Robbert from sending me a all kinds of weird emails, exactly in these days too (See hate mail charts) and informing his Facebook followers about various “paranormal events” like crop grass circles with “felt presences” of Martin Luther King and Princess Juliana” and light orbs.
[3] Andy Russell also dedicated several articles to Robbert; In addition to Colin Andrews, he was one of the first recipients of Robberts hate mail. See here for a few of his contributions: Circular State Of Mind/Robbert van den Broeke.
[4] Viola Holt has written on her Facebook page a few times since her Facebook friends saw the nude pictures of Robbert van den Broeke on her page: Viola Holt Facebook, 15 december 2015.
[7] Mainly “Part II of the “Genverbrander Speaks” document (Dutch only).
[8] Personal correspondence Colin Andrews and Constantia Oomen d.d. June 21, 2017.
[9] Several times, I received Stan’s mail via Robbert’s mail address, such as recently an audio clip, which made it clear that Stan has control over Robbert’s email, which he himself also admitted recently to Fred Melssen.
Stan in control over Robbert’s mailbox
Stan in control over Robbert’s mailbox
[10] “Micha Romijn” audios, with distorted voice: in chronological order: onetwothreefour
[11] Stan talking about Through The Gate: Clip 1 and Clip 2.
———————————–
Expression of gratitude
I would like to thank the following people: Rob Nanninga who together with the sweetest lions of the world is giving me unbelievably much peace, insight, support and love, Fred Melssen, who is increasingly supporting me in unraveling the web of fraud and the smoke curtain around Robbert van den Broeke, Pepijn van Erp for his presence in the background and his publishing of articles at the appropriate moments and sharp observations, Sjaan, the “Google Sjaantje” but also swan, who always emails me tips and technical backup, Lucy for opening her Robbert van den Broeke backup YouTube channel, and meanwhile many other people on Twitter and beyond who continue to provide feedback and sometimes were/are very helpful / with research, like Colin Andrews and Janez.
Parameter 
You must be logged in to post a comment.