Behind the scenes of Robbert van den Broeke



The Genverbrander
Robbert van den Broeke meets Stan Pluijmen
Nancy Talbott
Stan Pluijmen
Escalation after Rob Nanninga’s passing
Stan Pluijmen and Joran van der Sloot
The first hack
Stan Pluijmen exposed by Google
Interim insights: 2012 was a turning point
Gang principles
Gang & slang
Robbert & gang’s favorite photo
The second hack – part 1
Robbert’s Twitter account
Second hack, Part 2, and how it related to Joran van der Sloot
PC Assistance, Robbert?
Technical investigation of ‘being hacked’ claim
Parameter says:
Update January 2016
Update February 10/March 2016
Some footnotes
Robbert complaining in the media about the ‘hacker’, Constantia Oomen en Jan Willem Nienhuys (Dutch)
Robbert’s online filed police report
Literature on Dutch Skeptic Society: Skepsis (Dutch)
Literature Pepijn van Erp

Update: Receiving hate mails after publication of this dossier again since August 6, 2015.
Update 2: Robbert van den Broeke & ‘friends’ are threatening me with (3) hitmen – September 30, 2015.
Update January 2016
At the bottom you will find an important Update – February 10/March 2016


My first WordPress blog, inspired by a big mistake made by Dutch psychic ‘medium’ Robbert van den Broeke and his latest deplorable actions. This is a blog about his downfall and not only his downfall but the downfall of his gang members, at least three more villains Stan Pluijmen, Alan Sieradzki and Roy Boschman are falling too.

Robbert and his crooked gang have been pestering me and other people for long enough to say: enough is enough.

Hate mail-Charts




Robbert van den Broeke &co Hatemail Frequency Charts
x-axis > = date
y-axix ^ = number of emails

I consider the second hack (July 5, 2015, see 15 emails- bar) a turning point. Since then, I count all Robbert van den Broeke and Stan Pluijmen emails as hatemail because hey, enough = enough. I never answer them anymore (except in public, such as on Twitter). Nothing they say I (can) take seriously anymore, so not even the ‘legitimate’ mail, supposedly ‘not written by the hacker’.

The Genverbrander (gene burner)

Robbert van den Broeke suddenly was there, on Dutch TV shows in 2004 and 2005. Out of nowhere, there was this intriguing handsome young man with his big eyes and endearing eyelashes. He claimed that the Higher Powers had given him something special. That he had this very special gift and he was ready to give it to the Dutch audience. He could contact the spirit world and heal people. He could make things move and make very special ghostly photo’s, consistently found crop circles around his house, and so much more! The audience went wild, they all wanted to embrace this promising golden boy, to be told their future, to be healed.  The commercial TV stations saw something else: high ratings, and they just ran wild along with it.

Robbert got his own TV show with famous Dutch TV host Irene Moors. It was called: “Er Is Zoveel Meer”, “There Is So Much More”. In this show he would go to historical places blindfolded (so he wouldn’t know where he was going beforehand and couldn’t look things up) and reveal ghostly facts he never could have known, he would give readings to people, he would take astonishing photos of ghosts, like that of a nun who had supposedly been immured, and orbs.


TV screenshot 2005 “There is so much more” of ghost ‘photo’ Robbert made of an ‘immured nun’

All went well… everyone breathlessly sat glued to their sets. Until that fatal broadcasting on December 18, 2005, when Robert van den Broeke gave a whole new meaning to “gin” and “gene”.

Important language nuance in advance: In Dutch “gen” means “gene” and not “gin”. Accordingly, the word mentioned by Robbert van den Broeke “Genverbrander” doesn’t mean “Ginburner” but “Geneburner”… Do you know what a “Geneburner” is? Let Wikipedia explain it to you.

From Wikipedia:

“Exposing Van den Broeke

In 2005, Rob Nanninga exposed the self-proclaimed psychic Robbert van den Broeke, who in the RTL 4 programme Er is zoveel meer (“There is so much more”) claimed to be able to paranormally contact the ancestors of people present, but had actually drawn his information directly from a genealogy website, including a linguistic error that he had copied (genverbrander instead of geneverbrander, an old-fashioned spelling of jeneverbrander, meaning “gin burner”). In the episode of 18 December (seen by about 800,000 people, Van den Broeke talked to a woman, Corrie, whose husband Arno had unexpectedly committed suicide. The psychic sought contact with Arno and ended his story with the text:

“There is something very important I have yet to tell. Arno and you also know each other from a previous life. You are very closely connected to each other. Maybe you have felt it yourself already, but it is true. And I need to say something about that. It is important, also to cope with this, to let go of this. There is a date coming through. 1793 and 1823. You have lived during the time in between. In that life you didn’t get very old. 30 years or something. I’m getting a story right now. It was in the Netherlands. I’m reading Coevorden. Your name was Hillegien. You were called Hillegien. Hellegien. Hillegien, I hear. Hillegien. I’m getting a surname through about you. Possibly something like Rozenboom or Rozeboom. You were called Rozeboom back then. And you already lived together with, there is a name clearly coming through, something like Luwert, Luwert, that’s the name I hear. And there is something with 7 March. And there is something about 7 August in that life. So I’ve got a feeling that you have actually lived with this partner in that life. Shortly after the wedding in that life, you died. In the same year. You married then, and in fact in the same year, I’ve got a hunch in August, you passed away. Your husband was then doing, or something with… I’m getting a profession. Trapper or trap… I don’t know what that means. Trapper or genverbrander or genverbranden. I don’t know exactly what that means.”

However, Nanninga noticed that most of this information could be found precisely on the Internet. A Google search took him to a website that contained the family tree of this Hillegien Rozeboom. Especially the word genverbrander caught his attention, because this should have been geneverbrander (=jeneverbrander), but was misspelled. The same spelling error could be found on the genealogy website, where the rest of the information he recited (“got through”) on the show was as well. Van den Broeke made several more mistakes during the “reading”: for example, he “got through” the wrong birthdate: 7 instead of 17 August, and he spoke of the name “Luwert” instead of “Lubbert”. On 29 December, RTL said it still believed in the self-proclaimed medium, while Van den Broeke stood up for himself, claiming that he “had gotten through from above” that Er is zoveel meer would be continued with a new series of episodes. However, RTL boss Fons van Westerloo decided differently: RTL 4 spokeswoman Karin Bouwknegt declared in February 2006 that they were “finished with Robbert” because of  all the commotion, because they did “not want any more negative publicity”. Journalist Albert Verlinde mockingly commented that Van den Broeke, who was “not a goochelaar (“magician”) but a googlelaar (“googler”)”, could not even predict his own future; moreover, Verlinde supported Nanninga’s allegation that RTL 4 found viewer ratings more important than honesty.”

This was very big news back then in The Netherlands, and the word “genverbrander” even was voted “Word Of The Year” 2005 (Dutch).


Cover of the ‘Skepter’ of the Dutch Skeptic Society: Irene Moors and Robbert van den Broeke – Skepter 184, Winter 2005, Skepsis (photo on cover: ANP)

In his article “From problem child to wonderman – The adventures of Robbert van den Broeke” Rob Nanninga devotes considerable attention to Robbert’s history and especially the events surrounding the crop circles. The article starts with Robbert’s early childhood. Already at the age of six he had great difficulty keeping up with the lessons in school.  He was finally removed from school when he was fifteen years old. Robbert van den Broeke basically has no more than a deficient elementary education supplemented with traineeships  as unskilled agricultural laborer.

Robbert had his crop circles investigated by a scientific researcher, Dr. Eltjo Haselhoff, and Nanninga describes his test results. Ultimately it turned out that the question if the circles were actually man-made still went unanswered. Furthermore, Robbert’s circles were always found in the immediate vicinity of his home, and that should raise some eyebrows (and they did not appear elsewhere in the Netherlands). Robbert has a long history of depression and ‘strange behavior’. The following quotation is thought-provoking:

“In the book of Robbert, lighting columns are not mentioned, but it does have another interesting story that happened in the summer of 2000, when Robbert’s parents spent a week on vacation. Madelon* was out at night and came home at half past three. She walked into the bedroom of Robbert looking for her cell phone. But when she tried to wake him up, no one was under the duvet. Robbert surfaced at four at night in a confused state. His pants were wet and muddy and there was a large burn hole in them. Robbert could not explain what had happened. The next day he found five circles in a nearby cornfield.”

* One of Robbert’s two sisters

At the end of his text, Rob Nanninga tells what happened with the “Genverbrander” and observes – this was so in 2005 – :

“The word ‘genverbrander’ can been found on hundreds of web pages (according to Google even 30,000). Presumably, it is unprecedented that a medium was exposed so thoroughly by only overlooking one letter.”

What happened to Van den Broeke after his exposure?

Robbert van den Broeke was thrown back into the shadow of a former celebrity existence.

Not only Rob Nanninga was criticizing Van den Broeke. A lot of people were getting more involved in criticizing and exposing Robbert van den Broeke and his ‘para’normal tricks. I think when you look over the years that have passed (more than ten years now), I possibly was and still am Van den Broeke’s most constant critic.

A lot of people worked on the technical side of his exposure (especially on Dutch websites FokGrenswetenschap, Skepsis and later on, Kloptdatwel): analyzing Robbert’s ‘ghost’ photos and crop circles, laying the finger on all the mistakes he made. I was there to keep the flame alive. After the exposure of Robbert van den Broeke, the mainstream however lost their interest in the man, except for fans (he still has them, or should I say cult-members) and critics. And me of course.

To summarize my involvement regarding Robbert van den Broeke: I initiated (and contributed heavily to) about 52 threads (each with 300 comments) on him on the popular Dutch Forum: FOK while he still was appearing on TV and the talk of the town.(1)

Public interest in him never died completely though. A lot of people still believed in his psychic powers. I registered the domain in 2005 (which, in friendly agreement, I turned over to the Dutch Skeptic Society in 2015) and started a forum on Robbert van den Broeke and related topics. For a couple of years, it really flourished and some well-respected skeptics like Jan Willem Nienhuys and Rob Nanninga attributed there too. Then, when the topic became less interesting, I decided to end the forum.


Robbert van den Broeke meets Stan Pluijmen

In the meantime, Robbert was licking his self-inflicted wounds (or could he be a victim of his own predisposition?), but there was someone to ‘pick him up’ in his darkest days. Around 2007, something really major and remarkable happened in Robbert’s life: he met Stan Pluijmen. Stan Pluijmen had found Robbert through my website (Pluijmen told me so himself, in one of his many emails in which he tried to convince me that everything Robbert was doing was genuine).

Stan thanked me a couple of times because when he visited, and saw and read (about) Robbert, he felt the need to contact Robbert and found him through his profile on a gay dating site.

Here’s one copy of the couple of emails in which Stan thanked me: – he called me “Sten”, because in The Netherlands, that was my nickname. And he called himself “Stan van Aalst” because his last name “Pluijmen” was connected to Joran van der Sloot, and at that time, he didn’t want the world to know about that. (I will tell more about this Joran van der Sloot connection)

(translated from Dutch)

“From: Stan Van Aalst <>
Date: 2012-09-01 19:38 GMT-07:00
Subject: RE: Robbert showing his Hades Face – The second one. Please don’t let it spoil your appetite

Not possible is a big word, but I give him the strength to push through, and to go for the truth despite all the incomprehension.
You are the connection Sten, without you I would have never known Robbert.
For this, I want to thank you so much.


Stan, in other emails, mentioned several times that he was a skeptic and a magician in the past, but that he changed a lot when meeting Robbert.

An important year in Stan’s life must be mentioned: 2011. In this year, he was placed under financial scrutiny and guardianship because among other things he financially screwed up by over-spending as a compulsive gambler. He lived in Robbert’s house for some time, until 2012 (I don’t know the starting date). This was temporary, he later got his own place again. On Robbert’s website in the Dutch version only  it is mentioned that in 2008, Robbert gave Stan a reading in which Robbert predicted Stan Pluijmen would meet Joran van der Sloot: suspect in the disappearance of Natalee Holloway and convicted murderer in the case of Stephany Flores. There is an English version too, but this leaves out the “2008”. Please note that this very personal and detailed story of Stan Pluijmen is still to be found on Robbert’s website (it has been there for years for everybody to see), so that I am not the one bringing this up. According to this very long story about Stan Pluijmen’s troubled past on Robbert’s website, years after the first reading in 2008, in 2010, Robbert van den Broeke predicted to Stan Pluijmen too, that Stan’s friend Joran van der Sloot would commit a murder-robbery for money, and then Stan Pluijmen ‘helped’ Joran van der Sloot by getting the money through blackmailing a man to ‘prevent this murder-robbery’ (!). Stan’s noble ‘aid campaign’ was not successful: as is well known by now, Joran van der Sloot actually killed Stepahny Flores and took her money. Stan had aroused the interest of the criminal investigation department and they seized his computer and accessories. In 2011, the FBI flew over to The Netherlands to interrogate Stan Pluijmen about his involvement with Joran van der Sloot and this blackmail.


In 2012, everything changed. I received the first two Robbert van den Broeke hate mails on September 1 and 2, 2012. In them, Robbert, in a very childish and threatening manner, wished for my speedy passing by means of getting run over by a truck, and in another email included a gross photo of human excrement. Stan Pluijmen responded when I contacted Robbert through his website, asking what this was all about. He acted like he was as truly shocked as I was. The first claim of Robbert being hacked by some evil “sujet” was made by Stan Pluijmen.

To be clear: I never responded to the hate mails, so I never encouraged them by replying.

Meanwhile, Robbert van den Broeke was still flourishing, albeit in a new way: not on big TV shows anymore, but from his loyal cult-following who still believed everything Robbert said and did (his readings and channelings, discovering many, many crop-circles (always in the direct surroundings of his house in Hoeven, later Bosschenhoofd), making ghost(ly) pictures with  many a celebrity in it, or notoriety, appeared in normal photo-like manner, this, and much more).

His notoriety eventually went beyond the Netherlands the day he decided it was time that international celebrities, including from the ‘alternative scene’, after their death would appear in his ghostly photos. Always using photos that could be found on the internet, he now – in 2012 and later – suddenly claimed to have a valid and spiritual reason for this: he was ‘borrowing’ images from the Akashic Library, and, through him as a medium, this Akashic Library always supposedly used photos that already existed on the internet so people would recognize the person in question.

With a pseudo channeling of deceased Pat Delgado and posting ‘ghost’ photos of Delgado – Pat Delgado was a known and respected crop circle investigator – Van den Broeke ran into and stumbled over Pat’s closest friend Colin Andrews. Andrews, who had informed Delgado’s family immediately, was infuriated about the abuse of Pat Delgado’s good name and photos, as was Delgado’s family, and a fierce battle over Robbert’s tasteless ‘channeling’ and over the ‘ghost’ photo’s began. Colin’s and Pat Delgado’s family were appalled how Robbert had made this public, like dirty laundry, without even consulting Pat’s family. So very unlike a caring, loving young man. Robbert van den Broeke refused to remove the channeling and photos. There are two websites that reflect this battle very well, Colin Andrew’s own website, and Andy Russel’s WordPress blog  (Andy Russel is a well-known crop circle investigator himself).

Robbert premiered his sinister side on his own website too, hence letting his guard down for the first time, with another blog speaking about Colin Andrews as a misguided man who now was living ‘at he dark side’ and illustrating it with creepy ‘Joker-ghost photos’.

Soon after, he deleted that blog (realizing it was hurting his own reputation) , but below you can see a screen shot of the photos and a copy of the Dutch text (I couldn’t get the whole page as it was in one piece as my backups saved Robbert’s website pages in a split way). Before deleting this one completely (he obviously was getting some negative feedback about if from his rabid followers), Robbert edited the blog to give a more loving and caring-medium like feel. In his hatred towards Colin Andrews, he had forgotten that he, as a bearer of the Light, had to avoid appearing hateful, just like (t)his hateful hate-mail sending ‘hacker’.



Andrews initiated technical research on Van den Broeke’s surfing whereabouts and behavior. Van den Broeke always denied that he was surfing the internet and stealing pictures to abuse them in ghostly photo shops, and a specialist came up with solid evidence that Van den Broeke – or at least someone with his IP address – did indeed visit Colin Andrews’s website on the specific pages with Pat Delgado’s photos, the ones Robbert abused, several times before the ‘Pat Delgado channeling’.

However, Robbert’s email box was sending out hate mail with increasing frequency and Colin Andrews and Andy Russell were among the ‘lucky’ receiving end of that too. The tone of these hate mails was brutal, and always gross, with photos of dismembered corpses and human excrement as favored subjects. This hate mail often invaded the privacy of their recipients. I was receiving some hate mail too. (see chart on top).

Suddenly, Colin Andrews dropped it all, and withdrew himself from the scene. Reasons known to me are as follows: to Colin Andrew’s great shock his computers were hacked and infected with serious viruses, as was the computer of the professional IT investigator working with him on this investigation. It was when an important secret piece of information, (only known to Colin and the investigator) was also infiltrated by someone who obviously had access to their investigation that Colin no longer wanted to spend his energy on Robbert´s unhealthy and sinister world. To my disappointment, he did not make the results of this investigation public (though he informed me briefly about the content).

During this time, I had frequent email contact with Colin Andrews and an inner circle of interested people. Robbert van den Broeke knew about this, and did something about this with more gross hate-mails.

Nancy Talbott

Robbert van den Broeke’s international ambitions (and goals) are reflected in his great promoter Nancy Talbott. A long-time (1997/98) friend of Robbert’s family, she took Robbert under her wing and started promoting him ‘scientifically’ (and is still doing it). While doing so, she also ran into Colin Andrews, because she was belittling Andrews and according to Andrews lying about test results. This is reflected in several websites, her own and several others.(2) She still has this nasty Robbert van den Broeke inspired dislike toward Colin Andrews reflected on her own website (3).

It should be noted that Nancy Talbott has also been receiving hate mail and hateful messages on her Facebook page. To explain this, I would have to dive much deeper into this matter than I originally planned for this blog. Let’s just say that I think Robbert (& Co?) has (have) significant problems with authoritative and critical people, even if they want to help him. This problem (IMO) started at a young age, when Robbert – strongly against his own will – was submitted to a mental institution by his parents. (4) He has a problematic relationship with his father and posted a blog about this too, speaking about the terrible things he went through with his father. The title of this blog on Robbert’s site was: “Robbert uit de kast” meaning “Robbert Coming out” and the posting date was June 27, 2012. I still have this blog text stored. It is a very dramatic revelation about his youth and father, and his problems while struggling with his gay identity. In it Robbert very clearly says he is not happy as a human being. This blog spent only a day or so on the internet, only to be  quickly removed by Robbert yet again. 

Stan Pluijmen

Stan Pluijmen started emailing me in 2012 and never stopped doing so. He always tried to convince me that everything Robbert did was real, and that I needed to surpass my ‘skeptical mind’, to look at the bigger, wondrous picture of it all. Logic and rational thinking were not necessary; the miracles of life and beyond were ‘beyond any logic’.

The main concern of the seemingly endless fusillade of Stan’s emails was this thing about Robbert getting tested scientifically. Stan was always extremely eager to point out that Van den Broeke did in fact want to prove his psychic abilities, but was just looking for the right persons and authorities. But always, when push came to shove, Robbert and Stan backed out, saying the chosen party was not objective enough, too skeptical, too hostile and so on. Believe me, there were a lot of different people and groups very eager to test Robbert and really give them a fair chance. He must have gotten at least 100 serious offers. He did get tested recently by Dan Drasin, but when I started analyzing the clip they came up with, I soon noticed the usual flaws, and suspect conditions like too much time elapsing, no guarantee that Dan Drasin didn’t leave Robbert & Co alone (i.e. to go to the restroom), missing camera photo numbers. When I commented elaborately below the clip, my comment was removed swiftly, but I still have it (thank you, Google+):

“What’s with these photo numbers and what happened between 15.47 PM (photo 15/64-20/64) and 16.19 PM (consecutively photo 21/64, 22/64, 54!!!/73 – see 3:12 minutes, 23/73, 24/73, 26/73, 27/73…)

Something like: Dan Drasin took a break, refreshed himself, and Robbert in the meantime – 32 minutes – shot some fake deceased photos i.e. photo 26/73 64/73, and messed with the time in the camera?

What we see here, supposedly, is a continuous series. The truth is that there are large time gaps and that a lot of numbers are not shown. When you take a closer look, a lot of time has passed between photo 20/64 and 21/64 (32 minutes) and the photo numbers are totally messed up. And don’t blame it on the aliens. Blame it on the ones messing around here.

Are we supposed to believe any of this?”

I could have blocked the both of them, but didn’t. I still was eager to criticize Van den Broeke and to stop him in his fraudulent tracks, and I felt I should keep on reading (though both Robbert’s hate-mails and Stan’s preaching mails became really repetitive in content).

Stan Pluijmen was remarkably constant in his emails, almost always extremely friendly and seemingly very good-natured, -willed and -spirited. Only a couple of times he talked to me in a belittling tone, like I was a friendly but not all too smart woman. Later on, he soothingly wrote, that I was a kind of a wise woman too. Often he remarked that he really liked me, despite of everything, and that he couldn’t explain it. I don’t know if that was true, but the opposite was true: I did like Stan Pluijmen very much despite of everything. It was hard to believe that this seemingly so friendly young man would do evil and disturbing things like sending or participating in dreadful hate mail. By any means, he tried to convince me that I had to let go of my (skeptical) interest in Van den Broeke and move on. He sent me ‘convincing’ (*not*) video clips and audio fragments, tried to come up with real proof (which it never was) and then started on the ‘paranormal’ path himself, recommended by Master Van den Broeke, who said Stan Pluijmen now was consecrated in the psychic world as well.

Stan Pluijmen seemed alarmed by a remark that I had made on a Dutch skeptical forum, I had said there that I would always be following and criticizing the whereabouts of Robbert van den Broeke until I was 80 years old and even in the hereafter, or something like that. And I meant it! This prospect apparently did not sit well with him, and a couple of times, he emailed me about that and seemingly teasing me with it.

Escalation after Rob Nanninga’s passing

I started to get more hate mail (see chart), and it exploded in 2015, 7 months after Rob Nanninga – the one who exposed Van den Broeke as a fraud – suddenly died at age 58. Rob Nanninga had become a very dear friend to me over the years, and through many ups and downs with him (because we started from different view points), he came to mean a lot to me and he still means the world to me.

I had since 2005 – in regards to all sorts of other (skeptical and not skeptical topics) – regular mail contact with Rob Nanninga about Robbert van den Broeke & Co, also during the time of the hatemail. He also received copies of the international contact group that was discussing this. In 2012, two articles about Robbert were published on Skepsis of which Rob had written one, and in the other one he was – as always – closely involved. On behalf of this blog I had done some photo experiments with Rob.

Robbert van den Broeke (and his pals?) saw Rob’s passing as being on the winning streak. In his hatemails to me, he glorified himself and smeared Rob Nanninga’s legacy. I won’t repeat what he actually said, but I’m sure most of you – like me – readers couldn’t even come up with sick images like this (hint: Robbert was talking about a certain dark hole of Satan).

Up till then, I had allowed Stan Pluijmen to email me and I had answered him, but those days were over. I even was truly and deeply worried about Stan for a while, trying to unloosen him from Robbert, thinking maybe Stan was going to be a physical victim of a psychotic violent outburst of Robbert van den Broeke someday.

Back then, I didn’t think Stan Pluijmen was the evil genius, but pieces started to fall together in my mind in 2015. I think Stan must have laughed in his sleeve about my concerns regarding him. The puzzle still isn’t complete, but this idea of the totally innocent Stan simply wouldn’t hold.

But now, with them walking all over Rob Nanninga, this had gone way too far. I became very angered with Stan Pluijmen, Robbert and all the persons behind all this, because it was very clear, that this ruthless gang of Robbert van den Broeke was collaborating so as to terrorize his most outspoken critics. No one can speak about my friends and Rob Nanninga like that, and my patience was all used up and gone. I very angrily replied to Stan that ‘normal’ communication between him and me was now over and done with.

Robbert van den Broeke, with sick, twisted gusto, wrote a blog about Rob Nanninga in Fall 2014 (Rob passed away May 30, 2014) in which he claimed Rob Nanninga was now in a safe and bright place and had finally realized that Robbert van den Broeke had been right all along about the afterlife. And yes, again, Van den Broeke posted photos, now of Rob Nanninga, in his so-called ghost photos.

Among others, Dutch Skeptic Society, Rob’s mother – of whom Rob had been taking care of until the day he died, and who is still alive at this date –  Rob’s girlfriend and I too of course, were not pleased at all. Van den Broeke received a summons from Rob’s mother and girlfriend to remove the blog and photos of Rob Nanninga. Van den Broeke refused for a long time, but gave in when the Dutch legal force promised to sue the life and money out of him.

In hate mails to me, Robbert van den Broeke had bragged he would never remove Rob’s ‘ghost’ photos, but fortunately, he drew the short straw.

Stan Pluijmen and Joran van der Sloot

Something else remarkable and related occurred in these years, and it was this past year that an image of who Stan Pluijmen really was, started crystallizing in my mind. What was Stan Pluijmen’s share in this almost satanic (uh well, leave out the “almost”) outburst of Robbert van den Broeke?

It turned out, as aforementioned in short already, on Robbert’s own site, that Stan Pluijmen was no angel himself. He befriended Joran van der Sloot, suspect in the disappearance and death of Natalee Holloway, and now serving time for the murder on Stephany Flores in prison in Peru, in 2008, and became his trusted friend. Both compulsive gamblers, and Joran being in need for money, they tried to extort a man who allegedly had child pornography on his computer. (5) I will elaborate some more on this later-on in this blog.

The story of Robbert van den Broeke – Stan Pluijmen and Joran van der Sloot is a world unto itself and told on Robbert’s website (make sure to make your own copy, or look for it in Webarchive, because things tend to disappear on Robbert’s website).

Only a short quote to get you readers going:

“One day in a psychic reading (which Robbert did for Stan) it was revealed to Robbert that Joran van der Sloot – the man who was suspected of involvement with the disappearance of Natalee Holloway – would somehow enter Stan’s life. Robbert received information that Joran is fundamentally a loving person and that, at a subconscious level, his soul yearns for spirituality. But the worldwide demonization which has rained down on him pushes him towards the violent side and he is spiritually confused by what people say about him. Robbert said that from the hereafter they do not look at what somebody does but at what somebody is. He was also told that you always should fight evil with good and to embrace it with love to eventually bring about a world healing. The divine advice given to Robbert was never to return evil with evil and that forgiveness is one of the most important aspects of the lessons here on earth. Robbert perceived that he may offer help to Joran and that it may happen via Stan. Stan was the designated person to do this, not only because he had grown spiritually – the contact with the divine consciousness which he had rediscovered via Robbert –  but also because of the unconditional love that he carries with him. God would make sure that this contact with Joran would happen. Stan however just couldn’t believe it and largely disregarded it.”

The first hack

They still claimed Robbert’s email-box was hacked over and over again (in my case, 35 times by now, as in 35 different days I received hatemails), and Stan had emailed me on January 18, 2013 about me being hacked too (and he suggested that hack occurred around 2010), and that Robbert knew about it in a clairvoyant way. He suggested that both Robbert and I were victim of a hacker, and that this connected us (too). Strangely enough, in all his wisdom and clairvoyance, Robbert van den Broeke never came up with an actual name who the evil hacker could be (sending hate mail to several people and now hacking me too). His cult-members never ask(ed) for real proof of his clairvoyance anyway, so he took (and is taking) the easy way out here. In an IMO ludicrous audio fragment Pluijmen sent me – a so-called friendly warning – Robbert was giving me a self-invited ‘reading’: I was being hacked too. Robbert van den Broeke was ‘reading’ hack details about me being hacked and he even came up with two correct (!) old passwords of my husband and me.

To me of course, this was not proof of Robbert being clairvoyant, but of Robbert van den Broeke and Stan Pluymen (or …?) hacking my computer or at least: gaining illegal information about us.

I put this audio-fragment, enriched with related photos, to spice it up a little (like screenshots of newspaper articles about Van den Broeke),  on YouTube, but then soon after received a strike from Robbert van den Broeke on a clip I put on YouTube as well. It was a clip in which Stan proved his ‘abilities’: he supposedly made a photo of an extraterrestrial himself (he sent me that clip). The alien sure looked like a clipped paper ghost that was held before the camera to me. This movie clip showed Stan physically while he was making a ghost photo.


Screenshot of original Stan Pluijmen movie clip

I was warned by YouTube if I received three strikes like this, my YouTube account would be terminated. My account still is in ‘bad standing’ until August 2015, thanks to this strike. Robbert van den Broeke had struck me on copyright. He, the Cookie-Copyright Eating Monster himself, publishing photo-shopped ‘ghost’ photos of deceased people without their family’s permission all the time; he of all people made me delete my YouTube clip of Stan Pluijmen. A big laugh (well, not really). But did he, Robbert, do this really? Strange thing was, that the strike against me was made by Van den Broeke, not by Stan Pluijmen, the only one really involved in this clip.

Stan Pluijmen exposed by Google

The answer to what was going on really, came the other day. On July 9, 2015, I was scrolling in the Robbert van den Broeke/Stan Pluijmen folder and saw this (random) email (‘legitimate’, not hate) from Stan Pluijmen. Then I noticed something weird:


When I popped up Stan’s email, it popped up with Robbert van den Broeke’s name and photo (see photo above). I thought: huh, what the ….? Because I had just started using Gmail, because of the hack in July, 2015 (I will tell about this below), this Gmail layout was new to me. I emailed Dutch skeptic Pepijn van Erp with this screenshot and he was thinking alongside with me. Then we discovered Stan Pluijmen’s email is connected to Robbert’s name on Google+ ánd Robbert’s YouTube channel. This explains why I received a strike on a clip with only shows Stan Pluijmen filmed by Alan Sieradzki. The reason therefore is that this Robbert van den Broeke channel is connected to Stan Pluijmen’s email-address! It is very well possible that Robbert van den Broeke doesn’t know a thing about all the spooky things Stan Pluijmen is doing with his name, accounts and reputation.

Here’s the proof of the strike I received through Robbert van den Broeke. I was already so surprised that I didn’t receive strikes on all my other Robbert van den Broeke clips, only the one in which Stan Pluijmen physically appeared. This puzzle is complete now.



I then removed all YT video clips I had made about Robbert van Broeke, and Stan Pluijmen too, not willing to risk my YouTube Channel for them (but I still have them).

Interim insights: 2012 was a turning point

On a couple of websites of the Dutch Skeptic Society I kept criticizing Van den Broeke: Skepsis, Kloptdatwel and later on I became more active on Twitter and sometimes mention(ed) Robbert’s name.

This repeatedly exposing Robbert van den Broeke as a fraud (because Robbert kept on going with his ‘medium’ related activities, responses – mine and others – were inevitable), led to a couple of hateful outbursts on the internet as well, in which Robbert’s IP address was exposed as the source. Dutch Skeptic Society Skepsis wrote about it (Dutch).

Up till 2012 Robbert had no valid answer to the question why he failed with “Genverbrander”, but, like I said, in and after 2012, the new, reincarnated Robbert appeared, with new answers and new behavior. He now said he was picking up information and photos through the Akashic Library, and this Akashic Library had channeled him complete (Google) internet archives like that of the “Genverbrander, and on the internet existing photos . In 2012 too, Robbert’s email box started sending hate mail. We very carefully have to disentangle this web of hatred and deceit, to understand the backwards chess game that is being played.

Gang principles

A theory of mine is that these gang members keep each other in (delicate) check through compromising facts they know about each other, and that they have created a kind of blood brotherhood and swore never to betray one another. Stan Pluijmen in this theory would have consciously or unconsciously gained Robbert van den Broeke’s trust – like he did with Joran van der Sloot, I will speak about this some more later on this blog – by revealing things about himself to Robbert. Robbert in his own way, starting to feel safe around Pluijmen, entrusted to Stan Pluijmen things that would, when publicly known, cast a(n even bigger) shadow on Robbert’s mediumship. In this theory, people like Roy Boschman and Alan Sieradzki would join the club on the same principle (Stan Pluijmen and Alan Sieradzki are engaged at this time).

Dutch skeptic Pepijn van Erp found out that the more advanced crop circles that Robbert van den Broeke ‘discovers’ always/often are the ones that he finds in company of Roy Boschman, who has a car. “Hey, it’s not that easy, making advanced crop circles on your own” (Robbert only has a moped). Van den Broeke’s crop circles are known to be very primitive, child like, but lately, they seem to have ‘grown up’ a little, maybe with a little help of his friends?

Pepijn van Erp has been a very valuable ‘new’ Robbert van den Broeke critic (he joined Dutch Skeptic Society in and around 2012) and he wrote a series of blogs about Van den Broeke and Stan Pluijmen. (6)

Gang & slang

I haven’t spoken much about Roy Boschman and Alan Sieradzki yet, but I think they are undeniably and very deeply involved. In this dangerous life they are leading, they can’t afford to make mistakes and someone close spilling their beans on them.

Alan Sieradzki is Stan Pluijmen’s fiance, and looking closely at their Facebook accounts, you can see they are like two of a kind. Both Alan Sieradzki and Roy Boschman are appearing frequently in all kinds of videos of Robbert, always as testifying witnesses to ‘wonderful’ Robbert van den Broeke events. Stan Pluijmen is the one appearing most with Robbert himself in their double-host videoclips.

Somebody I know and who specialized in the usage of language analysed some language in a couple of  hate mails and compared it to Alan Sieradzki’s Polish background and language use, to be found on his Facebook account, and came to some striking similarities and insights. Of course, this is no hard evidence, but something to consider. I quote some of what she said: (Dutch first, then translation):

“”vieze vuile kutwijfje”:

typisch voor non native speakers.
Brabanders (mijn familie!) en Limburgers zouden nooit nooit deze fout maken. Robbert is ook Brabander en Stan komt uit Limburg.
Ergo: is niet van Robbert of Stan, maar van Alan tenzij Robbert en Stan doelbewust deze nt2-fouten imiteren. (10)

Translation (obscene typical Dutch language, ungrammatical as well, and translated as such):

“dirte filthe cunt bitchie”:

typical for non native speakers.
Brabanders (my family!) and Limburgers would never make this mistake. Robbert is Brabander too and Stan is from Limburg.
Ergo: is not from Robbert or Stan, but from Alan, unless Robbert and Stan are imitating these nt2-mistakes (Dutch as second language) mistakes on purpose.”

But to balance this once again: other hate mails show quite a different language, sometimes Stan’s (and how he writes, I know very well, because he emailed me a lot, or somebody who imitates Stan’s language), and sometimes with gross caps in the middle of words and with major spelling mistakes like Dutch would make them. An enormous amount of profanity laces all emails. Point of view in these hate mails differs too: sometimes it’s from the first person singular (“I”), then it’s “Stan and me” (me as in Robbert, “stan” mostly uncapitalized), then again it’s “we”. Especially with the spelling of verbs the men are struggling dearly. Sometimes there is no punctuation at all. Striking is the fact that these ‘gentlemen’ apparently get sexually aroused by violence. Often the word “geil” (horny) is used, that they are getting “geil” when writing these violent things and sending gross photos. “Bouten” (shitting) on photos of enemies is a returning theme as well. Especially the image of me getting murdered in an excruciating, brutal way, is very arousing to them. A recurring detail is the attachment of photos of human excrement and dismembered corpses.
Seemingly very opposite sentiments also dominate: mostly, the one or ones writing hate me intensely, but once in a while, they suddenly are in love with me.


“From: Robbert van den Broeke <>
Date: 2015-02-16 16:28 GMT-08:00
Subject: Intense Feeling
To: Constantia Oomen <>

Hi I am very much In Love with you Constatia”

Here’s one they sent to Colin Andrews (Colin Andrews forwarded it to me) (and this being only a very ‘mild’ one, other ones are way worse than this one, and I won’t repeat them):

“—- Forwarded Message —–
From: Robbert van den Broeke <>
To: colinandrews#####
Sent: Friday, November 9, 2012 9:31 PM
Subject: Poop on you
little colin i hope that you com under a Machine”

Robbert & gang’s obsession with the anal, human excrement, sex and violence is very obvious. Hades must be very proud of them.

There is one more Robbert-email I would like to quote, because I think it’s priceless: (translated)

“From: Robbert van den Broeke <>
Date: 2015-01-21 20:15 GMT-08:00
Subject: Beste Constatia
To: Constantia Oomen <>

Dear Constatia

We want to admit that we have deceived the bunch for years we want to clear our conscience
warm regards robbert”
Conclusion would be that Robbert’s email account is used by the whole gang, and that they take turns in writing all this putrid hatred and crazy things.
Fact: Robberts physical mailbox is often emptied by Roy Boschman, and possibly also by Stan Pluijmen & Co. This became evident from events after Rob Nanninga’s family summoned Robbert van den Broeke.

Robbert & gang’s favorite photo

There was one photo that kept popping up and that was obviously very much to the liking of the Robbert van den Broeke gang: (7) > upper photo

The second hack – part 1

But now I have landed in the here and now. The reason why I felt I had to write this blog, was another very steep new low. My telephone and computer were hacked by the Robbert van den Broeke gang on July 5, 2015. Of course, this is only the day that it surfaced, because I suspect they have been digging in my systems for at least a couple of times, and gaining access, downloading private photos and more. The reason why I don’t believe a word about them being hacked, is that they got hacked in my case about 35 times now, sometimes days in a row. I only count all the days I received hate mails, suggesting on all these days, they were ‘hacked’ all over again. But there was this thing with Twitter too (see shortly below).

A normal human being would immediately change his password and do whatever lies in his power to prevent further abuse. And I didn’t exactly stay silent about it, I told them each and every time, mostly through public channels like Twitter.  And especially when other people are victimized you suspect one would do everything to prevent such a mishap in the future! But not so Robbert and Co. They keep coming up with lame excuses that nothing can be done, even suggesting their houses are being bugged and suggesting the omnipresence of the evil hacker. But why is this evil hacker then especially attacking Robbert’s critics and not Robbert’s fans? Doesn’t that seem illogical? One would assume that this evil hacker would be pleased with Robbert’s ardent critics?

Robbert’s Twitter account

Before this, more nasty things happened. Robbert van den Broeke’s Twitter account allegedly was hacked several times too (and his Facebook, but I didn’t really keep track of that) in and after January 2015, on it – and under the happy Bird logo of Twitter – appeared threats directed especially at me, Jan Willem Nienhuys and to a lesser degree, Pepijn van Erp (and Skepsis). The same photos of dismembered corpses that had been popping up in hate mails appeared on his Twitter, and Pepijn van Erp filed a complaint at Twitter who did nothing about it. In these crazy-internet times, it’s hard to get a proper and good legal response if you are filing complaints or reports.

Twitter didn’t and doesn’t do anything about photos of dismembered corpses and ugly death threats: – Pepijn’s report:


This was the response Pepijn van Erp received on this Twitter report:


As I am writing this, and just finished (or thought I had) the part about Twitter, Robbert’s Twitter account got ‘hacked’ again. There is a Dutch saying: “Als je het over de duivel hebt, trap je hem op zijn staart.” meaning: “When you talk about the devil, you kick him in the tail.” Robbert & gang have gotten mad again…


Pepijn van Erp was talking on his Twitter account about another Dutch ‘medium’ Liesbeth van Dijk, who apparently has been receiving hate mail too, and filed a complaint at the police station, and Pepijn said on his Twitter: “Is Robbert van den Broeke overplaying his hand now?” This was not to the liking of the gang, and he, and a couple of more people, received threats (again).

Jan Willem Nienhuys and I filed elaborate complaints, each at a specific authority. I filed an elaborate complaint at the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) (connected to the FBI).

Second hack, Part 2, and how it related to Joran van der Sloot

Back to this recent hacking. What happened just before it? In his hate mails to me, the Robbert van den Broeke gang, always referred to their friend Joran van der Sloot as my big enemy: pals of Joran van der Sloot would surely come to murder me in a horrible way. They glorified Joran van der Sloot’s power, even while he was held at a maximum-security prison cell in Peru. But things were happening backstage and changing too: Robbert van den Broeke allegedly gave Joran van der Sloot 35000 euro to write a book about his paranormal experiences with, yes indeed, Robbert van den Broeke. Both claimed Robbert had astrally appeared in Joran’s prison cell and that from then on, Joran van der Sloot’s belief system took a turn around, a he became, in his own words, a better man with a fuller understanding of life and God.(8)

Robbert van den Broeke, being both Joran van der Sloot and Stan Pluijmen’s friend, and quite the sensitive soul again, had published a clip about the remains of Natalee Holloway on YouTube. Furthermore, he claimed on his website he made contact with her deceased soul and knew where she was buried on Aruba, the “Sint Anna” Cemetery. He photo-shopped her soul too. However, later, he removed this clip, realizing again, this was doing his already shaky reputation no good. (I still have the clip, and so has i.e. Pepijn van Erp)

Then this year, in 2015, something went wrong between Joran van der Sloot and the Robbert van den Broeke gang. On a Dutch TV show, Robbert van den Broeke appeared on July 2, 2015, complaining about a threat mail he received from Joran van der Sloot. Closer inspection of observant viewers led to a different conclusion, namely that the letter that came in the picture (and was readable) wasn’t addressed to Robbert van den Broeke but to Stan Pluijmen. In this letter, Joran van der Sloot demanded more money, 15000 euro, from Stan Pluijmen, and if he would not comply, Joran surely would reveal Stan Pluijmen’s lies and he would make sure, Roy, Alan and Robbert (Robbert named last) would regret it too.

Joran’s threat letter:


As I describe in my Dutch book “Door het Raam” ( “Through The Window” – about my out-of-body experiences), in a more philosophical part about Hades, the God of the Underworld, this is typical for ‘the bad in this world’. The bad, eventually, not only turns against the good, but turns on itself as well. That is inherent to its destructive nature and is a big difference with ‘the good’.

The bad turning against the bad-theory proved itself worthy again, when I received two private, handwritten and unpublished Joran van der Sloot letters, three unpublished video clips which Joran had made of himself in prison, two ‘normal’ photos (one of Joran kissing his now wife Leidy) and even two (practically) nude photos of Joran van der Sloot sent through Robbert van den Broeke’s hatemail again in June 2015.

Screenshot of Joran van der Sloot’s stuff I received through hate mails of the Robbert van den Broeke-gang: folder + thumbs of that – I blurred the private parts, though they were not really visible:


I still don’t know why Robbert & co sent me this Joran material, maybe because they hated Joran van der Sloot’s guts now and/or maybe they were hoping that I would thrash it on the internet, thus doing something wrong myself. But I didn’t. I protected the two nude photos and sent them to nobody. Even my husband didn’t see the photos or received them from me. I did forward a couple of other files to two entrusted skeptic friends who promised to keep it to them, like the photo of a smiling Joran van der Sloot.

My guess is, that at this time, there already was “stront aan de knikker” between our Dutch friends, Dutch for “shit hit the fan”, and that there was not so much love lost anymore between Joran van der Sloot on the one side, and Stan Pluijmen and Robbert van den Broeke on the other side.

I alerted Joran van der Sloot’s lawyerMaximo Altez, on Twitter, but this lawyer proved himself discourteous, claiming I was bluffing (and this was after I had sent him a very polite email, but none of the Joran files I had received). I contacted Peter R. de Vries on his Twitter account, and when I didn’t receive an answer, succeeded in contacting him on his LinkedIn account. In 2008 Peter R. de Vries accepted an Emmy Award for his coverage while accompanied by Natalee Holloway’s mother, Beth Holloway, in the disappearance of the Natalee Holloway case,  so he par excellence was the person I wanted to contact about this, a real Joran van der Sloot ‘connaisseur’. When asked about Robbert van den Broeke and his contact with Joran van der Sloot, Peter R. de Vries spoke about it on Dutch TV too (Dutch).

I said something about this threat letter of Joran van der Sloot on Twitter(9), and this, again, infuriated the Robbert van den Broeke gang, which led to the hack of my Samsung Note 3 mobile phone and my computer. To be more precise:  my being hacked surfaced and was now undeniable. I am afraid it was going on for at least a couple of weeks, maybe even much longer.

On July 5, 2015 I was receiving many hate mails and ‘legitimate’ emails of the gang again, but suddenly, at the same time I was receiving their emails, I received three private (thus: unpublished on Twitter ect.) photos that were stored on my mobile phone and were sent to my email address, and I didn’t send them at this time. I did send them 17 days ago and had edited them. They popped up at the top of my inbox. The header stated very clearly that they came from my Android Samsung:


They had taken control over my mobile phone or my android email-box or both. It could have been an incredible coincidence that my Android-emailbox was doing strange things, sending 3 pictures again that had been sent and edited 17! days ago, but immediately before and after they popped up, Robbert and co wrote themselves-incriminating emails

Their later in the evening emails (California time is showed) were responses to alarming things I said on Twitter when I found out I had been hacked. I tweeted about this and I then went offline as my husband started the laborious cleanup process (while I was baffled and in shock).


I decided to quote all their ‘legitimate’ emails of this evening, because I can explain things, like how they are and think, but they do a (hell of a) better job of that themselves:

“From: Robbert van den Broeke<>
Date: 2015-07-05 19:53 GMT-07:00
Subject: akasha chronicles
To: Constantia Oomen <>

Constantia, coincidence that you just mentioned me on twitter because I was just working on you (good way).

I expected that you would surely think again it came somewhere from the Internet, and therefore I asked the higher powers if I could receive some extra evidence. I felt I created a connection to the field where the images are borrowed from. The field where all the existing images and photos are stored.

I then made photos with the iPhone of Stan, and something very strange happened. Instead of the wall (which I photographed) the whole picture was covered with something else, it seems a different picture. My feeling immediately said it came from you something in your home that you had once photographed and then Stan showed me a video of man bites dog.* When we looked we saw indeed the horseshoe back at the desk there (I just wanted to see confirmation, because otherwise you’re going to say it again is nonsense).

* “Man Bites Dog”: This was a TV show in which I (Constantia) had appeared on and in which I was interviewed regarding my out-of-body experiencesin my own house.

Given the many desktop clutter of this photo, this time it seems really NOT something that is published. This proves that the images I shoot really come from the field. Borrowed images, existing photos. A beautiful miracle.

Also from Nancy Talbott I got existing pictures on my photo, from a private album. If you now can find this picture on the Internet somewhere, or can prove that it has ever been somewhere, you do amaze me. The other dimensions help me, if you’re open to it, I want to do more experiments and see if I get more private pictures of you on photo. Stan could possibly film it (do a new experiment photo) private for you.

Warm regards


(attached photo:)


From: Robbert van den Broeke <>
Date: 2015-07-05 19:55 GMT-07:00
Subject: Hacker
To: Constantia Oomen <>

“Ignore the hate-mail, that was from the hacker. The mail after that with the picture was mine. I get sick of this hacking thing.”

“From: Robbert van den Broeke <>
Date: 2015-07-05 19:57 GMT-07: 00
Subject: Hacker
To: Constantia Oomen <>

We suspect now we are bugged through the PC, because just when we were talking about you this hate-mail was sent to you. For a moment scary though. Or pure coincidence, at least very annoying. Now please do not pay attention to that abusive email and only communicate directly with me. I am ready to test and do photos experiments that are very special.”

“From: Robbert van den Broeke <>
Date: 2015-07-05 20:13 GMT-07:00
Subject: Reply
To: Constantia Oomen <>

And I hope your answer soon because I’m very curious if you know where this photo comes from. I’m going to try more often, if existing photos of you may appear on camera.”

 “From: Robbert van den Broeke <>
Date: 2015-07-05 22:39 GMT-07:00
Subject: RE: Antwoord
To: Constantia Oomen <>

Constantia, for once, do not have strange fears. I didn’t obtain these photos in an improper manner, not stolen. This comes from “the field”. I will never publish it somewhere, do not be afraid. But I so understand that this picture is nowhere to be found on the internet, and therefore truly private. That was proof that I was looking for.

It often happens, I’m doing this kind of experiments. Joran I only tried to heal in love, he dismissed his own free will and love. I have no connection whatsoever with criminal activities, about my contact with Joran I have always been open, Stan too. Because we have nothing to hide.

But it seems a bit like we communicate alongside each other. Too bad, I did want to provide proof only. The FBI can watch, I have nothing to hide. There should exist proof even of the internet activity of the hacker. But you’re so totally convinced of your own right.

I agree with my intuition when I type, I already felt in an earlier email that typing mails is useless, that delivering evidence is meaningless. You stick to your own point of view and you are not changing it anymore.

Too bad, if you feel intimidated that certainly is unfortunate. I understand that it is intense to seeing a private photograph, and it seems as though someone has burgled you, but this is how the field works. I swear on my life that this has appeared on the Stan’s iPhone and originates from “the field”. Maybe it is better to do this type of testing with someone like Dan Drasin and not someone that I just scare, like skeptics.

I’m sorry, thank you for your reply and confirmation that the photo indeed is private and not accessible. I find it a powerful phenomenon.

You will not be bothered by me anymore, but remember that I can not stop the emails from the hacker. That’s ABSOLUTELY not me. If desired, and I say it again, you can block my address.


“From: Robbert van den Broeke <>Date: 2015-07-05 22:52 GMT-07:00Subject: RE: AntwoordTo: Constantia Oomen <>

More special pictures appeared also (when I focused on your soul), but I dare not show if it just makes you angry.

If you are interested, just ask. By the way, IGNORE that hack mails. I have the password changed repeatedly, it makes no sense. It goes through the provider.


“From: Stan Pluymen <>
Date: 2015-07-05 23:11 GMT-07:00
Subject: Slander
To: Constantia Oomen <>

Constantia, I understand that you are skeptical about psychic photography once but stop with this slander. Nobody has your PC and your phone hacked.

A PC in the Netherlands you say, what is it then. You didn’t live there anymore. You know this is libel, huh?

You call us a criminal. These pictures Robbert taps from “the field”, thus photo folders, phones, and wherever these photos also are stored.

Greetings Stan”

8 hate mails appeared around this time in my inbox, as well as the aforementioned three photos I sent 17 days earlier to myself to edit them. I called my husband Jeroen and he saw them appear on top of these Robbert emails too. (later on, these three selfie mails disappeared in a strange way to their original sending date, 17 days ago, hence, to a much lower position in my mailbox)

A substantial or maybe even the main part of these Robbert van den Broeke emails are the obvious handiwork of Stan Pluijmen. Stan said he sometimes helped Robbert write emails, because Robbert is not a good writer. How many of these emails were authored by Stan, some maybe without Robbert even knowing about it, is still a question, but I think a lot.

Supplement August 26, 2015: To me, it seems like the puzzle pieces fall more and more into place. I think Robbert started the primitive hate mail and Stan Pluijmen and co not long afterwards started to support Robbert and cover him, so it was unclear who did what. This explains the diversity of language in the hatemail, and explains why some even seem written by a ‘foreigner’ (Alan Sieradzki?). So yeah, I definitely think Robbert is responsible for at least part of these hate mails.

It was as if they wanted to make the ultimate statement about their limitless power, and to scare the hell out of me. What exactly happened, I still don’t know. Maybe they had gotten access to my email box on V5 (where my website and email-box were located). My email-box isn’t located there anymore after this 5th. of July, I now use Gmail because it’s supposed to be safer.

In an email, they had sent another unpublished photo of mine, of my at that time obviously sloppy physical desk top, while I still was living in Scheveningen, the Netherlands. I really didn’t recognize the photo, but my husband said we made it while experimenting with a new and cheap small camera we had bought. This failed photo must have landed somewhere on my old pc, where I had, like I have now, tons of failed and not failed pictures, and a lot of failed selfies too. It was three of these unpublished selfies they sent to me through my own phone. Thus proving that they had access to my phone and (old?) computer. But my phone and computer being connected to each other in modern ways, like apps as Dropbox and Keepass, I have to assume that both my old and new computer were compromised and that they have a lot? of private photos and other private stuff of mine now.

They sure suggested they have more than one photo of my desktop in the Netherlands (see the above-mails).

And, Stan:

“These pictures Robbert taps from “the field”, thus photo folders, phones, and wherever these photos also are stored.”

Uh-huh, Stan… really?

Robbert’s Akashic records felt it was time Robbert should receive rip-offs from private photo-albums too?

My intuition had already given me a sense of being unsafe on my computer for weeks now. I just felt something was off, though I had no proof. I had asked my husband Jeroen to give me an empty computer to work on, and to disconnect my old PC from the internet because it is loaded with tons of stuff. He had done that, and I had been working on it for a couple of days, but then returned to the old situation, because I missed the easy access to my old computer. At that time, I had no proof that my PC really was compromised, but that quickly came, on July 5, 2015. Suddenly, the gang monsters had shown their true ugly face, and I now knew I needed that empty computer again.

We wiped my mobile phone, wiped my iPad and reinstalled the empty computer again. I will be working on my old PC only offline now and the files I need, I will transfer via USB stick. It is very sad that it had to come to this: me limited in my freedom, almost like a prisoner in my own house, when you know something is off and you have no other choice than to respond. This is what criminal guys like Robbert and gang do to one’s life.

PC Assistance, Robbert?

For people who still believe that Robbert is a victim of all sorts of bizarre circumstances, why doesn’t Robbert simply accept PC assistance offers? Here is an example of the kind provider who offered his services for free but remained unanswered:

Source: Facebook page Robbert van den Broeke

Technical investigation of ‘being hacked’ claim

On Twitter, an employee from the Dutch Radboud University in Nijmegen, specialized and working in ICT Security, contacted me and offered me to take a closer look at the hate mails, as in: analyzing the technical date, comparing the ‘headers‘ of hatemails and legitimate mails from Robbert van den Broeke and Stan Pluijmen. He was curious if the ‘being hacked’ claim could stand the light of day.

Well, to be short: it couldn’t, it ‘failed the test’. After a couple of days he presented me the results, he had been really working hard on them together with a colleague of his. He looked at the headers of 39 hatemails and ‘legitimate’ emails. Their conclusion was: it is very highly unlikely that Robbert van den Broeke is hacked. The email traffic is not spoofed and always comes from the same static point in Microsoft. There are no irregularities. The IP address ( was always Robbert’s, but after 2012, Microsoft didn’t include the IP address anymore. I include the Dutch results here, and I have to still translate them into English.

AnalyseHaatMailsRvdB (Dutch)

Parameter says:

It is unlikely that Robbert van den Broeke is the hacker or participates actively in the hacking; to that effect, he has too little technical knowledge. But if Robbert claims that private photos are coming from “the field”, it is almost inevitable that he knows this is not true and he knows where those photos really come from.

As for the hate mail, he responded inadequately: he rejected repeated (technical, computer) assistance offers, which also implies that he knows more about it than he says.
Robbert van den Broeke & Co have failed both the ‘para’test and the honesty test. Furthermore, they are involved in criminal activities.

Update January 2016

What happened in the second half of 2015 and up till now in January 2016? Robbert van den Broeke and buddies haven’t disappeared. Well, in fact they have, to be precise, crossed the line yet again, and have sunk even further, as if that were possible. Because, remember, they already had sunk so low. In a nutshell, I will reveal my mailbox concerning Robbert van den Broeke, and I will try to update you about what happened in the big, bad world of Robbert.

After the second hack on July 5, 2015 it did not remain silent for long. Stan Pluijmen found it necessary to email me again several times with the usual spiritual woo woo, and Robbert too showed signs of life  with new hate mail that proved Rob Nanninga was still bothering his troubled digestion so much, of course interspersed with appropriate stool pictures.

Two days after the deceased Rob Nanninga’s birthday an article was published in “BN De Stem” with the sonorous title: “Who still believes Robbert van den Broeke (35) and his Hoeven crop circles? ‘We feel something ‘”. Robbert and / or friends thought it was very funny to post comments in the name of Rob Nanninga, who supposedly spoke from the other side in the comment section below this article. The comments were as always in the same style as their hate mail, abysmal as always, and when “BN De Stem” did not respond immediately, I received a triumphant email from Robbert delighting himself in the fact “BN De Stem” did not remove these comments:

Translation (all language sloppiness of Robbert van den Broeke emails lies with RvdB): “BN VOICE lets the ridiculous gore reaction of little Rob Nanninga stand about  getting sick behind his computer and fainting away You do know they enjoy this Satan”


But Robert and buddies miscalculated, because “BN De Stem” had only waited for a while but then did respond. All comments were removed and the comment field below the text was suddenly empty again.

Robbert at “Finding Voices Radio”

Robbert appeared on the radio show of Jeroen Ghuijs of “Finding Voices” and this could be heard live. I remembered this and on that day briefly looked at Robbert’s and Jeroen Ghuijs’s website, and yes, fell right in the middle of the broadcast (though I had missed the first hour of the interview). Since there was a chat room available (which was packed with enthusiastic Robbert followers), I decided to go find my voice and expressed some critical words in that chat box, with the request to Jeroen G if he wanted to ask Robbert about his hacker. Jeroen G did it (probably he would have regretted it later), and what followed was an embarrassing defense of Robbert in which he again blamed the hacker and nursed a grievance for me not blocking him. The good and ethereal vibes of the radio broadcast were disrupted by my critical notes and Robbert dwelled on it, so Jeroen G audibly started to get a little nervous. People in the chat started attacking me and later on began to call on to each other to ignore me. Meanwhile, the technician of the broadcast was busy trying to find out how he could lock me out of  the chat box, in which he eventually succeeded.

This broadcast is online (I don’t know if this will last) (without the chatbox’s history), I’ll share the link on the moment Jeroen Ghuijs is looking backwards where on screen he notices my question about the hacker in the chatbox.

An interesting sideline  developed from this broadcast. Jeroen Ghuijs presented himself in the same interview as an IT expert with 30 years experience and offered to clean  and secure Robbert’s PC. I had listened to this statement – given the apocryphal story about Robbert’s ‘hacker’, but also with a question mark about the IT knowledge of Jeroen Ghuijs – with some feelings of irony, which later turned out to be justified. Only five days after Jeroen Ghuijs had informed via Twitter that Robbert was ‘clean’ in terms of his PC, I again received hate mail.



The weeks, months afterwards show the same picture: Jeroen Ghuijs went to Robbert’s home  few times to fix Robbert’s PC, but the hate mail continued, and Jeroen Ghuijs kept believing in Robbert and co’s innocence, and even published a clip on December 3, 2015 specifically about the “hacker” in which Robbert and he accused me of taunting Robbert (see clip) and of “harassment” on Twitter (about 10. 34 minutes). Jeroen Ghuijs was grossly exaggerating when he said he was harassed for weeks via Twitter. I have always given fair criticism, never harassed or bullied, I never hit below the belt, I only posted when something happened. As for Jeroen Ghuijs, I really did not contact him very often via Twitter or in any other way.

Stan Pluijmen’s role in all this is, at least to myself , is very obvious, not a “maybe” but a “surely”. Every time the hacker was active, he was down on it like a flash, and I mean down on it like a flash like within minutes in order to e-mail me under his own name, to warn that the hacker had struck again, often in the middle of the Dutch night. His lifestyle was and is fully in line with that of the ‘hacker’, as a 24/7 Robbert monitor in the form of Stan Pluijmen is not really realistic, but a “hacker” and Stan as (partially) one, is much more probable,  the more since they exhibit remarkable similarity.

Stan Pluijmen abandoned all caution and blandly started mailing me through Robbert’s mailbox. He sent me lewd emails via his own mailbox but also through the mailbox of Robbert in which he said he wanted to have sex with me. He sent a picture of an erect genitalia he claimed was his and what I was ‘allowed’ to do with it. These mails he, or anyone, never explained as being of the ‘hacker’ or indeed his own. He also did not deny having sent them. Boundaries between the ‘hacker’, Robbert and Stan (and to a much lesser extent Alan Sieradzki, who sometimes sent hate mail) faded more and more. They fancied themselves untouchable, and who sent what from which email address, became less important. They would surely insist that the “hacker” was omnipotent.

I find myself tending to write in the past tense now. Here’s why. This morning, January 14, 2016 (I’ve written this blog on on three consecutive days) somebody mailed me about Robbert’s site being off air with the notification that due to circumstances,it was no longer active and all lectures were canceled. Robberts last reading in January  was scheduled at a center called Itaka but was canceled already, and in Robbert van den Broeke’s 2015 Christmas Lecture I had seen a Robbert who seemed to be worn out. He cried a little at two moments during his lecture, somewhere in the middle and at the end. To live in a hateful and morbid surrounding with bad friends while you yourself are already mentally at risk, is no easy task and now has taken its toll. But first let me get on with the rest of the update.


The hate mail had become even worse than before. Suddenly the death threats were a lot more concrete when Robbert & co started talking about (three) assassins. I tweeted about this in some detail. That they named the still missing and probably killed M Geurts,  I found very strange.



Andy Russell too was threatened with an assassin; I found out through Andy himself. Mails that they were hacked again, came for the umpteenth time and at the same time mails of the ‘hacker’ were being sent. Also Robbert himself emailed me now (but it would have been Stan); patterns began to change clearly.

Translation screenshot: (language mistakes Robbert’s)

“Gladly I eat your brain when you are strangled I then feel powerful when I poop you out”

“Dear Constantia,

I see that the hacker now goes a long way and turns into real threats. We think he is in between WiFi. Why did you not block me? We asked for several times. You need at least not be afraid it’s true, nothing happens to you. I find it very annoying what happens.

Warm Regards,



Besides hate, Stan was sending me remarkable declarations of love:

“I am not the hacker, it’s me stan and I have a big crush on you”


I kept getting strange emails, more concrete, about Robbert buying animals then crushing them, Robbert walking about cemeteries and hospitals to do very bad things (I’m not going to repeat here), and to summarize: the nature of the mails had sunk so low as I previously had not thought possible. Perhaps one example, but I post this with great reluctance, just to give an impression, so you do not have to rely on my words alone about how bad it was getting:


I just got crapped on a grave they will find my waste tomorrow I pooped on grave of man with cancer lung cancer I find myself strengthened ne by SATAN I get Horny proud feeling in return I got the picture of rob again printed out and stuck in the toilet target girl I will Get you I still have Murder Hate towards you constantia”


But every time I thought I had seen it all, they managed to come up with something new. More and more people were involved and a number of (famous) Dutch(wo)men were now also threatened. They previously had threatened  Liesbeth van Dijk (see earlier in this blog), who became re-victim. But also Rinke Jacobs, Albert Verlinde, Emile Ratelband and his biographer Henk Verhaeren, Bert Brussen and Viola Holt fell prey to the sick games of Robbert and co. Albert Verlinde was only threatened in emails to me, but the others were harassed on their Facebook  page by the same threats and gory pictures I always received.

A new low was reached when I received Robbert’s nude photos through the mail and saw the same nude photos appear on his Facebook and that of Viola Holt’s.

“Awake coffee newspaper, sabia not pregnant, baby lost again, for the 3rd time?
Martine Bijl again refurbishing, that’s nice, and then scared out of my wits because of an ugly nude here on my fb page, which I do not get away, apparently the page of robbert van den broeke has been hacked because I do not believe that the real would do this, immediately reported of course!”


This was preceded on December 4, 2015 when I received an email from Robbert with the following text:

“Come to me sweetie constantia I have become straight”


This email was accompanied by an authentic photograph of Robbert van den Broeke bare-chested.

On 11 and December 16, 2015, I then received complete nude pictures of Robbert in his own house in two different positions with alarming screenshots of the Facebook page of Viola Holt.


Immediately afterwards, I was, like always, mailed by Stan who warned me that the hacker had struck again and that they would sue me if I would publish the nude pictures of Robbert. I would never do so, I have always been aware of the fact that Robbert van den Broeke is not well mentally and I in fact pity him, in spite of everything. Even if someone would do something like that having their wits together, (hate mailing, sending nude photos), I still would not publish these nude pictures. But what I had expected, Stan did exactly: he claimed that Robbert van den Broeke would never embarrass himself by placing wimpy nude pictures on his own Facebook and elsewhere . This was the ultimate proof and excuse that Robbert had a real hacker! Nobody in their right mind would do such a thing anyway?

And that’s precisely it, Robbert van den Broeke, Stan Pluijmen and other friends: you are not in your right mind. That is my belief, and that is why I don’t take this argument seriously too. Stan Pluijmen had previously demonstrated very dubious practices to save ‘friends in need’, read: Joran van der Sloot and he blackmailed a man with alleged child pornography on his computer, to help Joran get money. Stan Pluijmen then claimed that he obviously never seriously had planned to go through with this…

I imagine Stan Pluijmen figured that now something drastic had to be done to save Robbert’s face: the “hacker” would strike in such a low way it would become obvious that Robbert Robbert and friends would never ever do! Do something like that themselves. Many people would fall easily for this mindset , I guess. I still think Robbert sometimes hatemailed himself (the rather primitive hate mail in primitive language, see Gang & Snake) and his “friends” joined in later, to sow confusion and to divert attention from Robbert. Later on, this gang around him became the lead in all this mischief and made serious abuse of Robbert’s weaknesses.

There are facts about the nude photos that make a ‘hacker’ story even less credible. I quote Fred Melssen, who helped me in the past half year to understand the technical data of Robbert van den Broeke (& co) photos and mails. He and another expert analyzed the headers of Robbert’s emails (Technical investigation of ‘being hacked’ claim by Robbert van den Broeke )

“The nude with erection is made with a Sony DSC-RX100 camera, on December 4, 2015 (5:18 pm) . Apparently,  immediately thereafter this picture was placed on the PC. And the same day “stolen and “abused”. It does seem awkward  one would take such a photo and place it on their PC when they know it is constantly being “hacked”? That photo is from a series of several photos, taken around the same time and also placed on the PC, for these photos also appeared by mail and social media.”

The hate mails kept on coming, every day(see the hate mail charts above). How this could be a hacker, time and time again, was virtually impossible. How likely is it, that for subsequently three years quite often and then even on a daily basis in 2015 (and 2016) are hacked, and you do nothing about it, even if someone warns you? And why would Robbert save nude photos on his own troubled PC, so the hacker could steal them, not once, but many times, as quickly as he put them on his PC?

In the meantime (December 6, 2015), Pepijn van Erp was threatened  again,  in a Robbert email to me. A whole group was being harassed now.

Emile Ratelband then filed a police claim without mentioning Robbert’s name. RTL Boulevard reports:


I knew immediately that it was about Robbert, because Robbert and co had mentioned  Emile Ratelband’s name in one of their recent e-mails to me.

“Satan is at work
You’re bored hey stan and I have hacked the mobile phones of the editorial staff of  Shownews they send each other threats now ha ha it’s true really I intensely enjoy now there are going to be fatalities there mark my words Emile Ratelband has sent silly text messages today because of us about his bunnies and about me ha ha ha”


I had brief contact with Emile, but I noticed that he has deleted his post on Facebook about the police report. On his Twitter it’s still there:

“Just reported to the police”


Here’s a part of our Facebook chat:

“E R: Today, I supposedly had threatened to destroy Ans Markus’s paintings

CO: Whoa, are they on it again? I guess I will receive things again soon. It is crystal clear they themselves are doing this. Today I received a mail of RTL Boulevard…

E R: What did it say?

C O: Did they not contact you? They want to cover Robbert’s “spam” and thought maybe I could contribute to their story. Tomorrow maybe, I’ll call with one of their contributors.

E R: I know nothing !! Good thing, you go tell them

C O: They want to call soon. Maybe you can give me information about Robbert mails etc. what you want to share.

E R: I’ll leave it up to the Police

C O: Then you are sure nothing will happen. ;-)”



(With that last sentence, I turned out to be wrong, see the conclusion of this update)

The ever resourceful Robbert crew, moreover, had discovered a new ploy. People using false senders, sending disturbing e-mails and text messages, it’s all possible, on (illegal?) Websites. You just fill out the name and address where the mail supposedly has to come from and to whom you want to send it to, et voilà, you get people from SBS6 Shownieuws suddenly sending hateful (?) emails to each other. I asked SBS6 Shownieuws whether it was true, but received no response, tweet.

In December 2015 I had opened a new Twitter account, the Genverbrander10, referring to the 10 years of Robbert van den Broeke still being active after being unmasked as a fraud by skeptic Rob Nanninga. This happened in the infamous broadcast of Irene Moors on December 18, 2005 in “There’s so much more.”

The more and more I thought about it, the more I concluded how not nice it was, to have to compromise my own Twitter account with negative messages about Robbert van den Broeke and pals, because no matter how you looked at it, it looked dirty. Since there was a “jubilee” now, I finally figured out (let’s say, better late than never) that it would be a good idea to create a separate account. Exactly one week before Robberts’ “Genverbrander jubilee “, I opened the new account:


So consequently there now was, besides the original Genverbrander Twitter account of skeptic Pepijn van Erp, Genverbrander10, my own account, and “Genverbrander” and “Genverbrander10” on December 18th, 2015 ‘congratulated’ each other over each other’s birthday:


To give an impression of all the hate mail I received in December 2015 and January 2016, I provide screenshots with the subjects and a phrase of the content (if there is a paper clip, it means there are terrible photos attached) – you can open it by clicking on the picture, which will open in a new window:




On January 12, 2016, I was suddenly for one day denied access to my account Genverbrander10:


Robbert van den Broeke, Stan Pluijmen and their crew (who else, seriously?) had spammed Twitter that my account was in violation of their rules. I received no reasoning from Twitter, no opportunity to respond, I just had to sit out my “punishment”. Stan Pluijmen, in my view, in a show of force, mailed me that he had nothing against me and that he would mail Twitter that it was okay. First ensure that my account is locked and then ensure that it unlocked again, uh, yes, Stan Pluijmen, that is the typical Stan Pluijmen way of doing a favor…

“I have nothing against you, I will let twitter know it’s okay.”


Then suddenly there was that moment, the message on Roberts website:

“Dear visitor. Due to circumstances, this website is now closed. All scheduled lectures are cancelled too. Thank you for understanding.”


The preliminary end of an era, the ferryman who’s finally demanding his toll of Robbert van den Broeke and co? I was already wondering: who can stand this, years of sending hate mail and threatening people, visit hateful sites and deal with false friends, to eat into your own, already fragile psychic structure? I consider it possible that Robbert van den Broeke is actually insane, and he is getting more and more out of it when he really does not know what he’s doing. However, I think he definitely realizes that he is sailing in dubious waters.

In his most recent Christmas lecture, he talked about that afternoon, that he went to the toilet at a quarter to three, and when he returned to his bed and looked at the clock, suddenly it was half past four. This fragment also shows very clearly that Robbert especially is awake at night and sleeps in late. This lifestyle is fully in line with the times of the “hacker” who sends hate mail, especially at night, Dutch time. And it turns out that Robbert does not seem to have control over his life.

I made a little transcription of it, I found it interesting enough:

Robbert van den Broeke during Christmas Lecture 2015:

“(Time: 1:12) It may be that when people will soon go home, they go through crazy things – not frightening things, but beautiful things. It may be that you find time differences.

This morning I have experienced something very strange – or, this afternoon! Perhaps some people now have to laugh, I myself had a little laugh, because I thought it was really weird. I really mean this, I swear it on my life.

I came, today I knew I had to give the lecture, and I was in bed and I woke up. And I looked at my watch beside me and I saw, oh, it’s a quarter to three. I think: Oh, uh, I believe that I have to pee, and I’m going to get out there, and I’m going to the bathroom, pee. I peed, I blew my nose, and I came back to the kitchen … and I see that it half past four.

Do you get it yet? Not me. And then I thought: na ja, well, there’s something wrong with that clock, so I walk into my bedroom: half past four. You may know, I’ve even gone to the bathroom to see if there was blood on the floor, or maybe I had become unwell, had fallen, and had lain there a few hours. But that was not the case.

I do not get it, but hey, I had to learn to accept that you can not understand this. But it has to do with other dimensions … Scientifically speaking, it can not be true. But I really mean this, I’ve been through this. Are there people in the room who sometimes have experienced such a thing? (Time: 1.13: 28)”

He had no idea how that could be, at least he claimed, he blamed it on the “other dimensions”. If he didn’t lie, or in general does not always lie, it means that Robbert van den Broeke, as in his book already mentioned, sometimes does not know what happened. This could be the definition ‘of unsound mind’.

I do not know whether Stan Pluijmen is (sometimes / regularly / often) ‘of unsound mind’. These things should be determined by mental health specialists.

Today, January 15, 2016, I received the message that Robbert van den Broeke has been arrested by the police. He has spent six days in custody, the maximum time they can hold somebody in the Netherlands at the first arrest. Finally! I think I am allowed to let out a sigh of relief. He has been in prison for six days. (At least) Six people have filed against him, namely: skeptic Jan Willem Nienhuys, ‘medium’ Liesbeth van Dijk, mentalist Rinke Jacobs, Positivity Guru Emile Ratelband, Henk Verhaeren and writer Bert Brussen. My own report in the Netherlands unfortunately never got off the ground, because I was not on Dutch territory. Additionally, possibly two other people named William and Johan (this I found out through one of Stan’s mails, I do not know whom this refers to or if it’s true).

In the days when Robert was in jail, I still received a couple of hate mails. This is hardly contrary to what I’ve said on this blog since the beginning; I’ve always thought and said that I think that others are involved and perhaps even mainly Stan Pluijmen and co.

What has caused Robbert van den Broeke’s fall? Yet the Ferryman? * He does not want to sail up and down that dark water forever, he wants to  be free, the heavy services left him jaded and exhausted. I just hope the police will have an especially good look at Stan Pluijmen. Robbert was not alone in this, far from it.

*  View this broadcast when you have the time and inclination: The Storyteller, The Luck Child. “And Nature, my dears, is a wise woman who pays us back, tit for tat.”

My conclusion still is: Robbert van den Broeke is a psychic crook, but after the “Genverbrander” he became a plaything in the hands of even worse criminal friends (this kind of grading is hard!).

*** Update February 10/March 2016 ***

Two Skype audio tapes were leaked to journalists and people involved, containing disturbing hate speeches of Robbert van den Broeke talking to Stan Pluijmen. Two main topics: me and Irene Moors. This Skype audio exhibits the language that I know so well from the ‘hacker’: gross death threats, insanity and badmouthing. The number of (hate)mails I have received so far from the whole Robbert van den Broeke gang now stands at 934 emails.

Robbert van den Broeke confessed to these hate speech Skype audios. The investigation into him and Stan Pluijmen as the two main suspects is in full swing. I already know more, but I can’t tell yet.

Audio coverage Omroep Brabant (Dutch)
Medium Robbert van den Broeke confesses to  audio-hate-speech: ‘God is punishing Irene Moors’ (Dutch)
With permission of: BN de Stem, John Bas, Wednesday, March 2, 2016:
The medium and the hate mail (Dutch) RvdB1, RvdB2, RvdB3


* Thank you, Chris Pert, for language assistance *

Some footnotes

(1) Link to Sequel 52 where all the previous sequels are linked

(2) Like this one, and this one

(3) I have provided the web archive link, just in case she decides to remove after all. Here‘s the link to the to this day still up-page.

(4) The Story of his life is written by his father in “Robbert, van zorgenkind tot medium” (“Robbert, from problem child to medium”) (Dutch)

(5) Two links: English, Dutch

(6) On Pepijn van Erp’s own website and on Kloptdatwel (“IsThatTrue?”) (with links to other authors as well)

(7) I have blurred this and provided only a small pic, because I don’t want the Van den Broeke’s gang to spoil your appetite; especially the upper image, the gang kept sending


(8) YouTube, Omroep Brabant (Dutch) and Van den Broeke’s own site. Note: Robbert van den Broeke had the whole clip with Joran van der Sloot in which Van der Sloot spoke about Robbert posted to his website through a YouTube clip. Van der Sloot recorded this secretly in his prison cell and had his lawyer smuggle it outside. Robbert removed this clip from his YouTube chanel. I still have it, I even edited it so it was a coherent whole, because Robbert had clipped it in several parts and I glued all the pieces together again. But due to Robbert van den Broeke’s (= Stan Pluijmen’s) YouTube strike against me, I had no choice then to remove all my Robbert van den Broeke YouTube clips. But I still have it all and on (serious) request, it’s available for inspection

(9) The 2 main recent tweets: Tweet 1, Tweet 2

(10) Brabanders: people from Brabant, Limburgers: people from Limburg

Robbert complaining in the media about the’hacker’, Constantia Oomen en Jan Willem Nienhuys (Dutch):

Omroep Brabant

Robbert’s online filed police report about ‘hacker’ (received unsolicited through email from Stan Pluijmen)

I suspect the second image is cropped and that there was more (about me?), that they didn’t want me to see?

If you read this report carefully, you will notice that this in fact is not a report about an unknown hacker, but a complaint about Andy Russell and me. Robbert is suggesting these hate mails are written by us: “I know a man Andy Russell […] With him I had some problems too. He sent the following: ” (and then immediately a hate mail follows).

The section about me is cut off, but my name directly after this hate mail suggests that I’ve written it myself.




Literature Dutch Skeptic Society: Skepsis (Dutch)

ER IS ZOVEEL MEER – Googlen met Robbert van den Broeke
– TRUCFOTO’S VAN EEN NON – Robbert valt opnieuw door de mand
Van zorgenkind tot wonderman – De avonturen van Robbert van den Broeke
– Foto’s van Robbert van den Broeke
– Robbert en de sok van Tanja

Literature Pepijn van Erp:

The Photography Tricks of Robbert van den Broeke
Dutch medium Robbert van den Broeke arrested for threatening several people
Simple UFO video – no CGI

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this blog may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher. For permission requests, write to constantiaoomen at gmail dot com

* Thanks to Chris Pert for excellent edit assistance with this blog *

It’s a mystery to me – the game commences
for the usual fee – plus expenses
confidential information – contained in a diary
this is my investigation – not a public inquiry
I go checking out the reports – digging up the dirt
you get to meet all sorts in this line of work
treachery and treason – there’s always an excuse for it
and when I find the reason I still can’t get used to it
And what have you got at the end of the day?
what have you got to take away?
a bottle of whisky and a new set of lies
blinds on the windows and a pain behind the eyes
Scarred for life – no compensation
private investigations

5 thoughts on “Behind the scenes of Robbert van den Broeke”

  1. Welcome to WordPress.

    It has become a long text, but hopefully you’ll find it enlightening. Do you have experiences with Robbert van den Broeke and his group? Or do you have some valuable contributions, thoughts, information etc. ? Feel free to express yourself in the Comments section. Hatred and spam, to whom or whatever, will not be tolerated. This applies to everyone: keep it tidy! 🙂

    Best regards from California,

    Constantia Oomen


    1. This is remarkable. Thanks for all your difficult work. I’m also digesting your distinction b/t good and evil (the blow-back from poor behavior). Time to revisit my Dante. I’m going to look at the rest of your site. Cheers


Leave a Reply to doug chapman Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s